A/B Speaker Comparisons

[Iteachstem]

Hello All,

 

I decided to start an A/B (maybe even C and D too) comparison post so that people can use this as a reference. I always see posts asking about how certain speakers compare to each other.  Well, the only real way to do this is to have the speakers side by side and have a listen!  So, that's exactly what this post is meant to do.  Feel free to add your comparisons to help build this resource for future speaker buyers!  Thanks!

 

Some basic guidelines:

-Include the models that you compared

-Include pictures (if possible)

-Include a basic description of your listening environment ex. wood floors/carpet/size of room, etc

-a basic list of equipment (This isn't an equipment brag post) ex. Emotiva pre amp, Rotel power amp.  If people want to know more detail, they may send you a message.  I don't want this to turn into an argument over cables/dacs/tubes/etc.

-List the demo song(s) you used.

-If you changed the speaker components or replaced a component with a newer/different component, please make note of this ex. Rf-3 with stock woofers compared to RF-3 with updated drivers.

 

Please only post:

-Speakers you actually auditioned side by side.

-Speakers that are in the same ballpark as far as price/type

 

Please do not include:

-Comparisons of speakers where one is a speaker you heard as a child and now are comparing it to a different speaker you heard yesterday...30+ years later.

-Speakers that you didn't audition side by side.

 

Let the fun begin!

 

[Iteachstem]

I will start things off.

 

Speakers:Klipsch RF-7 II and Klipsch RF-83

Room:15' by 22' Living room w/ sloping 9' to 16' ceiling height.  Wood floors and large 9' by 13' area rug.

Electronics: Pioneer Elite VSX-56TXi, Dell computer with WAV files.

Demo Songs: Jimmy Sax-No Man No Cry / Stevie Ray-Chitlins Con Carne / Pink Floyd-Time

 

These were very similar speakers. They sounded slightly different down low, as expected with 2 10" drivers vs. 3 8" drivers.  They both had decent low end impact.  The RF-83's might have been a little more punchy, but the RF-7 II's had a touch more oomph to it.  However, for the most part, no one area was arguably any better than another until it came to the very upper end of the frequency spectrum.  The RF-7 II's sounded more natural at reproducing the saxophone passage in one of the songs I used to demo. (Jimmy Sax: No man no cry) I would say the RF-7 II's came out the winner... but it wasn't a total domination by any means.  I was happy with both speakers. 

[Iteachstem]

This was a fun project.  I purchased a set of RF-3  II's with the typical damage to most of the 8" drivers.  I purchased 4 new drivers from simply speakers for a cost of a little over $400.  https://www.simplyspeakers.com/klipsch-replacement-speaker-woofer-1011974.html

 

Then, it was time to compare them to my other set of RF-3  II's

 

Speakers:Klipsch RF-3 II with original drivers and Klipsch RF-3 II with new drivers

Room:15' by 12' room w/ 8' ceiling height.  Vinyl floors w/ 5' by 7' area rug.

Electronics: Emotiva USP-1 preamp, Rotel power amp.

Demo Songs: Jimmy Sax-No Man No Cry / Stevie Ray-Chitlins Con Carne / Pink Floyd-Time

 

I was hoping there might be some dramatic difference in the newer drivers, but that was not the case.  Sure, I liked the look of the new cones without the black dust-cap, but that was really the greatest difference.  If you are changing the speakers and expecting a dramatic upgrade, save your money.  If you are changing the speakers because the other's were damaged, go for it!  Did the low end sound different? Marginally.  But I didn't have a preference as to which one was "better."

[Iteachstem]

Third times a charm? 

 

After I purchased the Klipsch RP-280FA for my makeshift home theater last year (due to regular home theater turning into a play room for the kids), I needed to reduce my current speaker collection.  As a result, these Klipsch tower speakers both went up for sale.  But before the buyers arrived, I took the opportunity to do an A/B comparison of course.  This is the RF-3 II vs. the RF-82 II. The battle of the double eights!

 

Speakers:Klipsch RF-3 II with new drivers and Klipsch RF-82 II.

Room:2 car garage w/ 9' ceiling height.  Garage door open (Surprisingly good demo area!)

