RoboKlipsch

The new rp surrounds are sealed i believe? No issues with placement of a 240s or 250s

Can u show the dining room with walls in the diagram? U may have more room for setup than shown. Surrounds on stands may work. No chance to reconfigure room?

Nice start im jealous! Keep posting as u go...

http://www.ebay.com/itm/klipsch-r-25c-/111914542128?hash=item1a0ea06430:g:CdwAAOSwll1WzM3k

Saw this thread name about 50x and every time thought it said Jacky....like Nurse Jacky! LOL. Kept seeing this pop up so I had to open it and see WTF. LOL

If you consider used it would help budgetwise. The 28f has 2 8inch woofers...not many centers are too big for them. More a factor say u find a r25c for 150 a rp250c for 200 or a 450c for 400ish? Which do u choose? Find a good used deal imo. 450 is a big boy do you have room even? As scrappy says for u or me we are very happy with the 25 or 250c

I have R28Fs, and also some R15Ms and a R10SW for a sub in a 7.1 setup. I first had the R-25C, then purchased a RP-250C instead. The R-25C is the matching center to that series, a slight downgrade from the RP series. It matches perfectly to the 28Fs. The reason I upgraded was that the RP250C has a titanium tweeter (which doesn't perfectly match) but the sound is better, and the frequency range is better - it goes much lower to around 62hz. So even if crossing over at 80 it has more room to perform. From what I've learned (which is still limited), the 440C in woofer surface area actually will match up similarly to the R25C or RP250C (4-4" woofers are about equivalent to 2 - 5-1/4" woofers). The 450C on the other hand has 4 of the 5-1/4" woofers, so you have 2x the surface area there. So my 2c - the R and RP series are close enough that you could get either the R25C, the RP250C, or the RP450C and be very happy. It's really a matter of cost and what you want/need. To me, for an extra $30 I got the RP series and in 2 minutes I heard the difference. So my 2c again is either RP250C or the RP450C. Both use titanium tweeters. To match perfectly your existing system the R25C is built for it but the build is not as nice. It's a slippery slope though to open the door to the RP series....

I currently have 2 home theaters and am looking to make some upgrades in both. In the main room I have a 7.1 setup with Reference fronts, bookshelf speakers mounted as surrounds and bookshelves in the back. I am looking to replace the side surrounds with either RS52s, RS62s or RP250s. In a second theater I have, I am replacing a Bxxx system (!). It sucks (the Bxxx) and I know it. There I am going to use the bookshelves from the side surrounds in the main room as fronts (at least to start), and would like RS52s or RS42s....or potentially a great deal on some RS35s. With the right deal/opportunity I would even consider replacing the back surrounds in the main room, or get a 2nd set for the second theater. I guess it all depends upon what someone has and is looking to move. If you also have a matching center with your surrounds, please feel free to make an offer including that center. I could possibly replace the center in the Bxxx theater. I'm located in Chicago. If you have item(s) to potentially sell, please note I don't require perfect condition, original boxes, that they be a certain model i.e. don't mind IVs or IIs etc. A good, fair deal is what I'm looking for and great sound. Scratches, a dent or the like is OK, but good working condition is of course important. If you have something to sell or know someone who does, the favor would be appreciated! -- Roboklipsch

Iac how do you like the rp250s? Side question of course

Thank you for the link...and for those who haven't clicked it...the link takes you to the actual e-book! 600 pages...I won't promise to read it all but I am going to reaad through it and educate myself. Thank you C

