dynaudio 240
12-18-01, 10:23 PM
#1
Pole Position
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: ca
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dynaudio 240
OMG i just realized something..alright the dynaudio system 240 for the front comes with a crossover..
so does 1 channel from the amp go into the left crossover, and the crossover splits the wattage between the tweeter and the mid? (same for the right). if so, all id need is a 2 channel amp for the front..and i could find a much more powerful 2 channel amp than 4 channel amp...
so 2 channels with 300 watts each should be great..and 400 watts each should be perfect..
all this correct?
so does 1 channel from the amp go into the left crossover, and the crossover splits the wattage between the tweeter and the mid? (same for the right). if so, all id need is a 2 channel amp for the front..and i could find a much more powerful 2 channel amp than 4 channel amp...
so 2 channels with 300 watts each should be great..and 400 watts each should be perfect..
all this correct?
12-19-01, 09:13 AM
#2
Pole Position
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: ca
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
percy, thought u might want to see this review:
We used 200 watts per channel on the mid-woofers, and 75 watts each on the mid-domes and tweeters. The system was so clean, you could see your face in it. It went both loud enough and long enough to bring a visit and lecture from the building manager. Our crossover points were 70 Hz, 600 Hz, and 4 khz, all at 24 dB per octave. The mid-woofer went nicely down to the 70 Hz subwoofer crossover point at all except the highest levels, when we liked it a shade over 100 Hz to limit its excursion. We tested the System 340 with several subwoofers, and it never failed to integrate perfectly
the article went into saying that the combination of 6 and 12 dB filters (for xovers) may please hi-fi purists, but they feel it makes for a less than perfect crossover because sound quality and power handling both improve with steeper slopes.
this was under the reviews section on the dynaudio page.
now i found the answer to my first post:
"The passive x-over handles the signal splitting and delivery to the mid and tweets. "
so in the article they said they sent 200 to one speaker and 75 to another...did they use their own xovers and bi-amp it? not recomended, huh? (since our xover were made for our speakers)
what xover should i use for the rear mw160? is the one on the ppi sufficient, or should i get an extra xover for it? and what about for the sub?
and could u answer my original post on how much power to send them. before when i said i was getting a 4 channel and sending it 125 watts per channel, and u said that it should be alright, did u think i was just going to send 1 channel to one xover? cuz i was planning 1 channel per speaker..so it would really be 250 watts per xover. but 2 channel is better, so no bridging is required and theres stronger 2 ch amps out there, right? im thinking 300 watts per xover is recommended?
argh..another long post..let me know if these long posts annoy you..so if i write another one next time ill try to shrink it down as much as possible.
thanks
We used 200 watts per channel on the mid-woofers, and 75 watts each on the mid-domes and tweeters. The system was so clean, you could see your face in it. It went both loud enough and long enough to bring a visit and lecture from the building manager. Our crossover points were 70 Hz, 600 Hz, and 4 khz, all at 24 dB per octave. The mid-woofer went nicely down to the 70 Hz subwoofer crossover point at all except the highest levels, when we liked it a shade over 100 Hz to limit its excursion. We tested the System 340 with several subwoofers, and it never failed to integrate perfectly
the article went into saying that the combination of 6 and 12 dB filters (for xovers) may please hi-fi purists, but they feel it makes for a less than perfect crossover because sound quality and power handling both improve with steeper slopes.
this was under the reviews section on the dynaudio page.
now i found the answer to my first post:
"The passive x-over handles the signal splitting and delivery to the mid and tweets. "
so in the article they said they sent 200 to one speaker and 75 to another...did they use their own xovers and bi-amp it? not recomended, huh? (since our xover were made for our speakers)
what xover should i use for the rear mw160? is the one on the ppi sufficient, or should i get an extra xover for it? and what about for the sub?
and could u answer my original post on how much power to send them. before when i said i was getting a 4 channel and sending it 125 watts per channel, and u said that it should be alright, did u think i was just going to send 1 channel to one xover? cuz i was planning 1 channel per speaker..so it would really be 250 watts per xover. but 2 channel is better, so no bridging is required and theres stronger 2 ch amps out there, right? im thinking 300 watts per xover is recommended?
argh..another long post..let me know if these long posts annoy you..so if i write another one next time ill try to shrink it down as much as possible.
thanks
12-19-01, 03:53 PM
#3
Pole Position
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: California
Posts: 316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you are planning to have a pair of components in the front and two md160 in the rear and a sub...you'll need a five channel amp assuming you're using your passive crossovers for fronts...or if you want to get two amps (one 4 channel amp and a 2 channel bridged mono)
I'm sure you can use the crossovers from the PPI... use low pass for your rears and your sub...
