cheric Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 I have an opportunity to buy a pair of RF7 but I currently own a pair of Chorus II, I am wondering if there is any difference between these two pairs, sonically speaking. Has any one had a chance to audition and compare them? Is it worth to trade the Chorus II's for the RF7's? Your inputs will be greatly appreciated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turbox Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 I dont think i'd make that trade man. The Chorus II's are super fantastic. i think with the large woofers, they'd dig deeper. I could be wrong, I've never heard the RF7. either way i'd keep the Chorus II's. Dont get me wrong im not knocking the RF7's its just my preference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbsl Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 It depends on if you have the money to buy the 7s and compare them side by side to find out which you like better. Keep the ones you like and sell the other or keep one for home theater and the other for 2 channel system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tblake10 Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 I've had both and prefer the Chorus II's for music. The RF-7's are great in their own way too though. It is a matter of personal preference. I would not make the trade without being able to hear the RF-7's first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moray james Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 a step backwards. the rf7 will go a little lower but one fifteen pushes much more ar than two tens do. You have a larger horn in the chorus ll. would not be my first choice. Upgrade what you have you will never look back. Best regards Moray James. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheric Posted December 1, 2012 Author Share Posted December 1, 2012 Moray, I am a little confused with your recommendation; are you recommending me to keep the Chorus II? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shodrewken Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 You have to consider that you would be going from a 3-way speaker to a 2-way. To my ear I feel my Chorus II's have a fuller sound when I'm listening to music, compared to my RF-7 II's. Which isn't to say that the 7's don't sound great for music, in fact they sound awesome and have deeper bass, however the Chorus II's have the separate high range tweeter and mid range driver, and the 15" woofer's have a very tight bass sound to them. This is just all my experience, this isn't scientifically for certain, but the two speakers definitely have different sounds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rivernuggets Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 Quote It depends on if you have the money to buy the 7s and compare them side by side to find out which you like better. That's a great way to go. That's the only way you'll know for sure which you like better, with your source/amp, in your room. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moray james Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 Upgrade what you have you will never look back. Chorus ll over an RF7 anyday. Best regards Moray James. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moray james Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 It's not an issue of two way Vs three way it's a matter of the size of the horn and the crossover point. The Chorus ll has a larger mid horn and a lower crossover point. A two way has a number of advantages over a three way but the single biggest issue is the size of the horn and the cost of the driver and that is where most three ways win out Best regards Moray James. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shodrewken Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 Oh okay, well in my mind I thought that when you have something that is dedicated to a particular part of the system, like the high range tweeter to the high range, and a seperate mid range tweeter to the mid range, that it would sound fuller, and nothing is comprimised. Two-way just seemed like it would be a more cost effective way to go about things, and in so doing might loose a little something. Anyway, it definitely is a different sound. I love the way my RF-7 II's play, very powerfull alive, however, I don't think they are as smooth as the Chorus II's to my ears. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moray james Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 cviper: two way is these days very often done to save money and as we all can see there are a multitude or really a flood of cheap two ways on the market. If however we are talking quality sound then using only two components to deliver the bulk of the audio band is a very tall task and requires both very high quality components with extreem excellence in design. Remember that PWK had intended that the Khorn be a two way design. Problem was he could not sucessfully extend the upper range of the bass horn high enouth to mate with the mid/hi horn and so a three way design was accepted as a compromize. The goal was not forgotten and later the Jubilee was to be the Khorn ll, the replacement the Khorn and was finally realized as a two way design. If you ever get the chance to audition either the CF3 or the CF4 do so. I think these two speakers are two of the finest home speakers Klipsch ever released and I personally place them above the Heritage series in performance and only in efficiency are they surpassed by Belle LaScala and the Khorn. Best regards Moray James. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heritage_Head Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 cviper: two way is these days very often done to save money and as we all can see there are a multitude or really a flood of cheap two ways on the market. If however we are talking quality sound then using only two components to deliver the bulk of the audio band is a very tall task and requires both very high quality components with extreem excellence in design. Remember that PWK had intended that the Khorn be a two way design. Problem was he could not sucessfully extend the upper range of the bass horn high enouth to mate with the mid/hi horn and so a three way design was accepted as a compromize. The goal was not forgotten and later the Jubilee was to be the Khorn ll, the replacement the Khorn and was finally realized as a two way design. If you ever get the chance to audition either the CF3 or the CF4 do so. I think these two speakers are two of the finest home speakers Klipsch ever released and I personally place them above the Heritage series in performance and only in efficiency are they surpassed by Belle LaScala and the Khorn. Best regards Moray James. Cf3 and 4 best klipsch speaker ever? I don’t know if you will get much support on that. How many have you owned (just asking)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moray james Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 I know what you are saying and I know that dealer response was very bad right off the bat but I think that they were wrong. I am not a Dapolito configuration fan as it only works properly when you are on axis so a KG5 type baffle layout is more to my liking. Whether I get support does not matter or change anything. I have done a lot of things which would fall into the Heresy catagory that most here would think is just not right. I post in the event that there may be some here who find some interest and perhaps see what they think about what I am doing for themselves. I like the CF3 because I like ten inch woofers more than twelve or fifteen inch units but that is just my personal preference. I have been through a set of Heresy and a set of Heresy 3 a set of Quartet a set of Forte a set of Forte ll two sets of KLF20 and the CF3. I don't really count the RB61. I have listened to CW and CW ll RF7 and RF7 ll, RF3, RF5 LaScala and LaScala ll and a couple of pair of Khorns but the Khorn were decades ago. My first experience with Klipsch was the Belle which made a big impression on me shortly after I got into big Altec's. I spent about 25 years listening to electrostats,three sets of Quad (2x57 and 1x63) and a slew of Acoustat product and custom designed and built esl. I recently set up a pair of Peavey SP! which is very similar to aa LaScala only the SP1 is a two way with a CH-1 horn 14.25"x28.5"x18.5"deep about the same efficiency as a LaScala but to big for my current digs I wont get into a bunch of Karlson designs I built up including a few of my own and an assortment of other speakers including a planar magnetic I co designed and took to market under the Sumo brand in the late 80's.Hope this answers your question and gives you an idea of where I am coming from. Best regards Moray James. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heritage_Head Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 Thanks for the reply and explanation. I have always found your posts interesting because they are really off the wall and different from what a lot of people say. Nothing wrong with being different and it sounds like you have real reasons for it other than just being different. I have never heard the cf stuff but sounds like you found a really good speaker (to your ears) for cheap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moray james Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 Thanks for the kind words. You know that you can't expect different if you keep doing the same old same old. I think that if you could hear a set of my speakers even the H3 that you would be absoluley shocked and I mean in a very good way. There are things that I have done to my speakers that I have not even bothered to mention here as most members here would just not get it or for that matter appreciate it. I like them so that is all that matters. Best regards Moray James. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators dtel Posted December 2, 2012 Moderators Share Posted December 2, 2012 Oh okay, well in my mind I thought that when you have something that is dedicated to a particular part of the system, like the high range tweeter to the high range, and a seperate mid range tweeter to the mid range, that it would sound fuller, and nothing is comprimised. Two-way just seemed like it would be a more cost effective way to go about things, and in so doing might loose a little something. Anyway, it definitely is a different sound. I love the way my RF-7 II's play, very powerfull alive, however, I don't think they are as smooth as the Chorus II's to my ears. I think part of the problems is the crossover points, ideally a one way is better, but that only goes so far. I like the 2 way and 3 way, to me I think it's more of how it's done with what design and drivers, although the best speakers i have are 2 way. I like it all horns including the bass and sub, and nothing you can hold your hands like this and measure. [{] [] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vital Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 I have both and love them both. They both have an edge on different types of music IMO. Over-all I give the Chorus ll the edge in music but it's closer than some might think. If the price is right grab them and test them both side x side and have some fun! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClaudeJ1 Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 It's not an issue of two way Vs three way it's a matter of the size of the horn and the crossover point. The Chorus ll has a larger mid horn and a lower crossover point. A two way has a number of advantages over a three way but the single biggest issue is the size of the horn and the cost of the driver and that is where most three ways win out Best regards Moray James. Chorus II has much lower distortion and will play louder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moray james Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 are you aware that you can add 2.5 ounces of dead weight in the form of some large flat steel washers on to your passives and lower the resonant frequency for more and deeper low bass output??? Best regards Moray James. 1 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.