jjptkd

Well, you know what they say about opinions... I've had several sets of both Chorus models and have compared them head to head. I was kind of surprised to find that they sounded more alike than different and the biggest difference I could hear was in the mid horn, bass response seemed nearly the same. From what I understand the Chorus I has one of the flattest response curves out of all the older Klipsch speakers, see attached chart.

Nice article Moray, thanks for that! That confirms what I thought all along about the Chorus. In my opinion both Chorus models are a step above the Cornwall. In fact, I'd really like to see a Chorus III come out with a larger mid horn like the 510. Personally, I wouldn't change the tuning of the Chorus, if you lack bass or are missing lower frequencies I'd add a subwoofer or two.

I just checked both of the spec sheets and it seems the Cornwall II and the Chorus I were built at the exact same time. The Cornwall II 1986-1990 and the Chorus I 1987-1990. Learn something new every day.

Nice system! I actually just pieced all 5 of the exact same speaker models together for a friend, turned out great for his new apartment. The Academy would be a step up from what you have for a center and should match everything just fine. As far as the rears go I don't think they need to be very far off the wall for the rear port to work, an inch or two at the most? Good luck!

It is my understanding that Klipsch actually discontinued the Cornwall with the introduction of the Chorus line and that the Chorus I was actually the replacement for the Cornwall (II.) The Chorus I used the same tweeter and mid horn / driver as the Cornwall II, they just changed the dimensions of the cabinet and upgraded the woofer to a commercial grade, pro type driver. If you compare the specs side by side they are nearly the same.

I agree with you on that the wood finishes on the C-7 are a nice option. The build quality however is severely lacking in the C-7 as I know 2 people who own them and both have experienced the flapping baffle problem that the larger KLF's are known for. I've owned over a half dozen KV-4's, kept and used a pair for a couple years and never had the same problem nor have I heard or read about anyone else having that same problem. This is looking like another one of those situations where there are going to be varying opinions, it would probably be best to buy both and compare them yourself and see what you prefer. If you get a good enough deal you can always recoup your money on the one you don't want. I would strongly recommend looking into the RC-7 as an alternate, as I stated in my last post I think it is better than the two you are considering.

That looks like a great deal in that link, I'd jump on that! In my opinion, the KV-4 bests the C-7. It projects a much bigger voice and is very clear and pronounced. They do come up fairly often so I'd hold out for one over the C-7, especially since you have the CF-3's. If you decide to mis-match I'd go with the RC-7 over the C-7 as its better than the kv-4 and the C-7 in my opinion, same big sound as the kv-4 but just better high end sparkle with more better bass response. Good luck which ever way you decide to go!

In my opinion I'd sell the KLF-30's first. I actually thought they sounded pretty close to the Chorus II but they don't go nearly as loud and they used cheaper parts and cabinets.

Congrats! Would really like to hear your impressions after all is said and done. I've thought about ordering the same rear surround speakers for my bedroom theater but contemplating the RS-42 II as well.

Darn it! These "deals" never show up in my neck of the woods..

Cutting the lower frequencies out completely via crossover is going to be the best route in my opinion.

The 5.2 is my personal favorite out of all the KG line. They don't have near the bass slam as the 5.5 but the overall sound is much more balanced and sweet sounding in my opinion. If you plan on keeping the 5.2's the 2.2 center is the best match and actually a pretty nice center channel. It's basically a mini Academy which a lot of people really like. I've actually used the 2.2 between a set of Forte's and it worked great. If you don't have room for the KG2.2 you could always try the RC-3. It wouldn't be an exact timbre match but it would be a great improvement over what you have (and the KV-3) and its roughly the same size as the KV-3.

I'd say more times than not if you're using a Receiver for 2 channel music you're compromising. There's a good reason they make and sell pre/pros and why separates cost so much more than Receivers, they sound much better.

The key to weight loss is diet period. No matter how active you are (or aren't) the right amount of nutrients and calories are key to either gaining, losing or maintaining weight. Basically if two people of similar build were to try and lose weight and one increased exercise only and the other changed diet only, the one who changed his diet would lose more weight every time.

Nope.

