Hey Guys!

I need opinions. I'm upgrading my theater equipment. My speakers are Klipsch Reference 7 series. I currently have a RSW 15 in the front corner of the room and a RSW 15 in the back corner behind my chair. I'm considering buying a Conquest or ED A7-900. I know either one of these would blow the RSW15s out of the water. I was thinking of double stacking the RSW15s in the front corner and placing the Conquest/ED A7-900 behind my chair. How would this sound? or perform?

Hey Guys!

I need opinions. I'm upgrading my theater equipment. My speakers are Klipsch Reference 7 series. I currently have a RSW 15 in the front corner of the room and a RSW 15 in the back corner behind my chair. I'm considering buying a Conquest or ED A7-900. I know either one of these would blow the RSW15s out of the water. I was thinking of double stacking the RSW15s in the front corner and placing the Conquest/ED A7-900 behind my chair. How would this sound? or perform?

I would think it would sound awesome. When comparing the RSW 15 to the Epik Conquest, the big difference is that the Conquest will deliver significantly more output from 10 Hz to 25 Hz than the RSW 15, while the RSW 15 will deliver more output from 32 to 63 Hz.

More than a few people have added Conquests to already capable systems with success. You would likely get similar results if you add the Ed A7-900. I just have more complete test results for the Conquest, and have read about the experience of more people with Conquests than with A7-900s.

I think you idea of putting the Conquest behind your chair and leaving the RSW 15's up front makes the most sense. Still, people try both locations so they can actually hear which sounds best to them. I hope you have some strong friends.

. . .while the RSW 15 will deliver more output from 32 to 63 Hz.

Can you provide us with a link showing the test results between the RSW 15 and the Conquest from 32-63 hz ?

Regards,

I think the Conquest will have more output across the entire freq reponse...

I think the Conquest will have more output across the entire freq reponse...

Agreed.

I'm wondering if we'll ever see the test results demonstrating how the RSW 15 can outgun an Epik Conquest between 32 to 63 Hz. I wait in anticipation.

Regards,

Hey Guys!

I need opinions. I'm upgrading my theater equipment. My speakers are Klipsch Reference 7 series. I currently have a RSW 15 in the front corner of the room and a RSW 15 in the back corner behind my chair. I'm considering buying a Conquest or ED A7-900. I know either one of these would blow the RSW15s out of the water. I was thinking of double stacking the RSW15s in the front corner and placing the Conquest/ED A7-900 behind my chair. How would this sound? or perform?

Why not sell the RSW15s and get dual conquests or a conquest and two Hsu MBM-12s? I'm sure the RSW15s have good resale value here (or Ebay, Audiogon, Videogon) and considering their weight (85 lbs.) shipping shouldn't be too bad.

I'm wondering if we'll ever see the test results demonstrating how the RSW 15 can outgun an Epik Conquest between 32 to 63 Hz. I wait in anticipation.

Regards,Noussaine measured the Conquest's average 25Hz to 62Hz output @ 112.9dBs. The RSW15s @ 112dB.

This is the average of 5 measurements taken at 25, 32, 40, 50, and 62Hz. The RSW15, according to some (not me, mine has always measured louder at 25Hz than 30Hz), drops off below 30Hz. I strongly suspect that the Conquest has more 25Hz output than the RSW15. So, which do you think is louder from 32 - 63Hz? I know the answer. ;)

http://home.comcast.net/~frank_carter/Nousaine.htm

BTW, the update added in April, if not solely for it, included the Conquest data.

Anything else I can do for you, goneten?

Another setup consideration would be to use the RSW-15's as "stereo" subs, one for each L/R and located close to it, (L/R's set to "Large"), then use the Conquest as the LFE/re-directed bass sub.

Craig

Hey Guys!

I need opinions. I'm upgrading my theater equipment. My speakers are Klipsch Reference 7 series. I currently have a RSW 15 in the front corner of the room and a RSW 15 in the back corner behind my chair. I'm considering buying a Conquest or ED A7-900. I know either one of these would blow the RSW15s out of the water. I was thinking of double stacking the RSW15s in the front corner and placing the Conquest/ED A7-900 behind my chair. How would this sound? or perform?Do you plan to EQ this setup? Because properly integrating subs with disparate capabilities is very important. Especially with this pairing. What you could end up with, without EQ, once calibrated, is a WHOLE LOT of output above 30Hz but not enough down low, which is the whole reason you are considering the Conquest or eD in the first place.


As far as blowing it out of the water? Yes, they will at the low end.

Why not sell the RSW15s..............?Well, if you've never had one (much less 2), you just wouldn't understand. ;)

Why not sell the RSW15s and get dual conquests or a conquest and two Hsu MBM-12s? I'm sure the RSW15s have good resale value here (or Ebay, Audiogon, Videogon) and considering their weight (85 lbs.) shipping shouldn't be too bad.

I'm on the fence about selling them. They are very good subs, IMHO they just don't dig deep enough for some theater content.

sivadselim, Yes, I will EQ my setup.

Thank you everyone for your inputs.

Do you plan to EQ this setup? Because properly integrating subs with disparate capabilities is very important. Especially with this pairing. What you could end up with, without EQ, once calibrated, is a WHOLE LOT of output above 30Hz but not enough down low, which is the whole reason you are considering the Conquest or eD in the first place.
One of the advantages of the setup I recommended is that you don't need to worry about this. The RSW's would be calibrated with the L/R's; the Conquest as the "subwoofer". You could then calibrate the Conquest according to it's specific FR and output without worrying about the RSW's.

Craig

One of the advantages of the setup I recommended is that you don't need to worry about this. The RSW's would be calibrated with the L/R's; the Conquest as the "subwoofer". You could then calibrate the Conquest according to it's specific FR and output without worrying about the RSW's.

Craig

Craig, I'm a newbie on some of this stuff. I think I follow what your saying but i'm not 100% sure. Where on the pre/pro would the RSW 15s be connected to? If the conquest is connected to LFE?

One of the advantages of the setup I recommended is that you don't need to worry about this. The RSW's would be calibrated with the L/R's; the Conquest as the "subwoofer". You could then calibrate the Conquest according to it's specific FR and output without worrying about the RSW's.Yeah. The RSW15s do not have speaker level inputs. Not that that isn't easily overcome with pre-outs, which I assume bluedevilfan probably has.

But I think that might under utilize both the RSW15s AND the Conquest. But, if the RF7s are already being run as LARGE (very likely), maybe not. You'd reinforce the RF7s and just switch to another more low-end capable sub for the LFE.

Scary thinking about it either way you connect it all. RF7s with 10" woofers, with RSW15s, with a Conquest. :eek:

Craig, I'm a newbie on some of this stuff. I think I follow what your saying but i'm not 100% sure. Where on the pre/pro would the RSW 15s be connected to? If the conquest is connected to LFE?
The Conquest would be connected to the "Subwoofer" output. I thought the RSW had speaker level connections and an internal crossover, (most Klipsch subs do.) This would have allowed you to run your speaker cables to the subs and use the internal crossovers to split the signal up. However, I just went to the Klipsch website and found that the RSW-15 doesn't have speaker level inputs. Therefore, my suggestion becomes a little more complicated than I originally thought.

You can still do it, but you would need to "Y" the L/R preamp outs from the receiver and run RCA cables to the subs. The RSW has a Low-Pass Filter to remove the upper frequencies from the signal. The other side of the "Y" would go back to the L/R power amp inputs. Alternatively, you could run RCA cables from the outputs on the sub back to the power amp inputs and eliminate the "Y" connectors. The downside of this is that you need to run the L/R's as "Large", thus eliminating the amplifier efficiencies of using the "Small" setting. Still, that's what you would have had to do with the speaker level connections too.

There is another way to do it also, but it involves an external crossover, so I doubt you want to go that route.

Craig

Yeah. The RSW15s do not have speaker level inputs. Not that that isn't easily overcome with pre-outs, which I assume bluedevilfan probably has.

But I think that might under utilize both the RSW15s AND the Conquest. But, if the RF7s are already being run as LARGE (very likely), maybe not. You'd reinforce the RF7s and just switch to another more low-end capable sub for the LFE.

Scary thinking about it either way you connect it all. RF7s with 10" woofers, with RSW15s, with a Conquest. :eek:
Right... I "assumed" the RSW's had speaker level inputs and a crossover. I should have checked that before I posted.

Craig

Right... I "assumed" the RSW's had speaker level inputs and a crossover. I should have checked that before I posted.

Craig

I have MBM's that I have beside my mains but they are off the LFE as well as the tru sub. Can I also run the MBM's off the main speaker and the LFE at the same time? This way I would get the bass from the mains down to 50hz and also from the LFE down to 50hs. My two true subs (HSU 3.3's) run 50hz down to around 22hz.

