Jump to content

Why RF's over Heritage series?


Recommended Posts

I've been wondering about this for awhile, so I guess I'll ask: Why would anyone buy the RF series over the Heritage series? Are they a better speaker? Are they less expensive? What makes you choose them instead of the Top of the Line series? It looks to me like about 50% of the forum uses RF's, or am I wrong about that? I am not looking to start an argument about which is better, I am just curious as to why so many members use them. I feel that it is a fair question and should be able to get a fair answer without causing too much arguing. My choice is Heritage series, but please remember, I know nothing about the RFseries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Size. Cosmetics. WAF. Cost. Some people like

the way they sound more than they like the Heritage line.

That pretty well covers it,at least the basics.Its also very easy to

assemble a nice HT or 5/7 channel hi rez audio set up with items easy

to audition.For me WAF is no issue as my wife would tolerate almost

anything audio as long as its presentable.Its my personal preference of

a slimmer/taller cabinet(but not too slim).I have no visual problem

with highth but width is a different story.If I could get the Khorn or

Conwall sound from a tall slim cab that would be sweet but in the real

world of my budget/taste the 7's are a compromise I can easily live

with.

The 7's do most things very well and somethings really well,all in a cab thats pleasing to the eye and ear(my eye/ear at least).

One last note as was mentioned,the resell is outstanding.I purchased

many new Klipsch rf items cheaper than they sell used on ebay.I saw

rf3's go for over $600,I bought some new 4 years ago for $600.I bought

an rf3II for $200 new,they sell for $250 used easy.They sell

5's for up to $1k,I bought 5's new for $700 and Klipsch is sellin

refurb 7's for about what I paid new w/5 yr warranty.I think the rf's

just found a good compromise in size/price/performance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my persuit of Klipsch speakers it came down to two speakers... The Rf-83/rf-7 or the Cornwalls. Well first finding cornwalls without it being fleeced at this time of the year is hard..... (tax return season) Second the physical size and location of the cornwalls on ebay. I mean I cannot drive to California (I live in NJ) And shipping kills any savings I get from buy used cornwalls. Also new cornwall III are 3000 which is almost double the rf-83. And lastly, they will not fit in my compact car!

Also they are narrower to fit in my environment (dorm room)

They astehtically look better (I will get flamed for this)

they are probably 80% or so as good as the cornwalls..... For less size, money (versus new cornwalls) etc. And having very few heritage dealers impacts me very much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the Heresy are the bastard child of the Heritage line, as it is a seal speaker limited its low range to around 60 hertz so it must be matched with a sub.

Then again DrWho dislikes the Klipschorns but likes the cornwalls

The belles have better horns then the cornwalls

The Klipschorns have the best horns since the length is not as compromised but placement is only well in the corner

The Lascalas look pretty but low range is compromised I am not so informed on this one, never peaked my interest

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 words , Purdy Cones ... [:P] "Just out of

curiosity , what exactly are they reference too ?"

They are the reference to which everything else should be compared... [;)]

As far as reference vs. heritage...it's all about which one better

satisfies the intended application. There are all sorts of different

situations where one will perform better than the other...so which

situations do you want to consider?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 words , Purdy Cones ... [:P] "Just out of

curiosity , what exactly are they reference too ?"

They are the reference to which everything else should be compared... [;)]

As far as reference vs. heritage...it's all about which one better

satisfies the intended application. There are all sorts of different

situations where one will perform better than the other...so which

situations do you want to consider?

oh oh pick me pick me professor who [;)]

College dorm, 12X10, cement cinder blocks with white omg all drab white painted cinderblocks, horrible reflection.... etc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What makes you choose them instead of the Top of the Line series?

I think there's at least a few other members here who would consider a couple of the Heritage Series not exactly "top of the line."

