RBH Sound SX-1212P/R Subwoofer Review

[admin]

The RBH Sound SX-1212P/R, a large vented system housing dual 12" drivers, and a 2400 watt rated amplifier, represents their biggest and baddest subwoofer. From 12.5-40Hz the SX-1212P/R produced the highest output that Audioholics has EVER recorded from any subwoofer reviewed to date; shattering our Extreme Bassaholic rating. That helps to explain why it was so much fun on those movie nights.

If you are looking for a system that will bring authoritative yet clean bass into even a large space the RBH SX-1212P/R may be just the ticket.

Read the RBH SX-1212P/R Subwoofer Review

Is this subwoofer Extreme enough for you fellow Bassaholics? Share your thoughts and experiences if you've had the pleasuring of demoing this bad boy sub.

 

[shadyJ]

Wow, the RBH sub gives much better performance than I would have expected in a smallish, dual ported 12. One thing I think would be fun is the low end peak, a little more punch in that range doesn't hurt music at all and can beef up deep bass effects noises. Now I can see acudeftechguy's attraction to these subs, they are not wimps, especially for their footprint. I also appreciate the mention of the film Triangle, this is a superb, overlooked gem. Hey Josh, if you liked Triangle, you should check out a movie called Time Crimes, a very neat movie which is quite similar to Triangle, and I think Time Crimes is even a bit more clever as a 'puzzle'. As with Triangle, the less you know about the movie going in, the more you will enjoy it. Anyway, great sub and great review!

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

Thanks for another great Review Josh !!

I might be wrong here, but about $1800 for 2400W/4ohm seems a bit steep for an amp... Crown XTI2 2002 fully stable bridged at 4ohm is rated at 2kW - priced at $700, 4002 is even more powerful than that - at 3.2kW bridged 4ohm and costs almost half price under $900
Amazon.com: Crown XTi4002 1200w Per Channel @ 4 ohms Power Amplifier: Musical Instruments

Not sure if I get the sub, but going with passive version seems like no brainier to me

P.s: my sneaking suspicion that most people whom could afford this sub will never power it more than even 1.5kW/4ohm capable XLS 1500 could do

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Now I can see acudeftechguy's attraction to these subs, they are not wimps, especially for their footprint.

Yeah, hearing them is even more shocking. At first you see how relative "slim" they look. And then you hear their giant sound!

I wonder how five SX-1010R would compare to one SX-1212R?

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

...going with passive version seems like no brainier to me...

Yeah, that is just one reason I always prefer passive subs.

Interesting how the SX-1212/R is rated for up to 2400W, but the SX-1010/R is rated for only up to 500W.

 

[gene]

Here is the price breakdown of the various iterations of this subwoofer:
<!--[if gte mso 9]><![endif]--> Subwoofer: RBH SX-1212N Passive Subwoofer $1450
Subwoofer: RBH SX-1212P Powered Subwoofer $2300
Subwoofer: RBH SX-1212N/R Passive Subwoofer $2430
Subwoofer: RBH SX-1212P/R Powered Subwoofer $5300
<!--[if gte mso 9]><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <![endif]-->

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

So we've seen measurements of the SX-12 & SX-1212/R.

I hope we get to see Joshua Ricci/AH measurements of the SX-1010/R soon.

 

[Steve81]

I wonder how five SX-1010R would compare to one SX-1212R?

Well, if you want a super-simple paper analysis...

Jumping from 500W to 2400W nets a gain of ~6.8dB. Then you have to figure that the SX-1212P/R is more efficient than the SX-1010 due to its larger drivers and cabinet. Let's call it an extra 3dB, for a total of lead of 9.8dB one to one. As such, you'd need three SX-1010P/R's to equal a single SX-1212P/R. In your case, I'd also toss in one other factor: you're using a relatively inefficient Class A/B amplifier for your five subwoofers vs the SX-1212P/R's much more efficient Class D. That means you'll also run into the limits of what the wall can supply faster than the SX-1212P/R.

 

[shadyJ]

Lol, sorry you asked, Acudeftechguy? That was a pretty blunt analysis. Anyway, if it makes you feel better, you do have a lot more motor controlling much less cone area, so distortion and compression should be vastly reduced for the same loudness levels. Your five subs may be relatively inefficient with respect to loudness, but in many other performance respects, they will scale better than having more efficient but fewer larger woofers.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Well, if you want a super-simple paper analysis...

Jumping from 500W to 2400W nets a gain of ~6.8dB. Then you have to figure that the SX-1212P/R is more efficient than the SX-1010 due to its larger drivers and cabinet. Let's call it an extra 3dB, for a total of lead of 9.8dB one to one. As such, you'd need three SX-1010P/R's to equal a single SX-1212P/R. In your case, I'd also toss in one other factor: you're using a relatively inefficient Class A/B amplifier for your five subwoofers vs the SX-1212P/R's much more efficient Class D. That means you'll also run into the limits of what the wall can supply faster than the SX-1212P/R.

