 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Car Audio / September 2006Speakers and amp power
Let's say I have a pair of speakers that can handle 100 WRMS each. What would be better for these speakers: an amp that can deliver 100 WRMS per channel, or an amp that can deliver 125 WRMS per channel? Take into consideration that the system is playing at full volume. Either one will do fine. It is doubtful that you will deliver 100 watts to the speakers on an average continual basis. Music is dynamic, meaning that it fluctuates in amplitude, and thus power requirements. Unless you plan on playing test tones, LOL. Speaker ratings are a funny thing as they are not standardized. When a manufacturer states that their speakers will sustain an input of 100 watts RMS rarely do they tell you how they arrived at this spec. For instance, a speaker may sustain 100 watts RMS for 15 minutes but may fry the voice coil if that level is sustained for say an hour or more. JL used to describe how they rated their subs. I think their RMS ratings were arrived at over an 8 hour span. Others may not be as it tends to lower the real sustained power rating. It allows the manufacturers to fudge the numbers when they do not specify the test procedure and length of time of the power test. Same goes for the RMS output ratings on amps, especially all those home video receivers that claim to put out 100 watts per channel for 5 channels. Sure they do .... but not all driven at the same time, and not for more than 60 seconds, LOL. - RG > Let's say I have a pair of speakers that can handle 100 WRMS each. > What would be better for these speakers: an amp that can deliver > 100 WRMS per channel, or an amp that can deliver 125 WRMS per > channel? Take into consideration that the system is playing at full > volume. Unless you plan on > playing test tones, LOL. I LOVE The Test Tones!!! That's my favorite band!! I play them all the time? So he can't play them on his system? ;) MOSFET Hi Alan, RG makes an excellent point. If the speaker has an external crossover, it probably won't *ever* see 100 watts as the crossover has some resistance that will prevent it from delivering full power to the drivers. smiles, Jamie > Either one will do fine. It is doubtful that you will deliver 100 watts > to the speakers on an average continual basis. Music is dynamic, [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >> channel? Take into consideration that the system is playing at full >> volume. > Either one will do fine. It is doubtful that you will deliver > 100 watts to the speakers on an average continual basis. > Music is dynamic, meaning that it fluctuates in amplitude, and > thus power requirements. Unless you plan on playing test > tones, LOL. This raises another question. Let's say I were to play test tones. If I were using an amp with a power rating exceeding the speakers' power rating, would the tones need to be played at full volume or at any volume level in order to cause damage to the speakers? >This raises another question. Let's say I were to play test tones. If >I were using an amp with a power rating exceeding the speakers' power >rating, would the tones need to be played at full volume or at any >volume level in order to cause damage to the speakers? If you were to let's say, play test tones at a fairly higher power rating for an EXTENDED period of time, you could bring in excess heat to the voice coils. Not good. >>This raises another question. Let's say I were to play test tones. If >>I were using an amp with a power rating exceeding the speakers' power [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > rating for an EXTENDED period of time, you could bring in excess heat > to the voice coils. Not good. Yes, this is the theory... but remember, Alan, COULD is the key word here. "Full volume" is meaningless to the actual output of the amp. An amp's rating is usually the most it's CAPABLE of delivering, usually under very specific test conditions, and not an indication of how much it WILL deliver. Speakers of different impedences (remember that "rated" impedences are only "nominal" across the full range of the speaker; it can often be less at certain frequencies, and those frequencies will vary from one speaker design to the next) may actually DRAW different power levels from the amp. Adding a crossover will change the load the amp sees, as has already been noted. Unless the amp uses a regulated power supply, it was probably tested and the spec listed at 14.5V or higher; if you car is providing less voltage, the maximum output will be less. The input trim controls on the amp will lower the signal feeding into it, so the output signal may not be driven to full potential. Similarly, decks with lower outputs may not drive the amp fully at "full volume". A low-level tone from the test disc will also not drive the amp fully. In general, as long as your amp's output isn't rated SEVERELY higher than your speakers' capabilities, you have little to worry about. If you've properly tuned the system to avoid clipping (matching amp inputs to deck output levels), you should in theory rarely overdrive the amp. > Adding a crossover will change the load the amp sees, as has > already been noted. I assume when you say that a crossover changes the load the amp sees, you mean it increases the impedence, correct? > In general, as long as your amp's output isn't rated SEVERELY > higher than your speakers' capabilities, you have little to > worry about. If you've properly tuned the system to avoid > clipping (matching amp inputs to deck output levels), you > should in theory rarely overdrive the amp. What would be considered 'severely higher" in regards to amp power? I'm making a rule of thumb for my systems from now on not to go over 50 wrms of what the speakers are capable of handling. So, if I had a pair of speakers that can handle 100 wrms, I would choose an amp with a power rating between 100 wrms - 150 wrms per channel, but no more than that. I just prefer being safe rather than sorry. This is.............................................dumb. All of it. >> Adding a crossover will change the load the amp sees, as has >> already been noted. