RF-7 vs RS-7 as surrounds

[mtber101]

If i go with RF-7's all the way around (main, center, surrounds) would i miss anything that the RS-7's can give me? System would be used for both movies and music. What would i miss and what would i gain?

thanks for your time

[TheEAR]

Get dual RF7's for the back(I did)and you will have near full range all around not even taking into account the sub(s).

Dont cut on sourrounds,I use two RF7's as mains,two as sourrounds.nly my center is a smallish RC7.

My deep bass is assured by three RSW(10,12 and 15)plus four Sunfire subs.

All in all a system capable of playing clean at near apocaliptic levels(above 120dB)

I power my front RF7's and RC7 with the ATI 2505,and the rear sourrounds(two RF7's as back sourrounds and a pair of RF5's as side sourrounds)with the ATI 1505.

No complaints,in a room 10 feet wide by 14 feet long and six foot high(the above section holds my PC's and more audio)

[mtber101]

thanks Ear

I was also thinking about using RF-7's as side surrounds...giving me a grand total of 7 RF-7's. As for subs it would be kinda nice to keep it all klipsch but i've been thinking about svs woofers. For the price of two SVS SS i could have 3 rsw 15's. What would you recommend?

[m00n]

Damn ear, that's even small than my room.

[Dylanl]

I have the SVS PCI PLus I think you will love it for movies. Multiple subs would be amazing.

[pinipig523]

ummmm... only six feet high? how do u fit in there.... that is definitely a small room.

with towers like the rf-7 for surrounds, you get more of a directional sound, especially if you have multiple seating positions. however, you do get much better music playback since front and rear are the same... but you lose out in movies.

another thing, with 4 rf-7s, you do get better bass output and thus, a much fuller sound... but the "non-directional" ambient effects are lost out which is why the rs7 is better for movie directionality special effects.

[mtber101]

What do you guys think the best setup would be for 7.1....

RF-7's Front and rear left/ rights

RC-7 as the center

RS-7's for the middle surrounds

NOt limiting to this number of speakers (7)...what about an rs7 on top of my rf7 for the rears sounds...getting good punch from the rf7 and then the rs7's would fill. Or something like that. Or doing that all round? can it even be done? How would i run the extra 7 speakers to the receiver? thanks again guys

[IndyKlipschFan]

Good posts and ideas too. All things being equal... (And yes I know not a possible in a non perfect home theater at home world).

If your so lucky to do so, all speakers... front and surrounds would be the same. A few years ago this would have been overkill. Dolby pro logic did not send the full spectrum of sound to the surrounds. Then we further developed ways to get discrete separate audio exactly where we wanted it to go. (IE a rear right speaker as the door not only opens behind you but feels like it is perhaps right close 4 feet or so behind you too...on the right as the spook comes in...BOOOOO). LOL.. We discovered the benefits of having clean channles too. Later concerts and better sound music and voice and effects make this essential today. Dolby Digital DTS etc., etc.

First a little background, if this helps...

The upper end, the "Timbre" of a speaker is even more noticable. In the Reference series, where people #1 do not have the cash, nor #2 want the "bigness" of a full RF-7 in the rears, Klipsch created a version to be hung behind you that will compliment the fronts as close as possible. The center is also done this way. Again the same drivers usually for the highs and mids when applicible.

Hope this helps.. Klipsch out....

[marksdad]

sorry, but some of the answers i have read here sound more like advertising than experience, i have had both (similar) systems, and i know for an experienced fact that the full range speakers in the system will completly outshine any limited range di or bi pole speaker, you do not give up ambience or anything, but you do gain FULL RANGE from all sides, there are alot of freqs that go unheard when using the rs series in 5-6-7.1, unless room is at issue, go full range

[Epic Premiere Legend]

There may be some here who disagree, but if you are mostly into movies only, and don't ever really see yourself into ever starting to get into multi channel hi-rez music formats (SACD and/or DVD Audio, of which both may ultimately fail yet just as Beta, DAT, DCC, mini discs, etc.), then there's really no need for a direct radiating monopole rear speaker set such as the 7s or 5s. In theory anyway, if you have side dipoles and rear bipoles, you are covered with a virtually seamless 360 degree surround field, so I would assume the same would apply to Klipsch's wide dispersion.

Go to hometheatermag.com as there is an article about a test they did with a panel of 4 or 5 people about this very subject. You can do a search and find it in the archives under "Surround speaker wars". In short, the majority of the panel like bipole/dipoles at both side and rear positions, and if a monopole (or direct radiator) has to be used, put them on the sides. That having either one or two monopole direct radiating speakers in the rear was the least favorable option of the panel out of the four possibilities of combinations (direct sides/dipole rears, all monopoles, all dipoles, or dipole side/monopole rear).

Here is exactly what the four people in the panel said (notice how 4 out of 4 picked rear dipole/bipoles.

