New member, new to Klipsch questions.

[imahawki]

Hey all.

This is my first post here but I'm also somewhat new to Klipsch. I have had Paradigm speakers for about 4 years and I want to upgrade. I dont want to go out and spend another several thousand dollars above what I have now, but I dont want to make a completely lateral move either. So that is where Klipsch comes in.

1) I need more time in front of them, but I think I like the sound. I definately think that the horns sound different than a regular tweeter, but I like it.

2) Klipsch allows their products to be sold at some "big box" type of stores, which means that IMO they can be a better value than something like Paradigm that is on such a closed dealer network. This means I think I can "upgrade" without spending thousands more than what I can hopefully get for my current speakers. Also, the Klipsch reference series sounds enough different than my Paradigms, that I dont have to jump way up the line to get a significant change.

That being said, I'm looking at a blended 25/35 reference system. RF-25s, RC-35 and RS-25s. Does that sound like it makes sense? I'll be driving this with a Yamaha RX-V1200 receiver and I have an SVS sub. The speakers will be similar in size (driver wise) as my current Paradigm Monitor series EXCEPT the surrounds. I didnt want to spring for the dipole Monitor series surrounds because the 25s are pretty small and I'm using Mini Monitors as surrounds right now. But, this has always seemed like HUGE overkill to me, but let me explain. When I first got into Paradigm, I bought their "performance series" or whatever was below Monitor at the time and had the dipoles (ADP-170s). I really liked those speakers, but the ADP speakers in the Monitor line where quite a chunk of change. I always regretted going with direct radiator surrounds when I upgraded to the Monitor line though.

Any way, I live in Omaha, so the only dealer is Nebraska Furniture Mart. That's bad because they dont have very good listening rooms, but good because they have a 30 day satisfaction guarantee and steller financicing.

Any way, after all that, what are your thoughts? Anything else I should be considering?

[easylistener]

That would make sense. I would upgrade if you could to the RF35's. It will give much better sound. For the rears you want to go as big as you can. I like to have towers in rear. I like direct rad. speakers in the rear. Some other people in the board have been switching also. If you ever start to listen to SACD or DVD-a you will want direct in the back.

My father had a system that had smaller speaker in the back and I told him he was missing so much. He didn't beleive me intill he just upgraded to a full tower system. He is soooo much happier now.

[imahawki]

Thanks for the reply. I am particularly trying to get away from direct radiators in the rear. I've had both now, and I want a diffuse soundfield. I'm also trying to move away from being concerned with (multichannel-)music as HT is definately my thing. I will be using a quite capable sub. My only conern with going up a model on BOTH the mains and the rears is how much it impacts overall cost. I dont want to have regrets later on though.

[whell]

Remeber that in any 5.1 system, the center channel and the L/R channels are doing most of the work: dialog and soundstage width. The rears most of time, with some notable exceptions, are for effects, and adding some depth to the sound stage. Better to spend the money on the front L/R and center channels.

I'd go direct radiator in the rears as well. If you decide that you want to upgrade later, you'll have a good set of speakers that can be used in a second (maybe 2 channel) system at a later time, or sold. But I tend to think that you'll be happier in the long run w/o the WDST's in the rears, as it may give you more flexibility.

[Hard 21]

I would go with 35s up front. I know very little about this stuff, but I know that for around $180 (rough estimate of the difference in cost from 2 25s to 35s)(which is a lot, but not the farm), the peace of mind for me not wondering if it would sound a little better if I'd have just spent some extra doe, is worth it.

[easylistener]

The 35's are much better speakers and you will not regret getting them. Let us know what you end up doing and what you think

[imahawki]

So what I'm hearing is go with a full 35 front stage, but make my own decision on maybe using 25s in the rear. I'm not concerned about multichannel audio. This is home theater with a capable sub and speakers set to small.

Thanks again for all the help!

[Hard 21]

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

On 4/15/2004 8:30:31 AM imahawki wrote:

So what I'm hearing is go with a full 35 front stage, but make my own decision on maybe using 25s in the rear.

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

That's what I'm picking up from the thread. But, again, I have very little knowledge about this stuff. What I do know is that in this forum the opinion on Rears/Surrounds differs greatly as a whole. Now there may be a more specific consensus for them in your situation where HT is by and large the main use, but I still gather that that varies significantly also.

P.S. I'm picking up the 5.1 R35 system tomorrow (RW12 sub) and I'm concerned with music and movies at least equally, but lean towards music. Is it the best decision? Who knows. Am I gonna be happy with it. Oh Yeah! At least for a little while. This Upgrade Bug seems to be pretty contagious throughout this forum.

[imahawki]

What I do know is that in this forum the opinion on Rears/Surrounds differs greatly as a whole. Now there may be a more specific consensus for them in your situation where HT is by and large the main use, but I still gather that that varies significantly also. Its not just here, you can find arguments regarding dipole/bipole vs. direct radiator surrounds on any HT forum on the net I think its largely preference and intended use.

