whell

I can only comment on the HSU, and I think it does a great job. I use it for movies only, and find that it keeps up very well with the rest of my Klipsch system. Great product at a great price.

The RB-5's are outstanding speakers. While they lend themselves nicely to an HT system, they really shine as the foundation of a great 2 channel music system. In other words, you'll be very satisified with them as mains in whatever application you choose.

I have a PDF of the service manual if you think it would be helpful. PM me with your email address, and I'll send it. Warning, it is about 2.5 megs.

---------------- On 7/5/2004 5:35:14 PM tmilam wrote: I think that I am going to go with the RC 7 & RF 7's as my center and L/R mains. I have a pair of RB 5II's in hand. Would I be better off using the usual RS 7's as my rear surrounds (5.1 system) or would the RB 5II's fit the bill just fine? The RS 7's are just monstrous in size. ---------------- If you've got the RB 5II's now, use 'em. They'll do fine as surrounds, particuarly if your system is used for movies AND music.

If I'm going to pay $15000 for something, I had better be able to climb inside of it and drive it home. Unless somebody slaps a set of wheels on the thing, and puts a decent engine in the bass bin, count me out.

Its sold now. Any forum member pick this one up?

Shipping is a little on the high side coming from Hawaii, but you cant beat the $29 BIN price! This one shouldn't last too long. http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=67799&item=5706748845&rd=1

Wouldn't mind grabbing the "Rit" album off you. How would you like payment sent? PM me if you'd rather discuss off line. Thanks!

Flynn: I'm heading for Atlanta this weekend, and will be back next Weds night. When I get back, if you'd like, I can loan you my HK 730 and you can give that a spin with your Chorus. Frankly, I'd be interested in your feedback comparing the "twin power" HK to your Scott. I'm running mine with a pair of RB-5's. I find no need to use the loudness contour at low volumes, and your Chorus, I'm thinking, have more bass output than the RB-5's. Let me know if you'd like to give the HK a spin. I can let you have it until your Scott comes back from Craig.

---------------- On 6/23/2004 9:13:40 AM dmethe3 wrote: KG4'S OVER HERERSY'S??????????????? ---------------- It depends on what you're looking for, and how much of a factor price is. KG-4's certainly have a clean, warm sound, but not as present as Heresy's. KG-4's certainly have the bass that the Heresy's lack. You can also get the KG-4's for about $200 or so less on average than Heresy's.

http://forums.klipsch.com/idealbb/view.asp?topicID=50478&forumID=69&catID=19&search=1&searchstring=&sessionID={84E2AA08-716D-4451-BB95-F117DFDE6D2C} You're looking to get in, and for a host of reasons including financial, I'm looking to get out. Check out this recent post above about the HT receiver I'm selling. If you're open to used equipment, the unit is only about 2 years old. The only "new technology" it doesn't have is Pro Logic II (it does have Pro Logic), which to me is no biggie.

For those folks suggesting K-horns or Cornwalls, lets not forget the original question that started this thread: "While a lot of people out there can't afford or don't have the corners for Klipschorns; what would get your vote for the best Klipsch speaker for the price?" Thus, the question speaks to those of us on a budget, lets not forget the KG-4's. This is a neat little speaker that can be found for less than $250, and can give some of today's $1200 - 1500 speakers a run for their money. Next on the list would probably be Heresy's. Then, likely a used pair of RF-3's.

I'd love to test drive one of those 299D's. How do I "get in line" for a crack at a month's rental?

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=14966&item=5704424133&rd=1 A tweak that works, or a rip off? I've heard these touted by some on this forum. $20 a pop for 8 pieces of ceramic? Hmmmm....

FWIW - I've not been here for as long as other members, but I have noticed that a there are a fair number of "new" members all the time. Maybe this is just a transition phase. Welcome some new blood, let things settle down from some fairly heated exchanges, and I look forward to the results.

That seems to be around the "going price" on Ebay. Go for it.

