Jump to content
The Klipsch Audio Community
Sign in to follow this  
Man in the Box

New to Klipsch! Love my RP-160s but disappointed with performance of classical music. What to buy next?

Recommended Posts

OK, I just listened to a couple of pieces.  Shosty Festive Overture ^^^ and 1812 Overture.

 

Festive Overture sounded great.  The clarinets sounded very accurate.  The brass sound full.  I played this one loud and again, it's very similar to what I expect from my RF-83's with 15" sub.  This was 600M with ten inch sub.

 

I also listened to a version of 1812 Overture with which I was not familiar.  I thought the trumpets were a little hot, the oboes a little thin.  Trombones and tubas sounded fantastic.  Timps sounded great.  I'd like you guys to listen on your own systems and tell me what you think, is this just a bad Youtube recording?  I think it is.

 

I wasn't even going to play the canon part because what do I know about what a canon really sounds like?  I did anyway and I played it LOUD and holy cow I about came out of my chair!  That little ten inch sub filled the room and gave me a nice chest thump.  VERY impressive, and a very good listening session.

 

Here's the version I used:

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@wvu80...where did you crossover, at 80? Bet it would fun at 50...and guessing volume at fairly moderate level... thinking SVS 10 would work...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, billybob said:

@wvu80...where did you crossover, at 80? Bet it would fun at 50...and guessing volume at fairly moderate level... thinking even an SVS 10 would work...

The gain on the ten inch sub is 50% and the XO is in the middle, so probably around 80 Hz.  Those little subs don't dig very deep.

 

I'll check and see where the 600M's are crossed.  I think right at 80 Hz.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is Shosty 10.  I time marked it at 53:15 to the end (about 6 minutes) because it really shows off the strings, contra-bass basson, timp, cymbals, brass.  There is nothing to complain about from a speakers point of view.  Everything is articulate and clean.  The sub really fills out the bottom.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, wvu80 said:

Trombones and tubas sounded fantastic.

 

Trombones sound especially fantastic on some Klipsch, including my Klipsch (see signature, below).  Trombones are difficult to reproduce on some conventional, non-horn speakers.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is my final listening session for the night, and I'll draw my conclusions in the next post.

 

The Organ Symphony probably brought our little experiment to its knees.  The ten inch sub sounded pretty good with this recording but didn't rattle the pictures off the walls.  Again I thought the trombones sounded good and the trumpets were full sounding without being piercing.  I could play this Youtube version loud but it didn't like it if I tried to play at ear splitting levels.  At everything under that (except whisper quiet) the balance was good.

 

Here's my favorite version of the Organ Symphony.  I love the tempos.

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bottom line:  Add a sub.  The biggest one you can find in your price range.  I think I remember an SVS 16 was mentioned.  That should really do a good job.

 

Caveat:  All of my listening was done using Youtube vids which are not the best medium for sound recreation.  If the RP-600M's can make them sound good I feel pretty strongly the RP-160's can too.

 

There are bigger, better sounding systems out there, the RP-160 is not the top of the food chain but it's outstanding in its size class and price range.  Music sounds great, orchestral and jazz in particular.

 

If Mr. @Man in the Box still has concerns about his sound while playing classical music I think some tweaking with the electronics can produce some outstanding sound.

 

-Dave

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@wvu80 @robert_kc

 

Thanks to wvu's experiments, I decided to purchase a few tracks (including Brahms's second concerto along with Beethoven's Egmont Overture and Schostakovich's 8th and 10th symphonies) from hdtracks.com to see if the issue lies with the content I've been streaming rather than the speakers themselves. Wow! A difference of night and day. Dynamic range on every instrument is very clear, the violins sound well articulated and clean, separation between the instruments is excellent and the rumbles of bass drums (on Schostakovich's 8th, particularly), which I expected to be lacking because I don't have a subwoofer, sounded pretty decent. 

 

I've been questioning my purchase of these speakers; it seemed like they aren't well-suited for classical music. I really wanted to love them and, thanks to the generous help I've received here, I now do. At this stage, it seems that a subwoofer would be good to have, considering that they promise not just broader audible frequency range, but also to add depth.

