Jump to content
The Klipsch Audio Community

robert_kc

Regulars
  • Content Count

    294
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

169 Excellent

About robert_kc

  • Rank
    Forum Veteran

Recent Profile Visitors

2140 profile views
  1. OP: Welcome I listen almost exclusively to classical music and opera. I’m happy with RF-7II driven by the right tube amps for large-scale classical music and opera. Synergy between speakers and amp is important. For my RF-7II, IME/IMO tubes such as 6L6GC are better with string instruments, however solid state is sometimes better with a piano’s sharp attack. If you can accommodate the width of Cornwall IV, I’d seriously consider them, based on reviews I’ve read. (I’ve never heard them, but I’m intrigued.) I’m not knowledgeable about playing music that is stored on a phone. (My favorite format is Blu-ray, following by SACD. I enjoy multi-channel surround-sound.) What bit depth and sampling rate are your files? Do you have any “hi-res” files? Have you considered hi-res recordings? How will you get the audio from your phone to the amp? What amp do you have, or are you considering? Are you aware that some vintage recordings have been digitized and remastered from the analog master tapes, and delivered in a hi-res format such as SACD or hi-res download or Pure Audio Blu-ray? You’ll find remastered recordings for all of the pianists you listed on hdtracks.com. You can find SACDs and Blu-rays on amazon.com. Provenance of the recording is extremely important. For decades-old recordings, the quality of the original recording is the ultimate limiting factor. A decades-old recording will not have state-of-the-art audio quality – even if it has been remastered. Classical music lovers sometimes must decide which is more important: performance quality, or audio quality of a recording. I’m not a music scholar, and I’m not hyper-critical of a performance. Very often I enjoy modern performances of classical music. However, I have no tolerance for poor audio quality. I therefore often choose modern performances of classical music that were recorded in hi-res. Do you listen to any pianists who have recorded in the last dozen years or so? There is a wealth of modern classical performances that were recorded and mastered in hi-res (i.e., 24bit/192kHz PCM, or DSD), and delivered in a hi-res format (e.g., Blu-ray, Pure Audio Blu-ray, SACD, hi-res download). Blu-ray delivers high-definition video, in addition to hi-res audio. (Usually – but not always – Blu-ray discs include both DTS-HD MA 5.1 and stereo tracks.) Here’s a few Blu-rays that might interest you. (I don’t own any of these, so I can’t comment on their quality.) The audio quality of your hi-fi will never be better than the audio quality of the recording. Garbage-in/garbage-out. High-end Klipsch will reveal any harshness in the recording, and any harshness in the DAC and amp. I suggest that you consider all factors that affect audio quality – not just the speakers. Good luck, and please let us know your results. P.S. You asked about the hi-fi systems that classical music lovers use. Following are my current configurations. TV room: Main front left & right speakers are Klipsch Palladium P-37F. Center: Klipsch RC-64III. Single rear: Klipsch RP-502S. Subwoofer: Klipsch P-312W. The source is an Oppo UDP-205 for playing Blu-ray and SACD, and a USB hard drive containing high-res FLAC recordings. I generally use vintage tube amps for music: Scott 399, McIntosh MC225, Fisher X-1000, Scott 299C, McIntosh MX110Z / McIntosh MC240. I use solid-state amps for movies (and summertime): NAD C375BEE, and an NAD D 3045. A patch panel (banana plugs) allows me to connect the speakers to whichever amp I want, and Niles AXP-1 RCA selector switches connect the Oppo to the amp. HDTV is connected via TOSLINK to the UDP-205 to play audio from broadcast TV via the hi-fi. Chromecast Audio is connected via analog audio to the NAD C375BEE for internet radio. Basement: Front, center, and left speakers are Klipsch RF-7 II. A single rear speaker is a Klipsch RF-7. Subwoofers: SVS SB16-Ultra, Klipsch R-115SW. Source: Oppo UDP-205 for playing Blu-ray and SACDs, and a USB hard drive containing high-res FLAC recordings. Amps: Scott 272, Inspire “Fire Bottle” SE Stereo Tube Amplifier HO, Scott 222C, Fisher KX-200, Scott 296, Pilot SA-260, Scott LK150, Altec 353A, Kenwood KR-9050. (This system also has a Schiit Loki tone-control. I can connect the power amps direct to the Oppo, or insert the Loki.) A patch panel allows me to connect the speakers to whichever amp I want, and F/F RCA cables enable me to connect an amp to the Oppo, and a