JewishAMerPrince

In mid December I bought the 640C and CA's Azur 640A integrated amp to signal and power a pair of Chorus II's in my study library. The 640C is probably the best sounding CD player that I have yet to hear. The inner detail on very delicate packages is fabulous. The weight and fullness of the bass is prodigious. For my purchase price of $475, I highly recommend this player for anyone needing a stand alone CD only player.

I recently purchased an Oppo DV971V for $200. It performs on par with players costing several times as much, has excellent build quality and very strong customer service. I did a side by side comparison with a Marantz DV9500 (using an HDMI to DVI adaptor) with a MSRP of $2200 and a street price of about $1600. At 720p or 1080i the Oppo's PQ is every bit as good as the Marantz. Both run circles arond my previous Denon 2900's.

I own the aforemetioned Cambridge Audio CD player. Actually there are two models, the Azur 540c and 640C. I own the 640 which I use with the CA Azur 640A amp to run a 2 channel system powering Chorus IIs. For just under $400 it is without doubt the best sounding CD player I have ever heard, including some that cost three to four times more. Jerry Rappaport

Klipsch has probably changed the source of their MDF. MDF manufacturers have made great strides at lightening the materials while at the same time improving it's strength. The prime motivation behind this is ever increasing shipping costs. Jerry Rappaport

While I am not familiar with the PMA 2000, I have listened to quite a few Denon receivers with my RF7s and I find that the sound is bloated and forward in the midrange while doing so. Perhaps you may like it this way, but I much prefer a cleaner more "laid back" midrange. JR

I originally posted this on the Aragon boards and got little or no response. There doesn't seem to be as much intellegent life there as there is here. I am contemplating replacing my Rotel Amps and one of the candidates I have chosen is the Aragon 2007 to power my 7 series Reference setup. Can anyone tell me if the Aragon could be considered dark, warm or bright with the references? I don't have a local Aragon dealer that has the 2007 set up to listen to. Thanks in advance Jerry Rappaport

Griff, Then you must not have looked at very many. White or black crush is only an issue with only a few of the many units out there now, notibly the Samsungs. Macroblocking on Froudja DCDi equipped units is a more universal problem. Only early Zenith 318 upsampled through component, before the consortium stepped in and made Zenith change that. Rudy, However, to answer the orignial question, my answer is emphatically yes, it IS worth the cost of the cable. Relatively inexpensive upscaling DVD players today do a damn good job, albeit not as good as a good outboard processors such as the DVDO. The problem is that outboard processors cost a bunch more than these players do. The good part of an outboard processor is that it can upscale anything from a VCR to a Sat receiver to a DVD player. Also, a good cable is an investment that you can use for your next upscaling player. Current players will only upscale through DVI/HDMI and not through component. I currently own a $200 Oppo DV971 that does a very credible job at 720p and 1080i with my monitor. It does such a good job that I'm not embarrassed to match that player up with the rest of my gear which is worth 15 grand. Jerry Rappaport

Dolby PLIIx, music, cinema and game, which does for 7.1 that which PLII did for 5.1 (and then some) is truely a beautiful thing. Jerry Rappaport

---------------- On 1/6/2005 9:26:31 PM tmilam wrote: I've googled this Oppo HD971--can't find anything. Tried the extremephoto.com site--there's nothing there about "Oppo." Where did you hear about this player, and how can we learn more about it? ---------------- Try here, my mistake it's extremephono, not extremephoto! http://www.extremephono.com/Oppo_DV971.htm JR

You really haven't told us enough to make the perfect recommendation. What are you using to display your DVDs on? Obviously, the demands of a DLP Projector onto a 136" screen are quite different that say on a 32" CRT. Can your display do HD at 720p or 1080i? Do you plan to upgrade? If so, I would choose one of the newer units with a digital video connection (DVI or HDMI), and upscaling. There is a new kid on the block, the Oppo HD971 ( currently $200+ shipping) that I just received yesterday, and let me say that on my 65" Mitsubishi HD CRT rear projector thaqt the picture is absolutely marvelous. Easily 300% better than the Samsung HD841 it replaced. I believe someone mentioned that Samsung earlier. The build quality is better than one would expect at it's price point, and it has a remote with buttons that glows in the dark. I could go into a lot of technical gobbeldyguk if you want...PM me. Jerry Rappaport

