adam2434

Sure, if you have a DSP with that capability. I believe most AVRs and processors have a fixed 12 dB/octave high pass, at least the ones I’ve owned. I did not say that the that the PRO-7800-L-THX is as good as it gets with a sub, or that any specific speaker would be best. I don't think the point I'm trying to make is coming across. Here’s the typical scenario I’m thinking. One is setting up a 2.1 system based on bookshelf speakers and will be using an AVR with bass management. An 80 Hz high pass will filter will be chosen because of the balance of low frequency offloading for the bookshelf speakers (increase in amp headroom and reduction in woofer distortion) and minimal sub localization. Say one is looking at two 6.5” woofer bookshelf speaker models of similar quality, cost, and size. Speaker A is ported, -3 dB at 50 Hz, and has a sensitivity of 86 dB @ 1 watt/1 meter. Speaker B is sealed, -3 dB at 80 Hz and has a sensitivity of 90 dB @ 1 watt/1 meter. Take the 4 dB sensitivity increase with a grain of salt, but let’s assume that there will be a sensitivity increase because the system is designed to roll-off at 80 Hz. All other performance criteria being equal, speaker B should provide a more seamless blend with the sub and would require less power at the same output. It would be more optimized for sub integration vs. the ported speaker, which is more optimized for stand-alone bass performance. That’s the only point I’m trying to make. I’m not a speaker designer, so I don’t claim to know all the ins-and outs, but I believe the physics support the point. If they do not, I am all ears to learn. Any speaker designers on this forum?

Let me clarify the scenario. I am talking about typical bookshelf-sized speakers (2-way with 5.5” to 10” woofer) blending with subs in a 2.1 or multichannel context, using the digital bass management in an AVR or processor, with speakers set to small. AVRs and processors typically apply an electronic 12 dB/octave high pass slope (on speakers set to small) and an electronic 24 dB/octave low pass slope for the sub channel. Regardless of crossover frequency selected in the AVR/processor, the ideal situation for flat response in the crossover region would be a sealed speaker that starts its natural 12 dB/octave roll-off at the crossover frequency. This scenario yields a 4th order 24 dB/octave slope on both sides for the crossover point. 80 Hz is a typical crossover frequency for bass management with typical bookshelf speakers. So, if one had a sealed bookshelf speaker that started it’s acoustic 2nd order roll-off at 80 Hz (actually -3 dB at 80 Hz would be ideal), the symmetrical 4th order slope would be in effect, and Hoffman’s Iron Law could enable optimization for sensitivity vs. low frequency extension (that is not needed anyway). Most bookshelf speakers are ported (which can cause phase issues with sub blending) and are optimized for low frequency extension over sensitivity. Does this makes sense to folks?

I’ve been playing with a secondary 2.1 music system in the unfinished part of my basement and have made some observations that have got me thinking about speaker designs that are more optimized for subwoofer integration and efficiency. A sealed speaker that is -3 dB at 80Hz is ideal for sub blending with an 80 Hz crossover in the AVR/processor. This is due to the fact that the sealed speaker’s natural 12 dB/octave sums with the processor’s 12 dB/octave electronic high pass filter, which matches the processor’s 24 dB/octave electronic low pass filter. The result is flatter response in the crossover region, thus more seamless blending. These parameters are actually in the THX specifications. I would love to see speakers in the market that are optimized for this. For example, a largish high-output, low-distortion 2-way bookshelf speaker that is tuned for -3 dB at 80Hz, which would improve sensitivity vs. a lower tuning. With Klipsch’s long history of efficient, horn-loaded designs, I bet they could do this in their sleep, incorporating their newest driver and horn advancements. These would be speakers that would be truly designed and optimized for subwoofer integration, with higher than typical output/sensitivity, and with lower than typical distortion. PSA’s speakers appear to be designed around these principles. I wonder what Klipsch could do at similar or lower price points. Just food for thought…

Are you using the analog or digital output? I only use the digital optical output. I would not expect much from its analog output, given that the whole thing only costs $35. Also, what streaming service and bitrate are you using? I also only use the digital output on our Sonos Connect. With the same music source/bitrate, I would not expect much difference (if any) between the Chromecast and Sonos digital outputs, assuming they are connected to a DAC with good jitter rejection. The Sonos Connect is great if you want to use streaming services and music files on storage. It has a very stable and evolved interface. I used to be a Squeezebox Classic user and it was great for music files on storage. However, I got a Sonos Play 5 speaker for my wife and decided to switch to a Sonos Connect in my main system, replacing the Squeezebox. The only thing I miss about the Squeezebox is how well it implemented ReplayGain tags.

