weak bass in RTi10

bmor

No, I don't find it muddy, the bass is well defined. My primary objective was to control the tinny sound which I couldn't stand, so lowered the 1 and 2K. Then fattened the sound a bit with the 63 - 250K. I find the way the mid's are emphasized on these speakers is overbearing for music, but I believe the 1325 is flexible enough to overcome it. I'm still fine tuning it, I want to play with the 63-250k some more. I'm not thinking about typical EQ curves, just trying stuff to make this equipment combination sound good to my ears.

Not sure about your placement, mine are 8" from the back wall and 20" from the sides with almost no toe in. Seating position is 12'.

tonyb

bmor,
Maybe I missed it, but did you ever consider the poor sound could be the source ? What cables are you using ? Did you try another cable ? Just askin' is all.

bmor

I should really say I don't consider the sound poor, I just think that small parts of it can be improved, particularly for music listening. I'm really enjoying listening to old music again. I'm using standard 16 ga twisted speaker wire, my maximum run is 12'. I have to admit I don't really buy into all the speaker cable hype. I come from a power distribution background, and from an impedance and capacitance point of view I don't get it, except for long runs maybe.

tonyb

bmor wrote: »

I should really say I don't consider the sound poor, I just think that small parts of it can be improved, particularly for music listening. I'm really enjoying listening to old music again. I'm using standard 16 ga twisted speaker wire, my maximum run is 12'. I have to admit I don't really buy into all the speaker cable hype. I come from a power distribution background, and from an impedance and capacitance point of view I don't get it, except for long runs maybe.

You may benefit from a good 12 ga. for big floorstanders. Different brands offer different flavors, kinda like ice cream.
Power distribution and home audio share some basic principles, but are 2 different worlds, read up a bit, who knows, you may question your prior beliefs. Enjoy the tunes.

gp4jesus

here are 2 simple tests for the RTi10.

1. W/the jumper removed, connect a battery across the mid/high BPs.

If my suspicions are right you should see the mid driver move upon connection/disconnection. If you do, like the Rti A7, your mids do NOT have a HP filter. Thus your mids "see" bass below 125hz; that usually muddies the midrange. That and below 125hz your amp/receiver "sees" a 4 ohm load.

2. With the jumper still removed, feed the sub BPs some bass heavy percussion. If you see the mid move, like the Rti A7, the mid and subs share the same chamber.

I'm confident the 'A7 inherited these from the '10.

my $.02 to muddy mid/upper bass question

tony

mdaudioguy

^^^ Tony (gp version) - Can you explain what it is that you're getting at, and possibly where you're going with this?

Just curious, that's all.

Thanks,
Ed

Tour2ma

photo,
I've got a couple more thoughts for you below... but first...

gp4jesus wrote: »

here are 2 simple tests for the RTi10.
1. W/the jumper removed, connect a battery across the mid/high BPs.
If my suspicions are right you should see the mid driver move upon connection/disconnection. If you do, like the Rti A7, your mids do NOT have a HP filter. Thus your mids "see" bass below 125hz; that usually muddies the midrange. That and below 125hz your amp/receiver "sees" a 4 ohm load.
2. With the jumper still removed, feed the sub BPs some bass heavy percussion. If you see the mid move, like the Rti A7, the mid and subs share the same chamber.
I'm confident the 'A7 inherited these from the '10.
my $.02 to muddy mid/upper bass question

Please, keep the change... Do you ever fact check anything?

From the RTi10 reference page here:
Crossover (mid-high array) - 2.7kHz, 12dB/octave low and high pass. 125Hz 12dB/octave high pass

As for the RTiA7… http://www.polkaudio.com/homeaudio/rtia/specs.php
Crossover(mid-high array) 2.7kHz, 12dB/octave low and high pass. 125Hz 12dB/octave high pass

Also, if you look at the cutaway view of the 10, you'll note that the MW's are isolated from the subs in the 10. I can't find a cross-section view of the A7, but I'm betting that the same is true of the A7's. I can't see Polk failing to acoustically separate the mid's ARC Port from the Sub’s PowerPort...

And, if you are going to advise using the battery trick on HF sections, please caution against anything but the shortest of connections... I'm sure you know that holding a tweeter at the end of its "throw" is a really, really bad idea... well… I'm not that sure…

Oh, and your bi-amping link is a great read... I've read it before. Great, or at least detailed, active bi-amping write up. I do find it curious though that while the writer says of bi-wiring's "...comparatively minor (gains). This is not to say that the 'minor' gains are not worth the effort, because as you will see this is not true at all." And then he proceeds to make a fairly strong case for bi-wiring before stating, "Many people have said that bi-wiring improved the sound quality, and although I have not used it myself (bi-amping being so far superior), I will reserve judgement until further notice."

