No Highs, No Lows, Must be RF-7's?!

[Kevin S]

Just thought that maybe a moderator would like to comment on the measurement techniques used by Sound and Vision on the current article on the RF-7 home theater set up.

Example: RF-7's: 76hz to 14.4khz +/- 4.5db.

It should be noted that the measurements do not seem to jibe with the impressions written by the author in the body of the article. But something that measures as far off from the factory published spec's as this needs some comment, I think.

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

L/C/R: Klipsch Heresy II

Surround: Klipsch RS-3

Subwoofers: 2 HSU-VTF-2

Pre/Pro/Tuner: McIntosh MX-132

AMP: McIntosh MC-7205

DVD: McIntosh MVP-831

CD Transport: Bang & Olufsen Beosound 9000

Turntable: Denon DP-72L

Cassette: Nakamichi BX-1

T.V. : Mitsubishi 55905

SAT/HDTV: RCA DTC-100

Surge Protector: Monster Power HTS-5000

[ERIK]

I saw that too. First he says you don't need a sub with the RF-7's then he uses those spec's. Over all he made the Reference line look good but, some of the comments didn't make him sound too knowledgable. I can't remember any of them right now but there were a couple.

[Seb]

who was the author?

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

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

[jdm56]

Sound & Vision has their own way of measuring speakers. For instance, weighting the off-axis numbers. Of course, this makes no sense with horns.

I believe the 76hz figure is not an indication of the low freq. limit, plus it is an "in-room" measurement, not an anechoic one. Any speaker will produce relatively large peaks and dips in a real room as opposed to an anechoic chamber.

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

JDM

[Super_BQ]

I myself found the RF-7 speakers to be very lacking in extended high and low freq. response. I've often wondered why Klipsch would ever call this like "Reference" which it's performance specs are no where close to reference standards of other speaker makers.

In comparison, i'll take a pair of Chorus, Forte, or any Heritage line speaker over any RF series. To be more exact, I would be hard press keeping a pair of RF-7 if they were given to me.

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

Pareto Efficiency PREVAILS ALL!

[Kevin S]

Seb- Author of the article was Daniel Kumin. Tom Nousaine makes the measurements.

James, The low frequency limit of the RF-7 was given as 32hz, but only at 85 db before onset of the 10% distortion limit that they use in their tests. They also show the sensitivity of the speakers to be 99db/1 meter/2.83 volts. If I am reading this right, that means that a clean 32 hz would be 14db down when measured at 1 meter with a 2.83 volt input. This assumption of mine would be borne out by the graph accompanying the article, which show the measured bass response under 100hz to be falling off a cliff. The beginning of the line on the graph does appear to be at about 30hz and is not quite to -15db. The sub's maximum clean output at 20hz is 17 db below the sub's maximum output at 50hz.

I am not a fan of all of their measuring techniques, especially the off axis weighting. In fact I wrote them a letter to the editor, which they published, in reference to measurements they made on Synergy Series speakers, stating that I felt that speakers should be measured according to how the manufacturer says to set them up. Naturally they defended their techniques as being more realistic and claimed that the weighting only made a slight difference in the Synergy measurements.

But Sound and Vision does do their measuring in a consistant fashion, and the RF-7 series performed poorly, IMHO, in relation to other speakers they have tested, especially for the price point. But my real surprise is how far off they measured compared to the factory specs. Seldom do I remember seeing this big of a discrepancy between factory specs and measured performance, regardless of variations in measuring techniques.

[cc1091]

I can't keep biting my tongue about this:

When the reference series consisted of the RP-5, Rp-3 and RF-3 as the main speakers in the line, I commented about how poor the RF-3 sounded in comparison to the Rp-5 and Rp-3. I was sorely chastised by the Klipsch BB community because the RF-3 was outselling the other two (well at half the price of the RP-3, I can see why...show them the Rp series, then switch the customer over to the RF-3 and tell them this model is about half the price = sale).

Fast forward: Klipsch discontinues the Rp series and introduces the RF-5 and RF-7 which look for all the world like RF-3s but larger. Hmmm even their specs are not a lot different. My subjective listening test tells me that they don't sound any better than the RF-3, just a little larger and the bad points of the RF-3 are more emphasized. I ask, "Why did Klipsch discontinue the RP series?" Again I am chastised.

Now we have these tests by Sound and Vision. Though I have never been a fan of these testing methods (mostly because they are hard to decipher, not because they are not realistic), I find that they have accurately depicted my feelings about the RF-7 (and in some lesser way, the whole RF line). In no way is the RF line a very good representation of the typical Klipsch speaker, nor is it a good "reference" quality speaker.

