Picture a 5.1 system, with large , 2 or 3 way Klipsch speakers and matching center/surround speakers....with each speaker pumped with any good 100 or 200 watt power amp BRIDGED, to provide 4-500 watts...per speaker....as you already know, 1 major advantage of this, is your amps would barely break a sweat even at loud volumes ,because it wouldn't take much to get loud, with that much total power on hand, resulting in a very BIG sound with no distortion......agree?

Power capability has nothing to do with distortion. There is absolutely no advantage to having 500 watt amps, absolutely none, short of actually USING 500 watts. Unless you have a special requirement for the separates, IE the power requirement or needing more channels (for, say, using an active crossover) or something, then there's no benefit.

Our ears can't detect the difference between .1% and .001% distortion. Yes, this includes you, #3, even if you tell us otherwise :p

Your asking if external power amps are better than power amps in the AVR? Yes they are.

Now you can generally switch to external amps if your AVR has pre-outs.

The general rule is to have 1.5x what the speaker is rated to have that bit extra headroom. But I don't think 2x-5x over will add any benefit.

BTW Klipschs are considered to be very efficient speakers and shouldn't need a lot of wattage.

ETA to get BIG sound you also need to move a lot of air. There are small speakers that can pump more volume than what used to be required but you still need some speakers with substance to get high SPL in a large room.

Power capability has nothing to do with distortion. There is absolutely no advantage to having 500 watt amps, absolutely none, short of actually USING 500 watts. Unless you have a special requirement for the separates, IE the power requirement or needing more channels (for, say, using an active crossover) or something, then there's no benefit.

Our ears can't detect the difference between .1% and .001% distortion. Yes, this includes you, #3, even if you tell us otherwise :p


I'd agree in principal that wattage doesn't relate to distortion...what I was thinking , was along the lines of listening really, really loud...the capacity of a larger total wattage output system , seems like it would hit harder, the transient spikes from the music have much more headroom in a large wattage system, resulting in cleaner sound....would you agree that a 2000 watt total system will let you get really, really loud quicker than , say, a 500 watt total system...which to get the same db leve, would require opening the amp section of your receiver nearly wide open, making it work harder, and potentially distorting, if you run it wide open to get the comparitive loudness of the 2000 watt seperates.....


edit: in both 2000watt and 500 watt examples, I'm assuming your using high quality stuff :)

Your asking if external power amps are better than power amps in the AVR? Yes they are.

Now you can generally switch to external amps if your AVR has pre-outs.


Interestingly, my Krell Power amp blew its top recently, so I was forced to switch back to using the amps in my Receiver, which is normally used as a preamp/control center. Much to my surprise, I was only disappointed to a very small degree. Me thinks the gap is closing, or has been partly closed in this regard.

On a similar note, I picked up the AVR for preamp duties, fully EXPECTING it to be an underachiever, trounced by the McCormack 5.1 Analog pre in the system.
Either the McC is junk, or, the AVR is really quite good, besting a few pre/pros that have been used in this system.

I've learned that the conventional wisdoms of the past need to be continuously checked to see if they still apply. Sometimes they don't.

I am not here to hawk the benefits of any particular receiver, hence I do not name names. I was quite taken aback, however, that what I had always presumed to be true is now apparently not the case.

Happy listening, whaever you use:)

Power capability has nothing to do with distortion. There is absolutely no advantage to having 500 watt amps, absolutely none, short of actually USING 500 watts. ...

Especially with Klipsch speakers. You could run those with 15 watts (tube watts). In fact, I do :cool:

I will say that if you have a particularly power hungry speaker, you could potentially run into clipping at high volumes if you don't have a beefy amp, but those situations are rare unless you plan on going deaf at a young age.

Its going to have more to do with SQ than outright power. But yes, even moderate, well built separates will trounce a "high end" receiver.

High end receiver? Thats an oxymoron. :p

As a side note, its becoming obvious that fewer and fewer people are able to hear the difference that quality components make.

Its going to have more to do with SQ than outright power. But yes, even moderate, well built separates will trounce a "high end" receiver.

High end receiver? Thats an oxymoron. :p

i'm arguing (maybe wrongly :p ) that an enormous amout of power on hand CAN translate into better SQ, if you enjoy listening LOUDLY as I do :p....more power = amps working less hard = cleaner transients = a bigger, cleaner sounding listening experience at loud volumes with good quality components...

i'm arguing (maybe wrongly :p ) that an enormous amout of power on hand CAN translate into better SQ, if you enjoy listening LOUDLY as I do :p....more power = amps working less hard = cleaner transients = a bigger sounding listening experience at loud volumes with good quality components...
Okay then. You're correct, at higher volumes the bigger amp will sound better, assuming you're approaching the limits of the smaller amp.

i'm arguing (maybe wrongly :p ) that an enormous amout of power on hand CAN translate into better SQ, if you enjoy listening LOUDLY as I do :p....more power = amps working less hard = cleaner transients = a bigger sounding listening experience at loud volumes with good quality components...


I would tend to agree, depending on several factors, including room size and others.

Additionally, most class A/B amplifiers sound better at low output where they operate in the Class A realm. Most only operate there at 0 -20% of their rated output.

Interestingly, my Krell Power amp blew its top recently, so I was forced to switch back to using the amps in my Receiver, which is normally used as a preamp/control center. Much to my surprise, I was only disappointed to a very small degree. Me thinks the gap is closing, or has been partly closed in this regard.

On a similar note, I picked up the AVR for preamp duties, fully EXPECTING it to be an underachiever, trounced by the McCormack 5.1 Analog pre in the system.
Either the McC is junk, or, the AVR is really quite good, besting a few pre/pros that have been used in this system.

I've learned that the conventional wisdoms of the past need to be continuously checked to see if they still apply. Sometimes they don't.

I am not here to hawk the benefits of any particular receiver, hence I do not name names. I was quite taken aback, however, that what I had always presumed to be true is now apparently not the case.

Happy listening, whaever you use:)


Well no difference if you don't ever push your system and volume levels hard. It's the only way I know to gauge how strong an amp is. Crank it, you should be able to tell where the amps(s) start to become strained. External amps usually go much higher before one starts to percieve straining, compression, and loss of dynamics in general.

Picture a 5.1 system, with large , 2 or 3 way Klipsch speakers and matching center/surround speakers....with each speaker pumped with any good 100 or 200 watt power amp BRIDGED, to provide 4-500 watts...per speaker....as you already know, 1 major advantage of this, is your amps would barely break a sweat even at loud volumes ,because it wouldn't take much to get loud, with that much total power on hand, resulting in a very BIG sound with no distortion......agree?


:D You can drive most of the big Klipsch horn loaded speakers with a single ended triod tube amp to ear piercing level.
2 Power ratings of amps alone doesn't mean anything. The speaker's load requirement, listening distance and room size determines far more.

Just keep in mind, ear piercing levels are much lower once straining and compression start to kick in. :)

Those horns are crazy effcient though for sure, so point taken. :)

Dare I even propose that larger capacity amplification make a difference in sound quality at more modest volume levels?...assuming high quality components in the 500 watt example and equally high quality components in the 2000 watt seperates example?....I don't know the mathematics behind sound/amp performance, and any given amp sections optimum operating range versus 'perceived' sound quality with two such strikingly different systems....surely someone has tried this....or...maybe you could just compare the 'bigness' of sound from a really good PA from your favorite pub/club , where you'd have to assume their using a large wattage system....but then your getting into room size, dynamics, etc,etc

...
BTW Klipschs are considered to be very efficient speakers and shouldn't need a lot of wattage.

ETA to get BIG sound you also need to move a lot of air. There are small speakers that can pump more volume than what used to be required but you still need some speakers with substance to get high SPL in a large room.

I feel it prudent to mention that the power requirements for Klipsch's Heritage line is different than for their upper end Reference line of speakers--They are a completely different design.

:D You can drive most of the big Klipsch horn loaded speakers with a single ended triod tube amp to ear piercing level.

Powering a Klipsch speaker at all is automatically ear piercing if you ask me. :D

Powering a Klipsch speaker at all is automatically ear piercing if you ask me. :D

Given your (edit: repeated) recommendation to underpower them I can see why;-)

Given your (edit: repeated) recommendation to underpower them I can see why;-)

Please:
1) Point out where I recommended to "underpower" them
2) Explain what "underpowering" would have to do with what I said.

I feel it prudent to mention that the power requirements for Klipsch's Heritage line is different than for their upper end Reference line of speakers--They are a completely different design.

Can you elaborate on this?

I've heard both the Reference line (what I own) and the Heritage line (what I'd like to own) and both were powered by no more than a 15w push-pull tube amp with out any problems. I use a SET amp with my RFs no problem, and I've talked to others that use the same with speakers form the Heritage line.

Dare I even propose that larger capacity amplification make a difference in sound quality at more modest volume levels?...assuming high quality components in the 500 watt example and equally high quality components in the 2000 watt seperates example?....I don't know the mathematics behind sound/amp performance, and any given amp sections optimum operating range versus 'perceived' sound quality with two such strikingly different systems....surely someone has tried this....or...maybe you could just compare the 'bigness' of sound from a really good PA from your favorite pub/club , where you'd have to assume their using a large wattage system....but then your getting into room size, dynamics, etc,etc

IMO, cannot really be answered in such generic terms as sound quality.

If one assumes an average power of 1wpc using 90dB speakers positioned near a wall, you will get about 91dB SPL at a listening distance of 6ft.

Now, 91dB isn't exactly ear-splitting volume, but it's fairly loud for an average level.

Seems I've read that musical peaks are about 10dB to 20dB about the average. Taking the worst case, +20dB, you are now 100x the power of the average level. If the average level is 91dB and takes 1 watt, now the peak is 111dB and requires 100 watts peak power.

If the amp in question is capable of delivering 100w peak unclipped into the speaker load, having more power than 100w should not provide any additional benefit as long as the other parameters don't change.

Its going to have more to do with SQ than outright power. But yes, even moderate, well built separates will trounce a "high end" receiver.

High end receiver? Thats an oxymoron. :p

As a side note, its becoming obvious that fewer and fewer people are able to hear the difference that quality components make.
The receiver that is considered the best of the lot is the Lexicon RV-8. It is, in reality, MC8, or the MC4 pre/pro and a CX-7 power amp in one box. And it would be better than a few lower priced separates.
One the other hand, a pre/pro's outputs should be better than most, if not all receiver preouts. I think most receiver's preouts are more of an after thought. So using a receiver as a pre/pro, as I do,(H/K635) won't be as good as if I were to use a MC4 pre/pro.

Its going to have more to do with SQ than outright power. But yes, even moderate, well built separates will trounce a "high end" receiver.

High end receiver? Thats an oxymoron. :p

As a side note, its becoming obvious that fewer and fewer people are able to hear the difference that quality components make.

Ahh! that explains it. The receivers are not getting any better. It is our ears that are getting worse. :rolleyes:

This is exactly the type of reasoning I have tried to use on these forums before, but some people don't seem to agree with it. I have a math background though, so I see things in terms of math. As long as those 100 watts aren't at %10 THD, I totally agree with your reasoning.

IMO, cannot really be answered in such generic terms as sound quality.

If one assumes an average power of 1wpc using 90dB speakers positioned near a wall, you will get about 91dB SPL at a listening distance of 6ft.

Now, 91dB isn't exactly ear-splitting volume, but it's fairly loud for an average level.

Seems I've read that musical peaks are about 10dB to 20dB about the average. Taking the worst case, +20dB, you are now 100x the power of the average level. If the average level is 91dB and takes 1 watt, now the peak is 111dB and requires 100 watts peak power.

If the amp in question is capable of delivering 100w peak unclipped into the speaker load, having more power than 100w should not provide any additional benefit as long as the other parameters don't change.

Ahh! that explains it. The receivers are not getting any better. It is our ears that are getting worse. :rolleyes:
That could be precisely correct. Your hearing does degrade with age, especially high frequencies. It could be that people want all the bells & whistles that most receivers have in spades. It could be that it is easier to achieve adequate sound with a receiver due to the auto set-up functions, and their arguably lower resolution. However if one were to take the time to properly set-up and calibrate a high quality system built from separates, they'd be amazed and wonder "why didn't I do this years ago?".

Like I said before, if you're happy with what you got, so be it. Just don't try and tell me there is no difference. I'll just tell you what you're missing out on. :p

BTW, I use a receiver as a pre/pro. I also think it sounds better using the built-in amps. I just wanted more power.

Ahh! that explains it. The receivers are not getting any better. It is our ears that are getting worse. :rolleyes:

He's always like that, quick to say that separates have "quality components" and receivers do not, but he will not back up his statements.

coming from separates to flagship rec i can say imo that the difference is not night and day
on the units in the last couple of years in the past i would agree good quality separates still
sound better its just that margin is closing fast unless you use low efficient speakers in a large
room playing at high levels then an amp is very much needed but to make a statement that
the flagships some not all will never compete with separates of the same price tells me someone
has not ab this in their home.

He's always like that, quick to say that separates have "quality components" and receivers do not, but he will not back up his statements.
Lets look at a particular brand of gear, H/K, Lexicon, both part of Harman International. And the L7 processing.
The H/K635 receiver and all Lexicon pre/pros and the RV-8 receiver all have Logic 7 surround processing. And the L7 is very good, which is why I have the 635. But in no uncertain terms, do I think the L7 in the H/K635 is as good as the L7 in any of the Lexicon gear. The L7 in the 635 is a step down from what is used in the Lexicons.
Receivers are very good, for the most part, but in the case of the H/K635 compared to the Lexicon RV-8 receiver, the RV-8 is better and the Lexicon MC12 pre/pro is much better.

coming from separates to flagship rec i can say imo that the difference is not night and day
on the units in the last couple of years in the past i would agree good quality separates still
sound better its just that margin is closing fast unless you use low efficient speakers in a large
room playing at high levels then an amp is very much needed but to make a statement that
the flagships some not all will never compete with separates of the same price tells me someone
has not ab this in their home.
As long as one buys a receiver at the top of the line, then there is not much difference, compared to, at least, the cheaper separates of that line.
Its the receivers people buy from Costco, or Walmart that fall far short of the separates.

I cruised thru Best Buy, yesterday, for the first time in months. Good HDTVs, but what they sell for audio is a total disgrace.

He's always like that, quick to say that separates have "quality components" and receivers do not, but he will not back up his statements.
What do you need as backup? Don't you have a receiver? An NAD? Thats a good brand. Surely better than a BB or CC special Yamaha or Denon.

I own a receiver as well. A Rotel RSX-972. I just happen to want more power than the built-in 75wpc. So I use the receiver as a pre/pro. I actually think the receiver sounds better by itself minus the outboard amps. Does that surprise you.

I just get a kick out of the people who claim that their box store receiver is audibly the same as a component from a maker like NAD, Rotel, B&K and on and on. Dream on.

Don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying there's nothing better about more expensive products or I wouldn't have my T753. I'm just saying that for anyone in any field to say that one product having better quality components than another requires specific proof, unless you're comparing like a 13" TV with RF input to a 50" SXRD and the difference is just _that_ obvious. It is not _that_ obvious when comparing an NAD receiver to an NAD pre/pro and amp combo. Yes, the separates will play louder but we're talking sound QUALITY here, and that difference, if any, will NOT be obvious and DOES require specific proof. What components are different, why is one better than the other, and how will it affect the sound quality or the reliability of the product?

This is exactly the type of reasoning I have tried to use on these forums before, but some people don't seem to agree with it. I have a math background though, so I see things in terms of math. As long as those 100 watts aren't at %10 THD, I totally agree with your reasoning.

Well, it does make really big assumptions, such as none of the other parameters changing. This aspect is purely about power necessary to reproduce the dynamics of the signal, not necessarily sound quality - although a major aspect of sound quality is to have the necessary power.

The receiver that is considered the best of the lot is the Lexicon RV-8. It is, in reality, MC8, or the MC4 pre/pro and a CX-7 power amp in one box. And it would be better than a few lower priced separates.
One the other hand, a pre/pro's outputs should be better than most, if not all receiver preouts. I think most receiver's preouts are more of an after thought. So using a receiver as a pre/pro, as I do,(H/K635) won't be as good as if I were to use a MC4 pre/pro.

Interesting. I just sold my RV-8 and replaced it with an HK 445. The RV-8 was being used as a pre/pro (as is the 445) with my Sunfire amp (400/5) and I found the pre-outs on the RV-8 lacking. I had to crank the volume to nearly full (including boosting the channels levels) to get close to reference level in my HT. At that point it sounded strained as you might expect. Actually the 445 sounds better than the RV-8 and the L7 processing on the two is very similar. Lexicon suggested that I try direct connecting the speakers to the RV-8 to see if that helped. That defeated the purpose of my use so I sold the RV-8 to a new owner who is not using it as a pre and is apparently, very happy.

...
I just get a kick out of the people who claim that their box store receiver is audibly the same as a component from a maker like NAD, Rotel, B&K and on and on. Dream on.

If someone says they can't hear the difference then there is no difference. Sonic performance is qualitative not quantitative, and it is relative to the person listening to it, not some specs on a box.

