ksp-s6 vs. rs-7

[DecibleLvr]

We all know how difficult it is to find a pair of ksp s6 spakers,my question is: With the availability of rs 7's or even rs 3's would ther really be THAT MUCH of a auditory differnce when matched up with klf 20'2 and a klf-c7? In other words, is it worth the wait( or price )for a set of ksp's when ther are other options?

[HornEd]

Well, to relieve some of your anxiety, DecibleLvr, neither the KSP-S6 nor the RS7's were intended to match the KLF 20's or the KLF-C7 in tone and timbre.

However, both of the speakers you mention spray the horn tweeters around the room to be reflected as somewhat of a mixed bag of ambient sound. The RS-3 has a woofer pointed toward the sweet spot to give you more localization on 5.1 recorded material.

Personally, I would prefer six KLF-20's... and use my KLF-C7's as Front Effects speakers. I just invited a work crew repairing a water main leak in front of my house for an HT work break... the foreman was even an audiophile. They left with wide eyes and eager ears... and helped me move 560 lbs. of K-Horns and a Belle off the sidewalk into the house. BAX Global delivered them a bit sooner than I expected. -HornED

------------------

Photo update soon! -HornEd

[anarchist]

The KSP S6's were listed as the closest match for a HT utilizing the Legend series of speakers.

HornEd,

I respectfully disagree with your generalization about surrounds versus identical speakers.

HT is still NOT mixing DD 5.1 soundtracks expecting 5 identical speakers. Indeed, the fact we keep moving up the number of speakers is proof direct speakers are not best for surrounds in HT. Wide dispersion speakers still provide the best choice in HT applications. Perhaps when we reach DD 10.1 direct speakers can provide the same ambient sound but at this point they can't.

OTOH, SACD and DVD-A are catered to 5 identical full range speakers, and full range does not mean cut each speaker at 80 - that was a THX standard and its applicatibility has long waned. Sound mixers today will tell you the music is compromised if you cut out the lower bass and direct it all to a subwoofer in the front of the room. You have a deep bass sound that starts at the back of the room and pans to a subwoofer in the front of the room - disconcerting and not the intended effect.

You give great advice and I enjoy reading your posts, just remember not all 5.1 or x.1 formats can be lumped into one basket and a single, best solution offered.

------------------

Home Theater

KSP 400's

KSP C6

KSP S6's

Yamaha RXV995

Music Room

Heresy's

KG4's

KSW200

The move to separates is coming, I can feel it.

[T2K]

SPL guy, no surrounds were ever designed for the Legends.I believe the Legends were actually designed for pro-logic use.

Although I have the S6's and like them, were I in your position I would buy the RS-7's.If price or size were a consideration I would buy RS-3's.

Good luck !

Keith

[DecibleLvr]

Thanks for the response. Much appreciated!!! Just curious though, has anyone done a side by side with these two speakers?

[HornEd]

Crash, thanks for the feedback on the opinions expressed in my posts. Some Forum members object that my posts seem too authoritative and that may be a hangover from my "think tank" days when our published results were a lot more technical and required a lot more verbiage... and even then we only represented our work as CONSIDERED OPINION and not absolute fact. In response to your response... here are a couple of things that you might consider:

1. I spend enough money and time in acoustics and psychoacoustics experimentation to know that there are far too many variables in individual listening spaces, equipment, source material and individual preferences to recommend more than general approaches to solving specific problems. I usually use the phrase "5.1 (and above)" as a clue that I do not believe that 5.1 is the be all - end all for building an HT today... 5.1 is just the overwhelmingly prevalent format mix being used by HT and multi-channel pros today, IMHO.

2. My comments usually include the trends that I see in the future of HT and multi-channel music. The use of front and rear firing dipoles with a null in the middle as in THX specifications is, in my opinion, a fading trend. I have often commented on WDST or tripoles as a "bridge" technology between the fading "Movie Theater" approach (heavily influenced by THX) and the emerging "Performance Approach" which encourages five (or more) identical speakers. Pros like the 10.2 concept and many use it as an intermediary step... then pare down a 5.1 commercial release.

3. My comments often reflect my latest experiments. Currently, for HT, I use monopoles in a five speaker front array and a three speaker rear array. I plan to build a new HT room later this year that will likely include five speakers in the rear array as well. However, I will retain the six-identical-monopoles as the primary speakers... and the two soundstage shaping Front Effects speakers... and add two similar Rear Effects speakers that will be located between the respective Side/Surround monopoles and the dead center rear monopole. Of course, I already used two high performance subwoofers.

4. My references to dipole and tripole approaches as "spraying" sound around the room rather than toward the sweet spot is intended to be a descriptive term and not a derogatory one. Using identical monopoles for the currently popular direct/ambient HT mix is greatly enhanced by larger rooms and very careful placement... particularly when using horns! Spraying around sound to bounce off reflective surfaces helps to offset the problems of tighter listening environments than I use. I will agree that some pro studios include tripoles or dipoles in post production consideration of the huge number of "sound sprayers" that seem to be the lingering legacy of THX.

