Yooo hooo....Mr. Moderator(s)....question about RF5/7's

[Tom Adams]

In recent posts, our friendly moderators have given us their ear-pinions about the sound of the new Reference series speakers. However, I've noticed that whenever these new speakers are talked about, the only one mentioned is the RF-7. Can I ask for some insight into the RF-5's as well? More specifically, what would one notice if they a/b'd the RF-3 against the RF-5?

Tom Adams

[Guest JimG]

I'll jump in here. I wasn't really prepared for how big of a difference there was between the two. I knew it was more than the specs suggested, but WOW! The 5 has much better bass than the 3. Lower, more articulate. The highs are much smoother. Much more definition and way better imaging. The sound comes from way out of the box, as opposed to coming from the box like on the 3. The 3 has a big 'ol lump in its midrange that got bigger in production than it was in the prototypes. I didn't realize how big it was until I heard it A/B'd against the 5. The 5 just plain sounds good.

As an aside here, the 5 is more forgiving to recordings than the 7's. That compression driver tweeter in the 7 is super-revealing. When you really push them hard though, I mean to like way stupid levels, the 5's 1" tweeter gives out and starts to compress, whereas the giant tweeter in the 7 just keeps on singin'! The 7's can make your eyes blurry without hardly breaking a sweat.

Back to 3 vs. 5, sound quality differences aside, the 5 is just way sexier than the 3. The 5's here were in Maple. Seeing them next to the 3's was stunning.

Overall, I'm not saying 3's sound bad - heck that's what I have at home. In comparison, the 5 is just simply a better sounding speaker and tons better looking in one of the wood finishes (Maple or Cherry). The three towers, while all sounding alike and from the same family, each have their own characteristics. You know what 3's sound like. 5's are much more refined visually and sonically - more like a high-end speaker, but one that we would build. The 7 is the refined 5's Klipsch sound on steroids with a high-end so revealing that you'll want to listen to all your recordings again to see what you have been missing. I may personally very likely end up with 5's. I liked them that much. The 7 would be overkill in my room. However, I'll still take the RSW-15 as the sub regardless.

Anyways, that's my $.02. I'm sure Bob and Phil will weigh in here too.

Jim

[RWMIN]

You guys really seem impressed with this new line. I was just wondering, how do you think they stack up to the heritage line? Or should I say, how do you think the heritage line compares to them?

This message has been edited by RWMIN on 06-01-2001 at 08:31 PM

[jdm56]

Yeah, yeah, what RWMIN said - What's the concensus from you guys at HQ? Does the RF7 sound better than the Heritage speakers? Be honest. Pull no punches. Let's assume a well set up pair of klipschorns against an equally well tweaked pair of RF7s w/ a RSW15 sub. Which would YOU rather own, if price and size is of no concern? To heck with the WAF.

I do have a reason for asking beyond just curiosity; IF YA'LL DON'T START BUILDIN' BELLES AGAIN AND I CAN'T FIND A GOOD USED ONE, I MAY BE FORCED TO SELL MY K'HORNS AND PUT TOGETHER A KINDER, GENTLER (read: cheaper) MULTI-CHANNEL RIG!!! Of course, my advanced state of poverty may have some impact on this dire situation.

AS always, inquiring minds want to know...

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

JDMcCall

[WMcD]

Tom was really great with the Yooo Hoo. Funny.

It seems like we're getting into deep water with the new, versus old run off.

Perhaps this can be a contest at an Indy convention match up. Ha, Indy engineering versus Hope engineering.

I'll bet on the big old corner horns.

Regards,

Gil

[Tom Adams]

I was hoping by now that a couple of other Moderators would've lent their ear-pinions cause I'm very interested in how the RF5's stack up to the RF3's.

As for the RF versus Heritage debate...hey, start your own thread. Thissun's mine. ;-)

Seriously though, it would be a rather interesting listen to how a Khorn would fair against an RF7. IMHO, even if the Khorn bested the RF7 (I'd be willing to bet only slightly), the RF7 makes up for that in being a more flexible speaker. I mean, not every home has perfect corners for Khorns. Having said that, does this mean that I've substantiated an apples & oranges thing??

Anyhow, for the Moderators that are moderating, I just want you to know that I was so not ready to hear JimG's comments. I mean, I was all convinced that RF3's would do just fine in my HT. But noooooo, now this RF5 comes along and threatens to further body slam my wallet. Damn you JimG.

<mucho big grin>

Seriously though, I'm looking forward to hearing the RF5's side-by-side with the RF3's. Thanks for the input.

Tom Adams

[Prana-Bindu]

While we're at it, let's get some info on just how stable the impedence is on the 5's and the 7's. I've asked this before, but to deaf ears.

I apologize for bogarting on this thread.

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

May the bridges we burn light our way....

[PhilH]

I think JimG hit all the same feelings I have as I listened to both the RF-5's and RF-7's. The only thing I can add is that I still can't get over the tightness of the overall bass and the excellent balance between the mid and low bass on the 7's. After about 1/2 hour of listening by both Jim and I he made the statement "this is the first speaker I can remember I have enjoyed without a subwoofer". Of course, the addition of the RSW-15 a couple days later and a demo of U-571 kind of de-emphasized that feeling as ceiling tiles halfway down the building were shaking.

As far as RF-7 vs. the K-Horn? Don't know and don't want to speculate. I think the issue will more be the difference between the K-horn and the Jubilee when it arrives (no, we don't know yet when that will be). Hopefully, we'll all be able to make that comparison in the near future and form our own opinions.

Tom, those RF-3's still kick anything in their price range and are still loved by all who listened. The new stuff is just the next logical step up...if you want to/are able to spend more, it's definitely worth it!

PhilH

[USparc]

Hi Tom,

about RF-3 RF-5 thing. I have not the chance to hear the RF-5 (but soon !!!), but just from a logical view:

1) No big difference in size, just a bit higher an

less deaper.

2) The same and I mean just the same woofers :Two K-

1083-SB 8" . So much better bass like jimG stated

???? most unlikely. Don't need a sub with my four

RF-3's.

3) The crossover is even higher: RF-3 1975 while RF-5

2500. So there goes the midrange of the RF-5.

The woofers in the RF-5 need to cover even more

of the midrange(about 500Hz-6000Hz)and they are the

same as the RF-3's ??? So if there is midrange

missing in the RF-3's (I don't think so) so will

there in the RF-5's.

4) Ok, a new compression driver and bigger horn.

The highs can be better.

It seems that jimG is more talking about the RF-7's

So jimG are you really talking about the RF-5 or are you so stunished by the RF-7 that you can't stop thinking about them??????

Ok this just from a construction point of view. May be

I should first go listen and I will !!!

Nice try, but I won't give up my RF-3's that easily .

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

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

Receiver: Onkyo 676

DVD: Pioneer DV-525

Screen: Thomson 46" RetroProjection

Front: RF-3's

Rear: RF-3's

Center: RC-3

[RogerG]

The RF-5 appears to be actually smaller than the RF-3. RF-3=5613.3 cu. in. RF-5=5415.7 cu. in. (LxWxH) Do I have too much time on my hands today or what!