JewishAMerPrince

Just wait till the Summits get really broken in which occurs somewhere around 300 hours. OBTW, I don't find the Summit to be any more difficult a load than the RF7. My Aragon 3005 does just fine..... Horn tweeters such as found on the Klipsch and ESL drivers have very different geometry and physics, yet deliver surprisingly similar SQ.

Just about all the Reference series match timbre wise. No problem running a better center since in HT the center does about 80% of the work. I think the RC7 is a truely excellent center while the RC35 while good, doesn't distinguish itself in any manner.

Have you actually listened to either? I'll take the Aragon clarity over the Sherbone brute strength any day. And, I've had both here for review. I said it before and I'll say it again a lot of cheap parts does not a good amp make. Just a heavy one. Based on your criteria. My latest amps, the Nuforce Reference 9 monoblocks, which are taking the industry by storm, and are about THE best amp I have EVER heard, should be loosers because......... They weigh only about 7 lbs each and are almost hollow inside. Seven of them would only total 49 lbs.

I think your house would fall apart long before that "single power supply" would run out of steam. Assuming they are Klipsch, you'd probably long since blown all your surrounds, thus automatically rebalancing the load on the 2007. There is an elegance that exists in design simplicity that seems to escape many such as yourself. I can't comment on B&K but the cheap parts in the Sherborn (albiet there are more of them) should alarm someone far more than the lack of them.

Keep an eye on eBay Klipsch!

My thoughts exactly. However, I will reserve my final judgement until I've heard them. I'm ready for an upgrade frfom my RF7s and all Klipsch is offering is more of the same, or rather the same only with more.....whatever. It appears to me that marketing has taken over from engineering in driving the product line. I myself fail to see the necessity of six different towers in the Reference line. Three price points would be more than adequite. I'm sure that somewhere in the line they are competing with Synergy price wise. It's never a wise move to compete with yourself. Ask GM. Jerry Rappaport

I own two of those tiny suckers for my MBR 2.1 system. They are everything that the review states and then some. After about 300 hrs they loose most of the midrange harshness that he mentions.

Actually Reference series was launched in 99, making it seven years old.

Define relatively young? I'm not sure that the so called "younger" market likes the looks of the Reference. I just think that Klipsch never thought about it much. Now, I'm not suggesting anything as radical as a GMX or even the tech look of the Synergy, just something that shows some real finess. The golden/copper woofers were a great step forward 12 years ago on the original Reference, but that was 12 years ago now some added spice IS needed.

Yup...just as dorkey as ever! The comments about being Synergies cheaper brother came not from me, but from several of my customers when I tried to provide References in their home theaters. When people are spending the cost of a room, as well as equipment, appearance becomes a significant consideration. Klipsch needs to learn that. I'm just frustrated with having to provide other brands when I know that the Reference sound better.

Yes. He has some of it right and some of it wrong... The new surrounds look like the THX U2 KS-525-THX the only thing the same is the shape of the box. the spec's that are stated are Prelimiary at best. CES spec's are prelim as well... THe 3 woofers are in parrell. THe centers are tapered aray (2.5 way networks) The rest you will have to wait unitl after CES... I have seen the press release for CES and have one burning question. The Reference IV all look pretty much as dorkey as the current series. Was any consideration given to jazzzing up the build quality and appearance so they don't look like they are the Synergies cheaper brother? Something as simple as a bullit dust cap could have done wonders.

It's too good an amp to sit around. If someone were to really want it I would sell it.

The whole family noticed the difference immediatly. Not in volume, but in the depth and extension of the bass.

I've had my RF7 surround setup for three years now and in that period of time have gone thru a variety of amps to try to find the ultimate capability of the 7s in 2 channel. I've also incorporated Dean G's mods in my towers and center...all in search of the proverbial audio holy grail. Power wise I went from a Denon 3801 receiver to Rotel separates featuring a RMB 1075 125 wpc amp which was later replaced with a 200wpc RB 1080. The more power I added the better the 7s got. Recently I needed to experiment with the latest class D stuff so I tried a Rotel 1077 which is rated 100wpc, but I understand will deliver just about all the current one needs. The 1077 was actually a big improvement over the 200 wpc 1080 in all areas except soundstage. Last week I noticed Klipsch was selling off the last of the Aragon 3005s on eBay. I aggresively bid on the silver one and won it. Today it arrived. The title above says it all. I find it hard to believe that such an efficient speaker as the RF7 would actually need 300 wpc, but boy oh boy does it appreciate 300wpc.

Win what? The Halo amps sound a lot like Denon receivers. Slightly overempasized midrange to make them more forward ( and more powerful then they really are) and a dulled out top end that lacks "air". They also don't track linearIy. When the volumes is turned down, the highs and the lows fall off faster than just normal Fletcher/Monson effect. I kept my A21 a whole six weeks before dumping it. Probably the only piece of gear I've lost money on in the past decade. I understand that Aragon are very neutral. Meaning they aren't really voiced for anything except faithful reproduction.