RF-7 II vs RP-280F vs RF-7 III Appearance Comparison

[Paducah Home Theater]

23 hours ago, fuzzydog said:

I may be biased, but I think the RF-7II looks like a higher end speaker. 

 

The 3's look crazy nice in person.  The chamfer / miter on the baffle edge just sets it off, makes the current one look like a monkey coffin.  Some people don't like the horn but everything else looks more high end.  I'm still not used to the ports though, I realize it doesn't really matter but for whatever reason I personally prefer round ports and I don't believe that port chuffing was a problem.  Just seems like a solution to a problem that didn't exist to me.  I guess somebody thought it looked cool or was easier to install or was just plain different, I dunno.  

[Scrappydue]

3's get my vote. Classier in every way imo minus the veneer on front. But I like the new baffles. Chamfer, black, magnets. Just better. 

[dmb12679]

For the looks no doubt for me the ii's.  I would like to hear the differences in the iii's sound.  Even if it sounds a little better, how many are willing to take the cost hit on their ii's to upgrade to the iii's.  I'm not in that position to take that kind of hit.

[Youthman]

38 minutes ago, dmb12679 said:

Even if it sounds a little better, how many are willing to take the cost hit on their ii's to upgrade to the iii's.  I'm not in that position to take that kind of hit.

Yea that "hit" would be massive for me since I only have $363.00 in my pair of RF7 II.  So I think it's safe to say I'll be keeping my RF7 II for quite a while.

[TasDom]

7 minutes ago, Youthman said:

Yea that "hit" would be massive for me since I only have $363.00 in my pair of RF7 II.  So I think it's safe to say I'll be keeping my RF7 II for quite a while.

Plus you have the only pair (that I'm aware of) that have "Dean G" modified networks in them.

I'll keep my Cherry 7II's made in America by fine Americans with the finest Chinese parts. 

[Kain]

When will we see more info on the RF-7 III? All we have right now are some pictures. Any idea for a release date?

 

Also, @Youthman, right now you have a 7.1 setup, correct? If so, will you be getting Atmos later on by adding ceiling speakers?

[Rich_Guy]

I definitely prefer the RF-7 II looks in every way.

[StevieQ]

The RF-7 III must be be selling VERY slowly.  It's been almost a month or two since the III went on sale and there has been only one review of it so far. 

 

There are two plausible explanations for the slow sale.  One is that most current potential buyers of the III already pulled the trigger on the II because of the heavy discounts on the II in the past six months.  I am one of these people.  It will take some time for another wave of potential buyers to build up again.

 

The second plausible explanation is that the RF-7 III is much less visually appealing than the RF-7 II.  The RF-7 III looks like a beefed up version of the RP-280F but selling at 3x to 4x the price.  The styling of the RF-7 III doesn't give an aura of fine furniture the RF-7 II does.  The cherry stain on the RF-7 II is FAR PRETTIER than on the RF-7III.  In my opinion the RF-7 III looks really cheap compared to the RF-7 II.  If Klipsch would incorporate the improvements found on the RF-7 III into the body and styling of the RF-7 II they'd have a real winner.

Edited December 18, 2017 by StevieQ

[willland]

3 hours ago, StevieQ said:

In my opinion the RF-7 III looks really cheap compared to the RF-7 II. 

I would not go to that extreme but definitely less elegant than the II's.  I do understand the "visually" matching of the RP line but should/could have retained on the front the real wood veneer of the RF-7II's while making all the other engineering and visual changes.

 

 

Bill

[Youthman]

5 hours ago, StevieQ said:

The RF-7 III must be be selling VERY slowly.  It's been almost a month or two since the III went on sale and there has been only one review of it so far. 

Not necessarily true.  As of 11/15/17, Klipsch had not sent any RF-7 III out for review. 

[GBShade684]

3 hours ago, willland said:

I would not go to that extreme but definitely less elegant than the II's.  I do understand the "visually" matching of the RP line but should/could have retained on the front the real wood veneer of the RF-7II's while making all the other engineering and visual changes.

Bill

 

Based on those images you attached (which I removed), I definitely prefer the IIs over the IIIs.  I'm in the process of planning my HT room and I am going with the IIIs as they will be behind a false wall along with my RC64III and my AVR.  It's fortunate that I'm going this route and not showcasing the towers.  I would be disappointed as I think the IIIs are a slight step backward in the overall visual appearance.

[Youthman]

2 minutes ago, GBShade684 said:

It's fortunate that I'm going this route and not showcasing the towers.  I would be disappointed as I think the IIIs are a slight step backward in the overall visual appearance.

