parlophone1
-
Posts
761 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Events
Gallery
Posts posted by parlophone1
-
-
I have played with positioning of the speakers.
The trouble is that sonic characteristic of the room is probably pretty bad. It is a bedroom. On one side there’s a big closet with huge glass doors, and in the middle of the room is a bed. On the wall opposite of the speakers is big window and door to the balcony (with curtains). Wooden floor (wood on the concrete floor) is covered with carpets. Height to the ceiling is 8,9 feet.
I have tried to draw a quick sketch of the room (don’t laugh) and put some measurements in feet.
I tried various distances between speakers, from 3 to 6,5 feet. I find the best placement to my ears is with speakers 3,2 feet apart. Distance between speakers and the back wall is 1,4 feet. Distance from the speaker to the right wall (as in drawing) is around 3 feet, and a little more to the left wall (because of the entrance door to the room). This provides the most balanced basses with so-so highs (they are bright and sometimes shrill, but not too much and not frequently). The middle tones are in most cases weak. I do not have equipment to measure this but here is an example: Mark Knopflers voice in Private investigations is very weak. It happens on both digital and analog recording. On the phones things get much better. I suspect that bed might absorb some of mid frequencies. I am not sure if there are standing waves. Because of the bed I raised the speakers on wooden boxes (30x30 cm) and put some soft foots bellow them. On top of each box is glued ceramic tile. Tried speakers with and without spikes. With spikes there seems to be a little improvement in clarity and separation of the instruments.
The type of music that I usually listen is a mix of classical, rock, pop and sometimes jazz.
How loud?
My Onkyo TX-8050 has a digital scale from 0-80. I am mostly between 15 and 25. Rarely above 30 because there are tenants around me, and RFs can go pretty loud above 35 on the scale. Some people say that smaller speakers need volume to reveal what they got. There are some owners of Onkyo 8050 that say the same - it has to be pushed a little to give mid frequencies. I tried that and can say there is a little improvement, but not enough that satisfy me.
-
1
-
-
I had my RF42s II speakers in my stereo system for about 3 years now.
Of course I have been thinking about upgrading to the next level, may be to a pair of Heresies. But they are so rare and expensive here. In past 4 years I have seen only one used pair of fairly abused Heresies I in local ads. The prices of new ones are way over those in USA and for the time being, more than I can stretch financially.
But there are some new RF62 II on a discount available locally (for about 850$ a pair).
My question here is should I get them over my 42s?
I understand that bigger sound can be expected from 62s, which I like and can use in my room (15 x 13 feet). But how are 62s sound wise comparing with 42s? I feel that 42s lacks some middle frequencies and basses. I can boost some bass with a knob on my receiver and fiddle with the speaker placement, so I compensate a little. How are 62s in the middle frequencies?
If there are no significant difference in that compartment between 42s and 62s, I am still leaning towards saving the money for Heresies.
Thanks
-
1
-
-
Interesting reading here.
I apologize if breaking the rules (please feel free to delete the post if so), but my (newbie) question here would be if the same advice regarding speaker cables would be valid for RF speaker series. I run my 42s with some standard Cambridge Audio cables. Can I expect any difference in the quality of sound with some other cables mentioned here (i.e. Kord Ultra Flex 10)?
-
1
-
-
The last lens I got was the cheapest Nikon makes, $125 new, 50mm 1.8 and very sharp, on the DX body it works as a 70mm.
This was also one of mine "last" lenses
. I like it very much and use it with all my analog bodies. On motor F80 and F90x bodies it is reasonably quick to focus too. I also like my 50mm 1,8 E-lens, which is optically excellent lens, just 35 years old . Of corse on 35mm bodies it is true 50 mm lens and as sharp as one can be. -
Thank you.
Yes, the Newton glass helps, but for a good scan I still have to depend on a good photo-lab.
Best regards
-
1
-
-
A big Christmas candle on the city square:
-
1
-
-
+1 for colour
-
3
-
-
I think you seek the Yamaha R-N500, a super retro cool receiver (plenty of juice, phono pre, tuner, tone controls, even their rather useful variable loudness control) with the modern touches of an on board DAC and networking (it does Airplay).
This Yamaha network receiver might not be a bad choice at all. I am loving my Yamaha integrated with my RB-75's very much.
or maybe this Onkyo.
I am using the Integra version of this TX-8050 to drive a pair of Heresy II's and could not be more pleased with the sound quality and features. Very neutral tone, great punchy bass, and very detailed.
Bill
I am using Onkyo TX-8050 with my RF42II.
If you go that route, I suggest that you use it in Pure Audio mode. This is by far the best mode in my experience with any source that I put into my receiver. However I am not sure if the result will be the "warm and full" audio experience with RF speakers. Try if possible before buying the receiver. I agree with willand that the sound is detailed.
-
My humble opinion would be - it is a lot of money also.
However, in my current setup combo Receiver-HardDrive-Headphones sound a bit better to my ears than combo Turntable-Phono preamp-Klipsch RF42s. It is probably due to unegsisting room treatment and speaker placement that I cannot change. Better speakers would help.
