Power Question for Experts
Printed From: the12volt.com
Forum Name: Car Audio
Forum Discription: Car Stereos, Amplifiers, Crossovers, Processors, Speakers, Subwoofers, etc.
URL: https://www.the12volt.com/installbay/forum_posts.asp?tid=54671
Printed Date: April 28, 2024 at 3:19 PM
Topic: Power Question for Experts
Posted By: kfr01
Subject: Power Question for Experts
Date Posted: April 26, 2005 at 3:14 PM
DYohn, Haemphyst, others.... I was browsing around the other day and ran into this thread: https://www.audiocircle.com/circles/viewtopic.php?t=18159 I share a logical path with the original poster. It just doesn't seem like a lot of power is necessary in a normal sized room for a person with moderate listening levels. The Bryston rep's response leads me to believe that even at moderate listening levels additional distortion will be introduced during very brief dynamic peaks. Is this a bit of fluff to sell more 4BSST's, or what? I'm having trouble believing someone like me - that really never pushes his speakers, needs more than 50wpc or so. The post above: fluff? truth? is the difference audible? ------------- New Project: 2003 Pathfinder
Replies:
Posted By: tcss
Date Posted: April 26, 2005 at 5:01 PM
If your looking at producing pink noise your logic is valid. However if his 20db or more peaks argument is true ( which it is ) then it makes sense. For every 3db increase in volume, power must be doubled. So if you increase volume 21db your power needs go from 1 watt, to 2, to 4, to 8, to 16, to 32, to 64 watts to achieve this increase. Add on the extra 6 db for distance increase and off axis increase and your 64 watt peaks increase to 256 watt peaks. This is what is so frustrating about trying to explain to a customer that going from that 250 RMS amp to that 500 RMS amp will NOT give him twice the volume, only three db on his volume control. The other positive about using more powerful amps is that even at medium volume listening they are loafing. They're at their lowest THD numbers and best S/N numbers. The drawback? Breaking the piggy bank!
Posted By: kfr01
Date Posted: April 26, 2005 at 7:28 PM
Alright, but wait a second. Say I'm listening at to something averaging 86db with a watt. What music jumps 20db up from that average? 106db is really freaking loud. Is there some material out there I don't know about? Or do I just not notice because the jump is so brief? Also, don't much smaller amplifiers (rms wise) also have "peak capability?" Doesn't this peak capability allow them to handle these very brief bumps in power? If this is true, is the only real benefit to a 150wpc amplifier to ensure constant SNR / THD numbers even during those peaks?
(not trying to argue, just trying to understand how much of a practical difference there is between a 150wpc amplifier and a 60wpc amplifier for moderate listeners)
-------------
New Project: 2003 Pathfinder
Posted By: tcss
Date Posted: April 26, 2005 at 7:57 PM
No Worries. I'm kinda an older guy myself and I most likely don't listen to my music any louder then you do. My home system has VERY inefficiant speakers ( DCM Time Windows and AR 12" subs ) I run it with a Luxman ( read Alpine ) pre amp power amp combo with wattage output meters. The amp is rated at 350 RMS X2 and when I get a wild hair up you know where, I can use all that power. Sustained bass notes ( pipe organ? ) will not be covered by peak power.
Posted By: lspker
Date Posted: April 26, 2005 at 8:59 PM
What you guys are talking about is dymanic head room. The ability of an amp to cleanly reproduce "peak" sounds. Most amps using a high speed switching power suppy cannot react fast enough for musical transitions. High quality amps will have 2 or 3 times power avalible to hit these peaks. Usually done by having more capacitants and bigger power supplies (higher cost), result no clipping. (Ever wonder why your Alpine v12 mids amp sounds better with a 1 farid cap attached). Easy way to tell is if the amp double its power output when impednce is haved. Most amps only increase 50-60%,( 100w @ 4ohm, 160 @ 2ohm) There are two solution if you building amps, build it right with big power supplies and caps, or use a bigger amp at lower levels. Personnely, the better built power supply sounds better even with less ulimate power.
Posted By: kfr01
Date Posted: April 26, 2005 at 9:13 PM
Hmm... Ok. I wonder if Haemphyst's friends at Harman have an opinion on this. Harman seems to favor the better built power supply with less ultimate power too. What I want to know is this. With most well-engineered cd's, how often do we experience these ~20db peaks in music? If often then 300wpc+ headroom starts making financial sense. If not often then it makes diminishing sense.
