KathyMason Posted April 4, 2006 Share Posted April 4, 2006 I can't speak for the new Rotel digital amps because I haven't heard them yet but to my understanding of the new line, they aren't really digital, they are Class D amplifiers that are not digital, they are PWM. Rotel calls them their Class D amplifiers, but Class D does not stand for (the D) Digital. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RTTR Posted April 4, 2006 Share Posted April 4, 2006 I have to agree with Jay, In my opinion Rotel always sounds so flat and lacks detail, I really don't like amps that require the use of tone controls to make them sound good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpm Posted April 4, 2006 Share Posted April 4, 2006 I had the 7's for about a year. They were ok, but I sorely missed the 3-way Heritage sound. Oh well, I tried, and now I'm home where I belong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KathyMason Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 RTTR, I disagree with you! Rotel do not lack detail by far, maybe your pre-amp was the culprit. Many reviews rave about Rotel's sound quality and detail. I think maybe you are just a NAD. jpm, as said many times in this forum, the Klipsch RF-7 are just ok with some equipment, but to get the very best out of the RF-7's, you are going to have to put something really good with them and they will really give you the very best. I know because I started out with an amp that didn't do it justice, now I'm very happy with mine with the Rotel RB-1090 and Rotel separates I have. I've heard the Klipshorn and RF-7's side-by-side on very good equipment and the RF-7's impressed the heck out of me, and still does. Too bad you didn't give the best to the RF-7's to get the best back, they really are worth it, atleast for me. I didn't discover this until I got rid of my Sony amp that I thought was good and that Sony amp cost me $1500.00 and it just gave the RF-7's crap in and crap out. The Rotel RB-1090 really changed it into a shocking and breaktaking sound system that shock any body that hears it when at my house. I really feel for you jpm that you didn't get it where it could have been, Sorry sweetie! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunburnwilly Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 Hey Kathy , where you been ? Your avatar has been sorely missed around here ... ps - would love to compare your 7's to my Belles , but since your like 2,500 miles away I doubt it would happen ... Yours truely , sunburn [] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrWho Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 most people find rotels not great with klipsch, try a different amp BTW you have the 802D? To each their own but most know the Rotel 1090 is a stellar amp if it can't do the job change somethin' else.I find the Rotels the BETTER match of MANY amps I've owned w Klipsch. Ditto that...just about every amplifier operating within its linear range is going to sound nearly the same. Just try some double blind ABX testing and you'll see what I'm talking about... As far as the 83 versus the 7's...the newer speakers are supposed to have "corrected" the midrange issues present in the older lineup. Btw, just because they went from a 1.5" driver to a 1.25" driver doesn't mean the smaller driver couldn't have a larger effective surface diameter. And then take into account some of the latest horn/motor improvements and there is no reason why the "smaller" driver can't perform better. There are just so many variables involved that looking at just this one spec indicates nothing. If things sounded as bad as they did in the boutique, then I would argue that something was setup or calibrated wrong. And if you can spend $12k on a pair of mains, then perhaps you should look into something like the THX Ultra II setup - which the entire system can be purchased for $12k...I guarantee that it'd leave most everything else in the dust. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whatever55 Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 For about half the price try the McIntosh MA2275. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RTTR Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 RTTR, I disagree with you! Rotel do not lack detail by far, maybe your pre-amp was the culprit. Many reviews rave about Rotel's sound quality and detail. I think maybe you are just a NAD. I've never owned Rotel, so no it's not my pre-amp which you are assuming it is, I've only demo'd Rotel againt other similarly priced components on various speaker brands, the comment's I made are of my own opinion. I think Rotel lacts detail, some people might think they don't, some people think Yamaha receivers are bright, some people don't, the argument can go on forever. There is no need to get defensive and start calling me silly names. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay481985 Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 Btw, just because they went from a 1.5" driver to a 1.25" driver doesn't mean the smaller driver couldn't have a larger effective surface diameter. And then take into account some of the latest horn/motor improvements and there is no reason why the "smaller" driver can't perform better. There are just so many variables involved that looking at just this one spec indicates nothing. And if you can spend $12k on a pair of mains, then perhaps you should look into something like the THX Ultra II setup - which the entire system can be purchased for $12k...I guarantee that it'd leave most everything else in the dust. LOL drwho it was 1.75 and ditto the newer horn/speaker. I believe they used a neodymnium magnet in the new horns compared to just a regular one. Neodymnium happens to have a much more favorable thermal capability (can withstand higher temperatures) and are weight to weight size for size somewhere like 16X stronger or so. Also remember guys the THX Ultra II only has two 6.5 inch drivers in the 650 and it still does admirably Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpm Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 jpm, as said many times in this forum, the Klipsch RF-7 are just ok with some equipment, but to get the very best out of the RF-7's, you are going to have to put something really good with them and they will really give you the very best. I really feel for you jpm that you didn't get it where it could have been, Sorry sweetie! I ran my RF7's with my sweet Rega gear first and later with a Carver tripath ZR1600 amp (350 watts). Don't tell me I didn't run good gear. Next time you want to make a point I suggest you research your subject rather than just trying to blow smoke up someone's ***. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay481985 Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 wow this thread is gonna dissapear or get locked! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RTTR Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 wow this thread is gonna dissapear or get locked! Why's that Jay? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay481985 Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 umm name calling? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BobG Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 I have no problem with any person's taste or dislike for any (or even all) of the Klipsch speakers. Heck, it's all a matter of personal taste until some speaker truely reproduces the sound of the recording with nothing added or lost. However, hearing a pair of speakers (any speakers) in one room, in one location, does not guarantee much about the performance of the speaker. Perhaps they truly don't meet your expectations but it's just as likely they sound bad in that location, regardless of what amp is used. I've managed to get truly awful sound out of some pretty fine speakers based on room position. Did you have the option of moving them around in the room? If not, there is more to hear than what you may have heard so far. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fish Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 jpm, as said many times in this forum, the Klipsch RF-7 are just ok with some equipment, but to get the very best out of the RF-7's, you are going to have to put something really good with them and they will really give you the very best. I really feel for you jpm that you didn't get it where it could have been, Sorry sweetie! Listen up Toots, I ran my RF7's with my sweet Rega gear first and later with a Carver tripath ZR1600 amp (350 watts). Don't tell me I didn't run good gear. Bottom line is the 7's have piercing highs and no midrange. They're not full range and they had an empty, hollow sound. The bass was there, but not tight like the LaScala. Upgrading the crossover wasn't the answer, subtle DeanG changes wouldn't have been enough to do much other than possibly subdue the shrieking highs. Jeez, 2 minutes at high volume and we had headaches. The answer was selling them and getting back to three way Heritage speakers with the right stuff. My new LaScala's blow the 7's away in every category, and especially in the mid-range, which the 7's don't have at all. Next time you want to make a point I suggest you research your subject rather than just trying to blow smoke up someone's ***. Got it, sweetie? jpm I'd be just as happy w/smoke blowed up my rump as somebody pi$$in'in my boots and tellin' me its rainin'.Enjoy your LaScala's,I'll keep my opinion of em' to myself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwinr Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 jpm, as said many times in this forum, the Klipsch RF-7 are just ok with some equipment, but to get the very best out of the RF-7's, you are going to have to put something really good with them and they will really give you the very best. I really feel for you jpm that you didn't get it where it could have been, Sorry sweetie! Listen up Toots, I ran my RF7's with my sweet Rega gear first and later with a Carver tripath ZR1600 amp (350 watts). Don't tell me I didn't run good gear. Bottom line is the 7's have piercing highs and no midrange. They're not full range and they had an empty, hollow sound. The bass was there, but not tight like the LaScala. Upgrading the crossover wasn't the answer, subtle DeanG changes wouldn't have been enough to do much other than possibly subdue the shrieking highs. Jeez, 2 minutes at high volume and we had headaches. The answer was selling them and getting back to three way Heritage speakers with the right stuff. My new LaScala's blow the 7's away in every category, and especially in the mid-range, which the 7's don't have at all. Next time you want to make a point I suggest you research your subject rather than just trying to blow smoke up someone's ***. Got it, sweetie? jpm I'd be just as happy w/smoke blowed up my rump as somebody pi$$in'in my boots and tellin' me its rainin'.Enjoy your LaScala's,I'll keep my opinion of em' to myself. Wow! A forum domestic. [] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KathyMason Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 RTTR, Sweetie, I'm not calling you names, what I meant by NAD is that you probably just prefer the NAD equipment. You might want to take Stereophile on, they say Rotel does have detail. jpm, Sorry sweetie that it didn't work out for you. I'm just happy to report I haven't had any of the problems you had with your RF-7's, thank goodness! I disagree, the RF-7's have plenty midrange here on my setup. I'm completely happy with them. Maybe it would have been cheaper for you to try DeanG's crossover change first to see if that would have helped. The Highs are very smooth and pleasant on my RF-7's and no I am not running the DeanG xovers. Happy to hear you have found something that works better for you sweetie. I'm not trying to imply you ran junk on your RF-7's but once I took the Sony Amp off my setup, it changed things around 100%. Shame you had a bad experience with the RF-7's because it sounds to me like you want to bash the product now since it didn't work out for you. Such is life, huh! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpm Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 I'm not your sweetie. If you're happy with the 7's that's all good. They're ok, just not my cup'a tea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KlipsDude Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 Wow, you don't have to be rude to her. I'm not having any problems with my RF-7's and there are many folks running the RF-7's successfully but no need to start getting ugly to her. I'm surprised cuz your usually a pretty easy goin guy here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSoundBroker Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 Back to the subject at hand... Sounds like you listened to a brand new fresh pair. The RF-7's are also a bit on the hard side when they are fresh from the box and the THX Ultras are flat flat flat...they all need at least 50 hours on them and 100 is even better before they will make a full accounting of themselves. I've heard a fully broken in pair of RF-83's and am obviously very familiar with RF-7's. I personally preferred the RF-83's for the more refined sound. The newer horn design has substantially more extended high frequency response with less distortion. According to my Klipsch rep, the driver in the RF-7 was total overkill for what it really needed and they don't feel that the new design is a compromise...if anything they feel the new horn design is much better. As for the THX Ultra 2 system...don't listen unless you can write the check...they are THAT good! 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.