I didn't name them "Top of the Line" other people did. It looks to me like the Heritage Series is hard to find and see, and test, and not in alot of showrooms. What are the SPL levels of the RF's? Wattage handling capacity?Also the RF's tend to take up less space than the Heritage?Had you been able to see,and hear Heritage series, would you still have bought RF's,(not considering price)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keep in mind that no Heritage were produced for a year, or longer while the new drivers were updated. This also gave the rest of the line a boost in sales. I have never seen a new Heritage in the store to listen to, I bought the Klipschorns just out of hear say. When I bought them, that was the first time I ever heard them.

Regards Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh oh. I'm a big time sucker for a thread like this. Kinda like politics - it tends to polarize. But it is "opinionland".....which means it's right up my alley.....so here goes:

"Why RF's over Heritage series"?

Because you don't have the room for Heritage Series. It's the only reason (TO MY EARS) that I can think of.

I would rather have Cornwalls, LaScalas, Klipschorns or Belles over ANYTHING in the Reference line. Why? HORNS. The Cornwall vs. RF7 is a fair fight, I suppose - but I do still prefer the Cornwall overall (I could see how some might choose RF7, though). Move to fully horn loaded, and it's no contest here.

I am not a fan of "cone" midranges (although admittedly, Klipsch is better than most at this). I am here because I am 100% ADDICTED to the horn midranges that the cones just don't seem to duplicate.

Some would consider the "horn midranes" a fault in Heritage (as evidenced by such mods as twin JBL 10's as mids in KHorns and the Trachorn), but I am not of the school to make horn loaded speakers sound like cones. Me and Craig were talking about this, and I LIKE the "horn" sound.....whereas some do seem to want the "conelike" sound in the mids. Different strokes, I suppose. I am curious to hear the Trachorn mod, just to see how that affects things - but I am already "on my guard", because I am told it sounds more like cones do. Hmmmmm.

And it is certainly worth mentioning that the RF series has benefits in terms of size (as evidenced by my Seattle friend whose wife REFUSED to allow the big Heritage, so they "negotiated" to the RF7 system), but if a room would accommodate both, I would most certainly opt for Heritage.

Now that's not meant to be a "slight" to the RF line. They ARE good speakers, for what they are. But to this 20+ year horn loaded Heritage Klipsch addict, they are simply no replacement for the original and best - HERITAGE.

It's all about the midrange.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been wondering about this for awhile, so

I guess I'll ask: Why would anyone buy the RF series over the Heritage

series? Are they a better speaker? Are they less expensive? What makes

you choose them instead of the Top of the Line series? It looks to me

like about 50% of the forum uses RF's, or am I wrong about that? I am

not looking to start an argument about which is better, I am just

curious as to why so many members use them. I feel that it is a fair

question and should be able to get a fair answer without causing too

much arguing. My choice is Heritage series, but please remember, I know

nothing about the RFseries.

I never considered the other lines because my setup is 100% for movies,

and I wanted a matched set as much for the look as the sound.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Size. Cosmetics. WAF. Cost. Some people like

the way they sound more than they like the Heritage line.

BINGO[<:o)]

Im lucky to have never experienced WAF issues. Then again, I had

large speakers when we first met, and she knew they came with the

package. More recently, my wife informed me that she wants to

paint the walls of our HT burnt red, and hang movie posters.

LOL..... I told her "Sure".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What makes you choose them instead of the Top of the Line series?

I think there's at least a few other members here who would consider a couple of the Heritage Series not exactly "top of the line."

I didn't name them "Top of the Line" other people did. It looks to me like the Heritage Series is hard to find and see, and test, and not in alot of showrooms. What are the SPL levels of the RF's? Wattage handling capacity?Also the RF's tend to take up less space than the Heritage?Had you been able to see,and hear Heritage series, would you still have bought RF's,(not considering price)?

The RF-7 had a claimed 102 db per watt compared to the cornwall which range from 98 on the cornwall I to 104 I think of current. The RF-7 could easily hit 120 db.

The RF-83 is 100 db per watt, probably 120 db or so max.

Since we want to do apples to apples, I do not think we can justify comaring say the rf-15 to the heritage, so basically flagship to flagship of each line, err the heritage has two flagships [;)]

Also the RF do take up less space as they are not nearly as wide cornwall is 28 while the rf-83 is 13 inches, though the RF is taller at 49.5 inches compared to 30 on the cornwall. The new rf-83 is deep though at 20 inches while the rf-7 was 13.