-------------
New Project: 2003 Pathfinder
Posted By: Poormanq45
Date Posted: April 26, 2005 at 9:59 PM
kfr01] wrote:
there some material out there I don't know about? Or do I just not notice because the jump is so brief?
You probably don't notice it's so loud because it is only sustained for usually less then a second. Note that a Popped Balloon can produce upwards of 150dB! kfr01] wrote:
lso, don't much smaller amplifiers (rms wise) also have "peak capability?" Doesn't this peak capability allow them to handle these very brief bumps in power?
Many descent quality amplifiers have the ability to put out peak power between 2 and 3 times the RMS rating. THD? THD and peak power don't really play well together. KFR01] wrote:
hat music jumps 20db up from that average?
Have you ever listened to any music that starts out kind of quiet and then all of a sudden a clash of the cymbal is heard(or some other high dB instrument) that really stands above/out from the rest of the music? This would be one case of a dynamic peak. -------------
Posted By: DYohn
Date Posted: April 26, 2005 at 10:25 PM
I didn't read the whole linked thread, but the input from tcss is 100% correct. A compact disk has a theoretical dynamic range of 90db, so it is possible for recorded music to introduce much more than a 20db increase in signal level. When CDs were introduced in 1980 the RIAA placed the standard recording level at 60db, leaving 30db of headroom. However, most CDs available today are recorded at 78 to 80db digital levels, leaving only 10-12db of headroom available on the CD for dynamic transients. This is a fairly recent phenomenon (last five years or so) and is why "modern" CDs sound so much hotter than older CDs. The trend to hotter recording levels seems driven by the proliferation of low-end (cheap) audio equipment. Kids what that thump and most consumers think louder is better, so when they can't spend the money to get proper gear, a +10db recording level helps make cheap crap sound "better." it's also why so many car manufacturers use 2-ohm OEM speakers: it makes the 12 watt HU amplifier operate at 24 watts and "man listen to that loud azz system!!" But I digress. i also favor "better built power supplies with less ultimate power." In fact, I prefer to operate all my amps at 8-ohms so they will be farther away from operational limits and S/N thresholds. But that's just me (and I'm probably older than all of you anyway.) :) ------------- Support the12volt.com
Posted By: kfr01
Date Posted: April 26, 2005 at 10:43 PM
Dyohn, thanks for weighing in. So, here's my question. As a fellow "crazy power is not necessary" audio guy, do you ever feel that you miss anything during these transients?
This is off topic as I'm really talking more about home audio here.
Basically I was thinking about buying one of these:
https://www.bryston.ca/b60_m.html
It seemed like a fantastic investment for 2-channel audio. 20 year transferable warranty, more power than mathematically I thought I'd ever need. Ultra clean. Small. Price isn't too crazy.
After hearing that statement from the "horse's mouth," so to speak, regarding power, I'm having second thoughts.
From the Bryson employee's post it seems like, money being not too large a hurdle, that 300wpc+ is the only "not messing around" solution. :-) True? False? How much, in your opinion, is there to gain sound quality wise, during these transients, comparing a similar quality 150wpc amplifier to a 300wpc+ amplifier?
Anyway, thanks for the input. That 10-12db of headroom is a lot less than 20. :-)
Incidentially, I respect your opinion quite a bit, so I'll ask another non-car audio question, if that's ok... what are your favorite bang/buck sound quality brands in home audio. I know you own sunfire. A hearty recommendation there? Those new Anthem amplifiers from paradigm look nice. That Bryston 20 year warranty calls my name for some reason.
-------------
New Project: 2003 Pathfinder
Posted By: haemphyst
Date Posted: April 26, 2005 at 11:19 PM
Interesting... (Sorry, I was not ignoring you, I was out celebrating my promotion with some friends...)
I am a fan, as most of you know, of "overpowering" my systems. There is NO substitute for headroom, wether it is mechanical (106dB efficient horn systems) or electrical (3kW on a 85dB efficient subwoofer).
(I may digress, but I am slightly inebriated, so bear with me, please...)
I am a fan of running an amplifier BELOW it's rated impedance i.e. 4 ohm rated, load it with 8 ohm speakers. This allows a lower THD, better S/N ratio, better damping, and better efficiency. It WILL hit you in the headroom arena, as you amplifier will be putting out less power (on an RMS basis) than it is spec'd for. This will mandate buying TWICE (at least) the power you are really looking for...
