DaveWJr

English please. What will these get me? The Ficar will handle 2 and a half times more power that the SI. It also has more x-max. In real world terms you'll be able to go cleaner, louder and lower with these. The Q is noted for accuracy and cleanness as well. The SI is a better bang for you buck but you said ultimate, not inexpensive. The Q is just a better driver. The Fi Q is a great driver line. I have a 15" D2 here in the office for various prototyping purposes, actually.

Why haven't the manu's dropped Class A/B for the G and D setups? I know Rotel did for a while, but I noticed they have started offering the A/B topos again in their integrated amps. The Benchmark combines Class H and Class A/B technologies with something they call feedforward error correction developed in concert with THX. Again, I dont know a thing about the techology but when reading the info it all seemed to make sense. And once again the proof is in the sound. http://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/news/14680625-the-ahb2-a-radical-approach-to-audio-power-amplification Feedforward error correction is a very slick way to do things if and only if you can model exactly what your device is doing wrong. So for an amp, if you can measure all consistent non-linearities and all bad behavior (since we're being technical, let's call it "muck" ), when you get an input signal, you also input the opposite or inverse version of all of the muck you know the amp produces. In theory then, at the output, the positive muck that was just created and inverse muck (which you already knew would happen) adds together, and you get a perfectly amplified input signal. Of course, it's impossible to fully model any electronic system (particularly near its limits), so the quality of the FF system depends on the accuracy of the "muck" model entirely.

To answer your question, it is impossible.

Whoever said you had to build the whole horn out of one piece? Why not break large items up into small parts, UV bond them together, and then sand, bondo and paint until smooth? We long ago figured out how to exploit the limitations of our machines (yes, there are 2) to grow pretty much whatever we want or need.

In case you guys are wondering, we use stereo lithography (SLA) to 3D print horns, phase plugs, ports & flares, headphone housings, various fixtures, and even complete speaker assemblies. As an example, there is a full size 3D printed sound bar sitting right behind me at the moment, and a SLA'd bluetooth speaker (a prototype GiG) on my desk. The technology is invaluable for us, and we've been using it for many, many years now.

Oh no worries, I'm completely content with his viewpoint. If his preference is for a specific type of component, then that's his perfectly respectable opinion to prefer it. It does not mean, however, that we haven't measured, blind listened to and catalogued the values, tolerances, ESR, ESL and other aspects of insertion loss of about 15 different brands of caps including all those listed thus far and those used in our products. We use what we need to get the most out of our designs. If someone feels that they can get more out of them, then that's their choice. A "higher quality" capacitor or resistor does not imply a better loudspeaker if the original component lets the drivers function as intended.

My good man, I think you misunderstand. Firstly, I hope you realized that I am a loudspeaker engineer for Klipsch who makes said "design decisions". No engineer would ever spec a part of low or poor quality. The crossover is the heart of the speaker, and easily the most important part. Minor changes here and there have massive ramifications. To "upgrade" your speakers with Mills resistors and Auricaps of equivalent value is your prerogative. We will never endorse such a modification, however. To "upgrade" your speakers by changing values means that it is no longer design intent and you've tailored the sound of a Klipsch speaker to something you happen to prefer. That's perfectly fine since everyone has their own taste. This does not make it a better Klipsch speaker. It makes it a speaker using Klipsch parts that you've modded. Either way, that's your call. However, to state that the RF7 with its stock resistors is horribly grainy sound and simply by putting in a different ceramic resistor you can create audio nirvana implies that the people who designed your speaker in the first place are clueless. If the difference is so stark, then we clearly don't know what we're doing otherwise we would have done it in the first place. Alternatively, it could mean that we do know what we're doing, but we knowingly neutered the flagship Reference speaker. Consider that for a moment. You are free to mod, purchase mods and post mods on here at your heart's content. Us engineers are fully aware of the science behind capacitors, inductors and resistors. We don't chose parts that compromise the drivers and cabinets we spend so much time and effort designing. If you hear a large difference using a different resistor, then that's fantastic that you're enjoying your speaker even more. If you like them stock, then that's just as fantastic. Do not assume, however, that we're putting cheap, low quality parts in products that we're proud of. More to the point, do not imply that had we only done what is obvious, that we'd have a far superior product. Trust me, we've got it under control.

