pinipig523 Posted September 19, 2003 Share Posted September 19, 2003 well actually this question covers all of klipsch's present speakers (reference and synergy series). how come they arent 3-way? why dont they incorporate a sole horn-loaded midrange 5" driver into each of their speakers (or atleast the rf-7)? is the present 2-way design optimal? or would there be an improvement (discernable) with the included midrange driver? any thoughts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ou8thisSN Posted September 19, 2003 Share Posted September 19, 2003 who cares how many "ways" it is, it sounds good enough to me. I always figured that the two big drivers were for midrange and you'd need to get a sub for the really low stuff. The RF7s I have dont hit real deep, but have excellent mid and upper range. Its fun to watch those huge woofers wobble when it has to reprodce LFE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
picky Posted September 19, 2003 Share Posted September 19, 2003 Hi, Pinipig: I'm afraid that I cannot tell you "why" they don't have midrange drivers in the Klipsch reference and synergy series speakers, but I CAN tell you this: I own a new pair of RF-7's, an old pair of Polk SRS/SDA Towers, and a VERY old pair of ADS L-810's. Both the Klipsch and Polk are considered to be two-way systems. The Polk's actually have a non-powered, 12 inch bass radiator that they like to refer to as being 2-1/2 way, but I disagree. The ADS are true three-way speakers. With that said, I used to be in love with the sound of three-way, domed mid-range and dome tweeter equipped speakers! I hated horns and two-ways because I did not think they did an accurate job in the mid-range region. I bought ADS's in 1976 and they were awesome. They had incredibly accurate and crisp mids and highs coming from their domes. But, being mid-sized speakers, they could not handle the power I wanted to throw through them. I liked my music much louder when I was a young man (most do). I bought the Polks about 12 years ago becuase they could take 600 watts, and ever since I have felt that, although they have an excellent overall sound, they compromise the mid-range, greatly! NOW: Enter Klipsch reference series. I listened to 10 different brand systems last fall. Everything from BMW-to-Martin Logan-to-Klipsch-to-Meridian (which I cannot afford). Continued below: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
picky Posted September 19, 2003 Share Posted September 19, 2003 Continued: Some were two-way and some were three-way. The Klipsch were the only horns. Out of all of those systems, my wife and I both agreed immediately: The Klipsch were the only no-compromise speakers we'd heard, regardless of whether it was a CD or a DVD we were listening to. The Klipsch reference series to me, sound excellent, and I do not detect anything missing from the midrange on the recordings that I am intimately familiar with, such as 'Crazy On You' by Heart and others. It is my opinion that the RF's, regardless of the model (3, 5, 7, etc), sound crisp and accurate in all ranges. I do not seem to miss the midrange driver. However, you hearing is different from mine and perhaps your ears require more mid-range definition than mine? It's a hard comparison to make. Good luck! -Picky Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
texas42 Posted September 19, 2003 Share Posted September 19, 2003 Picky, Hmm....Polk SDA/SRS? I used to drool over those 10-15 years ago but never have the opportunity to buy a pair. I know they are somewhat 'gimmicky' but always enjoyed the way the sounded. If you ever decide to get rid of them, let me know.... As far as the RF-7s, they do sound very articulate in the midrange, but not as 'open' as the older Klipsch Heritage series, in my opinion. Regards, Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arthurs Posted September 19, 2003 Share Posted September 19, 2003 Hey Dave, where in Texas? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
texas42 Posted September 19, 2003 Share Posted September 19, 2003 I'm down here in a little town called San Antonio... Regards, Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arthurs Posted September 19, 2003 Share Posted September 19, 2003 Dallas here.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m00n Posted September 19, 2003 Share Posted September 19, 2003 I asked this same question. I was told it's because most people prefer 2-way speakers over 3 way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prodj101 Posted September 19, 2003 Share Posted September 19, 2003 much of it has to do with the fact that it is much cheaper to design/produce a high end 2 way crossover than it is a 3 way. 3 ways become fairly more complicated, and hard to develope well. a poor quality 3 way sounds bad, and the different ranges suffer due to quality issues. many people find that 2 ways have a more full, smooth, and even sound because of this than 3 ways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prodj101 Posted September 19, 2003 Share Posted September 19, 2003 ---------------- On 9/19/2003 4:51:43 PM texas42 wrote: Picky, Hmm....Polk SDA/SRS? I used to drool over those 10-15 years ago but never have the opportunity to buy a pair. I know they are somewhat 'gimmicky' but always enjoyed the way the sounded. If you ever decide to get rid of them, let me know.... As far as the RF-7s, they do sound very articulate in the midrange, but not as 'open' as the older Klipsch Heritage series, in my opinion. Regards, Dave ---------------- I think the reason for them not sounding as open is because they physically can't. using 10 inch woofers in a 2 way set up is a bad idea in my opinion, and to most other designers it's a no-no. the 10 inchers are too big to move fast enough to accurately reproduce the mids, so they must be crossed over lower, and the horn has to handle more of the lowermidrange work than it normally would. this does not have a good effect on the midrange in most cases. now I am not bashing the RF-7's, just sayin stuff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
