Klipschtastic

I have been contemplating for a while now about which speakers to buy. I want to upgrade from my Rf3s for my 2 channel listening and put them back to home theater room. I initially wanted klf20s and have read older posts comparing them to various other klipsch speakers such as the Forte and Chorus. I do prefer the asthetics of the klfs slightly over the others but from what I read they are all basically in the same league and I would be happy with any of them. So this brings me to one last question (or two): 1) Are the Chorus iis with the passive radiator preferred over the originals? Is there a big difference in bass? Aslo feel free to share your experiences with any of the speakers though I know it has been gone over a lot before. 2) How far would you drive to the speakers you want? I live in Charleston WV and I am used to not finding what i want near me. I'm thinking I may easily have to drive 6 or more hours one way if the right ones come up for sale.

I have the 609 receiver also. Did you use the audessy feature with the mic to calibrate your speakers? If not do so, it really helps. No you won't hurt the speakers before you hurt you hearing with these efficient speakers.

Hello everyone, I found a pair of Advents in my local trader for $60. I called the owner who was not very knowledgable about them said they are in excellent condition and are 26" tall which sounds like the original Advents. He says they are no more than about 20 years old and I read online they stopped producing the original Advents around 1989? He says they don't have a model number listed on them anywhere and the grills aren't too easy to remove so he didn't even know if they were two way or three way. He also said there was a 4 ohm, 8ohm switch on the back. 1) If they are in fact 2way and 26" tall could they be anything but the original Advents? 2) Do the grills just pull off these older speakers or is there a trick to it? 3) What do you think of them? I may use them in the basement for a second system. I may go look at them tomorrow depending on what you guys tell me.

Thanks bhendrix, I didn't know there were models that could be wired in stereo to a single speaker. That makes it even more tempting to add more of them throughout the house!

So I'm considering buying a pair of in ceiling speakers for the kitchen which is adjacent to my living room/ dining room area. I wish I could draw a diagram but basically my main 2channel set up is in the living room diagonally over from the kitchen door. The kitchen door is at the edge of the dining room as the dining room seguays into the living room so basically the stereo is misaligned to the kitchen door by about 12 feet. I spend a lot of time cooking with the vent fan running which drowns out the sound somewhat. Music works ok coming from the living room since the rf3 s are loud and clear but talk radio is impossible to follow. I would like to add a pair of ceiling speakers to either augment the sound or maybe run alone in the kitchen at times. I will either use zone 2 or B speakers on the receiver. My concern is with the proximity and crosstalk of the two speakers systems, would I need to voice match them? It looks like the ceiling speakers by Klipsch are a coaxiel design and probably aren't matched to my rf3's anyway. If I don't need to stick with Klipsch, can someone recomend a decent set of budget ceiling speakers?

How many of you still use the speaker wire method to conect a sub to your 2 channel set up? I have the Onkyo TX 8050 and I'm not sure where the crossover point is if there is one at all. I have read that it may be 80hz but sends a full range signal to both the sub and the speakers making it basically useless. I am thinking of running speaker wires to utilize the subs crossover to keep the lowest frequencies from being doubled up. Do any of guys with seperates, integrated amps or vintage gear run subs this way? Seems a bit cumbersome but has to be better for sound because of the crossover.

Thanks for all the quick replys. I am new to this type of set up so please bear with me. My modem is in a seperate room from both of my receivers so I won't be hardwiring the moden to either receiver unless I move the modem. One problem with that is I don't have a phone jack for the modem in either room the receivers are in. My laptop is wireless however and I was hoping to just plug and play Pandora from my laptop to either receiver that I decide to use at the time. Basically I think I may be complicating a simple question because of my ignorance of internet streaming. I just want to know which connection cable would be the best for my TX 8050 which has: USB, PC cable and ethernet connections. Or does really matter which one I use? As for the AVR I have some HDMI cables I could use.

Yes i guess it would be adhoc. I would connect the laptop to the receiver and disconnect it at various times since I use my laptop in different rooms at times. My pc does not have any rca inputs. The 8050 is a two channel receiver with no HDMI. I also have an AVR in another room with HDMI. I would actually like to be able to move my pc back and forth between these systems at will with the most convenient connections that will allow it.

