AVS Forum banner

1 - 20 of 20 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
332 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I currently have Klipsch RF-52, RC-35, RB-62 and have been wanting to upgrade the L/C/R to Klipsch RF-62 and RC-62. Was also thinking about replacing the whole set for Ascend 340se's and HTM200's. How would the Fusion-6 kits compare to these two front stages? There's the Fusion-6 L/R and Fusion-6 MTM Center or possibly Fusion-6 MTM L/C/R. I'm in a condo with a lot of hard surfaces and almost only use for TV, Movies, and Games. Looks like it would be about $400 for the front stage which is very affordable. I saw a video of putting together the boxes and it seemed pretty simple. Just glue and some cheap clamps. How difficult is it to make the crossover? I have no solder experience. Thanks.


Also. Would I be able to auto calibrate the Fusions well by just using Audyssey on the 2113?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,152 Posts
I had the Ascend 340SE with HTM-200 surrounds. I sold them to get the Tempests for L/C/R. I also built the Alchemy-8 bookshelf speakers, Volt V10 coaxials, and just ordered a pair of Fusion-6 that shipped out today.


The Ascends sound good and are often recommended. They also carry a decent resale value based on their reputation. They cannot play as loud as the Tempests that's for sure.


The Alchemy-8 came with assembled crossovers. There will also be flat packs available for the alchemy mtm (with assembled crossovers). You could probably ask Erich at DIY if he can get you assembled crossovers for the Fusion 6 speakers. At one point he said there will be flat packs and assembled crossovers for all speaker kits that he sells. I don't know how long that will take to happen though. He may be able to do one off ones for you until everything is ready.


I am really happy with the Fusion speakers that I built and do not regret going this direction at all. Both Fusion and Ascend sound different so really its up to you to decide what you like. Be careful with DIY. Once you get sucked in it can be addicting and you may find yourself buying stuff that you may not need to just play around with.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,465 Posts
dwaleke with your ownership of all of those speakers can you give a miniroundup? I'd especially be interested in your opinion of the Fusion 6 when you get them.


I'd be very interested to hear though how a Tempest, Alchemy, Volt 10, and Fusion 6 owner would compare all of those speakers. My sister just got back from spring break and was upset I hadn't ordered something. I have to at this point so the Volts are at the top of my list (no logical reason I just like cubes.....), but I'd like to hear how you feel about the Tempest, Alch, Volt 10, Fusion 6, and the previous speakers you've owned in comparison to them if it's not too much =D.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,152 Posts
It's really difficult to compare simply because I never had all the speakers at the same time with the same equipment.


Ok here's a long story that may or may not be relevant. I also do not know the terminology so I may describe something using words that may mean something else to you.


In the fall of 2012 I tried a bunch of different receivers and a couple different sets of speakers and landed on this combination:


Emotiva UMC-200 & XPA-5 Amp

Ascend 340SE L/C/R

HTM-200 Surrounds

(2) PSA XV-15 subwoofers


I used this combination for a year with very little messing around. I was happy and content. Then my UMC-200 had the notorious power supply failure and had to be sent in for repair. I then bought a Denon X4000 to use as a stand in. I liked the difference in sound for movies, but after using it for a few weeks something didn't seem right. Then I played some music to do some comparisons and could tell something sounded "off". Then I began questioning everything! But wait! The X4000 has Audyssey XT32 so it has to be the best thing out there - right? Wrong. It's decent and is praised for having Audyssey's best, but room correction is only a small part of why you pick a receiver.


At this point I pretty much started selling everything. The 340SEs sounded thin, anemic, opposite of full in my room. I decided that it was time to replace my speakers and that the electronics were not going to make much of a difference. So I sold the Ascend speakers and bought the SVS Ultra towers.