Electronics: Emotiva USP-1 preamp, Emotiva XPA 5 power amp, dell laptop.

Demo Songs: Jimmy Sax-No Man No Cry / Stevie Ray-Chitlins Con Carne / Pink Floyd-Time / Electronica - in the end RMX

 

Without getting too technical, the RF-82 II's had a noticeably fuller sound... as expected due to the much larger cabinet size. It was very apparent that they dug a little deeper on the electronica track. The RF-82 II's seemed a bit more refined overall when listening to the tracks. In addition, the magnetic grill on the RF-82 II is far superior!  Good luck finding a grill on the RF-3 II that doesn't have at least one of the pegs missing! However, as far as price , the RF-3 II's are almost always significantly cheaper.  If I had to chose, and price was not an option, I would definitely chose the RF-82 II's.

 

 

RF-3 II Specs:

[Iteachstem]

Time to resurrect this thread and see if anyone wants to contribute.  We all talk about comparing speakers, but lets document our experiences!

 

I found this picture and remembered when I did this A/B comparison of a Forte vs. Forte II

 

Speakers:Forte vs. Forte II

Room:2 car garage

Electronics: Emotiva pre, Crown K2, Dell computer with WAV files.

Demo Songs: Jimmy Sax-No Man No Cry / Stevie Ray-Chitlins Con Carne / Pink Floyd-Time

 

I know it was conducted in a less than ideal area, but for me, the original Forte's sounded just a little sweeter to my ears.  Perhaps it's just because I refinished them and liked the darker color, but when I had my better half do the random A/B switching, I picked the Forte every time.

 

[Iteachstem]

Back again for the battle of the RF double 8's!  RF-3 II v RF-5

 

Speakers:Klipsch RF-3 II and Klipsch RF-5.

Room:Living room with 9' sloping to 16' ceiling

Electronics: Emotiva USP-1 preamp, Rotel RB 981 power amp, dell laptop.

Demo Songs: Stevie Ray-Chitlins Con Carne / Pink Floyd-Time / Electronica - in the end RMX / Sarah Bareilles - She used to be Mine

 

When balancing the SPL's, the RF-3's needed a slight level increase, which tracks given the stated 98db v. the 99db of the RF-5's.  The bass extension between the two was not noticeable with the demo songs I used.  So the 37hz response on the RF-3's did not sound any less than the 34hz on the RF-5's.  I'm sure if you measured it they would measure differently, but when using my ears, there was no noticeable difference.  There was some difference in the mid...as should be expected with the different crossover points. (RF-3 1975hz v RF-5 at 2500hz)   I felt that the RF-3's sounded a bit more welcoming in that area.  The treble was noticeably different with the RF-3's being more defined and the RF-5's being a little more airy and open, but not as good with the imaging.

 

I did the test both flat and with my "Klipsch Sizzle" eq setting. (Significant SPL reduction on the upper end) Flat, both speakers are a hard pass for me in a stereo setup.  I'm sure they are fine with home theater, since most of the content is handled by the center and sub.  With my eq settings applied, they became much more listenable.  However, not my cup-o-tea.  I would recommend them for the college age kid who loves to jam the music loud and is not to worried about catching all of the fine detail in a well recorded track.

 

 

 

[Iteachstem]

The specs:

[Idontknow]

I prefer the original Fote as well. 

[jjptkd]

On 2/18/2024 at 1:34 PM, Iteachstem said:

Back again for the battle of the RF double 8's!  RF-3 II v RF-5

The treble was noticeably different with the RF-3's being more defined and the RF-5's being a little more airy and open, but not as good with the imaging.

I would recommend them for the college age kid who loves to jam the music loud and is not to worried about catching all of the fine detail in a well recorded track.

 

 Wow, not my experience at all I loved my RF-5's thought they sounded close to or as good as the forte's I compared them to. When I compared them to the RF-3's I thought the bass was the most noticeable difference with the 5's being more detailed, punchy and accurate. Could be differences in listening environments or associated equipment.  

[jjptkd]

1 hour ago, Idontknow said:

I prefer the original Fote as well. 

 

 The exponential horns in these early models are more detailed sounding to me, same with the Chorus 1 vs II when sitting in the sweet spot. The Tractrix horns are more "open" and "airy" sounding but lack that inner detail, they do seem to have a wider sweet spot but it comes at a cost.  

