Youthman's 2ch Setup Just Received a Sweet Upgrade!

[Youthman]

I began my 2ch journey with a pair of B&W DM 604 S3's. I had owned them before and knew they sounded great and had lots of bass since I will not be using a sub in the living room. I purchased a pair of RF-5's out of curiosity to see how they compared to the B&W's. They sounded great but didn't have near as much bass so I sold them. Although I have a pair of RF-7's in my son's room, I never tried them in the living room to see how they sounded.

The one thing that I felt the B&W's lacked was an enveloping sound. Not sure how to describe it but with my RF-83's, the sound is very large and enveloping. I'm not sure if this is called imaging or soundstage or maybe something altogether different. My living room is 15' x 25' with 12' ceilings and it is totally open to the kitchen, dining room and home office so there is a LOT of square footage to try and adequately fill.

I had the opportunity to purchase a pair of Cherry RF-7's and figured what the heck. I've owned two pair of RF-7's so I knew I loved how they sound, I just didn't know how they would compare to the B&W's.

Visual Observations:
The RF-7's weight a lot more than the B&W's and have a much larger footprint. The cherry finish is absolutely gorgeous! They look agressive, powerful and even intimidating. [] Drivers are in perfect condition. Speaker cabinets have very minor imperfections but are only seen up close. One foot was broken so I ordered a replacement from Klipsch for $2.30 shipped. []

Audio Observations:

I listened to a wide variety of material (Dave Matthews & Tim Reynolds - Live at Radio City, Nora Jones Concert DVD, Eagles Hell Freezes Over DVD, Newsong (has classical instruments in it). Between the two speakers, the RF-7's provided exactly what I was missing with the B&W's. They have a VERY large, enveloping sound, imaging is fantastic and the soundstage is wide.

I wondered if the midrange of the RF-7's would be as good as the
B&W's since they were a 2-way design vs a 3-way design in the
B&W's. I absolutely loved the midrange for both male and famale vocals on the RF-7's. The RF-7's were clearer, more detailed and simply had more presence than the B&W's. The one are that the B&W's beat the RF-7's were in the amount of bass they produced. Hard to believe but they do. No doubt about it. Sometimes, the B&W's can have too much bass and sound a bit boomy. The RF-7's provide adequate amount of bass and it's tight and sounds very natural. The B&W's have a smoother, more laid back and somewhat "veiled" sound compared to the RF-7's. The 7's are very lively, "In your face" sound.

I streamed music from Youtube using my Apple Airport Express and surprisingly, even youtube videos sounded FANTASTIC! I remembered once hearing a demo of Metalica's "Enter Sandman" so I tried it on the 7's and wow, you can definitely tell that the RF-7's absolutely shine for rock. The same is true for my previous KLF-30's. I pushed the RF-7's to 0db and then even to +5db on the receiver and they never once broke up or began to sound harsh.

The more I listened to them, the more I found myself smiling from ear to ear. []

Conclusion:

There is no doubt the RF-7's are absolutely the clear winner and are
perfect for my 2ch listening. The B&W's have been listed on
Craigslist. I guess it's probably expected since the RF-7's retailed
for over twice the amount of the B&W's. I would guess one would
have to move up to the B&W 800 Series to be more in line with the
quality of the RF-7's.

As far as speakers are concerned, I am absolutely 100% satisfied with my
2ch setup and will likely never replace the RF-7's. I've owned Forte II, CF-2, CF-4, KLF-30, Chorus II, RF-3ii,
RF-5 and the only pair that I enjoyed more in my living room than the
B&W DM 604 S3's are the RF-7's. The only other speaker that I can
think of that I would like to demo in my living room (mainly just for curiosity) is a pair of
Lascalas but probably would still choose the RF-7's over them because of the
more modern look.

I might change amps, receivers or even move someday to a pre/pro or ad a separate DAC but the speakers will always remain.

Here are my new Cherry RF-7's in their new home!