I find his endorsement of something he's never heard at least as credible as his detailed dismantling of passive bi-amping’s shortcomings, which is, in total:

Passive biamping (where two amplifiers are used in a bi-wiring connection) is, IMHO, a waste of money. Although there may be some moderate sonic benefits, they are not worth the expense of the extra amplifier.

Ouch… Such persuasive data; such a logical and compelling case... I don’t know what I was thinking… :rolleyes:

So, gp4j, with your dwindling reputation at stake, I ask again, but this time of you directly:

Tour2ma wrote: »

gp4j, comfyc, whomever,

In a passive bi-amp scheme, let's follow the amplified, full spectrum music signal sent to the tweeter of a 2-way speaker interally crossed over at 2 kHz. We'll assume a moderate output of 10W.

It is well established the HF power requirements are significantly less than that of LF. For simplicity let's assume HF power is 20% of the total, or 2W. With this music energy now passed to the tweeter it is singing like a bird.

Please explain what happens to the 80% of the energy that never reaches the tweeter.

I’ll be waiting… and no, I don’t want to go the PM route…

---

photo,
Your issues are clearly with your room... the better, tighter bass you got in the smaller room proved that… as did the improved bass in your main room when you moved them. Could the sound in your big room further improve with different speaker placement? Yes, but remember, you wanted more bass (thus the title of the thread), and got it by moving your 10’s. The reason you’re getting more bass now is the room… it’s now reinforcing LF at your listening position. But other FR’s are being impacted as well.

One thing to note is that frequency reinforcement and cancelation (nulling) are not all or nothing propositions. Depending on frequency (wavelength) and distance, reflections arrive anywhere from completely in phase (additive reinforcement) to completely out of phase (cancelling) and everywhere in between which result in partial reinforcement or cancellation. But even completely in or out of phase reflections have lost some of their energy (amplitude) by the time they arrive, so only partial reinforcement or nulling results.

For example, assume that in your room you found speaker placements reinforcing 60Hz at your listening position… that placement will also be reinforcing every harmonic, every multiple of 60, e.g., 120, 180, 240Hz, etc. As pleasing as you may find the bass reinforcement at 60/ 120Hz, you may find reinforcement annoying at 360 or 480 Hz. But as I mentioned in the above paragraph, there’s also cancellation going on. All the partial reinforcing/ nulling in the MF (240Hz to maybe 1200Hz), can add up to muddy. No one ever said this would be easy… Fortunately as frequency increases the reflection issues go away...

So you can move your speakers some more, but most likely you will just be compromising one frequency range as you improve another. Most likely you need to acoustically treat your room… Posts some panoramic, long-shot pics and maybe a suggestion or two will come.

Later…

EDIT: One more thought... is your problem room on the house's slab or wooden floor?

tonyb

Holly smokes Bruce.......LOL!!

mdaudioguy

Sizzle....! :rolleyes:

Tour2ma

Too much? Felt about right to me...

Just hope I didn't scare photo...

photocrazy

Tour2ma wrote: »

photo,
I've got a couple more thoughts for you below... but first...



For example, assume that in your room you found speaker placements reinforcing 60Hz at your listening position… that placement will also be reinforcing every harmonic, every multiple of 60, e.g., 120, 180, 240Hz, etc. As pleasing as you may find the bass reinforcement at 60/ 120Hz, you may find reinforcement annoying at 360 or 480 Hz. But as I mentioned in the above paragraph, there’s also cancellation going on. All the partial reinforcing/ nulling in the MF (240Hz to maybe 1200Hz), can add up to muddy. No one ever said this would be easy… Fortunately as frequency increases the reflection issues go away...

EDIT: One more thought... is your problem room on the house's slab or wooden floor?

Actually when I ran MCACC, it pulled the lows and highs and pushed the mids up, which means, my room is actually pushing the lows and highs.

I have reset the EQ to 0 for all the frequencies.

FYI, my floor is carpeted.

gp4jesus

Hmmm... where do I start?

Tour2ma wrote: »

Do you ever fact check anything?

From the RTi10 & RTiA7 reference pages: 2.7kHz, 12dB/octave low and high pass. 125Hz 12dB/octave high pass.