power amp to the Loki if I choose to do so. Chromecast Audio is connected via TOSLINK to the UDP-205 for internet radio. Living room: Stereo speakers are Snell Type CV. Center: Klipsch RC-64III. Single rear: RP-502S. Subwoofer: Klipsch P-312W. The source components are Oppo BDP-95 for playing Blu-ray, SACDs, and CDs (and a USB hard drive containing high-res FLAC recordings), and Dual 1249 with Stanton 681EE equipped with a new Shibata stylus. Amps include a pair of McIntosh MC30s, Scott 296, McIntosh MX110Z / McIntosh MC275, a pair of Pilot HF-56 mono receivers, an NAD pre-amp and Acurus A250 power-amp for movies, and a McIntosh 2155 driving JBL L830s in the kitchen / dining room. A patch panel (banana plugs) allows me to connect the speakers to whichever amp I want, and a F/F RCA cables enable me to connect an amp to the Oppo. Chromecast Audio is connected via analog audio to the NAD pre-amp for internet radio. Bedroom: Front, center, and left speakers are Klipsch WF-35. SVS SB-2000 Pro subwoofer. Source is an Oppo BDP-105 for playing Blu-ray and SACDs, and a USB hard drive containing high-res FLAC recordings. Fisher 500C drives the left & right speakers. Fisher TA 500 (AM/FM mono receiver) drives the center speaker. Chromecast Audio is connected via TOSLINK to the BDP-105 for internet radio. Office: Stereo speakers are JBL L880. Sources: Oppo DV-980H SACD/CD/DVD, and my Windows 10 laptop with Music Streamer II DAC. Amps: Fisher 800B, Scott 299B, and an NAD D 3020 for general internet use (and summertime).
  2. IMO, the Volti Razz and Klipsch Cornwall IV are apples and oranges. The Volti Razz is 15” wide – the Cornwall IV is 25.3” wide. I can accommodate speakers that are 15” wide, but not 25.3” wide. Which raises in my mind a question: Given that 2021 will be a major anniversary year for Klipsch, will Klipsch offer a premium floor-standing tower speaker that is: Relatively tall (i.e., approximately 48” – 54” high), and Not more than 15” wide, and that is Positioned above the RF-7III (both in appearance and sound quality)? Any insights?
  3. OP: You’ve just kicked the hornet’s nest. 🙂 What genre(s) of music do you listen to? Two quick thoughts: If you're unhappy with the "transistor sound", I suggest a tube amp. https://community.klipsch.com/index.php?/topic/195237-tubes-warmer-sounding/&do=findComment&comment=2547787 IMO/IME the quality of the recording is one of the most important facets of hi-fi sound reproduction – more important than tube vs. solid-state - and is usually overlooked.
  4. With all due respect, apparently you haven’t read my posts. In my posts on this thread I’ve said: IME if you want to experience top-quality reproduction of music concerts in your home, you need top-quality hi-res recordings of modern performances (last dozen years or so) delivered on Blu-ray (or Ultra HD Blu-ray) audio/video discs featuring DTS-HD MA 5.1 multi-channel audio and high-definition video. IME, you can’t make a silk purse from a SOW’s ear. Garbage-in / garbage-out. Provenance of a recording is extremely important. Delivering a vintage recording in a “hi-res” wrapper doesn’t magically improve its quality. If you pour 5 gallons of milk into a 55-gallon drum, it’s still 5 gallons. (Recorded music can be enjoyed with less than state-of-the-art recordings and hi-fi systems. With that said, my point is that historic performances are limited to technology available at the time of the recording.) Because different people listen to different music, different people have different needs for a disc player. In response to your assertion that most recordings don’t take advantage of the dynamic range that’s available via CD, this is highly dependent on the genre of music. You said: “Once you’ve captured the dynamics and bandwidth of the source, you’re done”. For classical music, the “work of art” (i.e., the “source”) is the live performance in a world-class symphony hall with no sound reinforcement system (i.e., no electronics employed). A live performance of Mahler Symphony 2 has tremendous dynamic range. In an earlier post I listed a modern hi-res recording of Mahler 2 that delivers this tremendous dynamic range, and moreover delivers beautiful audio and video quality. (Increased dynamic range is not the only improvement in modern formats such as DTS-HD MA 5.1. IME, hi-res recordings excel at delivering the subtle natural timbre of orchestral instruments.) For the classical music that I love there are many modern (i.e., recorded last dozen years or so), state-of-the-art, high-quality, hi-res (i.e., 24bit/192kHz PCM, or DSD) recordings featuring surround-sound. (I’m talking about modern recordings that