Bill

Right... I "assumed" the RSW's had speaker level inputs and a crossover.But I don't think that is necessarily an issue. Even if it had high-pass capability it probably wouldn't at all be at an appropriate frequency for the RF7s, which he may already be running as LARGE. What size do you run your RF7s, bluedevilfan? If SMALL, what crossover setting?

You could still do your setup, craigjohn, off the pre-outs and just let the RF7s rip as LARGE. They'd be fine as would his amps, probably. The RSW15 definitely has an adjustable low-pass and it would just be a matter of adjusting it appropriately for the RF7s roll-off. That'd be some monstrous front channels.

I have MBM's that I have beside my mains but they are off the LFE as well as the tru sub. Can I also run the MBM's off the main speaker and the LFE at the same time? This way I would get the bass from the mains down to 50hz and also from the LFE down to 50hs. My two true subs (HSU 3.3's) run 50hz down to around 22hz.Are you proposing to still run your front speakers as SMALL, only with the MBMs there to augment their low-end output, albeit only down to 50Hz, where the MBM drops off steeply? I guess you could do this but what are your fronts and would the additional extension to only 50Hz really be that helpful? It might allow allow you to run a little lower crossover setting, but with extension to only 50Hz, you couldn't run the front channels as LARGE. And does the MBM have an adjustable low-pass, even? Because you would need it to adjust them to your front speakers' roll-off if they were wired to your front channels. With the proper bass management settings, you should be able to achieve very similar output to what that sort of setup would provide. The only thing it might afford you is slightly more stereo bass separation in the front channels.

And did you mean off the LFE and front channels simultaneously? You can probably do this one way or the other depending upon what sorts of inputs it has but I really see no advantage, with the proper bass management settings, to wiring them to the LFE and front channels simultaneously versus wiring them to only your front channels, neither of which should be necessary. Again, with the proper bass management settings you should be able to achieve about the same thing that either of those wiring schemes achieves the way they are wired now. Except for a little bit of stereo bass separation. And adjusting their top end output to your speakers low-end output would still be necessary.

If your front channel bass is lacking so much that you would be willing to assign the MBMs to the front channels (albeit simultaneously with the LFE channel), you should try a setting that sends front channel bass redundantly to your subwoofer output. BOTH, LFE Plus, LFE+Main, or whatever your AVR calls it.

What about your current utilization of them are you unhappy with? And I thought you EQ'd your stuff, no?

I have MBM's that I have beside my mains but they are off the LFE as well as the tru sub. Can I also run the MBM's off the main speaker and the LFE at the same time? This way I would get the bass from the mains down to 50hz and also from the LFE down to 50hs. My two true subs (HSU 3.3's) run 50hz down to around 22hz.

Bill
I have no experience with your MBM/VTF 3.3 system. From looking at the online manual for the MBM's, it doesn't look like this is a recommended setup by Hsu. Also, there are no pictures or diagrams of the amplifier inputs, so I can't tell what kind of connections it has. You may be able to run a preamp out signal into it, but if it doesn't have a low-pass filter on it, (IOW, if it depends on the receiver's crossover for it's high frequency cutoff, you may end up with *no* crossover between it and the main speaker, which would not be good. I would contact Hsu technical support and ask them.

Also, I think the recommended placement of the MBM's is nearfield, close to your seating. If you have them close to your mains, you might solve any concerns you have by placing them closer to the seating.

Craig

I have no experience with your MBM/VTF 3.3 system. From looking at the online manual for the MBM's, it doesn't look like this is a recommended setup by Hsu. Also, there are no pictures or diagrams of the amplifier inputs, so I can't tell what kind of connections it has. You may be able to run a preamp out signal into it, but if it doesn't have a low-pass filter on it, (IOW, if it depends on the receiver's crossover for it's high frequency cutoff, you may end up with *no* crossover between it and the main speaker, which would not be good. I would contact Hsu technical support and ask them.

Also, I think the recommended placement of the MBM's is nearfield, close to your seating. If you have them close to your mains, you might solve any concerns you have by placing them closer to the seating.

Craig:p

:p

It's ok, It was only a question.

Bill

It's ok, It was only a question.I only razzed him because I beat him to the answer. Or to AN answer.


What is it about your current setup or MBM utilization that you are unhappy with, bsoko2?

I only razzed him because I beat him to the answer. Or to AN answer.


What is it about your current setup or MBM utilization that you are unhappy with, bsoko2?

Wasn't unhappy with the MBM setup, just wondered if I could add the bass from the mains to the MBM output. Even when you set the mains to small, there is still low bass there. I was just trying to see if I could milk it all! Any way, Pete Hsu said to me to be patient that in 09 they would have a product for bass heads like me. So, I'll wait and see what they come up with and watch all the fun on the forums as to the guessing and pissing and moaning about the mystery sub in 09.

:DBill

But I don't think that is necessarily an issue. Even if it had high-pass capability it probably wouldn't at all be at an appropriate frequency for the RF7s, which he may already be running as LARGE. What size do you run your RF7s, bluedevilfan? If SMALL, what crossover setting?

You could still do your setup, craigjohn, off the pre-outs and just let the RF7s rip as LARGE. They'd be fine as would his amps, probably. The RSW15 definitely has an adjustable low-pass and it would just be a matter of adjusting it appropriately for the RF7s roll-off. That'd be some monstrous front channels.

I'm currently running the RF-7s set to small. Everything is set to small but I play around with the setting alot. The RF-7s ranges are 32Hz-20kHZ so I normally change those up. crossover setting on small is 80 hz I think.

When all of my new equipment is in I plan on playing around quite a bit. I'm getting the Integra DHC 9.9 pre/pro, I've received my Earthquake Cinenova 7 channel amp already. I hate waiting!!

I'm currently running the RF-7s set to small. Everything is set to small but I play around with the setting alot. The RF-7s ranges are 32Hz-20kHZ so I normally change those up. crossover setting on small is 80 hz I think.

When all of my new equipment is in I plan on playing around quite a bit. I'm getting the Integra DHC 9.9 pre/pro, I've received my Earthquake Cinenova 7 channel amp already. I hate waiting!!
That will be an awesome system. I have the 9.8 and that same Earthquake amp. Great setup!

Craig

I only razzed him because I beat him to the answer. Or to AN answer.
Competitive posting, eh? :p :D

Craig

That will be an awesome system. I have the 9.8 and that same Earthquake amp. Great setup!

Craig

Thanks! I'm doing my part for the economy. :rolleyes: I hope my job stays secure. Since you have the Cinenova also, I'm going to ask you this.....I'm getting a new line conditioner too. It's going to be the Furman Elite 20 series. I did notice the warning from Earthquake....not to plug the amp into any line conditioner because it could damage the amp. I know the amp has a built in line conditioner in it. I contacted Furman tech support and talked with a design engineer about this warning....he said it wouldn't hurt the amp because of the elite 20's power factor correction circuitry. A reserve bank of amps readily availabe for when the amp is thristy for more juice so to speak. He sounded like he knew what he was talking about.

I contacted Earthquake and inquired the same thing....was told same warning included with the owners manual. He said the amp would sound cleaner going thru that extra line conditioner though....so I'm conflicted...

I called the Furmansound engineer again and told him what Earthquake told me....he said Earthquake must be worried about the use of Isolation transformers in line conditioners..which Furman doesn't use I guess. He was skeptical about their product damaging any power amplifier.

What's your thoughts about this?

Noussaine measured the Conquest's average 25Hz to 62Hz output @ 112.9dBs. The RSW15s @ 112dB.

So you are comparing two RSW15's now ? I thought we were comparing a single RSW15 to the Conquest. It doesn't matter as the test report shows conclusive evidence that it still falls short of a Conquest. Dubious claims.

Anything else I can do for you, goneten?

Sell your damn Klipsch and buy a manly subwoofer. Please.

Regards,

So you are comparing two RSW15's now ? I thought we were comparing a single RSW15 to the Conquest. It doesn't matter as the test report shows conclusive evidence that it still falls short of a Conquest. Dubious claims.



Sell your damn Klipsch and buy a manly subwoofer. Please.

Regards,

:) It's all good. I plan on buying a more manly subwoofers....I just don't know if I'm going to sell the Klipschs' though. I'll add them to my collection. I have two DefTech PF15+ as well.

It's all good. I plan on buying a more manly subwoofers....

Apologies, I was not directing that comment at you but rather at sivadselim. He tends to bring out the best in me.

Regards,

So you are comparing two RSW15's now ? I thought we were comparing a single RSW15 to the Conquest.One, you dolt. Look at his list.


