whell

I might be interested in purchasing. I'm in the process of putting together a 2nd two channel system. I really need a unit that biases towards strong sensitivity, and I thought I heard the Sumo units did well with that. You're comment about this not being a strong point of that unit gives me a little pause.

Should the spirit ever move you to part with your Sumo, I'll be right here.

Go back to solid state and you won't have any more arguements about tube gear, and peace will reign throughout the land.

"After Hours" is a radio show that comes on CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corp for those of you south of the Mason Dixon line) Radio 2 from 10:00 PM to midnight EST Mon - Fri. Have any of you ever caught this show? For jazz fans with decent FM rigs, this show gives you one more reason to listen to FM. For any of you DX'ers out there, I pick it up on 89.9 FM out of Windsor, Ontario (right across the river from Detroit).

The RB 5 is an exception to most rules. Yes, you'll give up some bass response, but these speakers are very special when it comes to music reproduction, given good source and amplification. If you are a bass monger and already have a sub, you won't miss much, especially if the sub is fast and tight. I think you'll be pleased with the performance of the RB 5's. I was using these as my mains for a while, and will use them again in that capacity when I make some changes in my system in the near future. I often listened to them in "Source DIrect" mode (the "straight pasth with gain" setting on my receiver) and was quite taken with their accuracy and tonal quality.

QT: Your choice of speaker will depend on whether you predominantly use your system for music or 5.1 surround. If music is primary, I'd go with the RB-5's. These are special speakers when it comes to music reproduction, but give up little to the RF-3's in 5.1 when used with a sub.

Suggestion: if you're limited to a 5 speaker set up, you're options expand drmatically if you're willing to look into demo or used equipment. Marantz's flagship receiver line just 2 years ago was 6.1 channel capable, sounds superb, and can be had today at at least a 40% discount off what I paid for it, if not more. Also, going the separate route might be the right thing to do, since it gives you more flexibilty for later upgrades. Acurus's ACT-3 pre/pro can be had on Ebay for $700 or less. It does not have a phono input (I've seen few pre/pro's that do), but you can always pick up an outboard phono preamp when you're ready to haul out the vinyl. Parasound made a great sounding, but sometimes quirkly (performance-wise) low end pre/pro/tuner combo. It is now discontinued, but still awailable on the 2nd hand market for $6-700. Match it with a Parasound 5 channel amp (the 85 wpc amp of theirs I've seen go for less than $500), and you've got a killer system for not much $$$. These systems, however, might not be your cup of tea if you MUST have Dolby Pro-Logic II. I don't have it on my system, but I must say that I don't really miss not having it.

Come to think of it, it has been some months, maybe almost a year, since I've seen any new DVD's released with a DTS sountrack. Anyone have any news about what's up with the DTS format, particularly as it pertains to new DVD releases?

What was the seller's ID? What was his feedback rating?

>>Then what about the my second question? As I understand, the digital output should give the signal which is the digital information recorded on the cd so there is no quality factor involved. it's either right or wrong, isn't it? If so, the digital output of different players should give the same digital signal as long as the disc is the same, right or wrong? Or maybe a good player makes less mistakes when reading a disc. I guess that's why cd/dvd player advertisments alsway say something like "precision optics". << Laser pickup and transports vary widely in quality among CD players. This can account for signal loss in lower quality players, and genrate audible differences. I'm not one that subscribes to the idea that spending $150 on an optical cable is going to produce audible results versus a $30 Monster cable, however. Opinions on this vary widely, however.

We kicked a post around her e a few months ago about why loudness conrols went away. This is probably the same topic with a different face. You can go into pawn shops and find alot of the old ADC eq units sittling on the shelf collecting dust. I think this was a marketing experiment that went the way of the Pet Rock, at least in terms of making EQ units appeal to the mass market. JVC used to have the "SEA" EQ controls built ino their receivers too, and those disappeared. I'm sure that they found over time that most consumers probably preferred a simple two way tone control.

