# Klipsch or Arx A5



## davidburn (May 10, 2007)

I'm currently looking at purchasing a set of speakers and need some input from the shacksters.

Have narrowed it down to either the Klipsch RF52ii or the Arx A5 which rated quit good in the $1000 speaker evaluation.

I current run some 3 ways which have 3 6.5" 2 x bass drivers, and 1 midrange and a tweeter which are great for movies but lack with extra loud music in 2 channel.

So the purchase is based on music play back, not to worried about timber matching as I will purchase a new center once I've chosen the new fronts. 

Cannot demo the Arx A5 and am waiting on a shipping price before I can decide.

Running an 18" sub and an Onkyo 7.1 HT R-690 for the amplifier and my media room is quite small 4m x 4m.

Any help or thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

Dave


----------



## Tonto (Jun 30, 2007)

The ARX A5's preformed very well in our evaluation. The only issue is that we positioned them far out into the room for optimal, 2 channel, stereo listening. We don't know how they will preform in a HT set up, i.e. closer to the walls (rear ported).

Sonnie has indicated that he will try using them in a HT set up after the current $2500 evaluation. Plugging those ports will effect the speakers preformance. That effect vs open, while close to a wall is what we will need to know (if you can wait a bit longer, I feel this is important information).


----------



## theJman (Mar 3, 2012)

I believe the Arx are currently being offered at a "group buy" discount to celebrate the launch of the 'C' variant. You might be able to save a little $$ on those right now.


----------



## B- one (Jan 13, 2013)

I have a Klipsch setup Rf-63 mains Rc-64 center. Mostly home theater use and I think they are great. I would pm Sonnie about the Arx speakers he could probably give you great insight about them.


----------



## chashint (Jan 12, 2011)

There is a huge difference between RF-63s and RF-52s...just sayin'

Never had the pleasure of hearing the ARX-5s, it's hard to see myself buying speakers unheard but I know many have no other option.


----------



## davidburn (May 10, 2007)

Thanks guys for the feedback, still waiting to hear back on pricing and shipping on the arx and most definitely the Rf-63 are very different to the rf-52 but they look good but a bit out of my price range. 

Thanks again and when I find out more will let you know which way I go 

Dave


----------



## Sonnie (Apr 11, 2006)

Of course you know we had the 62-ll's in our last evaluation. I can't say how much different they are from the 63's, but they were pretty good speakers. I have a tendency to lean towards them being a better HT speaker, but they were still very good at two-channel, just not quite up to snuff with the A5's. We are not talking super duper drastic differences. Placement is going to mean a lot for two-channel. We'll have more on the A5's closer to the front wall a bit later, but they absolutely shine out into the room.  Mine are staying right where they are for right now.


----------



## davidburn (May 10, 2007)

Ended up going for the Klipsch RF52ii, had a good audition and loved the sound and the size of the speaker, also the price was spot on. 

Unfortunately the audio insider didn't get back to me with a price or any correspondence on the Arx A5 which was disappointing so the Klipsch will fill the void.

Very happy with the Klipsch and married with my 18" Sub and my small theater room the sound is awesome in 2 channel listening which is what I was after.

Next will be the matching center as i'm current using an Arron Loudspeaker which does an awesome job but not timber matched. 

Dave


----------



## Sonnie (Apr 11, 2006)

Well... that is truly a shame that TAI did not respond, as I can just about guarantee you would have liked the A5's better than the 52's. Not saying the 52's are bad, I would not know, but I have heard the 62's, which certainly will be better than the 52's (logically speaking). Again, not bad, but the A5's are identifiably better for two-channel. Nonetheless, it is what it is and you got what you got. Congratulations! No doubt you will still enjoy them.


----------



## davidburn (May 10, 2007)

No worries Sonnie, hopefully they're too busy from the $1000 speaker evaluation!

I really do love the sound of the Klipsch but I have no doubt I would have loved the Arx better but it's not to be this time.

Dave


----------



## Jon Lane (Oct 9, 2010)

davidburn said:


> Unfortunately the audio insider didn't get back to me with a price or any correspondence


Hi Dave,

Actually we replied in writing the morning of 11/04/13 to say that we do not have means to quote attractive rates to Australia. This is not uncommon for brands who do not have local distribution and who face high air tariffs shipping 150# around the globe. 

