Grizzog Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 Curious to opinions on this... I currently have a set of Quartets with titanium tweeters and updated crossovers. I'm considering building stands for them to get the horns up to ear level...or trying the new RP280f. My wife likes the idea of the 280 since they are more modern looking...she really doesn't like the look of the Quartets. Do the 280s compare or come close to the Quartets? I have nowhere to audition these, or the RF-7ii, but I think the 7 is a bit out of my price range. Would I regret the change? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ski Bum Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 Well, you know what they say about wives and lives, so it looks like tall/skinny speakers are in your future. But as far as regrets, yes, you will regret selling the Quartets, so keep them for your office, basement, garage, bomb shelter, or wherever you can stash them. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grizzog Posted February 27, 2016 Author Share Posted February 27, 2016 Well, you know what they say about wives and lives, so it looks like tall/skinny speakers are in your future. But as far as regrets, yes, you will regret selling the Quartets, so keep them for your office, basement, garage, bomb shelter, or wherever you can stash them. Fantastic response! Don't worry, still have The Heresy and Altec 19s, so not all my speakers will be skinny. ;-) Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moray james Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 well look at it this way a pair of twin eight inch woofers (four in total) will push the same amount of air as three ten inch woofers will. that's something to consider. The RP280F will have fewer crossover components and as a two way will integrate over a shorter distance than a three way can. The RP280F will also place the horn closer to your seated ear level for better stage and image. You can upgrade the quality of the components in The RP20F later on if you want more performance. The Horn in the RP289F Have lower distortion than the Quarter horn as it is shorter and like the mid in the Quarter has a conical throat section which transitions into a tractrix profile. I would expect the stock RP280F to outperform the Quartet as you have it now with upgraded parts. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobK Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 Curious to opinions on this... I currently have a set of Quartets with titanium tweeters and updated crossovers. I'm considering building stands for them to get the horns up to ear level...or trying the new RP280f. My wife likes the idea of the 280 since they are more modern looking...she really doesn't like the look of the Quartets. Do the 280s compare or come close to the Quartets? I have nowhere to audition these, or the RF-7ii, but I think the 7 is a bit out of my price range. Would I regret the change? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Oh I would take the Quartets hands down over the new skinny, easier to ship speakers. Towers are just easier to move, ship etc. But people get drawn into shiny objects, shiny drivers not realizing that's visual and not sound. The Marketing people all know this. I am a keep the grills on the speaker kind of guy so I don't succumb to the shiny drivers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ski Bum Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 Moray makes some good points, very relevant to the room and intended implementation. Trade a little dynamic capability, gain some more extension and near-field friendliness. Word on the grapevine is the 160's are the gem of the RP lineup, maybe those w/ subs would be even better than 280's, with higher WAF. Hopefully your bomb shelter is large enough for the requisite distance from the Quartets for proper integration between drivers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moray james Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 (edited) Ski Bum why would you think that dynamics would be sacrifices? The RP280F will push much more air than a Quartet can as it has the greater piston area and the smaller cones will have much higher break up modes which is a further bonus. To BobK the RP280F is a larger cabinet than the Quartet. I agree that the wider baffle would have been a better one to mount the woofers upon as it will help to launch the large low frequencies. I should think that a set of RP280F with its large horn and some quality crossover components would be a very fine loudspeaker. RP280F Features: 1" Linear Travel Suspension Titanium Tweeter Dual 8" Spun Copper Cerametallic Cone Woofers 90x90 Hybrid Tractrix Horn All New Tractrix Port MDF Cabinet with Brushed Polymer Veneer Baffle Finish Strong, Flexible Removable Grille Dimensions: 43.06” x 10.55” x 18.32” Edited February 27, 2016 by moray james Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ski Bum Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 (edited) Just a wild guess based on the drivers involved, that those in the Quartet probably don't experience