Jump to content

RP-280 vs RF7II


Pfarinelli

Recommended Posts

I like my 280's, I think they sound good. However, the type of guy I am, I want more. Are the RF7II's a worthy upgrade? What do you suppose the differences in sound will be?

 

im running a Marantz SR6010 receiver, an Oppo 103 universal disc player and a uturn audio turntable with Grado cartridge.

My speakers are bi-wired with audio quest wire with banana terminations. My room is a 20ft x 19ft loft with 10 ft flat ceilings.  

 

Thanks so much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

subjective questions like this are impossible to answer. find a store with a good return policy or a friend who has a pair of rf7's and listen

 

in a large room like that you could easily move the 280s to surround duty and find an rc64 center 

 

you also may find you want more amplifier for stereo listening in a room that size. you have the pre outs and many choices exist in the 150-200wpc range, some like the adcom 5500 start around $300-350 for a nice used one. it goes up from there

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know about the RF-7 II since I haven't heard them, but I was really struck when I first set up my Heresies where my RP-280Fs are. I've barely used the RP since, mostly plug them in from time to time to feel like I bought them for a good reason. If you fancy an upgrade, I'll vouch for that!

 

I can also chime in with racebum about power amp upgrades. Adcom is nice, I used to use a lower powered Adcom (GFA-535, an older model than 5500) that I liked very much, now I use an Emotiva A-300 that I like even more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Biggest difference will in the 1. 75 in. tweeter vs a 1 in. tweeter.  The RF 7 II's should have a bigger sound stage.  Imaging and clarity are to setup related and room related to comment on.  If you have preouts, as others have mention an outboard amp is a nice upgrade since the Marantz does not have discrete channel amplification.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bass on the Heresies is polite, definitely not deep but it is musical. Placing them near a corner will help a little (plus they take up surprisingly little space in the room that way)

 

Coming from RP-280Fs you'd definitely notice the light bass, I think they're really at their best when run with a subwoofer. They sound nice on the A-300 too, I was surprised by how much the treble opened up when I got this amp. They sound spacious and smooth together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

back to being subjective but i would take an rf7ii over a heresy anyday all day. they just do better with modern sounds. movies, EDM, beats, hip hop etc. heresy 1 and 2s like tube amps and or warm higher end solid state & record players. if you feed them that and ideally have a dampened room they can work but they aren't the easiest speaker to make sound good. you start playing mp3s through a receiver with a heresy and you're probably going to be scratching your head wondering why they are highly regarded. 

 

some people love them but again, try it. as mentioned above the rf7 has a larger sound stage than the 280. i totally agree. 

 

the rf7ii is honestly one of my favorite klipsch speakers. it's just versatile. you can play records, cd's mp3s, movies, they work with solid state. have a more modern sound. the low end output on an rf7 is also quite a lot stronger than the heresy. more modern horn design. list goes on really. 

 

the a300 is a solid entry level amp but 359 refurbished is a rip, they are $399 new. it would be a substantial upgrade over receiver power and marantz is decent as receiver goes. the emo will be more dynamic, more headroom. you have a real transformer, discrete output stage etc

 

think your system out though. if you're going 5 channel you want an a500 not the a300. run all 5 channels on a real amplifier. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/16/2017 at 3:52 AM, racebum said:

back to being subjective but i would take an rf7ii over a heresy anyday all day. they just do better with modern sounds. movies, EDM, beats, hip hop etc. heresy 1 and 2s like tube amps and or warm higher end solid state & record players. if you feed them that and ideally have a dampened room they can work but they aren't the easiest speaker to make sound good. you start playing mp3s through a receiver with a heresy and you're probably going to be scratching your head wondering why they are highly regarded. 

 

some people love them but again, try it. as mentioned above the rf7 has a larger sound stage than the 280. i totally agree. 

 

the rf7ii is honestly one of my favorite klipsch speakers. it's just versatile. you can play records, cd's mp3s, movies, they work with solid state. have a more modern sound. the low end output on an rf7 is also quite a lot stronger than the heresy. more modern horn design. list goes on really. 

 

the a300 is a solid entry level amp but 359 refurbished is a rip, they are $399 new. it would be a substantial upgrade over receiver power and marantz is decent as receiver goes. the emo will be more dynamic, more headroom. you have a real transformer, discrete output stage etc

 

think your system out though. if you're going 5 channel you want an a500 not the a300. run all 5 channels on a real amplifier. 

Where did the a300 discussion come from?   What manufacturer? 