The Chromecast Audio will allow multiple users/accounts (on your wifi network) to cast Spotify. Not sure about Deezer, but I think it should work the same way. We have a couple Chromecast Audio in secondary systems connected via optical, and they work well with Spotify Premium. If Spotify was one's only source, the Chromecast Audio is hard to beat for such a low price, IMO. As long as your wifi signal and bandwidth are decent, I would not worry about ethernet vs. wifi...we're not talking about a lot of bandwidth needed for Spotify Premium 320 kbps streaming. For 35 bucks, the Chromecast Audio is a no-brainer to give a spin. I have a Sonos Connect in the main system and we have a Play 5 in the kitchen. The Sonos software and interface is solid and highly-evolved...and you pay for that with their relatively high hardware costs. The majority of my main system listening is with flac files on my PC (ripped from my CDs), and the Sonos interface works flawlessly with the flac files. I also use Spotify Premium with Sonos. One of the cool things about Sonos is that you can create playlists from a mixture of your own files and tracks from Spotify. With Sonos, you associate one Spotify account (not sure if you can associate more than one), but anyone with the Sonos app on your network can control the music selection from streaming services and your library. Also, if you have multiple Sonos units, each can play a separate Spotify stream from the same account.

Glad you are liking the RF-7 II so far. I’m using a pair in a secondary 2.0 AV system. We use them for a lot of concert videos, in addition to some TV and movies. The biggest complement I can give them is that I often forget I’m listening to speakers and really get immersed in convert video performances. Part of this is due to how dynamic and clean they sound as the volume is pushed. I’ve used several other floorstanders in this system (Klipsch RP-280F, Energy RC-70, Def Tech BP-10B), and really only the RF-7 II have provided the “forget I’m listening to speakers” experience. Their downside, IMO, is that they can be overly bright as the volume is pushed. I set the treble to -1 or -2 to mitigate this (running a Rotel RX-1052 stereo receiver). What are you powering them with, BTW? I have found that a solid 100 w/ch from the Rotel receiver is enough for pretty loud levels (peaks around 103 dB at 12') in a roughly 18'x50' space. As for demo material, lately I have been using the live disc of Clapton's "Blues" 2 CD set (ripped to flac and using a Sonos Connect), especially tracks 1,3,4,5,7. I'm sure this is not an audiophile- approved demo disc (who cares), but the tracks have a dramatic, live sound (especially the drums) that sounds more "real" on some speakers vs. others. Track 7, a cover of Otis Rush's "Double Trouble" is a good example.

Dr. Toole has been posting on an AVS thread, and I have been thinking about posing the following questions on that thread. Basically, I’m wondering if there are situations where flat frequency response is trumped by other factors. I have not read his books, so perhaps these areas are covered in the books. I should read a book. 1) Distortion vs. SPL: As SPL increases, is there a point at which a lower distortion speaker with less flat frequency response is preferred to a higher distortion speaker with a flatter frequency response? For example, let’s say that at 80 dB, the flatter frequency is preferred, but at 95 dB, could lower distortion dominate preference vs. frequency response? 2) The listening room – dead vs. live: Can preference swing away from flat frequency response depending on whether one’s room is at the extreme of reflective vs. absorptive for high frequencies? For example, in a large, relatively dead room, could one prefer a speaker that has more high frequency output vs. a flatter speaker? 3) One’s hearing: If one’s high frequency hearing is diminished due to age or other factors, could one prefer a speaker with more high frequency output vs. a flatter speaker? Could this factor plus the dead room factor be additive in terms of one preferring a speaker with more high frequency energy?

I posted the following a while back when I was working on my Fortes: Forgot to mention that I used Liquid Nails Perfect Glue Fuze It (PG-00) for the grill peg inserts. It's a clear, flexible glue that comes in a small tube. The package said it was good for wood and rubber, so I figured it would be a good choice. I used a small craft foam applicator to put a layer in the holes in the motorboard as well as a layer on the insert, making sure that I had a thin layer on the lip of the insert too. After inserting the inserts into the holes, I applied pressure to the inserts every few minutes until the glue set up in about 30 minutes. I believe that gluing the inserts did help seal the cabinet a bit, as the PR push test seems to last a bit longer.

And while your're at it, they should all be glued in place, as they are generally not secured to the motorboard very well at all.

If you can not find a suitable used model, the RF-7 II with B-stock veneer can be purchased for under $2000, as mentioned above. They can be a bit bright/forward with some material IMO (I own them), so not sure they would meet your personal criteria for "presents music as a whole and does not call attention to itself".

These? http://www.ebay.com/itm/KIipsch-OEM-Rubber-Speaker-Grill-Grommets-KG4-FORTE-CHORUS-KG2-Qty-of-4-/141869518870?hash=item2108151016:g:oIoAAOSwI-BWHViS

For mostly movies in a 10x12 room, I would go with the RP-160m and the SVS (or Hsu) sub. This will provide more placement flexibility and bass impact for movies.

Not sure if this has been discussed in the 37 pages of this thread... I wonder if there will be a matching center and possibly surrounds for the Forte III? The intended use seems to be for 2-channel, but so many folks are interested in multi-channel surround sound these days...

garyrc, thanks for the info on legs and cavities. A bit of a derail… What are the physics of the impact to bass from cavities? Does this cause a reduction of the boundary effect, and would elimination of the cavity restore the some of the boundary effect? Taken to the extreme, would the typical bookshelf speaker on stands have the cavity effect because stands are rarely the full length and width dimensions of the speakers. I built risers to get the mids and highs close to ear level when standing in the unfinished part of my basement (see pic). Should I consider enclosing the risers to improve bass response? The room is a large, open space, so not sure how much this would matter.

