I have seen where the RF-35's have come back for a limited time and I wanted to see if they are really awesome or not? The specs look great to me as they have 8 inch woofers! Would the 35's be better than the RF-52 or RF-62 as those are my other options at the moment. I'm looking at doing RF-35's for front L/R, RC-35 for center, RS-52 for side surrounds, and RB-35's for back surrounds. Would the RC-35 be best for center with those fronts or would it be better to do RF-62 center? Along those same lines, the RB's for back rears only or should I do them for sides and rears?

I have seen where the RF-35's have come back for a limited time and I wanted to see if they are really awesome or not? The specs look great to me as they have 8 inch woofers! Would the 35's be better than the RF-52 or RF-62 as those are my other options at the moment. I'm looking at doing RF-35's for front L/R, RC-35 for center, RS-52 for side surrounds, and RB-35's for back surrounds. Would the RC-35 be best for center with those fronts or would it be better to do RF-62 center? Along those same lines, the RB's for back rears only or should I do them for sides and rears?

RF-35's are not as good as the RF-63. Reason being is pretty simple...the RF-35 uses the older style Gen III compression driver and horn. They are a lot less refined and definitely brighter. Not my favorite designs. Also, you should use the Gen III center (RB-35) and surrounds (RS-35s) or you end up with a tonal mismatch. In the older Gen III product, the sweet spot was the RF-7, RC-7 and RB-75 with the larger 2" compression driver and bigger horn design. I sold 95% those models and about 5% of the '35 series.

The newer Series IV horn and compression driver is totally different and has significantly lower throat distortion and about 3K higher frequency extension. The RF-35s are decent, but the RF-62 or RF-82 is a big step upwards in refinement. They are actually smoother and more refined than the older top of the line 7 series products. The sweet spot in the new lines is much wider with the RF-82, and RF-83 being the two best sellers.

Also, remember, Klipsch has a price increase effective Tuesday. 5-10% on most of the products. If you are interested in Gen IV products, you want to move on them. Let me know if you are not working with a dealer (authorized for Reference, THX Ultra 2, Heritage and Pro Cinema).

Please tell me the RF-82's would BLOW AWAY the RVX-54's? I auditioned those along with 5 RVX-42's for center and surrounds and the setup sucked.

Soundood's post isn't completely accurate...

The 35's are actually not nearly as bright as the 63's - which I find quite a bit more harsh, bordering on heritage levels. As for tonal mis-match, there are a few options you have in order to avoid it. The RC-35 is just not nearly as pronounced as it needs to be for dialogue track (read: not as bright). You can put an RC-62 in there and it blends across the front perfectly fine. I also had RS-42's for rears which also blended in nicely prior to putting in RS-62's.

Granted I have these all mated to an HK AVR 645 which may account for some of the warmth in the sound - but hey - why match them with a harsh sounding amp? :)

Speakers all in one place for photo purposes only...

http://www.robak.net/images/sound/klipsch/DSCF5120-sm.jpg

The RC35 has to be one of the worst center channel speakers ever made. Any Klipsch center will sound better, timbre matched or not.

Speakers all in one place for photo purposes only...

http://www.robak.net/images/sound/klipsch/DSCF5120-sm.jpg
That center is WAY too low, man. Gotta do something about that. Is it even angled upwards? Can you at the very least switch it out with your receiver?

The RC35 has to be one of the worst center channel speakers ever made. Any Klipsch center will sound better, timbre matched or not.

"HTMAN21",

You have shared this opinion before and you are entitled to your opinion no matter how many times you articulate it!
I do believe you are bordering on the dramatic with your description of the RC35's performance. Does Klipsch make better center channels? Of course.
But it's far from the worst. I use the RC35 as my center channel and it's performance is on par with similar priced models from other manufacturers.
Is it the best? Surely not, but it isn't the worst!

And as I said in a previous post, the RC62 will work fine with the RF35's.

Regards.

Soundood's post isn't completely accurate...

The 35's are actually not nearly as bright as the 63's - which I find quite a bit more harsh, bordering on heritage levels. As for tonal mis-match, there are a few options you have in order to avoid it. The RC-35 is just not nearly as pronounced as it needs to be for dialogue track (read: not as bright). You can put an RC-62 in there and it blends across the front perfectly fine. I also had RS-42's for rears which also blended in nicely prior to putting in RS-62's.