[Youthman]

Looks like I have a small project for this weekend......tidy up the cables by fastening them to the back of the entertainment center. []

[kaiser SET say]

Youth, even the Nautilus series will not sound that much diffent than your current B&W's. The entire difference in these two speakers are the horns, they will always be lively sounding as opposed to the direct rediating speakers. I'm sure the bass can also be as nice as the B&W's but I feel between the speaker crossover points and the bright characteristics of that horn the RF-7's have a stronger/brighter sounding top end compared to the DM's.

This I know for a fact as I have two systems in the man cave, my tube driven LaScla's are my live music system and my B&W 804 BAT backed setup is more for studio for me. These are just my observations between the direct radiators and horn loaders in my room YMMV[]

They are two different animals but I like the way each sounds with these types of recordings.

[SuBXeRo]

congrats on the setup! the b&w's bass will peter out far before the rf-7's will at higher volumes. For shits and giggles, hook up a power amp to the 7's and crank it to the put of uncomfortable and you will hear that bass you were expecting you'd hear from 2 10's. At lower volumes, the bass is really sedate IMO. I typically bump up the eq of the low end for the 7's to help because my normal listening volume is not 100+ db.

you are spot on with the "enveloping" and "ginormous" stage they produce. That's why I think they are so great for home theater and why i wont unload them. I find it interesting though that the b&w's have more bass than the RF-5's. I suspect placement was to blame and front firing vs rear firing ports. The RF-5's are bass hounds. I tested them a few years ago down to like 21 hz audible at very low volume. For me, those are my go-to's for music listening, hands down. Well, no but kinda, the quartets i have sound great to my ear for more vocalist music like lana del ray.

I was in bestbuy the other night and auditioned the B&W CM-9's and they have a great sound. I have always liked b&w but not their prices. I think that they have some great performance but for $3,000 a pair, i'll take my used $200 RF-5's. The sound is different but the midrange in the CM-9 is great. I didn't audition the ones you have though which i should have but the nice gloss black and pretty looking speakers caught my eye. Actually, not yours exactly but the newer 600 series.

I enjoy different speakers at different times but at the end of the day, what we hear is subjective. I think the budget is the determining factor at the end of the day. If i could afford the CM9's, they'd be sitting in my house right now pissing off the fiance because i have more speakers. My dad has had a pair of b&w's for over 25 years and they are still going strong.

[Vital]

The one are that the B&W's beat the RF-7's were in the amount of bass they produced. Hard to believe but they do. No doubt about it. Sometimes, the B&W's can have too much bass and sound a bit boomy. The RF-7's provide adequate amount of bass and it's tight and sounds very natural.

Nice write up, great photo's and I'm not really surprised by this. I added an EQ to my two channel setup and it made a big difference, it allows me to bring out the bass without pushing the system to 110 dB. Those RF-7's will move some serious air, they just need a little help getting it out sometimes.

[Rivernuggets]

Nice review Youth, I always enjoy them.

Surprised something (barely) bested your B&Ws. Are you keeping both pair in that room? For whatever mood you're in, right?

I have an RF-5 pair in Cherry and yeah the look is sweet. Something about the copper cones, black motorboard, and cherry sides.......delicious.

I'm amazed at the deals that have popped up for you this past year. Enjoy those intimidating 7's!

[Rich_Guy]

I find it interesting though that the b&w's have more bass than the RF-5's. I suspect placement was to blame and front firing vs rear firing ports. The RF-5's are bass hounds

I also found this odd, I think the placement and room had some to do with it as well as the system and settings, especially the lack of a powerful amp. Once I added a good amp to my RF-5's the bass really came to another level, sometimes when my system is running in 2 channel "DIRECT" mode which does not use the subwoofer I am amazed and have actually had to check the subwoofer to see it really was not working. I absolutely love my RF-5's.

Anyway youth glad to see you are very pleased with the RF-7's.

[Youthman]

Youth, even the Nautilus series will not sound that much diffent than your current B&W's.

Wow, that is surprising. Figured the higher up the chain you went, the better the sound.

I feel between the speaker crossover points and the bright characteristics of that horn the RF-7's have a stronger/brighter sounding top end compared to the DM's.

