yepimonfire

Let me just put it this way...I prefer the sound of the r 26f from an accuracy and timbre standpoint. If maximum dynamics with minimal nonlinear distortion at very high output was the goal, the rf 62 II is better, especially in low distortion, high volume bass. Unfortunately, they are not as accurate in the upper treble, they display a rising response starting at 2khz, there is a reason many find them harsh. As previously stated, the r 26f also has much better directivity control. If the bright sound doesn’t bother you, than the rf 62 II will perform better. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I would strongly disagree that it has a better horn, as someone who owns a bunch of different Klipsch products, the new “Best Buy” reference speakers measure very accurately, +-2dB, no rising treble response found in the reference II series. In addition, unlike the II series, which are much more directional at high frequencies, the horn in both the premiere series and “Best Buy” series use a constant directivity design. My own measurements show that the BB series have identical response curves from 1.8khz-14khz +-45 degrees, the high frequencies drop 2dB for each 15 degree angle off axis, being -6dB at 45 degrees, even at 45 degrees off axis, the response from 1.8khz-14khz still measures +-3dB. The major quality difference between the real reference and BB Reference is the woofers. The cerametallic woofers are much stiffer and remain linear at stupidly loud volumes with lots of excursion. The tweeters sound different, but it’s not a good or bad different, just slightly different voicing. If you want an accurate speaker that sounds good with music and movies, has a very wide sweet spot and uniform dispersion off axis, go with the r 26f. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’d say r 26f. The horn has much better dispersion. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Anybody had a chance to compare the two? Outside of the obvious ability to play louder, is the 160m any better? I’d really like something with a bit more bass than the 150m, doesn’t have to be a ton, just slightly more extension. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Definitely 5.2.2. Place the surrounds at 110 degrees. Rear speakers are probably the least important improvement to a system, and should be on the last of the list to add. Atmos is incredible compared to 5.1 or 7.1 I’d suggest using real overhead speakers. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Compared to the Reference II series, the new horns have incredibly even, wide, off axis dispersion, almost as if it were design for constant directivity, anyone have any details on the design? This is off axis measurements taken myself, as far out as 45 degrees, the response is remarkably flat out to 14khz. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hey don’t worry about it too much, as long as you are still satisfied with it, that’s all that matters. I’m a firm believer that sound is 60% of the experience anyways. How big is your plasma? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I own the DH 550. I am pretty pleased with it. Sony cut costs in all the right places. The receiver is incredibly basic and basically offers little more than decoding, switching, and amplifying. It should do about 68w per channel into 8 ohms, Klipsch speakers are incredibly easy to drive, but if I were you, I’d stretch your budget just a bit more and go with a Denon or onkyo entry level receiver. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Always get the best center you can afford. It’s the most important speaker, outside of dialogue, 60% of the sound effects come from it, so it needs to be dynamically as capable or more capable than the left and right. How much space do you have for the center? You could probably just buy two pairs of 160ms and use a single speaker for the center, or you could go with a 440c. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The whole first watt thing is bs, all class ab amps operate as a class a at very low power. The main problem with modern avrs is trading features for amplifier power. Many receivers rated at 100wpc into 2ch would struggle to deliver over 50wpc with 7 channels driven, due to cheating out on the power supply. All solid state amps sound exactly the same so long as they aren’t driven to clipping. Any difference you’re noticing is likely placebo. How much power you need depends on your speakers sensitivity, how far your seating is, and how loud you listen. A speaker with a sensitivity of 87dB 1w1m can reach an in room spl of 101dB at a distance of 8 feet with 75w. Music much louder than 85dB is uncomfortable for me. Real power is needed for movies, not music. Let’s say you sit 10’ away, and you like to play movies at reference level. You’d need 105dB of headroom per channel. In order to achieve this, you’d need about 300w per channel, and that is factoring +3dB for room gain. There is absolutely no avr that can supply that sort of power, and most likely, those speakers would either blow or produce ridiculous amounts of distortion with that