|
Bronze Member Username: RlschneckPost Number: 16 Registered: Apr-04 | Hi everyone, I am starting to narrow down my speaker search. I have decided that I definitely want floorstanders, and I'm pretty sure I am going to stick to klipsch (but i'm still considering Polk and Athena). I have been looking at a pair of Klipsch RF-15's for around $400, but then I realized that i could get the top model in the synergy line (SF-3) for only a hundred more. Now, I've read several reviews saying that the reference series far outperforms the synergy line, but I'm wondering about the "bottom-of-the-line reference vs top-of-the-line synergy" comparison, i.e. RF-15 vs. SF-3. Does anyone have an opinion on this? Or opinions on alternatives is fine as well!! Thank you, Ryan |
|
Bronze Member Username: ShankPittsburgh, PA Post Number: 29 Registered: Aug-04 | i originally got the sf-2 speakers, then returned them and got the rf-25's. However, the sf-2's aren't in the same price range as the rf-25's. Do you have a good subwoofer or plan to by one? If you have a decent subwoofer with good excursion (up to 100hz or so), then i'd say go for the rf-15's. Otherwise i'd get the sf-3's. But you should just go listen to both of them and try to compare (however, its practically impossibly to audition the sf-3's at best buy). To me, the main differnce that i could hear between the sf-2's and the rf-25's is that the rf-25's seemed smoother and less harsh. |
|
Bronze Member Username: RlschneckPost Number: 17 Registered: Apr-04 | shank, you are the man. thank you for your reply. i do plan on adding a subwoofer, so i'm not so concerned about the "bigger sound" of better floorstanders. i just listened to the rf-15, rf-25, and rf-35 yesterday, and it seemed that the only difference between the rf-25 and rf-35 was that the 35's sounded a bit "bigger" and deeper (so i think you made a good choice). anyway, the rf-15's sounded pretty good and i found a website selling them for around $400. but then, the sf-3's are around 500, so i don't know... i am mainly concerned with the clarity and brightness of the mid-to-high range (since i will be getting a sub and because i am primarily building this system for use with movies). i've also priced the polk r50 at about $260 and the athena as-f2's at $360. what do you think? thanks again! |
|
Bronze Member Username: ShankPittsburgh, PA Post Number: 30 Registered: Aug-04 | Also, if your thinking of getting the sf-3's from best buy, I would just get them and take them home and listen to them. If your happy with the way they sound, then stick with them and enjoy the music. No sense torturing yourself :-) but if you don't like the sf-3's you can always take them back to BB. |
|
Bronze Member Username: ShankPittsburgh, PA Post Number: 31 Registered: Aug-04 | i had been drooling over the r50's for a long time at CC. However, after i started listening to lots of other speakers i became less impressed with them. (I also listened to the monitor 70's). However, all the polks to me didn't sound very clear and just sounded muddy in the mids and highs. I never really listened or thought about the athena's seriously so i can't comment on those. But, if you plan on getting a subwoofer, i'd say go for the rf-15's, assuming you can get a subwoofer that will blend well with the rf-15's and will make you happy. The bigger rf's series (like the rf-35 or rf-5/7's) are known for having good bass and good treble (at least from my readings on various forums, not from my own experience) and the mid-range is good/ok. However, the smaller klispch speakers i think may/probably have better mid range and cause the smaller woofers can mix better with the horn (the 8" and 10" woofers may strain to get up to the ~2kHz crossover). You may want to head over the klipsch's forums to see what they they think is better between the sf-3 and the rf-15. Of course your gonna get some biased opinions if you ask about the polk or athenas. http://forums.klipsch.com BTW: what subwoofer are you considering getting or what's your price range? |
|