Coincidence their specs are the same? I think not! Further I'll bet their cabinet's, while different in outside appearance, inside are essentially the same.

Tour2ma wrote: »

(Does Tony ever fact check anything? continued) If you look [carefully] at the cutaway view of the...

...12 (!) [not the 10] you'll note that the MW's are isolated from the subs. Quote from the '10 page "(Cutaway view of RTi12 shown left...); from the RTi A page "...the RTi A9 features 2 sealed chambers to separate noise."
I've seen an identical view for the 'A9 somewhere on the site. Polk doesn't have a cutaway of the 10 or the A7.

Tour2ma wrote: »

(Does Tony ever fact check anything? continued) I can't find a cross-section view of the A7, but I'm betting that the same is true of the A7's. I can't see Polk failing to acoustically separate the mid's ARC Port from the Sub’s PowerPort...

I'm not a gambler but I'll give you 20 to 1 you're wrong about Polk "acoustically separat[ing]" the A7's mid's ARC Port from the Sub’s PowerPort.
I posted that to the contrary in post #75 of this thread... http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?t=111428&page=3

For more info click on the following threads:

http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?t=99538
http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?t=100364
http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?t=100120

... from post #75

Oh that's right, did I mention I own a pair of 'A7s? Dude, check my sig! What's more, I started the above trio of threads; been all through my A7s to include a thorough inspection of the XO. Though Polk stands behind it, their A7 data on the site has inaccuracies. The HP to tweeter is 18dB per octave, not 12dB. None, absolutely NO HP filtering to the mid. A fact that obviously bears repeating from post #73

Tour2ma wrote: »

And, if you are going to advise using the battery trick on HF sections, please caution against anything but the shortest [briefest] of connections...

I agree. Just briefly tap it while watching the mid.

Tour2ma wrote: »

I'm sure you know that holding a tweeter at the end of its "throw" is a really, really bad idea.

You're right about "end of its throw" too. However, no harm will come to the Tweeter because caps won't pass DC.

Tour2ma wrote: »

Oh, and your bi-amping link is a great read... I've read it before. Great, or at least detailed, active bi-amping write up.

I'm glad we agree on that

Tour2ma wrote: »

I do find it curious though that while the writer says of bi-wiring's "...comparatively minor (gains). This is not to say that the 'minor' gains are not worth the effort, because as you will see this is not true at all." And then he proceeds to make a fairly strong case for bi-wiring before stating, "Many people have said that bi-wiring improved the sound quality, and although I have not used it myself (bi-amping being so far superior), I will reserve judgement until further notice."

I find his endorsement of something he's never heard at least as credible as his detailed dismantling of passive bi-amping’s shortcomings, which is, in total: Ouch… Such persuasive data; such a logical and compelling case... I don’t know what I was thinking… :rolleyes:

I haven't read that article in several years but I agree & support the author's info on active bi/tri etc amping.
Elsewhere on this forum (not this thread) someone published some data [he developed] that explained how an amp actually sees a bi-wired speaker as a different load from single wireing.
Finally anything HE wrote that you don't agree with, take it up with HIM!!

Tour2ma wrote: »

So, gp4j, with your dwindling reputation at stake, I ask again, but this time of you directly: Please explain what happens to the 80% of the energy that never reaches the tweeter.

I'm sorry for missing this question earlier.

I'll take a crack at explaining this. I apologize to the EE majors reading this if my impedence values are off. Feel free to correct me! In a word, the HP filter "absorbs" it. [OR] If you turned your system up halfway, how much power could your amp produce into a 1K+ ohm load?

I'll make these assumptions. 2 way "8 ohm" speaker, 2nd order XO @ 2Khz. Passive bi-amp. What does the amp [or channel] "see" connected to the tweeter?

Above 2K the amp see the tweeter as its load, 8 ohms.
At the XO point, the filter attentuates the signal 3dB or half power: 8 ohms + 8 ohms.
@ 1 Khz, the filter attentuates the signal 15 dB: 8 ohms + 128* ohms??
@ 500 hz attentuated another 12dB (27dB) or 8 ohms + 250* ohms??
@ 250 hz attentuated another 12dB (39dB) or 8 ohms + 500* ohms??
@ 125 hz attentuated another 12dB (51dB) or 8 ohms + 1k* ohms??
* my best guess for these values

I hope, even if the values* are off, this explains what happens to the energy that doesn't reach the tweeter or woofer.

