prodj101

I think the retail price of a whole 6.2 system is around $10,000-11,000...Subwoofers are typically by far the most expensive speaker in any home theatre system, and considering that with the THX Ultra 2 system you are not only getting 2 subwoofers, but 2 subwoofers with an external amp I think it would be realistic to put them at close to $4,000 total. Also, RSW-15's can be had for around 1,200 online, the THX system, to my knowledge, can not.

The new THX subs will out perform dual RSW-15's down low, and most likely in the 30 hz range. I believe they also cost significantly (not slightly) more.

There are people like that, they're called Stereophile journalists.

It probably doesn't hurt their business very much. First of all, if you look at how many people post about subs on this section of the forum, specifically which they have boughten, the overwhelming majority are NOT SVS or other brands, but a relatively equal spread. Then when you consider that the Klipsch BB represents a very small portion of the electronic consuming population, it is even less of a loss.

---------------- On 10/16/2004 2:55:10 PM Scp53 wrote: they look better than the older stuff ---------------- they look like they're intended for a 5-13 year old market.

uuuuuugly

---------------- On 10/15/2004 2:01:32 PM jj1234567 wrote: My thread title says it all: I'm SICK and TIRED of all the Non-Klipsch Talk!!! For these reasons: -This subwoofer forum should be a forum dedicated to Klipsch subwoofers. It should be a resource for everyone interested in Klipsch subs, and for everyone who wants to learn about Klipsch subs, period. -The company is hurting itself and losing sales because consumers are migrating toward other subwoofer companies. -The Klipsch subs are losing credibility in some people's eyes because of all the talk about the competition's products. -Some Klipsch owners are losing confidence because of all the talk about the competition's products. -Technical support questions about Klipsch subwoofers are rare because of all the talk about the competition's products. -If a forum says Klipsch, I expect people to talk about Klipsch. -There are at least half a dozen other general audio forums that rightfully encourage promotion and discussion of other brands. I feel that Klipsch needs to regain control of their forum. Right now. ---------------- Hahaha! You're an idiot!

---------------- On 10/12/2004 2:27:11 PM nicholtl wrote: Amen to that. Most people I know, have seen in stores, or have read on forums, say, "I'm looking for a top-of-the-line DVD player." And when you ask them what their budget cap is, it's like $300. Most normal people (as in non-ultra enthusiasts) don't seem to realize that there are products that reach well into the 4 digit range. ---------------- A place near me sells stuff that will make anything in Ultimate Electronics, Daisy, Best Buy and the likes look like cheap plasticy junk. In fact, they have plenty of stuff that reaches into the 5 digit range ( try $60,000 for a pair of Verity Audio Lohengrins). Going there makes me feel like my electronics are total garbage

If I were you I'd go the absolute bare minimum on the surrounds, i.e. the RS-10's and spend the money you save on those to upgrade to 25 mains and the 35 center, or if at all possible 35 mains and 35 center. I wouldn't cut the center budget to improve the mains from the 15's. While mains are important for music, they are much less so for movies (and this is the home theatre forum). They play mainly background music and ambient sounds. Very rarely will voices come from these channels, and when they do it will be very briefly. The RF-25's will obviously sound better, and so would the 35's, but for movies where you are distracted by the sound coming from the center of the screen, the stuff going on in the background isn't so critical.

if the yamaha receiver still works I'd just keep that and spend $400 on speakers alone. If the receiver is broken as well, spend as little as possible on it, and if an option try to find an old used receiver (good ones can be found at thrift stores for under $50) and then spend the rest on speakers. in this price range, an equal amount of money should not be spent on the two.

you shouldn't use the flash with your pictures. instead use a slower shutter speed with a tripod. the flash washes out colors, exposes even the smallest flaws, and makes everything look ugly. None the less, nice system.

---------------- On 9/26/2004 7:22:35 PM tpg wrote: prodj- May I ask what bike your brother rides (if you happen to know)? I am torn between bikes... both guys at the different stores feel that their line is better... as is customary for everything. I cannot decide... Some say that carbon bikes ride and feel different after you put some time and distance on them- and that change is for the worst, requiring you to swap up bikes or frams every couple of years. This would not be impossible for me to do, but really would be a waste of money for me... and I don't like wasting money. So, it seems a steel frame would be better... has a longer life and is cheaper, too. But, I like the light-weight of carbon. If you happen to know what he rides, I'd be interested in knowing as well. Might throw some other perspective into it... ---------------- My brother has a few bikes. He has an old steel frame Bianchi cycle cross rigged up bike that he rides in the winter and for everyday getting around. The bike he races on has a San Lorenzo X2 frame set (the team gets the for dirt cheap). This bike is actually made of aluminum and not carbon, though it is still very light (with the components he uses it's slightly over 15 pounds). The other bike he rides is an Orbea which is set up for time trialing. I don't know a whole lot about that one because he doesn't spend nearly as much time on it.

I don't ride competitvely myself, but my brother rides at a professional level and not long ago was ranked 11th nationaly.

