Question - Should I replace my RP-5's or not...??? More inside...

[Tim_in_NC]

Hi everyone,

I'm trying to decide if I should Replace my RP-5 Mains (these come with Horn, Mid, & Built in Sub) with a set of RF-5s and add a RSW-15 sub...

Would this be worth the swap? OR, should I just keep the RP-5's and use as I currently am ...

I'm curious if I would see any noticed improvement of overall sound quality with the added Mid in the RF Tower and the seperation of Sub & Horn/Mid from not being located within the same enclosure...

Please see below for my Complete setup...

Thanks all,

TIM

[Cal Blacksmith]

I have never heard either but I am sure someone here can help you.

[MrMcGoo]

The first thing that I would change in your system would be to swap the RC-3 for the RC-7. The center channel handles about 75% of the sound. The 7 is light years ahead of the 3.

The change that you propose is expensive and is a small step up, RSW-15 excepted.

Bill

[Tim_in_NC]

Bill,

Thanks for the reply...

It sounds as if I should hold on to the RP-5's ...

I could, as you mentioned, upgrade the RC-3 for the 7 ...

If I did purchase a RSW-15, would this sub be overkill along with the subs in the RP-5's ???

I was thinking that I could have the LFE bass only going to the RSW-15 and then the RP-5 subs would only reproduce "normal" bass ...

Thanks again,
TIM

[toddvj]

Sounds as if you should hold on to the RP-5s?? Who said that? I used to own the RP-5s, and loved them, but when I got rid of them a couple years ago and upgraded to the RF-7s and RSW-15s, it was a HUGE improvement, and one of the best investments I've ever made. I still think the RF-5s w/ RSW-15 would be a great improvement, if you can't swing the 7's. You would be trading your one 8" driver for two, Improving Bass, and getting better x-over. Definitely worth it.

And I agree with Mr. Magoo, on one point, you should also upgrade to the RC-7. As far as this being a just a small upgrade, keep in mind this is also the guy who would tell you to wait on HDTV. [:@]

[jzoz01]

Don't think of the RP-5s as having a sub built in, but rather as a powered full range speaker. Add the RSW 15 to your existing setup and see what you think. The RF7s would be a very nice improvement, but at quite the expense. Definately replace the center though. Build in phases, not all at once, this will allow you to the the difference (or lack of) that adding each component makes.

[Tim_in_NC]

Thanks again guys...

Great stuff...

[DrWho]

Have you tried running your RF-3's as the mains and bumping the RP-5's

back to surround duty? I find that the RF-3's sound far better than the

RP-5. By making the swap and adding a subwoofer to the front of your

room, you could also route the LFE to the RP-5 powered sub section,

which will probably drasically even out your bass response.

[Tim_in_NC]

I have tried the RF-3 / RP-5 swap but it didn't sound as good to me ...

Could be room layout or my ears... but the high and mid of the RP-5 just sound much better to me as my Mains that did the RF-3...

Thanks,

TIM

[DrWho]

Well both the RP-5 and RF-3 use the exact same HF unit and they use

very similar woofers as well. Did you try the comparison with the

subwoofer on the RP-5 on or off?

[Tim_in_NC]

Sub was on...

I'm mainly looking to determine if it would make sense to swap out the RP-5's for RF-5's and an RSW-15 ... I'm not sure if this swap would justify the time and money...

For near future plans...

Could I use an RC-7 Center, RF-7 Mains...then use the RP-5's as rears, and the RF-3's as the remaining 2 channels of a 7.1 system... This, all with the RSW-15 as the Sub???

[DrWho]

In the long term I think you might find the RSW15 a bit lacking and I

would highly recommend going with the THX Ultra 2 subwoofer system. If

you wanna save some money you could always just go with one subwoofer

and the amp, which would cost you about the same as the RSW15. For

mains I would suggest going with RF-5's with an RC-7 center. With a

killer subwoofer you don't need the extra low end provided by the RF-7

and the smaller diameter drivers of the RF-5 should sound better in the

mids.

As for your surround setup, I say go for it. And keep in mind that you

can always experiment with running the LFE to the RP-5s in the rear as

well.

Btw, you should make the comparison between the two speakers without

the built in subwoofer and then I think you'll find the RP-5's very

lacking. (The RP-5 is basically just the RB-3 with a built in subwoofer).

[MrMcGoo]

My recommendations on order of priority:

1. Upgrade the center channel. This is the biggest bang for the buck.

2. Add subwoofer(s). The RSW-15 is good and very punchy down to 30 Hz; the THX subs go to 20 Hz and below. Most folks do not hear below 30 Hz but they do feel the shakes below 30 Hz.