Bob Carver (of the TFM amplifier fame) really is responsible for my point of view. While developing his power supplies for his amplifiers, he was doing very secret experiments, (which later surfaced in some of the better audio magazines) as to how much power is REALLY necessary to reproduce a waveform from a loudspeaker. I cannot tell you WHERE I read them, (it was while I was in high school - a few years back) but he said that it takes at least than 3600 watts to reproduce (accurately) the "snip" of an ordinary pair of scissors. This was where his 1.0t amplifier came from. In Bob's words - "The last amplifier you will ever need." (Please note that he then developed the Amazing Loudspeaker system, with an efficieny rating of 81dB - they wanted a 1.0t bridged to each one!)
Much like horsepower in a car, you may never use it, but it's nice to have it. Beat 'em! I have 2.7kW running a single 12 in my trunk, and I have never needed more power. I usually run on the order of 100 to 150 watts to it, but because of the headroom available, I don't ever suffer clipping from the sub. Whether you are running CD or vinyl, (of which I posess plenty) there is really no substitute fo headroom.
Clipping is FAR more noticeable than you might think, even with VERY short durations. The more power you have, without exception, the lower your overall distortion will be.
Yes, 106dB is loud, but you cannot notice HOW loud it is until it plays for pretty significant periods of time. It is VERY important to have adequate headroom for these transient periods.
The current view at Harman is "What we have is good enough", but my buddy is trying to change all of that. the amplifiers from Harman are good pieces, but he does not care for where efficiency numbers are heading today. His goal is to produce higher efficiency with other specs remaining where they are right now - low Fs, high power, long throw, etc. Difficult at best, as we all know (with WHAT we know today) we always trade off extension for efficiency or efficency for extension. I am not at liberty to speak of what he is working on, but suffice to say, he is trying to fix what is wrong with loudspeaker technology today.
:::::EDIT:::::
I do VERY much like the Bryston gear, the old school Carver stuff is good, NAD "Power Envelope" stuff... Anything with Adcom on the front panel is still good gear (though not as good as it USED to be) The Sunfire amps are top notch, and YBA is nothing short of the BEST solid state power amp I have ever heard in my LIFE... but VERY expendy.
-------------
It all reminds me of something that Molière once said to Guy de Maupassant at a café in Vienna: "That's nice. You should write it down."
Posted By: Poormanq45
Date Posted: April 26, 2005 at 11:28 PM
haemphyst wrote:
I am a fan of running an amplifier BELOW it's rated impedance i.e. 4 ohm rated, load it with 8 ohm speakers. This allows a lower THD, better S/N ratio, better damping, and better efficiency. It WILL hit you in the headroom arena, as you amplifier will be putting out less power (on an RMS basis) than it is spec'd for. This will mandate buying TWICE (at least) the power you are really looking for...
ACtually wouldn't running a higher Ohm load INCREASE the headroom? I mean, you're running an RMS power half(8 Ohms) that of 4ohms, but the amplifier still has the potential to put out twice the RMS power, if it is rated for 4 Ohms.
haemphyst wrote:
Bob Carver (of the TFM amplifier fame) really is responsible for my point of view. While developing his power supplies for his amplifiers, he was doing very secret experiments, (which later surfaced in some of the better audio magazines) as to how much power is REALLY necessary to reproduce a waveform from a loudspeaker. I cannot tell you WHERE I read them, (it was while I was in high school - a few years back) but he said that it takes at least than 3600 watts to reproduce (accurately) the "snip" of an ordinary pair of scissors. This was where his 1.0t amplifier came from. In Bob's words - "The last amplifier you will ever need." (Please note that he then developed the Amazing Loudspeaker system, with an efficieny rating of 81dB - they wanted a 1.0t bridged to each one!)
That just seems dumb. WHy not design the speakers to be more efficient rather then increasing the power? -------------
Posted By: haemphyst
Date Posted: April 27, 2005 at 12:28 AM
No, because you are running a higher voltage, WITHOUT the need for more current. The headroom is decreased, because your amplifier is only capable of producing ONE HALF the potential output power - 125w vs 250w (just example numbers) Without the LOAD, the current cannot (or will not) flow, this nails the headroom in the ass! Remember power (w) equals voltage (v) times current (i). Without current, there is no power. The current demand CANNOT be equal into two loads... (without a doubling of voltage to push the current up) 8ohms will allow only one half the current through it as a 4 ohm load.
Yes, it IS dumb, this is why I mentioned it. When somebody says something to the effect of "this is the last balh blah you will ever need" and then builds something that needs TWO of blah blah, yeah it's dumb, and self-defeating...
