Rinsewind43110

Thank you for taking the time to reply to my post. Your explanations of the inner workings of my(and not my) headphones was very useful. Especially the diagrams: The ones on wikipedia are *useless*! I had heard that Images were more expensive due to size, but it's nice to see that isn't necessarily true, as they don't need a crossover, improving the sound quality. And they are definitely fast. I also have to applaud your recommendation of B&W 800s: I use a pair of old 630's on a regular basis, and they are a bit more mid-centric, but they have somewhat of a "unified" sound. Speaking of unified, I've always thought... crossovers, I get they can be very good, and unfortunately, necessary. Point being, one of my favorite things about my Images is that they sound like they completely lack a cross-over. It's very, very obvious. And since they don't have one, that makes sense. Of course, all this is leading to another question... for anyone who cares to answer, the good Professor has already been quite helpful: Are headphones the only way to get a full frequency response of 20Hz -> 20KHz, or even close, without using a cross-over of some sort? If there's another way, I'd love to know! Even things like electrostats can't go low enough, and therefore require a cross-over, seemingly defeating their purpose(?) Thanks again all! Would be interesting to see how a Veritas compared to the RF's recommended... see, Klipsch... kind of... manufactures those...(?) Happy New Year everyone!

Well, I can't know I'm wrong if I don't ask! So, they aren't far superior. Icon WF-34: In a closed-door Magnolia display room, these speakers sounded incredible harsh and bright. Their mids were weak and their bass was not what I expect or up to my standards... at all. Reference RF-82: In a closed-door listening room, at an audio boutique... which had seriously high-end stuff pushing them, the speakers simply blew me away. Beautiful never-ending highs and heart-palpitating bass. These speakers could sound exactly the same under the same condition and sound that different just due to differences in rooms and amplifiers(I believe the Best Buy Icons were just running off of a Denon Receiver and the RF-82's off of something that said 'McIntosh'). 2 problems with this: 1) I have a Denon reciever, not a McIntosh rig. 2) I was under the impression Klipsch speakers did a lot with a little... high-sensitivity, more output with lower wattage. So the WF-34's should have done a lot with the Denon receiver. But perhaps even this hits a ceiling when comparing such different amp setups. I know how the WF-34's sound on a receiver much like my own, and I know how the RF-82's sound on a cost-no-object amp rig. So the question would be: How much of the difference in the speakers is a result of the RF-82's slight to moderate superiority in sound quality, and how much of the difference is a result of the difference in what gear is pushing sound to them? Yes, this whole post seems over-complicated. But so does the interaction of amp -> speaker -> room -> ear.

Samuel, Wow! You put a lot of time and effort into your reply to my posting. First of all, I don't feel a need to dispute you on your headphone recommendation. But I'm so happy with the ImageX10's, and their condition is ultra-mint(lost the headphone cleaner, but you can use the actual plug through the flangeholes to hollow them out too)... so happy with the ImageX10's that I have no need or desire to replace those. Before them I owned 2 other in-ear headphones. Sonys. Yeah, I know... but I did replace them! I don't see myself upgrading for a long-time. But again, I want to thank you for the time and effort you put into providing the headphone advice, even if I'm not looking for that. A floor-standing or bookshelf(I don't know why I prefer the sound of bookshelfs... it's one of those subjective things) speaker that has the same sound as my Image X10's is what I am really interested in. That kind of sound quality out of an actual speaker would be nothing short of amazing. And you're right, they don't necessarily have the highs that they could... but my own comfort levels being a factor, if they were much brighter, I couldn't/wouldn't want to listen to them for as long. Bass isn't quite so fatiguing, if only because I don't listen to bass-heavy material(not a rap fan here). Regarding the klipschorn as a suggestion for a speaker coming close to matching... from my experience, klipsch speakers actually have a quite different sound from my Image X10 headphones. But that's the newer reference line, with it's focus on extreme highs and lows(not a complaint, they do both well), and the headphones i have do mids in a way that makes them not even sound like mids, which is otherwise an alien concept to me. Mids are mids. To conclude this rant, The ideal Klipsch speaker for me would be either the RF-82 or the RF-7. Depending on which I could afford. But I still don't necessarily believe that the Klipsch headphones are made to sound like the speakers. They have their own sound. However, I know the klipschorn itself doesn't sound like the reference line, so it may be more inline with the Image headphones. I won't know that until I get a chance to hear them. Thanks again Samuel and I'm still hoping for more suggestions of speakers that come the closest to the Image X10 headphones.

So I can safely assume that the advantages of the Icon and Synergy lines over equally priced reference models are non-audible? Things like design, size, WAF, etc...?

I understand what you meant about Klipshorns: I have Image X10's, which may sound very different from your S4's as they have a very different design. They differ from klipsch speakers in that they lack the same level of high frequency energy. It's much more subtle. Not too weak, but not with the energy of the reference line klipsch speakers that I have heard. And since they are headphones, prolonged high-energy high frequency listening sessions would be fatiguing and potentially damaging to my ears. While I consider the klipsch reference highs to be a strength, they do not seem to have the same sound as my Image X10 headphones. I hope this makes my question more clear, if less answerable. However, if klipschorns are more balanced and lack the pronounced energetic high frequencies...? I've never heard that particular speaker...

There is a pair of speakers in that list that is more expensive than the RF-82's! The WF-34. Who would choose the more expensive WF-34's over the superior RF-82's, and why?

My question is regarding the speakers below: WF-34 Floorstanding Speaker $1,199.00 Pair (MSRP) RF-82 Floorstanding Speaker $1,098.00 Pair (MSRP) F-3 Floorstanding Speaker $950.00 Pair (MSRP) VF-36 Floorstanding Speaker $949.99 Pair (MSRP) RF-62 Floorstanding Speaker $878.00 Pair (MSRP) The most expensive being the Icon WF-34 is at $1200/pair, and the least expensive at $878.00 a pair are the RF-62, which are reference. The Synergy F-3's are also in this fairly narrow price band of about $900-$1200. With these 3 different speaker lines crossing over at this point, what advantages would one get choosing, say, a VF-36 over an RF-62... or a WF-34 over an RF-82? They are all floor-standers. And as I understand it, the reference line is far superior to the Icon line, with the Synergy line falling somewhere inbetween. Given this fact, what drives the speakers such as the WF-34 and VF-36 to be viable options? Is there something I'm not thinking of? Apologies if it's obvious and I'm just wasting bandwidth here! But I think it's a legitimate question and I've seen the same thing with other speaker manufacturers. Again, thanks to anyone who takes the time to read this, and/or reply.

This may not be an answerable one: What pair of speakers(not just klipsch, but any speaker) sounds most similar to Klipsch ImageX10's(the top level Klipsch Images)? Nothing I've ever heard sounds as good as the Image X10's, saving maybe speakers that cost more than my car/house/soul. I had another question, but I'm using a seperate post. I hope that's okay! Thanks!