OK all...start the retorts. I can handle it. Especially when I am right.

[Deang]

Below is the frequency response graph for the RB5 --

The testing done in this RB5 review reveals the RB5 to be 14db down at 30Hz. So I guess that means the RB5 plays lower than the RF7. Yea, right.

Think I'll just keep using my ears.

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

Deanf>s>

Cary AE-25 Super Amp

Sonic Frontiers Line 1

Sony SCD-C555ES

Marantz DV-7010

Klipsch RF7's

Klipsch LF-10

MIT/Monsters

Toshiba 36"f>s>

Inside every small problem is a large problem struggling to get outf>s>c>-- 2nd Law of Blissful Ignorancef>s>c>

[Kevin S]

Deang,

The question is why do the Sound & Vision specs differ so greatly from the manufacturer specs.

As an owner of RF-7's, perhaps you have made in room measurements that you could share, along with specifics as to placement, level, etc.

BTW, your RB 5 chart shows 50hz about 8 db down, when the specs state 48hz 3 db down. Not within spec, but nowhere near the discrepancy shown in the RF-7 test.

I think comparing your RB5 graph with the Sound & Vision graph does at least show that the fellow who measured the RB5 had them placed in such a way that they did in fact output as much at 30 hz in that placement as the RF7's did the way Sound & Vision had them placed.

[Deang]

Kevin,

The question is why do the Sound & Vision specs differ so greatly from the manufacturer specs.

The answer must be related to setup. The 'average' user is not going to pull their speakers three feet from the back wall and 2 or more feet from the side walls. Most people just don't have that luxury. 99% of the people buying these things have them next to home entertainment centers, practically against the back wall, and fairly close to at least one corner. It may just be that Klipsch has them close to the back wall when they take their measurements.

As an owner of RF-7's, perhaps you have made in room measurements that you could share, along with specifics as to placement, level, etc.

It is not possible for me to take in room measurements because I do not have any test equipment. I have just never felt the need to do it. I do have a friend with a warble tone generator and a SPL meter. I may have him come over next week and see what we can come up with.

I'm a conscientious audiophile only in the sense that I read tons, and take alot of time trying to get the most out of my system. I haven't given specifications any serious consideration since I threw my last copy of Stereo Review into the trash.

My RF7's are 32" off the back wall and 27" in from the side walls. The bass sounds 'natural' to me without any 'undue emphasis'. When I want 'undue emphasis' I turn up my LF-10.

I think comparing your RB5 graph with the Sound & Vision graph does at least show that the fellow who measured the RB5 had them placed in such a way that they did in fact output as much at 30 hz in that placement as the RF7's did the way Sound & Vision had them placed.

Yep.

The RF-7's do not exhibit the slow, plodding bass I am accustomed to hearing from most towers. There is also no boominess in the low end. The bass is always tight and well articulated. It may be that the lack of extreme output at the lower frequencies may in fact account for the cleaniness of the bass and lower midrange.

I neither consider the bass of the RF7's to be underwhelming nor overwhelming -- just there.

Since I am practically impossible to please -- and I like them so very much -- I can only assume they are perfect.

It will however, be interesting to see how Klipsch responds.

Super_BQ

I wouldn't worry too much about someone 'giving' you a set of RF7's. Now, don't you feel better? At any rate, I have heard many a speaker that specs out great -- but sounds horrible.

cc1091

...show them the RP series, then switch the customer over to the RF-3 and tell them this model is about half the price = sale.

It actually surprises you that most people would opt to buy an $800 set of speakers over a $2000 set of speakers? Not to mention you can get a set of RF3's and KSW12 or KSW15 together for alot less than a set of RP3's.

Klipsch discontinues the RP series and introduces the RF-5 and RF-7 which look for all the world like RF-3's but larger. Hmmm even their specs are not a lot different.

Wow, there's those specs again. You're right, they spec out almost the same -- yet perform and totally different.

My subjective listening tests tells me that they don't sound any better than the RF-3, just a little larger and the bad points of the RF-3 are more emphasized.

Aw c'mon - you can't possibly be serious. How can you make a comment like that? Your posts usually sound pretty intelligent -- what the hell happened here?

I ask, "Why did Klipsch discontinue the RP series?"

Because only 1 in 10 preferred them to the RF3's or RB5's with a good sub.