 

But given that buying the RP 280 would add "bigger sound," as they say, as well as better bass with their double 8 woofers per speaker (vs. the 160's 6.5, which can certainly do better but aren't bad), I feel it may represent better value per dollar than a subwoofer. I'll be secretly hoping the 280s (vs. the 260s) would allow me to forgo buying a sub, but we'll see. If anyone has any comments on any of the above, I'll gladly listen. 

 

To those who are familiar with my Yamaha receiver by now, I'd like to ask: can this 80 per channel receiver drive the Rp 280s (which require 150 watts), or would it need to be upgraded?

 

Thanks once again. I learned a lot.

Edited by Man in the Box
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thinking your Yamaha would be great with the 280"s, yes glad those guys have helped you sort it out... welcome to the forum...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

For future reference, should anyone else with similar issues stumble across such issues, here's a summary of what I've done since starting this thread:

 

  • experimented with speaker placement for improved bass performance. My current set up also followed the advice of placing them somewhat diagonally due to my square room's acoustics
  • experimented with bass gain of (which is at ~30% at the moment) on my Yamaha receiver. The default setting will not do
  • downloading actual high res tracks from hdtracks.com
    • sidenote: while Primephonic's material varies from record to record, none comes close to the quality of the aforementioned tracks. It remains a useful tool for discovery, I think

 

I'm sure these are avoidable for many people, but they apparently weren't for noob like me. 

Edited by Man in the Box
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Man in the Box said:

For future reference, should anyone else with similar issues stumble across such issues, here's a summary of what I've done since starting this thread:

 

  • experimented with speaker placement for improved bass performance. My current set up also followed the advice of placing them somewhat diagonally due to my square room's acoustics
  • experimented with bass gain of (which is at ~30% at the moment) on my Yamaha receiver. The default setting will not do
  • downloading actual high res tracks from hdtracks.com
    • sidenote: while Primephonic's material varies from record to record, none comes close to the quality of the aforementioned tracks. It remains a useful tool for discovery, I think

 

I'm sure these are avoidable for many people, but they apparently weren't for noob like me. 

 

OP:  It appears that Klipsch has a newer version of the RP-280F called the RP-8000F.  Have you investigated this?

 

The speaker’s “power handling” specification isn’t very useful, except perhaps in determining when the warranty is voided due to abuse.   (Usually this happens when someone gets drunk at a loud party and “cranks it up.”)   

 

The more useful speaker specifications are:

  • The RP-280F and the RP-8000F have a “sensitivity rating” of 98 dB.   In your 13.6 x 13.4 x 10 ft room, at sane listening volume, I think that your Yamaha R-N602’s 80wpc would have adequate power.   I doubt that a more powerful receiver would be a “high value” use of your money.
     
  • The RP-280F and the RP-8000F’s “nominal impedance” of 8 ohms means that your Yamaha R-N602 is compatible with the Klipsch RP-280F and the RP-8000F.

Now that you’ve discovered the potential quality of “hi-res” recordings, I encourage you to consider a universal player that will allow you to experience Blu-ray and Ultra HD Blu-ray audio/video discs.  As I’ve said before, video is essential for opera and ballet, and IMO very enjoyable for orchestral concerts.  (And it is extremely helpful to have an opera’s libretto displayed on the HDTV screen in the language of your choice.)    The Blu-ray box sets (e.g., all symphonies by a composer) are also a great value.   

 

You’ll have a decision to make if you want to acquire a universal player (i.e., a player that will play all discs:  multi-channel SACD, Blu-ray, Ultra HD Blu-ray, CD, DVD, etc.).  It appears that your existing Yamaha R-N602 receiver does not have an HDMI input, which means that you would need a universal player with analog outputs in order for it to function properly with your Yamaha R-N602.   (The coax and TOSLINK connections generally cannot deliver SACD output, or the full Blu-ray hi-res audio bit rate.  In other words, you wouldn’t realize the full benefit of the hi-res audio when using the coax or TOSLINK connection.  This is due to copyright restrictions, and bandwidth limitations.)   The Sony ES UBP-X1100ES has analog audio outputs, and retails for $600.   

