can denon 2807push the RF-63 Home Theater System????

[blue-midnight]

Im willing to take my time and peice together a dream system as long as my denon 2807 could push the speakers well????

[getech]

Your 2807 will have no trouble running your Klipsch. However, the more power you apply to them the more headroom, and the more clarity you will ultimately obtain. I have two HT rooms, one with a 2807 running Angstrom in-ceiling speakers and it sounds fine. For more exhilarating sound, I use my 2nd listening room which features separates with a 300+ watt amp. It makes my RF7s truly reach their potential.

[jimmy4300]

I'm running a Denon 1907 to drive my RF82s and RC62.  For normal listening it sounds fine.  I could use a little more headroom, and if I had it to do over again, I would have gotten the 2807.  However, my 1907 sounds just fine.  BTW. I am bi-amping the RF82s, the Denon allows this.

Lou

[blue-midnight]

I'm running a Denon 1907 to drive my RF82s and RC62. For normal listening it sounds fine. I could use a little more headroom, and if I had it to do over again, I would have gotten the 2807. However, my 1907 sounds just fine. BTW. I am bi-amping the RF82s, the Denon allows this.

Lou

Whats this bi-amping?And the 2807 is rated 110 watts per channel and 1 amp per channel.Now is that 110 watts RMS?(i would assume but i don't know )

[blue-midnight]

I got this from the denon web site

Bi-amping and bi-wiring are different. But theyre often confused because both bi-amped and bi-wired systems have two sets of speaker cables running from amplifier(s) to a speaker. However, its what happens to the audio signal before it gets sent to the speaker that really distinguishes these two techniques. The only way we can answer your question is to dive into the details. So, here they are

Traditionally speaking, bi-amping means the use of two separate amplifier channels connected directly (no passive crossover in the signal path at all!) to individual loudspeaker drivers optimized to reproduce a particular frequency range. For example, one amplifier channel would be connected directly to a tweeter for high frequency reproduction, another to a woofer for bass reproduction.

Bi-amping requires an electronic crossover to divide the wide range audio signal from a preamplifier before that signal ever gets to the amplifiers. The advantages of traditional bi-amping are significant. Damping factor (a measure of the amplifiers ability to control the back-and-forth motion of the driver) increases, intermodulation distortion goes down, and effective amplifier power is increased dramatically.

Bi-wiring refers to separate wire runs from a common amplifier output to two different inputs on the same speaker. This requires a speaker specifically designed with bi-wiring in mind as the speakers passive crossover must be designed to allow this. And the speakers must have two sets of external binding posts connected by removable jumpers or "bus bars."

In ordinary use, you simply leave the jumpers in place and connect the amplifier to either set of binding posts with a single run of dual-conductor speaker cable. For bi-wired operation, simply remove the jumpers and connect each set of binding posts to the same amplifier channel with separate runs of speaker cable. (Many manufacturers make special "bi-wire" speaker cables that reduce bi-wirings visual intrusion by jacketing four conductors in one larger cable.) Bi-wirings advantages are generally considered to be more subtle than bi-amping and center around better control of back EMF (electromotive force) from the speaker drivers and increased definition. However, remember that conventional bi-wiring is also much less expensive to implement than bi-amping as it does not require separate amplifiers or electronic crossovers.

The confusion between bi-amping and bi-wiring arose when audiophiles began connecting different legs of a bi-wireable loudspeakers passive crossover to different amplifiers or different channels of the same amplifier. Notice that, like conventional bi-wiring, no electronic crossover is used so both amplifier channels are being fed the same full range signal. The "improvements" resulting from this connection scheme, especially when compared to simple bi-wiring, are even more subtle indeed as the signal must still pass through the loudspeakers passive crossover.

This is one case where we think tradition wins. Bi-amping, as well use the term on our Website, will refer to those instances where an electronic crossover divides a wide range audio signal and then sends it to two separate amplifier channels that are, in turn, connected directly to the voice coils of drivers reproducing a specific range of frequencies.

Well use the term bi-wiring whenever the output of a single wide range amplifier channel is connected to two sets of loudspeaker binding posts which are, in turn, connected to different sections of a passive crossover located between the amps output and the drivers voice coils.

For those who cant leave well enough alone, well use "bi-amping/bi-wiring" whenever a full range signal goes through two separate amplifier channels before it hits a loudspeakers binding post sets. But well use it infrequently as we dont think theres a lot of real musical value in that approach.

Remember that some Denon products make bi-wiring easier by providing two sets of output terminals from a single amplifier channel. This means you dont need special "bi-wire cable" to enjoy the advantages -- just use two runs of your regular speaker cable (make sure theyre the same length) to enjoy the benefits.

OK so that bi-amping and bi-wiring but basically what does it do exactly and how do you do it ???

