Man in the Box
-
Posts
64 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Events
Gallery
Posts posted by Man in the Box
-
-
Update: I bought the RP 8000 after the salesman informed of me their reduced price for the last remaining pair.
First impressions:
After doing an extensive A/ B test between the two pairs while feeding them lossless material, I would say that the towers represent a clear improvement upon the 160s in about 60-70% of cases (some tracks of "master" quality on Tidal, such as Louis Armstrong's "What a Wonderful World," isn't among them; ditto some flac files). How much of an improvement? Difficult to quantify, obviously; but if pressed, my visceral feeling is that the 8000 is, on average, better by about 25% (i.e., if I'd give the 8000 a 10, the 160 would get a 7.5). But that also varies from track to track.
What is the quality of the difference? Invariably, and unsurprisingly, the woofers are clearly better. They're not excessive/ out of control, as feared, given the shape and size of the room. If anything, they blend very well with the 12 SVS sealed subwoofer. Percussion is especially satisfying, as are bass-heavy tracks. The tweeters, and the overall sound altogether, seems to be relatively muted on the 160, while the 8000 seems more open, transparent and immersive. Bigger and deeper soundstage, for sure, which can be especially when listening to certain orchestral music. There doesn't seem to be a noticeable difference in the stereo imaging between the two pairs, however.
When it comes to lossy streaming, on the other hand, the two speakers don't sound very different -- a slight edge for the 8000, to be sure, but only slight. Another revelation is that pairing a 12 inch SVS sub with the 160 was probably a mistake because they blend with the 8000's bottom end pretty well.
The only TV item I tested was Our Planet on Netflix. The 8000 are generally more immersive, as the music sounds more "full." This was especially satisfying when a stormy cloud rumbled in the first episode.
Preliminary Conclusion:
As things stand, I think that the 8000, while not always markedly better, has greater potential to impress. I imagine that they'd definitely perform better in a larger space, as some of you have stated, but I have yet to find a good reason to be concerned about their size in my particular case. If money is no object, I would most definitely recommend the 8000. But if on a budget, and if one's source material is predominantly lossy, I would not hesitate to recommend the 160 instead. That my entire post has been a story of margins is a great compliment to the 160.
The 8000 is a better speaker, but in a room this size, is it twice as good (because it's about twice the price)? No.
EDIT: please bear in mind that my subwoofer was on throughout my testing.
-
1
-
-
On 5/25/2020 at 8:09 PM, JohnA said:
In general, the things that change signals from one type to another, electrical to mechanical (speakers, phono cartridges) or digital to analog make the most difference.
What is your complaint about the system?
Your square room will be a thorn in your sound perpetually. How have you treated it? Where is the subwoofer placed? Without seeing it and based on your square room, I'd put it between the speakers and about 2 feet either side of the center of the wall in an attempt minimize room resonances. I might also try placing the 160s on either side of a corner, again to randomize resonances and not close to 4.75 feet off the floor.
If you are looking for quality, mp3 based (streaming) media isn't it. You want hi-res DVD-Audio, LPs or CD/SACD. I have not tried lossless streaming, what is the source for the lossless encoding? I do a lot of streaming, but only for background/casual listening, like working on the car.
I have acoustic foam running across the wall behind and in front of the speakers. I also have bass traps in each top corner.
Based on the feedback I got, I decided to cover the ceramic floor tiles with a carpet. As things stand, I only have a couple of rugs: one under the audio system and TV unit, and another under my piano.
On speaker placement, what’s the precise measure of the speakers being 4.75 feet off the floor? Is it in reference to the tweeters?
-
1
-
-
On 5/22/2020 at 6:44 PM, Chris A said:
An interesting question that I've asked myself many times. Sort of like the military "amateurs talk strategy, professionals talk logistics", audio amateurs I find talk about electronics, but real audio reproduction experts talk about room acoustics and loudspeakers (and sometimes source music quality as a distant third). In the order specified--room acoustics, loudspeakers, music tracks--the rest of the signal chain takes a poor backseat to these considerations. Amplifiers are far too much focused upon, I believe. I can't tell you how much I've witnessed people spending many thousands of dollars on electronics, but their loudspeakers leave everything to be desired (except perhaps that they're "small" or "look nice").