It doesn't matter as the test report shows conclusive evidence that it still falls short of a Conquest. Dubious claims.LOL. OK, whatever, rooibos head. The Conquest measured an average of 112.9 and the RSW15 (one of them!) measured an average of 112dB over 5 readings made at 25Hz, 32Hz, 40Hz, 50Hz and 62Hz. Assuming the Conquest probably has more output at the 25Hz measurement (which it may NOT), that would mean that an RSW15 has more average output from 32-63Hz.

You scoffed at the idea that the RSW15 could be louder than the Conquest from 32-63Hz and asked for the data. I slapped you in the face with it. STFU, already.

sivadselim,

Take reviewers/reviews with a grain of salt....

I think that with that very, very, very big cabinet, that monster 18", and that BASH monster 1,000wamp, the Conquest easily outperforms the Klipsch...

One, you dolt. Look at his list.

You mentioned "RSW's" as in, you know, plural, which gave me the impression that you mean't duals, but it's no biggie.

LOL. OK, whatever, rooibos head. The Conquest measured an average of 112.9 and the RSW15 (one of them!) measured an average of 112dB over 5 readings made at 25Hz, 32Hz, 40Hz, 50Hz and 62Hz. Assuming the Conquest probably has more output at the 25Hz measurement (which it may NOT), that would mean that an RSW15 has more average output from 32-63Hz.

How does the RSW15 produce more average output from 32-63 hz ? That is an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence.

You scoffed at the idea that the RSW15 could be louder than the Conquest from 32-63Hz and asked for the data. I slapped you in the face with it.

Oh.

STFU, already

Nice tact.

Regards,

sivadselim,

Take reviewers/reviews with a grain of salt....

I think that with that very, very, very big cabinet, that monster 18", and that BASH monster 1,000wamp, the Conquest easily outperforms the Klipsch...Sorry, but I refuse to take Nousaine's measurements with a grain of salt. They are what they are. And it's not a review. It's a table measurements generated with a very specific measuring methodology. Not many people take issue with his measurements.


spyboy said:
When comparing the RSW 15 to the Epik Conquest, the big difference is that the Conquest will deliver significantly more output from 10 Hz to 25 Hz than the RSW 15, while the RSW 15 will deliver more output from 32 to 63 Hz.
and goneten said:
Can you provide us with a link showing the test results between the RSW 15 and the Conquest from 32-63 hz?

I'm wondering if we'll ever see the test results demonstrating how the RSW 15 can outgun an Epik Conquest between 32 to 63 Hz. I wait in anticipation.

Now, I suspect goneten already knew the data existed, but I presented it anyway. That opportunity was handed to me on a golden platter. Nousaine's measurement data. Period. It's not a review. I do not think that anyone has measured more subs than he has.

http://home.comcast.net/~frank_carter/Nousaine.htm

Here's how and what he measures for the 25-62Hz average output number, THE number which he uses to rank subs.

All figures are for a corner loaded subwoofer, measured at a 2 meters using 10% thd limits in a large 7500 cu-ft room.
The SPL numbers have been averaged from the maximum output(with a 10% thd limit) using 25,32,40,50,62hz steps
in testing(the 25-62hz range is considered the bass intensive film range).

Now, you can argue that the subwoofer's output below 25Hz is very important and should somehow contribute to the ranking. And, honestly, I can't argue with that at all. I;d probably agree. But it is totally irrelevant to the question at hand. At issue was whether the RSW15 bests the Conquest's output from 32-63Hz, and that was ALL that was at issue. And it very most likely does, according to Nousaine. Hell, their average output from 25-62Hz only differs by 0.9dB.

It's really funny how people ask for data, yet when it is presented they still are not willing to accept it. The RSW15 has been near the top of Nousaine's list for quite a while now. It was 3rd on the list at one time The Conquest was recently added in April and the guys at Epik were very proud that he measured their sub and even boasted about the results on their website.

It may be hard to swallow, but THERE is the data, right before your eyes. Can't really show you much else than that. It amazes me that simply based upon the name of the manufacturer people think they know how a sub performs. The RSW15 is a formidable sub in the 25Hz-62Hz range. Trust me. But much more importantly, trust the data. Nousaine didn't pull it out of his ass.

That very, very, very big cabinet (ported, I might add) and much of that 1000watts are used to move that 18" driver so as to provide the monstrous low-end performance that that sub is capable of. That it can outperform the RSW15 down low was never questioned and in fact that was even stated. But, it is only 0.9dB louder than the RSW15 over the 25-62Hz range that Nousaine uses as his primary measurement. And, yes, he takes other measurements, as well. But that 25-62Hz average is what HE (no, not you) considers the measurement of primary importance. And, btw, I can almost guarantee you the RSW15 is louder above 62Hz, too.

I have no doubt that if you were punched in the chest by an RSW15, you'd understand the massive output that it can belt out above 25Hz.

How does the RSW15 produce more average output from 32-63 hz ? That is an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence.Look at the data. I am not going to explain it anymore. It's quite simple to understand. I suspect you knew the data existed before you even asked for it, you just like to get me riled. See the post, above, that I just made if you need more of an explanation. And eat that crow, boy.

I would love to see your MFW15 measured by Nousaine, btw. (Or has he done that, already?) Do you think it will measure within 3dB of the RSW15 over that 25-62Hz range?


Nice tact.Thanks. With some people, that seems to be all that works. ;)

Noussaine measured the Conquest's average 25Hz to 62Hz output @ 112.9dBs. The RSW15s @ 112dB.

This is the average of 5 measurements taken at 25, 32, 40, 50, and 62Hz. The RSW15, according to some (not me, mine has always measured louder at 25Hz than 30Hz), drops off below 30Hz. I strongly suspect that the Conquest has more 25Hz output than the RSW15. So, which do you think is louder from 32 - 63Hz? I know the answer. ;)

http://home.comcast.net/~frank_carter/Nousaine.htm

BTW, the update added in April, if not solely for it, included the Conquest data.

Anything else I can do for you, goneten?

A lot of the subs on the list were tested in Tom Nousaine's old house. I believe the Klipsch RSW 15 was tested in Nousaine's old house. He includes a statement saying that you would need to add about 2-3 db to the measurements made in the old house to most accurately compare them to the measurements in his current 7,500 cubic foot room. If that is the case with the RSW 15...

And, btw, I can almost guarantee you the RSW15 is louder above 62Hz, too

Interesting claim.

Regards,

Interesting claim.Why's that?

Thanks! I'm doing my part for the economy. :rolleyes: I hope my job stays secure. Since you have the Cinenova also, I'm going to ask you this.....I'm getting a new line conditioner too. It's going to be the Furman Elite 20 series. I did notice the warning from Earthquake....not to plug the amp into any line conditioner because it could damage the amp. I know the amp has a built in line conditioner in it. I contacted Furman tech support and talked with a design engineer about this warning....he said it wouldn't hurt the amp because of the elite 20's power factor correction circuitry. A reserve bank of amps readily availabe for when the amp is thristy for more juice so to speak. He sounded like he knew what he was talking about.

I contacted Earthquake and inquired the same thing....was told same warning included with the owners manual. He said the amp would sound cleaner going thru that extra line conditioner though....so I'm conflicted...

I called the Furmansound engineer again and told him what Earthquake told me....he said Earthquake must be worried about the use of Isolation transformers in line conditioners..which Furman doesn't use I guess. He was skeptical about their product damaging any power amplifier.

What's your thoughts about this?
The lead engineer/designer of Earthquake sound, Joseph Sahyoun, is a good friend of mine. He specifically told me not to use *any* power conditioner with the Cinenova amp. It has it's own internal power conditioner and an additional PC would "choke" the power going into the amp. The amp is not covered under the warranty if you use an external PC.

I don't use any PC on my Cinenova. I do use a PC for all the rest of my equipment. I would take the word of the amp manufacturer over the word of the Power Conditioner manufacturer.

My $0.02.

Craig

It's really funny how people ask for data, yet when it is presented they still are not willing to accept it.

It's difficult to accept because we are talking about the RSW15 here, a Klipsch subwoofer for goodness sake that is competing with an Epik Conquest so naturally you will have people who will be suspicious if the results are so close.

The RSW15 has been near the top of Nousaine's list for quite a while now.

Never would have guessed that one.

I suspect you kknew the data existed before you even asked for it, you just like to get me riled.

To be honest, I didn't know it existed which is why I asked for it. I even thanked you for it. :)

See the post, above, that I just made if you need more of an explanation. And eat that crow.

Well, okay.

I would love to see your MFW15 measured by Nousaine, btw. (Or has he done that, already?) Do you think it will measure within 3dB of the RSW15 over that 25-62Hz range?

I have no idea where the MFW-15 would land up if Tom measured it. Lord knows I hate making presumptuous claims but if I had to take a guess, I think it would be very close.