We suggested that an alternative for folks who import merchandise is a local forwarder. We've seen quite a few international customers using their own practiced delivery alternatives who hub somewhere in the US and collect their goods.

We make an effort to reply to every correspondence we receive. I'm sorry we couldn't help you but we stand by for whatever we may be able to do in the future.


----------



## Sonnie (Apr 11, 2006)

Email can be frustrating at times. I was somewhat doubtful that it would work out to be able to ship to Australia, but it is definitely worth asking. 

Dave... one thing you can count on is that the Arx A5's are easily a $2,000+ speaker, so if you can get them there for less than that, you will still be ahead. :T


----------



## chashint (Jan 12, 2011)

Sonnie said:


> Dave... one thing you can count on is that the Arx A5's are easily a $2,000+ speaker, so if you can get them there for less than that, you will still be ahead. :T


Is $2000 a mistype?
Based on the results of the $1000 speaker evaluation it seemed like it took considerable listening effort and in one reviewer's words 'nit-picking' to distinguish better/worse/just different between the speakers with the Martin Logan speakers being judged 'almost' the same as the ARX by more than one of the participants.
I certainly respect the ARX winning the shoot out but judging from the write ups it appeared to be more of a by-a-nose victory instead of a win-by-a-mile feat.
I know y'all have a bunch more speakers under your belt now, is there really. Nothing to gain between the $1k group and the $2500 group?


----------



## Sonnie (Apr 11, 2006)

Keep in mind that most of those speakers in the $2,500 group were closer to $2,000. And in fact there was not a lot of difference between them and the Arx, which is why I say it is easily a $2,000+ speaker (in regards to sound). I personally think it is way under-priced, as is (was) the MartinLogan Motion 12. Maybe I should not say "easily" because there are some that will favor the heavier bass offered by some of those in the $2,500 event, and that could justify them costing more. Either way, I ain't getting rid of my Arx A5's anytime soon. That doesn't mean I won't buy anything else, it just means I like the Arx well enough to keep them... and they are a serious bargain. I think the hard part for most people is the low price. I almost can't get past the fact they are only $750 myself... they are not suppose to sound like $2,000 speakers are they?

Something else I should probably give more consideration to with pricing is the finish. I am not fond of the Arx finish and think it could be improved upon, but I can look past it to a point, especially if the sound is as good or very near that of the more expensive speakers. But we should give more overall value to a speaker that has a better finish, such as the Emerald Physics and their automobile metallic finish, very nice indeed, although not something I would care to pay extra for.


----------



## chashint (Jan 12, 2011)

Thanks for the follow up.


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

chashint said:


> Is $2000 a mistype?
> Based on the results of the $1000 speaker evaluation it seemed like it took considerable listening effort and in one reviewer's words 'nit-picking' to distinguish better/worse/just different between the speakers with the Martin Logan speakers being judged 'almost' the same as the ARX by more than one of the participants.
> I certainly respect the ARX winning the shoot out but judging from the write ups it appeared to be more of a by-a-nose victory instead of a win-by-a-mile feat.
> I know y'all have a bunch more speakers under your belt now, is there really. Nothing to gain between the $1k group and the $2500 group?


Good characterization of the relative quality of the speakers in the $1000 event. They were very close, and IMO the Klipsch would have been my next choice after the ARX and ML.

The biggest gain with the $2500 speakers by far is the depth of bass response. In some ways the ML and Arx might have been competitive with all of them but for the depth of bass. There is much to like about many of these speakers and we did have to pick nits to get to a solid choice. In some ways it was even harder with the more expensive speakers because each had fewer aspects that could be critiqued.


----------



## chashint (Jan 12, 2011)

Sonnie, I completely understand when you talk about the more expensive speakers having greater depth in the bass.
For music I would like to know if the same results can be achieved with small speakers and using bass management with a subwoofer, or if it's best to stick with the better speakers.


----------



## AudiocRaver (Jun 6, 2012)

Echoing Sonnie's comments, we got some more listening time in with the A5's after the others had left the $2500 speaker evaluation event (sorry Leonard & Joe) and to me they seemed to fit in very comfortably with the performance we had heard from the more expensive speakers. They are simply rule breakers in value terms - a $2,000 value easily. Minus the deepest bass depth, as Leonard points out.

