AaronH Posted October 22, 2014 Author Share Posted October 22, 2014 My opinion on the RF-7ii's needing an amp is that generally speaking, you don't if you are not interested in hearing loss. Of course my amp isn't calibrated yet but the night before last I watched the Metallica movie at -15 db and couldn't hear worth a crap all day yesterday, it was shaking and reverberating through the whole house even though I was running the same subs, and the ambient sound even past multiple closed solid core doors sounded just like a concert, it was nuts. Last night I watched "3 days to kill" at -25 db on a crappy Netflix mix and it was more than enough. -35 db was plenty comfortable. That's running them full range too. These things are WAY more sensitive than usual, so saying you need more power than usual to run them doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense to me. Whether or not you need an amp, at least assuming you have a high quality receiver, shouldn't suddenly lean towards the amp realm just because somebody gets RF-7ii's, if anything you need less power to achieve the same output. It has more to do with how hard you run things, how big your listening room is, whether you are interested in a cooler running receiver and less noise, things like that. If you're worried about headroom... THX reference level is 85 db with 20 db of head room which is 105 db on the upper end. A single RF-7ii is rated to achieve within 1 db of this with only two watts. I kind of believe it too. Normal speakers are often around 89-90 db, these are rated at 101. Of course that diminishes the further you get away plus other variables, but once again that's dependent on how your run it and how far away you are. Personally speaking, I like to run stuff hard yet I cannot handle the output of my Marantz SR-7009 into RF-7ii's even running full range. I may get a separate amp for my LCR's but that would only be due to taking advantage of Atmos, not because my receiver can't push these things hard enough. I can easily get into the extreme overkill realm with my Marantz. If I cut them off at 80 hz I can even run things significantly harder. The idea that this still isn't enough for fairly close range listening is nuts in my opinion. There are other reasons to get an external amp but the idea that a quality receiver can't drive RF-7ii's hard enough for fairly close distances isn't one of them. Oh I never said that, don't get me wrong. I had the Outlaw 7500 already so it was a no brainer to me. All about quality headroom to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronH Posted October 22, 2014 Author Share Posted October 22, 2014 Aaron I noticed the link to the Guide to Bass Management was missing in my last post. I went back and put it in again. I run my RF7's as small. The small setting also allows for better power management of your system. P.S. Aaron make a signature with your system. Yes sir! I just did it. Thanks for the reminder bro! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psg Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 (edited) If you're worried about headroom... THX reference level is 85 db with 20 db of head room which is 105 db on the upper end. A single RF-7ii is rated to achieve within 1 db of this with only two watts. I kind of believe it too. Normal speakers are often around 89-90 db, these are rated at 101. Of course that diminishes the further you get away plus other variables, but once again that's dependent on how your run it and how far away you are. I don't want to burst a bubble, start arguments or anything... It was measured at 96.3 dB at 2.83 V. See http://www.avsforum.com/forum/89-speakers/1412510-klipsch-rf7-ii-measurements.html Edited October 23, 2014 by psg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derrickdj1 Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 (edited) Watch Edge Of Tomorrow with the speakers set to Large on reference, lol. Edited October 27, 2014 by derrickdj1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gas0line Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 (edited) Basically if you have a good sub run speakers small. Lett he sub do what it wqs made for. Seamless smooth bass that you can feel. My theory is run large if you have no sub and for sure set small if you have a good sub. Set crossover at 80 or 60 hz. You will get the best quality sound with less distortion that way. Watch tron with ur speakers set to large with the volume at -10 db and it will make ur towers distort. Edited October 23, 2014 by Gas0line Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bsdme2 Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 Congratulation on the 7II system.... and yes it is big at first but like another mention it eventually loose some weight over time. You are ahead of me on the amp and the subwoofer. Anyway, enjoy your new system and always have fun cause I always enjoy mine even thought I currently don't have the surround RS-52II up yet due to reason on how to run the wire also because of my house build structure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronH Posted October 23, 2014 Author Share Posted October 23, 2014 (edited) Did some experimenting last night with some movies and Blu ray concerts. To ME, the small setting with xo at 80 sounds the best. I tried Mains Large, small xo 60 etc. Thanks for all who posted welcoming me, this is an awesome sight! One of my favorite "demo" discs is The Eagles Blu ray from Australia, played it last night and the 7's made that disc shine even more. Very happy with the purchase thus far. Edited October 23, 2014 by AaronH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paducah Home Theater Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 (edited) I don't want