Regards,

And just to point out, nowhere have I tried to diminish the performance of the Conquest. At all. The additional 16Hz, 20Hz, and 25Hz output measurements of Nousaine's would put the Conquest at the top of the list at all 3 of those frequencies.

But what was questioned was the relative output of the RSW15 and the Conquest over the range of 32-62Hz. The RSW15 has more output over that range. And bluedevilfan has 2 of them. Maybe he should consider getting 2 Conquests.

It's difficult to accept because we are talking about the RSW15 here, a Klipsch subwoofer for goodness sake that is competing with an Epik Conquest so naturally you will have people who will be suspicious if the results are so close.Read it and weep. And get over it, already. It is a monster of a subwoofer. The same thing is said about it by almost everyone who hears/reviews it. Prodigious clean output but doesn't go so low.

Somewhere yesterday in another nearby post I posted not only Nousaine's full measurement data for the Klipsch RT-12d (that, yes, is included in the table), but his glowing comments as well. As well as those of his co-reviewer. With a link to the full review (it's an entire Klipsch setup). You might find it an interesting read.

Why's that?

Correct me if I'm wrong but the RSW15 was reviewed by Brian Weatherhead in 2001 and it failed to outperform a "measly" SVS PC-Ultra. No talk of outrageous 32-63 Hz performance. Keep in mind that I don't really follow up with Klipsch gear.

So unless there was a rocket pack strapped on to the RSW15 or a new version was released that has substantial and I mean substantial improvements made in clean output (like multiple co-located units), I find it difficult to believe what has been posted.

Regards,

:confused:With powerful amplifiers you should not use a power conditioner or strip.

Regarding the RSW-15. It will get very loud in the 32 and up range. Is this a surprise? Klipsch has always been known for being able to kick out the jams when needed. With that said...Wasn't Nouisaine's older room smaller? If that's the case you would maybe subtract a couple of db's not add them. Also If you add the 20 and 16hz bands into the avg's for the subs that can even handle those freq's, the Conquest would top the list. Also the Conquest's measurements at 40 and 50hz are strange, with very low distortion (escpecially for a SW) and lower output levels than would be expected. It appears to be coasting along very easily and possibly the amp is out of gas, but it seems like a 1000w rated Bash would have a bit more gumption than that at 40-50hz. It takes 4 RSW15's to attempt to match a Conquest at 20hz.

Also the Conquest's measurements at 40 and 50hz are strange, with very low distortion (escpecially for a SW) and lower output levels than would be expected. It appears to be coasting along very easily and possibly the amp is out of gas, but it seems like a 1000w rated Bash would have a bit more gumption than that at 40-50hz.

It is possible that he had a defective unit.

Regards,

The amp should not get out of gas there(midbass). It is in the lowest freqs where the amp needs to produce more power...

Correct me if I'm wrong but the RSW15 was reviewed by Brian Weatherhead in 2001 and it failed to outperform a "measly" SVS PC-Ultra.It's not a "measly" PC-Ultra. It's dual CS-Ultras. And what is your (or his) definition of outperform? And, yes, he DID take into account the subs' lower end output. His shake value was based upon the subs' output at 20Hz. I have no doubt that dual CS-Ultras would best an RSW15 at the low frequencies. And what is his measuring methodology? I may have missed it. Nousaine has a very rigorous testing methodology that he has used for years, now.

But let's look at Weatherhead's data:

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_8_4/images/christmas-subs-summary-chart.gif

Notice that from ~70Hz to 135Hz the RSW15 has more output than the dual CS-Ultras. And the HGS18, as well.

He also thought the RSW15 , along with the HGS18, were the best subs for clarity and musicality and said that the RSW15 "rivals the HGS when it comes to playing it clean".

But his opinion is irrelevant. We're trying to address the RSW15's 63Hz+ performance.


So unless there was a rocket pack strapped on to the RSW15 or a new version was released that has substantial and I mean substantial improvements made in clean output, I find it difficult to believe what has been posted.Why do you have an issue with the RSW15s clean output? Frankly, that its output IS so clean contributes significantly to its position in Nousaine's list. 10% THD is his cutoff when making the measurements at each freqency. When that pont isd reached, that is the SPL measurement for that frequency. The RSW15 gets up to some really high SPL before that happens. Squirm and scramble all you want. You called out spyboy on his claim and got the exact response you asked for. DATA. From Nousaine. You're just unwilling to accept it. Suit yourself. Personally, I think this is all quite funny. You can lead a jackass to water but you can't make him drink. So, just be a man. Drink the water.

Prodigious clean output but doesn't go so low.

Well you got that right. A monster subwoofer that can't go low is not a monster subwoofer. It couldn't beat a Velodyne HGS-18 and that subwoofer is ancient.

Now let us look at some specifics. The old SVS CS-Ultra (single) managed 104 dB's down to 20 hz and the RSW15 managed 93 dB's. That is an 11 dB difference. You would need more than 3 RSW15's co-located to rival a single CS-Ultra.

So that in the light, we shouldn't be comparing the MFW-15 to this subwoofer as it just isn't fair. It is an all-rounder, not a mid-woofer. If you are looking for 32-63 hz and a lack luster bottom end then by all means, the RSW15 is a good unit.

Regards,

Regarding the RSW-15. It will get very loud in the 32 and up range. Is this a surprise? Klipsch has always been known for being able to kick out the jams when needed.Right. It is apparently a surprise to someone.


With that said...Wasn't Nouisaine's older room smaller? If that's the case you would maybe subtract a couple of db's not add them.My understanding is that measurements within any section of that table can be used reliably for comparisons. He is pretty vigilant with it and makes changes when they are needed.


Also If you add the 20 and 16hz bands into the avg's for the subs that can even handle those freq's, the Conquest would top the list.I just said in a prior post that the Conquest easily wins against ALL the subs at 16, 20, and 25Hz. As I've pointed out, the only thing being considered here is the RSW15's output from 32-62Hz. Someone said that the RSW15 had more in that range than the Conquest, and someone called him out on it. And, as you said, the RSW15 DOES, not surprisingly, have more output in that range.


Also the Conquest's measurements at 40 and 50hz are strange, with very low distortion (escpecially for a SW) and lower output levels than would be expected. It appears to be coasting along very easily and possibly the amp is out of gas, but it seems like a 1000w rated Bash would have a bit more gumption than that at 40-50hz.
http://home.comcast.net/~schiz/conquest.jpg

I do not see anything really amiss about the output at those frequencies. The "Distortion" column, I do not understand, as my understanding is that he pushes the sub to 10% distortion at each frequency and at that point is its measured output at that frequency.

Perhaps the source of that PDF (Epik) could explain. They seem to have no problem making that data available on their website so I assume they do not dispute it.


It takes 4 RSW15's to attempt to match a Conquest at 20hz.At least. Low-end output was NEVER at issue, here. Spyboy clearly said the Conquest bests the RSW15 down low. And I have given it the nod in that category in post after post here. That's a no-brainer.

It's not a "measly" PC-Ultra. It's dual CS-Ultras.

PC-Ultra, CS-Ultra. Take the CS-Ultra pair and subtract 6 dB's from the co-locating pair and it would still take more than 3 RSW15's to rival the performance. And for clarification, I don't care about the sound quality of this unit only the measured performance.

If this subwoofers claim to fame is very high output between 32-63 Hz and a missing bottom end then you will need to redefine what a subwoofer is.

And what is your (or his) definition of outperform?

Do you really want to go there ?

Why do you have an issue with the RSW15s clean output? Frankly, that its output IS so clean contributes significantly to its position in Nousaine's list. 10% THD is his cutoff when making the measurements at each freqency.

Output so clean but just unable to provide a decent low frequency performance.

Notice that from ~70Hz to 135Hz the RSW15 has more output than the dual CS-Ultras. And the HGS18, as well.

Who cares about 70 hz-135 Hz performance ! No one cites 100-150 Hz performance figures. That's hilarious. We are talking about subwoofers here sivadselim and not midwoofers that call themselves "subwoofers". :rolleyes:

This is a subwoofer forum. :)

Regards,

The amp should not get out of gas there(midbass). It is in the lowest freqs where the amp needs to produce more power...


This is not a factual statement. It depends upon a bunch of different factors like: the system impedence, system resonance, amplifier, type of enclosure, tuning, and a whole other laundry list of things. Do you have WinISD? Model a ported sw with a random driver and then look at the amplifier apparent voltage chart and the system impedence chart.

Well you got that right. A monster subwoofer that can't go low is not a monster subwoofer. It couldn't beat a Velodyne HGS-18 and that subwoofer is ancient.A lot of stuff still can't beat the HGS18, no matter how old it is.


