RB-5II vs RF-3II

[John0392]

Well, I'm taking the advise of many and going to piecemeal my system starting with the mains. I listened to some Klipsch at a local vendor (the only one in the area). They didn't have the RB 5s and they didn't have the RF 3s; however, I did hear the RB 3s and the RF 5s. Because I can't hear the exact ones I am interested in can you help. The RF 3II are only about $60.00 more than the RB 5s and was wondering what your opinions were regarding which ones to get.

I will be using, temporarily with my quints rears and center. I can always phantom the fronts.

Thanks,

[fabulousfrankie]

I was demoing the RF-3's and RB-5's last month. Obviously the RF-3's will play lower frequencies better but the bass in the RB-5 was a little tighter. Now while I'm all for accurate reproduction of bass, but the RB-5's sounded kind of anemic when compared to RF-3's. By no means did they sound bad but the RF-3's just produced a more pleasing sound.

I'm also buying piece by piece, all that's left for me is the front's(RF_3II), center(RC-3II), surround(RS-3). So far I have:

RECEIVER:

Yamaha HTR-5280

AMPLIFIER:Parasound HCA-855a

DVD PLAYER:

Toshiba SD-9200

CD PLAYER:

Yamaha CDC-505

SUBWOOFER:

Infinity HPS-1000

FRONT:

Paradigm Titans v.2

CENTER:

Paradigm CC-100

SURROUND:

Paradigm Atoms

------------------

FABULOUSFRANKIE

[John0392]

Wouldn't having a sub make a difference and provide that extra to bring the 5II up. Do you really need that extra in RF 3s if you have the sub?

[John0392]

Isn't is true that the RF 3s need more space in rear for there ports than the RB 5s? I think I read this on some thread. I can't move these forward any and hav to be no more than 6" from wall.

[Seb]

it depends if you listen mostly to music or home theater...

------------------

http://sebdavid.150m.com go laugh at my crappy website...

[John0392]

I like both. One of the reasons I am upgrading is that music listening is not one of the Quintets, which I have now, is not one of its strong features; however, I do use for HT more. Does anyone know if the KSB 1.1, which are not a match to the reference I know, would be better than the quintets for surrounds?

[Jolly Roger]

if you go with the rb-5's your pretty much stuck at setting them to small on your reciever(I assume yours just has small and large) with the rf-3's you could do this also or you could try large. At least you'd have the option. I can promise you tightness isnt a problem with any of the reference line with maybe the exception of the powered towers.

[Seb]

the best option if you have a good sub is to set all speakers to small, even the RF-3.

so that is not an issue.

i think the rb-5 (from the REALLY small amount of listening I did) are a bit smoother and more refined, whereas the rf-3s have that presence, that "big" quality that makes me prefer floorstanding speakers.

but it's really a tough choice. given you listen to ht more, i'd probably go with the rf-3s. but that's just me, and I'd go with the rf-3s for music only anyways, so here, you have a prefectly biased opinion.

------------------

http://members.fortunecity.com/sebdavid - go laugh at my crappy website/equipment

http://www.dvdprofiler.com/mc.asp?alias=Sebdavid - go laugh at my puny little DVD collection

[Jolly Roger]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seb:

the best option if you have a good sub is to set all speakers to small, even the RF-3.

so that is not an issue.

---

Thats just not true and it kinda erchs me when people state stuff like this as if where a fact. Kinda like "With a sub you dont need anything more than bookshelf speakers."

The best option would actually be to have 5 full range speakers (20hz-20khz) and a seperate sub for Lfe in a home theater environment.

I would rather pay a few more dollars and let my ears decide which way is best than to be stuck with something that only has one option. In other words you can set the rf-3's to small just like the rb-5 (they even have the same tweeter duh) and get the same effect but you cant go back and add bass extention to those bookshelf speakers. Btw the only speaker in my setup set to small is the center. Sorry but thats what sounded best to me.

