ProSoundWeb Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: RCF 7 series question  (Read 8937 times)

Dan Reavey

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 95
RCF 7 series question
« on: November 27, 2015, 06:42:33 AM »

Hi
I've just bought a pair of RCF 905as subs for our 6-8 piece function band am now looking at some RCF tops to replace our Mackie SRM450 v1's.
We do anything from small hotel functions to large marquee balls with 100 or so people
on the dance floor.
The Art 712a mkii seems to be the standard pairing with the 905s and I've heard one in my local store against a Yamaha DXR12. I thought the RCF sounded very slightly honky
in comparision.  Maybe down to the crossover or DSP.

I'm also interested the new RCF Art 732a but there's not a lot of info or user experiences online as they're new.
All I know is that it has a larger HF driver.
The 732 is around £200 more than the 712. Just wondering whether it would be worth the extra cost.
Any help appreciated.

« Last Edit: November 27, 2015, 06:44:54 AM by Dan Reavey »
Logged

Alec Spence

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 647
  • Herts, UK
Re: RCF 7 series question
« Reply #1 on: November 27, 2015, 08:32:31 AM »

I bought 722s (a few years ago when the 12" product range was 712 or 722) and they really are worth the extra money over the 712s.  The larger HF driver allows the crossover to run lower and this gives a particularly effective delivery for vocals.  When I compared the two, the 722s were night and day better.

Here is an old Performing Musician comparitive review of ART 712 vs ART 722.

All that said, the 722 is discontinued, and the 712 is on its Mk2 (ceramic LF driver, compared with the Mk1's neo LF driver).  I would expect the 732 to have similar benefits, though I've not heard them.  Note that, as well as having different HF drivers, the two cabs have different LF drivers too.  The 732 has a modestly higher output.

As ever, though, listen before you buy.
Logged

Dan Reavey

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 95
Re: RCF 7 series question
« Reply #2 on: November 27, 2015, 10:41:22 AM »

I bought 722s (a few years ago when the 12" product range was 712 or 722) and they really are worth the extra money over the 712s.  The larger HF driver allows the crossover to run lower and this gives a particularly effective delivery for vocals.  When I compared the two, the 722s were night and day better.

Here is an old Performing Musician comparitive review of ART 712 vs ART 722.

All that said, the 722 is discontinued, and the 712 is on its Mk2 (ceramic LF driver, compared with the Mk1's neo LF driver).  I would expect the 732 to have similar benefits, though I've not heard them.  Note that, as well as having different HF drivers, the two cabs have different LF drivers too.  The 732 has a modestly higher output.

As ever, though, listen before you buy.

Thanks for the reply. Very helpful.
I'll ask my local store if they can get them in so I can hear them.
From what I've read re. specs on various sites, the 732 is identical in weight and size to the 712 but the 732 datasheet on RCF's website has the 732 at 710mm tall and weighing 20.8kg.
Seems like they've put the 735 specs on the 732 datasheet.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2015, 11:00:26 AM by Dan Reavey »
Logged

Alec Spence

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 647
  • Herts, UK
Re: RCF 7 series question
« Reply #3 on: November 27, 2015, 06:49:45 PM »

Certainly, when I compared them, the 712 and 722 were identical sizes.  The 725 I also tried was just comically big in comparison, for little sonic benefit in my view - though still good and light.

This is in contrast with the 300 series, where both 12" and 15" shared the same cabinets - which was way too small for the 15" version.
Logged

Dan Reavey

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 95
Re: RCF 7 series question
« Reply #4 on: November 28, 2015, 06:13:54 AM »

Certainly, when I compared them, the 712 and 722 were identical sizes.


Thanks. That's what I thought.
The 732 is the same size as the 712/722.
Logged

Caleb Dueck

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1713
  • Sierra Vista, AZ
Re: RCF 7 series question
« Reply #5 on: November 30, 2015, 09:08:30 PM »

What about HD32A?  I just used them recently, they worked great.  The 722A's have been a few years back.  They were good, but nothing like the TT speakers.

The TT22A and TT25A are back, at lower price points.  If you can swing the cost difference, they are significantly better than the Art series.
Logged
Experience is something you get right after you need it.

Dan Reavey

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 95
Re: RCF 7 series question
« Reply #6 on: December 08, 2015, 09:13:07 AM »

What about HD32A?  I just used them recently, they worked great.  The 722A's have been a few years back.  They were good, but nothing like the TT speakers.

The TT22A and TT25A are back, at lower price points.  If you can swing the cost difference, they are significantly better than the Art series.

Thanks for the reply.
They'll be replacing our Mackie SRM450 v1s and want something lighter an better sounding.
The TT range are about a Kilo heavier than the Mackies.

Was considering the HD-12a also. The HD-32a has larger voice coils like the Art 732.
Not sure I'm going to be able to compare the three RCF speakers above together but I'm pretty sure that any pair will be great.







« Last Edit: December 08, 2015, 09:39:39 AM by Dan Reavey »
Logged

Alec Spence

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 647
  • Herts, UK
Re: RCF 7 series question
« Reply #7 on: December 08, 2015, 08:02:57 PM »

The TT22A and TT25A are back, at lower price points.  If you can swing the cost difference, they are significantly better than the Art series.
You're joking, right?

In Europe, at least, the 700 series are heavily down from prices a few years back, but the TTs are around the same price as before.  ART 732 = UKP 640, TT 22A = £2,200 - that's some price gap to swallow!

But, back to Dan, yes the HDs will probably also do a good job.  As would Yamaha DXR/DSR models, along with many others.
Logged

Stephen Kirby

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3006
Re: RCF 7 series question
« Reply #8 on: December 09, 2015, 01:01:17 AM »

The DXR is a somewhat warm and pleasantly voiced speaker.  It's better than a QSC K when pushed but you'd have to go to the DSR to get into the same range as the 722/732 with the similarly larger compression driver.  Which is definitely worth it if you can fit the better grade into your budget in terms of clarity and at least from my experience with the Yamahas very even pattern.
Logged

Dan Reavey

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 95
Re: RCF 7 series question
« Reply #9 on: December 09, 2015, 02:39:08 PM »

The DXR is a somewhat warm and pleasantly voiced speaker.  It's better than a QSC K when pushed but you'd have to go to the DSR to get into the same range as the 722/732 with the similarly larger compression driver.  Which is definitely worth it if you can fit the better grade into your budget in terms of clarity and at least from my experience with the Yamahas very even pattern.

Thanks. I have the DXR10s for keyboard monitoring and think they're pretty awesome.
Maybe a bit overkill for monitoring keyboards but they're small and have a useful stereo link function.
I'm sure a pair of DXR12s would do just fine with the RCF 905s and would be an easy choice as I'm used to them.
They're popular too.
Couple of minor issues would be the scuff prone smooth finish and lack of a top handle.

RCF wise, the crossovers would be designed to match the subs and they have side and top handles.
There are quite a few models to choose from with RCF so it's taking time to decide.
I'd like to hear a 732 against the 712 and DXR12.

Logged

ProSoundWeb Community

Re: RCF 7 series question
« Reply #9 on: December 09, 2015, 02:39:08 PM »


Pages: [1]   Go Up
 



Site Hosted By Ashdown Technologies, Inc.

Page created in 0.022 seconds with 25 queries.