Im a rookie with this home theater stuff

[westcott]

I'm running a Denon 1907 to drive my RF82s and RC62. For normal listening it sounds fine. I could use a little more headroom, and if I had it to do over again, I would have gotten the 2807. However, my 1907 sounds just fine. BTW. I am bi-amping the RF82s, the Denon allows this.

Lou

Whats this bi-amping?And the 2807 is rated 110 watts per channel and 1 amp per channel.Now is that 110 watts RMS?(i would assume but i don't know )

I tried bi-amping my RF7s with the extra two channels on my 3805, but it raised the noise floor so I went back to its normal configuration. Your mileage may vary.

[mas]

I would suggest that the term "bi-amping" or "tri-amping" continues to be used, dare I say it, in a 'non-standard' manner.

To quote from above:

"bi-amping means the use of two separate amplifier channels connected directly (no passive crossover in the signal path at all!) to
individual loudspeaker drivers optimized to reproduce a particular
frequency range. For example, one amplifier channel would be connected
directly to a tweeter for high frequency reproduction, another to a
woofer for bass reproduction.

Bi-amping requires an electronic crossover to divide the wide range
audio signal from a preamplifier before that signal ever gets to the
amplifiers."

Bi-amping is appropriate for 2-way systems, and tri-amping for 3-way systems.

All of the other variants that so many have found or postulated are quite fascinating, but of limited use and advantage.

How is bi-amping or tri-amping done? As stated above, an active crossover is employed after the pre-amplifier to split the individual channel feeds into various passbands which are then fed to independent amplifiers which then feed the individual speakers component(s).

Done properly it will not have any deleterious effects. And an active crossover will additionally add the opportunity to signal align the various passbands on systems (such as the Heritage line) with significant acoustical center offsets.

And I am very curious as to how folks are employing their HT receivers, except to take the individual channel pre-outs, running them to an active crossover(s) and then to separate amplifier channels (which all share the same power supply) for each passband. I guess that it could be done, but I would not do it so, as I would desire amplifiers that are much less constrained by a common power supply.

I am a bit confused myself as to how the general subject of 'bi' or 'tri' -amping can continue to be such a confusing topic with so many odd interpretations. But then I guess that I am simply easily confused.

[jimmy4300]

I'm running a Denon 1907 to drive my RF82s and RC62.  For normal listening it sounds fine.  I could use a little more headroom, and if I had it to do over again, I would have gotten the 2807.  However, my 1907 sounds just fine.  BTW. I am bi-amping the RF82s, the Denon allows this.

Lou

Whats this bi-amping?And the 2807 is rated 110 watts per channel and 1 amp per channel.Now is that 110 watts RMS?(i would assume but i don't know )

I tried bi-amping my RF7s with the extra two channels on my 3805, but it raised the noise floor so I went back to its normal configuration. Your mileage may vary.

 

 

For me, IMO, it made the base stronger (I'm running with no sub) and the mids a little cleaner.  Nothing earth shattering, but I like the effect, and I'll be leaving it.  I guess I should call it "bi-amping/bi-wiring" as Denon does.  Or Fools Bi-amping as others on this forum do.  But, for me, IMHO, it seems to work.

Lou

[jimmy4300]

OK so that bi-amping and bi-wiring but basically what does it do exactly and how do you do it ???

 

Im a rookie with this home theater stuff

I explained above why I did it.  The How is very easy.  Remove the jumpers from the two sets of binding posts on the speakers.  Run equal length's of speaker wire to your receiver.  I ran the horms to my "A" channel speaker amplifier outputs and the cones to the Zone 2 front speaker outputs.  The Denon setup instructions tell you how to set the Zone 2 amplifier to mimic the "A" amplifier outputs.  

Lou 

[mas]

Congrats.

The "how" question came from another person.

OK so that bi-amping and bi-wiring but basically what does it do exactly and how do you do it ???

[blue-midnight]

now if you have 2 open channels via 7.1 avr with 5.1 could you use them extra channels for there wattage series/paralel.Im just going of off what i know from car audio?

[blue-midnight]

So is the wattage rms i assume

[tenzip]

OK so that bi-amping and bi-wiring but basically what does it do exactly and how do you do it ???

It's all theoretical to me, as I don't, nor do I intend to, make use of it, but here's the short version as I understand it, wiring examples are for one (1) speaker only:

First, not all speakers are set up to bi-wire or bi-amp. If they are set up to bi-wire or bi-amp, there will be 2 sets of + and - terminals on the back of the speaker, normally shorted by a jumper. Bi-wired speakers still use the crossover in the speaker. Bi-amped do not, (or at least should not). A guy here at work recently got some speakers that are capable of being penta-amped. God help him, he's a sick, sick individual. He's really got it bad.

