# Watts needed in a non SPL system



## mdechgan (Dec 16, 2010)

How many watts are need in a decent system.
I mean realistically and practically.
Components 50 watts? 100 watts? 4 ohms?
Subwoofer 100 watts? 300 watts? 500 watts? or 1000 watts? How many ohms?

How important is power in a system?
What is the bare minimum you would recommend and how much is just a waste of money?


----------



## Mless5 (Aug 21, 2006)

I haven't had a problem with 50wrms on active 2 way with 5.25" mid and 1" tweeter. ~200 wrms on a single 12" IB subwoofer in a 3 series bmw. Lots of power = keeping your gains down which is a good thing in the long run.


----------



## chops (Dec 17, 2010)

IMO ive been quite happy with 75-100 watts to components and 200-250 watts to a sub.


----------



## Mathew (Dec 20, 2010)

None of the above, 1820 watts, and I'm not an spl junkie.


----------



## Mathew (Dec 20, 2010)

chops said:


> IMO ive been quite happy with 75-100 watts to components and 200-250 watts to a sub.


I agree with this, 50 good watts to components are quite enough in most cases, so I would say 300 clean watts total would be just fine. The only "problem" would be the lack of headroom.


----------



## mdechgan (Dec 16, 2010)

Mathew said:


> I agree with this, 50 good watts to components are quite enough in most cases, so I would say 300 clean watts total would be just fine. The only "problem" would be the lack of headroom.


What is your definition of headroom?
Something like the dynamics of a system? Peak vs. RMS?


----------



## jimmy2345 (Jul 12, 2010)

More headroom usually means cleaner and more effortless sound. It also allows you to keep your gains turned down which inceases signal to noise ratio.


----------



## mdechgan (Dec 16, 2010)

I wanted to ask because I am considering replacing my Studio 300 with a C2k2.0 for my fronts. I will be giving up 100 watts per channel (50 watts vs. 150 watts). Do you think I will hear a difference or will the C2K sound clearer and better than the Studio 300 with not as much power or should I just keep the studio and take the power.

I tried using the C2K as my sub amp but it is too weak and start to clip with something like flo-rida or ludacris playing. I think I will just use my old amp for th sub which had only 100 watts more power but made a big difference on the bass notes.


----------



## Mathew (Dec 20, 2010)

mdechgan said:


> What is your definition of headroom?
> Something like the dynamics of a system? Peak vs. RMS?


Here is a great explanation of Headroom


----------



## Swindez85 (Jun 18, 2010)

In a decently quiet (less road noise) car I could see 50 wrms being plenty for a set of components and 1-200 wrms for the sub stage. The road noise in my car is somewhat annoying though along with the exhaust and cam not helping things either so I tried running my comps off just the two front channel of my amp which is around 100 wrms. The result was it could all play loud enough to get over the road noise it just sounded like something was "straining" at those levels and had a bit of noise in the system so I tried active and that didn't seem to help either. I knew with actual 7" mids they would like more power so I went back to passive and bridged and reduced my gain by a little less than half of what it was before and my front stage just seemed to come "alive". Now I can turn it up as loud as I can stand and the output just sounds amazing and effortless. Headroom is always a good thing but it really depends on the vehicle and certain factors like whether you drive with the windows/sunroof open alot or leave them mostly closed.


----------



## mdechgan (Dec 16, 2010)

So in theory one will need all the power one can get.


----------



## Swindez85 (Jun 18, 2010)

I guess in theory...Infinite clean power would be nice. Drivers and power handling would the only determining factor after that, but since thats not possible I am a firm believer that more headroom is really nice. I tried using my O-Scope in the non-bridged setup passive and at my listening volume preference I was getting a clean signal but since I listen to a little of everything but mostly rock, I looked at the waveform on kick drum heavy music and I could plainly see that the output was being clipped on those large transients even with 100wrms which equates to the "straining" I percieved. After bridging I never saw a clipped signal again and the music was more detailed. According to my amp specs thats right at around 350wrms bridged 4 ohms.


----------



## coyote-1 (Nov 2, 2010)

A home system only needs 30 watts per channel and 150 or less to the subwoofer to blast out a large room. I'm a musician, and I've gigged in situations where the sum-total of all (bass amp, guitar amps, PA amp) was around 700 watts and the club owner would tell you to turn it down.

The car system I'll be installing (in spring) is 45 RMS per channel, and if I do a sub it'll be perhaps 200 max. Unless your goal is to use SPL break the windows in houses and storefronts as you drive past, that's really all you need for most applications.


----------



## mdechgan (Dec 16, 2010)

That is what bothers me. Why would a home system sound incredible and loud in a large living room with something like 100 watts per channel total but a car audio system needs something like 1000+ watts.


----------



## Jmirage (Nov 23, 2010)

mdechgan said:


> That is what bothers me. Why would a home system sound incredible and loud in a large living room with something like 100 watts per channel total but a car audio system needs something like 1000+ watts.


Less road noise in my home


----------



## coyote-1 (Nov 2, 2010)

True. Nonetheless, the config I mentioned above will drown out any passing truck, jet plane or fire siren.


Jmirage said:


> Less road noise in my home


Back in the days before subs (circa 1975), I used to run a pair of these










off a 55-watt per channel one of these










When I had a backyard party, it was enough to fill the entire neighborhood with music. Gotta say, I kinda miss those old flywheel FM tuners :lol:


----------



## gijoe (Mar 25, 2008)

You don't need as much power to as loud as you'd think. People run way more power in a car than they will every need. Sure it's nice to have headroom, and you do have to overcome road noise, but you really don't need the amount of power that some people have. Keep in mind that the people who wire their mids to an amp with 200 watts on tap aren't using 200 watts, they just have it available.


----------



## Cruzer (Jul 16, 2010)

Mathew said:


> None of the above, 1820 watts, and I'm not an spl junkie.


x2, i have a 1190 watts going to my setup but its not an spl setup. 2 subs and components.