100 watts for your components should be plenty...i really don't see why you would HAVE to go 200 watts...I think the reviewer you referred to biamped their system..i'm not sure how the crossover distributes the power and the impedance...but like I said feeding them 100 watts should be more than enough for practical uses
are you getting two amps or just one?
I'm sure you can use the crossovers from the PPI... use low pass for your rears and your sub...
100 watts for your components should be plenty...i really don't see why you would HAVE to go 200 watts...I think the reviewer you referred to biamped their system..i'm not sure how the crossover distributes the power and the impedance...but like I said feeding them 100 watts should be more than enough for practical uses
are you getting two amps or just one?
12-19-01, 07:59 PM
#4
Forum Administrator
iTrader: (2)
FierceGS,
I use a five channel amp (but a bit underpowered) for the same Dynaudio setup in my GS (240MK2 in front, MW160s in rear, JL sub).
I haven't looked a lot, but I have not seen as as many high powered 5 channel amps out there and you may be better off getting a beefy four channel and a mono for your sub.
I use a five channel amp (but a bit underpowered) for the same Dynaudio setup in my GS (240MK2 in front, MW160s in rear, JL sub).
I haven't looked a lot, but I have not seen as as many high powered 5 channel amps out there and you may be better off getting a beefy four channel and a mono for your sub.
Last edited by DaveGS4; 12-19-01 at 08:14 PM.
12-19-01, 08:52 PM
#5
Pole Position
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: ca
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
im definately using a different amp for the front and the rear. there arent really any high powered amps out there with that many channels..
since each side on the front is just considered 1 channel im planning on doing this:
2 channel amp for the front with about 300 watts a channel (ppi)
2 channel in the rear with 100-125 watts per channel (ppi)
mono amp with about 750 watts to my sub bridged (dei dclass)
well thats my plans for now..unless someone suggests otherwise and changes my mind..i have about 2 weeks until i buy them..
amlin..did the aliantes sub ever come through?
dave, how many watts per channel? and how do the dyns sound with the underpowering? like em? any regrets?
since each side on the front is just considered 1 channel im planning on doing this:
2 channel amp for the front with about 300 watts a channel (ppi)
2 channel in the rear with 100-125 watts per channel (ppi)
mono amp with about 750 watts to my sub bridged (dei dclass)
well thats my plans for now..unless someone suggests otherwise and changes my mind..i have about 2 weeks until i buy them..
amlin..did the aliantes sub ever come through?
dave, how many watts per channel? and how do the dyns sound with the underpowering? like em? any regrets?
12-19-01, 09:18 PM
#6
Moderator - Electronics Forum
[QUOTE]Originally posted by fierce gs
[B]percy, thought u might want to see this review:
We used 200 watts per channel on the mid-woofers, and 75 watts each on the mid-domes and tweeters. The system was so clean, you could see your face in it. It went both loud enough and long enough to bring a visit and lecture from the building manager. Our crossover points were 70 Hz, 600 Hz, and 4 khz, all at 24 dB per octave. The mid-woofer went nicely down to the 70 Hz subwoofer crossover point at all except the highest levels, when we liked it a shade over 100 Hz to limit its excursion. We tested the System 340 with several subwoofers, and it never failed to integrate perfectly
the article went into saying that the combination of 6 and 12 dB filters (for xovers) may please hi-fi purists, but they feel it makes for a less than perfect crossover because sound quality and power handling both improve with steeper slopes.
this was under the reviews section on the dynaudio page.
now i found the answer to my first post:
"The passive x-over handles the signal splitting and delivery to the mid and tweets. "
so in the article they said they sent 200 to one speaker and 75 to another...did they use their own xovers and bi-amp it? not recomended, huh? (since our xover were made for our speakers)
***
The nice thing about xovers is that if you keep around the same value you can use an electronic crossover or a custom made passive crossover. That's pretty much what they did...the electronic crossover. It's fairly easy. Going step by step here...
Feed the signal from the head unit to the processor/crossover.
Crossover divides the signal to your settings. Signal from the crossover is then fed into amp of your choice.
Amp does it's work, feeds the amplified power back to the speakers.