See notes below: ---------------- On 6/10/2004 2:18:25 PM Colin wrote: I enjoyed Peter Aczels thoughtfully penned rant against the Ten Biggest Lies in Audio in the Audio Critic (#26, Fall 2000). In fact, I think I read the issue somewhere (probably Barnes & Noble, without a latte). He concludes that our crazy consumer cultures widespread acceptance of voodoo science is to blame for the expensive fallacies foisted on us by the audio industry. Emotionally I agree with him, but logically I am forced to disagree, since I question so many of his ten biggest lies: Aczel starts off baldy. Despite what he says, Lincolns witticism is true. The audio industry is trying to fool only some of the people, some of the time. That the industry makes many stylish but widely overpriced sales proves Lincoln and circus-showman PT Barnum right. The police still use psychics to hunt for killers and some say it does somehow work from time to time. The Reagans, NOT just Hitler, consulted astrologers. Then he omits Henry Kloss and Robert Fulton from the list of hi-fis founding fathers. 1. The Cable Lie It is true that expensive cables are probably an important part of the audio sale. A five-hundred dollar cable sale might add $250, or 25% more profit margin to a $2,500 sale. People want big pipes to go with their big sonic engines. While it maybe true that most super expensive cables are NOT worth the marginal improvements in sound quality, Aczel admits that decent spades, shielding, insulation give you better performing cables. He denies however, that inexpensive audiophile cables could be better than the simple copper wire so expensively sold to us by Monster and company. The way I read it, his point was simply that well contructed (as in quality of workmanship) is the value that should be used to judge a cable, not the supposed esoterica inside the cable jacket. 2. The Vacuum Tube Lie No less a personage than John Atkinson (I think) said that the digital audio chain needed the sweetness of tubes somewhere along the line. Greater reliability yes, but can solid-state amplifiers give you the imaging, sweetness and detail of tubes for less than one thousand dollars? Then Aczel goes and exempts single-ended triode tube amplifiers (SETs), the very ones that, in my own humble opinion, make the best case for SETs with big ole horns! Oops, guess that was the exception that proves the rule. If somebody could introduce deliberate tube colorations to a solid-state amplifier, as he says, to appeal to corrupted tastes, then why havent they? Plenty of small manufacturers could use the unique edge hell, I would want to hear it! Wouldnt you? There are a fair number of SS amps that were designed to sound "tubish", going all the way back to Saul Marantz's first SS products. I admit that I don't know enough about the electronics of this to know precisely how this was acheived, but I that there are a fair number of folks about there who think that Marantz, as well as other brands, have been designed to acheive distrinct sound characteristics. Without making subjective value judgements, I think that there are things that tubes do well, and things that SS does well. The value judgement becomes which an individual prefers. Which is "better" in absolute terms, to some, has as much to do with sound as it does with reliability, cosmetics, ease of use, etc. 3. The Antidigital Lie The hard edge of CDs is ignorant drivel, for which I must give him some leeway. Perhaps he hadnt read Stereophiles exposure of high-end jitter distortion in most CD players at the time Aczel wrote this. Digital audio is NOT bulletproof. CDs DO eventually fade and the discs cant be written on. CDs do NOT resolve all audio frequencies. SACD and DVD-A both have extended audio range for that simple reason. Tree-Worshipping Analog Druids are NOT rapidly dwindling. The softness of analog remains as economically viable and compelling today as the softness of tubes. I think the author's point is not necessarily exclusive to "which one sounds better". The early days of the phonograph, and associated recording technology and manufacturing processes, is probably analogous to the early days of digiital. The older the format, the better the technology is understood, applied, and mastered. We arrived at the point of diminishing returns long ago. Digital, even Redbook, is still developing/being perfected. 4. The Listening-Lie Test Listening tests should reduce front-end equipment to equal line levels for objective ABX comparisons, but the level playing field is NOT what tubes are about. It is the un-level playing that makes tubes sound so wonderful sweet and natural. ??? 5. The Feedback Lie I have an old 70s, solid-state, Class A amplifier with plentiful negative feedback, which before I knew of such a thing, I thought it wore out my ears. Was it the solid-state harmonics, or the feedback? I have a lesser quality vintage solid-state harmon/kardon 330B receiver, which sounds better on mid-range with big ole horns. Are the certain basic guidelines for negative feedback strictly observed as Aczel insists? Who enforces that with chintzy $500 solid-state receivers? Different strokes and all that. I recently sold a pair of Monarchy SM-70 Pro Zero Negative Feedback amps that, to me, did not best my Adcom 555. 6. The Burn-In Lie If 1000 hours of operation doesnt matter with front-end equipment, then does 10K hours matter? 100K hours? Connections dont flex, the motherboard does expand? If burn-in doesnt matter, then why do PCs and mini-computers run their speed tests after they warm up? I think that there is a differnce between the concept of "burn in" and warm up. I don't subscribe to burn in, but I think warm up makes some sense. 7. The Biwiring Lie If absolutely nothing changes with double wire runs, then why dont tweaking audiophiles with monster amplifiers buy even larger cables? Why dont the audio charlatans sell a 1 diameter cable to the rube with the 100-watt amplifier, and a 5 diameter cable to the rube with the 500-watt amplifier? Because the thickness does matter: inductance and resistance do change. Just maybe NOT for the better. I would think that for anything there is a point of dimishing returns. I think that for cables, that point is much lower on the "cost spectrum" than many cable manufacturers would ask us to believe. 8. The Power Conditioner Lie All good amplifiers may reject RF, line spikes and other power line problems as Aczel says, but he doesnt say within what tolerances that good amplifiers reject them, or what they do about power line sags (which are just as common as spikes). But most power conditioners don't promise any "protection" from voltage "drops", correct? 9. The CD Treatment Lie Does he include disc mats, which dampen motor vibrations, is tweaky damnation? ? 10. The Golden Ear Lie Aczel ignores recent reports like that of Stereophile magazine, who in a recent trade shows of theirs, noted that certain critical Golden Ears in the audio industry could indeed identify particular amplifiers when the general public could NOT. The Aczel goes on to say that Golden Ears hearing is no keener than yours: he just knows what to listen for. !!! Exactly. Tweako subjective reviewers, like me, know what to listen for and if we are any good, we know how to describe that difference to our audience. Audiophiles seem to suffer from buyers remorse sooner than any other group of consumers I've ever seen. Relatively few audio deveotes seem to be able to live with their purchases for very long. How many have the same systems they had even 5 years ago? Is it "upgrade fever", or suseptibility to the idea that today's amp is better than a 5, 10 whatever year old amp? While I don't hardly find this to be the case, as some "Golden Ears" would have us believe, what level of appreciable difference can the average "tweak" make? Even if I know what I'm supposed to be listening for, am I actually hearing the benefits of dampended motor vibrations, or am I convincing myself that I'm hearing a difference? Does the sound radically degrade when the "tweak" is removed? Not trying to be argumentative here, but I think that many "audiophiles" seem to be easily talked into spending hundreds of dollars on cables, when they wouldn't even think about buying up from a Taurus to a Lexus. The logic would be the same, but the emotional content of the decision is very different FOR THEM. I once spoke to an audio dealer who was convinced that there was an actual percentage ( I think the number was 20%) should be applied when buying audio equipment to serve as a guide to how much to spend on cables. Thus, if I spend $1000 on an amp, the minimum purchase price for cables should be $200. The logic of that failed me, but I've heard it since from other retailers and 'audiophiles' as well. Is this a symptom of "Golden Ear" syndrome? I think so. Aczel does start off badly, and I am forced to question many of his widest assertions, but when he concludes our widespread acceptance of voodoo science by our crazy consumer culture is to blame for the expensive fallacies foisted on us by the audio industry, I have to agree emotionally if NOT logically. We do get what we pay for. ----------------