Now let us look at some specifics. The old SVS CS-Ultra (single) managed 104 dB's down to 20 hz and the RSW15 managed 93 dB's. That is an 11 dB difference. You would need more than 3 RSW15's co-located to rival a single CS-Ultra.

So that in the light, we shouldn't be comparing the MFW-15 to this subwoofer as it just isn't fair. It is an all-rounder, not a mid-woofer. If you are looking for 32-63 hz and a lack luster bottom end then by all means, the RSW15 is a good unit. You're changing the subject. No one ever said anything about the low-end performance. At all. The only issue is your stubborness to accept that you were fed crow regarding the comparative 32-62HZ output of the RSW15 and Conquest. AND YOU ASKED FOR IT, SPECIFICALLY. Ask and you shall receive. Accept it.

It's not just down to 32Hz, the Conquest is only louder by 0.9dB when you include the 25Hz measurement.

I clearly said a few posts up that I couldn't argue with the fact that lower-end measurements might be very useful. But that is not how Nousaine ranks the subs. And it is irrelevant. You called out spyboy on his assessment that the RSW15 would be louder than the Conquest from 32-62Hz. That is ALL that was ever at issue.

I never said that the RSW15 had more output than a Conquest 32-63hz.

I do see something amiss with the 40, 50, and 62hz output levels for the Conquest. They seem low to me and unaturally limited. There are smaller subs with less than half the cone area and power that hit close to the same levels at these freq's.

It is possible that he had a defective unit.
Grasping, aren't you? Highly doubtful, as Epik has boastfully and gleefully published those results.

I do see something amiss with the 40, 50, and 62hz output levels for the Conquest. They seem low to me and unaturally limited. There are smaller subs with less than half the cone area and power that hit close to the same levels at these freq's.:confused:

The 62Hz output is the highest output of all the frequencies measured.

http://home.comcast.net/~schiz/conquest.jpg


He measures at 2m. 113.5dB is not a low number by his methodology. As I said, I do not know what the "Distortion" column is showing, there. My understanding is that he pushes the sub to 10% distortion and at that point is where the SPL is recorded. So, if that is so, ignoring that "Distortion" column, the explanation for a low measured SPL (and it is NOT low) would be that the sub exhibited a lot of distortion.


Again, if there is something terribly amiss, there, Epik would have asked him to retest. They didn't. They very happily posted the results on their website. They were thrilled that he measured their sub.

sivadselim,

What do you use for low frequencies? I would not knock Klipsch subs as I have owned a couple as well, I used to own 2 THX Ultra 2 subs with their amp. Not only do they play loud above 30 hz they extend very well to 15 hz or so. They were great subs although my sono's beat them easily, in output.

When comparing the RSW 15 to the Epik Conquest, the big difference is that the Conquest will deliver significantly more output from 10 Hz to 25 Hz than the RSW 15, while the RSW 15 will deliver more output from 32 to 63 Hz.
Can you provide us with a link showing the test results between the RSW 15 and the Conquest from 32-63 hz?
I'm wondering if we'll ever see the test results demonstrating how the RSW 15 can outgun an Epik Conquest between 32 to 63 Hz. I wait in anticipation.

The Conquest measured an average of 112.9 and the RSW15 (one of them!) measured an average of 112dB over 5 readings made at 25Hz, 32Hz, 40Hz, 50Hz and 62Hz. Assuming the Conquest probably has more output at the 25Hz measurement (which it may NOT), that would mean that an RSW15 has more average output from 32-63Hz.

You scoffed at the idea that the RSW15 could be louder than the Conquest from 32-63Hz and asked for the data.
OK, so that was taken care of.

And, btw, I can almost guarantee you the RSW15 is louder above 62Hz, too.

Interesting claim.

Who cares about 70 hz-135 Hz performance ! No one cites 100-150 Hz performance figures. That's hilarious. We are talking about subwoofers here sivadselim and not midwoofers that call themselves "subwoofers".You called me out on this. And, no, I can't back it up. YOU brought another review with measurements that clearly show that the RSW15 has the most output of the subs in the review above 62Hz. And that was, basically, what was at issue; the 62Hz+ output. I don't really care about it either, although with an 80Hz crossover setting, the sub's performance in that range IS important. With the usual 12dB/octave slope, a sub will only be down 12dB @ 160Hz. If a sub can't play well up here, chances are it will not integrate well at the crossover or be very musical.




You keep trying to squirm away from the issue at hand, here, goneten. Whether the RSW15 can be trumped by this or that sub is irrelevant to the only real bone of contention, which was 32-62Hz output. Is that number meaningless? Maybe, but that, too, is irrelevant. You called someone out, asked for data to back up their claim, and were subsequently presented with it. Everything else is commentary.

This is not a factual statement. It depends upon a bunch of different factors like: the system impedence, system resonance, amplifier, type of enclosure, tuning, and a whole other laundry list of things. Do you have WinISD? Model a ported sw with a random driver and then look at the amplifier apparent voltage chart and the system impedence chart.


Model the Conquest driver in that box, and then you tell me...
But, I think a good guess is that for the Conquest to reach 10hz with so much SPL it is heavily eq'd there...
I mean definately...
To move that cone so far(near, and below tuning), you need the most power from the amp to make the proper equalization... Or do you think that you put a driver in a cabinet and it is going to have a flat response?Well no.:D

You put a speaker into a cabinet and it is not going to be linear.Period. It is attained by aplying EQ...So that uses power.

sivadselim,

What do you use for low frequencies?LOL, if you mean for below where my RSW15 can reach, nothing. And that is irrelevant. I freely admit that the RSW15 performs poorly below 25Hz. The only thing that was relevant through this whole ridiculous discussion was the 32-62Hz output. Period. Someone (correctly) said the RSW15 would have more output than the Conquest in that range, someone else petulantly asked for data that would demonstrate this, and I grabbed the best (and only) data that I know of that might demonstrate this.

That's all. And the thread could have easily just ended there. That the guy who first challenged the initial assertion then tried to change what the discussion was about when presented with the numbers was not really too surprising, considering.




Now, you'll have to ask Nousaine why he still insists upon using the average output at 25, 32, 40, 50, and 62Hz as his primary criteria when ranking subs. And as I have pointed out, that is certainly a legitimate question. He would most likely tell (or show) you that a 25Hz low-end capability will get you 95% (or more) of the low-end content present in a soundtrack. He obviously measures lower than that, as you can see those measurements for some of the subs in his table, so I'm sure the sub 25Hz performance does have some import to him.

But, again, that's all irrelevant. His table and measurements WERE useful in answering the question regarding 32-62Hz output. And that's all I used it for. I could care less where the 2 subs appeared on his list. All I wanted was the data. I'm not here to defend the RSW15. Only spyboy, really. I do find the anti-Klipsch sentiments from the usual suspects amusing, though. Ignorance truly is bliss.

sivadselim,
Ok.You proved your point. You were right maybe.
But the Klipsch you are mentioning is not a subwoofer.
That is not fair...It is just concentrated in output from mid to high bass, that is easier to do...

With the usual 12dB/octave slope, a sub will only be down 12dB @ 160Hz.

Receivers typically offer a 4th-order 24 dB/octave low pass slope. I would avoid a 2nd-order slope as subwoofer localization is something I don't want.

If a sub can't play well up here, chances are it will not integrate well at the crossover or be very musical.

I think you need to be careful making big claims. "Very musical" is subjective and let's face it, one doesn't look for "musicality" when choosing a crossover point as high as 160 Hz unless they favor dialogue and other highly directional sounds to emanate from the subwoofer.

Regards,

I was just wondering if you were using other subs or shakers for low frequencies.

sivadselim,
Ok.You proved your point. You were right maybe.
But the Klipsch you are mentioning is not a subwoofer.
That is not fair...It is just concentrated in output from mid to high bass, that is easier to do...LOL. Jealous? Insecure? Why is it not a subwoofer? Is the SVS SB12+ not a subwoofer? Or how about an Epik Valor? That it is 6th on Nousaine's list should be evidence enough that it IS indeed a subwoofer. Call it what you will, I know what it is and what it does and I love it. That's all that matters, right? I've had it for several years now and watched countless people go through 2, 3, 4, even 5 iterations of their subwoofer setup.

I really wonder what the motive and mindset is of people who so eagerly demean something they have no experience with.

Not fair. LOL. ;)

sivadselim,

As goneten said,

We dont know the order of the xover or subsonic filter, so even if it is a 3rd order, add the natural cutoff also...At the very least, you will have > 12db per octave of rolloff below that point...

To me, that SVS is not a subwoofer either.The epik valor has way better response to 20hz, and you know it.

