adam2434

My daughter’s bedroom system has a Chromecast Audio connected to her AVR via optical cable. She uses Spotify Premium exclusively (I believe you have to have a Premium account for the Chromecast Audio to work with Spotify). Sound quality of the Spotify Premium 320 kbps bitrate via optical connection to AVR sounds pretty darn good (I doubt many folks could hear a significant difference vs. a CD player connected via optical) Not sure about the analog out sound quality, but I would not expect DAC greatness from a $35 device. I believe Pandora works with the Chromecast Audio, but have not tried that. For PC flac/wav files, I believe you need server software (like Plex) on the PC and the corresponding app on your phone. I have never tried this, as I use a Sonos Connect to stream flac files and Spotify Premium to my main system. The Sonos products are pricey, but are very user-friendly and work well together.

I f you have Spotify Premium (worth it, IMO), you could use a Chromecast Audio and an inexpensive DAC like the Schiit Modi 2 Uber (around $185 total for both) to stream 320 kbps Spotify or files on your PC or phone without bluetooth's compression and range limitations. A combo like this has the potential to sound better than the B1 for about the same money. Just another option... What file types do you have for network music?

My 7 II's have plenty of bass too - positioned about 12" from the wall in a large, open room. I have noticed that the woofers move less than I would expect at pretty high output levels - probably because the work is shared by two 10" drivers. Another factor is that brighter speakers (and the 7 II's are on the brighter side, IMO) can give one the perception that the bass is light due to the brighter tonal balance.

We have a hardwired Sonos Connect feeding a DAC in the main system, and have a Play 5 in the kitchen connected wirelessly. Music library is ripped to FLAC, and we also use Spotify Premium. We had a Squeezebox before the Sonos gear. The Squeezebox connection was a bit more reliable. It often takes several minutes for my Galaxy S3 (yeah, I know, a dinosaur) to find the Sonos system. I also liked that you could use replay gain with the fixed volume setting on the Squeezebox . The major benefit of Sonos, for us, is the integration of Spotify Premium and some other services like MLB.com.

In this PSA speaker review, the reviewer measured THD and IMD at 75/85/95 dB. http://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/speaker-subwoofer-reviews/113313-power-sound-audio-mtm-210-speaker-review.html#post1111641 I wonder how other compression driver/horn speakers and dome tweeter speakers would compare.

How would you quantify it? Do you look at distortion versus SPL? Gain linearity versus SPL? What frequencies, and what amplitudes do you measure? What kinds of distortion? Do you use perceptual weightings on the results? Are there minimum noise/distortion targets too? I would have to defer to the speaker engineers, but I'll throw something out there. Plot THD/IMD across a wide frequency range at multiple SPL levels. Would this cover multiple sources of distortion, including thermal compression? I don't believe that you have to do that. For amplitude compression measurement, see https://www.klippel.de/fileadmin/klippel/Files/Know_How/Application_Notes/AN_12_Amplitude_Compression.pdf The generalized nonlinear distortion measurement procedures by type of distortion: https://www.klippel.de/know-how/measurements/nonlinear-distortion.html The above is incorporated by reference into the international standard for testing loudspeakers: IEC 60268-5 "Sound System Equipment, Part 5: Loudspeakers". The standard test procedures are defined. Chris I’ve heard of Klippel analysis – some speaker manufacturers use it for design/R&D. It looks like a very comprehensive suite of tests. Perhaps the numbers it generates are too complicated for the average consumer. Plus, without comparative numbers from competitors’ speakers, the numbers would be difficult to interpret. I noticed that JTR publishes a “Usable Output” spec for their residential speakers (for example “130db calculated peak 133 – 3db compression"), but it’s not clear how they generate that number. My gut tells me that distortion/compression vs. SPL would be very telling and relevant data when comparing speaker performance. Ever notice that some speakers make you want to listen at higher and higher volumes, but other speakers make you want to reduce volume once you hit a certain point?