I have the new Onkyo tx 8050 which has a USB port on the front and an ethernet connection on the back. I want to listen to Pandora from my computer. Should I just run an ethernet cable from my laptop computer (which of course is receiving wireless internet) to the back of the receiver or can I use a USB port from my computer to the USB on the receiver? Any advantages to one method vs the other? I would like to use the USB unless there are advantages to the ethernet. I tried using the wireless adapter that Onkyo sells but the reception is spotty and I would like to hardwire it. Thanks Jon

Yeah I meant alternating, not playing simultaniously.

of speakers in your 2 channel set up so that you can listen to whichever you feel like at the time. Do you have them A/B so you can listen to whichever may sound best with whatever you are listening to at the time? Or even a seperate system in the same rack with your main syatem. I am planning to scour the local ads and thrift stores to see what I can find just to satisfy my curisity and expose myself to more gear. I may be setting some things up to compare and then keep/sell whatever I choose to. Judging by some of the pics I've seen on this forum, it looks like some of you have lot of gear in the same room.

I wouldn't be so surprised if the Sony was little older and maybe a little bit higher up in the food chain. I just didn't realize stuff from the mid 80s fit into the older and better category.

I just recently got an Onkyo 8050 to replace my old Sony and Denon receivers from the 80's. I have been at odds with my rf 3s for a while since I've been using my Denon and my Onkyo. Many months ago I was using the Sony, the first amp I had used in years with these speakers which had been in storage. I remembered the way the Rf 3s sang with the little cheap 35 wpc sony from 1986 or 87 and being so excited to have my speakers back. Today I decided to hook the Sony back up and I swear it sounds clearer and more detailed than the Onkyo. The music seems to be more lively and satisfying and the little qualms I had with the Rf 3s seem to fade for the moment. Symbols sizzle, guitars wail and the music has just a little more "bounce" to it for lack of a better term. Now these differences aren't THAT dramatic but sometimes the devil is in the detail. I bought the Onk for the features such as Pandora streaming (which I have yet to use) and remote control. I bought the Sony when i was kid with a paper route for about $100 and it was one of the cheapest if not THE cheapest Sony at the time. I don't know what to do now. Anybody need an Onkyo 8050...lol? But seriously, it seems like some receivers mate better with certain speakers by accident. Surely the engineers at Sony weren't going to great links to make these cheap little receivers exceptional. Have you all had any similar experiences?

I have had my rf3s for a long time now and have posted a few times on how I'm not sure if I want to keep them or not. In another room I have some Energy connosuer c-2 bookshelf speakers with titanium or aluminum tweets, not sure which. Both are run by new Onkyo receivers. I had been thinking I preferred the sound of the Energys better although they are in a smaller room with more window treatments and a rug that covers basically the whole room. The Rf 3s are in the living room which is comparitively speaking cold and hard with no rug between the couch where I listen and the speakers and no curtains, only blinds. I finally moved the little Energys into the living room for an A/B comparison. I know it is a bit unfair to compare a small bookshelf speaker with 6" drivers to the Rf3 but I was more interested in the higher end of the frequency scale anyway. I always thought the Rf3's were a but harsh on certain recordings. First I played Band of Horses which is a very loud, bright and hollow sounding recording. I immediatly noticed I had to crank the less efficient Energys atleast 10 numbers higher on the scale to get the same perceived volume and just as they reached what I would unscientifically refer to as rockin' out levels they begn to sound shouty. Upon switching back to rf 3s I found the sound to acually be a little warmer on the male vocals and if anything, a little less harsh. I then put the White Stripes in and played the Energys. Sounds good enough. Now back to the Klipsches. Wow, sounds live and the guitars are much more crunchy and exciting and the harshness that I was so concerned about is actually less than with the Energys that strained to fill the room. The Klipsches definatly are not boring! I went through several other cd's in this fashion and found that I really like the Rf3s more than I realized. I wish I had access to more speakers to audition but there are really no dealers in my area and none of my friends are into hi fi. I really have go by what I read and then buy and try. I guess my point is even though I still am looking to upgrade the Rf3s for my music set up, the harshness is probably as much a product of the room acoustics as anything else. I m thinking my next step will be some three way Heritage speakers. I'm thinking either Heresys with a sub or the Forte or Chorus. The Corwalls look awsome but are probably too big. I am really regretting passing up a pair of KLF20's on ebay for a buy it now of $299. When I went back the next day they had bid and eventually sold for $480!