In music mode I use the R/L pre outs on a H/K 347 at 55wpc to main in on a stereo H/K with 120wpc attached to JBL tower speakers. In movie mode I use seven smaller matched speakers all the way around (with a sub) and turn the stereo H/K off.

Best of both worlds.

Hello,
I too have used both a dedicated surround processor and an AVR as a prepro. I have to admit I am truly impressed with the modern receiver. This is only applicable in Surround tasks. I gave up a long time ago on a good stereo rig occupying the same space as my surround set up. In the arena of home theater, most systems will see more of a benefit from acoustic treatments and optimized speaker location than the difference between a dedicated processor and a receiver when used as a pre.
It has also been my expierence that using high current amps provides a great benefit in low level resolution. That is dialogue is fairly clear at low listening levels. I suppose ,as with most things, the best thing to do is audition a surround processor and a receiver and see if there is a benefit.
Audiodork

Please:
1) Point out where I recommended to "underpower" them
2) Explain what "underpowering" would have to do with what I said.

Buy a receiver for features, build quality, price.... Not for sound. The differences in sound will be minor, if any, compared to the speakers themselves, not to mention the room.

Certainly. The OP you responded to above was looking at the Denon AVR 2807 and comparable AVR's from other manufactures. Through my experience I feel the AVR 2807 would not be able to drive his RF-83's without having the potential of become "bright" at higher volumes ESPECIALLY if he has a room prone to it. I don't know what your criteria for "build quality" is, but I contend purchasing an AVR that can handle the dips below 4 Ohms that the RF-83 (evidently) has, will be beneficial to SQ.

Interesting. I just sold my RV-8 and replaced it with an HK 445. The RV-8 was being used as a pre/pro (as is the 445) with my Sunfire amp (400/5) and I found the pre-outs on the RV-8 lacking. I had to crank the volume to nearly full (including boosting the channels levels) to get close to reference level in my HT. At that point it sounded strained as you might expect. Actually the 445 sounds better than the RV-8 and the L7 processing on the two is very similar. Lexicon suggested that I try direct connecting the speakers to the RV-8 to see if that helped. That defeated the purpose of my use so I sold the RV-8 to a happy new owner who is not using it as a pre and apparently, very happy.
As I said in another post, the preouts on many receivers are more of an after thought. Which maybe the case of the RV-8, which as a fairly desent amp(140w). But 140w is a long way from 400w.
I'm sure the RV-8 works very good, on its own, w/o an amp. But it depends on the size of the room, speakers used as to wheather 140w is enough.
I personally use a Parasound 220w amp, that I bought when I was using a Marantz 880 receiver, that only did 110w up front and only 70w for the surrounds.
I still use the Parasound with the H/K due to the fact I now have a Crown K2 amp driving passive subs and when I tried just using the H/k for the mains I got a 60htz hum thru the subs.(Crown is pro amp, H/K consumer receiver, thus the hum).
With the Parasound in the mix there is no hum, plus its more than twice the watts.

As for the L7, there may not be much difference beteen the H/k and RV-8. But I would think there is a big difference compared to the MC12.

I don't think that "separates kill even the best receiver" - I think a good component is a good component period. My experience with flagship receivers is that most can hold their own, to a point, against separates.

In music mode I use the R/L pre outs on a H/K 347 at 55wpc to main in on a stereo H/K with 120wpc attached to JBL tower speakers. In movie mode I use seven smaller matched speakers all the way around (with a sub) and turn the stereo H/K off.

Best of both worlds.
The preamp on the 347 maybe good, but won't be as good, as say a H/K Citation preamp. The preamp on my 635 doesn't even come close to my 28 year old Citation 11 preamp. The same for the Yamaha intergrated amp I had years ago, can't come close to the Citation 11, 19 power amp combo.
I'm using basicly the same size speakers in both rooms, with the stereo setup being strickly analog.

Can you elaborate on this?

I've heard both the Reference line (what I own) and the Heritage line (what I'd like to own) and both were powered by no more than a 15w push-pull tube amp with out any problems. I use a SET amp with my RFs no problem, and I've talked to others that use the same with speakers form the Heritage line.

I will start off saying I have no experience or knowledge with tube or SET amps. I understand that there are a lot of Klipsch 2 Channel aficionados out there that enjoy them immensely, but I am strictly a multi channel hobbyist. My observation comes from the different designs and stated power requirements, as well as going to several Klipsch sponsored functions over the years.

The Klipsch Heritage line uses either a single woofer or a folded horn for bass and all of these speakers ARE 8 Ohm speakers, rated at 100 watts max/400 watts continuous with sensitivity ratings between 99 dB for the Heresies to 105 dB for the Khorns.

The RF-83's in the Reference line have 3 woofers and are "8 Ohm compatible" (Which means they can't really be called 8 Ohm speakers because of the dips) and are rated at 250 watts continuous/1000 watts peak, with a sensitivity of 100 dB.

Certainly. The OP you responded to above was looking at the Denon AVR 2807 and comparable AVR's from other manufactures. Through my experience I feel the AVR 2807 would not be able to drive his RF-83's without having the potential of become "bright" at higher volumes ESPECIALLY if he has a room prone to it. I don't know what your criteria for "build quality" is, but I contend purchasing an AVR that can handle the dips below 4 Ohms that the RF-83 (evidently) has, will be beneficial to SQ.

I have the RF-83's being powered by a Pioneer Elite 74-txvi, which I believe is rated at 140w/ch, which we all know isn't the true wattage. I think they sound good, but I've been wondering myself if looking around for a gently used separate 5 channel amp might yield better results. Hopefully some others will chime in as far as suggestions go, because my current list of amps is at about 20, and I've got to get the list down to decide what I want to go demo.

If you had to spend at or under $1,000 for a 5 channel amp, what would people use?

Also, mine don't sound bright at all, but they're in a carpeted and drywalled basement with only one window, so that helps a lot.

Zen, a speaker that has a sensitivity of 100dB will play the same volume with 75W what an average speaker around 90dB will play with 750W. Just how much do you think they need?

And how much of the amps power you're using has nothing to do with bright sound. That's a function of the speakers and the room. MAYBE 0.01% of it is the amp.

You're saying the guy needs gobs of power for an efficient speaker. What's your scientific basis?

Zen, a speaker that has a sensitivity of 100dB will play the same volume with 75W what an average speaker around 90dB will play with 750W. Just how much do you think they need?

And how much of the amps power you're using has nothing to do with bright sound. That's a function of the speakers and the room. MAYBE 0.01% of it is the amp.

You're saying the guy needs gobs of power for an efficient speaker. What's your scientific basis?

I am not saying he needs gobs of power--I am saying that although the RF-83's are rated at 100 dB efficiency, they need an amp that addresses the impedance swing that through my experience lower end AVR's can't deliver. There is a reason that my HT sounds considerably better with the Denon AVR 4806 (rated at 140 WPC) than with my Denon AVR 3805 (rated at 125 wpc) even though the WPC difference seems slight. I get (at least) 6 dB of comfortable volume (measured with an SPL meter) along with THX processing and various other bells and whistles that seem to benefit my system. I can't really add anything else to this discussion.

Klipsch Customer Service is very friendly and any other questions should be generated in their direction. FWIW, I feel they would not recommend running a lower end AVR with their Top of the line Reference speakers however I don't wish to put words in their mouth. :cool:

Insofar as this Thread is concerned, I agree that just throwing "gobs of power" isn't always prudent. After numerous upgrade cycles I have found that my Denon AVR 4806 THX ultra II meets my needs. YMMV.

I don't think that "separates kill even the best receiver" - I think a good component is a good component period. My experience with flagship receivers is that most can hold their own, to a point, against separates.
This is my experience as well. I was blown away when I heard a flagship Denon receiver driving McIntosh floor standing speakers. I did an A/B comparison with the McIntosh tube separates in the room and the difference was there but not by much... and certainly not enough for me to justify spending the extra $20k for the separates.

As for my wife, she said she couldn't tell any difference at all. Of course she doesn't have any idea the separates are supposed to sound so much better. I wonder how much of it is psychological.

i think some have been burned with advertised wattage not real world it is a farce for rec
co's to advertise wattage at 1khz and 1 channel driven i think if they all had to meet the
standard of measuring all channels driven 20hz to 20khz at 8 and 4 ohms and if truly hi-fi
give a 3 and 2 ohm figure things would be answered as far as room size and speaker match
oh wait they have that its called thx ultra ll unless those specs have been lowered.

I am not saying he needs gobs of power--I am saying that although the RF-83's are rated at 100 dB efficiency, they need an amp that addresses the impedance swing that through my experience lower end AVR's can't deliver. There is a reason that my HT sounds considerably better with the Denon AVR 4806 (rated at 140 WPC) than with my Denon AVR 3805 (rated at 125 wpc) even though the WPC difference seems slight. I get (at least) 6 dB of comfortable volume (measured with an SPL meter) along with THX processing and various other bells and whistles that seem to benefit my system. I can't really add anything else to this discussion.

With multiple speakers it gets a bit trickier, but +6dB volume advantage suggests 4x power increase. That's quite a bit.

I've got the short easy answer.Buy the most powerful quality amp/s you can easily afford and don't worry about the rest.Buy the best quality prepro you can comfortably afford and enjoy.

I will start off saying I have no experience or knowledge with tube or SET amps. I understand that there are a lot of Klipsch 2 Channel aficionados out there that enjoy them immensely, but I am strictly a multi channel hobbyist. My observation comes from the different designs and stated power requirements, as well as going to several Klipsch sponsored functions over the years.

The Klipsch Heritage line uses either a single woofer or a folded horn for bass and all of these speakers ARE 8 Ohm speakers, rated at 100 watts max/400 watts continuous with sensitivity ratings between 99 dB for the Heresies to 105 dB for the Khorns.

The RF-83's in the Reference line have 3 woofers and are "8 Ohm compatible" (Which means they can't really be called 8 Ohm speakers because of the dips) and are rated at 250 watts continuous/1000 watts peak, with a sensitivity of 100 dB.

You bring up a valid point, but now we're talking about two different things. Sensitivity and impedance. Sensitivity is how efficiently a speaker utilizes one watt. A higher sensitivity requires less power. Speaker ratings are meaning less in this regard. They are more warning than a recommendation. The rating is to let you know that if you increase volume to a point that the speaker requires x amount of watts continuously or x amount quickly (peak) you will destroy the voice coil. It is not an indicator of how much power you need. On the amp side you have another issue. If you can increase volume to ridiculous levels without hitting the limits of the voice coil, but your amp runs out of power, it will clip the signal sending DC to the speaker - kiss your woofer(s) goodbye. So in this sense, having an amp with a lot of power in reserve (large power supply) will lessen the chance of clipping. If you want to know how much power you really have, look at what the power supply is rated at, not the individual channels. Also good amps usually have special circuitry to identify clipping and take appropriate action.

Impedance is the resistance to current. As impedance goes down, current increases. The catch is impedance is not a fixed number. It changes with frequency. So a 4 ohm speaker probably dips down to 3 or even 2 ohms at certain frequencies. 8 ohm speakers probably go as low as 6 ohms. If the amp doesn't have components capable of handling the increased current, you will get distortion, and if the amp knows how to protect itself, it will shutdown. Otherwise, time to buy a new amp.

The question is, are you going to be listening at levels that will cause your receiver/amp to meet any of these limits. If you have inefficient, 4 ohm speakers and you listen at loud levels, you may want to consider an amp that can handle the power requirements without clipping and won't "meltdown" under the current requirements. With 95 - 100db/w 8 ohm speakers like the Klipsch brand with 250w ratings, your ears will bleed before you break the voice coil or clip most receivers amp sections.

That said, if your paying for high-end Klipsch speakers, you should be using tube monoblock amps. :p :p :p

I am not saying he needs gobs of power--I am saying that although the RF-83's are rated at 100 dB efficiency, they need an amp that addresses the impedance swing that through my experience lower end AVR's can't deliver. There is a reason that my HT sounds considerably better with the Denon AVR 4806 (rated at 140 WPC) than with my Denon AVR 3805 (rated at 125 wpc) even though the WPC difference seems slight. I get (at least) 6 dB of comfortable volume (measured with an SPL meter) along with THX processing and various other bells and whistles that seem to benefit my system. I can't really add anything else to this discussion.

Klipsch Customer Service is very friendly and any other questions should be generated in their direction. FWIW, I feel they would not recommend running a lower end AVR with their Top of the line Reference speakers however I don't wish to put words in their mouth. :cool:

Low impedance speakers might need more current, not voltage. It is true that most receivers are not hi current design, but some are, like HK, NAD, Marantz.
Older Klipsches like the Forte, Scala, and the Klipschorns were very easy to drive, which is why I used the tube amp example. Now if you wanna drive some Maggies, then you better have some power and current to drive those, and stay away from receivers. ;)

Zen, a speaker that has a sensitivity of 100dB will play the same volume with 75W what an average speaker around 90dB will play with 750W. Just how much do you think they need?

Do you mean Zu? I've heard of Acoustic Zen speakers, but afaik they are not high efficiency. However, the Zu Druid and Zu Definitiion seem to match your description. :)

You bring up a valid point, but now we're talking about two different things. Sensitivity and impedance...

Impedance is the resistance to current. As impedance goes down, current increases. The catch is impedance is not a fixed number. It changes with frequency. So a 4 ohm speaker probably dips down to 3 or even 2 ohms at certain frequencies. 8 ohm speakers probably go as low as 6 ohms. If the amp doesn't have components capable of handling the increased current, you will get distortion, and if the amp knows how to protect itself, it will shutdown. Otherwise, time to buy a new amp.

The question is, are you going to be listening at levels that will cause your receiver/amp to meet any of these limits. If you have inefficient, 4 ohm speakers and you listen at loud levels, you may want to consider an amp that can handle the power requirements without clipping and won't "meltdown" under the current requirements. With 95 - 100db/w 8 ohm speakers like the Klipsch brand with 250w ratings, your ears will bleed before you break the voice coil or clip most receivers amp sections.

That said, if your paying for high-end Klipsch speakers, you should be using tube monoblock amps. :p :p :p

Good points. My ML Summits have decent sensitivity at 92db/watt, but drop to a very low 0.7 ohms. I needed an amp that could "double down" in watts as the ohms dropped. I got a refurbed NAD T-973 at an affordable price to do the job. Honestly, I could use even more high-current power, not simply for more volume in itself, but so that the greater volumes would be cleaner, with more defined transients, etc etc. I probably have THE cheapest electronics of anyone who owns these speakers. The speakers were well over what I intended, but I landed them at a great price, and couldn't resist.

Trust me, if I thought my old Onkyo receiver could handle them, I would have saved my money. In fact, I was seriously considering it at one point if only to keep my budget in check. Needless to say, there went the budget...

In the end, I agree with a lot of points made here. Distance from speaker, and size of room will be paramount. The impedance swings are definitely a big factor. Just off the top of my head I know that a good # of B&Ws and Focal's drop to 3 ohms. Im not sure how many common-brand receivers would be happy running them at decent volumes for any good length of time.

Sure high-end receivers prolly could. Then again, high end receivers can easily cost more than some affordable, decent separates it seems. :rolleyes:

it will clip the signal sending DC to the speaker - kiss your woofer(s) goodbye.

No. Clipping is not DC, although that is a common misperception.

Low impedance speakers might need more current, not voltage.

That is the very definition of "low impedance." For a given applied voltage, a low-impedance load will pass more current than a higher-impedance load will. If it didn't, it wouldn't be a low impedance.

Do you mean Zu? I've heard of Acoustic Zen speakers, but afaik they are not high efficiency. However, the Zu Druid and Zu Definitiion seem to match your description. :)

No, I mean the dude that was saying ridiculous things in this thread.

No. Clipping is not DC, although that is a common misperception.

Hi Bob,

We've had this "conversion" already. The signal has a bias and presents as DC voltage. Maybe no true DC voltage, but that is how it presents, and the effects on the voice coil are the same. I can site industry sources of this information if you'd like to notify hem that they are misguided.

Hi Bob,

We've had this "conversion" already. The signal has a bias and presents as DC voltage. Maybe no true DC voltage, but that is how it presents, and the effects on the voice coil are the same. I can site industry sources of this information if you'd like to notify hem that they are misguided.

No, it's still not DC voltage. (I don't know what you mean by "bias".) The heating effects on the voice coil are the same as any other signal of the same voltage. There is nothing special about clipping, except that it is a distortion from what the signal is intended to be.

I don't know whether it is correct to call portions of a clipped signal DC, but I can say that a clipped signal from an amplifier will be worse on a voice coil than the maximum unclipped signal from that amplifier. This is not because it is a clipped signal but because the RMS voltage (and thus power) has increased. The maximum level has not gone up, but more of the signal is closer to the maximum voltage, so the power level has thus gone up.

