Klipsch RF-82ii vs JBL Studio 580

[KEW]

Note that this thread is of somewhat dubious worth since both of these speakers are discontinued. Right now there appear to be a few of these left (well, at least Studio 590's which have 8" woofers instead of the 6.5" woofers in my 580's). Still, for those who might be interested...

For the past couple of months, I have had both the Klipsch RF-82ii (previous version of the current RP-280F) and JBL Studio 580 (same series and general design as the 590, but the 580 has 6.5" woofers instead of 8") setup for my HT, running them in pure direct mode with out the subs attached. My setup involves two Denon AVR's (4520 and 4311) and after turning one on I mute it then turn on the other. Now, every time I hit the mute button on the RC, the sound changes between the two sets of speakers. Of course, the levels are easily matched using the volume controls.

Here is a quick & dirty summary of my subjective experience:

General impression:
First off, I have yet to decide which I prefer! They do not sound the same by any stretch. It is rather rare that I hit the mute and do not hear any difference (this happens more often with other speakers I have done this with). Most often (maybe 80% of the time), I hear a clear difference, but neither sounds worse nor better than the other, only different. I guess I should start keeping a tally, but right now I would estimate that about 10% of the time the JBL sounds better and 10% the Klipsch sounds better. I have not yet been able to narrow it down to categorize what sounds better on which speaker. I can say any category is not yet obvious - it is not the case that every time I listen to electronic music one sounds better or every time I listen to Norah Jones' voice one sounds better. I can say both sound good - I like both sets of speakers, and a lot given the price!

Setup - Horn/waveguide:
I have had the Klipsch for over a year and the JBL is the newcomer. Both of these speakers have pronounced horns/waveguides, but they are pretty different in nature. The Klipsch requires some attention to setup and I ended up towing them in such that the axes of the speakers cross at a point about 2 feet in front of me. The JBL are impressively idiot-proof! Point them straight ahead, tow them in 15 degrees or 30 degrees; very little difference in the sound at my LP (listening position); it is somewhat uncanny.
The Klipsch might look a little weird if my room was wider than it is deep (where the speakers might be toed-in by more than 45 degrees), but mine is narrower than it is deep, so the speakers are towed in at about 35 degrees.
Sound-wise, the Klipsch have more of a horn sound to them. I don't mean the harsh sound of earlier and cheaper implementations of horns, but I mean the sense that a sound is being thrown toward you (like you get if you cup your hands around your mouth before you yell to someone across a gym). Obviously, it is not that pronounced, but you can still pick it up.
I should note that the newer version of the Klipsch (RP-280F) has substantially changed their waveguide design.

More to follow in next post...

 

[KEW]

Sound:
I suspect it is the nature of the horn/waveguides that cause me to almost always hear a difference in the sound without being able to determine which I like better. Ultimately, these two speakers have a lot in common. Primarily, they are both exciting speakers! Neither is a "sophisticated laid back" speaker. Rather, they are a little "in your face". Indeed Klipsch proudly advertises this with slogans like "pissing off the neighbors for 62(?) years" and their powered subs have gain knobs that actually go to 11!
IMHO, this makes them both good speakers for Rock/Metal etc.
On this count, I would tend to view the Klipsch as being a touch farther "out there" than the JBL, but that is a very subjective judgement. It may be bias from the Klipsch marketers doing their job well!
However, don't interpret that to mean you won't enjoy classical/symphonic music, just expect the strings to have a little more vitality than they perhaps should during subdued pianissimo passages.
The Klipsch often would impart more immediacy to impacts and the JBL offer a fuller sound. But both were good at either task.

Looks:
IMHO, the Klipsch is a beautiful speaker once the grill is removed (though I'm not sure why the put the arc atop the waveguide) and a nice looking speaker with the grill in place:

IMHO, the JBL is a beautiful speaker with the grill in place, but rather utilitarian looking without the grill:

Bass:
Surprisingly, the 6.5" JBL produced subjectively more and deeper bass than the 8" RP-82ii's! I haven't yet looked on-line to see if I can find FR measurements on these two. I do perceive the Klipsch's as having slightly better impact for a kick drum, but otherwise it was a bit lean on bass. The JBL was not bloated or muddy by any means.
If there will not be a sub in the picture, the extra bass of the JBL more than compensated for the perceived tightness of the Klipsch. And presumably more so for the 8" JBL 590!
Crossed over to a sub, the JBL no longer has an advantage and I suspect the impact I heard from the Klipsch actually comes from higher frequencies and would be retained, so the Klipsch gains an edge in this aspect.