much power, therefore, it’s much more effective to just use higher sensitivity speakers. A speaker rated at 92dB would easily hit reference levels with 100w. The pre-pro market sucks. Many pre-pros cost significantly more than a comparable avr, and many “home theater” amps are priced very high. It’s much more economical to simply purchase an avr with preouts, and use pro audio amps for extra power. A majority of consumer amps couldn’t hold a candle to a good crown amp or even a behringer, many of these amps are perfectly stable even down to 2ohms. Ratings for pro audio equipment are held to a higher standard, since audio engineers wouldn’t put up with the bs marketing crap consumers are subjected to. I will agree with you that automatic room correction leaves much to be desired. For one, eqing frequencies above the Schroeder transition is a waste of time, since its highly variable around the room. A much better idea is to simply cut the bumps in response from room modes on the sub. If the room is very reflective and “live” one could either reduce this with acoustic treatments, or apply a sloping “house curve” eq on the high frequencies. If you want REAL headroom and dynamics, you can’t get that with power alone. Look into high efficiency, horn loaded speakers. Klipsch, powersound audio, hsu’s horn bookshelf, and diy sound group are all good places to start. Many of these, diysg and Klipsch , also have the benefit of uniform controlled dispersion. A good deal of direct radiating dome tweeters have a rapidly falling response off axis above 5khz, whereas a Klipsch Modified tractrix horn maintains a relatively flat response out to 14khz across a 90 degree area. Taking the room out of the equation, the speaker measure +-2dB all the way to 20khz Note the dip at 1.5khz is because the drivers were measured individually, it would sum to flat with both drivers measured. Another benefit of horn loading tweeters is that you can use a much lower crossover point. The Klipsch shown in the graph has an xover of 1500hz. The benefit of this is that the directivity of the woofer is matched more closely to the tweeter, which eliminates response aberrations off axis. If you were to use a 1500hz xover on a direct radiating tweeter, it’d most like destroy itself within seconds. There is a good reason cinemas and pro audio concert rigs don’t use your run of the mill fabric dome tweeters or tiny woofers in small boxes designed for extended bass response. If you want to improve your sound with EQ, I’d first start with accurate speakers, following that, I’d pick up a umik and measure the response at the seat using rew. From there, you could correct the low frequency response using a minidsp, or if using a separate amp, the behringer nu x000 amps have a built in parametric eq. High frequency issues can be corrected via acoustic treatments, but starting with an accurate speakers with uniform off axis dispersion should fix most of this, if the sound bouncing off the walls has a similar response as the direct sound from the speaker, the timbre shouldn’t change based on the room. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Definitely stick with the same line. The rp series is a much better speaker, but the bright voicing of the reference II series won’t match across the fronts. Also, come on now, you’re a klipschhead! We love the high spl and lifelike dynamics afforded by horn loaded speakers, no such thing as too big as long as you aren’t tripping over your gear! Personally, outside of the r115sw, which is a monster even down into the infrasonic range, there are much better subs than the Klipsch. Look into hsu or svs. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The icon replacement. They’re not exactly the same, the woofer is improved and sound significantly “tighter”, and they measure more accurately . My question is whether or not RB 51’s would be better than R-15ms for surrounds when matched to a front stage consisting of Reference premiers. I know premiers all around would be better, but I can’t justify the cost. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’m debating replacing my surround speakers, which are currently R-15ms with Reference II series speakers. The R-15ms just don’t do the premieres in the front justice and stick out as sounding lower quality. I have RB-10s mounted to the ceiling as atmos speakers, and they seem to match timbre fairly well, so I’d guess something like RB-51 II would match well enough to the front premier. I would add a second pair of premiers to the surrounds, but I can’t justify the cost. Would it be worth replacing them with II series? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I believe Atmos guidelines state that speakers overhead should have a 45° dispersion from 100hz to 10khz if one intends to aim them straight down. Would a Klipsch tractrix horn either 90x90 or 60x90 meet this requirement? I'm fairly certain past about 14khz the horn beams, but I have no idea whether or not the dispersion and off axis response at a 45° off axis angle would be good enough to point them straight down. Any idea? Sent from my 5065N using Tapatalk