160x2 components
870 subs


----------



## gijoe (Mar 25, 2008)

Cruzer said:


> x2, i have a 1190 watts going to my setup but its not an spl setup. 2 subs and components.
> 
> 160x2 components
> 870 subs


And how much of that power do you think your speakers ever see? You may have that much on tap, but that doesn't mean that you ever use it. I don't see anything wrong with having that much power on tap, I think it's a good method to buy as much reliable power as you can afford, but I think that the original question is intended to see how much you really need to sound good, and the answer is 'far less than most people run.'


----------



## Cruzer (Jul 16, 2010)

gijoe said:


> And how much of that power do you think your speakers ever see? You may have that much on tap, but that doesn't mean that you ever use it. I don't see anything wrong with having that much power on tap, I think it's a good method to buy as much reliable power as you can afford, but I think that the original question is intended to see how much you really need to sound good, and the answer is 'far less than most people run.'


The poll question reads: 
"How many watts RMS are in your current system?"

i cannot realistically vote in the poll with the given choices. So i explained my situation, that i use more than 1000 watts, but its not an spl setup.

I never said i use over 1000 watts at volume 1 did i?

The question is too broad and too opinionated to answer. u may like 100 watts total on tap, i like my 1100 on tap. how does that help the OP? we both think our setup sounds good.

how about posting something useful instead of quoting my post and just repeating what u already posted


----------



## mdechgan (Dec 16, 2010)

When I first entered the hobby, my friend drove this CRX. He had 3 studio 500s bridged mono run off a jeep wrangler alternator and optima battery. 1 for each channel and the third for the 3 jl audio 10w6 subs. This was like 15 years ago.
His system was mind blowing, literally. Do you think 3000 watts was what was needed or just way over powered?

3000 watts in a CRX hatchback, but it did sound great.


----------



## radarcontact (Oct 28, 2010)

I run an Alpine 4-ch that says 40w/ch, but it's probably a hair more than that (not that it makes much of a difference). I would like to have about twice that much, but to play at the same volume I play at now when I have it cranked-up - only for headroom. My fronts are of average efficiency. 

My sub setup is getting 350 into 2-ohms and I wish it were about 500 into 4-ohms with the gains further down, only because my sub setup is horribly inneficient. The latter would give me a more headroom and more amp life, I would assume.

A lot of people don't totally realize that system "efficiency" is a HUGE factor: doubling amplifier power only gives you 3db more sound...enough to make a "_noticable difference_"...again, *DOUBLING* amplifier power gives you a "_noticable difference_" in sound output. Isn't that crazy?? You get the same results by using speakers with 3db better efficiency. It takes in increase of *10db* to double the sound output. That means going from 20w/ch to 40w/ch (+3db), then to 80w/ch (3db+3db more=6db), then to 160w/ch (6db+3db more = 9db). 
So, 160w/ch sounds _*almost*_ twice as loud as 20w/ch. As a general rule-of-thumb, you basically have to multiply power x10 to make it twice as loud.

I don't think these facts are as widely known and understood as they should be.

So, 3000 watts in a CRX is about twice as loud as 300 watts in a CRX, theoretically.


----------



## jam0o0 (Nov 30, 2010)

the power needed is also related to the efficiency of the speakers you choose. i know guys running 250watts to subs that are louder than guys running 500 watts. 

install also makes a huge difference. in a home setting you have space. you can make each enclosure the perfect size. and position them for maximum effect. 

as far as road noise goes i've never been in house the was as loud as either of my trucks. it takes a lot of DB's to drown-out an indirectly injected diesel with a turbo 6 inches from your right foot. 

my last system had 150 watts per corner up front and 450w for 2 12's. it was way louder than it needed to be. but i had a v8 with a loud exhaust so i needed something to kill the drone on long drives.


----------



## gijoe (Mar 25, 2008)

Cruzer said:


> The poll question reads:
> "How many watts RMS are in your current system?"
> 
> i cannot realistically vote in the poll with the given choices. So i explained my situation, that i use more than 1000 watts, but its not an spl setup.
> ...


How about reading the post instead of responding to just the poll. The question he asked is, "how many watts are need in a decent system."

I wasn't saying anything negative about the power you are running, and I specifically said that in my post. I was pointing out for Mdechgan's sake you don't NEED that much power for a decent system. Which is exactly what he/she asked. 

I run more power than I need, and I said that it's good to buy as much reliable power as you can, but my point is that most of it goes unused so you shouldn't feel like you need excessive power to have a good sounding system.

Don't get so upset just because I quoted you. I didn't say anything negative and if you read the original post you'll see that I addressed the original question.


----------



## tanakasan (Sep 8, 2007)

gijoe said:


> I run more power than I need, and I said that it's good to *buy as much reliable power as you can*, but my point is that most of it goes unused so you shouldn't feel like you need excessive power to have a good sounding system.


x2!

Why mess around with 50W, then get 100W, then get 150W, etc. Power is (relatively) cheap.

The poll should have a +1000W vote. I have 2x 160W for the tweets, 20 Zuki watts (2x 350) for the mids  and 1200 to the inefficient sub. Not a bass head.

Sounds good even idling around at low volume!

Robert


----------



## (s)AINT (Aug 5, 2010)

chops said:


> IMO ive been quite happy with 75-100 watts to components and 200-250 watts to a sub.


same, i've run 75w per channel to comps and 250w to two subs and it's been plenty loud and sounds great. any more and i would be rolling into SPL competitions.


----------



## gijoe (Mar 25, 2008)

tanakasan said:


> x2!
> 
> Why mess around with 50W, then get 100W, then get 150W, etc. Power is (relatively) cheap.
> 
> ...


Because again, the question was how much is NEEDED.

Yes, I say buy as much as you can afford, BUT you can have a great sounding system off of 50-75 watts. Don't think that you can't have a great system if you don't have tons of power. Buy what you can afford but understand that double the power only give you a 3 db increase. The difference between 100 and 200 watts isn't very significant.