 

Of course better feeding of the speakers, in that since room, the better.  2 8" woofers can actually push a fair amount of air though 2 10"s definitely will do better.  Just depends on the sound you want, more mids, lows or treble.  You will need to listen to them with your receiver or choice of amp.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, pzannucci said:

Where did the a300 discussion come from?   What manufacturer? 

 

Of course better feeding of the speakers, in that since room, the better.  2 8" woofers can actually push a fair amount of air though 2 10"s definitely will do better.  Just depends on the sound you want, more mids, lows or treble.  You will need to listen to them with your receiver or choice of amp.

 

scroll up a few replies

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/16/2017 at 3:52 AM, racebum said:

i would take an rf7ii over a heresy

Right off the bat, this is not even a fair comparison.  The Heresy is a good speaker but, you are not going to compare it to the much larger Khorn, or RF 7 II's and you shouldn't.  The RF 7 and 7'II have held their place in the upper part of the Klipsch offerings for good reason.  It is a great speaker and very versatile for movies and music.  It will clearly best all the lower Reference models.  This does not mean it is the best choice or will work the best in every room or is even needed for a particular room.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, racebum said:

 

scroll up a few replies

Well the search function doesn't find a300, ah A-300.  Shouldn't have taken it literally.

 

1 hour ago, derrickdj1 said:

Right off the bat, this is not even a fair comparison.  The Heresy is a good speaker but, you are not going to compare it to the much larger Khorn, or RF 7 II's and you shouldn't.  The RF 7 and 7'II have held their place in the upper part of the Klipsch offerings for good reason.  It is a great speaker and very versatile for movies and music.  It will clearly best all the lower Reference models.  This does not mean it is the best choice or will work the best in every room or is even needed for a particular room.

Yes the Heresy is a good speaker but if you want any low bass, the Heresy won't do that.  The RFs on the other hand can produce lower bass but lack in the mids and body that a three way can portray.  Some people like that and some people like the smile on the EQ also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, derrickdj1 said:

Right off the bat, this is not even a fair comparison.  The Heresy is a good speaker but, you are not going to compare it to the much larger Khorn, or RF 7 II's and you shouldn't.  The RF 7 and 7'II have held their place in the upper part of the Klipsch offerings for good reason.  It is a great speaker and very versatile for movies and music.  It will clearly best all the lower Reference models.  This does not mean it is the best choice or will work the best in every room or is even needed for a particular room.

 

the only reason i see them as comparable is cost. the rf7ii was put on sale for for 2000 a pair fairly often which is where you can get a new heresy 3. used and b stock aren't much different often selling for 1500ish which is where the same in H3 is. now if we go reaaaally used like heresy 2 or the 1s which sell for 300-700 a pair then sure

 

when i look at ebay right now a bstock rf7ii is 1799pr shipped which isn't the best deal they have ever sold for

 

physically, sure i agree with you. the rf7 is much more speaker and i agree again it may not be the best for every use or every room

 

but i still like them more than heresys :) {subjective soap box}

 

the one thing that REALLY stands out with the rf7ii over the rf82ii is quality. the sound produced is just on another level. they aren't as harsh. midrange is produced more realistic. fit and finish are extremely nice. on paper someone may see going from dual 8s to dual 10s but in reality it's night and day. it may be just 1 step up the line but it's a giant step. that's my take anyway

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only problem I have is that a lot of  people on this forum think a three way speaker is better.  My short answer is maybe.  The differences between using a 2 vs 3 way need to be weighted for the individual employing them in his particular setup.  It seem intuitive that having a separate midrange driver is of obvious benefit but, it depends on how well the XO is designed, the box design, other speakers in the system, the listening room and what type of things you are listening to.

 

I'm use to a lot of our forum not agreeing with me but, I'm not new and have heard some of the other offerings.  So far, I have not found anything to replace my Reference 7's.  These are the best for my purpose and dual use.  I am sure many others have came to the same conclusion based on their popularity, reputation and sales.

 

A lot of the active online guys like the Heritage speakers, I do to.  The argument over which will work best for a particular application may differ.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, derrickdj1 said:

The only problem I have is that a lot of  people on this forum think a three way speaker is better.  My short answer is maybe.  The differences between using a 2 vs 3 way need to be weighted for the individual employing them in his particular setup.  It seem intuitive that having a separate midrange driver is of obvious benefit but, it depends on how well the XO is designed, the box design, other speakers in the system, the listening room and what type of things you are listening to.

 

I'm use to a lot of our forum not agreeing with me but, I'm not new and have heard some of the other offerings.  So far, I have not found anything to replace my Reference 7's.  These are the best for my purpose and dual use.  I am sure many others have came to the same conclusion based on their popularity, reputation and sales.

