RB-3 vs. RF-3

[Brian Fine]

Could someone tell me if there are any major tonal differences. I mean does one blow you away while the other is just nice. I know one is a bookshlf and the other a floor but I am looking for one of these and I am not sure which I need. I am using it for mostly HT about 90/10 HT/music. Thank you!!

[decibel man]

Hands down go with the RF-3 if you are limited to these two models. If you are considering the RB-5, that is also a good choice if coupled with a decent sub. The RF-3's probably give the most HT bang for the buck in today's entire speaker market. If you have the room go with the RF-3's, you won't regret it. Is this your first HT? If you could post some more information as to the direction you want to go with your HT, there are plenty of members who will be glad to provide advise and suggestions. Let us know things like budget, room size, current gear that will be used in new settup, and listening preferences.

Good luck and enjoy!

JT

[Brian Fine]

Thanks for the quick reply. Well I currently have a nice HT but I upgraded my reciever to a denon 3801 and would like some really nice speakers to upgrade the 3 way sony's I have. My room is pretty small right now 12x12 but I want somthing I can have for a move to a larger room. I want some booming speakers. I have a sony wm40 sub so the bass is not so much a problem. I am looking to upgrade peice by peice of the speakers. So I was thinking mains first and a center to get a firm front soundstage. then I could upgrade the rears as money comes into hand. I am looking to spend about 650 on the mains max. I have found the RF-3 for around that. I was just looking to pinch a penny here or there by possibly gfetting bookshelfs. But if it is no comparioson I want the better sounding.

-B

[decibel man]

The RF-3's or RB-5's would both probably work for your needs. The RB-5's cost the same as the RF-3's, partly because they have a real wood veneer and the RF-3's use a vinyl veneer. You should try and listen to them if at all possible. The RC-3 center is pretty amazing for its size and price. It has a unique network that is in essence a 2.5 way. One woofer starts from the tweeter cut off and obviously goes lower and the other starts around 800Hz and goes lower. This helps to make the frequencies below the tweeter cut off more articulate and tight. Hence, voices are much more acurate then most comparably priced center channels. I have RF-3's, RS-3's and a RC-3 and they sound great together. I also have a LF-10 sub that takes care of the low-end. I do see some R*-7's in my future though.

JT

The plus side to long conference calls is that I have time to post on this board.

[bacevedo]

JT - isn't it so true about long conference calls? I got a good chuckle out of that one.

Brian,

I currently have the RB-5s, and my father-in-law has the RF-3s. We both have the RC-3 center channel. He has a Yamaha RXV-1000, I have a Denon 3802 (had the 3801, but swapped it for a 3802).

I personally like the RB-5s - because I can put them on speaker stands, and get them to the correct height, and toe them in exactly like I need to for the mids and highs.

I also think it is easier for Klipsch to make a sturdier cabinet on a smaller bookshelf then on a larger tower. Don't get we wrong, the RF-3s are well built, and sound great. You can't go wrong with either of them. The RB-3s, on the other hand, won't keep up. They use a single 6 1/2" woofer, and a smaller tractrix horn tweeter. They won't sound bad either (I just love that Klipsch Reference sound), but they won't pump it out like the RB-5 or RF-3 will.

If you are looking more for a punchy, louder speaker, then the RF-3 is the way to go. Since it uses two 8" woofers, it will put out more bass than the RB-5. However, if you are going to use a sub and set them as small, then this may not be as big as a factor. I have seen reviews of the RB-5, and the measurements they took showed it as a very accurate speaker - which is more my bag, baby. They even use the RB-5 as monitors in some sound studios. Pretty impressive for a consumer bookshelf speaker.

It all comes down to what your priority is. If you want higher SPL and punch, I would think that the RF-3 would be what you want. If you want a little more laid back and accurate, the RB-5 might be the ticket. However, both are great speakers, and you can't go wrong with either.

Good luck!

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

Thanks,

Bryan

"... But Honey - I promise this is the last thing I will have to buy for the Home Theater"

Mistubishi 60" RPTV (VS60603)

Denon AVR 3802 RCVR

Denon DVM 1800 DVD

JVC 3600U SVHS VCR

RCA DirecTV

Klipsch RB5 - Mains

Klipsch RC3 - Center

Klipsch RCW3 - In-wall Surrounds

Klipsch KSW12 - Sub (hopefully an RSW12 whenever they come out!)