Yes, that's what my ears hear.

the b&w's bass will peter out far before the rf-7's will at higher volumes.

You
are correct. The B&W's get loud but I have pushed them to the
point of their limits. I have not reached the limits of the RF-7 yet.

For shits and giggles, hook up a power amp to the 7's
and crank it to the put of uncomfortable and you will hear that bass you
were expecting you'd hear from 2 10's. At lower volumes, the bass is
really sedate IMO. I typically bump up the eq of the low end for the
7's to help because my normal listening volume is not 100+ db.

Yes, I can get great bass from the RF-7's but I have to
crank it. The B&W's produce great bass even at low to moderate
volumes.

I find it interesting though that
the b&w's have more bass than the RF-5's. I suspect placement was
to blame and front firing vs rear firing ports. The RF-5's are bass
hounds.

It's true. I even "feel" the bass more with the
B&W's. I will post a pic of my room to show you how open it is.
The bass is trying to fill 5 rooms since it's a VERY open floorplan.
Add to the fact that I have 12' ceilings, that's a lot of room to fill.

I have always liked b&w but not their prices.

Me too which is why I designed my HT around Klipsch. Much more affordable.

Those RF-7's will move some serious air, they just need a little help getting it out sometimes.

I've heard the Acurus 200 x 2 have tons of bass. Keeping my eye out for one. That would probably help some too.

Are you keeping both pair in that room? For whatever mood you're in, right?

I wish I could but no, I'm doing well to be able to have one pair in the room.

I'm amazed at the deals that have popped up for you this past year.

It
has a lot to do with me living in Florida. Lot of people downsizing,
selling non-essential items so speakers are often the first to go.

I think the placement and room had some to do
with it as well as the system and settings, especially the lack of a
powerful amp.

That and there are no side walls to reinforce the sound. The wall is 25' wide. No corner loading here.

By
"lack of a powerful amp", is the NAD weak? It's 150 x 2 and seems to
drive the RF-7's with ease. Have no idea about the transformer, power
supply and caps in it. In your opinion, what qualifies as a "good amp"?

[Rich_Guy]

By
"lack of a powerful amp", is the NAD weak? It's 150 x 2 and seems to
drive the RF-7's with ease. Have no idea about the transformer, power
supply and caps in it. In your opinion, what qualifies as a "good amp"?

I can't comment on the NAD, but I have had my RF-5's with several receivers using only their built in power amps and I thought "DIRECT" mode with no subwoofer really lacked bass and never liked to use that mode because there was simply not enough bass for me, however when I started using external amps it made all the difference and there really have been several times I had to go to my sub to confirm that the sub wasn't ON when using "DIRECT" mode.

I love the bass of the RF-5's, not a mushy bass but a very powerful, solid fast and high impact, hard hitting, clean clear bass which can sound very natural and reproduces drums and other instruments very realistically and is excellent for most music. I now switch between "DIRECT" with no sub and "STEREO" with sub modes depending on my mood and the type of music I want to listen to etc. I have mostly been listening to music using the "DIRECT" lately after my newest addition to my system my MHDT Labs Havana tube DAC.

I've had my RF-5's for many years as the original owner, I have made many upgrades and changed everything else in my system a few times, but I have never changed my RF-5's because as I make other changes and upgrades to my system my RF-5's only seem to get better and better. However I also know the RF-5's are very system dependent if components or settings don't mate up well with them they won't show what they are truly capable of.

[Youthman]

This should give you a better idea of the amount of space I am trying to fill. (note these are older photos before I began building my 2ch setup, and bought new furniture.

[Fish]

7's, yep they're the bomb, enjoy.

[Rich_Guy]

Yes for the large area you have a larger speaker like the RF-7 is a good choice and I know you may not want to be putting many components in your front living room, so adding an amp might not be what you want (or at least your wife may not want).

But while the RF-7's are very efficient speakers, like the RF-5's extra power really brings them to life adding better clarity, imaging and much more powerful bass even at lower volume levels.

