Moderators Youthman Posted September 8, 2011 Moderators Share Posted September 8, 2011 Lens EF-S17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM IMO, this is the biggest contributor to the quality of his images. The $1100 or more price shows why it takes much higher quality pics than a standard 3.5 kit lens. I'll admit...I'm jealous that he has fast glass. LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heritage_Head Posted September 8, 2011 Share Posted September 8, 2011 Lens EF-S17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM IMO, this is the biggest contributor to the quality of his images. The $1100 or more price shows why it takes much higher quality pics than a standard 3.5 kit lens. I'll admit...I'm jealous that he has fast glass. LOL What’s fast glass? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Youthman Posted September 8, 2011 Moderators Share Posted September 8, 2011 What’s fast glass? This should explain it Link Basically fast glass means you have a large aperture, many times 1.4 or 2.8 (big hole in lens to let tons of light in). More light that enters the camera, the faster the shutter speed (how quickly the shutter opens and shuts) and the shallower the depth of field (amount of blurriness in the background of the image to help bring out the subject in the image to almost give a 3d effect). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen Traveler Posted September 8, 2011 Share Posted September 8, 2011 Hey Rippyman, Those are some nice pictures but it appears your room is almost a square with alot of flat surfaces....My guess is some room treatment will go along way in cleaning up some reflections and boominess, even though it may sound great now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rippyman Posted September 8, 2011 Share Posted September 8, 2011 Hey Rippyman, Those are some nice pictures but it appears your room is almost a square with alot of flat surfaces....My guess is some room treatment will go along way in cleaning up some reflections and boominess, even though it may sound great now. I just moved in, the room is not complete. My couches haven't even arrived yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GRishi Posted September 8, 2011 Share Posted September 8, 2011 I have been really enjoying the RF-7II's. In stereo they are amazing. I demo'd them against DT ST's, GoldenEar Tritons's, Klipsch RF-82II, and Adam Pencils. These speakers really sound fantastic when listening to high quality music. Listening to lossless music really brings out the "crispness" of the sound. In surround config, I think my receiver is lacking the power to run all 7 speakers wells. When things get loud, it seems like the center channel just seem to be losing power or something. It dips in volume and then comes back up again. The Denon Avr-3312 is supposed to have 7 channel 125 watt power, so I am not sure whats happening. My local dealer is awaiting his shipment of Denon Avr-4311 to come in and will allow me to upgrade to it. Hopefully it will work better. I also want to say thank you to Mike @ acousticsounddesign I got a great price on the whole set and unlike many online retailers, he answered all my email questions within 30 minutes. I was throughly impressed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heritage_Head Posted September 8, 2011 Share Posted September 8, 2011 I have been really enjoying the RF-7II's. In stereo they are amazing. I demo'd them against DT ST's, GoldenEar Tritons's, Klipsch RF-82II, and Adam Pencils. These speakers really sound fantastic when listening to high quality music. Listening to lossless music really brings out the "crispness" of the sound. In surround config, I think my receiver is lacking the power to run all 7 speakers wells. When things get loud, it seems like the center channel just seem to be losing power or something. It dips in volume and then comes back up again. The Denon Avr-3312 is supposed to have 7 channel 125 watt power, so I am not sure whats happening. My local dealer is awaiting his shipment of Denon Avr-4311 to come in and will allow me to upgrade to it. Hopefully it will work better. I also want to say thank you to Mike @ acousticsounddesign I got a great price on the whole set and unlike many online retailers, he answered all my email questions within 30 minutes. I was throughly impressed. Don’t spend the money you have a nice avr already. Use that money on an amp. Avrs don’t have the juice to run 7 speakers they way you probably want. For the same money as an upgrade would cost you could get an xpa-3 to power your front 3 then use the avr for the rest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cornfedksboy Posted September 8, 2011 Share Posted September 8, 2011 I have been really enjoying the RF-7II's. In stereo they are amazing. I demo'd them against DT ST's, GoldenEar Tritons's, Klipsch RF-82II, and Adam Pencils. These speakers really sound fantastic when listening to high quality music. Listening to lossless music really brings out the "crispness" of the sound. In surround config, I think my receiver is lacking the power to run all 7 speakers wells. When things get loud, it seems like the center channel just seem to be losing power or something. It dips in volume and then comes back up again. The Denon Avr-3312 is supposed to have 7 channel 125 watt power, so I am not sure whats happening. My local dealer is awaiting his shipment of Denon Avr-4311 to come in and will allow me to upgrade to it. Hopefully it will work better. I also want to say thank you to Mike @ acousticsounddesign I got a great price on the whole set and unlike many online retailers, he answered all my email questions within 30 minutes. I was throughly impressed. Don’t spend the money you have a nice avr already. Use that money on an amp. Avrs don’t have the juice to run 7 speakers they way you probably want. For the same money as an upgrade would cost you could get an xpa-3 to power your front 3 then use the avr for the rest. Exactly!!! You have 125 watts per channel in stereo, but with 7 channels driven, your only getting about 30 watts to your speakers. There are other losses that can occur as well such as distortion, peak dynamics, and bass. Adding an XPA-3 will give you 200 wpc on the front three all the time and allow the receiver to run the rear 4 at about 100 wpc (estimate). Using a non-audiophile receiver to power 7 channels at any real volume will generally be a