In your room, you're going to have issues with nearfield reflections, even from opposite walls, and that square floor plan. I find it very difficult to get small square floor plans to sound good (as Mike mentioned just above). You may have to move some things around to make the best of the architecture (the room), and even then you may still not be terribly impressed, no matter what sound system you put in the room. You may have to go as far as introducing movable reflective barriers to change the acoustic shape of the room.
I know this isn't what you want to hear, but it is probably something that will eventually save you a lot of money trying to overcome--unsuccessfully.
Thank you, Chris. You’re right; shape of the room I’m in is an issue. But I can’t do anything about it, as things stand. Nor can I move the furniture around because I’m absolutely squeezing every inch of space with my furniture set. I’m absolutely out of room to maneuver.On 5/22/2020 at 6:08 PM, mikebse2a3 said:
Looks like the room/setup is your weakest link.What does treated walls mean..? Type and location of treatments can cause good or bad effects.
If your willing post some pictures of the room and setup so that people can offer you more informed suggestions.
miketnSame as the above response. I’m afraid there isn’t much I can do about the room. I have foam panels with a jagged surface across the open walls, as well as bass traps in the top corners. The bass is much cleaner now and certain high frequencies aren’t shrill anymore. I can add a diffusing panel on the wall across from the speakers. Should I?
On 5/22/2020 at 6:27 PM, Sam S. said:If you don't have CD source material, than I wouldn't recommend getting a CD player. If, however, that changes and you want to explore other sources (e.g. CD's or LP's), then by all means have at it. FLAC files (someone will correct me if I'm wrong), as source files aren't going to be inferior to a CD. Personally, I'd recommend a speaker upgrade, which should be a relatively big difference or ROI. Forte III would be a great choice, or if you are concerned about budget, you could look at the used lines --- e.g. read the forum about the food chain. I have Forte III and Chorus. Really hard to listen to Forte III ahead of time in some locations - I bought without listening to, and I couldn't be happier with the purchase. Finally, retail prices aren't necessarily what you always pay. Check around, get quotes, look at B-stock as an option.
Good luck!
Thank you, Sam. I don’t frankly don’t have space for a large CD collection, too. Your post made me look into how I can listening to my FLAC files now conveniently. I’m experimenting with Plex on my smart TV. I occurred to me to buy a NAS, and build a high res digital library to stream via Plex. I’ll search through these forums for any posts on NAS units in audio systems when I get the time.
One option I’m considering is doing what you did and buying the Forte or the Heresy without listening to them. But it’s an expensive gamble though. Most online sources that will deliver will charge high price for shipping. I can’t imagine hating them. But the truth is that I just don’t know.
-
1 hour ago, willland said:
I own CD's/SACD's and CD players because I like the medium. I like placing a CD in the tray like LP lovers enjoy lowering the tonearm needle onto a record.
As far as preference, no definitive preference. Of course like many do I like the convenience of streaming music files, Spotify, Pandora, etc.
I am sure many will agree here when I say that a very well recorded CD with high dynamic range will run with the best same recording in a lossless file. For example, as mentioned(by me) in another thread, any CD from Steely Dan applies to this concept. In addition to master musicians, Becker(RIP) and Fagen are perfectionists in sound production.
You could play a lossless file that has poor dynamic range vs the same CD pressing with HDR and the CD will smash the lossless file with definition and dynamics. In other words, it is sometimes just a crap shoot.
Bill
I see. In that case, I'd rather put the $500 toward another piece of hardware that would make a bigger difference. A Heresy or a Forte, maybe.
-
1 hour ago, Tarheel TJ said:
In my experience, unless something else in the chain is severely deficient (not the case for you), speakers are almost always the weakest link. Despite all the fuss you hear about amps and CD players, almost all of them do an excellent job of reproducing an audio signal. They are nearly perfect in that regard, even the cheap ones. The same cannot be said for speakers. There is a world of difference between good speakers and poor ones.
I think Alexander is spot on. A set of Heresys or Fortes would be a big upgrade from what you have now. You can probably get away with the Heresys since you have a sub, but bigger is always better. You might also look around Craiglist, etc. for some used larger Heritage models (LaScala, Cornwall). You may get the most for your money there.
