prodj101

the THX reference subs use a bit more than just a slot...if you take a look at the internal pics they look like they use some sort of fold/wave guide.

Why does it matter if it's made in China as long as quality remains consistant? I haven't see anyone complaining about inferior products...In fact many of you continue to buy Klipsch.

both the AV-15 and Blueprint would be superior to the tempest, plus they fit in your price range.

We didn't go nuts because you mentioned an $800 sub (we didn't even really go nuts), we got on you because you said the Tempest was the best 15 inch sub around short of the $800 you mentioned, which is an extremely uninformed statement.

Are you on drugs? Have you heard of the Adire Audio Tumult? That will squash your Tempest to bits for a good deal less than $800. The 15 inch model Blueprint offers would also probably be more than competitive at $250 (about 9 mm more excursion).

.

---------------- On 11/26/2004 12:37:14 AM myriadcorp wrote: My opinion is this... I would put the RF35's above the RB75's any day. The large floor standing speaker sounds alot better to my ear than the bookshelf. To me those bookshelfs sound sorta tin sounding (best I can describe) When you play the bookshelf then swap to the RF35 it just sounds like a full sound. I guess the dual speakers and the horn are alot better than one speaker and the horn. Listen for yourself though. Have the sales guy change speakers and see which one sounds better to you. I was going to do the Bookshelfs until I listened to the RB75 and RF35's side by side. BTW I saw that Yamaha 2400 receiver for less than $600 at ultimate electronics. Check out the Marantz SR5500 too its a good receiver. Honestly if you can get the Reference 35's all around why settle for a 3.1 system. That 35 system with a decent receiver will add a smile to your face alot more than a 3.1 system would. Not everyone has the cash to buy Rf7's and 7's all around. The 35's are a good speaker and will make a very nice system for your HT. If you dont already have it you will need cables and wire. Thats not cheap. Plus maybe a power center of some type. You can find some monster power centers on ebay alot cheaper than the stores. Also try ac4l.com or bluejeanscable.com for cables. Acoustic Research Pro 2 or Master is fine for a system. Dont be hucked into Monster THX Ultra or Z series cables. You will pay a fortune. ---------------- The RF-35's have more bass, but that is the only catagory in which they are superior to the RB-75. The RB-75 slaughters them as far as detail and midrange/high end sound quality go, and with an appropriate subwoofer would also prevail over the RF-35's in terms of all round sound.

bass wavelengths are too long to be absorbed to any notable degree by a carpet.

---------------- On 11/20/2004 8:23:36 PM Juba310 wrote: ---------------- On 11/20/2004 4:39:46 PM m00n wrote: Indiana's Artest, Jackson, O'Neal suspended indefinitely for roles in brawl Wonder just how long indefinitely is in the NBA.... Bet they are back in the game within 1 week. ---------------- I doubt that. When Sprewell choked his coach he was suspended for a relatively long time. Obviously this was just as bad, if not worse. ---------------- Sprewell was suspended for 68 games (not that far short of the whole season).

more pics...

more screen shots

Krell MRS=around $20,000....at this price it can be easily out done.

simply amazing in all ways is all I have to say about it...4x AA, 1280x960 res, all detail settings high.

And only a select few athletes end up making the big bucks you guys think they shouldn't be making. It's not like every person to come out of college intent on playing in the NBA gets there. In fact, its complete opposite. Our school hangs all of these posters around the school with the statistic that 1 in 4 million will make it into the pros, so it is indeed very rare. I'm not arguing that 86 million dollars isn't alot of money, but why should you be able to judge what is morally wrong and what isn't? If you're going to crack down on them, you should do so only after being equally generous with your own money, and even then you really shouldn't since your own moral values shouldn't have any priority over anyone elses. m00n has one of the nicest and most expensive home theatre systems on this forum, and if compared on a global level he probably has a nice home theatre than 99.999 percent of the worlds people. m00n obviously has a fair amount of expendable income, and isn't too worried about not having enough money to buy things like food, clothing, or paying the bills (or else he's really deep in debt). Has he built any homeless shelters or helped purchase medicine for the needy in Africa and Suth Asia? Probably not (and if he has, I am 100% certain that there is at least one other person who hasn't, like myself ). Lets say moon makes an average American salary of about $35,000. He makes about 70 times as much money annually as many people in Africa (many countries Africa have a GDP of only 500-700 dollars). Wouldn't you think that, if these people somehow manage to live (a sucky life) on their meager incomes m00n could probably affoard to shell out some of his money to help them out? No, you wouldn't, because moon spends his extra income on frivolous things like Klipsch RF-7's and RSW-15's and 12's (not to mention projectors, dvd players, and high end recievers). "But prodj! NBA players make so much more than m00n and they don't help either!" So? m00n could be helping but he chooses not to because it's inconvenient for him. NBA players choose not to because it's inconvenient for them. He's not a better person in my book.