Bronze Member Username: RlschneckPost Number: 18 Registered: Apr-04 | shank, i appreciate your advice and i am very glad to benefit from your experience. My own experience has been rather long and i am getting sort of tired of it. you know what i mean, you could spend months and months reading through reviews and wondering if you are making the right decision. anyway, i think that i will take your advice about the polks and cross them off my list. i will have to try to get others to comment on the athena's because i've actually seen several references to them on this site, so they must be decent. as for the sub... i'm thinking of just buying the remaining components in a package deal, that way, i will have quality fronts and decent surrounds to form a 7.1 system. i've never been that concerned with bass to be honest. as long as i have decent bass, that's enough for me... i don't need the room to bounce, and i don't need to FEEL the explosions in my movies, i just need to be convinced that there was an explosion. Thanks again! |
|
Bronze Member Username: ShankPittsburgh, PA Post Number: 32 Registered: Aug-04 | if you want to go with all klipsch reference series setup, i think most dealers will give you a pretty good discount. But keep in mind that for watching movies, there's a general concensus that you don't want to skimp on the center channel since alot of the dialog etc comes through the center. |
|
Bronze Member Username: RlschneckPost Number: 19 Registered: Apr-04 | Yes, I have also heard that. But I think I will get the reference series surround package I forget what it's called, but it's the reference equivalent to the quintetII. I think that comes with a pretty good center? Also, I don't know where to find a dealer that sells Klipsch, do you? I live in the NYC area, and all the audio dealers seem to be high-end (in other words, they don't sell Klipsch, or anything else that costs less than a grand) thank you for the advice |
|
Bronze Member Username: ShankPittsburgh, PA Post Number: 33 Registered: Aug-04 | Your best bet is to use the dealer locator on klipsch's site. Also, if you find a dealer, be sure to call and ask if they have the speakers in stock that your interested in. Most of the dealers i found in my area were very small shops that only sold klipsch. |
|
Bronze Member Username: RlschneckPost Number: 21 Registered: Apr-04 | ah, i see. good idea. by the way, i just read your "i love this forum" post, and i completely agree. I am not quite finished with my quest, but i would not even be this far without this forum. also, it seemed that everyone thought klipsch and h/k went well together. is that a brand specific pairing that works well together, or is it more of a "model specs work well together" phenomenon? thanks, ryan |
|
New member Username: Culp4684Post Number: 1 Registered: Aug-04 | Sorry to jump in here, but I am also searching for a new pair of floorstanders to replace my 15 year old Fried Betas. I auditioned a pair of Boston Acoustics VR1's today. I had gone to this audio store to actually listen to a pair of Paradigm floorstanders. I selected a pair that retailed for $900 (you'll have to forgive me, I don't remember the model#) and the salesman set me up with an A/B test with the Boston. The VR1's, at $599, were far more detailed than the more expensive Paradigm's. It just goes to show you that more expensive doesn't always mean better sound. Also, do yourself a favor and visit a real audio store. If only for comparison. There are a wide range of companies out there like Boston Acoustics, Paradigm, Jamo, and many others that offer speakers in the same price range but are not sold at your mass marketers like BB and CC. Sadly, some companies like Bose and Polk are more concerned with quantity than quality nowadays. |
|
Bronze Member Username: ShankPittsburgh, PA Post Number: 34 Registered: Aug-04 | "Is that a brand specific pairing that works well together, or is it more of a "model specs work well together" phenomenon?" Its more of a general brand pairing. Klipsch speakers use a "horn", which can sound a bit bright and in your face and H/K receivers are typically have a clean, warm, laid back sound. So they sound good together, the H/K helps to mello out the klipsch horns some. At least this is what ppl say around here. But there are other brand receiver/amps that sound good with klipsch speakers. I think typically ppl try to avoid klipsch with denon or yamaha, as i've read the denon and yamaha receivers sound thin or bright. My general advice for your initial speakers is to get some good front and center speakers that match. And get a good subwoofer. The back speakers are less important/crucial (in my eyes). If you have any speakers now, you could use those for rears and invest in better rears at a later time if your so inclined. If you want to go with the klipsch speakers, get the fronts w/ the matching center. If you have enough money for a sub