adam2434

How cheap is cheap? This is the cheapest one I can think of: http://audioengineusa.com/Store/Wireless/W3-Wireless-Audio-Adapter The transmitter connects to the PC via USB (you have to select it as the audio output device in the PC) and the receiver has a 1/8" analog output to connect to a receiver/amp. It supports up to 16 bit / 48 kHz resolution, so good enough for youtube and CD-derived music files.

Unless you're a trivia buff and just want to know, that's irrelevant to your purchase. Just curious to see how they hold their value vs. today's adjusted dollar value. Also curious to know how their retail price compares to today, adjusted for inflation.

Thanks for the input. The guy is asking $1,200 for the pair, so that seems very high based on the replies above. Current CW III are $4,400 a pair. Anyone know the original price of CW II in the 1980's?

I may take a look at a local pair of Cornwall II for sale. What's a fair price, assuming they are in working condition with fair cabinets (let's say same scratches and maybe some dings)? I have zero experience with the Heritage models. Thanks.

I had a TX-8050 for a while and thought it performed very well for the money. It's my go-to reco for a simple/inexpensive 2-channel system that needs digital inputs.

For the TV and computer, it's best to use a digital connection, so you would need a receiver/integrated with digital inputs or a separate DAC to handle the digital audio. For example: TV - optical output Computer - USB audio output (or optical if it's a Mac) What source components are connected to the TV, and what type of computer to you have?

If you're willing to go used, the Rotel RX-1052 is an excellent stereo receiver option. They retailed for $900 a few years ago. I'm using one in a secondary system, and have been very happy with it powering several different floorstanding models. Here's an example: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Rotel-RX-1052-AM-FM-Stereo-Audio-Radio-Tuner-Receiver-/391376901043?hash=item5b1fe193b3:g:RZsAAOSwT~9WiFQm

Got a pair of RB-81 II for the workout room. I like to check out the internals of new speakers, and thought I’d post a couple pics and observations, as well a couple questions. It’s nice to see that they have a cross-brace. No electrolytic capacitors in this view of the crossover. Is it possible that some components, including electrolytics, are mounted on the other side of the board? The front baffle is around 7/8” thick. The woofer and tweeter magnets are pretty robust. For comparison, the tweeter magnet is about the same size as the 5” midrange magnet from an Infinity SS-2005 that I have apart. The woofer magnet is about twice as big as the Infinity’s 8” woofer magnet. Overall, I think the RB-81 II has pretty darn good build/parts quality, except for the plastic binding post nuts. I’ve seen a couple horn-damping mods on Reference Series horns. When I had a RB-81 II open yesterday, I wondered about whether a heavy layer of silicone-based adhesive or RTV would dampen the horn and have a positive impact on sound quality. Thoughts?

A little over 8 years I ripped some reference tracks to flac and A/B’d them to the same tracks played from the original CD via my transport. I ran a 75 foot digital coax cable from my PC to my DAC and connected the CD transport via optical to the same DAC. I cued up the same track and switched DAC inputs on the fly. I could never tell a difference between the two, even trying intently with my wife (graciously) switching DAC inputs randomly. This convinced me to rip my whole CD collection to flac over the next few months. I later ran the same experiment with a Squeezebox, and then later with a Sonos Connect, using their optical output to DAC and the CD transport coax to DAC. Same result – I could not tell streamed flac from CD after numerous attempts. YMMV, but with my gear and ears, streamed flac files and the original CD tracks using the same DAC sound identical. I still have all of my CDs and sometimes will play one. However, having the whole library at your fingertips with the Sonos interface is so convenient, and for me, is not a compromise to sound quality. Funny side note is that my 20 year old daughter has commented that she likes the tactile experience of playing actual CDs.

I like the retro Heritage looks combined with the modern connectivity/functionality - pretty hip and unique. I'd like to know more about that 2.1 desktop system...

Been using Spotify Premium for about 6 months to supplement our flac library. It's a lot a fun and I have no complaints on the sound quality. We're using Spotify Premium in the following ways: Sonos Connect to Emotiva DC-1 DAC in the main system. PC to Emotiva DC-1 DAC in the secondary system. Sonos Play 5 in the kitchen. Pioneer A4 wireless speaker in the bedroom via Spotify Connect. I think it's well-worth $10/month. It's very fun to have Spotify Premium for get-togethers and parties, as well as for music discovery.

OP, I would not sweat this. Replacing the driver should take about 10 min, and as long as it's the same part #, you will be good to go. I've personally had to replace a few drivers and tweeters on new speakers over the years (not Klipsch). It's not a big deal and I don't think about it once it's done.

