Shootout: RF52ii vs R-28F

[RoboKlipsch]

Recently I replaced my R-28F fronts in my upstairs theater with some RP-160Ms.  The R-28Fs were excellent imo but were taking up a lot of space, and I wanted to hear the difference if I had all 3 front speakers part of the RP series.  I am not disappointed so far, I have found the RP series to really have some wonderful high end to them.

 

I moved the R-28fs, which I believe a friend is going to purchase from me.  They are now in the basement theater, right next to the RF52s.  They are not hooked up.

The basement theater is treated, the front wall has excellent coverage, and there are bass traps in all the major corners, even a ceiling treatment.

 

The setup is 7.4 in the basement.

 

I figure before I sell off the R-28Fs, I should do some testing.  It would seem in searching the web, that it is rare -- if ever -- that anybody has really measured the R28Fs or compared them to another line.  

 

My plan is to do some testing, both subjective and objective with measurements, and see what the real differences are.

 

Before I begin, I thought I would ask for input -- what should I test for?  What would you like to see?  

Shall I run sweeps, what is of interest to you?  I have a UMIK and REW and can easily graph pretty much anything for comparison.

 

Suggestions, ideas, things you'd like to know are all welcome.  Please request anything you'd like to see!

I plan to do the testing in the next couple of days, so suggest away, I'm happy to try and create something of use to others.

 

RK

 

[RoboKlipsch]

LOL well I didn't expect the overwhelming response!  

 

Having compared now the RFii line, the new Reference line, and the newest and higher end Reference Premiere line, from a qualitative standpoint I can say a few things that to me seem fairly certain:

 

> The new Reference line is certainly decent.  The quality of the build seems high, the most obvious qualitative difference is the high end.  It most definitely seems to be lacking a bit with the high frequencies.  I'd also add that comparing the product directly to the Reference ii line allows for more qualitative difference to appear.  The most obvious to me was a term that I don't know exactly, but the clarity between notes is not sharp.  They are all there, but it would seem like the clear distinction between notes is lacking.

 

> The Reference ii line is a big upgrade in both areas I mentioned above.  The 52s seem capable of matching and surpassing the R28Fs in every way.  I did not run sweeps, I would assume the qualitative difference become more and more apparent as the speakers are pushed to their limits.  Whether it is a crossover, the components, or a combination of both, the high frequencies and clarity are most definitely apparent.  For those not paying close attention, the RF52 has 2 5" drivers, while the R28F has 2 8" drivers...a big difference.  This illustrates that quality of build and components does matter.  2 5inch woofers should not be capable of matching the 2 8 inch woofers.  Further testing might have shown one being better than the other in seats outside the MLP but I did not test for that.  

 

> Although this was the comparison being done currently, I also have the RP160Ms and the RP250C in my upstairs theater.  I did not do a direct comparison in the exact same space, but what I noticed about the Reference Premiere -- again - my opinion only -- is that the high frequencies are again better.  Significantly so in fact.  Clearer, more separated, and quite elegant.  This is compared to the Reference ii line.  I do believe the Premiere to be superior.  

 

Graphs coming next.

[RoboKlipsch]

RED is the RF52, GREEN is the R28F.   The R28F here in the bass region shows it is able to match the RF52s, both are highly affected by the room.  No Audyssey or anything else is engaged.  Extension for the R28F is actually much better here, rolling off at 29 in room versus an invisible rolloff for the 52, due to the room, which is roughly 35hz.  For those without subwoofers, you are seeing here why unless you have autocorrection, a perfect room or EQ,  it's very hard to have a smooth low end response.  This room actually is treated with bass traps and acoustic panels for mid and high end.  So that alone won't get you where you want to be.  The case for autocorretion, EQ and subwoofers is all made right there.  

 

These unsmoothed graphs show the mid-bass region up to 1000hz.  As you can see their responses are similar.  I wondered if the larger 8" woofers on the R28Fs would create stronger or more consistent mid-bass.  I did not adjust the output for the specified differences in sensitivity - the R28Fs should play louder than the RF52s.  It does not appear to be the case.  

 

And now the high end, smoothed heavily in order to show what we've got.  I believe it is 1/12 octave smoothing.  Both seem similar up until 10k.  Above 10K, we are probably getting into the qualitative differences of components.  The crossovers are different, the RF52 tweeter is titanium, while the R28F is aluminum.  I don't know which element makes the RF52 stronger here.  There is a height difference in these speakers, and while it's possible the microphone position favored the RF52, I don't think that should have been the case.  They are roughly 6 or 8" difference in height.  Anyway, the only difference I know of for the RP series is they have rubberized the horn around the tweeter.  Perhaps the crossovers are different now, or the tweeter itself is a different model, but I do prefer the high end sound from the RP series even moreso than this.  

