Schwa

My money right now is on three new lines called "Reference," "Reference II," and "Reference III." We know about Reference, and I suspect the current Reference II line-up will get some minor updates in 2015 to become the "new" Reference II. The big question is of course what the Reference III line will bring and how those speakers will improve upon Ref II. I expect fancier cabinets, trickle-down Palladium components, maybe three-way designs, and higher prices. However, there is a huge gap between Reference II and Palladium, so I expect Reference III will fill that void nicely. I'm not sure how "excited" I'm personally going to be considering that I just bought nine new speakers and my next major upgrade is years away, but progress is always a good thing. I am curious and interested in seeing what Klipsch comes up with, and I always root for the brand to do well in the marketplace.

But I'm sure it's fun to read the wild (and probably incorrect) speculation!

I always thought that the RF-7II was such a large jump price-wise from the RF-82II that it almost was its own tier. That's why I wonder what will happen to it and the RC-64II. However, if there's a third tier, that implies there will be a whole line of speakers above the current R-II line. So what will they be? More refined cabinetry (no more rectangular boxes)? Different tweeters and/or woofers? Three-ways? All of the above?

So, to change things up a little bit...we know that the entire Reference line-up will be tiered, and we know what the Reference and Reference II lines look like. So, who'd like to make some predictions for the Reference III line that should slot between the current R-II line and Palladium? And what does this mean for the RF-7II and RC-64II? Will they remain part of the R-II line-up or will they get re-jiggered to fit into the R-III line somehow? Discuss...

How so?

Earlier in the thread Amy (former "Forum Queen") said that the replacements for the current Reference II line would appear in 2015.

Scrappy, don't feel bad. I had to look that one up too the first time I saw it used about a year ago over on the AVS Forum. I've been champing at the bit ever since then to use it.

Again with the ad hominem attacks, eh? Very clever. Here's mine: I guess some people around here are so offended when anyone questions any of Klipsch's actions that they feel compelled to strike back with personal insults. The Emotiva Lounge is knee-deep with folks like this; I guess I thought we could entertain a few dissenting opinions over here without certain people throwing a hissy-fit.

I certainly look forward to it!

You give a damn exactly as much as I give a damn; that is, just enough to post about it on a public forum. I can't speak for others, but I'm not losing any sleep over Klipsch's decision. I'll grant you that without knowing the full extent of the line-up we're forming opinions without a complete set of information. But it certainly makes for an interesting discussion topic! Just because the marketing guys spent a lot of "time and effort" to come up with this new tiering strategy doesn't mean we don't appreciate it or shouldn't question it. I like Klipsch very, very much (you should see the stash of speakers living in my basement), but I'm not so much of a fanboy that I won't question things that looks fishy on first glance.

You web app definitely sounds like a good idea, but it appears to be (at least partially) solving a problem that didn't exist before all of the speakers were grouped under the Reference umbrella. I guess what remains unclear to me are the benefits of calling the majority of the speakers "Reference." Isn't "Klipsch" the most important branding, not "Reference?" In other words, what's to be gained by calling all speakers "Klipsch Reference" as opposed to just plain "Klipsch?" I'd be willing to bet that the "Reference" moniker is of real meaning only to Klipsch enthusiasts, and by diluting its meaning, it potentially alienates current Klipsch enthusiasts and needlessly confuses potential future customers. Oh well, I honestly don't care that much one way or the other about the new brand direction, I just think it's an incredibly peculiar decision whose plus-sides are nebulous at best right now. I guess all will be made clear when the entirety of the line-up in introduced.

Well, regarding the RF-7IIs, since they're more than double the price of the next closest Reference sibling, not to mention their sublime performance, I'd argue that there's quite a lot special about them. However, the point I was trying to make is that if you're simply going to call all of your consumer-line speakers "Reference," then what's the meaning of the distinction? At least when there was Synergy, Icon, and Reference, you knew where they all fit in the product line-up. Reference were the specialty dealers' line, and Synergy and Icon were the mass-market speakers. Now that everything is Reference, those distinctions become pretty fuzzy, and there's little name-wise to distinguish the mass-market References from the speciality dealer References. I personally understand what the differences are, but since this is clearly an exercise in marketing, I find it perplexing why Klipsch would muddy the waters by using the Reference moniker for the vast majority of their consumer offerings. It's confusing to the Average Joe what the differences between mass-market and specialty dealer speakers are when even their names are the same. Yes, it's just a product name. Agreed 100%. But if Klipsch themselves is going through the trouble of press releases and product line-up reshufflings over "just a product name," it becomes a pretty important topic.

Way to water down the Reference brand, Klipsch! If you're going to call everything Reference, why call anything Reference? This was clearly a move made by the marketing guys -- as evidenced by this statement in the press release: "“We are launching exciting products in complimentary verticals with much tighter parameters for consistency in the marketplace." Holy marketing mumbo-jumbo, Batman! I have no doubt the products themselves will be fantastic. But there's a reason that companies don't lump everything together under one product line. I've said it before, but J6P is going to wonder why he needs to go to a specialty dealer and spend $1600/speaker on Reference RF-7IIs when he can run down to Best Buy and get some Reference R-28Fs for $450/speaker. They're all References, right? I just don't get the strategy here. And press releases with statements like the one I quoted above sure don't help matters.