in the $400-600 range, I would look at svs or hsu subs. They have quite a good reputation. If you don't want to sink so much money in a sub but want to be more in the $200-300 range, you could check out velodyne (they can be had cheap online) or perhaps the jbl 12" subwoofer. BUt i've read the svs and hsu subs are very good and can compete with the $1-2k subs from bigger name companies. Keep in mind I don't have alot of experience in home audio stuff, but its just what I have done/plan todo and it seems we maybe heading down a similar path (although i primarily listen to music). In case your curious this is my setup: H/K AVR230 receiver klipsch RF-25 fronts Polk psw303 sub Polk r15's for back/surround sony ch495h center I plan to upgrade the sub next to either the svs 20-39 or the hsu stf-3. Then I'll upgrade the center to the matching klipsch rc-25 center. After that, i think i'll be set for a few years, till I move to a more permanent residence. |
|
swampcat Unregistered guest | I have sf-3's there the same as the rf-3. Klipsch took the rf-3 and rf-3 II discontinued it and made the sf-3 out of it. Go to klipsch .com look in the classic archives section pull up specs for the RF-3 and compare to the SF-3 their identical. The woofers are not gold thats it. I also own Klipsch legands KLF-10 which us same materials as the SF-3's. I power them with an adcom gfa 555II bi wired (sf-3) The sf-3 does not compare to the rest of the synergy line. Best Buy does not offer the best listening environment nor the best electronics. If you put garbage in you get garbage out! Take em home listen, best buy will take em back if you dont like them. |
|
Bronze Member Username: RlschneckPost Number: 23 Registered: Apr-04 | shank, that's awesome advice. i will definitely try to locate a shop that sells the whole line. also thank you for explaining the h/k - klipsch combination, that makes sense and will definitely save me A LOT of time when it comes time to buy the new receiver. swampcat, thanks for the info. i take that as a strong endorcement of the sf-3 then. i will have to consider taking a pair home to audition. sincere thanks to both of you! |
|
Bronze Member Username: ShankPittsburgh, PA Post Number: 35 Registered: Aug-04 | I just want to reply to swampcat, that the sf-3 and rf-3 are not the same. The synergy series uses paper cones instead of the cermetallic stuff. Also, the synergy series uses aluminum tweaters in the horn instead of titanium. Also, i'm sure the reference series uses a much better crossover (and yes, the crossover does make a difference). After auditioning some speakers for a bit, you can usually tell if the tweater is made of aluminum or something instead of titanium. Usually the titanium tweeters sound much more crisp and lass harsh and watery, especially when you hear cymbals. But none the less, swampcat is right, if your considering the sf-3's, then there's no reason to not to take a pair home and try them. If you like the way the sf-3's sound and your happy with them, then keep them and don't spend any more time thinking about it and enjoy your movies! :-) Also, don't base your purchases purely on specs. For example, the sf-2 has slightly deeper bass exercursion (down to the 35 Hz) compared to the sf-3 (37 Hz), but i don't really think the bass of the sf-2 is better than that of the sf-3. |
|
swampcat Unregistered guest | Check out the RF-3 at KLIPSCH.COM. their identical in everyway except the woofer material and the RF-3 has a titanium compression horn and the SF-3 uses aluminum compression horn. (SF-3 ONLY) The SF-3's seem a little smoother than other klipsch speakers I've heard ,and read that maybe the aluminum may be responsible for this? Many say adcoms are harsh too bright . I like the sound of the adcom klipsch mix. You need to listen to thoughs different combinations for yourself. I have a Harmon Kardon Int power amp also, and find the sound of the adcoms to be more appealing. The klipsch will be the loudest and cleanest at high volumes wether you choose The RF or SF . I have 200 watts per channel with one amp and 100 watts per channel with another amp. The klipsch speakers are as clear at top power as they are at low volumes. Its actually impressive! You'll find yourself listening at high volume levels and not realizing how loud it really is. Dangerous for your hearing as well as the neighbors |
|