disappointment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A1UC Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 Can anyone guess what Im doing this weekend ? A XPA-2 really is a good match for the RF-7 ll what a diffrence from a XPA-3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heritage_Head Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 How is it better can you give a small review of the change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A1UC Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 I was using the XPA-3 for the center and fronts , I just hooked up the XPA-2 real quick tonight after putting it back together because the person I purchsed it from didnt pack it right and the termianls got bent all fixed now . Anyway I didnt spend alot of time with it yet but I did notice a 10db vol increase and when I played some music it just sounded so much better very clear compared to the XPA-3 300w vs 200w I dodnt know if there is alot of diffrence in home theather but music wise I know it was day and night . Let me spend more time with it and I will try and explian it better . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich_Guy Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 I also upgraded to an XPA-2 for my fronts from using an XPA-3, I really enjoy the difference for 2 channel music, a big difference in clarity and detail, overall a very nice improvement. I also have an XPA-5 which I would say is identical to the XPA-3 other than the extra channels. I really like the XPA-2 for fronts with the XPA-5 for surrounds and center a great combo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen Traveler Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 Exactly!!! You have 125 watts per channel in stereo, but with 7 channels driven, your only getting about 30 watts to your speakers... Just as 125 watts could be an overstatement, could 30 watts per channel with all channels driven also be an understatement? Do you have a Benchmark results for the Denon AVR-3312? [^o)] EDIT: I also agree that the AVR-3312ci doesn't beefy enough to handle an RF-7 based HT, given it isn't rated to handle speakers with low impedance dips. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A1UC Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 My next step is to pickup a pre amp since I have 2 amps now to run all my speakers , I will have to find my packed away XLR cables Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cornfedksboy Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 Exactly!!! You have 125 watts per channel in stereo, but with 7 channels driven, your only getting about 30 watts to your speakers... Just as 125 watts could be an overstatement, could 30 watts per channel with all channels driven also be an understatement? Do you have a Benchmark results for the Denon AVR-3312? EDIT: I also agree that the AVR-3312ci doesn't beefy enough to handle an RF-7 based HT, given it isn't rated to handle speakers with low impedance dips. 30 was an estimate based on other 100-140 watt receiver bench tests and not specific to Denon. It could very well be double that. Either way, the point remains the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GRishi Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 Exactly!!! You have 125 watts per channel in stereo, but with 7 channels driven, your only getting about 30 watts to your speakers... Just as 125 watts could be an overstatement, could 30 watts per channel with all channels driven also be an understatement? Do you have a Benchmark results for the Denon AVR-3312? EDIT: I also agree that the AVR-3312ci doesn't beefy enough to handle an RF-7 based HT, given it isn't rated to handle speakers with low impedance dips. 30 was an estimate based on other 100-140 watt receiver bench tests and not specific to Denon. It could very well be double that. Either way, the point remains the same. Thanks guys. I have an xpa-5 on the way now Yay! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen Traveler Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 30 was an estimate based on other 100-140 watt receiver bench tests and not specific to Denon. It could very well be double that. Either way, the point remains the same. My point was that the WPC isn't why his AVR can't drive RF-7s efficiently and that my 140 wpc Denon can. Fwiw, it's not about WPS but current available to cover the RF-7 impedance dips. EDIT: BTW, Here is a link to the Denon AVR 4806 Benchmark Results: http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_12_4/denon-avr-4806-receiver-12-2005-part-5.html [8-|] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen Traveler Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 Post Delete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cornfedksboy Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 30 was an estimate based on other 100-140 watt receiver bench tests and not specific to Denon. It could very well be double that. Either way, the point remains the same. My point was that the WPC isn't why his AVR can't drive RF-7s efficiently and that my 140 wpc Denon can. Fwiw, it's not about WPS but current available to cover the RF-7 impedance dips. EDIT: BTW, Here is a link to the Denon AVR 4806 Benchmark Results: http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_12_4/denon-avr-4806-receiver-12-2005-part-5.html Okay then. I'm not sure what my post has to do with your post? But, FWIW here's the 4810 with 7 channels driven: 36 wpc. http://www.hometheater.com/content/denon-avr-4810ci-av-receiver-ht-labs-measures Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heritage_Head Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 30 was an estimate based on other 100-140 watt receiver bench tests and not specific to Denon. It could very well be double that. Either way, the point remains the same. My point was that the WPC isn't why his AVR can't drive RF-7s efficiently and that my 140 wpc Denon can. Fwiw, it's not about WPS but current available to cover the RF-7 impedance dips. EDIT: BTW, Here is a link to the Denon AVR 4806 Benchmark Results: http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_12_4/denon-avr-4806-receiver-12-2005-part-5.html My guess that bench test is done at 1 kHz and not the full 20-20,000 there are a lot of different ways to bench test. Not saying it isn’t but he’s not very clear on how he does it on the pages I read. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.