That's an interesting perspective that I haven't come across elsewhere. Why do audiophiles upgrade their gear, then? To squeeze out a bit more out of speakers they've invested in?
It's paradoxical, when it comes to choosing between the Heresy and the Forte: if the Forte would replace both my RP 160 and the my subwoofer, it would become cheaper than the Heresy. Smaller footprint in my small room, too.
1 hour ago, Alexander said:If you are looking for a new speaker with the sound that made Klipsch famous the world over go with the Heritage line. You will discover a whole new world with your music library going with the Heresy IV or forte III. With money permitting the forte III would be the first choice over the Heresy IV IMHO. But if at all possible you really need to listen to any speakers that you are considering to purchase.
I would love to get a sense of what that's like. But unfortunately, in my location I'm unable to audition them. I can get them delivered, however. So it'd be a gamble. My reasoning is that if they do more of what I already appreciate in the RP 160 and the 8000 (which I sampled and I really liked), why wouldn't I like the Heresy or the Forte also?
Another question for you, Tarheel and whoever has experience with the heritage line: is it true that the Forte is qualitatively better than the Heresy? I assumed that it's simply a bigger Heresy; but reviews I've seen claim otherwise.
-
11 hours ago, willland said:
I have owned my CD-S1000 for about 3.5 years and could not be more pleased. Built like a bank vault and weighs in at a hefty 33.1 pounds and possesses the smoothest CD tray mechanism I have ever used. The sound is very neutral and has a fast punchy rhythm to it. A perfect compliment to my A-S1000 integrated amp. I think $500.00 is a very nice price.
Bill
Thank you, Bill. Do you own CDs and a CD player because you prefer the experience or because you believe they sound better than, say, streaming lossless files?
-
I posted here before, as some of you will realize. Despite having been a dissatisfied owner of the RP 160M, I nevertheless see much potential in the Klipsch sound. I was mulling over the idea of replacing the speakers with either RP 8000, Heresy IV or, as of a few days now, Forte III. But then it occurred to me that I don't actually know which would be the most cost-effective way to improve my setup. It is as follows:
- RP 160M
- Yamaha R-N602 stereo receiver
- SVS SB-2000 subwoofer (12 inches)
- Room type and dimensions: bedroom (w/ king-sized bed; treated walls); ~13.5 x 13.5 x 9.5 ft
- Source material: Apple Music for non-classical, Digital Concert Hall and Primephonic for classical, locally stored FLAC files (all genres)
- Preferred musical genres: classical, jazz, classic rock, electronica (in that order)
I stopped using Primephonic, despite having paid for a year's subscription, because its interface doesn't highlight its lossless material. Revisiting it made me realize that my setup, though still well short of what I'd like to hear, isn't bad. I use Apple Music frequently because it's convenient (not a fan of Tidal because of its dearth of its lossless material and its exorbitant price point).
Of course, I'm experiencing what has poked so many holes in your pockets: that itch to buy better hardware. The budget is ~$2,000, give or take another grand, depending on the perceived value of the upgrade. As a newcomer to the hobby, however, I don't quite know what my weak links might be.
Possible upgrades:
- Speakers, which is a bit of a crapshoot, because I can't audition any of speakers I'm interested in (Heresy, Forte -- already sampled the RP 8000).
- A decent CD player? A Yamaha CD player called CD-S1000 is going for $500 at a local store ( I don't own a CD collection, but building one isn't very expensive). How much of an upgrade would it be over my current source material? Can't sample the Yamaha CD player in my room, I'm afraid.
- Better amplifier! But which? No clue.
Thanks again for being so welcoming and helpful -- and apologies for posting a new thread. I'm overwhelmed!