swampcat Unregistered guest | Klipsch only uses paper cones in their very best speaker systems such as the klipschhorns , heresy II ect. The RF series is not Klipsch's top of the line. Graphite cones There the ones in the SF-3 The materials used in the SF-3 have been used in many Klipsch speaker systems thru the years and many models bragged about such as the Legands and the like, but the RF owners think if your woofers aren't Gold they most be worthless. I wish, I could only afford the Klipsch speakers with the paper cones. |
|
Bronze Member Username: ShankPittsburgh, PA Post Number: 37 Registered: Aug-04 | The problem with an 8" paper or img cone (a graphite injected cone, to stiffen the "paper") is they are not as stiff as the cerametallic cones. More stiffness probalby sacrifices some low end extension, but the stiff cone will have much higher excursion (at least in general). THus, i'd expect the cerametallic to have a much better in the low-mid range region near where the crossover is at 2kHz. Most of the 8" or so paper/graphite injected cones have a crossover under 1 khz, often around 300 Hz. Thus, IMO, if you want deeper bass, the sf-3 will be better than the rf-15, but if you don't really want bass out of your speaker, then the rf-15 will be better (after all, it does have the smaller cerametallic-woofer). And also, you'll notice most of the better $500-$2k speakers (almost any brand) use titanium in the tweeter while the cheaper bretheren of almost any speaker line uses aluminum. Just in my personal experience, the titanium tweeters sound much clearer than the aluminum. But i'm not gonna argue that one speaker is equal to or better than another speaker based on a spec sheet. If that was true, then i'd say just go buy some cheap sony floorstanding speakers. Some of them have just as good a specs or better than the the klipschorn, the flagship klipsch speaker, and for only 1/100th the cost! r. schnik, but if you around and look at other forums, you'll see ppl in general saying the reference series is better than the synergy just in terms of sound quality. But the synergy is an excellent value. In my personal, in home experience, with the sf-2 and the rf-25, i would say both are good speakers for the money! But the rf-25's sounded smoother and less harsh to me. But I listen to alot of music, and for movies the difference between the reference and synergy series may not be important. If your not concerned with bass extension, i'd say go for the rf-15's, they should have better mid-range and trebble than the sf-3's. But you'll have to listen or test this out for yourself. |
|
Bronze Member Username: ShankPittsburgh, PA Post Number: 38 Registered: Aug-04 | Also, is a floor standing speaker a complete must? if your not worried about bass extension, a bookshelf speaker is prolly a better value. |
|
Bronze Member Username: ShankPittsburgh, PA Post Number: 39 Registered: Aug-04 | and just incase your wondering the cerametallic material is alluminum that is aniondized using some special technique that klipsch developed. |
|
Bronze Member Username: RlschneckPost Number: 24 Registered: Apr-04 | so, i've decided that i am just going to stick with the reference line. this is what i'm thinking about doing for my setup: fronts: rf-25 center: rc-25 subwoofer: rw-8 rears: rsx-4 if i get everything piece-meal on the internet, i can get everything for around $1300 including shipping. i did see that there is a rf-25 home theater package, though, that comes with: rf-25, rc-35, rw-10, and rs-35. that package is $1750 on the internet (including shipping), but i think i will just stick with the setup that i devised. the next job will be to pick a receiver... thanks for all of your help and good advice! -ryan |
|
Unregistered guest | i really hope you did not go with what you planned for two reasons. the rw-8 is a subwoofer you will only want to upgrade in the future. I know for now you feel it is good enough but the more you listen to your system the more you will notice flaws. which brings me to my second concern. the rears you chose. it is imperative when buying the klipsch line that you buy speakers (for home theater purposes) that are of the same line to have matching timbre. sounds will flow throughout the setup MUCH better if they are the same line. reference or synergy series of each respective line sound best within their "brethren" for lack of a better way to put it. if someone had say the rf-25s with the rs-25 he would definitely want the rc-25 over the rc-7. the RC-7 is much more expensive and of higher quality but that speaker would throw off the system balance |