Placement though the cornwall is front ported which makes for flush wall placement while the rf line cannot due to ports in the rear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not a fan of "cone" midranges

(although admittedly, Klipsch is better than most at this). I am here

because I am 100% ADDICTED to the horn midranges that the cones just

don't seem to duplicate....I LIKE the "horn" sound.....whereas some do

seem to want the "conelike" sound in the mids. Different strokes, I

suppose. I am curious to hear the Trachorn mod, just to see how that

affects things - but I am already "on my guard", because I am told it

sounds more like cones do. Hmmmmm....It's all about the

midrange.

lol...I read your post and couldn't help but think "I don't want my

speakers to sound like anything...I just want to hear the music" [;)]

But I think most of us here like the "horn" sound - there are a lot of

good arguments to claim that it is a better form of reproduction.

Nevertheless, there are flaws with horn designs - which are often

associated with the "horn sound" - so when you get a horn design that

minimizes these flaws you end up with the best of both worlds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not a fan of "cone" midranges (although admittedly, Klipsch is better than most at this). I am here because I am 100% ADDICTED to the horn midranges that the cones just don't seem to duplicate....I LIKE the "horn" sound.....whereas some do seem to want the "conelike" sound in the mids. Different strokes, I suppose. I am curious to hear the Trachorn mod, just to see how that affects things - but I am already "on my guard", because I am told it sounds more like cones do. Hmmmmm....It's all about the midrange.

lol...I read your post and couldn't help but think "I don't want my speakers to sound like anything...I just want to hear the music" [;)]

But I think most of us here like the "horn" sound - there are a lot of good arguments to claim that it is a better form of reproduction. Nevertheless, there are flaws with horn designs - which are often associated with the "horn sound" - so when you get a horn design that minimizes these flaws you end up with the best of both worlds.

Audible:

I'll be curious to get your thoughts on the Trachorn mod because I think it still provides the positive atttributes of the horn sound but minimizes some of the flaws I have heard before. Cones never sounded nearly as good as that mod (or like it), but everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

Carl.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm...

I guess I hadn't realized how many folks don't own both Heritage and RF's - well I have a bunch of BOTH..so, I will weigh in...

I use my RF's mostly for movies, but the SACD player is hooked to them too, so critical 6 channel listening is done on the RF's.

I have other Heritage speakers literally falling out of rooms all over

the rest of my house, and as was said, they do different things.

I posted a long time ago about my take on the differences, and I can't

say one is better than the other, they are just vastly different.

They each have their own personalities, their own unique sound.

When I think of a question like this, I am reminded of the cane grills

on my CW2's, do you remember the old plug-in cased record players that

had that cane look grill on the front of them, that you would open up,

pop on the record and plug the box into the wall. They had a

peculiar smell, and sounded cool in a wonderful old way? That is

how I feel about the CW2's (and 3 pairs of Heresys), not that they

sound old, colored or crappy at all, but I find myself playing older

music on them (probably just a psychological thing) - they are

magnificent (IMO) for jazz, blues, opera, good vocal, acoustic and

classical music. While they will rock, that is not the kind of

music I find myself wanting to hear out of them.

The RF's on the other hand, I routinely blister with everything from

Nickelback and Live, to old Peal Jam, and Alice In Chains. They

just scream to be driven hard, and they thump when you do. Now

does that mean that can't play "sensitive" music, not at all - but

given the choice - I want to hear deafening levels of dynamic mayhem,

and soncially driving movie music. That is what the RF-7 excells

at, and rightly so.

The big reason my CW2's are clear oiled birch, and the RF's are black;

the CW is part of the musical experience (beautiful wood, large

presence, etc) - whereas with the RF's, I want to see the movie, and

not be distracted by the speakers - my RF's blend in to the dark room,

and just produce amazing sound. Different purposes, different

speakers.

Oh, yeah, and the size, WAF, cost and what everyone else said too. ;)

K

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...