----------



## tanakasan (Sep 8, 2007)

gijoe said:


> Because again, the question was how much is NEEDED.
> 
> Yes, I say buy as much as you can afford, BUT you can have a great sounding system off of 50-75 watts. Don't think that you can't have a great system if you don't have tons of power. Buy what you can afford but understand that double the power only give you a 3 db increase. The difference between 100 and 200 watts isn't very significant.


I agree fully with this!

I am sure that I don't use any more than 50~75W 99% of the time. Like I said, it sounds good idling around at low to normal listening levels. Its just easier to lower the gains than to *wish* I had more. 

I guess to answer the OP's question, "needed" power is more than 18wpc/HU power and somewhere around 50~75 wpc. And double the power is not for volume, but headroom!

Robert


----------



## Salami (Oct 10, 2007)

Mathew said:


> None of the above, 1820 watts, and I'm not an spl junkie.


Agreed.

440 watts on components, 1080 on sub. 1520 and I am not a SPL junkie either.

When I get some more money I am looking to add another 300-400 watts.


----------



## lesspaul77 (Dec 6, 2010)

I an partial to running 1.21 gigawatts in my system.


----------



## davidebender (Dec 23, 2010)

It all comes down to the sensitivity of the speakers. If you use around 92 dB speakers you're MORE then fine with 40-50w per channel. 
If you use 86/87 dB speakers you may need 150w per channel for the same listening level. Also depends how quiet your car is, music first needs to cover most of the car's noise to be decently udible.


----------



## jimmy2345 (Jul 12, 2010)

Salami said:


> Agreed.
> 
> 440 watts on components, 1080 on sub. 1520 and I am not a SPL junkie either.
> 
> When I get some more money I am looking to add another 300-400 watts.


Way overkill on the sub power....


----------



## mdechgan (Dec 16, 2010)

How important is headroom?


----------



## jimmy2345 (Jul 12, 2010)

mdechgan said:


> How important is headroom?


It's important to me to have a good amount of headroom, but there is a point of diminishing returns.


----------



## mdechgan (Dec 16, 2010)

jimmy2345 said:


> It's important to me to have a good amount of headroom, but there is a point of diminishing returns.


What would that number be for front 2 way components?
3 times 50 watts?
75 watts
100 watts?

double, triple?


----------



## Salami (Oct 10, 2007)

jimmy2345 said:


> Way overkill on the sub power....


Why? 

Ideally I would like to get 2x200-250 on the mids and 2x100 on the tweeters.


----------



## The Baron Groog (Mar 15, 2010)

2x 100wrms for MD102s off a DM
2 x 120wrms for MW162 1x ST60 on each
1x 400wrms for Aliante 10" Si on a DM


----------



## m3gunner (Aug 6, 2008)

mdechgan said:


> How important is power in a system?
> What is the bare minimum you would recommend and how much is just a waste of money?


Really, it boils down to how loud you want your system to go.

You can probably create a satisfying system with well under 300 watts, but it wouldn't go super loud.

If I was giving a "stock" recommendation without knowing anything about the system, I'd say 50 per channel is probably fine for components and about 200 for the sub.

You can find the difference in SPL by doing this calculation:

10*log(P2/P1) (P1 is power before and P2 is power after)

So, going from 50 watts to 200 watts =

10*log(200/50) = 6 dB

Going from 200 to 300 is really minor:

10*log(300/200) = 1.76 dB

Dropping from 200 to 75 is:

10*log(75/200) = -4.25 dB (you're losing 4.25 dB)

If you were using a speaker that was 90 dB @ 1 watt, 200 watts would equate to 113 dB (we're ignoring distance and power compression...)


----------



## Wesayso (Jul 20, 2010)

In case anyone is wondering, I'm the one vote under 300,

2x 22w powering the Hertz space 1 tweeters (powered by the Pioneer HU, P88rsII)
2x 55w powering the Hertz ml1600 woofers
1x 140w to the JBL GTO 804 sub (woofers and sub powered by a single JBL GTO 504)
for the grand total of 294 

It has a small place to fill, the HU rarely goes over 30 of the 62 scale. It seems enough to me right now. It fills the car with a nice volume, but I won't use it with doors open to entertain a crowd.


----------



## jimmy2345 (Jul 12, 2010)

mdechgan said:


> What would that number be for front 2 way components?
> 3 times 50 watts?
> 75 watts
> 100 watts?
> ...


I run about 200 watts to each side of my front stage, and then about 400 watts to my subs. The front stage power is of course there for headroom. I like to have a ton of headroom on the front stage to keep the SNR down and my front stage sounding effortless.


----------



## [email protected] (Nov 7, 2010)

Another factor not mentioned yet was the vehicle. Just like in yor quiet living room you don't need as much power,in a very quiet car you theoretically won't need as much either. 
I believe you should buy as much power as you can afford. The whole discussion here is all about relativity. If you can only afford (1) 4x50 amplifier, then that is "best" for you.
I like to be able to drown out all the outside noises, so I have what I would consider a decent amount of power. I have a audison Lrx 4,1k and a lrx 5.1k. I use the 3 big stereo channels on hertz hi energy 1", 3", and 8" drivers and the 1k mono on either a hertz hi energy 12" or 2 dd 15's (the 15" box is removable). In my honda element, it does nicely. I have way more power than any of the drivers are rated for, and I have never had a failure in 2.5 years. I like the ability to really crank it up and hav it still sound very clean.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Tommei (Nov 15, 2010)

Im between 600-1000. It really is heaps for a non spl system. Already I can be heard 2 blocks down. But this depends on the car...


----------



## jking29 (Jan 6, 2008)

Mines not an SPL system, but I have RMS watts available:

100 x 2 for tweeters
200 x 2 for mids
400 x 2 for midbass
700 x 2 for subs

Yeah, I like headroom!


