RF-82

[Jay481985]

Got to add...I also think the RF-82 is the highest bang for the buck in the Ref IV line. While the 63 and 83 are better...dollar per dollar that 82 is a magnificent piece of work and Klipsch really outdid themselves. Now...if we could just convince them to make an RC-82...

*whistles* rc-7? that has dual 8 inch woofers

[takenit2dmax]

Hey Guys, hoping you can provide me some good advice. I purchased a pair of RF-82's a few weeks back after auditioning them at a local audio shop. It seems the more I listen too them the more I am disliking them. They sound great for some types of music especially Jazz, and blues. But for rock music, they are letting me down. It's almost like certain frequencies are almost painful to listen to, even at lower volumes.

I've tried moving them to different rooms to rule out acoustic room effects, tried them on both my Marantz SR19 and HK 330 receivers, and I still can't seem to appreciate the sound. I could probably go back to the dealer and trade them in on some Paradigm Monitor 9's or similar, or keep them and use them for HT only.

Does Klipsch make a speaker more suitable for music as apposed to HT in this price range? Have any of you out there had similar experiences?

TIA,

Marc

[WolfsBane]

Before you do that, what exactly about the RF-82 do you dislike? The reason that I ask is that when I listened to them using rock material, they were absolutely fantastic... these are fantastic rock speakers. But... I had to adjust the way the system was configure in the shop. They had them combined with an ill tuned sub and the sub volume was way up. To make matter worse, they also had the bass and treble way up on the receiver. The poor speakers sound like a cheap boom box. But once I reconfigured volume and gain on the sub to a proper level, and set the amp bass to zero and treble to about the 2 o'clock position, they absolutely rocked the show room.

My advise is that before you return these wonderful speakers, check to see how you have them configured in your amp.

[Jay481985]

Umm Klipsch is reknowned as rock speakers. Is everything set to neutral? What sorta cd player are you using? BTW the reference are more music than movie speakers, true movie speakers are the Klipsch Ultra II

[WolfsBane]

Got to add...I also think the RF-82 is the highest bang for the buck in the Ref IV line. While the 63 and 83 are better...dollar per dollar that 82 is a magnificent piece of work and Klipsch really outdid themselves. Now...if we could just convince them to make an RC-82...

How well do you think the RC-62 match with the RF-82? And what do you recommend for a sub to match these towers?

[rlr267]

I have to agree. Klipsch created a real prize with the

RF-82. As for the center channel, I wish they had made a

RC-63. I have space constraints and a RC-82 would be too tall and

the RC-64 was too long/wide.

You asked about the RF-82/RC-62 match-up . . . I have the RF-82/RC-62

set-up and love it. Note, however, I use the speakers for 90%

music (unless the Mavs are playing, then I may use more HT). As

for the sub, I bought a RW-10 and it has enough boom for my use.

I was told when I bought my system to get as big a sub as I could

afford. Personally, that was poor advice and would have comprised a

total waste of my money. In fact, last night we watched "The Island" and my wife had me lower the sub's volume.

I think it all depends on how large is your room? Where will the

sub be placed? And, how much bass do you like? I have a

large room with my sub corner loaded and I am not a bass freak, so a

RW-10 works great with the RF-82's in my application. But, that

is for my room and my taste.

[DrWho]

I was told when I bought my system to get as big a sub as I could

afford. Personally, that was poor advice and would have comprised a

total waste of my money. In fact, last night we watched "The Island" and my wife had me lower the sub's volume.

Just curious...have you actually heard what a better sub can do in your main listening environment (aka, not at the store)? I have no doubt that you're more than satisfied and everyone has different tastes, but "volume" and "extension" are two very extremely different things.

I just have a hard time believing someone has heard something way better and thought it was a waste of money...not trying to argue or anything - if you're satisfied then that's all that matters.

[Jay481985]

There is a boom that sounds loud but then there is a bass that shakes you and rattles your teeth. If you ever heard a locomotive pass with that bass you can barely hear but can defintely feel, that is true bass. The term Boom is for weak and lesser subs.

[rlr267]

I was told when I bought my system to get as big a sub as I could

afford. Personally, that was poor advice and would have comprised a

total waste of my money. In fact, last night we watched "The Island" and my wife had me lower the sub's volume.