-
1
-
20 hours ago, moray james said:
overall efficiency is lower these are small drivers but are the best DC that they (Tannoy) have ever made, the new horn loaded tweeters are very good. I am running the Benchmade AHB2 100 watts a side and volume is not a concern for me and the dynamics are excellent compared to my modified H3. They sound very much like the H3 but smoother (more relaxed yet higher resolution) and more open with better stage and image. They remind me most of my modified Acoustat 1+1 but with a much wider sweet spot. You can see if you can find a used pair of the XT Mini I don't think you would want to let them go they are small and will be inexpensive to post. I do plan to add some cabinet brace work (below the woofer and then to stiffen the lower half of the front, sides and top and bottom) also to totally replace the internal cabinet damping material and will do some trials with switching from reflex to sealed though I am very impressed with the bass, they did a very good job of tuning them with the vent. Note I have added 1/4" extra length to the vents otherwise they are bone stock right now aside from a bunch of tuning devices I have on top of the cabinets which look funny but which add dramatically to the spatial soundscape like the difference between a direct radiator and a planar loudspeaker. These may well be my last loudspeaker. If I can make it from Calgary out to Vancouver Island to visit my friend Dave Dulogos I would like to have him EnABL treat the cones and tweeter horns. I have listened to this treatment and was very impressed with it. Though many will consider this voodoo, I suspect they have never done a controlled comparison, I have been fortunate enough to do so and to have met Bud once when visiting with Dave. I have included a link so that you will have an understanding of what this process involves. Good luck on our journey.
https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/100399-enabl-processes.html
All I can tell is that price is great and might be worth a risk. But being unable to evaluate the sound signature is a bit of an issue.
Is there agreement, broadly speaking, on the similarity between Klipsch and Tannoy in this regard?
-
On 5/13/2020 at 11:26 PM, garyrc said:
With a Heresy III or IV will there be an unobstructed line from the tweeter & midrange to your ears?
Yup. Without stands, even.
-
On 5/13/2020 at 11:11 PM, moray james said:
The more crossover sections you add into the equation the more problems you will have to listen to and the need for more distance for the drivers to all integrate with each other. A two way will integrate in a shorter distance than a three way will. That is why I recommended the tiny Dual Concentric Tannoy XT Mini as it integrates like a single small full range driver. On top of all this the XT Mini is much less expensive than the other options you are looking at. A pair of XT6 would also work in tight quarters considering that the vent is mounted on the bottom of the cabinet yet it vents forward so you can place the speaker closer to the front wall than you could the XT Mini but both really ought to be forward of the wall for best results and the XT Mini with its smaller tweeter (3/4" Vs 1"') yields a more precise sound stage. In my living room my XT Miny sound larger than any loudspeaker I have ever used only in overall output level have other speakers bested the XT Mini. With good subs the XT Mini is closer to my ideal than any larger speakers Tannoy and Klipsch that I have owned, they remind me a lot of my 20 plus years with electrostatic loudspeakers (Quad 57 x 2 pair, Quad 63, Acoustat 1+1 2+2 1+1custum built panels) form a detail and dynamic point of view.
How does Tannoy’s sound compare to Klipsch’s? I’m afraid this brand isn’t available to audition in my city.
-
Perhaps what would definitively solve the issue here is a speaker with a mid-range driver? I can save up for the Heresy IV. The key problem is the prohibitive price ($2,400), where I am. I imagine I'd be blown away with the Klispch sound I know in a bigger box, bigger woofer and a mid-range tweeter. Much better than the RP 8000 (at $1,500)? I don't know.
EDIT: the used market doesn't offer great options in the city I live in, too. Those who own Klipsch speakers almost never sell.
EDIT 2: a brand new Heresy III can be had on ebay for $1,500 (including shipping). Tempting.
-
I should add that the room isn't a perfect cube. It's 13.6 x 13.3 x ~ 9 feet.
-
14 hours ago, willland said:
Possible cancellation issues if the phase and LPF/HPF settings are not "correct". That alone could contribute to the "thin" sound.
Also, if the subwoofer and speakers are not volume matched, the low and mid bass could be over powering the lower midrange of the RPs.
Bill
I experimented with the subwoofer settings with different phase and crossover settings. I also did the sub crawl once more. This only managed to make the bottom end sound worse. When I put the sub back into its usual spot and plugged the LFE port, the bottom end came to life again.
The sub can overpower the speakers like you said; the solution is to fiddle a bit with the volume of the sub vis-a-vis the bass gain on the Yamaha receiver. In short, at least insofar as I'm able to manoeuvre with the setup, it doesn't seem like I can solve the problem.
-
14 minutes ago, willland said:
I am not trying to beat a dead horse but have you experimented more with your SB-2000/RP-160Ms cohesiveness? Different subwoofer placement, phase, volume matching, input, LPF/HPF? Sometimes it just take time and patience to get it "right". When you do, you will know it.
