Hello & a question about Clipping

[Burning1]

Hello! I just picked up a pair of RF-83s, and I'm very excited about getting them home and listening to some music!

To start with, I have a question about clipping: I've been reading on the Klipsch FAQ (and the forums) that the best way to kill my brand new speakers is to over-drive my amp to the point that it clips. Now, I'm not really worried about my amp (a Pioneer VXS-82TXs with 130 watts of headroom.) With the sensitivity of the RF83s, going to clipping volume means I've already gone deaf, and I assume I'd be beyond caring. However, I've recently begun listening to a lot of my CDs using a oscilloscope. To my horror, I've discovered that a lot of recent CDs are actually mastered with major clipping. Bass lines are set to volumes beyond the headroom of CDs, without being compressed (another major issue.) The Red Hot Chilipeppers "Californication" album is an especially notable offender.

My question is this: Even if I play my CDs at reasonable volumes, can the flat peaks cause damage to my new speakers?

Other than that, I wanted to say thanks! I've been lurking here for a while, and I'm amazed by the quality of information available on this forum. Reading your comments encouraged me to seek out the RF-63 & RF-83, and I'm glad I did.

I had a chance to compare the RF-62, RF-82, RF-63 & RF-83 head to head. If anyone is interested, I'd be happy to share my experience.

[michael hurd]

"However, I've recently begun listening to a lot of my CDs using a oscilloscope. To my horror, I've discovered that a lot of recent CDs are actually mastered with major clipping."

Yup, most music nowdays has near zero dynamics and can be hard on speakers. Basically like you said most of the stuff nowdays is cranked to the end and mastered with the levels set too high, resulting in DC like waveforms. I would go out on a limb and say that this can contribute to speaker destruction, when the average drive level is high.

At reasonable volumes, I think you should not have a problem, Klipsch speakers are realatively hardy and can absorb an insane amount of power. ( time limited basis ) Therefore, it is not so much as too much power, rather a power / time factor. Power dissipated over period of time.

I am a guilty offender here, having dumped the full output of my QSC power amp into my RF3II's ( rated at 8 R stereo 550 w/ch, 20-20khz ) for brief periods. ( clip lights barely flickering, maybe once every 15 seconds )

[LoudnClear]

I had a chance to compare the RF-62, RF-82, RF-63 & RF-83 head to head. If anyone is interested, I'd be happy to share my experience.

I'd be extremely interested in your observations of all of them, especially regarding comparing the RF-63 to the others.

[Burning1]

Thanks, that eases my mind a . I got them set up a few hours ago. My initial observation is that the RF-83s make any kind of clipping jump out at you.

[DrWho]

Yea, one of the downsides to better speakers is they will reveal far more flaws in the music. Garbage in - garbage out. But throw in a good recording and it's just awesome. I too would be interested in your review of the differences between all the speakers. What other brands have you played with and what are you upgrading from?

Welcome to the family []

[Burning1]

Sure. Happy to share.

I'm a quality engineer for a living, so this is going to sound a little like a test report. : )

I listened to these at a local independent Klipsh dealer for about an hour and a half. The dealer had all of the speakers on an switch, allowing me to directly compare. I brought my own CDs (Mostly Super Audio CDs) and used a Denon player.

The room was fairly harsh sounding, with little furniture or sound insulation.

Comparing the speakers directly against each other:

RF-62: Capable, but sounded a bit light weight compared to the other 3 speakers. As expected, they had the least bass response of the 4, especially compared to the RF-82s. Good midrange and high end. I spent the least amount of time listening to these speakers, but I felt they had reasonably flat, solid response across their frequency range. Due to their size, they would fit into almost any room.

RF-82: Solid speakers, but slightly lacking in midrange. The RF82s sounded noticeably boomy to me, but were placed in the rear corners of the room which I suspect greatly emphasized this quality. Good sharp sound. They are larger than the RF-62s, but should still fit in most any room. When I demoed them at Magnolia they didn't sound boomy at all. However, I felt they still under emphasized the midrange.

I did a fairly in depth comparison of the RF-62 to the RF-82 at a local Magnolia. The magnolia had a proper listening room, but I didn't have any of my own music. The RF-82s still lacked a bit of the midrange when compared to the RF-62s, but did sound a little sharper on the highs, and much better in the lows. I'd go with the RF-62s if I had a budget, space constraints, or if my receiver lacked a proper EQ. In all other cases, I'd spend the small extra amount for RF-82s.

RF-63: Amazing speakers. Incredibly flat & extremely sharp across the entire frequency range. They are noticeably taller than the RF-82s, but I don't recall them needing much more floor space. Much better controlled than the RF-82s, but not quite as much low end (a touch more would make them perfect.) These speakers need absolutely no EQ.