Granted I have these all mated to an HK AVR 645 which may account for some of the warmth in the sound - but hey - why match them with a harsh sounding amp? :)

Speakers all in one place for photo purposes only...

Having sold both and set up plenty of both in a number of different clients' homes, I disagree. I never found the RF-35 to be an easy speaker to deal with in terms of the top end. We had to match them with amps which are rolled off (HK, older Marantz AVR's, etc.) and even then, I was never 100% happy with them. I typically switched customers into RB-75 systems instead since that speaker was significantly smoother. The newer horn design has significantly less high frequency throat distortion and is quite a bit smoother and more extended. If you read the Klipsch forum, the nearly universal comment there from folks who own the older series 3 product is that the new series is too rolled off for their tastes.

Bright RF-63's usually indicate either a set which has few hours on them or a bad setup (ala Best Buy in a room with GLASS back wall thru a speaker switcher and a cheap amp...UGH!). That is one HUGE reason Klipsch pulled the Reference series from BB and switched them over into the entry level ICON series which is significantly more rolled off. Set up properly, side by side, I am much happier with the results thruout the range with the newer Series IV products.

RF-82's are a step up from the RVX-54 but that doesn't mean the RVX-52 sucks. My point was that the vast majority of the RVX setups are done WRONG. You can't judge a speaker when you are listening to it in a bad setup. I've set up a few RVX systems and the results have been universally positive.

"HTMAN21",

You have shared this opinion before and you are entitled to your opinion no matter how many times you articulate it!
I do believe you are bordering on the dramatic with your description of the RC35's performance. Does Klipsch make better center channels? Of course.
But it's far from the worst. I use the RC35 as my center channel and it's performance is on par with similar priced models from other manufacturers.
Is it the best? Surely not, but it isn't the worst!

And as I said in a previous post, the RC62 will work fine with the RF35's.

Regards.

The OP's question was about the RC35. I simply gave my opinion which is based on previous ownership of the RC35. I sold the RF35's to a friend who is using them with an older AR2C (not Klipsch). Still sounds better than with the RC35. I ( and numerous others on forums ) thought the RC35 had a muffled sound. I hardly think that is dramatic. No one else has disagreed with my previous comments.
I am glad that you like yours. Have you tried other CC speakers to see if they might be better?

The OP's question was about the RC35. I simply gave my opinion which is based on previous ownership of the RC35. I sold the RF35's to a friend who is using them with an older AR2C (not Klipsch). Still sounds better than with the RC35. I ( and numerous others on forums ) thought the RC35 had a muffled sound. I hardly think that is dramatic. No one else has disagreed with my previous comments.
I am glad that you like yours. Have you tried other CC speakers to see if they might be better?

Thanks for your clarification. But I still disagree with your assessment of the RC35. And yes, I have owned other speaker systems. I also currently own the Polk Audio RTi70 speaker package, consisting of (2) RTi70 towers, CS400i center, and (2) FXi3 bi/dipole surrounds along with (2) RS20 bookshelf's. The CS400i center channel when it was introduced was a highly regarded speaker. When I compared it to the RC35, I felt that the 35 sounded a little clearer. Just my opinion. I've also owned a Klipsch KG5.5 speaker pkg, consisting of (2) KG5.5 towers, the KV3 center and (2) KG1.1 bookshelf's. And last but not least, I've owned a JBL Northridge E60 speaker pkg. I've auditioned enough speakers in my lifetime, and I can tell you that the RC35 is not as bad as you or others say it is. Now I will say that the RC62 is definitely a better speaker, no doubt. But with proper adjustment and the right amplification, the RF35 and RC35 can hold it's own against any speaker combo in it's respective class.

Regards.

RF-82's are a step up from the RVX-54 but that doesn't mean the RVX-52 sucks. My point was that the vast majority of the RVX setups are done WRONG. You can't judge a speaker when you are listening to it in a bad setup. I've set up a few RVX systems and the results have been universally positive.