Side by side: Mills ceramic resistors vs. "regular" ceramic resistors used in the majority of Klipsch networks. They are both wire-wound, and both have ceramic cores. Both are non-inductive up into the 100s of kHz range (I've personally tested). Tolerance is 1% vs. 2%. Top of the range Mundorf Supreme resistors clocking in at $15-$20 each are ceramic core, wire-wound, 2% tolerance and non-inductive. The biggest thing that changes between resistors is power dissipation. The tiny ones used in the smallest bookshelf speakers are 5W, while the ones used in Palladium are 20W or 25W. They are of the same type as the Mundorfs listed above. Mills resistors are 12W, and the Mundorf Supreme are 20W. As a resistor heats up, it creates more and more of what's called Johnson noise, which is caused by thermal variations. The way to lessen this is to have greater heat dissipation, hence, the use of "high power" resistors in circuits where while you'll never cook the resistor, you want as little noise as possible. Palladium took this approach. By design, all that a crossover component can do is be less detrimental than any other. It cannot improve signal fidelity. Resistors, by virtue of being the most linear of all passive components, have the least effect by far. Inductors are absolutely the most carefully selected ones, yet get the least amount of attention. Changing an inductor of equivalent value but different DCR can quite literally ruin your crossover network and thus speaker performance. All Palladium inductors are air-core and were chosen for a reason. The ones in the P37, 38 and 39 low pass sections are about the diameter of a Nalgene and could double as 1kg bracelets. Just a touch of light on the selection of components in crossover networks.

I myself have a R10B in my bedroom, when I could easily have a complete separates system like I do downstairs. The R10 works very nicely because it's a legitimate improvement and means that watching television in the bedroom no longer means sacrificing sound. Violetgrey is correct in that the R10B is performance first like all of our products. That philosophy does not change with the higher end bars; they simply are able to include more features. Soundbars will not replace discrete component systems. I feel that should be obvious to most people. However, for those pinched for space, a soundbar absolutely is a great option. As I've said many times, we don't release products we aren't confident in. The same acoustic and electronic engineers behind our most expensive products are the same ones who engineer the least expensive ones. This guarantees that what you end up with is something that isn't just out there to be inexpensive. A true engineer does not believe in doing things halfway.

Ideally, you should have 8 subs in a rectangular room: one in each corner which would negate the room mode effects. Reason being, no matter where you put a sub in a room, the corners are always loaded the most strongly. Hence, you instead load all corners as sources, and the net response is the smoothest possible. This might not be feasible for most. I think if you were to actually measure that, you'd find that your statement is false. There's a popular article about ideal subwoofer placement and the eight corners do not remove room modes. Maybe someone not on their phone can post it. The only solution I've seen is the dual zoned bass array. I bet I would as well. Acoustic theory states as such only, hence why I said ideally (and hence why someone actually tested it per your statement). That was not intended to be taken seriously.

This. People can say what they want on this forum, but unless you've heard a pair of these in a large room (trust me when I say our listening rooms are quite sizable), you won't appreciate what they can deliver. The notion of "too much sub" is also false. I tried to get this on our blog since people keep asking if a 115 will match with a set of RP 250Fs. Irrelevant. Even if you have 4, that doesn't mean you'd run them each at the same input voltage as if you had just 1. Ideally, you should have 8 subs in a rectangular room: one in each corner which would negate the room mode effects. Reason being, no matter where you put a sub in a room, the corners are always loaded the most strongly. Hence, you instead load all corners as sources, and the net response is the smoothest possible. This might not be feasible for most. Four subs is easy enough, but 8? Klipsch should sell hangers for ceiling subs. A while back, Carl quoted a research that said 4 subs centered on opposing walls created the best overall listening experience. My question is this. If you have 4 subs, and speaking of room modes, are they better in the 4 floor corners, or centered on opposing walls? In this situation, I would definitely put them equally spaced in such a cross arrangement. That's likely the path to the smoothest in room response since the distance from source to boundary will always be minimized in the dimensions you have control over.

