Kevin S

Manuel, Same apologies that went out to Josh. Since you have a sub, I would definitely keep the Heresy's on a stand. With them on the floor, when anything is panned hard left or right, I had the definite sensation that the sound was coming from the floor. In fact with a strong center image, I could aurally tell that the pan had dropped a bit. After that, all of the placement rules that would apply to any other stand mounted speaker apply. The one major exception for me is that I have ended up with the speaker axis crossing just in front of my listening position as opposed to aiming them directly at me or straight ahead. This is how Klipsch recommends to aim them in the manual, and I do feel it gives the best image and certainly widens the "sweet spot". FYI, mine are about 10 feet apart on center, the rear of the speaker is about 18 inches from the rear wall, the sides are about 54 inches from the side wall and about 13 feet from my listening position. Hope this helps.

Josh, Sorry, hadn't been paying attention, wasn't trying to ignore anyone. My stands were actually plant stands that I had an oak furniture store make custom for me by enlarging the size of the top on one of their designs. I could not find a ready made stand that ssemed proportional to the size of the Heresy's. They all looked like I had a square Mr. Potato Head sitting on the floor. Plus I have no aptitude for building anything. So my solution was pricey, but it works for me.

Jim, Since I was the primary person who brought up the discrepancy between the measurements made in the S&V report and Klipsch's specs on the sub and RF-7, I want to thank you for responding. All of my observations were made to show the disparity in the measured specs and to get an answer as to why it was so, not to "knock the product", per se. Seldom have I seen products measured in a magazine that differed so dramatically from the manufacturers specs. I also pointed out in one of my posts that the writers comments were quite different from the measurements. I believe that my previous posts on the subject were self explanatory and do not need to be reiterated again here. I look forward to when you guys have figured out the answer to the measurement question and can report definitively back to us. FWIW, since 1985 I have owned Klipschorns, LaScalas, KG-2's, a SW15II and my current Heresy's. I have had friends and family members purchase Fortes, KG-4's and KG-1's on my recommendations. So I approach this as a concerned fan, not someone who is looking for Klipsch to "fail". But in the independent tests I had seen on the Klipschorns, KG-4's, Fortes, KG-2's, Cornwalls and Chorus in years past, they easily met their specs (or were real close) in the independent tests. Which is why this big discrepancy really caught my attention. Thanks again for showing an interest in this thread and the RF-7 thread. ------------------ L/C/R: Klipsch Heresy II Surround: Klipsch RS-3 Subwoofers: 2 HSU-VTF-2 Pre/Pro/Tuner: McIntosh MX-132 AMP: McIntosh MC-7205 DVD: McIntosh MVP-831 CD Transport: Bang & Olufsen Beosound 9000 Turntable: Denon DP-72L Cassette: Nakamichi BX-1 T.V. : Mitsubishi 55905 SAT/HDTV: RCA DTC-100 Surge Protector: Monster Power HTS-5000

MM, With the maximum output capabilities that the RSW has, even as measured in the independent tests, I am sure that the sub can "shake your clothing". But, not to put too fine a point on it, -3db at 48hz is a long way from -3db at 19hz. When I bought my HSU's, they were rated -3db at 25hz. Every independent test I've seen, and my own experience shows that they easily can achieve this. The tests include tests done by the same fellow that tested the Klipsch, in the same room, under the same conditions, I believe. My point is not that my HSU's are better than the Klipsch. Or that the Klipsch is a "bad" sub. I just want to know why the Klipsch do not meet their specs when tested independently under conditions where other brands do meet theirs. A fair question I think, and not made to anger or insult anyone. ------------------ L/C/R: Klipsch Heresy II Surround: Klipsch RS-3 Subwoofers: 2 HSU-VTF-2 Pre/Pro/Tuner: McIntosh MX-132 AMP: McIntosh MC-7205 DVD: McIntosh MVP-831 CD Transport: Bang & Olufsen Beosound 9000 Turntable: Denon DP-72L Cassette: Nakamichi BX-1 T.V. : Mitsubishi 55905 SAT/HDTV: RCA DTC-100 Surge Protector: Monster Power HTS-5000