(Leaving fact zone, entering "my understanding" zone)

I believe that this clipped signal, being a measurable increase in power (which is inherently RMS) is, to the speaker, the same as an unclipped signal from a better amp with the same RMS. This signal is NOT the same as if we took our clipped signal and extended the clipping parts back to normal, because that would increase the power. This unclipped signal we want to compare to is somewhere between that and the maximum unclipped signal level from our original, weak amplifier. This is because RMS power is a measure over time, not a measure at any given point. Indeed one of the first things I learned in school about the RMS meausrement is that it was made to be comparable to DC. That is, an RMS voltage will give the same amount of power into a constant load as a DC signal of the same voltage.

Does this sound right, Bob?

I don't know whether it is correct to call portions of a clipped signal DC, but I can say that a clipped signal from an amplifier will be worse on a voice coil than the maximum unclipped signal from that amplifier. This is not because it is a clipped signal but because the RMS voltage (and thus power) has increased. The maximum level has not gone up, but more of the signal is closer to the maximum voltage, so the power level has thus gone up.

(Leaving fact zone, entering "my understanding" zone)

I believe that this clipped signal, being a measurable increase in power (which is inherently RMS) is, to the speaker, the same as an unclipped signal from a better amp with the same RMS. This signal is NOT the same as if we took our clipped signal and extended the clipping parts back to normal, because that would increase the power. This unclipped signal we want to compare to is somewhere between that and the maximum unclipped signal level from our original, weak amplifier. This is because RMS power is a measure over time, not a measure at any given point. Indeed one of the first things I learned in school about the RMS meausrement is that it was made to be comparable to DC. That is, an RMS voltage will give the same amount of power into a constant load as a DC signal of the same voltage.

Does this sound right, Bob?
Clipping changes the energy distribution in frequency - once the output starts to clip and the THD increases most of that increase is in the higher frequencies. For example, clipping a sine wave introduces energy at frequencies that are exact muliples of the frequency of the original signal. This is why clipped signals tend to be especially bad for tweeters.

Regards,
Sejin

Yes, I was aware of that. I'm familiar with it, too, as I've blown a few tweeters in my day...

I don't know whether it is correct to call portions of a clipped signal DC, but I can say that a clipped signal from an amplifier will be worse on a voice coil than the maximum unclipped signal from that amplifier. This is not because it is a clipped signal but because the RMS voltage (and thus power) has increased. The maximum level has not gone up, but more of the signal is closer to the maximum voltage, so the power level has thus gone up.

(Leaving fact zone, entering "my understanding" zone)

I believe that this clipped signal, being a measurable increase in power (which is inherently RMS) is, to the speaker, the same as an unclipped signal from a better amp with the same RMS. This signal is NOT the same as if we took our clipped signal and extended the clipping parts back to normal, because that would increase the power. This unclipped signal we want to compare to is somewhere between that and the maximum unclipped signal level from our original, weak amplifier. This is because RMS power is a measure over time, not a measure at any given point. Indeed one of the first things I learned in school about the RMS meausrement is that it was made to be comparable to DC. That is, an RMS voltage will give the same amount of power into a constant load as a DC signal of the same voltage.

Does this sound right, Bob?

An amplifier driven to clipping will be putting out an amount of power that is greater than its rating. So a clipped signal from a given amp will be more stressful on the voice coil than an unclipped signal from the same amp, simply because its voltage is higher.

If you substitute another amp and run it with the same signal at the same gain at which the previous amp was clipping, but the new amp was powerful enough to not clip, it would cause even greater heating of the voice coil than with the clipped signal because there is even more power being put into it.

OTOH, if you used the higher-power amp to produce a signal that exactly replicated the clipped waveform of the lower-power model, the heating effect would be the same as with the clipping amp.

A small portion of an AC waveform, whether it's clipped or not, could be said to resemble DC. That doesn't make it DC; if the waveform alternates polarity like an audio signal does, it's AC and not DC.

You're correct that RMS voltage is measured over time; the integration time could be a second, or five minutes, or 10 seconds. It could even be milliseconds.

A question for Bob...

I just upgraded my speakers to ones that can handle 150wpc (8 Ohms) and plan to add more watts using QSC or Crown amps.

Would a DCA be overkill? I really like the looks of the DCA-1644 and DCA-1824.

Thank you,

Matthew

Overkill? Not necessarily. It's better to have at least a little more power than you actually need (that is headroom) than to not quite have enough.

I wouldn't go overboard on it, though.

Ack.. realized some of this has already been mentioned, but I'll leave my post anyway:

If you can increase volume to ridiculous levels without hitting the limits of the voice coil, but your amp runs out of power, it will clip the signal sending DC to the speaker - kiss your woofer(s) goodbye.

Actually, a clipping amp will send an ultra high-frequency spike to the tweeter, melting the voice coil, if it's power supply can overcome the tweeter's power handling. Woofers generally only go goodbye when they're pushed beyond excursion limits, which means you have lots of power, but pushed the speaker too loud, or too low. Rarely have I seen melted voice coils on woofers.

With 95 - 100db/w 8 ohm speakers like the Klipsch brand with 250w ratings, your ears will bleed before you break the voice coil or clip most receivers amp sections.

Not picking on you, as many else have said the same, but sensitivity ratings are almost always grossly overstated. Klipsch commonly overrates sensitivity by as much as 6 dB. That said, it is rarely as simple as looking at the sensitivity of a speaker - much better to subtract at least 3 dB from the sensitivity before doing your calculations. When done, to reach reference levels with some of the most efficient speakers on the market (generally large floorstanders), at the most common seating distances, you're looking at 300 watts (~117 dB) - hardly a call for even the highest-end AVRs. You don't want to see the power requirements for this output when a speaker's load drops, either, as many amplifiers won't be able to keep up.

Bob,

Forgot to add, I'd be using a 7.1 H/K as a pre. Is there a way to properly hook those together.

And what does the Data Port actually do?

Allows for firmware updates, and probably allows for remote control from like a computer.

Wow, this thread sure got hyjacked! :eek:

I'm interested in opinions about the topic of this thread.

If someone says they can't hear the difference then there is no difference. Sonic performance is qualitative not quantitative, and it is relative to the person listening to it, not some specs on a box.
Exactly what I have long been saying. The opposite is true as well, if you can hear a difference, then there is a difference.

I don't chide people for not being able to hear a difference, but they need to realize that just because they can't hear the difference, it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

I think tomatos taste terrible. Are there different kinds of tomatos? Do they taste they same? I think they do. To some people they must not, otherwise there wouldn't be different kinds.

Exactly what I have long been saying. The opposite is true as well, if you can hear a difference, then there is a difference.

None of you can prove it, though.

None of you can prove it, though.
Can you prove what you think to be true? You can't tell me what I hear, just as I cannot tell you what you hear. The difference is I don't presume to be able to.

Bob,

Forgot to add, I'd be using a 7.1 H/K as a pre. Is there a way to properly hook those together.



As long as your H/K has pre-outs, run a cable from the pre outs to the amp inputs. Depending on the amp and receiver, you may need XLR to RCA adapter cables.

Not picking on you, as many else have said the same, but sensitivity ratings are almost always grossly overstated. Klipsch commonly overrates sensitivity by as much as 6 dB. That said, it is rarely as simple as looking at the sensitivity of a speaker - much better to subtract at least 3 dB from the sensitivity before doing your calculations. When done, to reach reference levels with some of the most efficient speakers on the market (generally large floorstanders), at the most common seating distances, you're looking at 300 watts (~117 dB) - hardly a call for even the highest-end AVRs. You don't want to see the power requirements for this output when a speaker's load drops, either, as many amplifiers won't be able to keep up.



Reference level requirements are 105 dB at the listening position for each channel. You used 117 dB for your bogus calculation!!!

In addition, who plays back movies at full "reference level" anyhow???????????????/

None of you can prove it, though.

Audio is so subjective. I doubt I could be consistent in a double blind test from one day to the next. So many things affect us and our ability to hear, sometimes after a stressfull day I can get fatigued in minutes listening to my system other days it sounds like the best thing on the planet and after a couple of beer I can listen at rock concert levels for hours!!

I think there's another issue that relates to this discussion - I don't doubt that people could hear differences between flagship receivers and separates - but I think they are just that - differences - minor at best - and as to which is "better" is more likely a matter of taste..

I recall when I had my Z9 and tested its DACs against the DACs in my 59AVi player - I could tell there was a difference, and prefered the sound of the Yamahas' DACs. Another person could hear the same difference and determine that the 59Avi was "better". No one would be wrong - it's just a matter of taste.

Now, I've got the NAD M15 which IMO is slightly better sounding than my Z9 but when I did the same comparison, I couldn't tell the difference between its' DACs and the 59AVi's. Go figure....

No, I mean the dude that was saying ridiculous things in this thread.

I wasn't going to respond anymore until I saw this. :rolleyes:

I may not be an expert at all of the ins and outs of audio but I feel others have addressed the issue of power requirements involved in impendence swings and variance in speaker ratings. Whereas you actually state that you don't like Klipsch speakers--I have experimented with them considerably and have gone to great lengths to hear them in different environments. I stand by my thoughtful responses to you.

Given how technical this thread has become and realizing that there are several here that are more knowledgeable than myself--I contend that for whatever reason that I may have missed, Klipsch would not recommend lower model AVRs to drive their Flagship Reference speakers. That being said...I don't speak for Klipsch and suggest that people interested should contact them directly or post on their website.

Fwiw it would be great for Klipsch to advertise that their speakers are so efficient that you don't need to worry about what amp you buy because it has a 100 dB efficiency rating--That is not the case. As stated earlier--YMMV.

People often hear differences in sighted listening tests but not in blind tests. That suggests that they often "hear" differences that they imagine are present (or they believe should be present) but don't actually exist.

If you believe that separates are inherently better sounding than receivers, even if their sound quality is exactly the same, you're likely to perceive them that way.

Actually, a clipping amp will send an ultra high-frequency spike to the tweeter

Not all amps are that badly behaved when they clip. A spike like that would be an indication of a poor design.

People often hear differences in sighted listening tests but not in blind tests. That suggests that they often "hear" differences that they imagine are present (or they believe should be present) but don't actually exist.

If you believe that separates are inherently better sounding than receivers, even if their sound quality is exactly the same, you're likely to perceive them that way.
So somebody should buy a QSC amp because.................?

Aside from sound, I think the main difference is in the connectivity and operability of the two.

Receivers are, by design, meant for home use and have specialized inputs for VCR, DVD, TV out and etc. The separates, built for pro use, tend to be more universal with the ability to assign whatever you want to whatever you need (INPUT 1, INPUT 2 and etc.).

Some of the higher end AVRs have some of this ability, but IMHO what sets the two apart in general is versatility.

As long as your H/K has pre-outs, run a cable from the pre outs to the amp inputs. Depending on the amp and receiver, you may need XLR to RCA adapter cables.
The two QSC amps mentioned have three pin connectors that I guess are pos, neg and grnd but I have never seen a cable that goes with these and was concerned that there might be a difference from the standard pre outs found on home level AVRs and the inputs on these pro amps used in movie theaters.

Best article I have read on why tweeters blow:

http://sound.westhost.com/tweeters.htm#a5

Bottom line, a clipping amp sends way more power to a tweeter than it was designed to handle because clipping results in additional harmonics. Tweeters have less power handling capacity than woofers; under normal conditions they only need to handle a fraction of the power a woofer does.

...I think there's another issue that relates to this discussion - I don't doubt that people could hear differences between flagship receivers and separates - but I think they are just that - differences - minor at best - and as to which is "better" is more likely a matter of taste..

...

Not out yet:-)

I may agree with the first sentiment, but I wonder about the differences between the lower end AVR's and the THX ultra approved (or comparable) from different companies.

My latest experimentation had to do when my Denon AVR 4802R THX ultra II was destroyed by lightening and I had to use a Denon AVR 3805 to drive my Klipsch HT for 4 months. In a nutshell the conclusions I came up with:

1) I couldn't drive my 9 speakers to satisfaction with the AVR 3805 as I had with the AVR 4802R.

2) When I dropped it down to 7 speakers I realized I had to exchange my SS towers for bookshelf speakers to get it to sound good and then only consistently at between 80 to 85 dB at the listening position.

3) When I received my AVR 4806 I could hook my 9 speakers again and have phenomenal results. I also started listening to my HT closer to 85 to 90 dB (when I'm really rockin').

I attribute my results to the requirement that the higher priced AVR (in my case THX ultra) be able to handle dips down to 3.2 Ohms and have consistent power to drive speakers efficiently in a 3000 cu ft room, which the lower end AVRs can't deliver. The added benefit of THX processing isn't as substantial but it does benefit my Home Theater experience.

What's amazing is now you can get THX Ultra2 in the form of the Onkyo 805 (and its upscaling brother, the 875) for under $1K.

How much would you have to spend to get anything else that sounds that good?

What's amazing is now you can get THX Ultra2 in the form of the Onkyo 805 (and its upscaling brother, the 875) for under $1K.

How much would you have to spend to get anything else that sounds that good?
How good does it sound?

Aside from sound, I think the main difference is in the connectivity and operability of the two.

Receivers are, by design, meant for home use and have specialized inputs for VCR, DVD, TV out and etc. The separates, built for pro use, tend to be more universal with the ability to assign whatever you want to whatever you need (INPUT 1, INPUT 2 and etc.).

Some of the higher end AVRs have some of this ability, but IMHO what sets the two apart in general is versatility.
I don't know that I would say separates are designed for pro use so much as they are for more of an "enthusiast". Most receivers seem to be designed to be pretty much plug and play these days and that seems to be what a large portion of the market is looking for. I guess I'd argue that separates can be much less user friendly (depending on the user) and that's either really attractive or a real turn off.


Scott

How good does it sound?
And how much is THX Ultra 2 cert. worth?


Scott

And how much is THX Ultra 2 cert. worth?


Scott
My point precisely. THX isn't some guarantee of outstanding performance. Its a minimum performance level, among other things, that must be met.

I'm sure Ultra 2 must be a higher standard than regular old THX though.

How good does it sound?

And how much is THX Ultra 2 cert. worth?


Scott


I don't know that its worth the paper its written on, however, according to the nutters around here both those receivers are incredible performance bargains.

I'm just getting ready to move to an HDMI world and I don't know whether its worth upgrading to separates during my upgrade process.

Reference level requirements are 105 dB at the listening position for each channel. You used 117 dB for your bogus calculation!!!

Not bogus at all. Listening distance is ~12 ft = ~4 meters = 12 db + 105 db = 117 dB. Given the highest sensitivity speakers on the market have a real sensitivity of around 91 dB... add in some very limited room gain, maybe 1-2 dB, and you need 24-25 dB gain to reach 117 dB. That's about 300 watts. Remember... this is the power requirements for reference levels with the most sensitive and easiest to drive speakers on the market.

In addition, who plays back movies at full "reference level" anyhow???????????????/

I do (when the wife isn't around :D). Most people don't play movies back at full reference level, or even near reference levels, because they can't stand the amount of distortion produced at these output levels from their equipment (amplification and speakers), which is inadequate for high output playback (i.e. all the "too loud" comments). If you aim for full reference levels, you have headroom for extremely low distortion output up until just below reference levels, which is certainly very comfortable to listen to, and very impressive, all in the same breath.

When I upgraded my system, the drop in distortion made it so that we can watch movies pushing reference levels without her complaining that it's too loud. At the same output levels before upgraded equipment, the amount of distortion created by the inadequate equipment made it sound way too loud. No matter how sneaky I was, with the volume control, she would always pick up when I started pushing close to reference levels - now, she has no clue. It used to be a constant battle trying to achieve realistic bass to match the big screen, without the harshness and distortion chasing us out of the room - now it's no problem.

And before someone mentions hearing loss... reference levels do not endanger your hearing. I still have excellent hearing (tested a few months ago), with no problem hearing above 17khz.

My point precisely. THX isn't some guarantee of outstanding performance. Its a minimum performance level, among other things, that must be met.

I'm sure Ultra 2 must be a higher standard than regular old THX though.

Fwiw, I think the substantial differences in THX Ultra II vs THX select is that the former is rated to drive speakers down to 3.2 ohms and fill up to a 3,000 cu ft room with sound at THX reference levels. The latter doesn't have the impedance requirement and is guaranteed for 2,000 cu ft rooms. {edited}

The THX ultras II's have been consistently $1500 to $2,000 more than Select models in any given Company's AVR lineup--I have no experience with Onkyo but wonder how they can sell that technology so much cheaper than their competitors.

The premise of this thread is silly. Let's say that you, personally can jump 30" high in a gym with a 15 foot ceiling. Will you be able to jump higher if you move into a gym with a 40 foot ceiling??? Serves as an excellent reminder why I drifted away from my audiophile friends when I realized none of them would accept blind listening results which demonstrated their inability to hear any but the grossest differences between electronics. Dave

I don't know that its worth the paper its written on, however, according to the nutters around here both those receivers are incredible performance bargians. I'm just getting read to buy and I don't know whether its worth upgrading to separates.
So, side-stepping the whole "better" sound issue, one thing that leaves me scratching my head is that I keep hearing about how new receivers (e.g., the Onkyo's) are future proof.