[RoboKlipsch]

I wasn't sure I had the graphs.  I apologize for not having these calibrated to the same volume, but they were done at separate times.

 

This comparison will show you the 200hz - 20,000 hertz comparison of the R-28F vs the new RP160Ms.

 

The R-28Fs were on the floor, the RP160Ms are now mounted on the walls right above where the R28Fs were, pointed down towards the listening posiion.

 

The R28F is still GREEN, the RP160M is BLACK.  

 

 

Again I apologize for not having them at the same playing volume, but these were done at different days and times.  Both have a fairly smooth response.  Two things are apparent to me.  One, I'm not sure if it is the mounting position, but I am guessing the dips in the RP160M from 200 -350hz are related to being on the wall and being single 6-1/2" drivers, versus the mid-bass provided by the 2 8" drivers in the R28Fs.  The other obvious point - and VERY obvious subjectively, is the high end.  Once again you can see the R-28F drop off after 10K -- note, this is in a DIFFERENT room than the graphs above.  So it's the speaker, not the room or the measurements.  Likewise, the RP160M is smooth and linear, all the way through.   It also appears from the graph that the RP160M sustains the high end even better than the RF52 (in the above graphs).  BUT, it is not fair to measure two speakers in different rooms and directly compare, so for now, that's what I hear, and what I guess is also true, but can't prove without taking the RPs off their mounts and bringing them down (or bringing up the RF52s).

 

Well anyway, I've never seen on the web anywhere a direct comparison of the new Reference line to the Reference ii line preceeding it.  Although I don't have RF82s, which would allow for a more perfect and accurate comparison, showing that the RF52s can keep up and surpass the R28Fs by themselves likely tells the story for the RF82s also.  

 

Questions, comments, criticism is always welcomed.  

 

RK 

[derrickdj1]

It is interesting that you picked the RP line as better in the high end.  In 2010, Klipsch put out the Icon W, Icon V and I believe the Icon X line of speakers.  I owned the V series and many others brought the beautiful Icon W line.  Many of us notice the smoother HF performance of these speakers.  To my knowledge, these were the first Klipsch to use a flower shaped horned.  I think this lead to the development of the new  RP line.

 

Sadly, the Icon W line was considered the red head stepchild because the V series was sold in BB.  These speakers were gems missed by the general public.  The ideal of the flowered horn was a major leap for Klipsch.  I have owned other Reference I and II speaker and extended Heritage.  I've sold them and still own the Icon V's.

[RoboKlipsch]

20 minutes ago, derrickdj1 said:

It is interesting that you picked the RP line as better in the high end.  In 2010, Klipsch put out the Icon W, Icon V and I believe the Icon X line of speakers.  I owned the V series and many others brought the beautiful Icon W line.  Many of us notice the smoother HF performance of these speakers.  To my knowledge, these were the first Klipsch to use a flower shaped horned.  I think this lead to the development of the new  RP line.

 

Sadly, the Icon W line was considered the red head stepchild because the V series was sold in BB.  These speakers were gems missed by the general public.  The ideal of the flowered horn was a major leap for Klipsch.  I have owned other Reference I and II speaker and extended Heritage.  I've sold them and still own the Icon V's.

Very interesting!  Of course you are always welcome for a demo at my house should you want to hear them.

 

I've heard a few Icons but have never gotten into it enough to know which is which.  I am a bit surprised that the R28Fs are not as articulate as I thought they were.  They are very nice but compared to the Reference II I can hear a big difference.  

 

I'm not sure why the RP series has gotten a somewhat bad/medicore rap either, but maybe it will grow on people as they listen to them more. 

[derrickdj1]

I think the RP line as been well accepted.  Even though Klipsch ditched the Reference line, one thing stands out, It is had to beat the RF 7's series with the 1.75 in. tweeter.  The 7's deserve their flagship status.  The RP line walk a line of being a bit smoother but, at the risk of not resembling the live sound that made the Reference series so popular.

 

I did the transistor mod on the RF 7's only to later undo it.  I missed the slightly more pronounced Hi's.  The 7 II's are a bit smoother than the original but, that is due to the driver handling some lower frequencies due to the lower XO.  It will be interesting to see what other comment on about in this thread.

