Has anyone compared the RF-7's to other speakers in that pric range, Paradigm Studio 100, PSB Stratus Gold...etc

[thirdeye]

In my opinion this discussion turned into whos ears are better not

speakers... I am not downing the 7's but they were too forward, might

just be the tone of the speakers, but I love the tone of the

K-horns, I

have very accute hearing and the slightest little Hiss from my

refrigerator or a fan in the audio room will drive me nuts. The

Rf-7's in my case may just be a

little too much of a good thing... thats okay I'm not a purist anymore

either because I can't stand even the 4000.00 preamp I had because it

had no tone controls, some recordings need help and instead of just

chalking everything up to not being perfect, I rather fix it even if

its

not the right way in the audiophile community.

I do know however the 7's are a perfect Movie speaker, surround

sound driven definatly, and I would not compete on that level with

anything against them for the money, they are more efficient and have

that upper tinge to them that definatly helps with Dull movie

soundtracks and many just suck, even in dolby or DTS, Especially voice,

there would be very few times somebody in the room would go "What did

they just say?" with the 7's no doubt, but to me I did not want that

kinda money invested into my surround system, I have a full 7.1 Klipsch

surround system in another room and with movies, I could care less it

sounds fine with any horns to me. My 2 Channel I found I needed

something a little less Open, Dynamic or whatever other words are used

for the 7's. But they were designed to be in a system with a Sub and

surround sound so some may have a hard time finding what they need in

them for a 2 channel, I'll Just leave it at that.

[Strabo]

Getting back to speakers in that price range....

Last year I auditioned a few speakers in that range (and a little higher) and here's a summery in a nut shell.

Paradigm - A bit congested in the midrange. The frequency extremes were ok. Overall, not as bad as people have hyped, but to me they weren't worth the money.

Soliloquy - the 6.3's sounded like they were defective. They had a big hole in the upper midrange / lower high frequency. It sounded like when you need to re pressurize your ears on an airplane. This was at a dealer/demo who thought they sounded just fine. I wouldn't use them if you gave them to me.

Meadowlark (now out of business) - the only thing worth listening to was the older Heron i's, or the big Blue Heron's (out of the price range). The rest of their line was better than the two manufacturers listed above, but not in the league of their Heron's or speakers listed below.

Dynaudio - Sounded great but very tough to drive. Definitely require high current / big wattage amps. Forget about using tubes. If you are going SS then this might be an option. I wanted tubes.

Vienna Acoustic - The Beethovens are great! Able to be driven with tubes but double the price of 7's. Mozarts are smaller more affordable, also able to use tubes but they were on the bright side IMO. They did have surprising bass for their diminutive size.

I should have spent more time listening to PSB's but I didn't so I can't comment here.

My choice came down to the VA Beethovens and the Sonus Faber GPH's. Both about the same price. The Beethovens were a little hotter than the SF's and had a little deeper bass. IMO the SF GPH's had the sweetest midrange of anything listed here except for the Meadowlark Heron's which I couldn't afford.

So it depends on what your goal is. For the price, stick with the 7's because they will outperform anything on this list in most categories. If it's midrange magic then you will have to stretch your budget to look at the Beethovens, Sonus Faber Domas, or the Dynaudio Contour line.

[thirdeye]

I agree strabo, or go with used K-horns, or something to that nature if

you wish to stay with klipsch and get the better midrange.

[maxg]

The only main speaker I have heard that is better than the RF7 for home cinema is the KLF30.

For music I would reverse that order. I have heard the RF7 in standard form many many times at shows, houses and dealers. It is hard to believe that each time I have listened to them I have been listening to the same make, let alone same model of speaker.

As others have indicated they have the typical Klipsch high sensitivity combined with actually not being an easy load to drive. In this they differ markedly from the RF3. The RF3, from my limited exposure to it - is a MUCH easier load on an amp and sound good - even on an old Yamaha surround sound amp (70 WPC - claimed of course[])

Get the setup right and they can be simply stunning. I heard them at the high end show in Athens last year and they were THE show stopper for me. Up to that point I had never been particularly impressed - but here I heard a sound comparible to the KHorn in impact and size wrapped in a practical, movable box.

I should add that the Khorns were being played in the next door room so going from one to another was easy. The only downside to all of this was that both were being driven by the Accuphase 530 amp. SS - all class A and 30 watts and way way way too expensive.

One day when I have the strength I am gonna lug my 70 wpc tubes over to the Klipsch distributor and have me a play. It that combo works (and if I have not moved into a house with suitable corners) am a gonna git me one of dem der 7's - or probably 2.

[MrMcGoo]

Max,

Good post. It takes courage to compare RF-7s to Khorns on this board.