Maybe I'm daft, but I tend to think of *most* mass market receivers as a bleeding edge products with all the current bells and whistles du-jour, but technological dead ends relatively speaking. Yes, DD is still DD, but it's rare (at least as far as I'm aware) to be able to upgrade/update a receiver as new connectivity or decoders are released.

That's something I've always liked about separates. You may not get the latest greatest connection/codec as soon as it hits the market, but you usually can get it down the road...once all the bugs have been worked out. Whether it's cheaper to pony up and buy relatively expensive separates now and upgrade them as a long term project or buy new receivers as needed, I honestly don't know.


Scott

Do I dare through my opinions into this pot? Of course.....

I don't want to comment on hearing the differance in quality between mass market receivers, flagship or otherwise, and good seperates, when they are not being challenged or pushed to their limits. My first hand experiances here were somewhat system and situationally dependant and despite comming to personal conclusions doing many comparisons, blind and otherwise, I am happy that I am comfortable in my opinions formed by extensive personal experiance.

I also don't want to get into discussions of what may make equipment of similar rated outputs sound differant from one another or start to behave better or worse when pushed, though, for whatever reason, comparisons have shown me that some will misbehave far earlier as we increase volume than others with the same power ratings.

However, when I do side by side comparisons and do push levels, I DO SEE THE REASON FOR MORE AND BETTER POWER.
I, first, try to limit myself when doing these comparisons to two channel music. I will, when I am happy with hitting higher levels cleanly, move on to test abilities with multi-channel music (sacd, dvd-a, DD concerts, etc).

I should note a few things that will make my results differant than many others:
First I test in many differant rooms with differant characteristics and sizes, and some times these comparisons in the store have been in generously sized rooms, but at home my rooms for many years have been small to medium (changing fairly soon).

Second, without knowing why, most of the speakers that I enjoy enough to do these kinds of comparisons with are either of low efficiancy, have odd impedance curves or both, so they are more of a challenge to drive.

Third, I like to push the volume level up, not because I always listen loud, but rather because sometimes the music moves me to really crank it up and even though it's often just for the length of that one song, this is precisely when I DON'T want to have my amp running out of power, moreso even when it's higher resolution multi-channel.

Now, taking all that into account , I more often find supposedly lower powered straight amps outperforming higher powered (according to wattage rating) receivers, and frankly, find damn few normal brand receivers that can take me to the levels I'd like before beginning to sound bad. There are many decent straight amps that can do the trick. To be able to listen loud and still preserve clarity, is something I like.
I should note though, that some of the speakers that I have been running through this process lately have been bookshelf speakers that start to reach their limits (compression) before I get to see the limit of the amp.

More power is generally a good thing , with movies and music being so dynamic, you may need it at some point. Of course, if your speakers are easy to drive, you room is small, and you listen at lower volumes, you may never push a receiver beyond it's limits.

Having been to a lot of live shows in my lifetime, I do appreciate performance level and referance level dynamic range. And, before you ask, I do often use hearing protection when appropriate for live shows and my hearing is fine (tested about 18 months ago).

The premise of this thread is silly. Let's say that you, personally can jump 30" high in a gym with a 15 foot ceiling. Will you be able to jump higher if you move into a gym with a 40 foot ceiling??? Serves as an excellent reminder why I drifted away from my audiophile friends when I realized none of them would accept blind listening results which demonstrated their inability to hear any but the grossest differences between electronics. Dave

Not quite. Distortion climbs as you reach the limits of an amplifier. If you get more power than you need, then you have less distortion. The limit of an amplifier isn't a brick wall (well, at thermal shutdown, it is). The limit of an amplifier is usually based on how much distortion you can bear to listen to. The reason why many people think they like to listen at low volumes, is because they simply don't have the power (or speakers) to produce higher output without distortion/compression climbing to painful levels. After increasing the power in one's system, one will often find that they'll listen 5 dB or higher, than when they used to with lesser power. It's shocking to see what happens to the frequency response of a speaker when you start running out of power - it's all over the map! When you add in the distortion, too, it's no wonder people think it's just "too loud" - it's a psychoacoustic state of mind, not a fact.

The premise of this thread is silly. Let's say that you, personally can jump 30" high in a gym with a 15 foot ceiling. Will you be able to jump higher if you move into a gym with a 40 foot ceiling??? ...

I think the appropriate counter-analogy would be if you like throwing the basketball 8 ft in the air, you lower the goal to 8 ft regardless if rules state that in Basketball the goal should be 10 ft. The game would still be fun, but if you are playing to accomplish the best results for the Game of Basketball you must play by the rules. I agree that just because you have enough pole to raise the basket to 12 ft--It's not going to be any more beneficial for your game. :D

OP was talking about using 500 watt amps with Klipsch speakers, thread has drifted a bit since... Dave

Regarding the Klipsch comment, consider the measurements performed on the RB-15 (I know it's only one!) at http://stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/204klipsch/index3.html where the reviewer states,
The speaker will therefore be well-suited to being driven by inexpensive amplifiers and receivers.

It's not simply a matter of dropping to a low impedance as one has to also consider the phase angle (it's in the link). Further, many use subs and those can alleviate some of the demands placed upon whatever you're using for amplification. Klipsch, though, would never state their speakers are driven just great by pedestrian receivers. After all, that just might place the thought in a buyer's mind that they don't respond to 'quality' amplification.

OP was talking about using 500 watt amps with Klipsch speakers, thread has drifted a bit since... Dave

And some weren't even considering that not all Klipsch speakers are alike much less how different they are. I don't remember reading what model the OP had in mind. As far as I know there are no Heritage speakers that would benefit from a 250 to 500 wpc amp in the average Home Theater, but that the completely different designed upper end Reference would benefit from a separate amp vs a low end AVR regardless if Klipsch labels them with a 100 dB rating, imo. {edit: although 500 wpc may be over kill}

Bob,

Forgot to add, I'd be using a 7.1 H/K as a pre. Is there a way to properly hook those together.

And what does the Data Port actually do?

Just connect the outputs to the respective amp inputs. I assume the outputs on the H/K are unbalanced? Just wire the inputs unbalanced and it'll work fine.

The DataPort is for use with our QSControl control and monitoring system, with our cinema monitor products, or with some of our accessories.

And some weren't even considering that not all Klipsch speakers are alike much less how different they are. I don't remember reading what model the OP had in mind. As far as I know there are no Heritage speakers that would benefit from a 250 to 500 wpc amp in the average Home Theater, but that the completely different designed upper end Reference would benefit from a separate amp vs a low end AVR regardless if Klipsch labels them with a 100 dB rating, imo. {edit: although 500 wpc may be over kill}
At one time I was running the old Klipsch RF-3's using a 75W Yamaha receiver. Sitting ~11ft from the speakers in a relatively small room, I would hit the limits of what my ears could take LONG before the amp would be stressed. So, I couldn't specifically comment on the new Ref. series, but unless you're in an absolutely cavernous room, 500W is probably a bit overkill.

Klipsch, though, would never state their speakers are driven just great by pedestrian receivers. After all, that just might place the thought in a buyer's mind that they don't respond to 'quality' amplification.
Speaking of amplification and Klipsch, is Aragon still operating under the Klipsch umbrella? If so, I'm kind of surprised that they don't push Aragon as a match for Klipsch in a Paradigm-Anthem sort of model.


Scott

Best article I have read on why tweeters blow:

http://sound.westhost.com/tweeters.htm#a5

Bottom line, a clipping amp sends way more power to a tweeter than it was designed to handle because clipping results in additional harmonics. Tweeters have less power handling capacity than woofers; under normal conditions they only need to handle a fraction of the power a woofer does.

Yes, that's a very good article.

Clipping can and often does cut out some HF content in the signal, because the amplitude of the HF is typically lower than that of the bass frequencies. If you look at an audio signal on a scope, you'll usually see that the highs are "riding on top of" the lows. When this sort of signal is clipped, the highs get obliterated during the portion of the waveform that gets flat-topped, but the lows stay intact (albeit with a lot of mostly odd-order harmonics added).

Probably the worst-case situation for a tweeter in a loudspeaker system with a passive crossover would be for the amp to clip a signal whose frequency is just below the crossover point. That would tend to put the fundamental mostly into the woofer but the harmonics into the tweeter.

.... Klipsch, though, would never state their speakers are driven just great by pedestrian receivers. After all, that just might place the thought in a buyer's mind that they don't respond to 'quality' amplification.

This may be a valid point, but if the higher end RF-83 HT (or the RF-7's that I own) could be sold with a $500 AVR, that would cut the price of the package considerably. After all, most people are looking for a sound they like out of the speaker and would gladly pay less for an AVR to achieve the same quality.

I started with lower end units to power my HT because I am a cheapskate. I feel I have gotten to the point of diminishing returns (after reaching Nirvana :D ) and don't know if my observations/results would be worth the extra $$$ to someone else. With my Denon AVR 4802R I did not feel the need to upgrade as I had prior.

The RF-7's have an impedance drop down to 2.8 Ohms. You better have a stout amp to drive them regardless of their sensitivity.

The RF-7's have an impedance drop down to 2.8 Ohms. You better have a stout amp to drive them regardless of their sensitivity.

That's what I am trying to convey to folks;-)


When a Speaker company gives a rating of "100 watts maximum continuous (400 watts peak)" what exactly does that mean in the real world? How different and what should I consider (ampwise) when the same company has a speaker that is rated at "250 watts max continuous (1000 watts peak)?" FWIW, I am comparing a Klipsch RF-15 (96 dB) with the same series RF-7 (102 dB). Do those numbers tell me anything about how beneficial more power would be or how many watts it would take to damage my speaker? {edit: or What power requirements}

It appears some would say that I could get away with a smaller amp on the RF-7's than the RF-15's to reach it's bandwidth specs on paper, but I can't imagine that to be true.

Not out yet:-)

I may agree with the first sentiment, but I wonder about the differences between the lower end AVR's and the THX ultra approved (or comparable) from different companies.

My latest experimentation had to do when my Denon AVR 4802R THX ultra II was destroyed by lightening and I had to use a Denon AVR 3805 to drive my Klipsch HT for 4 months. In a nutshell the conclusions I came up with:

1) I couldn't drive my 9 speakers to satisfaction with the AVR 3805 as I had with the AVR 4802R.

2) When I dropped it down to 7 speakers I realized I had to exchange my SS towers for bookshelf speakers to get it to sound good and then only consistently at between 80 to 85 dB at the listening position.

3) When I received my AVR 4806 I could hook my 9 speakers again and have phenomenal results. I also started listening to my HT closer to 85 to 90 dB (when I'm really rockin').

I attribute my results to the requirement that the higher priced AVR (in my case THX ultra) be able to handle dips down to 3.2 Ohms and have consistent power to drive speakers efficiently in a 3000 cu ft room, which the lower end AVRs can't deliver. The added benefit of THX processing isn't as substantial but it does benefit my Home Theater experience.

I think what you reference has more to do with the amplifier sections' capabilities than actual sound quality. If you level matched both and played them side by side with enough headroom for transients - I would guess they would sound identical. One receiver costs more because it no doubt has a better amplifier section. THX aproved or not.

I think what you reference has more to do with the amplifier sections' capabilities than actual sound quality. If you level matched both and played them side by side with enough headroom for transients - I would guess they would sound identical. One receiver costs more because it no doubt has a better amplifier section. THX aproved or not.

I agree that one AVR has a better amp section. If I had them level matched at 85 dB at the listening position, the AVR 4806 would not be as bright as the AVR 3805 because of the advantages of having a better amp section which precisely gives me the headroom I need (as part of my reasoning). :)

The RF-7's have an impedance drop down to 2.8 Ohms. You better have a stout amp to drive them regardless of their sensitivity.
Well, if we assume Klipsch adds 3 dB to the sensitivity, then the RF-7's would have a sensitivity of about 99 dB @ 1 meter. Let's say you're sitting 2 meters away and your nominal listening level is about 85 dB. You tell me how much wattage is required to pull that off and also about how many amps at the low impedance drop? Now tell me how much power and amps at that low impedance drop of 2.8 ohms if I had transients that hit about 110 dB? Maybe I'm missing something here, cecaa850.

I agree that one AVR has a better amp section. If I had them level matched at 85 dB at the listening position, the AVR 4806 would not be as bright as the AVR 3805 because of the advantages of having a better amp section which precisely gives me the headroom I need (as part of my reasoning). :)

I could be wrong but, I think the only reason the 3805 amps would be "brighter" is if they're clipping and adding distortion. Chances are that with those two receivers there's more of a difference in sound quality due to the processing stages than the amps. (If there is any at all.)


But this is digressing, the thread is about separates killing even the "best" receivers not how receivers compare.

Well, if we assume Klipsch adds 3 dB to the sensitivity, then the RF-7's would have a sensitivity of about 99 dB @ 1 meter. Let's say you're sitting 2 meters away and your nominal listening level is about 85 dB. You tell me how much wattage is required to pull that off and also about how many amps at the low impedance drop? Now tell me how much power and amps at that low impedance drop of 2.8 ohms if I had transients that hit about 110 dB? Maybe I'm missing something here, cecaa850.

You bring up some interesting questions and I suck at math (thanks for not asking me;-) so can I re-ask the question:

Given that I sit approximate 3 meters{edited} from my front 3 speakers, how much power should I need to get the most out of my speakers (7) that are rated between 97 to 102 dB? {edit: to get the 85 dB scenario you mentioned and I feel I have}

Given mrgagne comments, am I on to something about the THX ultra II amp section being able to go down to 3.2 Ohms on impedance swings being the reason I am getting the results I mentioned?

I apologize for what appears to be a hijack but in reality I am trying to clarify what could be considered "the best receiver" and what could justify going to separates or not.

Powering a Klipsch speaker at all is automatically ear piercing if you ask me. :D

LOL I Picked up a pair of 2-way soundesign bookshelf speakers that are just as "bright" as the klipsch I heard once. Still a Okay speaker though. :D

I think I'll buy a Used Klipsch If I come across a Pair! I do know that Soundesign Once made a few big multiway speakers with Horn tweeters in the 70's and very early 80's? but Theyre rare. I guess people threw em away after the foam surrounds rotted. or they blew the horn tweeter. :eek:



now they only make executive sytems and clock singing alarm clocks and boomless boomboxes! :p

Lesson In life NEVER Blow a tweeter! with your mouth or not! :D


the local hgih scool has a shrill ringing PA horn system in the football stadium They play rap music and it distors snaps and rings and I had my ears closed the entire time! I wonder if it was a klipsch? :eek:

I'm glad I dont go there anymore and is going to enter college!

I'm glad I dont go there anymore and is going to enter college!
Have fun with the English 101 course! :D Sorry, couldn't resist.

I'll try and move this discussion back on track! :p


People often hear differences in sighted listening tests but not in blind tests. That suggests that they often "hear" differences that they imagine are present (or they believe should be present) but don't actually exist.

If you believe that separates are inherently better sounding than receivers, even if their sound quality is exactly the same, you're likely to perceive them that way.

Bob,

What do you mean by sound quality? You're not suggesting that if I send identical signals (either via toslink or analog L/R from a DVD player) to an Denon 1707 and to a Mcintosh separates to the same speaker that it will sound identical are you? I thought I could tell the difference in the showroom when the salesman and I were A/Bing it, but maybe you're right...

Could you elaborate?

Well, if we assume Klipsch adds 3 dB to the sensitivity, then the RF-7's would have a sensitivity of about 99 dB @ 1 meter. Let's say you're sitting 2 meters away and your nominal listening level is about 85 dB. You tell me how much wattage is required to pull that off and also about how many amps at the low impedance drop? Now tell me how much power and amps at that low impedance drop of 2.8 ohms if I had transients that hit about 110 dB? Maybe I'm missing something here, cecaa850.

What you're missing is a good, hard hitting bottom end. You can quote numbers all day long and paper whip the subject to death but untill you get a pair of RF-7's and try them with different amps, you'll never know. Listening in 2 channel, a 100 watt receiver sounds fine. Switch to a capable amp and the bottom end comes alive. harder hitting, more defined. I'm sorry I'm not as eloquent as some in describing audio nuances, but there is a noticeable improvement in sound. Most receivers aren't rated to push that low of a load whereas decent outboard amplification will. What do you power your RF-7's with?

I'll try and move this discussion back on track! :p




Bob,

What do you mean by sound quality? You're not suggesting that if I send identical signals (either via toslink or analog L/R from a DVD player) to an Denon 1707 and to a Mcintosh separates to the same speaker that it will sound identical are you? I thought I could tell the difference in the showroom when the salesman and I were A/Bing it, but maybe you're right...

Could you elaborate?
The way I read it "sound quality" was used in a generic sense. I'll not speak for Bob though. :D

I agree with his point and I think he's touching on the fact that companies make and market products that people want.... or rather think they want. I seriously doubt most people on this forum could be able to consistently pick out a flagship receiver vs separates in a blind A/B test.

That being said I did purchase separates this go-around because with changing technology it does allow more flexibility in future upgrades. I also think it's not a bad idea to separate amp from pre/pro to reduce any potential noise. A flagship receiver in the same price range would sound just as good though I'm convinced.