Tvodhanel, I understand your point about maximum output and frequency response data. And I agree that the maximum output capabilities in a certain bandwidth are impressive. And you are certainly far more qualified than me to interpert the data. However, if Klipsch's bandwidth and frequency response spec is only valid up to a certain level, if that level is far below the maximum output capabilities and if that is the explanation for the sub not measuring up to spec in these tests, then someone should tell us that. Lets be honest, someone buying a sub that is supposed to be 3db down at 19hz isn't expecting that to only apply up to, lets say for the sake of this discussion, a more "moderate" level. If I remember TN's testing explanation correctly, he states that in smaller rooms, any sub he measures could achieve 3 db more in level and 3 db more in extension. In either case, this sub still would fall far short of spec. Also,I have seen other subs that Tom has measured where the 25hz to 63hz average seems impressive at first, but the average is skewed by much greater output above say 35 to 40hz, and pretty mediocre output below. I think that is the case with his measurements of this sub. Keep in mind that the RF-7's in the test also fell well short of meeting their bandwidth/frequency response specs. So this problem/anomalie did not just lie with the sub. With all of that said, none of us has yet to actually explain the differences between the independent measurements and the spec's. And I am perfectly willing to accept a logical explanation that can pin the problem on the testing method. I have no axe to grind against these speakers. I think I have given myself a brain cramp!

Boa & MM, I am afraid I am completely lost on the B&K test tone thing. MM, just to be clear, I am not trying to bash the RSW-15. There may be a way of setting it up where it performs exactly as Klipsch specifies, and apparently you have. But for these test results to be so far off from the published specs certainly deserves comment. I agree that arguing over whether one sub that does 20hz at 115 db is better than one that does it at 110 db is fruitless if you do not listen that loud anyway. But it is not fruitless to be concerned when a sub is specified to be -3db at 19hz and a published test by an independent third party shows it to be down almost 3db at 48hz and 17db down at 20hz. And this is the second independent test where the RSW-15 fell substantially short of it's specified performance. Hometheaterhifi.com published a test back in December where 20 hz was about 18db below it's peak output. In fact the tester said " This sub could use a good kick in the 20-30hz range." If there is a special way this sub has to be set up to meet it's spec's, the people that test them, and Klipsch's potential customers should be clued in. For now, I still want to know why it falls so short of it's specs.

boa, How do those bass measurementss relate to your midrange levels, ie: 1khz. If your 1khz level is at 88db, then I would think you have your bass levels too high. (I know, some of you out there think that there is no such thing as too much bass!) On the other hand, if your 1khz level is about 95 db, you've done quite well. Edit: Boa, now that I think about it, if your average level is 88db, and your bass levels are in the 95 db range, you almost certainly have your bass levels too high, IMHO. In other words, you are running your bass range about +7db from the rest of the range. Reducing this bass heavy blance should give you better midrange and treble clarity, I think. This message has been edited by Kevin S on 04-15-2002 at 04:28 PM

Do you have any lights turned on in the house that operate on dimmer switches? I once had an Adcom amp that would let the noise of the dimmers through if those lights were on. Never had another make of amp with that "problem". ------------------ L/C/R: Klipsch Heresy II Surround: Klipsch RS-3 Subwoofers: 2 HSU-VTF-2 Pre/Pro/Tuner: McIntosh MX-132 AMP: McIntosh MC-7205 DVD: McIntosh MVP-831 CD Transport: Bang & Olufsen Beosound 9000 Turntable: Denon DP-72L Cassette: Nakamichi BX-1 T.V. : Mitsubishi 55905 SAT/HDTV: RCA DTC-100 Surge Protector: Monster Power HTS-5000

boa, I do not think that there is a standard frequency used when blending subs with mains, I just used 50hz as my example. Personally I match 31.5 hz to 1khz and work from there to smooth the bass as much as possible. In my case, I could raise the level of the sub a tick and get it flat a 20hz, but doing so creates too much of a peak at 63 hz for my tastes. Peaky 63hz is what I have found to be the cause of "boomy" bass in many cases. FWIW, I have always gotten the smoothest bass response from subs by placing them in the corner. Currently, I have my HSU's stacked on top of one another in the front left corner. Stacking them increased the output at 20hz by about 3 db, while at the same time allowing me to reduce the subs overall level, which brought 63 hz down from a 6db peak to a 2 db peak. Frankly, when it comes to in room bass response, it helps to be a bit obsessive/compulsive. I can see why so many people simply turn the sub up until it thuds and shakes the walls and call it a day.

boa, Yes it would be, if, you set your other speakers levels to match your subs peak output. For example, lets say that the sub measures peak output at 50hz, and you are measuring at 75db. You then set your other speakers up so that 1khz measures 75 db. Basically what you have done is determine that you are going to reference your levels to 75 db at 1khz. Referenced to 75db at 1khz, the sub would measure "flat" at 50hz (the same 75db) and would measure 58db at 20hz (17db down. I have found that this type of relationship would stay the same at any overall volume level. For example, using my current setup, here is what my system measures at my listening position: 1khz=73db 80hz=70db-this is where the subs crossover to the Heresy's 63hz=75db 50hz=73db 40hz=74db 31hz=73db 25hz=71db 20hz=69db These relationships stay the same at all volume levels. In other words, I am always 4db down at 20hz.

bacevedo, In my experience, the relative levels I measure in my room seem to stay the same regardless of the overall volume level. So to use our example, 20hz would always be 17db down, regardless of the overall volume level.

