# Boston Acoustics Subs - G2 or G3?



## DC925 (Jun 17, 2010)

I have 350 watts @ 2 ohms from an Alpine monoblock. If you were to choose between the BA G210-44 (rated at 300 RMS) or the G310-44 (375 watts) which would you pick? The Alpine's a pretty decent amp....I'm leaning towards the G3 at this point, despite *slightly* underpowering it. I don't think it's enough to make a difference though. It's tough when you don't have the chance to hear all the subs you'd like to before purchasing, but this line has a pretty good reputation.


----------



## sunshinefc3s (Jun 23, 2010)

Bump...I would like some input on this as well. I've been considering the G3 since the G5 has been disco'd.
-a


----------



## Ziggy (Nov 29, 2007)

I'd get the g3. 
I'm rockin a g5-12 now... I also utilized a new Bostson soft parts system (SPS) to change the Ohm config (dual 4ohm so I could wire at 2ohm).
With the Boston g3, if you're running single sub, then your only choices are single 4 or dual 4... 
There isn't a 1 ohm or dual 2 config.
What can I say?.. It does it's job quite well, and I've pushed other subs over the line with rookie mistakes.
The Boston satisfies the closet basshead in me, as well as the SQ guy... I've gotten stupid with it, and it's very forgiving...
In fact, I bought it 'cause I was tired of blowing subs in my current setup... 
and IF you should do that -then there's a soft part replacement available that's very easy to install (cheaper/faster than buying a new sub or paying shipping twice for a recone)


----------



## M-Dub (Nov 29, 2006)

^^ Yup. IMO you cant go wrong either way. I just installed a G2 10" last weekend that a friend gave to me. I'm loving it.


----------



## finfinder (Apr 15, 2006)

Get the G3. I don't know why people figure they're underpowering a sub if they give it less than its maximum. Geez.


----------



## DC925 (Jun 17, 2010)

finfinder said:


> Get the G3. I don't know why people figure they're underpowering a sub if they give it less than its maximum. Geez.


Uh the sub's RMS rating is 375, and I'm only feeding it 350, so I am underpowering, albeit very slightly. Thanks for the input guys! Both subs seem similar in features...


----------



## finfinder (Apr 15, 2006)

Uh so does that mean that if you give the sub 376 watts you're overpowering it ?.
The Sub ain't seeing full power most of the time anyway no matter what your amp is rated for. At full crank of the volume knob you may get 376 watts, it ain't enough to make a difference. Semantics aside, the G3 can take more power than the G2.

I see guys post all the time that their amp "only" produces 350 or 400 watts and the sub they want is max rated at 375 or 500 watts and they want to know if the sub is compatible. In most cases you don't have to give a sub it's max for it to sound good.


----------



## Ziggy (Nov 29, 2007)

^^^ Agreed, + I recommend the G3 because of the interchangeable Soft Parts System...
I don't think the G2 has this, correct me if I'm wrong... Soundwise, I would think they would perform quite similar.


----------



## DC925 (Jun 17, 2010)

finfinder said:


> Uh so does that mean that if you give the sub 376 watts you're overpowering it ?.
> The Sub ain't seeing full power most of the time anyway no matter what your amp is rated for. At full crank of the volume knob you may get 376 watts, it ain't enough to make a difference. Semantics aside, the G3 can take more power than the G2.
> 
> I see guys post all the time that their amp "only" produces 350 or 400 watts and the sub they want is max rated at 375 or 500 watts and they want to know if the sub is compatible. In most cases you don't have to give a sub it's max for it to sound good.


I see your point now. I just didn't know if it's better to buy sub over or under your amp's rating, but we're talking very small differences either way. Had the G3 been rated at 600 rms, then I'd def look elsewhere. Thanks.


----------



## DC925 (Jun 17, 2010)

Ziggy said:


> ^^^ Agreed, + I recommend the G3 because of the interchangeable Soft Parts System...
> I don't think the G2 has this, correct me if I'm wrong... Soundwise, I would think they would perform quite similar.


A literal meaning to "Everlasting Bass" (nod to Rodney O and Joe Cooley for the young ones)  

Think I'll get the G3. Thanks again dudes!


----------



## f4phantom2500 (Jul 30, 2010)

There's a customer review on the G310-4 over at SonicElectronix that addresses this topic:


DIYMA Team member from Nashville TN
Overall 
Durability 
Value 
Features 
Design 
Usability 

Wow...What a great little sub for the money and really worth alot more !.... I have 1 of these in a ported box in the trunk of my crown Vic...and I compete for SQ with MECA and Ive won 2 first places with this little guy taking care of all the lows.