Just

curious...have you actually heard what a better sub can do in your main

listening environment (aka, not at the store)? I have no doubt that

you're more than satisfied and everyone has different tastes, but

"volume" and "extension" are two very extremely different things.

I

just have a hard time believing someone has heard something way better

and thought it was a waste of money...not trying to argue or anything -

if you're satisfied then that's all that matters.

Like you said, "different tastes". I personally don't want to

feel the music in the phisiological sense. I think if you want to

feel the music, listen to something that has soul and feel it inside.

My application is 90-95% music and for that, I run only the front mains

in 2channel. Don't get get me wrong, home theater is nice, and I

love mine, but my speakers were selected based on the way they sound

for music. The only reason I have a sub at all is for the

occassional car crash . . . ie: the boom. I turn it on for

movies, then turn it off when the movie is over. I don't even use

it when watching the Mavs (there is a definate energy/vibration in the

stands that no HT can re-create, no matter how big the

sub).

I think the question that started this was what sub would be

recommended for the RF-82s, and I stand by my response. I have a

RW-10 and it works great for my application and tastes, I will continue

to think any larger sub would be a waste of money.

[rlr267]

"There is a boom that sounds loud but then there is a bass that shakes

you and rattles your teeth. If you ever heard a locomotive pass with

that bass you can barely hear but can defintely feel, that is true

bass. The term Boom is for weak and lesser subs."

Again, it is a matter of prefernce and application. I don't want

my teeth to rattle and I don't want to feel my seat vibrating. I

use my sub for one thing only . . . low frequency sound effects, if the

crash sound real, then it has done it's job and that is all I ask.

[WolfsBane]

Like you said, "different tastes". I personally don't want to feel the music in the phisiological sense. I think if you want to feel the music, listen to something that has soul and feel it inside.

My application is 90-95% music and for that, I run only the front mains in 2channel. Don't get get me wrong, home theater is nice, and I love mine, but my speakers were selected based on the way they sound for music. The only reason I have a sub at all is for the occassional car crash . . . ie: the boom. I turn it on for movies, then turn it off when the movie is over. I don't even use it when watching the Mavs (there is a definate energy/vibration in the stands that no HT can re-create, no matter how big the sub).

I think the question that started this was what sub would be recommended for the RF-82s, and I stand by my response. I have a RW-10 and it works great for my application and tastes, I will continue to think any larger sub would be a waste of money.

I understand where you are coming from. It's one of the reasons that when I audition speakers, I audition their characteristics for music first, and HT last. Most of us use our audio systems for a variety of applications, but most place one criteria above others. For me, its music.

I think that the fact that the RF-82 can dig fairly deep at 33hz would gives us some flexibility in choosing a sub for it. The mains would be able to handle most of the lower frequencies and the sub would not have to roll in until the 45 hz mark or so, so you could tune your sub to perform better within that range and below.

At this time, I'm looking at a variety of possibilities... the new line of Klipsch, HSU, and SVS. SVS can go fairly deep, but what I've read and heard is that it is not as "musical" as the HSU. That the HSU VTF3 Mark II, for example, has a tighter bass. I'm really curious about the new line of Klipsch subs. The dealers that I've spoken to that have had a chance to audition them state that they are a vast improvement over the older line, and that Klispch seems to be moving in the right direction with their new sub line. The RW-12d are supposedly just starting to make their way out to vendors, though. No news on the top of the lines. The general concensus is that for general applications, the target for HT subs should be somewhere between 22 hz to 30 hz or so where most movie studios engineer their DVDs, and that the sub should be able to deliver a flat response and adequate dynamic range within those parameters, depending on room acoustics.

[DrWho]

I just wanna say that low frequency extension does not equate to rattling of teeth and shaking of walls - that would be a sub cranked up way too loud. I think many would be surprised by just how low many recordings go - and in the ideal of faithful reproduction it is bare minimum to have a bandwidth large enough to contain all the musical content.

The bigger/badder of a sub you get, the less distortion and thus the more musical it becomes. The proper implementation of a subwoofer system also decreases intermodulation distortion in the mains which is one of the more audible distortions and one of the biggest advantages of horns...

