sivadselim

Jeezus, that thing's bigger than a washing machine. [^o)]

First of all, should you get a second, you should get one that's identical to your first. Integrating two subs with disparate capabilities can be problematic. Now, knowing that, do you think you could benefit from having another RT-10d? You won't be able to go any lower, but you will have more of what you already have (output). Is that what you want (need)? Colocated, two subs can potentially give you +6dB in output. If not colocated, the gain can be as little as +3dB. Two subs, when properly placed and integrated can help smooth out frequency response anomolies caused by the room, but two subs can also create more problems. Is your current RT-10d already operating at its maximum capability? What is it about it that you are unhappy with? What would you like to change about the quality and/or quantity of the output your sub currently produces? Lastly, could you sell your current sub or use it elsewhere should you decide to replace it?

Dexter, After you get over the initial "Woohoo, I got something new!" stage, I'd like to hear your honest impressions of the Conquest vs. the RSW15. Thanks!

And set the 'Lowpass' setting to "Lowpass OFF LFE Mode".

shuddup []

RT-12d = 800w continuous, 2000w peak RSW-15 = 650w continuous, 2400w peak The rest of their specs are VERY similar. Either one should rock the house and both should be articulate subs, not muddy or boomy as the OP described. If either is muddy/boomy then there may be a placement issue or the subwoofer needs to be calibrated. I think there is a very good chance the OP runs his too 'hot'.

No

It is quite possible that it is the fault of your cable TV provider and not CBS.

Works fine for me - resizes them down automagically all the time. Click on it for bigger. And too big? No way... if it's too big, your connection's too slow and your monitor is at too low of a resolution (aka - if it's too loud, your're too old) Run your computer into you HDTV... 1920x1080 computer monitor ftw It resizes them properly for me, too, but it first downloads them and displays them full-size before resizing them. And then, if I subsequently visit the thread, it displays them full-size. My connection is very fast; it's Klipsch's website that's very slow for me. The default setting in Windows is to resize big pics that you encounter online and via email, btw, so if you are using that default setting, then it may be Windows that's resizing them properly for you and not the website. I have this setting turned off so that online pics and email pics are displayed in their 'true' size. The first picture the OP posted in this thread is 1.9mb and 2592 x 1952 pixels; the second picture is 1.83mb and the same pixel size. That's too big to be posting on websites. It's just common courtesy. There ARE people who DO have slow connections. Resized or not, that's what size picture has to be downloaded. That's almost 4mb worth right there, which will be a pretty long wait for anyone with a less than ideal connection. And those pixel sizes are ridiculous, anyway. You'd need a much bigger monitor than even yours to see that whole picture in its 'true' size. Irfanview is a great free proggy for easily manipulating your photos, including resizing, btw, monti23. Strangely, the first time I visited this thread, the first pic was showing up full-size and the second pic was resized. Now, while I am editing this post, both are showing up resized. THis is how the website behaves for me. Sometimes resized, sometimes not. LOL, I went to another post, came back to this one, and the first pic is displaying full-size again, the second one is resized. Oh, well. C'est La Vie. I can certainly think of worse things to be concerned about.

Why does his website resize pictures correctly the first time you view them yet every subsequent time you view them they're not resized? Pics are too big, btw!

Then you had a bad connection in the right side. Left or right won't make a difference...unless there's a defect as I noted. I agree. Either you didn't have the cable plugged into the right input well, there's something wrong with the sub's right input, or this is a classic example of 'expectational bias'.

An RW-12d will not be that significant an improvement over the RW-10d. If you can afford an Abyss but would like to stay with Klipsch, you need to be considering an RSW-10d, an RT-10d, or an RT-12d, not an RW-12d.