The way I look at the RF-82 and the RVX-54 are that they are two different types of speakers for two different types of setups and applications. The RVX-54 may be more appropriate/advantagious for flat screen/limited space applications, while the RF-82 may be more appropriate where space is not so much of a constraint and where music applications may be more of a priority for the customer. With a good amp and the right room treatment, the RF-82 could pretty much stand on it's own for music applications, (though I prefer the 2.1 configuration with a good sub for various reasons). The RVX-54 needs a little help down in the lower frequencies. If I remember correctly, the designer of the RF-82 has stated that it is one of the warmest speakers in a lineup that was redesigned for smoother/more extended highs and better integration in the mids.

Soundood... I completely agree with your input on BB and most of these electronics stores... It's pretty bad when I can hear the subs blaring out in the parking lot, and speakers are lineup in the show room, one next to each other. They sound HORRIBLE.

The way I look at the RF-82 and the RVX-54 are that they are two different types of speakers for two different types of setups and applications. The RVX-54 may be more appropriate/advantagious for flat screen/limited space applications, while the RF-82 may be more appropriate where space is not so much of a constraint and where music applications may be more of a priority for the customer. With a good amp and the right room treatment, the RF-82 could pretty much stand on it's own for music applications, (though I prefer the 2.1 configuration with a good sub for various reasons). The RVX-54 needs a little help down in the lower frequencies. If I remember correctly, the designer of the RF-82 has stated that it is one of the warmest speakers in a lineup that was redesigned for smoother/more extended highs and better integration in the mids.

Soundood... I completely agree with your input on BB and most of these electronics stores... It's pretty bad when I can hear the subs blaring out in the parking lot, and speakers are lineup in the show room, one next to each other. They sound HORRIBLE.

No question, the RVX-54 is definitely a solution product. Many times there are circumstances where you simply can't have a wider speaker. And yes, the RVX-54 definitely needs a sub...can't run without one. My point was that the RVX-54 doesn't suck...I've heard it sound fabulous with the right setup.

The RF-82 can stand on its own. It is a bigger product, much larger box, bigger woofers. It is one of my most highly recommended and popular speakers. I typically match it with a single RB-81 as a center...fantastic combo, perfect tonal match across the front stage since they all use identical drivers.

Thanks for your clarification. But I still disagree with your assessment of the RC35. And yes, I have owned other speaker systems. I also currently own the Polk Audio RTi70 speaker package, consisting of (2) RTi70 towers, CS400i center, and (2) FXi3 bi/dipole surrounds along with (2) RS20 bookshelf's. The CS400i center channel when it was introduced was a highly regarded speaker. When I compared it to the RC35, I felt that the 35 sounded a little clearer. Just my opinion. I've also owned a Klipsch KG5.5 speaker pkg, consisting of (2) KG5.5 towers, the KV3 center and (2) KG1.1 bookshelf's. And last but not least, I've owned a JBL Northridge speaker pkg. I've auditioned enough speakers in my lifetime, and I can tell you that the RC35 is not as bad as you or others say it is. Now I will say that the RC62 is definitely a better speaker, no doubt. But with proper adjustment and the right amplification, the RF35 and RC35 can hold it's own against any speaker combo in it's respective class.

Regards.


My description of a forum without debates is 'BORING'. Thanks for making it interesting. I have owned more than my share of speakers. I can't remember some of the brands that I had in the 70's.
I went from Paradigm to Klipsch RF35 system. The Paradigm CC was superior to the RC35 ( IMHO only ).
I mostly use Arcam processor. Just for something to do I sometimes swap out for my Anthem processor. Both are quite capable of adjustments for any speaker. I have 200 watt Sherbourne amp. Do you think the 35 needs more power? I never noticed a power drop with the RF 7 set up.

My description of a forum without debates is 'BORING'. Thanks for making it interesting. I have owned more than my share of speakers. I can't remember some of the brands that I had in the 70's.
I went from Paradigm to Klipsch RF35 system. The Paradigm CC was superior to the RC35 ( IMHO only ).
I mostly use Arcam processor. Just for something to do I sometimes swap out for my Anthem processor. Both are quite capable of adjustments for any speaker. I have 200 watt Sherbourne amp. Do you think the 35 needs more power? I never noticed a power drop with the RF 7 set up.