AS far as experience....HAHHAA
I have had in my room an ED A7-450, HSU 2.3,3.3,ULS-15, MBM-12,VTF-2...etc.

So I obviously have had some experience...
I accept that maybe the klipsch has more output there but it is pointless it is not what I, and I know some feel the same way, consider that model to be a subwoofer if it cannot play to 20hz with authority.

Most subwoofers I know employ a 4th-order (24 dB/per octave low pass) not a 12 dB/octave 2nd-order slope. Subwoofer localization is something I would want to avoid.That's what a subwoofer's own built-in low-pass filter slope usually is. But that is not the slope of an AVR's digital crossover filters.



I think you need to be careful making big claims. "Very musical" is subjective and let's face it, one doesn't look for "musicality" when choosing a crossover point as high as 160 Hz unless they favor dialogue and other highly directional sounds to emanate from the subwoofer. I think you misread or misunderstood what I said. 160Hz is an octave up from 80Hz. With an 80Hz crossover setting, and YES, a 12dB/octave slope, a subwoofer is only down 12dB at 160Hz.



Drop it already. You were wrong. So what? We've all been wrong. Or are you gonna try and "get me back"?

sivadselim,

As goneten said,

We dont know the order of the xover, but it must have a subsonic filter, so even if it is a 3rd order add the subsonic cutoff also...At the very least, you will have > 12db per octave of rolloff below that point...What does a subsonic filter have to do with the upper end limit of a subwoofer's capability? If a sub's low-pass filter can't be bypassed, then it may indeed limit the upper end capability of the sub. My sub's low-pass filter can be bypassed altogether. The only other filter that might be there is a subsonic filter (really just a high-pass filter) at 19Hz.


I'm really ready to stop this tit-for-tat. It's childish. There's no point. GOTCHA!


If you want to help bluedevilfan out, please do.

But the Klipsch you are mentioning is not a subwoofer.

Nah, that isn't relevant. Who cares when it can belt out 120-160 Hz output like no other !

That is not fair...It is just concentrated in output from mid to high bass, that is easier to do...

Loud midbass is not difficult to achieve. High efficiency and a low moving mass can do wonders at upper frequencies where mass is not a concern but the results at low frequencies can be pretty atrocious.

Regards,

What does a subsonic filter have to do with the upper end linit of a subwoofer's capability? If a sub's low-pass filter can't be bypassed, then it may indeed limit the upper end capability of the sub. My sub's low-pass filter can be bypassed altogether. The only other filter that might be there is a subsonic filter (really just a high-pass filter) at 19Hz.

Sorry, I wasnt talking about the upper end...I know I missed that part.

You have to add the subsonic filter order it has(if you say it is at 19hz) + the natural rolloff of the cabinet design...

I was just wondering if you were using other subs or shakers for low frequencies.Nope.

Nah, that isn't relevant. Who cares when it can belt out 120-160 Hz output like no other !



Loud midbass is not difficult to achieve. High efficiency and a low moving mass can do wonders at upper frequencies where mass is not a concern but the results at low frequencies can be pretty atrocious.

Regards,

That was my point goneten...That midbass is not difficult to achieve, even less for a 15" Klipsch.

With an 80Hz crossover setting, and YES, a 12dB/octave slope, a subwoofer is only down 12dB at 160Hz.

That isn't a good thing.

Regards,

Model the Conquest driver in that box, and then you tell me...
But, I think a good guess is that for the Conquest to reach 10hz with so much SPL it is heavily eq'd there...
I mean definately...
To move that cone so far(near, and below tuning), you need the most power from the amp to make the proper equalization... Or do you think that you put a driver in a cabinet and it is going to have a flat response?Well no.:D

You put a speaker into a cabinet and it is not going to be linear.Period. It is attained by aplying EQ...So that uses power.

Uhm...wow:rolleyes:. I already did tell you. Your original statement was presented as a fact and it is not. It is not even generally true. Where to start?


The Conquest is ported and i will bet large amounts of money that it is tuned no lower than 17hz and probably more like 18 or 19hz. I'm also willing to bet that there is very little to no EQ applied (there is definitely none at all below 20hz) 10hz is waaay below it's tune and the driver is unloaded at this point. It only takes a few hundred watts to get crazy amounts of cone excursion in that state with a ported sub. 1000w will probably seriously mechanically damage the driver at 10-12.5hz. The output levels that Tom measured at these super low freq's are probably due to room gain. Maybe you are cunfusing the EQ needed to boost a small sealed SW's output?

In a properly designed ported sw... YES it will have reasonably flat response anechoically down to slightly below tune with no EQ. Once it is placed in room this does not apply.

I assume that you didn't model anything did you? Something similar to a Conquest has higher power demands above 40hz and a small area right at tuning.

Why is it not a subwoofer?

Um, is that a trick question ?

Regards,

Sorry, I wasnt talking about the upper end...I know I missed that part.That's what we (or he) were discussing. The 63Hz+ ouptut and why it is important.


You have to add the subsonic filter order it has(if you say it is at 19hz) + the natural rolloff of the cabinet design...To do what? We were never discussing my sub's low-end capability. That it has a 19Hz subsonic filter is only speculation on my and other RSW15 owners parts. I think that someone at Klipsch might have confirmed that at one point. Those of us who have one know that its output drops completely off the map at 19Hz. Could just be, as you say, the inherent rolloff of the cabinet. It has a PR, so it doesn't necessarily behave as if it were sealed, though. I don't really care. What's your point?

Also what I meant about the Conquest's max output measures at 40-62hz seeming low is that if you look at nearly any other sub ever tested by anybody, the sw will have noticeably greater output above 25hz than below. The Conquest has striking uniformity of output. Just seems like it would've done a bit more there. The very low distortion indicates that it should still sound quite good at that level.

I'm really ready to stop this tit-for-tat. It's childish. There's no point. GOTCHA!

Childishness aside, you really should try out the movie Pulse sometime. Awesome deep bass. Oops. :D

Regards,

Uhm...wow:rolleyes:. I already did tell you. Your original statement was presented as a fact and it is not. It is not even generally true. Where to start?


The Conquest is ported and i will bet large amounts of money that it is tuned no lower than 17hz and probably more like 18 or 19hz. I'm also willing to bet that there is very little to no EQ applied (there is definitely none at all below 20hz) 10hz is waaay below it's tune and the driver is unloaded at this point. It only takes a few hundred watts to get crazy amounts of cone excursion in that state with a ported sub. 1000w will probably seriously mechanically damage the driver at 10-12.5hz. The output levels that Tom measured at these super low freq's are probably due to room gain. Maybe you are cunfusing the EQ needed to boost a small sealed SW's output?

In a properly designed ported sw... YES it will have reasonably flat response anechoically down to slightly below tune with no EQ. Once it is placed in room this does not apply.

I assume that you didn't model anything did you? Something similar to a Conquest has higher power demands above 40hz and a small area right at tuning.

Ricci,

I don't have the software to model it, however I meant that near port tuning(say 25hz), shouldn't have said below(sorry), It has very aggressive eq, so lots of power to move that heavy cone with that tire-like surround...HEHE

Also what I meant about the Conquest's max output measures at 40-62hz seeming low is that if you look at nearly any other sub ever tested by anybody, the sw will have noticeably greater output above 25hz than below. The Conquest has striking uniformity of output.

It is odd behaviour. I would second a repeat test just to be sure. Chad from Epik is as modest as they come though.

Regards,

Childishness aside, you really should try out the movie Pulse sometime. Awesome deep bass. Oops. :D

Regards,

^^^^^

HAHAHHAHAA
goneten,

The Klipsch is an excelent sub that will play the 15hz tones in that soundtrack easily, because it is a true SUBWOOFER.

Who cares when it can belt out 120-160 Hz output like no other !It's not how much that is important. It's how much it can still reproduce relative to its output an octave lower that is relevant.


Loud midbass is not difficult to achieve. High efficiency and a low moving mass can do wonders at upper frequencies where mass is not a concern but the results at low frequencies can be pretty atrocious.What is your point?

I dont have the software to model it, however I meant that near port tuning, shouldn't have said below(sorry), It has very aggressive eq so lots of power to move that heavy cone...

How do you know that the Conquest has "very aggressive EQ" near tuning ? Why would lots of power be required to move the heavy cone near tuning ? A ported subwoofer is maximally damped at resonance.

Regards,

Childishness aside, you really should try out the movie Pulse sometime. Awesome deep bass. Oops.Yes, a garbage of a movie, but hey, did you hear that awesome deep bass? My sub would simply ignore 15Hz. If there was no content higher up the spectrum than that in the same "effect", I would never hear it. That's too bad, huh? Honestly, though, I've never lost any sleep over it.

That's what we (or he) were discussing. The 63Hz+ ouptut and why it is important.


