adam2434

Yep, that is their TOTL conventional, all-analog 2-ch pre. I'm hoping that, someday, Emotiva and others will offer a 2-ch pre with several digital inputs, analog inputs, and DSP for bass management/channel level/channel distance, and perhaps even AV sync (audio delay). Of course, one could use a multi-channel pre/pro or AVR for this, but it would be cool to see 2-ch model minus all the codecs, bells, and whistles that are not needed for 2-ch. The Parasound P5 is the closest I know of...but the bass management is analog, no L/R ch level, no ch delay, and no AV sync (which would be helpful when integrating with a 2-ch A/V system). It could also use some more digital inputs.

Are you looking to use your PC as a source, perhaps via USB to a DAC? Or, are you looking for an outboard device to connect to an audio system, using wifi or a LAN cable to access music files and streaming services? If you want to play directly from your PC, Foobar is good free software to play music files. If your music is mostly CDs, you can rip them to FLAC files (lossless compression) to maintain the original fidelity. Streaming services like Spotify Premium can be used for high quality streaming from the internet to your PC or an outboard streaming device. Personally, I use a Sonos Connect to play FLAC files on my PC (ripped from my CDs) and to stream Spotify Premium. The Connect is connected to my network via LAN cable. Its digital coax output is connected to my DAC.

Thing about the Emotiva PT-100 that I noticed is...where are the guts? Very sparse innards and tiny power supply based on the interior pic on the website. The sound quality is what matters though, and seems like the owners above are happy with its performance for the money. It would be cool if Emotiva (and others) made a slightly more upscale 2-ch preamp with analog and digital inputs and digital bass management with crossover/level/delay settings similar to those in AVRs and pre-pros.

Here is a new option. https://emotiva.com/product/pt-100/

OK, caps remained stock and only resistors were upgraded to Mills. Got it. Mills resistors are great quality, and I have used them in the past crossover refresh work. Do you believe the sound is much better/different with the Mills? I have never replaced them in a single variable context (always combined with capacitor replacements), so I have not been able to assess an improvement independently. Also, I listened to the demo with ATH-M50x headphones and have similar impressions to what I posted above. The additional thing I noticed with headphones is that bass transients seemed more pronounced (and maybe more detailed) with the Forte III.

Listening on my PC with $10 thrift store Bose 141 (don't laugh...ok, laugh ), the RF-7 II sound brighter and more open in the highs, and the Forte III have a more prominent midrange, but sound a little more boxy on these cheap Bose. I need to watch the video using my RF-7 II. Youthman, do your RF-7 II crossovers just have upgraded parts, or were any values changed?

100 dB at 11 ft with pretty low distortion from a 5.25" woofer bookshelf speaker is pretty damn impressive. Did you listen to music at this level? If so, how did they hold up? Do the woofers bottom out at this level? I've owned numerous pairs of 5.25" and 6.5" woofer bookshelf speakers over the years, and many of them could not handle peaks in the mid 90's dB from around 12 ft. The woofers would bottom out and pop on some music. Some could not even handle 90 dB peaks at 12 ft.

Congrats! Looking forward to the comparison vs. your RF-7 II, especially if you are able to crank the volume during the comparison. Tonal balance comparison at higher volume interests me personally, as I feel that the RF-7 II can sound a bit sharp at higher volumes with flat tone controls, at least in our room. Given that the mid and high drivers are so much lower on the FIII's, I wonder if that also will have an impact on perceived tonal balance, as well as soundstage height.

I would not tolerate dents on a $300/pair of new A-stock bookshelf speakers, let alone $4,200/pair speakers. I have a pair of RF-7 II with B-stock veneer, which were discounted 40% vs. A-stock retail price. I was expecting some type of obvious flaw, but they are perfect and I honestly do not understand why they were designated as B-stock. My point is that Klipsch must have high standards for the veneers in Hope, but somehow your second pair of Cornwalls were not held to a high standard, assuming they left the factory that way. If the dent was in the veneer prior to finishing, it should have been rejected. If the dent was created after veneer finishing, it should have been caught in final inspection, assuming there is a final inspection. There was probably foam protection in the package over the ding area, right? If so, I would eliminate shipping damage as a possibility.