Bill
I did the sub crawl and found a spot where it didn’t sound neither boomy nor absent (in a limited area, admittedly, because it’d be obstructive if placed far from the TV unit). I tried fiddling with the settings manually but found that it sounded much better when plugged in the LFE jack, whatever it’s called.
The sub also doesn’t go beyond 180 hz manually. I still don’t understand how it would fix the issue of the sound not being “full” enough. It’s not bad, mind you. But I can see how it could be fuller — a consequence of living with the same setup for a while, perhaps.
How do you think it would add more body to the sound above the frequencies it covers? I’m relatively new at this, as you can probably tell. Maybe I’m missing something.
EDIT: perhaps I didn’t sufficiently articulate what I think is missing, originally. It’s becoming clearer as I discuss it with you guys in here.
-
57 minutes ago, artto said:
I suspect (based on my experience) that the RP8000 will sound bigger - as in "fuller", more robust. But I wouldn't necessarily call it a bigger sound stage.
Another story: When I built my dedicated listening room some 35 years ago, I was using Klipschorns with a Belle Klipsch (similar to LaScala) center speaker. The speakers were on the short wall (<20'). Late one night on a whim, I decided to move one of the Khorns to the opposite corner of the room - on the long wall. The Khorns were then >28' apart. WHOA. I was amazed at the sound stage. Everything "opened up". Even though I felt the room wasn't really deep enough (not enough space behind me) it was amazing how large and expanded the sound stage became. It was more like "I was IN the place/space where the music was made". BTW, just for the record, I bought the (unfinished) Khorns as a college graduation present for myself. And they were initially in the apartment bedroom (12'x14') before moving back to Chicago. It never did them any justice. Yes, they sounded better than anything Bose (IMO). But never anything like when I used them in a minimally appropriate sized room with reasonably good proportions for good acoustics, especially farther apart.
Owning Klipschorns at that stage of your life is pretty enviable. But I’m not sure what them being “unfinished” means. Not fully manufactured?
I’m listening to my speakers right now and am experimenting with the distance between them (I know what the ideal distance is by now) to test whether I am, in fact, dissatisfied with the sound stage, especially given that you’ve made the helpful distinction between that and robustness/ fullness. If “sound stage” means the perceived width and height of the sound, I’d say the 160s are doing more than a decent job. The sound feels spacious. It’s that the quality of the sound seems “thin.”
The question is: are there any downsides to using big speakers in a small room (aside from the obvious financial one, of course)?
-
2 hours ago, artto said:
"I’m considering getting the 8000 and selling the 160s now. Let me know if you have any thoughts on that kind of setup (towers + 12 inch sealed sub)."
That should be fine.
"The whole point is to have a more immersive experience. At the moment, the sound stage sounds small, despite my room not being so big."
Bigger speakers are probably not going to make for a much bigger sound stage - in the same small room.
Here's a little story. Many, many moons ago (my early 20's) I went to see/hear the Chicago Symphony Orchestra. I had never heard a full symphony orchestra & chorus at that point. I didn't have any "classical" records at that point either. I was totally blown away at the shear scale, and volume of the music. I had no idea it could be so loud. And I was used to playing in some good rock bands for years. I went out and bought Gustav Holst's The Planets, Zubin Mehta/Los Angeles Philharmonic (London). I had a pretty good stereo - in my bedroom - about the same size as yours. JBL L-100, Thorens TD160, B&O phono pickup, Crown IC150 preamp/Crown D60 power amp. When I put that recording on I was so disappointed. I turned it up. I moved the speakers as far apart as I could. Nothing. Absolutely NOTHING like the real experience. I figured I needed a bigger sound stage. To my mother's dismay I moved everything out to the living room, probably something like 16'x20'. Wow, did I run out of gas fast!!!!! That 42 watt/ch Crown didn't cut it. The JBL studio monitors didn't cut it. And there still wasn't a big enough sound stage.
The point is, you're not going to achieve that in a small room regardless of what you do. Maybe some kind of surround sound may make it more immersive for you. You are on a journey. And you have entered the Twilight Zone. Have FUN.