thermal compression until well beyond where the drivers in the 280's would. That doesn't mean that the 280's aren't a fine speaker. Edited February 27, 2016 by Ski Bum Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moray james Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 (edited) Ski Bum: not trying to flog a dead horse here but at any level that you want to consider the RP280F's dual eight inch woofers will displace much more air than the single ten inch woofer of the Quartet. Further I will raise the anti ten times higher than my normal nickle bet and wager that the woofers in the RP280F have considerably greater throw (xmax) than the single ten in the Quartet does, perhaps one of the Klipsch moderators will find this technical data for us. The only thing compressing will be the Quartet woofer trying to keep up, one woofer voice coil try to keep as cool as two woofers with the same input you are not considering the facts at all. I would expect the RP280F to be able to play lower louder and cleaner than the Quartet does all with a horn almost as large as used in the RF7 ll. I can't see how there could be a comparison between the two loudspeakers. just found this info: Klipsch claims a frequency response from 32 Hz to 25 kHz (+/- 3 dB) for the RP-280F. Rated sensitivity is 98 dB/2.83V/m, and each speaker can handle up to 150 watts of continuous power (600 watts peak) with 8 ohms nominal impedance. The crossover frequency is 1750 Hz, and the speaker supports bi-amping as well as bi-wiring. I also found the following review. http://www.avsforum.com/forum/89-speakers/2012897-klipsch-rp-280f-tower-speakers-official-avs-forum-review.html Edited February 27, 2016 by moray james Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BusaDude Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 (edited) Just my opinion... Get the RP-280's if you want (or if the wife demands) but keep the Quartets. For me, I wouldn't trade an updated Quartet for any of the newer 2-way RP series unless they were giving them away. I think the biggest issue/problem with all of the 2-way designs is you have a crossover point right in the middle of the midrange. For the RP-280 that's 1750 Hz. By comparison, the 1.5" midrange in the Quartet covers 650Hz-7000Hz. And who cares what the break up node point is for the 10" Quartet woofer... It doesn't have to operate at 1750 Hz. And I bet, from a dynamics point of view, the 1.5" compression driver in Quartet does a better job at 1500 Hz than the two 8" woofers in the RP-280. Now the Quartet doesn't play quite as low (38Hz vs 32Hz) or have the same power handling (100/500 vs 150/600). But if you're running a subwoofer, then it probably doesn't matter. And at the very upper end of the SPL output capability, the RP-280 may have a dB or two on the Quartet (rated at 117 dB max). Who listens that loud that often? In the end the only thing that matters is what you prefer, in your room, with your ears... But keep the Quartets regardless. Edited February 27, 2016 by GPBusa 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moray james Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 Quote: I think the biggest issue/problem with all of the 2-way designs is you have a crossover point right in the middle of the midrange. For the RP-280 that's 1750 Hz. While my general preference as a rule of thumb is in agreement with GPBusa regarding crossover points one does have to consider the balance of a given design with respect to driver response/size and the matching of dispersion patterns of woofers and horns and these all impact the complexity of the required network. Sometimes simple well designed two ways will outperform three ways. When they do they get a lot of important things right. I have mentioned elsewhere that two way studio monitors ruled supreme for the best part of thirty years and while multi way designs may have wider range and smoother response they don't always sound as good. Few three ways follow PWK's lead to use a mid driver/horn with as wide a bandwidth as possible so that the woofer and the tweeter are used to fill the extremes. The Altec 604 and the Tannoy DC monitor are to exemplary examples which still shine on in today's hi tech multi way market place. Closer to home the RF5 and the RF7 ll (which use the same horn) are good examples of fine two way designs. There are very good reasons why you so rarely see RF5 up for sale on the used market. The Epic series with the CF3 and the CF4 are also very good examples of two ways which use crossover point in the middle of the midrange and still make it work. I concede that larger horns with lower crossover points will achieve better results but at a cost of a much less domestically friendly loudspeaker. It is worth keeping in mind that the flagship of the JBL Reference Monitor Loudspeaker Series is a two way horn matched to a fifteen inch woofer, not so very unlike those great two way monitors of the fifties sixties and seventies. Even into the eighties there were still lots of studios using Altec and JBL two way monitors. When properly designed there are many advantages to a good