orr_2111 Posted May 27, 2001 Share Posted May 27, 2001 I am thinking about replacing my rs-3 surrounds with rb-5 for surrounds. any pros/cons on this? give me your thoughts. brian. p.s. the mains would be either another pair of rb-5 or rf-3. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BobG Posted May 27, 2001 Share Posted May 27, 2001 Lots of debate as to whether it is best to have rears that deliver lots of ambience (WDST, Di-pole, Bi-pole) or lots of direct sound (mono-pole). The WDST design is an attempt to provide a balance of envelopment and localization which is not possible with Bi-pole, Di-pole or Mono-pole types. This will not become clear till the recording community gets their act together regarding what should appear in the surround channels of multi-channel music recordings. As for movies, Klipsch feels it is best to deliver BOTH ambience and localization. Rear center? Need it if the surround speakers cannot localize. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USparc Posted May 27, 2001 Share Posted May 27, 2001 It is best to have (if possible) equal speakers in an HT setup. So Choose for the rear the same as the front. I had one's rs-3 for testing from my local dealer. It is nothing compared to my rear RF-3's. Specialy for 5 channel stereo. In eather way you have to be able to place them well behind you. I don't know why considering RB-5's. Eventually on stands they cover up the same place. Even more: For the same money you have a lot more. If I could I would change my center to an RF-3. ------------------ ------------------------- Receiver: Onkyo 676 DVD: Pioneer DV-525 Screen: Thomson 46" RetroProjection Front: RF-3's Rear: RF-3's Center: RC-3 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.