were originally recorded and mastered in hi-res surround-sound, NOT “fake-hi-res” recordings for which the “source” is a CD, and NOT DSP-generated pseudo-surround-sound.) If you paid for “fake-hi-res” recordings for which the “source” is a CD, and this wasn’t disclosed to you, then IMO you were ripped off. If you listen to pop music that has little dynamic range to begin with, and then the dynamic range was compressed further during mastering (i.e., “loudness wars”), then you are correct that for these types of pop recordings there is little dynamic range. IME, modern hi-res classical recordings are not compressed. IME, modern Blu-ray audio/video recordings featuring DTS-HD MA 5.0 (or 5.1) surround-sound come closest to the concert hall experience. (And Blu-ray delivers beautiful high-definition images of the musicians and hall, which IMO is very enjoyable. Blu-ray has enabled me to see high-definition videography of some of the most beautiful symphony halls and opera houses in the world.) Have you ever heard a modern (last dozen years or so) classical recording that was captured and mastered in hi-res multi-channel surround-sound, and delivered in Blu-ray’s DTS-HD MA 5.1 format, played on an excellent surround-sound system? Have you experienced a modern classical recording that features high-def video? IME - in general - the in-home experience delivered by modern Blu-ray recordings of classical music is vastly superior to what the 40-year-old CD format can deliver. I’m attempting to make 2 points: CDs do NOT meet everyone’s needs, and I’ve learned via discussion forums that some people aren’t aware that music (for some genres) is available in formats newer than CD. Some people might enjoy discovering new ways to enjoy recorded music. Bottom line: The genre of music is an important factor in this discussion of which recording formats are relevant for an individual audiophile.
  5. FWIW – IME –most audiophiles ignore the biggest “sources of distortion and inaccuracy” - i.e., less-than-state-of-the-art quality recordings. At the risk of beating a dead horse, IME if you want to experience top-quality reproduction of music concerts in your home, you need top-quality hi-res recordings of modern performances (last dozen years or so) delivered on Blu-ray (or Ultra HD Blu-ray) audio/video discs featuring DTS-HD MA 5.1 multi-channel audio and high-definition video. Or, for audio-only multi-channel recordings, then Pure Audio Blu-ray, or SACD. Or, for stereo-only audio-only recordings (which IMO/IME are antiquated vs. audio-video/multi-channel recordings), hi-res stereo recordings are suitable (e.g., 24bit/192kHz PCM downloads). Redbook CD is vintage technology (16bit/44.1kHz) – i.e., introduced 40 years ago. Vintage recordings involve vintage audio technology. Vintage technology does NOT deliver state-of-the-art audio quality. IME/IMO, recordings of historic performances can deliver enjoyable music in the home. My advice: Don’t confuse your perception of performance quality (e.g., historic performances), with your perception of audio quality. Vintage recordings generally do NOT represent the best-available (i.e., state-of-the-art) audio quality. With that said, I recognize that many people enjoy what they regard as the definitive historic performance. The good news for classical music lovers is that there are many modern performances (last dozen years or so) delivered on Blu-ray (or Ultra HD Blu-ray) audio/video discs featuring DTS-HD MA 5.1 multi-channel audio and high-definition video. And there are countless modern classical performances delivered on audio-only SACD or Pure Audio Blu-ray discs.
  6. P.S. OP, I just looked up your Anthem MRX 720 A/V Receiver. Looks like a nice AVR. With a Sony UBP-X800M2 universal player ($248 on Crutchfield), connected via HDMI to the Anthem, you could play almost any disc format (Ultra HD Blu-ray discs, 3D and standard Blu-ray discs, SACDs, DVD-Audio, DVDs, CDs and rewriteable discs), and hi-res download format (PCM files up to 24-bit/192kHz resolution, and 2.8 MHz DSD files), and realize state-of-the-art audio quality. With your RF-7III, you would realize OUSTANDING audio quality, given modern recordings (recorded in the last dozen years or so) delivered on Blu-ray and SACD discs. (Remember, garbage-in/garbage-out for recordings.) Presumably the Anthem would support streaming such as Tidal. Your thoughts? P.P.S. IME most Blu-ray and SACD music recordings include at least 2 audio tracks: DTS-HD MA 5.0 or 5.1 (i.e., hi-res multi-channel surround-sound), and hi-res stereo. (A few Pure Audio Blu-ray discs include 3 audio tracks: hi-res stereo, 5.1 and 7.1.)