Monster Power Conditioner

Acoustic Research Pro Series Interconnects

[Brian Fine]

Thanks guys!! I will most definatly use your advise! and I will let you know what I decided on. Thnks again! looking forward to becoming part of the Klipsch family.

-B

[Underhanded Penguin]

Hi Brian.

I just bought the RB-3 last week. It's a great speaker. I was researching the whole reference series speakers, and was considering the RB-3, RB-5 II, and the RF-3 II. Realistically speaking, I really coundn't afford the RB-5 or RF-3 right away, so I was either gonna wait longer and shell out for those 2 or just settle for the RB-3. After talking to someone on Audioreview who had purchased both the RB-3's and RB-5's I decided to go with the 3's. The guy I spoke to said he really couldnt notice much difference between the two, and that the 5's went a bit lower. They are both excllent and accurate speakers. You can read the short review I wrote of the RB-3's on this forum. The only disadvantage of going with a smaller speaker for the mains is you will have to get a subwoofer to bring out the lower sounds. But then again, even the flagship RF-7 needs a sub to get below 32hz. Main speakers without integrated subs are just not meant to play that low. You will notice this when you try to blast a bass heavy track on any of the reference mains without a sub. You will most probably get some sort of port noise when you do this. That is why you have subs and corssover frequencies, so that the really loud lows don't break your speakers. I wouldn't worry about the volume levels of the RB-X speakers as any speaker in the reference series system will put out more than enough for the above average sized room (given you have a semi decent amplifier or receiver). The real main difference between the RB-3's and the larger reference mains is mid-bass and maximum spl levels. The reason I don't think you should worry about the maximum spl levels in reference mains is because who in their right mind listens to anything that loud anyways???? The larger the reference mains, the more localization and accuracy of midbass you are going to get from your speakers. This is a good thing, but not a necessary or even noticeable thing on most source material. Keep in mind this is my own subjective opinion, and although most people will agree, some people will not. Try and listen to all the speakers you are considering at equal volume spl levels (not volume level on the master volume control) to compare the sound quality. (not quantity) And also keep in mind that hardcore audiophiles won't even consider the Klipsch reference series speakers as an option. There are some crazy people out there Brian...

I think I'm reasonable. I love good sound qulaity, but I won't and can't spend a fortune on them right now.

In conclusion, between the RB-3's and the rest of the reference mains, I don't notice that much of a difference sound quality wise. The larger speakers will sound fuller by themselves because they can go lower, but with a good subwoofer, I challenge anyone to distinguish the difference between the RB-3's and RB-5's and even RF-3's with your eyes closed... Personally, my bidget and space limitations made me go with the RB-3's. Would I have gotten the larger mains given more space and money? ABSOUTELY.

-UP

"Main speakers without integrated subs are just not meant to play that low. You will notice this when you try to blast a bass heavy track on any of the reference mains without a sub. You will most probably get some sort of port noise when you do this. That is why you have subs and corssover frequencies, so that the really loud lows don't break your speakers."

- Just in case you were worried, when I said this, the term "blast" refers to anything above 110 decibels at regular 3 ft. listening position on the SPL meter. All joking aside, we are talking about SERIOUS ear bleeding. It is physically damaging and not recommended to listen to anything like this. Also, that the port noise at this level of sound would ONLY distort on bass-heavy tracks. And I mean "Wu Tang Clan" hardcore rap bass-heavy.

-UP

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

I love you Aki Ross!TextText

This message has been edited by Underhanded Penguin on 09-24-2001 at 04:30 PM

[bacevedo]

Hey Brian - for the record I haven't listened to the RB-3s. I wanted to make sure that was clear, and that I was basing my opinion based purely on the specs.

I agree with UP, I don't think that I could personally tell the difference either with a good sub. Not until you got into some really high SPL's, or were doing some ultra-critical listening (but who does that - I want to just enjoy it!) But even then I don't know.

When I bought my RB-5s, the RB-3s weren't out yet. If they were out, I may have bought those. I was in the market for a bookshelf (space limitations), not a floor standing speaker, so the RF-3s were out of the running right off the bat.

One other reason I prefer the RB-5s is because they use the exact same horn as the RC-3. That way they are tonally matched. Now the difference is probably inaudible, but I am anal!

One other reason to get the RB-3 over the RF-3 is you will most likely be wasting the extra bass of the towers by setting them to small. So why pay extra for that?

