Reference RF-35 or F-3 for hundreds less???

[SilverSport]

Sorry to keep beating this horse but I just learned I may be able to get the new Synergy F-3s for several (more than $300) less than the best price I could find on the net for RF35s...System for system the two packages spec out very similarly with each getting some better specs on some things (I read this as nearly equal.) However, the References are made her in the USA, the cabinets can be gotten in some different vinyl colors and the wiring and some components are upgraded over the made in China, any color as long as it's black No Love Here Synergys ;-)

Not being able to hear these two side by side but having heard them about 20 minutes apart at two different locations have only confused me but Trey seems to think the Synergys are the near equal of the Reference (in this case)

Thanks for all your help!

I will be pairing these speakers with a new Outlaw Audio 950/7100/LFM-1 if the planets align...this would have been SO much easier if I had done this a bit at a time! ;-)

Bill

[SilverSport]

anyone???

[JewishAMerPrince]

First of all, I'd go back and reread what Trey said. I believe it was something to the effect of the F3 being the near equivalent of an RF3 not an RF 35. Think about resale. I think in that respect the Reference will win hands down. You'll find once you get into this hobby there is a disease called upgrade-itis.

Jerry Rappaport

[SilverSport]

Thanks, you are right about it being the RF-3s but the F-3s spec out the same or better than the RF-35s...this is my question but whenver I mention the "S" word, I get told to do a search (done it...very little info other than "I hate Synergy" and "Klipsch sold out to BB"...I have found some people on here who say they have the F3s and I have sent them e-mail along with Trey...no responses yet but it is still early.

Thanks for responding,

Bill

[JewishAMerPrince]

Specs, unfortunatly tell us nothing about how a speaker really sounds. If you go look at the specs of a K horn vs the F3, the F3 probably has "better" specs, but would sound like a tabletop FM radio if A/B'd with the Khorn. ( well, maybe that is a bit of an exaggeration, but NOT that for off) A speaker with great written specs CAN sound crappy, if you need proof of this go listen to ANY Bose. Two different speakers with identical specs can sound wildly different. Specs will tell you nothing about the articulation and clarity of a speaker, or if it is bright, or warm or neutral. Specs will not tell you anything about soundstage width and depth. The only way to really judge for yourself is to listen to both side by side. All you need to do this is a credit card with a high enough limit, and a Reference dealer with a good return policy. I have heard the F3s (yesterday at BB) and they sound great, but I can tell you that they are definitly NOT the equal to even the RF25s, IMHO, unless of course your main criterial is how loud they can play.

You don't seriously believe that Klipsch would design, build and market a value line speaker that would outperform their flagship line, do you?

JR

[SilverSport]

Yes, I would agree that DIFFERENT MANUFACTURER specs while similar might bring different sounds but I thought MAYBE Klipsch being the maker of both of these speakers and that they both are of similar size and design and that they have the same size drivers of a similar type with similar horns might actually sound, well similar.

Also since the F3s are a brand new speaker (at least to the Synergy line) and the RF-35s have been out a couple of years, what better way to lengthen the "legs" of a particular model than to move it from Reference to Synergy as the Reference line improves...Synergy improves from the same research done by Klipsch and it is a continuous feed.

Just a thought...furthermore, The F3s were designed to be successors to the speaker that was the successor to the Reference (but it's all in the family, right ;-) so, I don't know.

Didn't Trey say that the NEW Synergys were not only a BIG improvement over the last Synergys but were sonically similar ("You would be hard pressed to hear more HF in the Reference...paraphrased of course by me.")

Might be closer than you think to being "close to the flagship", eh???

Hey, I could be wrong.

In case you think otherwise...I DO appreciate your input...it's how I learn.

Thanks,

Bill

[DrWho]

I have not heard the new F-3's but spec wise they outperform the RF-35 in every way. That said, both speakers are practically the exact same design: a 2 way speaker with a 1" horn loaded dome tweeter and two 8" woofers. Both speakers are going to suffer from the same nuances of sound caused by physical location of the drivers. Side by side you probably will hear a difference and it's possible that the RF-35 has a smoother response within the +-3dB window. In far away comparisons I think both speakers should sound just about the same.

