Cornwalls v RF-7's?

[bosskag]

Seriously...I have '81 Cornwall I's and totally love them but I'm looking at moving before long and space will be a problem. How would you compare them to the RF-7's as far as sound?

TIA....bosskag

[mobile homeless]

Cant wait for this answer... heh

Best thing for you to do? Go listen to some RF-7 with material you're familiar with. It's best if you can arrange a home audition with your own gear in your own room. Second best is to arrange an after hours audition at the shop. AT the least, try to kick every drone out of the room and at least hear them before reading too much to cloud the brain, one way or another. Pay attention to associated gear and setup. At least you have the easier task of finding the RF-7 to audition instead of out of print vintage Cornwalls.

Bring all the varieties/genres of music you listen to and listen at various levels (bring music you love - good recordings/bad recordings - material to sample the full spectrum). Opinions here will be interesting but ultimately it's your ears, experience, taste that matters. Go give the beasts a listen to find where YOU fit into the picture.

kh

[marksdad]

i have done what mobile suggested, and although the rf 7 is an outstanding speak, i found the corn to be a more refined sound, as well as a more open presentation, and of course the cornwall bass section just cant be beat, in some forms of music i prefer the corn even to my cornerhorns

[kjohnsonhp]

Don't read any replys and do a few auditions as Kelly advises and let us know. I think it would be very interesting to get your opinion as a Cornwall owner.

If you read something about the RF7 then you will probably start "seeing the PINK ELEPHANT" as written.

I think many shoppers rule out Klipsch in general because of all the Klipsch bashers on the other forums. The more you read how they are "bright, harsh, fatiguing, colored" the more some will shy away. Of course I got that painful sound with an old DVD player and a 1980's Hitachi receiver but the sound is different with my tube gear.

[pierceb]

Don't see many opinions on this subject yet (I'm sure there has been much discussion in the past). Must be due to Isabel.

I agree with kh and KJ that you should listen to the 7's before reading too many opinions, and let your ears decide. I'm very interested in your review.

I have a pair of 1975 CDBR's and RF-7's. The problem is I only have a Denon 3802 for amplification, so I think most of you can guess which speakers sound better with my measly setup. I think it all depends on what you are driving the Cornwalls with.

My corns are now in storage waiting until I can afford to give them some TLC and tube amplication.

-PB

[Deang]

"...I only have a Denon 3802 for amplification, so I think most of you can guess which speakers sound better with my measly setup..."

Of course, you believe that increasing the quality of your amplification will push the Cornwalls past the RF-7's in listenability. Yet, you haven't considered what happens when you apply the same logic to the RF-7's.

[leok]

Kelly,

Good to hear you so soon .. that means you're not under water and/or sand.

RF-7s are a terrific 2-way. Ultra-clean high end (no tweeter crossover) and if in a corner, they go very low (maybe not lower than Cornwall. I have Chorus-II, not Cornwall, and I think the three-way approach, with a mid covering most of the spectrum where hearing is most sensitive, is valid and effective. I think the lower mids of the the Chorus-II (good for piano and cello) keep better dynamic pace with the rest of the speaker than is the case with the RF-7.

Both need a very good amp (tube probably). Be fair to the RF-7 and don't use ss on it and tube with the Cornwall for comparison.

leok

[Audio Flynn]

FOR NEWBIES;

HT amplification has limitations in making Klipch speakers sound optimum for 2 channel critial listening.

Although LEOK is only a "freak" and not a hard rock guy he knows his stuff.

I own one of his design PWM amps that pleasantly surprises and confuses most tubies with the quality.

NOS VALVES remains shocked.

I like the RF-7; but i can hear the crossover point with some music.

I have the Chorus II and will never part with them.

Were the Chorus II and the Cornwall made at the same time I do not remember?

[JLL]

What do u mean u hear the crossover??

[Craig6519]

Not trying to offened but why did klipsch move away from the 3 way speaker to the new and improved 2 way speakers? Makes no sense to me. If the tweet and mid range aren't horns then it's not a true klipsch to me. Again I'm not trying to start a war here.

Craig

[pierceb]

Dean/leok,

I totally agree with you that the RF-7's deserve a fair comparison. Whatever I try with the Cornwalls, will be tried with the RF-7's. I really enjoy the 7's, and I don't think they will ever be going anywhere. This thread just sparked a bit of interest with me, as I have both speakers, and am very interested in different opinions on them. I purchased the Cornwalls because I was hoping that they would have more midrange presence than the 7's have (which they do IMO), but the highs were way to harsh using my 3802. So much so, that I can't listen to them with my current setup.

I don't have much time to spend around the forum, so I don't post much. I always wanted to start a thread on this topic, but figured I didn't have enough time to adequately be part of the discussion.

-PB

[leok]

Craig6519,

Klipsch has always been working (Paul himself) on 2-ways. The tweeter is, in a way, a compromise in that they just couldn't get a single horn to exend from just under 1KHz to 20KHz. The Jubilee is a 2-way with horn loaded lower mid/bass (do Ihave that right?). I prefer the top end of the RF-7 to the 3-ways, but I miss the lower mid dynamics. I would be interested in a three way that had a lower horn from 200Hz to 2KHz, then the RF-7 top end, with something like a passive radiator system on the bottom. I believe 2-ways have a valid position in the Klipsch lineup and I really enjoy my RF-7s.

leok

[TBrennan]

Craig---Many agree with you that the RFs aren't "true" Klipsches. They certainly aren't the kind of speaker that ole PWK would have approved of.

The only sensible reason to have eliminated the dedicated midrange horns was to save money, there's no good reason to have done so from a performence standpoint.

[TBrennan]

Leok---As you may know 2-way horns are as old as the hills, witness all the 2-ways that were made by Altec, JBL, WE and RCA. The beef with the RFs is the way they're doing the 2-way. Instead of crossing in the 500-800hz range and optimizing midrange reproduction they're crossing at 2000hz and optimizing, well I don't know what they're optimizing except a smaller box and lower cost.

They may be optimizing highs, using a compresion driver with a lighter diaphragm that can go high but not low, but I personally wouldn't trade mids for highs. And the RF tweeter probably has EQ to reach 20khz, as long as we're EQing why not EQ a conventional compression driver and get both 800hz AND 20khz from it?

[leok]

TBrennan

Why not eq a horn that starts just under 1KHz? I don't know. Sounds like a good idea to me if it would really work, but that may just be too much extension for a single driver. Anyway, I do like a single driver starting at 20KHz and going as low as possible, and like the clean high end of the RF-7s. I wish I could hear one of the larger Epic speakers, which were very similar except for the D'Appolitto (sp?) lower cones.

Yes, there is a tradeoff in loosing lower mid dynamics. But the three-ways are a tradeoff in scrambling the top end. Maybe a lot of people don't care so much about that, but in some cases I do, and it's nice to have a 2-way when a real clean high end is important.

leok