[CWelsh]

On 2/18/2024 at 5:34 PM, Iteachstem said:

When balancing the SPL's, the RF-3's needed a slight level increase, which tracks given the stated 98db v. the 99db of the RF-5's.  The bass extension between the two was not noticeable with the demo songs I used.  So the 37hz response on the RF-3's did not sound any less than the 34hz on the RF-5's.  I'm sure if you measured it they would measure differently, but when using my ears, there was no noticeable difference.  There was some difference in the mid...as should be expected with the different crossover points. (RF-3 1975hz v RF-5 at 2500hz)   I felt that the RF-3's sounded a bit more welcoming in that area.  The treble was noticeably different with the RF-3's being more defined and the RF-5's being a little more airy and open, but not as good with the imaging.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm curious to know how you are balancing the SPLs? Does your method allow you to switch quickly enough between A & B to pick up differences that might be lost if too much time passes between?

[Idontknow]

A/B comparisons are the best way to evaluate speakers. 

[Woofers and Tweeters]

58 minutes ago, Idontknow said:

A/B comparisons are the best way to evaluate speakers. 

I don't believe there is any other way, and it has to be right then. IMHO, what is unfair is not knowing how fresh the caps and such are. Another thing is that each pair needs to be 'dialed in' to sound its best, even using the same brand and even the same name. Ex: Trying to AB Forte to Forte II needs some adjustments to make each sound their best.

A lot of people's mouths can't be trusted. None of our ears can't be trusted.   

[jjptkd]

1 hour ago, Idontknow said:

A/B comparisons are the best way to evaluate speakers. 

 

 A quick swap back and forth is useful for sure and I do that but what I also like to do is listen to a set for several hours, days even and then swap them out. Only after really settling in with a set do you really catch what they have to offer, good or bad. Some times I'm more surprised when I swap out my mains for new speakers, listen for several days then swap back to my mains then I will be at the initial swap. 

[imeiamme]

On 12/2/2023 at 6:42 PM, Iteachstem said:

Time to resurrect this thread and see if anyone wants to contribute.  We all talk about comparing speakers, but lets document our experiences!

 

I found this picture and remembered when I did this A/B comparison of a Forte vs. Forte II

 

Speakers:Forte vs. Forte II

Room:2 car garage

Electronics: Emotiva pre, Crown K2, Dell computer with WAV files.

Demo Songs: Jimmy Sax-No Man No Cry / Stevie Ray-Chitlins Con Carne / Pink Floyd-Time

 

I know it was conducted in a less than ideal area, but for me, the original Forte's sounded just a little sweeter to my ears.  Perhaps it's just because I refinished them and liked the darker color, but when I had my better half do the random A/B switching, I picked the Forte every time.

 

I am new. I don't pretend to be able to do what you do. I can't even begin to know what you know. I am just offering that maybe, from your Dell ( I have an Alienware myself) you can go to a sound card. I am suspecting that you are only cooking on 2 burners with that dell system when 4 is probably a bit more appropriate for what you are cooking. Crown and Emotiva are solid items. 

 

The start is the issue. You never got off the floor from the beginning. Anyways, that is my take. I just recorded an album. I added a Sonnet Chasis with an RME HDSPE AIO external soundcard. For everything that it does to the signal chain. All you need is one Thunderbolt connection to enter a whole new arena of sound. I would suggest the Alienware (not M17 R2) the one above that. It has an additional HD PCie Space. 

 

Good Luck. I like your reviews so far.

[Iteachstem]

9 hours ago, CWelsh said:

'm curious to know how you are balancing the SPLs? Does your method allow you to switch quickly enough between A & B to pick up differences that might be lost if too much time passes between?

Good questions.

 

I use a SBX4VC 4 channel speaker selector.  Each channel has an individual volume control.(The large circular knob)  I use this to set the SPL's using a white noise signal so that both sets of speakers play at  the same volume... therefore removing the perception of the louder one being the better one.

 

You can switch instantly by pressing the selector buttons.(The oval ones)  So it's not like a lot of people that compare speakers like this... " Well, I heard a set of RF-7's when I was 30, then I heard a set of RF-7 II's when I was 50 and boy...."