Crash, Some info that I hope helps: 1. Heresy's were originally designed by PWK to be positioned on the floor & in the corner. The slant riser base that many Heresy's have serves to get the woofer off the floor slightly for proper bass response and to get the horns aimed at your ears. The front of the riser is about 2 1/2 inches high. The rear of the riser is about 3/4" high. It is just a rectangle of 3/4" thick wood and would probably be easy to make. 2. I measured the following based on the placement of my Heresy's in my room: On floor, about 24" from the corners, -3db at 40hz. On floor, well out into the room, -3db at 63 hz. On 24" stands, well out into the room, flat to about 80hz and then dropping fast. Also, on stands, you will probably get a bit of a drop at 160 to 200hz due to a floor bounce cancellation. 3. When mounted on the floor, when music is panned hard into the left or right channel, it sounds as if it is coming from floor level, which of course it is. This is why I have mine on stands. Plus, Having subs that run up to 80 hz, I could sacrifice the bass output from the Heresy's. So how you position your Heresy's is very dependent on how much bass you need from them, because the bass they will output is very dependent on where they are placed, more so than many speakers. Hope this helps. ------------------ L/C/R: Klipsch Heresy II Surround: Klipsch RS-3 Subwoofers: 2 HSU-VTF-2 Pre/Pro/Tuner: McIntosh MX-132 AMP: McIntosh MC-7205 DVD: McIntosh MVP-831 CD Transport: Bang & Olufsen Beosound 9000 Turntable: Denon DP-72L Cassette: Nakamichi BX-1 T.V. : Mitsubishi 55905 SAT/HDTV: RCA DTC-100 Surge Protector: Monster Power HTS-5000

JLL, FWIW, the author of the Sound & Vision article, and the person who did the measurements were two seperate people. I believe that the listening and measuring are even done in two seperate locations, with completely different speaker placements. The comments in the article are not actually related in any way to the measurements, and the writer does not actually refer to the measurements to support or refute what he heard. Still leaves us with the mystery of why what Sound and Vision measured is so far off from the published specs.

bacevedo, As an example lets use the following: 20hz to 150 hz +/- 3 db. The 20hz to 150hz portion of this example is the "bandwidth". The +/- 3db portion is the "frequency response". The goal for a subwoofer is to get the bandwidth as low as possible while maintaining a fairly smooth frequency response. +/- 3 db has sort of become the defacto standard everyone seems to shoot for. In Sound and Visions measurements of the RSW-15, they showed the bandwidth/frequency response to be 48hz to 115hz +/- 2.1db. Now the sub had output below 48 hz, but at a rapidly dropping frequency response level. Based on the chart they showed, bandwidth ran out just above 20hz, but the frequency response was about 17db down compared to it's peak output. This is not close to Klipsch's specification of 19 to 120hz +/-3db. So while the RSW-15 had great maximum output, that output peaked at 114.5 db at 50hz. It's maximum output at 20hz was 97 db. 97 db of maximum output at 20hz is good, unless you have to listen to the rest of the frequncies at 114 db to get there, which I believe is what these measurements are telling us. I hope this answered your question. If not, or if I have gotten this wrong, I'm sure I'll get plenty of help from the others!

Dean, I have no test equipment other than a Radio Shack SPL meter and a few discs with test tones. I have found them useful and sometimes enlightening. If you can get your friend over you may find it useful as well. My experience with my own setups and helping friends with theirs is that if your speaker has flat output to about 50-60hz, the ears will perceive that as really deep bass. Until you fill in the remaining bottom end and hear what wasn't there. The ear/brain seems to do a geat job of "filling in" missing information, especially when listening to music instead of test tones. I have owned and listened to a lot of speakers that had no real bass below that 50-60hz region but were really quite satisfying to listen to. Sorry, got a bit off topic there, I think.

Deang, The question is why do the Sound & Vision specs differ so greatly from the manufacturer specs. As an owner of RF-7's, perhaps you have made in room measurements that you could share, along with specifics as to placement, level, etc. BTW, your RB 5 chart shows 50hz about 8 db down, when the specs state 48hz 3 db down. Not within spec, but nowhere near the discrepancy shown in the RF-7 test. I think comparing your RB5 graph with the Sound & Vision graph does at least show that the fellow who measured the RB5 had them placed in such a way that they did in fact output as much at 30 hz in that placement as the RF7's did the way Sound & Vision had them placed.

