mutant

Would I harm my amp or preamp if I connected my amp to the tape outs instead of the normal output-to-amp jacks on my preamp? What sonic problems, if any, might this cause? Is the signal coming from the tape outs too strong for the amp, or is the concern focused entirely on the absence of volume control when using the tape outs?

Would I harm my amp or preamp if I connected my amp to the tape outs instead of the normal output-to-amp jacks on my preamp? What sonic problems, if any, might this cause? Is the signal coming from the tape outs too strong for the amp, or is the concern focused entirely on the absence of volume control when using the tape outs?

Hi, Sunnysal! In the store I auditioned them while connected to some Yamaha AV receiver. At home now they are hooked up to my single-ended 20 watt per channel N.E.W. A-20.1 amp. This has made a nice improvement - the warmer, more euphonic sound of this little high current class-A amp is just frosting on the cake. (It supplies more than enough power for this application) I'm smiling now...

I decided on the RB-3 after a side-to-side audition of both models.

Well, no answers to this post of mine yet so I guess I will have to answer it myself! I did some research while I was out (including a search under "RB-5" on this site), and found some good references to the RB-3. One professional review I found at the ecoustics website compared it very favorably to the RB-5 (that was also previously reviewed in the same publication). The most important difference between the two speakers is simply that the RB-3 is designed for a smaller room - the overall sonic quality and characteristics are about identical to the RB-5, but the RB-3 has a more subdued treble region and a different off/on-axis response combination that will probably make this smaller Klipsch sound better than the larger one in smaller rooms (like mine). (By the way, this reviewer recommends that both models be faced straight ahead in a room, not angled toward the listener, for "smoothest sound") The RB-5 measures ever so slightly flatter and smoother overall than the RB-3. But flat measurements alone do not guarantee the best sound in every application! Certain other characteristics of the RB-5 will likely negate some of this "purity" in a too small room, where the RB-3 will probably reign supreme. When heard in a large dealer showroom for example, the RB-5 will appear more impressively "extended", due to more bass and less rolled-off treble, and therefore more "open" (as some people on this forum have noted)? But, the RB-3's should be easier to live with in a small room (when located closer to the listener and to the back and side walls) than the RB-5. I have finally auditioned both models and I preferred the RB-3 over the RB-5 in "nearfield" mode, due to the combination of the abovementioned characteristics. Due mostly to the more "forward" treble on the RB-5, I felt it was ultimately less transparent and less invisible than the RB-3, especially in close-nearfield (6 feet or so away, triangulated). And the low bass on the RB-3 is nothing to sneeze at - it's powerful and tight and rolls off at about the same rate (until 70 hz. or so) as the RB-5 but simply does not go as loud or as low. Many people will not feel the need for a sub even with the "small" RB-3, but if used with a good sub, set at around 70-80 hz., you cannot feel bass deficient in any event. If you want a standmounted speaker to fill a larger room, then go with the RB-5. Otherwise, the RB-3 might be the better sounding speaker (for less money!) for you. And today, I very happily bought the Klipsch RB-3.

Any good or bad experiences here? Are they as smooth and as good sounding overall (besides having less bass) as the RB-5's? I am looking for speakers to use in a "nearfield" setup in a small room (8X10 ft.),so I was wondering if having these speakers placed as close as 18 inches to the wall behind them will result in noticeable bassport "chuffing" sounds or serious soundstaging impairments? (My currently owned speakers are sealed-box Spendor S-3/5's, and they work fine in this setup, but I am in the mood to change speakers...) Should I search for another sealed-box or front-ported design for this room instead? Also, I cannot tell from the Klipsch website whether or not these speakers are bi-wireable or not. Any help would be appreciated, thanks!

Which is the better sounding speaker of the current offerings by Klipsch, in your experienced opinion(s)? The Heresy II's are a couple of bills more, of course, but are the sonic differences worthwhile?

I myself am at this moment testing my bi-wire beliefs. I've tried bi-wiring the traditional way (you know - removing the jumpers and running two seperate cables per speaker to woofer and tweeter),and did notice some extra sparkle,but I have heard that sometimes the improvements wrought by bi-wiring with inferior cable will benefit you no more than if you had used a single cable run of superior quality and correct gauge thickness in the first place. Maybe bi-wiring "improves" the sound only because you were using too thin a gauge of cable in single-run mode,and the bi-wiring boosted you up to the amount of cable that you always needed but never had. Some advocate bi-wiring while still leaving the jumpers connected,perhaps with two different cable types mixed (such as stranded wire and/or solid-core wire designs - I have noticed that these two types have different sonic traits and each type seems to cater best to certain frequency ranges) so that any particular frequency that favors travel on one certain type of design would theoretically be able to do so,while maintaining a coherent wholeness. Some say to try bi-wiring but leaving only the negative side jumpers on the speakers installed. And on and on...You see,there are so many options it is probably wise to do the true audiophile thing and study the problem,try everything you can,then go with what sounds the best to you (along with what you can afford). This is what I am doing as I am able. So start with reasonable basics,research,then add or subtract by ear...

I own an N.E.W. A-20.1 20 watt per channel SS amp,it's a single-ended "pure" class-A design that has a surprisingly stable and gutsy power flow,with a sweet and euphonic sound overall. To those of you familiar with the needs of the Heresy II,would an amp like this be desirable?

---------------- On 11/6/2002 5:35:54 PM Placido wrote: The H-II's do not "disappear" (they let you know exactly where they are), are somewhat weak in the bass department, and very sensitive to placement. Sooo...if those are not the characteristics that you are looking for, I suggest that you trade them for a pair of Infinity Kappa 7.1's. BTW, I have a pair of Kappas, and willing to trade for H-II's. ---------------- Why a speaker with a 12" woofer should be "weak in the bass" is beyond me,but it seems I have heard this before. What do you think is the reason for this? Also,could you elaborate on the hows and the why this speaker is placement sensitive if they are any more so than other horns? Obviously you like the Heresy II's. I'll try to keep you in mind if indeed I do buy them and do not like. Thanks.

I am wondering about the ability to use the Heresy II in a small room (8X10 feet),in-corner placement with toe-in of course. Is this advisable? Also,does the bass seem as tight and fast on this speaker as it might on one with a smaller bass driver? Does this speaker have neoprene surrounds on the big driver,or are they foam? I have liked the RB-5 sound in many ways,but found the sound to be more "directional" than some all-cone-driven speakers that seemed to excell at "disappearing". Is this a charecteristic of horn-loaded speakers that one eventually gets used to? How does the Heresy II differ in sound character when compared to the newer design lines of Klipsch?