You bring up some interesting questions and I suck at math (thanks for not asking me;-) so can I re-ask the question:

Given that I sit approximate 3 meters{edited} from my front 3 speakers, how much power should I need to get the most out of my speakers (7) that are rated between 97 to 102 dB? {edit: to get the 85 dB scenario you mentioned and I feel I have}

Given mrgagne comments, am I on to something about the THX ultra II amp section being able to go down to 3.2 Ohms on impedance swings being the reason I am getting the results I mentioned?

I apologize for what appears to be a hijack but in reality I am trying to clarify what could be considered "the best receiver" and what could justify going to separates or not.
I'm also not a mathamagician like Chu Gai, but here's a link that you might find useful. It doesn't address the amperage question, but it might be a surprising answer to the hypothetical (or real world) question posed above.

Peak SPL Calculator (http://www.myhometheater.homestead.com/splcalculator.html)

As long as Chu is around....I thought the basic rule of thumb is that SPL drops 6db every time you double distance. Correct?


Scott

The RF-7's have an impedance drop down to 2.8 Ohms. You better have a stout amp to drive them regardless of their sensitivity.

That has nothing at all to do with the power required.

And to the guy who claims to listen loud: I highly doubt you're listening at 105dB at the listening position. Highly. Something sounding too loud is not about distortion, it's about pressure. Period.

this is fascinating stuff....has anyone with seperates, ....ie- good quality 2-channel amps bridged them , 1 per speaker in a 5.1 minimum setup?.....I would love to find 2 more of my Klipsch KG5.5 floorstanders (which are rated at 100w, 450 peak, 96db's of sensitivity, I think) and a stack of Carver or similar power amps and do me some completely unscientifc AB'ing with my friends Onkyo receiver at similar (perceived) loudness levels, which sounds outstanding, btw. Of course it would be insanely loud, but would it be MORE musical sounding (that 'sensation' of BIG sound at modest volume without having to resort to EQ, detailed highs , most notably cymbals that the hits sound like their coming from your living room, that ultra realistic sense you get with sound that really smacks you with each and every lightning fast transient spike, with no shrillness and no unnatural pre-processing whatsoever, natural sounding midrange,etc,etc,etc) than the receiver? these are the things I'm hypothesizing more amp muscle give...

That has nothing at all to do with the power required.



Agreed. It has to do with the amps ability to handle a load greater than 8 Ohms. Some do better than others.

I have been using low end HK receiver, the AVR330 with and without my Rotel 100 w x THX amp and the improvement I heard form using the amp was a much improved bass response. However, I recently got the Onkyo 805 and I could not detect any difference using the external Rotel amp vs. the receiver by itself. NONE! I am therefore putting the amp for sale and use the proceed to upgrade my front speakers.

this is fascinating stuff.... but would it be MORE musical sounding ...than the receiver? these are the things I'm hypothesizing more amp muscle give...

I appreciate you bringing up this thread. I can't wait until you hook those badboys up and report back to us. :cool:

I hope you don't mind if I pose the question, what would be the point of diminishing returns in guitz' (or my) scenario from a power stand point (even if it is "on paper")? How many wpc do we need to get the most out of our Home theater without going overboard?

FWIW, My Denon AVR-4806 is rated at 140 wpc. The Secret's Benchmark test of it stated it output 118 wpc into 7 channels and 180 wpc into 2 channels. I understand that Separate Amps power ratings are usually accurate, but I assumed that the Benchmark number (AVR 4806) would be appropriate to compare to Separates. Am I wrong?

What you're missing is a good, hard hitting bottom end. You can quote numbers all day long and paper whip the subject to death but untill you get a pair of RF-7's and try them with different amps, you'll never know. Listening in 2 channel, a 100 watt receiver sounds fine. Switch to a capable amp and the bottom end comes alive. harder hitting, more defined. I'm sorry I'm not as eloquent as some in describing audio nuances, but there is a noticeable improvement in sound. Most receivers aren't rated to push that low of a load whereas decent outboard amplification will. What do you power your RF-7's with?

The RF-7's have an impedance drop down to 2.8 Ohms. You better have a stout amp to drive them regardless of their sensitivity.

Look, cecaa850, you're the one quoting numbers, using it as a figure of merit, as the statement directly above is yours. You point to an impedance drop to 2.8 ohms and wave that around like it's a guaranteed killer, yet you can't frame it in any sort of context. You don't or can't provide a graph from whomever that allows one to look at the impedance and phase angle as a function of frequency so that an informed or gut feeling can be established. Further, you haven't qualified what constitutes a capable amp especially in light of a 5.1 system where the sub is off-loading the requirements placed on the amp but you say things will come alive. It's to everyone's advantage when they can understand measurements and frankly, no one has seen any for the RF-7.

There's a fellow who is running Wilson X-2 Alexandria's, which are substantially less efficient using a 20 wpc, give or take tube amp. I run a pair of Whispers with an older Yamaha integrated amp. Others have noted they had no problem driving a particular Klipsch to painful levels using modest receivers.

Look, sometimes separates are the way to go if for nothing else, they offer flexibility. Sometimes they offer more. Sometimes they offer nothing more than puffery. However, unless you can qualify your particular speakers, what you listen to, how loud you prefer to listen, then suggestions are largely meaningless because they can't be framed in the proper context. It's like asking for a recommendation on a car but not telling the person you need it to tow a 6,500 boat and also carry 5 passengers.

Now, when I was younger, I dated a smokin' babe and I remember that hard-hitting bottom end. The harder I hit it, the better it was.

I appreciate you bringing up this thread. I can't wait until you hook those badboys up and report back to us. :cool:

I hope you don't mind if I pose the question, what would be the point of diminishing returns in guitz' (or my) scenario from a power stand point (even if it is "on paper")? How many wpc do we need to get the most out of our Home theater without going overboard?

FWIW, My Denon AVR-4806 is rated at 140 wpc. The Secret's Benchmark test of it stated it output 118 wpc into 7 channels and 180 wpc into 2 channels. I understand that Separate Amps power ratings are usually accurate, but I assumed that the Benchmark number (AVR 4806) would be appropriate to compare to Separates. Am I wrong?


1 thing to think about a receiver's amps....it has the single transformer, beefy though it may be....your parts are gonna huff and puff much harder than 4 or 5 dedicated transformers when you really crank it up, thus another point of contention.....

I have been using low end HK receiver, the AVR330 with and without my Rotel 100 w x THX amp and the improvement I heard form using the amp was a much improved bass response. However, I recently got the Onkyo 805 and I could not detect any difference using the external Rotel amp vs. the receiver by itself. NONE! I am therefore putting the amp for sale and use the proceed to upgrade my front speakers.

I can believe this. Amplifier sections in receivers have greatly improved over the last couple of years. The Amps in the new Onkyo's (805/875/905) are truly un-receiver like.

Look, cecaa850, you're the one quoting numbers, using it as a figure of merit, as the statement directly above is yours. You point to an impedance drop to 2.8 ohms and wave that around like it's a guaranteed killer, yet you can't frame it in any sort of context. You don't or can't provide a graph from whomever that allows one to look at the impedance and phase angle as a function of frequency so that an informed or gut feeling can be established. Further, you haven't qualified what constitutes a capable amp especially in light of a 5.1 system where the sub is off-loading the requirements placed on the amp but you say things will come alive. It's to everyone's advantage when they can understand measurements and frankly, no one has seen any for the RF-7.

There's a fellow who is running Wilson X-2 Alexandria's, which are substantially less efficient using a 20 wpc, give or take tube amp. I run a pair of Whispers with an older Yamaha integrated amp. Others have noted they had no problem driving a particular Klipsch to painful levels using modest receivers.

Look, sometimes separates are the way to go if for nothing else, they offer flexibility. Sometimes they offer more. Sometimes they offer nothing more than puffery. However, unless you can qualify your particular speakers, what you listen to, how loud you prefer to listen, then suggestions are largely meaningless because they can't be framed in the proper context. It's like asking for a recommendation on a car but not telling the person you need it to tow a 6,500 boat and also carry 5 passengers.

Now, when I was younger, I dated a smokin' babe and I remember that hard-hitting bottom end. The harder I hit it, the better it was.

http://forums.klipsch.com/forums/thread/541631.aspx

One of many threads on the subject. I'm not into verbal jousting so I'll make a couple of points and this will be my last post on this subject, especially as it seems to be going OT.

I referred to stereo listening, not 5.1 where the bottom end is transferred to the sub, thus lightening the load on the amp.

The "others" you refer to as using low powered amps to drive Klipsch speakers are most likely running Heritage speakers, not Reference. Reference speakers and Heritage speakers offer vastly different characteristics as far as the load that the amp sees.

The RF-7's impedance drop is around 40 and 100 Hz.

Do you have any graphs of the smokin' babe? :D

I'll try and move this discussion back on track! :p




Bob,

What do you mean by sound quality? You're not suggesting that if I send identical signals (either via toslink or analog L/R from a DVD player) to an Denon 1707 and to a Mcintosh separates to the same speaker that it will sound identical are you? I thought I could tell the difference in the showroom when the salesman and I were A/Bing it, but maybe you're right...

Could you elaborate?

They could very well sound identical, if they're competently designed and you match the levels for your comparison. I wouldn't assume beforehand that they're different.

No pics unfortunately. She was a 5'1" firecracker with the thickest black hair down to below her ass and a body that made believers out of atheists. Those things tend to get purged when you get married.

Why anyone, even with full range speakers, would arbitrarily use an old and reactionary approach of not using a sub is beyond me. After all, the best place for low frequencies is invariably not the same location as your speakers.

[QUOTE=Chu Gai]I run a pair of Whispers with an older Yamaha integrated amp. QUOTE]
Are you talking about those huge speakers made by Legacy?

Yes.

Cool.

I have been using low end HK receiver, the AVR330 with and without my Rotel 100 w x THX amp and the improvement I heard form using the amp was a much improved bass response. However, I recently got the Onkyo 805 and I could not detect any difference using the external Rotel amp vs. the receiver by itself. NONE! I am therefore putting the amp for sale and use the proceed to upgrade my front speakers.

I did virtually the same thing twice; once with an HK AVR8000 and Anthem PVA5 that I was using to bi-amp my mains and then again with a Yamaha Z9 and PS Audio HCA-2's (Stereophile "A" rated by the way.) and both times I switched out the amps to go back to the receivers amps without there being a discernable difference. In fact the Z9 had a quieter noise floor than the HCA2's.

I did virtually the same thing twice; once with an HK AVR8000 and Anthem PVA5 that I was using to bi-amp my mains and then again with a Yamaha Z9 and PS Audio HCA-2's (Stereophile "A" rated by the way.) and both times I switched out the amps to go back to the receivers amps without there being a discernable difference. In fact the Z9 had a quieter noise floor than the HCA2's.
Discernable difference? Does that mean there was some difference?

Discernable difference? Does that mean there was some difference?

Discernable = noticeable. "No noticeable difference"

Both the RX-Z9 and AVR8000 were statement products that neither manufacturer has yet to replicate to date. I think Yamaha might in the future, a Z10 perhaps, but HK is putting out tin cans now - I'm very disappointed with the build quality and QC of their top of the line stuff.

This is my experience as well. I was blown away when I heard a flagship Denon receiver driving McIntosh floor standing speakers. I did an A/B comparison with the McIntosh tube separates in the room and the difference was there but not by much... and certainly not enough for me to justify spending the extra $20k for the separates.

As for my wife, she said she couldn't tell any difference at all. Of course she doesn't have any idea the separates are supposed to sound so much better. I wonder how much of it is psychological.


I had a very similar experience. I own a Denon 5800 (the top model about 6-7 years ago) running a 5.1 Paradigm Signature speaker set-up ($11,500 total) and I wanted to take my system to the next level, so I plunked down about $9,500 on an Anthem D2 prepro and A5 amp. The amp alone weighs as much as the AVR.

Truth be told, there was so little difference in sound quality that I sold off the Anthem gear just days after buying it. In fact, even though the Anthem amp was considerably more powerful than the Denon AVR, and my speakers dip below 4 Ohms in the bass, I could not play my system any louder than before. I could reach the threshold of pain with either.

I think that most high-end AVRs and separates are so over-engineered for what they need to do these days, that the differences are mainly on paper. Sure high-end separates may have better specs and build quality, but what is really needed to reproduce an audio signal?

I will just get Denon's next flagship when it is released later this year (the 5308) to get the HDMI connections and features I want, while saving a bundle over high-end separates.

Wow! You fellow Denon Owners are making me grin ear to ear. ;-) :D

And to the guy who claims to listen loud: I highly doubt you're listening at 105dB at the listening position. Highly.

I prefer to listen around -5 dB from reference levels, since my subwoofers tend to compress and distort at full reference levels, but I'll be doubling my subwoofage in the next year to ameliorate this problem. However, sometimes I'm in the mood for full reference levels (often when demoing). I've calibrated my system with a professional microphone, so yes, I am listening at these levels. I believe MKtheater, Art Sonnenburg, thebland, and a few others also listen at these levels. The few of us who chase reference levels have realized that it's only "too loud" when your speakers/electronics/room aren't designed for high SPL.

Something sounding too loud is not about distortion, it's about pressure. Period.

It's about both. The feeling of "too loud" can either come from high SPL with distortion, or just plain high(er) SPL. It's a well documented psychoacoustic response. You can do some reading on it, if you don't want to take my word for it - I don't have references on hand, though I probably should, considering how many people question me on this statement. Still, there are many people chasing reference levels who have noticed this same phenomenon and have made similar statements. I believe Mark Seaton has even mentioned this phenomenon once or twice in his postings here (or perhaps elsewhere).

One problem is inadequate mid-bass, which becomes compressed, creating an upward tilted frequency response, and adding harshness that can be unbearable at high SPLs ("too loud"). Another problem is inadequate power, which compresses output at frequencies when the impedance dips or power requirements are greater, altering the frequency response - this often increases harshness ("too loud"), due to the requirements being greater in the bass frequencies. Another problem is tweeter distortion. Typical home audio speakers are not designed with reference levels in mind, but instead, are designed to reduce beaming in the midrange - this means low crossover points. A tweeter pushed to high SPL with a low crossover point will create a lot of distortion in the presence region, creating a lot of harshness that will be quite painful to listen to ("too loud"). Finally, a fourth problem is just plain too much distortion - usually from using cheaper drivers or inadequate power. The frequency response then becomes so obnoxious at higher SPLs that many describe it as being "too loud".

The feeling of "too loud" is pain or unbearable sound after turning the volume up. If your frequency response changes as you turn up the volume, creating a painful frequency response, is it really too loud? Or is it just that your speakers/room/electronics are straining too much? Or... it could just be too loud, and the pain you feel is your hearing being lost. The only way to know is to listen to a system capable of clean high SPL - concerts *ahem*. How many people go to concerts where the peak SPL level reaches above reference levels? Many. Is it too loud? No. Why? It's reproduced cleanly with little or no distortion.

It's really a case by case basis but unless you've got some idea of what the speaker is doing over its frequency range, it can become a hit or miss proposisition here and vendors aren't doing anywhere near enough to help consumers out. It's not like they can't make it simple enough for people to understand. They can. There's a part of me that says this is entirely intentional. After all, if you dick around long enough trying this receiver, that one, this amp, this prepro, well you're past the point where you can return the speaker. Manufacturer wins. Dealer wins. And you?

Not bogus at all. Listening distance is ~12 ft = ~4 meters = 12 db + 105 db = 117 dB. Given the highest sensitivity speakers on the market have a real sensitivity of around 91 dB... add in some very limited room gain, maybe 1-2 dB, and you need 24-25 dB gain to reach 117 dB. That's about 300 watts. Remember... this is the power requirements for reference levels with the most sensitive and easiest to drive speakers on the market.



Your math appears to only take into account one speaker playing at reference level. For each speaker you add, you gain another 3dB. Plus, with a listening distance of 12 feet, that is only 9 feet in addition to the 3 feet used to determine the 1 watt sensitivity rating. (The first three feet is "free".)

Lets assume that most of the output during movie playback is coming from the front three speakers (L/C/R). I make this assumption because the surround channels rarely contribute much to the dynamic peaks in a soundtrack (in my experience).

Working under that assumption, heres how I see it:

Using a speaker with a 91dB sensitivity rating, you gain 6dB by adding two more speakers for a total of 97dB for 1 watt at 1 meter. Subtract 9dB for a 12 foot listening distance and you have 88dB to start with for just 1 watt of power. We need just 17dB of gain to reach a reference level of 105dB. You can attian that with just under 65 watts of power. And that is only taking into account the front three speakers! Bump that up to five speakers (assuming they are all being feed equal signal strength) and you only need around 15 watts!

Now lets assume you have a more conventional speaker sensitivity rating of 87dB. It would take about 128 watts to reach 105dB with three speakers and 32 watts with five speakers.

Many upper-end AVRs can easily supply this much power.