His Denon doesn't have that setting. And it's not 'SWRF' and it doesn't stand for 'subwoofer right front'. It's 'SWFR' and it simply stands for 'subwoofer'. What is it you are trying to get him to set his subwoofer to do? Denon has an 'LFE+Main' setting for use when your front speakers are set to LARGE that will duplicate the bass info from the LARGE front channels that is below the receiver's crossover setting and send it to the subwoofer along with the LFE channel info and any low-frequency info below the receiver's crossover setting from any channels that are set to SMALL. The corresponding Yamaha setting to that would be 'BOTH'. The Yamaha's 'SWFR' setting sends only the LFE channel and the low-frequency info that is below the receiver's crossover setting from any channels that are set to SMALL to the subwoofer. Yamaha's Bass Scheme Possibilities:

Or, why not try stacking the subs where the sub on the right is? That way, nothing blocks the right speaker.

oops double post

Good deal. Seems you did enough experimenting to have found your favorite setup. Now you can stop fiddling (does that ever really happen?) and sit back and ENJOY. [H]

No problem. Sorry I got 'bent out of shape'. [:$]

That's a good idea. But even if you get the sub working properly for music, you still may not be happy with its performance. The RW-10d is one of the lowest-cost Klipsch subs available. It may even be outperformed by the Sub12. It will most definitely be outperformed by the ML Abyss.

[8-)] I'm not sure what you mean. If his surrounds and center are set to SMALL, and his subwoofer is connected to the receiver's subwoofer output, the info from the surround and center channels that's below his receiver's crossover setting is sent to the subwoofer. Nothing complicated there. If he sets his receiver up as having NO SUB, and connects his subwoofer to the receiver's front L/R pre-outs, and his surrounds and center are set to SMALL, then the surround and center info below his receiver's crossover setting is sent to the front channels which are connected to his subwoofer via his receiver's front L/R pre-outs. Nothing complicated there, either. So, with his receiver set up as having NO SUB, his subwoofer connected to the receiver's front L/R pre-outs, the LFE channel and the bass info from any channels that are set to SMALL is sent to his front speaker channels which would be connected to his subwoofer via the receiver's front L/R pre-outs and to his front speakers via the receiver's front channel speaker outputs. The LFE info and bass info below his crossover setting would actually be shared by his front speakers and his subwoofer. All he has to do is adjust the subwoofer's volume setting and crossover (which is really a low-pass filter) appropriately to match his front speaker's output and natural roll-off. He loses nothing at all, information-wise, with this scenario. This is pretty basic stuff.

[bs] [:@] WTF? BS! That is TOTALLY incorrect! Jeez....................... [8-)] If you set your receiver up as having NO SUB, then the LFE channel will be properly rerouted to the front channels. This is what ALL AV receivers do. This is one of the most fundamental basics of HT. So if you set the receiver up as having NO SUB and you connect the sub to the receiver's R/L pre-outs, you're good to go.

You obviously have a problem with the way your receiver (or pre/pro) is set up, generally, OR with some specific settings that adjust your receiver's (or pre/pro's) subwoofer output for different inputs, OR with, perhaps, your receiver's inablity to send a bass signal through its subwoofer output with 2-channel sources when the speakers are set to LARGE. Do you utilize a digital connection for both DVDs and CDs or are you utilizing a 2-channel analog connection for CDs? The subwoofer you are considering replacing the RW-10d with may be a better subwoofer, but set up and adjusted properly at the receiver (or pre/pro), your current subwoofer should work equally well with both sources that have a specific 0.1 channel as well as those sources without it (i.e. 2-channel sources). Have you considered setting up your receiver (or pre/pro) as having NO SUB and utilizing only the front L/R pre-outs for connecting the subwoofer?

http://www.yahoo.com/s/719409

If you want to use both subs, use a Y-adapter to split the receiver's subwoofer output. However, my advice would be to not use 2 subs and use ONLY the Klipsch sub. More does not necessarily mean better.

They 'thumped', too. []

You need to use a single RCA cable (not R/L) to connect the receiver's 'Subwoofer Output' to the subwoofer's 'LEFT/LFE LINE IN' input. Then you need to turn the subwoofer's 'LOWPASS (Hz)' dial all the way up as high as it will go. If you use the subwoofer's 'AUTO' setting instead of the 'ON' setting, and the subwoofer has problems sensing a signal and coming out of "hibernation", then you can try adding a Y-adapter to the end of your single RCA cable in order to connect both the 'LEFT/LFE LINE IN' and 'RIGHT LINE IN' inputs. However, the best way around this problem, should you encounter it, is to simply leave the sub 'ON' all the time.