RF-7 Dimensions

[taylor99ss]

All,

Could someone please send me the dimensions to the RF-7's?

Thank you!

[zuzu]

45" high 16" deep 11 5/8" wide

[kcmcramer]

I wish I knew someone who owned a set of those. I get nothing but good comments about the RF-7. My friends are into the Heritage line. Good stuff!!

[wuzzzer]

I would imagine many people in the Minneapolis area own them. A good friend of mine in central MN has a pair and that's how I got turned on to Klipsch in the first place.

[kcmcramer]

I would imagine many people in the Minneapolis area own them. A good friend of mine in central MN has a pair and that's how I got turned on to Klipsch in the first place.

Oh sure, they're here...somewhere... [:^)]

Uh oh, now I have to tell you about MY first Klipsch experience, it was at a friend’s house MANY MANY YEARS AGO. I think I was 12 years old. Her dad had a pair of what I now believe to be Heresy's (now that I think back, they had those wedge like stands which makes me believe they were Klipsch) They were plugged into this MASSIVE receiver (you know the wide suckers with the analog watt/db meters). We would crank the bass and treble ALL THE WAY UP and Jam those speakers. Now that I think back, we were throwing a LOT of watts at those speakers and they didn't blink. Sounded way better than my other friend's parent's Ohm speakers. [8-)]

Later on in life I had another friend who owned his own set of KG-2s plugged into a big ole Kenwood (similar to the older one I used when I was young). That sounded VERY nice. Then he upgraded to Forte IIs and the Integra DTR-7. That hooked me for good.

Oh crap I'm off topic now.. [:$]

[aussiemark]

Hey Zuzu How do the 7's go with your 1090 ? I have to make a decision soon between the 1090 or the 1080 and would appreciate your opinion. I'm sure either way I go it wont be a mistake.Thanks

[zuzu]

I havn't heard the 1080 but I'm sure it would be good from many favorable comments. Since Feb of 2007 I had a Nad 150w/ch, a 990 200w/ch and now the 1090.which is about380w/ch. The Nad was good, the 990 better and the 1090 better still. With the RF 7's the 1090 runs luke warm and uses .6 amps [yes that's point 6] or 72 watts. I have no trouble plugging the 1090 into my power conditioner rather than directly into the wall and it sounds better. I asked the same Q which would be better the 1080 or 1090 and as I recall those who had heard both more voted for the 1090 about 2 to 1. I'll try to find the thread and bump it up. Make sure the 1090 is packed well and double boxed.

[zuzu]

Aussie, I just looked. It wasn't 1080 vs 1090 but RF 7 vs RF 83. RF 7 won that one. FWIW I was at a local rotel dealer about 5 months ago and he liked the 1090 better than the 1080 and he had 1080's to sell and no 1090's. The latest 2 channel Class D, RB 1092 at 500w/ch is the only one he put above the 1090, but they are too pricey for me.

[aussiemark]

Thanks a lot Zuzu for the reply. Could you tell me please how sigificant was the improvement between the NAD and the 1080 ? Was it greater than the 1080 and the 1090 ? My gut feeling is the 1080 but if you with your educated ear and impressive audio recommend the 1090 i'll have to wait and save. Thanks again Zuzu on yor insights .

[zuzu]

I never heard a 1080. I compared the NAD to the RB 990. The 990 was slightly better [guessing 10%] with the extra 50w/ch head room, but the 990 used is about the same price as a new NAD ie around $350. I would still recommend the RB 1090 over either. With its 2 separate transformers it's like having 2 monoblocks at 380 w/ch. Note the 1090 weighs about 89 lbs.