[boa12]

the best option would be to have a processor that let's

one adjust the crossover between speakers & sub. then when using the bigger woof tower speaks, the small setting wouldn't be so small, the sub wouldn't go higher than the 40-50hz it should, & everything jives from 5.1 to 2 channel stereo sources.

unfortunately many here live in an imperfect world of fixed 80-90hz dsp crossovers & not much flexability there.

------------------

My Home Systems Page

This message has been edited by boa12 on 02-19-2002 at 01:53 PM

[HornEd]

Jolly Roger... doing what sounds best to your ears is always commendable. But both you and Seb have valid points. For 5.1 nothing beats five identical full-range speakers set at small with a good sub to handle all the bass. It is a matter of physics not taste that makes it so.

From reading Seb's posts for an extended time, I do not think he was trying to make a point that bookshelf speakers are the equal to larger speakers... but rather that the bottom extension is not a valid a point if a good sub (which Seb has) is covering the bass. Nearly all full range speakers have problem areas where the high bass and low midrange meet. Further, long waves (below 80Hz) tend to create standing waves which gets very complicated to set up the best sound when multiple speakers are spitting them out. Freeing the five main speakers from having to carry the longer throw bass notes usually tightens them up for the sound frequencies they are best at.

Usually when people have a problem with the Center speaker and set it to "SMALL" with the R&L Mains set to "HIGH" it is because there is a smaller Center than the Mains... and the center has to carry over 75% of the sound in HT.

Hey, as long as you engaged your brain before you shifted in "ear" I have no quarrel with whatever you find most enjoyable. Seb knows he has a way to go on building the system of his dreams... and tries to give advice that helps folks with tight budgets to feel good about their HT upgrade path.

As for me, I am about as full-range as they get in my preferences... but I still set my KLF-30's and KLF-C7's to "SMALL" and let my 7 foot tall bass tower do its thing. HornEd

------------------

"LEADING 8 LEGENDS INTO THE 6.1 GENERATION!"

FOREGROUND SOUND STAGE:

KLF 30's: Left Main, Center Main, Right Main

KLF C7's: L & R Front Effects on 5' sand filled columns

BACKGROUND SOUND STAGE:

KLF 30's: Left Surround, Rear Effects, Right Surround

LARGE MOUTH BASS:

Twin SVS CS-Ultra SubTower, Samson Megawatt Amp

KLIPSCH SPEAKER SUPPORT SYSTEMS:

Mitsubishi RPHD1080i 65", Yamaha RX-V3000 Receiver

Toshiba Pro Scan 6200, Toshiba Pro 6-head SVHS W808

in search of the Eternal Tweak!

Music Respite Room: Vintage Cornwall's in Transition

Klipsched Class "A" Motorhome: On the road testing

[John0392]

What does all this mean to me who has a H/K with fixed crossovers? H/K tells me the sub crosses over at 100HZ? I keep thinking that if you set it to small you cut off the bottom end and get mainly mids and highs. This stuff is very hard for us lay people to understand and would be good if someone put into lay language for us bone heads. By the way, going back to one of my original points. Cannot get he RS rear at this time because of expense; however I could afford a small bookshelf i.e. senergy type. Would they be better than the quints I presently have?

[boa12]

john, that means w/ your h/k it lets the sub preout/sub

run full out up to 100hz then starts filtering output so that it's output is cut there at whatever predetermined fixed rate on up the freq spectrum. these are aka the low pass crossover and slope.

if you set any speaks as large then they get whatever full range output the material delivers. ie, they are not filtered by the 100hz fixed crossover on down the freq spectrum.

if you set the speaks as small, then they are filtered beginning at the 100hz fixed crossover on down the freq spectrum at whatever predetermined rate. this is aka the high pass crossover and slope.

so you can see (hopefully) the problems (as in lack of use) this creates when you use big speaks that do well below 100hz.

but when you set them large, on most receivers you'll have a lot of the same bass material going to both the large speaks & sub at that the same time creating as HE says the standing waves & poor bass quality. of course

this may not apply to everybody w/ dif tastes & rooms, etc., but it seems to be a problem for many on here complaining of bad bass & how much better it sounds overall setting all speaks to small.

i know it was a dilemma for me when i used the marantz w/ my towers & sub. now cured by way of a new pre/pro w/ adjustable crossovers.

