RF 3 vs. RF 3 II

[mjlock]

I have both a pair of RF 3's and RF 3 II's. What is the difference besides the z-series monster cable that made them raise the cost from $800 in the RF 3 to $1000 in the RF 3 II's? And why did the continuous watts go from 225 in the RF3 to 150 in the RF 3 II's to boot?

I have called and emailed Klipsch customer support to get answers to these questions. They have yet to respond to my email (more than 3 days now) and when I called, they told me the specs on my RF 3 was 150 watts. Sure enough, I look at the Klipsch website and it says 150 watts for both the RF 3 and RF 3 II's. Only the back of my RF3 says 225 watts. WTF? Do I have some rare error edition speaker or what? Anybody else notice these things after 14 years?

If I were to sell one pair, which one sells for more?

Edited February 28, 2014 by mjlock

[2point1]

150 watt "continuous" is different than" Max Input 225 watt"

[derrickdj1]

Just a guess, maybe the xo point of the HF driver.

[mjlock]

My RF 3 II says the max input power is 150 watts and my RF 3 says the max input power is 225 watts. Both have a peak power of 600 watts. I found a manual on the internet for both of these speakers so those figures are presumed true.

I do not know what the xo point of the HF driver is. Being how expensive Monster cables are, I am guessing that is what made the RF 3 ii's price go up. To me, the RF 3's seem like the better speaker on paper but side by side, I can not tell the difference.

[moray james]

I would imagine that the RF3 ll has a steeper crossover section on the tweeter and so the speaker overall will take more power safely. Bit of a moot point though my good friend Denny Barnes (rest his soul) had a pair of RF3 and drove them with an Audion Sterling which is an EL34 SET and the results were superb with lots of available level, 12 watts a channel. Stunning combination. This was the speaker which made me look seriously at Klipsch after decades of wondering. Best regards Moray James.

PS: I have not compared the RF3 to the RF3 ll so perhaps others who have will comment.

PPS: I think that I should have added that imy experience with Klipsch Rev 2 speakers has be very positive. I did not intend to leave the impression that the Rev 2 was probably not better than the RF3 because it likely is a little better. I only wanted to express that the RF3 matched with good electronics is a fine sounding loudspeaker and that all Klipsch that I have owned respond very well to modification if that is where you want to go.

Edited March 8, 2014 by moray james

[ninjai18]

Hmm, I'd love an answer to this as well. Was the crossover different?

[The History Kid]

Actually, you already know the difference between the 3 and the 3 II.  Besides the new feet and the Z series wiring, there is no difference.  Same drivers, same horn, same crossover, same building material, same crossover point.

[MrSpeakerDude]

Interesting only because it is now December 2019 and I have been very fortunate to find both an RF3 and RF3 II set of beautifully kept speakers.  I still love my Cerwin Vega RE38's and also a set of RE30's, they all sound great with different types of music.

I also found a KSW15 which is probably one of the most awesome sub-woofers in this pricepoint.

I don't plan on pushing more than 150 watts but if I do, I'll never exceed a volume level where the speakers start distorting, I think that's when you know you're going to damage a speaker system, correct me if I'm wrong please.