Your math appears to only take into account one speaker playing at reference level. For each speaker you add, you gain another 3dB. Plus, with a listening distance of 12 feet, that is only 9 feet in addition to the 3 feet used to determine the 1 watt sensitivity rating. (The first three feet is "free".)

No, when you add a speaker, you don't gain 3 dB. You gain 3 dB each time you double the number of speakers. Regardless, reference levels dictate 105 dB at the listening position per main channel, and 115 dB at the listening position for the LFE channel. The result is about 120 dB at the listening position. Or, about 112 dB at the listening position for all 5 main channels. If you crossover your mains to your subwoofer, your subwoofer must be capable of 120 dB peaks. Decibels are a logarithmic function, hence you can't just add. Use the Peak SPL calculator, posted above, if you don't believe me. ;)

Reference levels without compression produce some seriously realistic and scary dynamics. It is something that everyone that is passionate about movies should experience at least once in their life. It's truly an impressive and emotional experience - I can't get enough of it.

Most moderate HT systems are capable of 102 to 107 dB peaks at a decent (10+ feet) listening position, at these peak levels the normal dialog is going to be at least 85-90dB, within the range where permanent hearing loss can occur.

The above is wrong. Normal dialog levels (for most movies) are normalized to be around 75 dB when a system is calibrated for and listened at reference levels. There is a 30 dB headroom for special effects to achieve a dynamic impact that the sound engineer designs for. However, the average volume throughout the entire movie is generally around 85 dB.

I never listen to Shirley Temple movies at those volumes!

a better question to ask is what will your amp or rec do at 4ohm, 3ohm and 2ohm and
what is the signal to noise ratio and what is the dynamic headroom these specs will tell
me a lot before i set down to listen.

No, when you add a speaker, you don't gain 3 dB. You gain 3 dB each time you double the number of speakers. Regardless, reference levels dictate 105 dB at the listening position per main channel, and 115 dB at the listening position for the LFE channel. The result is about 120 dB at the listening position. Or, about 112 dB at the listening position for all 5 main channels. If you crossover your mains to your subwoofer, your subwoofer must be capable of 120 dB peaks. Decibels are a logarithmic function, hence you can't just add. Use the Peak SPL calculator, posted above, if you don't believe me. ;)



I stand corrected. However, I know that I would never listen to reference level now that I know it means 105dB per channel and 112dB for all 5 channels! I pulled out my SPL meter a little while back and the loudest I could tolerate was 105db with all channels driven. This is in a 2700 cu ft room, sitting 12 feet from the speakers, all of which are speced to be capable of meeting THX requirements.

No pics unfortunately. She was a 5'1" firecracker with the thickest black hair down to below her ass and a body that made believers out of atheists. Those things tend to get purged when you get married.

Why anyone, even with full range speakers, would arbitrarily use an old and reactionary approach of not using a sub is beyond me. After all, the best place for low frequencies is invariably not the same location as your speakers.

I know a girl That fits that same description But She's a Blonde! (them is good ones) and she can go down To 20 Hz with Ease! :D

I just wouldnt tell her that! :eek:

I've never been anything but freinds with a girl so I don't know about the hard hitting bottom End! :D But I will in College I hope. :D

I pulled out my SPL meter a little while back and the loudest I could tolerate was 105db with all channels driven. This is in a 2700 cu ft room, sitting 12 feet from the speakers, all of which are speced to be capable of meeting THX requirements.

If you're using a Radio Shack SPL meter, it's probably a bit lower than 105 dB (C-weighting tends to over measure). THX, even Ultra2, doesn't dictate how good equipment will sound high SPL, just whether or not it can achieve high SPL. Mind sharing a bit about your equipment? Maybe I can make a suggestion for your next upgrade that would allow you to enjoy higher SPL, or at least enjoy it at 105 dB (as opposed to tolerating).

I had a very similar experience. I own a Denon 5800 (the top model about 6-7 years ago) running a 5.1 Paradigm Signature speaker set-up ($11,500 total) and I wanted to take my system to the next level, so I plunked down about $9,500 on an Anthem D2 prepro and A5 amp. The amp alone weighs as much as the AVR.

Truth be told, there was so little difference in sound quality that I sold off the Anthem gear just days after buying it. In fact, even though the Anthem amp was considerably more powerful than the Denon AVR, and my speakers dip below 4 Ohms in the bass, I could not play my system any louder than before. I could reach the threshold of pain with either.

I think that most high-end AVRs and separates are so over-engineered for what they need to do these days, that the differences are mainly on paper. Sure high-end separates may have better specs and build quality, but what is really needed to reproduce an audio signal?

I will just get Denon's next flagship when it is released later this year (the 5308) to get the HDMI connections and features I want, while saving a bundle over high-end separates.

Nice speaker setup there! :)

Yeah I agree with you. I purchased an Anthem AV7 amp for use with my Studio 100 based 7.1 HT setup... if I do decide to pair that with the Integra 9.8 pre/pro they will come in at right around the price of a flagship Denon. I'd expect them to be about equal as far as results. I think the high-end seperates cater to people with extraordinary needs (applications) and obsessed audio enthusiasts that need that psychological performance boost.

However, I wouldn't criticize someone for spending bug bucks on seperates (maybe they can hear a difference where I may not) but to me it would be wasted money.

If you're using a Radio Shack SPL meter, it's probably a bit lower than 105 dB (C-weighting tends to over measure). THX, even Ultra2, doesn't dictate how good equipment will sound high SPL, just whether or not it can achieve high SPL. Mind sharing a bit about your equipment? Maybe I can make a suggestion for your next upgrade that would allow you to enjoy higher SPL, or at least enjoy it at 105 dB (as opposed to tolerating).

I'd welcome any advice you could offer that would allow me to acheive higher listening levels.

My equipment is as follows:
L/R Speakers - Paradigm Signature S4's (1" tweet, 7" mid/woof, 7"woof) 87dB
Center - Paradigm Signature C3 (1" tweet, 4" mid, 2 X 7" woofs) 87 dB
Surrounds - Paradigm Signature ADPs (2 X 1" tweets, 2 X 4" mids, 8" woof) 85 dB
Sub - Velodyne DD15 THX (15" driver with 1250 watt RMS amp)

Here's a review with measurements if you think it would help.

http://ultimateavmag.com/speakersystems/1104paradigm/index4.html

Manufacturers specs:
http://paradigm.com/en/reference/speaker_only-specification-33-1-2-17.paradigm
http://paradigm.com/en/reference/speaker_only-specification-35-1-3-17.paradigm
http://paradigm.com/en/reference/speaker_only-specification-37-1-4-17.paradigm

AVR is a Denon 5800. 143 watts per channel, six channels driven, as tested by Ultimate AV Mag.

Measurements:
http://ultimateavmag.com/avreceivers/12/index5.html

BTW - my room is untreated and never will be. I plan to have a dedicated AV room in our next house, but just an average living room is all I have to work with at this point.

Oh, and I don't know if you caught my earlier post, but at one point I bought a 180 wpc Anthem A5, 5-channel amp, hoping that it would make my system sound less strained and bright at high levels, but I heard no difference in that regard.

Nice speaker setup there! :)

Yeah I agree with you. I purchased an Anthem AV7 amp for use with my Studio 100 based 7.1 HT setup... if I do decide to pair that with the Integra 9.8 pre/pro they will come in at right around the price of a flagship Denon. I'd expect them to be about equal as far as results. I think the high-end seperates cater to people with extraordinary needs (applications) and obsessed audio enthusiasts that need that psychological performance boost.

However, I wouldn't criticize someone for spending bug bucks on seperates (maybe they can hear a difference where I may not) but to me it would be wasted money.

Thanks for the compliment. The sigs are certainly the best sounding speakers I have ever owned, and I've gone through quite a few.

KEF Reference speakers - very detailed but unbearabley bright at anything even slightly over moderate levels.

Martin Logans - great transparency but the sounded strained and congested at moderately loud levels and they are too directional.

Vienna Accoustics - great sounding speaker, with a laid back sound yet detailed sound that I really liked, but the woofs would bottom out before reaching the loudest levels I like.

Dynaudio - nice speakers with very powerful and articulate bass, but just a bit too forward through the mids, which also made them hard to listen to at higher volumes.

Aerial Accosutics - nothing offensive about these, but they just sounded lifeless to me.

There may be more, but I think that covers the big players. :D

BTW - my room is untreated and never will be. I plan to have a dedicated AV room in our next house, but just an average living room is all I have to work with at this point.

Oh, and I don't know if you caught my earlier post, but at one point I bought a 180 wpc Anthem A5, 5-channel amp, hoping that it would make my system sound less strained and bright at high levels, but I heard no difference in that regard.

The straining and brightness you are hearing are most likely the room. Your room arguably has the most effect on what you hear. It kills me when people will throw thousands of dollars on equipment and nothing on the environment that the equipment resides. BTW, I was one of those "people" for years. You can find some tasteful panels and treat your first reflection points and make a huge (noticeable) difference in your system. Many people describe room treatments as having the same effect as jumping up a grade in speakers.

Thanks for the compliment. The sigs are certainly the best sounding speakers I have ever owned, and I've gone through quite a few.

KEF Reference speakers - very detailed but unbearabley bright at anything even slightly over moderate levels.

Martin Logans - great transparency but the sounded strained and congested at moderately loud levels and they are too directional.

Vienna Accoustics - great sounding speaker, with a laid back sound yet detailed sound that I really liked, but the woofs would bottom out before reaching the loudest levels I like.

Dynaudio - nice speakers with very powerful and articulate bass, but just a bit too forward through the mids, which also made them hard to listen to at higher volumes.

Aerial Accosutics - nothing offensive about these, but they just sounded lifeless to me.

There may be more, but I think that covers the big players. :D If you've described these speaker characteristics as having listened to them in your house, then you've made my point for me.

Yup, enjoy that clean sound at 105 dB. Do it for a while. With good amps.

http://www.audiologyonline.com/management/uploads/articles/kasper_fig1.gif

BTW - my room is untreated and never will be. I plan to have a dedicated AV room in our next house, but just an average living room is all I have to work with at this point.

Oh, and I don't know if you caught my earlier post, but at one point I bought a 180 wpc Anthem A5, 5-channel amp, hoping that it would make my system sound less strained and bright at high levels, but I heard no difference in that regard.
The straining and brightness you are hearing are most likely the room. Your room arguably has the most effect on what you hear. It kills me when people will throw thousands of dollars on equipment and nothing on the environment that the equipment resides. BTW, I was one of those "people" for years. You can find some tasteful panels and treat your first reflection points and make a huge (noticeable) difference in your system. Many people describe room treatments as having the same effect as jumping up a grade in speakers.

The room is definately something you could treat, and there may be some real improvement there. But, it's hard to say if it's the bottleneck without looking at the absorption characteristics of the natural room state. However, I think you might find some decent improvement by getting speakers that are better built for high SPL, specifically something with a more ideal crossover. The S4s have a 3rd order tweeter crossover at 1.9khz, when pushed, the tweeter may be heavily distorting (the benefit is better dispersion), especially when pushed higher than the rest of the range:

I had some concerns with what I ultimately perceived as a certain uptilted tonal quality during the review period, bear in mind that the abundance of hard surfaces in my listening room would easily exacerbate the situation.
...
The on-axis average shows a distinctly elevated response from about 2.4kHz to just over 15kHz

Off axis listening may help with this elevated response, but it won't do anything about the increased distortion. Of course, if you enjoy your speakers a lot, for music, you may not wish to change them out for a more impressive home theater experience. Finally, at 140 watts/channel, you're pretty close to the limits of your amplifier with 105 dB in-room, all speakers firing, so more power may help, but I'm not sure how well the tweeter will handle it, even if it is loaded in a mini-waveguide.

Just thought I'd point this out:
The Paradigm's treble range was more extended than the Dynaudio's and just a tad more pronounced in the presence region, but that's never a liability with home theater.

These are the types of things you need to pick out of a review (pretty much every sentence that has a 'but' or 'however' in it). This pronounced presence region will become a liability with home theater if you turn the volume up.

I know a girl That fits that same description But She's a Blonde! (them is good ones) and she can go down To 20 Hz with Ease! :D
Flat?

The straining and brightness you are hearing are most likely the room. Your room arguably has the most effect on what you hear. ... You can find some tasteful panels and treat your first reflection points and make a huge (noticeable) difference in your system. Many people describe room treatments as having the same effect as jumping up a grade in speakers.

My main Klipsch HT is in an odd shaped (1800 cu ft) room with a high A-frame ceiling in front and a low slanted ceiling behind my listening position. It is in my library so I have rows of books & DVDs as my Room Treatment. :)

The room is definately something you could treat, and there may be some real improvement there. But, it's hard to say if it's the bottleneck without looking at the absorption characteristics of the natural room state. However, I think you might find some decent improvement by getting speakers that are better built for high SPL, specifically something with a more ideal crossover. The S4s have a 3rd order tweeter crossover at 1.9khz, when pushed, the tweeter may be heavily distorting (the benefit is better dispersion), especially when pushed higher than the rest of the range:



Off axis listening may help with this elevated response, but it won't do anything about the increased distortion. Of course, if you enjoy your speakers a lot, for music, you may not wish to change them out for a more impressive home theater experience. Finally, at 140 watts/channel, you're pretty close to the limits of your amplifier with 105 dB in-room, all speakers firing, so more power may help, but I'm not sure how well the tweeter will handle it, even if it is loaded in a mini-waveguide.


I've got an S4, C3 front end, and believe me clean SPL is not an issue with these speakers. The top end of these speakers is incredibly detailed - probably the best tweeter I've heard (That doesn't mean there aren't better - I just haven't heard them.) They are capable of playing as loud as you can possibly want without distortion. At one point I had them driven by 500w monoblocks and could play them at rock concert levels and they still sounded like they could go louder with ease.
HiFi;
The problem lies somewhere else. Something has to be wrong, always start with the simple things - are the speakers wired properly, is the sub in phase, have you blown a driver? If all is good, there's no reason you shouldn't get tons of SPL out of the 5800. If it's still unduly bright then it's the room speaker interaction and it doesn't matter what speakers you put in there you will have the same problem.

Maybe you could post some pics of your room and we could get a better idea of what you're dealing with to offer up some suggestions.

Flat?

LOL. definately not. But at 20 Hz at 3Db I guess I can sit her in the corner! :D

the problem is that she can also Do 110Db in the higher frequencys! :eek:
she won't let me adjust her crossover Either! :D

I've got an S4, C3 front end, and believe me clean SPL is not an issue with these speakers. The top end of these speakers is incredibly detailed - probably the best tweeter I've heard (That doesn't mean there aren't better - I just haven't heard them.) They are capable of playing as loud as you can possibly want without distortion. At one point I had them driven by 500w monoblocks and could play them at rock concert levels and they still sounded like they could go louder with ease.

Good to know. The mini-waveguide must be doing it's job - very few tweeters can handle that low of a crossover without some help. If his tolerable limit is 105 dB, it's probably not amplification. That's just barely within the amp's measured performance. As such, I'm almost 100% certain, now, that his problem is a room - which appears isn't treatable. Note that the Ultimate AV reviewer had the same pain at high output levels with the S4s and suggested it was his room.

The room is definately something you could treat, and there may be some real improvement there. But, it's hard to say if it's the bottleneck without looking at the absorption characteristics of the natural room state. However, I think you might find some decent improvement by getting speakers that are better built for high SPL, specifically something with a more ideal crossover. The S4s have a 3rd order tweeter crossover at 1.9khz, when pushed, the tweeter may be heavily distorting (the benefit is better dispersion), especially when pushed higher than the rest of the range:



Off axis listening may help with this elevated response, but it won't do anything about the increased distortion. Of course, if you enjoy your speakers a lot, for music, you may not wish to change them out for a more impressive home theater experience. Finally, at 140 watts/channel, you're pretty close to the limits of your amplifier with 105 dB in-room, all speakers firing, so more power may help, but I'm not sure how well the tweeter will handle it, even if it is loaded in a mini-waveguide.

Just thought I'd point this out:


These are the types of things you need to pick out of a review (pretty much every sentence that has a 'but' or 'however' in it). This pronounced presence region will become a liability with home theater if you turn the volume up.

If I recall my Symbolic Logic courses in college correctly that's not valid. The difference between a "but" and a "however" is great. The use of a "but" in a sentence will not change the logical consistency and is treated just like an "and" in a sentence. However, the use of "however" in a sentence may change the logical consistency of a sentence and it treated differently.

So, in this case I don't think it's logical to pick out "buts" in sentences as suspect. It seems you are using the mere fact that the reviewer used a "but" to indicate that the truth is exactly opposite of what he/she said and that's not logically consistent.

So, in this case I don't think it's logical to pick out "buts" in sentences as suspect. It seems you are using the mere fact that the reviewer used a "but" to indicate that the truth is exactly opposite of what he/she said and that's not logically consistent.