[Bill H.]

Bill,

Here is the Thread, (half way down), where Trey talks about the F3....enjoy.

http://forums.klipsch.com/idealbb/view.asp?topicID=56352&forumID=69&catID=19&search=1&searchstring=&sessionID={913E29AA-565B-4BB6-91E3-9DF337779062}

[SilverSport]

JewishAMerPrince...What you say concerns me because it seems you have heard both the new F3s AND the Reference RF-25s and 35s...it also saddens me a bit that you feel the Synergys don't come close even to the RF-25s being they are smaller...Bill...Got it, thanks...I should save that link...I have looked at it enough!

Thanks again...spirited debate! DrWho...this is exactly my thinking...if this is wrong, I wish more would tell me why without using anecdotes (JewishAMerPrince gave me his real world feedback)about why anything Reference is better than anything Synergy...(picked up during Search here)

Thanks again,

Bill

[Steve_L]

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

On 12/30/2004 12:26:27 AM JewishAMerPrince wrote:

Specs, unfortunatly tell us nothing about how a speaker really sounds. If you go look at the specs of a K horn vs the F3, the F3 probably has "better" specs, but would sound like a tabletop FM radio if A/B'd with the Khorn. ( well, maybe that is a bit of an exaggeration, but NOT that for off) A speaker with great written specs CAN sound crappy, if you need proof of this go listen to ANY Bose. Two different speakers with identical specs can sound wildly different. Specs will tell you nothing about the articulation and clarity of a speaker, or if it is bright, or warm or neutral. Specs will not tell you anything about soundstage width and depth. The only way to really judge for yourself is to listen to both side by side. All you need to do this is a credit card with a high enough limit, and a Reference dealer with a good return policy. I have heard the F3s (yesterday at BB) and they sound great, but I can tell you that they are definitly NOT the equal to even the RF25s, IMHO, unless of course your main criterial is how loud they can play.

You don't seriously believe that Klipsch would design, build and market a value line speaker that would outperform their flagship line, do you?

JR

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

It is very common in today's highly competitive world for manufacturers to port high end technology, developed for one market (professional and audiophile), down to consumer level goods to be more competitive in another market.

The term coined in the camera industry is "prosumer" products. For instance, Canon developed extremely sophisticated focus and metering technology for their high end professional cameras at a huge cost to develop, and then within a few years aggressively moved that technology down into consumer level cameras. Within just a few years Canon has brought technology previously only available in $3000+ cameras down to cameras costing less than $400. They did this to based on the need to trump the stiff competition from Nikon and others in a market where brand loyalty is still important. They have been very successful with this strategy.

BMW and Honda and many automotive companies do this same thing all the time in their markets, developing technology in high end product and in their racing programs and then aggressively driving the technology into the consumer market.

Klipsch clearly is leveraging the valuable research and technology they have invested in the Reference series, using slightly less costly components, fewer cosmetic choices, and a high volume market/distribution strategy to bring Reference series performance to a much larger audience. This is a very savvy product management strategy by Klipsch and could be the key to their survival in today's crowded market.

So, in response to your question, my answer would be, "Yes, I think Klipsch has designed a lower cost alternative to the Reference series. They did this based on all of the excellent research effort they invested in developing the R series products, and they sound extremely similar, (not better) because they are extremely similar products."

[JewishAMerPrince]

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

On 12/30/2004 3:52:14 AM DrWho wrote:

That said, both speakers are practically the exact same design: a 2 way speaker with a 1" horn loaded dome tweeter and two 8" woofers.

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

One cannot assume that just because a speaker has 2 of this and one of that and they are similarly arrainged physically, that they will sound similar.