5. On the issue of Bass Management, I much prefer being able to have the flexibility that Boa recommends. But the fact of life seems to be that most Forum members do not invest in that option. While multiple subwoofers cut down the potential for standing wave problems... they also tend to increase the potential for "muddy" or "booming" bass. Clearly, "Full-Range" loudspeakers are not intended to cover the "Sub-Range"... and, their less-than-full-range performance tends to cause confusion. The key factor is the smooth transition from Subwoofer to Full-Range as naturally, transparent and robust as possible. Where that crossover occurs in a truly transparent system becomes essentially a moot point.

I have found that http://www.surroundpro.com/2001/06/feature3.shtml seems to be a good source to keeping pace with mixing trends and discern a wide-based opinions among mixing pros. It is just part of the resource base I use in determining my next experiment and for validation of my opinion of current trends. So here are a couple of examples cut from much longer articles...

Bob Ludwig, owner of Gateway Mastering Studios, is also a member of the most elite group of mastering engineers in the industry. Ludwig says that mastering in 5.1 is extremely rigorous, and far more detailed than working in stereo. With stereo, you can listen to the 2-channel mix over headphones to detect glitches and drop outs. That's relatively simple. However, with 5.1 there's a problem: your ear doesn't have the acuity to hear what's happening in the rear speakers as finely as the fronts. You have to use headphones and make two passes to really pick out problems. Let's say you're mastering a DVD movie that's 1.5 hours long. It will take you 3 hours to hear it through once! If you have sample-rate conversion, or are using Meridian Lossless Compression (MLP), or watermarking, you have to listen yet another time to make sure nothing went wrong with the transfers.

The expense involved in retooling a mastering facility for 5.1 work is immense, says Ludwig. It's like building a whole new studio from scratch, in a way. You have to buy at least three more main speakers, two subwoofers, bass management systems, and special equalizers and compressors that work on all six channels at once.

Clearly, it is always better to read the entire article... that's why I supplied the link. Here's a couple of excerpts from an article on the same link by pro mixer Bobby Owsinski titled What Type of Surround Speaker?...

Excerpt 1: I do see a trend away from dipoles though. It seems that when the home theater was used mostly for movie playback (in the beginning of the home theater craze), then dipoles made a lot of sense and most hardware manufacturers developed speakers based on trying to capture that theater environment. Now that more music is available on DVD with aggressive source material in the surrounds, manufacturers have recognized the need for direct radiators. Also, Ive not seen dipoles used in any studio surround setup in at least a year, with the exception of some M&K Tripoles (which combine the attributes of both dipoles and direct radiators).

Excerpt 2: So, to sum up:

1. Choose the type of surround speakers based upon the type of program material that youll be working on.

2. If in doubt, be safe and choose direct radiators.

3. If you choose direct radiators, five identical speakers are best.

Why didnt I mention the subwoofer? Because the subwoofer is important enough to deserve an entire column (or two) of its own. Well get to it soon enough.

So, Crash, there you have it. My opinions are probably a good deal less polemic and a lot more grounded in prevailing engineering and acoustics theory than they appear to be. As long as my posts often become, they are always a good deal shorter than what I really have to say. I believe that we are in a multi-channel transition and have encouraged people to buy for the emerging trend in the hope that this will be the most cost-effective and personally satisfying path. My own experience points to a discrete 6.1 mix as having the best potential as a standard mix... and thus my strong opinion in that direction... but, certainly, 6.1 has not been embraced, as yet, by the broad cross-section of mainstream mixers for HT and multi-channel music. It seems to provide the widest mixing potential at the least incremental cost to the consumer. And it will not likely become a standard (if at all) until their is a sufficient base of discrete 6.1 pre-amps to warrant the migration from 5.1. There's a lot more I should say... but that's about enough for this time around. -HornED

PS: My experiments indicate that 6.1 provides the MINIMUM number of discrete channels to create an effective direct/ambient soundstage mix for monopole speakers. HT with a 5.1 is far less satisfying with monopoles than a direct 6.1 (or pre-amp auto matrixed 6.1) rig. I find multi-channel concert DVD's considerably better with "full-range" monopoles... but, perhaps, that's just my tired old ears.

This message has been edited by HornEd on 04-26-2002 at 11:49 AM

[anarchist]

Nice post HornEd. I kind of like it when you take the time to express more of your thinking rather than less of it.

I think we agree on the subject but from differing perspectives. When someone asks about a HT and 5.1, I am looking to respond with the best equipment for that specific environment - which is dipoles or WDST as the surrounds. You appear to respond with future growth in mind and 5.1 audio where identical direct speakers are the best equipment.