IMHO, the RC35 definitely needs more power! Excellent observation "HTMAN21". When I changed out the Yamaha (100W) and replaced it with the Marantz (140W), a difference was heard. More dynamic would be how I would describe it. I also bi-wired my RC35 with the Monster Cable M-Series M1.4 Center Channel spkr. cable. Many will argue, call it "snake oil" and placebo, but, the difference it made compared to the standard connection was immense! Should you have to bi-wire a center channel to eliminate the muffled sound? Absolutely not, but it worked for my RC35.

Did you really think that the RF35 pkg was a deficient speaker system?
Don't get me wrong, at one time, I had serious issues with my RF35 pkg. It actually took me a year of adjusting and tweaking before I was satisfied with the performance. I know that with my Yamaha RX-V3000 AVR, it wasn't a good match. But the Marantz does a fine job softening the sometimes harsh highs. I listen to a lot of contemporary jazz, r&b, easy listening, some classical and progressive pop/rock (Sting, U2, Maroon 5, Joss Stone, Eagles, DMB). So, I've managed to make adjustments to my system where it actually compliments the music I listen to. If that makes any sense?!

And thank you for not taking offense to my opinions and observations. It's good to have these exchanges. I learn a lot on this forum and I respect when a fellow poster has a difference of opinion and stands firm with it without all the histrionics! By the way, do you own an RF-7 speaker system?

Regards.

IMHO, the RC35 definitely needs more power! Excellent observation "HTMAN21". When I changed out the Yamaha (100W) and replaced it with the Marantz (140W), a difference was heard. More dynamic would be how I would describe it. I also bi-wired my RC35 with the Monster Cable M-Series M1.4 Center Channel spkr. cable. Many will argue, call it "snake oil" and placebo, but, the difference it made compared to the standard connection was immense! Should you have to bi-wire a center channel to eliminate the muffled sound? Absolutely not, but it worked for my RC35.

Did you really think that the RF35 pkg was a deficient speaker system?
Don't get me wrong, at one time, I had serious issues with my RF35 pkg. It actually took me a year of adjusting and tweaking before I was satisfied with the performance. I know that with my Yamaha RX-V3000 AVR, it wasn't a good match. But the Marantz does a fine job softening the sometimes harsh highs. I listen to a lot of contemporary jazz, r&b, easy listening, some classical and progressive pop/rock (Sting, U2, Maroon 5, Joss Stone, Eagles, DMB). So, I've managed to make adjustments to my system where it actually compliments the music I listen to. If that makes any sense?!

And thank you for not taking offense to my opinions and observations. It's good to have these exchanges. I learn a lot on this forum and I respect when a fellow poster has a difference of opinion and stands firm with it without all the histrionics! By the way, do you own an RF-7 speaker system?

Regards.

I have the RF7's and RC7. I kept my RS35's. I have actually been content with the surrounds. My old RF35's are being used with a Sony 777ES receiver that I sold with the speakers. This is actually a very good combo. The old ES is rated at 120 watts ( I think ) .This is one of the most powerful and detailed receivers that I have ever heard.

The 200 watts still makes a difference, especially with the RF7's.

I have the RF7's and RC7. I kept my RS35's. I have actually been content with the surrounds. My old RF35's are being used with a Sony 777ES receiver that I sold with the speakers. This is actually a very good combo. The old ES is rated at 120 watts ( I think ) .This is one of the most powerful and detailed receivers that I have ever heard.

The 200 watts still makes a difference, especially with the RF7's.

I absolutely agree with you about additional power. I have a Sunfire TGA-7200 that I haven't added to my current setup. That's because I will soon be moving into a new home and I will also be totally modifying my system. At that time, I will be integrating the Sunfire amp.

BTW, just watched "The Matrix" in SD DVD, via upconversion on my Blu ray player, and because of the debate we've had about the performance of the RC35, I really listened intently to the dialog coming from the that speaker. I paid special attention to Morpheus's voice. Mid way thru the movie, I stopped it and exchanged center channels. I put the Polk Audio CS400i in it's place to see if there was a difference. In my honest opinion, the RC35 sounded clearer, more pronounced. Understand, I have no agenda here. If the Polk Audio RTi70 pkg offered better sound than the Klipsch pkg, believe me, the Polks would be connected to my main system instead of the one in my family room. The Polk's musically aren't bad. As a matter of fact, they sound damn good! But the Klipsch just creates an overall better sound stage. But that's just me. I know I do not have to convince you about Klipsch's performance.... You own the RF-7's!

Regards.