As long as the crossover settings are close to the speaker ratings, you should be fine. An active/electronic crossover is nice since you can change the frequency cutoff and slope to tailor it to your cars interior. You need some test equipment though. For one, your ears. Another...pink noise and an RTA (real time analyzer). Some installations may find that there is a dip between crossover points and they can overlap the points to fill in the missing frequency response. Lots of little tricks that you can do. As for their remark about 12 and 6db not being enough, I tend to agree with them. But it all depends on the situation and how it's tuned. No real general rule of thumb but they are right on the distortion increasing with lower order of crossover slopes. BUT, higher crossover slopes can cause "ringing" with quick level signals. I just RTA, then set the rest by ear.
___
what xover should i use for the rear mw160? is the one on the ppi sufficient, or should i get an extra xover for it? and what about for the sub?
***
The sub needs a xover so it doesn't play any of the high frequencies. The built in one for the PPI amp should work just fine. As for the rear MW160, you can run it at full range and it won't really hurt anything. Just make sure to have a crossover in place so it doesn't try to play the 20hz notes!
___
and could u answer my original post on how much power to send them. before when i said i was getting a 4 channel and sending it 125 watts per channel, and u said that it should be alright, did u think i was just going to send 1 channel to one xover? cuz i was planning 1 channel per speaker..so it would really be 250 watts per xover. but 2 channel is better, so no bridging is required and theres stronger 2 ch amps out there, right? im thinking 300 watts per xover is recommended?
***
Depends. How loud do you listen to your system? 125 watts will do plenty and there's enough headroom for the speakers to work with. I have 200 rms available with my setup but I rarely find myself using more than 10 watts at a time. I listen to it that quietly! But, it's nice to know the system has plenty of reserve. Your call on this one. 125 should be fine.
___
argh..another long post..let me know if these long posts annoy you..so if i write another one next time ill try to shrink it down as much as possible.
***
Hey, no problem. Here to learn, right?
___
Percy
[B]percy, thought u might want to see this review:
We used 200 watts per channel on the mid-woofers, and 75 watts each on the mid-domes and tweeters. The system was so clean, you could see your face in it. It went both loud enough and long enough to bring a visit and lecture from the building manager. Our crossover points were 70 Hz, 600 Hz, and 4 khz, all at 24 dB per octave. The mid-woofer went nicely down to the 70 Hz subwoofer crossover point at all except the highest levels, when we liked it a shade over 100 Hz to limit its excursion. We tested the System 340 with several subwoofers, and it never failed to integrate perfectly
the article went into saying that the combination of 6 and 12 dB filters (for xovers) may please hi-fi purists, but they feel it makes for a less than perfect crossover because sound quality and power handling both improve with steeper slopes.
this was under the reviews section on the dynaudio page.
now i found the answer to my first post:
"The passive x-over handles the signal splitting and delivery to the mid and tweets. "
so in the article they said they sent 200 to one speaker and 75 to another...did they use their own xovers and bi-amp it? not recomended, huh? (since our xover were made for our speakers)
***
The nice thing about xovers is that if you keep around the same value you can use an electronic crossover or a custom made passive crossover. That's pretty much what they did...the electronic crossover. It's fairly easy. Going step by step here...
Feed the signal from the head unit to the processor/crossover.
Crossover divides the signal to your settings. Signal from the crossover is then fed into amp of your choice.
Amp does it's work, feeds the amplified power back to the speakers.
As long as the crossover settings are close to the speaker ratings, you should be fine. An active/electronic crossover is nice since you can change the frequency cutoff and slope to tailor it to your cars interior. You need some test equipment though. For one, your ears. Another...pink noise and an RTA (real time analyzer). Some installations may find that there is a dip between crossover points and they can overlap the points to fill in the missing frequency response. Lots of little tricks that you can do. As for their remark about 12 and 6db not being enough, I tend to agree with them. But it all depends on the situation and how it's tuned. No real general rule of thumb but they are right on the distortion increasing with lower order of crossover slopes. BUT, higher crossover slopes can cause "ringing" with quick level signals. I just RTA, then set the rest by ear.
___
what xover should i use for the rear mw160? is the one on the ppi sufficient, or should i get an extra xover for it? and what about for the sub?
***
The sub needs a xover so it doesn't play any of the high frequencies. The built in one for the PPI amp should work just fine. As for the rear MW160, you can run it at full range and it won't really hurt anything. Just make sure to have a crossover in place so it doesn't try to play the 20hz notes!