Edit: Having 3 woofer drivers per tower in the Arx A5's seems unique at the price point, and helps explain why they have handled so well all the bass we have thrown at them.


----------



## AudiocRaver (Jun 6, 2012)

chashint said:


> Sonnie, I completely understand when you talk about the more expensive speakers having greater depth in the bass.
> For music I would like to know if the same results can be achieved with small speakers and using bass management with a subwoofer


I sure think so. The right sub would relieve woofers from having to work so hard, would give all the depth you could want for music. More trouble, though, gotta get the integration right.



> or if it's best to stick with the better speakers.


Better for flexibility & ease of use.


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

chashint said:


> Sonnie, I completely understand when you talk about the more expensive speakers having greater depth in the bass.
> For music I would like to know if the same results can be achieved with small speakers and using bass management with a subwoofer, or if it's best to stick with the better speakers.


If you want real control, I think smaller speakers with a sub give you more flexibility. What I mean by that is you can place the speakers for best sound stage presentation without having to worry about trade-offs in bass response. Of course, with greater control and flexibility comes greater complexity of setup.


----------



## Sonnie (Apr 11, 2006)

I was able to integrate the SVS sub in with the A5's pretty well, but it was not without a lot of trial and error in regards to placement. If you have a LOT of freedom for sub placement, it might be a good option. If you are limited in placement, it could be tougher and may require EQ. It also was not like night and day difference. Yeah, I could tell the sub added that lowest octave when I would switch it on and listen to particular songs, but the A5's did not leave me with a sense of incompleteness when the sub was off.

To me, there is something to be said for just listening to two channels with no sub. I don't know if it is a mental thing, but I prefer no separate sub. If the A5's have a fault, producing the lowest octave of bass that has some rumble or vibration to it is it, but you only miss it on the music that has that lowest octave. You are not going to get the vibration from the A5's or the Klipsch (52's or 62's) that you will get with the $2,000 -$2,500 speakers. That doesn't mean the A5's have no bass though... they are still very pleasing to me. 

The only way for anyone to know for sure what they will like is to try it for themselves. I hate for people to rely solely on my preferences in deciding their own needs.


----------



## chashint (Jan 12, 2011)

Thanks.
I was just wondering if a sub and say RB-81's could accomplish the same thing as RF-7's or RF-83's and a sub.
Or maybe you don't even need the bookshelf speakers to be 81's if the sub is along the line of a VTF3.

This is just a for fun discussion.


----------



## shinksma (Aug 12, 2010)

Most of the other replies in this thread are from folks with way more experience and expertise than me.

Nonetheless, I found some change in the sofa, and here's my two-cents worth: :yikes:

If you choose to use a subwoofer, the challenge of integration will occur whether the main speakers are towers with 12" woofers or bookshelves with 5" "mid-woofers", as long as the subwoofer can cleanly produce bass up to about 80Hz and the mains/bookshelves can cover everything else: it is nice if the mains go down to 60Hz or 50Hz, giving you some leeway on where to place the crossover in your receiver's bass management. So if bookshelves are more cost-effective for you, and easier to place, as long as you get a good enough subwoofer you can avoid costlier mains with bigger woofers like RF-7s or the big bookshelves like RB-81s.

IMHO, it is very hard to get mains that go down to or below 20Hz without buying something that effectively has a subwoofer built-in. So for my listening enjoyment, and in order to relieve the potential stress on my mains with lots of low-freq energy output, I prefer to use a subwoofer. Xref my mentioning of SunnO))) in another thread - ambient sludge metal with lots of very low bass.

On the other hand, most "normal" music (like Radiohead or Pink Floyd, both ultra-favorite bands of mine, or Dire Straits, another fave), does not need sub-20Hz output, and can be nicely enjoyed with mains that can go down to 25 or 30hz, or even 40hz.

So...it really depends on what you want, how much effort you want to make in integrating a subwoofer vs. how much are you willing to spend to avoid a subwoofer.

Since my system is 50% HT use and 50% music, and my music sometimes demands ultra-low freqs, I chose a subwoofer (or two, actually).

YMMV, and as stated, IMHO, and I am not an expert...

shinksma


----------