Let me point out two HUGE differences in the specs that speak more to the performance of a speaker than the number of drivers and their arraingment. They have mostly to do with the material and quality of those drivers. The Synergies use an Aluminum dome driver, and the Reference use Titanium. Titanium is far stronger and flex resistant than aluminum. The dome can therefore be made much thinnner and more precise. The cost of this is higher but the benifits far outweigh the cost. The tweeter with the titanium dome will sound much more transparent and detailed (it is quicker)and have far less distortion when driven hard (titanium flexes less). Moving on to the LF drivers, the Synergies use Klipsch old Synergy mainstay, IMG. Injection molded graphite. Klipsch has been using IMG since way back in the KV and KG line. They have used it for good reason. IMG is an excellent woofer material, it is easy to manufacture and produces low distortion sound. It's drawback however is that it's relatively heavy by comparison to the Reference's cones. The Reference line uses what Klipsch calls Cerro-metallic cones. These are materials right out of the space program where high strength AND low weight are primary design concerns. The Reference woofers are both stiffer AND lighter, which should yeild both a quicker and cleaner sounding driver. The results of these better parts only show up in the numerical specs as a 1 db advantage in efficiency for the References, but that number doesn't tell the whole story as to how much cleaner they sound. What this does say is that a 100 wpc amp driving a Synergy will be as loud as a 75wpc amp driving a Reference (this is a bit simplified but illustrate the point).

Anyone who says that the Synergy specs are superior to the Reference specs, obviously is only looking at numbers, and as I said previously, numbers can't tell you the whole story.

There is one advantage to the Synergy line. Since it's drivers are less accurate and articulate than the References, you can get by using lesser quality components ( ie: consumer receivers, etc) without revealing the weaknesses in these components than you could with a Reference. This fits right in with the marketing strategy. You can purchase your electronics at the same place you buy your Synergys (ie BB). A Reference will tell you everything you NEVER wanted to know about bad electronics since they are more "critical" (revealing) of what they are fed. To sound there best Reference really need "audiophile" grade electronics.

JR

[SilverSport]

JewishAMerPrince:

Now THIS is the type of feedback I crave...I take what you say as true because these are some of the thoughts I had as well...These things may in fact be the difference...I am also using the feedback from Trey that the speakers sound similar or even superior to the older Reference line...that said, your comments make perfectly logical sense to me...so perhaps I am getting an 80 per cent Reference in the Synergy at less than 80 per cent of the cost.

These things are all weighed in to what I can afford but give me food for thought...If I listen to the RF-25s that are priced, I believe, right on top of the Synergy F-3s and the Reference sound better to me, well, that's where my money will go...I believe that I need to get back out to the stores. (ugh)

Thanks for your input everyone...this thread has come alive...doesn't the blood pumpin' make you feel glad to be alive??? ;-)

Thanks,

Bill

[meuge]

Let me weigh in on the issue. I spent a little bit of time listening to the Synergies vs. Reference a couple of weeks ago (namely, the 8" Synergy bookshelves vs. the RB-35). Now it seemed to me that the Synergies could play as loud, and there were certainly no glaring deficits in their music reproduction. That is until I put in my own CD, filled with tracks I have come to be extremely familiar with. Then I realized that the Synergies reproduced significantly less of the fine details I was accustomed to hearing. Furthermore, whatever semblance of soundstaging there was with the Reference (a minimum in a store setting, but still there) was totally gone with the Synergies.

The Reference speakers were simply better. Now, for exclusive home theater use, the Synergies might do the trick. However, if you can get the RF-25s for the same price, do it. Just make sure to pair them with a nice sub. The Outlaw LFM-1 is good, but so is the Klipsch RW-12 and both can be had for around $500.

[JewishAMerPrince]

Meuge

Thanks for your comments, this thread really needed them, and they hold a LOT of weight. It's very difficult to exlain how and why one with similar specs to another speaker sounds different (better?) than another to someone who hasn't listened to alot of speakers side by side. Speakers are the most contoversial item in ones system mainly because everyone tends to hear a bit differently (our ears are transducers and therefore everyone's are different), and we all have our preferences towards what we are expecting to hear. This also changes as we mature in this hobby and LEARN what sonic clues we must listen for in a speaker.

