wf-34 and 35 and compared to rf-62 and 82

[smcilwaine287]

Hey guys, I am just curious what types of differences there are between these series? I was thinking of selling my 62's and getting one of the wf series for the sleeker look.

[Mr. RF62]

For the sleeker look fine, but for me, I wouldn't sacrafice sound quality for sleekness. Spec-wise, I like the RF-62 for the reason of where they set the x-over freq. I don't like when woofers try and deliver too much high frequency, and I'm sure the woofer don't like it either.

[smcilwaine287]

so i would notice a large distance going from the 62's to the 34, or even the 35?

[Mr. RF62]

A large distance??? - in sound quality? I haven't heard the wf's, but it might be closer than I think, havin a high x-oveer setting, but 1 more woofer for the tradeoff, hard to say. Or do you mean large distance in another way.?.

[smcilwaine287]

right, would the sound quality be much different? has anyone thouroughly compared the 2

[Vick's Pit]

I used to own a pair of 82's for about a year before I got the 83's so I am pretty familiar with their sound. My uncle has a complete WF-35 HT setup in his living room, powered by an Onkyo 806. To me the 82's had a fuller sound and significant amount more bass response over the 35's. The 35's though seemed more clear/crisp or maybe more forward in the mid range is the way I would describe it. This was under normal listening levels. At high spl I found the 82's had less distortion than the 35's. Don't be fooled, both will play very loud and very clear with any decent amp/receiver powering them. The looks of the 35's seem to be their winning feature. My Aunt never even balked at the idea of having the 35's in their main living room. Most wives, gf, ect, don't like the idea of bigger speakers in their living rooms, but she didn't mind the 35's. I think that is the appeal of the WF series. I personally think the 82's are better speakers, but if you are someone that needs to have the look and sound combo, then the 35's might be the route to go. I actually really like the look of the RF series, but I guess I could see how some might not.

[Rocko81]

I used to own a pair of 82's for about a year before I got the 83's so I am pretty familiar with their sound. My uncle has a complete WF-35 HT setup in his living room, powered by an Onkyo 806. To me the 82's had a fuller sound and significant amount more bass response over the 35's. The 35's though seemed more clear/crisp or maybe more forward in the mid range is the way I would describe it. This was under normal listening levels. At high spl I found the 82's had less distortion than the 35's. Don't be fooled, both will play very loud and very clear with any decent amp/receiver powering them. The looks of the 35's seem to be their winning feature. My Aunt never even balked at the idea of having the 35's in their main living room. Most wives, gf, ect, don't like the idea of bigger speakers in their living rooms, but she didn't mind the 35's. I think that is the appeal of the WF series. I personally think the 82's are better speakers, but if you are someone that needs to have the look and sound combo, then the 35's might be the route to go. I actually really like the look of the RF series, but I guess I could see how some might not.

Isn't that what the WF series is? Wife Factor?[]