Happy listening

gp4jesus

A post script to #134: in either the '10 or A7, if the lack of MW HP filtering concerns any one, either find An active XO you like, or someone on this forum can help w/filter design. I'm going active AND installing a divider

mdaudioguy

Interesting thread - more than I thought I wanted to know...

tonyb

Won't be long before Bruce and Tony start breaking it down into chemical makeup of each driver and the formula to make such.
Has to be the longest version of "..add an amp" I've ever heard. Somewhat interesting, i'll say, but the OP was probably lost after page 2.

mdaudioguy

tonyb wrote: »

Won't be long before Bruce and Tony start breaking it down into chemical makeup of each driver and the formula to make such.
Has to be the longest version of "..add an amp" I've ever heard. Somewhat interesting, i'll say, but the OP was probably lost after page 2.

Yes, I think he abandoned all hope here and moved on
http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?t=115194

However, I'm still interested in where this goes!

photocrazy

Lol....no. Every bit of information helps to understand this hobby. Forums always help me learn my stuffs.

Tour2ma

mdaudioguy wrote: »

? I'm still interested in where this goes!

Well in that case gp4 and I are going to charge admission...:biggrin:

Chemical make-up, tb? Really? **** bells, we?re going sub-atomic...

gp4,
Good to see you back. First, I?d like to apologize for the ?dwindling reputation? comment. It was completely unnecessary. That done, I?d like to settle the side issues just to clear the field for the main event?

As to the RTi10/ RTIa7 design? I'll take that 20:1 on the mid's isolation... I went straight to the source?

Original PM from Tour2ma to Kenneth Swauger wrote:

Acoustic Isolation of Sub and MW sections of RTi10 and RTiA7

Ken,

Having a discussion in a thread where one member is maintaining that the subject sections are not isolated:
http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1499073&postcount=75

I am thinking they have to be given the twin ports, but the product info pages do not show cutaways for these models.

Thanks in advance for settling...
Bruce

Original Reply:

Kenneth Scwauger - Moderator/ Polk CS wrote:

Re: Acoustic Isolation of Sub and MW sections of RTi10 and RTiA7

I checked with Kim at Polk and both of those speakers have isolated mid range drivers.
Cheers, Ken

If there are any lingering doubts let me suggest that the simplest test you can do for your 7?s (or photo for your 10?s), is to check the MW?s port?s output with the amp feeding only the sub inputs.

As for your passive x-over guru?

gp4jesus wrote:

I haven't read that article in several years but I agree & support the author's info on active bi/tri etc amping. Elsewhere on this forum (not this thread) someone published some data [he developed] that explained how an amp actually sees a bi-wired speaker as a different load from single wireing. Finally anything HE wrote that you don't agree with, take it up with HIM!!

So now the author is God? :eek: First, I?d love to see that ?published data? because from a rudimentary circuit analysis the different load conclusion makes no sense whatsoever. But second, and more importantly to a reasonable discussion, is that when we cite a source we should either stand by it or not raise it to begin with.

Now as to passive bi-amping...

I think your capacitor resistance math is off a tad, but I could not care less about the math, that you took the time to reply with some detail is appreciated. Your info got me developing a thought that crossed my mind much earlier, but I couldn't get a handle on. That thought was this... against infinite resistance an amp can do no work (you actually included one line going down the same path). Line up a source, crank a pre-amp volume to max, and with no speakers (hell, just to be on the safe side, no speaker leads) connected to the amp (infinite resistance), the amp will get no hotter than it does at idle.

I can say with confidence that the LF energy (power) is not "absorbed" by the X-over?s capacitor. While a capacitor temporarily stores a charge, the release of any accumulated charge at the amp?s the subsequent polarity swap, means no work was done.

Rather it's the capacitor's frequency dependent resistance that is the key. It is this characteristic that prevents the HF ch in a passive bi-amp scheme from doing significant LF work in the first place. In other words I am now retracting the point I ignorantly conceded to comfycurt many, many posts ago, namely that in passive bi-amping the full range signal is amplified. While the full voltage gain is applied, the resultant power output is much lower. I am now saying that the ?fate? of the LF power is that it is never generated to begin with.

I?ll be back when I?ve developed my little base case thought experiment.

BTW? the experts I am referencing are Georg Ohm and Albert Einstein?

gp4jesus

Tour2ma wrote: »

gp4, Good to see you back.

Thanks. Some health issues kept me sidelined

Tour2ma wrote: »

I'd like to apologize for the ?dwindling reputation? comment.

I forgive you.

Tour2ma wrote: »

It was completely unnecessary.