I have never met a person that heard a better sub and decided it wasn't worth the money - ability to afford it is a completely different issue (like me and my college budget).

Now if your music doesn't have source material that doesn't go below your mains, then you've got nothing to worry about. It's not logical to overlay my own experiences onto others, but about 90% of what I listen to has significant material below 30Hz (and about 40% below 20Hz). It's crazy because the songs are completely different (as in a totally different song) without a system capable of going that low (ie, turning off the sub)...but I would never have known the difference had I not at some point listened on a system that brought it out.

[WolfsBane]

I have to ask this, DrWho, did you chose your username because you are a fan of the Sci-fi British series?

[DrWho]

I have to ask this, DrWho, did you chose your username because you are a fan of the Sci-fi British series?

most definetly...Tom Baker rocks the world!

[WolfsBane]

I have to ask this, DrWho, did you chose your username because you are a fan of the Sci-fi British series?

most definetly...Tom Baker rocks the world!

Rock on!!! [] Long time fan myself...

And on that note... folks, I'm happy to report that my RF-82s, RC-62s, and RB-61s have just been delivered by my home theatre rep. Further reports as they get set up.

[takenit2dmax]

I always listen to music flat, and usually without a sub. It's not the lower frequencies I have issue with, it's more the upper midrange area in certain types of music.. When listening to Diana Krall (Jazz), the speakers sound amazing, almost life like, on the other hand with Fleetwood Mac, to me they sound completely off, almost like they are attenuating some frequencies, while boosting others in the high mid range. I wish I had access to a good spectrum analyzer to really figure out what the speaker response looks like.

I'm probably being too picky, and like many others have said, it's hard to beat this speaker in this price range. Thanks for the input.

[DrWho]

I have to ask this, DrWho, did you chose your username because you are a fan of the Sci-fi British series?

most definetly...Tom Baker rocks the world!

Rock on!!! [] Long time fan myself...

And on that note... folks, I'm happy to report that my RF-82s, RC-62s, and RB-61s have just been delivered by my home theatre rep. Further reports as they get set up.

My dad was just telling me about some huge comprehensive Doctor Who DVD collection that costs around $600! [] ...the sad part is that none of Tom Baker's episodes have been released on dvd (as far as we know) which is what we're waiting for. For now I'll have to settle for the recordings of the PBS broadcast my dad made while I was too young to even care (he did manage to get them all though...)

And I've only heard good things about the series that showed last year...though they fired the doctor? crazy stuff.

But ya, congrats on your new setup - time to rock it to the doctor who sound tracks [<)]

(....or maybe not...) []

[WolfsBane]

My dad was just telling me about some huge comprehensive Doctor Who DVD collection that costs around $600! [] ...the sad part is that none of Tom Baker's episodes have been released on dvd (as far as we know) which is what we're waiting for. For now I'll have to settle for the recordings of the PBS broadcast my dad made while I was too young to even care (he did manage to get them all though...)

And I've only heard good things about the series that showed last year...though they fired the doctor? crazy stuff.

But ya, congrats on your new setup - time to rock it to the doctor who sound tracks [<)]

(....or maybe not...) []

Always loved Tom Baker's dry sense of humor and delivery.

Thanks... my spouse is already calling first dibs. She liked the way the cherry wood turned out. She want's to find out how Enya sounds on the new system.

[Buckeye_Nut]

I was told when I bought my system to get as big a sub as I could

afford. Personally, that was poor advice and would have comprised a

total waste of my money. In fact, last night we watched "The Island" and my wife had me lower the sub's volume.

I think you're missing the point. You could have bought a cheapo $200 sub and if you set the gain too high, you're wife will still yell at you to turn it down. The difference between a properly calibrated low end sub & a better sub is that the better sub will sound better, cleaner, and go deeper. It's the same way with speakers. You could have bought a cheap pair of MTX boxes that would go plenty loud, but there are many reasons one might choose Klipsch as an alternative[]

[Buckeye_Nut]

There is a boom that sounds loud but then there is a bass that shakes you and rattles your teeth. If you ever heard a locomotive pass with that bass you can barely hear but can defintely feel, that is true bass. The term Boom is for weak and lesser subs.

I was thinking the same thing. With a good sub, 'boom' isnt remotely close to how you would describe it's sound.