jdmccall

I hear ya', but I just assigned 100% to the RF7 for the sake of this comparison. I'm not saying it's the best sounding speaker in the world or as good as k-horns, la scala's...or anything else for that matter. Although, for all I know, it may well be!

First off, not trying to offend RF7 owners by over-rating RF82's. I've never even heard RF7's. Not even once. But...I sort of aspire to them...or maybe cornwall's (but that's another story). It's just that if you compare spec to spec, one could draw the conclusion that the 7 and the 82 might sound more similar than different , even though the price difference is...huge...even at full retail for the 82/280. Yeah, I know -American manufacture vs. Chinese, furniture-grade wood veneer vs. vinyl wrap, cast aluminum basket 10's vs. molded plastic basket 8's, 1.75" tweeter vs. 1" and...a considerably larger enclosure for the RF7's...but still hope springs eternal for the audiophile tightwad! So, my question is mostly to those who've heard both: Just how similar is the sound of the RF7 and RF82 / RP280? If you, for the sake of comparison, score the RF7 at 100%, how would the 82/280 score? ..50%? ..75%? ....99%?

This type of comparison, although interesting on some level, has absolutely no value and is totally worthless as far as making a serious A/B comparison of any item or items under consideration. I will say that the Bose system looked great and that most people would choose it over any brand of big speakers you might care to mention, including Klipsch. That's just fact. If you want to compare like with like, compare the Bose system with the most similarly sized and priced Klipsch set-up (Quintet or G-12).

I full well plan to continue using the big ol' VSX55 and DV47 in my main music rig until at least one of the two croaks...assuming that I don't croak first, in which case I will no longer care either way. But, as I originally said, I do daydream about replacing them -one needs to be ready! And being the wishy-washy type, I find it very difficult to choose between the flexibility and value of a good modern AVR, and the simplicity and quality of good integrateds. Ah, modern problems! I'm lucky to be able to fret over such trivial pursuits!

To quote Lampy from "The Brave Little Toaster"..."I think I know what you're talking about". It's kind of similar to why I use subs with my '82's. Not so much to extend the bass (although they do - which is good), but to smooth out a substantial bass boom in the 50Hz vicinity. Setting the X/O at 100Hz really flattens the response below that point. Of course, so would moving the speakers out from the front wall a bit, but I can't do that at the moment.

All AVR's are definitely not created equal! That's for sure. NAD does make great sounding products!

I'm doing it now ...in my surround rig, that is. Running a Marantz NR1602's L & R pre outs into a Marantz MM7025 amp. The receiver's wimpy amps drive back surround and L/R surrounds. In fact, if my Pioneer Elite rig that I use for stereo, blew up today, I would likely move the amp into the stereo rig, with the addition of a new 1607 receiver and maybe a 5007 uni Blu-ray.

That's very interesting! Thanks!! I've never done any direct A/B comparing, but I have used, over the years, AVR's, integrateds and separates. Thing is, my audio memory must suck, because I could not swear that one system was better than the other...simply because of the fact that one was an AVR, int. or separates. I think you're right. Good advice! Thank you very much!

My preferred set-up for surround music is 4.2 -two in front, two in the rear and a pair of subs. I think that's about all you really need for a convincing presentation of live music. Beyond that, for me, gets into a bit of lily guilding. And I'm not really sold on surround for music, just because I feel most music doesn't need it or benefit from it. But...live recordings and certain kinds of music, do benefit. Stuff like electronica, down-tempo and chill definitely could sound cool in 4-channel stereo...and disco, too! (Remember disco? )

I agree about the subs -I think they're fun. Although many integrateds are now being equipped with sub outs, there is usually no bass management. And video is now -almost- a necessity even in the 2-channel world, due to the need to see what you're doing when navigating networked audio options. (I'm one of those geezers who still has no smart phone. That explains the need for video display...also, I don't want to have to fire up a tablet everytime I want to listen to music.) One more thing: I am a fan of using external amps with lower or mid-priced AVR's. That might get one the best of both worlds??

OK, I've broached this subject recently, but then, it was more about using an existing, "obsolete" AVR to anchor a 2-channel rig. But, what about building a new stereo system around an AVR from the outset? Would any sane and otherwise rational person choose to do this? Other than possibly me? (Assuming that I am both rational and sane.) I'm happily using my 13-yr-old Pioneer Elite VSX55TXi / DV47Ai pair in strictly a 2-channel system -because I already had them. But...I often find myself daydreaming about what I would do if presented with the opportunity to build a new 2-channel rig to drive my RF-82 II's and twin Velodyne DLS4000R subs. With an eye on value, would I go for an integrated amp, hoping for higher parts and sound quality, or go for a good AVR that could be run in bi-amp mode, one with a good automatic EQ function and remote tone controls, too? Built-in fm tuner and network streaming is also nice. Thing is, it seems the best value lies in the A/V world of AVR's and universal, "smart" Blu-ray players. I like remote tone controls and EQ. They make differences even my tin ears can hear. Not so sure I can hear the improvements made by higher quality parts and/or circuit design in nice integrateds...especially driving relatively easy loads like my '82's. So, uh...what y'all think?