Just curious - why do you need to raise them 3-5"? What about furniture legs attached to the stock risers? There are tons of furniture leg styles and heights, so I've wondered why they are not often used to raise speakers a bit.

All this praise of the Forte III is making me want to sell some gear to fund a pair! Has anyone seen or taken photos of the internals - drivers, crossover, cabinet construction, etc? Is would be cool to compare the internals to the original Forte I or II. I would hope that the III uses a significantly better class of drivers, given the price increase over the inflation-adjusted price of the Forte I and II.

That Onk P-3000R looks like a nice digital and analog preamp. Regarding the Emo DC-1, it has a very clean and transparent sound and can be used as a DAC and preamp. I have it connected directly to a Rotel RB-1582 mk2 amp via balanced cables. The downside is that it only has 1 optical input. Looks like you would need 2: 1 for PS3 and 1 for TV. Technically, you would not need to use the PS3's optical output if you are using HDMI to the TV, as the audio would be output from the TV's optical. As a sidenote, an advantage to using the TV's optical output for the PS3 is that the audio and video will be in sync. When using a source's (PS3, blu-ray player, etc) HDMI for video and optical/coaxial for audio, often times the video will lag behind the audio due to the TV's HDMI video processing. I have found that the audio and video are in sync when using the TV's optical output for sources connected to the TV via HDMI. There is a trade-off though, as I have noticed a degradation in audio quality (when listening to concert discs) when using the TV's optical vs. disc player's digital coax connected to the DAC. Fortunately, my disc player (Sony blu-ray player) has an audio sync/delay that allows me to "almost" sync the digital coax audio to the video. I'm not sure if the PS3 has an audio sync/delay feature. Back to the Emo DC-1, if you can live with one optical input, Emo also makes the SP-1 phono preamp that matches the DC-1, but you would be back to 2 boxes.

Very interesting...I have RF-7 II and Forte I, and I consider the Forte I to be more "shouty" in the midrange. I reeealy want to hear the Forte III...in my house!

With a son playing high school baseball in the spring followed by summer travel baseball baseball, I won't be getting to the Pilgrimage for the next few years, but would love to someday. Regarding the RF-7s sounding thinner, do you mean less mid-bass and lower midrange, with more emphasis on the higher frequencies?

The black matte finish does not appear to be a veneer with visible wood grain. Is this correct? I'd be interested in some first hand comparisons between the Forte III and RF-7 II.

Most TV optical outputs are only 2 channel. A few will pass 5.1 though. Check the digital audio output settings on the TV to determine if there multiple choices, for example "bitstream". Even if the TV optical is only capable of 2 channel, the benefit of using it is that the audio will be in sync with the video. If you use the digital audio output from the source (cable box, disc player, etc,) the audio will likely be ahead in time vs. the video due to the TV's video processing lag. If your AVR has an audio delay/lip sync feature, you can delay the audio to sync with the video.

I've been using a single AC Infinity fan in a couple systems that are in tight shelves with limited ventilation space above. One is for my son's Denon AVR. The other is for a Rotel stereo receiver. Fans are placed on the top of the amp chassis, centered on the heat sink/output transistors, to draw heat up and out. A single fan does a good job, so a 3 fan unit should keep things cool as a cucumber.

I think they should offer it in black too. I think that would soften the aesthetics a bit and could approve its appeal. For the money, it seems like a nice combination of power and features. Adding multiple digital inputs is a big plus vs. the previous version, IMO. I see this as a great unit for folks that want a step up from lower cost mass-market stuff, and want everything in a single chassis for space and simplicity.

In our main system, we use a Sonos Connect hardwired to router, with its digital coax output connected to an Emotiva DC-1 DAC. We use this for flac files (lossless CD rips) on the PC and Spotify Premium streaming. Music selection from PC files and streaming services is controlled with the Sonos app on our phones. We also have a Sonos Play 5 speaker in the kitchen. The Sonos stuff is a bit pricey, but works well and and does not require extensive set-up and tweaking...it just works. We also have Chromecast Audio set up in 2 smaller systems (digital optical output to AVR). They are so inexpensive that I had to give them a try. They work very well with Spotify Premium and will also work with PC music files (flac, mp3, etc.), if you set up server software on your PC (I use Plex server software on the PC and the Plex app on my phone for this). The Chromecast Audio is not as elegant and user-friendly as Sonos for the combination of Spotify streaming and PC music files, as additional software and multiple apps are required. IMO, the 2 keys to maximizing streaming and PC music file audio quality are: 1) Bitrate - use lossless music file rips (like flac and Apple lossless) to maintain CD quality, rather than lossy formats (like mp3 and Apple AAC). Also, use the higher bitrate streaming services (like Spotify Premium and Tidal). 2) DAC quality - assuming one is using lossless music files and higher bitrate streaming services with a resolving-enough system, DAC quality will come into play for ultimate sound quality, just as it would for any other digital media (like CDs, DVDs, Blu-ray etc.). For example, a good stand-alone DAC should be an improvement over the DAC/analog output from a PC, phone, tablet, or inexpensive streaming device.

Very nice...and yes, a beast!