Klipsch RP-280F's to replace RF-82's

[shadyJ]

I know that you are a Klipsch fan, but there are other good manufacturers. Besides, how loud do you listen to that you need something like Forte IIIs in a room of that size?

If you want Klispch, I would go for some clearance Palladium stuff right now. There is some Palladium P-17s on clearance at acousticsounddesign and matching centers. P-17 in Merlot, and P-27 in Merlot. The measurements aren't bad and have a nice uniform off-axis response.

 

[yepimonfire]

I know that you are a Klipsch fan, but there are other good manufacturers. Besides, how loud do you listen to that you need something like Forte IIIs in a room of that size?

If you want Klispch, I would go for some clearance Palladium stuff right now. There is some Palladium P-17s on clearance at acousticsounddesign and matching centers. P-17 in Merlot, and P-27 in Merlot. The measurements aren't bad and have a nice uniform off-axis response.

I'd have to agree, there is absolutely no point even going for RP-28fs. You could technically make a case about the bass response, but isn't that what subwoofers are for? Even if the extension were the same and SPL capability the same, you're going to get much better sound by dividing the frequency range between different drivers designed specifically for a certain range, since IM distortion becomes a real problem when one driver is trying to cover sounds more than 3-4 octaves apart. I get the same effortless dynamics in a room 1.5x as big, and I usually listen at reference levels. Its just overkill. Even accounting for Klipschs bloated sensitivity ratings, the rp 160m can reach levels of 105dB per channel in an anechoic chamber at 8' with 100w.

Not to derail the thread, but are there any large benefits of Forte's vs reference series or even their high end palladium series speakers outside of SPL? I know just looking at sensitivity measurements their smallest model bookshelves (rb-10) are as efficient as a small floor stander, and can easily reach 100dB in my room without any strain, dynamics compression or distortion.



Sent from my 5065N using Tapatalk

 

[Klipschhead302]

I know that you are a Klipsch fan, but there are other good manufacturers. Besides, how loud do you listen to that you need something like Forte IIIs in a room of that size?

If you want Klispch, I would go for some clearance Palladium stuff right now. There is some Palladium P-17s on clearance at acousticsounddesign and matching centers. P-17 in Merlot, and P-27 in Merlot. The measurements aren't bad and have a nice uniform off-axis response.

I have had the system running at peaks of 128db at the listening position so sometimes, pretty damn loud. Wow that price for the Klipsch P-17-B's is incredible. Not sure I have room for the massive P-27, my RC-64 is huge but not tall so it fits in the cabinet.

 

[ski2xblack]

Not to derail the thread, but are there any large benefits of Forte's vs reference series or even their high end palladium series speakers outside of SPL?

Haven't heard Palladiums, and it's been a while but I have compared older forteII to RF82 side-by-side, and it's no contest. Compared to the RFs, fortes have deeper extension and higher sensitivity, and much more cohesive mids. Fortes don't have a crossover smack in the speech discrimination band. RF sounds horny, fortes have a very open, non-horny sound. Fewer 'sins of commission' in their function is my guess.

 

[Klipschhead302]

I'd have to agree, there is absolutely no point even going for RP-28fs. You could technically make a case about the bass response, but isn't that what subwoofers are for? Even if the extension were the same and SPL capability the same, you're going to get much better sound by dividing the frequency range between different drivers designed specifically for a certain range, since IM distortion becomes a real problem when one driver is trying to cover sounds more than 3-4 octaves apart. I get the same effortless dynamics in a room 1.5x as big, and I usually listen at reference levels. Its just overkill. Even accounting for Klipschs bloated sensitivity ratings, the rp 160m can reach levels of 105dB per channel in an anechoic chamber at 8' with 100w.

Not to derail the thread, but are there any large benefits of Forte's vs reference series or even their high end palladium series speakers outside of SPL? I know just looking at sensitivity measurements their smallest model bookshelves (rb-10) are as efficient as a small floor stander, and can easily reach 100dB in my room without any strain, dynamics compression or distortion.

Sent from my 5065N using Tapatalk

I think there is more to a speaker than SPL measurements, tangible sound differences exist between these speakers as well.

Currently, I believe the RP-160M's sound better than the RF-82's so yes, that would be an upgrade path, I believe the RP-280's could only improve on this difference, not just in bass but overall.

The Forte III's I have no doubt sound different as well, to the tune of $4,000, not sure probably not but the Forte III's are in a different class I believe.

I am much less interested in SPL as this isn't an issue with most Klipsch speakers.

 

[Klipschhead302]

Haven't heard Palladiums, and it's been a while but I have compared older forteII to RF82 side-by-side, and it's no contest. Compared to the RFs, fortes have deeper extension and higher sensitivity, and much more cohesive mids. Fortes don't have a crossover smack in the speech discrimination band. RF sounds horny, fortes have a very open, non-horny sound. Fewer 'sins of commission' in their function is my guess.

As an owner of the 82's I can tell you they are bright, which is why I say the RP-160M bookshelf speakers would be an upgrade. The Forte III's are supposed to sound incredible in the mid-range and over-all.