jmorgan32 Posted December 4, 2006 Share Posted December 4, 2006 I used to think the old rule of thumb was to spend roughly twice the amount on speakers over the amplification. After a lot of reading, it seems to me that many of you that are much more experienced have much more $ invested in amplification. I am considering the RF-83's and a new McIntosh integrated 6300. Therefore, my speakers would be approximately 2 grand and my amp would be 3 grand. Is this a silly move, or completely rational? I know the 6300 only has 100 W per, but the Klipsch reputation is built on extreme efficiency. What are your thoughts? Thanks again. (I have a lot of learning down the road.) Much appreciated, Joe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speedball Posted December 4, 2006 Share Posted December 4, 2006 Never having heard either I would love to try that combination.........lucky you. McIntosh and Klipsch...[8] I would also be very happy using a $3000.00 or more amp with my $2000.00 speakers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrestonTom Posted December 4, 2006 Share Posted December 4, 2006 Joe, That is not a bad rule of thumb since speakers will have a much more profound impact on the sound. I believe amps play a bigger role for speakers that are inefficient and that present a very low impedance. With efficient speakers, the trick is to get electronics that are clean (no hiss, hum and little distortion at low levels). Being cheapskate myself, I would certainly encourage you to consider used speakers rather than new (yes, I am posting this on the company's website). Good luck, -Tom 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.