RS-7's

[dkp]

Thanks for posting. I'm surprised that there is that much of a difference between the two. I have a set of KLF-20s that I could try back there but I imagine that the tonal mismatch would not yield a very good comparison. I have been using the RS-7s for both movies and music and cannot say that I am disappointed. But this hobby is about trying new and different approaches, right? [8-|]

lol-if you'd like pics of the amp, just send me a pm. It's black and in great shape.

-David

[PhilMays]

DKP,

I had KLF-20's at one time (ex wife got them) and used them in the surround spot for about a year. As my second system grew from 1st sytem rejects, I placed the KLF-20's for mains there and moved my RF-3's to the surround spot. I felt the 3's did match up better and back then I listen to a lot of multi channel music.

Compairson to me between the RF-7's and KLF-20's. The RF-7's were deeper and a little more open and the KLF-7's seemed to give more detail but sounded a bit thinner. I guess that was the difference between a 2-way and 3-way speaker.

[Zen Traveler]

I agree with skonopa when it comes to music and direct radiating speakers. The reason I prefer my RF-3's for movies compared to the RS-7's also is because I sit parallel to my side surrounds and have RB-75's for rears. Any ambient sounds on 5.1 material comes out of both sets of speakers and transitions are matrixed quite nicely between the two.

In the bedroom I had to make the decision between the WDST and bookshelf speakers for Surrounds in a 5.1 scenario. Given that when we watch movies in bed, the side surrounds are near the corners, on the parallel walls to our head. When we are up walking around the opposite side of the room and usually listening to multichannel music, I have found that one of each of the speaker's horns on my RS-3's are directed towards the end of the room where we are doing our activities and works surprisingly well. At that location it doesn't sound as diffuse as sitting parallel to the surrounds.