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >amp with a power rating between 100 wrms - 150 wrms per channel, >but no more than that. I just prefer being safe rather than sorry. > This is.............................................dumb. All of it. This is...................................................exactly why my Email fills up with questions because people are reluctant to post their questions here because of CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS (not to name any names) and their attitudes. But it's Usenet right? Everyone can be just as big an a.shole as they want, or so I've been told. MOSFET >>This is.............................................dumb. All of it. > > This is...................................................exactly why my > Email fills up with questions because people are reluctant to post their > questions here because of CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS (not to name any names) and > their attitudes. You mean the incessant whiners like you, who go all ballastic anytime anyone contradicts you? > But it's Usenet right? Everyone can be just as big an a.shole as they want, > or so I've been told. Whatever works for you. No this is not Usenet anymore, it's a google forum for people that want to know what car audio is. Why do you think that everyone that knew anything about car audio is long gone from here? I'll tell you why, because this group has turned into car audio google kindergarten and anyone advanced in car audio got bored out of their minds with this how do I hook up an i-pod bullshit. When is the last time that you have seen a technical thread in here of any kind? What we have here is a handful of regulars that cater to google's search engine. I for one don't come here to make myself seem knowledgeable in a google forum of noobs. But there are people here that come here just for that, it helps to keep them afloat, as some people fear that their own peers might be knowledgeable enough to correct them when their wrong and there is a shitload of posts on here lately that explain just what happens when someone stands corrected. These are the same people that didn't do much posting when this place was somewhat serious. I for one don't care what anyone's reason is for being here, it's just that I don't come here for the same reasons that some others do and yes this may cross a negative path with those people, Once again I don't care and if this makes me an a.shole, then be it. As far as I'm concerned the beginners class to car audio is down the hall. There are people that spent a lot of their time making a faq's page so that this group can remain at an advanced level and help avoid some of the crap that has been googled on here. I for one enjoyed the way this group has been for many years and I am not going to promote anything less then what this group had been in the past. That's my attitude……… >> This is.............................................dumb. All of it. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >MOSFET >No this is not Usenet anymore, it's a google forum for people that want to >know what car audio is. Why do you think that everyone that knew anything >about car audio is long gone from here? I'll tell you why, because this group >has turned into car audio google kindergarten and anyone advanced in car audio I think many groups lately have a large amount of name calling, out of control. Perhaps its the world condition and or peoples lifestyles, or something. Regardless, the car stereo explosion of the 80's is over, and people get old, and I just don't think there is as much hobbying around here with newbies. There is more Googling, and people just want quick answers. I do too. Sometimes reading FAQ's is just too time consuming. greg >>No this is not Usenet anymore, it's a google forum for people that want to >>know what car audio is. Why do you think that everyone that knew anything [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > There is more Googling, and people just want quick answers. I do too. > Sometimes reading FAQ's is just too time consuming. Well, in fairness, a lot of FAQs are really poorly done, which makes them EXCESSIVELY time-consuming :). RAC FAQ isn't one of them - it's extremely well-done and has been well-maintained for many years (you'll even find my name in there once or twice, from 'way back in the day, probably 13-14 years ago). Unfortunately, Google seems to favor newsgroups results over those in the FAQ (or maybe it's just not linked enough to rank higher), so people end up here before they ever see the FAQ. > No this is not Usenet anymore, it's a google forum for people that want to > know what car audio is. Why do you think that everyone that knew anything [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > and I am not going to promote anything less then what this group had been in > the past. That's my attitude……… Why don't you JUST LEAVE FOR CHRIST'S SAKE. You're right, things HAVE changed here. Coincidentally, Manville Smith emailed me today and mentioned that he now frequents carsound.com (why don't you give that a try?). I believe he also got tired of the same old questions as well. Fine. He left. What Manville DIDN'T DO WAS TURN INTO A COMPLETE a.shole BECAUSE RAC ISN'T LIKE IT WAS 10 YEARS AGO. If you have this much animus towards RAC, I frankly have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA why you stick around. MOSFET > Why don't you JUST LEAVE FOR CHRIST'S SAKE. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > If you have this much animus towards RAC, I frankly have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA > why you stick around. You really need to talk to your doctor, Nick... I think you need your dosage increased. Or go spend some time outside, or something. You're getting WAY too worked-up. > Coincidentally, Manville Smith > emailed me today and mentioned that he now frequents carsound.com (why don't > you give that a try?). Tell Manville howdy for me, I am STILL BANNED from Carsound. I get bombarded by the advertising from there but they wont let me back in the forums... oh well Eddie Runner teamRocs member #001 > No this is not Usenet anymore, it's a google forum for people that want to > know what car audio is. Why do you think that everyone that knew anything > about car audio is long gone from here? I'll tell you why, because this group > has turned into car audio google kindergarten and anyone advanced in car audio > got bored out of their minds with this how do I hook up an i-pod bullshit. Hahaha, good take :) > When is the last time that you have seen a technical thread in here of any > kind? Well every time I post anything technical, MOSFET accuses me of being arrogant and trying to show off, especially if it contradicts (or worse, corrects) something he said previously. Is it any suprise no technical discussions can even get started? > What we have here is a handful of regulars that cater to google's search > engine. Can't entirely disagree with that... > I for one don't care what anyone's reason is for being here, Ditto. > it's just that I don't come here for the same reasons that > some others do Ditto again. Apparently some participants, though, are of the opinion that all must conform to their rules of conduct and behaviour. > and yes this may cross a negative path with those people, Once > again I don't care and if this makes me an a.shole, then be it. Third ditto :) > As far as I'm > concerned the beginners class to car audio is down the hall. There are people > that spent a lot of their time making a faq's page so that this group can > remain at an advanced level and help avoid some of the crap that has been > googled on here. I don't mind the n00bs coming around - most of them will ask their question, take their answers, and just go happily back to their lives. Face it, we've all been n00bs at one time or another, on this newsgroup and/or on others. If it's a topic I find interesting, I try to stick around, learn from other members, expand that knowledge on my own when I can, and then return the favor by passing that on to the next generation of n00bs. If a group just becomes a closed-door old-boys' club, it will stagnate and die before long. This is my take on this topic. Some people just can't stand the idea of being wrong and they feel very intimidated when someone tries to correct them. Mark Z was a great example of this time and time again. Mark had a following of noobs just as Mosfet does that would turn to him for advice and there is nothing wrong with that, But when someone comes around to correct or challenge their advice all hell brakes lose because the challenge or correction makes them look inferior in their group of peers. As anyone that has been here a few years will all ready know that in the past this very same thing is what kept this group alive. No one had a reputation to uphold and when they were challenged with a correction they would challenge that correction in return. This is what started long technical threads that anyone could learn from. Now days things like this don't fly because in many challenges someone stands to be wrong or not totally up to speed on the topic and that just don't do anything for anyone's shiny reputation. I have no problem with you or anyone else correcting anyone's posts including mine. I just don't see anything negative about sparking threads that are emotionally (everyone wants to be right) driven by people challenging each other by making corrections whether they are right or wrong . This is a something that can bleed someone to death for information a hell a lot better then a "please help me" ever will. Matt as far as I am concerned you aren't doing anything new or anything wrong by correcting people, in fact I feel that you are upholding what RAC has lost over the years and for anyone that has a problem with it all that I can say is that this is how RAC has always been and if you don't like it then don't let the door hit you on the way out. After all, this is RAC and not alt.take.everything.personal and if you do take things personal, click the link below that will take you to alt.personal.goandfuckyourself. LOL >Well every time I post anything technical, MOSFET accuses me of being arrogant >and trying to show off, especially if it contradicts (or worse, corrects) >something he said previously. Is it any suprise no technical discussions can >even get started? >I don't mind the n00bs coming around - most of them will ask their question, >take their answers, and just go happily back to their lives. Face it, we've