I was powering them with a Rotel RB-1582 MKII (200 w/ch) fed directly by an Emotiva DC-1 Dac/pre via XLR cables. There are no tone controls with this set-up, so bass was not boosted in any way. One of the tracks that the 530's struggled with (bottomed out) is Delbert McClinton's "Watchin the Rain". This song has a strong simultaneous kick drum and bass line. I've had other bookshelf speakers that struggle with this track, but at significantly higher volume. I've also owned a few bookshelf speakers that have no issues with the track at higher volumes. Regardless, I think that a highpass filter at 80-100Hz and using a sub would likely eliminate the issue.

I had a pair of 530's a while back. I felt they were very balanced and had great resolution for the money. However, they had a major issue and I returned them. In 2-channel with no sub, the woofers would bottom out and pop at moderate volume. I'm talking mid-upper 80's dB peaks at 12 feet, so not very loud. And this was with music with bass guitar and kick drum, not rap or something with heavy synthesized bass. I never tried them highpassed with a sub because that's not the kind of system they were going into. However, I would guess that the issue would not be present when they are highpassed with a sub, especially in surround channels.

Are you going to be able to inspect the replacement pair before getting them home?

One of my Forte 1 midrange horns has this to a degree - the bottom left corner of the horn is raised a couple mm from the baffle. The screws are tight and will not turn anymore, so tightening the screws may do nothing in your case. See what Klipsch has to say. They may or may not consider it a manufacturing defect. I assume they have manufacturing tolerances for horn/driver flushness.

Wow, and the II's are a real witch to move already!

"Buy both"...OK. Unrealistic wishful thinking...but it would have been cool if the new horn and CD were able to be retrofit into the RF-7 II. However, the crossover point is a little higher for the III though, 1300 Hz vs. 1200 Hz. According to the spec sheet, the III is 10 lbs heavier! If this is true, that's a pretty significant weight gain. I guess the new dual chamber design adds some lumber weight.

Sweet! Any impressions vs. the RF-7 II and Forte III? Forte III are the same price, I believe, so very curious about how they compare in a 2-channel context. I own RF-7 II and Forte I, both used in a 2-channel context. Both can be a bit sharp when the volume is pushed, IMO, so curious about how the RF-7 III and Forte III sound as the volume is pushed, say to peaks in the upper 90's dB at the listening position.

The risers are platforms bolted to sheetrock-covered studs, and have 2x4 legs in the front. The other side of the wall is in the finished portion of the basement and also has sheetrock. With the addition of a little framing and some plywood, I can cover the front and sides of the platforms, which would totally enclose them. Listening is 90% standing up , when my son or I am using exercise equipment ,or I am messing with something on the workbench. I have been thinking about investing in a calibrated mic and REW. It would be very interesting to understand how our various speakers are performing in different rooms in the house. It would also be cool to understand the impacts of speaker placement, toe, enclosing the Forte I risers, etc. My only reservation with REW, is that the results could send me down the rabbit hole of trying to "fix" the response in multiple rooms/systems.

garcyrc, are you aware of any specific data on the cavity effect? I'm wondering if PWK ever published data on this. I'd like to understand it better, as I do not have a good grasp on the physics. It's clear that boundary effect is increased when a speaker is on the floor. If the speaker is raised, the boundary effect is reduced. Is this what PWK meant in point 5? However, if a speaker were raised on a solid stand (no cavity), the boundary effect would not change vs. being on legs (or would it?), and the speaker would not perform as if it were on the floor, right? This is relevant to my Forte I, which are on ~24" risers/legs to get the tweeters closer to ear level when standing in the unfinished portion of my basement. I would consider enclosing the risers to eliminate the cavity, if that were known to improve the bass performance.

Glad you learned about this guy's "issues" before you went to check them out.

Based on the size and design of the passive radiators, those are actually Forte II, right?

