The History Kid

I'm hard to please. But seriously...my qualms lie with calling it how I see it. I won't get a chance to formally test these in the foreseeable future due to lack of retailers in my area, so I can only really go off of specs, off of features - basically what Chad has provided us with. I'm just not a raving fan over what I see. Doesn't mean they're bad - just that I'm not really interested in this flavor of kool-aid. I will however have that drink!

I feel kind of dumb...I forgot I could do that: https://web.archive.org/web/20020202054226/http://www.klipsch.com/products/productdetail.asp?id=395&line= $1,000 New

I noticed the part number too is a valid Radio Shack SKU, but I don't know enough about vintage audio to make any kind of assessment.

I can't recall...what did the RSW's go for new? I feel like they were around $600 for the 10?

...what? Where have you found that sub for $200? I'm basing my opinion based on the fact that I haven't enjoyed any of the models up to now, and the specs of these new subwoofers don't seem to be much different. Hence why...I said I'd pass. It's not that I don't think they're bad subs for some people, but why would I drop another $900 to replace a Polk that's doing better than any of their previous models have done for me when nothing seems to have changed? That doesn't make any sense. I appreciate that I may be wrong, but I don't understand why it's so flabbergasting that I have the opinion that I have. They sound better, there's no gaps in response. The towers compliment the highs and mids very nicely and the sub handles the lows seamlessly. It doesn't sound like the sub is overstepping anything, it just flat out sounds clean - it's something I didn't get with any of the Klipsch subs I've tried.

I have tested other Klipsch subs against it. So yes, I do know that to me it sounds better and have found no reason to call it mediocre by any means. I wasn't aware I was supposed to give you a headline grabbing comparison - I was under the impression I was going to give you the model of the sub I personal find suits my ears better. But whatever you guys say. I'd like to think that I know what sounds best to me between the two more than someone who isn't me, who doesn't know my room specs, and who hasn't heard the same that I've heard. I still stand by what I say in that I don't think (I said think, yes) that there's much here that I don't already have - and that I don't like what I've heard from Klipsch subs from the RSW line to now. I don't hate Klipsch for it, I just don't like what the subs sound like - I didn't know I was overstepping some huge line of logic.

Interesting!! Which Polk subs are you using that you feel would better the Klipsch offerings? I'm using a DSWPRO660 right now that provides bass that better integrates with my RF-3 II towers than any of the recent Klipsch subs. I have a 440 also that's running along side a Jamo system that also compliments them quite well. After about '06 or '07 - I haven't heard a Klipsch sub that I've liked.

It's not so much that I'm a tough person to please (actually I can be), but there's just nothing in this package that would make me want to pick a new Klipsch Reference Sub over the Polk Pro's I already have. I certainly wouldn't drop the money that is being asked for them either. However, I will say that they appear to be in a step in the right direction away from the SW line, I just hope they continue to improve on this and make something comparable to what they used to.

Yeah, no thanks...I'll stick with my Polks. Have not been a fan of the Reference subs since the RSW series.

Those are beautiful looking. Someone's gonna be lucky.

Personally, I'm a fan of Diane Schuur. Especially her album she did with Maynard Ferguson. I melt a bit every time I hear "Just One of Those Things" <3

I'm sure he doesn't...seems like he's just posting it for the sake of saying he posted it. I don't think he really wants to sell it that bad. lol

...so, does anyone know anyone who would actually consider spending this kind of money on a quantity of product like this? Seems crazy to me.

Guy seriously has Hammond B3's?! HOLY HELL!!!...I might have to take out a loan!

I'd think at least an Iowa city or two should have been on there...:\

Well did the wife post a picture of herself? Hard to know if you would want to take advantage without even seeing her.

lol...Wives...whattaya gonna do?

That only applies to the retail outlets such as Verizon, AT&T and Sprint (along with the other carrier stores) - it has no bearing on what stores like Best Buy or RadioShack make on the product.

Honestly...if it's a single digit in the model number, I don't think you can go too far wrong. I've tended to prefer even the 3's over the 82's. Plus...even though a lot of people disagree, I think a speaker looks like a speaker when it has a dust cover on the midrange or woofer, and the old style was just way more sexy. lol

Last I heard the 5's they were a fair bit more efficient and had a little better bass response. That horn though is absolutely beautiful sounding.

LOL! That line makes me think of a brand that shall not be mentioned on this forum. I like eth's comment. Employers tend not to let employees use any of their own discretion anymore these days - and that might contribute to the problem. I know at my job, despite it being corporate run, my manager tells all of us that he is our boss, not the DM, not the RM, he is...and he expects us all to make decisions for ourselves as if it was our own business. That respect goes a long way for many of us.

I've seen profit margins of phones and the accessories. The provider makes money on the contracts and a percentage of the phone. The manufacture takes the rest. There are NO profits on the device itself. Even if you were to buy all of the accessories with a device, the profit would not be any greater than if someone bought say four blu-rays. There is no recurring revenue to be had with cell phones either. At least with printers, you continuously need ink, phones are a one time purchase until 2 years later when you make maybe $38-$56 again - and that barely covers your operating costs. Here's a bit of interesting trivia: During Black Friday (at least in 2010) - RadioShack ran promos on the iPhone 4S down to $119. For every iPhone sold, they lost $40. Even if the customer bought all of the accessories, they lost $10 per device.

Cell phones are extremely high demand items; cell phones fall into the planned obsolescence category with an extremely large, bordering on gargantuan, secondary market for used phones and 'unlocked' phones; and extended warranties for the most part go straight to the bottom line as income for a company with very little offsetting expenses. The problem with that is the market is super saturated with cell phone retail outlets. Even vendor and company stores are over saturated with options these days. There's no profit to be made on the actual devices.

You have to sell what people are buying if you want to stay in business. Profit margins on phones are ridiculously low. Especially when it comes to the Galaxy Phones and iPhones. The only business to be made there is on accessories, and that's a far cry as to what you'd make on pushing other products. To put it another way, for every phone that leaves a store (retail outlet) that doesn't have an accessory, that store barely breaks even.

I want to understand why it is that all of these electronics stores felt the need to jump on the phone bandwagon in the first place - I mean...come on, the carriers carry all of the phones anyway - why would you stick your nose in that business? RadioShack was a nightmare to work for when I did. The emphasis was on selling phones and service plans (why you should CHARGE someone to have a standard warranty, I'll never know). Feh...good riddance if they disappear.