How do I tame the harshness of the RF-7's

[Spkrdctr]

I wanted to add that I have recently listened to the Martin Logan high end speakers (I can't remember the model names) and the Klipsch blew them away in bass, dynamics and detail. Of course, these speakers cost triple or more of the Klipsch for less performance.

Listening at a store is an art form in itself. It is very tough to do. At the end of the day, Klipsch seems to always win.....

[KathyMason]

JTA, I listened to an RF-7 with a McIntosh MA6900 and it sounded just wonderful to me. Not shrill, bright, or harsh at all. Must be something else in the system that is buggering it up.

[jt1stcav]

I must admit that as far as SS amplifcation goes, McIntosh is awfully hard to beat with any Klipsch. With my Cornwalls, the Direct-Coupled MC7200 I had was an improvement over my previous Carver amps...detail, dynamics, and resolution were all there in spades. When I borrowed my bro's vintage MC2100 with its Autoformers is when I really stood up and took notice, and when I aquired my classic MC250 is when my ears had a major wake-up call! My Cornwalls never sounded better, and if I didn't own my SET amp today, I'd still be using my favorite MC250 transistorized power amp. If the MC250 could tame the sizzle from my Cornwalls, I can only imagine what it'd do for the newer RF-7s.

[KathyMason]

Yep.... that's how I felt too Spkrdctr!!! Too bad I had to learn the hard way though.

[JewishAMerPrince]

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

On 5/7/2005 5:42:50 PM KathyMason wrote:

I don't have DeanG crossovers and my RF-7's are very smooth on the top but my equipment makes it very smooth.

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

I have a very similar setup to yours (Rotel)and once thought I would not benefit from DeanG's upgrades. I installed his crossovers in my RF7s and RC7 today and the resulting liquidity of the highs is remarkable. Clarity has improved audibly. It sounds like the grilles are off while they are still on. The small amount of graininess that I always attributed to my Rotel amps is gone. Bells and chimes float like corks on a sea of sound, and have just the right decay without ringing. The bottom has spread a bit (good) requiring me to readjust my crossover to my sub. The soundstage is broader, but unfortunatly I think it may have less depth. The newfound quality of the RF7s in 2 channel has me looking at $2000 modified CD players trying to extract the last oz of goodness out of my system. This is something I would never have done yesterday.

Jerry Rappaport

[johnyholiday]

15% restock fee ! i'd sell them in front of the store for 10% lose ,an run 100% of the customers off, i'd get those back an dial them in

[wheelman]

Speaking of mods. Some Hometheater installer was going to sell me an outboard DAC. I told him i had synergys he said "IF you really want them to sing replace the caps. There cheap in them and they sound really good when you replace them". Is this true?

[JTA]

"JTA, I listened to an RF-7 with a McIntosh MA6900 and it sounded just wonderful to me. Not shrill, bright, or harsh at all. Must be something else in the system that is buggering it up."

No, you don't quite get what I mean. What I was saying is by comparison to the 802s, the Klipsch sounded that way. But that is OK. I don't expect the RF-7 to match the 802s as they cost several times more. There was no comparison at all between the two. The RF-7s are a great value and for a mid-level speaker they deliver excellent sound and are hard to rival at their price. To my ears I would not be happy with them for a music system, but everyone has their own standards and depth to their pockets. Most people have not heard a high end system and have no frame of reference to compare them to.

[maxg]

Well my initial reaction to all of this is to wonder how the guy bought the speakers in the first place. Do you think he bought them without a demo first? I imagine that if he did listen to them prior to purchase it would have been with rather different amplification.

I have now heard the RF7 several times and at least once sampled it at something near what I imagine to be its best (in standard form at least). It certainly is an impressive speaker - in many ways it is a preferably option to Heritage units especially for a room sans free corners.

Comparisons with other speakers are so fraught with pitfalls it makes the effort almost worthless. IME a properly driven pair of B&W 802's will show the RF7 a clean pair of heels in the bass department - but we are talking another planet budgetwise. If you want to hear B&W play properly you need to start with 250 wpc into 8 ohms and go up from there.

