adam2434
-
Posts
301 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Events
Gallery
Posts posted by adam2434
-
-
11 hours ago, MetropolisLakeOutfitters said:
For whatever it's worth and for whoever didn't see this from a couple days ago elsewhere, I measured the RF-7II and 7III in an apples to apples comparison recently. I had the microphone close to the horn, I backed it up to the listening position, I even took them outside, always the same amp, same position, same settings, same everything. No matter what I did, there was always a significant bump in the response at 1.8-1.9 khz on the RF-7II comparatively. Certain Tom Petty riffs were more annoying and twangy on the 2's, maybe due to that spike in the low treble I mentioned.
More importantly, literally everything above about 5.5 khz had a pretty solid 3 usually 4 db boost on the RF-7II. String attacks, cymbal shimmers, strings strapping the frets, all were significantly brighter on the RF-7II. If there was no material up there it sounded normal, pretty similar. Some voices were nearly identical between the two. Bass measured very similarly. There was a dip around 420 hz on the RF-7II which is right where a calculated standing wave ought to be, and isn't there on the 3's probably due to the slanted internal baffle, which I thought was interesting. I'd be surprised if all that on the top end was distortion artifacts.
I must have missed your original post on this.
Did you post frequency response plots in a different thread?
Would love to see the II and III plotted on the same graph for each mic scenario.
Very interesting and thanks for doing this!
Your measurements might explain why I feel that I need a couple dB of treble knob reduction on the II's, but can run the III's with tone controls flat, and they sound balanced in the higher frequencies.
BTW, Mark H. at AVS has a pair of III's in for a pro review. He has not posted the review yet.
-
Thanks for the posts on the dual chamber cabinet.
If I understand correctly, 1 woofer in a 1x volume box does not have to sacrifice extension and output vs. 2 woofers in a 2x volume box.
My initial impression of the III's is that the bass is a little leaner than the II's. Take this with a grain of salt, though. I did not do back-to-back A/B listening. I just plopped the III's were the II's were previously. Perhaps, I was just hearing a bit tighter bass. I will have to listen more...
I am running tone controls flat with the III's. The II's need a bit a treble reduction in my room/system. So far, the III's have not produced any of the sharpness that the II's do as the volume is pushed.
From the photos above, looks like the cabinet is divided in half by the baffle, and there are windowpane braces at around 1/4 and 3/4 of the cabinet height. Maybe there is more to the cabinet internals that can't be seen in the photos above. Seems like the windowpane braces and baffle (also acting as a brace) would make for a super-solid cabinet in terms of resonance.
Assuming the RF-7 II also has a couple similar windowpane braces, I wonder how the III gained 10 lbs...interior baffle and bottom plinth adding up to 10 lbs perhaps?
-
Got a pair if RF-7 III's late last week. Currently also own RF-7 II's
I'm curious about the III's dual chamber design.
Does anyone know if each woofer has its own completely sealed chamber (besides the port of course)?
Or, do they share the cabinet volume to some degree?
If each woofer has its own enclosure, the volume would be small compared to the volume for the bass drivers in the RF-7 II.
Wouldn't a smaller volume reduce bass output and/or extension vs. the RF-7 II?
Don't have a clear understanding of the design and physics of the dual chamber design, so curious...
-
Very unique-looking and cool veneer.
Curious about the solder joints - how would the cruddy looking joints impact sound quality? Are we talking about a total lack of electrical connection, or high resistance, or something else?
Just curious...
-
Did you compare the stock II's and III's with tone controls flat?
Regarding the III's, smoother highs and more balanced sound vs. the II's is what I took away from the video. Were these III improvements the consensus from all, independent of track and volume level?
Are you keeping the III's? That will be a telling sign.
Thanks for doing this and posting the video.
-
This is just a curiosity.
Anyone know the crossover topology for the RF-7 II?
Based on crossover photos, I count 4 inductors, 4 capacitors, and 3 resistors.
4th order on the highpass and lowpass, perhaps?
Just curious...
-
Nice pics!
I wonder why Klipsch didn't simply include the RF-7 II screw-in feet and spikes, perhaps in black rather than copper. Stick-on rubber pads on a speaker of this cost and size is ridiculous.
-
1
-
-
Yes, curious about RF-7 II vs. RF-7 III comparison in 2-channel context, after some break-in for the III's.
And have fun moving those around your rooms!
-
On 1/26/2018 at 3:01 PM, JohnA said:
Adjust the sub calibration to 3 or 5 dB higher than the mains. The RS meter is less sensitive at low frequencies. For my setup, 5 extra db sounds good, 5 more is "impressive".
I've been reading up on this lately. Actually, because the RS meter is less sensitive at low frequencies, the reading displayed by the meter is lower than the actual SPL.
So, if for example, the sub's test tone is a 40-80 Hz rumble, and one calibrates to 75 dB along with the other channels, the sub will will actually be 1-2 dB hotter than the other channels. So, if one wanted to calibrate the sub and other speakers to the same level, the sub level would need to be reduced 1-2 dB.
These articles get into this:
https://www.svsound.com/pages/faqs#faq__frequency-response-measurements
-
21 hours ago, Chief bonehead said:
You don't need the parameters. All you need is me saying that the drone in the III will work in the ii. That's all.
Just to clarify, does this mean that the Forte III drone will work in the Forte II, Chorus II, or both?
The Forte III and Forte II drone have the same KD-15 part number.
The Chorus II drone is KD-16, so not sure what the difference is.
-
Is that a melted coil on each crossover?
If so, wow, never seen that!