The DSP would go after whatever preamp you use to switch all the stuff you just listed. I was looking at the digital input models because I don't want the signal to go through an A/D and D/A conversion after my DAC. I would want the DSP'd signal to be fed to my DAC so that my DAC is the only D/A conversion in the chain. I need to do more research and ask some questions on the miniDSP forum.

OK, thanks. Perhaps my perception of CD is limited. On the RB-81 ii, the diaphragm is flush with the horn (like a horn loaded tweeter). On other CD's I've seen, a screen over the CD exit is visible, but the diaphragm is further back in the CD assembly.

I have been thinking about DSP-based room EQ a bit, but need to do some more research into options. I do not plan to switch to an AVR, so would be looking at stand-alone hardware like miniDSP, although their units are a bit of an investment. Also, I'm not sure if they have a unit that has enough digital inputs for my needs (need USB, coax, and optical inputs to cover all my sources).

Based on photos of the RB-81 ii tweeter, and assuming the link below is accurate, the RB-81 ii uses a tweeter, not a compression driver, right? http://reconingspeakers.com/product/klipsch-rf82-rf62-rb81-rb61-rs62-sii-tweeter/

I can't do much with the room, since it is a family room (secondary system) and I'm already pretty fortunate that my wife does not have issues with increasingly larger speakers flanking the TV, given that I already have a dedicated media room/bar/man-cave in the basement. I agree that the speakers are closer than ideal. I can separate them about another 12" and can play with toe. Regardless of the room specifics/issues, the RP-280F sound much brighter than the other speakers mentioned above in this same room/position.

Does the 81ii have a compression driver or just a tweeter? The product descriptions I've read are not consistent on this. Also wondering if anyone has done a 81ii vs. 75 comparison. Based on some of the specs, seems like the 75 is the beefier of the two.

Here's a shot of the room. The pic is taken about 20' from the speakers. The room extends about 33' behind into an informal carpeted dining area and kitchen beyond that. We have a leather trunk in front of the couch. I can try putting some blankets over that the next time I do some critical listening.

Arrow#422, what are the mods you mentioned in post #5? Are their known mods for the RP series to tame brightness? mattSER, I have around 50 hours of moderate to high level break-in on the 280s. I figured that break-in would be complete by now. Maybe not? Also, with current toe-in, they are 10.5" from the back wall on the inside back corner of the speaker, and 12" from back wall on the outside back corner. I feel this is already pretty close to the back wall. Another positive with the 280s is the solid center image they generate. It's much better than the Energy RC-70 and Def Tech BP10B in this system/location. This is only a 2-ch system, but I notice that dialog is nicely locked to the TV screen with the 280s due to their solid center image.

Great question. I have never tried the Polk's in this room with this amp, but I have tried the RC-70 in the basement system, and had the same dark impression of them with the basement system/room. If anything, I expect the secondary system room (where I'm using the RP-280F) to be a darker-sounding room given that it is about 2x the size of the basement room and has more high frequency absorbing materials (more plush furniture and more carpeted area).

I have played with toe-in a bit, from zero toe-in to intersection at the MLP to just behind the MLP. I have the same brightness perception at all toe-in angles. These are the first horn-loaded tweeters I have owned. What are the general guidelines to toe-in to reduce brightness, more or less toe-in? The Polk LS90 in the main rig are my reference for high frequency balance. They sound "right" to me, and are generally considered to be relatively forward-sounding speakers. I feel the RP-280F with -2 treble attenuation have a similar high frequency balance to the Polk's in the basement,.

Hi, first post, and just got my first Klipsch speakers last week, RP-280F. I’ve owned (and currently own) many speaker brands over the years and wanted to give Klipsch a try. The RP-280F are for a secondary 2-ch A/V system powered by a Rotel RX-1052 (100 w/ch stereo receiver from ’08). All sources are handled by an Emotiva DC-1 DAC. The speakers are used for music, concert videos, TV, and movies. I also have Energy RC-70 and Def Tech BP10B for the secondary system. The main rig is in the basement theater room. For reference, I find the RC-70 to be a bit too dark sounding and lacking detail. The BP10B sound balanced to me, but I’m not crazy about the diffuse, bipolar presentation. I find the RP-280F to be very dynamic, but too bright unless I turn the Rotel’s treble down to -2 (-2 dB at 10 kHz). Without treble attenuation, they can be piercing at higher volumes. My wife, who never comments on audio, even commented on this. They have great vocal clarity and are engaging, but just too bright without reducing the treble. I hate using tone controls. For those who have heard the RP-280F and RF-7 II, how do their high frequency compare? Are the RF-7 II as bright as the RP-280F? The clarity and dynamics of the RP-280F have me curious about stepping up to the RF-7 II, but only if their high frequencies are a bit tamer than the RP-280F. Thanks.