RF-7's

[JBP]

I had a couple of questions and was hoping to get some opinions or explanations.

How many watts are required to get good performance out of the RF-7's?

My other question has to do with the processor. If you have 7.1 how are the signals that are sent to the different speakers derived? In other words do the surround signals send enough information besides just ambient sound to justify using RF-7's for the surrounds?

I know that is not worded clearly but I hope I did a good enough job to kind of get my question across. Thanks in advance for the replies.

[batibot]

on top of my head.....200 watts will be enough but it doesn't need a lot of watts to get those woofers going....

You can ask a guy named "SKEPTIC" I think he knows about everything thats about klipsch speakers and more...

[cdsang]

Just to let you know, there is this one guy who used a 2 watt tube amp on RF-5s and never had to push it to its limit. But I may suggest maybe 80 real watts should give you more then you need but it should be there for dynamics.

CD

[MrMcGoo]

The RF-7 is rated by Klipsch to produce 102 decibels from a 2.83 volt input (1 watt) at 1 meter. This is very high sensitivity. Independent tests put the sensitivity at 99 decibels with the same input. Hence, a lot of power is not required. To raise the decibel level 3 db, it requires double the power! To double the perceived sound level, it takes an increase of ten decibels which takes ten times the power! (Decibels are a logarithmic measure.)

Klipsch rates the RF-7 as having a nominal impedance of 8 ohms, independent tests show 6 ohms. Six ohm speaker are harder to drive than 8 ohm speakers per Ohm's law.

If you listen at half a watt (very loud), transient peaks will come through the system that will routinely be 15 times higher than your average listening level. Hence, it is very important to have "headroom." It also helps to remember that a receiver must drive 5 or 7 speakers at the same time. It takes a lot of power to run a multi-channel system. Klipsch speaker sensitivity makes this a LOT easier.

RF-7s would make excellent surrounds for multi-channel music. They are excellent for movies as well, but not as useful for movies as music. Surrounds are not used that much in most movies. When they are used, it is nice to have exactly the same "voice" from all speakers.

Bill

[easylistener]

You need atleast 200-250 to see the real Potential of those speakers. I don't care what other people will say here and site all these charts and grapghs and all that good stuff, you need more than 100 watts. It will be fine with a good receiver if you are not into music over light listening level.

[PhilMays]

GOOD GOSH!!!!

200 - 250 watts???

I push my RF-7's with a 130 watt amp that never gets turned up past 3/4's. I don't know how many watts that is but it is enough to drive you out of the room. Keep in mind I love loud heavy music as one of my choices. I simply cannot fathom needing that many watts, or having a room big enough to be able to stand them with that many watts.

Perhaps I am missing the point...Are we talking that many watts split between all channels? 250/7=35.7 watts.

[toddvj]

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

On 12/31/2003 7:50:08 AM PhilMays wrote:

Perhaps I am missing the point...Are we talking that many watts split between all channels? 250/7=35.7 watts.

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

Yeah, that's the only reason I can think that you would need that much power.

[JBP]

Thanks for the replies.

If I where to purchase an Elite receiver could I get away with 100 watts per channel or would getting a 130 watt per channel make a large and noticeable difference?

I thought of another way to ask the second question. How do the signals sent to the two front mains compare with the surround signals in the amount of information, high and lows, variety of sounds received? In other words if I was to use four RF-7's for my surrounds are they going to recieve enough highs and especially lows to perform well, or would that just be over-kill?

I will only be using this set-up for movies, no music. I do not know if that makes a difference. Thanks for the help.

[stream]

Uhh, I'm running my 7's with a 35wpc integrated tube amp, and they absolutely scream at me at 1/4 volume. 50 to 100 watts of high-quality SS receiver power would be plenty.

-Jesse

[PhilMays]

100 watts will be plenty to push those 7's. Also I think that having 4 RF-7's would be over kill for movies as the steam of information being sent to the surrounds is greatly reduced from the mains. They would be great if you eventially added SACD or DVD-A into your system.