Just picked up "What's New" last week at a garage sale, along with a bunch of other great titles, for $10 total for about 16 albums. All were in VG+ condition, most near mint. Included in this haul were: - Dave Mason - Let it Flow - Pat Benatar - In the Heart of the Night - Chuck Mangione - Children 0f Sanchez - Tim Weisberg - Night Rider - John Fogerty - Centerfield - Credence Clearwater Revival - 1969 - The Best of Procol Harum - Genesis - abacab - ELP - Brain Salad Surgury (with the fold out cover) - Charlie Daniels Band - Million Mile Reflections - Eagles - The Long Run - Grover Washington Jr - Paradise - 3 Earl Klugh albums Not a bad afternoon, eh?

Depends. If you have any plans on using the multi channel (5.1) capabilities of the ACT 3, you will need more than 2 channels of amplification. However, the Act 3 can function quite nicely as a stereo-only preamp. In this case, any good quality 2 channel amp will do. An Acurus A150 or even an A80 if your using Klipsch speakers would do just fine if you're looking for the components to match cosmetically.

Without a doubt, they will match quite well.

Bump

*RF-5 for $1000 for the pair - not a great price, but its offset by *RB-5 for $300 for the pair (floor model) - a really good price, if they come with a warrantly *RC-7 for $540 - average I'm currently using the RB-5's for surrounds with RF-7's. I think you'll find its a nice combo. The RC-7 will not overwhelm the RF-5's. Helpful info for further analysis - what are you powering all this with?

My votes for "best", in no particular order: Who Moody Blues Bob Seger & Silver Bullet U2 Beatles (I'm serious!) Aerosmith

Sleepin': if you must have a "new" unit, so be it. However, I can think of absolutely no good reason to buy a new, 2 channel receiver, when you can get much more for your hard earned dollar, and MUCH better sound, by purchasing a vintage unit. Since you're running efficient Cornwalls, you don't need alot of power. However, you need CLEAN power in the first watt of output of your receiver. Frankly, I don't think that this can be had for $300, and possibly not even $700, with today's 2 channel receivers. My reccomendations will be vintage equipment, most of which can be had for $100 or less, and all for certainly less than $200. They may need to have swtches/pots cleaned, bulbs replaced, etc. It may even be worth your while if you have some minor work done to the unit: bias adjusted, tuner aligned, etc. Even with the possibility that some units might need work, you likely will still come in less than $300 or $400. Here are my suggestions: Harman Kardon HK 430 or 730: I own this one as well, and LOVE it with Klispch. The amp section in this unit rivals some sepeate amps that I have heard. Good preamp section, better in the 730, and the 730 has more inputs. Marantz 2220B or 2230: great little receivers, nice preamp and tuner sections, GREAT amp sections. I own the 2220B and LOVE it with Klipsch For seperates, or maybe to replace your Kenwood integrated, try a Marantz 1060. Lower power (30 WPC) but SWEET sound. Frankly, I'd hang on to that tuner, maybe have it serviced/aligned if necessary. Pair it with a 1060 which can be found in good working order on Ebay for less than $100, or sometimes less than $200 already completely cleaned and serviced.

Colin: He's referring to the Harman Kardon AVR 630, not the older HK 630. However, I saw a "review" on the Asylum where someone hauled in an old HK 730 to a local retailer and compared it the new AVR x30 line. To his ears, the new line held up well against the old HK 730 unit he had.