My fair and balanced speaker comparison

[ct1615]

I compared my current line-up of Klipsch Synergy KSC-C1, KSB 2.1, KSB1.1, and a Boston Acoustic CR400 verse the Klipsch Reference RC-25, and RB-25 while the sub and surrounds remained the same. TWO receivers where used in this test. A Yamaha RX-V730 (considered Bright by many of you) and a Harmon Kardon AV235 (considered warm). I set-up both speaker arrangements in similar fashion and played various TV shows and sports programs (Including watching my Pats win!) through each speaker set-up and receiver set-up. I then played the following DVDs on the speakers and receivers; Return of The King (DTS), The Mummy Returns (DD), and Lost in Translation (DTS). Compared to the Synergy 2.1 speakers, the RB-25 speakers produce a noticeable deeper bass and the RC-25 is slightly deeper then its Synergy counter part (you need to really listen for the bass). Both the RC and RB displayed a sharper audio output then their Synergy counterparts (some call it more Dynamic) but they where not picking up audio detail that the Synergy speakers missed. The big difference between the two speakers; the reference speakers are BRIGHT. I mean headache causing BRIGHT. While listening to them, I could not wait until the movie or program ended so I could turn them off! Once I replaced them with the Synergy speakers, my headaches would slowly go away. It did not make any difference if I had the reference hooked up to the Yamaha or HK, they where still BRIGHT. One thing I did notice on the HK, setting the receiver to DTS NEO rather then Dolby Prologic II did help tone down the speakers a bit on TV shows.

My older Synergy speakers are no longer sold so I cant compare them to the current Synergy speakers but my advice if you are on the fence between Synergy and Reference speakers, save your money and invest in a better TV. You will be glad you did.

[streyle]

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

On 2/9/2005 12:26:55 PM ct1615 wrote:

I compared my current line-up of Klipsch Synergy KSC-C1, KSB 2.1, KSB1.1, and a Boston Acoustic CR400 verse the Klipsch Reference RC-25, and RB-25 while the sub and surrounds remained the same. TWO receivers where used in this test. A Yamaha RX-V730 (considered Bright by many of you) and a Harmon Kardon AV235 (considered warm). I set-up both speaker arrangements in similar fashion and played various TV shows and sports programs (Including watching my Pats win!) through each speaker set-up and receiver set-up. I then played the following DVDs on the speakers and receivers; Return of The King (DTS), The Mummy Returns (DD), and Lost in Translation (DTS). Compared to the Synergy 2.1 speakers, the RB-25 speakers produce a noticeable deeper bass and the RC-25 is slightly deeper then it’s Synergy counter part (you need to really listen for the bass). Both the RC and RB displayed a sharper audio output then their Synergy counterparts (some call it more Dynamic) but they where not picking up audio detail that the Synergy speakers missed. The big difference between the two speakers; the reference speakers are BRIGHT. I mean headache causing BRIGHT. While listening to them, I could not wait until the movie or program ended so I could turn them off! Once I replaced them with the Synergy speakers, my headaches would slowly go away. It did not make any difference if I had the reference hooked up to the Yamaha or HK, they where still BRIGHT. One thing I did notice on the HK, setting the receiver to DTS NEO rather then Dolby Prologic II did help tone down the speakers a bit on TV shows.

My older Synergy speakers are no longer sold so I can’t compare them to the current Synergy speakers but my advice if you are on the fence between Synergy and Reference speakers, save your money and invest in a better TV. You will be glad you did.

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

I'm not quite sure if this is accurate.....I had performed a similar trial between Synergy F-3s and RF-35s with an HK DPR 1001 and the Reference series have a much more full sound than the Synergy speakers....I'm not sure if you'll find anyone else that says the difference between Synergy and Reference is small......

[ottscay]

You know, it's funny, but these days whenever I hear the term "fair and balanced" I assume it's biased, if not an outright lie... As for your comparison, obviously people should get what they think sounds good, and if you like the Synergy series better, more power (and a few extra bucks saved) to you. I don't think I would have compared the rf-25 to the Synergy, because honestly I think the Reference series really starts at the rf-35 level. This isn't arbitrary (to me), because below the rf/rb-35 level the soundstage is far narrower, and the bass extension isn't terribly good. Still better than Synergy's in my opinion, but not by all that much.