 

A lot of the active online guys like the Heritage speakers, I do to.  The argument over which will work best for a particular application may differ.

Exactly, you like your speakers, others like theirs, two or three way.  70% of it is the execution of the crossover.  If you can force that crossover down or up so it is out of the midrange area, the better off you are.  Choosing the drivers then does become more difficult.  

 

I myself like both two ways and 3 ways.  My best speakers I built are three ways but I will say that they can destroy the two ways I built at frequency extremes and power but my two way speakers can disappear and also sound very good.  Just not as present but oddly, present doesn't equal disappear.

 

If you like two way or three way speakers, buy them or build them, and enjoy them.  You only need to satisfy yourself.

 

The key is identify what you like in sound and go after it.  That's why I build my own but dabble in a lot of Klipsch.  Klipsch speakers make a great platform to tweak.

 

By the nature of it, in the Reference series, the RF7 II should sound better than the RP280.  The horn on the 280 is better and the RF7's (much better than RF82) horn may be distracting so it might be harder to pin down than you think....  The RF7's will present a bigger sound which is likely what is being looked for here

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very thoughtful put.  The application is a big determining factor.  Speaking for myself, it just made more sense to get rid of my Forte which was not inferior to the RF 7 II's.  Having a multi-purpose system the ease of matching Reference surronds, timber matcing and yes, uniformity, it made more sense to do a complete Reference setup.

 

I realize all the various Klipsch speaker will offer a compromise for a multi-channel system from matching surrounds to a preference for music or movies and amplification options, not to mention a few others.  This is why knowing exactly what you are trying to achieve in a particular setup is so crucial.  The knowing exactly were you are going with the system is the hard part.  For new people without a lot of trial and error, this is difficult.  

 

The older Heritage speakers had their limitation in the era that they were produced.  The type of horn used was itself a limiting factor.  Those horns did not handle frequencies below their cutoff well which partly explains their 3 way design.  PKW was a master at seeking a seamless speaker  This is one of the reasons for some of the various mods.  With that said, they have stood the test of time and remain some of the best speakers ever made and continue to hold their own with more recently designed speakers.  But, this is getting to the intended application of a particular speaker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, pzannucci said:

Well the search function doesn't find a300, ah A-300.  Shouldn't have taken it literally.

 

Yes the Heresy is a good speaker but if you want any low bass, the Heresy won't do that.  The RFs on the other hand can produce lower bass but lack in the mids and body that a three way can portray.  Some people like that and some people like the smile on the EQ also.

 

That's the nail on the head for me. My ears liked that very much when I moved to the Heresies, to me it's a more musical sound. The RP-280Fs sound like there's a whole chunk of midrange missing when I switch back to them.

 

I can't actually vouch for the RF-7 II since I haven't heard them, so I suppose my message was that the sound indeed can improve with better speakers. The extended message then is that you should really decide based on your ears where you'd like to go in terms of how it improves! My understanding is that the RF-7 II should be a better version of what you get from the RP-280F, while the Heresy is a different sound overall. I'd like to hear the RF-7 II myself at some point.

 

I'll say they definitely did sound more veiled than the RP-280F until I got the Emotiva amp, which seemed to open up the top end much more. They sound like they have an extra edge of dynamics over the RP-280F and I find them smoother and less tiring to listen to. Video games never become grating (even when loud) and music sounds great. The RP-280F is a much more 'airy' sound and has much deeper bass, but I don't find them as exciting as the Heresies are. The first time I set them up, I turned them up and up and listened to an awful lot of my collection all at once because of how much I liked the sound. Jazz, big band, K-pop, dubstep, I like how all of it sounds through the Heresies. Some music that I had found too bright to listen to (Led Zeppelin sticks out) sounds great to me now.

 

Personally, I'm very committed to heritage sound after hearing the difference, but as you can see, everybody feels differently. Maybe my mind will be changed when I do get to hear the RF-7 II, they're gorgeous and built in Hope so they must be good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The responses from you have been great!  I wish I could have 2 completely separate systems (one for hifi and one for theater), but that is not feasible. I just watched "Rogue One" this evening and the sound was fantastic.  My system is absolutely killer for Movies and concerts. Stereo listening is a different story. I believe I've narrowed it down to id like more resolution, less fatigue (though it's relatively minor) without losing bass. I listen to 2 channel music often and I don't want to use my subs because I guess I'm really old school, Ive always listened to my hifi with 2 speakers. Its foreign to me to add a sub to stereo listening. 

Im sure a 2 pronged approach is required here: upgraded amplification and new speakers.

