playntheblues Posted May 30, 2005 Share Posted May 30, 2005 Guys and Gals, I know this subject has been beat to death but after auditioning many speakers Im beginning to think I should try the new Klipsch RF 7s. Anybody that could compare the RF 7s to the K-horns, I would love to hear your thoughts. Thx Guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leok Posted May 30, 2005 Share Posted May 30, 2005 In general, if you can provide a good room for the KHorns, there is a lot more speaker there. KHorn has much more in overall dynamic capability and coherence. They are more of a you-are-there capability than the RF-7s The high end of the RF-7, however, for getting violins right, for instance, is cleaner. I find strings in most classical recordings sound more realistic through my RF-7s. I listen to a lot of clasical, with focus on string quartet, small baroque orchestra. In jazz and rock, often cymbals sound more realistic through the RF-7s. Still, often, even with the string quartet, small baroque orchestra, I prefer the overall presentation of a Klipsch 3-way, KHorn especially. Leo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stan krajewski Posted May 30, 2005 Share Posted May 30, 2005 I have not owned either of these speakers. The only reason I don't own KHorns is that I don't have the corners for them. Folded up with no wasted space, affordable drivers, a relatively small footprint,this is pure physics. No trickery here. If you like horns, these are hard to beat. If you buy used and shop carefully, you will get your money back. The RF7's are an improvement over the KLF series which is a improvement over the CF series. Aside from driver & Xover improvements, the KHorns dimensions have remained constant. So have the laws of physics. Bottom line, if you don't like the sound of horns then ignore the above and get RF7's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylanl Posted May 30, 2005 Share Posted May 30, 2005 No comparison between the two. If you like movies go with the RF7 if you like music go with the Khorns. I have not heard with my own ears but if you use Dean's upgraded crossovers many say it is a drastic change and help the RF7. I think RF7 is another price point built speaker. It is good from that comparison vs. others in its league. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pierceb Posted May 30, 2005 Share Posted May 30, 2005 I own both and agree with most comments listed above. However, I would like to echo that if you don't have a suitable room (large room with corners) for the khorns, then forget about them. I've tried my khorns is several rooms at my house now and they have not dazzled me in any situation. I think the main problem is that none of the rooms are big enough. I would say go for the RF-7's if you don't have any rooms bigger than say 16' by 20' or thereabouts. IMO, I don't think the RF-7's are as transparent and dynamic as the khorns (obvious observation), and I do think they lack a little in the midrange (not horribly though); however, as leok said they a very good in the top end, and I think in the bottom end as well. I want to try Dean's crossover upgrade to see if things improve in the midrange. As always, YMMV. -PB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psg Posted May 30, 2005 Share Posted May 30, 2005 No comparison between the two. If you like movies go with the RF7 if you like music go with the Khorns. I have not heard with my own ears but if you use Dean's upgraded crossovers many say it is a drastic change and help the RF7. I think RF7 is another price point built speaker. It is good from that comparison vs. others in its league. I'm not sure what "no comparison between the two means" if one is prefered for movies and the other for music. I've never heard the RF-7 because there are none here to audition. But there's lots of music in movies. So are you implying that you feel the RF-7 has some dynamics than the KHorn? I think people are figuring that the price of new RF-7s is similar to used KHorns, and thus asking which is best... But isn't the Klipschorn the Klipsch flagship? Why wouln't it be better than the RF-7? It costs twice as much. If it didn't, shouldn't Klipsch stop making them? Just asking... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.4knee Posted May 30, 2005 Share Posted May 30, 2005 Only one way to go - listen and choose for yourself. They are very different animals. I prefer the Klipschorn hands down although the new drivers of the RF 7 do offer some benefits that only they can which is why some replace mid and tweeter horns an drivers in the Heritage line. Again to me the choice is obvious. I have heard both and like both the but the Klipschorn is and always will be the Flagship IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flason Posted May 30, 2005 Share Posted May 30, 2005 ---------------- The RF7's are an improvement over the KLF series which is a improvement over the CF series. ---------------- I personally don't believe this is true at all. I tested both the KLF & RF's in the same room with the same equipment. The KLF's sounded closer to the Heritage series than do the RF's. There just seemed to be more presence than the RF's. This is what I feel the Heritage is all about, "a live concert presence". I also thought the KLF's were very similar to my Cornwalls, which I also tested at the same time. The Cornwalls are both wider in body as well as in soundstage. Thats the reason I sold the KLF's and kept the Cornwalls. Now I have a pair of CF4's and am in the process of testing them compared to the Cornwalls, but I don't have them in the same room yet. My back was killing me the day I brought the 4 into the house so I'm taking time off before I start moving them around again. But from what I've heard so far, I likkey!