to burst a bubble, start arguments or anything... It was measured at 96.3 dB at 2.83 V. See http://www.avsforum.com/forum/89-speakers/1412510-klipsch-rf7-ii-measurements.html Yeah some of the third party tests do kind of deflate these figures. I know the KL-650's were measured at 92 something which is way lower than specs so this isn't new news to me. However I have both THX and RF-7ii's and feel the RF-7ii's are way louder than the THX stuff. Perhaps it is the taller height or the extended bass response, but whatever it is, the same exact settings on my receiver is WAY louder on the RF-7ii's. -15 db used to be casual listening levels for a kids movie. I can't say that this is the case anymore.I watched "7 years a slave" last night at -30 db and the dialogue was clear as a bell. I couldn't really do that before, I'd have to crank it up more. -15 db on the metallica movie is a world of difference. Edited October 23, 2014 by MetropolisLakeOutfitters Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heritage_Head Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 96 is still really really good. I have no idea why Klipsch has to lie about their stats. It makes me almost think they don't believe their stuff is good enough to post the right stats idk. I do know people hate on Klipsch all the time over lies like this on other forums. Chad if you read this what is Klipsch response to this? I'm really interested in your side please. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psg Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 96 is still really really good. I have no idea why Klipsch has to lie about their stats. It makes me almost think they don't believe their stuff is good enough to post the right stats idk. I do know people hate on Klipsch all the time over lies like this on other forums. Chad if you read this what is Klipsch response to this? I'm really interested in your side please. 100% agreement from me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gas0line Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 Casual listening for me on my 82s is -30. If I want to rattle my foundation and piss of my neighbors, then -10 to -5. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garyrc Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 (edited) 96 is still really really good. I have no idea why Klipsch has to lie about their stats. It makes me almost think they don't believe their stuff is good enough to post the right stats idk. I do know people hate on Klipsch all the time over lies like this on other forums. Chad if you read this what is Klipsch response to this? I'm really interested in your side please. Did it start by measuring the Klipschorn in the only valid way it could be measured, pushed (i.e., sealed) into a trihedral corner in Klipsch's one of a kind anechoic chamber, which contains a room-high corner to test Khorns? Reportedly, the true efficiency of the Khorn in that corner is 104/105 dB @ 1 W @ 1 M. The 104 may have come from when they used to measure it at 4 feet, rather than at 1 meter. A few reviewers have rated it at 98 dB when it is sitting out away from any barriers, but that is quite the wrong way to listen to one. So ... did they start to measure each speaker's sensitivity/efficiency in the room gain environment (is that the right term?) in which it sounded the best? Some might sound best rather close to the wall, using both the wall and the floor for reinforcement of the bass, others might be better well away from the walls, each of these locations being very different from a completely anechonic chamber -- which is what someone told me was the way some people measure. I know one company provides two figures, anechoic and likely room level. The other thing I'd like to know is what various manufacturers use as a signal. Just using 1K would be unfortunate -- there could be a big peak or dip there. Using band limited pink noise, let's say from about 200 to 2K is a possibility, but this would more or less ignore any contribution the bass is making to the sensitivity or efficiency. Using the speaker's entire rated bandwidth with a noise source would be interesting, but wouldn't this tend to measure the sensitivity at the peaks? Perhaps there is no one good way. Perhaps each manufacturer should include in the fine print of their advertisements a paragraph called "measurement technique used." Are the sensitivity/efficiency ratings made by speaker companies comparable at all? So, Chad (and everyone else), I, too, am looking forward to an answer. Edited October 25, 2014 by Garyrc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronH Posted October 26, 2014 Author Share Posted October 26, 2014 (edited) I have an spl meter and I took measurements from my listening position from about 14' away. On -25 it was around 85-90 db with peaks of 105 and that's after ypao That was playing star wars ii Edited October 26, 2014 by AaronH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heritage_Head Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 (edited) 96 is still really really good. I have no idea why Klipsch has to lie about their stats. It makes me almost think they don't believe their stuff is good enough to post the right stats idk. I do know people hate on Klipsch all the time over lies like this on other forums. Chad if you read this what is Klipsch response to this? I'm really interested in your side please. Did it start by measuring the Klipschorn in the only valid way it could be measured, pushed (i.e., sealed) into a trihedral corner in Klipsch's one of a kind anechoic chamber, which contains a room-high corner to test Khorns? Reportedly, the true efficiency of the Khorn in that corner is 104/105 dB @ 1 W @ 1 M. The 104 may have come from when they