I enjoyed that anecdote. I find myself to be in a similar position. I’m partly motivated by wanting to become a better musician. A dynamic set of speakers can shed light on the dynamics of a piano piece, for instance. Not in relation to the real thing; that will remain an unattainable ideal. Getting into audio brought me a small bit closer, however.
You say that the 8000 won’t provide a wider sound stage. But surely there’ll be a difference?
I consider getting the Klipsch bipoles for a fleeting moment and attach them on both sides of the room. They’re meant for home theaters, but I thought they might help. But I imagine they’ll lack the punch of the larger cabinets in the 8000s.
-
I found a direct comparison between the RP 600 (the 160s’ successor) and the RP 8000. The comparison begins at 4:00. The reviewer’s conclusion suggests that the 8000 will provide what’s lacking with the bookshelves.
-
17 hours ago, artto said:
I think that is a very bad idea - to combine the RP60 with another pair of speakers, of any kind, doing exactly the same thing, especially in close proximity to each other, especially in a relatively small room.
There is so much wrong with that idea. I understand where you're coming from. When I was a youngster I tried the same thing, many times, with many different kinds of speakers, both additive as you are considering, or just putting them in the rear corners of a small room or as center speakers.
If you want to experiment, that's ok. That's how we learn. But don't expect a better result. It may sound impressive at first. But as you grow "audio wise" (pun intended) you'll realize how inappropriate it is.
I can see what you’re saying. The idea, originally, was to build a home theater piece by piece. But I really don’t have enough room for two pairs of speakers.
I’m considering getting the 8000 and selling the 160s now. Let me know if you have any thoughts on that kind of setup (towers + 12 inch sealed sub).
17 hours ago, willland said:Maybe try using the line level input and adjust the low pass filter to your liking. With the LFE input, your sub assumes the the signal has been preset by your receiver. The LFE input is also designed to be used with an AVR or pre/pro with the LFE(.1) channel. Your Yamaha stereo receiver does not produce that .1 channel.
Bill
That’s true. I really have no idea if it would work. Some people told me it would and others say it wouldn’t.
The whole point is to have a more immersive experience. At the moment, the sound stage sounds small, despite my room not being so big.
-
13 hours ago, garyrc said:
Probably not. It sure looks like it has only a 2 channel (full range) output. You should not hook up more full range speakers to it (e.g., in parallel). That's my opinion; others will chime in.
A powered subwoofer is O.K., if the subwoofer output is a conventional one.
Also, it appears to be a 2 channel amp, with 80 watts per channel, despite them pulling almost every trick in the book to make you think it has more power! Only the last line, IMO, of the power specs conforms to standard of good conscience specs: "Minimum RMS Output Power 80W + 80W (8 ohms, 20 Hz-20 kHz, 0.04% THD). It's no surprise they can get an illegitimate 115 w.p.c. at 10% distortion at 1K!! Give me a break!
Fortunately, if you get an 8000, it is sensitive enough to give you about 106 dB at the listening position (not at 1m) in your ~~ 12' x 12' room with the allotted 80 watts per channel, for peaks. That's just over the THX/Dolby/cinema standard for peaks (the subwoofer you choose needs to be capable of 115 dB to hit cinema standard peaks). Most people are happy at 5 to 10 dB below standard ("reference" for peaks), and early reflections may make minus 5 to 10 dB sound louder than they otherwise would. If this bedroom has a bed, that, along with the treatments you mentioned, that might pull the SPL above ~~~ 600 Hz down even more.
I'd go for the 8000, for several reasons:
- It is a bit more sensitive, so it can give you the levels mentioned above.
- It is about 7" taller, so if you sit or stretch out on the bed, there should be an unobstructed line from the tweeter to your ears, which, IMO, is a must. Beds absorb high frequencies more than mids and lows. My OCD says, keep your feet and knees out of the way, as well as any cats or dogs.
Your biggest problem may be that your room is perfectly square. It's always possible that you may have some unfortunate peaks or dips in a room of any size (home size). Google room acoustics. With a perfectly square room, the same peaks or dips will be encouraged by 2 dimensions. If necessary (it may not bother you at all) you may want to put a bass trap (I would think a tuned one -- perhaps a small dimension Helmholtz resonator (?) --- people who know more than me will comment) in a corner. Pass it off as a sculpture.