Oh I know, I'm just making sure people know that PWK knew that a horn in itself is not a good thing (ever hear a crappy re-entry horn on a megaphone? Yuck.). A properly designed horn is the only one worth making. JBL's engineers know much the same thing.

Disclaimer: I admit my theory probably has little or nothing to do with the real world and is solely me just being a nerd. I guess I'm hung up on friction at very low levels. Are subs immune to friction? It's a basic law of physics, I'm not sure how they couldn't be. As an example, think about pushing a car by hand while it is in neutral with the engine not running. At first it is hard to get it going, you can push on it lightly and even moderately but it just doesn't move. Once it is rolling it is easier to keep it rolling. Is there nothing in the speaker world where such a phenomenon requires there to be an absolute minimum threshold that they need to actually work correctly, however tiny that may be? I mean, is it even possible to make 30 big 18's whisper at a quiet fan level of around 20 db... combined? I don't see how that would be possible but it may very well be. If it isn't, then there must be some absolute minimum power required to overcome internal friction. Seems like there's got to be anyway, but it may be so miniscule that it can't be heard or even measured effectively. What you are talking about is not actually friction, it's momentum. Momentum (as Newton would like us to know it) is p = m*v, where m is mass and v is velocity. Newton, not coincidentally, also said that F = ma. That means then that your momentum, is p = (F/a) * v. A little reduction shows that the net result is p = F*t, t being in time in seconds. For your car, this means that if you want to bring the car back to a standstill, you need to put in exactly as much effort as you did in the beginning, but if you want to stop it in less time (decelerate, or negative acceleration) aka more quickly than you brought it up to speed, you need to try harder (put in more force). What this means for us speaker people is that accelerating a driver cone like you're accelerating a car from a standstill requires force. Once it is in motion, it does not require further force to keep it in motion (with zero losses, naturally ). Force in the speaker world is BL*i, with i being your input current. So, as long as you have some specific input current and a motor on the speaker (which of course you do), there is no reason why your 30 drivers can't move very little and produce exactly what you're asking. The large number of them just means you don't need a lot of force to create the same SPL. The summing of multiple sources takes care of that. Long story short: there is no such thing as too many subs, and if you vary the input accordingly, they can do what your one sub can do. The opposite is not true.

This. People can say what they want on this forum, but unless you've heard a pair of these in a large room (trust me when I say our listening rooms are quite sizable), you won't appreciate what they can deliver. The notion of "too much sub" is also false. I tried to get this on our blog since people keep asking if a 115 will match with a set of RP 250Fs. Irrelevant. Even if you have 4, that doesn't mean you'd run them each at the same input voltage as if you had just 1. Ideally, you should have 8 subs in a rectangular room: one in each corner which would negate the room mode effects. Reason being, no matter where you put a sub in a room, the corners are always loaded the most strongly. Hence, you instead load all corners as sources, and the net response is the smoothest possible. This might not be feasible for most.

You will find very often that two speakers even having the same frequency response will not sound remotely similar. The reasons for this are innumerable, but the power response tends to be a prominent factor. The power response of the speaker is going to tell you how much sound is put into the room. Your Klipsch setup does not have an inherently "superior" power response, rather, it's much more controlled due to the directivity pattern of the speaker. The Yamaha monitors, however, for all we know could be spraying HF off nearby walls, or are toed in just so that a hotspot in the upper treble hits your ears rather than direct on-axis sound. Too many factors to consider. It's much harder to do this with horns since the acoustic output isn't directly from the transducer, but rather is from the horn mouth. You therefore know quite quickly if the setup is incorrect as the imaging is off. This is both a horn's "piece de resistance", and downfall. Poorly designed horns may have a ragged power response (due to poor loading of the horn). Properly designed ones, however, should let you easily pick out dynamic details that direct radiators may struggle with. Having seen the hand calculations and plots PWK did for his horn designs, I'd say this is definitely something he took quite seriously.

