Jump to content

RF-5 Sighting


Recommended Posts

Thank you BobG for your apology and explanation. Being that this is a BBS and not far removed from Chat, I only assumed that the connotation to take from OSMR was what I posted above. Never have I heard of the joke that you mentioned though I grew up in an environment filled with computers. But I do accept your explanation since I too know how easily it is to convey the wrong meaning through the written word (Bulleting boards and e-mail). Something about hearing the inflection of the human voice to interpret the proper meaning of one's words.

Of course it now seems obvious that GFY means exactly what dougdrake2 and Mikekid say it means and not what everyone (especially me) feared it meant. My apologies to ANYONE who feared it meant anything else. Especially BobG.

Speaking of the proper tonal qualities..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

forresthump -

I believe that I was comparing the RF-5 to the rest of the Reference line that is currently available (though some places will soon no longer have the Rp-3 and RP-5). It also is logical to believe that Klipsch not only considers but wants us to think that the RF-5 and RF-7 are better than the Rp-3 and RP-5 since they have replaced these two speakers with the newer RF series speakers. I am only offering a counter to that assertion.

Though they both have quite different sounds, I don't feel that the RF-5 offers a level comparable to what the RP-3 offers. Let me clarify this: When I was considering a new speaker purchase last year, I had written off the newer Klipsch models because by my ear, they could not compare to the Heritage speaker I already had (the Heresy) nor did they touch the Forte or Chorus models that I had lusted over only a few years earlier but could not afford. I had made my mind up that on my next trip to the B&W dealer I would Purchase a pair of CDM7NTs. On my way there, I stopped by the local Mega-store that happens to carry Klipsch too. I thought I would give the Reference series a listen since they were the one Klipsch speaker of late that I had not listened to. Of the three in the line at the time, the RP-3s sounded best to me. Taking that sound image in my mind to the B&W store, I listened to the B&W CDm7NTs. Though they were not powered speakers and had only a 6.5" Kevlar bass/midrange unit augmented by a 6.5" Paper/kevlar Bass unit (hmm..so very similar to the Klipsch RF series designs), the bass sound was low authoratative and enveloping. Almost every bit as good as the powered sub of the RP-3 when powered at proper levels. The horn of the Klipsch helped to disperse the HF sounds slightly better than the Nautilus type tweeter of the CDM7NT, but the Klipsch rolled off more severely at the extreme high end, Nearly a wash, but I decided to go for the Klipsch. If I were to make the same comparison today between the B&W CDM7NTs and the new Klipsch RF-5, it would be no contest, I would pay the extra 7 or 8 hundred bucks (or is the differential more?) for the B&W speaker without question.

We will see if the same can be said for the RF-7s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by cc1091:

forresthump -

I believe that I was comparing the RF-5 to the rest of the Reference line that is currently available (though some places will soon no longer have the Rp-3 and RP-5). It also is logical to believe that Klipsch not only considers but wants us to think that the RF-5 and RF-7 are better than the Rp-3 and RP-5 since they have replaced these two speakers with the newer RF series speakers. I am only offering a counter to that assertion.


cc,

you previously said both the rp-3 & rp-5 sound better than the rf-5 which (well of course) sounds better than the rf-3. so you were again saying the rp-3 sounds better than the rf-3. i don't think that's

a fair comparison at $1500 vs. $800 msrp.

just to make it simple, go a-b the rp-3 against the rf-3 coupled with a paradigm pw2200 or a velodyne ct-150 which all together would be about the same $1500 msrp.

i don't think it's logical at all to conclude that klipsch discontinued the RP for the rf-5 & rf-7. the main reason i conclude was to combine the legend line into the reference line.

comparing powered towers to stand alone speakers is apples and oranges. if you want to compare your rp-3 to something in the klipsch line do it with the sp-1. that should make you feel better.

cwm38.gif

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

go forth & hump the world

Link to comment
Share on other sites

cc1091,

I'll retract my last post, since you seem to have genuinely believed BobG to have insulted you. I'm glad that was all straightened out, though I have no idea where you came up with your interpretation of OSMR.

As far as your comparison of the CDM7SE to the RF5, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. I happen to disagree, which is simply my opinion.

I own CDM1SEs and I own KLF20s. Both sound excellent in my opinion, though present significantly different pictures. And neither would sound right if swapped into the other system, as I spent quite some time matching the components of my two separate systems.

I also have listened to the CDM7SEs (and now the CDM7NTs and CDM9NTs and N804s) at a local B&W dealer where I bought the CDM1Ses, and I have listened to the RF3s at a local Tweeter where I bought the KLF20s.

I like the B&Ws quite a bit, but to say they are "better" than even the RF3 seems like a stretch to me. I think the B&Ws have a more refined, sweeter sound, but lack the dynamics and air of the Klipsch. I haven't heard the RF5s or RF7s yet, so I cannot comment, but I imagine they sound "better" than the RF3s.

I would only buy CDM7NTs over the RF3s if, as I do, I already owned Klipsch and was looking for a different sound. In fact, that is the only reason I bought the CDM1SEs over the excellent RB5s. I wanted a new bedroom system, and thought it would be fun to get a B&W/Krell combo since I already have a Klipsch/Rotel combo in my living room. A buddy of mine has the modest SB3s hooked up to an NAD receiver and I think they sound phenomenal -- a real bargain. I'd certainly buy them over the B&W 601s.

I just totally disagree with you that Klipsch has "meager" offerings. They are coming out with new stuff as we speak. The fact that they discontinued a model you like doesn't make their offerings meager, or of poor quality.

I would like to hear from people, for their opinions only of course, who have done A/B comparisons of the RP3s and RP5s to the RF3s, because my recollection of earlier posts is that most who did leaned towards the RF3s, with or without a sub, because of their better dynamics.

So, anyone want to start a poll?

--JoshT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JoshT - Thanks for letting me take the ferry back from Gulag.

I agree with your characterization of the different sounds of Klipsch vs B&W. My point in bringing the B&W CDM7NTs up was twofold:

1. The are of similar driver layout and implementation as the RF series.

2. The CDM7NT has no internal sub, but has a bass sound that is just short of the RP-3.

The B&W speaker sacrifices some of the projected soundfield to keep the texture of individual instruments. Both manufacturers have quite a different approach to making an open and airy sound in a room.

I too would choose the RB-5 (and likely the RB-3) over the B&W 601 and likely the CDM1 (no snub intended here, just that I already own 602s, which don't sound too much different from the CDM1s).

I guess what it comes down to is this:

I was expecting that since Klipsch discontinued the RP line of reference speakers, they would introduce a new speaker that was at least every bit as good, if not better. I cannot see how the RF5 can compare favorably to the speaker that I was considering when I bought the RP-3. I don't believe that my audition of the RF-7 will impress me any more favorably (though I do hope).

For those of you out there who liked the RF-3, you'll like the RF-5 better. For those of you who liked the RP series, or are looking at B&W CDM7NTs, the RF-5 will be a disappointment. For those of us who have felt that Klipsch has slowly spiraled toward cheaper and cheaper speakers (with a few high points) since the mid eighties (since the KG2 in my book), the RF-5 signals yet another step toward an ever more mundane future for Klipsch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...