That's why I always recommend saving up and getting -35s if you are going to invest in the Reference line. That said, the Synergy's are good speakers, and I'm sure many people would enjoy them.

Scott

[dodger]

I can't agree with the assessment that "it's a lie" should hold true.

"It's an opinion," is a closer statement.

No matter what we listen to, we develop opinions, such as Reference begins at the 35s.

As someone not paid to make comments on which may be better or best, it is noteworthy to read other's opinions. That does include Refernce begins at 35s.

Nice review and a thoughtful counter.

dodger

[ottscay]

Actually, I wasn't impunging the reviewer, but rather the phrase "fair and balanced." The phrase itself has been coopted and is viewed with suspician by a lot of people these days; I'm sure the motives of the original post were just as "pure" as my own, although I find them not totally in accordance with my own experience (see my first post). Certainly, no personal offense was intended, and I apologize if I wasn't clear enough about that.

Scott

[ct1615]

1. Isn't the tweeter from the Synergy F-3s and RF-35s made of similar material? I know the c1, 2.1, and 1.1 have silk dome tweeters. This may give those speakers a "warmer" feel compared to current Klipsch speakers.

2. I like the term "fair and balanced", I find it kind of funny.

[streyle]

i think they are, but the quality of components are better in the Reference......

it might not be worth the extra $100 or $200 in price to you, but I think there is a big difference.....(actually I paid less for my Reference series than the price at BB for the synergy)

after having the synergy's first, I thought about moving on to another brand altogether, but i'm glad I still have Klipsch.....

[Griffinator]

The Synergy line uses an aluminum dome tweeter. The Reference line uses titanium. An absolute night-and-day difference. This longtime JBL fan has always appreciated the titanium dome tweeter sound, even though there are many who perceive it as "harsh" or "bright" - for me, it cuts through the background noise and leaves me with a strong, detailed image without having to crank the speakers up to deafening levels...

[cjgeraci]

Bingo - Griff nailed the difference. I also love the detail of the titanium drivers, and that is the reason that I still kept my RF-7s even after acquiring some nice 'ole vintage Heritage. The titaniums are extremely detailed - but there is a cost. With increased detail, you do get a horn that can sound overly bright or harsh on certain equipment. That's why every time someone suggests a good combination (CD player, processor & amp) for Heritage, Legend, Synergy, or classics, I think to myself - maybe that does not necessarily apply to Reference.

My take is that if an individual plans on keeping a lower budget for the overall system - yet wants the Klipsch sound - new and old Synergy are the way to go. Synergy are still really nice speakers - they are just more forgiving, equipment-wise. If you have the budget or do not mind upgrading until you get the sound where you want it (at all volumes), I would choose Reference. That or make sure you can take a set of Reference home and try it on your system first before buying (or return if you do not like them). I think Reference are better speakers, but.....they require more demanding equipment to get the best out of them.

Carl.

[Fish]

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

On 2/9/2005 2:20:44 PM ottscay wrote:

You know, it's funny, but these days whenever I hear the term "fair and balanced" I assume it's biased, if not an outright lie..

Scott

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

Funny how even words can be in dispute,to me "fair and balanced" means I and MANY others can now get unbias info instead of onesided BS.

[jerohm]

>> I mean headache causing BRIGHT

I had the same opinion of my Forte IIs when using a Carver integrated amp (2 channel. They sounded great, but my ears actually hurt after extended listening time) . The problem went away when I switched to Parasound/Rotel preamp/amp.

Moral:

Speakers/PreAmps(Processors)/Amp form a symbiotic relationship.

[T2K]

This is what I like about this place, a guy takes his time to relate his experience/opinion with a particular line/lines of speakers and others come along and tell him he's FOS.