 

im sorry I'm a pita. If I was Rockefeller, I could throw money at it until the issue was solved. Below is a photo of my gear and some room treatments.  280's, 450 center 2 sw115's and a Sharp 80"

 

 

IMG_0607.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, pzannucci said:

Exactly, you like your speakers, others like theirs, two or three way.  70% of it is the execution of the crossover.  If you can force that crossover down or up so it is out of the midrange area, the better off you are.  Choosing the drivers then does become more difficult.  

 

 

 

2 hours ago, pzannucci said:

 

 

i have a question about this as it's making me think about a car audio project i've been trying to get right. that 3-5khz zone is a problem area and in newer car doors you have a tweeter up high and woofer down about 15" from that. morel is crossing their tweeters on the good stuff at 2200hz and going 18db/oct on the woofer for the low pass. i'm wondering if this is to try and address that very problem when you use a small tweeter and have to cross at 3500-4000hz and the 6.5" midbass is just not going to be smooth up n that freq as it starts breaking up and naturally rolling off before the crossover. morel is money but like many audio thing you get what you pay for

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, pzannucci said:

The RFs on the other hand can produce lower bass but lack in the mids and body that a three way can portray.

 I agree here for most of the RF's but if you have the opportunity to hear a pair of RF-63's, you might change your mind a bit.  Very 3-way sounding 2-ways that equaled to or bettered every 3-way Klipsch(forte', HI, HII, Quartets) I have ever owned.

 

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, racebum said:

 

 

i have a question about this as it's making me think about a car audio project i've been trying to get right. that 3-5khz zone is a problem area and in newer car doors you have a tweeter up high and woofer down about 15" from that. morel is crossing their tweeters on the good stuff at 2200hz and going 18db/oct on the woofer for the low pass. i'm wondering if this is to try and address that very problem when you use a small tweeter and have to cross at 3500-4000hz and the 6.5" midbass is just not going to be smooth up n that freq as it starts breaking up and naturally rolling off before the crossover. morel is money but like many audio thing you get what you pay for

Since the higher frequencies typically are more directional, Morel is likely trying to put more sound through the tweeter because it is pointed more and closer to ear level.  This will allow several things, more of the sound coming from tweeter crossing lower to reduce the problem of crossing over to the mid-woofer which is much lower and not directed at the ear thus loosing the upper mids.  It will also allow for better blending based on distances between the drivers.

 

This would be similar to the reason I believe the RF7 II dropped the crossover to 1200hz.  Better blending of the woofers to the mid/tweeter.  Having the RP280 crossover up at 1750hz or so would have some issues crossing over to two 8" drivers that are not equal distance from the tweeter.  To me the RP280, if using that high a crossover would have been better executed as a D'Appolito configuration like the CFs.  It would have allowed the speaker to sound more open and forward in the midrange, more three way-ish.

 

6 hours ago, Pfarinelli said:

The responses from you have been great!  I wish I could have 2 completely separate systems (one for hifi and one for theater), but that is not feasible. I just watched "Rogue One" this evening and the sound was fantastic.  My system is absolutely killer for Movies and concerts. Stereo listening is a different story. I believe I've narrowed it down to id like more resolution, less fatigue (though it's relatively minor) without losing bass. I listen to 2 channel music often and I don't want to use my subs because I guess I'm really old school, Ive always listened to my hifi with 2 speakers. Its foreign to me to add a sub to stereo listening. 

Im sure a 2 pronged approach is required here: upgraded amplification and new speakers.

 

im sorry I'm a pita. If I was Rockefeller, I could throw money at it until the issue was solved. Below is a photo of my gear and some room treatments.  280's, 450 center 2 sw115's and a Sharp 80"

 

 

IMG_0607.JPG

Pfarinelli,

 

Very nice system.  You have three ways to get bigger/better sound, better amplification, run your subs (establish a better blend for 2 channel listening) or larger/better speakers.

 

When you think about receivers, the main reason people pick them is for the features, not the power and sound. Notice 90% are over 100 watts per channel and they are selling for $199.... It's cool to have a receiver that is so complex you don't use 1/3 of the features let alone need them.  I believe that is what you are paying for until you get very high end (all those licensing fees add up :o in commodity items).  As for the drive and power, with many manufacturers the assumption is that power is handled by the subwoofer so you can probably skimp and still claim 100watts.  My opinion is that is why a lot of receivers will not spec 4 ohm speakers.  

 

If you are going to do a lot of music listening, start with the fundamentals, high quality front ends, great amplification, and above all good speakers.  Build based on the premise into your home theater.  

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...