cakid

boa-12 - I remember quite a while back that there was some stink about regulating the way manufacturers rated their amplifiers. That was when you would see the maximum RMS output at X Ohms and X frequency. It left nothing to the imagination.Now you see all sorts of ratings in the form of "400 watts!" etc. They could mean peak to peak watts, average watts, peak watts, accumulated watts over 100 milliseconds... In other words, no reference, no meaning. I found another phone number for Klipch. I'm going to call their design engineers and ask them what the deal is. I realize the sub I bought performs reasonably well, but always like to know what the amplifier is made of whenever I buy any higher-priced amplified audio equipment. For the benefit of those that don't know what RMS means, I'll try to explain. RMS stands for "root mean square". I'll use the 120 volt commercial line voltage for an example. The 120V rating given for household electrical voltage is in RMS. The peak voltage is actually 170 volts. RMS is 70.7% of the peak voltage. This has been a standard of rating "continuous voltage" as well as rating continuous watts. Volts times amps equal watts. Ie. 120 Volts times 6 amps equals 720 watts. Since the volts are in RMS, the watts are in RMS. Therefore it is impossible for the amp to produce an output greater than 720 watts RMS if the fuse will only allow a current draw of 6 amps. Klipch rates their KSW-12 and KSW-15 subs at 1000 watts RMS continuous. Their technical support just told me that. If the amplifier section in their sub could actually produce 1000 watts RMS continuous by consuming 720 watts RMS, they would be breaking the laws of physics. My hypothesis is the amplifier in that sub produces around 225 to 275 watts RMS since an equal amount of watts is burned on the output (or power) transistors. CAKid

Thanks theEAR for the lowdown on the Sunfire. I know I was impressed when I listened to it a while back. It is amazing that you can get such intense low frequencies out of a little box like that. I agree about the insignificance of output at higher frequencies. The woofers in the fronts can pick that up. FYI - I got a response from Klipch on the power rating. They claimed the RSW-12 put out 1000 watts RMS continuous. I mentioned that the maximum power consumption of the amplifier section of the sub was only 720 watts. Then I asked for the RMS output again. They said, "It's 1000 watts RMS". Now it's time to see if there are any regulations on specifying power output (like there used to be). If there are no more regulations, I probably can't do a damn thing about it. I simply wanted them to be honest with me. CAKid

TheEAR, Question for ya. You mentioned you own the Sunfire and also the Klipch RSW-10. I was always intrigued by the Sunfire (but do not own one). Do you have a preference between these two subs? Thanks, CAKid

Just today I picked up an RC-7 (to replace a smaller, older Klipch center). VERY impressed, and should be, considering the price... I have the KLF-30 front speakers. Still nice sounding, but since I got into the reference series, I'm sold on them. I plan to replace my fronts with the RF-7s. As was mentioned in one of the previous postings, get the best you can afford. Don't worry about room size. Never in my life have I regretted purchasing "the most I can afford" when it came to speakers. You'll get a lifetime of pleasure from them (and so will your friends).

TheEar,Yes, you are right about the existence of "acoustic watt" ratings. I was hasty in saying there was no such thing. I was too focused on the point I was trying to make about the RMS power rating, which was the point I have been trying to make all along. I don't see this picking an argument, but having a discussion. The whole point of my original post was disputing the 1000 watt power rating of the sub I bought. And if Klipch gives me an honest response, I'll prove that the rating is no where near 1000 watts RMS. I told them I wanted the rating in the following format: (XXX Watts RMS continuous into X Ohms) Hopefully I'll get a reply from them on Monday. I'll be sure to share. Have a great day!

Mr. Ear - With all due respect, there is no such thing as acoustic watts. Watts are a measure of power. It is a measure of heat. One watt of power equals the work done in one second by one volt of potential difference in moving one coulomb of charge. The original point of my topic was obviously missed. You mentioned the RSW-10 was 500 watts RMS. I am thinking you assumed the "RMS" portion of the rating, which cannot be assumed. The only specification I saw was 500 watts continuous, which means nothing without a reference. I understand that you recognize the efficiency of subs in regard to the level of decibels at certain frequencies. I have no qualms with the efficiency of Klipch products. They are some of the most efficient I have seen. I care a great deal about sub design AND sub power. BOTH are needed for a sub to perform.The sub I bought was rated at 1000 watts continuous. If the power rating was in RMS, this sub could potentially break windows if played in a small house(if the architecture of the sub could handle the power). I probably made a mistake posting this "beef" on this forum instead of taking it up with Klipch. I emailed Klipch yesterday asking them to give me the RMS power rating of the RSW-12. I'll post their response when I get an answer. Who cares about watts? I think most people do. The higher the watts (with a low distortion amp and proper sub architecture) the more accurately sounds will be reproduced and the louder the sub can be played before the clipping level.

One thing you'll want to keep in mind with rear room sub placement is the phase switch setting (if your sub has one). If you are placing your sub in the rear of the room, but facing it toward the center of the room, you should set your phase switch to (0 degrees). If you are placing your sub in the rear of the room, but facing it toward the front of the room, you should set your phase switch to (180 degrees). I just wanted to mention that, in case you had not thought about it. HornEd, I had to smile when I read your postings and saw the pic. Your "wall of audio/video" reminds me of how I am. It's fun to read these postings.

I do understand about today's "current" style amps. This does not mean the laws of physics are changed and that a "current" style amp is rated differently in regard to how many watts are burned at the speaker. I expected to see a power rating (with a reference) such as 200 watts RMS continuous at 4 Ohms. But listing it as 1000 watts continuous with no reference really means nothing. As an electronic technician, I could go on and on disproving the 1000-watt continuous rating. As far as Klipch products - I have several sets of speakers including several subs. I like the products. The new sub design is superior compared to the old. I just wish the power rating had a reference. The older subs had a true power rating. I would have to say the new ones are rated to deceive the buyer.

A little while back I bought a RSW-12 with the expectation that it had twice the watts as the RSW-10. I was disappointed when I received the sub and found that it only had a 6 amp. fuse. The RSW-10 has a 5 amp. fuse. Looking at the fuse was the only way for me to try to determine the "real" watts as there is no reference to it in any of the specs. A 6 amp. fuse at 120 Volts means the fuse will blow if the sub uses more than 720 watts total power consumption. How can that be if the sub is rated at "1000 watts continuous"? This has bothered me ever since I bought the sub so I thought I would try to find out if anyone else was discouraged with the ambiguous power ratings. I like to get what I'm paying for and watts do make a BIG difference.