[Iteachstem]

7 hours ago, imeiamme said:

I am new. I don't pretend to be able to do what you do. I can't even begin to know what you know. I am just offering that maybe, from your Dell ( I have an Alienware myself) you can go to a sound card. I am suspecting that you are only cooking on 2 burners with that dell system when 4 is probably a bit more appropriate for what you are cooking. Crown and Emotiva are solid items. 

 

The start is the issue. You never got off the floor from the beginning. Anyways, that is my take. I just recorded an album. I added a Sonnet Chasis with an RME HDSPE AIO external soundcard. For everything that it does to the signal chain. All you need is one Thunderbolt connection to enter a whole new arena of sound. I would suggest the Alienware (not M17 R2) the one above that. It has an additional HD PCie Space. 

 

Good Luck. I like your reviews so far.

I have a Scarlett 4i4 that I could use that would be an ideal signal path, but, I like to do my comparisons in real world settings.  A lot of people use the 1/8 output from the laptop into their system for everyday listening. (Or worse yet, Bluetooth!) I use the 1/8 output on my office system right into a set of The Fives and it works well... but I don't do critical listening there.  I tried the usb be from my laptop to The Fives and I didn't like it as well as the 1/8 to the RCA input.

 

All things considered, both sets of speakers were given the same mediocre signal.

[Travis In Austin]

This is an awesome thread, thanks for starting it. So since you are a stem teacher I will post some articles on A/B from AES (some science for a STEM teacher). 
 

With speakers it’s more difficult than components, because it near impossible to do a “blind comparison. For most people it’s going to have to be a sighted comparison. Studies (peer reviewed) on this show there is a sighted bias. However, it sounds like you going for a subjective personal preference, along with pointing out the subjective differences so it’s no big deal I wouldn’t think. 
 

The speakers need to be spl matched as the science is pretty clear that the average person (in blind tests) will nearly always prefer the louder speaker if not volume matched. I will post the studies on this and the YouTube videos where the author of the studies discusses them. I think the ideal is matched to within +/- 0.10 dB of each other. (That’s what Roy does for classes when they are comparing on speaker to another. 
 

PWK did A/B after doing all his curves and measurements. Just about any modification he was considering he would A/B after careful measurements. He would discuss this in Dope From Hope editions and @Chief bonehead Roy has a few stories about PWK teaching him to do the same thing. 
 

PWK personally studied many, many aspects of loudspeakers, and specifically, he studied whether they were audible, if audible were they “pleasing/preferred” vs. objectional/unsatisfying. He used the phrase “not a dime’s worth of difference” in describing what the results of certain changes were.

 

I would join in the fun, but don’t have two sets of speakers to easily place sided by side at the moment, but will do so at the first opportunity.
 

PWK would have loved this. 

Travis
 

 

[Travis In Austin]

On 2/26/2024 at 7:13 PM, Iteachstem said:

I have a Scarlett 4i4 that I could use that would be an ideal signal path, but, I like to do my comparisons in real world settings.  A lot of people use the 1/8 output from the laptop into their system for everyday listening. (Or worse yet, Bluetooth!) I use the 1/8 output on my office system right into a set of The Fives and it works well... but I don't do critical listening there.  I tried the usb be from my laptop to The Fives and I didn't like it as well as the 1/8 to the RCA input.

 

All things considered, both sets of speakers were given the same mediocre signal.

My current and last laptop don’t have any 1/8” in/out, only USB or Bluetooth. I have tried going from 1/8 out on Desktop to input of the Klipsch powered speakers in the office. I do prefer the USB from desktop to speaker much more than Bluetooth for sure. 
 

Travis

[Zen Traveler]

On 2/18/2024 at 3:34 PM, Iteachstem said:

When balancing the SPL's, the RF-3's needed a slight level increase, which tracks given the stated 98db v. the 99db of the RF-5's.

Ha! I did an in-store comparison using an SPL meter to level-match them when I was using the former as surrounds with RF-7s up front. I couldn't tell them apart so I stuck with the 3s until I found a second pair of RB-75s to use as surrounds and back speakers in a 7.1 (2) configuration. 😊