Well, since the "new" stuff (other than the Icon/Synergy replacements) isn't even out yet, I'd say we'll be waiting a while.

I'll wait and see, but I think combining everything into a single Reference line confuses the consumer and waters down the prestige of the current Reference II offerings, especially if the Ref II replacements are called Reference also: "Why should I buy these RF-82IIs when I can get those new Reference R-28Fs, also with 8" woofers, for less. I mean, they're all References, right?" We enthusiasts will understand the differences, but will J6P? I'm with Scrappy on this one, but hopefully the strategy will be clear in time. It's of little consequence to me anyway since I just finished building out my 2x RF-7II / RC-64II / 4x RS-62II / 2x RB-81II system.

According to JD over on AVS, one of the supported 7.2.2 Atmos configurations has "top fronts" as an acceptable configuration. If so, I hope bookshelf speakers (and not strictly in-ceiling speakers) are acceptable for Atmos because then I could use the pair of RB-81IIs I just ordered to support Atmos/DSX/DTS Neo:X/DPLIIz all in one swoop. I'm not against installing additional ceiling speakers just for Atmos, but it's unclear how the Denon receivers will handle two different 7.2.2 speaker configurations. In my case, this would be a traditional 7.2 layout plus two front height bookshelves for DSX/DTS Neo:X/DPLIIz, and the same 7.2 layout plus two in-ceiling speakers for Atmos. Would it be a simple matter to switch between the two different speaker configurations based on source material? That's unclear at this point. I'm a little disappointed in the home Atmos implementation because the home processors aren't measuring the precise locations of the speakers in the room. Because of this, the receiver is simply assuming the locations of the connected speakers, which implies that Atmos will image no better than the existing channel-based formats. In fact, it's already been stated over on AVS that Atmos will provide no benefit to legacy 5.x or 7.x configurations, so the only thing it's really bringing to the table is discrete height channels.

Actually, you're right -- I could just drill holes through that shelf's baseplate and secure the speaker to the shelf using the threaded inserts on the bottom.

The subject says it all. I'm having a hell of a time finding a suitable wall-mount bracket for RB-81IIs, but it looks like some pro-mount brackets might work. However, I'd need an adapter for a 1-3/8" mounting post; this could work depending on the spacing of the threaded inserts on the bottom of the speaker. Here's the wall mount I'm looking at: http://www.fullcompass.com/product/360866.html Here's the adapter that'd be needed: http://www.fullcompass.com/product/329241.html Clearly the only way the adapter will work is if the speaker's threaded inserts are far enough apart. Since for some reason Klipsch doesn't post this info on their website, could someone please measure and post the distance between the two threaded inserts on the bottom of the RB-81II? Also, I'm open to any recommendations of wall brackets that would work with these speakers and would use the threaded inserts. I plan to use the RB-81IIs as front height speakers in a 9.2 (and eventually Dolby Atmos 13.2) setup. Drilling into the speakers is not an option nor are the type if brackets that clamp the speakers from the sides. Thanks in advance!

Did you check eBay? It looks like Walt's TV has a bunch of NOS RC-64s for sale -- but you'll pay for 'em ($1200). I guess that's at least less than the RC-64II's MSRP.

Good luck - $2000 might be a bit of a stretch.

I've decided 'm not messing with it. My picture was taken slightly off-center so it probably looks worse than it is -- the "blockage" is just the little bit of adhesive (I guess) at the 10 o'clock position that Youthman pointed out earlier. FWIW the screen is part of the tweeter, not part of the horn -- here are some good pictures (not mine) that show what the actual compression driver looks like once the horn is removed. Anyway, thanks for the input guys -- I can't believe all of the responses!

It's exactly that little spot that Youthman pointed out. I'm sure it's purely cosmetic. Thanks for all the replies!

Thanks Youthman. As I said, I'll probably call Klipsch on Tuesday and order a new tweeter assembly -- I assume they'll provide the horn also (based on some old Reference tweeters I have lying around it looks like the part number for the tweeter is on the horn so it looks like I'll get the whole thing). Now that I know how the bezel comes off I know how to replace the tweeter. Honestly this is for cosmetic reasons only anyway; I emailed Eric at Sound Distributors and he said that based on what he's seen this isn't that unusual -- he said his own RF-7II has something similar. It was only visible because I was curious what the tweeters looked like up close compared to my RF-82II tweeters so I shined a flashlight in there and saw the glue. I would've never noticed otherwise. Oh yeah -- what type of double-sided tape did you use to stick the driver bezel back on?

Thanks for the reply!! That makes total sense. I'll call Klipsch on Tuesday and see if I can get a new tweeter/horn assembly. One last question -- how thick was the double-sided tape that holds the bezel on the front of the horn? Was it that foam 3M mounting tape or something thinner?

Compressed air is a bit of a misnomer -- it was an electric air blower and I used it from more than a foot away. It didn't impart a significant amount of force on the tweeter diaphragm.