Well, I wasn't talking about MY case, but just in general.

I should have said SX-1010P/R active vs SX-1212P/R active to be more fair.

In my case, using much less power amps than probably 90% of all subwoofer owners , I've never worry about bass output for MY ROOM.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Lol, sorry you asked, Acudeftechguy? That was a pretty blunt analysis. Anyway, if it makes you feel better, you do have a lot more motor controlling much less cone area, so distortion and compression should be vastly reduced for the same loudness levels. Your five subs may be relatively inefficient with respect to loudness, but in many other performance respects, they will scale better than having more efficient but fewer larger woofers.

No just talking theories. It's fun trying to equate multiple smaller drivers/cabinets to larger drivers/cabinets.

Revel says the 3 x 8" woofers in the Salon2 equal 2 x 10" or something like that.

RBH says the 3 x 8" woofers in the SX-8300 tower equal to 2 x 10" woofers in the SX-1010.

So do the 6 x 6" woofers in two SX-6300 towers equal to 2 x 15" woofers, 2 x 12" woofers, or 2 x 10" woofers ?

 

[Irvrobinson]

Revel says the 3 x 8" woofers in the Salon2 equal 2 x 10" or something like that.

Actually, Revel says the 3x8" drivers equal approximately one 14" driver.

 

[Irvrobinson]

I was surprised at the price. I'm not sure why, seeing as how I own a sub that's ostensibly in the same price class, but I was.

 

[Steve81]

So do the 6 x 6" woofers in two SX-6300 towers equal to 2 x 15" woofers, 2 x 12" woofers, or 2 x 10" woofers ?

Well you figure the area of a circle goes up by the square of the radius (and consequently the diameter), so a trio of 6.5" woofers ought to fall in between a 10" woofer and a 12" woofer:
6.5^2 = 42.25; 42.25 * 3 = 126.75
10^2 = 100, 12^2 = 144

Of course you also have to figure a driver's nominal diameter accounts for things beyond the area of the Sd of the driver (i.e. the frame). Subtract an inch from the diameters of each driver, and your trio of 6.5" drivers get closer to a single 10" woofer:
5.5^2 = 30.25; 30.25*3 = 90.75
9^2 = 81. 11^2 = 121

 

[gene]

Well you figure the area of a circle goes up by the square of the radius (and consequently the diameter), so a trio of 6.5" woofers ought to fall in between a 10" woofer and a 12" woofer:
6.5^2 = 42.25; 42.25 * 3 = 126.75
10^2 = 100, 12^2 = 144

Of course you also have to figure a driver's nominal diameter accounts for things beyond the area of the Sd of the driver (i.e. the frame). Subtract an inch from the diameters of each driver, and your trio of 6.5" drivers get closer to a single 10" woofer:
5.5^2 = 30.25; 30.25*3 = 90.75
9^2 = 81. 11^2 = 121

You can't just go by surface area alone, excursion must also be factored in else we could just use 100 1" tweeters to get the same bass output of a single 10" driver

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Well you figure the area of a circle goes up by the square of the radius (and consequently the diameter), so a trio of 6.5" woofers ought to fall in between a 10" woofer and a 12" woofer:
6.5^2 = 42.25; 42.25 * 3 = 126.75
10^2 = 100, 12^2 = 144

Of course you also have to figure a driver's nominal diameter accounts for things beyond the area of the Sd of the driver (i.e. the frame). Subtract an inch from the diameters of each driver, and your trio of 6.5" drivers get closer to a single 10" woofer:
5.5^2 = 30.25; 30.25*3 = 90.75
9^2 = 81. 11^2 = 121

Nerd.

Cool. So a pair of the SX-6300 towers (6 of the 6.5" woofers) is "approximate about equal" (vague enough? ) to two SX-10 subs, assuming similar excursion and other things.

 

[Steve81]

You can't just go by surface area alone, excursion must also be factored in else we could just use 100 1" tweeters to get the same bass output of a single 10" driver

No doubt, though that tends to swing things further in favor of the larger woofer. Something like a TC Sounds LMS-R 12" subwoofer has a rated xmax of 25.4mm. The most I've ever seen from a 6.5" woofer is half that.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Actually, Revel says the 3x8" drivers equal approximately one 14" driver.

I guess bigger numbers sell better.

Hey, Steve, assuming similar excursion, power, etc., do these numbers equate (3 x 8" = 1 x 14") ?

 

[Steve81]

Hey, Steve, assuming similar excursion, power, etc., do these numbers equate (3 x 8" = 1 x 14") ?

Indeed they do (at least close enough for government work).

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Indeed they do (at least close enough for government work).

But since smaller drivers have less excursion than a single 14" driver, would the 3 x 8" drivers be closer to the 2 x 10" drivers, assuming similar power and cabinet volume?