The figure provided above was from a paper where the researchers were using 24 surround loudspeakers in a ITU "standard room", then using combinations of surrounds shown in the individual columns. The listeners were not told which loudspeakers were on and which ones weren't. What the data says from that experiment is that you don't need 24 loudspeakers to approximate the sound experience. In fact 5 surround channels do very well, indeed. Perhaps the acoustics of your room differs from the ITU "standard room". I've found that having a room that's about 40' deep is much better in terms of listener envelopment than having rear surrounds...so I don't use them, and I put the surrounds at about 80 degrees from the front centerline of loudspeakers so that the chairs we sit in don't interfere with the direct sound arrival. That has worked best for my listening room--by far. The plot above also bears that out. Chris First let me say that Chris' post above this that shows the study of speaker positions....that's the s***! Few that I've seen have a definitive grasp of what works, how well, and what you lose if you do something different. That chart says just about everything about basic placement. If you read closely to what he wrote above...he is saying that his surrounds are NOT at 90 degrees or more...meaning they are not behind the seating position or even with it. They are slightly in front. And the study he posted shows that from maybe 60 degrees up until 120 degrees you get a great room response. So there is your answer....you can put the surrounds in a 5.1 setup IN FRONT of the seating position, and still achieve great surround, perhaps ideal. The question you should pose to Chris and the others then is what speakers will do best in THAT situation...where the sidewalls and backs are at the seating position. Bookshelves? I'm guessing an RS or RP surround would be incredible. I'm a newbie, but love this s***! I agree that Chris knows his stuff, but he and I were discussing different approaches and my comment dealt with rear speakers in conjunction to using surrounds and the processing done in the preamp. ZT -- I apologize. As I quickly wanted to quote Chris, I did so and didn't realize I brought your quote in also. I intended to respond to the original poster and interpret the basics from Chris and simply say "Hey, the chart shows that in theory, putting the speakers in front of that big *** sectional sofa is not only OK but maybe ideal." I did NOT intend to make it come across as it did, that I was replying to your post. I'm too new to even pretend I can be sure enough to tell you what you should think. I was honestly just excited to see someone use a study to show speaker positions and what the subjective response was. There's no doubt it's only the beginning and the other factors not only influence but can completely change what should be chosen. I'm incredibly impressed with the newer Dolby IIx (haven't heard z). It's not like the old days when Dolby was "eh". They really process the sound well and I don't even think a 7.1 recording is all that important. The Dolby processing does such a good job converting 5.1 that I'm not sure I could tell the difference short of a Gravity-like movie using poinpoint sound. Again sorry ZT I didn't want that to be our first interaction! RK

The choice is really between point sound localization (sound effects only) and "listener envelopment" (LEV) for surround sound like music and ambient sounds, as it turns out. The following figure will give you some idea of the contribution to the surround sound effect vs. position of loudspeakers. I think that you'll find that the loudspeakers located far behind the listeners aren't very effective, in fact, they detract from the listening experience: So placing surrounds becomes a trade-off between sound localization and "immersion". Since immersion is the dominant effect for movies (percentage of listener's time) I'd think about placing the surrounds for best envelopment and for "timbre matching", which is a function of the coverage angles of the full-range channels and their frequency response relative to each other. So if you use a loudspeaker surround type that is much wider than the fronts, you'll never get the timbres to match. That's saying that point source and matching the coverage angles of the front three loudspeakers is actually important. However, there is another group of people that believe that just being able to splash around sound in the room from the back surrounds is good enough. Since I listen to music recordings that localize music to each surround channel, I try to match timbres. Chris This chart should be put in a sticky thread for basic speaker setup. It's the most clear and concise summary of speaker placement and results. Chris A - you're the man on this stuff!

The figure provided above was from a paper where the researchers were using 24 surround loudspeakers in a ITU "standard room", then using combinations of surrounds shown in the individual columns. The listeners were not told which loudspeakers were on and which ones weren't. What the data says from that experiment is that you don't need 24 loudspeakers to approximate the sound experience. In fact 5 surround channels do very well, indeed. Perhaps the acoustics of your room differs from the ITU "standard room". I've found that having a room that's about 40' deep is much better in terms of listener envelopment than having rear surrounds...so I don't use them, and I put the surrounds at about 80 degrees from the front centerline of loudspeakers so that the chairs we sit in don't interfere with the direct sound arrival. That has worked best for my listening room--by far. The plot above also bears that out. Chris First let me say that Chris' post above this that shows the study of speaker positions....that's the s***! Few that I've seen have a definitive grasp of what works, how well, and what you lose if you do something different. That chart says just about everything about basic placement. If you read closely to what he wrote above...he is saying that his surrounds are NOT at 90 degrees or more...meaning they are not behind the seating position or even with it. They are slightly in front. And the study he posted shows that from maybe 60 degrees up until 120 degrees you get a great room response. So there is your answer....you can put the surrounds in a 5.1 setup IN FRONT of the seating position, and still achieve great surround, perhaps ideal. The question you should pose to Chris and the others then is what speakers will do best in THAT situation...where the sidewalls and backs are at the seating position. Bookshelves? I'm guessing an RS or RP surround would be incredible. I'm a newbie, but love this s***!

