jjptkd

Thanks for the heads up. Really looking for a pair of 1's within a few hundred miles of me, preferably a lot closer and in Walnut if that's not being too picky. I've got plenty of speakers so I'm in no real hurry, basically started this thread because of how long I've been searching without any luck. I'd even consider working out some sort of trade for my Cherry RF-7 II's if anyone local is interested? I can dream..

I've mixed and matched subs before and can't think of a time that it made things worse. Some subs are just awful sounding or not very loud but depending on placement and crossover points it is possible that any sub could help. I don't know anything about the SW-115 but it seems to get good reviews. If you can get it a good deal price I'd say try it out, just don't pay too much in case you don't like it and want to resell it.

No, not exactly but I am against the politics involved in all of this. If you look at the data Greenland is actually gaining ice this season beyond what has been normal and while yes, ice has been melting there it has only lost about .3% of its mass in about the last 115 years-- 1/3rd of 1% The earth warms and cools, we are an industrious people and will find a way to cope somehow. Historically, from what I understand warming trends have been significantly kinder to mankind than cooling trends. Looking back through the Climate record the earth is always either warming or cooling. About Greenland: "Of course 9,2 trillions of tons may look huge, but once one assumes that the total inlands is ice volume is 2,600,000 km3 (according to the US Geological survey), these 9,2 trillions tons losses represent only a tiny 0,3 p.c. of the total. So, the climate alarmists are saying that the Greenland's ice cap is melting at a catastrophic rate and now we are just told that for more than one century the losses were almost equal to zero. Something is wrong with the climate science as it is handled by the IPCC" From what I understand all of this melting equaled about a 1 inch rise sea level over a century. Historically sea level rise has been roughly 7 inches a century total and has been steady at that pace for a very long time, we are thawing out from the last ice age.

Proof NOAA has been changing climate data for quite awhile now and according to the reports Greenland has been gaining ice recently?

And government intervention via the Paris agreement is going to stop that? I believe I read somewhere that Greenland has lost a total of 0.3% of ice in the last 100 or so years and you're certain C02 has caused how much of this exactly?

I agree 100% in cleaner energy and curbing / cutting / cleaning up pollution as best as we can but glaciers have been melting steadily for at least 100 hundred years before the great rise in C02 and to blame it on "Man" and then tax the sh!t out of everything to stuff MORE money into politicians and people like Al Gore's pockets is just crazy to me.

We just had 4 inches of snow here in the PNW, which by itself is not that unusual but it was, I believe the 6th time this season we've had measurable snow. A typical good snow year we might see 2 or 3 events, we've already doubled that and still have a month of winter to go. Several sites I've looked at are predicting global cooling to start any time from this year out to early 2020's. We've had an 15 year "pause" already in warming but they continue fudging the climate data in hopes of securing the Paris agreement. "America has the right to unbiased science:"

Hidden peer reviewed data by the IPCC?

I think there is legitimate concern for the health of our oceans, radiation leaks in Japan, massive plastic islands and unthinkable amounts of raw sewage being dumped into it every year to name a few. From the limited research I've done increased C02 and slight temperature increases are actually healthy for life in the ocean, the other things are not.

"Ocean Acidification" is a propaganda term meant to alarm people, here's video worth watching if you're interested in the facts:

I've had the RF-7 II's for awhile now and have mixed feelings about them so far. They can present themselves as bright and overbearing with some material but mostly not so much luckily. It's weird, sometimes the horns will just sound like I guess what they are, gigantic tweeters with much larger than life cymbals and high end noises / sounds in general. I'm still evaluating these but honestly so far I think I actually prefer my RF-5's, at least in my small room where the added headroom and bass are not needed so much.

Yes, a friend of mine uses the inuke 3000 w/ DSP for his SI 18" sub and while it seems to power it just fine it does not hold a candle to my Samson SX2800 amplifier bridged which is 1800 watts RMS, it actually seemed much closer to the output of a single channel of that amp at 600 watts.

I would switch them back to the k-33 personally as that was what suppose to be in there and you're probably missing some low end. Unless you're using the speakers outdoors at insane volumes I don't think you'll ever need the extra power handling the 43 offers.

There is such a broad line of models and offerings form Klipsch now a days and for a long time now actually. Being a blue collar worker myself I can say that the brand new Palladium and Heritage speakers are pretty out of my budget so don't think they were designed with people like me in mind but I'm perfectly happy to buy used. Now if you're going to walk into best buy and grab a middle of the road product off of their shelf and then complain about the quality all I can say is you get what you pay for. Also, there is ways to tone down response as mentioned above that don't include toilet paper and L-pads so give them a try or maybe try a different speaker model or different audio equipment / source. Basically there's a lot of things that can cause a bad experience and the speakers themselves are just one piece of the puzzle.

I've always been curious about these amps and the larger 8008's. I've had a few Acurus amplifiers and really liked the 200x3 amp that I had although I didn't care for the A150 quite as much thought it was still decent. I havn't been watching this auction site so don't know how popular it is, do they generally get eBay prices?

Having the original boxes for the RF-7 II's I can certainly see the need for them to be strapped to a pallet for shipping as I don't think they'd make it on their own otherwise.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenhayward/2015/06/09/why-the-left-needs-climate-change/#45fff2ea602a

You know that is a good point that I don't think has been made before. Looking at the specs for the Cornwall III the mid is crossed over at 800hz, the Heresy III at 850hz while the forte / Chorus models are crossed over lower at 600-700hz. There has been much attention given to the over reach of the titanium drivers and the need to cap them off at the high end but how do they perform at the lower frequencies between 600-800hz?

What are you replacing them with if you don't mind sharing? Nice looking speakers, good luck with your sale!

I think Ben is spot on with his assessment:

I believe it was stated the new mid horn is a K-701 variant so crossover point should be around 700-800hz.

I moved a couple of years ago into a much smaller space and gave up my Floorstanders. Over that time I've tried all of the "small" speakers Klipsch has to offer including the Palladium P-17's and eventually worked my way up to my current RF-7 II's. While I felt the Palladium speakers were probably the nicest sounding out of all the speakers I've tried, including my current ones, they just didn't carry the weight like a big speaker does and I missed that with them.

I have done extensive research on this subject and there's plenty of reputable sources out there that claim the "man made" portion of global warming is nothing more than political hype and a money grab. Carbon taxes and credits is potentially a trillion dollar market and will do next to nothing according to their own numbers. Did you know that China agreed to the Paris agreement but they don't have to cut their emissions until after 2030? The 97% of Scientist that agree about the looming "Crisis" don't actually agree there is a crisis. That number was based on a survey which simply asked; is the earth warming? Can CO2 impact warming? Does man contribute CO2? It does not go onto so say how much of man's CO2 or even CO2 itself contributes to warming (it is a trace gas) or if the effects are even bad. There's a large number of scientist who actually believe more CO2 will benefit man kind in larger crop yields that need less water. Despite all of the deforestation globally the earth is actually significantly greener now than has been.

If you have 10 minutes of free time: