Mickey Ray

No, haven't sold them yet, and should probably wait a while since a local London Drugs has them on sale for half price. 1950 is a good price you're getting for the WF-35 set, but if I were you I'd go for the RF-63s, which I still miss in my living room. Although they CAN rise to the occasion, the WF-35s lack the 63s punch; in fact, even my 62s in the rear sound punchier. So 63s in front with smaller RFs in the rear would do the job. And BTW, I'll even go so far as to say I got better sound with just the 63s in front, than I do with the WF-35s flanking a WC-24 centre. I know I'm gonna draw a lot of flack for saying this, but I think the need for a centre channel is overrated: I think my receiver just routed the centre signal to the front towers, because the dialogue always sounded fine to me. Sure, maybe if I had an RC-64 it'd open a whole new world of sound to me and I'll be gobsmacked over what I'd been missing, but as it is, I think I was doing pretty fine with the 63s in front, 62s in rear. If someone offered me a pair of 63s in exchange for my WF-35s and WC-24, I'd jump at the opportunity. Yeah, the Icons look great - serious WAF, but sound's first in my book.

Thinking of putting together a system with a pair of RB-81 bookshelf speakers, mounted atop a pair of powered 15" subs. From what I've seen, going from floorstanders to bookshelves loses mainly bass. Are the RB-81s big enough to avoid a similar loss in the mids? The idea is a sort of Lego-built, 3-way monster tower that does away with the need for stands (I have a low sofa that's about 14' from my TV, so the speakers wouldn't have to be very high) while delivering mad sound. I'd be running the system with my Onkyo 7.2 receiver, the TX-SR607, set on bi-amp for the bookshelves. How would this rate on the slam-meter compared with, say, a pair of RF-82s/RF-63s with one sub? Replies appreciated.

I'm actually wishing I'd gone 2.1, with a pair of RF-63s in front and an RSW-10D. Those were demo models on clearance - 60% off - at the local London Drugs, with 5 yr warranty. I had the RF-63s, but instead of just adding the sub like I should have, I traded them in for a pair of WF-35s and the WC-24 centre, and like I said, I'm kicking myself cuz although the W series looks like a million bucks (greater WAF), pack a lot of punch for their size, and seem to project the highs into the room better, they lack the slam and cost me an extra $1,500 to boot. Of course, they're not broken in yet, but at best they'll equal the 63s for a lot more dough.And did I mention I have some large boxes taking up space in my pad? I guess there's always money lost in this quest for sound, but I thought I'd put the time and research in. Anyway, now I'm debating whether to sell the W stuff at a loss, or trade them for a pair of 83s or RF-7s plus cash. I've heard the RF-7s like more power, but I wouldn't be cranking them, and running them in stereo on bi-amp with my Onkyo oughta do it. In any case, there's an expiration date for kicking oneself and I think I've passed it. Time to move on.

So the speakers are set up, been playing them almost constantly for a week, and...I find myself missing my RF-63s, which I'd paid $1000 less for ($1075 clearance vs full price for the WF-35s), and which needed a sub less than these guys do. Yup, I'm kicking myself. Sure, the WF-35s look better, and possibly have better highs, wih maybe better soundstaging, in the sense that the sound comes towards you more, residing less in the boxes, but if so it's certainly not to a significant degree. When the 20th Century Fox theme music comes on, the 63s slam, where the 35s don't. The 35s are capable of some powerful bass, like during the Lord of the Rings movies, where you often have a big upsurge of bass tones (a great test scene is the Minas Morgul part in LOTR 3), but for the most part they're just too refined for these ears. Plus, I'd rather have that extra grand in my pocket. I'm actually thinking of keeping the WC-24 centre and matching it with the RF-63s. Yeah, I know about the compression drivers and needing the RC-64, but I think the Audyssey EQ on my Onkyo would just put the WC-24 higher in the mix. I mean, we're still talking horn tweeters and I think that's the important part. If it's not a perfect mix I'm not too concerned, since getting an RC-64 would require a newer, wider TV stand, meaning I wouldn't be able to have my TV on the long side of my room, and that's all out of the question. Anyway, gonna see if I can switch the WF-35s for the RF-63s. It was final sale, but I think they'll find it easier to move the WF-35s than the RF-63s: few people here in Vancouver want those big tower speakers - they're all going bookshelf/sub, and if they get towers, it's the WAF styles. Personally, I go for sound. If you'd asked me a week ago, I'd have said sound AND girl friendly, but now I know a little more about what drives me. And hey, it's not like they'll be shooting CSI: Miami in my apartment anytime soon, so WTF. In fact, I'd go with RF-7s if I could get my hands on a pair; hear from these forums, and from AudioReview, that they're more dynamic than the RF-83s that supposedly replace them. Klipsch and 10" woofers sounds like a winning combo to me, at least till the Palladium line falls within grasp (I know, dream on).

Well guys looks like I've gone and mixed things up again. Since RC-64 centres don't come cheap, or often, and I'd have to get a new TV stand to accomodate the thing anyway, I traded up - maybe traded 'in' is the better word - the RF-63s for a pair of WF-35s and a WC-24 centre. The amount comes to about the same as if I'd kept the 63s and added an RC-64. The movers are coming over Saturday to do the switch, and those mofos better do it right this time - they were gripping the 63s front and back, with their hands right over the woofers. Yeah, I know they're 81lb (the speakers, not the movers) and they got no handles on 'em but Jesus Christ man. From what Prof Thump says, the 63s should be several feet out from a wall, and the listener at least 12ft away from them. With my surrounds a similar distance from the back wall, I'd have to stretch the room a few feet, and that is beyond my powers. So the WFs it is. I don't see myself getting the matching XW-500D, but Rockon sounds right about the SVS. I'll try both RockOn and Montigue's advice on the speaker settings and see what works best. About Monty's way seeming to rule out the need for tower speakers, it seems like higher towers don't just have better bass, but stronger mid and treble response, too. I noticed that with the RF-63s over the 62s: it wasn't just an extra woofer in a bigger box. That's why I went with the WF-35s instead of the 34s. But stupidly, I didn'teven bother to listen to the 34s.Guess I'm just wired for 'big.' Anyway, I'll let you guys know how it all sounds in my apartment this weekend. I heard more slam on 'Kingdom of Heaven' from my RF-63s than I did from the WF-35s, but the sound quality from the latter was at least as good, and besides, I have my 63s bi-amped. Wonder what the break-in time is for the WF-35s? We'll see, I guess. And so, of course, will my neighbours. Maybe I should work on them a bit - grease the wheels, work the charm, ready them for the coming apocalypse...

Thanks for the input guys, and you're definitely right about the need for a sub. I'm looking at the Klipsch RW-12D. 24Hz isn't bad for extension, though 18 would be nice for those subliminal "Oh, shit something bad's about to happen" undertones. A guy on Craigslist was selling an SVS PB-12 Plus for CD$675 but according to the SVS website they don't recommend this model or rooms over 2,500 cubic feet. Still, I should have gone for it - it's not like I'd be blasting it. My Onkyo is a 7.2, but I'd rather get one good sub. Besides, the receiver has a 'double bass' setting that repeats the lows being sent to the fronts. Not sure if this would result in the tones canceling each other out, or muddying the sound, but willing ot give it a shot.

Hi all, this is my first posting to these forums. Got a pair of RF-62s a few months ago, demo models on clearance at a local London Drugs for $638 after tax. They sounded great both at the store and in my living room. My room is about 21' long by 18' wide (about 3,500 cubic feet), with the speakers set up on the longer side. Hardwood floors, no rugs. Then, two days ago, got a pair of RF-63s at another LD, also clearance demos, $1,075 after tax. They do have a bigger soundstage, and more detailed highs. Now the RF-62s are in the rear. I see a pair of RS-62s at the latter LD for $289 each before tax. So now I'm wondering whether to sell my RF-62s and go for the RC-62s. I've heard that lower bass tones are sometimes sent to the rears, unless they're unable to accomodate, in which case these tones are delivered to the fronts. If so, I've got the lower tones covered with my current rears. But I'm told the bipole/dipole surrounds offer wider dispersion. So it looks like it's dispersion vs bass. After tax, and with some decent stands, I'm looking at a couple hundred more for a switch to the RC-62s, depending on how much I'd get for the RF-62s. And that might not be much, since the locals here (Vancouver, BC) tend to go for bookshelf/small sub combos. I decided to go old school, and with the RF-63s I don't really need a sub. Gotta say I'm sold on the Klipsch sound. Dynamic and clear. Listening about 60/40 in favour of home theatre over music. Looking forward to hearing from you guys.