You know when I was building my front wall, a received a TON of feedback saying "Why would you want to hide those awesome speakers".  Here's the deal....what is the purpose of a dedicated home theater?  To watch movies...not to watch speakers.  LOL.  I always had the ability to access the speakers to show them off anytime I needed to.  With my current setup, I can easily lift the entire screen that are supported by hydrolic shocks or I can turn on my LED lighting behind the screen to "Reveal" the speakers through the screen when the room is dark.

 

When I bought my LaScalas, at the time, I had RF-83 with an RC-64.  The RF were MUCH more appealing visually than the "old school" style of the LaScalas but in end, I decided to go with what sounded the best, not what looked the best. 

 

I believe appearance should have a bearing on our choices but I would not base my entire decision on looks alone.  Just my 2 cents. 

 

I'm looking forward to the possibility of being able to do an A/B/C Comparison (both visually and audibly) between the RF-7, RF-7 II and the RF-7 III in the near future.

[StevieQ]

3 hours ago, Youthman said:

Not necessarily true.  As of 11/15/17, Klipsch had not sent any RF-7 III out for review. 

Youthman:

 

I was actually referring to customer reviews rather than professional reviews.  I couldn't find any review of the RF-7 III by actual customers on any of the authorized dealers and traditional outlets such as Amazon, Crutchfield, eBay, etc.  The only customer review, only one so far, is on the Klipsch site.

[Youthman]

2 minutes ago, StevieQ said:

I was actually referring to customer reviews rather than professional reviews.

Ah Gotcha.  There are several reviews of them on the Klipsch Owners Facebook group.

[xo705cf]

Hands down 280s, because I actually have them to look at... lol. If I ever get 7s of any version, theyll look the best....

[Scrappydue]

11 hours ago, GBShade684 said:

 

Based on those images you attached (which I removed), I definitely prefer the IIs over the IIIs.  I'm in the process of planning my HT room and I am going with the IIIs as they will be behind a false wall along with my RC64III and my AVR.  It's fortunate that I'm going this route and not showcasing the towers.  I would be disappointed as I think the IIIs are a slight step backward in the overall visual appearance.

Any reason why you are doing a false wall and not doing three towers behind? Horizontal center would be a big mistake if it’s going behind a screen. 

 

And cory has sold a ton of these so far. Just slow for the word to get out is all. The reviews will come. 

[GBShade684]

23 hours ago, Scrappydue said:

Any reason why you are doing a false wall and not doing three towers behind? Horizontal center would be a big mistake if it’s going behind a screen. 

 

And cory has sold a ton of these so far. Just slow for the word to get out is all. The reviews will come. 

My plan is 100% to go behind screen, but I've never really seen or been exposed to a 3 tower system.

 

Pros / cons?  I think the cost will be pretty close to the same if I go 2 RF7III and a RC64III vs. 3 RF7III.

[willland]

If your speakers will be hidden behind an AT screen, then identical LCR is the way to go, hands down.

 

Bill

[ACV92]

I have to agree with matched L/C/R, but, why is it that every manufacturer builds centers horizontal with multiple/smaller drivers?  Width of sound, stage, space, I'm not sure.  RC-64 as an example.  I feel that if I were running matched components, I would run two towers matched to my mains as my center versus one.  80/20 rule applies as I understand.  If 80% of the audio/vocals during movie playback is coming from my center might as well beef it up more.  I think everyone here can admit to noticing a significant difference with playback between a large set of Klipsch mains with a smallish center.  If exposed to such a scenario.

 

I wonder about those that run Jub's.  What in the world are they going to run in the center to play with them, unless another Jub, or a smaller version.  So, if I had the wallet, (4) RF-7 III's for me.  L, R, LC, RC.  Blow holes in this theory as you will.

[StevieQ]

6 hours ago, GBShade684 said:

My plan is 100% to go behind screen, but I've never really seen or been exposed to a 3 tower system.

 

Pros / cons?  I think the cost will be pretty close to the same if I go 2 RF7III and a RC64III vs. 3 RF7III.

 

I think you'd have better results with the 2 RF7II + RC64II configuration rather than 3 RF7III or 3 RF7II.  The RC64II (or RC64III) is a 2.5 way speaker and will give fuller, more mellow sounds, and will more faithfully replicate human voices than the 2-way RF7 can.  The center channel is where most speech sounds are played and the RC64 is probably optimized for human speech.  Why go against the intended design of the RF line by substituting a main speaker in the center channel in home theater applications when there is a center channel designed specifically for that purpose?