I wanted a full range speaker in hopes that I would get full dynamic sound out of them. Something that filled the room well - not just something that played loud. What I discovered with these is that the highs were very harsh and fatiguing and the lows were boomy. I was very underwhelmed with the Ultra towers considering how much I paid for them. Those had to go. I couldn't stand listening to them. They literally hurt all the time. I wanted something with a nice smooth top end like the Ascends that I was used to, but with a fuller more dynamic sound.


I then went to order the Sierra Towers and Sierra Horizon center with RAAL tweeter upgrade. $4k for those. I get a call from Dina. They are backordered for 2-3 months. So I canceled the order. I needed something right away. I was using an old set of BIC Formula speakers that barely getting the job done. So then I think about ordering JTR Noesis 228s after all the praise that they receive. In the process of reviewing those I find the Fusion speakers and DIY Sound Group.


First thing I do is sell my PSA XV-15s and order 2 SI 18 D4s with 2 flat packs from Erich. I pick up an NU4-6000 amp to drive them. Build them and I love them. Awesome. Bought it all for what I sold my PSA subs for. Since those were so easy to assemble I purchase the L/C/R Tempest and Alchemy-8. I originally wanted the Sentinel, but they were out of stock without flat packs. For me assembled crossovers and flat packs were required.


I assemble everything on weeknights and get everything ready for Saturday when I can plug everything in and use them.


The Tempest are a great all around speaker. The 340s were more forward (not bright), thin, anemic. The Tempest have a more laid back sound. Not in your face, but not dull or boring either. Sound smooth. They are not fatiguing. I can play them insane loud levels and they just sound louder - nothing else. They give me the full sound that I was going for. I'm sure it's the 12" woofer that accomplishes this.. They can be punchy where the 340s never could be. I will probably look at other options for a center speaker. I have my center Tempest above my TV pointing down toward my lp. Either the new speaker with Fusion 15 waveguide and dual 8" woofers that Erich is working on or a Tux 1099 center (although this may not match well with the Tempest).


As for the Alchemy it is tough to compare. I never had them set up in the front and only used them as rear surrounds before my Volts were done. I have them upstairs in another room, but haven't used them much. I will have more comments on these once I get more time in front of them. The Volts I have in use as surrounds work very well. They blend very well with my subs and measure very well also. Quite impressed with those little guys when used in this capacity.


Now back to what is driving them. I originally had a Pioneer SC-75 with these. I wasn't blown away. The Pioneer has a sterile, boring, dull sound to it. MCACC boosted the highs a bunch in my room. It actually measured better with REW, but didn't sound better. Full band phase adjust sounded pretty good, but something about the Pioneer just didn't sound right. I played and played to get it right and finally I just sold it for a loss and moved on. I bought another UMC-200 and immediately I noticed the sound that I liked was back. The Tempest in my room require very little EQ when driven with the UMC. But with the Pioneer MCACC wanted to tweak the EQ significantly. I don't know why and can't really explain what it was doing. It just didn't sound right.


I am also testing a Yamaha CX-A5000 to compare against the UMC-200. I have been fond of the lower Aventage Yamaha receivers in the past and wanted to see what this thing was about. Initial opinion is that it is more like the UMC-200 than any other receiver that I've tested. A pure sound with very little manipulation. I have a lot more testing to do though.


So although you asked about speaker comparisons you get a little back story of how I got to DIY and why I chose what I did. If I were to build today I would probably pick Tux's 1099 speakers. Although no assembled crossovers Tux did say he would assemble them if needed (ship to him). Oh and I would need flat packs, but the boxes for the Tux look simple enough. I think Erich did say he would have flat packs for those too. But it sounds like Erich has so much in the works I don't know when we will start seeing these things on the website and can order.


The one thing I didn't mention which plays a HUGE role in all of this is my room. I have a 15x20x9' room that is pretty much open to my entire first floor. I have a few GIK Acoustic panels on the ceiling to limit reflections there and played with a couple corner traps in the front corners. But I have sofas, windows, and a fireplace in this room. It is definitely not an ideal room for sound. So that has to be kept in mind as well when reading my opinion of equipment and speakers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
332 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by chalugadp  /t/1523308/fusion-6-vs-ascend-klipsch#post_24505815


I have the umc200 and love it too. I'm using alpha minions and fusion mtm center.