If you run your tubes on the RF-7s, use the 4 ohm taps and take your wallet. The only caveat on the RF-7s is that they need a subwoofer to hit the lowest octave and to avoid doppler distortion.

Bill

[Shade]

All right, so where is Dean when you ask him a

question? I guess the answer will come eventually. I am

going to move the Rf-5's to my two channel system area one day and see

how they compare to the CW's. I was hoping to get a Merlin, and

try them with it and the M IV's, but that looks a ways off at this

point.

Bought a darn SX1250 for my son and the d** thing plays

the left channel intermitently. Have to turn the volume way up

for it to come on, and then if you turn it down too low it cuts back

out. What a crapper.

Is this an old Pioneer SX-1250? If so, the volume pot is probably just

dirty. I've got an old SX-1050 in one of my bedrooms that had the same

problem. Unfortunatley the pot is contained in a plastic box, and is

practically impossible to get to well enough to clean thoroughly if

it's really dirty. Try spraying some cleaner in it and see if it helps.

In my case I ended up having a friend help me replace the volume pot.

Stock parts are pretty much non-existent, so it involved a trip to Rat

Shack for a volume pot & a couple resistors to match the stock

values.

[Fish]

Yes,I did an extensive audition of Paradigm 100s and Def Tech 2000tl at $3k a while back.While I did not care for the 100's the 2000's were a close call,they sounded great until I switched cables to the 7s.My sons and friends all agreed that while the 2000's were impressive the 7s were just more live,dynamic and made instruments(acoustic guitar,piano etc.) sound very real.

[nuclearay]

When I was shopping for speakers early last year I narrowed it down to three:

Paridigm (not sure which one), Def Tech (big floorstanders with the amplified bass), and the mighty RF7s.

At the time I was looking to piece together hometheater (albeit slowly) but also have the ability to listen to music.

The Paradigms were pretty good from what I remember for movies. The DefTech seemed awesome while I was watching movies.

Then I listened to some music. And that was clincher; I popped in a song from Smashing Pumpkins -- "I Am One." For those who know it you know what I am talking about. For the rest of yous gus and gals -- it is a simple song with simple instrumentation -- kickdrum, snare, heavy bass guitar riff, and then a catchy guitar riff with a bit of distortion.

The Paradigm, once again, was OK. The DeafTech sounded like it was sloshing out doo-doo. The 7s -- well, I turned it up, then I turned it up some more, and when everyone in the store was running for cover I turned it up again and said to myself "I Am One" (with these speakers!!!) Having listened to guitar for 33 of my 33 years (my Dad is a musician and I myself have attempted to play guitar for the last 20) I kind of feel as though I know what a guitar is supposed to sound like. Its all about "FIDELITY" for me when it comes to music -- and the 7s were the only thing that made the drums, bass, and guitar sound like... well... drums/bass/+guitar.

Simple song, simple test, simple results.

From there, I figured if the 7s can get this right I could dial them infor movies no problem. And I was right.

[zekey]

As someone who traded RF3's for RF7's with the expectation they would be the same but bigger and better, I can relate to this thread.

The RF7's are certainly bigger and have the signature Klipsh "liveness" in spades - they rock! So, why wasn't I happy?

Well, they could sound a bit thin in the midrange and occasionally strident in my room. They just didn't sound as nicely full and rounded as the RF3's, especially on vocals and female vocal in particular.

My solution (and I'm a bit surprised so few USA-based people have gone down this track) was to add a TacT room correction pre-amp into the equation. I had to import it from the US to Australia and I only got the entry-level factory-refurbished RCS 2.0. Now can have just about any speaker characteristics I choose with all correction being done in the digital domain so it doesn't have any significant detrimental effect on the sound.

In a previous thread, I described the in-room response of the RF7's as measured by the TacT in my listening environment. Yes, it was a bit ragged with a few nasty dips and peaks. But the TacT fixes all that and the overall resut is outstanding.

A dog trainer once told me when selecting a pup that you can train a dog with spirit to be anything you want. But you can't do anything with a dog that doesn't have much spirit to start with - except maybe have a docile and passive pet. I can see this as an analogy to the RF7's - spirit in abundance (efficiency + a big forward open in-yer-face sound) that can be tamed to produce just about anything you could want in a big floor-standing speaker.

The only thing I want now is a bit more refinement in construction and appearance. Bring on the Premiere series, please!

[MrMcGoo]

Zekey,

The thin mid-range on the RF-7s can be helped with better amplification. Amps that cannot follow the impedance curve have poor bass and a thin mid-range. The bass cleans up at about 200 wpc and mid-range is cleared up at 400 wpc with solid state amps.

