RB5-II or RF3-II???

[elgrillo]

So I am looking for a complete home theatre system with budget at about $1800 and I was wondering which one is the better speaker? Has anyone tested them side by side? What are your thoughts?

[Stephen328]

RF-3s. RB5s are great for limited space, but if oyu have romm go RF-3s. Basically floorstanders are better than bookshelfs.

[Kain]

----------------

On 10/24/2002 11:27:01 AM Stephen328 wrote:

RF-3s. RB5s are great for limited space, but if oyu have romm go RF-3s. Basically floorstanders are better than bookshelfs.

----------------

I'm not saying that you are wrong or anything, but can you please tell me why floorstanding speakers are better than bookshelf speakers?

Thanks.

[Deang]

Whether one "sounds" better than other simply depends on execution of the design. Sometimes a floor-stander sounds better than a bookshelf, sometimes it's the other way around. This applies to crossing brands, as well as designs within the same brand.

In this particular case, the RB5 actually "sounds" better than the RF3. In spite of it having less lower bass than the RF3, the RB5 is a much more dynamic sounding speaker, sounds more evened out, and is one of my all time personal favorites

I owned the RB5's, and eventually upgraded to the RF7's (floor-stander), which to my ears maintained the "attack" and coherence of the RB5, but also reached into the basement of bass. For some reason, the RF3 sounded a little jagged in the treble when compared to the RB5 -- but I don't really know why this is. It was told to me once that it might be related to the dual woofer configuration of the RF3, and because of this, might be introducing some additional distortion over the one driver design of the RB5. I might agree with this, except the dual 10's of my RF7's don't seem to exhibit the problem. The RF7's actually sound like what I thought "stacked" RB5's might sound like -- powerful and dynamic, yet smooth and evened out from top to bottom. The RF3's sounded a little "peaky" to me. Also, the RB5's come in real wood veneer instead of vinyl -- which is a real plus.

Doing what you are trying to do with $1800 might be tough, unless you are only talking about your speaker budget. If you are not buying a subwoofer, than you should probably get the RF3 (because of the lower bass material present in DVD's).

[boa12]

yeah as dean says plus, if you're using a receiver w/ a fixed crossover around a high 80hz, as many including myself have found w/ a sub, the bass is better quality when the speaks are set to small no matter their size. so why put the money in bigger woofs that effectively aren't needed?

best route imho is, for a high fixed crossover receiver, get smaller speaks like the rb-5 or 3, & put the extra $ in a better quality sub.

or if you want bigger speaks, get a receiver or prepro/amp that has an adjustable crossover in the dsp that will go down to 40-60hz (preferably adjustable in 5 or 10hz increments), & some good power to push the woofs adequately down lower in freq.

the only way i'd use rf-3 is w/ an adjustable crossover in a 5.1+ set-up, or for 2-speaker listening w/ no sub (like i'm doing now w/ my rf-3). when/if i expand that marantz sr8000 based system to include a sub, i'll be using an outboard adjustable crossover since marantz also use the fixed 80hz scheme.

[Stephen328]

Sorry, I didn't have time to finsih my post when I 1st wrote it. I was planning on saying, that generally floorstanders do outpreform bookshelfs in my opinion. I'm not trying to say that floorstanders are always better and bookshelfs, even withen brands. But GENERALLY companies put more into their floorstanders. Just my opinion.

[Audio Flynn]

Steph,

We are all into sujectivity here; but you have to include a little detail to support your case.

In my HT I have the RB5s and added about $ 180 in very sound Sanus Steel Foundations stands, filling, and dampening to acheive more detail. So essentialy I paid considerably more than an RF3.

As Dean stated there seems to be a lttle detail loss somwhere in the RF3 to some people.

As for construction, Klipsch "put allot more" into the cabinet exterior veneer quality on the RB5 than the RF3.

I think if I did not have plans for a sub I would go for the RF3.

If you can afford a Adire Audio Rava, Entry level SVS, HSU reasearch, or DIY from Parts Express sub; I would go for the RB5.

PS....

A cheap stand DIY I have seen is concrete pillars for garden decoration or bird bath support. Paint them gloss black or another non objectionable color and put Blu Tack on the top for the speaker interface.

I have not figured out how you would spike them without drilling holes in the bottom with a masonary bit(dirty work).

[Stephen328]

I dont have anything against bookshelfs, I happen to own three pair. And i'm looking into a pair of rb-3s or 5s. I love the cherry finish. I though about floorstanders, but my room is small. But, for the ideal room, floorstanders are really the best. Large speakers will overpower small roowams like mine, and small speakers will not be powerful enough for a large room. Generally. And yes klipsch does put more into the enclosure on the RB-5 than on the RF-3s, but thats only one example. I'm just trying to make a general statement.

[Jolly Roger]

"As for construction, Klipsch "put allot more" into the cabinet exterior veneer quality on the RB5 than the RF3."

That wouldn't effect the sound. The difference between these speakers is the rb has a real would veneer and the rf has an extra driver. I personally equate this to; one is geared a little more towards sound quality, and the other to looks since they cost the same, but thats jmho. If you need to use stands, then that drives up the cost of the Rb5s even more. You can't really go wrong with either. I myself am happy with my Rf3s...

[elgrillo]

Hmmm it seems that we may have a split audience here. I would love to hear what THE EARS would have to say about this.

EARS you there??

EARS?

I think his heart exploded from all the bass in his room. If you can muster up some energy I would like to read your thoughts on this.

[danbry39]

I'm not the ear, but I have two of them.

In any regard, please accept my opinion on the matter being discussed. One thing that hasn't been mentioned (unless I missed it) is the WAF. Bookshelf speakers are less prominent and offer more flexibility in placement.

As for the sound itself, I listened quite a bit to the RF-3's and RB-5ii's for a system I was setting up in my bedroom. Here's why I picked the RB-5ii's. Beyond the above flexibility issues, I found the 5ii's had a bit better imaging and midrange clarity. This could be my ears only or even such factors as the way they were positioned in the showroom's listening room. However, while floorstandings might have an advantage with bass extention, smaller speakers have the potential to have more rigid cabinets, which might lead to the improvements I subjectively experienced. Both can be excellent though and this, by no means, is meant to demean the RF-3's, which I like very much. Nonetheless, if mated with a good sub, especially with an adjustable crossover, one can maximize the useful frequency of the system as a whole.

[boa12]

el, btw, what's your budget & do you have anything yet?

[elgrillo]

My budget is $1800 and I have a reciever already. I am looking for a 5.1 system now. I tell you, picking the right system is tough, and finding the right price is even tougher.