How do you like the Fusion center? I imagine that would be a good comparison for the entire Fusion-6 line.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,465 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by dwaleke  /t/1523308/fusion-6-vs-ascend-klipsch#post_24505762


It's really difficult to compare simply because I never had all the speakers at the same time with the same equipment.


Ok here's a long story that may or may not be relevant. I also do not know the terminology so I may describe something using words that may mean something else to you.


In the fall of 2012 I tried a bunch of different receivers and a couple different sets of speakers and landed on this combination:


Emotiva UMC-200 & XPA-5 Amp

Ascend 340SE L/C/R

HTM-200 Surrounds

(2) PSA XV-15 subwoofers


I used this combination for a year with very little messing around. I was happy and content. Then my UMC-200 had the notorious power supply failure and had to be sent in for repair. I then bought a Denon X4000 to use as a stand in. I liked the difference in sound for movies, but after using it for a few weeks something didn't seem right. Then I played some music to do some comparisons and could tell something sounded "off". Then I began questioning everything! But wait! The X4000 has Audyssey XT32 so it has to be the best thing out there - right? Wrong. It's decent and is praised for having Audyssey's best, but room correction is only a small part of why you pick a receiver.


At this point I pretty much started selling everything. The 340SEs sounded thin, anemic, opposite of full in my room. I decided that it was time to replace my speakers and that the electronics were not going to make much of a difference. So I sold the Ascend speakers and bought the SVS Ultra towers.


I wanted a full range speaker in hopes that I would get full dynamic sound out of them. Something that filled the room well - not just something that played loud. What I discovered with these is that the highs were very harsh and fatiguing and the lows were boomy. I was very underwhelmed with the Ultra towers considering how much I paid for them. Those had to go. I couldn't stand listening to them. They literally hurt all the time. I wanted something with a nice smooth top end like the Ascends that I was used to, but with a fuller more dynamic sound.


I then went to order the Sierra Towers and Sierra Horizon center with RAAL tweeter upgrade. $4k for those. I get a call from Dina. They are backordered for 2-3 months. So I canceled the order. I needed something right away. I was using an old set of BIC Formula speakers that barely getting the job done. So then I think about ordering JTR Noesis 228s after all the praise that they receive. In the process of reviewing those I find the Fusion speakers and DIY Sound Group.


First thing I do is sell my PSA XV-15s and order 2 SI 18 D4s with 2 flat packs from Erich. I pick up an NU4-6000 amp to drive them. Build them and I love them. Awesome. Bought it all for what I sold my PSA subs for. Since those were so easy to assemble I purchase the L/C/R Tempest and Alchemy-8. I originally wanted the Sentinel, but they were out of stock without flat packs. For me assembled crossovers and flat packs were required.


I assemble everything on weeknights and get everything ready for Saturday when I can plug everything in and use them.


The Tempest are a great all around speaker. The 340s were more forward (not bright), thin, anemic. The Tempest have a more laid back sound. Not in your face, but not dull or boring either. Sound smooth. They are not fatiguing. I can play them insane loud levels and they just sound louder - nothing else. They give me the full sound that I was going for. I'm sure it's the 12" woofer that accomplishes this.. They can be punchy where the 340s never could be. I will probably look at other options for a center speaker. I have my center Tempest above my TV pointing down toward my lp. Either the new speaker with Fusion 15 waveguide and dual 8" woofers that Erich is working on or a Tux 1099 center (although this may not match well with the Tempest).


As for the Alchemy it is tough to compare. I never had them set up in the front and only used them as rear surrounds before my Volts were done. I have them upstairs in another room, but haven't used them much. I will have more comments on these once I get more time in front of them. The Volts I have in use as surrounds work very well. They blend very well with my subs and measure very well also. Quite impressed with those little guys when used in this capacity.