Or a good tube amp with 4 ohm taps will get by on much lower wattage.

Bill

[zekey]

The amps I have used are an ME850 (Australian manufacture - only 120WPC but massive current capacity) and a Musical Fidelity A308 (power amp section only in use). I use the TacT as a digital preamp and dac.

I really can't see any power amp correcting the in-room frequency response abherrations (due to both the speakers and room interactions) that I saw with the TacT computer software.

Maybe I sound like a zealot, but I have no affiliation with TacT. I just know I'll never be tactless again as their RCS systems are IMHO the best bit of hifi equipment I've ever stumbled across. And you get genuinely useful tone control as a bonus!

[imperfectcircle25]

400 watts for a speaker that is 101db/watt sensitive, I think that is overkill to say the least. Youll do much better with a high quality 100 watt amp, there is no reason you would ever need 400 watts with these speaker!. The amount of watts doesnt really have anything to do with being able to drive low impeadances, its about curreent capability. Something like a 50 watt Krell Ksa50 wouldporbably do a better job driving them then a similarly priced 400w amp, because it has tremendous current output capability .

[zekey]

Yep, I tend to agree with that. I'm sure 100 quality watts would be more than adequate in any domestic living environment. Watts don't have a lot to do with the really important parameters such as current capacity. Give me 50 watts of high quality amp that can double its output with each halving of impedence over an overhyped megawatt monstrosity anyday. My nephew's new $50.00 boombox has a big sticker on the front saying 400 watts. But it signifies nothing.....and is sadly lacking even in sound and fury!

[ancientdude]

I am pretty sure mgoo was referring to a 400wpc power amp,

not a overblown 400w.

[imperfectcircle25]

A 400w power amp is over kill unless you are using them in a stadium or something... Ill take a high quality 100watt amp like my Exposure IVDR over a similarly priced 400w amp with the Klipsch's. Im just saying, for example if you have $2000 to spend on an amp and there is one thats 100w and one thats 400w the 100w amp is most likely of higher quality, and with speakers such as the RF-7's quality is far more important then quantity as they only need a few watts to play extremely loud. Thats one of the great things bout Klipsch power output is not that important, so you can spend your money on a quality amp instead of a quantity type amp.

Regardless there is no way u need anywere near 400 watts to get good sound from the RF-7's. You will never be using more than a few watts anyways, having headroom is nice, but 400watts is overkill. On the other hand an amp with large curent reserves will be a good idea as they do pose a slightly difficult load to the amplifier. I think people often confuse current and watts. You can have an amp with alot of watts that still wont be able to drive a difficult speaker, on the other hand you can have an amp like the Krell I mentioned before that is only 50 watts but has almost unlimited current capability and will drive almost any speaker load. Most likely something like a 50w Krell KSA50 would drive the Klipschs better than your average 200 watt amplifier.

If you dont mind me asking, what 400 watt amp were you using with the RF-7's? Im in no way saying you wont get good sound with that much power, just that its overkill. For example my neighbor has a brand new pair of Bryston SST monoblocks im not sure of the model, maybe the 14bsst? But its got a ton of power probably about 500watss. We hooked it up in my system with the RF-7 just for fun and the sound was amazing, but it wasnt all that much better than my 90watt Exposure power amp in its ability to play loud and clear. So I still say 100watts of very good clean power is as much as most will ever need with the RF-7's. Anyone agree or disagree?

BTW if you guys arent familiar with Exposure, its a smaller British company, very similar in design to Naims power amplifiers, if you are familiar with the Naim Nap 250, my Exposure IVDR is quite similar although with quite a bit larger completely dual-mono power supply. This amp is a monster for a 90 watt amp, and every part of the amp even the output stage is fully regulated with descrete regualtors.

[thirdeye]

zekey,

drove my first point home.... Imperfectcircle, your belief and and

question is valid, Jjust because of

the impeadance drop in the 7's I found the larger amp made bigger

difference than a 55watt we had on hand , But mainly those 7's take a

SH^Tload of Current to get them at the most controlled sound, so For

the Easiest explanation as to why 400 watts with a 101db efficient

speaker? I guess you might need a high watt cheaper amp to produce High current and low impeadance is all.

[DrWho]

let's see here...

101dB at 1 watt, 1 meter into 8 Ohms. Let's just say that the RF7 has an impedance drop down to 1 ohm to make things interesting...so for our speaker to ouput 101dB at 1 meter, our amp will need to put out 8 watts for those frequency ranges where the impedance drops that low. So an amp capable of outputting 8 watts is going to have absolutely no problem driving the speaker up to 101dB! Therefore, arguing that extra wattage is responsible for improving sound quality is entirely wrong. As was mentioned earlier, low wattage tube amps can drive the speakers fine....

