The right center channel

[Billiardicus]

I've been slowly assembling my system. RF-7s up front, RF-3s as surrounds, still need a center channel.

Should I get the RC-7 or RC-35? My room is only 14ft W x 15ft L x 11ft H. I think I'm probably already over doing it with the speakers, but I love the way bigger drivers play music. IMO there's no substitute for big drivers when it comes to bass.

But I don't need a center channel for music, only videos. So I don't really need the bigger drivers do I?

Klipsch recommends the RC-7 with the RF-7s, but it's huge (and expensive), and I'm not sure I need something that powerful. Will the RC-35 still match my other speakers well?

RC-7 or RC-35 ???

Thanks for the help,

Kurt

[MrMcGoo]

In a home theater, the center channel reproduces 75 to 80% of the sound. It is the most important speaker by a wide margin.

You need to timbre match your front three speakers as closely as possible. This will allow your system to pan from right to left and not change tone in a noticeable manner for example. This leaves you with three choices. The best choice would be a third RF-7, but most folks don't have a setup that allows this.

The second choice is the RC-7 and the third choice is the RB-75.

If you get an RC-35, it's likely that you will want to replace it later.

In the long run, the RC-7 is likely to be the least expensive route. In my early days of home theater, I did not believe this advice. In the long run, it can be very expense to remedy such problems.

Bill

[Billiardicus]

Okay, thanks. You're right, another RF-7 is out of the question. Guess I'll go with the RC-7.

Here's another dumb question: Does anyone eliminate the center all together, and run the dialogue through the 2 front speakers? Would that work?

I'm asking b/c I bought these speakers for music. IMO they're extreme overkill already for just HT with my room size. I also want to listen to high res music, but I don't know much about it except that it sounds awesome at the HT stores. What role does the center play in high res music?

I really appreciate the advice.

[gcoker]

To answer you second question..yes. You can run your receiver

in phantom mode on the center and have your mains act like the center

channel. In my opinion you will definitly miss out on vidoes and

multi channel music by not having a center channel.

[dougdrake]

Kurt - And if you ever go with multi-channel music (a la SACD or DVD-Audio) you'll want a good center speaker.

[richinlr]

Before I got my surround setup I was running straight stereo to my two front mains - we had good performance and I had wall rattling bass coming out of my ET LFT-VIII's. My wife and I had noticed, however, that we always seemed to have to really up the volume to get good dialogue and then it still didn't seem adequate. My mains have no trouble filling the middle on well recorded stereo sources and I initially thought that that would be sufficient. For music it was fine but for movies - wrong answer...

After getting a proper center, the dialogue just popped out and solved all these problems.

You need a center channel...

[cjgeraci]

RC-7.

I own both a RC-7 and a RC-35. One anchors my primary system, and the other my secondary system. There is no comparison between the two. The RC-7 is a vastly superior speaker, both for movies and for music. In fact, the RC-7 is such a great center, that I find myself playing more music in "simulated five channel" these days besides just two-channel (w/my RF-7s), SACD or DVD-Audio.

And for movies, dialogue is much more realistic with the RC-7.

And don't worry about putting large drivers in a small space. My dedicated room is smaller and more awkwardly shaped than yours, and I run all reference sevens and two subs. I would just recommend acoustically treating your room at some point to get the sound you want.

No, you really do not want to eliminate your center. All are correct; you can run the receiver in phantom mode. However, you will have a noticeable difference with movies, where the movie soundtrack is programmed to have primary dialogue with the center only.

Since you already have RF-7s and RF-3s, you might as well finish it off and do it right. Get a RC-7.

Carl.

[Billiardicus]

Thanks for the great advice everyone. It looks like it's "get the RC-7" hands down.

That's exactly what I'll do.

Thanks

[kfalls]

Do you mind if I ask why you chose the RF3s as surrounds instead of the RS-3 or RS-7s? I can think of few other surrounds which provide the coverage and quality of the Klipsch surounds, especially for DD with it's full-range surrounds channels.