To do what? We were never discussing my sub's low-end capability. That it has a 19Hz subsonic filter is only speculation on my and other RSW15 owners parts. I think that someone at Klipsch might have confirmed that at one point. Those of us who have one know that its output drops completely off the map at 19Hz. Could just be, as you say, the inherent rolloff of the cabinet. It has a PR, so it doesn't necessarily behave as if it were sealed, though. I don't really care. What's your point?

It is a PR..OK.
It should be 4th order then right like a ported one...?

How do you know that the Conquest has "very aggressive EQ" near tuning ? Why would lots of power be required to move the heavy cone near tuning ? A ported subwoofer is maximally damped at resonance.

Regards,

I was referring to say 25hz-up...and it is my "guess".

^^^^^

HAHAHHAHAA
goneten,

The Klipsch is an excelent sub that will play the 15hz tones in that soundtrack easily, because it is a true SUBWOOFER.I see you have a new friend, goneten.

It is a PR..OK.
Nevermind, My bad there.
I think you are carrying on a conversation with 2 people. I am not Ricci.

Guys, I hate to leave, but I'm gonna go see if I can maybe help someone. :)

Ahhh...WHy we never agree?
jajjajjaj

That's what a subwoofer's own built-in low-pass filter slope usually is. But that is not the slope of an AVR's digital crossover filters.

Most people I know disable their subwoofers low-pass filter and engage their receivers low-pass filter. In that case it is a 4th-order low-pass filter. :)

Regards,

I see you have a new friend, goneten.

:rolleyes:

Regards,

What is your point?

Are you not able to extrapolate ?

With an 80Hz crossover setting, and YES, a 12dB/octave slope, a subwoofer is only down 12dB at 160Hz.

Tell me something, who would want a subwoofer operating that high in the frequency range with such a shallow slope ?

Regards,

Most people I know disable their subwoofers low-pass filter and engage their receivers low-pass filter. In that case it is a 4th-order low-pass filter.Right.

And I think (< operative word, there) that the high and low-pass filter slopes of most AVR's digital crossovers are 12dB/octave.

Tell me something, who would want a subwoofer operating that high in the frequency range with such a shallow slope ?That's the point. I think you answered your own question. Because the slope IS that shallow is why it matters.

And I think (< operative word, there) that the high and low-pass filter slopes of most AVR's digital crossovers are 12dB/octave.

Nope. A typical BM circuit in an AVR will have a 2nd order high-pass filter, and a 4th order low-pass filter.

Regards,

That's the point. I think you answered your own question. Because the slope IS that shallow is why it matters.

Why ? If you choose a 100 hz crossover and the subwoofer is using a 12 dB/octave slope how is that beneficial ? The slope is too shallow to avoid localization issues.

Why do you think most AV receivers employ 4th-order low-pass filters and not 2nd-order slopes ?

Regards,

That's the point. I think you answered your own question. Because the slope IS that shallow is why it matters.

Why ? If you choose a 100 hz crossover and the subwoofer is using a 12 dB/octave slope how is that beneficial ? The slope is too shallow to avoid localization issues.

Why do you think most AV receivers employ 4th-order low-pass filters and not 2nd-order slopes ?

Regards,

Hey guys remember me? HOLY CRAP!!!! I'm a newbie here.....Is this what happens every time I start a new thread? :eek: If so....It's been nice watching you guys try to one up the other one..... Later people.

It's been nice watching you guys try to one up the other one..... Later people.

I'm glad you approve. Most of the time we help people but this is not one of those times. Well if you like back and forth bickering then I suppose this has been nice entertainment.

Cheers.:D

Regards,

And I think (< operative word, there) that the high and low-pass filter slopes of most AVR's digital crossovers are 12dB/octave.Nope. A typical BM circuit in an AVR will have a 2nd order high-pass filter, and a 4th order low-pass filter.
Why do you think most AV receivers employ 4th-order low-pass filters and not 2nd-order slopes?You are correct, goneten. I said "think" was the operative word. And I thought wrong. For whatever reason, I thought the crossover was symmetrical. I stand corrected. Thanks. :)

I'm a newbie here.....Is this what happens every time I start a new thread? :eek: If so....It's been nice watching you guys try to one up the other one..... Later people.Sorry, bluedevilfan. :o Hope you haven't left us forever. We want to hear (literally!) how it all turns out.

I assume you mean you are newbie on these boards, but not a newbie to subs, as you said you were going to be EQing your setup.

So, what did you need to know? With EQ capability, you should not have any issues integrating the 3 subs.

I was a bit surprised that you were using an 80Hz crossover with your RF7s, although that may be dictated by your other speakers' sizes. If you want to continue to high-pass your RF7s, then running your RSW15s on the front channels (which would require setting them to LARGE) will not be possible as the RSW15s do not have high-passed speaker-level outputs. If you wanted to go to the trouble, you could utilize outboard filters for the RF7s.

But, if you did want to run the RSW15s on your front channels, you could always run the front channels as LARGE. The RF7s would have no problems with this and with the addition of the RSW15s on the front channels, they would definitely be LARGE front channels. This would require connecting the RSW15s via your processor's pre-outs (provided it has them), as the RSW15s also do not have speaker level inputs, and then adjusting them to the low-end roll-off of the RF7s with their adjustable low-pass filters. However, IMO, this is not how you should utilize the RSW15s, especially (and obviously) if you plan to continue to high-pass your RF7s. Since you have EQ capability and know-how, you should have no problems running all 3 off the subwoofer output and calibrating and integrating them properly.

You had asked about stacking the RSW15s up front and rear placement of the new sub. I know that the Conquest and A7-900 very heavy subs (and the RSW15s are no cakewalk) and experimenting with different locations would not be that easy. Since you probably will not have a need for the output gained by collocating them, unless you have limited floorspace, I would consider placement of the RSW15s in opposite front corners. In fact, if it were me, I would attempt to get all 3 subs along the front wall, but I am not familiar with your room and the floorspace available. But I do not think that you will have any problem filling your room (unless it is a cathedral) with those 3 subs no matter where they are located.

I would imagine 2 RSW15s and a Conquest/A7-900 would be quite a thrill ride. :eek:

You are correct, goneten. I said "think" was the operative word. And I thought wrong. For whatever reason, I thought the crossover was symmetrical. I stand corrected. Thanks

No problem, I guess. :)

Regards,

Sorry, bluedevilfan. :o Hope you haven't left us forever. We want to hear (literally!) how it all turns out.

I assume you mean you are newbie on these boards, but not a newbie to subs, as you said you were going to be EQing your setup.

So, what did you need to know? With EQ capability, you should not have any issues integrating the 3 subs.

I was a bit surprised that you were using an 80Hz crossover with your RF7s, although that may be dictated by your other speakers' sizes. If you want to continue to high-pass your RF7s, then running your RSW15s on the front channels (which would require setting them to LARGE) will not be possible as the RSW15s do not have high-passed speaker-level outputs. If you wanted to go to the trouble, you could utilize outboard filters for the RF7s.

But, if you did want to run the RSW15s on your front channels, you could always run the front channels as LARGE. The RF7s would have no problems with this and with the addition of the RSW15s on the front channels, they would definitely be LARGE front channels. This would require connecting the RSW15s via your processor's pre-outs (provided it has them), as the RSW15s also do not have speaker level inputs, and then adjusting them to the low-end roll-off of the RF7s with their adjustable low-pass filters. However, IMO, this is not how you should utilize the RSW15s, especially (and obviously) if you plan to continue to high-pass your RF7s. Since you have EQ capability and know-how, you should have no problems running all 3 off the subwoofer output and calibrating and integrating them properly.

You had asked about stacking the RSW15s up front and rear placement of the new sub. I know that the Conquest and A7-900 very heavy subs (and the RSW15s are no cakewalk) and experimenting with different locations would not be that easy. Since you probably will not have a need for the output gained by collocating them, unless you have limited floorspace, I would consider placement of the RSW15s in opposite front corners. In fact, if it were me, I would attempt to get all 3 subs along the front wall, but I am not familiar with your room and the floorspace available. But I do not think that you will have any problem filling your room (unless it is a cathedral) with those 3 subs no matter where they are located.

I would imagine 2 RSW15s and a Conquest/A7-900 would be quite a thrill ride. :eek:

Thanks! No I haven't left forever. Current floor space doesn't allow me to place the subs next to the RF-7s or all along the front wall. I'm new to the forum not home theater. I'm new, however, to the world of separates. Replacing the Denon 5800 with the Integra DHC 9.9. I'm sure I'll need guidance with that beast. If I decide to sell the RSW 15s for dual Conquests, What's a good asking price on those? Mint condition, not really abused at all.

