Impious

You might as well stop responding. There is absolutely nothing you can say that will make those results anything more than what they are. They are not "real world", they are useless and meaningless. You obviously don't understand why. But nothing you can say will change that fact. Reactive load doesn't make it "real" power. You obviously don't understand the difference between resistive and reactive loads and the important differences in the results of a measurement. Resistive loads are used, first and foremost, for consistent and repeatable results, and second for simplification of obtaining accurate results as the measurement and calculation is much less complicated. With a reactive load the voltage and current will be out of phase and other issues to deal with. The measurement isn't a simple volts * amps measurement. If you understood this, you would understand why the results of a clamp test on a reactive load aren't reliable unless you know exactly how the power figure was measured and calculated. If it was simply volts * amps, toss the results out the window....that's how useful they are. If you don't know how it was measured and calculated, toss the results out of the window. They are useless. The fact it was a reactive load does not make it "real world", useful, accurate or meaningful. Definitely not more meaningful than a resistive load. In fact it makes it less likely to be an accurate measurement because it's more likely to have been measured and calculated incorrectly. Though even if you could prove the power on the reactive load was properly and accurately measured, there is still the issue of no distortion or signal measurement which makes the test useless and meaningless. Since the signal itself wasn't measured, we don't even know if the amplifier was heavily clipping when it produced those power figures. So I assume next you are going to argue that it's okay to run the amplifier at full on clipping every day. Because this is the argument you are supporting by default. We don't know what the signal looked like during those measurements.....making them fully useless. You can't argue this point. In order to argue that this test represents "real world" usable power, you would have to be able to demonstrate the amplifier wasn't clipping and the distortion was at an acceptable level. You simply can not do this because it wasn't measured. If the signal were measured, you would then need to demonstrate that the distortion was at an acceptable level. You can't do this either. Because it wasn't measured. You can't compare those measurements to the "rated power" because the rated power figure is limited to a certain THD percentage. Which makes the measurement useless for comparing to their rated power. That necessarily makes those measurements useless as "real world usable power" figures unless you think it's perfectly acceptable to run an amplifier at full on clipping every day for both competitions and daily music listening. Because without a measurement of the signal, you have no way to prove that wasn't the case, to prove the amplifier wasn't clipping and distortion was at an acceptable level and to prove the distortion was 1% or less as the amplifier is rated at. And let me save you the trouble. You're probably going to come back with "well you prove the amplifier was clipping." That's the point. I can't prove it was, you can't prove it wasn't. So how useful is that measurement? It's not, because we don't know. If you don't understand this, I'm sorry.....you are too ignorant to help. Clipping will increase the measured power from an amplifier assuming you are correctly measuring the signal. You didn't argue my point that you can get more power out of any amplifier if we ignore distortion, because you can't. That, also, makes the test useless. Ignoring distortion and the signal doesn't make the test accurate, useful or "real world".......it makes it useless and meaningless. Why don't we just measure all amps without considering distortion or clipping and make them all look really underrated? First, you took something that was nothing more than a side comment and spent half of your paragraph responding to that. Really? You think CEA-2006 really has any bearing on the crux my argument? It was a side bar comment. You take one comment that wasn't even relevant to the point being made and spend half of your time responding to it because you can't actually argue against the material that was relevant to the conversation. My entire point was about distortion. I make one comment about not ignoring time frame either, and you focus on that ? My argument had nothing to do with the relative accuracy of CEA-2006. Typical discourse from you and your inability to argue against my points. So your proposal here is to completely eliminate a distortion measurement, I presume? So far you again haven't argued against my point, which is that power measurements with and without distortion measurements aren't comparable, which makes this test useless when trying to compare it to rated power or knowing how much of that measured power is "usable"......Because you can't. If the amplifier was clipping, or distortion above 1%, you can't compare the results of that test to rated power or know that all of that power is actually usable in practice. You are just trying to come up with reasons to invalidate all other tests. Another stereotypical ibanender tactic. Can't argue the point, so you sideline the argument to one you think you can win. Yes, there are means by which to accurately measure distortion and power. There are proper ways in which to conduct the measurement, and there is accurate measurement equipment. If the amplifier is rated at less than 1% THD and the manufacturer used a less accurate method of measuring either distortion or power, then it's easily explained as the manufacturer either being ignorant or intentionally being deceptive. Are there improper ways to measure it and inaccurate equipment? Sure, just like there is improper ways to measure power But that doesn't invalidate every test that does make those measurements. It doesn't invalidate an accurate measurement process and equipment. It doesn't invalidate the proper method of obtaining a useful power measurement (i.e. including a proper and accurate distortion measurement, or hell even the shape of the signal). It doesn't invalidate properly bench testing an amplifier to determine performance. And it also does absolutely nothing to validate the results of this test or make them "real world", useful or meaningful to anyone at all. He can't demonstrate distortion or even the shape of the waveform.....which makes it neither useful, accurate, valid or meaningful much less "real world". You also haven't demonstrated why it wouldn't be important to know the distortion of the signal or if the amplifier is clipping, other than you don't personally think someone could hear distortion from an amplifier up to 10% THD (you ignored the possibility of the amplifier clipping). So for the sake of discussion, let's just assume you are right. I'm not conceding the point, but it would be another 5 page discussion which isn't needed. So for right now we'll say you can't hear distortion from an amp up to 10%. That test is still useless simply because we don't know whether or not the amp was clipping. So, do you think it's completely acceptable to run an amplifier into full clipping constantly and for all purposes? Because in order to support your argument that the results represent real world usable power, you would have to answer this question yes. If you answer the question "No", you are by default admitting the test as useless since the signal wasn't measured. So, what's your answer? Well, atleast we are getting closer. You finally admitted those results wouldn't be accurate, useful or meaningful to anyone except that one specific scenario. Even though you are wrong, it's not useful to anyone at all, that's definitely a step in the right direction. It's not even accurate and useful in that particular vehicle because there wasn't a measurement of the signal to determine clipping and/or distortion, and we don't even know if the power was properly measured and calculated in that particular test and the accuracy of the measurement equipment. The first statement alone makes it useless to anyone including in that vehicle and including comparing that number to it's rated power, the later makes it useless to everybody else. It's not "real world", it's "real meaningless". Power isn't power. You obviously don't understand the different power measurements on a reactive load. And yes, the test isn't properly conducted if the power isn't measured and calculated properly. It's not as simple as multiplying two numbers on a reactive load. Google it sometime. And that test is important to people outside of SPL. Just look at the OP in this thread. That test was his "proof" that Sundown was underrated when the test proves nothing of the sort. Forum members and customers are looking at that test and taking the information for something it is not. Though I find it interesting you've stated multiple times on here that SPL goes down with a clipped signal.....but when it comes to the Sundown test, having a clipped signal would be perfectly acceptable since distortion doesn't matter to SPL guys. You can't even keep your story straight. That test proves nothing. It's not "real world". It's not useful to anyone. Not even in that vehicle. It doesn't demonstrate the amplifiers are underrated. A bench test would be infinitely more useful for determining "real world" results. If you don't understand this or understand why, you don't understand the basics of the science which you probably learned back in 4th grade. That's what it boils down to. Proper procedures and methods for obtaining accurate and useful results. Being an accurate, valid and meaningful measurement isn't less "real world" just because it's not done in a vehicle. In fact they are much more meaningful and relevant to the real world than anything done "in the real world" that isn't done by the proper methods, doesn't measure all of the necessary info, and provides results that are not consistent and repeatable under any other circumstance (and probably not even repeatable under those same circumstances since gain position was "eyeballed"). This is the very basis of scientific testing. The results of that test are useless and meaningless. That simple. There is nothing you can say that will change that simple fact. Though you seem to have a penchant for participating in debates you can't possibly win.

