If I compare the Seaton Sound Catalyst 8C and the Klipsch RF-7 II, will the Klipsch speakers sound "bigger"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kain /t/1456456/do-you-need-big-speakers-for-big-sound#post_22925158
If I compare the Seaton Sound Catalyst 8C and the Klipsch RF-7 II, will the Klipsch speakers sound "bigger"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by zamboniman /t/1456456/do-you-need-big-speakers-for-big-sound#post_22925912
disclaimer.. I don't have first hand experience with the klipsch mentioned.. but did have the older rb75's rc7.. and do have catalyst 12c's now.
However, I'll say this.. It will depend on your goals and how you plan to implement them.
I would go as far to say that if you are using in a HT with any reasonable crossover say ~80HZ, the catalyst 8C will eat the klipsch for lunch. It's simple physics. The catalyst has been optimized for a typical HT crossover to be implemented meaning that it's sound reproduction goals have been optimized to put it where it counts and not waste effort in a pursuit of a lower frequency reproduction. Since the RF7 has an -3db point at 34Hz the woofers have been optimized over a greater bandwidth. Note they also need to play all the way up to the crossover frequency which is a LOT of ground to cover and maintain high performance. In contrast the catalyst has a dedicated 8" to handle the midrange. and dual 8" woofers to handle down to the crossover region. I'm sure the klipsch woofers are high quality, but I'd also consider the woofers in the catalyst have close relations to drivers considered to be among the best anywhere. Also take into account the cats are a fully active implementation with large amplifiers so the effective power reaching the available drivers is going to be much greater in most cases.
Now if you were to run both full range side by side the klipsch would have a good chance of sounding "larger" at moderate listening levels purely due to the frequency response characteristics.. It will have more bass simply. Regarding coverage profile the cats should have a superior polar response throughout the frequency range due to the coaxial mid/tweeter and the crossovers employed.
Finally I'd say credit is due where it's due. The Seaton Sound operation is far from a garage product. It may be small business with low qty distribution but It is a full blown manufacturing operation with solid OEM supply chain from what I can tell. Considering the square footage of their facility and their continued growth they may take slight offense at being labeled a "garage" operation. Small internet and word of mouth based direct market company yes. The man deserves props considering that the company has grown from nothing to where it is today and that he continues to deliver an expensive yet very high value product that serves a market that wasn't well represented by the other offerings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk /t/1456456/do-you-need-big-speakers-for-big-sound#post_22925366
On those grounds the Seaton products look like they have a lot of potential. While they are obviously garage products and seem to be very expensive, I see a lot of advanced technology that if executed well, could be wonderful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk /t/1456456/do-you-need-big-speakers-for-big-sound#post_22925366
I see a lot of advanced technology that if executed well, could be wonderful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kain /t/1456456/do-you-need-big-speakers-for-big-sound#post_22926034
Thanks.
I currently have the original RF-7, RC-7, and RS-7 speakers with a SubMersive. I am just toying with the idea of replacing them with three Catalyst 8C speakers for LCR and two Spark speakers for left/right surround. My room is not big enough for 7.1 or higher.
Do you miss any of the horn speaker characteristics of your Klipsch speakers when comparing them to the Catalyst 12Cs? How much of an improvement (and in what ways) is the Catalyst 12C as a center speaker over the RC-7 you had?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kain /t/1456456/do-you-need-big-speakers-for-big-sound#post_22929894
Thanks. Seems the Catalyst 8C and Spark combo should be plenty for my room.
Are there any significant sound quality differences between the 8C and 12C or is it virtually the same with the 12C having the ability to go a little louder and a little deeper (thought going deeper shouldn't matter since I'll be crossing over the speakers at 80 Hz)?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kain /t/1456456/do-you-need-big-speakers-for-big-sound#post_22929894
I've been told that rooms that are squares or close to squares are actually bad for sound. Is this true? Will this be a problem?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kain /t/1456456/do-you-need-big-speakers-for-big-sound#post_22926034
Thanks.
I currently have the original RF-7, RC-7, and RS-7 speakers with a SubMersive. I am just toying with the idea of replacing them with three Catalyst 8C speakers for LCR and two Spark speakers for left/right surround. My room is not big enough for 7.1 or higher.
Do you miss any of the horn speaker characteristics of your Klipsch speakers when comparing them to the Catalyst 12Cs? How much of an improvement (and in what ways) is the Catalyst 12C as a center speaker over the RC-7 you had?
Quote:
Originally Posted by derrickdj1 /t/1456456/do-you-need-big-speakers-for-big-sound#post_22932034
The Klipsch speakers don't have problems with dialogue unless they are not setup properly. If you will be using a Submersive in the system, I don't think you will see a night and day difference by replacing them.I use an RF 7 setup and have heard other speakers that I like, but Klipsch are the best all around speaker for me since my HT does double duty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hifiaudio2 /t/1456456/do-you-need-big-speakers-for-big-sound#post_22938616
For either room, would it be possible to swap the end your speakers are on? It would make things easier if the front speakers are equidistant from side boundaries. Also, can you move your seating off the wall a few feet? Bass response would be much less smooth along that wall than with the listening position out a few feet into the room. So due to its length room 1 may be better for that, if you can swap ends.