___
and could u answer my original post on how much power to send them. before when i said i was getting a 4 channel and sending it 125 watts per channel, and u said that it should be alright, did u think i was just going to send 1 channel to one xover? cuz i was planning 1 channel per speaker..so it would really be 250 watts per xover. but 2 channel is better, so no bridging is required and theres stronger 2 ch amps out there, right? im thinking 300 watts per xover is recommended?
***
Depends. How loud do you listen to your system? 125 watts will do plenty and there's enough headroom for the speakers to work with. I have 200 rms available with my setup but I rarely find myself using more than 10 watts at a time. I listen to it that quietly! But, it's nice to know the system has plenty of reserve. Your call on this one. 125 should be fine.
___
argh..another long post..let me know if these long posts annoy you..so if i write another one next time ill try to shrink it down as much as possible.
***
Hey, no problem. Here to learn, right?
___
Percy
12-19-01, 11:38 PM
#7
Pole Position
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: California
Posts: 316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fierce,
Don't worry about the power ratings too much...I guarantee you 75 watts would be fine for you unless you max the volume out everytime you listen to your music...it's the quality of the amp that counts....Are you getting 3 amps just because you want 300 watts to your fronts? If that's the only reason I tell ya ...a 4x100 amp should be plenty...and a sub amp. But it's up to you...I like having fewer stuff to install..keep it simple...
I got my Aliantes two weeks ago...i built a box for it ...if you wanna see it it's here http://photos.yahoo.com/assaults
It sounds terrific.....although I'm not sure my enclosure size is perfect...A good enclosure is just as important as the sub itself if not more important...You can get away with building an enclosure that is only 5 inch in height
Percy,
Sorry I haven't gotten back to ya, I'm goign on vacation for 2 weeks and won't be home....I'll give you a mail when I come back....I still can't find a source for the RTA......Gonna have to rely on my radio shack ....
Don't worry about the power ratings too much...I guarantee you 75 watts would be fine for you unless you max the volume out everytime you listen to your music...it's the quality of the amp that counts....Are you getting 3 amps just because you want 300 watts to your fronts? If that's the only reason I tell ya ...a 4x100 amp should be plenty...and a sub amp. But it's up to you...I like having fewer stuff to install..keep it simple...
I got my Aliantes two weeks ago...i built a box for it ...if you wanna see it it's here http://photos.yahoo.com/assaults
It sounds terrific.....although I'm not sure my enclosure size is perfect...A good enclosure is just as important as the sub itself if not more important...You can get away with building an enclosure that is only 5 inch in height
Percy,
Sorry I haven't gotten back to ya, I'm goign on vacation for 2 weeks and won't be home....I'll give you a mail when I come back....I still can't find a source for the RTA......Gonna have to rely on my radio shack ....
Trending Topics
12-20-01, 10:47 AM
#8
Pole Position
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: ca
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTEAre you getting 3 amps just because you want 300 watts to your fronts? If that's the only reason I tell ya ...a 4x100 amp should be plenty...and a sub amp. But it's up to you...I like having fewer stuff to install..keep it simple...
[/QUOTE]
a 100 watt per channel, 4 channel amp for the fronts and rear would mean only about 50 watts each to the front components. and the rear would get 100 watts. thats kinda the opposite of how i want it. i want the fronts to have more power. and only 50 watts to each speaker in the front seems pretty weak to me. id at least want to send each one 100 watts, for a total of 200 watts to each xover. so thats why im going with 3 amps. as far as how loud i listen to my music, not that loud. but sometimes, i want it LOUD. like when im in the mood. and sometimes, just to show off..if i got some people in my car, many of them dont know anything about quality, and base it off how loud it could get..so if it means an extra $400, i think its well worth it. just wanted to know how much they could handle..because after an extent, the extra power will pointless. so i was just wondering where 300 watts per xover in the front would be on a scale..like would that be "OMG thats too much, waste of money", or "thats good for these speakers", or "average", etc etc.. just trying to get an idea of how well these components do with the higher power..and a little extra power is always good..wouldnt have to stress the amp as much and get less distortion..maybe 250 watts per xover is more realistic (125w each speaker) and 300 is just too much?
amlin, nice setup! nice and clean. i love it =)
i couldnt tell what you exactly did with the sub tho..seems like you didnt fire it straight thro the stock hole? (its facing trunk)..