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

Deanf>s>

Cary AE-25 Super Amp

Sonic Frontiers Line 1

Sony SCD-C555ES

Marantz DV-7010

Klipsch RF7's

Klipsch LF-10

MIT/Monsters

Toshiba 36"f>s>

Inside every small problem is a large problem struggling to get outf>s>c>-- 2nd Law of Blissful Ignorancef>s>c>

This message has been edited by deang on 04-13-2002 at 05:43 PM

[Kevin S]

Dean,

I have no test equipment other than a Radio Shack SPL meter and a few discs with test tones. I have found them useful and sometimes enlightening. If you can get your friend over you may find it useful as well.

My experience with my own setups and helping friends with theirs is that if your speaker has flat output to about 50-60hz, the ears will perceive that as really deep bass. Until you fill in the remaining bottom end and hear what wasn't there. The ear/brain seems to do a geat job of "filling in" missing information, especially when listening to music instead of test tones. I have owned and listened to a lot of speakers that had no real bass below that 50-60hz region but were really quite satisfying to listen to.

Sorry, got a bit off topic there, I think.

[Deang]

I don't think you're off topic -- and I know what you mean.

Give me high distortion tubes and wimpy Klipsch towers

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

Deanf>s>

Cary AE-25 Super Amp

Sonic Frontiers Line 1

Sony SCD-C555ES

Marantz DV-7010

Klipsch RF7's

Klipsch LF-10

MIT/Monsters

Toshiba 36"f>s>

Inside every small problem is a large problem struggling to get outf>s>c>-- 2nd Law of Blissful Ignorancef>s>c>

[cc1091]

Dean-

I didn't mean to step on a good Klipsch owner's ears, but plainly my ears hear a sound that is different from what yours hear. I'm somewhat relieved that Sound & Vision has published tests that back-up SOME of my contentions about the RF series (I was wondering if my ears had finally lost something to the march of years). On the other hand, I must admit that it seems that S&V tests seem to indicate that a speaker tests much worse that it reasonably should be. To me, the Rf series always sounded like the bass was less controlled and filled with more distortions (cabinet and sympathetic distortions between the dual woofer format). Plus, the RF still needs a sub just to get to the bass depth that the Rps had built in. I can't complain much about the upper end, because the Rp-3 and 5 had nearly the same driver there.

Yes you're right. It was my point that sales of the RF-3 were complimentry to the fact that the Rp series was so expensive. The line of thought goes like this: The sales person introduces a customer to the Klipsch Rp-3 or Rp-5 first, when they find the customer wasn't loking to spend THAT much, he steps them down to the RF-3. If the RF-3 doesn't have enough bass, then comes the even less expensive RB5 with a sub. Hence, good sales numbers on a middle of the road speaker (although a middle of the road speaker that makes other "high end" speaker manufacturers envious).

It is also my contention that Klipsch wrongly interpreted the sales numbers for the RF-3 to mean that they should drop the entire RP series and build two new speakers that are exactly the same as the RF3, except for the fact that they are bigger in nearly every way. First I was disheartened that Klipsch wanted to create such a redundancy with the RF3, RF5 and RF7 just as they did with the Rp3 and Rp5. Second, I think they would have done themselves a favor by keeping the RF3, introducing the RF7 (which is much larger sounding than the RF3), and reformulating the two RP speakers into a new package that kept a three way speaker (or something close to a three way speaker like the Rp series) in the reference line.

I would love to see a model that takes the very nice sounding subwoofer and cabinet combination of the Rp-3 and incorporates the squawker and tweeter of the Heresy plus a smaller cone driver to fill in the frequencies between where the squawker leaves off, and the sub begins (a four-way speaker). but I'm afraid this will remain a dream.

Back to the subject:

I must also point out that I am used to listening to my Rp3s and my Heresys through MIT speaker cables. The RF series speakers I have listened to have been through the cheap store system speaker cables that lead to a multiple distribution box (so they can match their zillion components to your selected speaker). I think some of my opinions could change if listening to the RF series through a pair of MIT speaker cables proved a much better sound than I imagine.

I will read with interest any finding from a Klipsch owner that either verifies or discounts Sound & Vision's tests (as I think many of the audio magazines don't give Klipsch a fair shake).

CC

PS I hope this sounded a little more intelligent.

This message has been edited by cc1091 on 04-14-2002 at 12:28 AM

[Deang]

I didn't mean to step on a good Klipsch owner's ears, but plainly my ears hear a sound that is different from what yours hear.

I'm not that thinned skinned so don't worry about me being offended. I think it's true we all hear a little differently or we would'nt be able account for such diversity in speakers.

I'm somewhat relieved that Sound & Vision has published tests that back-up SOME of my contentions about the RF series (I was wondering if my ears had finally lost something to the march of years). On the other hand, I must admit that it seems that S&V tests seem to indicate that a speaker tests much worse that it reasonably should be.