Keith

[IAmtnbikr]

Even with a very entry-level Pioneer receiver, I was pretty happy with the jump from my Synergy speakers to the Reference ones. I was happy myself with the soundstage from the RF-25's in the room size I have, and they seemed to have a nicer, cleaner mid-bass here than the RF-35's did, thus my choice was made, along with the matching center. I am eager to get my Denon receiver Friday, and am looking forward to a fuller, warmer sound when that takes the place of my Pioneer. And hey, if anyone wants Synergy stuff I have a killer deal on my SF-1's, SB-1's and KSC-C1....gotta go, need the room! I feel for the $ the Synergy line is pretty darn good, even against speakers costing a bit more. I have only heard the new Synergy line at the local BB, so that is not what I would call a good environment to compare. The bottom line is that to me Klipsch represented the best dollar value for what I was able to spend.

[ottscay]

>>This is what I like about this place, a guy takes his time to relate his experience/opinion with a particular line/lines of speakers and others come along and tell him he's FOS.<<

T2k, I'm not sure anyone told him he was "FOS." I know I told him more power to him if he likes the Synergy sound. I just didn't think his choice of equipment in his comparison was a good reflection of the Reference line, for those who are considering it. Other opinions included that the Reference line may be less forgiving of bad equipment due to its titanium tweaters. Even some who professed to prefer the Reference line hands down said they can become harsh and hard to listen to under some circumstances/equipment combos. I don't think anyone acused him of making his opinion up, or not being entitled to it. But other opinions were added to pad out his experience (which was limited to a fairly low-end part of the Ref series) with other experiences, so that other interested parties would have additional information.

I've seen some other threads that have gotten nasty, but unless I missed something, this is certainly not one of them.

Scott

[ct1615]

So receivers in the $500 price range don't work with Reference speakers? I should go out a get a receiver $2-3k? Shouldn't it be the other way around, a better speaker will make a cheaper receiver sound good? Hey, if knocking the Synergy line compared to the Reference line makes your purchase justified - more power to you. I tested them at home for one week. I didn't see them worth the extra $.

[ottscay]

Actually, while it sounds good that a better speaker should make anything sound better, it's often not the case. For example, mp3s sound good on low quality speakers (e.g. those in most cars...including mine!), but one you get good speakers you can tell that mp3s are compressed formats (I can even tell in an instant with my Synergy-based Promedia Ultra system on my computer). And actually, Klipsch speakers are so efficient (including Synergys), that they do make underpowered recievers sound better. But with the better detailed Reference series, it would probably pay off to get a warmer reciever. That doesn't mean spending $2-3k, it means getting an HK rather than a Yahmaha, or some other warmer sounding reciever. Of course if you can afford a high-end reciever like Arcam, B&K, Rotel, etc, then obviously it will sound better. Presumably a Synergy system would also sound better with high-end amps and/or recievers, although most people who invest that much probably go with the Reference line.

If you read my initial post, I agree that the rf-25s probably aren't that much better (and certainly not if you don't like their sound!) than the top of the line Synergy floorstanders. I prefer the Reference sound, but obviously you do not, which is fine by me. And cheaper for you. I just think that the rf-35s and rf-7s sound soooo much better than the rf-25s that I didn't want people to think your comparison applied to the entire Reference series. If they have the money to spend, they should at least give them a listen.

But now you're responding like you're being attacked, which you are not (at least, not by me). So for the second time in this thread let me apologize, if I have unintentionally caused offense, it was just that: not my intention. There is nothing wrong with prefering Synergy floorstanders; I just don't think that your comparison was representative of the best the Reference line has to offer. That's all.

scott

[Fish]

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

On 2/9/2005 6:42:59 PM ct1615 wrote:

So receivers in the $500 price range don't work with Reference speakers? I should go out a get a receiver $2-3k? Shouldn't it be the other way around, a better speaker will make a cheaper receiver sound good? Hey, if knocking the Synergy line compared to the Reference line makes your purchase justified - more power to you. I tested them at home for one week. I didn't see them worth the extra $.

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

[/blockquote

Sounds like a drag but thats the way it works(although a $500 avr can work w/rf).Long story short,the better the speaker the better the source,pre/pro and amp better be.The last thing you would want is to hear the shortcomings of equipment hooked to a very revealing speaker.As to the Synergy line,some people like heritage only,some legend,some RF,and some Synergy,thats why Klipsch can satisfy many different needs.If you think the Synergy sounds best there's nothin' wrong with that,no need to knock any other line.Thats like someone saying RF is better than Heritage,to them it may be but not to others,no right or wrong,just personal preference.