Now back to what is driving them. I originally had a Pioneer SC-75 with these. I wasn't blown away. The Pioneer has a sterile, boring, dull sound to it. MCACC boosted the highs a bunch in my room. It actually measured better with REW, but didn't sound better. Full band phase adjust sounded pretty good, but something about the Pioneer just didn't sound right. I played and played to get it right and finally I just sold it for a loss and moved on. I bought another UMC-200 and immediately I noticed the sound that I liked was back. The Tempest in my room require very little EQ when driven with the UMC. But with the Pioneer MCACC wanted to tweak the EQ significantly. I don't know why and can't really explain what it was doing. It just didn't sound right.


I am also testing a Yamaha CX-A5000 to compare against the UMC-200. I have been fond of the lower Aventage Yamaha receivers in the past and wanted to see what this thing was about. Initial opinion is that it is more like the UMC-200 than any other receiver that I've tested. A pure sound with very little manipulation. I have a lot more testing to do though.


So although you asked about speaker comparisons you get a little back story of how I got to DIY and why I chose what I did. If I were to build today I would probably pick Tux's 1099 speakers. Although no assembled crossovers Tux did say he would assemble them if needed (ship to him). Oh and I would need flat packs, but the boxes for the Tux look simple enough. I think Erich did say he would have flat packs for those too. But it sounds like Erich has so much in the works I don't know when we will start seeing these things on the website and can order.


The one thing I didn't mention which plays a HUGE role in all of this is my room. I have a 15x20x9' room that is pretty much open to my entire first floor. I have a few GIK Acoustic panels on the ceiling to limit reflections there and played with a couple corner traps in the front corners. But I have sofas, windows, and a fireplace in this room. It is definitely not an ideal room for sound. So that has to be kept in mind as well when reading my opinion of equipment and speakers.
That was perfect. The more information the better for me! I like to hear about people's DIY experience. The Tux1099 have replaced the Klipsch RF7s as the speaker I want. Luckily, they'll also be cheaper.

That's VERY interesting with the UMC-200. I was originally extremely turned off by the high pricetag (I mean look how cheap audyssey is available in other receivers right? ANd isn't that the best?), and 4 HDMI inputs (Im buying a high end product and only get 4 HDMI? Not that I have that many things to even plug in but 4 is a little low! So did you only notice a difference with room correction enabled or did you notice a difference with both the UMC-200 and your receiver with no EQ?


Do you feel the same chaluga with your UMC-200 vs other receivers you owned?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,152 Posts
The value in the UMC is the sound quality itself and the PEQs. 11 band PEQ for 5 channels and 3 bands for subwoofer with fine adjustment. You won't find that in any other product really. Yamaha comes close with 6 bands, but with limited adjustment.


I am not an Audyssey fan. I had an Onkyo 818, 3010, Denon 1713, Denon X4000. None of those sounded as good as the UMC. With or without Audyssey turned on. It could just be my room though. After all that's what it is trying to correct. The problem with Audyssey is that you cannot manipulate the changes unless you buy the $700 pro kit and that's only available on the higher end receivers.


I think EmoQ 2 works pretty well. It nails speaker distances and levels really well. And it gets the EQ pretty good (even for the subwoofers). I can tweak it to my liking with REW and a $50 USB mic. The only bugs I see is if you attempt to run the calibration multiple times. It seems like it doesn't clear out the previous settings and messes everything up. If I am going to run EmoQ calibration I reset the unit to factory default first.


Honestly I think if Emotiva added a few common AVR features to the UMC they could have sold it for more money (I'm glad they didn't). It's a great value at $599 and at $499 for what it sells for when they did sales. Once the XMC-1 is finally released there will probably be a bunch of the 200s available for fair prices.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,337 Posts
^^^^ I agree with most of what was said. I don't use most of the fluff stuff thats on avr's today.