The point being missed here is impedance matching - or to put it another way, an output device simply does not behave linearly as the source impedance changes. A quick look at the most simple of published amplifier specs makes this easily apparent. In an ideal world, halving the impedance results in a doubling of max amplifier power, but in the real world it's closer to 1.5x the power for every halving of impedance (I know there are huge variations on the this, but am ignoring this for the ease of an analogy). If you want to translate this to our RF-7 analogy, the frequencies where the RF-7 impedance drops to 1 ohm will be relatively much quieter, because our amplifier isn't able to perfectly track the impedance...In fact, using the 1.5x multiplier, the amplifier will be delivering about 4 watts (rounded up from 3.35) into the 1 ohm load instead of 8 watts, which corresponds to a 3dB difference. Not huge, but definetly audible...It is definetly a lot smaller than the +-10dB swing the room can have at those frequencies!

So is this a fault of the speaker (should speaker companies shoot for a linear impedance versus frequency?) or is this a fault of the amplifier manufacturer (should an amp be able to linearly track any impedance from 0 to infinity?) ??? Should we even care if our listening environment has a larger influence on the sound???

The reason low power tube amps can handle the RF-7's is because tubes tend to be good at linearly tracking changes in impedance (in fact, they have to be otherwise the tubes go 'poof' - yay for taps). The reason higher powered amplifiers tend to handle the RF-7's better is simply because the amplifiers can track impedance differences better (which is a function of the loudspeaker company trying to avoid amplifier failure when increasing the power of a design).

Anyways, the point of this entire post is to point out that good impedance tracking is why higher powered amplifiers generally tend to sound better with the RF-7's. In other words, it is entirely possible for a high powered amp to make the RF-7's sound like crap when there is an impedance mismatch (*cough* peavey *cough*) - which is why the claim that "more power = cleaner sound" isn't entirely true. (I mention Peavey because their amplifiers are actually quite decent until you attach a speaker with a "funky impedance", which just happens to be the case with almost any speaker, lol).

[MrMcGoo]

People always seem to jump to the conclusion that you need a 400 wpc amp for the 400 watts. Wrong!!! You need it for the current capacity and headroom that will rarely be used. A 100 watt amp that can double down all the way to one ohm will work for most folks with RF-7s.

My 400 watt remark was based upon my own results and the results of other members with similar amps on RF-7s. A 60 watt tube amp with 4 ohm and 2 ohm taps would work as well or better for many applications. I have yet to see a solid state amp with 4 ohm taps and 8 ohm taps. Four ohm switches on receivers LIMIT current, not increase it.

The reality is that most 100 watt amps cannot double into 4 ohms much less 2 ohms and 1 ohm. Second, headroom never hurts as long as the first watt is clean. Big amps can run with clean first watts, if they are well built.

Finally, try calculating the power required to run RF-7s based on 99 db sensitivity at 4 meters at 85 decibels steady state (commercial theater normal) with 30 decibels of headroom for explosions in movies. All of the prior parameters are reasonabe. You will find the amp calculator here:

http://www.crownaudio.com/apps_htm/designtools/elect-pwr-req.htm

No one needs to run their system that loud, but it is nice to be able to do so without clipping.

Bill

[MrMcGoo]

DrWho,

Great post! If an amp cannot be linear in its tracking of the impedance curve, frequency response suffers especailly bass.

Bob Carver calls his Sunfire amps "load invariant" to point out that they can run speakers that represent a difficult load. There are many other amp manufacturers that do as well or better.

Bill

[thirdeye]

Right, I guess my quick explanation was not enough, but I was

just simply answering why 400 watts, and just tried to simplify,

well you would be running about that if you want the very high current

capability and cheaper amps that can withstand 2 ohm impeadance, which

absolutly makes these klipsch or any high efficiency speaker

sound smoother in the highs, and drives the bass with much more control

and authority with higher current in my experiance again unless you buy

a CODA or Krell which will give you something in the 75-100 watt per

channel, and give you 100 amps of current still per channel and you

will pay for it, I know of no others, but they could be out

there, from what I understand the 7's will drop to somewhere in

the 2.5 ohm range,

.. .By the way I borrowed a sunfire 300 watt per channel signature model, it was

around 2200.00 or something like that, and it was horrible with the

7's, sounded absolutly anemic I opened it up and it is a very cheap

amplifier under the polished chassis, do not let the fancy meter and

gold logo fool you, then I borrowed a 200 watt per FORTE 4A and it was

about 400.00 used, not to mention the forte just blew the sunfire away

but it was built 10 times better and far more musical in the end, plus

100 watts per channel less, but after hearing that I wanted much

more, so I went to monos.