BIC-12 vs RW-12D - Page 2

Those frequency response graphs are good for showing what the different modes do, but frequency response would be different in another room. Depth mode is an eq boost down low, so you would run out of low-end headroom/port compression earlier. If someone had a lot of room gain down low or listen at high levels it may not be the best mode. Punch mode is an eq boost in the mid-bass range. If someone had a room mode peak where it boosts already, it would make that coloring of the sound worse. A 3 db boost anywhere would be equivalent to a doubling of power. So boosting anywhere can eat up amplifier headroom. Any mode used is going to have the same max output at any specific frequency. So a 60hz max output test will result in the same db in any mode. Just because you eq boost a portion of the frequency range, doesn't mean the sub now has more output in that range. Flat mode isn't the worst at anything. After finding best placement, I would use whatever gives the best frequency response in the MLP and set it and forget it IMO.

i realize that every room is different, but here are the graphs i was referring to in a room that has little room gain (as per the poster):

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1390563/klipsch-rw-12d-omnimic-frequency-response-graphs

as the thread says flat mode looks to be the same graph as punch, just with less gain. however, the actual curve between punch/flat and depth is different. i understand different rooms require different settings, but room gain aside, depth looks to be to be better suited for movies and punch better for music. i know the point is to have it eq'ed to produce the desired results, but to me i would want to set the sub(s) to produce the most sound they possibly can and then let audyssey or similar adjust after. is it not a positive to have the extra boost on the bottom end in the event the sound you are trying to reproduce requires it?

Yes I know Archaea and his room. I have listened to those Klipsch in his room while he was borrowing them from his brother.

Yes I understand eq and how and why the frequency response graphs are different.

How would any mode be "better" for anything. Last I checked reference is flat frequency response for music and movies. Why would you change the frequency response and therefore sound for different sources?

If you change the klipsch mode, then Audyssey needs to be run again for it to calibrate correctly. If your frequency response was flat with flat, then you turned on punch and re-ran Audyssey, it would eq out the boost from punch and readjust the receiver's subwoofer out for proper level.

It is not a positive to have the extra boost on the bottom end in the event you are trying to reproduce it unless you need the boost to get a flat response in your room. Let's say the Klipsch does 95db at 20hz max output. Its max output at 20hz will be 95db in punch mode, 95db in depth mode, 95db in flat mode. Now when you play a broadband signal in depth mode, yes the amp will favor the low end and you will get driver excursion limits, port compression, and out of amp juice for the midbass. All systems when approaching the max output of the sub will revert to the native system response.

I have read a few discussions on the use of limiters and how employing them gives an ever changing frequency response when above the systems broadband max output.

I just don't get it, but people can do as they like if they want to change their system sound between sources. Myself I set up once and leave it for everything.

Dual HSU 15H found best placement for both, 16hz mode as I like the low bass, Q.3 as I have lots of room gain, and I use minidsp to get to where I want and add delay to my rear sub. I leave it setup this way for everything.




Edited by Luke Kamp - 12/8/12 at 9:59am

You're comparing two 1000 subs with external eq to a 300 sub with 3 settings? I get what you're saying in your post about the different settings and being eq-ed out but some people don't like to mess around with external filters. I think the settings were made with the less sophisticated in mind with the goal of adding a bit more extra oomf. Is it correct or even functional? Probably not, but the people who do use those settings don't really care.

Luke Kamp,
That makes sense, thanks for the explanation. I will probably just leave mine on depth when I finally get around to running audyssey then, thanks.

+10 May make for an interesting discussion for some but I dont really care how it works. I love having the option.

Principles are the same with a $100 sub. I am just trying to explain the "why" in case anyone is interested. If anyone picks up some useful knowledge, I have done what I meant to do as its my way of giving back as I have learned a ton on these forums. I am happy to see mgrotel got something out of it. I hope to educate more people who spend lots of money on this stuff and regularly post to understand the basics and how to optimize the performance of their system.

At the end of the day its about enjoying your system, if that includes a +/- 15 db frequency response that has more "oomf", well enjoy!

Sorry Bond that you don't care, I clicked to see who it was, maybe that attitude is why you are on my block list. Have fun.

Perhaps it is because of my attitude. Or perhaps it is because of yours. So be it. I will block yours so that I don't have to read a bunch of long winded posts about nothing from an amateur trying to look smart.
Edited by Bond 007 - 12/8/12 at 3:24pm

If you can afford it. It would be best to buy both of them. Cause it pretty much comes down to what you really want. Not what someone else has to tell you to convince which one is better. This is just me, I ordered 3 subs. hsu mk4, outlaw lfm-1 plus, and svs pb1000. It all came down to what my ears liked. So I got the outlaw. But like I said its only if you can afford to do it.

So if you have your x-over at 100 then the Mains will play everything above that, and your sub will play anything below that.

Posting it here in case people are searching for RW-12D:
http://www.avsforum.com/t/1420999/klipsch-rw-12d-subwoofer-only-299-save-70/120#post_22683449

The Klipsch RW-12d is far superior to the BIC F12. There is no comparison. Now the BIC pl-200 is another story.