I have bookshelf speakers mounted on the wall 7ft above and 90-95 degrees from center and they sound absolutely great. Lower is NOT necessarily better. I mounted the bookshelves upside down to lower the tweeters a bit. The back surrounds DO need to point down from that height (mine start at 6') because to hear the sweep of surround you need to have the backs pointing to just above the listener position (imo). What happens if they are too high is you simply don't hear it properly...it's back there but it doesn't have any location at all. Before mounting I tried every height between ear level and the ceiling (using a ladder, boxes, etc.). Yes, at ear level you hear them but assuming your space is not wide, they are too close, and distracting. But as you move up (I think probably 6' or so is likely ideal), they don't fade like you might expect. I didn't want anybody hitting their head on the speakers so 7" was good...and one is above a doorway and required it. I've tilted them down 7 degrees, but it's not necessary.

https://www.audiogon.com/listings/subwoofers-klipsch-sw-115-pair-of-15-inch-subwoofers-2016-02-17-home-theater-33076-pompano-beach-fl I think it's still there...and he dropped it to $700. FYI

Thanks MLO. I never heard people talk about it, but I thought asking once would give me a good answer and I thank you for it!

Even though it makes perfect sense, I had never even thought of the idea that you can build a real theater at home with a screen and speakers positioned behind it. The setup looks so darn good, and unlike 99.99% of home theaters, you have ZERO of the talk/hype about center speaker position. My only question is why I picked the wrong friends growing up Beautiful setup!

Since it's another newbie question I'd like to post it here instead of starting a new thread. Serious question so if it sounds stupid, hey, I'm new and I'll take the heat. Should speakers be warmed up...always? when playing loud? doesn't matter? more complicated than I'm thinking? If so how?

As a newbie maybe I can add a little something. I first had the R25C. It's fine, it sounds great and is loud. There's 2 issues (imo, again a newbie) that caused me to get a different one...I ended up buying the RP250C instead. #1: Low frequency - it is spec'd to go down to 82hz, and with a crossover then say at 80 you are taxing the speaker a lot at high volume...better to have a speaker with better low end i.e. 45-65hz. #2: Quality - I bought the Premiere version because it still matches what I bought (I have R28Fs up front, not the RP280Fs but they are quite close). It took 2 minutes to hear the difference in these speakers. Now, as time goes by, I may (or may not) replace the surrounds and fronts that are not premiere. But my point is this -- you are asking 2 different questions....#1) What is the "best" center for my current setup and #2) If and when I want to upgrade, what would be better. I HIGHLY suggest you focus on #1 for now, and worry about #2 if and when the time comes to change more than just the center channel. So question 1 - what should you buy...Ive seen RC42, RC52 and nobody really suggesting RC62. I'm NOT AN EXPERT BY ANY MEANS...but I personally would think either will work. And someone like Youthman telling you he doesn't like 4" drivers matters. Get the 5" RC52ii and be happy with a slightly bigger driver but one that will still match closely. If anybody with more experience disagrees, please feel free to contradict me, I have no pride in this just a desire to help and do better myself.

I haven't been around long, why does Klipsch have a RF7ii speaker line separate from the Reference Premiere? It seems universal that people here like the RF7s a lot more than the RP line...why so few items in the RF7 lineup? Is it a legacy of the past they keep because they are popular?

I'm just getting started on the videos but will watch both. Your practical tip on the reflections is pretty cool I will try it.

Thank you. It works well for the room setup that way. They could be next to the TV but that's too narrow imo

I would try about 15 Degrees downward. Yes Ideally you would want them about 6' from the ground give or take. But you will learn you have to do what you can. Nice looking setup, your off to a good start. Another thought I had, the fronts seem to be pointed to the center of the room. Which isn't bad, unless that is not were the sweat spot is. You will have to play around to see what works best for your application. But by the help of some the great folks here, I am sure we will get you set straight. Have fun. Last thing, cool looking house, I like the staircase and chandelier. Thanks on all counts...Wisky flag is not mine but I'm OK with it 15 seems great and also those things are HEAVY back there so they still want to sit back and won't fall out of position. The fronts are really a good point you make and one I've considered for a long time (with other speakers). I personally think if it comes to "perfect" sound pointing in towards a sweet spot is best. But if you sit anywhere outside that area (outside the direct line of either the left or right speaker)...I've always found the experience a lot less satisfying. What do you think?

Thank you to everyone who has posted. I read through everybody's posts, clicked and read the links from Youthman (thank you). Very good stuff to read. Like so many things, designing a "great" speaker would appear to require incredible knowledge and experience combined with a willingness to experiment and use trial and error and feedback from users. The question was answered better than I could have expected...thank you all again.