two way. As always YMMV and personal taste will often dominate purchase decisions. Don't however let preconceived notions stand in the way of an audition to discover for yourself what works best for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BusaDude Posted February 28, 2016 Share Posted February 28, 2016 I'll qualify my statement just a bit... My issues are with the current 2-way lineup going back to the last of the mainstream 3-way designs (KLF series)... except for the Heritage 3-ways (I own LaScalas). Of the current 2-way models, I don't really care for them. Though the RF-7's, which I've only ever heard very briefly, did sound pretty good. And I agree with Moray about the Epic CF... I love the way they sound. I own a pair of CF-1, and I'm still trying to find a pair of CF-3 or CF-4 to pick up. And though I've never heard them, I'd buy a pair of RB-75 on reputation alone. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattSER Posted February 28, 2016 Share Posted February 28, 2016 The 280's win by a mile for me. The Quartets sound boxy and compressed by comparison. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yamahaSHO Posted February 28, 2016 Share Posted February 28, 2016 I'm sure many won't like this, but I prefer my RF-62's over my dad's LaScala's (which I grew up with and never thought they dug deep enough for me), so I imagine the RP-280F's would do pretty well. I haven't heard the new line yet, but I've been very happy with the RF-62's I have. I wouldn't mind a set of RF-63's or RF-7 II's, but I don't "need" them, so I haven't felt the need to spend the money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grizzog Posted February 28, 2016 Author Share Posted February 28, 2016 Thank you for the responses. Some great info here. Moray, you mentioned that the 4 8" woofers are about equal to 3 10". Do the 12" passives on the Quartet count towards this, or are they basically equal to the port of the 280? I also agree that 2 ways can sound better integrated especially in normal home listening distances. I just don't want to sacrifice midrange detail. 1750hz as the crossover just sounds like there is a big chunk of midrange not covered by the horn...but paper specs generally don't mean much for the final product. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richieb Posted February 28, 2016 Share Posted February 28, 2016 Wasn't sure of the design of new RF280f and in looking at the Klipsch site they are offering them for $479 ea. down from $599. Limited time offer - if you are leaning that direction I'd act quick and save yourself about $250. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moray james Posted February 28, 2016 Share Posted February 28, 2016 Thank you for the responses. Some great info here. Moray, you mentioned that the 4 8" woofers are about equal to 3 10". Do the 12" passives on the Quartet count towards this, or are they basically equal to the port of the 280? I also agree that 2 ways can sound better integrated especially in normal home listening distances. I just don't want to sacrifice midrange detail. 1750hz as the crossover just sounds like there is a big chunk of midrange not covered by the horn...but paper specs generally don't mean much for the final product. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk No the passive is not a driver it only acts as a reflex load for the woofers same as in the 280 or any reflex loaded design be that with a passive or with vents. There will be absolutely no sacrifice in mid detail the bass/mid driver can easily operate to twice this frequency no trouble with far lower distortion than a horn could. The trade off is directionality but to do that with a horn you would need a larger horn. This has been well considered and these are well designed loudspeakers. The RF7 crosses around the same frequency and you hear no such complaints about the RF7, the twin eight inch bass/mid drivers of the 280 can play much higher than tens can so fear not about that mid range. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yamahaSHO Posted February 28, 2016 Share Posted February 28, 2016 Just curious, if there aren't any complaints on the crossover on the RF-7, why do I see threads about modifying the crossover on internet searches? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moray james Posted February 28, 2016 Share Posted February 28, 2016 (edited) Just curious, if there aren't any complaints on the crossover on the RF-7, why do I see threads about modifying the crossover on internet searches? the modifications for the RF7 is to address a resonance issue with the woofers in the RF7 which was dealt with in later versions. There was no real problem with the crossover. Klipsch engineers simply did not feel that it was a significant issue at the time and left it alone. The mod originated with Dean on this forum. This is getting off topic. Edited February 28, 2016 by moray james 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yamahaSHO Posted February 28, 2016 Share Posted February 28, 2016 Got it, thanks. 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.