What's the other story? Is the BIC, PL-200 superior to the Klipsch, RW-12d? I'm not suggesting there's anything wrong with the PL-200, I'm asking what's your view point on the PL-200 vs the RW-12d?

You will often read that you should set your crossover frequency to 80Hz all around. However, if you have tiny satellite speakers, you may need to set it higher. Check the specifications for your speaker and choose a crossover point above the "minus 3 dB point" quoted in the specs. A good rule of thumb is to set towers to 60 or 80Hz, medium or large bookshelves to 80Hz, small bookshelves to 100Hz, and tiny satellites to 120Hz or 150Hz. However, you may have to experiment as everyone's setup is different.
Good luck

An interesting specification in your above. In our case, the mains 3 dB point is 35Hz with the CC and surrounds being 60Hz. Currently, everything is crossed at 60Hz. Would the fidelity of the mains be improved by lowering the main crossover to 40Hz as the rule of thumb is, directionality of sound is lost somewhere around 80Hz?

My understanding, aside from directionality issues, the reason for setting crossovers to 80Hz is to take stress off the amplifier and cross amplifier energy demands over to the subs so as to get higher 5.0 SPL which includes obtaining clean THX level playback in the form of reduced harmonic distortion at reference level SPL's.

-

The RW-12d is more powerful and hits lower, but the difference is not huge. I guess what I meant was that it's a MUCH closer comparison than the F12.

I'm a fanboy of the Klipsch, RW-12d. With that in mind, compared to the Newegg, on sale Klipsch price, DataBass output graphs show the bit more expensive BIC, PL-200 to be a worthy competitor.

Yep, perfect assessment of the difference between them. I have both subs, and they are simply incredible.

I have the pl 200, If I bought the rw 12d can I use them together? would they work well I've heard you want two of the same subs so I wasn't sure. or would I be better with just one ID sub??

The rw would probably work fine with the pl200 and would be a btter option than a single ID sub unless you spend a lot more. But your best option probably is to get another pl 200.

THIS is the guy you want to listen to.

The pl 200 is a much better sub than the F12.

Klipsch rw-12d verses Bic pl 200......based solely on specs (what else), they would be a pretty good match. Klipsch advantages:
340 digital amp (verses 250w for BIC), better driver (my opinion, which isn't worth much)
Built 2006 (don't know about BIC...that's off the Klipsch website, and must be a typo...2006? & 7 years old? OK, whatever.
Not a disadvantage, because I have a Velo that is 15 yrs old and is going strong and sounds good/great.

BIC pl200 advantages: bass extension: 22hz (verses 24hz for Klipsch), weight: 52 lbs (verses 49 for Klipsch).

Both have 12" drivers, and really, I don't know how they compare.
Cabinet size is a wash, both about the same. Klipsch is 19"H? That's pretty good,
but the BIC is 1 1/2" deeper.

I'd say they are compatible, if you had one I of each.

I'd get the Klipsch, mainly because I owned Klipsch LaScalla's for 13 yrs so Klipsch fanboy.
And I know it's a crappy comparison the way I've typed it, but that's how it goes.
If you have one of each your fine IMO.

vardo

Edit: This is for glantern30, who asked the question, also 2 subs is ALWAYS better than 1
Edited by vardo - 4/11/13 at 3:13pm

I also say, always trust a man who is an international British spy who has a license to kill.

I thought the OP was asking for an opinion between to the BIC F 12 and RW-12D (Klispch). Mr. Bond, if you say the pl 200 is a much better sub than the F12, I will accept your opinion without hesitation, based on faith in your fine, fine reputation.

http://home-subwoofers-review.toptenreviews.com/bic-acoustech-review.html
Edited by wvu80 - 4/11/13 at 3:23pm

Not necessarily: The RW-12d is rated to 24Hz @ -3dB, while the PL-200 is rated to 22Hz @ -?dB.

eljaycanuck

Yeah, specs are great aren't they. Isn't it (for the RW-12d 24hz +/-3db?)
Whatever, it's a wash, and I like the Klipsch better with out a doubt.

Where's Beeman in all this?......I think he gave up.

vardo

I've been having fun with kitchen sink replacement day.

The problem, we had to take two defectuve sinks (down the hill and back, thirty-six miles.......twice) back and because of all the back-n-forth, we didn't get going in earnest until one this afternoon. Just finished with the cleanup. Now having a meal and reading up on what you guys have to say about the Klipsch, RW-12d. Don't want to miss any of the important details.

"Wha'd he say?"

One would think with all the brains in the receiver, the speaker setup setup in the receiver would smartly control the crossover between the speakers and the sub.
I have had the best performance with my HK AVR-3600 by doing exactly that, and leaving the sub internal crossover fully open. Let the receiver decide where to send which sound signals based upon how you set their frequency range in the AVR.

Edited by chikoo - 4/11/13 at 6:46pm

That is wise.