[colterphoto1]

I'll say it again here. Buy the biggest, baddest center channel speaker you can afford. Reasons:

1. hey, it's only one speaker, it's easy to spend a little more $ for quality

2. you already have massive mains, how is a smaller center speaker to keep up?

my RC7 is set at about 90% to go with my Cornwalls!

3. in HT, the center (dialog) channel is everything. The tapered array in the RC7 is amazing for imaging.

4. Just buy the RC7 already. Go hard or stay home.

[cjgeraci]

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

On 7/28/2004 3:10:48 PM kfalls wrote:

Do you mind if I ask why you chose the RF3s as surrounds instead of the RS-3 or RS-7s? I can think of few other surrounds which provide the coverage and quality of the Klipsch surounds, especially for DD with it's full-range surrounds channels.

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

He probably chose RF3s as surrounds for the same reason that a number of us here in the forum have either sold our WDSTs or moved them to other systems in our homes. Music. Klipsch WDSTs provide some small benefits for surround movie sound, which primarily benefit those who have placement difficulties or have multiple rows of theater seats that they need to "spray" with effects. However, for those of us who have only one or two main seating locations, the Klipsch direct-radiating brethen do a much better job of reproducing music than the WDSTs. Especially for SACD, DVD-Audio, or pseudo-5-7 channel music (2 channel the processor converts to all 5-7 speakers). And if you do not have many different seating locations or a large room, direct-radiating speakers do fine for movies.

A number of Reference owners did not really "announce" when they made the move to direct-radiating surrounds, but you just watch their profiles change from WDSTs in the rear/side to RF7s,RF5s,RB75s,RB35s,RF3s,etc. There has been somewhat of a similar move with owners of Heritage, Legends, etc. The issue has been discussed a bit here. If you want various people's opinions on the subject, do a search.

Don't get me wrong, I still own one pair of WDSTs (RS-35s), and use them for movies in my secondary system. However, for music, not my particular preference.

Carl.

[Billiardicus]

RF-3's as surrounds...

Yeah pretty much what Carl said. I'm no expert in HT, but I didn't like the way the RS-7s sounded when it came to music. I didn't think they really added anything of value...they work great for surround sound on DVD's though.

Music is pretty much everything for me. IMO, if you're just want HT, you're spending way too much when you buy Klipsch. There's probably some $1000 HT in a box that will do the trick. Music is what makes Klipsch worth the money.

Oh yeah...I got the RF-3's for $450 too A good price always helps the decision along

[cjgeraci]

I agree. A good price for speakers always helps the decision. My first move from WDSTs to direct-radiating was to put RF-3s as side/rear surrounds. They do a good job for that.

That lasted until I moved the orientation/direction of my room, and then I had to go with front-ported speakers (and thus, the RB-75s).

Carl.

[colterphoto1]

IMO, here is the gist of the surround speaker debate:

Bi-pole, di-pole, WDST were all great for the old dolby pro-logic where the rear channels were mono, limited bandwidth, derived (non-discrete) signals. Then it made sense to have non-localized sound-effects bouncing around the rear of the room.

With Dolby Digital, et al, now we have discrete, multi-channel, full bandwidth surround channels where you are supposed to be able to LOCALIZE the sounds just like the front channels. Therefore it follows that we should abandon our old ideas of surround speakers for those more like our main speakers, in terms of bandwidth and efficiency (same RF or RB series), timbre (all Reference or all Heritage), and dispersion.

So, IMO you're doing the right thing sticking with either RF or RB for surrounds.

[cjgeraci]

You put that very well. We all may have to cut and paste your post when this question comes up in future threads.

Carl.

[colterphoto1]

(in best Elvis-impersonator voice)

Thank you, thank you very kindly.

Some of us really try to come up with good stuff for our buddies on the board, although I am frequently mistaken and corrected. Nice to be appreciated though.