3. Upgrade the mains to RF-7s with upgraded crossovers.

4. Add a separate amp to run the front speakers.

bill

[toddvj]

In the long term I think you might find the RSW15 a bit lacking and I would highly recommend going with the THX Ultra 2 subwoofer system. If you wanna save some money you could always just go with one subwoofer and the amp, which would cost you about the same as the RSW15. For mains I would suggest going with RF-5's with an RC-7 center. With a killer subwoofer you don't need the extra low end provided by the RF-7 and the smaller diameter drivers of the RF-5 should sound better in the mids.

Btw, you should make the comparison between the two speakers without the built in subwoofer and then I think you'll find the RP-5's very lacking. (The RP-5 is basically just the RB-3 with a built in subwoofer).

Are you on Crack??? In what way could the RSW-15 possibly be lacking?? I have never heard of anyone saying it was lacking in any way. Now, I'll admit I've never heard the THX sub, but I don't understand why the THX sub is supposed to be so much better, especially if you only run one, as suggested. Because it's passive?? And you seriously would recommend the RF-5's over the RC-7's because "the mids" should sound better? I don't think you'd find too many people to back you up on that one.

And why would someone run his powered speakers without the subwoofer? That's kind of the point of powered speakers, isn't it? (The RP-5 is actually more like the RB-5 with a built in subwoofer, not the RB-3).

[DrWho]

Ummm the RSW doesn't really have 20Hz extension whereas the Ultra will

dig down to 16Hz no problem. Going with one ultra instead of two just

means you lose 3dB in max SPL. (or is the seperate amp mono and the

subs wired in parallel? In which case you lose 6dB). And I almost

forgot to mention, the ultras will bust out 130dB max SPL []

I actually know a few guys that prefer the RF-5/RF-3II over the RF-7

when a good subwoofer is being implemented in the setup. If you feel

the horn on the RF-7 is that much superior then go with the RC-7 (again

there have been people switching over to the RC-7's after owning

RF-7's). You just can't expect a 10" woofer to get up to 2kHz with

authority and even klipsch acknoledges the RF-7's lacking ability in

the midrange...PWK was always talking about how the midrange is the

most important aspect to music reproduction.

And the reason I asked if he ran it without the subwoofer is because he

could put the RP-5's in the rear and still run the LFE to them. Thus

getting the bigger sound from the RF-3's without sacrificing any bass.

[toddvj]

You don't think the RSW-15 would hit 130dB (if you were crazy enough to listen that loud)? There really is no way to compare specs because on the Klipsch website, they have the RSW-15 listed as "Max Continous Output," whereas the THX sub has "sensitivity" rating (whatever that means) for "Two Subs Side by side." So, I'm sure there are a lot of variables. Still, unless you've owned both, you really can't say one is better than the other. I'm certainly not saying the RSW is better, but I will tell you that it is not lacking by any stretch of the imagination.

As far as the RF7s vs RF5s, I know a MORE THAN a few people that prefer the RF7s. Most don't prefer the sound because of one component in the speaker, but the overall sound.

[DrWho]

My information about the two subs comes from Deon - the klipsch

subwoofer engineer at klipsch and it is almost ridiculous how much

better the Ultra subwoofer system is. If you don't want a flat response

below 30Hz then that is your own agenda....the ultras dig an entire

octave lower (16Hz) and do 10dB more output. Btw, the spec sheet on the

website site should read max continuous output, not sensitivity. I know

the RSW15 is rated +-3dB down to 20Hz, but I was told that was a

stretch because the passive radiator seriously limits the max SPL

(because the passive can only have so much excursion). In other words,

the low signal level is -3dB @ 20Hz, but the large signal level is more

like -9dB, basically moving the F3 up to 30Hz (at least I think I got

that right). This means the tonal balance of the subwoofer changes with

how loud you're pushing it...the Ultras exhibit this to some extent as

well, but instead of losing low end, the ports overload and get tuned

lower. I don't plan on listening at 130dB, but having that much

headroom means the sub is going to behave a lot more linear at lower

volumes. Deon also said that you could go much louder at 16Hz if you

threw distortion out the window (in other words, it can do a good 120dB

down that low and you probably wouldn't notice considering the types of

sounds that play those frequencies loud - aka explosions).

Anyways, specs aside the ultras just sound better (yes I've heard

both). I would describe them as having a more solid sound foundation

with less coloration. You don't see many people satisfied with the

RSW-15 mated with their heritage speakers, but you see them using the

ultras...

Most people went with the RF-7 because it's the biggest most expensive

speaker in its class, which has its own psychological influences. I'm

not trying to say the RF-7 is a bad speaker or that someone wouldn't be

satisfied with it, but there's so many mindsets on the forums that this

and that are the epitomy of sound when in reality that may not be the

case. The amplifier-speaker and speaker-room interactions are very

complex and I was pointing out that there are a few technical reasons

why the RF-5 could be better sounding (most importantly it should be

less beamy in the mids due to the smaller diameter drivers and the

weight of the cone is less which increases the upper frequency mass

corner). They are both very simliar speakers (in fact, they are nearly

identical) so they will certainly both sound very similar.