Let us know what you decide!

Bryan

[TheEAR]

Brian I have the RB-5,RF-5 and RB-3's!

Now if you ask me to compare the three I can say this...

The Klipsch RB-3's are very detailed,natural sounding minimonitor speakers.Dont be fooled by the 6.5" mid-bass driver and smaller horn on the tweeter.The RB-3 is a serious mini with a BIG output,just dont ask the RB-3 to reproduce a pipe organ.The 6.5" mid-bass driver has its limitations.

I found the RB-3 to be very accurate and free from colorations many speakers in this price range are plagued with.Even when used alone with no help from any sub the RB-3 will play loud and with no major strain.

One thing to remember is that I used a Celeste 4150SE power amp.This is a $2000 power amp that has finesse(more then any reciever) and bass control(much beter then any reciever).The sound was grandiose and not agressive at all.

At the asking price the RB-3 is a bargain.And with a Denon 3801 you should use a subwoofer to help the bass.I would cut the RB-3's at 80Hz,then you can pump up the volume.

Second is the RB-5 speakers.The Klipsch RB-5 has a larger output and can play at extreme volumes with almost no strain.And if cut at 80Hz it can almost match the RF-3 in output.Plus it sounds better then the RF-3(RF-3 II ???).When I say better,the highs are more relaxed and not agressive.I found the high a bit edgy on the RF-3's.Just a bit.

So if you need more power to fill a larger room the RB-5 is a great choice.All the qualities of the RB-3's plus more output and better bass,more tactile impact.

And now the RF-3's,the RF-3 speakers will outperform the RB-3 and RB-5 if you dont want/have any sub.Then you just set the mains to full range and enjoy the impact(minus true sub bass).For the pice the RF-3's represent a super value.

Still when I compared the RF-3 to the new RF-5's it was clear the RF-5's were much more smooth.No edge in the sound,I could listen for hours at very high volumes with no fatigue!And the bass is great,providing you have a dedicated power amp(I used the Celeste 4250SE just for kicks).

So if you have a small room you can get the RB-3's,for a mid sized room the RB-5's get my vote.And if you want punch for a larger room the RF-3 will bring you sound quality for a few dollars.

If I was asked to select one pair of speakers I would take the RB-5's with no hesitation.Best compromise,sound quality and output.

TheEAR(s) Now theears

[Underhanded Penguin]

Just to clarify for anyone interested in the reference series speakers. Anything with a mk II symbol after it (for example RB-5 II, RC-3 II, RS-3 II, RF-3 II etc) is the new reference series with the upgraded monster cable Z series internally wired crossover cables. This just means it has good quality cabling all the way to the drivers. Most speakers don't have this. Would you be able to notice the difference from listening? Probably not that much, but it does give you that added assurance that good quality components went into your speaker. Plus, I would imagine that on high output levels, your speaker would not get strained as much because the current going through to the internal wires do not have to pass through as much resistance, and as a result of this, there will be less distortion. Because you can have the best speaker cables in the world externally, but if your internal speaker wires suck, then, much like computers, it is only going to be as good as your weakest component. The newly released reference speakers (made 2001) will all be upgraded with this internally wired monster cable (for example the RB-3, RF-7) and will nto have a "mk II" beside the model number. I hope this helps someone, as I was confused when I was buying my stuff.

Please let me know if anything I said was incorrect as I am just regurgitating what people told me and what I read. Thx.

By the way, when you're writing posts at work, you can make the window smaller and it looks like you're typing a memo!

-UP

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

I love you Aki Ross!

[decibel man]

I am fortunate enough to work from home, but I still get bored out of my mind when I am on a two hour conference call. I had a set of "conference call bingo cards" that had words in each box that you crossed off while participating in the conference call. The idea is to have a few people on the other line join in with you and make up code words for calling out bingo. It was just too much effort, the BB suits me well enough for now.

JT

[Brian Fine]

So youre saying the RB-5 is just as good when you match it with a sub?? I am really interested in these now for ease of placement issues. But I just want to make sure they will fill a larger room when I eventually get one. right now the room is 12x12 and I want something I can use in a larger room and not have to upgrade. Thakns guys. Oh by the way I bought the rc-3 and it rocks!! it is so BIG. will the rb-5 match it tonally?? let me knwo asap

-B

[boa12]

yes bri the rc-3 is THE match to both the rf-3 & rb-5 & i believe also recommended for the new rb-3.

bac had a good point above. larger mains are a waste when the receivers or pre/pros have a fixed crossover around 80hz. unless u can get the mains set to large to blend w/ a sub & not cut LFE somehow, or u do a lot of stereo listening w/ no sub.

though now looks like more receiver makers like denon are putting in crossover controls. finally some support from makers for tower speakers within a 5.1 or so set-up.