I have an Onkyo 8050 2 channel receiver running my rf3s. I know I could have bought a better power source but quite frankly I like the feature set of the 8050 since I can stream internet and use my ipod with the remote. I don't necessarily have a specific need or complaint to adress about my system but I like to tinker with things and experiment and it could always sound better. I am thinking of Bi-amping them with a power amp running the woofers and my receiver running the tweeters. Is this possible? I have never used pre-outs before. Would hooking up the external power amp essentailly shut off the receiver's power and send all sound to the power amp? Would it be ok sound wise to run a different brand of power amp than the receiver? With such efficient speakers am I wasting my money? Will I likely notice a more bass acuracy or punch? More seperation in the mids and highs? Thanks Jon

I have some RF3's and I sure would be disappointed to let them go for under $300. For less than $250 forget it. I would say thaat is a pretty fair deal if they're in good shape.

Well its yet another speaker question from yours truly. I have a set of RF3s as many of you know and I am chomping at the bit to either modify them or buy a different speaker. I have located a pair of klf 20s that intrigue me. I vaguely remember listening to some KLF20's when I bought the RF3s a dozen years ago. If I remember correctly i was wanting the KLFs but they were just out of my price range at the time. I liked the RF's well enough but over the years I have sometimes wondered what if i had bought the KLFs. Now may be my chance. I would imagine they put out much more bass, which the RF's are decent at, but I wouldn't mind a little more and I really don't want to use a sub with my 2 channel setup. Their midrange is bound to be better since they are a three way speaker, right? For those of you who have heard both, please fill me in.

Beside klipsch. My stepdad has some Acoustic research AR98's that sound fantastic. What older speakers do you all like? I'm on the fence about my rf3s and just thought maybe I'd like some older stuff. Polk monitors, AR, Pioneer, etc.

Well sorry to dissappoint. I really did take your advice to heart and was leaning toward the 9555. Maybe I should've made this post earlier than I did. My stepdad went ahead and ordered the 8050 last friday and it arrived last night. This may have been out of his intended budget but I was prepared to offer the difference. I was kind of on the fence however, and still not conviced i would hear a difference between it and the 9555. I hooked it up and played it last night (yeah i thought I was waiting till Christmas too). I really don't think I can tell difference between it and my old denon. The feature set is really nice though and the pure direct mode seems to add some clarity and detail even if it lacks a bit of bass with my RF3s. If my stereo bug is still in full flare up a few months from now or maybe around tax return time I may grab a 9555 and sell the loser between the 8050 vs 9555. It may be that my speakers are so efficient or I just don't have a good ear but i have yet to hear difference between receivers. So far I've used an old cheap sony from 1987 rated at 35wpc, an onkyo 609 AVR and a Denon DRA 300 from 1981. The biggest difference I have noticed between any of them is with the eq settings and music optimizer functions on the 609. It may be placebo but I do think I noticed better seperation on some lower bass guitar notes when cranking AC/DC instead of a less descript boominess I used to get. I know a lot of folks says there is no advantage to a 2channel receiver but i just like the simplicity and actually have knobs for bass and treble. I think the 8050 is a great receiver for the $230 accessories for less sells it for(refurb). For that price the feature set is amazing. I can control my ipod with the remote and the song titles display on the receiver. Like I said before though I was torn on this point. One of the problems with some of the new AVRs is quantity over quality. I still like the idea of a nice heavily built integrated unit. All in all its pretty sweet for its functionality. Its nice to have a remote control again for one. Plus the volume increases more gradually which is nice and I still have plenty of headroom. With such effecient speakers most of the older receivers had the klipsches blaring by 1/3 turn. I'm still intrigued by the 9555 though and really want to try one out in the not too distant future.