Seb- Author of the article was Daniel Kumin. Tom Nousaine makes the measurements. James, The low frequency limit of the RF-7 was given as 32hz, but only at 85 db before onset of the 10% distortion limit that they use in their tests. They also show the sensitivity of the speakers to be 99db/1 meter/2.83 volts. If I am reading this right, that means that a clean 32 hz would be 14db down when measured at 1 meter with a 2.83 volt input. This assumption of mine would be borne out by the graph accompanying the article, which show the measured bass response under 100hz to be falling off a cliff. The beginning of the line on the graph does appear to be at about 30hz and is not quite to -15db. The sub's maximum clean output at 20hz is 17 db below the sub's maximum output at 50hz. I am not a fan of all of their measuring techniques, especially the off axis weighting. In fact I wrote them a letter to the editor, which they published, in reference to measurements they made on Synergy Series speakers, stating that I felt that speakers should be measured according to how the manufacturer says to set them up. Naturally they defended their techniques as being more realistic and claimed that the weighting only made a slight difference in the Synergy measurements. But Sound and Vision does do their measuring in a consistant fashion, and the RF-7 series performed poorly, IMHO, in relation to other speakers they have tested, especially for the price point. But my real surprise is how far off they measured compared to the factory specs. Seldom do I remember seeing this big of a discrepancy between factory specs and measured performance, regardless of variations in measuring techniques.

Just thought that maybe a moderator would like to comment on the measurement techniques used by Sound and Vision on the current article on the RF-7 home theater set up. Example: RF-7's: 76hz to 14.4khz +/- 4.5db. It should be noted that the measurements do not seem to jibe with the impressions written by the author in the body of the article. But something that measures as far off from the factory published spec's as this needs some comment, I think. ------------------ L/C/R: Klipsch Heresy II Surround: Klipsch RS-3 Subwoofers: 2 HSU-VTF-2 Pre/Pro/Tuner: McIntosh MX-132 AMP: McIntosh MC-7205 DVD: McIntosh MVP-831 CD Transport: Bang & Olufsen Beosound 9000 Turntable: Denon DP-72L Cassette: Nakamichi BX-1 T.V. : Mitsubishi 55905 SAT/HDTV: RCA DTC-100 Surge Protector: Monster Power HTS-5000

If I interpert the figures from that article correctly, at maximum output, 20hz is 15db down from 32hz (97db vs. 112db.). Assuming that relationship stays the same at lower volume levels, that doesn't seem particularly good to me. Seems like plenty of output above 30hz, but not much under 30, relatively speaking. ------------------ L/C/R: Klipsch Heresy II Surround: Klipsch RS-3 Subwoofers: 2 HSU-VTF-2 Pre/Pro/Tuner: McIntosh MX-132 AMP: McIntosh MC-7205 DVD: McIntosh MVP-831 CD Transport: Bang & Olufsen Beosound 9000 Turntable: Denon DP-72L Cassette: Nakamichi BX-1 T.V. : Mitsubishi 55905 SAT/HDTV: RCA DTC-100 Surge Protector: Monster Power HTS-5000

Some old Klipsch literature I have a copy of shows a 42" minimum, although I too think you could get away with 38". As important as this requirement is, the ability to place the Klipschorns firmly into the corner so that the rear of the speaker is tight against the wall is very critical. If you cannot, you will get some substantial frequency response abberations. ------------------ L/C/R: Klipsch Heresy II Surround: Klipsch RS-3 Subwoofers: 2 HSU-VTF-2 Pre/Pro/Tuner: McIntosh MX-132 AMP: McIntosh MC-7205 DVD: McIntosh MVP-831 CD Transport: Bang & Olufsen Beosound 9000 Turntable: Denon DP-72L Cassette: Nakamichi BX-1 T.V. : Mitsubishi 55905 SAT/HDTV: RCA DTC-100 Surge Protector: Monster Power HTS-5000