Face Off: Surround-Speaker-Configuration Wars: Page 6

What Do You Think?

I've always been big on clear, distinct, directional sound. I want to hear exactly where sounds are coming from. Once the terms monopole and dipole were explained to me, I assumed that monopole speakers were for methey shoot the sound right at you, so you can hear where it's coming from. This is why I was so surprised with the results of this blind test. I consistently preferred configurations that included dipole speakers. Ultimately, I preferred the all-dipole configuration; however, having at least one set of dipoles (either on the sides or in the back) still filled in the gaps and made me feel like I was a part of the action.

When it came down to picking between one surround back speaker or two, I definitely preferred two. I still want distinct, directional sound, though. With the rear monopoles, sounds that I thought should be directly behind me often seemed to come from one side. I was pleasantly surprised to find that using dipole speakers in the rear eliminated this problem.

Of course, the sound is also affected by the listener's location. I happened to be sitting in the exact middle of the room, and the room was a perfect rectangle with no open doorways or windows. (These people at HT take their listening seriously.) From this location, I definitely preferred all dipoles with a dual-rear-speaker configuration. However, I also thought the sound was good with monopoles on the sides, as long as dual dipoles were used in the rear.Brandon Dahl

I showed up at the studio on a sunny Saturday afternoon, ready to sacrifice my day to the cause of better sound. After eating a Carl's Jr. Superstar and fries (Mike's bribe to get us there), I was ready to sit back and let my ears do the work. We compared the common 5.1 speaker setup with 6.1- and 7.1-channel configurations and then compared both dipole and monopole versions of those arrangements.

Unlike the other listeners, I liked having just one speaker for the back channel, although I did like the sound of the dipole more than that of the monopole. With two speakers in the back, there was almost too much going on. Sound seemed to bounce around. In a room larger than the one I was digesting in (which was 21 feet by 15 feet), two speakers may be necessary. But in a room the size of HT's listening room (or smaller), one speaker was just fine. With one dipole, I thought the sound was clearer, but not to the point of being distractingly obvious. It seemed to add a more even flow when sounds traveled from the right surround speaker to the left. I'd say that you can't really go wrong either way. Two surround back speakers are better than none, but, in my opinion, one was simply more satisfying.John Martorano

Apparently, we didn't have any die-hard Quadraphonic fans on our listening panel. Whenever I espouse the benefits of dipole speakers for surround sound, I'm usually yelled at by some older (or, shall I say, more chronologically experienced) gentleman who says that Quad was the best. These folks always insist, sometimes violently, that surround systems should, like old Quad systems, consist of five identical full-range loudspeakers. These people seem to forget that five full-range speakers are impractical for the vast majority of users and that Quad was, like 8-track, a colossal failure.

That being said and having witnessed the outcome of our direct-versus-diffuse, single-versus-dual Surround EX speaker configuration Face Off (by far the most wordy Face Off title ever), I can continue to recommend dipole speakers for the majority of installations. Sure, for the handful of action movies that utilize discrete effects for a small portion of the film, monopole speakers might be better. However, to me, the benefits these speakers may add to those scenes don't outweigh the distractions they cause with other, more-ambient sounds. Dipoles, on the other hand, only soften the more-discrete effects while enhancing the majority of diffuse sounds. Besides, since the people who like the bizarre or, as Jason put it, "creative" mixing of some 5.1 music CDs are likely the same people who liked Quad stereos, I don't care if they complain. They were going to anyway, assuming they even made it past the first paragraph. For the rest of us, dipoles will offer enveloping sound that won't distract from the action onscreen. Mike Wood

Of the various surround setups we listened to, I preferred the dual rear Surround EX speakers, as opposed to the single one. I liked the fuller, more-enveloping sound. Even though the EX channel is a decoded mono channel, the two rear speakers seemed to create a rear stereo effect.

In the dual-rear-surround speaker configuration, I preferred monopole side surrounds with dual dipoles in back. This seemed to offer the best of both worlds on software that has discretely placed surround information and software that has diffused ambient surround sounds. However, the all-dipole surround system came in a very close second and seemed to do almost as good on making the discrete/localized information just as aggressive and exciting. More tests with other EX software might be helpful.

I preferred monopoles for the multichannel music software that was "creatively" mixed with a different instrument in each channel and dipoles for the traditional "ambient/audience/ reverb" surrounds.

All things considered, I'd go with the monopole side surrounds and dual dipole back surrounds, as this setup offers more flexibility. And, if you can switch your speakers like the M&Ks, all the better.Jason Koehler

[mtber101]

Thanks for all the info guys!

bipole/dipoles? Real fast...what is the difference?

[T2K]

Overkill. They are full range, if you have your receiver/processer set up correctly. Sub...remember? People are fooled by volume.

Keith

PS> Good article EPL.