picky Posted September 22, 2003 Share Posted September 22, 2003 Correct, both Proj101 and Texas42! Just as I'd mentioned: We each hear sounds differently. And as I have aged (I am now 51) I have noticed a slight changes in my hearing, even though I can still hear very high-end sounds, the amount I hear of them has appartently been somewhat diminished. I do still pass hearing tests with flying colors, however. Perhaps, I am now less sensitive to this two-way Vs three-way phenomenon and the airyness that some of you say you miss? Although, getting old really sucks, age usually tends to bring one benefit with it for most of us: more money to buy better toys!!!! I'm not trying to say that RF-7s are going to be the best solution for everyone. That would be imposible and improbable. But, I do know they fit the bill for me and the wife! Also, I owe Texas42 an enormous appology: I mis-stated the model number of my living room Polk Speakers. These are NOT the huge towers (SDA-SRS) that some of us lusted over some 12 to 15 years ago. These towers are the smaller SDA-2's (I believe). They have a 1" dome tweeter, 2- 6" woofers and a 12" passive radiator. I use them in conjunction with a 10" powered Polk subwoofer, and a rather large, Polk center channel speaker. A thousand pardons, Tex! -Picky Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmac Posted October 17, 2003 Share Posted October 17, 2003 I just bought a pair of RF 7's two weeks ago. I moved my Polk SDA's to the Rear (side) as the foundation for a home theater system. I am amazed by the prodigious amount of clean base that the RF 7 and Polk produce together. It seems a shame to put the SDA's as a surround, but my hearing has really gone bad in the high end as I have aged and the RF 7 does much better with the high frequencies for me. I could sell the Polks, but around here I would practically have to give them away. They do sound different with the pink noise generated from the speaker loudness control generated from the Denon 1804 but you never hear that difference during a movie. They actually do a fantastic job together, although one would probably never match those two on purpose. The wonderful part of the whole thing is that I went to the dealer just to buy the Receiver and my wife was pleased with sound coming from the Klipsh they had playing and called my attention to it. I had no intention of buying speakers, but my wife suggested maybe we should. What a gal, huh? When I was younger I always thought that klipsch were too bright and too big for any house I would live in. Well, times change, speakers change people change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilMays Posted October 20, 2003 Share Posted October 20, 2003 I have a pair of KLF-20's that are 3-way, and a pair of RF-7's that are 2-way. While the 20's seem to be more "full ranging" in the mid's the 7's seem more "open" and deeper with a overall better sound stage. I prefer the 2-way design of Klipsch to their 3-way design. I cannot beilive someone thinks the 7's do not have bass punch. I too questioned them at first which is why I purched the KLF-20's over the RF-7's in the begining. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEAR Posted October 20, 2003 Share Posted October 20, 2003 "I cannot beilive someone thinks the 7's do not have bass punch." LOL Anyone who claims RF7's is lacking punch and bass are deaf clowns and deserve to own B0$e. Those who whine about RF7's lack of punch and bass should stop using their garbage can,poorly built with cheap parts receivers and get real audiophile gear.Like a Bryston,SimAudio MOON or Krell amp.Then they would stop whining about lack of punch and bass. I dare anyone with a real serious amp to say RF7's lack punch. I owned and own many power amps and receivers and no receiver can match a good solid power amp.And those who think like some Mono Review jokers all amps sound the same...BS. Utter BS cubed. Take even a Pioneer TX49 or Denon 5800 and compare them to a large Bryston or Krell driving the same speakers thru the TX49 or 5800 preamp,you see(hear).If you dont...time to shop for new hearing aids. Still in doubt? Get B0$e and stop pretending to be audiophiles,real audiophiles can hear and pinpoint these changes easy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fish Posted October 20, 2003 Share Posted October 20, 2003 Increase dosage indeed Yep,2 way done right at the price of the 7's is about all you can ask for.Ear covered the rest in his rant,they run on little power,the blast off with real power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BobG Posted October 21, 2003 Share Posted October 21, 2003 Price plays an important role as well. The drivers used in the RF-7 are pretty costly stuff. You can take a look at my post of pictures of the compression driver in another thread. That beast costs about 5 times what drivers used in similarly priced models cost. The woofers too are quite expensive. Adding both the more complex network and another driver/horn would increase the price of the speaker considerably. Would it be worth the added cost? Well, we could make it sound "different" but not necessarily "better". The post above about 10" woofers not moving "fast enough to reproduce mids" is a widely held myth and untrue. What is true is that larger drivers will have less dispersion at their upper frequency limits than smaller drivers will, but that is precisely our intent. Where other design philosophies work to maximize dispersion, the Klipsch approach is to limit dispersion to about 90 degrees in the horizontal plane. We do this with the horn on the high freqency driver and by careful selection of driver size, design and network design for the low frequency drivers. We feel that extremely broad dispersion is a problem in most domestic installations where reflection off nearby walls is common. Also, energy directed at places other than the listening area is not available for dynamic impact. If cost were no object, and we could make a two-way design perform to our expectation, we would not choose to make a three way. In fact, were it possible to achieve all design goals, we would certainly prefer a one-way design for its many benefits. Unfortunately, the tradeoffs have always been too great for us to do this. There are one-way designs that are successful within limits. Lowther driver based designs and some full range electrostatics are the most common examples though comparatively rare. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.