prodj101

I really hate the kind of finish they decided on for the front of it. Ick is all I have to say....

They're actually 7 inch drivers, but all the other info is correct. The bass extension is exceptional. While they're obviously not as loud as RF-5's, they have better low end extension (I don't need a sub at all with them, except for things like pomps and pipes). They're a bit more laid back, but I kind of like that. I used better crossover components than those found in the factor models, so the mid and high detail is a little bit better. JT, thanks for mentioning the bigger old mcintosh amps...somehow I had completel yforgotten they existed [:$]

It's a McIntosh MC-2105. I used to think it's 105 watts per channel was plenty, but with the proacs and their lowly 88 db sensitivity, I'm thinking not. I'll probably upgrade to something with a bit more authority sooner or later (though I do really like how the mac sounds).

One more...

Hey now, I'm only 17. I still have a little while before I become a true parasite.

Over the long weekend, I finally got around to putting the finishing touches on my DIY Proac Response 2.5's...What can I say but amazing? Though for home theatre I'd give the edge to the old RF-5's, due to the efficiency and sheer power, for music, hands down Proacs...They sound absolutely incredible. They don't look bad with the red maple either. Unfortunately as I'm typing this, I'm starting to think about upgrading my preamp and amp...oh well, what can you do.

Thanks alot guys!

?<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>More likely to skipLess likely to skipNo difference

Yeah, it is.

Thanks... It is tuned to 31 hz. I have the promedia 2.1's and it absolutely destroys the sub in that system, and based on what I have heard of the 5.1 sub (my friend owns that system) it does the same with that. One however, must take into account that it cost about $200 for just the parts, and you don't get any satilites, amps for those sats and whatever else. Because I tuned it so low and in such a large enclosure, it's not particularily loud, but it makes up for this in cleanliness, as well as low end extension. The RSW-15 is definitely superior, but this sub actually sounds much more neutral/flat, and is just as enjoyable to listen to for music (which is where it is needed). This computer setup is used for mixing/recording music.

A shot that better shows the sub with the rest of the components....

It's a quatro indeed. Not a bad sub at all for the money.

Just got back from my cabin and took a few pictures...

I'm really happy with it. It's definitely not the loudest thing around, but it's very tuneful/accurate and plays quite low. You are correct, I think that might have been my first post in a good 5 or 6 months.

http://sholnay.com/ul/files/3/IMG_3293.JPG 100 watt playte amp, 8 inch woofer, -3db 29 hz....for use in this system... http://sholnay.com/ul/files/3/recording.JPG

For some reason the pic got deleted from the first post?

They are RF-5's. And you are correct in saying that this gear was set up in my bedroom at my house in the city before. I aquired a pair of Proac Response 2.5's so those are now in use in my room (I easily prefer them to the RF's for 2 channel music). While the front line of the system is nice and uniform, the back is not. For the time being, I have 2 garbage RCA bookshelf speakers and a Kef center channel for the rear center position. Nothing special, but they get the job done for now. If I can work this summer I think I'll throw in a better DVD player and perhaps some RS-25's. Until then, it's good enough for me. Attatched is a picture of the cabin exterior.

I need a bigger tv.

I recently aquired a pair that I am now using with Mcintosh amplification.... I have to say I am completely stunned at how far superior they are to the RF-5's along with the RSW-15. They are superior in essentially ever way other than max volume and sensitivity...but with good amplification in my tiny room that's not really an issue. I would definately reccomend them to anyone thinking of making an upgrade from any of the current klipsch products, even the RF-7's.

Sealed and ported woofers have different extension types, not so much better or worse. Sealed woofers typically have a more gradual roll off, so if it's rated to 30 hz, it will gradually become softer from then on. Ported subwoofers typically have a sharp roll off, so from after 30 hz you'd get very little performance. Sealed subwoofers will also typically be more clean sounding, but it is very posssible to have a ported subwoofer that will perform comporably, you'll just have to spend a little more.

---------------- On 1/4/2005 11:09:45 AM aauwen wrote: Thanks everyone for the input. How would the Parasound Halo's compare to the B&Ks? I do want to warm up the refs a tad. ---------------- Considerded McIntosh?

Just out of curiousity, why are you mixing the THX Ultra 2 line with the Reference series? If you're going to be using this system for primarily movies (which it seems like you are) you'd get better performance from an all THX Ultra system. I realize that the 525's are only surrounds, but it is typically desireable to have a system that is 100% timber matched, which is what you would yield from either an all reference system or all THX system, not to mention it won't look goofy . As for seperates, I too would reccomend B&K because I have a preamplifier made by them and I have been satisfied with it. However, with the amount of money your spending things like Krell and Sunfire are also highly acclaimed possibilities.

Gem Sound makes terrible stuff. I've heard of their mixers having the common problem of crossfaders catching on fire while in use.

---------------- On 12/29/2004 9:17:06 PM Steve_L wrote: I wouldn't know, but the F-3s sounded great to me against the other speakers I listened to in the same range; Paradigms, Polks, Saphhire and Bose, Boston Research. ---------------- You merged two companies . Boston Research is not a company, however Boston Acoustics and Acoustic Research are companies.