I think it is safe to say that 2 way speakers are not as good as 3 ways. Like damon said, physics lean in favor of a 3 way design, but that does not mean that a 3 way will always be superior. Infact it is often the opposite because good 2 way crossovers are much easier and less expensive to design well, and because of this they are often the better performing of the two. Crossovers are an extremely important part of a loudspeaker, and are in fact even more important, according to many designers, than the drivers themselves. This is because beyond just splitting the signal in half (or however many ways you need it) a properly designed crossover should also include baffle step compensation if needed, and also an L-Pad if necessary to even out the frequency response between drivers. Beyond crossover design, driver placement on the front baffle is also very important and has a large impact on imaging and depth. When soundwaves (specifically midrange and high frequencies) travel from the driver they not only go forward, but also off to the sides along the baffle. After the sound waves reach the edge of the baffle, the space they have to radiate turns from 2pi to 4pi, which can cause up to a 6db inrease or decrease in sound level. By off setting a driver to the right or left of the center line this effect can be decreased to an extent, but baffle step compensation is often needed. This is why on many high end speakers the tweeter is offset from the rest of the drivers, or in it's own enclosure entirely (note B&W nautilus line). Calculating all of these factors is very difficult and much trial and error is necessary, and when you listen to cheap 3 way speakers at best buy it is obvious that this attention to detail is missing. However, if you listen to a very high end 3 way speaker i.e. Meadowlark Audio, B&W Nautilus, or Verity Audio I can guarantee you that you'll see the light

yuck, how ugly. they resemble that crappy wharfedale stuff they sell at bestbuy.

15 hz with at what db level?

I think that often stereo equipment actually can make a room look better, and not like an electronics store. I love the way it makes my listening room look.

http://www.intellexual.net/bose.html that is the best bose ripping report I have seen. all claims are backed up with fact and there is little to no personal opinion. I have only gone through a few highschool english courses, but I will say that my teacher last year also really, really, really had a hate on for generalizations. every generalization used in a paper resulted in a 5 point dock, which was significant since each paper was around 50 points...you could get them back but only through rewriting the paragraph. use numbers to support your claims, and if possible use numbers that include a decimal point i.e. 75.8 percent rather than 76 percent. studies have shown this seems more impressive and credible to readers. also, when you use numbers you should always include how you came to those numbers. don't just say "the bose speakers played only 75.8 percent as loud as the..." say "the bose speakers played only 75.8 percent as loud as the...when monitored with a radio shack spl meter from the listening position." this helps make your claims more bullet proof to criticism. I'm not sure how your teacher grades on things like that, but if we had bits like that in our papers we'd burn in a hell of paper rewrites for it

do a search on a program called WinISD. it allows you to input driver parameters and gives you a plot of the kind of power you should be able to get out of it, and how big to make the box/passive radiator etc.

just because a product has defect issues does not mean it is low quality. it isn't a rarity to read in stereophile about $30,000 components having defects. also, the amp quality isn't probably much different. the amps are larger, but quality wise probably not much better. subwoofer amplifiers do not require much in the way of sound quality or limitting distortion. By the way, I didn't know correcting someone and flaming someone were the same thing. if you give misleading advice I don't see why I shouldn't correct it so the people seeking advice aren't guided in the wrong direction.

---------------- On 8/21/2004 8:59:50 AM Scp53 wrote: I wouldn't look at wattage at all. it shows little to nothing. the woofer(s) sensitivity and cab make more of a difference. you commented on the ultra that it has 170 wts. well the Dayton 10" sub at partsexpress has 100wts and is equal to the Ultra in output and even plays lower. ---------------- wattage is indeed overrated and often used as a marketing tactic, but disregarding it entirely is foolish. it can actually show quite a bit. say you're looking at some B&W nautilus 802's, which are rated at a low (in comparison to klipsch speakers) 91 db sensitivity. you prefer the sound of the BW's but don't know if they'll give you the volume you want because of their sensitivity. so, you look to the wattage so you know how much power you can put through them safely, and in the case of the BW's, you can do 500 watts RMS. this more than off sets their mediocre sensitivity. speaker sensitivity is a factor to look at, but not the most important, because just like sensitivity can make a high power amplifier unnecessary, a high power amplifier can make a high sensitivity speaker unnecessary. also, just because the ultra sub is a computer subwoofer does not mean it is low quality, in fact it out does many home theatre subs and most defenitely the KSW-10. the KSW line is notorious for being a sub-par speaker line. they are boomy, often suffer from distortion, and the cabinet fit and finish isn't anything special. I'm not sure what you mean by the cabinets not being anything special on the ultra sub....what exactly does make a good cabinet to you? the KSW cabinet certainly wouldn't get any recognition as being built well, nor would any of the other components put into it. I wouldn't worry at all about buying used speakers, even if they didn't come with a warranty. if a speaker is to have a problem it will be apparrent right out of the box in most cases, or soon after. with how much you're spending have you considerded an SVS subwoofer? they can be had for not much more than what you're looking at spending, though it may be difficult to ship them to canada.

---------------- On 8/20/2004 9:35:49 PM edwinr wrote: You've got sharp eyes dkp. I never noticed the sneak peak. The speaker looks hot. If that pic is an indication, Klipsch are deadly serious about their new image and marketing strategy. ---------------- looks like they've gone the many tiny drivers style like bose

if you did that your sub would be playing only frequencies below what your receivers crossover specified, and your mains would be playing everything (entire range of what is sent to them).

RSW-15, Velodyne DD-18, SVS PB2 plus or SVS B4.

no....there was a thread on them earlier titled "what klipsch are these?"