----------



## ibehoang (Oct 3, 2010)

Currently sitting at about 1000wrms. I'll probably be running 1500 in the future.


----------



## jpmiller (Dec 3, 2010)

I run an old Alphasonic 4chx50w to Polk dB 6.5 comps and 1 8" JL ported sub in a Golf. It gets really loud and sounds clean to me! I really like the minimalist approach. One sub, one amp, no need to upgrade cars electrical,etc. The MS-8 helps a bit!


----------



## TrickyRicky (Apr 5, 2009)

100watts per driver and each driver 16ohm or 8ohm (okay maybe a little too high on 16, but if possible 8-ohm would be best). Most amplifier dont have headroom so I dont know what some of you guys are talking about. In order to have headroom the amplifier won't be running at its capable power, atleast in my mind it wont.

Some or most LP's have 3db headroom just incase when ever you need it. Also an amplifier would gain damping factor, higher S/N ratio, less THD, and run much cooler at higher impendance rather than trying to get the most out of your amplifier by stressing it at very very low impendance such as 2-ohm, 1-ohm or even half of that.

Get a class A/B for SQ.


----------



## ChrisB (Jul 3, 2008)

TrickyRicky said:


> Also an amplifier would gain damping factor, higher S/N ratio, less THD, and run much cooler at higher impendance rather than trying to get the most out of your amplifier by stressing it at very very low impendance such as 2-ohm, 1-ohm or even half of that.


That is a general assertion that has propagated from the old school days and generally applies to old school, high voltage, class ab amplifiers. If one is running a modern day, high current, class d subwoofer amplifier, some of them do funky stuff when the impedance gets above 4 ohms. My memory is foggy, but it was either my Crossfire BMF1000d or a buddy's Hifonics BXI 1606d that absolutely hated 8 ohm loads.

Also, when picking out high current, low impedance amplifiers, one has to remember that some are 1 ohm stable whereas others are actually designed to run at 1 ohm.



TrickyRicky said:


> Get a class A/B for SQ.


I'd like to challenge you to tell the difference between a modern day, full range, class d amplifier such as a JL Audio HD series or even Zed's new offerings and one comparably positioned class ab amplifier in my Mustang while I am driving it.:laugh: If you can pick out which amplifier is playing with any degree of statistical significance, I'll buy you lunch. If you can't, you buy me lunch! Let me know when you will be in Louisiana so I can set the test up.


----------



## radarcontact (Oct 28, 2010)

jpmiller said:


> I run an old Alphasonic 4chx50w to Polk dB 6.5 comps and 1 8" JL ported sub in a Golf. It gets really loud and sounds clean to me! I really like the minimalist approach. One sub, one amp, no need to upgrade cars electrical,etc. The MS-8 helps a bit!


Lol, "minimalist" and "MS-8" 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jimmy2345 (Jul 12, 2010)

ChrisB said:


> I'd like to challenge you to tell the difference between a modern day, full range, class d amplifier such as a JL Audio HD series or even Zed's new offerings


Don't kid yourself. There is a huge difference in sound and the amps you mentioned don't fair well.


----------



## Jmirage (Nov 23, 2010)

ChrisB said:


> That is a general assertion that has propagated from the old school days and generally applies to old school, high voltage, class ab amplifiers. If one is running a modern day, high current, class d subwoofer amplifier, some of them do funky stuff when the impedance gets above 4 ohms. My memory is foggy, but it was either my Crossfire BMF1000d or a buddy's Hifonics BXI 1606d that absolutely hated 8 ohm loads.
> 
> Also, when picking out high current, low impedance amplifiers, one has to remember that some are 1 ohm stable whereas others are actually designed to run at 1 ohm.
> 
> ...


I'm ready for the lunch challenge, and I'm in New Orleans right now!


----------



## Candisa (Sep 15, 2007)

It's all about how quiet the amps are (low noise and distortion means you don't have to keep the gains ridiculously low, so you don't need to waste half the power or more), how efficient the drivers are (an 85dB/W/m drivers needs TEN times as much power as a 95dB/W/m driver)...
But in general (numbers are per driver, not per pair):
Conventional 2-ways + sub active:
- 25W on the tweeters is plenty, 50W is more than you'll ever need
- 75W on the midwoofers is plenty, 150W is more than you'll ever need
- 250W on the sub is plenty, 300W is more than you'll ever need

Conventional 3-ways + sub active:
- Since the tweeters don't need to play as low, you might find very efficient ones that have a sufficient passband and have enough with 10W on them. You shouldn't need more than 50W.
- Mids: Some mids are very efficient and reach a more than sufficient volume level with 15W on them. You shouldn't need more than 75W.
- Midbass: I'd say 100W is a minimum to create a realistic "kick"bass with enough body, if you don't want to be able to get really loud, 100-125W should be sufficient.
- Sub: 250-500W

Passive component set: depending on the efficiency, 2x50W can be enough, for normal use, 125W should be more than sufficient.

Off course, there are always exceptions. For example, in Xenia's car, we'll use an IB subwoofer with only 100W on it and the midbasswoofers will only get 60-ish Watts each, but the sub is pretty efficient and we'll try to make the midbass sound full enough by using a bit of overlap on the sub-midbass crossover.

It never hurts to buy the more powerfull amp when you're in doubt, BUT only if the quality doesn't have to suffer under it. Do mind that it's not worth raising the power unless you double it (or more). 
Everybody knows you won't hear the difference between 40W and 55W, but some people thing the difference between 400W and 550W is a lot bigger... well, it aint!

Isabelle


----------



## ChrisB (Jul 3, 2008)

Jmirage said:


> I'm ready for the lunch challenge, and I'm in New Orleans right now!


Since someone hit the poll, I just noticed this. Unfortunately, I didn't install a HD900/5 until last week.

My ears noticed the increase in power to the stage and my RTA confirmed it. Conversely, I noticed NO hits in sound quality and neither has anyone else who has listened to my car. With that said, it feels good to actually have a usable trunk again and my Mustang sounding the best it has ever sounded.