  7. I’m late in joining this discussion. PCM is Pulse Code Modulation. It is used by CD, Blu-ray, and many hi-res downloads (e.g., 24bit/192kHz). SACDs employ a completely different technology called Direct Stream Digital (DSD) - sometimes referred to as “single bit”. Most SACDs are hybrid, meaning that they contain an SACD layer and a CD layer. You can’t play the SACD layer on a PC. I’m curious why many forum members are comparing streaming with CDs, given that the Redbook CD format (16bit/44.1kHz) is a vintage digital disc technology (i.e., 40 years old). The Redbook CD format does not deliver state-of-the-art audio. Newer formats for music that deliver hi-res multi-channel audio include DTS-HD MA 5.1 on Blu-ray, and SACD. Streaming services cannot match state-of-the-art disc technologies such as Blu-ray’s DTS-HD MA 5.1. Moreover, many modern audio/video classical recordings (e.g., orchestral concerts, opera, ballet) that are available on Blu-ray are not available at all via streaming services. $64k question: What genre(s) of music do you listen to? How many of the following formats are relevant to the music you like? CD, DVD, DVD-Audio, SACD, Blu-ray, Pure Audio Blu-ray, Ultra HD Blu-ray, and Hi-res downloads. You can search Amazon and find recordings in all of the disc formats listed above. Because different people listen to different music, different people have different needs for a disc player. IME/IMO, the biggest advance in recorded music in recent years has been the availability of hi-res recordings of modern performances (last dozen years or so) of classical music, opera, and ballet delivered on Blu-ray audio/video discs featuring DTS-HD MA multi-channel audio, and high-definition video. Ultra HD Blu-ray recordings are slowly becoming available. When I connect my Oppo UDP-205 to vintage tube amps to drive high-end Klipsch speakers in a surround-sound configuration (including subwoofers), this configuration delivers a near-symphony-concert-hall experience. (No AVR or pre-processor is involved.) For classical music, Blu-ray audio/video, Ultra HD Blu-ray, Pure Audio Blu-ray, SACD, and hi-res (e.g., 24bit/192kHz, or DSD) downloads are indispensable. IME/IMO, multichannel is FAR superior to stereo for classical music. And, hi-res audio is superior to Redbook CD. There are countless modern (last dozen years or so) recordings of classical compositions that were recorded and mastered in modern “hi-res” formats, and delivered on Blu-ray or SACD. IME, you can’t make a silk purse from a SOW’s ear. Garbage-in / garbage-out. Provenance of a recording is extremely important. Delivering a vintage recording in a “hi-res” wrapper doesn’t magically improve its quality. If you pour 5 gallons of milk into a 55-gallon drum, it’s still 5 gallons. (Recorded music can be enjoyed with less than state-of-the-art recordings and hi-fi systems. With that said, my point is that historic performances are limited to technology available at the time of the recording.) If you want to experience what a modern recording can deliver for large-scale orchestral music, then play this Blu-ray on a high-quality surround-sound system equipped with large subwoofers and HDTV: (Where is this Blu-ray audio/video recording available via streaming with uncompromised multi-channel audio, and high-def video? Where are countless other classical Blu-ray audio/videos available, other than Blu-ray? ) IME, CDs and streaming fall FAR short of what a modern Blu-ray can deliver for in-home enjoyment of classical music. OTOH, if you solely listen to decades-old recordings, you are limited to decades-old recording technology - and CDs and/or streaming might be as good as it gets – and you might be content with that. Bottom line: Your requirements for a “player” are 100% dependent on the genre(s) of music you listen to. Be very wary of outboard DACs. @Marvel pointed out limitations of TOSLINK in his post above. Coax also has limitations. I suggest that you first decide which recording formats you want to support, vs. blindly buying a DAC that supports limited formats. To play all types of digital recordings – old and new (e.g., CD, DVD, DVD-Audio, SACD, Blu-ray, Pure Audio Blu-ray, Ultra HD Blu-ray, and hi-res downloads) without any compromise in audio quality, a universal player is required that has built-in DACs (e.g., Oppo UDP-205), or an HDMI interface (not TOSLINK or coax) to an external DAC that supports all formats, or an HDMI interface to an amp with an HDMI input (e.g., AVR) that supports all formats. Another important decision is support for 5.1 vs. 2.1 vs. stereo. My advice: Don’t knock modern multi-channel recordings (i.e., NOT DSP-generated pseudo-surround-sound) until you’ve heard it. The availability of modern multi-channel recordings varies by genre. FWIW, here’s more of my opinions: I hope this helps.