all [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >old-boys' club, it will stagnate and die before long. Well, the thing with Matt's corrections is that what I saw was corrections that had no bearing on the advice given. I have ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM with being corrected. I have been corrected COUNTLESS times. In fact, I WOULD HOPE that someone would correct me if I ever give bad advice. And if you REALLY take a look at a history of my posts over the years you would see I have never had a problem with being corrected. I CERTAINLY don't know all there is about car audio and I am NOT an electrical expert. But it was A) the rudeness that often accompanied Matt's corrections and B) the corrections that did not change the nature of the advice (what I would call nitpicking, not crossing the "T"'s and dotting the "I"'s) that got under my skin. And, look, I'm the first one to admit it is MY PROBLEM. I hate rudeness and I hate being "badgered". And what I saw out of Matt was often COMPLETELY POINTLESS badgering (as opposed to correcting bad advice or completely misstating a principle or something of that nature). So I blocked him. It's totally my issue. If you, Howdy, see no problem with Matt, cool. I am not trying to get anyone else to join in on my bandwagon. Honestly, Howdy, Matt got under my skin WAY more than you ever do. Your insults and rudeness are so over the top (like those cracks about my wife) that it's more funny than anything else. Also, Howdy, YOU DO have a sense of humor (Matt had no discernable sense of humor as far as I could tell). We all know how you feel about repetitive questions on RAC, how you can "tell it like you see it" sometimes, and that's fine with me. In fact, my ONLY concern with some of your posts is that you scare the noobs away. And that's not good. It's similar to my concern that some noob might take Bob's electrical advice and blow his car up. MOSFET > This is my take on this topic. Some people just can't stand the idea of being > wrong and they feel very intimidated when someone tries to correct them. Mark [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > > >old-boys' club, it will stagnate and die before long. I don't take anyone's side, I have never been a team player. I know that I'm not very noob friendly that's just the way that I am. For what it's worth, I don't think that blocking people is the answer to anything, but you have the right to deal with things whatever way you see fit. All the power to you. I think that you take rac way too seriously. Matt's posts may or may not have a bearing on the advice given, I don't know, but do they not add to the advise given? For any noob that has to be worth something. It's an open forum and people will do what they will, like it or not and people that don't like what they see have two options, they can deal with what is going on or they can simply walk away. Rac will always be what people bring to it positive or negative, there is no way to control it or shape it. If you want control it does not take much to start a registered car audio forum where you can ban and/or delete anything that you don't agree with. Not sure how many members it will have with that kind of a iron hand, but it's an option. I personally like the idea of information that is not subject to censorship. As for the noobs that may damage their cars or gear because of bob's great advice is not your responsibility and as long as it wasn't your advice that did the damage you should be able to sleep at night just fine. Why you feel that you have to be people's guardian in here is beyond me, other then taking this too seriously. Really it's not your fault if some noob comes in here and takes some moron's advice without a grain of salt and does damage. Free advice is worth nothing and it should be treated as such. >Well, the thing with Matt's corrections is that what I saw was corrections >that had no bearing on the advice given. I have ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM with [quoted text clipped - 98 lines] >> > >> >old-boys' club, it will stagnate and die before long. Howdy, I HONESTLY can't figure you out. The tone of that entire message is that we all shouldn't give a sh.t what's posted here and if someone gives bad advice and blows their car up, OH WELL, TOUGH LUCK, SUCKER! And yet, you so very often give good, thoughtful advice to folks. I REALLY don't get it. You give advice LIKE YOU REALLY DO CARE. You have given ME excellent advice when I was working on that Clarion EQ. As Tony said, you REALLY ARE like a Jekyll and Hyde. Sometimes you seem to care very much. Other times your attitude is that you don't give a sh.t about RAC or anything. MOSFET > I don't take anyone's side, I have never been a team player. I know that I'm > not very noob friendly that's just the way that I am. For what it's worth, I [quoted text clipped - 121 lines] > >> > > >> >old-boys' club, it will stagnate and die before long. You can't stop anyone in here from going ill advice. Whether I give a sh.t or not has nothing to do with it, unless you are willing to monitor every thread on here day and night and counter post all ill advice given there is nothing that you can do on here to avoid bad advice. I can't afford sit on rac and monitor all new posts every 5 minutes 24 hours a day nor do I want to even if I could. I'm not sure how much you know about computing and the internet but it seems that you don't understand the limitations of your surroundings. There is a bob in every group, there have been many bob's have come and gone on rac