RF-7 or RF-35 ?

[eargasm]

*** Hello all Klipsch fans! ***

I'm intending to buy Klipsch speakers for Home cinema and music.

I have read a lot of good comments about Klipsch speakers at http://www.audioreview.com so my choice is easy, I'll go for Klipsch !!!

The question now is: RF-7,RC-7,RS-7 ($7650 US)

OR a cheaper variant RF-7,RC-7,RS-35 ($6990 US)

OR RF-35,RC-35,RS-35 ($3575 US)

All alternatives with the sub RW-12 included.

This will be powered by Harman Kardon DPR2005 Receiver(7*120W @8 Ohms), when available(7ch=Bi-Amped Front speaker if the 6:th & 7:th channels are assignable) and the DVD multiplayer Denon DVD-2200.

BUT, which model? RF-7 & friends is absolutely the best solution.

They seems to be very powerful speakers with double 10" and 40 kg each.

Real wood veneer in maple instead of dark plastic film design, black or cherry.

The only minus here in Sweden is the cost. RF-7 family costs more than double than the RF-35 family.

So, help me all Klipsch fans out there! Is the RF-7 setup worth the extra investment compared with RF-35 family?

Should I then go for the RS-7 instead of RS-35 together with RF/RC-7?

Thanks in advance for all experiences you have in this matter.

[doudou]

why not buying 5 rf35?

[avman]

from an appearence standpoint,if you want cherry or maple,the rf-7's are the way to go.

if you want black,the rf-35's are a VERY good value,and really sound good vs. rf-7's FOR THE PRICE,and black in wood or vinyl doesn't make as much difference.

JMO-

avman.

[CECAA850]

I have not heard the RF35's however, I had the RS35's and the RC35 before I went to the RC7 and RS7's. There was a LARGE difference in sound quality. I would think that it should be expected with the difference in price. The difference in the center speaker was the most dramatic. The 35 was a very good center channel speaker however the 7 will make you think that there are people speaking in your living room as opposed to in your TV. The RS7's seem to envelope you in sound more. As a note, I set the crossovers the same (80 Hz) for both types. Let your pocket be your guide and beware of the upgrade bug, it bites hard and demands to be scratched. You will have excellent sound no matter which way you go. P.S. The RF5's are no slouch and complement the other 7's nicely, mine are going in the bedroom when my RF7's come in. They are definate keepers and most likely compliment the 7 set up better than the RF35's. Carl

[eargasm]

...I have now been to my nearest Klipsch dealer and listened to the RF-35,Rc-35,RS-35+RW-10.

The sound of the RF-35 is very clear and crisp. BUT, I miss the power hitting my chest. The speakers have to work good for both cinema and music and must be a real upgrade compared with my old JBL L80-T which have served me well during the years for music.

The RF-35 does not give the same bass power as my JBL's so the RF-7 is the way I have to go in spite of my wallet let me to. No need of future upgrades then.The subwoofer has to be RSW-12 to match RF-7 as well.

This means that the entire speakersetting will cost me more than double as I intended to spend from the beginning! The homecinema will then give a really powerful sound then. I presume that a bomb will sound as a bomb in my livingroom with Rf-7!!

[gcoker]

Can you set the RF-5 in Sweden? They are similar to

the RF-35

[J.4knee]

RF 7 vs. RF 35, this is kind of like a Heresy vs. a La Scala (I know not quite the same but indulge me). The sound difference is significant, the RF 7's are very impressive while the RF 35s IMO just sound good, the RF-7s are clearly the superior choice, if price is your determining factor then its obvious but if you can swing the price then go with the RF-7s better cabinetry, drivers also you may want to consider getting RB 75s instead of the RS-7s. Much better for multi-channel music and I like their performance better as a surround speaker in the set ups I have heard.

[cjgeraci]

Very well said, including the comment on the RB-75s.

Carl.

[eargasm]

Thanks for your comments in my thoughts about my nextcoming home cinema setup!

It's now clear that the RF-7,RC-7 and RS-7+RSW-12 is the correct choice.

I'll hopefully never have to upgrade the speakers again. -It's quite expensive, but the RF-35's with friends are not free of charge either.