You too? Heh my wordiness is often made fun of at the office. Concise is not my middle name

The RF7 drivers don't have the throw needed to be great as subwoofer drivers. They're optimized for their intended application.

These little cube subs we are seeing from Paradigm and SVS must be using low FS drivers in small packages. What is your position on room mode management? Are more small subs better than fewer large ones? I am asking because it seems like a dream come true for men who are strongly influenced by the WAF. They are indeed low Fs, all ~20Hz from the ones I've measured myself. As far as I'm concerned, if you can even consider "few" large subs, then that's answered the question. I would take 2 15s over 4 10s any day of the week, if that's what you're wondering. Reason being, you'll never have perfect modal control. With 2, you can smooth it out nicely, yet there is never a guarantee that you'll do better than that unless your room is spec built for HT and you have 100% control over placement.

What you guys need to remember about multiple small drivers "equalling" one single larger one in subwoofer design is that air displacement (Xmax * Sd) is not the entire story. Let's use a ported enclosure as an example to keep it simplest. The most basic metric for the rolloff point, or -3dB point (the half-power frequency) is called F3 which I'm sure you know. For a ported enclosure: F3 = [(Vas/Vb) ^0.44] * Fs Vas is the equivalent air compliance of your enclosure (which is a factor of cone area squared), Vb is the net enclosure volume, and Fs is the free air resonance of the driver. Note that this has absolutely nothing to do with port tuning frequency nor should it. This is using simple lumped parameter modeling to determine where the system is at half power. The most important thing to note here is the first part of the equation: no matter what, that part in brackets will always be smaller than Fs. For example, if you have 10000L (over 350 cubic feet ) of Vas and 10L of Vb, that means you've got 21*Fs. No driver and enclosure in the world would exist such as that for a number of reasons (least of which that it wouldn't even be considered a vented system), so it's irrelevant. The ideal Vb is a function of Vas, so you can't cheat the math to get super low extension for free. The point I'm making here is this: the biggest thing then that is going to influence what the F3 is will be the Fs of the driver. Smaller drivers, just due to the fact that they are small, almost always have lower moving masses and are going to have a higher Fs than a larger driver. Even when you can manage to get them to be the same and can put them in multiples to equal the air displacement of a larger driver, that multi driver system would be so inefficient in comparison AND there is no guarantee that the driver compliance, Cms, which also determines Vas and Fs directly, is going to offset the increase in mass. Chances are that it will not, otherwise the driver would be non-ideal in the system (think very high mass on a bouncy spring moving back and forth....cheap car suspension come to mind?). Note that this is not to say that multiple small drivers cannot create great subwoofers compared to one large one. The point of this exercise was just to show that volume of air displaced, even at the same input power, is not the whole story for the system response. Hope that helped a bit.

Ah, got it. I designed a few enclosures for him before he started his own business. He was or perhaps still is a huge fan of using Trupan instead of regular MDF which is fairly unique. Can't find that stuff easily around here. This was many a year ago back in my car audio days.

Wait a minute, are you BJ Fisher from Fisher Customs, or did you purchase one of his enclosures?

Having extra thickness on the baffle is always a good idea. However, flush mounting a subwoofer like you would a tweeter or mid gains you zero acoustic benefit.

*gazes longingly upwards* What I could do with 4 18s in my living room...... ......is get yelled at by my wife

ill assume this was directed at me. never have i said i was an expert about anything. i only speak of my experience. i have only assumed what palladium anything sounded like till about a month ago. then i got to hear the full 37 home theater with the 312 sub. now while not in a super perfect room by any means, i thought it sounded good. so much in fact i am keeping my eye out on the market for a set at a deal price. if it happens it happens. if not then no big deal. these would never replace my cinema gear. but they could be MY perfect living room speaker. i think palladium has its place, and that is for people who want outstanding sounding AND looking speakers. period. while you are right about not knowing the complexity of anything in the sub i do know the mark ups on klipsch speakers. so regaurdless of what i do know i am good at math and to make profit on anything you can only spend X amount of dollars on amp, woofer, radiators, and enclosure. now like i said before, palladiums have their place. and if i could only have one sub in my living room and i had palladiums speaker then no doubt it would be the 312. but until that day comes, in my eyes, DIY reigns supreme and 18" woofers are where its at if you are any way serious about heavy duty LFE. all my opinion of course as always. All I can tell you is that with 100% honesty, the money in Palladium is in the performance. Everything else is secondary. I will also say without hesitation that you will not find drivers of this build quality and complexity in any speaker near Palladium's price. The company was founded on a no BS principle, and that was fundamental to Palladium. I have no reason to lie to you especially since this is a Klipsch forum and I'm in engineering rather than sales or marketing.

