belial Posted June 2, 2001 Share Posted June 2, 2001 I've been agonizing over whether to get the RF-3s. I know they sound great, but they are too damn big, and, I hate to say it, IMO kinda ugly. I've actually considered getting the SF-2 because they are smaller and better looking, even though they don't sound as good. But then I found out about the RB-5, and the real wood cherry veneer, and I thought my problems might be solved! So--please, I really want to know, how much of a drop in sound quality would I suffer going from the RF-3s to the RB-5? I already have the KSW-12 subwoofer, so I'm thinking that a drop in bass won't be a problem, but am I wrong? What else might I lose, sound quality wise? Please let me know what you all think ASAP as I can't wait to complete my HT/music setup and finally quit thinking about all this stuff long enough to actually enjoy some sounds! All input appreciated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DwK Posted June 2, 2001 Share Posted June 2, 2001 Thats a toughy. But for the most part the 2 are practicaly the same. The RB-5's are probobly what you want. Both have the same tweeter, and the same woofers. Just the RB-5's have 1 less woofer. With the RF-3's the Floor standing design helps with the Bass, which you said would be an acceptable loss since you have a 12 inch Sub. You may not have quite as strong mid rang sounds because there is only 1 woofer. You would have a more fuller sound with the RF-3's, but much sound quality shouldnt be lost. Also the Hi Cross over is lower on the RB-5's which seems to me ( I dont know alot about this ) would allow the Horn to produce more lower frequencies than the RF-3's, which in my opinion is a good thing, because I like the Klipsch Horn sound better than regular speakers. Thats my 2 cents, hope it was useful. Remember, these other guys probobly know more than I. ------------------ K6-2 450 SB Live Value ( not 5.1) Klipsch Pro Media v2 400 ( soon to be 4.1 ) 2 Fisher STV-873's on front channel 2 Fisher surrounds on rear channel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
belial Posted June 2, 2001 Author Share Posted June 2, 2001 That was very helpful, DwK - I sure appreciate it! Seems like I won't be losing much sound. Anyone else wish to add their two cents? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DwK Posted June 2, 2001 Share Posted June 2, 2001 Glad to be of help. But its interesting.. both the RB-5's and the RF-3's will cost you 800 bucks. Wouldnt it make since to have the Smaller, less powerful Bookshelf speakers, cost less than the Larger floor standing speakers? Heres what I am thinking, if the RB-5's and the RF-3's cost the same where ever you are buying them, heres what I would do. I would buy the RF-3's unless you simply cant afford to take up that much room, or you just cant stand the look of them. It only makes sence to me if they cost the same to grab the bigger more powerful speakers. ** It slipped my mind when I was making my first reply. Well, I hope that helps you some. ------------------ K6-2 450 SB Live Value ( not 5.1) Klipsch Pro Media v2 400 ( soon to be 4.1 ) 2 Fisher STV-873's on front channel 2 Fisher surrounds on rear channel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
belial Posted June 2, 2001 Author Share Posted June 2, 2001 From what I've read, the official Klipsch line is that they cost the same because the RB-5's have that real wood veneer, which the towers don't. I'd be willing to give up a "little" bit of sound quality - depends on how much - just to have the smaller size and nicer looks of the RB-5 ... As far as that $800 price tag, I could never afford that much, DwK. I buy online. You take a chance, but if you are reasonably sure of your online dealer, I believe it is well worth it--to the tune of several hundred dollars. Klipsch, like some other speaker makers (Paradigm for one) frown on this practice, but as far as I can tell I'm not breaking any laws, or doing anything unethical, by buying online, so I plan on continuing to do so. I couldn't afford to own Klipsch if I didn't! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DwK Posted June 2, 2001 Share Posted June 2, 2001 Makes since. Go with the lowest price, as long as you can get the product ofcorse, and a working one is always a nice bonus Question, is it Sense, or Since? Isnt sense the touch, the smell, seeing and what not? What difference does the REal wood Veneer make? Does it affect sound quality? or just look better? ------------------ K6-2 450 SB Live Value ( not 5.1) Klipsch Pro Media v2 400 ( soon to be 4.1 ) 2 Fisher STV-873's on front channel 2 Fisher surrounds on rear channel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