used to measure it at 4 feet, rather than at 1 meter. A few reviewers have rated it at 98 dB when it is sitting out away from any barriers, but that is quite the wrong way to listen to one. So ... did they start to measure each speaker's sensitivity/efficiency in the room gain environment (is that the right term?) in which it sounded the best? Some might sound best rather close to the wall, using both the wall and the floor for reinforcement of the bass, others might be better well away from the walls, each of these locations being very different from a completely anechonic chamber -- which is what someone told me was the way some people measure. I know one company provides two figures, anechoic and likely room level. The other thing I'd like to know is what various manufacturers use as a signal. Just using 1K would be unfortunate -- there could be a big peak or dip there. Using band limited pink noise, let's say from about 200 to 2K is a possibility, but this would more or less ignore any contribution the bass is making to the sensitivity or efficiency. Using the speaker's entire rated bandwidth with a noise source would be interesting, but wouldn't this tend to measure the sensitivity at the peaks? Perhaps there is no one good way. Perhaps each manufacturer should include in the fine print of their advertisements a paragraph called "measurement technique used." Are the sensitivity/efficiency ratings made by speaker companies comparable at all? So, Chad (and everyone else), I, too, am looking forward to an answer. Well iv read that the pro and heritage speakers are true numbers. and the rest are not. I argued that if they lied about one they would lie about all of them. But then when I got my pro speakers and ran the auto test. It set them all at -12 (thats the max). And its was still about 3db to high. So these appear to be right. All the info I have read on the heritage speakers has confirmed the numbers. So the reference line and other lower level lines are the ones people are calling bs on. I have ran the 7s and cornwalls and they seemed really close. But being that the corn is 98 that would put them close if the 7s are 96. I don't have test gear.I only have a shack meter and my ears. So my comparison might be wrong idk. Maybe klipsch wants the lower level speakers to look like they are just as good as the old stuff idk. But if they put 96 as the stat number, I would have still bought them. Great speakers! Edited October 26, 2014 by Pro-Cinema_Head Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronH Posted October 26, 2014 Author Share Posted October 26, 2014 I love the rc64, but I really only hear subtle nuances vs the 62. Has anyone else thought the same? You think the upgrade is worth it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willland Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 (edited) Has anyone else thought the same? You think the upgrade is worth it? As good as the RC-62 is, I experienced a huge improvement when I went from the 62 to the 64. The center channel sound just felt bigger. More detailed, better presence. Now with that said, the improvements did not really come to life until I replaced my B&K amps with the more neutral and punchier Acurus amps and ran Audysseyy MultEQ XT. With a couple of manual tonal EQ tweaks to the center channel, now the front soundstage is more seamless than ever. Bill Edited October 27, 2014 by willland Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scrappydue Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 I love the rc64, but I really only hear subtle nuances vs the 62. Has anyone else thought the same? You think the upgrade is worth it? pm sent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronH Posted October 27, 2014 Author Share Posted October 27, 2014 Bill, I understand your sentiments. I just feel the price should be lower on the 64ii. Should I switch amps? I'm pretty sure it's a decent amp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paducah Home Theater Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 (edited) I love the rc64, but I really only hear subtle nuances vs the 62. Has anyone else thought the same? You think the upgrade is worth it? I am a HUGE bass guitar fan. The RC-64 is totally badass for bass guitar. I don't know why exactly but all the subtle nuances as you say REALLY shines with this center. This alone is totally worth it to me. All the twangs you hear when the strings hit the frets, all the stuff going on inside of tube amps whatever it is, all of it comes out. Most people think that if a bass guitar occasionally gets pumped through their subs then it's all good but I say that's BS. RC-64 really makes a good bass guitar recording in 5.1 surround sound shine. If you don't care about that and am only watching normal movies, then maybe it wouldn't be important to you, but between the real wood veneer finish plus what I've heard it do with not only bass guitar but with kick drums, anchoring the initial strike of the beater to the bass drum skin to the screen, I would say go for it. Edited October 27, 2014 by MetropolisLakeOutfitters Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willland Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 (edited) Bill, I understand your sentiments. I just feel the price should be lower on the 64ii. Should I switch amps? I'm pretty sure it's a decent amp Your Outlaw is an awesome amp. It too is pretty spot on neutral with great punch and detail. As far as the price of the 64II, sure it would be great if it sold for lower than it does but when you compare the 64II to other mfr's "reference" center speakers, it is not out of line in price, IMO. Bill Edited October 27, 2014 by willland 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.