If I decide to sell the RSW 15s for dual Conquests, What's a good asking price on those? Mint condition, not really abused at all.I don't know. Black or cherry? Sorta depends upon what you might have paid for them originally. And how quickly/badly you need to get rid of them. And, no matter their condition, how much was what you got out of them worth to you? If you only had them a year, then you might want more for them. If you've had them for 7 years, then you got more out of them than you would have in only a year. That's the way I think about it, anyway. If they've served you well, for several years, then you "got your money's worth out of them".

Depending upon what you are willing to part with them for, they might be a great deal for someone (or two).

I would ask over at the Klipsch forums. And not just in the subwoofer subforum. Ask in the other forums, there, too.

No problem, I guess. :)I was wrong. No problem admitting it. You want me to start a new thread announcing it? ;)

I was wrong. No problem admitting it. You want me to start a new thread announcing it? ;)
I'm not so sure you were completely wrong. The 2nd/4th crossover is THX's mandated crossover, so any THX certified receiver/pre/pro will use this, at least at the 80 Hz THX crossover. It's mated to the design of THX certified speakers. However, non-THX certified receiver/pre/pro manufacturers are free to use whatever crossover slopes they want. I have never seen a receiver/pre/pro disclose what slopes they use. The only way to know for sure would be to measure it.

goneten, do you have some reference that verifies that 2nd/4th slope use is universal, even in non-THX units?

Craig

I'm not so sure you were completely wrong. The 2nd/4th crossover is THX's mandated crossover, so any THX certified receiver/pre/pro will use this, at least at the 80 Hz THX crossover. It's mated to the design of THX certified speakers. However, non-THX certified receiver/pre/pro manufacturers are free to use whatever crossover slopes they want. I have never seen a receiver/pre/pro disclose what slopes they use. The only way to know for sure would be to measure it.

goneten, do you have some reference that verifies that 2nd/4th slope use is universal, even in non-THX units?I think goneten is correct. If you dig around you will find that most DO incorporate a 12dB/octave high-pass and a 24dB/octave low-pass. There are some reviews (not many) of some of the common manufacturers' units that confirm the slopes through measurements. I did find a SONY that had a screwy 6dB/12dB slope profile.

What's curious is that in fiddling around with my current cheap Denon universal player (that I bought to replace my not as cheap but still cheap and older Denon 2200), I was finding a weird discrepancy between the player's slopes and my AVR's slopes that I had never noticed with the 2200. I noticed some weirdness when I briefly had an OPPO 980, too. The slopes were clearly different. I think I am going to revisit what might have been going on. It's hard to measure and get a good handle on the respective slopes when you have room issues. And it is also difficult to ascertain what the players' fixed crossover point is, too. Both OPPO and Denon had told me it was @ 80Hz, but I wasn't so sure of this.

I think that players that have cheaper chipsets may not have a 4th order low-pass. Most of the players I was able to find info on were the nicer players and they have the 12/24 slope, as well.

I don't know. Black or cherry? Sorta depends upon what you might have paid for them originally. And how quickly/badly you need to get rid of them. And, no matter their condition, how much was what you got out of them worth to you? If you only had them a year, then you might want more for them. If you've had them for 7 years, then you got more out of them than you would have in only a year. That's the way I think about it, anyway. If they've served you well, for several years, then you "got your money's worth out of them".

Depending upon what you are willing to part with them for, they might be a great deal for someone (or two).

I would ask over at the Klipsch forums. And not just in the subwoofer subforum. Ask in the other forums, there, too.

They are Cherry, I've owned them for 3 years and paid $1400 each for them.

They are Cherry, I've owned them for 3 years and paid $1400 each for them.You can most likely get more for a cherry one than a black one. But not much more. If you can't get a nibble at the Klipsch forums, I would try for a local pickup on craigslist.

goneten, do you have some reference that verifies that 2nd/4th slope use is universal, even in non-THX units?

Most receivers I've seen and tested use 4th-order slopes on the low-pass. Some of the older receivers had 3rd-order slopes and a select few have adjustable slopes. As far as a reference I'm afraid I don't have one.

Regards,

goneten, do you have some reference that verifies that 2nd/4th slope use is universal, even in non-THX units?

Well the Outlaw 1070 is not a THX unit and yet uses a 4th-order slope. :)

Regards,

Most receivers I've seen and tested use 4th-order slopes on the low-pass. Some of the older receivers had 3rd-order slopes and a select few have adjustable slopes. As far as a reference I'm afraid I don't have one.

Regards,
Where have you seen these tests? I went to the websites of Audioholics, Secrets, Home Theater Magazine, Ultimate AV and Stereophile. I looked at the recent receiver reviews of non-THX receivers. None of them measure the Bass Management at all, much less the slopes of the crossover.

I then went to Pioneer's, Sony's, Yamaha's, Onkyo's and Denon's websites. I looked at the spec's for several of their non-THX receivers. Except for Denon, (who do use the 12/24 slopes), none of them specify the slopes of the crossovers.

Well the Outlaw 1070 is not a THX unit and yet uses a 4th-order slope. :)

Regards,
OK, that's one. Even added to the Denon's, I'm not sure that is enough to make the broad generalization that all, or even most, non-THX receivers use the 12/24 crossover slopes. You may be correct, but I would like to see more evidence.

Edit: I found a little more evidence, but it's dated. In an article about Bass Management from 2005, Brian Florian of Secrets stated:
B) A trend to use THX's crossover slope combination (even in non-THX processors), with total disregard for the fact that unless you have THX speakers, this will be just as arbitrary.
http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/features/technical-topics/bass-management-woes-trouble-on-the-slopes.html

The article *recommends* that manufacturers provide the choice of a 12/12 slope for non-THX speakers. However, it's not clear that they have done so.

Good article.

Craig

I would sell the klipsch and get dual conquest or get 4 klipsch. I like to match all the subs. Your bass will be limited by your weakest sub which I was told by SVS when I wanted to mix and match. I personally would get dual Conquest only because I like deep extension and great midbass. The Conquest seems to give both. It all depends on what you are searching for. Many people mix and match different brands and it works so you should be fine either way but IMHO having more of the same is best.

Where have you seen these tests? I went to the websites of Audioholics, Secrets, Home Theater Magazine, Ultimate AV and Stereophile. I looked at the recent receiver reviews of non-THX receivers.

Sound and Vision magazine is one such online publication that measures the BM properties of AV receivers and processors.

http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/receivers.

There you will see compelling evidence that many (if not all) receivers use a 4th-order 24 dB/octave slope on the low-pass for BM purposes. Perusing the review database will provide all the evidence you need.

I then went to Pioneer's, Sony's, Yamaha's, Onkyo's and Denon's websites.

S&V magazine has tested the bass management sections of several models from the above manufactures and they all confirm a 4th-order slope.

S&V mag is, in my opinion, the most detailed and informative online publication for in-depth testing purposes.

Regards,

Where have you seen these tests?HERE (http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/receivers/2920/yamaha-rx-v863-av-receiver-dolby-digital-performance-page2.html) is one at Sound and Vision. I found a Denon one (receiver, not player) there, too, but can't find it right now. It appears that crossover slope verification is part of their testing.

goneten, I do not think your S&V link is working, is it?



Edit: I found a little more evidence, but it's dated. In an article about Bass Management from 2005, Brian Florian of Secrets stated:

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/features/technical-topics/bass-management-woes-trouble-on-the-slopes.html

The article *recommends* that manufacturers provide the choice of a 12/12 slope for non-THX speakers. However, it's not clear that they have done so.No. He recommends that they offer a 24/24 slope, which is what the 12/24 THX slope will provide when used with true THX speakers. 2nd order 12dB/octave high-pass + 2nd order 12dB/octave roll-off = 4th order 24dB/octave slope. The issue he points out with the 12/24 slope with non-THX speakers is that speakers are full-range (or made to be) and do not have a 2nd order roll-off at 80Hz (or anywhere, usually, unless they are sealed, and even then it is not at a specifically defined point). The THX goal is a symmetric 24/24 sloped crossover @ 80Hz, and he laments that this is not achievable with non-THX speakers and the usual 12/24 "THX slopes" that manufacturers have, for whatever reason, insisted upon using for non-THX receivers and situations.

That a 12/24 crossover is what we have to work with is why integration at the crossover is often an issue. A symmetrically sloped crossover would be much better. But even then, as Florian points out, that most speakers are ported would still present issues.

goneten, I do not think your S&V link is working, is it?

Fixed.

Regards,

If you did have th floor space to place the RSW15's next to your mains (within 3ft) you could use a Berhinger DCX 2496 to seamlessly integrate them as stereo subs (cut them at 30hz or so) and then use the Conquest for the LFE.