Conclusion:
Both of these are very enjoyable speakers. They make for an interesting comparison because they have a similar overall character, while definitely not sounding the same. I bought both on closeout. I got a good deal on the Klipsch at $400 each and an incredible deal on the JBL at $260 each. Ideally, I would be comparing the RF-82ii to the Studio 590 or the Klipsch RF-62ii to the Studio 580 so the woofer sizes would match.
For HT and paired with a sub, the Klipsch's horn impart a "quickness" that makes it get extra real when you are on the edge of your seat and the crapola hits the fan. That is what caught my attention and led me to buy mine! I would love to see where this shows in measurements, but haven't yet found a good set of measurements. This same "quickness" pays dividends for energetic music making things just a little sharper, but my tastes have mellowed over the years.
In contrast, the JBL's are just easy. They still have more excitement/energy than most speakers I have heard, but not quite up to the Klipsch on this count. Whether that is a good or a bad thing is the question, and I am having a difficult time deciding!
I am at the point where I'll probably add in Audyssey and subs and see if that makes it an easier decision!

 

[zieglj01]

Audio life can be challenging and a fun hobby.

 

[lovinthehd]

Interesting altho I haven't heard the RF82ii (altho think I've heard some others from that series). What are the details of your room dimensions and listening/speaker positioning?

I do have the 580s and 590s (and 530s and a 520c) but haven't a/b'd the 580/590. I like the 590s up front and 580s for surrounds for now, maybe next time I play with setup I could a/b them....

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

Cool thread Kurt. I thought when I read the tittle that this would be a “which one” to Buy thread. Wrong! I’ve always had better experiences with jbl over klipsch, but as I suspected once I started reading, these seem to be more similar than different. I really like how the 590/580 looks both dressed and not. If I wasn’t in the early stage of an atmos build, I’d be making a bid for some 590’s. Anyways, cool thread. Definitely unexpected.

 

[Mitchibo]

Sound:
I suspect it is the nature of the horn/waveguides that cause me to almost always hear a difference in the sound without being able to determine which I like better. Ultimately, these two speakers have a lot in common. Primarily, they are both exciting speakers! Neither is a "sophisticated laid back" speaker. Rather, they are a little "in your face". Indeed Klipsch proudly advertises this with slogans like "pissing off the neighbors for 62(?) years" and their powered subs have gain knobs that actually go to 11!
IMHO, this makes them both good speakers for Rock/Metal etc.
On this count, I would tend to view the Klipsch as being a touch farther "out there" than the JBL, but that is a very subjective judgement. It may be bias from the Klipsch marketers doing their job well!
However, don't interpret that to mean you won't enjoy classical/symphonic music, just expect the strings to have a little more vitality than they perhaps should during subdued pianissimo passages.
The Klipsch often would impart more immediacy to impacts and the JBL offer a fuller sound. But both were good at either task.

Looks:
IMHO, the Klipsch is a beautiful speaker once the grill is removed (though I'm not sure why the put the arc atop the waveguide) and a nice looking speaker with the grill in place:

IMHO, the JBL is a beautiful speaker with the grill in place, but rather utilitarian looking without the grill:

Bass:
Surprisingly, the 6.5" JBL produced subjectively more and deeper bass than the 8" RP-82ii's! I haven't yet looked on-line to see if I can find FR measurements on these two. I do perceive the Klipsch's as having slightly better impact for a kick drum, but otherwise it was a bit lean on bass. The JBL was not bloated or muddy by any means.
If there will not be a sub in the picture, the extra bass of the JBL more than compensated for the perceived tightness of the Klipsch. And presumably more so for the 8" JBL 590!
Crossed over to a sub, the JBL no longer has an advantage and I suspect the impact I heard from the Klipsch actually comes from higher frequencies and would be retained, so the Klipsch gains an edge in this aspect.