Correct, spec'd at only 2 channels driven. Not the 7009 here but the 7008. Marantz SR7008 A/V Receiver Test Bench 2 channels continuously driven, 8 ohms (watts @ 0.1% / 1.0% THD): 122.5 / 148.02 channels continuously driven, 4 ohms (watts at 0.1% / 1.0% THD): 195.4 / 216.8 5 channels continuously driven, 8 ohms (watts at 0.1% / 1.0% THD): 101.2 / 111.5 7 channels continuously driven, 8 ohms (watts at 0.1% / 1.0% THD): 68.8 / 82.2 We must assume that since the 7009 is spec'd the same as the 7008 that they would bench very near the same. Bill I have a cliff-notes version of the below at the end. Something to consider, and probably the biggest differentiator between receivers and seperate amplifiers is the abilty to deliver power to different types of loads. Let's take the 200Wx2 into 4 ohms as an example. A resistive load, which is what that bench result you are referencing is absolute cake for an amplifier. Not all 4 ohms, however, are created equal. A 4 ohm resistor has an impedance phase angle of 0deg which is as ideal as it gets. In the bass region, a loudspeaker will tend to creep towards a capacitive load (neg phase angle), and swing from capacitive to inductive (positive) quickly. This is very important because an amplifier HATES driving a capacitance in particular, and second to that is a wildly varying load. You can't drop power across a pure reactance, so if the load of the speaker is more reactive than a resistor (and all loudspeakers are), then that amplifier is going to be to some degree limited in its ability to supply large amounts of current without strain. Were it to do so with reckless abandon, it could either shut down or go into thermal protect. To put it another way, the receiver would have to work harder to deliver what you're asking it to do, so instead...it just doesn't. It dials back the output so that the output is as clean as possible, but not at the power level on the box. The reason is because that impedance phase angle tells you how much power the amplifier is going to have to dissipate, and as far as your amplifier is concerned, a 45deg angle is the absolute worst situation possible. This is where you have maximum resistive and maximum reactive load at the same time. With a 4ohm load at 45deg, your amplifier is dissipating 2x the power than were it a resistor of the same 4ohm impedance. Angles greater (magnitude is implied) than 45deg imply that you're driving more reactance than resistance. In other words, you're turning more power into heat than delivering it to the speaker. These large angles don't occur frequently and when they do, not often in current hungry frequency bands. You take that same 200W into 4 at 0.1% THD from a proper monoblock (frankly most monoblock manufacturers would be ashamed if their 200W amps could only do so at 0.1% THD) or otherwise solidly constructed and designed amplifier, and that 200W into 4 is going to be available when you need it. These strong amplifiers are made to withstand impedance behavior that a receiver is not. So when you hear that dynamic slam from the monoblock setup in the demo room and you can't get that at home, your receiver simply isn't capable of supplying enough current in a short enough time period. More importantly, it's not designed to nor should it be. The receiver knows that were it to have the output devices and power supply of an equivalent 7 or heck 9 channel 150W/ch separate power amp, then it would have the price to reflect that. The receiver then is no longer a cost effective piece of equipment. Long story short: even if you think you have the same power, that's not the entire story. The speaker connected to the receiver is going to determine just how effective it is at transmitting clean power at high levels. Klipsch speakers in particular are very receiver friendly, but that does not mean that your RF7s and RC64 wouldn't enjoy a bespoke amp.