Shodrewken Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 This might of already been discussed but it seems to me that would of made more sense number wise because the rf-7 ii is the flagship speaker now for the rf line. If rf-83 ii's were released, the rf-82 ii's would of made more sense then. Just seem like they mix up the different speaker lines this time around. I'm not complaining or anything just an observation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thaddeus Smith Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 they released the RF-5 classic a couple of years back. my guess is that the response was luke warm and so they ended further building/marketing efforts on that model. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shodrewken Posted April 12, 2012 Author Share Posted April 12, 2012 Hmm that makes sense, and I guess the rf-5 ii's would of been more expensive than the 82 ii's. Too bad though would of been cool to have the mark 2 verison of the 5's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blowndc Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 I agree. The Reference line currently has the RF-42, RF-52, RF-62, RF-82, then jumps to the RF-7, with a huge price jump. I personally think there should be something in the middle between the RF-82 and the RF-7. You get plenty of options if you look at the low end of the Reference line, but when you get up to the high end, you only have two choices. I guess what I'm saying is why have so many choices for the low end Reference line, with minimal price difference, then not many options for the high end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shodrewken Posted April 12, 2012 Author Share Posted April 12, 2012 I actually didn't think of it that way, you got a good point there. The MSRP of the 7-II's is pretty high, but if you look around you can almost chop that price in half if you look around. Many guys here on the forum, including me, have found pretty decent prices from dealers like Acoustic Sound Design, and Sound Distributors. But still, I think the rf-5 ii's would serve as a good mid point between the 7 ii's and everything else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich_Guy Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 Yes I was also disappointed that there was no RF-5 ll Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W27 Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 Isn't the RF-82 kind of the replacement of the RF-5? The RF-5 didn't have the big 1.75" tweeter of the RF-7. The RF-5 and RF-82 both had a similar 1" tweeter with two 8" woofers. I think the RF-82II really is an updated RF-5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thaddeus Smith Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 Isn't the RF-82 kind of the replacement of the RF-5? The RF-5 didn't have the big 1.75" tweeter of the RF-7. The RF-5 and RF-82 both had a similar 1" tweeter with two 8" woofers. I think the RF-82II really is an updated RF-5 being similar in specs doesn't mean they are anywhere close in overall sound. The RF-5's are a very unique beast. My buddy has RF-3 II's, which appear to have the exact same components, and yet they sound nothing like my RF-5's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
themrclean Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 What gets me is just the naming of the speakers. If you look at the current Reference line you can tell exactly what speaker it is just by the name. R for reference followed by F for floorstanding, C for center, B for bookshelf, or S for surround. Then the number right after that tells the size of the woofer and the next number tells thetotal number of woofers. This way of naming the different models is genius because you don't have to memorize multiple model numbers, you can just look at the name and know what it is. To get to my point, why didn't they do the same with the RF-7II? The woofers are 10" not 7", and there are two of them. Why not name this speaker in the same fashion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich_Guy Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 Isn't the RF-82 kind of the replacement of the RF-5? The RF-5 didn't have the big 1.75" tweeter of the RF-7. The RF-5 and RF-82 both had a similar 1" tweeter with two 8" woofers. I think the RF-82II really is an updated RF-5 The RF-82 is more the replacement of the RF-3. Where in the past lineup the RF-7 was sort of replaced with the RF-83, the RF-5 was replaced with the RF-63 and the RF-3 was replaced with the RF-82. The current line-up skips over an RF-5 replacement with no equivalent model, going directly from the RF-82 ll to the RF-7 ll. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajoker2c Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 Just curious as to where my RF-35's fit into the evolution?....I was under the impression that the 82's were the replacement? Love my RF 35's Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich_Guy Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 Just curious as to where my RF-35's fit into the evolution?....I was under the impression that the 82's were the replacement? Love my RF 35's Yes your RF-35's are part of the RF-3 model evolution which did become the RF-82 and then later the RF-82 ll Here is that evolution. RF-3 BUILT FROM: 1999 BUILT UNTIL: 2001 RF-3 II BUILT FROM: 2001 BUILT UNTIL: 2003 RF-35 BUILT FROM: 2003 BUILT UNTIL: 2006 RF-82 BUILT FROM: 2006 BUILT UNTIL: 2010 RF-82 ll BUILT FROM: 2010 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.