Jay481985 Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 *lets out a sigh* your wrong....... The 15 would need double or then some of the size to stay flat and such. Big speaker in small box does not mean lower frequency but in fact means emphasis on upper range! You say similiar box but if you did what would happen, the 12 would win. The rsw 12 and rsw 15 frequency is negliable but the loudness is the rsw 15 but remember it is not apples to apples since the 15 enclosure is bigger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
formica Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 The 15 would need double or then some of the size to stay flat and such. Big speaker in small box does not mean lower frequency but in fact means emphasis on upper range! You say similiar box but if you did what would happen, the 12 would win. Jay, you are thinking too much like a DIY'er... as most manufactured subwoofers have a built in EQ to flatten their response (which in turn will consume more power and push the driver closer to it's excursion limits). Given that a larger cone can displace more air than a smaller one with the same excursion... the larger one has the capability of going lower. If you then place this drier in an undersized box, you'll need an EQ to balance out the response, but it stll has the capability of displacing more air (going lower, or louder) ROb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneTwoMany Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 *lets out a sigh* your wrong....... The 15 would need double or then some of the size to stay flat and such. Big speaker in small box does not mean lower frequency but in fact means emphasis on upper range! You say similiar box but if you did what would happen, the 12 would win. The rsw 12 and rsw 15 frequency is negliable but the loudness is the rsw 15 but remember it is not apples to apples since the 15 enclosure is bigger. It's a contraction of two words you're not your Anyways, Im sorry, I do realize Im new here, but my buddy actually designed the RSW woofers. Do you work for Klipsch too? <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay481985 Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 First if you need to point out my grammar mistakes it just shows that you are desperate. By the way, what is the name of the designer? Wow the internet these days.... I know everyone too by the way.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrWho Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 kw-120 and rsw-15 use the same motor.Well not quite the same [] Though I'm not sure how many modifications can be made until it's considered a "different" motor... In a simialr designed box, the RSW-15 would be the clear winner in all catatories. Bottom-line, I have no idea why Klipsch did not use the 15" woofer for the KW-120's the difference in price is probably less than 30 for the driver and a not too much more for a larger box. My only guess is it would have been overkill... indeed. The target market they were aiming for wants a "pretty" package - I like to think of it by attaching a dollar value to the size of the enclosure (and that value will be different for everyone). It is "expensive" and much lower WAF for the target market to go bigger sub.Also, since they have very similar motors you can think of the KW-120's as having more motor per surface area of driver...so you should get better cone control (so less distortion too? I'm certainly not qualified to make the claim). Sure, you lose a bit of max output with less displacement, but how big of a concern is that? You would also get a lot more port noise with more displacement...requiring a complete overhaul on the design. We can totally sit here all day and go back and forth with all sorts of theory, but in the end it comes down to a listening test...and I know I much prefer the sound of the KW-120's to that of the RSW-15. I haven't done a perfect side by side AB comparison, but I feel the difference is large enough that it doesn't have to be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klipsch Employees Trey Cannon Posted March 3, 2006 Klipsch Employees Share Posted March 3, 2006 *lets out a sigh* your wrong....... The 15 would need double or then some of the size to stay flat and such. Big speaker in small box does not mean lower frequency but in fact means emphasis on upper range! You say similiar box but if you did what would happen, the 12 would win. The rsw 12 and rsw 15 frequency is negliable but the loudness is the rsw 15 but remember it is not apples to apples since the 15 enclosure is bigger. It's a contraction of two words you're not your Anyways, Im sorry, I do realize Im new here, but my buddy actually designed the RSW woofers. Do you work for Klipsch too? <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> As I was there when the RSW project was started I should know your buddy. Who is he? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klipsch Employees Trey Cannon Posted March 3, 2006 Klipsch Employees Share Posted March 3, 2006 The motor is the same...the only difference in the driver is the basket, spider and cone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacksonbart Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 Anyways, Im sorry, I do realize Im new here, but my buddy actually designed the RSW woofers. Do you work for Klipsch too? Perhaps his name is My Buddy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneTwoMany Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 trey, you got pm? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneTwoMany Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 kw-120 and rsw-15 use the same motor. Well not quite the same [] Though I'm not sure how many modifications can be made until it's considered a "different" motor... In a simialr designed box, the RSW-15 would be the clear winner in all catatories. Bottom-line, I have no idea why Klipsch did not use the 15" woofer for the KW-120's the difference in price is probably less than 30 for the driver and a not too much more for a larger box. My only guess is it would have been overkill... indeed. The target market they were aiming for wants a "pretty" package - I like to think of it by attaching a dollar value to the size of the enclosure (and that value will be different for everyone). It is "expensive" and much lower WAF for the target market to go bigger sub. Also, since they have very similar motors you can think of the KW-120's as having more motor per surface area of driver...so you should get better cone control (so less distortion too? I'm certainly not qualified to make the claim). Sure, you lose a bit of max output with less displacement, but how big of a concern is that? You would also get a lot more port noise with more displacement...requiring a complete overhaul on the design. We can totally sit here all day and go back and forth with all sorts of theory, but in the end it comes down to a listening test...and I know I much prefer the sound of the KW-120's to that of the RSW-15. I haven't done a perfect side by side AB comparison, but I feel the difference is large enough that it doesn't have to be. I really dont care to argue, but yes, you certainly need to increase the motor as you increase the cone (generally speaking). The cone control does not cause as much distortion as say what happens when nonlinearity occurs when large signals are sent to the driver. IMO (I have not tested the RSW's) I believe A 13" (15 speaker) cone on the motor we are talking about would do better than the 10" (12 speaker) because its more efficient and will not have to be driven as hard and risk those nonlinearities if you know what I mean. BTW, I refer to the 15 as the 13 and the 12 at the 10 because thats about the actual the cone of each woofer. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> I think I would agree with you that the KW-120s are better, but the box designs are completely different and account for more of the sound differences than the drivers we are discussing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrWho Posted March 4, 2006 Share Posted March 4, 2006 kw-120 and rsw-15 use the same motor. Well not quite the same [] Though I'm not sure how many modifications can be made until it's considered a "different" motor... In a simialr designed box, the RSW-15 would be the clear winner in all catatories. Bottom-line, I have no idea why Klipsch did not use the 15" woofer for the KW-120's the difference in price is probably less than 30 for the driver and a not too much more for a larger box. My only guess is it would have been overkill... indeed. The target market they were aiming for wants a "pretty" package - I like to think of it by attaching a dollar value to the size of the enclosure (and that value will be different for everyone). It is "expensive" and much lower WAF for the target market to go bigger sub. Also, since they have very similar motors you can think of the KW-120's as having more motor per surface area of driver...so you should get better cone control (so less distortion too? I'm certainly not qualified to make the claim). Sure, you lose a bit of max output with less displacement, but how big of a concern is that? You would also get a lot more port noise with more displacement...requiring a complete overhaul on the design. We can totally sit here all day and go back and forth with all sorts of theory, but in the end it comes down to a listening test...and I know I much prefer the sound of the KW-120's to that of the RSW-15. I haven't done a perfect side by side AB comparison, but I feel the difference is large enough that it doesn't have to be. I really dont care to argue, but yes, you certainly need to increase the motor as you increase the cone (generally speaking). The cone control does not cause as much distortion as say what happens when nonlinearity occurs when large signals are sent to the driver. IMO (I have not tested the RSW's) I believe A 13" (15 speaker) cone on the motor we are talking about would do better than the 10" (12 speaker) because its more efficient and will not have to be driven as hard and risk those nonlinearities if you know what I mean. BTW, I refer to the 15 as the 13 and the 12 at the 10 because thats about the actual the cone of each woofer. I think I would agree with you that the KW-120s are better, but the box designs are completely different and account for more of the sound differences than the drivers we are discussing. Well I hope I didn't come off as trying to argue. I was just trying to touch on some of the compromises that probably went into the design (all designs have compromises...which is the hardest thing for me to wrap my mind around as I work towards my degree). You say it subtley, but I totally agree that power compression is a much bigger concern. And I'm not trying to contradict hoffman's iron law either (which pretty much states bigger is better) [] As a side note I wrote my reply after 30 hours or so without sleep...and right now I'm pushing 40? I lost count....gotta love college and insane deadlines [sn] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
formica Posted March 5, 2006 Share Posted March 5, 2006 The motor is the same...the only difference in the driver is the basket, spider and cone. Trey, wouldn't you say the VC is part of the motor? .... I realise it's attached to the cone and that is why i ask. As a side note I wrote my reply after 30 hours or so without sleep...and right now I'm pushing 40? I lost count....gotta love college and insane deadlines [sn] Insane deadlines, but you still got time to post huh? [] ROb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay481985 Posted March 5, 2006 Share Posted March 5, 2006 As a side note I wrote my reply after 30 hours or so without sleep...and right now I'm pushing 40? I lost count....gotta love college and insane deadlines [sn] Insane deadlines, but you still got time to post huh? [] ROb he just needs to plug into his wall at nights..... [] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrWho Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 Insane deadlines, but you still got time to post huh? [] ROb I consider it a form of sleepwalking... [] 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.