I don't believe so. He sold Sunfire to ELAN back in 2006? I believe and he stuck around basically as a consultant until just a few years back. I know he has been working with the owner? of ELAN with his new tube products as I believe they partnered up at one point to start Bob Carver LLC. I know he later sold the original tube designs to Emotiva who was supposed to start manufacturing his tube products but I heard they had a falling out? Since then Bob has started a new line of tube products that are very similar to the older offerings with new names and colors for much cheaper, not sure if guy from ELAN had anything to do with that or not though. Sorry for the vague response, this is all just pulled from memory.

I have to agree that the Klipsch packaging is no where near adequate, at least with the couple of new speakers I just bought. I can't really complain too much though as it landed me a fantastic deal on my new RC-64 II center with minimal damage at 40% retail!! My RB-81 II's arrived just fine but I bought those on eBay and the seller double-boxed them. If you want to see good packaging look at the Sunfire CRM-2's. Little 8lb speakers that are individually boxed and encased in thick foam, then a pair is placed in a single box and then placed in another box! Three freakin' boxes for little tiny speakers!

I would have to think there would be a lot of variables involved in making such a decision. Bottom line is the service may not be optimal for every person or piece of gear out there but I'm sure its a good fit for many, otherwise shops that offer this type of service wouldn't be around for too long.

Nice! The Forte's are great speakers, glad you're enjoying them!

Yes, please let us know what you think about the subs!! I've always loved the RSW-15 for music, can't really imagine anything being leaps and bounds ahead of it in that department. The Ultra 2's I have just wreck it though for low end growl and total output but they just aren't quite as "clean" or articulate as the RSW.

I've had several 3 channel amps and thought they were all great. The original Acurus 200x3 was favorite sounding followed by the Carver A-753x. The Adcom 5503 sounds nice as well. I've never had the pleasure of listening to an Aragon but based on my impressions of Acurus and what I've read about them I bet they'd be a good choice. Also, if you're only powering the front three channels have you considered the use of a 5 channel amp like the Sunfire 200x5? You can bi-amp your front mains with four of the channels and still power the center with the fifth. Obviously you could do this with any 5 channel amp, I just happen to like the Sunfire / Klipsch combo.

It's like a guy I know says about building race engines, It costs 10% to get you 90% performance and it costs you 90% to get that last 10. Similar to the NASCAR reference. I recently upgraded to the 64 II and I'm very happy with it. I've never heard the 62 but I moved up from the RC-7 and I'm very glad I did. At first I was a little put off by the seemingly lack of bass as compared to the 7 but that was only running the centers by themselves head to head. As soon as I plugged my mains back in the 64 II does exactly what it should, project extremely clear and precise sound.

In all my years of buying audio equipment I've had the pleasure (and pain) of listening to many different setups and speakers. 99% of the time I walk away feeling pretty smug as my Chorus II's driven by Sunfire power sounds pretty darn good to my ears. I clearly remember being caught of guard on one occasion though by a set of B&W's. They not only had a wide soundstage but what appeared to be a very deep one as well. Sounds just seemed to come from nowhere effortlessly with an amazing smoothness and detail. I remember stopping in front of one of the speakers and just staring in almost disbelief. The owner got kind of a chuckle out of it and said something to the effect of that's what you get out of $12k speakers.

I have hosted many parties where the stereo is turned up near max for literally hours on end and the only thing I've ever had give out on any Chorus is a tweeter diaphragm. I cannot say the same thing for the Forte or the KLF-30 as those woofers will go south in a hurry if you're not careful.

Figure I'd give an update. The RC-64 II has found a permanent home here with me. It arrived with a small chip out of the front top edge but otherwise like new. The sound is different than I was expecting. At first I was a bit disappointed compared to the RC-7 which clearly seems to have much better bass / mid-bass response. I'm hoping that over time the 6.5" woofers might loosen up and offer a bit more? As far as voice and dialogue clarity goes the 64 II seems to be higher resolution, more transparent is the best way I can describe it. Inner details and little noises can be heard with ease. All the sounds seem to be equal across the board. The RC-7 is leaps and bounds ahead of the Academy and KLF-C7 in this department and 64 II seems to even go beyond the RC-7. I think both centers are excellent but I have to say I think the 64 II is an improvement, even more so if the bass improves over time.