My attitude has always been that bi-wiring is so inexpensive to impliment, why not?... regardless for how small (if any) the improvement. Jerry Rappaport

There is a new kid on the block that looks promising at $199.00, it's called the Oppo 971 available from extremephoto.com. Mine should arrive Wednesday. The initial reports on this one are good! JR

Just a further note on DVD players. As Scott mentioned I recently auditioned the Marantz DV9500 and all I can say is WOW! Secrets December update calls the core Video performance of that player "nearly perfect". However, and this is a big However, its USA MSRP is $2100 and I haven't been able to find anyone who will sell it to me for less than $1600. That's a bit steep...even for me. Another line that you may wish to look at is Cambridge Audio's Azur 540D. It has better specs than even the Rotel 1060, I've heard very good things about it, AND I own a CA Azur 640C CD player which is about the best sounding CD player I've ever heard....at any price (and built like a tank...jitter is very very low). The analog audio performance of the 540D should be similar to the Rotel 1060 since it uses the same DACs. Cambridge, like Rotel stresses the audio side of their DVD players more than most other companies do. The only drawbacks to their DVD player is that there is no DVI/HDMI, no SACD and it doesn't upsample. But neither does the Rotel have any of those features. It does play DVDA like the Rotel. The 540D should be available from audioadvisor.com for less than $350, delivered. Audioadvisor has a great return policy should you not like it. JR

---------------- On 1/1/2005 3:53:19 PM IndyKlipschFan wrote: This is for the dedicated HT in the basement. I probably will take the Aragon gear there... But I LOVE it upstairs with K horns for now too. ---------------- I was just asking the question because I am considering the move to ARAGON from Rotel I currently have a Rotel RSP 1098 pre-pro which is definitly a keeper. I auditioned the 1098 up against the Stage One. The Stage one had a very slight edge in sonics but lacked the features of the 1098 (or the 1068 for that matter) like PLIIx. I am considering selling off my Rotel RB 1080 2 channel 200wpc and my RMB 1075 5 channel 120 wpc in favor of the ARAGON 2007. I'm considering this mostly to get 200 watts to my center, and other minor reasons. I've never even listened to the 2007..just a thought right now. JR

With all that Aragon gear...Why? Jerry Rappaport

---------------- On 1/1/2005 1:23:26 PM ancientdude wrote: This Now it seems that during movies, almost all the sound seems to be coming from the center channel...and i have to place the sorround spekaers up to my ears to be able to notice that sound is coming from them... is this normal? ---------------- You are almost correct. For movie soundtracts the center channel does do most of the work. Hovever, you should NOT have to put either the R&L Fronts or the surrounds up to your ears to hear them, when there is content for them in the soundtrack. You definitly need to do a calibrated setup with a RS meter, then tweak to taste. Be aware that speaker placement can have a lot of impact in the sound intensity eminating from it, so don't be surprised if you find after meter calibration that you have your surrounds set somewhat higher than the center (or the mains for that matter). This is what My setup comes out to to sound correct: Center -1 RF +2 LF +3 RS +2 LS +5 CBR & CBR -2 Jerry Rappaport

Interesting question because I just last week got to do that very comparison. I recently purchased a pair of CIIs to use in a 2 channel system in my study library. When I first brought them home I set them up in my HT side by side with my RF7s just to listen to them until my 2 channel amp arrived several days later. Naturally, I had the opportunity to switch back and forth during a couple of days and do comparisons. I powered both off my HT which is a Rotel RSP1098 processor with RMB1075 125 wpc amp. The Rotels are not known necessarily for warmth, which turned out to be a major factor in the comparison. The CIIs sounded very thin in the upper midrange and a little bit harsh by comparison to the RF7s. The RF7 is designed for HT applications and is very in-your-face. The sound of CIIs was much more laid back. In my large 7000 cu ft+ room the bottom end of the CIIs was very pale by comparison to the robust RF7. The CIIs had a much more detailed soundstage which allows the listener to place an instrument easier than the RF7, however, the RF7 is designed to be a "flatter" and "tighter" soundstage to allow the surround system processor to properly place all the sounds. When listening to a movie soundtrack the CIIs were too dispersed and lead to an unstable sounding 360 degree experience by comparison to the RF7s rock solid presence. Under these conditions I judged the CIIs to be inferior to the RF7s. Now, shifting gears. I moved the CIIs into my 15 x 13 study and hooked up a new Cambridge Audio Azure 640 amp and matching CD player. This is a very warm "British" sounding pair of components. The CIIs were place in the corners along the short wall of the room with a 45 degree toe towards the center. Under these conditions in 2 channel the CIIs are absolutely superb . Corner placement helps their bottom end and lower midrange quite a bit. This is obviously their domain and what they were designed for. If all you ever plan to do is listen to 2 channel with tube amps in a moderatly sized room, then I would recommend the CIIs over the RF7s. If you ultimately wish to progess into multi-channel formats then I would recommend the RF7s. Better even, do as I did and get BOTH! Jerry Rappaport