Conclusion:
Both of these are very enjoyable speakers. They make for an interesting comparison because they have a similar overall character, while definitely not sounding the same. I bought both on closeout. I got a good deal on the Klipsch at $400 each and an incredible deal on the JBL at $260 each. Ideally, I would be comparing the RF-82ii to the Studio 590 or the Klipsch RF-62ii to the Studio 580 so the woofer sizes would match.
For HT and paired with a sub, the Klipsch's horn impart a "quickness" that makes it get extra real when you are on the edge of your seat and the crapola hits the fan. That is what caught my attention and led me to buy mine! I would love to see where this shows in measurements, but haven't yet found a good set of measurements. This same "quickness" pays dividends for energetic music making things just a little sharper, but my tastes have mellowed over the years.
In contrast, the JBL's are just easy. They still have more excitement/energy than most speakers I have heard, but not quite up to the Klipsch on this count. Whether that is a good or a bad thing is the question, and I am having a difficult time deciding!
I am at the point where I'll probably add in Audyssey and subs and see if that makes it an easier decision!

Wave guides on the Heresey IIIs do the same thing...throw the sound out. It’s not bad just quite different.

 

[Beave]

How much volume difference did you need between the two AVR's to level-match the speakers? Which one is louder before you compensate?

 

[KEW]

How much volume difference did you need between the two AVR's to level-match the speakers? Which one is louder before you compensate?

The Klipsch is definitely more efficient.
However, I really cannot get too specific about volume settings. I ran Audyssey on both sets/AVR's, so the level has already been established to reference. I put both in pure direct to avoid Audyssey coloring the speakers natural sound, but the level and phase matching from the setup routine is still applied as I understand it.

 

[Beave]

The higher sensitivity of the Klipsches is probably the reason for their lesser bass extension despite them having larger woofers. Hoffman's iron law and whatnot.

 

[KEW]

Interesting altho I haven't heard the RF82ii (altho think I've heard some others from that series). What are the details of your room dimensions and listening/speaker positioning?

I do have the 580s and 590s (and 530s and a 520c) but haven't a/b'd the 580/590. I like the 590s up front and 580s for surrounds for now, maybe next time I play with setup I could a/b them....

109" between speakers and 144" from speakers back to LP.

You had to ask about details of the room dimensions!
The room is 185" wide by 236" front to back with the following complications. Directions such as "front" are relative to the LP.:
1) 48" opening in the wall behind the speakers just left of the right speaker, which accesses a 39" X 90" (roughly, it is not really a rectangle) alcove.
2) The ceiling starts at 118" high on the left side and slopes up at 40 degrees until it goes level over the "catwalk/balcony/hallway" at 212" height. The hallway extends 144" (and 62 inches wide) beyond the back wall and 46" (and 40 inches wide) beyond the front wall. The balcony section is 122 inches long. The catwalk section is 114" long and is open upstairs to the foyer which is 114 X 190 X 212 (having the open stairway going up one side), and the foyer has 72" opening to the office. Downstairs there is a simple 32" opening from the listening room to the foyer, but upstairs the listening room is wide open to the foyer.
3) In the back wall is a 48" opening to kitchen/breakfast area.

This room is pretty complicated and not the best for acoustics (I use other rooms & speakers for dedicated listening to music).

 

[MrBoat]

Your experience with waveguides kind of mirrors my own. Somehow they make you appreciate whatever it is they do well. It could be the same difference of liking the same band that plays live at different, albeit good locations.

The two passive, of the three waveguide types I have, both perform well in PD mode, which is to say, they stand well on their own right out of the box. I must admit that it is nice to have that option.

The active waveguide speakers have comparatively minimal adjustments with regard to EQ etc, and again, manage to overcome whatever modes my room might inflict with little fuss. Any other EQ adjustments at the source only makes them better with regard to preferences, more than anything in the way of correction.

 

[yepimonfire]

Interesting comparison. I would expect the jbl to have better constant directivity and dispersion than the rf 82II. It would be interesting to see some off axis measurements of both. I know my RB-10s have pretty uniform dispersion out to about 12khz In the far field. One issue with the II series horns is deep notches in the response vertically off axis. This is solved in the premiere series, and the premieres are most definitely not an In Your face speaker.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Beave]

How do they 'solve' the issue of deep notches in the response vertically off axis?

 

[yepimonfire]

How do they 'solve' the issue of deep notches in the response vertically off axis?

Well, the RP-150m is crossed over at 1500hz, a 1500hz wavelength is 9”, the woofer center to the tweeter is about 5”, so both drivers should sum perfectly at the crossover, and the directivity at the xover is perfectly matched. Measured in the far field (4’) with a windowed response, the premiere series shows no dip at the xover frequency. The MTM center is also crossed over at 1500hz, and does not display any notches off axis measured far field.