Other points to ponder: Its not always just about the CD player. Any audio component is a series of design successes and compromises. If audio and design engineers were left to their own devices, we'd have much different equipment in the marketplace today. However, every audio company also has marketers and accountants, all of whom have their own agendas for production cost management and delivering products at certain price points. All of this is to say, for example, that the DAC in any given receiver and CD player could be quite similar, but if there is a jittery transport on the CD palyer, you'll never hear the DAC on that player in full bloom. Conversely, the receiver could have a lousy preamp section, or poorly soldiered connections between the DAC and the preamp, and you'd never hear the DAC on the receiver correctly. Both my Adcom CD player (5 disk) and my NAD DVD player (single disk) have Burr Brown DAC's, but sometimes the NAD just sounds sweeter playing CD's. Don't know why, really. Transport? Op amps? Same brand/make of analog interconnects used to connect each component. I guess that's what makes this hobby so much fun, but it can drive you nuts at the same time!

You don't mention the sub you use, but many subs have both Line level" and "speaker level" inputs. So, if the processor loop doesn't work, yuo might be able to connect the speaker outputs of the HK to the speaker level inputs of the sub.

This is not what I had hoped to see on this forum as a replacement for the tube amp subject. Started out strong and I was encouraged, but then got a bit wacky. Anyone want to continue the subject of decent turntables, and which would be OK for a vinyl newbie? OK, I'll jump in. Based on some comments on this an other forums, decided to shop around for a TT. didn;t want to spend much, but in the middle of my search, found a Dual 502 at a garage sale. Pretty much manual, save the arm lift mechanism at the end of the record. A little strange that that the platter has strobe markings, but no built in strobe (overhead flourescents work fine as a substitute). I bought it for $3, brought it home, replaced the belt, fitted it with a Grado Blue, and dropped an Earl Klugh album on it. You guys are right about vinyl, it does offer somthing extra that CD's seem to lack. Musicality in spades. Record cleaning? Still have my old Discwasher D3, but I don't think that it really gets the job done. I think I might try something I saw elsewhere in another forum about using a vaccuum cleaner with a home made attachment (felt covered attachment) and see if that works better. In the meantime, its fun wandering around record shops in the area looking for deals on old vinyl!

PROBLEM: Hiss, humm, buzz, or any other digital or analog "nasties" that distract from the listening experience. SUGESTION: power off your receiver, disconnect everything, except for the speakers. Power system on. If the hiss is still there, then there "COULD" be an issue with the receiver or the speakers. Power off and disconnect one speaker or the otehr speaker to see if the hiss disappears. If not, then power down again, reconnect ONE piece of equipment. Power on. No hiss? Good. Power off and continue to reconnect equipment and check to see if the hiss reappears. If at some point it does, than the last piece of equipment connected could be the source of the problem. If the last thing connected is a VCR or cable box, then a ground loop might be the cause of the problem, but this is usually a hum, not a hiss.

You can see by the list of my equipment below that I have purchased a system very similar to what you are considering. My listening room is approx 17 X 10, and I use the RC-3 and RF-3 up fromt, and the RB-5 for the rear. One of these days I will build a 2 channel system around my RB-5's, but that'll be much later. However, for now, I think I get great results for HT and 2 channel listening. If money is not an object, and the listening room supports it, I might buy up to the RF-5's, but the benefit there will be for 2 channel music enjoyment rather then HT. The RF-5 is smoother, but would also be more revealing of any deficiencies in upstream electronics. Possibly your dealer would let you bring in your Sony to audition with the Klipsch speakers your have under consideration, to help you make your choice. FMIW, I am quite happy with my Rf-3's, and don't plan on parting with them any time soon!

The cable debate has raged in this and other forums, and you might be well served to do a search in this forum on "RF-3" and "cable" together and see what you find. FWIW, I dropped buckets of money on interconnects and speaker wire, and the differences are minimal, particularly if your speaker cabling needs are less than 12'. For < 12 feet runs, good quality OFC cable, 12 or 14 gauge, from just about any reputable manufacturer will do a nice job. If you choose to bi-wire, you might also find that you get more than adequate results from modestly priced OFC cable. BTW, there is no science to the 12' number. You might also find you get good results from longer runs with modestly priced cable, thought I might opt for 12 guage for runs over 12'. I've also had good results with Radio Shack's best quality A/V interconnects.

