Cleve Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 I haven't been frequenting the forums here as much as I once did. I see that the new Reference line of floorstanding speakers has launched, and that the old RF-7 and it's siblings are now discontinued. I was looking at the new lineup - I must admit initially I was a tad confused as to which is the "top of the line" floorstander. I thought, because the number was higher, it was the RF-82, but it's quite a bit smaller than the RF-63. It was a break from tradition, from the Epics to the KLFs to the last Reference speakers - in each series the top of the line had the higher number (CF-4 > CF-1, KLF-30 > KLF10, RF-7 > RF-3). The new numbers obviously refer to the size and number of woofers. Oh well, so much for tradition. I looked at the specs closely of the RF-63, and compared it to the RF-7 RF-7 102 dB/w efficiency 250 watts continuous power handling 4.8 ft3 enclosure 157 sq inches bass radiational area 32 hz - 20 khz +/- 3dB Weight - 90 lbs RF-63 99 db/w efficiency ( RF-7 is 3 dB more efficient) 175 watt continous power handling ( RF-7 has 43% greater power handling than the RF-63) 4.4 ft3 enclosure (RF-7 has 9% more cabinet volume) 99 sq inches bass radiational area (RF-7 has almost 60% more bass radiation area) 30hz -21 khz +/- 3 dB Weight 82 lbs (RF-7 is almost 10% heavier) So there it is. The RF-7 seems superior (at least on paper) in every design parameter to the RF-63. The RF-63 is less efficient, and it also has greatly reduced power handling capacity, so it's dynamic range is less. At low volumes perhaps it can produce as much bass as an RF-7, but absolute bass production for the RF-7 must be significantly higher - it has much more woofer area, a bigger enclosure, higher power handling, and greater efficiency. I'd guess the woofers on the RF-63 would be clicking and bottoming out long before the RF-7s would be begging for mercy. I'd compare the RF-63 to my CF-4s, but that would be needlessly cruel. So what's the list price on the RF-63s? I would think it would have to be a lot less than the RF-7s. Was this a price point adjustment to position them differently against the competition, or is there another rationale in downsizing and derating the flagship Reference speaker? What's anyone elses thoughts about these speakers, and the rest of the Reference line? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay481985 Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 The rf-83 are the new rf-7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleve Posted February 8, 2006 Author Share Posted February 8, 2006 The rf-83 are the new rf-7 Oh? There's no RF-83 shown here on the product page for Reference line floorstanders.... http://www.klipsch.com/product/list.aspx?line=1257&type=1265 Hasn't it been released yet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marems Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 Cleve, The top of the line Reference is now the RF-83 (three 8" woofers) the RF-63 is the lower model three 6.5 woofers, The 83's dig down to 29Hz which is pretty impressive for three 8's. There was a thread not to long ago where a dealer got some 83's in and compared them to the RF-7's, He stated that the high end was alot smoother and not as in your face as the RF-7's. Didn't hear that much noticeable difference in the low end as I recall... I have yet to hear a pair. I think that the CF-4's are the best so far that I have heard IMOHO!! I love my CF-4's ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay481985 Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 hmm the rf83 page seems to be M.I.A. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleve Posted February 8, 2006 Author Share Posted February 8, 2006 hmm the rf83 page seems to be M.I.A. I can't find any specs on it either. BTW, What the heck is up with the forum search function? It's terrible! Goes to Google, whereas the old search was internal, gave you a choice of options, etc etc. Plus, it doesn't seem like the new search function can access many older posts either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay481985 Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 known problem...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleve Posted February 9, 2006 Author Share Posted February 9, 2006 Alright, I did find the specs for the RF-83 http://www.klipsch.com/product/product.aspx?cid=977&s=specs 100 dB/watt efficiency 250 watts continuous power handling 5.4 ft3 enclosure 150 sq inches bass radiational area 29hz - 21khz x/- 3dB Weight - 100 lbs. Far more impressive speaker in terms of specs - It's 10 lbs heavier than the RF-7, and has about 10% more cabinet volume - both significant for bass output. No wonder it can dig deeper than the RF-7, even though there's a loss of 7 sq inches in woofer area. I'm much more optimistic than before. After all, it's not really a speaker is it, unless it weighs at least 100 lbs!? [] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zep414 Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 I just got of the phone with my home theater person and he said they are retailing for $900.00. In listening to his discription of the RF63 it sounds quite exciting. How about those RF83 at 100lbs a piece and retailing for $1,249.00!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-MAN Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 Since when are we buying Klipsch speakers by the pound? Wouldn't the Khorn win? DM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay481985 Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 It's like the deli now! "Hi, give me 100 pounds of Klipsch" hahaha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wuzzzer Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 You should see the look on people's faces when I tell them my speakers weigh 90 pounds each. Kind of unheard of in this day of 6 ounce cubes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleve Posted February 10, 2006 Author Share Posted February 10, 2006 Heh! Klipsch needs unit priciing for their speakers, like grocery stores use. That would make it easier to compare them for value. So for instance, if a speaker weighs 100 lbs, and costs $2199 per pair, the unit price is $10.99 per pound. Bose would DEFINITELY not like this method of comparison. [] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleve Posted February 11, 2006 Author Share Posted February 11, 2006 Since when are we buying Klipsch speakers by the pound? Wouldn't the Khorn win? DM I can't imagine *who* would even care about speaker weight. BTW, as I type this, I'm listening to 528 lbs of Klipsch speakers. [] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbsl Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 You have me beat, only 475 pounds in my house. People don't believe me when I tell them my 3 front speakers each weigh 124 pounds. They believe me when they see the La Scalas. 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.