You've already got good separarates in the Outlaws. What's $300 really in the overall scheme of things? It's certainly a lot less than it will cost you to later sell off the Synergys and go to the Reference in the future. In this hobby there are a lot of "I shoulda" people out there looking to upgrade. One thing is for certain, if you buy References you will never wonder if you "shouda" gone for the Synergys. Try to get a better deal than 20% off. I would approach whatever Reference dealer you would like to buy from and say... Look, I want the RF35s but I only have $700 to spend...what can you do for me. Since it is after Christmas and things stay a bit quiet in the electronics business till March, perhaps they may cut a deal. Make it seem as if this is the first step and you have a center and surround purchases to follow (which is probably true). Just be ready to buy then and there. Perhaps you can get the difference down as low as about $200. Reference dealers have about 40-45% overall margin in the product. This varies a bit at each level and by each individual product but it is a good enough rule of thumb to follow. Also, if cost IS all that important, have you tried calling Soundistributors.com? They are not "officially" authorized dealers but are an loosely affiliated internet(eBay) branch of one. (Klipsch doesn't allow Reference to be officially sold over the internet, but turns the other cheek for some larger distributors). They offer their own warrantee instead of Klipsch. I've bought 4 pair of speakers from them and found them to be very reputable and easy to deal with. JR

---------------- On 12/30/2004 6:36:03 PM DrWho wrote: I do not feel there is even $100 worth of improvement in the sound. --------------- I suppose at your age $100 is a lot of money, so naturally you wouldn't feel there is even $100 worth of improvement. We have all been there at one time or another. However, this thread isn't necessarily about arms length bang for the buck judgements. It also isn't about regurgitating what one has read in other threads, or from textbooks. It IS about our personal experiences and our resulting impressions with each product.

When you listen to the References, take note at what is being used to power them. Your comment about music is well taken, the Reference after all were designed for HT as were the new Synergys. That is why I have a whole 2 channel system just to listen to music. It features Klipsch Chorus IIs and a jewel of a 2 channel integrated amp by Cambridge Audio. I realize that MOST people don't have the resources to do this and therefore their system must do double duty. Therefore, if you power the RFs properly with a 125-200 wpc clean and stable amp they take on a whole different character for music than they do with most HT receivers. The low end fills out quite a bit. That's why many of us with Reference setups prefer separates over receivers as it allows us to power our mains with a different amp than the centers and surrounds. But I'm getting way ahead of where you are at right now. JR

Meuge Thanks for your comments, this thread really needed them, and they hold a LOT of weight. It's very difficult to exlain how and why one with similar specs to another speaker sounds different (better?) than another to someone who hasn't listened to alot of speakers side by side. Speakers are the most contoversial item in ones system mainly because everyone tends to hear a bit differently (our ears are transducers and therefore everyone's are different), and we all have our preferences towards what we are expecting to hear. This also changes as we mature in this hobby and LEARN what sonic clues we must listen for in a speaker. JR