In other words I could put together a system with, say, $2000 of amp and preamp in front of an RF7 and it would play your socks off. I could do the same thing with a pair of 802's - but it would need $6000 or amp/pre MINIMUM.

Take into account the price differential in the speakers and, even over here - where Klipsch are double the retail of the US if not more, and B&W's are actually similarly priced - and we are talking of comparing a system to another at double the cost.

For that money, and according to personal preferences, you will, in the main, get a better sonic result - but not much.

My own personal audio theory has now evolved to the point that I lean towards - all roads lead to Rome. Starting with very different speakers and amplifying them to suit I think I would end up with remarkably similar sound.

That does not mean that all systems sound the same. Nor does it mean that all audiophiles strive for the same sonic result. What it does mean is that I strive for a consistent sonic signature to my sound and that, given a pair of speakers, I will graduate towards that sound - be those speakers B&W, Klipsch, Quad or anything else.

At least, wherever my audio journey eventually takes me, I can fairly safely assume my front end is now fixed in place.

[Deang]

'"...he said "IF you really want them to sing replace the caps. They're cheap in them and they sound really good when you replace them". Is this true?"'

Yes, it's true, and it's not a bad idea to replace the resistors too.

Jerry, though it appears many are abandoning the whole idea of break in, I'm holding out to the very end. Figure 20 hours of good playing time before things completely open up. You'll easily hear things snap into place when it happens. Also, since the 7's have so much HF energy, it's not uncommon to see users avoiding toe in, and instead, choosing to face them straight-forward to get a bit off axis from the horn. If you've done this, you can now toe them in, and take full advantage of the benefits found in controlled directivity.

[--udson]

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

On 5/2/2005 6:08:39 AM marksdad wrote:

it is not the 7's it is the yammie, you keep saying brighter speakers, this is wrong, the klipsch give what they get, you are just feeding them bad signal, and yes the other gear you spek about does and will improve your end sound, but do stay away from yammie, but klipsch ar not bright

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

I have the RF-7 system on the way. I bought a yamaha v2500 receiver for it, which is the receiver I listened to it with for 3 hours in the store. I constantly read on many forums about how Yamaha - even recent models - are too bright for the system. But it sounded great to me.

I listened to lines of Polks, Infinity, Paradigm, B&W. There were a couple more that I can't remember the names of. Everything was on different equipment - from Denons to Elites, to Nads and HK. And still none of them compared to the RF-7s on the Yamaha 2500.

I can't help but think many of you are just regurgitating popular opinion. Can there *really* be so much difference - for the average person - between decent and recent receiver brands of fairly equal specs?

I even began to second guess my receiver purchase, thinking I need to go "warm" receivers or to seperates for all-out quality. But the more I read all these opinions, the more hogwash I think it is for the average listener out there. There is no doubt I will be very happy with my RF-7s on the yammy. It sounded fantastic in the store. It had a great price point for the features and power it delivers. Yamaha builds great quality stuff. It's a fine starting receiver for me.

This is not to say the points you all bring up are not valid. You are probably more advanced and experienced audiophiles and know your stuff. But I wanted to throw out my opinion for the less experienced. Don't take everything you read as gospel. Go listen for yourself. And if you like what you hear and it fits your budget, then buy it and enjoy it!

And remember, when you get to a certain price range, you have to spend more and more money for just that little bit more in performance...make sure it truly makes sense.

[cjgeraci]

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

On 5/8/2005 11:26:33 PM JewishAMerPrince wrote:

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

On 5/7/2005 5:42:50 PM KathyMason wrote:

I don't have DeanG crossovers and my RF-7's are very smooth on the top but my equipment makes it very smooth.