[/QUOTE]
a 100 watt per channel, 4 channel amp for the fronts and rear would mean only about 50 watts each to the front components. and the rear would get 100 watts. thats kinda the opposite of how i want it. i want the fronts to have more power. and only 50 watts to each speaker in the front seems pretty weak to me. id at least want to send each one 100 watts, for a total of 200 watts to each xover. so thats why im going with 3 amps. as far as how loud i listen to my music, not that loud. but sometimes, i want it LOUD. like when im in the mood. and sometimes, just to show off..if i got some people in my car, many of them dont know anything about quality, and base it off how loud it could get..so if it means an extra $400, i think its well worth it. just wanted to know how much they could handle..because after an extent, the extra power will pointless. so i was just wondering where 300 watts per xover in the front would be on a scale..like would that be "OMG thats too much, waste of money", or "thats good for these speakers", or "average", etc etc.. just trying to get an idea of how well these components do with the higher power..and a little extra power is always good..wouldnt have to stress the amp as much and get less distortion..maybe 250 watts per xover is more realistic (125w each speaker) and 300 is just too much?
amlin, nice setup! nice and clean. i love it =)
i couldnt tell what you exactly did with the sub tho..seems like you didnt fire it straight thro the stock hole? (its facing trunk)..
12-20-01, 11:58 AM
#9
Lexus Fanatic
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: California
Posts: 6,084
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aw Percy, you are going to let that comment go by about listening at probably 10 watts and not have a discussion about volume and power? I understand if you don't want to open that one, the assumptions might tie some folks up in knots, but this thread seems to really cry out for it (especially clean amp power and speaker efficiency).
Ordered the LLCs from AudioLink today, nice people, and told them where the recommendation came from.
Ordered the LLCs from AudioLink today, nice people, and told them where the recommendation came from.
12-20-01, 02:07 PM
#10
Moderator - Electronics Forum
Ron,
Audiolink doesn't even know me! I've never ordered LLC's from them but I do know good audio gear when I see it.
As for volume and power...here goes.
Dyn MW160 rated at 88db/1watt per meter. At 2 watts it's pushing out 91db. 4 watts, 94db. 8 watts, 97db. 16 watts, 100db. 32 watts, 103db. 64 watts, 106db. 128 watts, 109db. 256 watts, 112db. For every doubling of wattage there is a 3db gain. So you can figure out where I listen to most of my music...at 97db or below. Most of the time it's at 0.1 or 1 watt which will translate to 85db to 89db.
113db is the loudest the Velodyne can handle due to the servo electronics. Anything above that will have more than 1 percent distortion. But I do have the dyns rigged for 200 wpc rms so it can do around 110+ db.
Percy
Audiolink doesn't even know me! I've never ordered LLC's from them but I do know good audio gear when I see it.
As for volume and power...here goes.
Dyn MW160 rated at 88db/1watt per meter. At 2 watts it's pushing out 91db. 4 watts, 94db. 8 watts, 97db. 16 watts, 100db. 32 watts, 103db. 64 watts, 106db. 128 watts, 109db. 256 watts, 112db. For every doubling of wattage there is a 3db gain. So you can figure out where I listen to most of my music...at 97db or below. Most of the time it's at 0.1 or 1 watt which will translate to 85db to 89db.
113db is the loudest the Velodyne can handle due to the servo electronics. Anything above that will have more than 1 percent distortion. But I do have the dyns rigged for 200 wpc rms so it can do around 110+ db.
Percy
12-20-01, 04:40 PM
#11
Lexus Fanatic
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: California
Posts: 6,084
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Percy - Larry Rich who is the guy who both returned e mails and answered the phone for the order, at least knows your first name now and ClubLexus. Whehter it sticks..... But for us non-fanatical upgraders with Lexi, it looks like LLCs are an inevitability. I hate the thought of feeding a Mac amp with a signal through some $8 LLC. Just as an aside, one of the Bose amps in my wife's Maxima went out and low and behold, AudioLink makes replacement Bose amps, are you clarevoyant or what? Don't know if I want to pop $130 for one amp or rip it all out but at least I know where to get an individual amp now.