P&S isn't a sound deadener, much less "sound deadener with a really cheap price tag". Functioning as an effective CLD was not it's intended purpose, and not surprisingly performs extremely poorly when used as such.

I would recommend you give the Anarchy's a try As for full range, if you run without a tweeter they would have to be on-axis. And if high output exteneded listening is your goal, probably not the best option.

Actually if you click the pictures to the right of the "large" picture there is both an FR and impedance graph. Frequency Response Impedance Additionally, Zaph has tested these: Zaph FR Zaph Distortion They do have a cone breakup node up in the 4khz range and looks like some diffraction from the surround around 2khz in Zaph's measurment which isn't extremely significant in level, so it's pretty well behaved up until the breakup node. HD is pretty good up until the breakup node as well. I don't think it'd be accurate to say they are geared more towards midbass than midrange. Kevin designed them for 2-ways to be crossed in the 2-2.5khz region. Kevin's not a charlatan, he's generally pretty up front and realistic about performance, and his products generally perform as advertised. Zaph's independent measurements show they'd do well in a 2-way as well, given you cross low enough to stay under that breakup node. I would stay within the recommended 2.5khz or lower xover point. I have 6 of them in my closet right now, with HT duties in mind, meant to give them a listen before now but haven't had time to mock anything up. The few subjective comments I've seen on their performance give them pretty good marks as well.