How would you quantify it? Do you look at distortion versus SPL? Gain linearity versus SPL? What frequencies, and what amplitudes do you measure? What kinds of distortion? Do you use perceptual weightings on the results? Are there minimum noise/distortion targets too? I would have to defer to the speaker engineers, but I'll throw something out there. Plot THD/IMD across a wide frequency range at multiple SPL levels. Would this cover multiple sources of distortion, including thermal compression?

I posted this same topic on AVS, but thought that folks here might have some good input. Some speakers are able to reach higher SPL with less dynamic compression, distortion, and frequency response change vs. other speakers. Some speakers retain their dynamics and tonal balance better as the volume is pushed. Other speakers sound compressed and lose their composure as volume is pushed. Typical specs provided by speaker manufactures do not provide an indication of how well a speaker performs as SPL level increases. Isn’t this a critical area of performance, especially if one has a large room and/or likes to listen at fairly loud levels? Seems like manufactures that are superior performers as SPL increases would generate and publish the data to tout this benefit. Thoughts?

I’ve read that the RF-7 II share a bit more Heritage DNA than the other Reference models do. I don’t know much truth there is to this though. How to the RF-7 II compare sonically to the Cornwall III? Are the Cornwall III a significant step up or more of a different flavor?

Speakerklipschman, IMO, the performance jump from RP-280F to RF-7 II is worth the money, especially if you can get the RF-7 II for $1,800 or less. No doubt that the RP-280F is a lotta speaker for their $800-900 street price, but the RF-7 II is a lotta, lotta, lotta speaker for $1,800 or less.

By this, do you mean the 2-ch guys are toeing them out vs. facing them straight ahead or toeing them in. Mine are currently toed in such that I can't see the the inside panels when I am about 3 ft behind the main listening position (they converge around 3 ft behind my head). With this level of toe in, I have not found them to be brash, whereas I did find the RP-280F to be brash at times. I have not varied toe-in beyond the original placement because I'm getting a nice center image, fairly wide soundstage, and have not experienced brashness so far.

Does that mean yes?

Viewing into one of the ports, I noticed that the RF-7 II woofers use T-nuts for mounting to the baffle. That is a nice touch that I wish was standard on more speakers. MDF is a pretty crappy substrate for screws. Can anyone confirm whether the woofer baskets are cast aluminum? Also, this may sound a little strange, but I love the smell of the finish when I walk by them.

Got the RF-7 II yesterday. Here are some initial impressions vs. my recollection of the RP-280F that I sold last week. The have the black B-stock veneer, but the veneer is flawless. I have no idea what why they would be considered B-stock. These things are large and in charge. The have a commanding visual presence. My wife and daughter are out of town visiting my wife’s sister. My oldest son is staying with my parents this weekend. So, it’s just my youngest son and me at home this weekend. This allowed me to do about 5 hours of break-in at a decent volume without bothering anyone. I watched several tracks from 3 concert videos last night after the 5 hour break-in: Clapton Planes, Trains and Eric blu-ray, Cream Royal Albert Hall blu-ray, and Eagles Hell Freezes Over DVD. The system is 2-channel for A/V purposes in a large family room. A Rotel RX-1052 supplies the power and an Emotiva DC-1 handles DAC duties. First, the bass. Wow! It hits hard and deep. No contest vs. the RP-280F. The bass hits you in the chest as if a good sub (or subs) were playing…and this in in a pretty big room (approx. 18’x50’) that is open to other rooms. The RF-7 II create some sympathetic buzzes and rattles in the room that I will have to address! Second, no fatigue from sharpness like I had at times with the RP-280F. This is huge because I had some concerns that the RF-7 II would be as or more fatiguing than the RP-280F. I wonder if the higher horn position on the RF-7 II is a factor; the horn is well above ear level when seated. So far I am very impressed with the RF-7 II and consider them a substantial upgrade vs. the RP-280F. More to come as I get more time with them.