As for jimmy2345, I now know why he preached old school gear so much. It is because he sells it on eBay for tremendous profits after purchasing items for next to nothing under another user name. In other words, his opinion and abrasive ways should be taken with a grain of salt since they are directly related to his bottom line. For the love of money...:greedy::greedy::greedy:


----------



## narvarr (Jan 20, 2009)

ChrisB said:


> Since someone hit the poll, I just noticed this. Unfortunately, I didn't install a HD900/5 until last week.
> 
> My ears noticed the increase in power to the stage and my RTA confirmed it. Conversely, I noticed NO hits in sound quality and neither has anyone else who has listened to my car. With that said, it feels good to actually have a usable trunk again and my Mustang sounding the best it has ever sounded.
> 
> As for jimmy2345, I now know why he preached old school gear so much. It is because he sells it on eBay for tremendous profits after purchasing items for next to nothing under another user name. In other words, his opinion and abrasive ways should be taken with a grain of salt since they are directly related to his bottom line. For the love of money...:greedy::greedy::greedy:


Out of curiosity, what were you running before the HD900/5?

Sent from my X10i using Tapatalk


----------



## ChrisB (Jul 3, 2008)

narvarr said:


> Out of curiosity, what were you running before the HD900/5?
> 
> Sent from my X10i using Tapatalk


Depends on which iteration of the "pefect amplifier" setup you were talking about.

My first amplifier was the 25 to Life Power 1000. I liked the idea of an all in one amplifier solution but this thing was HUGE.

Version 2 was a pair of Linear Power 1502IQs with a Linear Power 5002 on sub duty. I don't know if it was the age of the gear or what, but this setup was nothing but problems between the mids and highs cutting out and the sub amp shutting down.

Version 3 was a Linear Power DPSQ50 with a DPS500. While better than the old school amps, this setup just wasn't enough power for me.

Between 1 and 3, I tried various pieces of old school gear on various drivers as well as an Alpine PDX-5. Either the used PDX-5 that I tried was defective OR it was just that bad because it caused me to assume all full range class d amplifiers were horrible.

Version 4 was Lunar L450 with Clarion DPX1851. I liked this setup, but it took up 1/4 of the trunk. EDIT: from here on forward the speakers stayed the same with my Tang Band W4-1757SB speakers for mids and highs, Mach5 Audio MLI-65s for midbass, and the 13w6v2 stealthbox for sub duty. I have a set of Fountek FR88s that I am going to try on-axis when it gets cooler outside.

Version 5 was a Lunar L60x2, L2125, and the Clarion DPX1851. I liked this setup even more because of the available power, but it took up nearly 1/3 of my trunk. For an idea on power, I measured the L60x2 at 120 watts per channel just prior to clipping and the L2125 shut down my 55 amp power supply before it clipped!

Version 6 is the JL Audio HD900/5 (review here). While there were some tradeoffs in power going with this amplifier, I like it because it takes up 0 usable trunk space. Here is the kicker, it is IN the trunk!


----------



## sqshoestring (Jun 19, 2007)

I'm now running an infinity kappa 4x125 class D and a 350rms alpine M301. But the alpine is on a pair of 15s IB, quite efficient, so it keeps up just fine. They did go louder on the M500 alpine, but not sure if I need the extra or not this is working well so far.....as I don't really need to shake the roof of the car just good response down to under 30Hz. The infinity is great the only issue is once in a while if I hit start for just the right amount of seconds it makes a little sneeze noise when it comes back on, but it is not loud or a thump or anything. It comes on slower than my alpine but think I can program the alpine to wait longer just not done it. I should try to delay the HU so it stays on during starting, and this only happens if I wait for it to come on before I start the car. When warm and I just hit the key to start it does not do it. 

The sound seems to be very good from the kappa, it is strong and gets loud, no noises at all far as whine/etc. and the RCA and power are down the same side of the car maybe 6" apart.

Had a good 4x50 on highs before and it did the job (dragster, as well as a f345 alpine 4x75 a while back that went a little louder than the 4x50), but when you turn it up some it is obvious the larger kappa is cleaner and the smaller amp was being pushed beyond its limits....even though it was not really audibly clipping. With the M500 I could crank the subs up and shake the roof, trunk, rear glass, made my head feel funny on a bass CD lol. But I listen to music mostly and do not really care about that so why not run an amp with half the footprint. Even with heavy bass bias I like in some music the 350 seems to do well so far. The M500 would overwhelm the alpine 4x75 no problem when listening to music so the output was really only useful when screwing with bass music/etc. Think it still would with the kappa but the kappa is loud enough for me.

All that said for SQ I could run a 4x50 and say 150rms on sub and it would work, it would sound great. I only run more because I like to feel the 30Hz through the seat sometimes and it is much better at that with this power level. I don't max it out that often, but its fun sometimes. The 4x50 I ran pretty hard, ran it right up to clipping and backed it off a little....don't have to worry with the kappa.

You will need more power on a small box sub, that is a given.


----------



## narvarr (Jan 20, 2009)

@ ChrisB
LOL. Seem like you ran the gauntlet before finding the perfect compromise. 

Sent from my X10i using Tapatalk


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

75w on my highs is almost painful and 150w on the subs can be heard around the block. However, every time I've added more power, the SQ and dynamics seems to improve even at the same volumes. Getting ready to go with 300w on the midbass and 150 on the mids, tweets, and center. I've already got 1,000 on the subs even though I use about 100w max each. I'll probably never turn it up louder than I already do but it should sound better.


----------



## ChrisB (Jul 3, 2008)

narvarr said:


> @ ChrisB
> LOL. Seem like you ran the gauntlet before finding the perfect compromise.
> 
> Sent from my X10i using Tapatalk


I've gone through 52 amplifiers since re-entering this hobby in 2007. Some sounded different due to intentional sound coloration, like this one:










Others sounded "different" due to differences in power output levels. Oddly, once proper level matching is performed for a given output level, the differences between most properly designed amplifiers aren't as great as most say they are. Finally, I am man enough to admit that I made a lot of mistakes while learning a lot along the way.