I agree

Tour2ma wrote: »

As to the RTi10/ RTIa7 design? I'll take that 20:1 on the mid's isolation...

I'll quote myself to remind you,

gp4Jesus wrote:

I'm not a gambler but I'll give you 20 to 1 you're wrong about Polk "acoustically separat[ing]" the A7's mid's ARC Port from the Sub?s PowerPort.

...I offered those odds for the A7, not the '10

I've posted this before,[75, 134] but, it OBIVIOUSLY bears repeating, AGAIN!: Read my sig! I OWN a pair of A7s. Been ALL through them. I'll bet [speculate] Kim, Ken, and anyone else involved have NOT!

I've posted THIS before, but, IT OBIVIOUSLY bears repeating, AGAIN! I've had several discussions with Polk Tech support. They stand behind the B]INCORRECT[/B data posted on the Polk Audio web site. "Tweeter has 12dB/octave filtering." I've determined 18dB/octave w/counsel from others smarter on this topic than myself. "MW has 12dB/octave HP filtering." Impossible w/out at least a cap in series w/same. BUT, if you want to believe third or forth hand info from Ken, Kim, et al, be my guest.

gp4Jesus wrote:

Further I'll bet their [A7 & '10] cabinet's, while different in outside appearance, inside are essentially the same.

Read between the lines: speculation. Is it a safe bet we can trace the A7's lineage to the '10? Like the the A9's to the '12?

Tour2ma wrote: »

As for your passive x-over guru?

That guru is Rod Elliot*. I did not claim he was a passive XO guru, but a well spoken (written) engineer that did a good job explaining active bi/tri-amping . Unless I misunderstood you from several posts ago, and if I have, please accept my apologies, you took issue w/his views on passive bi-amping. He's the author I referred to in post 134-the one I said "take it up w/him*, not me." He moderates the forum on his site, go for it!

Tour2ma wrote: »

I?d love to see that ?published data?

Vaguely remember reading it about 6-9 months ago. More distinctly remember an LS series speaker. Feel free to use "bi-wire" and "LS" in your search. When you find it, let us know. My [modified] take on bi-wiring from my days working at a high end home audio store back in the early '80s. "If you can't hear a difference, why pay for it." Actually, if you DO hear a difference, possibly

Tour2ma wrote: »

Now as to passive bi-amping... ...I think your capacitor resistance math is off a tad

Yes. I stated that early in that portion of the post.

Tour2ma wrote: »

? but I could not care less about the math

why do you waste our time bringing it up?

Tour2ma wrote: »

?that you took the time to reply with some detail is appreciated.

I don't feel appreciated.

Tour2ma wrote: »

... against infinite resistance an amp can do no work (you actually included one line going down the same path). Line up a source, crank a pre-amp volume to max, and with no speakers (hell, just to be on the safe side, no speaker leads) connected to the amp (infinite resistance), the amp will get no hotter than it does at idle.

Yup.

Tour2ma wrote: »

that the LF energy (power) is not "absorbed"

I couldn't think of a better word to express it, hence the quotes. I used math, however inaccurate, to express "where the LF energy 'went.'" I no more care "where that energy goes" or specifically/accurately the details of electrical behavior of the filters that "do the voodoo that they do" HP, LP, or BP, than the price of tea in china. My concern is that I or anyone I care about doesn't toast their equipment because of an inaccurate impeadence rating. One final A7 FACT I know I've posted before, also an inaccuracy on the site: below the sub XO frequency (125hz) the A7 subs and MW are in parallel. Impedence: 4 ohms. Igorance: toasted amp.

I will actively "XO this problem away" after we move and I correct the DC offset problems w/my Belles amps.

Cheers Tony

gp4jesus

Tour2ma: for more info, ah fuel for the bi-wire agument, er debate, go to post #23 in this thread.

http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?t=94140

or these links

http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/atta...8&d=1155780535
http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?t=38755

Somebody on this thread wanted to "see the data" I mentioned in an earlier post. I confess I haven't read them in forever and not recently; busy.

Also to you RTi10 owners: tap a sub w/one hand; w/the other hand lightly touching your mid; doing that w/A7s you'll feel the MW pulse slightly. If you experience the same your MWs and sub share the same chamber like the A7s

cheers, Tony

tony

mdaudioguy

gp4jesus wrote: »

Also to you RTi10 owners: tap a sub w/one hand; w/the other hand lightly touching your mid; doing that w/A7s you'll feel the MW pulse slightly. If you experience the same your MWs and sub share the same chamber like the A7s

I tapped, and I think I felt something move! :eek:

gp4jesus

mdaudioguy wrote: »

i tapped, and i think i felt something move! :eek:

lol!lol!lol!lol!lol!lol!lol!lol!lol!lol!lol!lol!lol!