Seems that when I spent a lot of time with db's and human ear response I remember that for the ear to recognize something as twice as loud took ten times the power which is sort of accomodated in the log nature of the db scale. I think this sort of matches your data on the dyns which must keep their efficiency relatively constant over the approved power band (wonder how many speakers that does not apply to?). I was just interested in this thread where 200 or so watts per channel is being talked about. Definitely going to get loud if that is the object but it won't be four times louder than a 50 watt/channel setup. Now if the objective is to reduce the drive on the amp to produce a cleaner signal I guess that is well and good but then it is worth looking at those Mac amp specs to see what you are paying for. Still ticked off with the stock 2 ohm speakers. Wonder how many OEMs use this trick to advertise a 200W stereo system? This probably isn't that interesting to everyone but thanks for the response.
Seems that when I spent a lot of time with db's and human ear response I remember that for the ear to recognize something as twice as loud took ten times the power which is sort of accomodated in the log nature of the db scale. I think this sort of matches your data on the dyns which must keep their efficiency relatively constant over the approved power band (wonder how many speakers that does not apply to?). I was just interested in this thread where 200 or so watts per channel is being talked about. Definitely going to get loud if that is the object but it won't be four times louder than a 50 watt/channel setup. Now if the objective is to reduce the drive on the amp to produce a cleaner signal I guess that is well and good but then it is worth looking at those Mac amp specs to see what you are paying for. Still ticked off with the stock 2 ohm speakers. Wonder how many OEMs use this trick to advertise a 200W stereo system? This probably isn't that interesting to everyone but thanks for the response.
12-20-01, 06:18 PM
#12
Pole Position
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: ca
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But I do have the dyns rigged for 200 wpc rms so it can do around 110+ db.
and you were talkin about how watts translate to db for the DYNS, and then u said when the VELODYNE distorts..then u said how much power your sending DYNS..did u mean dyns instead of velodyne? if not, when do the dyns begin to distort.
now from what your saying with the db increase, as we get into higher wattages, it gets harder and harder to make it louder. so im thinking 125 watts is perfect..anything over that does very little (requires waay more watts per db increase), therefore not worth the money in my opinion... would you agree on that? so therefore it would be wise to get 2 channels with 250 watts each for the front?
out of curiosity about how many watts go into each speaker for our stock system?
thanks,
allen
12-20-01, 08:01 PM
#13
Moderator - Electronics Forum
[QUOTE]Originally posted by RON430
[B]Percy - Larry Rich who is the guy who both returned e mails and answered the phone for the order, at least knows your first name now and ClubLexus. Whehter it sticks..... But for us non-fanatical upgraders with Lexi, it looks like LLCs are an inevitability. I hate the thought of feeding a Mac amp with a signal through some $8 LLC. Just as an aside, one of the Bose amps in my wife's Maxima went out and low and behold, AudioLink makes replacement Bose amps, are you clarevoyant or what? Don't know if I want to pop $130 for one amp or rip it all out but at least I know where to get an individual amp now.
Seems that when I spent a lot of time with db's and human ear response I remember that for the ear to recognize something as twice as loud took ten times the power which is sort of accomodated in the log nature of the db scale. I think this sort of matches your data on the dyns which must keep their efficiency relatively constant over the approved power band (wonder how many speakers that does not apply to?). I was just interested in this thread where 200 or so watts per channel is being talked about. Definitely going to get loud if that is the object but it won't be four times louder than a 50 watt/channel setup.
***
Ron, You're absolutely right. 50wpc vs 200 wpc isn't going to be 4 times as loud. 6db from the quick math. Plus the human ears are based on a log scale...same thing with our eyes. (for us camera buffs)
___
Now if the objective is to reduce the drive on the amp to produce a cleaner signal I guess that is well and good but then it is worth looking at those Mac amp specs to see what you are paying for.
***
The Mc's have always been rated VERY conservatively. When they claim 0.005 percent distortion, Ken C. Pohlman measured LESS than that number across the entire bandwidth of operation. S/N is still among the highest in the industry and, in fact, still holds the record of having the highest S/N, lowest THD + noise, highest channel seperation and underrating of power. 300 wpc to them means from 20-20khz, RMS at 12 volts, not at 14.4 or 16 like some others may measure. In reality, 300 wpc for Mc is 350+ in real life. They're that good. The other company worth looking into is Brax, though KCP did the measurements the same way as he did the Mc and Brax still didn't come out as well. 73db s/n and much higher distortion. Still, an excellent and overbuilt amp. My money goes to the Mc anyday, even if I started car audio SQ today.
___
Still ticked off with the stock 2 ohm speakers. Wonder how many OEMs use this trick to advertise a 200W stereo system?