---------------- On 12/30/2004 3:52:14 AM DrWho wrote: That said, both speakers are practically the exact same design: a 2 way speaker with a 1" horn loaded dome tweeter and two 8" woofers. ---------------- One cannot assume that just because a speaker has 2 of this and one of that and they are similarly arrainged physically, that they will sound similar. Let me point out two HUGE differences in the specs that speak more to the performance of a speaker than the number of drivers and their arraingment. They have mostly to do with the material and quality of those drivers. The Synergies use an Aluminum dome driver, and the Reference use Titanium. Titanium is far stronger and flex resistant than aluminum. The dome can therefore be made much thinnner and more precise. The cost of this is higher but the benifits far outweigh the cost. The tweeter with the titanium dome will sound much more transparent and detailed (it is quicker)and have far less distortion when driven hard (titanium flexes less). Moving on to the LF drivers, the Synergies use Klipsch old Synergy mainstay, IMG. Injection molded graphite. Klipsch has been using IMG since way back in the KV and KG line. They have used it for good reason. IMG is an excellent woofer material, it is easy to manufacture and produces low distortion sound. It's drawback however is that it's relatively heavy by comparison to the Reference's cones. The Reference line uses what Klipsch calls Cerro-metallic cones. These are materials right out of the space program where high strength AND low weight are primary design concerns. The Reference woofers are both stiffer AND lighter, which should yeild both a quicker and cleaner sounding driver. The results of these better parts only show up in the numerical specs as a 1 db advantage in efficiency for the References, but that number doesn't tell the whole story as to how much cleaner they sound. What this does say is that a 100 wpc amp driving a Synergy will be as loud as a 75wpc amp driving a Reference (this is a bit simplified but illustrate the point). Anyone who says that the Synergy specs are superior to the Reference specs, obviously is only looking at numbers, and as I said previously, numbers can't tell you the whole story. There is one advantage to the Synergy line. Since it's drivers are less accurate and articulate than the References, you can get by using lesser quality components ( ie: consumer receivers, etc) without revealing the weaknesses in these components than you could with a Reference. This fits right in with the marketing strategy. You can purchase your electronics at the same place you buy your Synergys (ie BB). A Reference will tell you everything you NEVER wanted to know about bad electronics since they are more "critical" (revealing) of what they are fed. To sound there best Reference really need "audiophile" grade electronics. JR

---------------- On 12/30/2004 12:24:34 AM jt1stcav wrote: We did good, eh? ---------------- Even better than good! I've been a classical music buff for a very long time and haven't really enjoyed listening to an orchestra so much since I moved from 2 channel to multi-channel HT gear in 1990. I've always felt that strings (violins etc) sounded a bit metallic. I have attributed that (erroneously it now seems) to the nature of horn speakers. The Cambridge combo has changed all that. Strings sound natural and you would swear the woodwinds were here in the room with you. I really enjoy the fact that one can sit and listen to music at relatively low volumes and still hear all the minute details. The inner detail and delicacy at low volume is that extraordinary. Both components are very solidly built an if the exterior attention to detail is indicative of what is inside, then they should be trouble free for a long long time. Don't ya just love how their remote feels in your hand?!!! It gives the impression that it is controlling a very special piece of gear. The only gripe I have (if you can call it that) is that the output of the 640C may be a bit high for the input of the 640A, and therefore the entire operating range on the volume control is like from 6 oclock to 9 oclock on the knob, one quarter of it's entire range. This makes it difficult to make small adjustments in volume with the remote, I have to get up from my chair and fiddle with the volume control knob....Pickey, very pickey. JR

Specs, unfortunatly tell us nothing about how a speaker really sounds. If you go look at the specs of a K horn vs the F3, the F3 probably has "better" specs, but would sound like a tabletop FM radio if A/B'd with the Khorn. ( well, maybe that is a bit of an exaggeration, but NOT that for off) A speaker with great written specs CAN sound crappy, if you need proof of this go listen to ANY Bose. Two different speakers with identical specs can sound wildly different. Specs will tell you nothing about the articulation and clarity of a speaker, or if it is bright, or warm or neutral. Specs will not tell you anything about soundstage width and depth. The only way to really judge for yourself is to listen to both side by side. All you need to do this is a credit card with a high enough limit, and a Reference dealer with a good return policy. I have heard the F3s (yesterday at BB) and they sound great, but I can tell you that they are definitly NOT the equal to even the RF25s, IMHO, unless of course your main criterial is how loud they can play. You don't seriously believe that Klipsch would design, build and market a value line speaker that would outperform their flagship line, do you? JR

First of all, I'd go back and reread what Trey said. I believe it was something to the effect of the F3 being the near equivalent of an RF3 not an RF 35. Think about resale. I think in that respect the Reference will win hands down. You'll find once you get into this hobby there is a disease called upgrade-itis. Jerry Rappaport