Jump to content

chuckears

Regulars
  • Posts

    1029
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

chuckears's Achievements

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran (4/9)

7

Reputation

  1. Mine are wall-mounted, with no space or opportunity to floor-stand and angle them, particularly on the side that is part of the entryway into a rear dining area. RS7's would have been my choice back when I added surrounds, but my space limitations did not allow speakers that large in the space I have for them.
  2. I'm just wondering if I'm missing out on the more localized content offered up by the Atmos spec, and also impressed by the broader frequency range specs of the in-wall 5800's vs. the RS3. There is also the matter of WAF - she's is very understanding about most of the setup, but seemed impressed by the unobtrusive aspect of the in-ceilings I just installed.
  3. You are correct - I switched the driver configuration in my description Moving the RS3's down would make for an awkward placement on at least one of the walls, which is part of an opening into another room behind the listening area, and is by an outside door. The WAF would make it a non-starter, the acceptance factor being part of why I am looking at the in-walls to begin with.
  4. I've had Klipsch RS3 for surrounds for years; they have the trapezoid shape, with the tweeter in the middle and the two woofers angled toward the front and the rear of the MLP. I have them placed as recommended back in the day, above and slighty behind the listening position. I recently installed CDT-5800 in-ceiling speakers for Atmos - the new standard in this configuration is to have the side/surrounds more at ear level. This has led me to wonder if the in-wall version of my in-ceiling speakers, placed near ear-level - would be a better choice than the older-style RS3.
  5. The peak of the ceiling runs from the MLP to the front soundstage, so height speakers are going to be toed in at an angle. Will be installing CDT-5800's, which feature separately aim-able woofer and tweeter; my inclination is to point them toward the MLP, but Dolby recommends them pointing straight down assuming the ceiling is flat. Obviously, I can play with the positioning once they're installed, but just curious about opinions, both practical and theoretical...
  6. With the angled ceilings, it's a little awkward determining placement on the ceiling. Just wondering if there are methods or tools others have used to locate placement as accurately as possible.
  7. Discussion Starter · #1 · a moment ago Looking at installing four in-ceiling speakers for Atmos and DTS:X - I was wondering what simple tools are needed to determine placement? I am aware of the recommendations, and wish to get as close as possible to the 45-degree angle from the LP suggestion. A couple of challenges: a vaulted ceiling (the peak of which runs from the listening position to the front soundstage), and the sweet spot is only 3 feet from the back wall. I am visualizing a 2-beam laser level/pointer with a bubble level to determine the horizontal, and the beams adjustable like a compass. I haven't found anything (at least, not for a reasonable cost) that fits this description.
  8. Yours are first-series Fortes, manufactured sometime between 1985 and 1989; whether the terminal plate is round or square will narrow it down a bit, but I don't remember which years equate to which style of terminal cup.
  9. It's a living room, 17x17 feet, but open in the back right corner to a dining area, and open in the front left to a hallway; the Mrs. has always given me the front soundstage wall to do with as I please. She is down for the in-ceiling speakers, especially given their ability to blend in nicely. The room height at the apex of the vault is 12', with the usual 8' on the side walls. As nearly as I can tell, the angle of the vault is around 50 degrees - the height speakers will be angled instead of down-firing, but this model has the adjustable woofer and tweeter, so there is room to calibrate the angles after installation.
  10. I'm looking at installing in-ceiling speakers (CDT-5800's) soon, to bring Atmos into my existing 5.2 system, but there are special considerations in the room I'm placing them: My listening/viewing position is two feet from the back wall. This cannot be changed. I have a cathedral ceiling, the peak of which runs in a path straight from the sweet spot to my display. If I install 4 in-ceiling speakers, the recommended 45-degree angle from the sitting position to the speakers front-back is possible, with the front pair a little over a third of the distance between me and the front soundstage, and the rear pair almost to the back wall (and almost directly above the side-surrounds on the wall). I have read some recommendations that, in this scenario, it is better to go with just one pair of height speakers, placed just a little in front of the listening position - but I don't want to miss out on the potential height-surround material I might otherwise enjoy. Also, with the angled ceiling and the ability to point the drivers in pretty much any direction I wish, I would like to think that I can overcome placement issues. I would also like to think that it helps that I have the ARC system that came with my Anthem AVM70 to dial in room response curves. Does anyone have experience with this type of arrangement, or input about which scenario would work better?
  11. I had exactly the opposite experience Academy vs KLF-C7; I ran the C7 with my (original series) Fortes, but could hear very distinct - almost out-of-phase - differences with material that panned, or was shared by the Fortes and the C7. I had previously tried to use an RC-3, and the difference was even more stark. When I finally scored an Academy, that weird sound transition went away. The Forte and Academy definitely do sound different - you can tell even better when doing manual channel test tone pans; orc when someone walks from middle to either side while speaking, and the sound engineers correctly mix the sound to follow. However, there is not nearly the same weirdness in the timbre of the sound as with the other centers I've tried, at least to my ears.
  12. I've owned my Fortes since 1988, and the best they've ever sounded was with a McCormack DNA-1 Deluxe and McCormack TLC-1 passive preamp. There was a punch, realism, and detail from that set-up - which included two Hsu 12" subs dialed in perfectly - than I had heard with my previous Carver setup, or since with HK, Rotel, then back to McCormack, but with an Anthem Processor for HT duty. I've gotten a lot of that life-like sound back with purchase of a different DNA-1 Deluxe, but something about that passive preamp getting out of the way and letting the music get through cannot be repeated with modern processing, at least none that I've sent through the pipeline.
  13. These pop up used for a decent price every now and then, and they appear to be similar to an Academy, but with a lower extension (and the obviously different driver layout on the motorboard). Our aging ears are wanting something a little more robust, and since the Forte mains aren't going away any time soon, I'm wondering how this would work in our modest living room setup... bear in mind there is a limited height allowance available, so another floor-stander is a non-starter.
  14. They were pretty ubiquitous on the used market back in the late 90's and early 2000's, and they pop up on ebay and usaudiomart.com pretty consistently; not very many make their way to audiogon any more. Also, their asking price has remained consistent the past 20-plus years, and has in fact gone a little higher since everything went haywire a year and a half ago. The ask on the DNA-1 Deluxe was over $1000, but I was lucky enough to score it for about $200 less.
  15. I had a Rotel 5-channel, 100 wpc (RMB-something-or-other) when I first expanded into HT, and it was the deadest, non-musical sounding amp I've ever tried with my Fortes. Both the Carver before it, as well as (and especially) the McCormacks I owned before and after it, were exponentially better-sounding.
×
×
  • Create New...