 

OTOH, the Sony UBP-X700 which has only an HDMI connection (no analog audio output) sells on Amazon for $158.44 including shipping (USA price – I don’t know about Bahrain).  That’s a $441 price difference.   You might consider getting the cheaper HDMI-only Sony UBP-X700 and a new AVR that has an HDMI input.   (If you get a multi-channel AVR that is equipped with pre-amp outputs for the front channels, you might be able to use the new AVR to drive the center and rear channels, and your existing Yamaha R-N602 to drive the front channels.  I’m not an expert on AVRs – I don’t own one – others can weigh in regarding this configuration.)   

 

If you’re certain that you only want stereo (not 5.1 multi-channel), then there are stereo-only AVRs (i.e., stereo receiver with HDMI input) such as the Onkyo TX-8270.   (I assisted a friend with purchasing and installing an Onkyo TX-8270 and Sony UBP-X700.  He got a great “open box” price for the Onkyo TX-8270 from a seller on Amazon.)    Apparently, Pioneer offers a similar receiver:  SX-S30DAB.  However, I don’t know how the sound quality of either of these “HDMI receivers” compares with your existing Yamaha R-N602.  (I’m a tube amp guy.)   I’m just pointing out that you could buy an inexpensive “HDMI-only” universal player such as the Sony UBP-X700 and an inexpensive stereo “HDMI receiver” (such as the Onkyo TX-8270 or Pioneer SX-S30DAB) for about the same price as a universal player with analog audio outputs.   (That’s what drove my friend’s decision to buy the Sony UBP-X700 and Onkyo TX-8270.)

 

However, continuing with our discussion of stereo (not multi-channel), the more expensive Sony ES UBP-X1100ES (which has analog audio outputs) provides you with the flexibility to use any traditional hi-fi amp you want – which to many hi-fi enthusiasts is a significant advantage.   Some people think all amps sound the same.  FWIW, I’m not in that camp.  (As I said, I’m a tube amp guy, but tube amps are for hobbyists, not John Q. Public, and I don’t know how practicable it would be to purchase and maintain tube amps in Bahrain.)   Many hi-fi enthusiasts would never consider playing music through an AVR, while others are perfectly satisfied with an AVR for music.   (FYI, there have from time-to-time been some great deals on eBay for “factory refurbished” Sony ES UBP-X1000ES (the earlier version of the Sony ES UBP-X1100ES), but I don’t know about shipping to Bahrain.)   

 

My recommendation:  I suggest that you strongly consider an upgrade path that eventually leads to 5.1 surround sound, which is fabulous for classical music.   Many modern hi-res 5.1 classical SACD and Blu-ray recordings are available.   There are also some classical recordings delivered in Ultra HD Blu-ray, and Pure Audio Blu-ray.   (Pure Audio Blu-ray delivers hi-res multi-channel audio, but no video).   If you want 5.1, you might be wise to buy the cheaper HDMI-only universal player such as the Sony UBP-X700, and buy a new 5.1 AVR.   (Again, I suggest you consider an AVR with pre-amp outputs.)  You could use your existing speakers for the rear channels, and buy a matching Klipsch center channel speaker (e.g., RP-504C).   IME Blu-ray audio/video is a significant step up in how to enjoy recorded classical music in the home.   Modern Blu-ray concert videos, with a high-quality surround sound system and HDTV, represent the next best thing to being in the symphony hall or opera house.    IME this is far superior to what CDs and streaming services can offer.

 

It’s a lot to think about.  I’m certain that others can share their experience with these options.

 

Please keep up posted if you acquire the Klipsch RP-280F or RP-8000F.     
 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(snip, just wanted to reference the post.)

 

44 minutes ago, robert_kc said:

 

Please keep up posted if you acquire the Klipsch RP-280F or RP-8000F.  

 

Excellent post.

 

Myself being a cheapie on a budget I always start out with "for X amount of dollars, what is the next best piece of audio equipment I can get given my current setup?"  I just don't have the discretionary income for a flagship AVR, a pair of $3000 subs and new mains at $3000 a pair.  You've got to make choices.