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

I have a very similar setup to yours (Rotel)and once thought I would not benefit from DeanG's upgrades. I installed his crossovers in my RF7s and RC7 today and the resulting liquidity of the highs is remarkable. Clarity has improved audibly. It sounds like the grilles are off while they are still on. The small amount of graininess that I always attributed to my Rotel amps is gone. Bells and chimes float like corks on a sea of sound, and have just the right decay without ringing. The bottom has spread a bit (good) requiring me to readjust my crossover to my sub. The soundstage is broader, but unfortunatly I think it may have less depth. The newfound quality of the RF7s in 2 channel has me looking at $2000 modified CD players trying to extract the last oz of goodness out of my system. This is something I would never have done yesterday.

Jerry Rappaport

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

Congrats on having Dean rebuild your crossovers. I've had mine in place about a year now, and the difference amazes me every time I fire up my Reference speakers. Dean is accurate about the break-in time; one day all of a sudden you will notice further improvement after you put some hours on them. Having recently moved my Dean-modded RC-7 from my main music system to my family room movie-system, I have also noticed the ease at which my RC-7 handles all of what the most demanding movie scenes. Even at reference volumes (and beyond), smooth and never sounding strained.

Carl.

[Speedball]

Hi Hudson,

I have always used Denon stereo recievers for the last 12 years or so with my Klipsch 4.2's. Have always been very happy with the sound until recently the crossovers were changed and there was a very noticable difference. It is a hobby, not a necessity. The klipsches are so revealing the changes in amplification are noticable whether it be Yamaha Denon or whatever.

If you are happy with the Yamaha Klipsch combo then fantastic, I was happy with Denon for 12 years. Thats all that matters.

[cjgeraci]

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

On 5/9/2005 9:20:32 AM ]

[blockquote>

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

On 5/2/2005 6:08:39 AM marksdad wrote:

it is not the 7's it is the yammie, you keep saying brighter speakers, this is wrong, the klipsch give what they get, you are just feeding them bad signal, and yes the other gear you spek about does and will improve your end sound, but do stay away from yammie, but klipsch ar not bright

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

I have the RF-7 system on the way. I bought a yamaha v2500 receiver for it, which is the receiver I listened to it with for 3 hours in the store. I constantly read on many forums about how Yamaha - even recent models - are too bright for the system. But it sounded great to me.

I listened to lines of Polks, Infinity, Paradigm, B&W. There were a couple more that I can't remember the names of. Everything was on different equipment - from Denons to Elites, to Nads and HK. And still none of them compared to the RF-7s on the Yamaha 2500.

I can't help but think many of you are just regurgitating popular opinion. Can there *really* be so much difference - for the average person - between decent and recent receiver brands of fairly equal specs?

I even began to second guess my receiver purchase, thinking I need to go "warm" receivers or to seperates for all-out quality. But the more I read all these opinions, the more hogwash I think it is for the average listener out there. There is no doubt I will be very happy with my RF-7s on the yammy. It sounded fantastic in the store. It had a great price point for the features and power it delivers. Yamaha builds great quality stuff. It's a fine starting receiver for me.

This is not to say the points you all bring up are not valid. You are probably more advanced and experienced audiophiles and know your stuff. But I wanted to throw out my opinion for the less experienced. Don't take everything you read as gospel. Go listen for yourself. And if you like what you hear and it fits your budget, then buy it and enjoy it!

And remember, when you get to a certain price range, you have to spend more and more money for just that little bit more in performance...make sure it truly makes sense.

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

Congratulations on your RF-7 system. You approached the selection of your receiver the right way - having auditioned it for awhile with your potential future speakers. As a result, you may very well be happy with your choice, and I hope you enjoy it for many years to come. And the bottom line is that I think everyone should audition the receiver/speaker match up prior to their purchase.

However, there are a number of individuals who either do not have the opportunity to seriously audition the receiver/speaker match prior to a purchase or just want some additional feedback. Sure, in a number of other forums there are posters who have merely repeated what a few have said about a particular topic without personal knowledge themselves.