I went for the Rf-3's and I must admit that price was a consideration. In terms of the Rf-5's being smoother, Klipsch designers previously in this forum have stated that they went after a more refined sound in the Rf-5. Still, when paired with the right upstream electronics, the differences between the two speakers can be minimized, though I'm guessing not completely eliminated. NOTE: if you have size limitations or prefer a speaker of a smaller size, I also own a pair of RB-5's. These speakers are special, and for music listening are hard to best, IMHO. For a system that doubles as HT amd music, I'd opt for the RF-3 or RF-5, though. I've found the Rf-3 to be one of the best speaker purchases I've ever made, and I've been through alot of speakers. My last pair of speakers were Magnepans, and the RF-3's have made me forget about all the reasons I like the Maggies.

FWIW My little SS 70's vintage Yamaha CA-810 has been going great for over a quarter century. Still sounds rich, full and detailed compared to much of the mid-fi gear I've compared it with. Up in the bedrooom I've found room for my Sansui 9090 that I use for evening FM listening. Don't like the esound from it as much as I do the Yamaha, but it pulls in FM stations from over 60 miles away with only a di-pole antenna. Can't beat it. For the money I've spent on these two pieces of gear, and only investing an occasional cleaning, I'd say its money well spent. No, I might not wring the last degree of detail out of every album and CD, but my system is fun to listen to, and astonishes my friends, some of whom are never seem to be completely satisfied with the gear they buy, even from some of the better hi fi stores in the area.

Hmmmm.... For what's its worth, I've never owned or been interested in owning a vintage "Yammy" receiver, though I have owned a nice Yahama integrated amp. I've owned it for years, and certainly prior to wandering into the Klipsch forum. Possibly I've been mistaken for another Yammy? Actually, I prefer the term sweet potato. :-)

For better or worse, I think folks tend to hang out in places where their view of the world finds affirmation. This is not to say that some folks are not up to the good challenge of a provocative conversation, but home is truly where the heart is, and the heart of the 2 channel forum has largely been dominated my the discussion of certain folks passion for tube electronics, and the specific equipment that they enjoy. This is not to say that the direction of the conversation is "bad", or for that matter, "good", but I have noticed that attempts to raise other conversations in this forum sometime (not always, but sometimes) do not find traction. Some might say that possibly some threads do not gain a following because those topics are either not interesting or, more likely have been beaten to death. The irony there is that other topics certainly have been discussed exhaustively: tube amps.

With the ability to set front, side (if you have a 7.1 setup) and rear speakers to "large", you can bypass the crossover inside your receiver/processor, and deliver a clear, full range signal to all channels, save maybe your RC-3 or RC-7 center channel. If you choose to go this route, my suggestion would be to make sure you have amplification that will handle this load. I'm pretty sure your "average" HT receiver might not be able to deliver. Separate amplification would be a huge help, even to run a separate amp for the L/R channels, and let the receiver handle the center and rears (assuming a 5.1 setup) would be, IMHO, a huge help. Yes, the sub would still be there to handle the ".1" signal for the bass track in any multi-channel mode. For music, many processors/receivers allow the user to set the sub output for a L/R channel mix, which can provide added slam for those who want it.

Thanks to all for your thoughts!

This tube integrated is for sale by a seller near me, so I can inspect before I buy. The question is, is this unit worth anywhere near the asking price? http://cgi.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cl.pl?ampstube&1043382352 It appears to be on the rough side cosmetically, and I'm not convinced the seller is correct to say that these types of cosmetic issues can be cleaned up. Thanks for any thoughts! P.S.: a pair of K-horns is for sale near me as well on Ebay. Sarn shame I've got nowhere near the room to put a pair of those beasties!

This is the danger with relying on anything but an extended evalution of speakers, with familiar source material. The RF-7's are an impressive speaker. It was not designed exclusively with music in mind, but to serve as part of a suite of speakers with home theater applications in mind. However, to set the front speakers as "small" means that it is reproducing a signal running through a digital processor and a crossover. This is not the most optimal scenario to evaluate any speaker, much less one as capable as the RF-7. For my RF-3's, I normally leave them set as large. Since my system has a "Source Direct" setting, I will often use this mode, which overides any crossover settings for HT, by-passes the subwoofer for music listening. This is when my Rf-3's shine, and I would be the first to admit that my system, while very capbable, does not measure up to others in this forum.