-------------
It all reminds me of something that Molière once said to Guy de Maupassant at a café in Vienna: "That's nice. You should write it down."
Posted By: Steven Kephart
Date Posted: April 27, 2005 at 1:22 AM
haemphyst wrote:
Bob Carver (of the TFM amplifier fame) really is responsible for my point of view. While developing his power supplies for his amplifiers, he was doing very secret experiments, (which later surfaced in some of the better audio magazines) as to how much power is REALLY necessary to reproduce a waveform from a loudspeaker. I cannot tell you WHERE I read them, (it was while I was in high school - a few years back) but he said that it takes at least than 3600 watts to reproduce (accurately) the "snip" of an ordinary pair of scissors. This was where his 1.0t amplifier came from. In Bob's words - "The last amplifier you will ever need." (Please note that he then developed the Amazing Loudspeaker system, with an efficieny rating of 81dB - they wanted a 1.0t bridged to each one!)
It's been a LONG time since I've read it, but that sounds similar to what was in his True Signature subwoofer white paper. It's where he was trying to explain how his amplifier produces 3600 watts of power.
haemphyst wrote:
The current view at Harman is "What we have is good enough", but my buddy is trying to change all of that. the amplifiers from Harman are good pieces, but he does not care for where efficiency numbers are heading today. His goal is to produce higher efficiency with other specs remaining where they are right now - low Fs, high power, long throw, etc. Difficult at best, as we all know (with WHAT we know today) we always trade off extension for efficiency or efficency for extension. I am not at liberty to speak of what he is working on, but suffice to say, he is trying to fix what is wrong with loudspeaker technology today.
I don't know if I would consider lower efficiency a bad thing. Consumers are demanding smaller enclosures without giving up low end extention. You MUST give up efficiency to do this based on Hoffmans Iron Law. But since the cost of power is getting lower, it isn't a bad thing. (BTW, I love my HK receiver) My boss was designing a crossover for a coaxial speaker for a customer last week. He did what he could with the crossover, but even still there was a large and wide dip in the upper frequency response. It made the speaker lose a lot of crispness, and made it sound thin. He could have fixed that by dropping the rest of the speakers response to match the dip. But that would drop the speakers efficiency too much which the customer wouldn't want. So in the name of efficiency, we had to give up the quality of sound. That's like Bill Gates working by candle light because he wants to save money on electricity. BTW Dave, congratulations on the promotion. If you ever find yourself up here in Seattle, you MUST stop on by. It was great meeting you at CES, but it was way too short. Steven Kephart Adire Audio -------------
Posted By: DYohn
Date Posted: April 27, 2005 at 8:41 AM
Fun thread. OK, brands first: kfr01, for surprisingly good sounding and well designed gear on a reasonable budget, look at Outlaw Audio. Their HT preamp is superb, and their amps are very good at a nice price point. I also really like Rotel and want to try out their new HT receiver soon. Bryson makes some nice amplifiers but are not not in the top tier IMO for their cost. If you are really serious about clean power and want a stack of seperate solid state amps, look at the pro lines from QSC, Crest, BGW or Crown. Back to HT, for a few dollars more you can't go wrong with B&K. There are of course the super expensive esoteric lines like Krell, Levinson etc. but I don't think that's what this thread is about. The Anthem line is nice although Paradigm's pre-amps are a but thin sounding to me. In the more commercial receiver lineup HK is probably tops in terms of SQ, and as far as good quality and plenty of flexibility you can't go wrong with one of the better models from one of the big three: Yamaha, Denon/Onkyo, or Pioneer Elite. I have always really liked Bob Carver's amplifier designs. I still use one of his 33-year old Phase Linear class A amps for my stereo. Speaking of inefficiency, you can fry eggs on it after a few hours, but it is clean and I have tested it at 470 watts without clipping and at 1% THD. I have one of the Carver 400 watt mono magnetic power amps which was a nice toy but the power supply died and I never got around to fixing it so it's now a very heavy paperweight. I really love the sound of my Sunfire gear and think the Theatre Grand preamp is killer, but Sunfire has been plagued with lots of quality control problems in the past few years. I also used to run the "Ultimate Receiver" ans while it sounded great, it was pretty hard to set up and use