***
Plenty. It's a number and it's good for marketing. Though they won't tell you up front that it's a 2 ohm or in the case of some Bose, a 1 ohm speaker. Plus that number is usually in PEAK rather than RMS. I usually multiply the peak number by .707 and that should give a ballpark of RMS wattage.
___
Percy
[B]Percy - Larry Rich who is the guy who both returned e mails and answered the phone for the order, at least knows your first name now and ClubLexus. Whehter it sticks..... But for us non-fanatical upgraders with Lexi, it looks like LLCs are an inevitability. I hate the thought of feeding a Mac amp with a signal through some $8 LLC. Just as an aside, one of the Bose amps in my wife's Maxima went out and low and behold, AudioLink makes replacement Bose amps, are you clarevoyant or what? Don't know if I want to pop $130 for one amp or rip it all out but at least I know where to get an individual amp now.
Seems that when I spent a lot of time with db's and human ear response I remember that for the ear to recognize something as twice as loud took ten times the power which is sort of accomodated in the log nature of the db scale. I think this sort of matches your data on the dyns which must keep their efficiency relatively constant over the approved power band (wonder how many speakers that does not apply to?). I was just interested in this thread where 200 or so watts per channel is being talked about. Definitely going to get loud if that is the object but it won't be four times louder than a 50 watt/channel setup.
***
Ron, You're absolutely right. 50wpc vs 200 wpc isn't going to be 4 times as loud. 6db from the quick math. Plus the human ears are based on a log scale...same thing with our eyes. (for us camera buffs)
___
Now if the objective is to reduce the drive on the amp to produce a cleaner signal I guess that is well and good but then it is worth looking at those Mac amp specs to see what you are paying for.
***
The Mc's have always been rated VERY conservatively. When they claim 0.005 percent distortion, Ken C. Pohlman measured LESS than that number across the entire bandwidth of operation. S/N is still among the highest in the industry and, in fact, still holds the record of having the highest S/N, lowest THD + noise, highest channel seperation and underrating of power. 300 wpc to them means from 20-20khz, RMS at 12 volts, not at 14.4 or 16 like some others may measure. In reality, 300 wpc for Mc is 350+ in real life. They're that good. The other company worth looking into is Brax, though KCP did the measurements the same way as he did the Mc and Brax still didn't come out as well. 73db s/n and much higher distortion. Still, an excellent and overbuilt amp. My money goes to the Mc anyday, even if I started car audio SQ today.
___
Still ticked off with the stock 2 ohm speakers. Wonder how many OEMs use this trick to advertise a 200W stereo system?
***
Plenty. It's a number and it's good for marketing. Though they won't tell you up front that it's a 2 ohm or in the case of some Bose, a 1 ohm speaker. Plus that number is usually in PEAK rather than RMS. I usually multiply the peak number by .707 and that should give a ballpark of RMS wattage.
___
Percy
Last edited by Percy; 12-21-01 at 07:06 AM.
12-20-01, 08:11 PM
#14
Moderator - Electronics Forum
[QUOTE]Originally posted by fierce gs
[B]
wpc means watts per channel? if so, you have 400 watts going to each xover? wow =O. percy whats your setup as far as your amps go. how many do you have, how many watts each, and how many channels on each, and what goes to what speakers.
***
WPC meaning Watts Per Channel...you got it. Actually I have a different setup. Low level signal goes into the crossover (electronic/McIntosh) and then from there it goes to the amp. Xover and EQ won't see any high levels of wattage, at least not with an active/electronic setup. Now if it's passive, then you're talking some major power going inside the xover. With passive (Dynaudio xover) the signal path is as follows. Head unit to amp. Amp to xover. Xover to speakers. The xover is already after the amp, thus the high level signal.
For my setup it's 100 wpc per tweeter (front 2), 200 wpc per front midwoofer, 100 wpc for each rear midwoofer and 300 wpc for the Vel. There's another 300 wpc channel that's not being used. I'm using the MC440M in a 4 channel configuration which will give it 100 wpc. Also using the MC4000M (big guy) in a 4 channel configuration. 200 watts x 2 and 300 watts x 2channels.
___
and you were talkin about how watts translate to db for the DYNS, and then u said when the VELODYNE distorts..then u said how much power your sending DYNS..did u mean dyns instead of velodyne? if not, when do the dyns begin to distort.
