rf 26 vs rf 62 ii

[Mark Sander]

i have a chance to get a pair of rf 26s or rf 62 ii  WHAT PAIR IS BETTER I DO HAVE THE ONKYO 7.2 656 

[yepimonfire]

I’d say r 26f. The horn has much better dispersion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[The History Kid]

The RF-62 is made of better parts, has a better horn, better drivers, and a better crossover.  It's also a much more solid build.  There's little if any comparison between the two other than the manufacturer.

 

The R-26F's were mass produced designed for Best Buy and other big box stores as entry level speakers.

The RF-62's were designed to be a speaker for reference level listening and more accurate sound reproduction.

[yepimonfire]

The RF-62 is made of better parts, has a better horn, better drivers, and a better crossover.  It's also a much more solid build.  There's little if any comparison between the two other than the manufacturer.
 
The R-26F's were mass produced designed for Best Buy and other big box stores as entry level speakers.
The RF-62's were designed to be a speaker for reference level listening and more accurate sound reproduction.

I would strongly disagree that it has a better horn, as someone who owns a bunch of different Klipsch products, the new “Best Buy” reference speakers measure very accurately, +-2dB, no rising treble response found in the reference II series. In addition, unlike the II series, which are much more directional at high frequencies, the horn in both the premiere series and “Best Buy” series use a constant directivity design. My own measurements show that the BB series have identical response curves from 1.8khz-14khz +-45 degrees, the high frequencies drop 2dB for each 15 degree angle off axis, being -6dB at 45 degrees, even at 45 degrees off axis, the response from 1.8khz-14khz still measures +-3dB.

The major quality difference between the real reference and BB Reference is the woofers. The cerametallic woofers are much stiffer and remain linear at stupidly loud volumes with lots of excursion. The tweeters sound different, but it’s not a good or bad different, just slightly different voicing.

If you want an accurate speaker that sounds good with music and movies, has a very wide sweet spot and uniform dispersion off axis, go with the r 26f.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[The History Kid]

35 minutes ago, yepimonfire said:

I would strongly disagree that it has a better horn, as someone who owns a bunch of different Klipsch products, the new “Best Buy” reference speakers measure very accurately, +-2dB, no rising treble response found in the reference II series. In addition, unlike the II series, which are much more directional at high frequencies, the horn in both the premiere series and “Best Buy” series use a constant directivity design. My own measurements show that the BB series have identical response curves from 1.8khz-14khz +-45 degrees, the high frequencies drop 2dB for each 15 degree angle off axis, being -6dB at 45 degrees, even at 45 degrees off axis, the response from 1.8khz-14khz still measures +-3dB.

The major quality difference between the real reference and BB Reference is the woofers. The cerametallic woofers are much stiffer and remain linear at stupidly loud volumes with lots of excursion. The tweeters sound different, but it’s not a good or bad different, just slightly different voicing.

If you want an accurate speaker that sounds good with music and movies, has a very wide sweet spot and uniform dispersion off axis, go with the r 26f.

Not sure why it's important that you "own a bunch of different Klipsch products" - a lot of us do, and "a bunch" can vary from member to member from 7 to 100 items.  That doesn't make someone an expert on a particular product.

 

That aside, it might reproduce high accurately, but how is it doing lower?  Have you tested specifically the 62?  The 26?  Did you put them in the same room and A/B them with the same conditions?  I ask, because I sincerely doubt you'd agree that the 26 is a more accurate performer.  In virtually every scenario I have heard the 24's, 26's, and 28's in the highs have been tinny and harsh, and the lows have been muddy or flat.  The aluminum tweeter in the R series doesn't perform as well as the titanium tweeter in the RF/RP line, and the harshness shows when listening for prolonged periods of time.

 

The difference is not "just the woofers" either, it extends to the quality of build of the cabinet, the crossover components, and the horn itself - all of which are made with higher quality, longer lasting, and better performing materials.

 

While sound is objective - and I won't argue that with anyone - to say that the quality of the build of the 26 is better than the 62 is absolutely not true - and few people who have actually heard or owned the 62's or proper RF line would concur as well.  The 26 isn't a bad speaker, but it's not going to stand up to the 62 in any meaningful way that puts it a cut above.