 

A sub is one of those things in your system that if it isn't the 100% perfect next thing, it will help the current setup and also a future setup.

 

A set of RP-82's (RP-8000F) can use the same argument.  Get the larger mains, move the RP-160's to surround or even CENTER duties and you've upgraded your system for now, and for the future.

 

Win-win, can't go wrong with either choice.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OP:  How far apart are your speakers?

 

IME, multi-channel (5.1) can be useful in a large room, and when the main L & R speakers must be widely spaced.   (For example, in my basement system, the speakers must be 12 feet apart due to room layout.)   OTOH, in a small room, if the main speakers are spaced 5 feet apart (which is the case for 3 of my hi-fi systems), there is not as much benefit IMO to a center channel and surround speakers.

 

Also, part of the “live-concert-hall experience” for large-scale classical orchestral music isn’t just the surround-sound, it’s the amount of acoustic power.   In the same size room, if you have quantity of 3, or 4, or 5 speakers (left, center, right, 2 rears), you’ll have more acoustic power than 2 similar size speakers.  (As we’ve already discussed, subwoofer(s) can also help overall dynamics by off-loading the power-hungry bass from the main amp and speakers – if the sub is implemented correctly.)

 

Because there is little rear channel content for classical music, and little distinction between the surround-left and surround-right channels, in a surround-sound system you might be satisfied with 1 rear speaker vs. 2, or no rear speakers.

 

I have one 4.2 system (i.e., surround-sound with a single rear speaker), two 2.1 systems (i.e., stereo with subwoofer), one 2.0 system, and one mono system.   They all work well in the room where they’re installed, for the purpose they’re used for.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OP:  just don't confuse the facts that apart from the obvious additions at times available with the "format" (more sound channels, stuff to concurrently show on your tv, etc.), the far-and-away main difference (if not actually the only one) in sound quality between lowly CD and "hi res" is the choices made and care taken with the mixing/production, not the bit depth or frequency of the sample rate. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the risk of beating a dead horse … 


Some people claim that science completely understands human hearing, and cite theories like Nyquist theorem to assert that Redbook CD “exceeds human hearing capability” (whatever that means), and that hi-res formats don’t sound any better than CD.   OTOH, some hobbyists with many years of experience, involving listening to many different recordings, report that modern hi-res recordings often deliver the best audio quality – for whatever reason.   (If a hi-res recording sounds better, the naysayers will always say that it was recorded and mastered more carefully.   Some people (including me) have the attitude –  I don’t care why a recording sounds better - if it sounds better, it sounds better – I want the best quality audio recordings for the music I love.)

 

Similarly, some people claim that science completely understands human hearing and how a few technical specifications like frequency response and THD affect our perception of audio quality, and insist that all modern amplifiers sound the same.  OTOH, some hobbyists with many years of experience, involving listening to many different amplifiers, report that different amps sometimes sound different.

 

Maybe someday science will provide better insights regarding these different views.   For now, each hi-fi hobbyist has to decide if they believe theories, or their own ears.

 

If a recording was captured and mastered in 24bit/192kHz, why not buy it in that format, vs. buying a version that was down-sampled to fit onto a 30+ year-old digital storage format – i.e., Redbook CD (16bit/44.1kHz)?  (Similar question re DSD recordings.)  Digital storage technology has advanced in the last 30 years – the same size disc that was used for CDs decades ago now is available in Blu-ray and Ultra HD format that holds vastly more data.   Technologies like SACD, Blu-ray, and Ultra HD Blu-ray, as well as hi-res downloads, are well established in the marketplace.  For classical music, recordings are routinely released in hi-res format.   

 

Because I listen to classical music and opera, I have a clear benchmark for the audio quality of recordings reproduced via my home hi-fi system:  The live performance of classical music in its intended venue - i.e., a symphony hall or opera house with world class acoustics – where no electronics are employed.    In other words, no sound reinforcement system is used when classical music is performed in its intended venue.  The sound is 100% natural.   We know how a violin sounds.  We know the sound of a trumpet, clarinet, cello, timpani, etc.   Classical music lovers know how classical music sounds when performed in a world-class symphony hall or opera house  (recognizing that there can be some variance in hall acoustics).   IME, modern hi-res recordings often excel at creating the illusion of being in the symphony hall or opera house – particularly hi-res surround-sound recordings. 