I don't know if 6.1 is the best due to the potential problems associated with a single rear channel but certainly I agree in a 6.1 or 7.1 environment, direct radiators are the best choice.

Regarding bass, you again are correct, it deserves its own thread. As bait, I will offer this, I always believe a separate subwoofer was the only way to go. I ended up with a set of KSP400's (as many of us buy when something of value appears) despite my initially not wanting built-in subs. Frankly, the bass these offer is quite good and tight. I, in fact, moved my dedicated sub out of the room as it was more boomier than the dual subs in the KSP400's. It seems cabinet construction has a lot to do with that particular rule - or any rule for that matter.

I am now entertaining the thought of Heresys (or maybe Fortes) across the board with a couple of SVS 20-39's. Should be fantastic music and a great HT experience as well. Have to listen to the Heresys with a great bit more of musical genres first - some claim harshness but I have yet to hear it.

------------------

Home Theater

KSP 400's

KSP C6

KSP S6's

Yamaha RXV995

Music Room

Heresy's

KG4's

KSW200

The move to separates is coming, I can feel it.

[HornEd]

Thanks, Crash, I suspected that we tended to agree more than we disagree.

I corrected a typo or two (even though I am retired, I don't like to edit my own work!) in my above post and added a PS about 6.1 as a point of clarification.

I have spent in excess of $20k on various audio experiments in the past year... and if I knew then what I know now... I would have saved a bundle. So, I suppose I feel a duty to at least warn others of thorns, briars and fanciful notions that seem worthy of being side-stepped.

I certainly have no "flames" for those who hold a different opinion or chose to ignore my advice for any reason. I just try to post responsibly... I written too many published articles (and gotten paid for it) to be caught up in the ego trip of seeing my words in print. Thanks again for sharing your critique. -HornED

This message has been edited by HornEd on 04-26-2002 at 12:00 PM

[avman]

hello!!ksps-6's do BOTH-direct and diffuse sound.the best of both worlds-having my kake and eating it (when i find the time) example-seven bridges road-dts 5.1-excellent localization of timmy schmidt and joe walsh's voices thru the rear surrounds,AND 'standing in the crowd' watching the concert effect.(and excellent blending w/my front three'voices')t2-metal box edition dd-ex and dts-es 6.1. opening battle field scene-my receiver simulates a center rear"phantom" just like there was one.this indicates to me a very nice, natural 'toe-in',due to the shape/driver arrangement/PLACEMENT in my ht room of the s-6's. i could have had rs-7's for LESS than the great price i got for the excellent used s-6's i got, but i didn't want the woofers firing into each other 12 ft.across the room(width). i believe the driver arrangement of the 6's would sound better for where i had to place them, and have been happy w/their performance. this is not to say that something else might not sound better, but i based my choice on 11 yrs.in the biz, w/8 yrs.of installation experience, and am very impressed w/the results. my ht kicks ***! avman.

------------------

1-pair klf 30's

c-7 center

ksps-6 surrounds

RSW-15

sony strda-777ES receiver upgraded to v.2.02 including virtual matrix 6.1

sony playstation 2

sony dvpnc 650-v 5-disc dvd/cd/SACD changer

dishnetwork model 6000 HD sat rcvr w/digital off-air tuner

sony kv36xbr450 high-definition 4:3 tv

sharp xv-z1u lcd projector w/84" 4:3 sharp screen

Bello'international Italian-made a/v furniture

panamax max dbs+5 surge protector/power conditioner

monster cable and nxg interconnects/12 gua.speaker wire

KLIPSCH-So Good It Hz!

[boa12]

remember it's a SUBwoofer. if you have tower speaks like 30s or rf-7 that are flat down to 40hz or more with an adequate amp that drives well those lower frequencies, then i think it best to let those handle the 2nd octave & the sub to handle the 1st - SUB 40 or 50hz.

trouble w/ the thx speced 80hz or above crossover is that it doesn't take into account larger speaks like our klipsch. iow the 80hz high pass on my 30s turned them into C7s.

the wdst vs direct can go on forever. some sounds are best direct & some effects better thru wdst. at least wdst tries to tackle both as compared to a dipole. but tastes & the wide range of sounds & effects we listen to makes it a never-ending debate.

the ideal i think is still what denon portends. a set of surrounds for HT & another set for more direct-type stuff.

------------------

My Home Systems Page

[T2K]

"the ideal i think is still what denon portends. a set of surrounds for HT & another set for more direct-type stuff." boa12

God Almighty, finally boa has stepped forward and taken the prize!

This discussion has drifted off in many ridiculous directions when in actuality the original discussion(I think)concerned monopoles VS WDST(which is NOT the same as a dipolar speaker).

I personally use both.Neither are the holy grail.Both used together are not the holy grail.