[yepimonfire]

Not sure why it's important that you "own a bunch of different Klipsch products" - a lot of us do, and "a bunch" can vary from member to member from 7 to 100 items.  That doesn't make someone an expert on a particular product.  

That aside, it might reproduce high accurately, but how is it doing lower?  Have you tested specifically the 62?  The 26?  Did you put them in the same room and A/B them with the same conditions?  I ask, because I sincerely doubt you'd agree that the 26 is a more accurate performer.  In virtually every scenario I have heard the 24's, 26's, and 28's in the highs have been tinny and harsh, and the lows have been muddy or flat.  The aluminum tweeter in the R series doesn't perform as well as the titanium tweeter in the RF/RP line, and the harshness shows when listening for prolonged periods of time.

 

The difference is not "just the woofers" either, it extends to the quality of build of the cabinet, the crossover components, and the horn itself - all of which are made with higher quality, longer lasting, and better performing materials.

 

While sound is objective - and I won't argue that with anyone - to say that the quality of the build of the 26 is better than the 62 is absolutely not true - and few people who have actually heard or owned the 62's or proper RF line would concur as well.  The 26 isn't a bad speaker, but it's not going to stand up to the 62 in any meaningful way that puts it a cut above.

 

Let me just put it this way...

I prefer the sound of the r 26f from an accuracy and timbre standpoint. If maximum dynamics with minimal nonlinear distortion at very high output was the goal, the rf 62 II is better, especially in low distortion, high volume bass. Unfortunately, they are not as accurate in the upper treble, they display a rising response starting at 2khz, there is a reason many find them harsh. As previously stated, the r 26f also has much better directivity control. If the bright sound doesn’t bother you, than the rf 62 II will perform better.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Boilermaker86]

19 hours ago, The History Kid said:

Not sure why it's important that you "own a bunch of different Klipsch products" - a lot of us do, and "a bunch" can vary from member to member from 7 to 100 items.  That doesn't make someone an expert on a particular product.

 

That aside, it might reproduce high accurately, but how is it doing lower?  Have you tested specifically the 62?  The 26?  Did you put them in the same room and A/B them with the same conditions?  I ask, because I sincerely doubt you'd agree that the 26 is a more accurate performer.  In virtually every scenario I have heard the 24's, 26's, and 28's in the highs have been tinny and harsh, and the lows have been muddy or flat.  The aluminum tweeter in the R series doesn't perform as well as the titanium tweeter in the RF/RP line, and the harshness shows when listening for prolonged periods of time.

 

The difference is not "just the woofers" either, it extends to the quality of build of the cabinet, the crossover components, and the horn itself - all of which are made with higher quality, longer lasting, and better performing materials.

 

While sound is objective - and I won't argue that with anyone - to say that the quality of the build of the 26 is better than the 62 is absolutely not true - and few people who have actually heard or owned the 62's or proper RF line would concur as well.  The 26 isn't a bad speaker, but it's not going to stand up to the 62 in any meaningful way that puts it a cut above.

I really agree with history kid. I had the whole synergy system for 10 years which was the line previous to the new Reference line. They are a nice start into the klipsch world. Similar to the Reference II line in a lot of ways, but the Reference II line are just so much better.

 

The RC-62 II center is such a better match to the RF-62 or RF-82 II speakers. The synergy center I had the C-3 was so muffled and you could not understand voices clearly. When I added the RC-62 II center to the F3 towers, the center clearly over powered the two. It could just reproduce sound so much better.

 

Also, compairing the F3s to the RF82 IIs, the 82s just fill the room so much better with sound and the bass is so much stronger( I don’t know if it is because of the rear vs front ports but noticibly different). I had to have my F3s close together to sound good but the opposite was true for the 82 IIs, they need to be farther apart because they just filled the room so much better. The clarity is unreal between the two. You feel like the voice is in the room with the Reference II line. 

 

I feel where the confusion is on the highs. I know when I had the Synergy F3s it didn’t matter about placement or room treatments , they sounded the same. But when I switched to the 82 IIs, the highs sounded harsh in my room with tile and high ceilings. And it makes sense since the room is not treated. After moving them 2 ft from the back and running audysee at all 8 positions, it was perfect. So I can see a perceived benefit to the Best Buy line bulecuse it was more a set it up and forget it easy on the ears, but the clarity was just not the same and not there like the Reference II line.

[Mark Sander]

thank you all for the input