Rank These, Khorns, Epic CF4, RF-7 II

[khornbred]

i won't say that the Epic series is better than the khorn, but they certainly can compete. i WILL say that i listen to MY cf-3 system more than i do MY khorn system because i like it better. certainly the rooms they are in are a factor, though the rooms are very similar, they are the same width and height, but differ in depth. listening position is almost identical. i have my cf-3s in corners similar to the khorns, and have them bi-amped, with twice as much power going to the woofers, as well as the highs attenuated several db as well, so there is plenty of bass from these "bright" speakers. both systems will play any frequency louder than i can listen, it's all up to how a user has their setup EQed as to whether there is enough bass or not. the cf plays lower though, and no amount of eq will fix that shortcoming of the khorn.

 

other factors that matter in the real world: one man can bear-hug and carry a cf3 or 4, and few of us are offered our choice of free speakers, we must spend real money on them, and if budget is a concern, the Epics have a clear advantage there.

 

i have no experience with the rf-7s.

[davis419b]

I have heard Klipschorns and RF-7IIs and Palladium PF-39s A/B/Cd in the same room at the same time as well as over 30 other forum members here just a few weeks ago in Hope, Arkansas at the Klipsch Factory as well as owning RF-7s and Klipschorns. It is not even close, the Klipschorns trump the RF-7IIs and the Palladium flagships by a large margin.

As for the Epic CF-4, I have never played around with anything that small, but I feel confident that it wont stand up to the Klipschorn either as the Bass is not Horn Loaded.

Roger

 

 

+1

[wvu80]

i have my cf-3s in corners similar to the khorns, and have them bi-amped, with twice as much power going to the woofers, as well as the highs attenuated several db as well,

 

That really seems to be the winning formula, from you and from others who seem to have their CF-4's dialed in.

 

I've passively bi-amped my CF-4's with a 110 wpc ONK 717 AVR, and the differences due to the bi-amping are real, but subtle.

 

You guys keep pointing out how the CF-4 bass is superior to the K-horn, but the bass on mine seems like the weak link.  I most likely have underpowered electronics.

Edited May 11, 2015 by wvu80

[moray james]

I don't have any interest in ever owning a Khorn or an RF7ll that leaves one out of your group CF4. Largest wide range horn of the group. Needs more power but it takes up less space and will stage and image best of the three in my estimation. Best regards Moray James.

[twistedcrankcammer]

I don't have any interest in ever owning a Khorn or an RF7ll that leaves one out of your group CF4. Largest wide range horn of the group. Needs more power but it takes up less space and will stage and image best of the three in my estimation. Best regards Moray James.

I have never heard the CF-4 for myself, but in my experience, someone saying something is better in their estimation has as much clout as "Well my mom says"

I would never make a recommendation without A/Bing the speakers for myself, but that's just me...

Roger

[tblake10]

I've had khorns, chorus II, and rf-7. Khorns by a wide margin. Different class actually in my opinion. 19x20 room, 17ft vaulted ceiling.

[Zero]

I'm going to assume that the A/B/C comparison Klipsch performed for some of you was done mostly for fun.

[dtel]

I'm going to assume that the A/B/C comparison Klipsch performed for some of you was done mostly for fun.

Yes we only used our ears.

 

No testing was done, and I have no idea if any was done as they were set up? They did there best to have them preform as they should, it was not a biased listening trying to sell one over the other, someone even asked prices and we were told suggested retail prices and we were left to compare. 

 

To me the Khorn was best, and for the RF-7 owners they should be proud of there speakers, they lost out to the Palladiums but if you consider the two price differences they did very well to say the least.

 

But I have to say when looking for our last speakers we listened to khorns in 4 different rooms, they sounded different in every room, not bad just different. I guess because of how they use the room, we actually came home more confused then we started out for picking what we wanted, and our room was kind of built for Khorns and I bet they would sound good in there ! We did find something months later almost by accident.   

 

I have never heard a CF-4

 

just another opinion

[Zero]

Dtel,

 

Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts.

 

You mentioned a very important factor: room / setup. As most of us here already know, there is no one situation that'll benefit every type of loudspeaker. Some speakers sound best when placed right against a wall, while others tend to strut their stuff when placed far out into a room. Some respond best to heaps of solid state fuel while others prefer the warm glow of a tube. The bottom line is that if you want to get the best performance out of a loudspeaker, then you'll have to accommodate it's idiosyncrasies.