------------------

My Home Systems Page

[Jolly Roger]

quote:

---

Originally posted by HornEd:

Freeing the five main speakers from having to carry the longer throw bass notes usually tightens them up for the sound frequencies they are best at.

---

But its ok to ask one sub with usually one woofer to do the job of taking up the bass extentions for 5 main speakers plus lfe? I would say only if it sounds better that way.

I fully understand the logistics its just not "a matter of fact" but a matter of opinion" as to which sounds better. My other point was for $60 more dollars you at least have a choice to decide for yourself.

Oh and sure seb has a good sub but what about john0392 the one upgrading? One more thing. Really even if I set my center to large and even if 75% of the sound is coming from the center probably well over 95% of that is dialog wich has no real deep bass so I probably wouldn't miss very much.

Sorry I was just trying to give one advantage of the rf-3's over the rb-5's which IS a fact and Seb dismissed it saying "the best option if you have a good sub is to set all speakers to small, even the RF-3.

so that is not an issue." which IS opinion and maybe I took offense sorry.

[HornEd]

Thanks for backing off far enough to let poor Seb have an opinion, Jolly Roger... he needs a little solace after the Ear(s) took his system to task.

Knowing a worthwhile target system and some rudimentary audio science before going through the piecemeal acquision and upgrade path will save a lot of frustration and garage sales to rid oneself of speakers that didn't make one's ear grade.

Sound is an illusion that is recreated in the Theater of the Mind in each of us... and that is where the opinion occurs. The fact situation is that five speakers throwing long bass waves (under 80Hz) into the room from five different locations greatly increase the probability of "standing waves" and compromised bass. See some of the explanatory posts by Tom Vodhanel or the reference by BobG of Dr. Toole, one of the foremost experts in this field. Limiting the long waves to one or two closely grouped subwoofers will provide the best quality bass in the vast majority of acoustic situations.

And the excerpt you illustrate above calls attention the fact that a 12" woofer freed of the sub-80Hz chores tends to become more accurate in its ability to produce mid-range tones... in a sense, it becomes more "musical" to most ears due to the physical advantage of limiting the length of excursions required.

Your point about having good equipment, Jolly Roger, is a valid one indeed. Anything less that 5 identical full-range speakers and a very good sub ushers in a wide variety of compromises. Add that to the wide variety of acoustics found in our listening rooms... and there's no telling how the many compromises will balance out to please someone's ear... at least for a time.

I used to run five Klipsch subwoofers in one room and each of them had a matching Legend KLF-30's in front and KLF 10's on the side and rear. It was a nightmare to set up... but in the end, it was fairly awesome... but the sweetspot was smaller than desired because of the competing long waves bouncing about. The current system was far easier to set up, had a much wider sweetspot, and has raised our standard of excellence once again.

Obviously, the point is that "Mother Nature" seems to prefer five speakers set to "SMALL" and a quality sub. Anything less and you've either got to fool yourself or Mother Nature. HornEd

------------------

"LEADING 8 LEGENDS INTO THE 6.1 GENERATION!"

FOREGROUND SOUND STAGE:

KLF 30's: Left Main, Center Main, Right Main

KLF C7's: L & R Front Effects on 5' sand filled columns

BACKGROUND SOUND STAGE:

KLF 30's: Left Surround, Rear Effects, Right Surround

LARGE MOUTH BASS:

Twin SVS CS-Ultra SubTower, Samson Megawatt Amp

KLIPSCH SPEAKER SUPPORT SYSTEMS:

Bass friendly, oversized, glove-leather LazyBoy Recliners

Mitsubishi RPHD1080i 65", Yamaha RX-V3000 Receiver

Toshiba Pro Scan 6200, Toshiba Pro 6-head SVHS W808

in search of the Eternal Tweak!

Music Respite Room: Vintage Cornwall's in Transition

Klipsched Class "A" Motorhome: On the road testing

This message has been edited by HornEd on 02-20-2002 at 02:11 AM

[boa12]

to add to h-ed's fine points, setting small also shifts some load off the receiver/amp & should give it better performance, unless ye have a mega-current power amp. but u are then in essence transfering that load to the sub amp, so it pays to have one so capable.