  8. There are countless existing threads on numerous hi-fi forums on the topic of solid-state vs. tubes. Google is your friend. For hi-res recordings of classical music, I generally prefer tubes. Here’s one of my relevant posts:
  9. Here’s my thoughts that I posted on another forum. (Many of these issues have already been discussed by others in this thread.) Speaker sensitivity is specified on a logarithmic scale. To put this in perspective, some owners of highly sensitive speakers (e.g., Klipschorn, 105dB) are satisfied with a 2wpc tube amp, whereas some people require 100 times that power because their speakers have a low sensitivity rating, and based on other important factors discussed below. Speaker/amp synergy. This is black magic, as far as I’m concerned. IMO, you basically have to audition amps and speakers together to hear if they “play well together”. Tubes vs. solid-state. Analogies are dangerous, but in a sense, this is like the difference between a diesel vs. gas engine when pulling a heavy load. Tube watts “go farther” than solid-state watts. Room size. If you double the length, width, and height, the room has 8 times the volume, meaning much more acoustic power is needed to fill the room. Distance from listening chair to speakers. Sound level is inversely proportional to the square of the distance – i.e., if you sit far away, you need more power. Listening volume. Some people listen at volume levels that causes hearing damage. Again, logarithmic – meaning if you want insane volume level, it takes a lot of power. (FWIW, I don’t recommend that people damage their hearing, or be inconsiderate of neighbors.) Genre of music. Large scale orchestral music can have tremendous dynamic range. Some large-scale classical compositions go from whisper to as many as 200+ musicians playing fff. Classical music can therefore place a relatively large demand on an amp and speakers. Folk music – not so much. Mastering of a recording. Modern hi-res recordings of classical music typically are not compressed, and can include significant dynamic range. OTOH, a lot of pop music is highly compressed, resulting in less dynamic range and less demand on an amp and speakers. (In other words, with some pop music, you can listen at a lower volume level and hear everything because there are no soft and loud passages in the music.) Technology of the consumer deliverable. Modern hi-res consumer deliverables like Blu-ray DTS-HD MA 5.1, 24bit/192kHz download, and SACD are capable of delivering to the consumer the tremendous dynamic range of modern hi-res classical recordings of large-scale classical music. OTOH, some consumer formats (e.g., LP) are capable of less dynamic range, and therefore place less demand on an amp and speakers. Whether or not a subwoofer cross-over is installed before the amp, thereby off-loading power-hungry bass from the main amp and speakers. (I use my Oppo UDP-205’s bass management feature, and line-level subwoofer connection.) Surround sound 5.1 vs. stereo. If you have 3 identical speakers (LCR) across the front, plus rear speakers, and subwoofer(s), you’ll have more acoustic power than 2 speakers. In some surround-sound installations multiple amps are used, in which case each amp is doing only part of the work Bi-amping. In some cases, not only are separate amps used for each channel, but some people bi-amp or tri-amp individual speakers. Again, each amp is doing only part of the work. (For example, a “flea power” SET tube amp may be adequate to drive a K-402 horn, while a more powerful amp drives the associated bass bin.) Ambient noise level in listening room. In a very quiet room, it is easier to hear the quiet passages in classical music, and therefore the volume doesn’t have to be turned up as loud. In my basement system (average size room), I have no problems with dynamics or deep bass, for any music. Front, center, and left speakers are Klipsch RF-7 II. A single rear speaker is a Klipsch RF-7. Subwoofers: SVS SB16-Ultra, Klipsch R-115SW. Source: Oppo UDP-205 universal player, playing hi-res recordings of large-scale classical music. (The Oppo provides the bass management function, meaning that the power-hungry bass is off-loaded from the main amp and speakers.) I have multiple tube amps in this system. If I use, for example, a Scott 296 to drive the left and right channels, and a Fisher KX-200 (or Scott 272) to drive the center and (single) rear channel, there is dynamic range and frequency range approaching a live concert in a symphony hall. (These tube amps each produce approximately 30 - 40 wpc. If I want more muscle, I’ll use my LK150 which produces about 58wpc.) No problems with dynamics, or deep bass, for any genre of music. For big-band music or folk music, my 8wpc single-ended pentode amp is adequate. Bottom line, there’s a big difference between playing an LP of a “little girl with a guitar” in a small listening room, vs. delivering in a large listening room an experience that approximates the live performance of Mahler Symphony 2 - i.e., uncompromised dynamic range and frequency range - when playing this modern Blu-ray that features an uncompressed DTS-HD MA 5.1 audio track:
  10. For the modern hi-res multi-channel classical recording that I love (i.e., Blu-ray and SACD), I prefer vintage tube amps with my RF-7II. I use Oppo UDP-205, BDP-105, and BDP-95 in systems that use analog audio connections to vintage tube amps in stereo and multi-channel configurations (e.g., 3.1, 4.1, and 4.2). 5.1 and 7.1 configurations are also possible. The UDP-205 plays all digital formats (e.g., Ultra HD Blu-ray, Blu-ray, SACD, downloaded hi-res, etc.) No AVR or pre-processor involved. For Hollywood movies, I use solid-state amps.