I like also having the 25% discount on next purchase too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
824 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by auceny  /t/1523308/fusion-6-vs-ascend-klipsch#post_24503317


How difficult is it to make the crossover? I have no solder experience.

Not that difficult at all. About 15 minutes practice and you are ready to tackle soldering a crossover. Check out a couple of YouTube videos and DIY crossover photos to see some examples. Having an assembled crossover option is sweet but don't let having to Do It Yourself stop you from getting the design you want. Learning something new is half the fun of DIY.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,677 Posts
For anyone wondering, I have a buddy with the Fusion-12 Tempest LCR with Alpha-8 x 4 for surrounds. I have spent extensive time comparing these to the Klipsch RF-7ii + RC-64ii & the Klipsch THX Ultra-2 as well as the Klipsch Heritage Heresy, & La Scala.


For me, the Klipsch reference series is not as smooth, nor dynamic as the the Tempest. The Tempest is also more detailed, has more clarity throughout the mid-range and top end, and also has more punch & overall presence. The THX Ultra-2 setup is pretty much equal in dynamics, but seriously lacks the punch, detail, mid-range SQ, and overall presence compared to the Tempest.


The only Klipsch line that I even somewhat enjoy are the Heritage line, (& and ubber expensive Jubilee) with the best of the Heritage line being the La Scala. I find that the Tempest has more detail, clarity, mid-range SQ, and more punch than the La Scala or Heresy, but, the La Scala comes the closest.


I have recently had the pleasure of listening to some CornScalas, which are a custom build utilizing the low end of the Cornwall with the top end of the La Scala. The version of the CornScalas that I recently spent some time listening to consisted of a Faital Pro 2" compression driver for the mids on a JBL clone M2380 horn , and a Selenium D220ti on its stock horn for the tweeter, and a clone of the Klipsch k-33 woofer that Bob Crites offers. (I believe that the woofer model is something like the CW1546?).


My impressions were that the CornScala had more low end, and was punchier, as well as having a better mid-range with regards to male vocals and things like explosions and the like, although the Tempest had more detail , and clarity throughout the top end. I personally believe that you could easily beat the CornScala in the low end and punch category by using an AE TD12 instead of the stock Tempest woofer. I would also like to note that my buddy with the CornScalas is getting ready to build a totally new version of them to try out that will be utilizing the same CW woofer, (from Bob Crites), with a Radian 950PB mid on the same JBL clone M2380, (not 100% sure on the horn) and a DE250 tweeter for the top end. I am trying to convince him to instead go with a 2-way using the Radian 950BePb or the JBL-2446 with the Be diaphragms.


I will post more info with regards to comparing the Tempest and other Seos-based speakers later as I listen to more models/brands to compare!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
42 Posts
Thank you for those comparisons Marty. I've been looking for these impressions as they help me tremendously on my decision to upgrade my RF 82iis to a fusion build. Since the klipsch models talked about here are even more high end than mine this should be a no brainer for me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
332 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
All great stuff that I love hearing. Thanks for posting impressions and I hope a few others will add to this coming up. The Fusion-12 sounds like it would be an amazing speaker to build and own. All of the diysoundgroup speakers seem to get a lot of praise. With the limited space I have, I would unfortunately be limited to a 6" or 8" version of these kits as well as placing my TV on top of the horizontal center. I've been following the Martysub builds as well as some others just because it's great to see what people can build. Has got me wanting to build something of my own on a budget, which had me looking at the smaller Fusions. I would also love to see a 15" Martysub variation similar to this build someone did.