DC from a bad amp perhaps?
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, MetropolisLakeOutfitters said:
I have A/B'ed the 160's with KEF Mini Monitors. The Klipsch won.
LS50?
If so, wow, those are $1,500/pr MSRP!
I think the Canton Vento stand mounts are around $1,500/pr MSRP too.
I owned the RP-280F for a while, but found them overly bright, and upgraded to RF-7 II, which are still a bit bright, but less so. All just my opinion...
I heard that the 160 are less bright (more balanced) than the RP floor standers. If so, I wonder why different models in the same line would have different voicing?
-
13 hours ago, miliellie111 said:
Update: All is well. Receiver caused distortion to RF7’s it was getting too hot. Pulled a little farther out from cabinet and kept doors open also turned on ECO mode. Playing loud all day long and no distortion at high volumes. This Denon X6200 is a workhorse and sounds great.
If the AVR is still getting hot, you can place one of these fans over the heat sink and output transistors where you feel the most heat. The fan will draw heat up and out of the unit.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00G05A2MU/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o07_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
Nice AVR, by the way.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, miliellie111 said:
The Denon X-6200 arrived from Accesories4Less. Do I need more power? I was listening to some pretty demanding instrumental and vocal tracks for over an hour around -5db and began to hear distortion from the tweeters. Should I have gone for the X7200, or do the RF7-‘s need more power and can anyone recommend a good external amp around $500?
Thanks
Just curious...any idea of the SPL in dB where you heard distortion?
I once tested our RF-7 II's up to 106 dB peaks at 12 feet with music, and there was no audible distortion. That was louder than I would ever listen.
Also, were you using any EQ or treble boost?
-
I have never seen the RF-7 III in person, but currently own RF-7 II and previously owned RP-280F (both in black).
I personally prefer the looks of the RF-7 II due to the shorter grill and veneer on the front. If I saw RF-7 III in person, it's possible that I would change my mind.
No doubt that the RF-7 II in black are "big black boxes", in a stately monolith kind of way, IMO.
I do wonder if the RF-7 III are as stable as the RF-7 II on thick carpet/padding, given that the III does not have the outriggers on the back. The II's are the most stable floorstander on carpet that I've ever owned - rock solid with no wobble. I think much of this is due to the skinny spikes that penetrate through the carpet and padding, helped by the sheer weight of the speakers. I would imagine that the outriggers add to the stability too.
-
All's well that ends well!
-
The RF-7 II came out in 2010, I believe.
I wonder if Chris P. also had a hand in the RF-7 II design.
I'm also curious about the design goals for the III vs. the II...like was Klipsch trying to improve frequency response "flatness" and some other specific parameters.
My personal experience is that the II's need some treble reduction when the volume is pushed. I'm running them with a Rotel RX-1052 stereo receiver, so only have the treble knob for adjustment. I am curious whether the III's would need this same treble reduction in our system/room, as well as other sonic advantages over the II's.
-
8 minutes ago, MetropolisLakeOutfitters said:
The RF-7III was slightly more of a team effort. An engineer named Chris something that starts with a P who I believe is from England did them for the most part, but then Rob Standley the VP as well as Kerry Geist the product manager helped tweak it. It's primarily all Chris tho. He is never on social media so nobody outside of Klipsch really knows who he is.
The Chris Perrins cited here I would assume - worked on the Palladiums and previously for KEF.
http://www.klipsch.com/news/engineers-behind-the-klipsch-palladium-series
-
1
-
-
I use the pre-made Mogami Gold XLR cables between my DAC/pre and Amp. I have almost zero hiss/noise from the tweeters with this set-up...very clean signal transfer.
Certainly cheaper to build your own with the materials linked by Coytee, but still worth the money for the pre-made ones, especially compared to boutique cables.
https://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/GoldStu06
-
We've had the Spotify Premium family plan for a few years, and I can't imagine being without it.
Great way to supplement your music collection, and for a lot of folks, it's the only music source they will ever need.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, AsD said:
AVR? No i have a Rotel Ra-1592 at the moment. I am however thinking about changing it out with a pair of bridged NC502 .
Jeez, how what kind of SPL level are you looking for?
I can't imagine the RA-1592 not having enough power for RF-7 II's, even at very high SPL in a large room.
Heck, my 100 w/ch Rotel RX-1052 can power my RF-7 II's to higher SPLs than I can tolerate in an 18'x50' area. Had an empty house one night shortly after buying them, and pushed the volume to 105-107 dB peaks from the 12' listening position with some concert blurays. That was too loud for extended listening.
-
Congrats!
RF-7 II's are monsters...in a good way.
-
17 hours ago, Hasty said:
Yes, using a PC as a source and a S.M.S.L. or Emotiva DAC via USB. Those are the two DAC's I've got. I'll look into the foobar software.
EAC is good free software for ripping CDs to FLAC.
I think Foobar also has a plug-in for ripping to FLAC
As mentioned my tromprof, JRiver is a popular choice for both ripping and playback. I believe it costs around 50 bucks.
-
8 hours ago, red1302 said:
Thank you Willand, Adam,and everyone else for weighing in on this . The suggestions and thoughts are much appreciated.
Make a decision?
How to burn CD collection to FLAC
in Lounge
Posted
I used EAC to rip about 1000 CDs to FLAC in '07. Took a couple months to do it.
Because it is so time consuming for a large library, I highly recommend keeping a back-up of all FLAC rips in a separate location/building.
Used a Squeezebox Classic originally for playback, but now use a Sonos Connect (digital out to DAC).