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill H. Posted May 30, 2005 Share Posted May 30, 2005 Flason, You stated "My back was killing me the day I brought the 4 into the house so I'm taking time off before I start moving them". Look at the Picture above. It can be purchased for about 17.00 bucks, and will become indespensible! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stan krajewski Posted May 30, 2005 Share Posted May 30, 2005 ---------------- On 5/30/2005 12:01:57 PM Flason wrote: ---------------- The RF7's are an improvement over the KLF series which is a improvement over the CF series. ---------------- I personally don't believe this is true at all. I tested both the KLF & RF's in the same room with the same equipment. The KLF's sounded closer to the Heritage series than do the RF's. There just seemed to be more presence than the RF's. This is what I feel the Heritage is all about, "a live concert presence". I also thought the KLF's were very similar to my Cornwalls, which I also tested at the same time. The Cornwalls are both wider in body as well as in soundstage. Thats the reason I sold the KLF's and kept the Cornwalls. Now I have a pair of CF4's and am in the process of testing them compared to the Cornwalls, but I don't have them in the same room yet. My back was killing me the day I brought the 4 into the house so I'm taking time off before I start moving them around again. But from what I've heard so far, I likkey!! ---------------- You may be right but it just seems to me that the horn mid/high and bass reflex format is what Klipsch has been trying to perfect. Towards what goal I don't know. Part of the goal of the CF/RF & KLF series has to be a small footprint. But why drop the CF & KLF line if they were so good? Maybe the RF7,CF & KLF were/are designed more for home theater. Anyway, my point was (and still is) that the KHorn box's dimensions have not changed in 55 or so years. Obviously Klipsch is still trying to perfect the bass reflex horn combo. If the RF7 stays in production for 50 years then they have reached their goal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylanl Posted May 30, 2005 Share Posted May 30, 2005 ---------------- On 5/30/2005 11:29:57 AM psg wrote: No comparison between the two. If you like movies go with the RF7 if you like music go with the Khorns. I have not heard with my own ears but if you use Dean's upgraded crossovers many say it is a drastic change and help the RF7. I think RF7 is another price point built speaker. It is good from that comparison vs. others in its league. I'm not sure what "no comparison between the two means" if one is prefered for movies and the other for music. I've never heard the RF-7 because there are none here to audition. But there's lots of music in movies. So are you implying that you feel the RF-7 has some dynamics than the KHorn? I think people are figuring that the price of new RF-7s is similar to used KHorns, and thus asking which is best... But isn't the Klipschorn the Klipsch flagship? Why wouln't it be better than the RF-7? It costs twice as much. If it didn't, shouldn't Klipsch stop making them? Just asking... ---------------- I have had both and tested both with a variety of amps etc.. I say No comparison from the standpoint of what each speaker gets done. I think the RF was built around the concept of a all around speaker made for a variety of situations. I feel that is why it is "OK" in a variety of settings and not great in any. The Khorn to me is best suited for 2 channel with tubes amps and is "Superior" in that arena. The Khorn also does well in movie applications. Not long ago I sold my RF7s taking a loss form my initial purchase but I invested my recouped money into a pair of Altec model 19s. I will never look back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted May 30, 2005 Share Posted May 30, 2005 ---------------- On 5/30/2005 11:29:57 AM psg wrote: No comparison between the two. If you like movies go with the RF7 if you like music go with the Khorns. I have not heard with my own ears but if you use Dean's upgraded crossovers many say it is a drastic change and help the RF7. I think RF7 is another price point built speaker. It is good from that comparison vs. others in its league. I'm not sure what "no comparison between the two means" if one is prefered for movies and the other for music. I've never heard the RF-7 because there are none here to audition. But there's lots of music in movies. So are you implying that you feel the RF-7 has some dynamics than the KHorn? I think people are figuring that the price of new RF-7s is similar to used KHorns, and thus asking which is best... But isn't the Klipschorn the Klipsch flagship? Why wouln't it be better than the RF-7? It costs twice as much. If it didn't, shouldn't Klipsch stop making them? Just asking... ---------------- psg- In response to you question. I would say that the khorn is their flagship speaker, but it is a complete different design then the rf line. I also think that many would consider the rf-7's to be their flagship and the heritage in a class of its own. I more or less fel that way. I think comparing these two speakers is a little short sited because you are comparing apples to oranges. The only thing they really have in common is that they are speakers as apples and oranges are both fruit. My 2 cents. If anyone disagrees with me thats ok, I am not going to argue something so trivial. Best, George Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psg Posted May 30, 2005 Share Posted May 30, 2005 That's a balanced point of view George. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stan krajewski Posted May 30, 2005 Share Posted May 30, 2005 ---------------- On 5/30/2005 1:27:46 PM Gramas701 wrote: ---------------- On 5/30/2005 11:29:57 AM psg wrote: No comparison between the two. If you like movies go with the RF7 if you like music go with the Khorns. I have not heard with my own ears but if you use Dean's upgraded crossovers many say it is a drastic change and help the RF7. I think RF7 is another price point built speaker. It is good from that comparison vs. others in its league. I'm not sure what "no comparison between the two means" if one is prefered for movies and the other for music. I've never heard the RF-7 because there are none here to audition. But there's lots of music in movies. So are you implying that you feel the RF-7 has some dynamics than the KHorn? I think people are figuring that the price of new RF-7s is similar to used KHorns, and thus asking which is best... But isn't the Klipschorn the Klipsch flagship? Why wouln't it be better than the RF-7? It costs twice as much. If it didn't, shouldn't Klipsch stop making them? Just asking... ---------------- psg- In response to you question. I would say that the khorn is their flagship speaker, but it is a complete different design then the rf line. I also think that many would consider the rf-7's to be their flagship and the heritage in a class of its own. I more or less fel that way. I think comparing these two speakers is a little short sited because you are comparing apples to oranges. The only thing they really have in common is that they are speakers as apples and oranges are both fruit. My 2 cents. If anyone disagrees with me thats ok, I am not going to argue something so trivial. Best, George ---------------- Well I guess thats the end of all speaker comparisons. Or anything else. Should get real quiet around here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxg Posted May 30, 2005 Share Posted May 30, 2005 If you have a large room with corners then the KHorn will probably sound better than the RF7. If you dont the RF7 will sound better. If you are running with a 2A3 SET amp at 3.5 wpc you will get more milage out of a pair of KHorns. If you are running a Rotel 1080 with 200 wpc you will get more chance to use the power with an RF7. If you want a modern look to your stereo go for the RF7. If you want a traditional look for your stereo go for any of the heritage line. If you want to talk to someone who went from RF7 to Khorn - talk to DeanG. The RF7 is a great speaker. The Khorn is an icon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soundthought Posted May 30, 2005 Share Posted May 30, 2005 I feel about the same as Max does. It really comes down to application. Both speakers do many things very well. IMO. Though, I must admit, I really don't have any idea what stereo matched Khorns sound like. My pair are from '57 and were engineered for mono use, so the bass augmentation is double that of the newer designs. Plus, i'm running a K-5-J mid lens, so the mid range has a different feel than those of later years. Well.....I guess I can't really make an accurate comparison. Ha Ha Ha. Heck with it. I Love My Old Horns. Regards, John. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted May 30, 2005 Share Posted May 30, 2005 The RF-7 is a great speaker, the Klipschorn is a pain in the ***. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mustang1 Posted May 30, 2005 Share Posted May 30, 2005 Hello, The larger speakers I've owned have been the Khorns, RF-7's, KLF-30's, and Chorus II's. My comments, and only my opinion, everyone has different ears! The Khorn is the most efficient you'll find, it's awesome and impressive, there is no sound like it if you have corners and the space. These are the speakers you shock others with if they've never heard Klipsch. I sold the Khorns (and want them back), and am now using the KLF-30's and RF-7's together. The best points regarding the 7's is that they are shielded, smaller, and my wife like's the size. You have to hear 7's and Khorns side by side to appreciate the difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwinr Posted May 30, 2005 Share Posted May 30, 2005 That's a good call, Dean. The Klipschorn is a right pain. That's why I sold mine. They're a b*gger to get right. They're hard to please. Demanding. Temperammental. They'll drive you to drink. They'll rip your head off if you don't feed them right. Why bother? Reminds me of some women I know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IB Slammin Posted May 30, 2005 Share Posted May 30, 2005 ---------------- On 5/30/2005 8:57:41 AM leok wrote: In general, if you can provide a good room for the KHorns, there is a lot more speaker there. KHorn has much more in overall dynamic capability and coherence. They are more of a you-are-there capability than the RF-7s The high end of the RF-7, however, for getting violins right, for instance, is cleaner. I find strings in most classical recordings sound more realistic through my RF-7s. I listen to a lot of clasical, with focus on string quartet, small baroque orchestra. In jazz and rock, often cymbals sound more realistic through the RF-7s. Still, often, even with the string quartet, small baroque orchestra, I prefer the overall presentation of a Klipsch 3-way, KHorn especially. Leo ---------------- IMHO.... Leo, had the opportunity to listen to Klipschhorns and RF-7s before and after DG crossover upgrades, in the same room with the same gear. Before the X-over change in the RF-7s... well, about 5 mins was tops for me. Had to get out of there. Dogs were chewing on my pant legs. After the filter change, they were tolerable, and I could stay for a while. I was not impressed with the 7's ether way, although the filter mod was nite and day. For music, the cornerhorns won hands down. Perhaps in the ability to produce HT sound-effects, the RF-7s might be superior. Did not have the pleasure of hearing them in that application. For me, with music, IMO, there is no comparison to be made. It is like Apples and weed eaters. Regards, Terry 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.