As for whether a given speaker will be "overkill" in a small room ... I doubt it. At one time, I had Klipschorns in a 9' x 11.35' room. They sounded great, but only from one seat. Not overkill. They now reside in a > 4,000 cu.ft. room, and sound equally good, but from any of 6 seats. I had horn loaded JBLs in a 12 x 11 foot room, and they were good. Not overkill.
I'll bet the 8000 will please you.
Here's a question. When was the house or apartment this bedroom is in built? It was known that perfectly square rooms were not good for music back as far as 1958, when I grew addicted to this hobby. I'm guessing it was known to people like PWK back in the '40s. Just wondering. Good Luck!
Gary, we’ve interacted before and you’ve always written such thoughtful responses.
I measured my room just now and found that it’s not quite perfectly square. There’s about half a feet of difference. Probably doesn’t make a difference, I imagine.
The house isn’t old. Was built in 2005 or thereabouts. Music would definitely be a factor to consider if I ever another place.
Here's a question for you: there’s one key advantage to the RP160s: if you listen with your eyes closed, you can’t pinpoint their location. This suggests that they’re interacting with the room relatively well, I imagine. Would the 8000 be overbearing, in this sense? How was your experience with the Klipschorn (so jealous!)?
I wish I could test the speakers in my room, but the store policy doesn’t allow it.
-
16 minutes ago, willland said:
What is the LPF setting on your SVS?
Bill
It’s done automatically by plugging the sub to the receiver through the “LFE” port. I don’t know what this is called, but I tried to set up crossover manually and found this arrangement to be much better. So I’m assuming the crossover is at 120 hz. Can’t remember why I’m assuming that though.
-
27 minutes ago, artto said:
Are you saying you want to add an additional pair of speakers, floor standing ones? Do you intend to use them at the same time with the RP60? (I was assuming you would be replacing the RP60)
Yes, to add to what I already have. I can see them working well with the RP 5000 or 6000 (but the latter is out of stock and won’t be restocked for now).
Alternatively, I could sell the 160s and buy the RP 8000.
-
4 hours ago, artto said:
You mention your is 4M x 4M (aprox 12 feet x 12 feet).
It's the same dimension in two of three proportions (LxWxH). (square). What's the ceiling height?
A square (or even worse, a cube) is not particularly good for smooth, even bass response. The size is kind of small too. Many times smaller speakers are more appropriate for smaller rooms.
In a space like you have you're sure to encounter some major acoustic modal problems in the lower frequencies where some bass frequencies may be much louder while other ones nearly disappear. In a small space like that, multiple smaller subs would work much better. I have a decent sized room (aprox. 20x30x8). I'm using four subs distributed throughout the room. Just a thought.
The trouble is that I’ve already invested in a very good SVS 12 inch sealed sub. I feel that adding a pair of speakers should add more volume in the mids and mid lows, which I feel are most lacking.
-
3 hours ago, moray james said:
if you want them and the price is right for you then buy them. If however you are buying them specifically for your bedroom no it will not be a good match. A very small two way will work a lot better in your bedroom.
What you’re saying seems sensible. But would you advise me to buy the RP 5000, then? I know, viscerally, that the 160s just aren’t enough. The sound seems “thin,” if that makes sense.
-
It just dawned on me that I made a similar thread before. Apologies, friends. Only comes to show how much I want those towers! The retsil store only has one pair left, and given that the world is going to hell, they won’t import new cargo any time soon.
Dying to pull the trigger. I’m still recuperating from my OLED TV purchase. But my reasoning is that this is going to make quarantine more productive 😬
-
1
-
1
-
Which is the weakest link in my setup -- or: what to buy next? Speakers? Amp? CD player?
in General Klipsch Info
Posted
More time needs must pass before drawing definitive conclusions, but after having experimented with speaker placement (I already know the ideal spots for the RP 160), there is no doubt that the RP 8000's sound is preferable in every way.
Perhaps the biggest advantage to owning the 8000 over the bookshelves is the ability to play at low volumes without losing much in the way of detail. Oftentimes, I had to play the 160s at higher volumes than I'd like to hear the full sound. But that was also fatiguing.
Bigger is better!