Almost forgot go to post #43

http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?t=94140&page=2

Tour2ma

gp4jesus wrote: »

Tour2ma: for more info, ah fuel for the bi-wire agument, er debate, go to post #23 in this thread.

http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?t=94140

or these links

http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/atta...8&d=1155780535
http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?t=38755

Somebody on this thread wanted to "see the data" I mentioned in an earlier post. I confess I haven't read them in forever and not recently; busy.

Sorry I've been away healing the whelps from the olive branch I extended to you in my last post. So much for that effort...

On the 7/10 split... You say one thing, Polk CS says the opposite (BTW... Ken is the retired head of Polk CS and Kim is the current head). I don't know you; I know Polk CS. As for the rest of your reply I just wish it had included something that actually added to the passive x-over discussion. And for the record I only mentioned your math because you did.

Yes, I wanted to see the data... and dispite the fact you have already disowned it, I'll still take a look... where is it?

The post #23 (by the way you can link to the post by right clicking the post number and copying the shortcut) you refer to is wrong. A set of bi-wires originating from a single speaker terminal is no different from a circuit standpoint than a single wire to a jumper.

gp4jesus

Polk makes fine equipment. I plan to buy more of it.

Tour2ma wrote: »

Sorry I've been away healing the whelps from the olive branch I extended to you in my last post. So much for that effort...

You drew "first blood," not me. In spite of that, I forgave you. What more do you want?

Tour2ma wrote: »

You say* one thing, Polk CS** says the opposite

* I don't say, I KNOW! That's the difference.
** They get their info from the same place you do, the web site!

Tour2ma wrote: »

Ken is the retired head of Polk CS

Hmm... explains why he's retired

Tour2ma wrote: »

... and Kim is the current head

... in the business of telling people what they want to hear.

Tour2ma wrote: »

. I don't know you

You're right. I could say the same, but I think I know you as well as I want to.

Tour2ma wrote: »

I know Polk CS.

not as well as you think.

Tour2ma wrote: »

As for the rest of your reply I just wish it had included something that actually added to the passive x-over discussion.

Sorry about that.


My final contribution to the bi-wire discussion: As I stated in post# 144; click on the link and got to post#43. If you don't agree with the author's opinion, take it up w/him w/a PM.

I have nothing more to add to this passive bi-amp discussion.

As for the 'A7 closure/XO debate, I refuse to engage YOU further. You don't have first hand knowledge and neither do your sources. Also I've come to the conclusion you have "selective vision." Optically the same as selective hearing. Either that or you can't read.

Several times I've clearly & eloquently stated my FIRST HAND knowledge of the A7 closure* & XO* and Ken/Kim et al's lack of same. Yet you refuse to concede one iota on either.

I'll say [or paraphrase] this for the last time: I will entertain discussion on these topics* with anyone who KNOWS; someone w/ FIRSTHAND hand A7 knowledge! I refuse to waste any more time w/ second hand, third hand, or fourth hand info sources. Time I could spend w/my family, tweeking my equipment, etc.

Polk makes fine equipment. I plan to buy more of it.

cheers

Tour2ma

Bye...

mdaudioguy

Wow. That was weird. Can this thread just die now? I once thought I was interested in it. Now, I can't even remember why... :redface:

Tour2ma

Ditto...

BigA524

I ended up buying an Emotiva amp for my 10s and it didnt help the bass. With a sub the sound its Awwwwwesome!

Cmiller

I bought a Adcom 7500 amp for my Rti10's..helped alot in the bass, now i run them "Full Range" also, but...i also angled the Rti10 inward more "Towed in" and adjust the EQ on my SC-25 Xcurve and that help alot also.. Ive noticed these Rti10's need to be place perfect to get the full affect..They sound great now....The whole debate about this topic is,and very simply put..YOU NEED POWER! for the Rti10 and learn how to adjust your EQ on your AVR

Toolfan66

BigA524 wrote: »

I ended up buying an Emotiva amp for my 10s and it didnt help the bass. With a sub the sound its Awwwwwesome!

I wonder why??? (being sarcastic) now buy a Adcom GFA 545,555,585,5802 my favorite out of the bunch and report back. You will then have your answer. The pretty blue light works though...