The choice between the RF-82 and RF-63 was extremely easy: the RF-63s are absolutely worth the extra expense. If you can't afford them, you can't afford them... But, I'd constantly be wondering "what-if" if I went RF-82.

RF-83: My personal favorite: The same sharpness of the RF-63s with amazing lows. The sound from the RF-83s is naturally full and rich; slightly more so than the RF-63s. I'm impressed by how low they dig. IMO they didn't sound quite as flat as the RF-63s, but better than the RF-62 & RF-82. The deep low end comes at a small price in the mids. They are extremely controlled with absolutely none of the bass overemphasis I was hearing in the RF-82. The RF-83s are far larger than the RF-63s.

IMO, all of the speakers benefit from a good sub woofer. A sub woofer can produce the smooth, low bass response to make the stand-up bass sound out-standing in many Jazz disks, and bring out the big drums in orchestratal music. Forget organ music without one (I'm a huge fan of Bach's Toccata and Fuge in D Minor.) The RF-83 was the only speaker here that could get possibly go without a sub, and even then it's not my preference.

Choosing between the RF-63s and the RF-83s was extremely difficult, even without considering the price difference.

The RF-63 has a number of benefits over the RF-83s. IMO, it's a better for home theater. It's a perfect match for the RC-64 and RS-62s, which should help surround sound in moves. It has a slightly flatter frequency response, and is also much more reasonably sized.

I would absolutely choose the RF-83s if I planned to run without a sub woofer, however given the size and price difference between the RF-63 and the RF-83 I can't see many reasons not to get a sub. The RF-83 would be a much better choice for someone who needs to fill a large room.

Where I really expect the RF-83 to shine is when I add a RC-64 center and RS-62 surrounds. Since my primary love is music, I expect the center and the surrounds to add the mids I loved in the RF-63s, while taking advantage of the RF-83s slightly fuller sound and better bass response.

IMO, if you have a pair of RF-63s you shouldn't even consider upgrading to RF-83s until you've done absolutely everything else you can to improve the sound. You made a great decision to get 63s, and I had a very tough time deciding between the two.

Ultimately, my decision was fueled by the following reasons:

- Although I have the RF-83s in a small room, I still plan to have them by the time I can afford a big place.

- I love the imposing look of the RF-83s. When you see them there is absolutely no question that I'm serious about music.

- I like having "the best" Klipsh reference speakers.

- If I decide to sell them (for Klipshorns! : ) I can advertise them as absolute top of the line models.

- I negotiated them much closer to the RF-63s in price.

- I personally prefer the RF-83 sound.

You'll notice that most of these reasons have very little to do with music. : )

I also Demoed the RF-7 & RF-5 a different shop. IMO, the RF-7 sufferers from the same midrange problems as the RF-82 (although the RF-7 is much more controlled.) Again, I haven't directly compared them, but I do feel that the RF-63 and RF-83 are a big step forward.

There is one downside to having RF-63s or RF-83s: You start to realize how bad most CDs are.

I love a huge range of music. From Jazz, to Classic, to Classic Rock, to Pop, to RAP. The RF-83s expose how bad modern CD mastering techniques are. Even on good CDs, I feel like I can hear the limitations of the medium. Beyond messed up production quality, many RAP and POP CDs sound flat and uninspired without the distortion of more conventional speakers. Most of the CDs have obviously been mixed with low end hardware in mind.

Overall, RF-83 vs RF-63 is very much a personal choice. IMO, if someone only wants it because it's "the best" they should be honest with them self about it. If not having the best speaker is something to be unhappy about, then I'm sunk for not getting Klipschorns.

I also feel that unlike most other electronic equipment, speakers are a good place to put money. A few hundred difference isn't going to matter 20 years down the line, but how much you enjoy your speakers will.

Anyway, I'm really feeling tired. I'll check back tomorrow.

[Dale A B]

A very interesting comparo - thank you. I heard RF-83's last fall and was amazed at the sound.

It will be interesting to see how long the RF-XX series will run, and what Klipsch can possibly come up with to top that! But for now, your report can help narrow down the process for a system that fits your room & budget.

[LoudnClear]

Burning

Very good review. My local Klipsch shop had RF-10, RF-52, RF-62 and RF-82. No RF-63 or RF-83. When I listend to the ones they had, the system had to have been screwed up because there wasn't any bottem end to any of them. The guy would run the sub, but it still sounded bad. The receiver had to be set up wrong or the switch board was hosing up the bottom end, something was wrong. Also, they didn't have the equipment setup to demo SACD or DVD-A. I knew Klipsch wouln't be putting out stuff that sounded that bad, so I took a chance on ordering the RF-63 without hearing them and knowing that I was getting a sub, assumed the primary difference between RF-63 and RF-83 was bass extension, of which I wouldn't be using with the sub in the system. I also justified the RF-63 choice by deciding that if I went to RF-83's then I'd use the RF-63's as surround speakers.

