AMP POWER?
Guest
Posts: n/a
hm - the theories about speakers and cones is well 'interesting' to say the least. This post is not on speakers though. Tom - Pioneer used to have a spectrograph of cones with distortion patterns on them in their brochures to hype their IMPP cones. Who says ads don't leave impressions 
So PEI330ci believes A and C will be equally as loud but C will sound better. Your bit on headroom doesn't really address that though since the 'power per speaker' will be the same in your opinion.
I'm not arguing or anything - just trying to get others to think about what is posted.
So PEI330ci believes A and C will be equally as loud but C will sound better. Your bit on headroom doesn't really address that though since the 'power per speaker' will be the same in your opinion.
I'm not arguing or anything - just trying to get others to think about what is posted.
1000 Watt CAFz'r
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,783
Dukk,
You've really brought some good ideas out for everybody to explore. It has certainly brought me to take a good look at what I'm doing with my current system. Keep it up. [img]graemlins/thumb.gif[/img]
Sorry I got carried away with the speakers, I just like talking about them. I didn't mean to hi-jack the thread.
I mentioned the headroom because it's important to me. As I mentioned before, I'm kind of new to car audio, so my experience with active VS. passive cross-overs in a car is very small. What your post has made me do is look at trying both options a bit more in-depth. I hope to share my opinions on the results with you all. Again I say OPINION because it won't be too scientific, just my impression.
Yes I vent sometimes Tom, and I like it. I'm sure you all feel better after a good keyboard/headscratching session.
Adam
You've really brought some good ideas out for everybody to explore. It has certainly brought me to take a good look at what I'm doing with my current system. Keep it up. [img]graemlins/thumb.gif[/img]
Sorry I got carried away with the speakers, I just like talking about them. I didn't mean to hi-jack the thread.
I mentioned the headroom because it's important to me. As I mentioned before, I'm kind of new to car audio, so my experience with active VS. passive cross-overs in a car is very small. What your post has made me do is look at trying both options a bit more in-depth. I hope to share my opinions on the results with you all. Again I say OPINION because it won't be too scientific, just my impression.
Yes I vent sometimes Tom, and I like it. I'm sure you all feel better after a good keyboard/headscratching session.
Adam
50 Watt CAFz'r
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 111
more on topic:
while reading eatel.net I remember reading how activly crossing the front stage got away from clipping due to the fact that the amp cannont support the high freq stuff "riding" on to of lower stuff. So even with a perfect passive crossover you would still have distortion before the amp could send 100watts to the woofer or 100watts to the tweeter.
while reading eatel.net I remember reading how activly crossing the front stage got away from clipping due to the fact that the amp cannont support the high freq stuff "riding" on to of lower stuff. So even with a perfect passive crossover you would still have distortion before the amp could send 100watts to the woofer or 100watts to the tweeter.
1000 Watt CAFz'r
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,120
I just don't see how Car A would have as much power as Car C, although it's close.
Car A - 100W/Channel x 2 = 200 Watts total.
Now that 100 Watts/Channel is "shared" between the tweet and woof....say each woof gets 80 Watts & tweet 20 Watts (or split as determined by the design of the x-over). All 200 Watts are useable.
Car B - 50W/Channel x 4 = 200 Watts total power.
But in this case the woof which generates most of the volume is limited to 50 Watts each. I would venture to guess the tweet will not be able to handle all of the 50 Watts alloted to each of them(maybe only 20 Watts per tweet), so although the "potential available power" is 200 Watts total, the useable power however is perhaps around 140 Watts Total system power (50+50+20+20)=140
Car C - 100W/Channel x 4 = 400 Watts total power.
Now suppose that we have a woof that can take the whole 100 Watts coming to it, and the tweet still can only swallow 20w/each, I would say the useable power is (100+100+20+20)= 240 Watts, leaving 180 Watts relatively useless, but still this system appears to have the most power available where it matters, the woof.
System A is definately the best bang for the buck as it only needs one amp and has the highest efficiency of draw on the car's electrical system vs. output.
Car A - 100W/Channel x 2 = 200 Watts total.
Now that 100 Watts/Channel is "shared" between the tweet and woof....say each woof gets 80 Watts & tweet 20 Watts (or split as determined by the design of the x-over). All 200 Watts are useable.
Car B - 50W/Channel x 4 = 200 Watts total power.
But in this case the woof which generates most of the volume is limited to 50 Watts each. I would venture to guess the tweet will not be able to handle all of the 50 Watts alloted to each of them(maybe only 20 Watts per tweet), so although the "potential available power" is 200 Watts total, the useable power however is perhaps around 140 Watts Total system power (50+50+20+20)=140
Car C - 100W/Channel x 4 = 400 Watts total power.
Now suppose that we have a woof that can take the whole 100 Watts coming to it, and the tweet still can only swallow 20w/each, I would say the useable power is (100+100+20+20)= 240 Watts, leaving 180 Watts relatively useless, but still this system appears to have the most power available where it matters, the woof.
System A is definately the best bang for the buck as it only needs one amp and has the highest efficiency of draw on the car's electrical system vs. output.
1000 Watt CAFz'r
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,783
Ah HA! Dukk, we have a winner!
Guys, I really don't care who is right or wrong on this. I'm really enjoying the different perspectives.
Islandphile, you've got some great ideas on this. Really in depth in terms that I think everybody can understand. You could be wrong, but I don't care, I like your theory. [img]graemlins/thumb.gif[/img]
Now all I need are 2 more Audison VRx2.400s to test all this! I'm going to buy a lotto ticket!
Later,
Adam
Guys, I really don't care who is right or wrong on this. I'm really enjoying the different perspectives.
Islandphile, you've got some great ideas on this. Really in depth in terms that I think everybody can understand. You could be wrong, but I don't care, I like your theory. [img]graemlins/thumb.gif[/img]
Now all I need are 2 more Audison VRx2.400s to test all this! I'm going to buy a lotto ticket!
Later,
Adam
1000 Watt CAFz'r
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,120
Hey Thanks.. [img]smile.gif[/img]
Btw did you get the Class A kit with your VRx 2.400... I've got mine ...not hooked up yet though. I'll drop you a note as well via e-mail, got something else you might be interested in..heheh [img]graemlins/headbang.gif[/img] .
Btw did you get the Class A kit with your VRx 2.400... I've got mine ...not hooked up yet though. I'll drop you a note as well via e-mail, got something else you might be interested in..heheh [img]graemlins/headbang.gif[/img] .