However, it's interesting to read your comments about the surrounds, that the RB-75's are better than the RS-7's. I understand that DVD-Audio and SACD music will sound much greater. But,what about the placement of the speakers?

The RS-7 will spread the sound more or less 180 degrees when the RB-75's are more "direction sensitive" which means that the sound will be perfect in a more restricted area compared with the RS-7's?

Maybe this have no influense with correct distance from the listening positions? I have appr.3 meters from each wall to the sofa.

I'm very grateful for experiences about RS-7 which have been replaced by the RB-75's.

I have also some thoughts about the amplifier. I have looked at Harman Kardon receivers. I was first sure about the AVR8500 which can give a lot of current. Later on the new "Digital Path Reciever" DPR2005.I have found another Receiver which can offer true Bi-Amping in a 5.1 system by assigning the 6-7's channels to the front, Arcam AVR300. H-K will also soon release the AVR7300.

Any ideas about the amplifier in this pricerange which can feed the RF-7 with friends from whispering to earthquaking volumes without hesitation?

[dantfmly]

one sugestion from me on the subwoofer if you can get it, get the rsw-15. if you want that heart pounding bass. on amplification the AVR-7200/7300 would be good, along with the avr-8500, don't know much about the digital path amplifiers, except that they take up a lot less room for the same amount of power, but seperates would be a better option if you are going to spend that much money.

[cjgeraci]

Eargasm:

I went from RS-35s to RB-75s, and I have also listened to a number of Reference seven setups running RS-7s. Going with a Wide Dispersion speaker such as a RS-35 or RS-7, sprays all of the frequencies around above 2,000 HZ and directs toward you, the frequencies under 2,000 HZ. In comparison, with a monopole speaker such a RB-75, you get all of the sound, upper and lower frequencies, directed to you. What I prefer about running monopoles for surrounds is that the spraying sound distorts the sound somewhat you are receiving from the horn, yes, even with movies. With monopoles as surrounds, I have found major improvements for music (SACD, DVD-Audio), but I have also realized improvements in the quality of sound, when watching movies. The supposed magic behind WDST speakers is that the sound will be omnidirectional. That is, you won't know where that 'copter is coming from. There reality is that if you listen to movies at mid to upper volumes with monopoles, your sound will fill that portion of the room anyway. A number of Klipsch owners have recently gone to either RB-75s or RC7s as surround speakers because it just sounds better.

That being said, if you choose to go with a WDST speaker, definitely go with a RS-7. The improved horns and larger driver (over a RS-35) will sound pretty good.....just not as good as a RB-75 or a RC-7.

As for a receiver with Reference sevens, been there and done that (Harman Kardon AVR 7200). I highly recommend separates instead if you can manage it.

On the other hand, there are others in this forum who love the Harman Kardon/Reference 7 combo. That's what Rick runs (Moon). You may want to pm him and get his thoughts.

Let me close by pasting a quote on the subject from HornEd, who is one of the biggest advocates of monopoles on this forum. Since HornEd is probably too busy to engage in this discussion(enjoying newly wedded bliss), the following is from a recent thread discussing RS-7s vs. other monopole surrounds (Again, Congrats - HornEd):

"So, dont be so quick to knee jerk to a cheaper WDST solution when other Klipsch loudspeaker options can do a better rear array job for you and the one(s) you love. There is a reason that a WDST speaker is not available for Heritage quality Home Theaters! Now, if spending less on rear speakers or having a nightmare of an acoustic environment is your lot then WDST makes a better ear prosthetic than bipole or dipole approaches to fuzzing-up artificial ambience in your room.

And, lets face it, lots of folks prefer fuzz I can remember when fuzzy dice hanging from a rear view mirror was cool but most of us from that generation grew out of that phase.

* By "second-hand" sound I mean that WDST speakers are designed to keep sounds over 2000 Hz from reaching your ear directly so that your ear will be flooded with sound that first must strike an object and be reflected to your ear. Reflected sound takes on varied nuances depending upon a wide variety of factors... but due to the speed of sound... most reflections in a typical listening area will reach your ear at about the same time... and that precludes your ear from being able to accurately determine timbre or directional characteristics.