Bi-wiring makes subtle differences (Read as: differences not audible to those without golden ears. [] As far as I can tell, bi-wiring is a way for speaker cable manufacturers to sell more cable.) Bi-wiring DOES still use the crossover in the speaker.

How you do it: Make 2 sets of speaker cables, a set being a + and a - conductor. Hook both sets of wires to the + and - output terminals of one channel on the back of the amp, then connect + and - of one wire set to the HF input on your speaker, and the other + and - to the LF input. Basically, you could picture a "Y", or splitter at the amp. Another way to look at it is to twist the + and + wires together on one end, and hook to the + output terminal of the amp. Do the same for the - wires. Then hook the speaker ends of the wires to the appropriate terminals on the speaker.

Crappy ascii art representation of bi-wiring, one speaker only:

______________________(+ HF terminal on speaker
AMPCH1 +)______________________
(+ LF terminal on speaker

______________________( - HF terminal on speaker

AMPCH1 - )______________________

( - LF terminal on speaker

Bi-amping should theoretically make more than subtle differences. By feeding each amplifier channel and it's corresponding cable a limited band of frequencies, it doesn't have to "do it all". One amp channel and cable can take care of the mid+high frequencies, and the other can take care of low. (Tweeter+mid fed by one amp channel, woofer fed by other amp channel.) Bi-amping DOES NOT use the crossover in the speaker.

How you do it: An electronic crossover is needed between preamp and amp. Amplifier channel A is fed the high-freq output signal from the crossover, and amp channel B is fed the low-freq output. Each amp channel is then wired directly to the appropriate terminal on the speaker. 2 sets of speaker wires are still required, but they do NOT connect to each other at either end.

Crappy ascii art representation of bi-wiring, one speaker only:

AMPCHA +)_______________(+ HF terminal on speaker

AMPCHA - )_______________( - HF terminal on speaker

AMPCHB +)_______________(+ LF terminal on speaker

AMPCHB - )_______________( - LF terminal on speaker

Im a rookie with this home theater stuff

I'm with you there. Ain't it cool? I'm sure I screwed up something in my explanation, so slap me down, brothers!

[tenzip]

OK, fine, while I'm off dealing with work-related stuff, I find out the question was from someone else. Oh, well. I still had fun making the crappy ascii art.

[rsp1068]

So is the wattage rms i assume

I wouldn't assume that. As many are taken by the #'s game it is probably P-P.

Denons web site (along with others) probably won't get that descript either.

[Fish]

Well....you'll start with biwire,then interconnects,then add an amp,then wish it were more.Or..you could take the shortcut and get a good prepro and amp and forget all the other biz,as it won't be needed.I do surely hope nobody really pays $1k for those things.

[blue-midnight]

Well....you'll start with biwire,then interconnects,then add an amp,then wish it were more.Or..you could take the shortcut and get a good prepro and amp and forget all the other biz,as it won't be needed.I do surely hope nobody really pays $1k for those things.

Are you talking about the 2807???

[Fish]

Yep,I owned a 3802/03/05,bought all at a discount and they were still overpriced.I sold em' for about $4-500 each time(about 1 year) and was glad to get it.Just an example,I purchased a Rotel set at a discount and sold it a year later for more than I paid new.I will admit the Denons are not the worst avr's by a long shot,they're actually ok by avr standards,about 2nd or 3rd on a list I'd suggest of avr's(as last resort).The problem I have is with the ridiculous prices,mass mrkt mid grade avrs should not be 1k,there's just no way the math works for me.There are good solid separates that outperform them in every way(except hdmi,the CASH cow)for very close money.

I also had a very nasty response for Rotel when they suggested the replacement avr for the 1056/7 would be msrp $2K just to add hdmi audio.Totally outragous,and no one should buy if that's really the case,too many superior units from a sound perspective.

I suppose my point was,if nobody paid 1k they would not charge 1k for a $500 radio.That said,if someone wants one who am I to rain on the parade?Just over look me.

As to the original ?,the 2807 will sound better and have a better shot at decent sound on Klipsch than any other affordable speaker I know.

[jimmy4300]

As to the original ?,the 2807 will sound better and have a better shot at decent sound on Klipsch than any other affordable speaker I know.

+1 - I believe this statement to be totally true due to the Klipsch's efficiency. 

Lou

[blue-midnight]

Im not as expereinced as you may be but i have done resaerch for over a month on avrs and for the money (750 new from an authorized retailer)It seemed to be the best bargain for the money (110 watsx8,full1080p pass,analog to 480p upconversion,480p/i to720p/1080i upconversion,menu over tv,ipod over tv menu and not to mention allmost every dts option.From my understanding this is still a high end receiver with all the inmportant audio features.I would have to agree that i would have liked to pay even less for this hobby but its the market.Basically i thaut i did very well on my high end budget home theater(this component anyway) But like i said maybe im wrong ?????

These questions wher out of curiousity