 

And, the “extras” that Blu-ray provides deliver significant benefits for classical music, particularly opera and ballet.   

 

For a Hollywood movie, would you only listen to the audio and not also watch the movie?   That’s the difference between CD vs. Blu-ray for opera and ballet, because they are visual as well as musical art forms.   This is a non-trivial benefit of Blu-ray vs. CD.  

 

When you attend the symphony, do you like to watch the performers, or do you close your eyes?  (I respect both preferences.)  What if there is a soloist – do you like to watch them perform?  (I’ve seen/heard Khatia Buniatishvili play piano live.   I’d MUCH RATHER see Khatia, than not.)

 

When listening to a language you don’t understand, would you rather try to follow along phonetically in a printed libretto (which has tiny print that requires you to have bright lights on, and wear strong reading glasses) and read the English translation, or have the English translation (or whatever is your preferred language) automatically displayed as subtitles on the HDTV screen?   That’s the difference between CD vs. Blu-ray for opera.   This is a non-trivial benefit of Blu-ray vs. CD.  

 

If you have a large room, and/or the speakers must be far apart, surround-sound can deliver a significantly improved listening experience vs. stereo.   This is a non-trivial benefit of Blu-ray vs. CD.    

 

When buying a collection of many recordings, would you rather have it delivered on one hundred CDs (which often happens with classical music box sets), or on relatively few Pure Audio Blu-ray discs that deliver audio quality that is at least as good as the CDs, and possibly better?   

 

This thread is about classical music, and all of these potential benefits of Blu-ray are relevant to this discussion.

 

For a modern classical recording that was captured and mastered in hi-res, what benefit would there be for a consumer to choose a CD, if a hi-res deliverable such as Blu-ray or hi-res download is available?

 

If a classical music lover is in the market for a disc player, what benefit would there be to buy a machine that will play only CDs, vs. a machine that will play CD, DVD, SACD, Blu-ray, Pure Audio Blu-ray, and Ultra HD Blu-ray, plus hi-res downloads?  (Unless the consumer’s budget is $10, and they want to buy a used CD player at a garage sale.)

 

All I’m suggesting is that each consumer decide for themselves, based on accurate knowledge about what’s available in today’s marketplace.   And I’m suggesting that the types of recordings that are available today for classical music is a richer variety, than - for example - recordings of 4 or 5 decade-old popular music that are limited by 4 or 5 decade-old recording technology.  

 

To each their own.  I suggest that everyone enjoy the hobby they way they want to enjoy it.

 

My opinion (which is based on my experience):  Multichannel hi-res/hi-def audio/video recordings played via a state-of-the-art universal player and vintage tube amps and large high-end Klipsch speakers are the “cat’s pajamas” for classical music.  (I point out that I’m stating my opinion, and not representing it as a fact.)
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Man in the Box said:

To those who are familiar with my Yamaha receiver by now, I'd like to ask: can this 80 per channel receiver drive the Rp 280s (which require 150 watts), or would it need to be upgraded?

 

There is a misconception here.  The power handling figure is 150 watts.  Although some dealers, and the occasional  company rep, will give you a "rule of the thumb" saying the amplifier should have a continuous power output equal to the power handling of the speaker -- or lower --or higher, this notion is untrue.

 

The actual sensitivity (sometimes called "efficiency") of the RP 280 is 2 dB HIGHER than that of the RP 160, so the RP 280 needs LESS power from the amp, and with your Yamaha, the RP 280 will be 2 dB louder, given the same output from the amp.  So, the Yamaha is powerful enough, and then some.

 

If the Yamaha is working well, it should be the last thing you replace.

 

P.S.  When Paul W. Klipsch was asked what the power handling figures in speaker specs meant, he said, "Probably not a lot."  It's a convention to include it.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/15/2019 at 8:08 PM, robert_kc said:

OP:  It appears that Klipsch has a newer version of the RP-280F called the RP-8000F.  Have you investigated this?