EDIT: I just noticed the Door on the bottom right for room one. So I assume that is why you dont already have the speakers on that end. If the speakers cant be on that end, I might be inclined to recommend room #2, even with the similar dimensions. Invest in plenty of bass trapping... try Gikacoustics.com. Give them a call and send them these drawings and they will help you. You should be able to get plenty of broadband bass trapping for around $500.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hifiaudio2 /t/1456456/do-you-need-big-speakers-for-big-sound#post_22936653
As far as "big" sound from "Big" speakers, I came from Martin Logan CLX speakers, which are a huge panel, to Seaton Catalysts. You can read my thoughts at the link below. I find the Catalysts to be easily as "big" sounding as the CLX's, with many times the dynamic headroom.
http://www.seaton-sound-forum.com/post/Catalyst-12C-vs-Martin-Logan-CLX-thoughts-review-6166622
Quote:
Originally Posted by FOH /t/1456456/do-you-need-big-speakers-for-big-sound#post_22935009
Having owned several Klipsch models, I'd largely agree,.. they don't have problems with dialog. However, that said they are different .. their tonal character is somewhat different from the characteristics of Seaton's Catalysts. I've A/B'd them, comparing three different Klipsch models, as well as QSC and JBL loudspeakers with the Cats, they're different. All the products are acceptable with dialog. But the extraordinary clarity designed into the Seaton Catalysts is evident even at moderate playback levels.
The room, the inherent coverage of the speaker, and ultimately the power response at the LP, also changes what we experience. But yes, I'd agree, the Klipsch models have no problem with dialog. I was quite happy for a long period of time with Klipsch mains, as part of a properly set-up, well executed 5.2 system. I don't agree with any harshness, brightness, issues often cited. Clearly they possess a limit output wise, especially compared to the Catalysts. But they're fine in a bass managed/subwoofer supported, HT/music system.
Thanks
Quote:
Originally Posted by zamboniman /t/1456456/do-you-need-big-speakers-for-big-sound#post_22925912
disclaimer.. I don't have first hand experience with the klipsch mentioned.. but did have the older rb75's rc7.. and do have catalyst 12c's now.
However, I'll say this.. It will depend on your goals and how you plan to implement them.
I would go as far to say that if you are using in a HT with any reasonable crossover say ~80HZ, the catalyst 8C will eat the klipsch for lunch. It's simple physics. The catalyst has been optimized for a typical HT crossover to be implemented meaning that it's sound reproduction goals have been optimized to put it where it counts and not waste effort in a pursuit of a lower frequency reproduction. Since the RF7 has an -3db point at 34Hz the woofers have been optimized over a greater bandwidth. Note they also need to play all the way up to the crossover frequency which is a LOT of ground to cover and maintain high performance. In contrast the catalyst has a dedicated 8" to handle the midrange. and dual 8" woofers to handle down to the crossover region. I'm sure the klipsch woofers are high quality, but I'd also consider the woofers in the catalyst have close relations to drivers considered to be among the best anywhere. Also take into account the cats are a fully active implementation with large amplifiers so the effective power reaching the available drivers is going to be much greater in most cases.
Now if you were to run both full range side by side the klipsch would have a good chance of sounding "larger" at moderate listening levels purely due to the frequency response characteristics.. It will have more bass simply. Regarding coverage profile the cats should have a superior polar response throughout the frequency range due to the coaxial mid/tweeter and the crossovers employed.
Finally I'd say credit is due where it's due. The Seaton Sound operation is far from a garage product. It may be small business with low qty distribution but It is a full blown manufacturing operation with solid OEM supply chain from what I can tell. Considering the square footage of their facility and their continued growth they may take slight offense at being labeled a "garage" operation. Small internet and word of mouth based direct market company yes. The man deserves props considering that the company has grown from nothing to where it is today and that he continues to deliver an expensive yet very high value product that serves a market that wasn't well represented by the other offerings.
There are two factors to look at. So long as the source has an omni-directional radiation pattern...and all subs do... it doesn't matter what the physical size of the source is, so long as the frequency response and dB levels are the same they'll sound pretty much the same, be the source a long excursion ten, a low excursion eighteen, or a folded horn. Pretty much, because one advantage of horns in general, and folded horns in particular, is they have much lower THD than direct radiators. As for displacement, if you've got a direct radiating box loaded with a ten with 6mm xmax it's not going to give any competition to a fifteen with 6mm xmax. But a ten with 20mm xmax will easily trump a fifteen with 6mm xmax, so you don't necessarily need a large driver or large box for a big sound.Quote:
Originally Posted by Toymachyne /t/1456456/do-you-need-big-speakers-for-big-sound#post_22950133
Unless you buy into the Bose marketing or found a way to beat physics regarding sound wave science I'm going to have to agree with the above. Diameter, xmax and power handling impedence & resonance dynamics all play a role in the reproduction levels.
I've come to the conclusion I've heard so many years ago which holds true. There is no replacement for displacement.