My recollection from when I owned my Klipschorns and my reading of various Klipsch literature is a follows: 1. Klipsch preferred that the speakers be placed on the long wall, and that the distance from the front wall to back wall be about 62% of the length of the front wall. In other words, if the front wall was 20 feet long, the distance to the rear wall would ideally be about 12.4 feet. 2. I do not remember ever seeing a spec for maximum distance apart for Klipschorns. 3. Center fill was never a problem as long as I sat no closer than directly on axis with center of the speakers. And my speakers were about 24 feet apart. However, directly on axis, the image would shift with very small head movements. So I actually preferred to sit a bit farther back, having the axis of the speakers crossing in front of me. 4. PWK always seemed to prefer a center speaker. I hope this helps. ------------------ L/C/R: Klipsch Heresy II Surround: Klipsch RS-3 Subwoofers: 2 HSU-VTF-2 Pre/Pro/Tuner: McIntosh MX-132 AMP: McIntosh MC-7205 DVD: McIntosh MVP-831 CD Transport: Bang & Olufsen Beosound 9000 Turntable: Denon DP-72L Cassette: Nakamichi BX-1 T.V. : Mitsubishi 55905 SAT/HDTV: RCA DTC-100 Surge Protector: Monster Power HTS-5000

Mobile, I am not going to be lured into a discussion of what amps sound like, or don't sound, like with you. I think we both know from previous posts that we do not agree on those issues. No need to re-cover that ground. I was simply speculating as to what PWK's thoughts on the issue might be based on information I have read that was written by the man. Also, in the future, please do not feel the need to advise me on what to "study" in relation to my opinions on audio. Some people on this board value your opinion and frequently ask for your guidance. I think you will find that I have never been one of them. ------------------ L/C/R: Klipsch Heresy II Surround: Klipsch RS-3 Subwoofers: 2 HSU-VTF-2 Pre/Pro/Tuner: McIntosh MX-132 AMP: McIntosh MC-7205 DVD: McIntosh MVP-831 CD Transport: Bang & Olufsen Beosound 9000 Turntable: Denon DP-72L Cassette: Nakamichi BX-1 T.V. : Mitsubishi 55905 SAT/HDTV: RCA DTC-100 Surge Protector: Monster Power HTS-5000

Sorry Mobile, but I have no intention of getting into the "my equipment is/was better than your equipment" trap with you. You asked if I had ever owned tube amps, and I have. They were paired up with Klipschorns. There was nothing wrong with the way they sounded. Nothing magical either. I cannot presume to speak for PWK's feelings about amplifiers, but he built his whole line up of speakers around the idea of exceptionally low measured distortion, resulting from their extreme efficiency. I cannot believe that a man who spent his life trying to eliminate measured distortion from his speakers would then be happy hooking them up to an amplifier that produced higher measured distortion than the speakers themselves. Many amplifiers, especially but not exclusively tube based, do exactly that.

Ahh Mobile. So nice to hear from you again. I believe my question was why PWK was still looking for a "good 5 watt amp" when he had plenty of low wattage tube amps available to him. My question was not "please all knowing Mobile, tell me why I should like tube amps". If you happen to know why PWK said that, and if you know if he preferred tubes over solid state, or vice versa, and why, let us know. FWIW, I am familiar with all of the issues you mentioned and I have owned tube amps. PS. I am leaving my signature on this post because Mobile loves it when I do that! ------------------ L/C/R: Klipsch Heresy II Surround: Klipsch RS-3 Subwoofers: 2 HSU-VTF-2 Pre/Pro/Tuner: McIntosh MX-132 AMP: McIntosh MC-7205 DVD: McIntosh MVP-831 CD Transport: Bang & Olufsen Beosound 9000 Turntable: Denon DP-72L Cassette: Nakamichi BX-1 T.V. : Mitsubishi 55905 SAT/HDTV: RCA DTC-100 Surge Protector: Monster Power HTS-5000

When PWK made the statement along the lines of "what the world needs is a good 5 watt amplifier" hadn't he lived thru the original era of low wattage, single ended tube amplifiers that are now the rage? If they were (or are) so perfect for his loudspeakers, why was he still looking for a "good" 5 watter? I suspect that PWK would have been more concerned with the bandwidth, frequency response and most importantly, distortion characterisitics of the amp than whether it was tube or solid state. But this is just my guess, as I have never found any mention of tube vs. solid state preferences in any of the literature from or about PWK that I have available. Perhaps someone else has. ------------------ L/C/R: Klipsch Heresy II Surround: Klipsch RS-3 Subwoofers: 2 HSU-VTF-2 Pre/Pro/Tuner: McIntosh MX-132 AMP: McIntosh MC-7205 DVD: McIntosh MVP-831 CD Transport: Bang & Olufsen Beosound 9000 Turntable: Denon DP-72L Cassette: Nakamichi BX-1 T.V. : Mitsubishi 55905 SAT/HDTV: RCA DTC-100 Surge Protector: Monster Power HTS-5000