When I want to tune for bass ...it Kicks pretty dang hard ...I've hit 132.2 decibels... not too shabby for such an inexpensive sub.

Oh yeah ...and Im only throwing 300W at it !!! I'm powering it off the sub channel of an Alpine 5 channel digital Amp ... PDX-5 ...


Totally satisfied customer here ...everything Ive ever bought from Sonic Electronix has been a good deal ...they have the best prices and everything is perfect when it arrives here. Thanks Sonic E !!!


----------



## amungal (Mar 29, 2010)

finfinder said:


> Get the G3. I don't know why people figure they're underpowering a sub if they give it less than its maximum. Geez.


In many, many years of experience I can tell you that I've seen as much if not more subs damaged by underpowering verses overpowering.

Overpowering = mechanical stress which can be more easily detected/heard and the volume turned down, than Underpowering which = thermal stress that slowly but surely (and quietly) burns a speakers voicecoil.


----------



## finfinder (Apr 15, 2006)

If you're talking about a small amp that is driven to clipping all the time trying to power a big sub then I can almost see your point but that wasn't the question. 50 watts one way or the other in the OP's scenario won't make any real difference.

Besides, with a 500 watt amp and a 500 watt sub, driving down the street at 1/3 volume the sub ain't gettin 500 watts anyway. Is it then being damaged by underpowering it ?


----------



## amungal (Mar 29, 2010)

Very valid points indeed.

I guess I am a bit jaded having seen subwoofer and system abuse in general literally for decades. It happens when someone on a limited budget wants to buy the sub with the "biggest magnet" so that he can drive by his friends' house and rattle the windows. It never ends well obviously.

Also, I guess where subs are concerned I am always thinking about squeezing maximum performance from a given sub/amp combo in which case the 1/3 power usage reference for a 500 Watt amp playing a 500 Watt sub while valid, doesn't sufficiently account for dynamic headroom on transients in demanding tracks.

I guess at the end of the day, there are so many factors to take into account that I should have sufficed it to say that I PREFER a system where there is more amp to sub power verses less if maxmum performance is to be had from the given combo.


----------



## finfinder (Apr 15, 2006)

In general, I agree with your preference for a higher amp power to sub ratio.

I only mentioned the 500 watt scenario to give us both a practical example to help focus our constructive arguments. 

As you infur, music is not steady state and the power demands can vary wildly even on the same song. There are also the assumptions that the power ratings on the amps and subs are correct. Throw in some eq at certain frequencies to correct peaks and valleys in the response, then throw in box design and speaker efficiency with that box design and it really gets interesting to figure out how much power is sufficient. More power is generally a safer bet.

But In the OP's scenario, the 50 watt swing just wasn't enough to make a real world difference.


----------



## amungal (Mar 29, 2010)

I concur.


----------



## DC925 (Jun 17, 2010)

A question regarding RMS levels. Does this rating indicate a generally safe, mid-wattage level to run the sub at reasonable volumes, or is it the mark before potential damage can occur?


----------



## finfinder (Apr 15, 2006)

DC925 said:


> A question regarding RMS levels. Does this rating indicate a generally safe, mid-wattage level to run the sub at reasonable volumes, or is it the mark before potential damage can occur?


Now that's a golden question; cause it depends on the manufacturer.
Some manufacturers tend to be more conservative, knowing that folks may give it a bit more power than rated, so they build in a cushion. The fewer warranty claims, the better.

Other manufacturers will want bigger numbers, reasoning that younger folks will think bigger is better. You'll notice the off brand manufacturers making ridiculous power handling claims to attract attention. Some of these manufacturers will slyly quote "music power" or "dynamic power" ratings instead of rms.


----------



## rexroadj (Oct 31, 2008)

lets not forget to add in the box its in or IB.....also makes a huge difference in "rms" power!


----------



## frankc6 (Dec 10, 2009)

I had 2 G3 10's running off of 325 watts total. They sound awesome. They will handle the 300 watts or will run on as little as 100 or 150. They are great subs with excellent sound quality. I like them better than the jl audio subs, and I've had the w1 and w3 lines. I would recommend a ported box as well. I've had them in a sealed box, but they sounded much better in a ported box. One ten in ported box with 300 watts would sound excellent. Right now, I've got a jl 250/1 pushing 2 G3 tens in a ported box, and it sounds really good. I have always had sealed boxes and thought I would lose a lot of accuracy going with a ported box but I couldn't be happier. The g2 tens I listened to in the store also sounded way better in a ported box. The g3 has better sound quality compared to the g2. I think you will be happy with either one.


----------