Now that I've bought a pair of 3-way Cornwall II's, I like the midrange horn so much that I cannot see continuing down the 2-way reference line. I'm kind of at a fork in the road, reallizing that I want cornwalls all around my home theater at our next house (4-5 years out) but also wanting an RC-64 center up front for the short term to enjoy good center sound instead of my tiny old yamaha center speaker. Some decisions to make here.

Thanks again for the good review, very interesting and useful information.

[meagain]

Burning - Thanks for taking the time to post that. I hope you stick around!

[3dzapper]

Yes, excellent review burning!

Are you sure you don't work for Klipsch marketing???[]

Welcome aboard and enjoy your RF-83s.

Rick

[DrWho]

So you felt the RF-63's had better mids and overall a flatter response? But at the expense of low frequency output...so theoretically a pair of subs + RF-63's should sound better than a pair of subs + RF-83's?

[Burning1]

Yea, one of the downsides to better speakers is they will reveal far
more flaws in the music. Garbage in - garbage out. But throw in a good
recording and it's just awesome. I too would be interested in your
review of the differences between all the speakers. What other brands have you played with and what are you upgrading from?

Welcome to the family []

Thanks. Again, it's an amazing group of people here! It's hard to find forums that are relatively free of immaturety.

Have two other sets of speakers. My first pair are 1970s 2 way Yamaha PA speakers. When I initially got my Pioneer receiver I used it to drive them. After hearing the improvement the receiver made I was inspired to get better mains. Since the Yamahas are horn loaded, Klipsh was an obvious upgrade choice. Compared to my RF-83s, they are a little dull and muddy which is not surprising given their huge drivers and old age.

I also listen to a pair of Infinity Entra Ones regularly. The Entras are inexpensive, capable speakers. Comparing them directly to the RF-83 is difficult given the price difference & I haven't listened to the Klipsh RB series enough to say anything meaningful. The Entras did a good job at filling a small room. They had fairly flat response, but I would have liked something a little sharper in the highs and deeper in the lows. They had good build quality, and I've heard them referred to as the last of the great Infinity speakers.

When I went shopping, I didn't seriously review any other brands. One of my closest friends has Klipshorns, so I was highly motivated to get horns of my own. I'd love to compare Klipsch to some of the other horns out there.

[Burning1]

A very interesting comparo - thank you. I heard RF-83's last fall and was amazed at the sound.
It will be interesting to see how long the RF-XX series will run, and what Klipsch can possibly come up with to top that! But for now, your report can help narrow down the process for a system that fits your room & budget.

My pleasure. I was thinking about the next generation as well.

I saw pictures of the Reference Premier speakers; they are a thing of beauty. If the next generation has those angles, I might have to upgrade. Fortunately, I expect my RF-83s to hold their value well enough to make the change mostly painless.

[Burning1]

Yes, excellent review burning!

Are you sure you don't work for Klipsch marketing???[]

Welcome aboard and enjoy your RF-83s.

Rick

Thanks!

IMO, the evil of marketing is that it is used to make people

feel insecure about what they have or to blind them to reality (look at

BOSE.)

I recently quit a job that involved Sales & Marketing. I promise uphold the law and use my power for good. : )

[Burning1]

So you felt the RF-63's had better mids and overall a flatter response? But at the expense of low frequency output...so theoretically a pair of subs + RF-63's should sound better than a pair of subs + RF-83's?

Keeping in mind that better is subjective: I think mating the RF-63s to a Klipsh Sub would produce better results in a 2.1 setup than RF-83s plus a sub.

I think the Heritage series running 2.0 would be a better choice than Reference 2.1. One of my closest friends has Klipshorns, and I've spent a lot of time listening to them (currently, more time with the Khorns than the RF-83s.) I've got a lot to say about the Klipschorns, but I'd rather go on a date at the moment.

To my ears, the RF-63s are closer to live sound. The RF-83s color the sound, but do it in a way that I enjoy for Rock music. If I was interested primarily in Jazz I'd prefer the RF-63.

One benefit of the RF-83s is that they can be matched to a sub that goes extremely low. When I replace my sub I intend to get a SVS Ultra or 16-46 that can be tuned towards 10hz. I'll use the RF-83s to fill out the mid-bass lost by tuning the sub.