No new threads for RF3s in months !!!! are they that bad ?

[quadklipsh]

it is a matter of joy when you find forum members enjoying the same speakers or electronics that YOU own too.

I dont see as much written or spoken about RF3s . they might be old and overtaken by the later models ,RF3 IIs and RF82s (similar driver sizes ) or the other reference speakers . but like most of the other genre of klipsch speakers ( heritage , legends , synergy , epics , ......) which are rather frequently talked about , i would like to know now why are the 3s less popular here in gossip ?

As for my own experience of three years, they never sounded bad to me and mostly sound better than other speakers that i come by .

[Fish]

The 3's are great speakers, for the size and price very hard to beat.The rf3 was my first RF speaker, I liked em' so much I got the 7's.My local dealer gave full trade in value on the 3's or I would still have em. They have been around for a while so not the hot new item but lots of members here still have em'.

[quadklipsh]

fish , thanks for the input .

i always fancy RF7s .

they are always spoken of very highly here . perhaps they stand in the top 7 klipsch speakers ever made .

perhaps the 7s are the big brother version of the 3s . so that means at lower volumes the two should be sounding rather the same tone wise ?

whats your take on that ?

one thing i always DIS-liked about 7s is the way they disappoint me in the dealers shop . they have massive 10 inch dual woofers , designed to play loud n clear staying upright, right down to 32 hz . but when ever i have a go and listen for bass , they sound tinny and thin , and the only thing that gives satisfaction there is when he turns the sub woofer ON !!!.

[quadklipsh]

RF7s are like big brother version of the 3s ???

[Klipschtastic]

I just decided to check in on this forum and I ran across this thread. I bought my Rf3s new about 11 years ago and have always liked them pretty well. With the right source they can sound amazing, but at times the highs can be a bit peircing and harsh. I think the bass response is good; very accurate and tight. If I need more bass i can usually get what I need with a turn of the dial. Lately I have been considering new speakers however because I have moved them to a 2 channel music only system and I can sympathize with those who say they can be fatigueing and harsh. It really depends on the source though. Aucustic music with drumscan sounds really good but sometimes all out rock can be harsh, anything recorded bright can sound harsh. Some cd's sound amazing though. I would like to maybe audition some other speakers but there isn't much where I live.

You're right though it is nice to hear from folks who are enjoying the same speakers you re.

[RockOn4Klipsch]

i think there are too many models of speakers in this particular size class for klipsch. It's kind of a catch all class that includes a wide range of speakers. There are both mid priced speakers and higher end speakers in this class which i think has created some confusion on what speakers are what. For example, RF 82's and RF 82 II were often compared to RF 5's because the size was similiar, people took this to mean that the RF 82's were the RF 5 replacement. there is a quality difference aswell as a noticeable price gap.

The RF 82's can be had for approx. 400 bucks a speaker where the RF 5's where roughly 800 bucks a speaker.

I think the same is true for the RF 3 and RF 3 II, the 8 in class of speakers have been lumped together with such a wide variance of quality they just get overlooked. I think this class of speaker also has the owner looking for the next upgrade as they were typically one or two steps away from the flagship model.

Take a look at the many options in the 8in class within the Reference Line:

RF 5 Classis, RF 5 Original , RF 3, RF 3 II , RF 82, RF 82 II, RF 35.

The RF 35 and RF 82's are obviously not in the same class or league as the RF 3 or RF 5s. but the point stands that to the average user that 8in driver is an 8in driver. The sensitivity is relatively close among all of them, the frequency response are similiar so it seems to reason why would one pay more for a speaker say RF 5's when they can't get the same thing in the RF 35 or 82?

I understand the difference, my first pair of speakers where RF 5's and I still have them. When the RF 82 replaced them, in that class, people figured the 82's replaced the RF 5 not the RF 63's.

This has given this particular class a kind of confusing set of numbers and specifications.

[quadklipsh]

thanks for the account ,

here i would like to know how RF5s differ from the 82s.and the 82 IIs.

im interested in knowing how much difference would you say is between the 3s , 5s and the older and newer 82s .

sorry if that sounds like the same question asked ,but what i mean is if the price difference justified right between these speakers , which have the same drivers (grossly) ?

[Zen Traveler]

...As for my own experience of three years, they never sounded bad to me and mostly sound better than other speakers that i come by .

I am glad you like your RF-3s but when I saw the title of this thread I couldn't help but remember this exchange on another you started expressing the exact opposite: http://community.klipsch.com/forums/t/131681.aspx?PageIndex=1

I searched and found that you haven't liked the RF-3s since you got them and suggest you upgrade....Fwiw, the RF-3s are good Mains as long as you have a subwoofer take up the lower end. That being said, they don't compare to the RF-7 but are excellent side surround speakers.

EDIT:

i figure klipsch are not meant to sound visceral ,they have a live taste

Fwiw, the Klipsch Home Theater I have listed in my Signature sounds both Live and Visceral!

[oldenough]

I agree...I think your search should be on for new speakers. It would seem that the RF-3's are never going to satisfy your tastes.

[quadklipsh]

wait a minute guys , i did have an issue back then , i felt the need for lows . and i mentioned serious trouble with that room acoustics , i also said elsewhere that no speaker performed impressive there .but soon as shifted to another room the RF3s gave me everything . from thunderous bass to excellent imaging .

so i am not complaining here .

also the other speakers you will recommend maybe not that cost effective in my situation perhaps .

keep posted ......

[cornfedksboy]

I know the RF-5s are in a different class than the 35s, 82's, and 82 IIs, but the 3's and 3 IIs? Those should really be the same as the other mentioned speakers based on price, veneere, and driver quality. Someone please correct me if I am mistaken.

[StephenM]

AFAIK, the RF-3, 3II, 35, 82, and 82II was the chronological progression of the Reference line. Presumably refinements were made over time, although whether you view them as consequential or not is another story.

The RF-5 was introduced in 2001 along with the RF-3II and ran until 2006, with a brief comeback recently. Comparitively, the RF-5 has a larger cabinet (and consequently deeper bass response), a different tweeter (the marketing material of which bragged about its large 9.6oz magnet), a larger horn, and a different crossover. In addition, the RF-5 was built in the US and boasts real wood veneer versus the vinyl wrap of the RF-3 through the RF-82II.

[cornfedksboy]

Take a look at the many options in the 8in class within the Reference Line:

RF 5 Classis, RF 5 Original , RF 3, RF 3 II , RF 82, RF 82 II, RF 35.

The RF 35 and RF 82's are obviously not in the same class or league as the RF 3...

This has given this particular class a kind of confusing set of numbers and specifications.

Thanks Stephen! Given the comment quoted above, there is indeed much confusion on the dual 8" Reference speakers.