JR

[SilverSport]

Meuge...thanks for your comments...JewishAMerPrince...Please do not think I do not appreciate your comments as well...I just cannot listen to the Reference and Synergys in the same place...furthermore, I have been to 4 different BB to hear them and they sounded great at one (nice set-up, lower amount of boom boom going on around) and not so great elsewhere...in fact it was until I heard them at one sounding great that I even considered them...now as to Reference...the sales guy, who seemed VERY knowledgeable to me first showed me top of the line References...droooooool...then we went to the RF-25s and RF35s...GREAT on movies and just okay with music BUT that was in a FAR bigger room than I have and others were shopping as it was on the main sales floor and the top line References were in the closed room (RF-25s were in a room as well) anyway, I will give them another listen (store is just not close to me) and bring music I KNOW how it should sound (at least through older KG2s ;-)

Thanks for all the input...still learning...keep it goin'!

Bill

[JewishAMerPrince]

When you listen to the References, take note at what is being used to power them. Your comment about music is well taken, the Reference after all were designed for HT as were the new Synergys. That is why I have a whole 2 channel system just to listen to music. It features Klipsch Chorus IIs and a jewel of a 2 channel integrated amp by Cambridge Audio. I realize that MOST people don't have the resources to do this and therefore their system must do double duty. Therefore, if you power the RFs properly with a 125-200 wpc clean and stable amp they take on a whole different character for music than they do with most HT receivers. The low end fills out quite a bit. That's why many of us with Reference setups prefer separates over receivers as it allows us to power our mains with a different amp than the centers and surrounds. But I'm getting way ahead of where you are at right now.

JR

[meuge]

I have to agree that listening to the Reference-series speakers in a store setting will not necessarily present them in a proper light. It's already been said, but let me re-emphasize the fact that Reference-series speakers are extremely unforgiving with regards to the electronics used to drive them. In a store they might be sitting hooked up to an Onkyo receiver, which delivers a top-heavy, overly bright signal with little detail. Unless you're hearing them driven by a mid-line or higher H/K, Yamaha (?) or Denon receiver, you're not even getting a glimpse of their true performance.

I originally powered my RF-3IIs w. a Pioneer receiver and the sound was so far from what I am hearing now that it's hard to compare.

[SilverSport]

Points taken and I DO know what you mean...so for separates how does the Outlaw Audio 950 7.1 processor and 7100 7 X 100W amp sound...I was thinking of adding their acclaimed LFM-1 sub to the speaker mix.

Thanks,

Bill

[DrWho]

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

On 12/30/2004 9:53:02 AM JewishAMerPrince wrote:

One cannot assume that just because a speaker has 2 of this and one of that and they are similarly arrainged physically, that they will sound similar.

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

Physical position of the drivers on the baffle makes a huge difference in the way they sound. If one of the woofers was placed above the tweeter, then you are going to have a different sounding speaker...there's no way around it. Every speaker with a tweeter and two identical woofers below it will all have the sound of that alignment...yes, there are variations based on other factors in the design, but you can't ignore it. Having heard hundreds of speakers and noticing the similarities within similar designs, I feel I am qualified to make this statement.

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

Let me point out two HUGE differences in the specs that speak more to the performance of a speaker than the number of drivers and their arraingment. They have mostly to do with the material and quality of those drivers. The Synergies use an Aluminum dome driver, and the Reference use Titanium. Titanium is far stronger and flex resistant than aluminum. The dome can therefore be made much thinnner and more precise. The cost of this is higher but the benifits far outweigh the cost. The tweeter with the titanium dome will sound much more transparent and detailed (it is quicker)and have far less distortion when driven hard (titanium flexes less).

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

Making the assumption that titanium is always better than aluminum is a bit overboard. The material of a speaker does not dictate it's quality...it's all about how it's implemented. I am quite sure that Klipsch is well aware of the differences between materials. In fact, I remember a post recently that showed the frequency response of different materials in the same tweeter and the titanium had the worst response with a nasty dip in the upper frequencies. Despite that dip, the frequency response was nearly identical between the materials with only very slight variations in the higher frequencies (where we can't even hear anyway). Despite all that, notice that the F-3 goes up to 23kHz within the +-3dB window versus 20kHz of the 35. I don't see how you can argue that a material is better when the "inferior" material measures a better.