Which was pretty much the point I was getting at with the last 2 sentences. I don't know that I'd call them "rated" at 12V since that's not really how they are represented in the company literature...but I certainly can't disagree with making the statement that they will provide atleast rated power at anything 12V and up (assuming that it's an accurate statement). It's really just an issue of semantics, assuming the later is accurate. How is that? That's real world numbers. It does xxxx watts on xx.x volts at x impedance, you can't really misinterpret that. Yes, you can.....and it's pretty obvious that almost everybody does. The lone virtue of being "real world numbers" does not make them particularly useful or meaningful. Let's look briefly at why. For the sake of discussion, for the moment we'll ignore the fact that it was measured on a reactive load and the associated issues, we'll ignore that we don't know the accuracy of the equipment, etc etc etc....we'll ignore all of the other issues right now and focus on just one for the moment (It makes the conversation a little easier to focus on one rather than everything). Distortion. He didn't measure it. Sure, the measurement equipment read X watts, but at what level of distortion? That makes the measurement completely useless to anyone wanting to use the amplifier for actual listening duties (and the other factors we aren't discussing right now make it useless for about anybody else). How useful is that power if it's at 10% or higher distortion? What if the amp was clipping? What if, what if, what if. You can get a lot more power out of any amplifier if you completely ignore distortion. So what does that really "prove" ? Not much, for all intents and purposes. But what do people do? "Sundown's test proves their amps are underrated !! .....proves their amps output rated power on 12V !! .... shows "real world" power !! " No, it doesn't. Rated power is measured into a specific load with a specific power supply voltage at a specific level of distortion (and really, continuous power would also need to be rated for a specific length of time. I believe CEA-2006 specifies 1 minute). If we ignore distortion, we can not compare the measured numbers to the rated power. The two are simply different measurements that can not be compared. And if we ignore distortion during the measurement, how do we know the distortion level of the signal is at an acceptable level? We don't. It's useless for determining "real world" usable power output. If those are your idea of a "real world" power measurement, then you and I must live in completely different worlds because a necessary condition for any valid, useful and meaningful power measurement in my world is an accompanying distortion measurement (among other things). And when you add in the other issues involved in that measurement "test", it makes the test essentially useless in general for determining the actual, useable power output of the amplifier. Just because it was measured in the "real world" does not mean it's an accurate or useful measurement. In fact it makes it less likely to be either of those things. Normally these "real world" measurements are neither of those things. "Real world" is generally just a synonym for "not properly conducted, therefore inaccurate and invalid". Variables aren't controlled or isolated, accuracy verifications aren't in place, procedures and conditions can't reliably be repeated....and in this case not all of the relevant information was even measured. The very last statement alone makes it useless in the "real world". The rest is just icing on the cake. I'm not saying the Sundown's aren't underrated. In fact I wouldn't surprise if they were intentionally rated lower than their actual power output. It's a great marketing tool, used since the days of "cheater amps". However, what would need to be performed to verify this is a properly conducted bench test, not a "real world clamp test" as is so often performed. That test doesn't actually prove anything other than most forum members are willing to accept information (especially from manufacturer's) at face value and not think critically about what information is actually being provided, or how to properly interpret the results.

I wasn't trying to imply they were "bad". But considering long-term high stress usage I'd be more concerned about the potential for issues related to ability to deal with heat, etc. The OEM casing, layout and OEM-style parts might not have been designed for those types of higher heat/higher stress situations. It would be more a concern with life span than strictly amperage output.

SSA be slow today. There's a half hour spread in my posting times.

posting simply so all of the recent topics are last responded to by me

Why? Toggle on the subs I can understand. Toggle on the tweeters with wideband midrange I can sort of understand. But why would you want to kill the midrange or midbass drivers?

What's that gonna prove? The box volume ported will be too big for sealed, the alignment would be WAY off. The concept behind using a sealed box to find vehicle resonance works, sorta. You have to have the optimal sealed box volume to give a flat response (in open air anyway), you also have to have the speaker in the same position, firing the same way. Another factor I've found is the louder you get, the more the frequency can change. The sealed enclosure wouldn't necessarily need a flat response or be in a certain alignment as long as you had a method by which to reliably measure the enclosure both inside and outside of the vehicle. Doing this you would be looking for relative differences in response rather than absolute values.....the frequency with the greatest variance between interior and "anechoic" (outside using proper measuring techniques) measurements would be the peak frequency. You are probably right that as things become highly pressurized and resonating the frequency will change so it's not perfect, but it might help get someone in the ballpark and a starting point to fine tune from. SPL ain't my game though. And I realize this would be extreme overkill for answering the OP's question.