----------



## stalintc (Dec 6, 2007)

I definitely go for efficiency when picking drivers. I hope to use about 1.5-2 watts AVG for each tweeter, around 3-10W AVG for midbass, and 5-10W AVG for a sub. 8 channels, active, and probably close to 103-105dB A weighted using pink noise at max volume, and honestly, That would be plenty to overcome any (reasonable) road noise issue. 

As far as headroom, I recommend measuring your system on a speaker by speaker basis to better understand dynamic peaks and therefore the need for headroom. A simple DMM with averaging would be fine for this task. Measure avg voltage through a song for say 15 seconds. Then, using the same 15s measure the current draw a the same volume. You may be surprised how low the power consumption is. Or, if using passive crossovers, you may be surprised how _inefficient_ it is. From there you can either estimate the needed peak power output, or use the "max" feature of the meter to get the max needed using a loud song with great dynamic changes. 

M3Gunner really hit the head on the nail with his post:




m3gunner said:


> Really, it boils down to how loud you want your system to go.
> 
> You can probably create a satisfying system with well under 300 watts, but it wouldn't go super loud.
> 
> ...


----------



## 240phil (Oct 11, 2010)

coyote-1 said:


> A home system only needs 30 watts per channel and 150 or less to the subwoofer to blast out a large room. I'm a musician, and I've gigged in situations where the sum-total of all (bass amp, guitar amps, PA amp) was around 700 watts and the club owner would tell you to turn it down.
> 
> The car system I'll be installing (in spring) is 45 RMS per channel, and if I do a sub it'll be perhaps 200 max. Unless your goal is to use SPL break the windows in houses and storefronts as you drive past, that's really all you need for most applications.





mdechgan said:


> That is what bothers me. Why would a home system sound incredible and loud in a large living room with something like 100 watts per channel total but a car audio system needs something like 1000+ watts.


you guys are forgetting something really major when it comes to home audio versus car audio. Voltage
A house have 120 volts
a car only has 12 

Watts is just the relationship between Voltage and Amps. 
So your home speaker that is getting 20 watts is getting something close to 200 volts. That makes for a really strong magnet. Combined with the efficiency of the speakers themselves, and that 20 watts does a LOT. 
For a car audio speaker to get the same kind of strength in its magnet, you would have to supply it with over 10 times the wattage. Gotta be more to compensate for the losses. So you're looking at at least 200 watts. to accomplish the same thing. 
That's why home speakers require such little power. 

It doesn't have anything to do with the noise level of the room. 



davidebender said:


> It all comes down to the sensitivity of the speakers. If you use around 92 dB speakers you're MORE then fine with 40-50w per channel.
> If you use 86/87 dB speakers you may need 150w per channel for the same listening level. Also depends how quiet your car is, music first needs to cover most of the car's noise to be decently audible.


this is the first response that I read that wasn't total crap. 
You have to take into account the speakers you are using before you can determine the power you are feeding them. Some of the really high end car audio components only need 50 watts to them. Some of the low end, cheap stuff, needs at least 150 or more. I had a pair of old, cheap pioneer speakers in a car I picked up that required 125 watts. anything less, and they were under powered to the point of distortion. They didn't sound good until you pushed over 200 watts through them. 

Point being, just randomly picking wattage levels doesn't do any good if you don't know what you are pairing them with. You have to consider the relationship between the amps and the speakers if you want good results.


----------



## GoodyearJ (May 4, 2011)

I'm over 3k watts and its by no means an SPL setup. By overbuilding and keeping gains low you retain carity


----------



## Angrywhopper (Jan 20, 2010)

75 watts each channel to the front stage and 250 to the sub.


----------



## turbo5upra (Oct 3, 2008)

I went from 180x4 on tap for the front stage to 100x4..... :-( I miss it......

ideally 400x2 to the midbass. 150x2 to the mids 100x2 to the tweeters

and hell 1500 on a pair of 15's ib....... all in the name of sq.


----------



## TrickyRicky (Apr 5, 2009)

25watts for everything (for each driver of course). The 2.2HV is rated at 12.5watts x 2, 3.2HV is rated at 25watt x 2 and the 4.1HV is rated at 75watts. So with those three amps you have less than 200watt rated power and will sound louder than any 200watt set up.


----------



## ChrisB (Jul 3, 2008)

TrickyRicky said:


> 25watts for everything (for each driver of course). The 2.2HV is rated at 12.5watts x 2, 3.2HV is rated at 25watt x 2 and the 4.1HV is rated at 75watts. So with those three amps you have less than 200watt rated power and will sound louder than any 200watt set up.


I think Zuki Audio will give you a run for your money by getting louder with LESS power.:laugh:


----------



## Mr. Nice Guy (Jul 21, 2011)

ChrisB said:


> I think Zuki Audio will give you a run for your money by getting louder with LESS power.:laugh:


Yeah, a Zuki amp paired with a Rane PI-14 is the way to go.


----------



## sqshoestring (Jun 19, 2007)

The driver spl certainly makes a difference. My fronts are boston comps rated for 250w or something huge, I think they needed 125 to really play right. 50rms worked, but at 70mph with the windows down I will have no problem hearing the music clear now even though I don't play it like that much. They have passive xovers and I have no idea what the efficiency is. The alpine coax in the rear are dialed down in the HU and at the amp, but would likely go louder on the same power. I had planned to try to install 8 or 10" midbass and hoped ~100rms would be enough, but working lots of hours and other projects right now so can't do a thing.

Most amps do sound the same, the largest difference by far is the clean power they make. Some amps have different distortion curves. I also learned a lot about them in repairing them, it was an eyeopener.

