Which is the weakest link in my setup -- or: what to buy next? Speakers? Amp? CD player?

[Man in the Box]

Update: I bought the RP 8000 after the salesman informed of me their reduced price for the last remaining pair.

 

 

First impressions:

 

After doing an extensive A/ B test between the two pairs while feeding them lossless material, I would say that the towers represent a clear improvement upon the 160s in about 60-70% of cases (some tracks of "master" quality on Tidal, such as Louis Armstrong's "What a Wonderful World," isn't among them; ditto some flac files). How much of an improvement? Difficult to quantify, obviously; but if pressed, my visceral feeling is that the 8000 is, on average, better by about 25% (i.e., if I'd give the 8000 a 10, the 160 would get a 7.5). But that also varies from track to track.

 

What is the quality of the difference? Invariably, and unsurprisingly, the woofers are clearly better. They're not excessive/ out of control, as feared, given the shape and size of the room. If anything, they blend very well with the 12 SVS sealed subwoofer. Percussion is especially satisfying, as are bass-heavy tracks. The tweeters, and the overall sound altogether, seems to be relatively muted on the 160, while the 8000 seems more open, transparent and immersive. Bigger and deeper soundstage, for sure, which can be especially when listening to certain orchestral music. There doesn't seem to be a noticeable difference in the stereo imaging between the two pairs, however. 

 

When it comes to lossy streaming, on the other hand, the two speakers don't sound very different -- a slight edge for the 8000, to be sure, but only slight. Another revelation is that pairing a 12 inch SVS sub with the 160 was probably a mistake because they blend with the 8000's bottom end pretty well.

 

The only TV item I tested was Our Planet on Netflix. The 8000 are generally more immersive, as the music sounds more "full." This was especially satisfying when a stormy cloud rumbled in the first episode.

 

 

Preliminary Conclusion:

 

As things stand, I think that the 8000, while not always markedly better, has greater potential to impress. I imagine that they'd definitely perform better in a larger space, as some of you have stated, but I have yet to find a good reason to be concerned about their size in my particular case. If money is no object, I would most definitely recommend the 8000. But if on a budget, and if one's source material is predominantly lossy, I would not hesitate to recommend the 160 instead. That my entire post has been a story of margins is a great compliment to the 160.

 

The 8000 is a better speaker, but in a room this size, is it twice as good (because it's about twice the price)? No.

 

 

 

EDIT: please bear in mind that my subwoofer was on throughout my testing.

[Man in the Box]

More time needs must pass before drawing definitive conclusions, but after having experimented with speaker placement (I already know the ideal spots for the RP 160), there is no doubt that the RP 8000's sound is preferable in every way.

 

Perhaps the biggest advantage to owning the 8000 over the bookshelves is the ability to play at low volumes without losing much in the way of detail. Oftentimes, I had to play the 160s at higher volumes than I'd like to hear the full sound. But that was also fatiguing. 

 

Bigger is better!