[easylistener]

The problem with the sevens are there highes are to defined. You guys haven't even touched those woofers yet with that little power. My father bought a pair (which he took back) but we listened the hell out of them. We tryed them with a denon 3300 and my 4802, they sounded ok but not stunning. Then we hooked them up to his audire 250wpc amp. What a differnce, the bass was kicken, no sub need with these. So tight and powerfull. Mind you we were sitting 10 feet away from them. When you crank them with lots of good clean power they equal out quit a bit, that is the highs match the lows. I wish more of you guys would go out and take a big good amp home and just try it because you will not take that amp back, it will sound that good.

7's all around would be great and not over kill. You need full range speakers all the way around to realy get some great sound. DO IT and you will never look back, you will have the best system around for movies including the movie thearters.

I am not bashing any of you, this is how I feel and I had proven this to a lot of people over the years. If you listen to music at the easylistening levels you will not hear the differnce between low power and high power amps. There are a couple of songs that everyone likes to crank and that is when big high quility power pays off.

[PhilMays]

easylistener,

It sounds like you had one hell of a setup!!!

I used to have klf-20's at the surround position but moved them to the second system in favor of RF-3II's. For movies I really couldn't tell a difference.

In my second system I have an outboard amp pushing 150 watts per channel (five channels). I may place it back on my main system and give it another shot.

I think I follow what you are saying. Just because you have a 250 watt amp doesn't mean you have to use it.

I know my 150 watt amp absolutely helped out the Onkyo TX DS 797 at 100watts per channel. It gives "tighter" responce. It simply did not help my Yammy 3300.

[BBB]

If I were to use RF-7 surrounds for listening to DVD soundtracks I would want ALL the power I could afford. Of course you dont NEED a lot of power to drive an RF-7 BUT very few receivers on the market are really putting out 100 watts per channel with 5 channels driven. What 130-watt per channel receiver are you looking at? Why do I ask? Because these receiver manufacturers have come up with dozens of explanations of how they measure their products to make you think you are getting 100 watts per channel when actually its nonsense. Even if I went into a 15 page dissertation of why they do this the bottom line would still be that they are basically lying to sell you a lesser product then they claim because it costs MONEY to manufacturer a receiver with amplifiers that TRULY put out 100 watts per channel with all channels driven. (Not just two channels). Thats why I like Klipsch products. TruthPlain and simple. Take for instance the specs on the RF-7. Sensitivity 102dB @ 2.83volts/meter. Rated at 250 watts with 1,000 watts peak at 8 ohms. Voila! Simple, honest and understandable. Not so with many of the electronic manufacturer B.S. artists. You could end up with a receiver that you THINK is cranking out 100 to 130 watts a channel because of the way the manufacturers have advertised them but in reality when you hook up the speakers in your surround system with their product it might only be providing as little as 60 to 70 watts a channel while driving all of them at the same time. Thats why I dont think anyone can positively make the statement that any old 100 watt receiver will push RF-7s as surrounds to YOUR listening satisfaction. It might sound great to one person while another may say their DVD sound tracks are sounding weak and thin. Read carefully what Bill (Mr Mcgoo) posted. Personally Ill always have as much power as I can afford and if I cant afford it then I dont buy the speaker. The RF-7s will always come through for you. Its what youre sending them that will be under suspect. Many of the sounds of gunfire, helicopters, planes, explosions and crashing ocean waves zipping through your surrounds are many times peaks in the soundtracks that require sudden bursts of power from your amplifiers. If you dont have all the Zoom you wont get all the Boom. Take it from a guy who is a headroom freak who has spent years earning a degree in Sky-high-atry. He he he he he

[JewishAMerPrince]