and Sunfire kept issuing software and firmware updates which was annoying, which is why I went back to seperates. Power. For most home theatre or stereo listening (unless you have a really large room) 100 watts per channel of clean power is all the average person will ever really use. Subwoofer amps can stand to be larger, in the 300 watt range, since it simply requires more power to push larger soundwaves around. Now, that does not mean that 100 watts per channel is all the amplifier you might need, just that most folks are unlikely to use more than that (unless they are running really inefficient speakers.) Headroom is a good thing, so sizing your amp with at least 25% head room is wise. The person who said 300 wpc is the best setup is neither right nor wrong as it is totally dependent on the application. Speaker efficiency is overrated IMO as a criteria for selection... Here's a rule of thumb for you. Whenever a manufacturer rep tells you that you absolutely need something, and then backs it up with scientific sounding arguements, and then proceeds to show you how they have EXACTLY the right gear to solve the problem, beware. I cannot tell you how many spurious arguments I have heard exactly like that. The truth more often than not is NOT that the gear was created to solve a "problem" but the argument about the "problem" or the "need" was developed AFTER the gear was created to justify the cost of the gear. it can be a sales tactic that people inside the company begin to believe as some kind of "truth." I saw it at Creative Labs all the time when I was there. I need coffee, it's early here in CA. More later.  ------------- Support the12volt.com
Posted By: tcss
Date Posted: April 27, 2005 at 12:50 PM
Great stuff guys. I love this forum because even an old fart like me learns something! Everybody have a great day. Bob
Posted By: Poormanq45
Date Posted: April 27, 2005 at 2:07 PM
Stephen wrote:
My boss was designing a crossover for a coaxial speaker for a customer last week. He did what he could with the crossover, but even still there was a large and wide dip in the upper frequency response. It made the speaker lose a lot of crispness, and made it sound thin. He could have fixed that by dropping the rest of the speakers response to match the dip. But that would drop the speakers efficiency too much which the customer wouldn't want. So in the name of efficiency, we had to give up the quality of sound.
Why didn't he integrate an equalizer right into the crossover? I know that this would have taxed the amplifier more, but it would smooth out the dip -------------
Posted By: haemphyst
Date Posted: April 27, 2005 at 3:35 PM
Poormanq45 wrote:
Stephen wrote:
My boss was designing a crossover for a coaxial speaker for a customer last week. He did what he could with the crossover, but even still there was a large and wide dip in the upper frequency response. It made the speaker lose a lot of crispness, and made it sound thin. He could have fixed that by dropping the rest of the speakers response to match the dip. But that would drop the speakers efficiency too much which the customer wouldn't want. So in the name of efficiency, we had to give up the quality of sound.
Why didn't he integrate an equalizer right into the crossover? I know that this would have taxed the amplifier more, but it would smooth out the dip
...because once the information is gone, it can't be recovered... You CAN lower the levels of the REST of the drivers, to bring everything else BACK to the same level, but a dip can't be recovered. Gain is a bad thing, especially if you are in a slightly power limited instance... Always CUT, NEVER boost. A good credo. Additionally, if the dip is attributed to a sound-power issue, NO AMOUNT of EQ will ever bring it back. The constructive/destructive interference of the radiation pattern from the drivers is what is causing this, and it cannot be fixed, except with the PHYSICAL PLACEMENT of the drivers relative to one another...
Another thing that MAY have factored in was the off-axis response of this system. Stephen didn't say whether this was an on or off axis response thing. Stephen, was this a co-axial, or uni-axial system? CO, being the tweeter on a stalk in the middle, and UNI being similar to the KEF uni-Q systems of old, with the tweeter buried in the woofer voice coil. Co-axial systems suffer very badly from timing issues, simply due to the distance of the tweeter from the woofer. It can be fixed, but it is usually more effort, and more expense than would be a good quality component set. Was the dip attributable to the effective frequency response of the tweeter, or was it a phase issue? Interesting... ------------- It all reminds me of something that Molière once said to Guy de Maupassant at a café in Vienna: "That's nice. You should write it down."