Hence, your ears are artificially inundated with sound with bipoles, dipoles, tripoles (i.e., WDST). And, yet, there are times when WDST solutions are practical... like plastic seat covers on a Volvo... somehow such "artificial excellence" doesn't convey the feel of the road to my butt as does natural leather." -HornEd

Whichever direction you go, you should enjoy!!

Carl.

[eargasm]

Thanks for all very constructive advices!:-)

-About the RF-5. They are available here and is pricely just in the middle between the RF-35 and RF-7. I think I will always think about RF-7's if I choose RF-5 as mainspeakers.

- RSW-15 is not available here in Sweden. Not available in 230V-50Hz and I think there is some problem with the CE certification. I'm sure that RSW-12 will rock my house anyway with help of 1kW, 2.4kW peak. Nice to think in kilowatts!!

Carl:

Regarding the surround speakers...It's very interesting to get the advice to use RB-75 instead of the RS-7. The aesthetical view is one important thing. It's possible to get the same colour/veneer than the other speakers. RS-7 is unfortenately only available in black or white. I understand that the sound will become much better when listening to music in Multichannel mode as DVD-Audio and SACD.

But what about the movies? I was sure that Dipoles gives a special surround feeling that ordinary speakers can't reproduce and is essential for the correct Homecinema experience. What about the speaker distance to the listening position? Enough with 2-4 meters for the RB-75's?

I have also got a hint regarding a matching receiver. ARCAM AVR300 with true Bi-Amp possibility. H-K sounds a little bit "too aggressive" together with Klipsch speakers according to one dealer. Maybe he is right? Otherwise is the H-K's interesting, AVR8500-not available today,DPR2005 and the coming AVR7300. I will see when it's time for the purchase of the equipment. My house is currently under repair and a larger living room as a result.

[jane]

RB-75 is better for SACD and audio use, thats true. But IMHO the RS-series is superb for surround.

Ive got RF-5 plus 2 x RC-35 in front, and RS-35 for surround great combination!

BTW: I'll think the RF-7 is a bit cheaper in Norway than in Sweden, take a trip across the border..

[cjgeraci]

Eargasm:

I guess I would clarify it in this manner. Any type of the dispersion surrounds (i.e. Dipole, Wide Dispersion) will have an understandable advantage if you have some real constraints logistically in where you can place your surround speakers or perhaps if you have a very large room with multiple different seating positions. Just think about a movie theater or auditorium. In that setting, there may be an advantage to bouncing the sound off of walls in the desire that it reach everyone in the large room, no matter where they sit.

However, most H/T rooms in people's homes do not offer those challenges. Most of the time, the main seating positions are in one area of the room. And most residential rooms are small enough where the soundwaves, from upper to lower frequencies, are going to travel throughout the room, regardless if the speaker is wide dispersion or not. Even when you run direct-radiating speakers, the sound not only goes forward out of the front of the speaker, but also goes to each side of the speaker and to the rear. That's why many people, including myself, treat angles of first reflections (with wall treatments) to prevent the nasties of sound waves bouncing and bouncing and bouncing and bouncing off of hard surfaces.

What is the point of all the above rambling? The point is that in almost every residential room and application, you may only notice a slight difference (to the detriment) between direct radiating surrounds and wide dispersion surrounds, and that would be for those in remote corners of the room - away from the main listening position. They will get residual sound bouncing off of walls, etc. In my situation, I noticed an improvement in movie sound with direct radiating speakers because both the upper, mid and lower frequencies were all coming towards the listening area rather than some going one way or some going the other way.

I personally think that special surround speakers are a marketing gimmick where speaker companies could make a ton of money selling these things. It does not cost that much money to make a fancy looking (or functioning) surround speaker, yet often, these speakers are among some of the most expensive from various manufacturers. Most surrounds, including the RC-35 and RC-7, are actually pretty nice speakers for movies, but I am still not convinced you really need them for most applications. And, they just do not compare for any music in five channel formats.

The bottom line is you would probably be fine either way you go. I just think that the musical advantages of a direct speaker far outweigh any perceived disadvantages (if any) in the movie department versus a WDST speaker. And two to four meters distance would be fine for a RB-75. You are going to adjust all of your speakers with a sound level meter, anyway.

But, just one person's opinion. What do I know? I could be wrong.

Carl.