 

This leads me to the aforementioned comparison mentioned earlier in the thread. I can only assume that Klipsch was having a bit of fun at the event. I say that because when I look at the pictures, all I see are a bunch of speakers that are lined up against a wall and (seemingly) tethered to a component system. Suffice to say, this is not exactly the best way to go about comparing different loudspeakers to one another.

 

Anyway, when you get right down to it, none of this stuff is truly important. I'm sure it was a fun event.  That said, I certainly wouldn't draw any definitive conclusions based on that kind of comparison.  And no, I'm not saying this because I like the RF-7 II's.  I've had plenty of experience with the KHorn's and other products from the Heritage line.  I know what time it is.    

[prerich]

If all 3 were free, which would you pick 1st? And why? Just curious on opinions on this. I know there is no right answer and it would come down to which sounds best to me (if I can get all 3 in the same room at the same time, that is), but still curious.

1. Klipschorns - they're Khorns no other answer needed.

2. RF-7II

3. CF-4 (only reason they are last - I have never heard them at length).

Edited July 6, 2015 by prerich

[twistedcrankcammer]

Dtel,

 

Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts.

 

You mentioned a very important factor: room / setup. As most of us here already know, there is no one situation that'll benefit every type of loudspeaker. Some speakers sound best when placed right against a wall, while others tend to strut their stuff when placed far out into a room. Some respond best to heaps of solid state fuel while others prefer the warm glow of a tube. The bottom line is that if you want to get the best performance out of a loudspeaker, then you'll have to accommodate it's idiosyncrasies.

 

This leads me to the aforementioned comparison mentioned earlier in the thread. I can only assume that Klipsch was having a bit of fun at the event. I say that because when I look at the pictures, all I see are a bunch of speakers that are lined up against a wall and (seemingly) tethered to a component system. Suffice to say, this is not exactly the best way to go about comparing different loudspeakers to one another.

 

Anyway, when you get right down to it, none of this stuff is truly important. I'm sure it was a fun event.  That said, I certainly wouldn't draw any definitive conclusions based on that kind of comparison.  And no, I'm not saying this because I like the RF-7 II's.  I've had plenty of experience with the KHorn's and other products from the Heritage line.  I know what time it is.  

Yes, room treatments and speaker placement can make a big difference. A prime example of this are the Klipsch Bass Reflex speakers like Quartet, Fote' / Forte'II, and Chorus, but I also know what time it is and the difference in clarity is by no means even remotely close enough to be explained away that easily. Neither you, nor Klipsch can change physics!

Roger

[dtel]

Dtel,

 

Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts.

 

You mentioned a very important factor: room / setup. As most of us here already know, there is no one situation that'll benefit every type of loudspeaker. Some speakers sound best when placed right against a wall, while others tend to strut their stuff when placed far out into a room. Some respond best to heaps of solid state fuel while others prefer the warm glow of a tube. The bottom line is that if you want to get the best performance out of a loudspeaker, then you'll have to accommodate it's idiosyncrasies.

 

This leads me to the aforementioned comparison mentioned earlier in the thread. I can only assume that Klipsch was having a bit of fun at the event. I say that because when I look at the pictures, all I see are a bunch of speakers that are lined up against a wall and (seemingly) tethered to a component system. Suffice to say, this is not exactly the best way to go about comparing different loudspeakers to one another.

 

Anyway, when you get right down to it, none of this stuff is truly important. I'm sure it was a fun event.  That said, I certainly wouldn't draw any definitive conclusions based on that kind of comparison.  And no, I'm not saying this because I like the RF-7 II's.  I've had plenty of experience with the KHorn's and other products from the Heritage line.  I know what time it is.  

 That's true, it wasn't perfect, I would guess the Khorn was in the corner because it needs a particular position to even slightly sound as designed with the other less so. I have heard the palladiums before, more to the sides but away from the back and side walls a little and there was not much of a difference at all in sound from the position in that pic. The Rf-7's had the worst position in that pic, (imo) and to be honest of those three speakers I have the least listening time with the RF-7's than either of the others over the years.

 

Your right not the best comparison for judging them if you were looking to buy, but they also know everyone there could get a very good feel for each individual design and differences just by considering the group. Just being there kind of puts everyone in the "not normal, or average" group for comparing speakers, I say not normal because most everyone there has many years chasing what they think sounds best to them. And sometime just not normal period.   

 

Even considering the different placements it was a good comparison, much closer to optimal sound for each than you would ever think looking at the pic. Not perfect but easily a fair test. It was just a press of a button to switch speakers instantly at the same volume which helps a lot. 