I don't understand the one poster about home 120v affecting the speakers. You can take the 120vAC directly into the power supply and it is easier to produce the +/- rail voltage you desire, rather then running a PWM power supply like a car amp....but rail power is rail power and is the only thing the speakers see, when released to them. Even though home speakers tend to be 8 ohm the efficiency is quite high, you have *way* lower noise floor, way less reflective distortions/etc or can deal with them better. High power subs/midbass tend to be really inefficient in cars, some enclosures don't help things any, thus they need more power. Cars do have cabin gain and small areas to help them.


----------



## sandfleee (Jun 22, 2008)

Front stage
Md102's - 35wpc actual/75 available from Tru B4.74
L-4's - 60wpc actual/again 75 available
L-8's - 150wpc actual / 240 available from another bridged tru 4.75 

Rear
morel xo6 (biamped coaxials) mids - 25wpc actual/65 available from tru 4.65 
tweets - 15wpc actual/65 available

sub

Jl 13tw5 - 400w actual/600 watts available from PPi a600.2

I just picked up an MS-8, will be robbing 1 of the morel xo6's for a dash center channel (have to create an opening in my 06 tacoma), replacing my rears with HAT imagine coaxials, and adding passive bi-amp crossovers between the front L-4's and md102's (quasi-active) in order to squeeze my system down to the ms-8's 8-channel capability. Initially buying more power than needed and going for 4 channel amps during my first install makes these changes possible without replacing amps.

Always look ahead. Your taste/goals now may NOT be your tastes/goals later. It only takes that one smokin deal on a set of speakers you never thought youd afford to change everything...lol... I agree with others, buy as much CLEAN power as you can afford AND that you can safely fit in your install, leaving you headroom AND options for future expansion.


----------



## sandfleee (Jun 22, 2008)

sqshoestring said:


> The driver spl certainly makes a difference. My fronts are boston comps rated for 250w or something huge, I think they needed 125 to really play right. 50rms worked, but at 70mph with the windows down I will have no problem hearing the music clear now even though I don't play it like that much. They have passive xovers and I have no idea what the efficiency is. The alpine coax in the rear are dialed down in the HU and at the amp, but would likely go louder on the same power. I had planned to try to install 8 or 10" midbass and hoped ~100rms would be enough, but working lots of hours and other projects right now so can't do a thing.
> 
> Most amps do sound the same, the largest difference by far is the clean power they make. Some amps have different distortion curves. I also learned a lot about them in repairing them, it was an eyeopener.
> 
> I don't understand the one poster about home 120v affecting the speakers. You can take the 120vAC directly into the power supply and it is easier to produce the +/- rail voltage you desire, rather then running a PWM power supply like a car amp....but rail power is rail power and is the only thing the speakers see, when released to them. Even though home speakers tend to be 8 ohm the efficiency is quite high, you have *way* lower noise floor, way less reflective distortions/etc or can deal with them better. High power subs/midbass tend to be really inefficient in cars, some enclosures don't help things any, thus they need more power. Cars do have cabin gain and small areas to help them.



120v service doesnt fluctuate nearly as much as 12v car/alternator systems do...


----------



## TrickyRicky (Apr 5, 2009)

ChrisB said:


> I think Zuki Audio will give you a run for your money by getting louder with LESS power.:laugh:


I for one can say I've never have heard a zuki before, but judging by their size you know they ain't no where near what they are rated. In that case my (well I dont have it yet in my hands) bp1200.1 is only 1.5watt. "How you like them apples" lol.


----------



## stalintc (Dec 6, 2007)

sqshoestring said:


> The driver spl certainly makes a difference. My fronts are boston comps rated for 250w or something huge, I think they needed 125 to really play right. 50rms worked, but at 70mph with the windows down I will have no problem hearing the music clear now even though I don't play it like that much. They have passive xovers and I have no idea what the efficiency is. The alpine coax in the rear are dialed down in the HU and at the amp, but would likely go louder on the same power. I had planned to try to install 8 or 10" midbass and hoped ~100rms would be enough, but working lots of hours and other projects right now so can't do a thing.
> 
> Most amps do sound the same, the largest difference by far is the clean power they make. Some amps have different distortion curves. I also learned a lot about them in repairing them, it was an eyeopener.
> 
> I don't understand the one poster about home 120v affecting the speakers. You can take the 120vAC directly into the power supply and it is easier to produce the +/- rail voltage you desire, rather then running a PWM power supply like a car amp....but rail power is rail power and is the only thing the speakers see, when released to them. Even though home speakers tend to be 8 ohm the efficiency is quite high, you have *way* lower noise floor, way less reflective distortions/etc or can deal with them better. High power subs/midbass tend to be really inefficient in cars, some enclosures don't help things any, thus they need more power. Cars do have cabin gain and small areas to help them.


Thanks SQ, you hit the topic I was going to bring up. What is the typical rail voltage of a receiver? My guess is most are around +/- 35V, not 120V. What about a decent amp for the car? Probably similar. My point? A 120V input does not necessarily mean it is sending 120V to the speaker. 

According to some dude named Ohm, even if the speaker did see 120V from a home amplifier (assuming an ideal linear driver as most discussions on this matter do) the only effect it would have would be to reduce the necessary current to achieve a similar power rating. Watt = Power = current * voltage. If voltage or current goes up, the other goes down for the same amount of power.


----------



## Wesayso (Jul 20, 2010)

Wesayso said:


> In case anyone is wondering, I'm the one vote under 300,
> 
> 2x 22w powering the Hertz space 1 tweeters (powered by the Pioneer HU, P88rsII)
> 2x 55w powering the Hertz ml1600 woofers
> ...


Need to change my vote...

2x 50 watt on tweeters
2x 95 watt on Hertz ML1600
1x 290 watt on JBL GTO 804

So I guess my total has moved up quite a bit.

With a change in gain setting (way to high before with the JBL amp) it sounds much better.


