samson Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 Why do the new Reference series weigh less than the older ones? The RC-64 is like 11lbs lighter, why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators dtel Posted August 13, 2010 Moderators Share Posted August 13, 2010 This has NOTHING to do with this thread but I just wanted to show it off. This is a finish they are experimenting with and they said it was very hard to get consistent and may never get into production ? But i thought it looked great, much better in person than in this pic.......Dark Cherry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich_Guy Posted August 14, 2010 Share Posted August 14, 2010 I did notice the the RF 5 "classic" is still available but given the opportunity to purchase the RF 5s or the new RF 82 II , I think most people will choose the new speaker with the same driver design. The RF-63 was the replacement for the original RF-5 in the previous line, while the RF-82 replaced the RF-3. I think the RF-5 is much closer to the RF-7 than it is to the RF-82, also notice while the new Reference II series went up in price by a fair amount the new RF-82 II is $1,198.00 while the classic RF-5 is $1,500.00. It may be that an RF-5 II will be added later and it is just not close enough to completion to add to the line up yet, for example there will be new subs added to the line later. Personally I think it is too much of a jump between the RF-82 II and RF-7 II to leave it at that, so hopefully an RF-5 II will be added later to fill that gap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockOn4Klipsch Posted August 14, 2010 Share Posted August 14, 2010 I think the RF-5 is much closer to the RF-7 than it is to the RF-82 Couldn't agree more, the RF 5 got overlooked because of it's Bigger and Badder brother, the RF 5 is a great speaker I hope that they bring it back for people who where in my situation when I bought my speakers. I wanted the 7's but couldn't afford them so I bought the 5's and was really surprised after getting them setup properly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockOn4Klipsch Posted August 14, 2010 Share Posted August 14, 2010 Why do the new Reference series weigh less than the older ones? The RC-64 is like 11lbs lighter, why? maybe the "cast aluminum baskets" (per amy) The RF 7 II are like 6 lbs but maintain the same dimensions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saturn5 Posted August 14, 2010 Share Posted August 14, 2010 The Mark II isn't quite as deep as the original RF-7, but look at the crossover. That's a huge change if it's not a typo. RF-7 BANDWIDTH 32Hz-20kHz ± 3dB SENSITIVITY 102dB @ 2.83 volts/1 meter NOMINAL IMPEDANCE 8 ohms compatible CROSSOVER FREQUENCY 2200Hz POWER HANDLING 250 watts (1000 watts peak) ENCLOSURE TYPE Bass-reflex via dual rear-firing ports DRIVE COMPONENTS Two way system using one 1.75'' (4.4cm) magnetically shielded, titanium diaphragm compression driver with an 8'' (20.3cm) square 90°x 60° Tractrix Horn and two 10'' (25.4cm) magnetically shielded, Cerametallic cone woofersWEIGHT 94 lbs. (42.7kg) HEIGHT 45.8" (116.3cm) w/feet, 44.9'' w/o feet WIDTH 11.6" (29.5cm)DEPTH 17.9'' (45.5cm) w/grille, 16'' w/o grille FINISH Black Ash, Medium Cherry wood veneer RF-7 II Frequency Response: 30Hz-24KHz ± 3dB Power Handling: 250W RMS / 1000W Peak Sensitivity: 101dB @ 2.83V / 1m Nominal Impedance: 8 ohms compatible High Frequency Horn: 8” square 90° x 60° Tractrix® Horn High Frequency Drivers: 1.75” (4.45cm) Titanium diaphragm compression driver Crossover Frequency: 1200Hz Low Refequency Drivers: Two 10” (25.4cm) Cerametallic™ cone woofers Inputs: Dual binding posts / bi-wire / bi-amp Enclosure Type: Bass-reflex via dual rear-firing ports Height: 48.5” (123.3cm) with feet Width: 11.6” (29.5cm)Depth: 16.3” (41.5cm) with grilleWeight: 87.1lbs (39.5kg) Finish: Black Ash , Medium Cherry furniture grade wood veneer Built From: 2010 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wboffthelake Posted August 14, 2010 Share Posted August 14, 2010 http://community.klipsch.com/blogs/amy/archive/2010/08/13/ok-no-more-teasing.aspx Released on a Friday the 13th! LOL! I wonder if any members of the Klipsch crew noticed this, something like "Umm, are we sure about the release date? Don't you think we should wait one more day?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vital Posted August 14, 2010 Share Posted August 14, 2010 This has NOTHING to do with this thread but I just wanted to show it off. This is a finish they are experimenting with and they said it was very hard to get consistent and may never get into production ? But i thought it looked great, much better in person than in this pic.......Dark Cherry. That dark cherry is awesome! I would love a full set of speakers with that finish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. RF62 Posted August 14, 2010 Share Posted August 14, 2010 This has NOTHING to do with this thread but I just wanted to show it off. This is a finish they are experimenting with and they said it was very hard to get consistent and may never get into production ? But i thought it looked great, much better in person than in this pic.......Dark Cherry. That dark cherry is awesome! I would love a full set of speakers with that finish. I agree Vital! That is a very nice finish! Too bad they can't get that to the market. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Youthman Posted August 14, 2010 Moderators Share Posted August 14, 2010 Well as you can see, there is likely a good demand for the return of the RF-7. We are already on page 10 of this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay481985 Posted August 15, 2010 Share Posted August 15, 2010 Dtel, I loved the look of that dark cherry... To bad it is labour intensive. As with the new RF-7 II, does anyone else find the feet weird? The back one seems almost put in as an after thought. I think if they put matching rears in the front, it would look more symetrical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vital Posted August 15, 2010 Share Posted August 15, 2010 I was looking at the feet and wondered if maybe they fold in and out. Fold them out for stability or tuck them in? Do they move?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators dtel Posted August 15, 2010 Moderators Share Posted August 15, 2010 I really liked that dark cherry also Jay, I wish I had a few speakers around here that finish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bheinz Posted August 15, 2010 Share Posted August 15, 2010 This may be a mute point but something that I have noticed... The description for the new series does not contain the verbage "High Output" as the rf-83/63, rc-64, WF-35, and all Palladiums. Are the drivers in the new series a step down from what Klipsch has used in the series listed above (not including palladium of course) or what exactly is meant by "High Output?"... Yes they are beautiful speakers but I don't want to pay more for an rf-7 II if I can buy an rf-83 that will have better performance...[:S] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bheinz Posted August 15, 2010 Share Posted August 15, 2010 This may be a mute point but something that I have noticed... Yes they are beautiful speakers but I don't want to pay more for an rf-7 II if I can buy an rf-83 that will have better performance... The reason I bring this up in in reference to one of Dr. Thumps posts from 2006 comparing the performace of the rf-82 to the 63/83's: http://forums.klipsch.com/forums/p/97917/990015.aspx "...Have you ever REALLY heard clean bass? Most people have not. If you havent you dont know what you are missing so it doesnt matter BUT if you have heard transient attacks kick drums that THUMP you in the chest. There is no going back..." I was originally set on purchasing rf-82's until this post begged me to extend my view into the 63/83's. For some reason I have it in my head is that the main reason the 63/83's are suggested by Dr.Thump for transient response is because the woofers used in the 63/83's are a step up from the rest of the reference series. i.e..."High Output.." If the new rf-7 II line will not be capable of producing ATLEAST the "THUMP in the chest" of the 63/83 as described by Dr.Thump I will certainly be looking purchasing the 83's! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Youthman Posted August 15, 2010 Moderators Share Posted August 15, 2010 As with the new RF-7 II, does anyone else find the feet weird? For me, it wasn't as much as the feet being weird as it was the 3/4 grill cover. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darylomer12 Posted August 15, 2010 Share Posted August 15, 2010 For me, it wasn't as much as the feet being weird as it was the 3/4 grill cover. EXACTLY was I was thinking. I personally don't dig the new look... But everyone has their own taste. I'm just used to the older style grill covering the whole front. To me, those don't look like klipsch because of the 3/4 grill. But I'm sure they sound great.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wboffthelake Posted August 16, 2010 Share Posted August 16, 2010 This may be a mute point but something that I have noticed...The description for the new series does not contain the verbage "High Output" as the rf-83/63, rc-64, WF-35, and all Palladiums. Are the drivers in the new series a step down from what Klipsch has used in the series listed above (not including palladium of course) or what exactly is meant by "High Output?"... Yes they are beautiful speakers but I don't want to pay more for an rf-7 II if I can buy an rf-83 that will have better performance... While clearly there was a difference with the tweeters (size), I also always wondered whether there was a difference between the woofers in the 83s and 82s, and the 63s and 62s, given the "high output" claim only listed with the 83/63 speakers. Amy or Prof. Thump, could you tell us whether there was a difference in the woofers and, if so, what the specific difference(s) are/were. Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay481985 Posted August 16, 2010 Share Posted August 16, 2010 As with the new RF-7 II, does anyone else find the feet weird? For me, it wasn't as much as the feet being weird as it was the 3/4 grill cover. For me I kind of like seeing some wood finish. As for the peg grills, step down to the rf-83 I have. There are quite a few times i knocked them off with a sideways force that will surely break the plastic pegs versus the current magnetic on the rf-83. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen Traveler Posted August 16, 2010 Share Posted August 16, 2010 ...Yes they are beautiful speakers but I don't want to pay more for an rf-7 II if I can buy an rf-83 that will have better performance... Owning the previous RF-7s and having heard the RF-83s, I can't imagine that the newer version won't perform better than than the latter and am curious the difference in sound with the former. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.