 

I noticed you have RF-7 ll's nice choice, you would have really been proud of how the RF7's sounded compared to the others. Considering prices of all three, and room requirements for the Khorn to be optimal, adding fairly easy room placement of the 7's at about one third cost of the Palladium's, they did very well. I mean you do have to consider everything when buying and trying to make it work in your room.

 

One last thing, that room for whatever reason does sound good, don't know if it's the shape or the ceiling or just being full of sound absorbing people  but to me it does sound good.

Edited July 6, 2015 by dtel

[J M O N]

I find it interesting in that picture that the Khorns are pulled out away from the corner.  That would seem to diminish some of the bass.  I've never actually tried that -- maybe I'll have to give it a shot to see what it does to the sound.

[jimjimbo]

They were placed into the corners as far as was practical without touching the walls, which would not be a good idea anyway.....I would not have expected the folks at Klipsch to be careless in the placement of any of those speakers in that room, and looking at the acoustic treatments, etc, I think it was extremely well done.  Again, I will say, the Khorns were far and away the "best" sounding pair in the room,  no contest.

[Seadog]

IIRC those are 60th Anniversary Klipschorns with the enclosed back.  No need to seal the LF section against the corner walls. They sounded great BTW.

[garyrc]

They were placed into the corners as far as was practical without touching the walls, which would not be a good idea anyway.....I would not have expected the folks at Klipsch to be careless in the placement of any of those speakers in that room, and looking at the acoustic treatments, etc, I think it was extremely well done.  Again, I will say, the Khorns were far and away the "best" sounding pair in the room,  no contest.

 When I first had my Khorns, Klipsch recommended using rubber (neoprene) rug runners stapled on the tail board to make a nearly air tight seal with the walls (at least along the tail boards).  Later, they recommended pipe insulation along the tail board, and also covering the horizontal board that separated the top hat and the bass bin, so we did that.  They said without this near seal, there would be a dip at a much higher frequency than I would have predicted -- I don't remember, but I think it was 125 - 250 Hz.  Our Khorns have a little peak at 43 Hz, are pretty good to 30, and respond down to 24 (according to REW).

 

The Khorns that were demonstrated at the factory probably had closed backs -- did they?

[dtel]

The Khorns that were demonstrated at the factory probably had closed backs -- did they?

 

Probably what Seadog said one post up they were probably 60 th Anniversary with the closed in backs.

 

Out of all the rooms I have heard khorns in every time for me the best sounding room was that room.

Edited July 7, 2015 by dtel

[Zero]

The KHorns are no joke.  Anybody here think I could convince Klipsch to ship out a pair to me for review?   Bhaha.   Now THAT is a joke.   

 

Anyhoo, I confess that I've participated in numerous 'side by side' comparisons throughout my Hi-Fi journey;  be it at my abode, at different abodes, or at manufacturer facilities.  My general take away from these events is that they are a fun way to get a round-about idea as to how each product performs.  Is this demo methodology good enough to draw up definitive conclusions?   Hell naw.  That's OK though.   If you have a good time and walk away from the experience with a greater sense of knowledge, then that's all that matters.  I'm glad that some of you had a chance to rock out in Hope.  It looked like a whole bunch of fun.  

[dtel]

Yep good luck on getting that loner pair to try, shipping alone would be a killer.

 

But your right, plenty good enough to get a round-about idea. Sometimes even more if a speaker stands out so much more than the rest.

 

We ( wife and daughter ) made a definitive conclusion on a speaker with only a mono signal into a single speaker, not even a pair and in a not so perfect room. It was over and done, clear difference and was decided in about 30 seconds. Actually my wife and daughter turned to me and said that's it, that's what we want, I never said a word, there are witnesses to prove it. no   .

 

It's not always that easy, we just happen to be at the right place at the right time for us I guess ? I have tried many speakers in the last 40 years as money would allow at least,  and never thought I would ever be done looking, but no more. Electronics now that's a whole other thing I may never be completely happy with.

[J M O N]

Based on the photo, that does look like the 60th Anniversary version with the closed backs.  That certainly helps when away from the corners, but Khorns are supposed to need 4' of wall on each side to complete the bass horn.  So there should be some sort of degradation in the lowest bass frequencies I would think.  Of course maybe the tradeoff in bass response is exceeded by the benefit from having the mids/highs pointed in "the right direction" resulting in an better overall sound.