RB5 vs RF3

[Bill721]

Hi everyone, first time to this forum.

I am currently looking to upgrade my main speakers (probably center also) and Klipsch are on my list as a possibility. So far, I have listened to the RB3 and the RF3. I listened to the RF3 in the store using a Denon receiver (2 channels @ 100W) and it was clipping leading me to believe that the RF3 need lots of power. Since my home receiver is a Yamaha 795a (85W RMS per Channel), I think that maybe it will not be powerfull enough to feed the RF3 however I am unsure if the Denon was 100W or 100W Rms.

Based on listening to the RF3, I think that I should look at a smaller speaker and the next one down is the RB5. I have looked at the manufacturer suggested retail price (MSRP) and the RB5 and the RF3 are equal. Since both the RB5 and RF3 are using the same drivers, how can the MSRP be the same ? Can someone explain the rational behind this ?

Thanks.

[Klipsch-daddy]

BILL,

I do not know why the denon was clipping unless they had all the bass and treble wide open. The Rf-3's are very effecient. I have a rx-v1000 and it sounds wonderfull on them. I say it was the receiver and not the speakers.

------------------

My HTS:

MAINS: RF-3's

CENTER: KSC-C1(LOOKING FOR A RC-3 OR RC-3II)

SUB: KSW-12

TV: TOSHIBA THEATER VIEW 50"

RECEIVER:** Yamaha Rx-v1000 **

DVD: SONY S-360 DVD PLAYER

CD: 5 Disc Yamaha comming soon.

monster cable interconnects/12 gauge speaker wire

[PhilH]

Bill:

At 98 dB sensitivity, the RF-3's (and the new series II's) are very efficient. Denon and Yamaha are considered by most here good matching receivers with them also. Something was definitely incorrect in the hookup/settings of what you listened to. KlipschDaddy's guess may be right...

The RB-5 has a wood cabinet (3 different flavors) while the RF-3 comes in a black vinyl wrap. Thus, the reasoning for the pricing.

PhilH

[Big Bean]

Hi Bill,

I own rb5s and love them. They don't extend down quite as low as the rf3s but I feel the bass is of much higher quality. The rb5s are crossed about 500htz lower and I'm sure that Bob G. stated that the crossover is a higher quality than in the rf3s, this was a consideration when I decided on the rb5s. I use an old integrated twenty five watt Harmon Kardon tube amp and they sound wonderful. My old speakers were B&W Matrix, nice but sleepy.

BB

This message has been edited by Big Bean on 12-26-2001 at 04:10 PM

[Audio Flynn]

"Sleepy" is a good description of the B&W sound.

They sound good but laid back.

RF3 is the inexpensive way to enjoy the Reference sound. I use Sanus Steel stands with lead shot filling($ 170) for my RB5s. My sub is an Adire Audio Rava.

You get a little lower bass with the RF3 in a non sub 2 channel setup.

[cc1091]

I'll give you a biased opinion from a guy who owns:

Heresys

Klipsch RP-3s

B&W 602s

I have heard the Rb-5 and the RF-3 (series II also). I was much more impressed with the RB-5 than the RF-3 (or RF-5). Just more impressive sound per square inch. Also, the RF-3 seems a little confused in the lower frequencies by my ears (possibly the dual driver design here).

Not sure how B&W entered this conversation, but I like te 602s tweeter. Plus their midrange/bass driver allows the texture of the sound from certain instruments to resonate better than the Klipsch (which are shimmeringly smooth, but do sacrifice the textural ques in order to attain that sound of a projected soundstage).

[lovedrummin]

I have RB5s connected to a Denon 3802 & I haven't had any problem with clipping. They produce pretty good bass on their own, but with a subwoofer the system really rocks. The RC3 center is a very good speaker also.

------------------

Lew

Not Too Old To Rock 'N' Roll