I think we will just have to wait and see what Klipsch's response is to those horrible numbers. Those numbers are certainly not indicative of what I'm hearing. I'm at a complete loss here. I do believe S&V screwed something up though -- as evidenced by my reprint above of the frequency response graph of the RB5.

To me, the Rf series always sounded like the bass was less controlled and filled with more distortions (cabinet and sympathetic distortions between the dual woofer format).

I don't know what to say except they sound clean to me. The bass comes through without destroying the lower midrange. No, the cabinets are not well braced internally, and initially, that bothered me too. However, with the advancements in computer modeling and analysis -- most of these anomolies are corrected in the crossover.

Plus, the RF still needs a sub just to get to the bass depth that the Rps had built in. I can't complain much about the upper end, because the Rp-3 and 5 had nearly the same driver there.

Well, the RP3 and RP5 used the EXACT same driver/horn as the RF3 and RB5. Sure, RF3/RB5 need a sub to get to where the RP3/RP5 were -- but look at the overall difference in price. It's a bunch. I think we agree here.

It is also my contention that Klipsch wrongly interpreted the sales numbers for the RF-3 to mean that they should drop the entire RP series and build two new speakers that are exactly the same as the RF3, except for the fact that they are bigger in nearly every way.

I think what they looked at is the same thing everyone else in the market looked at. The unpopularity of powered towers. The RP3's are basically RB5's with two KSW10's. The RP5's are RF3's with two KSW12's. Due to the placement issues most people are faced with -- powered towers just don't integrate well. Speakers usually end up having to be placed fairly close to walls and/or corners, and this causes them to boom to high heaven. For the same amount of money one can get some RF3's and a Carver Sunfire, Velodyne, or RSW12. It's easier to integrate and will produce a better quality of bass.

First I was disheartened that Klipsch wanted to create such a redundancy with the RF3, RF5 and RF7 just as they did with the Rp3 and Rp5.

I still don't understand why you keep lumping the RF5, RF7, and RF3 together. They are not the same. These speakers all sound fairly different from each other and all have different performance parameters. The RF5 has a larger horn, different crossover, and it's voiced completely different than the RF3. The RF7 uses a completely different driver altogether. There is nothing redundant here at all. As far as the RP3 and RP5 goes -- room size would be the biggest determination in which way to go here -- not sonic signature. So again, no redundancy here either.

Second, I think they would have done themselves a favor by keeping the RF3, introducing the RF7 (which is much larger sounding than the RF3), and reformulating the two RP speakers into a new package that kept a three way speaker (or something close to a three way speaker like the Rp series) in the reference line.

The RP series were no more a three-way than the RF series with a sub. I wouldn't really consider the RP series a three-way. They were basically two-ways with built in subs.

I must also point out that I am used to listening to my Rp3s and my Heresys through MIT speaker cables. The RF series speakers I have listened to have been through the cheap store system speaker cables that lead to a multiple distribution box (so they can match their zillion components to your selected speaker). I think some of my opinions could change if listening to the RF series through a pair of MIT speaker cables proved a much better sound than I imagine.

I use MIT's also and they are a very good match with horns. Sure, ideally you should hear them with decent equipment in a decent room. But when you get right down to it -- that's basically what you have -- RB5's with two KSW10's. So, for all intents and purposes -- you know what RF sounds like.

I will read with interest any finding from a Klipsch owner that either verifies or discounts Sound & Vision's tests (as I think many of the audio magazines don't give Klipsch a fair shake).

Agreed. Better yet -- Klipsch should respond.

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

Deanf>s>

Cary AE-25 Class A Triode Amp

S. Frontiers/Anthem CD-1

Sonic Frontiers Line 1

Marantz DV-7010

Klipsch RF7's

Klipsch LF-10

MIT/Monsters

Toshiba 36"f>s>

Inside every small problem is a large problem struggling to get outf>s>c>-- 2nd Law of Blissful Ignorancef>s>c>

This message has been edited by deang on 04-14-2002 at 01:41 PM

[JLL]

I totally agree with deang on this thread. My rf-3 speakers are one of the best speaekers I have ever heard excluding the rf-5 and rf-7. I compared these speaker to martin logan, b&w and paradigm speakers, I mean come on these speakers waxed the paradigm studio 60's or 80's at my dealer, I believe it was the 60's and the paradigms cost like 1500. Anyways my rf-3's have big clear sound and great deep bass, with lots of depth. I think you guys are reaching your conclusions listening to these speakers at your local dealer. I admit i wasnt impressed hearing rf-3's at my dealer until I took them home, they were waaay better in my room. I think you guys have to take the reference home and set them up PROPERLY to hear what they are capable of.