Not quite what I was implying. I was simply saying that searching out sentences with "but" and "however" in it are more likely to produce meaningful information than the fluff that makes up most of the content of a review. I was also implying that these two words are generally, but not always, found in sentences where the reviewer dislikes something about the speaker (they tend to make excuses for poor performance). It's a good way to find out the limitations of a speaker. For example, the following sentence is often written when reviewing speakers with shallow crossovers:
The off axis performance was poor, but if your ears are close, in height, to the tweeters, this won't be a problem

The straining and brightness you are hearing are most likely the room. Your room arguably has the most effect on what you hear. It kills me when people will throw thousands of dollars on equipment and nothing on the environment that the equipment resides. BTW, I was one of those "people" for years. You can find some tasteful panels and treat your first reflection points and make a huge (noticeable) difference in your system. Many people describe room treatments as having the same effect as jumping up a grade in speakers.

I firmly beleive that the room plays as much of a role in the sound quality as the speakers, and I know I should treat the room to realize the full potential of my sound system, but unfortunately this is just not the house, or the room to do that in.

If you've described these speaker characteristics as having listened to them in your house, then you've made my point for me.

Yes, I have had all of those speakers in my home, but sorry, I don't get your point.

Point being that all of those very nice speakers seem to be having harsh type traits. The thing that they have in common is your room. Good electronics aside (yours seem top knotch) the most likely culpret is the room.

The room is definately something you could treat, and there may be some real improvement there. But, it's hard to say if it's the bottleneck without looking at the absorption characteristics of the natural room state. However, I think you might find some decent improvement by getting speakers that are better built for high SPL, specifically something with a more ideal crossover. The S4s have a 3rd order tweeter crossover at 1.9khz, when pushed, the tweeter may be heavily distorting (the benefit is better dispersion), especially when pushed higher than the rest of the range:

Off axis listening may help with this elevated response, but it won't do anything about the increased distortion. Of course, if you enjoy your speakers a lot, for music, you may not wish to change them out for a more impressive home theater experience. Finally, at 140 watts/channel, you're pretty close to the limits of your amplifier with 105 dB in-room, all speakers firing, so more power may help, but I'm not sure how well the tweeter will handle it, even if it is loaded in a mini-waveguide.

Just thought I'd point this out:

Originally Posted by Ultimate AV
The Paradigm's treble range was more extended than the Dynaudio's and just a tad more pronounced in the presence region, but that's never a liability with home theater.

These are the types of things you need to pick out of a review (pretty much every sentence that has a 'but' or 'however' in it). This pronounced presence region will become a liability with home theater if you turn the volume up.

Lindahl -

My bad. I shouldn't have referred you to the Ultimate AV Mag measurements on my speakers, as I have considered them suspect since the day I read them. The analyst that took the measurements did so with the grills off. Anyone who knows Paradigm design, knows that they voice all of their speakers with the grills on. That is why the treble looks hot by a couple dB. They also perform pseudo-anechoic measurements. While this is the only option in the absence of access to an anechoic chamber, they are not entirely accurate.

Here are some measurements taken in an anechoic chamber by a Canadian on-line AV review site for the big and little brothers of the S4. (They did not review the S4's, but I think you can see from the measurements that Paradigm's goals are consistent throughout the Signature line.)

http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/measurements/paradigm_signature_s8/

http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/measurements/paradigm_signature_s2/

You can see that both speakers are commendably flat (+/- 2dB) throughout their usable range, with only a slight flair at 5KHz off-axis. Also look at the distortion figures. There doesn't appear to be much going on in the upper frequency range, so it wouldn't seem that distortion is the issue. Besides, if there is one thing in common amongst all of the reviews I have read of the Paradigm Studio and Signature lines, it is that they have no problem playing loud and clean.

Oh, and when it comes to reading and deciphering AV equipment reviews, I'm no amateur. I know how to weed through all of the fluff and pull out the small comments that say how they really feel.

However :D , I auditioned, in my home, the very same Dynaudio speakers that the Ultimate AV reviewer compares to the the Paradigm speakers, and to my ears, in my room, the Dyns were brighter / more forward through the upper mids / lower treble than the Digms. Go figure.

BTW - what speakers do you own?

I've got an S4, C3 front end, and believe me clean SPL is not an issue with these speakers. The top end of these speakers is incredibly detailed - probably the best tweeter I've heard (That doesn't mean there aren't better - I just haven't heard them.) They are capable of playing as loud as you can possibly want without distortion. At one point I had them driven by 500w monoblocks and could play them at rock concert levels and they still sounded like they could go louder with ease.
HiFi;
The problem lies somewhere else. Something has to be wrong, always start with the simple things - are the speakers wired properly, is the sub in phase, have you blown a driver? If all is good, there's no reason you shouldn't get tons of SPL out of the 5800. If it's still unduly bright then it's the room speaker interaction and it doesn't matter what speakers you put in there you will have the same problem.

Maybe you could post some pics of your room and we could get a better idea of what you're dealing with to offer up some suggestions.

The truth is that I have a harder time cranking the music than I do movies. Then again, it does depend on the music and the movie. Some recordings are just bright to begin with. With that said, I do wish I could push the volume up a bit more and not have the sound become blaring.

Here's my room:

http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j193/ptwalker/PDR_0622.jpg

http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j193/ptwalker/PDR_0571.jpg

I will try to post some pics of the back of the room tonight, but all there is back there is a large plush sectional, some curtain on the right side and some pictures on the walls.

The analyst that took the measurements did so with the grills off. Anyone who knows Paradigm design, knows that they voice all of their speakers with the grills on.

Interesting. I'm surprised Paradigm didn't correct the reviewer (they usually have plenty of time to do so).

Here are some measurements taken in an anechoic chamber by a Canadian on-line AV review site for the big and little brothers of the S4.

Looks better - I love that site, they do good work. The only thing I'd bring up, would be the significant rise in treble distortion between 90 dB and 95 dB on the S2. If extrapolated to reference levels, it could create some harshness. But, looking at the S8, which has the same crossover and, I assume, tweeter w/waveguide, it doesn't look to be a problem, more of a measurement anomoly?

However :D , I auditioned, in my home, the very same Dynaudio speakers that the Ultimate AV reviewer compares to the the Paradigm speakers, and to my ears, in my room, the Dyns were brighter / more forward through the upper mids / lower treble than the Digms. Go figure.

Which ones did you listen to?

BTW - what speakers do you own?

I went DIY. I had some significantly unusual design requirements - no drivers in a 6" window around 26" high - I have an acoustic transparent screen, and this is where the screen frame is located. Because of this, I couldn't find a single floorstanding speaker that wouldn't compress the mid-bass. I was left with looking at designs like the Aerial LR3/LR5 and Triad Gold/Platinum, which are very much budget-breakers. I hired Rick Craig to design my LCRs and I built them to his specs - well, I haven't gotten around to doing the cabinet roundovers, yet, but close enough. You can see my build chronicled here. (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=826642) As I mentioned earlier, I'm still getting some subwoofer compression, and, in the next year, I'm finishing the room and can increase the size of my subwoofers. I'll be selling off the TC3000s to make some big guns in order to avoid some of the subsonic compression that I'm currently measuring.

. . . . .The only thing I'd bring up, would be the significant rise in treble distortion between 90 dB and 95 dB on the S2. If extrapolated to reference levels, it could create some harshness. But, looking at the S8, which has the same crossover and, I assume, tweeter w/waveguide, it doesn't look to be a problem, more of a measurement anomoly?

I'll admit, no one else publishes distortion graphs, so I don't know exactly what I looking at. I can only draw conclusion based on how they compare to other speakers with the same measurements. Based on that, the graphs look just as good for the digms as any other high-end speaker on that site. What is it you see as significant about the distortion levels in the S2?

Now if the distortion graphs had looked like this, I could see a possible concern with high output.

http://www.soundstagenetwork.com/measurements/speakers/dynaudio_focus_110/

Or this:

http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/measurements/revel_concerta_f12/

Or this:

http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/measurements/pmc_gb1/


Which ones (Dynaudio speakers) did you listen to?

I had both the Contour S3.4's and the S5.4's in my home for a day each. The 5.4's had incredibly taught, articulate bass. The best I have ever heard in my room. No doubt it had something to do with the placement of the woofers at the top of the cabinet on that model. I think the high placement of the woofs casused less modal problems in my room. But they were massive speakers and they simply dominated my room. And, as I mentioned earlier, they sounded too forward / bright. Brighter than the Paradigms.

The only guess I have as to why, is that their dispertion is wider through the presence region, if this graph is accurate.

http://www.guidetohometheater.com/images/archivesart/204dyn.fig1.jpg


I went DIY. I had some significantly unusual design requirements - no drivers in a 6" window around 26" high - I have an acoustic transparent screen, and this is where the screen frame is located. Because of this, I couldn't find a single floorstanding speaker that wouldn't compress the mid-bass. I was left with looking at designs like the Aerial LR3/LR5 and Triad Gold/Platinum, which are very much budget-breakers. I hired Rick Craig to design my LCRs and I built them to his specs - well, I haven't gotten around to doing the cabinet roundovers, yet, but close enough. You can see my build chronicled here. (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=826642) As I mentioned earlier, I'm still getting some subwoofer compression, and, in the next year, I'm finishing the room and can increase the size of my subwoofers. I'll be selling off the TC3000s to make some big guns in order to avoid some of the subsonic compression that I'm currently measuring.

Wow, that is quite the DIY project. I've thought about dabbling in DIY speaker building as a hobby, but haven't taken the plunge yet.

Adding an amp of 180w to a receiver that has 143w will make no difference, as far as SPL goes. To gain 3db you have to double the power, ie. going from 100w to 200w.
If you truely want more SPL then you need to get horn loaded speakers, like JBL's HT series.

Adding an amp of 180w to a receiver that has 143w will make no difference, as far as SPL goes. To gain 3db you have to double the power, ie. going from 100w to 200w.
If you truely want more SPL then you need to get horn loaded speakers, like JBL's HT series.

Yes, realize that you will gain less than a dB going from 143wpc to 180, but you would think that a dedicated amp with two toroidal transformers and significantly more caps for reserve power would have made some difference in sound quality.

And it is not just about more SPL for me, but quality SPL. Allthough most movie theaters do not have the fidelity of my home system, there is an effortless quality to the high SPLs reached during and action flick in a theater that I don't get at home.

I'll admit, no one else publishes distortion graphs, so I don't know exactly what I looking at. I can only draw conclusion based on how they compare to other speakers with the same measurements. Based on that, the graphs look just as good for the digms as any other high-end speaker on that site. What is it you see as significant about the distortion levels in the S2?

Now if the distortion graphs had looked like this, I could see a possible concern with high output.

http://www.soundstagenetwork.com/measurements/speakers/dynaudio_focus_110/

Or this:

http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/measurements/revel_concerta_f12/

Or this:

http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/measurements/pmc_gb1/




I had both the Contour S3.4's and the S5.4's in my home for a day each. The 5.4's had incredibly taught, articulate bass. The best I have ever heard in my room. No doubt it had something to do with the placement of the woofers at the top of the cabinet on that model. I think the high placement of the woofs casused less modal problems in my room. But they were massive speakers and they simply dominated my room. And, as I mentioned earlier, they sounded too forward / bright. Brighter than the Paradigms.

The only guess I have as to why, is that their dispertion is wider through the presence region, if this graph is accurate.

http://www.guidetohometheater.com/images/archivesart/204dyn.fig1.jpg




Wow, that is quite the DIY project. I've thought about dabbling in DIY speaker building as a hobby, but haven't taken the plunge yet.

If my graphs read like that I'd have a fire Extenguisher ready! :eek: :rolleyes:

You might want to rethink some of your thoughts on distortion and its audibility especially when trying to make sense out of Soundstage's measurments which measure THD + N after going through the following Powerpoint presentation based on the work of Dr. Earl Geddes.
http://www.gedlee.com/downloads/distortion_perception.ppt

And it is not just about more SPL for me, but quality SPL. Allthough most movie theaters do not have the fidelity of my home system, there is an effortless quality to the high SPLs reached during and action flick in a theater that I don't get at home.
Unless you're willing to spend tens of thousands of dollars you probably won't.

I don't have anything against Paradigm or any other of the Canadian speakers I've heard. In fact I like Canadian speakers a whole lot better than any English speakers.
But with that said, I think your problem is those speakers, the receiver, and the room. They obviously won't make a good match.
But the bright sound IS those speakers, using a warmer receiver would help. I find that my H/K receiver works very well with my JBL speakers, and I mean all three of my different JBL systems. I would also think that my all Titanium JBLs are probably smoother than your Paradigms.

Unless you're willing to spend tens of thousands of dollars you probably won't.

I don't have anything against Paradigm or any other of the Canadian speakers I've heard. In fact I like Canadian speakers a whole lot better than any English speakers.
But with that said, I think your problem is those speakers, the receiver, and the room. They obviously won't make a good match.
But the bright sound IS those speakers, using a warmer receiver would help. I find that my H/K receiver works very well with my JBL speakers, and I mean all three of my different JBL systems. I would also think that my all Titanium JBLs are probably smoother than your Paradigms.

What is brightness and warmth but a deviation in the frequency response or the affect of distortion on the signal? The FR of the Paradigms is just about as flat as you will find. (See the graphs in the links I posted earlier.) Not that I subscribe to such things, but the Denon sound has always been catagorized as laid back, so that's not it.

From the Ultimate AV review of the Denon 5800:
"It was clear that Denon had again raised the sonic bar. Cold out of the box, the 5800 had a lusher, more delicate midrange, a more harmonically rich, sweet, and detailed top end, and more overall bloom and sense of 3-dimensional physical space from 2-channel sources. Over time, the sound only improved. The Denon delivered a bigger, better-focused sonic picture from 2-channel and surround-sound material, and may have been somewhat more dynamic, but the Integra was no slouch in those departments either. I wasn't prepared for such an obvious overall difference, but there it was."

I guess the only thing left is the room.

BTW - What in the hell is this comment for?

I would also think that my all Titanium JBLs are probably smoother than your Paradigms.

Yeah, well my Dad can beat up your Dad. So there!

Oh and JBL does not make any speakers with "all titanium" drivers. Just the tweeter is and the rest are "PolyPlas" (marketing speak for plastic).

You might want to rethink some of your thoughts on distortion and its audibility especially when trying to make sense out of Soundstage's measurments which measure THD + N after going through the following Powerpoint presentation based on the work of Dr. Earl Geddes.
http://www.gedlee.com/downloads/distortion_perception.ppt

Care to bottom line it for me? I couldn't understand half of it.

If my graphs read like that I'd have a fire Extenguisher ready! :eek: :rolleyes:

I'm sorry, I don't follow. What do you mean?

Not quite what I was implying. I was simply saying that searching out sentences with "but" and "however" in it are more likely to produce meaningful information than the fluff that makes up most of the content of a review. I was also implying that these two words are generally, but not always, found in sentences where the reviewer dislikes something about the speaker (they tend to make excuses for poor performance). It's a good way to find out the limitations of a speaker. For example, the following sentence is often written when reviewing speakers with shallow crossovers:
Yes, I see your point... reviewers may tip their hand with such usage. Sort of an indicator for "fluff ends here now listen up" statements.

What is brightness and warmth but a deviation in the frequency response or the affect of distortion on the signal? The FR of the Paradigms is just about as flat as you will find. (See the graphs in the links I posted earlier.) Not that I subscribe to such things, but the Denon sound has always been catagorized as laid back, so that's not it.
A flat FR is the ability of a speaker to reproduce the entire range at the same, or almost the same db level. A speaker system can do this plus be one of 3 things; bright, warm, neutral.


Oh and JBL does not make any speakers with "all titanium" drivers. Just the tweeter is and the rest are "PolyPlas" (marketing speak for plastic).

That shows how uninformed you are. The Performance Series PT800, PC600 are 3-way systems with the tweeters, mid-range being 100% Titanium, or Titanium-alloy, in the case of the mid-bass drivers.
http://www.jbl.com/home/products/product_detail.aspx?prod=PT800BLK&Language=ENG&Country=US&Region=USA&cat=BFS&ser=PER

A flat FR is the ability of a speaker to reproduce the entire range at the same, or almost the same db level. A speaker system can do this plus be one of 3 things; bright, warm, neutral.

No speaker's FR is perfectly flat, so yes even those with only slight deviations will each will have their own sound, but I get the impression that you believe that qualities like bright and warm are unrelated to FR. If so, please explain what you believe attributes to those characteristics.


That shows how uninformed you are. The Performance Series PT800, PC600 are 3-way systems with the tweeters, mid-range being 100% Titanium, or Titanium-alloy, in the case of the mid-bass drivers.
http://www.jbl.com/home/products/product_detail.aspx?prod=PT800BLK&Language=ENG&Country=US&Region=USA&cat=BFS&ser=PER

Sorry, I don't follow the JBL line, but how about a little common courtesy in the way you address me? If you have some knowledge to share, I am open to having a discussion, but I don't want this to turn into a pissing match about whos speakers are better than anothers.

Also keep in mind that I've been in this hobby since the mid 90's and take time to educate myself a little every day on both the objective and subjective topics regarding audio reproduction.

4DHD -

It would seem that our speakers have more in common than they do differences. Maybe your perception of what is bright is different than mine, because your speakers also have a rising treble as well. Both of our speakers have a very similar "smile" FR curve.