  11. IME, you can realize good results with either an RF-7III or RC-64III for center channel. Following is my experience, based on listening to modern multi-channel hi-res recordings (Blu-ray, SACD) of large-scale classical music, and using tube amps: Basement: Front, center, and left speakers are Klipsch RF-7 II. I made a stand for the HDTV that includes a shelf for the center-channel RF-7II (i.e., the RF-7II sits on its side). One downside is that the high-frequency driver is not centered. I have an RF-7 as the singe rear speaker. Subwoofers: SVS SB16-Ultra, Klipsch R-115SW. When playing modern (last dozen years or so) DTS-HD MA 5.1 classical recordings, this system can deliver the full frequency range and dynamic range of a live concert in the symphony hall. In my bedroom system, front, center, and left speakers are Klipsch WF-35. All floorstanding. SVS SB-2000 Pro subwoofer. Sounds great. In my TV room, front left & right speakers are Klipsch Palladium P-37F. Center: Klipsch RC-64III. Single rear: Klipsch RP-502S. Subwoofer: Klipsch P-312W. Sounds great. In my living room, front left & right speakers are Snell Type CV. Center: Klipsch RC-64III. Single rear: RP-502S. Subwoofer: Klipsch P-312W. Sounds great. IME, you could achieve excellent audio quality with either an RF-7III or RC-64III for center channel. I think the deciding factors between an RF-7III or RC-64III for center channel are: Which can be more easily accommodated in your current listening room? Which will provide the most flexibility if you move, or change room layout in the future? (It seems to me that in most listening rooms an RC-64III would be easier to accommodate under a TV screen.) I’m very pleased with my RC-64III, but there’s no doubt that you’d realize outstanding sound quality with 3 RF-7III across the front.
  12. Congrats! Please post your listening impressions.
  13. In my basement system, the RF-7II that I use as a center channel is laying on its side on a shelf. The advantage is that it is a perfect match with the main front L&R RF-7II. The disadvantage is that the high frequency driver of the RF-7II isn't centered when laying in its side. I have no experience with the RC-64III used with RF-7III. (As I said earlier, I use my recently acquired RC-64III with Palladium towers, and thus far I'm very pleased.) The RF-7III and RC-64III were designed to work together, and use the same high frequency driver, and based on everything I've read they would work great together. As long as you have tone controls at your disposal to "salt and pepper to taste" (e.g., sometimes I dial back the high frequency a bit), I highly recommend adding two RF-7III for main L&R, plus an RC-64III center. I would NOT use RC-64III for the main L&R.
  14. OP: What genre(s) of music and/or movies do you listen to? In general, I agree with Ceptorman: two RF-7III for front L&R, plus a RC-64III for center channel. Or, if you can fit them, 3 RF-7III across the front. My point of reference: Basement: Front, center, and left speakers are Klipsch RF-7 II. A single rear speaker is a Klipsch RF-7. Subwoofers: SVS SB16-Ultra, Klipsch R-115SW. TV room: Stereo speakers are Klipsch Palladium P-37F. Center: Klipsch RC-64III. Single rear: RP-502S. Subwoofer: Klipsch P-312W. Have you read this thread?
×
×
  • Create New...