I would ask them if the alternator is actually a specifically designed high output alt or simply a rebuilt OEM unit. The Infinity page doesn't say anything, but on the GM page it says "Using a Delco AD244 alternator, we install a heavier wound stator and higher amp rectifier and rotor to give these units more bottom end power and higher total amperage output." Which to me reads that they take an OEM alt and "upgrade" the minimum amount of parts. Keep in mind this is a piece of marketing, but DC has a comparison on their website which would probably be relevant to give you an idea of the differences: Click Me

In his proposed enclosure and power the Dcon would have more output over pretty much the entire bandwidth than the SA-8.

You are asking the wrong question. What you need to focus on when asking this question is amplifier efficiency rather than just the impedance of the load. If both amplifiers were the same efficiency into those respective impedance loads, there would be zero difference in current draw. What ibanender is likely eluding to is that most class D amplifiers will be more efficient at 4ohm than 1ohm, so the 4ohm impedance would likely result in less current draw. But the reason is because of the difference in efficiency, not impedance. It just so happens that efficiency is generally correlated with the impedance of the load the amplifier is driving. The same difference in current draw could occur between two different amplifiers of the same power driving the same load simply because of a difference in efficiency between the two amplifiers. So, moral of the story.....current draw is directly related to efficiency, not load. Efficiency is generally correlated with the load (lower the load, lower the efficiency). But efficiency of different designs and amplifiers will be different, so driving a higher impedance load does not guaranty a higher efficiency when comparing two different amplifiers.

Which is actually pretty irrelevant for daily driving type of listening, unless you are also worried about numbers on a meter. The difference on music more than likely wouldn't even be audible, though you could measure the difference on a meter. Jacob's tests don't prove a whole heck of a lot, other than 90% of forum members misinterpret the information. That said; by all means keep the Sundown if you are happy with it.

........ According to the website they are rated at 14.4v. It's certainly possible they will output their rated power at 12V (though I've never seen any actual bench test results). It's also possible Jacob actually used 12V to come up with the power ratings and decided to list the rated voltage at 14.4v instead. But the website and manual state 14.4V.

What "minor issue" are you having with the Z's?

All 3 of the tweeters 95Honda linked should be able to play pretty low (relatively speaking). All of them have an Fs in the 500-600hz range, so they should be able to handle 2khz or so so with ease. General rule of thumb is that you don't want to run a tweeter lower than 2x it's Fs. Obviously there's more to how low it will play than only it's Fs, but it's a good rule of thumb to use as a "quick reference" when comparing tweeters. If you have a shallower slope, plan on crossing the tweeter a little higher. Generally large format tweeters are going to be able to play lower than compact tweeters. As for crossovers.....yes, the crossover in the headunit would be fine as long as it's has the appropriate xover slope and frequencies that you need.

How is this the first install ever when "chris the man" claims to have 75sqft in his car already? Is this the "prototype" deadener or the actual product? Either way the owner of Audio Technix and his minion have already proven themselves to be less than stand-up characters. I would never use nor recommend their product based solely on their behavior. Business is better sent to someone worth sending business to.

http://www.grapplefruits.com/ Grapples are excellent, the wonderful new flavor of Grāpple® brand apples. Imagine the sweet distinctive flavor of Concord grapes combined with the crispness of a fresh, juicy Washington Extra Fancy apple. This makes them a perfect snack at home, at school, or at sport functions. Their glowing expression will say it all... Yum. Reminds me of...... They go boom like so! (it's sad that most of the people on here won't get this joke anymore )

Naw man, that's Myspace. Facebook is where housewives and ex-wives go to bitch about their personal lives and relationship issues so that all of their FB "friends" side with them and make them feel vindicated and empowered. So I guess really you were right Ryan. It's high school drama perpetuated by middle aged women

I would try to stick with car audio marketed wire for no other reason than I've found them to be more flexible than the home audio type of wire. Those Dayton RCA's are great unless you need to make a tight bend near the connector. I have $75+ worth of the shorter lengths in my garage that I couldn't use in my install because the cable wasn't flexible enough to fit how I wanted/needed.

What are the model number for your current drivers, and what enclosure are they in? It's possible that simply building a new enclosure for your current subwoofers will get you closer to your goals. If it's possible to get better performance with a different enclosure with your current subwoofers, that would be the cheapest and easiest route. Unless you just want something new to play with as well......which is fine too.

Too broad of a question and how the company and individual defines what is "spl rated". For some drivers it's not a good idea. On others it would be fine. Others still may not suffer from the potential for physical damage, but simply not reproduce music very well. It just depends on the specific driver.

Dcon 10" would be the better option of the two.