------------------

My Home Systems Page

This message has been edited by boa12 on 02-20-2002 at 03:11 AM

[T2K]

I don't agree with any of you,except MAYBE jolly roger.

I'll be damned if I'll buy large towers capable of playing to 35hz and cut em at 100hz.Sorta like buying a car with a 600 HP motor and governing it to 40MPH.Waste of money.If that were the case why buy anything except bookshelves?And a large sub.Remember the Klipsch THX system? I have a set-up that many popo as incorrect but it sounds great in MY ROOM.Experimentation is the key.If the guy buys the RB's and sets them small and buys a comparable priced sub that will be set to play up to the low point of those bookshelves then the bass will become directional.I can pinpoint 100Hz bass no matter what anyone says.Low bass from the surrounds sent to the sub,lets say,would be heard coming from the left front corner if thats where his 100hz sub was placed.The ideal scenerio is as boa describes.A receiver with infinite adjustment of the crossover so as to allow SOME overlap at the point where the mains output would trail off at the low end.I personally like the WDST surrounds for HT use.I also use monopoles for surround backs that are identical to my fronts.All are set LARGE.It sounds great to me.I don't care what anyone else thinks.People read and quote things they think are the gospel when there are many variables to consider.My 2 friggin cents.

To answer Johns question,I would buy the RF3II's if I liked their sound.If they were capable of playing sufficient bass for music use then you could use them with no sub.In a HT set-up you could then set your sub to play LFE only.

Listen twice, buy once.Good luck John.

Keith

[John0392]

You all are very passionate about this stuff; however, I'm just trying to make up my mind between the two. There are certain assumpitons that need to be clarified. I already have a Klipsch 12" sub so getting one is moot. My concerns with the rf 3 is that many say you have to move away from the wall a few feet, which I don't have. I have also read conflicting statements about the rb 5 - one say move away one say 6" is better. One very valid point is that you get both worlds with the rf 3s either small or large vs the rb 5s. Like I say I'm stuck with the quintet center and rears for the time being; maybe a good long time. My determining factor will probably be the distance from wall I guess. Lets stop talking theory and get to it.

[Jolly Roger]

quote:

---

Originally posted by HornEd:

Obviously, the point is that "Mother

Nature" seems to prefer five speakers set to "SMALL" and a quality sub. Anything less and you've either got to fool yourself or Mother Nature.

HornEd

---

Thats bs "Mother Nature" doesnt have ears. Its what creates the sound, we only try and reproduce it. You seem pretty smart too bad you still missed my point.(chioce) I could debate with you all day about which is better but it really boils down to the listning room and taste, two of which we know nothing about John. We havent even talked about two channle stereo and dsp modes. I also run my T.V. through my speakers. Set to small in most of those applications makes little things like doors slams or a book drop thunder through my sub and room and sound unnatural but maybe you like that who knows. Its about many factors and not any "Mother Nature" mobo jumbo.If it was the large and small setting wouldn't be on there, it would be fixed at small. I'll take the choice of letting my ears decide. Maybe you spent too much time reading and not enough listning? j/k

John, the Rb-5s also have a rear bass port and may need the same distance as the Rf-3s from the wall.

[John0392]

Gee guys, I didn't mean to start any quarels here. My taste runs with 70's rock and roll; although I have been broadening my tastes as of late. Chris Botti, Trumpeteer par excellence has caught my attention lately. I also love DVDs. My room is almost square, in basement, approx 13'x13'. I have a 53" Sony projection TV in Center of one wall. Very nice closed in room. I don't want to over speaker the room and bringing out large floor speakers might be hard to do; whereas bookshelf might be a better match in THIS room. This maybe my last upgrade for mains and I want to do it right and am looking for convencing argument for both speakers. The wife will definitely be trouble either way but I am willing to bite the bullet and get the right ones. My profile is not audiofile but I do greatly enjoy great music/HT.