 

It sound like you have did a lot with the room since I last visited.  You've done an outstanding job with your setup!

[RX8]

Robo, curious as to how you have the RP160s wall mounted since they are rear ported. 

[RoboKlipsch]

1 hour ago, RX8 said:

Robo, curious as to how you have the RP160s wall mounted since they are rear ported. 

Videosecu mounts and also strapped in place.  There are several inches of gap to the wall and the port is not large.  Crossing at 80hz i believe the port is not much in play....that would be down around 45hz and crossing at 80 theres little output down there.  Ports are critical in a situation where you play the speaker full range.

[The History Kid]

I am usually critical of testing for the fact that machines and electronics do not have a human perception of hearing.  They can't tell me what I hear.  They can't say or explain why what I hear is different from what you hear.  That being said - I'm not surprised to know that the 52's excelled over the 28's.

 

I gave the Reference series a real chance.  It is absolutely no different than the Icon K series, and the build quality of speakers sold in Best Buy has been on decline since the second or third generation Synergy.  The SB-3's run circles around the R-28F's despite the fact they should factually be the same speaker, or that the R-28F supposedly is more advanced.  I demoed the R-28F's and R-26F's several times...muddy is all that comes to mind.  I even took a pair home to try on a 2 channel rig I have...no way.  Even up against a wall the 3's I had put them in the ground.  From my standpoint there are better options out there.

 

Perhaps my biggest issue with these speakers is not their specs though, it's their name.  They are not Reference speakers to my or anyone else's eyes that have owned Klipsch speakers in the Reference line before now.  They're Icon or Synergy.  The marketing and branding choice they made to blend the lines was terrible...but I digress.

 

Many people refer to the 62's as being the sweet spot in the lineup, both footprint wise and sound wise.  I'd be interested to see how they stack up against the "KF-28's."

[derrickdj1]

1 hour ago, IbizaFlame said:

I am usually critical of testing for the fact that machines and electronics do not have a human perception of hearing.  They can't tell me what I hear.  They can't say or explain why what I hear is different from what you hear.  That being said - I'm not surprised to know that the 52's excelled over the 28's.

 

I gave the Reference series a real chance.  It is absolutely no different than the Icon V series, and the build quality of speakers sold in Best Buy has been on decline since the second or third generation Synergy.  The SB-3's run circles around the R-28F's despite the fact they should factually be the same speaker, or that the R-28F supposedly is more advanced.  I demoed the R-28F's and R-26F's several times...muddy is all that comes to mind.  I even took a pair home to try on a 2 channel rig I have...no way.  Even up against a wall the 3's I had put them in the ground.  From my standpoint there are better options out there.

 

Perhaps my biggest issue with these speakers is not their specs though, it's their name.  They are not Reference speakers to my or anyone else's eyes that have owned Klipsch speakers in the Reference line before now.  They're Icon or Synergy.  The marketing and branding choice they made to blend the lines was terrible...but I digress.

 

Many people refer to the 62's as being the sweet spot in the lineup, both footprint wise and sound wise.  I'd be interested to see how they stack up against the "VF-28's."

I suspect a typo on mixing up the RF 28 with the old Icon V series.  I don't particularly like the new Reference line.  I have listened to them at BB which is not the best place to demo speakers.  The finish and sound is not as good as the Icon V series.  The Icon V was Klipsch first venture into big box stores and they needed something to establish themselves in that market.  The Icon V's were a very successful line in that regard.

[The History Kid]

10 minutes ago, derrickdj1 said:

I suspect a typo on mixing up the RF 28 with the old Icon V series.  I don't particularly like the new Reference line.  I have listened to them at BB which is not the best place to demo speakers.  The finish and sound is not as good as the Icon V series.  The Icon V was Klipsch first venture into big box stores and they needed something to establish themselves in that market.  The Icon V's were a very successful line in that regard.

I actually think now - after reading your post I meant to say "KF-28."  Which I have corrected.

[RoboKlipsch]

Calling then reference seems to be a marketing error i agree.  Ill say however they are good enough to have dragged me into learning and trying more Klipsch which was their goal.  

[derrickdj1]

I know it was a marketing decision. The appeal of the copper woofers for consumers was a big seller.  It's a tough world competing with the other makers of consumer grade speakers in the mass market.  Brand recognition is a big factor and the copper woofers is Klipsch.