Headphones (which is where I live), are more revealing and will allow you to hear more of the media, further into the recording. However they loose soundstage which will aid in killing the reality that you are there.....................my current setup
laptop using J-River with 30000 lossless files, centrance dacmini cx, Kenzie headphone amp, HiFiman HE500 headphones. supremely revealing with great extension, thunderous in your head bass, I hear more detail than ever before. And yet I miss the soundstage
I dont feel like headphones nor speakers are a replacement for the other, I believe they each have there strengths and for a balanced approach to music enjoyment (FOR ME) both are needed
I agree on everything you wrote. My Beyerdynamics reveal more details than speakers in my current setup. They also give better soundstage (wider, deeper, better instruments placement etc...).
I do not know exactly what RF42-II are capable of regarding the soundstage, but based on what I heard from people who know about speakers, I cannot expect miracles from 42s. Thus Beyerdynamics win in that respect.
Not ot enter into discusion headphones vs. speakers but just for argument sake, the situation regarding that would probably change with better speakers. For example, I auditioned speakers that a guy in neighbourhood designed and built himself. They were up-firing woofer design. The detail and soundstage on a pair of those was just unbelievably good. We are talking about 30.000$ worth speakers here. Only the speaker’s cable must have cost more than my entire system. That is why I mentioned price in my post.
My headphones are almost as accurate on amount of details presented via those speakers but the soundstage was a whole different story.
-
My humble opinion would be - it is a lot of money also.
However, in my current setup combo Receiver-HardDrive-Headphones sound a bit better to my ears than combo Turntable-Phono preamp-Klipsch RF42s. It is probably due to unegsisting room treatment and speaker placement that I cannot change. Better speakers would help.
-
I rip my CDs via EAC (still riping
) on my 1TB Toshiba external USB hard drive. Losless or FLAC. It goes directly into my Onkyo TX-8050 receiver which plays both formats (and many more) via USB input. I am listening usually through my Beyerdynamic headphones. The time will come eventually when I will set up home network. It will be easier to browse through the files then via receivers remote controler.
-
The guy that performed alignment on my turntable used this Pro-ject digital scale (http://www.project-audio.com/main.php?prod=measureit2&cat=accessories〈=en).
It was very easy to use. But at the same time, I was amazed how accurate is manual alignment on my Philips 212 because we first aligned it manualy and than rechecked with electronic scale.
-
On our local vinyl market it can happen that some guys quickly buy all reissues of rare LPs released in small numbers, just to be able to resell it soon at much higher prices.
-
A new 180 gram vinyl (de luxe edition)
Eagles Hotel California
(reissue from original mastertapes)
-
3
-
-
Nice...
here is one taken a few days ago
... old trusty Nikon FE loaded with Agfa positive 35mm film, just had it developed and scaned.
-
1
-
-
Cofee...
-
5
-
-
I used to have a Philips 212. I wish I had kept it and refurbished it.
Bruce
Thank you Bruce, I am happy I have this old baby. Mine 212 is also refurbished. If "refurbishing" mean replacing the worn out ON/OFF switch, replacing the belt which became sticky mass after 40 years of usage, and regular cleaning and cartridge replacement/alignment. The light switches are still ok.
Here is a view from our yard:
-
1
-
-
My Philips:
For now I am using mostly analog equipment. This one is taken with Nikon FE (1982) and Nikkor 50mm f1,4 Auto (1970) on a cheep Fuji negative film.
-
1
-
-
First of all, I am new to this forum.
Did not find a thread to introduce myself, so sorry if I brake the rules by posting here.
And I also asked myself the same question when trying to build my first LP system.
Went around some local audio-shops, and soon realised that decent TTs are pretty expensive for my budget. I do not like to buy used gear without checking it in person first.
Turned my attention to local ads and found one decent looking Philips 212. Picked it up and had it serviced by a good technician. Then I found a guy that has original Philips cartridges and bought one with elliptical stylus. Set it all up and aligned the tone arm. After a while I realised that my phono stage on Onkyo receiver is not really a state of the art, and bought a good phono-preamp. Sounds good to me now and that should last for some time...
-
Happy to see more Klipsch in Europe.
The import taxes, customs duties etc. are adding a great deal on prices here (of course depending on the country).
For example, I paid for a pair of RF42s equivalent of more than 600$ and that was discounted :-(.
And as for heritage reviews, I am sure this one is somewhere on the forum (http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/klipsch-heresy-iii-loudspeaker/).
. I like it very much and use it with all my analog bodies. On motor F80 and F90x bodies it is reasonably quick to focus too. I also like my 50mm 1,8 E-lens, which is optically excellent lens, just 35 years old 
. Of corse on 35mm bodies it is true 50 mm lens and as sharp as one can be.
Should I upgrade from RF42 II to RF 62 II
in 2-Channel Home Audio
Posted
Thanks for the advice. Will do