The History Kid Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 Doing some cleaning today I took down the serials of each speaker I had in my possession, just to keep track of things a bit better. (I am a stickler for paperwork as well as crossing t's and dotting i's) I noticed something that has me a bit confused. I have two pairs of RS-3 II's in my home, one pair from Brandon, and another pair that I purchased over the summer from someone in San Francisco. On the RS-3 II's that I received from Brandon, they indicate the maximum input power as 110 RMS - same as the website and consecutive serials. However, on the pair that I purchased from San Francisco...they indicate maximum input power of 150 RMS. The same is true on the RB-3's that I purchased a month ago. The website specs them at 100 RMS max, but the label indicates they're in fact spec'd at 150 RMS max. With a receiver that tops out at 120 WPC on a good day (the other at 80) I know this isn't much to be concerned about - so I'm not. However, it does raise the question to me of which of these specs is factual, and which one may not be quite so true? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattSER Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 I was wondering that myself. I had RF-35s rated for 125w and smaller RF-25s rated for 150w. The 35s were also kinda flat in the middle of the woofers where the dust caps would be, but the 25s were very smooth with almost no transition in the middle. I attributed this to just how the smaller 6" were designed....until I got some RB-25s. Their 6" woofers had a flat-ish center just like the 8" versions. Lots of variables. Hell, my 35s didn't even have inspection signatures! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators dtel Posted January 16, 2015 Moderators Share Posted January 16, 2015 Could be because there is more than one industry standard as far as how it's measured, it's really tricky with output, like amps/receivers, you really have to pay attention. I guess one standard would be to much to ask for ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ceptorman Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 I think I would trust the website info more than the label. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sancho Panza Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 (edited) Just an educated guess on my part: Specs change during production due availability of sub components, product improvements, et Cetera. Edited January 16, 2015 by Sancho Panza Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The History Kid Posted January 16, 2015 Author Share Posted January 16, 2015 (edited) I think I would trust the website info more than the label. The only reason I'm not so sure of that is someone is signing off on this that the speaker's been inspected. I'd think that would mean that it means the speakers been tested to the specs as presented on the label. Another example of that also...I just noticed my RC-3 II says 200 RMS. I guess my next question would be then, IF said speakers can tolerate the RMS output as specified on the label, shouldn't they in theory be greater or lesser in price to some variable degree versus their "regular" counterparts? Specs change during production due availability of sub components, product improvements, et Cetera. Wouldn't it then make more sense to refer to the speaker as something different entirely? An RB-3 that is supposed to yield 100 RMS, is the same as an RB-3 that yields 150 RMS (the same RMS output of the RB-5 and RB-5 II). It just seems confusing. (Another example there is this RC-3 II which is spec'd at 200 RMS...the same as an RC-7). Edited January 16, 2015 by IbizaFlame Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ceptorman Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 Specs change during production due availability of sub components, product improvements, et Cetera. So that sounds like the label would be more accurate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sancho Panza Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 Gentlemen, sorry, that's just an educated guess on my part. Will Mod my post to reflect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ceptorman Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 Gentlemen, sorry, that's just an educated guess on my part. Will Mod my post to reflect. I think you nailed it though. The engineers probably updated something on that speaker, then updated the label to reflect the change, so maybe the label would be more accurate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sancho Panza Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 ^^^ Yes, if so, then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sancho Panza Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 & the Specs on the Website are most likely last production Specs... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The History Kid Posted January 16, 2015 Author Share Posted January 16, 2015 Makes me wonder then if there are any RF-7's running around that are 300 or 350 RMS........hmm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkytype Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 "The website specs them at 100 RMS max, but the label indicates they're in fact spec'd at 150 RMS max" A quick perusal of the various Klipsch divisions (Home/Pro/Cinema/Installed) indicates there is no standardization for specifying input power ratings for Klipsch loudspeaker products. Some examples of power ratings from a sampling of spec sheets are: RMS/peak, Continuous/peak, wattage/voltage. With few exceptions, the audio industry has succumbed to the notion that an "RMS" power rating of their products is more meaningful (or easier to read advertising copy) than the correct term continuous average sine wave power. Back in the 70s and 80s McIntosh was one of the few manufacturers who stuck to the CASWP nomenclature when rating their power amplifiers. Nowadays, they just use the term "Power output per channel" with no qualification. While one can compute RMS power, it has no meaning. It does not represent the equivalent heating power value we seek when measuring output power. Here's a low-math explanation of how to properly measure average power. http://www.eznec.com/Amateur/RMS_Power.pdf Lee 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 Good stuff. Thanks Lee. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.