Strictly speaking, Forte and Chorus aren't "Heritage" speakers. Nice set-up, BTW.

I too, prefer the wood front of the RF-7 II. I might add that I don't find the Reference II horns to be excessively bright to my 60-yr-old ears, so I don't know that the newer, rubbery horn would be an improvement for me. My 82's were a screaming great value, but a heavily discounted pair of RF-7 II's could be very tempting indeed!

If I ever have the disposable income again, the new RF-7 will be mine.

It would be nice to A/B them nut I doubt I'll ever have the chance, so I guess it may come down to availability and quality. Whichever I can find first, when the time comes, that is in primo condition and offered at a fair price. Driving distance will be a factor too as I'd rather pick them up myself than have UPS abuse them.

Just thinking that there may be a consensus as to which is best, or at least what the relative strengths and weaknesses are. My old cornwalls were grin inducers. The RF82 II's also have this ability, but to a lesser degree. It seems to me to be something Klipsch has a near lock on -grin inducing loudspeakers! To be honest though, my Bose 901's can also produce this magical effect. Seems to have something to do with prodigious, clean bass and effortless macro and micro dynamics. But I digress a bit. Cornwalls versus RF7 II's! That's the question! Which is best...which has the most "G.I.A."? (grin inducing ability)

I owned cornwalls from '85 to '93. They were, in hindsight, one of the most enjoyable speakers I've ever owned. Now, I have a pair of RF-82 II's and I think that maybe they are superior to my old cornwalls...but less enjoyable. By superior, I mean they sound smoother and more extended. But by less enjoyable, I don't know for sure what I mean. Less dynamic? Less...emotive, maybe? Anyway, regarding my thread title, when thinking of an eventual upgrade, when or if my finances allow, should I be thinking RF7 II or cornwall...again? If I really like the RF82II, will I love the RF7 II? Or would the cornwall bring more audio joy than the RF7?

My first recollection of klipsch exposure was about 1976 at the "House of Sound" in Springfield, MO. The Jonathan Edwards "Sailboat" LP was a new release at the time that the salesman had playing over a pair of klipschorns. Great record, btw. Anyway, I was blown away by the cool, clear sound and especially by the bass. I ended up buying the LP, but was nowhere near being able to afford, or accommodate a pair of klipschorns. Fast-forward to 1986. Flip's Stereo in St. Louis, MO. Paul Simon's "Graceland" playing over k-horns in their biggest showroom. WOW! Simply the best sound reproduction I had ever heard! Klipschorn's became my "holy grail" that day. Well, I guess that was two klipsch experiences. Sorry.

Lot's of good advice already, but I'll vouch for the RF82 II's if you want full-range and no sub. Yes, they are big, black monoliths and will never make the cover of "House Beautiful", but they will rock your house beautifully, I promise. And they're a great value at $718/pair.

That's the nicest thing anyone ever said to me in an audio forum! I think I'm getting a little verklempt here.

Oh, nobody cares about what my top ten speakers would be...but I don't care that nobody cares, so here we go! So, in no particular order, and without further ado, I present my top-10 fav-o-rite speakers (that I myself have actually heard and/or owned): OWN or OWNED: klipschorn Bose 901 klipsch cornwall ESS amt-1b New Large Advent HEARD: Magnepan's (various models) Martin-Logan's (various esl models) Wilson Watt / Puppies Sonus Faber 2-way stand-mounts B&W 801's

I meant the subs are in the front corners...with RF82's about a foot and a half to the inside of them. Sorry I was not more clear. Still, the 82's ports are closer to front wall than what might be best, but can't really pull them out any more without moving two end tables and a couch. It's always something!

Nice Mac and M-L's! The CLS was always my favorite of their line. I used to consider putting a pair together with a nice sub or two...kind of like what you did.

That's the craziest thing I've ever seen done with (or to) klipschorns. Looks like Velodyne subs in multiple, too. Weird.

They are tight in the room's front corners, behind and about a foot and a half outside the speakers. The subs behave this way in the other room I've had them in, too...strong from 70 Hz down but not much above that. It actually works well with 80 Hz x/o but can be difficult with higher ones. I'd seen online (Sound & Vision?) a test of the RF82II and noticed the rising response between 40 and 100 Hz, so it all works out in the end. The subs handle the bottom two-plus octaves and the 82's gain headroom.