I had the RCF for several years before the CLR came out, and I loved it. Low profile, plenty of power, great sound. On the downside, the “sweet spot” was narrow side-to-side… great for keeping your sound in your area, less so for moving around. When the CLR came out, several RCF users whose ears I respected gave a thumbs up on the sound. It also had a considerably wider dispersion pattern, so I bought one and gave it a spin.
Speaker to speaker, the sound quality is very similar, as both are pleasant to listen to while playing. The CLR is a touch brighter overall, perhaps “clearer in the high end“ is a better description. The RCF is 200 watts higher rated, though in actual use I didn’t notice one seeming more powerful than the other, i.e. both were capable of more volume than I needed. The CLR did, indeed, have a wider dispersion area that made placement less of a concern. As my monitors are used in wedge mode, and are relatively close, this works well. If they were pole mounted and farther away, the focus of the RCF might’ve been beneficial. That’s not my situation, but I mention it in case it is yours. I’m normally not more than 20 ft away, with 5-10 ft being the norm.
The RCF was a great speaker that went through thousands of hours of gig and rehearsal time before giving up the ghost. I’ve no complaints about it. The service and repair costs, though, make it a one and done thing for me. In fairness, a bit more routine maintenance wouldn’t have hurt, though I didn’t know until now that internal corrosion would be a concern. The CLR, by comparison, required repair in a shorter time period, but cost and turnaround time were better, and I thought it acceptable considering the mileage I put on them. Although I wouldn’t hesitate to use RCF NX12SMAs if they were more cost effective, I’ll be going with a set of CLR Neo MkIIs because they are less costly up front, sound marginally superior to my ears, and are less expensive to repair with less downtime involved.
I hope that’s helpful to you!