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

Moving on to the LF drivers, the Synergies use Klipsch old Synergy mainstay, IMG. Injection molded graphite. Klipsch has been using IMG since way back in the KV and KG line. They have used it for good reason. IMG is an excellent woofer material, it is easy to manufacture and produces low distortion sound. It's drawback however is that it's relatively heavy by comparison to the Reference's cones. The Reference line uses what Klipsch calls Cerro-metallic cones. These are materials right out of the space program where high strength AND low weight are primary design concerns. The Reference woofers are both stiffer AND lighter, which should yeild both a quicker and cleaner sounding driver.

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

I think you over exagerate the effects of mass on a driver. When a woofer is heavier, the effective frequency range of that driver moves lower. The difference in mass between the IMF and the cerro-metallic is going to be within a few grams. If you've ever messed with speaker building and modelling you'll know that a few grams doesn't make a huge difference at all. However, lets assume that the synergy does in fact have significantly heavier woofers. The HF section uses a larger horn and is crossed over 600 HZ lower (about half an octave lower). That's 600 less Hz that the "heavier" drivers have to produce...the difference in mass certainly isn't going to shift the response by 600Hz.

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

The results of these better parts only show up in the numerical specs as a 1 db advantage in efficiency for the References, but that number doesn't tell the whole story as to how much cleaner they sound. What this does say is that a 100 wpc amp driving a Synergy will be as loud as a 75wpc amp driving a Reference (this is a bit simplified but illustrate the point).

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

Now you are just looking at the numbers. Electrical efficiency is different than mechanical efficiency. Both woofers are the same size and thus they must move the same distance to produce the same SPL. There is also the fact that the Synergies have an extended frequency bandwidth. I think it's hoffman's iron law that states that sensitivity and bandwidth are inversely proportional...the larger the bandwidth, the lower the sensitivity. The difference of 1dB in sensitivity just means that the F-3 is always 1dB quieter than the 35 when running at the same power. 1dB is just barely audible. For what it's worth, that little extra power needed for the F-3 might just be enough to move the amplifier being used into a better operating range.

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

Anyone who says that the Synergy specs are superior to the Reference specs, obviously is only looking at numbers, and as I said previously, numbers can't tell you the whole story.

There is one advantage to the Synergy line. Since it's drivers are less accurate and articulate than the References, you can get by using lesser quality components ( ie: consumer receivers, etc) without revealing the weaknesses in these components than you could with a Reference.

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

How does one quantify accuracy in loudspeaker reproduction?

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

This fits right in with the marketing strategy. You can purchase your electronics at the same place you buy your Synergys (ie BB). A Reference will tell you everything you NEVER wanted to know about bad electronics since they are more "critical" (revealing) of what they are fed. To sound there best Reference really need "audiophile" grade electronics.

JR

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

Also, how do you justify the difference in weight between the two speakers? Either the F-3 has larger magnet structures (to deal with those oh so heavy diaphragms) or the cabinet itself is built better which means less cabinet vibration. The location of the port on the F-3 is also a huge advantage in that it gives you more placement options than the RF-35.

I personally do not believe a "revealing" speaker is the best choice for a home environment. The whole purpose of our speakers is to entertain us with music and we spend more money in hopes of maximizing the enjoyment. If a "better" speaker is going to cause the music I enjoy to sound bad, then bring on the "crappy" speakers. If music is going to sound better on my middle of the line upstream equipment with the F-3, then bring on the F-3. If it sounds better with the RF-35, then bring on the RF-35.

I have no doubt that the RF-35 is a better speaker. However, considering the price difference between the 35 and the F3, then I would have a hard time recommending someone to get the 35. I do not feel there is even $100 worth of improvement in the sound. If you wanna do the reference line, go get the RF-7 and be done with it.

[SilverSport]

"...curiouser and curiouser..."

Thanks DrWho

Bill