Everybody on both sides of this argument seem to overlook one important factor: room size. The larger the room volumetrically the larger the total volume of air the woofers need to compress to achieve a given spl at your listening position. With RF 7s in a 12x12 room with an 8 foot ceiling (1152 cu ft),far less power is required for low frequencies than would be for example in a 20x25 room with a 10 ft ceiling (5000 cu ft). High frequencies on the other hand,require minimal differences in power in different size rooms,relatively speaking. That is why the 7s would seem to "even out" and have greater bass extension with a larger amp in such a room. I got to experience this first hand when I moved last year. In my old home the room was 18x14 with a 9 foot ceiling. I had a Ref 3 system at that time with a Denon 3801 (advertised at 105 wpc, realistically 65-70 wpc). My new home has a 20x20 listening room attached to a 16x14 kitchen, both with 10 ft ceilings (6000+ cu ft). In the new room,the RF3s sounded shrill and thin on the low end with the Denon so I planned a major upgrade, which occrred in two steps. First I went to 7 series all around. There was an improvement, but not as much difference as I heard in the showroom. Then I replaced the Denon with Rotel separates with a 2 channel 130 wpc driving the mains and a five channel true 125wpc amp for everything else. As Easylistener stated, things then seemed to even out and fill in.

Jerry Rappaport

[RickB]

You can put me in the more power camp too. I used to think my RF-7s sounded pretty good through a reciever but I always thought the bass was weak.

I bought a Halo A-21 250 w/ch. amp and hooked up the RF-7s to it. I'll never go back, I couldn't believe how much more bass I was getting, and how much smoother everything sounded. It was almost like the speakers could finally breathe without much effort.

[JBP]

Thanks for the replies.

I was considering the Pioneer Elites, VSX-47TX and VSX-55TXi. I have to be honest, all of the technical terms and numbers are well above my level of comprehension, I am not well educated in this area. In fact one of the reasons that made me notice the Elites where the MCACC and other friendly features. So now I guess I have a few new questions.

What is "headroom"?

What would your guess be as to how many watts these two receivers actually put out?

How many actual WPC would you consider enough to justify RF-7's all the way around?

Is one able to use a Pioneer Elite receiver and add seperate amps to it to achieve the power needed?

Thanks again for the help.

[JBP]

Sorry, I wrote up that last reply before reading the prior two.

[itsmyforte]

if your looking for a cheap all in one receiver, skip the Elite and head to Denon. better build quality and just as many features.

[Strabo]

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

On 12/31/2003 4:19:36 PM JBP wrote:

Sorry, I wrote up that last reply before reading the prior two.

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

Don't be sorry, they are very valid questions.

The answer lies in what sound you like to hear.

It doesn't matter if it's 10 watts or infinity, because if the first watt sucks the rest are pointless.

Those who say you have to have 200+ watts actually just moved to an amp that has a better first watt.

Example of more does not equal better:

I went from a 15 year old 75 watt Yammaha to a new Denon 125 watt. Sound wise, the Yammaha beat it hands down and the Denon was returned within a month.

But, I wanted more features so the search continued.

Ended it up with my current set up which is also 125 watts and to me it sounds twice as good as the Denon.

My next amp, still waiting for it to arrive, will be 120 watts. It will be another major improvement even though it is rated as fewer watts.

Moral of the story, watts does not equal quality.

And claimed watts does not equal reality. See this link for more examples.

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Hollow/3401/ratevsac.htm

Bottom line, figure out what features you want, what price you want, then go listen to all models regardless of features in your price range.

Hint, do not listen to equipment you don't want to afford, instead enjoy what you want.

[SteelerFan]

My Yamaha puts out 80 watts to each of the front three channels. When I play 2 ch cd's on it I can't imagine needing more power or having more bass. That's with the volume turned up maybe 1/4 of the way.

Now when watching movies and running all of the channels it's a different story. I find I must turn up the volume much higher and even with the sub on (I admit it's not a great sub) I still could use more bass.

So it seems to me it's the quality of amplification that's lacking. Apparently the power of my Yamaha goes way down with all channels driven.

That's why I'm planning on going the seperate route, unless it's a really high quality receiver like B&K. I still don't think I'll need a 200watt amp, I just need one that will consistantly provide 100 watts with all channels driven.

Unfortunately the big 200 watt monsters dominate the market now. There seems to be alot less choice in the 100-125 watt range. But that's what I'll be looking for, I have no plans to run a special circuit for my monster amp.