pinipig523 Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 I know that this is a good kind of torn... either way I'm sure to have a nice set of speakers. Anyway, I am torn between the RF-25, the RF-35 or the Polk LSi9 bookshelf. Currently I have the Polk LSi7 and am looking to upgrade my computer speakers yet again. I am very happy with my choice with the Polk LSi7s because I feel that they sound just right for me... however, money has plopped down on my lap (actually medical school scholarship) and I am looking to upgrade a bit. Now, I am very familiar with the klipsch sound, I convinced my parents to buy klipsch synergy speakers instead of bose (this was 2 or 3 years ago, when I still owned promedias). I haven't heard the rf-25 or the rf-35 but I have heard the rb-25 (I bought a pair from ebay and tested them out for a coworker) and the new F-3s (which seem very similar to the RF-35) except they use a different woofer, tweeter, and probably crossovers. This will mostly be for nearfield listening guys..... probably 5 feet from the speakers (at the computer chair). I know for a fact that the Polk LSi9 are very favored in the audio world, regarded by many as Polk's flagship bookshelf... I heard it and compared it against the likes of Paradigm S2s, Ref 20s, Axiom M22ti, BW 702, and the Polk LSi9 held their own very well. It uses a Vifa XT tweeter (much like on the Onix Reference and Rocket speakers) and have 1.5 inch sidepanels for a very inert cabinet. I use an SVS 25-31PC+ as a sub and plan on powering the speakers using my HK330. Price for the following: RF-25 = $800 RF-35 = $1000 LSi9 = $900 Thanks for the help guys! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicholtl Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 Well, not that I am telling you what to do with your scholarship money, but perhaps you should reconsider where it's going? I've heard the LSi7's, but preferred the RF35's. Hence, the reason they are in my bedroom, and not the Polk's. They too are connected to my computer, and sit about 6 feet away from my ears. Plenty of "power and emotion" at just 6 feet away, I assure you. Give 'em both a critical listen, if you can, but my personal opinion is that the RF35's have noticeably increased dynamic top-end and improved resolution. I also feel their build quality is superior to that of the Polk's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinipig523 Posted November 8, 2004 Author Share Posted November 8, 2004 ---------------- On 11/8/2004 3:12:04 AM nicholtl wrote: Well, not that I am telling you what to do with your scholarship money, but perhaps you should reconsider where it's going? ---------------- Thanks for the tip nicholtl... not much of the scholarship is going to speakers... I am planning on selling all 4 of my LSi7 (@ about 400-450 on ebay) for a net of about $800 to 900 to use on the front speakers. Extra money will most likely go for surrounds (next time around). Also, do the SF-3 (or F-3) sound similar to the RF-35? I'm asking this because I have heard those two but have yet to hear the RF-35 since Klipsch broke off engagements with Tweeter here in Illinois. Keep em coming! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marksdad Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 i am trying to remember my polks? yup they were good but they were not klipsch. they are more in line with synergy, plus i believe the polks are an 4 ohm speaker, what i mean by that is i remember that to get decent sound out of my polks i needed to crank them a bit, not so good for nearfield, plus unless i am mistaken, the lsi's are quite a bit more expensive product for product of the same class, and yes i have seen the same reviews, but when you get them side by side, there is the test! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JewishAMerPrince Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 If it is any value to you, the guy who bought my Ref 3 setup when I went to the Ref 7 setup used them to replace Polk speakers, including Lsi9s. He thinks the Klipsch are far superior. He also bought my SVS 20-39 pci to replace his Polk sub. JR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinipig523 Posted November 8, 2004 Author Share Posted November 8, 2004 Hmmm.... Im getting more interested.... keep em coming guys! Also, what are the main differences between the RF-25 and the RF-35? I require them to atleast have their tweeters at ear level when I sit down on the computer chair (about 40 to 43 inches). The reason I ask this is because when I listened to the F-2 and the F-3... the F-3 seemed much more expansive whereas the F-2 seemed boxed in. Most probably, this is due to the smaller horn on the F-2. Are the horns of the RF-25 and the RF-35 of similar size? What are the sonic differences, if at all describable? I will try to audition them soon... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NormanB Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 I can not comment on the Polk, however I listend to the RF-25's and 35's when I when looking for new speakers. I ended up with the 35's for several reasons. 1). The 25's had a mid bass rise that I did not care for. It added an unnatural bass sound to me. 2). The 35's sounded much more open than the 25's the sound stage became much larger with the 35's. 3). The 35's had a better sounding high end, smoother I would say. And for only $100 more how could I resist a higher quality speaker? HTH 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicholtl Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 In another thread, Trey explained that the Synergy F-3's were based on, and IMPROVED, over the original RF-3's. However, the RF-3 is 2 generations removed from the current RF-35, so while I haven't heard them together side-by-side, it think it's fairy safe to say that the RF-35 still bests it's Synergy little brother. