RogerG

TheEars, I think you meant to say the Servo-15 is clearly superior to anything in it's price range. You forgot add that the Bose is the hands down winner if money is no object. And it looks just like a little room humidifier!

Yes, by all means, if you can swing a blose 'acoustimass' bass module, I would go that route. The TWIN! 5 1/4" paper woofers can pound your chest so hard it will make you feel like a CPR dummy. Don't you realize that if you do enough 'research' you can change the laws of physics?

I would definately get the servo 15. It is much tighter than the PW-2200. If music listening is your thing, the servo would be hard to beat. I have heard the 2200 a few times, and it is an excellent sub for the price, but is a little boomy.

John, 8 feet would be fine. That's the distance of my RF-3's. What I would be concerned with is the proximity to the rear wall. It may sound a little boomy since the speakers are rear ported. You'll just have to experiment with placement. I would try to keep them at least a foot or two from the rear wall.

The RF-3's are a large step up from the SF-2's. They put out a bigger soundstage and have increased treble resolution. They sound much more 'effortless.' If you decide on the RF's you will definately want the RC-3, also a big step up from your current center. If your on a budget get the matching surrounds last and use your sb1's in the meantime. Surrounds are less critical than the center and mains.

I would definately get the RF5's. The horn is larger than the RB5 (8" vs.6"), has been revoiced for more accurate sound, and has a larger soundstage. It also has a 'fuller' sound since it has twice the bass/midrange drivers.

Just checking to see when I joined...

Deang, I feel the same way about the KLF series. I don't think you would feel any different. I had a pair for a couple of months and felt the same way about them from the first listen to the last. Maybe if I had a significant amount of high frequency hearing loss I would have liked them better. Those speakers were seriously lacking in many areas. The Reference series is an entirely different sound so many people used to "traditional Klipsch sound" don't like them. They think Klipsch has sold out. I think Klipsch has progressed dramatically. One thing about demoing speakers at a store is the rarity one encounters in being able to listen to properly set up equipment. My RF-3's sound dramatically different at home than any I have heard in the stores. I can see why people rip on them without actually having heard them at home. I listened to the RF-5's vs. Boston Acoustics, Infinity, Definitive Technology, and KLF 20's last week and the RF's sounded so much better than any of it's competitors.

Colin is right on the money. IMO the Reference series are some of the best affordable speakers Klipsch has made to date. I have noticed much "Reference bashing" by owners of Legend series speakers who insist Legends are superior. I very much disagree. Two years ago when I bought RF-3's, I had an extensive in-home demo of KLF-30's vs. RF-3's. I found the References to be superior in tonal balance, to have MUCH better imaging, more detail, better driver integration, better bass articulation, to be less "shouty" and more refined treble. I found the KLF 30's to be WAY brighter than the RF-3's. All my friends thought so too. As for cost cutting, three of the screws on the woofers of the KLF's were half loose, I actually pulled the driver for a look-see, and was surprised that the magnet was so small for such a large woofer. Not to mention the cheap stamped steel basket. Look at an RF-3 driver: the magnet is twice as big and it has a much more substantial basket. And it's only an 8" woofer. The cast aluminum RF-7 woofer makes a Legend woofer look like a toy. Also, NO internal bracing on the KLF's, just a big empty box. Compare crossovers, the Reference series is much more refined-you can just tell by looking at both. It is obvious cost cutting engineering went into the KLF series just by the glued cabinets that many people have complained about falling apart. The seam on the back panel of the Reference line is totally different. No wonder you see Legends for sale online for less than half of their original MSRP. I believe Klipsch is trying to redeem itself and live up to its name by releasing superior products compared to the competition in the same price range. The Reference line is their first step toward that goal. BTW, the Jubilee is a two-way design just like the original Klipschhorn.

The RF-5 appears to be actually smaller than the RF-3. RF-3=5613.3 cu. in. RF-5=5415.7 cu. in. (LxWxH) Do I have too much time on my hands today or what!

First off, thank you Klipsch for changing the website; much better looking and easier to navigate. One(many) questions though. Looking at the specs for the new Reference RF-5 doesn't mention if it is a 2 1/2 way design(maybe it's not). Also, the woofer model number(k-1083-SB) is the same for the RF-3 and RF-5. The manual for my RF-3's has woofer model # K-1038-S. Has Klipsch changed (upgraded) the woofers in the rf-3 since it's introduction? (I bought mine when they were first introduced in 1999). By looking at the specs on the website, the only differences I can see between the rf-3 and 5 are the tweeters and cabinets. Any input would be appreciated.

I concur. However, get the Integra 5.2 if you can. Upgraded parts, better build quality, styling, gold plated inputs, etc. Bargain with the dealer. I paid 420.00 for mine.

Those are the exact two receivers I am considering. I have heard nothing but positive reviews on DPL II. I would be interested to hear your opinion on the sound quality in 2-channel (as well as surround) from both recievers. I had borrowed an Integra 5.1 receiver a few months back and really like the sound but It seemed a little lacking in bass punch (without a sub).

I have noticed many speaker manufacturers going to a 2 1/2 way design and now it looks like Klipsch is with the new RF-5 and 7. If I understand it correctly, the top woofer plays bass and midrange frequencies and the bottom woofer only plays bass. I can see how that would make for a simpler crossover but is that the only advantage? Can dispersion characteristics be improved using this design? Any other benefits? Also, using a 1.7" tweeter in the RF-7 has obvious benefits by allowing mids and highs to originate from one point source. Will the RF-5 tweeter have a greater frequency response than the current RF-3 tweeter?

If by "closed loop" you mean building an active speaker I think it would be a great idea. Go listen to some active Linn 5140's vs. passive powered 5140's(driven by any amp) and see if an active speaker has definite performance advantages. Price is definately the biggest setback to building such a system. (An entire active Linn home theater costs $27,000). I personally would not be worried about the inability to "tweak" since I very much doubt I could find ANY passive amp (within reason) that would sound as good as a properly designed active speaker. One question though, would the crossover be in the amps, eliminating any need for crossovers in the speaker? The Linn system uses external amps but places the crossover in the amp. Paradigm has active speakers but the amp is inside the speaker. I'm not sure where the crossover occurs.

I currently have rf-3's and am thinking of adding the rc-3. However, I might upgrade to the rf-5 when those are released. I am wondering if Klipsch is going to update the rc-3 with the 8" horn like the new reference series (rf5 and rf7) will have or if it will stay as is and an upgrade from the rc-3 would mean moving to the rc-7.

Let me see if I understand the differences in the forthcoming Reference RF-5 and RF-7 tower. RF-5 will have 1" tweeter, RF-7 will be 1.7". Both will have an 8" horn. Both will have a tapered array crossover or "2.5 way" similar to what Paradigm and PSB use in their speakers. RF-5 will have 8" woofers like the current RF-3 but with low mass surrounds, bigger magnets and a larger port. RF-7 will be similar except for having 10" woofers. Now, a few questions. Will the woofers use "cast polymer baskets" (plastic) similar to what the current reference series uses? Will the cabinets have internal bracing on the level of say, a Paradigm Reference studio 100 speaker? (A speaker in the same projected price range of the RF-7). Do horns by their very nature even need this kind of bracing? (woofers are a different matter). Will off axis response (a traditional horn weakness) be improved by crossing over the top woofer into the midrange or by the new horn design? (or both)? Will the titanium dome in the RF-5 be a refinement over the current RF-3 or just the horn? Is a 10" woofer too large to be playing into the midrange? Sorry about all the questions but I have recently lisened to some Paradigm References and was very impressed. Very wide soundstage, holographic imaging,and a more detailed midrange than my RF-3's but I noticed they sounded a little reticent and were missing some of the "gutsy" feeling of my RF-3's. I am considering getting the Paradigms but am going to wait for the release of the new Klipsches to see if they make up for what the Paradigms have and my RF-3's lack (and vice versa). Any responses to my questions would be appreciated.