Hello again everyone. I recently posted a thread concerning my Rf3 speakers and toning down the highs a bit. Now I am looking to purchase a reciever and I want the bang for the buck I can get as far as sound quality goes. Right now i am looking at the Onkyo tx 8050 on accessories for less. I am slightly sucked in because of the new internet streaming features like pandora but I am also intigued by the possibily of gaining better sound quality with an integrated amp like the Onkyo 9555. The 8050 is $229 right now and is 4 ohm rated at 160x2 watts dynamic power, and 80x2 rms. No loudness control and it weighs 19 lbs. The 9555 integrated is $379 and is rated at 85x2 and 230x2 dynamic into 2ohms. it has a loudness control and weighs 29 lbs. I could use my old denon as a tuner for now. I like Onkyo just fine and i have new Onkyo cd player to match. That may be a little ocd on my part trying to brand match though. Do you think I would realize an significant sound difference in the integrated 9555? What constitutes the extra 10 pounds in weight? Thanks Jon

I just tried out the cotton balls and they defenatly had a positive effect on "mellowing out" the highs for lack of a better audiophilic vocab. I will hit the hrdware store to get some of the other materials mentioned. Has anyone tried placing an extra layer of cloth, perhaps a thick speaker grill mesh or even t-shirt for that matter to slightly weil the highs?

Hey guys. This forum is great and I appreciate all of the thoughful responses. I bought the speakers new in 1999 or 2000 I believe so they are roughlly 12 years old. They were used heavily and played loudly mostly between 99-2002 when I lived in a house. I then moved to an apartment and used them only lightly and never very loud untill a few months ago when a moved into a house where I am again free to crank them. I'm guessing both age and use are factors in degrading the internals. I really don't want to go through the expense and hassle of buying new speakers and selling these on ebay, besides I like a lot of things about these speakers. The efficiency, tight bass response, dynamics, lively sound and soundstage to name a few. My only beef is with the upper frequencies at times being harsh and fatiguing. The room acoustics are definatly less than flattering, a big living room, approximatly 22x 18 with dining room off to the side perpendicular to the speakers' projection path. I'll try the cotton ball treatment first and see what it does. To Mooray james, I looked on the Bob Crites website and saw capacitors for a lot of speakers but not the RF3. My old Denon is now getting interference or crosstalk from the radio that can be heard at low levels during mellow spots in cd playback as well as a low ambient hum so its time for a replacement. My stepfather who is a big stereo buff offered to buy me a new receiver for Christmas and I'm looking at the Onkyo 8050 or the Marantz 4023. I know the AVR my be a better value but really like having a dedicated 2 channel set up in the living room with simple controls. I have read things stating that marantz has a warmer quality and i have read others that say with new receivers these days the difference isn't noticable and they are basing this bias on the Marantz of old. What do you all think?

So I've had my Rf3s for 10 years now using them for both home theater and music. I always liked the clarity and range but at times they are harsh, especially now that these speakers have been moved to the living room for music only. I am using an old Denon dra 300 receiver circa 1981 with 35 watts per channel. I don't know if those Denons are supposed to be warm like the new ones but I really don't enjoy extended listening on this system. The highs are just to searing at times. I don't mean to completely throw the Rf3s under the bus though, the base is tight and articulate and on some recordings the horns are fine. If I could just dail the highs back and warm things up alittle I would probably be happy. Simply dailing back the treble doesn't really work. Below -2 db the highs get too dull and the rift between the bass and the upper mids seems to grow. So how much does a different receiver like the Marantz 4023 actually make on the RFs? Does anyone have an experience to share? Thanks Jon

I just decided to check in on this forum and I ran across this thread. I bought my Rf3s new about 11 years ago and have always liked them pretty well. With the right source they can sound amazing, but at times the highs can be a bit peircing and harsh. I think the bass response is good; very accurate and tight. If I need more bass i can usually get what I need with a turn of the dial. Lately I have been considering new speakers however because I have moved them to a 2 channel music only system and I can sympathize with those who say they can be fatigueing and harsh. It really depends on the source though. Aucustic music with drumscan sounds really good but sometimes all out rock can be harsh, anything recorded bright can sound harsh. Some cd's sound amazing though. I would like to maybe audition some other speakers but there isn't much where I live. You're right though it is nice to hear from folks who are enjoying the same speakers you re.