Have not heard the Benchmark, however, I own two Emotiva DC-1's. I owned several DACs before the DC-1 (some considerably more expensive) and have not felt the need to upgrade from the DC-1.

Thanks. I do not have the RP280Fs any longer, so I will have to rely on memory for comparison. Another random thought...assuming the RP horn design is an improvement, it would be cool if Klipsch made a drop-in RP-type horn upgrade for the RF-7II and RC-64 II. Klipsch could also start manufacturing the RF-7II and RC-64 II with the RP-type horn and market them as an "improved" version. This would bring the the all the Reference series speakers to a common design feature without the need for a major redesign of the RF-7II and RC-64 II models.

A pair of RF-7 II should be delivered Friday. Planning to take a day of vacation to usher them in! Random question - are the woofer frames cast aluminum?

Thanks to all for the input. I'm thinking about a pair of the B stock veneer in black from ebay.

Metro, cool, I may just have to take the plunge and try them out. What you said above about the cymbals having a "thick and pleasant crash" is speaking to me. I can imagine that sound and seems like "more realistic" could apply too.

From what I’ve read and understand, only the USA-made Reference speakers use a compression driver. Therefore, the RP Series uses a tweeter, not a compression driver. I owned the RB-81 II bookshelf for a while, and found them to be brighter than the RP-280F. So the real question for me is whether the RF-7 II (with its compression driver) is voiced less bright than the made-in-China Reference II series and RP series.

Cool! By "deeper, larger tone", do you mean that they play lower, have more bass, have a darker tonal balance, etc.?

Reviving this thread... I sold a few pairs of speakers and am now looking to upgrade to a pair in the $2,500 (max) range. I'm still considering the RF-7 ii's, but seems like there are mixed opinions on their brightness vs. the RP-280F (which I just sold). For the most part, I enjoyed the RP-280F, but did find them to be bright and a bit unnatural-sounding at high levels with some material. I did appreciate their detail, dynamics, and efficiency though. Any other RF-7 ii vs. RP-280F direct comparisons out there? I'm also considering Polk LSIM707, Monitor Silver 10, and SVS Ultra Towers. Any other suggestions to consider in the $2,500 (max) range?

If you plan to go surround down the road, you will need to go with an AVR, unless you are willing to repurchase and start all over at that time. IMO, your best bang for the buck it to go with a refurb from accessories4less.com. You can typically get a more powerful and heavier (beefier power supply) AVR for the money, if you go this route. A couple examples: $500: http://www.accessories4less.com/make-a-store/item/marsr6009/marantz-sr6009-7.2-receiver-wi-fi/bt/airplay/1.html#!more $600: http://www.accessories4less.com/make-a-store/item/onktxnr838/onkyo-tx-nr838-7.2-atmos-network-a/v-receiver-hdmi-2.0-wi-fi/bluetooth/1.html#!specifications If you are 100% sure that you will never expand to surround sound, you open up options for new or used integrated amps or separates. For example, if you can stretch your budget to $700: http://www.accessories4less.com/make-a-store/item/yamas801bl/yamaha-a-s801-stereo-integrated-amplifier-w/built-in-dac-black/1.html#!more

Do you plan to stay 2-channel or go surround? Also, what are your sources - analog and/or digital?

Grizzog, I find it interesting and surprising that the 280s hold up so well against the more expensive Heritage models in your review. However, I've never heard any of the Heritage models. I have a pair of 280s in a secondary 2-ch system, along with a Rotel RX-1052 receiver and Emotiva DC-1 DAC. I feel like they are a lot of speaker at their street price of a little over 800 bucks. I feel that they get it mostly right in terms of clarity, detail, tonal balance, dynamics, and ability to play loud without strain - this is no small task at their price point. My only major gripe is that they can be bright and sharp at high levels with some material. I also feel that I need to turn the treble down at times. Hometheaterreview.com's measurements of the 280FA show that they are up 1-2dB between 5-10kHz on axis. I assume that Klipsch has voiced them on the bright side by design.