***
The Dyns will probably start hitting their limit at around 100db, but it all depends on the way they're mounted. If you're using strip caulk behind the baffle and it's an entirely sealed enclosure with ZERO air leaks, then you can pump more power into the speaker. With the doors that we have, the main air leak is in the holes of the door (for wiring fasteners/holders) and of course, the main window rail. Not a perfect seal, but it gets the job done. The suspension is fairly loose for the Dynaudio drivers and that's for automotive enviroment use. Better midbass response.
As for the Velodyne, 113db is their max limit due to the electronic servo controller. Any more than that and it will be higher than a 1 percent distortion.
___
now from what your saying with the db increase, as we get into higher wattages, it gets harder and harder to make it louder. so im thinking 125 watts is perfect..anything over that does very little (requires waay more watts per db increase), therefore not worth the money in my opinion... would you agree on that?
***
Being an SQ guy, yep. Whole heartedly agree!
___
so therefore it would be wise to get 2 channels with 250 watts each for the front?
***
It all depends on what you want. 250 is a nice number and you'll have plenty of headroom, but if I had a choice in a cleaner amp with slightly less wattage (100 wpc) then I'd go for the cleaner amp. Dynaudio speakers are extremely revealing of everything!
___
Percy
[B]
wpc means watts per channel? if so, you have 400 watts going to each xover? wow =O. percy whats your setup as far as your amps go. how many do you have, how many watts each, and how many channels on each, and what goes to what speakers.
***
WPC meaning Watts Per Channel...you got it. Actually I have a different setup. Low level signal goes into the crossover (electronic/McIntosh) and then from there it goes to the amp. Xover and EQ won't see any high levels of wattage, at least not with an active/electronic setup. Now if it's passive, then you're talking some major power going inside the xover. With passive (Dynaudio xover) the signal path is as follows. Head unit to amp. Amp to xover. Xover to speakers. The xover is already after the amp, thus the high level signal.
For my setup it's 100 wpc per tweeter (front 2), 200 wpc per front midwoofer, 100 wpc for each rear midwoofer and 300 wpc for the Vel. There's another 300 wpc channel that's not being used. I'm using the MC440M in a 4 channel configuration which will give it 100 wpc. Also using the MC4000M (big guy) in a 4 channel configuration. 200 watts x 2 and 300 watts x 2channels.
___
and you were talkin about how watts translate to db for the DYNS, and then u said when the VELODYNE distorts..then u said how much power your sending DYNS..did u mean dyns instead of velodyne? if not, when do the dyns begin to distort.
***
The Dyns will probably start hitting their limit at around 100db, but it all depends on the way they're mounted. If you're using strip caulk behind the baffle and it's an entirely sealed enclosure with ZERO air leaks, then you can pump more power into the speaker. With the doors that we have, the main air leak is in the holes of the door (for wiring fasteners/holders) and of course, the main window rail. Not a perfect seal, but it gets the job done. The suspension is fairly loose for the Dynaudio drivers and that's for automotive enviroment use. Better midbass response.
As for the Velodyne, 113db is their max limit due to the electronic servo controller. Any more than that and it will be higher than a 1 percent distortion.
___
now from what your saying with the db increase, as we get into higher wattages, it gets harder and harder to make it louder. so im thinking 125 watts is perfect..anything over that does very little (requires waay more watts per db increase), therefore not worth the money in my opinion... would you agree on that?
***
Being an SQ guy, yep. Whole heartedly agree!
___
so therefore it would be wise to get 2 channels with 250 watts each for the front?
***
It all depends on what you want. 250 is a nice number and you'll have plenty of headroom, but if I had a choice in a cleaner amp with slightly less wattage (100 wpc) then I'd go for the cleaner amp. Dynaudio speakers are extremely revealing of everything!
___
Percy
12-21-01, 04:08 PM
#15
Lexus Fanatic
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: California
Posts: 6,084
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Percy, glad to see I wasn't having a senior moment (Hi Gene!). Natural assumption is that more amp power means louder but I wasn't sure how many folks knew just how many more watts it takes to make our ears respond to the loudness. And how much those extra watts stress the other components, mainly speakers. Much more interested in cleanness than loudness but you really phrased your response well with the speaker distortion levels. Still ticked off about the manufacturer claims for power. Not overjoyed about having to use the LLCs but I feel I will be ultimately much happier in the aftermarket than OEM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
O. L. T.
Mobile Audio/Video Classifieds
8
07-09-06 10:15 PM
Wald GS
Lexus Audio, Video, Security & Electronics
2
09-22-05 09:24 PM