also. You can't avoid it. Why burden yourself with something that you can't control? >Howdy, I HONESTLY can't figure you out. > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >MOSFET Howdy, you COMPLETELY missed the point of my post. I wasn't talking about monitoring trolls. I was talking ABOUT YOU (reread it, why don't you). You said: "I'm not very noob friendly that's just the way that I am" and "Free advice is worth nothing and it should be treated as such." AND YET, I have seen you invest A HELL OF A LOT OF YOUR TIME on good, thoughtful advice. It must be worth SOMETHING to you (otherwise why the hell would you do it) and worth something to the people who receive it and gain from it (as I have, it was CERTAINLY worth something to me). And, you are often VERY HELPFUL to newbies. You see my point? Your words don't exactly match your actions or more precisely, it's like you are two different people. Again, my MAIN point (if you reread my post) was that I can't figure you out. I wonder what you're like in person? Hmmmm...... MOSFET > You can't stop anyone in here from going ill advice. Whether I give a sh.t or > not has nothing to do with it, unless you are willing to monitor every thread [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > > >MOSFET I'm not two different people, in fact I've been told that I'm a quiet person. I'm a two hold type of person and always try my best to be whether it's in a positive or negative nature. What I mean by that is this, if you're nice to me I'll try to be twice as nice to you in return. Loan me $5 and I'll repay the loan with a $10, sh.t on me and I'll piss and sh.t on you, ballbat my windshield and I'll ballbat every window in your car. I think that you get the idea. Does my personality make me a bully or a nice guy, I guess that all depends on side of the fence you're standing on and what mode my surroundings place me in. Nice guy or an a.shole, I always try my best to be twice the person as the person that I'm dealing with. If there is anything that I have leaned, it would be that you don't get anywhere in life with a.sholes by being a nice guy nor do you get anywhere in life being an a.shole to nice people. >Howdy, you COMPLETELY missed the point of my post. I wasn't talking about >monitoring trolls. [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] >> > >> >MOSFET > I'm not two different people, in fact I've been told that I'm a quiet person. > I'm a two hold type of person and always try my best to be whether it's in a [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > leaned, it would be that you don't get anywhere in life with a.sholes by being > a nice guy nor do you get anywhere in life being an a.shole to nice people. Give it up, man. Nick doesn't understand that some people actually have PERSONALITIES; that most of use are actually influenced by having lives outside Usenet, and that the moods induced by happenings in those lives can actually sometimes affect how we deal with things in discussion forums. If there is anything that I have > leaned, it would be that you don't get anywhere in life with a.sholes by being > a nice guy nor do you get anywhere in life being an a.shole to nice people. I like that. There's a nice symmetry to that philosophy. And you certainly DO seem to live by that credo. Though you did go a little too far with the car-sales stunt. ;) You certainly have made this forum more interesting. I will give you that. Take care, Nick > You can't stop anyone in here from going ill advice. Whether I give a sh.t or > not has nothing to do with it, unless you are willing to monitor every thread [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > also. You can't avoid it. Why burden yourself with something that you can't > control? It's clear that MOSFET's problem is that he assumes everyone should behave exactly like him. You should respond to posts in the same manner as him, you should treat everyone else the way he does, because he's got it all figured out, and you should "get" his sense of humor even though he may not "get" yours. If you don't behave and respond as he expects or thinks you should, he decides you're an a.shole, that you have an attitude problem, etc. He then decides that he should be able to get you to see things his way by being condescending ("I really appreciate your advice, I've learned a lot from you, BUT..." as he then tells you how he thinks you should act). Oddly enough, he didn't seem to really have an issue with me until I told him to shut up about his issues with you, posting in here constantly with his "Look what Howdy did to me today!" whining. Apparently I have a "bad attitude" for thinkin that that sort of crap doesn't belong here. Ever since then, it's been full-on with the condescending pandering. Of course, now that he's blocked me, he'll never get to read this amazing insight I've had. That's fine, I have no interest in any kind of exchange with him. >>Howdy, I HONESTLY can't figure you out. >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> >>MOSFET > Of course, now that he's blocked me, he'll never get to read this amazing > insight I've had. That's fine, I have no interest in any kind of exchange with him. Ha ha, I did read it. I unblocked you just for kicks. AND IT WAS A KICK!!! LOL Get over me, Man. Geez...... This is TOOOOO FUNNNNNYYYY!!! You realize you are doing EXACTLY what you complain in your posts I do (complain about people). It's so damn ironic. Nick >>Of course, now that he's blocked me, he'll never get to read this amazing >>insight I've had. That's fine, I have no interest in any