[Underhanded Penguin]

Brian, if you are worried about filling a room with sound with the bookshlef reference speakers... don't. You have no reason to worry about that. I have a 12' x 14' room with my RB-3's and they go sooo loud without distortion: That's to be expected though...they are afterall, reference speakers. To give you an idea of how loud they can play without distorting, I had my friend come in to my room, and I asked him how loud his band used to play during practice, and he said: "So loud that you cannot hear it when somebody talks." (He plays heavy metal/industrial music) So I put on a Korn cd and told him to adjust the volume until it was that loud. He turned the master control on my Denon receiver to about -5 db (why it is negative I will never understand: -18 is the hisghest it will go) I have a Denon 1802 which is only 80 wpc. It's a modest power rating but more than I can use. The resulting volume was so loud and undistorted that I could only hear him when he yelled beside my ear. It was definitely very uncomfortable to listen to. And this is only from a pair of RB-3's, NO SURROUNDS, CENTER, OR SUB YET!!! The RB-5's will not play much louder than the 3's if any at all. But the frequency response goes slightly lower. Better for if you don't have a sub. But if you have a sub, then I guarantee you will not notice any difference both in sound quality and sound quantity between the 3's and the 5's. The RF series is another story, as I have mentioned above, they will sound fuller without a sub and will play louder. But you have to ask yourself, do I need my ears to bleed a lot? If the answer is yes, then the bigger the better.

Hell if I had the money and space, RF-7's all the way! But seriously, my pockets and ears could not be more pleased with the RB-3's.

-UP

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

I love you Aki Ross!

[bacevedo]

UP,

I have the Denon 3802 - so I can tell you why the volume control is the way it is.

On mine the volume control goes from -70 to + 18 (I think you mean +18 in your post).

The numbers represent the number of decibels from a reference point of 0 on the volume control.

Their thinking is that you would calibrate your HT to 75 db with the volume control at 0. So then if you are playing at -10 on the volume control, you are playing at a calibrated level of 65 db. It is all just for reference. You now know that -20 is 10 db quieter (hence the negative sign) then -10. So they use a negative sign to show the relationship from a reference of 0.

Now with Klipsch speakers, If I change my volume control to 0 and calibrate to 75 db, I end up setting my speaker levels to like -8. I thought, why should I do that? Instead, I just adjusted my volume control until my most efficient speaker (my center channel - RC-3) was at 75 db with a CHANNEL level of 0 (no cut or boost). Then I adjusted all of my other speakers from there, so that my mains are at +1, and my rears are bumped a few db as well.

This then makes the maximum volume of the receiver go from +18 to like + 14, to compensate for any channels that I boosted. Likewise, if I were to lower them all, the max would go up to like +25, or whatever. So no matter how you do it, the volume levels will always be the same (in spl), but their reading on the display may be different. And you don't lose any range when doing it either way. The Denon adjusts itself so that you can still turn it up as loud as you want.

The 00 point on the volume control is for ease of use - if you calibrate to that, then you know you just have to turn it back to that to play at the same level. The old volume controls without any displays left you guessing on exactly where it was.

And on the topic - the RB5s will play with more than enough volume in a room. My room is something like 18 X 30 (it is a great room where the kitchen, breakfast nook and family room are all one big room), and it can get so loud that it is uncomfortable, and my receiver still has more juice left to push it.

Here is another reason that I like the RB5. Think about this - the RF3 has 3 drivers (2 woofers). So now your receiver that is sending 100W or whatever to it, has to split the signal out into 3rds - each driver getting about the same signal (or however the crossover works). Those two woofers are now only getting like 33W, and the tweeter only gets 33W of that signal. On the RB5 - the signal is split in two, so each driver gets 50W. In my opinion, I would rather have one driver getting more clean power, than two drivers splitting that same amount of power. Sure, you get a 3db bump in spl, but does that mean it is cleaner? This may not be an issue, but it works in my head!

Hope this helps.

Bryan