---------------- On 11/13/2004 12:46:38 PM m00n wrote: I second Griff and not to mention, I highly doubt your going to see some rock band come out of college and get some 50 million dollar shoe endorcement by Nike either. Yep rock stars are only popular for the length of time that some jerk-off in hollywood dictates. Only hollywood can package a dog turd, make everyone love it, sell it, make millions then shelve it. ---------------- And pro athletes are only in the game for the years they are in their prime. Pro athletes are rich because out of the many millions of people in the world (most of us have had the dream of being a pro athlete at some point) they manage to beat everyone else, and people are willing to pay to see it. Musicians get paid for the same reason. Tickets to rock concerts typically cost about the same as a ticket to an NBA game. Suddenly athletes get a bad rep because they get a good break when musicians get shafted because they were too lazy to read the fine print on a record contract? What about all of the 'out of style' musicians who are loaded?

the same argument can be made for musicians. why don't they dish off some of their many millions to the needy? I don't see you complaining about any of them. Music and sports aren't the same thing? They're both unnecessary forms of entertainment, only a select few individuals ever get rich and famous off of them, those that do have worked their asses off to get there (Though I guess not in the case of some musicians like Ashley Simpson). They seem awful similar to me. Whatever floats your boat.

---------------- On 11/9/2004 12:04:31 PM Scp53 wrote: those paper flappers go in the 301s http://forums.klipsch.com/idealbb/files/blose2.jpg"> ok im done bashing, just had to vent some steam ---------------- Paper is actually one of the best materials to make driver cones out of.

If the question is sound stage/imaging, higher quality amps can deliver this. If power is the only concern I will agree with you that it isn't worth the upgrade. Either way, I think you're all pretty soft and sensitive. I didn't even say anything offensive. He took it the wrong way and was in fact the first to be "offensive" by your standards. Somehow I'm always scapegoated. Oh well.

---------------- On 11/8/2004 8:49:06 PM JewishAMerPrince wrote: ---------------- On 11/8/2004 4:08:04 PM prodj101 wrote: I suggest you pay a visit to a hifi stereo store that has good quality seperates (not denon or pioneer) and then create an opinion. ---------------- I believe that the tone of your response was definitly not in line with the atmosphere we try to maintain here in these forums. Unfortunatly, to me you sound a lot like my 16 yo step-son. He knows it all, (but doesn't have a clue). If you are going to pick on someone, as you have, you should get to know the enemy before you wage war. Please check my profile and you will see that I OWN separates. Perhaps not as esoteric as yours, but nevertheless decent quality. Because of my education (PhD in Engineering)and occupation (builder of sound studios, media rooms and communication centers, former owner of "HiFi Stereo store", as you call it...we call them salons) I've probably spent more time listening to high/medium/low end equipment than you have been alive. At least long enough to learn how to spell separates (just kidding!). I've owned very few receivers in my lifetime (I'm on about my 15th system). I've owned Mac tube equipment back in the two channel days. I've owned Carver amps and am not impressed(too much switching distortion). I've owned a lot of HK through the years including the Citation series separates from their glory days. HK traditionally doesn't over-rate their receiver's power ratings like the Denon's and Pioneers, etc.,in fact quite the opposite is true. A 65wpc HK will, as a rule, outperform most 100 wpc receivers. I stand on my premise that there isn't enough to be gained with any 60 wpc amp,(even bridged)the difference will barely be audible, to bother with the expense. That expense is not just for the amp, but for quality interconnects as well. Mikel is probably better off saving for a real upgrade. This is the question Mikel asked, and what I implied in my answer. JR ---------------- I didn't intend to be condescending. If thats how I came across to you, tough luck. There isn't enough to be gained with any 60 wpc amp? Coming from someone with so much experience this kind of surprises me. There are a lot of people on this board with 10 watt tube gear that I think would say otherwise, and there is also quite a bit of class A gear in the area of 60 watts which I can guarantee would be an improvement over the HK amp. Also, power isn't the only contributing factor to amplifier sound quality (though from what you've said, you seem to think that). I agree that interconnects do make a difference, but many here and other places will argue endlessly that they do not and that buying more than rat shack RCA's is wasting money on snake oil. You have been around quite a bit longer than I, I'll give you that, but your age doesn't make you any more qualified to give an opinion. And either way, your hearing is probably starting to go. That makes you less qualified. You say salon instead of hifi stereo shop? I'm sorry for being stupid and unsophisticated; please forgive me for my insolence. I'll go back to my box in the ally.