As for this sound and vision article which I bought, this guy loved these speakers. He said they sounded huge with huge bass impact. He said he measured certain bass solidly below 30 Hz.. His numbers were measured at 2 meters instead of the usual 1 meter maybe this is why the measured numbers are off. He compared them to his 2 pairs of excellent conventional two way speakers he uses for reference and the klipsch sounded just the same, no more detail or heightened detail everything was the same but the rf-7's he stated had inner elements that were more immediate.

I am so impressed with my rf-3's i am going to be upgrading to the rf-7's and rc-7 very soon and I cant wait. Way to go klipsch.

sorry for a long reply here is high and low points

from sound and vision mag.

high points: accurate, full-range reproduction for both music and movies. May not even need the subwoofer. Unusually high sensitivity. Tremendous dynamic potential.

low points: large size limits placement options. Pricey.

[Seb]

"May not even need the subwoofer."

BLASPHEMY!!!!

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

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

[Kevin S]

JLL,

FWIW, the author of the Sound & Vision article, and the person who did the measurements were two seperate people. I believe that the listening and measuring are even done in two seperate locations, with completely different speaker placements. The comments in the article are not actually related in any way to the measurements, and the writer does not actually refer to the measurements to support or refute what he heard.

Still leaves us with the mystery of why what Sound and Vision measured is so far off from the published specs.

[cc1091]

Uh oh..I'm getting totally off the subject here:

I HAVE the KSW10 sub. Despite the fact that the sub uses the same driver under a different part name (I can prove this) as the sub on the RP-3, the sound is vastly different. The sound from the KSW10 is boomy and uncontrolled, the sound from the Rp-3 is smooth accurate and mellow. I believe the difference is the sealed box of the RP-3 versus the ported box of the KSW10 (and perhaps some electronic crossover differences).

Numerous speaker manufacturers offer powered speakers of some sort (NHT, B&W come readily to mind). Bryston builds an amplifier that is designed to attach to the back of your speaker. Though I am not going to defend the concept entirely, I do think the design has a market. If it were as inexpensive as a non powered speaker of similar dimensions, I think the sub loaded powered speaker would fare well in the market place. Its that two subs for one exchange that gets it in trouble.

I'm afraid I will always group the RF3,5 & 7 together. I will give you the point that the Rf3 & 5 sound closer to each other than the RF-7 sounds to these two, but character of sound is still present (a character I can only describe with the negatives I hear and have described before in this thread). But as a group, they sound and look similar in too many ways to me.

Thanks for once again discussing this topic.

Its good to find people on the BBS who are willing to have a discussion where they don't (and probably won't) whole-ly agree. I'm kind of tired of reading about people complaining about how unfriendly the BBS has become over the drop of a hat (I last saw this on the 2 channel audio forum). I don't think anyone intends to insult. And it is hard to write critically about something that someone else cares about without sometimes sounding a little coarse.

back to the subject:

So do you think I could bring my MIT speaker cables and my Radio Shack Db meter to my local Audio King and run some tests?

[Deang]

C'mon BobG or Jim or SOMEBODY from Klipsch

What's up with those ugly numbers for the RF7 in Sound and Vision??

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

Deanf>s>

Cary AE-25 Class A Triode Amp

Sonic Frontiers Line 1

Sony DVP-S9000ES

Klipsch RF7's

SVS 20-39PCi

MIT/Monsters

Toshiba 36"f>s>

Inside every small problem is a large problem struggling to get outf>s>c>-- 2nd Law of Blissful Ignorancef>s>c>

This message has been edited by deang on 04-17-2002 at 08:03 PM

[boa12]

cc, i can't keep biting my tongue either.

imho you just can't compare a powered tower to a non like the rf-3, especially in the bass category. apples

to oranges. like comparing a truck to a car.

to compare tou have to put a fine, well set-up sub together with the rf. i know you say that the rp mid-driver outperforms the rf crossover & tactrix horn.

i've had both & don't agree. found the mid-range on the rp-3 to be actually it's biggest weakness. 2nd was bass quality by far compared to the rf-3 & a not even so well placed velo hgs-18.

of course this is just my ear taste & opinion. you may just find a mid-bass cone more tasteful than a horn.

but like has been said the sales numbers back up the majority. many more seem to prefer the rf-3 and most put a good sub with it (to total about the same price as the rp msrp-wise). of course everyone won't love the rf though, not even w/ a great sub. glad you're satisfied though.

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

My Home Systems Page