[T2K]

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

On 2/9/2005 2:20:44 PM ottscay wrote:

You know, it's funny, but these days whenever I hear the term "fair and balanced" I assume it's biased, if not an outright lie... As for your comparison, obviously people should get what they think sounds good, and if you like the Synergy series better, more power (and a few extra bucks saved) to you. I don't think I would have compared the rf-25 to the Synergy, because honestly I think the Reference series really starts at the rf-35 level. This isn't arbitrary (to me), because below the rf/rb-35 level the soundstage is far narrower, and the bass extension isn't terribly good. Still better than Synergy's in my opinion, but not by all that much.

That's why I always recommend saving up and getting -35s if you are going to invest in the Reference line. That said, the Synergy's are good speakers, and I'm sure many people would enjoy them.

Scott

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

Without wasting lots of my time rehashing what has already been posted, let me just point out a thing or two. The author of this thread offered HIS opinion using the speakers and equipment stated. He didn't ask for your opinion. He certainly didn't suggest that you come along and question his integrity.

The gist of his thread was that he thought that the Refence speakers he auditioned sounded 'bright' with the other equipment used. You follow that up later saying that yes, he is indeed correct and the Reference speakers that you name should be used with a 'warmer' sounding front end. Seems you just confirmed his findings.

Never confuse price with quality.

Keith

[T2K]

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

On 2/9/2005 5:58:29 PM ottscay wrote:

>>This is what I like about this place, a guy takes his time to relate his experience/opinion with a particular line/lines of speakers and others come along and tell him he's FOS.<<

T2k, I'm not sure anyone told him he was "FOS." I know I told him more power to him if he likes the Synergy sound. I just didn't think his choice of equipment in his comparison was a good reflection of the Reference line, for those who are considering it. Other opinions included that the Reference line may be less forgiving of bad equipment due to its titanium tweaters. Even some who professed to prefer the Reference line hands down said they can become harsh and hard to listen to under some circumstances/equipment combos. I don't think anyone acused him of making his opinion up, or not being entitled to it. But other opinions were added to pad out his experience (which was limited to a fairly low-end part of the Ref series) with other experiences, so that other interested parties would have additional information.

I've seen some other threads that have gotten nasty, but unless I missed something, this is certainly not one of them.

Scott

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

[/blockquote>

You should read your own posts. And the ones you comment on. He used the same "bad equipment" on the lesser priced Synergy speakers. That was his point. The other point was that he thought the Reference speakers used sounded bright. He also pointed out that the speakers that he preferred were less costly, to which you point out that by spending more money both on higher priced Reference speakers and a more expensive front end would yield better results, which is contrary to his point of price/performance. There's more, maybe you're just too 'bright' to see it.

Keith

[tigerwoodKhorns]

...You follow that up later saying that yes, he is indeed correct and the Reference speakers that you name should be used with a 'warmer' sounding front end. Seems you just confirmed his findings.

Never confuse price with quality.

Keith

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

So true. Its the combination of components.

My JBL L60's ($600 in 1989) sound better than my K-Horns with my 16 year old Denon receiver. Hook teh K Horns up to my newer Denon or a tube amp, and teh K Horns win.

I find a big similarity in what we do with audio equipment to restoring cars in the 80's.

Back then, you had to have this distributor or that carb or set of headers to have the "fastest" car. Then, in teh early 90's, after-market manufacturers started selling matched systems. People statrted putting together motors after learning that a low RPM engine needs smaller headers and a vacume secondary carb. The nice thing was that car mags woudl dyno test combinations and if you paid attention, you got educated.

Fast forward 15 years to here. The problem is that sound is subjective and we all get the upgrade bug! I followed the advice of forum members and bought an NOS Valves Scott LK-48 and a Philips 963 (thanks Chris Robinson!) to go with my K-Horns and they sound great. I am building ALK's and False Corners and I am sure that I will be happy.

But I know that I will get the upgrade bug again! We should have a thread where systems that work are posted. Include all relevant info such as room layout and photos.

OK, I am rambling and need to go to bed.

Chris