---------------- On 11/8/2004 7:05:28 AM JewishAMerPrince wrote: The real question is, why bother? The HK is a good clean sweet sounding receiver with plenty of "headroom". Bridging two channels of any amp, the Carver included, increases distortion considerably and audibly. The difference in clean achievable SPL from the HK receiver will be less than you imagine. JR ---------------- All of your points are comparatively speaking. The HK is a good clean sounding amp compared to what? Plenty of headroom compared to what? Bridging two channels of ANY amp increases distortion considerably and audibly? This is definately not true. While the distortion may be 'considerable' on paper, whether or not it is audible is entirely different. .0001 percent THD is half as much as .0002 distortion, which is 'considerable' in terms of raw numbers. Is this audible? Not unless your ears are scientific devices. Why bother? The HK IS a good receiver compared to OTHER RECEIVERS. Receivers do not match the capabilities of high quality seperates in any respect other than convenience. I suggest you pay a visit to a hifi stereo store that has good quality seperates (not denon or pioneer) and then create an opinion. Also, whether or not they will be equaly clean at those levels is debateable. Not too long ago there was a link with power output capabilities of many mainstream recievers to a certain distortion point. These often fell below the manufacturers claim. Typically if you're spending a bit of money on quality seperates (and carver does make good stuff) this won't be the case. For example, my Mcintosh MC-2105 is rated at %.1 1-105 watts both channels driven. Very few home recievers can claim this.

---------------- On 11/7/2004 7:30:35 PM Vicenza wrote: **I KNOW THIS SHOULD BE IN ANOTHER THREAD> DON'T KNOW HOW TO CHANGE IT. Thanks for being understanding** Hey Guys/Gals, I need some quick help. I'm looking at buying a Carver AV 634 amp to run my RF-5s and bridge 3/4 to run my Bose center channel (I know, but I don't have time to hear how I need to change that center). The question is, will I hear a noticable difference from my H.K. AVR 65? STATS: Harmon Kardon AVR 65 (circa 1998)is 65watts/channel. Carver AV 634 is 60 watts/channel and 3/4 can bridge. I guess the question is will I really notice a nice difference in sound stage/clarity and POWER from the HK's 65watts to the Carvers 60? ...Or, should I wait for a larger 3/4 channel amp? If so, suggestions on some good 3-4 channel amps. I need to stay under 100 watts for the center. Thanks for your QUICK response, Mikel ---------------- The 5 watt difference will only be noticeable on test equipment, not to the human ear. Will you be running the Carver from the HK's preamp out? If so, you should know that the preamp actually influences the sound more than the amplifier in many cases because it amplifies the signal more. I'm assuming you "need to stay under 100 watts for the center" because the bose is only rated to 100 watts...If this is the case, you don't need to worry about having a larger amplifier than 100 watts. Just because you have 300 watts to push doesn't mean you're always using 300 watts, and you would in fact be running a lower risk of damaging the center channel by using a larger amplifier due to the decreased risk of amplifier clipping (which damages speaker voice coils).

I'd ditch the outlaw monoblocks for now and use the extra dough to upgrade speakers. A speaker upgrade is more noticeable than an amp upgrade any day of the week, especially since you're running the outlaws off of a receiver....which isn't exactly the best source.

I don't know what output levels the RW-12's are capable of, so they may be able to push harder there, but the RSW-12 will give them the five across the eyes if you're talking sound quality.

what the funk could be in a crossover that could push up the price that high?

I like mine more than any subs I've heard including many offerings from velodyne, B&W, and defenitive.