I'm rolling my pants legs back down now.

Keith

This message has been edited by talktoKeith on 04-26-2002 at 02:49 PM

[boa12]

thanks for the award keith but think others & me have been saying that for quite a while now.

just that when we don't have that capability ourselves we tend to rationalize off into other things. know what i mean? sorry to wonder off into psycho acoustics

& buyer/owner behavior.

------------------

My Home Systems Page

[T2K]

Say wha...?

[boa12]

k, well i don't have a denon so of course just one set of direct surrounds are not only sufficient but the best way to listen to all sources. i don't have front effects capability so they are not necessary. i don't have the space for a klf-30hec so of course my C7 is more than enough. all above w/ tongue firmly planted in cheek.

------------------

My Home Systems Page

[raneman]

DecibleLvr,

I am in the same boat as you. I started with KLF-20s a year ago. Got them from a local dealer on close-out, listened to them several times before buying, and I still love them. I added an RC-3 center last fall, but after having it a month I really wasn't happy with the sound match, returned it, and, after a couple of failed attempts, got a C-7 off eBay. The C-7 is a much better match, but still not really up to the KLF-20s, IMHO.

Just recently trying to add the rear surrounds. I've bid on the very few KSP-S6s that have come around in the past few months on-line, but I just won't pay $800 for used rear surrounds that were not really designed for the KLF-20s, and that I can't hear first. So, I got some RS-3s on demo and tried them at home for a month. Tried many different placements. Sound O.K. but I don't feel they're a very good match for the KLF-20s either. And, I just don't think they're worth the money(that goes for the entire Reference Series). O.K., let the bashing of me for saying this begin, but that's my opinion. I took the RS-3s back last week. The Reference series and WDST just don't do much for me.

So I'm still trying to decide what to do. I would never give up my KLF-20s, but I wish I would have known these limitations for putting together a HT system with them before I started (NOTE: I know my troubles are my own fault for buying the KLF-20s on closeout without doing my homework and really knowing what I was getting into). I'd love to go HornEd's route of 5 KLF-20s, but I don't have the room and I'm really tired of trying to scrounge up used speakers. I think I'm going to buy some SB-2s to use as rear surrounds for now, and start saving up for a new HT speaker package (probably not Klipsch--I was thinking 5 RB-5s, but I listened to them the other day and was extremely unimpressed). Then some day when I have more room maybe I'll set up the KLF-20s with perhaps some tubes in a system for music only.

Don't know what to tell you DecibleLvr; only that I feel your pain and that if you're really picky, you probably won't ever get a tightly matched HT system with the KLF-20s, unless you use all KLF-20s.

[T2K]

Sorry to hear your problem raneman.If you lived closer we'd try some of my excess stock for your surround use.

Have you thought about surrounds from the Synergy line?It would be nice if you had a friend with a pair of KSF-S5's and a couple of 6' step ladders.

What kind of room do you have for surrounds?

Keith

Its nice to be happy with what you've got,huh boa? :^)

[raneman]

Keith,

Thanks for the help. My room is a bit challenging. It is a 12 x 16' sunken living room with a 9' ceiling. On the far short end away from the steps down into the room, there is a sliding glass door that opens to a porch. The short end with the steps is open to a dining area of 12 x 10', so the entire room is 12' x 26'. I have my TV and front speakers on the long side of the sunken living room. My couch is against the opposite wall. Since one end of the room is open, my options for rear surrounds seem to me to be either on stands pointing in toward the couch, on the back wall behind the couch facing forward, or on the ceiling pointing down. I've tried all of these positions, but stands to the sides of couch, as far back as possible and with speakers about a foot above ear level, seems to work the best.

Today I'm heading to a local Klipsch dealer to meet with one of their audio guys who has helped me in the past but hardly ever works any more. He was going to run this by their Klipsch rep. We'll see what he has to say and what he can come up with. I'll post my findings.

Sorry for the above rant, I'm mostly mad at myself for not thinking this thing through before starting. I just fell in love with the KLF-20s and thought it would be easy to fill out the rest of my HT system. Should have know better, as I'm a bit obsessive and kind of a perfectionist. Your comments about being happy with what you have are very wise Keith--it's something I need to work on.

DecibleLvr, hope you can some helpful information in all of this--at least some experience and opinions to help with your decision. If not, sorry for budging in on your post.

Eric

[T2K]

Those Legends are great speakers raneman.I was about to buy the 20's when I got sidetracked on something else.Maybe the Synergy speakers I mentioned above may be more to your preference.They will be 'warmer'or less 'bright'than the RS-3's,whatever that means.The sensitivity is 93db,so you would have to turn them up a little to play with the 20's.Several pair have appeared on E-Bay the last several months,some new,and usually go around $250-$300 pair.Just a thought.No guarantees!

Good luck and let us know what you decide!

Keith