However, this forum is a bit different. Many of the posters in here consider this a type of family environment with a common bond being our love of this particular brand of speakers. I have found that most posters in here have personal knowledge and experience related to what typically mates well and what typically doesn't. They have either tried it and it did not work for them, or they had heard it on others' systems. And, of course, there are countless variables from nice CD players to DVD players, etc. - so it is sometimes hard to generalize receivers. But, yes, certain processors and amps have a basic sound. For me, I would not let my 1 1/2 year old Yamaha receiver near my RF-7s for music, but that same Yamaha receiver works very nicely with my HT setup in my family room (also with various Reference speakers and a RC-7). And there is a major difference when listening to music at higher volumes. On some receivers, RF-7s playing music at higher volumes (with the titanium tweeters) can sound as harsh as screaming cats or shattering glass. But, that is my own taste and my ears, and your experience may vary. And so long as you are happy with your combo, nothing else matters.

Also, calling some in here audiophiles?? Hmmmm...... not sure we have any of those in here. Guys?

Carl.

[jpm]

decent recording to start with

speakers

source

amp

preamp

cables

spkr wire

order of importance as I see it

spikes, tables, coins on speakers, and all dat

other stuff seems like money squandering voodoo to me

but what do i care?

spend it where you want to

[MrMcGoo]

I thought that crossover upgrades might be subject to the placebo effect. Then one after another hard case posted on this forum about what a major improvement their crossover upgrade was. When the skeptics claim an improvement, then it is time to investigate and not criticise without thourough investigation.

Bill

[wheelman]

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

On 5/9/2005 6:35:40 AM DeanG wrote:

'"...he said "IF you really want them to sing replace the caps. They're cheap in them and they sound really good when you replace them". Is this true?"'

Yes, it's true, and it's not a bad idea to replace the resistors too.

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

Thanks Dean to bad I don't know how to do it. It would be the perfect time now that I have my brothers heresys. No time without Klipsch is a good thing, but then again I am still secretly trying to think of a trade for them.

[v3spitfire]

I auditioned the RF7 side by side vs the Paradigm Studio 100 and again side by side vs the Def tech (forget the model, but about the same cost).

It was at 2 different klipsh dealers (both very good and helpful. In both cases the klipsh came out on top from both an openness and clarity perspective. The RF vs Paradigm both used receivers and they were different. The Studio 100's were on a denon (5802 or 4802, I forget) and the RFs were on a Yamaha (about 1/2 the cost of the denon). I've owned yamaha previously and was surprised at how well the yamaha performed. The RF did not sound harsh at all vs what is a very laid back/warm speaker (studio 100). Now, this was a very large room (25x35) but remember being surprised in that the RF did not sounded much better, even with the much less expensive receiver. Based on these 2 comparisons (and already having 10 years of experience w/ my amp brand (adcom) and klipsch, I bought them. Never been happier. I will soon want to get the crossover upgrade, as there is a lot of positive talk about this.

[--udson]

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

On 5/10/2005 6:19:23 AM v3spitfire wrote:

"Now, this was a very large room (25x35) but remember being surprised in that the RF did not sounded much better, even with the much less expensive receiver. Based on these 2 comparisons (and already having 10 years of experience w/ my amp brand (adcom) and klipsch, I bought them. Never been happier."

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

Hey Spitfire, I guess you meant the RF *did* sound much better with the less expensive receiver? And did you buy the Yamaha? I thought it sounded great too. I got my v2500 yamaha for $700 and it puts out 130w per channel. I saved a good amount of money over Elites, Denons, or Nads, etc.

[v3spitfire]

Sorry. Yes I meant the RFs did sound much better than the Paradigm studio 100s, even though they were powered by a receiver that was 1/2 the price.

I did not by the yamaha, as I was already happy with what I had. I'm just surprised by the number of people who say this speaker is harsh, given how i heard it A/B'd with what is a very laid back/warm sounding Paradigm.

I should disclaim that I have a bias for a brighter sound, not harsh, but bright. I feel the need to boost the treble slightly on my tube amps, where on my solid state I'm pretty flat (except on bad CD recordings where I drop it 2db beginnning around 10k).

Thanks for correcting me. RFs definately better than Pardigms, side by side, NOT harsh!