Also. I have my front stage crossed over at 60hz because I turn my sub off after 10pm to be considerate to my neighbors and still enjoy having a little extra bass.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,465 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Martycool007  /t/1523308/fusion-6-vs-ascend-klipsch#post_24506398


For anyone wondering, I have a buddy with the Fusion-12 Tempest LCR with Alpha-8 x 4 for surrounds. I have spent extensive time comparing these to the Klipsch RF-7ii + RC-64ii & the Klipsch THX Ultra-2 as well as the Klipsch Heritage Heresy, & La Scala.


For me, the Klipsch reference series is not as smooth, nor dynamic as the the Tempest. The Tempest is also more detailed, has more clarity throughout the mid-range and top end, and also has more punch & overall presence. The THX Ultra-2 setup is pretty much equal in dynamics, but seriously lacks the punch, detail, mid-range SQ, and overall presence compared to the Tempest.


The only Klipsch line that I even somewhat enjoy are the Heritage line, (& and ubber expensive Jubilee) with the best of the Heritage line being the La Scala. I find that the Tempest has more detail, clarity, mid-range SQ, and more punch than the La Scala or Heresy, but, the La Scala comes the closest.


I have recently had the pleasure of listening to some CornScalas, which are a custom build utilizing the low end of the Cornwall with the top end of the La Scala. The version of the CornScalas that I recently spent some time listening to consisted of a Faital Pro 2" compression driver for the mids on a JBL clone M2380 horn , and a Selenium D220ti on its stock horn for the tweeter, and a clone of the Klipsch k-33 woofer that Bob Crites offers. (I believe that the woofer model is something like the CW1546?).


My impressions were that the CornScala had more low end, and was punchier, as well as having a better mid-range with regards to male vocals and things like explosions and the like, although the Tempest had more detail , and clarity throughout the top end. I personally believe that you could easily beat the CornScala in the low end and punch category by using an AE TD12 instead of the stock Tempest woofer. I would also like to note that my buddy with the CornScalas is getting ready to build a totally new version of them to try out that will be utilizing the same CW woofer, (from Bob Crites), with a Radian 950PB mid on the same JBL clone M2380, (not 100% sure on the horn) and a DE250 tweeter for the top end. I am trying to convince him to instead go with a 2-way using the Radian 950BePb or the JBL-2446 with the Be diaphragms.


I will post more info with regards to comparing the Tempest and other Seos-based speakers later as I listen to more models/brands to compare!

I anxiously will await that post! Ya my biggest thing was that I hadn't heard of a person who had used the RF7 and the SEOS yet. Most people could say that "Yes the SEOS is going to be "better"" but my brain needs to see a person actually compare both lol. Would love to hear how you think the Alpha 8s compared to the Klipsch lines as well as the other SEOS speakers you've heard. And of course to other speakers. I haven't listened to many speakers and the ones I have listened to were always at bestbuy. I never feel like I am getting a correct setup at all in bestbuy (because you aren't), and so it's always felt like I've only heard the Polk Monitor 70s since they're the only speakers I've actually owned. I went to listen to some B&Ws and there was clearly a blown tweeter in their floor model. Which was funny since I went there to listen to see how a normal speaker sounded compared to mine which I thought had blown tweeters.


It's amazing how much praise the SEOS design gets.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,677 Posts
The Seos designs are all top notch and easily compare to speakers costing many times what the Seos cost to DIY build . I have never been all that impressed with the Klipsch Reference line or Palladium line as I feel like they are over priced and sound kind of....un-involving and non-accurate, at least in my opinion. The reality is that the Seos Based speakers sound better than the Klipsch in every category in my opinion. To be fair, I think the Palladiums sound much better for music, but, for 7.xx movies, I find them sub-par. I have directly compared the Palladiums to the Reference and also did an a/b comparison between the Palladium towers, (can't recall model), with the RF-7ii, and B&W 802D2 as well as some $7,000 dollar Martin Logan electrostats. In my personal opinion the Palladium towers and RF-7ii's were so close for movies that I was literally shocked considering their price differences. I felt that the Palladiums and RF-7Ii were just so un-involving and sounded so sterile. I just could not get into the movie when the Klipsch were playing as my buddy and I had just watched the entire movie at his house on his Seos Tempest-12's.