 

 

 

Yes, the local store still sells the 280s, but a Dubai-based store that will deliver has the 8000s. I’ve been looking for how the two pairs differ but haven’t found concrete comparisons (assuming they’re possible). Seems like I’d have to listen to them side by side, but unfortunately that’s not possible for me at the moment.  

 

On this note, any clue as to whether 280s/ 8000 are too big for my room (~13 x 13 x 10)? This is the only factor that made me consider the smaller 260s/ 6000s.

 

Quote

Now that you’ve discovered the potential quality of “hi-res” recordings, I encourage you to consider a universal player that will allow you to experience Blu-ray and Ultra HD Blu-ray audio/video discs.  As I’ve said before, video is essential for opera and ballet, and IMO very enjoyable for orchestral concerts.

 

This is definitely on my list of things to explore and very possibly buy. I wasn’t even aware of what a universal player is before you suggested it. I really appreciate the advice. 

 

On 7/15/2019 at 8:08 PM, robert_kc said:

My recommendation:  I suggest that you strongly consider an upgrade path that eventually leads to 5.1 surround sound, which is fabulous for classical music.   Many modern hi-res 5.1 classical SACD and Blu-ray recordings are available.  

 

Yes, I plan to upgrade toward a 5.1 system. I didn’t consider that such a system would be great for classical music. I imagine I’ll be over the moon when the day comes!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/15/2019 at 10:58 PM, robert_kc said:

OP:  How far apart are your speakers?

 

 

Because there is little rear channel content for classical music, and little distinction between the surround-left and surround-right channels, in a surround-sound system you might be satisfied with 1 rear speaker vs. 2, or no rear speakers.

 

At the moment the speakers are about 6 feet apart. They’re positioned slightly off center and slightly diagonally (with one speaker a bit farther from the wall compared to the other). I’m still experimenting with their position. 

 

Did you add any acoustic panels or anything of the sort to your listening room? Mine is also my bedroom, and I feel that bass traps are a bit of an eyesore for my personal living space. But there’s certainly unwelcome reverb in my room that I can do without. It’s most pronounced when I play high frequency notes on my piano (also in my bedroom) at forte or fortissimo. I imagine the speakers would sound better if room surfaces are somewhat treated. 

 

It’s good to know that I can get away with one rear speaker for 5.1 classical music. I’ll try it after I add the next pair of speakers (probably the 280s/ 8000) — before I add the central speaker as the system’s final piece, as has been suggested to me in this thread. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/16/2019 at 4:16 AM, garyrc said:

So, the Yamaha is powerful enough, and then some.

 

If the Yamaha is working well, it should be the last thing you replace.

Good to know. I was hoping that this would be the case, given my limited budget at the moment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/17/2019 at 9:34 AM, Man in the Box said:

 

Yes, the local store still sells the 280s, but a Dubai-based store that will deliver has the 8000s. I’ve been looking for how the two pairs differ but haven’t found concrete comparisons (assuming they’re possible). Seems like I’d have to listen to them side by side, but unfortunately that’s not possible for me at the moment.  

 

On this note, any clue as to whether 280s/ 8000 are too big for my room (~13 x 13 x 10)? This is the only factor that made me consider the smaller 260s/ 6000s.

 

 

Because large-scale orchestral music has significant dynamic range, I suggest that you get the largest speakers that your budget allows.  My TV room is approximately the same size as your listening room, except with 8' ceilings.   I have Klipsch Palladium P-37F (which are slightly larger than the RP-8000F) in my TV room, and they're not too large for the room.  (And I have a matching Klipsch P-312W subwoofer in this room.)

 

If the RP-8000F is the same price delivered to your door as the RP-280F, I'd get the newer RP-8000F because it will be easier to buy a matching center channel later.  If the RP-280F is discounted significantly, that would be a factor.   (When the RF-7III was announced, RF-7II were offered in the USA at 50% off, with free shipping.  I pounced on the RF-7II.)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...