belial Posted June 2, 2001 Author Share Posted June 2, 2001 It's "sense". Yes, "sense" can refer to your senses, the ability to hear, smell, etc - but it can also mean the power of your mind to understand something. That's when it "makes sense." As far as I know, the real wood veneer simply looks better. But what a cabinent is made out of can affect the sound. This is just a thin wood veneer however, so it shouldn't make much if any difference--just in looks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RossVTaylor Posted June 2, 2001 Share Posted June 2, 2001 Belial, Don't think that, by getting the RB-5's, you'll be "giving up" any sound. They are phenominal little speakers! I've got a pair in black and I picked them because of their sound, and not because of the real wood veneer. They sound so nice, that I turned off the sub when I used them for music. And, with a sub, they're awesome little HT speakers. The only reason I'm not using them right now is that I've been on a Heritage kick after our little mecca to Hope a few months ago. They're sitting in a closet, because I can't bring myself to part with them - they're that good. I know I'll use them someday!! Do a search in these forums of "RB-5" and "magazine review" for some other posts. The RB-5 is a great speaker. Ross ------------------ "Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
belial Posted June 2, 2001 Author Share Posted June 2, 2001 Thanks, Ross! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete C Posted June 2, 2001 Share Posted June 2, 2001 The RF-5 seems to be an attempt to beautify the RF-3, and maybe improve the tweet at the same time. Still big floor-standers, tho. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USparc Posted June 3, 2001 Share Posted June 3, 2001 hi belial, First of all with the RB-5 you will not lose any sound quality. Even more, if your room is not that well sized it is even possible that the RB-5 would sound even better. Every speaker needs it's space to perform well. Bigger speakers like the RF-3's need more space than the RB-5's, but that can be in your advance. Place the RF-3 in a small room and it will get boomy.(at higher volume's). They have to be able to move a lot of air. I heard once the B&W nautilus 801 in a small appartment. What a waste of money I would say. Secondly, but that is my opinion. The RB-5 need to be placed on stands for serious listening and doing so they eventually take as much place as the RF-3's. So if your room isn 't that small( at least 6 by 4 meters(oh, 19 by 13 ft) ) you be better with the RF-3's. Unless you would mount the speakers to the wall. For HT you will need your sub if you would go with the RB-5's. Third about the looks. What is there wrong with the looks of the RF-3's ??? They are nice rock sollid looking speaker, specially with the grills removed. The Cerametallic woofer really shines off. The RF-5 and RF-7 are not better for that matter. For me even worse. The front layer is still in black????? (By the way, anybody knows what kind of material that is ???) But ok, just personal taste. I respect your opinions. ------------------ ------------------------- Receiver: Onkyo 676 DVD: Pioneer DV-525 Screen: Thomson 46" RetroProjection Front: RF-3's Rear: RF-3's Center: RC-3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
belial Posted June 3, 2001 Author Share Posted June 3, 2001 Thanks for your advice, Uspark! Even though I would have to put the RB-5s on stands, they would take up less "visual" space, if that makes sense--I plan on building my own stands, and I can stain them to match the home-built televison stand I already use, so I think that would look nicer than the RF-3's and their black vinyl cabinents ... Sorry to disagree with you, but I don't like the mix of a bright gold woofer against the black cabinent! I think it would look much better if it were all black .... That's why I would have to keep the grill on. I'm glad you like it though! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audio Flynn Posted June 4, 2001 Share Posted June 4, 2001 Expecting the RB5 route to be smaller room presence and lower cost is not the case. I have tried 3 different stand concepts and now use the Sanus steel 24 inch with 20 lbs of lead shot per stand to dampen vibration related distortion. I think the RF 3 would be more prone to "moving" at high volumes. A very subjective thought; but that is what I like about hifi. Some objectivity, but much more subjectivity; it keeps things lively! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