kind of exchange [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > This is TOOOOO FUNNNNNYYYY!!! You realize you are doing EXACTLY what you > complain in your posts I do (complain about people). It's so damn ironic. My, you are a MOODY BITCH, aren't you? Pity Nick won't actually get to read this... > Howdy, I HONESTLY can't figure you out. Then why do you continue to try? > The tone of that entire message is that we all shouldn't give a sh.t what's > posted here and if someone gives bad advice and blows their car up, OH WELL, > TOUGH LUCK, SUCKER! You seem to be the only one that reads that... > As Tony said, you REALLY ARE like a Jekyll and Hyde. Look who's talking (aimed at Nick, not Tony). > Sometimes you seem to care very much. Other times your attitude is that > you don't give a sh.t about RAC or anything. I don't know where you come up with that. Participating here should be like sitting around in Starbucks shooting the sh.t with shop talk. Sometimes calm and relaxed, sometimes heated - hell, even the best of friends argue sometimes - but in the end, it's just a diversion; it's not life-and-death. Perhaps the rest of us just don't see RAC as a matter of life and death the way you do. > MOSFET > [quoted text clipped - 304 lines] >>> >>>>>old-boys' club, it will stagnate and die before long. No, WAIT, THREE posts complaining about me and how I complain about people!! This is CLASSIC!!! Boy, I sure am a whiner, aren't I? WOW! I must have made quite an impression on you, Matt. Take care, back on my blocked list you go..... Nick > Pity Nick won't actually get to read this... > [quoted text clipped - 333 lines] > >>> > >>>>>old-boys' club, it will stagnate and die before long. I don't care if everyone blocks me, I still have my friend Bob to chat with when I figure out just what he's saying and their is alway my little yappy chiwawa Tony Fernandes.LOL >Pity Nick won't actually get to read this... > [quoted text clipped - 335 lines] >>>> >>>>>>old-boys' club, it will stagnate and die before long. > I don't care if everyone blocks me, I still have my friend Bob to chat with > when I figure out just what he's saying LOL So true. I don't think an Elementary Nurses Office has this much whining after a hard recess. I think we should change the name from R.A.C. to Whats Up My a.s For The Week. > I don't think an Elementary Nurses Office has this much whining after > a hard recess. > I think we should change the name from R.A.C. to Whats Up My a.s For > The Week. HAHAHAHAAHAHAH!!! >>Adding a crossover will change the load the amp sees, as has >>already been noted. > > I assume when you say that a crossover changes the load the amp > sees, you mean it increases the impedence, correct? Not necessarily. Any speaker or crossover presents a varying impedence depending on the frequency; it's how crossovers work, and it's the nature of how speakers behave. A simple capacitor in line with a tweeter will show increased impedence below the cutoff point, but one involving a coil or multiple coils will present a less varying, more stable load that may be higher OR lower than the speaker. >>In general, as long as your amp's output isn't rated SEVERELY >>higher than your speakers' capabilities, you have little to [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > amp with a power rating between 100 wrms - 150 wrms per channel, > but no more than that. I just prefer being safe rather than sorry. Sounds reasonable. > Let's say I have a pair of speakers that can handle 100 WRMS each. > What would be better for these speakers: an amp that can deliver > 100 WRMS per channel, or an amp that can deliver 125 WRMS per > channel? Take into consideration that the system is playing at full > volume. Full volume. You cannot play at full volume. You always play (well should) at a level below clipping. This is usually very crude by ear. If your playing below clipping you may be putting out maybe 1/4 full power . Having more power than necessary helps prevent clipping. Unless you have a clipping indicator in clear visability, you cannot play at "full power". Well at least in principal. greg Or you maybe at 3/4 of full power before clipping. So many amps and charging systems, anyone else care to pull a clipping ratio out of their a.s? >> Let's say I have a pair of speakers that can handle 100 WRMS each. >> What would be better for these speakers: an amp that can deliver [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >greg >Or you maybe at 3/4 of full power before clipping. So many amps and charging >systems, anyone else care to pull a clipping ratio out of their a.s? Another thing. Unless you have a linear volume control, you can't even begin to get any kind of "power control'. Attenuators move in steps of 2, 3, and 6 dB on the head units. If you were one 2 dB step down from clipping at 100 watts, you would have about 67 watts. One step up would be 150 watts. greg >>> Let's say I have a pair of speakers that can handle 100 WRMS each. >>> What would be better for these speakers: an amp that can deliver [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> >>greg >>Or you maybe at 3/4 of full power before clipping. So many amps and charging >>systems, anyone else care to pull a clipping ratio out of their a.s? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > of 2, 3, and 6 dB on the head units. If you were one 2 dB step down from clipping at > 100 watts, you would have about 67 watts. One step up would be 150 watts. Ahhh, I love my ancient Alpine HU with real ANALOG audio controls :) |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.