JBL PT800
http://ultimateavmag.com/images/archivesart/602jbl.fig1.jpg

Paradigm S4's
http://www.ultimateavmag.com/images/archivesart/1104paradigm.2.jpg

You will notice that the S4's have wider dispersion in the treble off-axis than the JBL's do, which is great for creating a large soundstage, but potentially bad for an untreated room because all of that treble energy is being reflected off the walls.

From the Ultimate AV review of the JBL PT800's:
"Well, they got a little brighter at very high listening levels (over 95dB), but there was absolutely nothing to distinguish that brightness from the brightness I've heard from some paper, polypropylene, and polyethylene diaphragms. "

"At THX-standard playback Zero, it easily cranked out peaks measuring almost 103dB on my Radio- Shack meter (which reads a few dB low because its mechanical meter has some inertia), although a hint of strain started to set in at around 98dB. "

Now, I'm not pointing out these quotes to make a dig at your speakers, but it is clear that your speakers are not immune to becoming strained and bright at high volumes, just as I described my speakers sounding.

No speaker's FR is perfectly flat, so yes even those with only slight deviations will each will have their own sound, but I get the impression that you believe that qualities like bright and warm are unrelated to FR. If so, please explain what you believe attributes to those characteristics.




Sorry, I don't follow the JBL line, but how about a little common courtesy in the way you address me? If you have some knowledge to share, I am open to having a discussion, but I don't want this to turn into a pissing match about whos speakers are better than anothers.

Also keep in mind that I've been in this hobby since the mid 90's and take time to educate myself a little every day on both the objective and subjective topics regarding audio reproduction.
Common courtesy doesn't fall under the act of calling someone a lair, as you did, telling me JBL didn't make an all Ti speaker system.

But onto speakers, material used in a given speaker, both in the drivers and crossovers dictate how they will sound.
The type of capacitors used and how they are used in a circuit effects the sound of a speaker, for instance. Years ago electrolitics were used. Now its known that Polypropelyene is much better for producing sound.

Using capacitors in series pairs, with a positive charge added to the common point of those pairs will keep the audio signal from crossing the dielectric zero point, thus keeping the crossover operating in class A mode. That eliminates one type of distortion.
Using air core inductors, instead of iron core, produces a better sound.

As far as the PT800s being bright, most JBLs are on the bright side. But in the case of the PT800, its not fatiguing. The tweeter is smooth sounding, which is waht I was referring to in the other post.
I'm usually play them at a point with the low passages of 85db and I've easily had it in the 105~110 region. Then again I'm pushing about 3000w in a room of about 3150cuft. That's almost one watt per cuft.
The only type of speaker I know of that doesn't start to strain at high output are horn loaded speakers.

You say there are many similarities between my speakers and yours, but that's only looking at a graph. I've listened to many Canadian brand speakers, Energy, Mirage, Paradigm, Athena... and I've never thought that any of them sounded like JBLs.

In fact I've always said they all have the "Canadian sound", just like I think most English speakers have, what I call the "English sound". And in either case I'm not inferring bad, just different.

About 5 years ago I was thinking of buying the Energy Veritas, but thought the center speaker was a bit weak. And that is about the time I read the review of the Performance Series.

....
But onto speakers, material used in a given speaker, both in the drivers and crossovers dictate how they will sound.
The type of capacitors used and how they are used in a circuit effects the sound of a speaker, for instance. Years ago electrolitics were used. Now its known that Polypropelyene is much better for producing sound.

This is interesting to me. What was discovered about the poy caps that made them sound better? How does it change the sound? Do you have any references I can read to learn more?

Using capacitors in series pairs, with a positive charge added to the common point of those pairs will keep the audio signal from crossing the dielectric zero point, thus keeping the crossover operating in class A mode. That eliminates one type of distortion.

What type of distortion? What does it sound like?

Using air core inductors, instead of iron core, produces a better sound.

How so? Any links for me to read up on?

In fact I've always said they all have the "Canadian sound", just like I think most English speakers have, what I call the "English sound". And in either case I'm not inferring bad, just different.

For the sake of clarity, what is the Canadian sound in your opinion?

This is interesting to me. What was discovered about the poy caps that made them sound better?
How so? Any links for me to read up on?
For the sake of clarity, what is the Canadian sound in your opinion?
Unfortunately, I didn't save to 'favorites' the topics I mentioned, and don't have time to do searches.
And quite frankly, at times my search results leave something to be desired.

But I can give you a starting point, search for Greg Timbers, who is the chief systems engineer at JBL. Greg is the person most responsible for the design of JBL's statement speakers.

As for what I call the Canadian sound I'd have to visit a store that has Canadian speakers, to refresh my thought process, as its been at least 4 years since I heard any of them. I just remember them having a distinct sound.

Hi Fi, a quick glance at your setup and right away I see a lot of flat & smooth surfaces near your mains - the TV itself, glass equipment cabinet doors and the TV cabinet itself. The more of those types of surfaces in your room the brighter it will be. You're also likely dealing with issues from your right main being so close to the wall - you have no choice obviously - but your first reflection point being that close will mess with things also.
I'd need to see bit more of of the room to get a better idea of what they are firing into, but it does seem like there's a few things you could do to reduce the brightness room-wise. Also I really hope there's no back panel behind your CC otherwise I'm fairly certian that placement is a no-no. If it were me I'd wall mount the flat screen to get it further behind your mains and put the CC on top of the cabinet to it give room to "breathe".

That wicker basket gives me an idea for WAF approved bass-traps!!! Got to give that some more thought. ....

But the bright sound IS those speakers, using a warmer receiver would help...



So you haven't heard them but you KNOW it's the speakers..... :D

When I moved my speakers from my living room to a dedicated HT with room treatments there was a substantial difference in how loud and clean they would play without listening fatigue or room induced "brightness".

As for what I call the Canadian sound I'd have to visit a store that has Canadian speakers, to refresh my thought process, as its been at least 4 years since I heard any of them. I just remember them having a distinct sound.
I'll bet you my bottom dollar that you can't pick out speakers made in Canada from those made anywhere else in a blind A/B speaker comparison.

If you did take that bet it would be easy money for me! :)

Hi Fi, a quick glance at your setup and right away I see a lot of flat & smooth surfaces near your mains - the TV itself, glass equipment cabinet doors and the TV cabinet itself. The more of those types of surfaces in your room the brighter it will be. You're also likely dealing with issues from your right main being so close to the wall - you have no choice obviously - but your first reflection point being that close will mess with things also.
I'd need to see bit more of of the room to get a better idea of what they are firing into, but it does seem like there's a few things you could do to reduce the brightness room-wise. Also I really hope there's no back panel behind your CC otherwise I'm fairly certian that placement is a no-no. If it were me I'd wall mount the flat screen to get it further behind your mains and put the CC on top of the cabinet to it give room to "breathe".

That wicker basket gives me an idea for WAF approved bass-traps!!! Got to give that some more thought. ....

rnrgagne -

Thanks for the analysis of my room. I have read enough about speaker set-up and room accosutics to know that my room has some big problems. But trust me, I have done the best that I can with speaker placement given all the windows and doors in this room. I hate that my left front speaker is a foot and a half from the side wall, but as you can see, I have a doorway on that back wall that prevents me from shifting everying over a couple of feet.

You will notice that I had to make yet another compromise with the placememt of the rear speakers. I had to place my dipole surround speakers on the back wall instead of the sides. I actually tried placing them on the sides for a while, but because the only location was slightly in front of the seating position they sounded even more disconnected from the front soundstage than they do in the rear. I wish Paradigm made front firing on-walls.

I wanted to place the front stage on what is currently the back wall, as there is plenty of space for proper positioning back there, but then there would not be enough room for our couch on the other end (where the TV is now), and there would be no place for rear speakers at all.

Do you really think the TV and the glass cabinets behind the speakers affect the sound that much? Does enough HF sound really wrap around the back of the speaker? The TV is about a foot behid the face of the speakers. Would temporarily covering the TV with a heavy blanket be a good way to test for an improvement in sound?

At least I've got one thing working for me, the cabinet was custom made for that center speaker, and I made sure there was no back in the space where it sits.

Here is the rest of my room. Suggestions welcome.

http://s80.photobucket.com/albums/j193/ptwalker/?action=view&current=IMG_0171.jpg

http://s80.photobucket.com/albums/j193/ptwalker/?action=view&current=IMG_0170.jpg

http://s80.photobucket.com/albums/j193/ptwalker/?action=view&current=IMG_0169.jpg

http://s80.photobucket.com/albums/j193/ptwalker/?action=view&current=IMG_0168.jpg

http://s80.photobucket.com/albums/j193/ptwalker/?action=view&current=PDR_0582.jpg

I'm sorry, I don't follow. What do you mean?

Now if the distortion graphs had looked like this, I could see a possible concern with high output.
If my distortion graphs read like this My System would soon catch fire and thats worse than a blown Tweeter!

THe links you Posted:

http://www.soundstagenetwork.com/me...udio_focus_110/

Or this:

http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/m...l_concerta_f12/

Or this:

http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/measurements/pmc_gb1/

Now if the distortion graphs had looked like this, I could see a possible concern with high output.
If my distortion graphs read like this My System would soon catch fire and thats worse than a blown Tweeter!

THe links you Posted:

http://www.soundstagenetwork.com/me...udio_focus_110/

Or this:

http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/m...l_concerta_f12/

Or this:

http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/measurements/pmc_gb1/

:D :eek: :D

Hi Fi,

The first set of pics I saw didn't give much of a sense of where things are in the room. To me it looked like the glass cabinet on the side extended past the fronts but that doesn't appear to be the case. Still all speakers have different dispersion patterns, do they extend behind the speaker? Not sure. But there's a reason for that hump on the top of your S4's, it has something to do with the tweeters dispersion and that hump is behind the tweeter obviously. So it wouldn't hurt to try the blanket over the TV to see what the effect is before contemplating moving it.
Despite the fact that you custom built the stand for the C3 I'm still a bit leery of having a speaker inside a cabinet, I don't think there's any way to avoid unwanted cabinet induced resonances.
I can't tell if your drapes have a backing or if they are lightweight and acoustically transparent. If they are the latter then all that glass will have a big affect and you should consider putting a backing on them. Other than that the only other thing you could do is treat the first reflection point -specifically of the right speaker because of its' proximity to the wall.

Why don't you e-mail Paradigm with the same info & pics and see what advice they offer up? After all, you did give them a large chunk of change..

Using capacitors in series pairs, with a positive charge added to the common point of those pairs will keep the audio signal from crossing the dielectric zero point, thus keeping the crossover operating in class A mode. That eliminates one type of distortion.

"Class A" capacitors? Sorry, but that sounds like a made-up phenomenon.

What about tastefully made foldable shoji screens that you'd make yourself using acoustic panels or batting and then covered up in the fabric of your choice? You'd position them where you need them when you need them and then place them out of the way when not needed? Get the wife to pick the fabric to make her a partner in crime.

http://www.orientalfurniture.com/Merchant2/graphics/00000001/CBLSS_4.jpg

What about tastefully made foldable shoji screens that you'd make yourself using acoustic panels or batting and then covered up in the fabric of your choice? You'd position them where you need them when you need them and then place them out of the way when not needed? Get the wife to pick the fabric to make her a partner in crime.

http://www.orientalfurniture.com/Merchant2/graphics/00000001/CBLSS_4.jpg


Not a bad idea. I've got to get creative that's for sure.

"Class A" capacitors? Sorry, but that sounds like a made-up phenomenon.

Bob -

From all of the posts I've read of your's, you seem like a knowledgable guy with a no nonsense approach. And since you are an amp guy, I've always wondered something that I hope you have some insight on. If a solid state amp has flat frequency response (+/- .3 dB) and low distortion (less than 1%), and it is not being driven to clipping, can it still have a sound of it's own? Are there other things that are measurable or unmeasurable that can affect the sound quality of an amp?

Thanks,

- Tim

Bob -

From all of the posts I've read of your's, you seem like a knowledgable guy with a no nonsense approach. And since you are an amp guy, I've always wondered something that I hope you have some insight on. If a solid state amp has flat frequency response (+/- .3 dB) and low distortion (less than 1%), and it is not being driven to clipping, can it still have a sound of it's own? Are there other things that are measurable or unmeasurable that can affect the sound quality of an amp?

Thanks,

- Tim
This should be good. :D

This should be good. :D

I know that this topic has been beat to death, but there is just so much hearsay on the subject and I have always wanted to hear the opinion of an Engineer on the subject, or at least someone that works for a company that actually designs and builds amps. :D

Are there other things that are measurable or unmeasurable that can affect the sound quality of an amp?
Certainly. Imagine a source that's feeding the amp that has ultrasonic/RFI (above 20K) distortion products. Now imagine that the amp displays non-linearities above 20K. The result is that you'll get IM distortion products manifesting themselves in the audible region with the usual comments about harshness, graininess, etc. There have been CDP's and amps that have been very unfriendly matches just for reasons such as this and they weren't part of the generic, mass market stuff either.

I know that this topic has been beat to death, but there is just so much hearsay on the subject and I have always wanted to hear the opinion of an Engineer on the subject, or at least someone that works for a company that actually designs and builds amps. :D

http://avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=849549

Bob -

From all of the posts I've read of your's, you seem like a knowledgable guy with a no nonsense approach. And since you are an amp guy, I've always wondered something that I hope you have some insight on. If a solid state amp has flat frequency response (+/- .3 dB) and low distortion (less than 1%), and it is not being driven to clipping, can it still have a sound of it's own? Are there other things that are measurable or unmeasurable that can affect the sound quality of an amp?

Thanks,

- Tim

Hi Tim,

If the amp is genuinely accurate, it will not have a "sound of its own." And it will in fact sound just like any other highly accurate amp (allowing for differences in power). Any two amps that put out identical signals will sound the same through the same loudspeakers in the same listening environment; other than the signal there is no other conveyer of sound quality to the loudspeakers--no side channel or metadata telling the loudspeaker to act refined because it's hooked up to a cryogenically-treated and magnetically-aligned Celestial Sound Megamoolah 12000, or squirrelly because the amp is a PA piece bought used. If it's not in the signal, it's not there.

But there is much more than just frequency response and distortion, although those are two huge defining factors in sound quality. At QSC and probably many other manufacturers, there are hundreds of tests done on amplifer designs from development through qualification. Many of them are directly related to sonic performance, like THD, frequency response, noise, et al, and many of them are tangentially about performance but more directly about reliability and usability. For example, does the amp circuitry generate any artifacts that don't show up in a distortion test? How hot does it get (excessive temperature is a major killer of electronics, which is why I never advocate disabling the fan)? Will it run on a 15A outlet? How does the amp behave when it clips?

Excessive hum and noise can squash sound quality, primarily during quiet passages, in between tracks, etc. Instabilities like Chu Gai mentioned can cause audible problems, too. Different types of distortion can have varying effects on audibility, too. For example, we're all familiar with the distortion that arises from clipping, due to non-linearity as the output voltage reaches the maximum limits of its swing. But the distortion from light and even moderate clipping can be inaudible or maybe barely discernible, even if it measures rather high. Crossover distortion, OTOH, might measure extremely low on a THD test using a sine wave at or near the amp's full output, but it could have a devastating on sound quality because its biggest effect is on the smaller signal levels.

If any artifact or oddity in the amp's performance is significant enough in the signal to be heard, it can be identified one way or another. If it can be identified, it can be measured. If it can be measured, it can be understood. If it can be understood, it can be corrected.

Hi Tim,

If any artifact or oddity in the amp's performance is significant enough in the signal to be heard, it can be identified one way or another. If it can be identified, it can be measured. If it can be measured, it can be understood. If it can be understood, it can be corrected.

Thanks Bob! That's what I suspected.

So when will QSC be releasing the "cryogenically-treated and magnetically-aligned Celestial Sound Megamoolah 12000"? Based on the model number, I assume that it will put out 12,000 wpc? I think that should just be enough power for my 10" x 10" listening room. And because it is magnetically-aligned, I also assume it will sound best at low-tide when there is less effect of the moon's gravitational pull on the circuitry? :D

http://avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=849549

Thanks for the link. That was a good and sometimes entertaining read.

coming from separates to flagship rec i can say imo that the difference is not night and day
on the units in the last couple of years in the past i would agree good quality separates still
sound better its just that margin is closing fast unless you use low efficient speakers in a large
room playing at high levels then an amp is very much needed but to make a statement that
the flagships some not all will never compete with separates of the same price tells me someone
has not ab this in their home.

I use an Onkyo 805 as a pre/pro, with Krell amps doing the power. A few observations: The Onkyo is BETTER than some of the high cost high pedigree
dedicated pre/prose I've used, and is MUCH better than the 5 ch analog McCormack pre that it replaced. As for the Krell amps, I doubt anyone would question their quality, BUT the difference is NOT as much as you might expect, given the hefty price.

Anyone who still believes that the best receivers have not improved dramatically in the last few years either hasn't taken the time to listen, or is still writing BS based on an experience that is dated and probably biased.