Secondly, I believe some of the notches in the II series had to do with the design of the 90x60 horn, since one reviewer tried turning an mtm center channel vertical and measured similar notches.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Beave]

All good and well, but there will still be large nulls at the crossover frequency at some angle. Changing the driver spacing changes the angle, and changing the crossover frequency changes the angle too. But there will still be some angle at which the output of the drivers cancel each other.

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

Interesting comparison. I would expect the jbl to have better constant directivity and dispersion than the rf 82II. It would be interesting to see some off axis measurements of both. I know my RB-10s have pretty uniform dispersion out to about 12khz In the far field. One issue with the II series horns is deep notches in the response vertically off axis. This is solved in the premiere series, and the premieres are most definitely not an In Your face speaker.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I understood him to mean the jbl was better that way when he spoke of the uncannily easy way they set up.

 

[TheWarrior]

I understood him to mean the jbl was better that way when he spoke of the uncannily easy way they set up.

Klipsch horns do not disperse sound as uniformly as their marketing suggests. JBL waveguides are far better at doing this.

I tried to offer my ears for this demo, which was very difficult due to the SPL variations track to track. I think there is something to be said for the control of Audyssey even in Pure Direct mode.

My only thought is to do it again, in Mono.

 

[MrBoat]

I think there is something to be said for the control of Audyssey even in Pure Direct mode.

My only thought is to do it again, in Mono.

Except in my case, where there is no Audyssey in Pure Direct mode, or in any mode. Granted, by the sound of KEW's room explanation, mine seems much more sound friendly. But then I wonder if JBL, Klipsch etc uses any corrections when testing their speakers. I would not think so, other than testing in a perhaps, acoustically perfect or neutral space.

The waveguide types have been so easy in fact, that it has kept me from pursuing any auto room EQ. The only other EQ I have used is to slightly tame the low frequencies. If I was to compare the layout of my room to that of a speaker enclosure, it would likely show to act as a huge TL, which may explain the added gain in the low end. This has been true of every speaker/subwoofer I have tried here.

 

[TheWarrior]

Except in my case, where there is no Audyssey in Pure Direct mode, or in any mode. Granted, by the sound of KEW's room explanation, mine seems much more sound friendly. But then I wonder if JBL, Klipsch etc uses any corrections when testing their speakers. I would not think so, other than testing in a perhaps, acoustically perfect or neutral space.

The waveguide types have been so easy in fact, that it has kept me from pursuing any auto room EQ. The only other EQ I have used is to slightly tame the low frequencies. If I was to compare the layout of my room to that of a speaker enclosure, it would likely show to act as a huge TL, which may explain the added gain in the low end. This has been true of every speaker/subwoofer I have tried here.

That was actually a subtle criticism of auto EQ - we should not have had so much difficulty comparing two pairs of speakers and have to make significant volume adjustments with each new track being played, despite the use of Pure Direct. I think Audyssey is still functioning in some way, even in Pure Direct.

The room is in control of bass. Learning how that functions and how to manipulate it makes using Auto EQ obsolete - or useless, depending on your perspective. ;-)

 

[MrBoat]

My AVR is pre Audyssey Denon 3805. Is what I like about it. Also allows use of the sub in PD, albeit without the crossover function, IIRC. But since my separate sub amp has fine tunable dsp, it just happens to work well with speakers that can run more full range, or, large. It also helps that the genre of music I prefer is generally recorded well and is essentially uncomplicated, which makes relieving some of the lower frequencies from the main speakers kind of unnecessary.

In the case of the Tempests, with the 12" Eminence woofers, I prefer the way they handle a lot of the bass even down into the sub bass range in PD, which cancels the benefits of a higher crossover in some respects. With the subwoofer set lower as a helper, the effect is more like having 3 subwoofers in the small room, with only the subwoofer having to handle the lowest frequencies.

Main speakers as full, with the subwoofer tuned to approx. 1.5 x the main speakers lowest range ends up being a really nice blend. Matched gain on the sub with the mains, along with fine tuning the graphic EQ in the 31-125hz range to relieve the mains that way, compensating the sub with it's own dsp, tends to even out what auto EQ would, IMO, tend to generalize without say, regard to user preference or off axis listening. With the benefit of on the fly adjustment with regard to specific genre tuning preferences.