belial Posted June 5, 2001 Author Share Posted June 5, 2001 I'm not sure I understand, Audio Flynn. You write: "I think the RF 3 would be more prone to "moving" at high volumes." But from your description it sounds like the RB-3s are giving you trouble in that area, which is why you had to try those three different stands, am I correct? Or did I misunderstand what you meant? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audio Flynn Posted June 5, 2001 Share Posted June 5, 2001 Well... I am not much of an electronics geek but a roadie in high school and college 20 years ago; so I have opinions. We studied Klipsch speakers alot and decided marine grade birch plywood, screws, glue, 2x4 braces and a low center of gravity were our "tools" we implemented in trying to minimize cabinet ressonance. In my system I used a pair of old 28 inch MDF stands from Wood Technology; not bad but not a suitable complement for the RB-5. My shot filled Sanus stands are about 35-40 pounds now. I beleive the energy is transferred through the stands to the spikes in the floor very effectively. When I touch the stands at high volumes I feel very minimal vibration. By "moving" I mean vibration. The RF-3 has more "slam" but you have very little tweaking you could do minimize ressonance of the cabinet as you get used to the speaker over time. Tweaking is an addiction I spend alot of time on. With a tower there usually is not any "ballast" and the drivers being mounted high give it a high center of gravity. That is why I really like Lascallas(high effeciency, high mass, low center of gravity and horny) but my wife is slow to warm up to the idea of having a pair of "refridgerators" in the family room. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DwK Posted June 6, 2001 Share Posted June 6, 2001 Sorry Guys.. i've been at my dads.. But i'm back now And if you havent heard.. I broke my dads receiver and had to leave my Pro Medias over there for him to have something to listen to his music on. How big is your room belial ? Just so we know ------------------ K6-2 450 SB Live Value ( not 5.1) Klipsch Pro Media v2 400 ( soon to be 4.1 ) 2 Fisher STV-873's on front channel 2 Fisher surrounds on rear channel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
belial Posted June 7, 2001 Author Share Posted June 7, 2001 Welcome back, DwK I'd say my current living room is quite large. I know that isn't very helpful, but I haven't measured it yet. The thing is, this is kind of an unusual situation for me, renting a large house, and I'm not going to be here forever and my next place will no doubt be quite a bit smaller. Another reason I think those RB-5s will be better. Smaller, so eaiser to schlep around, and more flexible in terms of where I can put them. I've pretty much decided to go with them. Thanks to all of you for your input! Now my only question is, black finish, or cherry? I wish I could hear from someone who had the cherry--I want to know what it looks like, how deep the color is, etc ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USparc Posted June 7, 2001 Share Posted June 7, 2001 This one should give you a "really" good idea : http://www.klipsch.com/images/photogallery/reference/RB52-1.jpg ------------------ ------------------------- Receiver: Onkyo 676 DVD: Pioneer DV-525 Screen: Thomson 46" RetroProjection Front: RF-3's Rear: RF-3's Center: RC-3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
belial Posted June 8, 2001 Author Share Posted June 8, 2001 Hey thanks, Uspark. I actually looked at this already--for some reason I don't feel like I have a good idea of what these really look like from this photo--I wish I could see them from the side to know what that "cherry" finish really looks like. I think I'm just going to go with black. Thanks for trying to help me!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DwK Posted June 8, 2001 Share Posted June 8, 2001 Your welcome, I hope I was of some help. Remember, you HAVE to tell us what you think of your RB-5's when you get them. ------------------ K6-2 450 SB Live Value ( not 5.1) Klipsch Pro Media v2 400 ( soon to be 4.1 ) 2 Fisher STV-873's on front channel 2 Fisher surrounds on rear channel 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.