BTW, adding attenuators is something I found really improved the sound quality of music with my system. They tamed highs, improved midrange and removed any harshness but added detail, I really like what they did for my system musically, I feel they are something similar to the improvements of modified RF-7 crossovers and probably similar to the resistors I saw CECAA850 mention on your post in the HT thread. I used -15db XLR attenuators with my system they are also available in RCA form, then adjusted my system's volume up 15db so there is no loss of volume however I had a very nice overall music sound quality improvement at all listening levels.

[Youthman]

I know you may not want to be putting many components in your front living room, so adding an amp might not be what you want (or at least your wife may not want).

Not sure I'm following you. If anything, I would be replacing an amp, not adding another one

[derrickdj1]

Youthman the 7 are great for 2 ch. You have a large space to fill and large powerful speakers like the RF 7's are perfect for the job I am glad you like the setup![][Y]

[Rich_Guy]

Not sure I'm following you. If anything, I would be replacing an amp, not adding another one

Ah I didn't realize you were using an amp in the 2 channel living room system now, I was thinking you still were using receiver power in there, I missed that upgrade you made. I don't know if the 150w is enough power to make as much difference in bass though, how does it seem to compare to your amp in the HT? I went from receiver power to the XPA-3 and then later from the XPA-3 to the XPA-2 each were very nice upgrades, especially to bass power and quality.

[Heritage_Head]

I also found that the 7s need a eq bump in the really low bass region. Other wise they get to loud before they start pushing chest pounding bass. In fact for most Klipsch speakers I have owned seem to be this way.

[Youthman]

Thx Derrick

Not sure I'm following you. If anything, I would be replacing an amp, not adding another one

. I don't know if the 150w is enough power to make as much difference in bass though, how does it seem to compare to your amp in the HT?

Not sure. The only fair way to compare would be to unhook THE BEAST and bring it into the living room. At 85lbs, it's fun but at least it has handles. Wife is gone today so I may just try it. Lol. I guess that would definitely tell me if a 220w/ch parasound amp makes a difference over a 150 watt

/ch NAD.

I do remember adding the parasound to the RF-83s and noticing more bass even at lower volumes.

Will report back later this morning

[Youthman]

I forgot to ask, those using an EQ, what do you use?

[willland]

I've heard the Acurus 200 x 2 have tons of bass. Keeping my eye out for one. That would probably help some too.

I know it would help. As you know, I have owned eight Acurus amps(still own two) and they have provided better bass drive, midbass punch, and control over any other amps I have owned(B&K, Denon, Emotiva, Marantz, Adcom, Parasound, NAD).

You really need to go pick this one up.

http://tampa.craigslist.org/hil/ele/4102391090.html

or this one but offer lower.

http://orlando.craigslist.org/ele/4085215444.html

I know you don't need 3 channels of amplification but the Acurus A200x3 is an Acurus A250 with the third channel. Minimum 250w/ch in stereo mode. The A250 was tested at 300w/ch@8ohms/480w/ch@4ohms by Julian Hersch of Stereo Review.

Also,

Audio Magazine
reviewed the Acurus 200X3 Amp. Conclusion: Absolutely Outstanding
measurements in every aspect (FR, Crosstalk, THD, etc.). This amp was
rated at 200 WPC @8 ohms & 250 WPC @ 4 ohms w/ 110 dB SNR. However,
the measurements came out to be 315 WPC @ 8 ohms & 515 WPC @ 4 ohms
w/ 122 dB SNR. And the 250A amp actually has more WPC than the 200X3!

For the price of entry, these Acurus amps are tough to beat.

By the way, nice RF-7's.[Y][Y]

Bill

[Youthman]

Thx for the endorsement Bill. You are the one that got me looking for one. Now I'm kicking myself for not buying that Acurus A250 a few weeks ago in Melbourne. He was willing to do $275 shipped.

If you had one Acurus amp to buy, which would it be and why? I would rather be patient and wait for a 2ch than to spend more money on a 3ch (that frankly looks dated). I prefer the looks of the A200 with the Oval Plate on the front.