[dantfmly]

i would go with direct radiating on the rear also. It is not just for multi channel music. If you have anything above pro logic. You will have surround effects, that dipole/bipole rear speakers just can not do correctly. In dolby digital you do want the sound to be coming from the rear at times for some effects. I'm glad i never went to dipole/bipole rear surrounds.

[imahawki]

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

On 4/15/2004 11:18:47 AM dantfmly wrote:

i would go with direct radiating on the rear also. It is not just for multi channel music. If you have anything above pro logic. You will have surround effects, that dipole/bipole rear speakers just can not do correctly. In dolby digital you do want the sound to be coming from the rear at times for some effects. I'm glad i never went to dipole/bipole rear surrounds.

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

I dont understand this mentality. The sound still comes from the rear, its just a little more diffused. Its not any quieter, it doest drop information, etc. What sound effect would dipoles not be able to reproduce? Its going to give you a different sound, but so would another brand of speakers. I dont get it. My goal is to create a sound FIELD behind me, not sound eminating from two separate speakers.

[dantfmly]

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

On 4/15/2004 12:13:19 PM imahawki wrote:

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

On 4/15/2004 11:18:47 AM dantfmly wrote:

i would go with direct radiating on the rear also. It is not just for multi channel music. If you have anything above pro logic. You will have surround effects, that dipole/bipole rear speakers just can not do correctly. In dolby digital you do want the sound to be coming from the rear at times for some effects. I'm glad i never went to dipole/bipole rear surrounds.

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

I dont understand this mentality. The sound still comes from the rear, its just a little more diffused. Its not any quieter, it doest drop information, etc. What sound effect would dipoles not be able to reproduce? Its going to give you a different sound, but so would another brand of speakers. I dont get it. My goal is to create a sound FIELD behind me, not sound eminating from two separate speakers.

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

i don't want it diffused in mine. There are some effects that i prefer to have directed at me from behind, especially in a scene where something passes from in front of you to behind you and vis versa. or like the final scene in JUMANGI (spelling?) where all the animals are swirling back into the game. you want all the same speaker all the way around to REALLY produce that properly, or at least have direct ratiating speakers. You need directionalty for those kind of effects IMHO. if an elephant was going around your head (if it was physically possible )you would not hear it get diffused as it went behind you. That and direct radiating speakers also create a field of sound. Have you ever noticed that if you just run in stereo and really pay attention, you can locate sounds from other then the speakers. Like with mine i can locate voices in the center just as if there was a center channel. and sometimes as if there is surround speakers. I hope that helps to explain a little better what i am trying to say. sorry if it does not.

[homeslice]

Direct radiators for me also. With dolby digital there are alot of surround effects that would be ruined by dipole/bipoles. Direct radiators are also the THX standard if that means anything.

[imahawki]

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

On 4/16/2004 1:31:05 PM homeslice wrote:

Direct radiators for me also. With dolby digital there are alot of surround effects that would be ruined by dipole/bipoles. Direct radiators are also the THX standard if that means anything.

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

Uh, not exactly.

Read the section on Surround Channel Loudspeakers. It both describes and visually depicts a di/bipole design. http://www.thx.com/mod/techlib/speakers.html

Also, if you look at a company like Atlantic Technology (http://www.atlantictechnology.com/systems1.htm) or M&K many they use dipoles in many (possibly ALL in ATs case) of their THX certified system. I'm not trying to change your minds, but I wonder why you insist the dipoles are somehow now "wrong"

[ygmn]

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

On 4/16/2004 1:45:50 PM imahawki wrote:

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

On 4/16/2004 1:31:05 PM homeslice wrote:

Direct radiators for me also. With dolby digital there are alot of surround effects that would be ruined by dipole/bipoles. Direct radiators are also the THX standard if that means anything.

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

Uh, not exactly.

Read the section on Surround Channel Loudspeakers. It both describes and visually depicts a di/bipole design.

http://www.thx.com/mod/techlib/speakers.html

Also, if you look at a company like Atlantic Technology (

http://www.atlantictechnology.com/systems1.htm

) or M&K many they use dipoles in many (possibly ALL in ATs case) of their THX certified system. I'm not trying to change your minds, but I wonder why you insist the dipoles are somehow now "wrong"

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

some feel the use of identical speakers throughout a 5.1 or 6.1 or 7.1 system ensures timbre of all the speaker is the same and give the sound the sound editors wanted....they also feel THX is not correct in the use of dipole and bipole speakers.....

Then there are others who choose to use the RS WDST speakers for surrounds at it best approximates the multi side surrounds a movie theater has....WDST is not bipole nor is it dipole....they are just a speaker that has the tweeter horns angled out at 45 degrees with a 90 degrees between center...so as the sound eminating from them is in a 180 degree arc not a more narrow sound coverage of a monopole design which is around the 60 degreeish sound coverage angle....

It is hard to find someone who likes both....and it is all up to the HT owner to decide which he chooses for his HT experience...which is for movies....then he must decide what he wants for multi channel music...which is another animal alltogether IMO...

It is all personal preference IMO...and neither is better and neither is worse...

All these speaker choices....and then room floor plan, wall and floor coverings, windows and doors, openings and ceiling types and then room furniture and on and on and on...will make everyone's sound different....

Good luck...