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinipig523 Posted November 8, 2004 Author Share Posted November 8, 2004 Ah... so the F-3 and the RF-35 should share similar sonic characteristics. The question now lies in whether I should go for the RF-25 or the RF-35.... can anyone point out other differences or comment on their experiences between the two? I read the comment regarding RF-35 having a more open sound than the RF-25 from up above.... keep them coming guys! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meuge Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 The 35s have a wider soundstage, but the 25s have a very sweet midrange. Your decision might also depend on the size of your room. That being said, I enjoy the sound of my RF-3IIs quite a bit, and from what I hear the 35s have improved upon the design, so you cannot go wrong with them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JewishAMerPrince Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 ---------------- On 11/8/2004 6:13:09 PM nicholtl wrote: In another thread, Trey explained that the Synergy F-3's were based on, and IMPROVED, over the original RF-3's. However, the RF-3 is 2 generations removed from the current RF-35, so while I haven't heard them together side-by-side, it think it's fairy safe to say that the RF-35 still bests it's Synergy little brother. ---------------- I tend to take Trey's comments with a grain of salt. He is very enthusiastic about the new Synergies since he was part of the development team, who wouldn't? Let's look at reality however. It would be hard to believe that the F3 with it's aluminum dome tweeter, or the IMG woofers could improve on the RF3s Titanium dome and Ceramic Metalic woofers. The box may have been based on the RF3, but the guts certainly were not. Trey even admits to this in a later post in the same thread. JR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
007 Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 ---------------- On 11/8/2004 5:23:25 AM marksdad wrote: i am trying to remember my polks? yup they were good but they were not klipsch. they are more in line with synergy, plus i believe the polks are an 4 ohm speaker, what i mean by that is i remember that to get decent sound out of my polks i needed to crank them a bit, not so good for nearfield, plus unless i am mistaken, the lsi's are quite a bit more expensive product for product of the same class, and yes i have seen the same reviews, but when you get them side by side, there is the test! ---------------- Why would you have to crank them if they had less resistance? Seems like it should be the other way around. Perhaps you were noticing the efficiency differences? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
007 Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 ---------------- On 11/8/2004 9:40:06 PM JewishAMerPrince wrote: ---------------- On 11/8/2004 6:13:09 PM nicholtl wrote: In another thread, Trey explained that the Synergy F-3's were based on, and IMPROVED, over the original RF-3's. However, the RF-3 is 2 generations removed from the current RF-35, so while I haven't heard them together side-by-side, it think it's fairy safe to say that the RF-35 still bests it's Synergy little brother. ---------------- I tend to take Trey's comments with a grain of salt. He is very enthusiastic about the new Synergies since he was part of the development team, who wouldn't? Let's look at reality however. It would be hard to believe that the F3 with it's aluminum dome tweeter, or the IMG woofers could improve on the RF3s Titanium dome and Ceramic Metalic woofers. The box may have been based on the RF3, but the guts certainly were not. Trey even admits to this in a later post in the same thread. JR ---------------- aluminum is much lighter than titanium so it should be more efficient being that its lighter, however, titanium is stronger so Im not really sure what the real advantages are or are not. I'm pretty sure the reference woofers dominate the synergy ones, but I'm glad to see an all new synergy line because I had long since given up on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meuge Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 Titanium alloys are generally harder, which means less distortion. However, since I am not a speaker designer I cannot say how that impacts upon sound quality in general. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JewishAMerPrince Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 ---------------- On 11/8/2004 10:11:43 PM meuge wrote: Titanium alloys are generally harder, which means less distortion. However, since I am not a speaker designer I cannot say how that impacts upon sound quality in general. ---------------- It's about how much aluminum will flex creating distortion, vs Titanium's less flexible nature. Aluminum domes must be thicker to avoid flex, much thicker than titanium which can be as thin as aluminum foil and still be rigid and strong. This should make for a faster reacting surface and improved frequency response on the top. There is obviously a difference or Klipsch would not be spending the high cost of obtaining and fabricating titanium, vs the low cost an easy workability of aluminum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinipig523 Posted November 9, 2004 Author Share Posted November 9, 2004 I just found out that the F-3 has a LARGER horn than even the RF-35. Very interesting. Any more comments regarding RF-25 vs RF-35 sonic differences and which is the better buy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tjh011 Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 I also was trying to decided between the Rf-25 and Rf-35 a while back and went the the 35's because it sounded more open and seemed to fill the room better. 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.