Posted By: Steven Kephart
Date Posted: April 27, 2005 at 3:53 PM
I don't want to say exactly which speaker it actually is because I can't be seen as talking bad about another company.  So I will provide hints for someone to figure out. It is a coaxial speaker with the tweeters motor inductively coupled, is pretty much water proof, and is really easy to poke a hole into the cone when mounting it for testing purposes (damnit). I do not know if the voice coils are coincident or not. Steven Kephart Adire Audio -------------
Posted By: gus1
Date Posted: April 27, 2005 at 6:13 PM
I'll jump in here as well. I have always favoured headroom. It's good, lets things breathe appropriately. I tend to follow a 2xRMS rule on anything I own (up to a point... but I'll get there in a sec). You will do a lot less damage with an oversized amp running well out of it's danger zone than an amp that is sitting at 80% of it's capacity 95% of the time. For instance. I own a PA company. We do some big shows, and we have big power. Our racks will do an easy 10k RMS in the comfort zone. No red lights, maybe the occasional hit into the limiters on the sub channels once in a while, but no biggie. Now, the sub amps I am currently running are rated at 2,500 RMS/ch into 4 ohms. Each channel is connected to a single 2x18" box that has a program rating of 1200 or so watts RMS. Even though the box "could" get easily twice it's RMS rating at any given time, I know the boxes aren't in danger due to the fact the amps are operating in their comfort zone, out of clipping range. (I wouldn't want to clip these things.... rumor has it they will do upwards of 4k/ch burst... yeouch. Explains the 30A plug on them...)
What does this mean??? Buy the best, and more importantly most power you can afford. I would kill to have a schwack of 4B's in my house. Very graceful sounding amp, not too easy to clip, and enough headroom to satisfy most people (I know of a company not too far from here that has like 16 of 'em driving a monitor rig. They are soo damn smooth on those JBL horns.) Yeah, bit spendy, but you get what you pay for. There are also excellent offerings from Crest, QSC, Rotel, YBA, and you can't go wrong with an old pair of the Denon Monoblocks.
Remember... doubling your power may not necessarily make it "louder"..... but you definately gain headroom.
My $0.02 rambling cents before GST and PST
Gus
PS: I heard Bryston upped the warranty to 25 years... not enough warranty work I guess. Unconditional, transferrable, no questions asked.
-------------
Wherever I go, that is where I end up......
Posted By: kfr01
Date Posted: April 27, 2005 at 8:25 PM
Great feedback everyone. Thank you all. Congratulations on the promotion Haemphyst.
So, with the proliferation of all these new amplifier technologies that promise to reduce cost, does it not make sense to make an amplifier investment right now? Will technology and prices have "settled" more in a couple years?
-------------
New Project: 2003 Pathfinder
Posted By: haemphyst
Date Posted: April 27, 2005 at 11:37 PM
kfr01] wrote:
Great feedback everyone. Thank you all. Congratulations on the promotion Haemphyst.
Thanks... I'm still pretty jazzed about it! 
kfr01] wrote:
o, with the proliferation of all these new amplifier technologies that promise to reduce cost, does it not make sense to make an amplifier investment right now? Will technology and prices have "settled" more in a couple years?
Sadly, like computers, MOST electronics follow the unspoken rule of obsolescence. "If you wait to buy the best, you'll never have anything." Buy the best you can afford TODAY, and stave off the obsolescence as long as possible. I can assure you, the Bryston gear is good stuff, and I for one would be VERY happy to own ANY of their gear. I might add, they have plate amps available as well... in 60, 120, and 300 watt flavors... I love the idea, and have been seriously considering a quad set of the 300 watters for quite some time now, for my living room system. ------------- It all reminds me of something that Molière once said to Guy de Maupassant at a café in Vienna: "That's nice. You should write it down."
Posted By: kfr01
Date Posted: April 28, 2005 at 12:05 AM
Those plate amps are quite interesting. When I first browsed those a couple months ago, for some reason I was reading "bandwidth limited" for subwoofers into the specs. They are the -same- technology in the large separate amps, it seems! Very interesting. I also like the idea. Hmm. Adire/Exodus KitLCR w/ 300w Bryton mono plates attached, anyone?
-------------
New Project: 2003 Pathfinder
Posted By: DYohn
Date Posted: May 01, 2005 at 10:03 AM
Steven Kephart wrote:
I don't want to say exactly which speaker it actually is because I can't be seen as talking bad about another company. So I will provide hints for someone to figure out. It is a coaxial speaker with the tweeters motor inductively coupled, is pretty much water proof, and is really easy to poke a hole into the cone when mounting it for testing purposes (damnit). I do not know if the voice coils are coincident or not. Steven Kephart Adire Audio
Hmm, was it a T17RE? ------------- Support the12volt.com
Posted By: Steven Kephart
Date Posted: May 01, 2005 at 12:15 PM
Nope. If it helps, it is rated at being able to be submerged in salt water for IIRC 19 hours. Oh, and the cone is red. Steven Kephart Adire Audio -------------
|