rmgvs Posted November 15, 2003 Share Posted November 15, 2003 I am a long-term owner of the SF-1 and just recently bought the RF3II. I am not yet convinced that the RF3 is superior to the SF-1. It has only 50 hours of playing and will be bettered, I guess, after more burning in. For now I find the bass of the RF3 more boxy and the highs more recessed, less airy. Because there is more mid-bass, the RF-3 sounds more heavy, somewhat more syrupy. Has somebody looked at the schematics of the cross-over of the RF-3? Would it be possible to give the tweeter 1 dB more output (in most cases this can be done by changing 2 resistors). Any help or comments or suggestions? Would be welcome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmgvs Posted December 5, 2003 Author Share Posted December 5, 2003 I discovered the problem is solved after about 70-90 hours of playing. The burn-in time therefore is important with this speaker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itsmyforte Posted December 5, 2003 Share Posted December 5, 2003 um, how could you even compare an SF-1 to an RF-3? the RF-3 is leaps and bounds a much better speaker than the sf-1. i think you should see an ear doctor soon! j/k whatever sounds good to you is all that matters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DiEGO10 -aRG- Posted December 5, 2003 Share Posted December 5, 2003 So you mean that the RF3II should be used about 100 hours in order to... listen another sound than the original at the buy time? (Sorry don't know if you would understand my english ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fabulousfrankie Posted December 5, 2003 Share Posted December 5, 2003 ---------------- On 11/15/2003 7:18:01 AM rmgvs wrote: I am a long-term owner of the SF-1 and just recently bought the RF3II. I am not yet convinced that the RF3 is superior to the SF-1. It has only 50 hours of playing and will be bettered, I guess, after more burning in. For now I find the bass of the RF3 more boxy and the highs more recessed, less airy. Because there is more mid-bass, the RF-3 sounds more heavy, somewhat more syrupy. Has somebody looked at the schematics of the cross-over of the RF-3? Would it be possible to give the tweeter 1 dB more output (in most cases this can be done by changing 2 resistors). Any help or comments or suggestions? Would be welcome. ---------------- I did find a little break in was useful but it only very slightly changed the character of the speakers and toned down the brightness a tiny bit. It difference was so small it could have just been my ears getting used to new speakers. What I'm trying to get at is break in will not solve your problem. I'm very familiar with the SF-1's and the RF-3's and you should notice a great improvement in sound. Maybe you should try and flip the phase on one of them in case you accidentally wired them out of phase. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmgvs Posted December 6, 2003 Author Share Posted December 6, 2003 I am glad that a number of comments are here after the problem is solved. A number of comments from my side: 1. Everybody is entitled to have his own opinion. Please respect the fact that opinions do differ and do not try to dominate the discussion with ears that are not in order etc. 2. The SF1's are very very good speakers, I think a lot of people do not give them the credits they deserve because they are the bottom of the line of Klipsch. I listen to these speakers with the most expensive and calibrated tube-gear and hear differeces between caps, cables, resistors and what all. The soundstage is really astonishing.A lot of people claim that the tweeters are too bright, but I guess this is due to bad transistor amps before the tweeters. If I listend to the SF-1 via a normal grade Sony/Akai/Onkyo/Denon and what you have, the sounds is just so-so. 3. Yes, the RF3-II right out of the box is no comparison with SF-1 under these circumstances. I am not dealing with home-cinema but with normal 2 channel stereo and first class signal-input. The first week of my listening I really thought of reselling the RF3 if things did not change. 4. Now, after more than 100 hours of playing, the RF3's are still better than the SF-1. But the differences need not be exagerrated. The sound stage is more huge, the highs are slightly more refined and there is more of a full-mids sound (more bloom or whatever). The differences between the speakers when it needs to get really low is not the great (a few herzes, not a big deal). Resuming: both speakers are very special value for their money and a class in their own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DiEGO10 -aRG- Posted December 6, 2003 Share Posted December 6, 2003 Would you recomend me having a subwoofer with a pair of RF3? Thanks! DiEGO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmgvs Posted December 7, 2003 Author Share Posted December 7, 2003 In my situation I have plenty of bass and I do not need a subwoofer. I did never hear the combi with the sub however. Maybe other people can comment on this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DiEGO10 -aRG- Posted December 7, 2003 Share Posted December 7, 2003 Thanks man... will see what I do. Thanks again! 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.