In the case of a sealed speaker with a selected crossover point where the speaker starts to roll off, the result would be a summed 24 dB high pass slope, when using bass management in an AVR or processor, so this would be a combination of acoustic and electric for the highpass (12 dB from the speaker and 12 dB from the AVR or processor). The low pass would be an electronic 24 dB slope provided by the AVR or processor. From what I understand, ideally you would want a symmetrical slope on both sides of the sub/main crossover, and the above is a way to achieve that. The article I linked above gets into this, if you are interested. If AVRs, processors, or outboard DSP allowed one to apply a 24 dB high pass (and some do), then one would have more flexibility to achieve the symmetrical 24 db high and low pass filter for the sub/main crossover. The erratic room-dependence of low frequencies may totally swamp any benefits of a symmetrical 24 dB slope anyway...bigger fish to fry type of thing when it come to bass frequencies. Anyway, I feel I've beaten this dead horse enough. I feel like I've been a bit misunderstood, but that's ok, no worries.

I've been talking about 80 Hz crossover because that is pretty typical for bookshelf speakers. The point I have been trying to make would apply to other crossover frequencies too. With a book shelf speaker, much lower than an 80 Hz crossover and you aren't relieving the speaker and amplifier of much bass burden. With a crossover above 80 Hz, you can start to have localization from the sub. Let me again run through some basic assumptions and see where I may be off. 1) With speakers set to small, AVR and processors generally apply a 12 dB/octave high pass filter and a 24 dB/octave low pass filter at the chosen crossover point (I know my Outlaw processor does, for example). 2) These AVR and processor slopes are a legacy of the THX standard, which assumed a sealed speaker that started its acoustic 12 dB/octave roll off at the crossover frequency. The goal was to achieve a perfect, symmetrical 24 dB/octave 4th order Linkwitz/Riley crossover free from phase shift at the crossover point. THX speakers from companies like M&K were designed with this in mind, for example a sealed design that starts to roll off at 80 Hz to enable a 24 dB/octave slope when combined with the 12 dB/octave slope applied by the AVR or processor. Here's a good article on this: http://hometheaterhifi.com/volume_12_2/feature-article-slope-troubles-6-2005.html So, let's stop here with a couple questions. 1) Does one agree that a symmetrical 24 dB/octave 4th order Linkwitz/Riley crossover free from phase shift is ideal for sub blending? If the answer is no, then let's discuss why. 2) Does one have the ability to implement a 24 dB/octave electronic high pass filter with their AVR, processor, or other DSP program? If the answer is no, then how does one achieve a 24 dB/octave 4th order Linkwitz/Riley crossover free from phase shift? The answer is a sealed speaker that starts to roll off at the chosen crossover frequency. And back to my original question, why aren't more companies offering sealed speakers that are more optimized for sub blending with typical 12 dB/octave high pass filters in AVRs and processors, and trading bass extension for potentially higher sensitivity. The trading bass extension for sensitivity thing is not an area where I can expound much, because it is pretty complicated math, involves driver parameters, and may be minimized because sealed speakers are less sensitive to begin with.

Yes, and I also understand that ported speakers can also cause phase issues at the crossover frequency. The filters portion of this article and the examples get into this subject. http://www.rythmikaudio.com/phase1.html I agree that the best way to deal with sub blending would be to use DSP to adjust filter slopes, phase, and frequency response. However, if you don't have those DSP capabilities, choosing a sealed speaker with f3 at the crossover point is at least a way to get a 4th order slope on both sides of the crossover frequency, given that AVRs and processors typically apply a 2nd order electronic high pass filter. Of course, you will still have the room effects in any scenario. And yes, this is not a black or white thing, but "Is there a potentially better starting point?" is the question. BTW, my interest in this subject came after playing with different sealed and ported bookshelf speakers in a secondary 2.1 system using an AVR with typical bass management. After testing 2 ported and 2 sealed models, the 2 sealed models blend more seamlessly and sound more like a coherent "system". With the ported speakers, I always felt like there was a discontinuity and the blend was less "believable". This led me to the question of "Why am I hearing this difference?".

I believe Tidal works with the Chromecast Audio. I know that Spotify does. For $35, you could give the Chromecast Audio a try connected via optical to your AVR or processor. Your PC would not need to be on for this.

wvu80, sounds like you like the Fusion 10 Pure. Did you build them? I've been on the DIY site several times to look at their designs. I have not found a sealed smaller 2-way on the site though. I kind of wonder why they port speakers that were designed to be used with subs. I've even read comments from Jeff Bagby where he indicates that sealed speakers are easier to integrate with subs.