The Martin Logan's were also not to my liking either. But, for music they did sound pretty nice, depending on the music category, although for my taste in music, ie: outlaw country & classic rock, they did not hang with the others.


So overall, I feel that the Seos Fusion-12 Tempest was the winner for theater usage. It just sounded so clean, clear, dynamic, detailed, and punchy compared to the Klipsch RF-7ii & even the big ubber expensive Palladium towers..take that for what it's worth.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
66 Posts
I'm kinda curious to see how this thread plays out. I currently have 3 La Scalas for my front 3. I built my own sub and loved doing so. It got me thinking that maybe building some of the DIY speakers might be worth taking a look at. I'm still working on building a second sub, so mains or surrounds are still a ways off. When that time comes, instead of going with Heresies for surrounds, I might go for some Tempests or heck, even Sentinels. I know I would switch them for mains just to try and see what I thought. Anyways, lookin forward to how things turn out!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,465 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Martycool007  /t/1523308/fusion-6-vs-ascend-klipsch#post_24510970


The Seos designs are all top notch and easily compare to speakers costing many times what the Seos cost to DIY build . I have never been all that impressed with the Klipsch Reference line or Palladium line as I feel like they are over priced and sound kind of....un-involving and non-accurate, at least in my opinion. The reality is that the Seos Based speakers sound better than the Klipsch in every category in my opinion. To be fair, I think the Palladiums sound much better for music, but, for 7.xx movies, I find them sub-par. I have directly compared the Palladiums to the Reference and also did an a/b comparison between the Palladium towers, (can't recall model), with the RF-7ii, and B&W 802D2 as well as some $7,000 dollar Martin Logan electrostats. In my personal opinion the Palladium towers and RF-7ii's were so close for movies that I was literally shocked considering their price differences. I felt that the Palladiums and RF-7Ii were just so un-involving and sounded so sterile. I just could not get into the movie when the Klipsch were playing as my buddy and I had just watched the entire movie at his house on his Seos Tempest-12's.


The Martin Logan's were also not to my liking either. But, for music they did sound pretty nice, depending on the music category, although for my taste in music, ie: outlaw country & classic rock, they did not hang with the others.


So overall, I feel that the Seos Fusion-12 Tempest was the winner for theater usage. It just sounded so clean, clear, dynamic, detailed, and punchy compared to the Klipsch RF-7ii & even the big ubber expensive Palladium towers..take that for what it's worth.

I do listen to a lot of music though. I'm 50/50 on my usage. I'm either watching TV, or listening ot music/browisng the internet since my hometheater is my pc. I just sit on the sofa and use the pc.


I'm going to go with the SEOS no matter what though. At this point I don't think it'd be worth it for me to spend that much on the Klipsch when I know I could an SEOS and be able to finish it however I like as I learn how to.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,677 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by homeskizzle  /t/1523308/fusion-6-vs-ascend-klipsch#post_24514298


I'm kinda curious to see how this thread plays out. I currently have 3 La Scalas for my front 3. I built my own sub and loved doing so. It got me thinking that maybe building some of the DIY speakers might be worth taking a look at. I'm still working on building a second sub, so mains or surrounds are still a ways off. When that time comes, instead of going with Heresies for surrounds, I might go for some Tempests or heck, even Sentinels. I know I would switch them for mains just to try and see what I thought. Anyways, lookin forward to how things turn out!

I would start off doing a pair of Seos-15 waveguides + DNA-360 compression drivers, + AE TD12 woofer. Build two, compare them to your La Scala's, and if you don't like them, you could move them to surrounds, although, I can pretty much give you 100% assurance they will end up replacing those La Scala's! They should have much better mid-bass and go lower on the bottom end. I would also expect better mid-range/treble sound quality! They will pretty much be better in every regard!
 
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Top