----------



## UNBROKEN (Sep 25, 2009)

75 each side on midranges and tweeters, 150 per side on midbass and 1000 on a single sub. 
Not enough? Too much? Who knows...it sounds good though.


----------



## Chaos (Oct 27, 2005)

240phil said:


> you guys are forgetting something really major when it comes to home audio versus car audio. Voltage
> A house have 120 volts
> a car only has 12
> 
> ...


That is just all sorts of wrong, and has practically nothing to do with the topic.


----------



## Mr. Nice Guy (Jul 21, 2011)

240phil said:


> you guys are forgetting something really major when it comes to home audio versus car audio. Voltage
> A house have 120 volts
> a car only has 12
> 
> ...


This is easily the most uninformed post I've seen here in a while.


----------



## TJ Mobile Audio (May 6, 2009)

240phil said:


> you guys are forgetting something really major when it comes to home audio versus car audio. Voltage
> A house have 120 volts
> a car only has 12
> 
> ...


Just thinking this could use some clarification.

2 watts = 2.83 volts at 4 ohms.
1 watt = 2.83 volts at 8 ohms.
0.5 watts = 2.83 volts at 16 ohms.

The missing variable is amperes. In fact, another term for watts is volt-amperes. At lower resistance, you draw more amps. So:

1 watt 4 ohms = 1.42 volts * 0.7 amps
1 watt 8 ohms = 2.83 volts * 0.35 amps
1 watt 16 ohms = 5.66 volts * 0.18 amps

That is the relation between volts, amps, and resistance. In fact E = I x R (ohm's law). Voltage (E) = Current (I) x Resistance (R)...............

Whether home or car audio, efficiency is rated at 1 watt, 1 meter. So now explain how a home watt is more than a car watt?

If your post were true, people would run power inverters in their cars and hook up home components instead.

My Carver amp (home) states 100 watts RMS per channel. I hooked it up in my car once via extension cord, just for kicks and yes it was loud as hell. BUT, it has 6 amp fusing at 120 volts (up to 720 watt input), and most likely puts out at least a true 150 watts RMS per channel into 8 ohms, and at least that much at 4. I could conclude then, since my high-end American-made 1980s home amp running at 4 ohms stereo is louder than a 200 watt Pyle or <insert generic brand name here> under the same loading conditions, that home watts are more than car watts. But would that really be a valid conclusion?

Further clarification: http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculator-ohm.htm


----------



## strakele (Mar 2, 2009)

3500 watts, and I compete in SQ. Lots of headroom = awesome dynamics. Also, none of my drivers are especially efficient. Mid 80's.

500 x 2 to the midranges
500 x 2 to the midbasses
750 x 2 to the subs

At the first meet I went to, I remember someone saying how the average musical CD has around 30dB of dynamic range. So theoretically if you need 1 watt for a speaker for the quietest parts, you need 1000 watts for the same speaker to really play the loudest peaks accurately.

All the best sounding systems I've heard have had much more than a few hundred watts.


----------



## The Baron Groog (Mar 15, 2010)

240phil said:


> you guys are forgetting something really major when it comes to home audio versus car audio. Voltage
> A house have 120 volts
> a car only has 12
> 
> ...


lol! Will all this fit as a signiture?

EDIT: no


----------



## getonerd (Jul 24, 2007)

i have 62 x 4 going to my doors and 700 to my sub 

thats RMS


----------



## lithoman (Jul 21, 2011)

coyote-1 said:


> A home system only needs 30 watts per channel and 150 or less to the subwoofer to blast out a large room. I'm a musician, and I've gigged in situations where the sum-total of all (bass amp, guitar amps, PA amp) was around 700 watts and the club owner would tell you to turn it down.
> 
> The car system I'll be installing (in spring) is 45 RMS per channel, and if I do a sub it'll be perhaps 200 max. Unless your goal is to use SPL break the windows in houses and storefronts as you drive past, that's really all you need for most applications.


bet you dont drive a S2000


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

strakele said:


> 3500 watts, and I compete in SQ. Lots of headroom = awesome dynamics. Also, none of my drivers are especially efficient. Mid 80's.
> 
> 500 x 2 to the midranges
> 500 x 2 to the midbasses
> ...


I completely agree with this way of thinking. Every time I've added power I've gained better SQ, even at the same listening levels.

I don't have as much power as you though I wish I did. I have 300 per midbass, 175 per mid which is becoming 300 each once I bridge it and 175 for the tweeters. 1,000 to the subs that require less than 200w each. I don't listen to it really loud very often but it has great dynamics at any volume.


----------



## Machine7 (Nov 17, 2010)

I can understand how "over amplification" with gains turned down can produce cleaner sound- or at least it seems like a fair enough assumption. 

However another consideration is alternator output. If the total vehicle current use is creating fluctuations in the supply, this will greatly influence SQ as well. 

So would it be better to run a "digital amp" which I think are all class D for the best compromise? I recently asked a shop if the class D digital amps sound as good as AB amps and they swore they sound better.


----------



## TJ Mobile Audio (May 6, 2009)

Machine7 said:


> I can understand how "over amplification" with gains turned down can produce cleaner sound- or at least it seems like a fair enough assumption.
> 
> However another consideration is alternator output. If the total vehicle current use is creating fluctuations in the supply, this will greatly influence SQ as well.
> 
> So would it be better to run a "digital amp" which I think are all class D for the best compromise? I recently asked a shop if the class D digital amps sound as good as AB amps and they swore they sound better.


Class D and digital are not the same. IIRC, class D only refers to the power stage circuitry, the pre-amp stage could have digital or analog circuitry. At this point, a good class D is indistinguishable from an A/B provided neither is designed to color the sound.

Class-D amplifier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## FAUEE (Jul 22, 2010)

It all depends on how deep in you wanna get. I've got roughly 1000 RMS available, but I don't use anywhere near that much, my gains are turned down and I can't remember the volume knob got up to even 75%.

Many factory stereo \s that are considered "nice" are less than 500W RMS. The Rockford Fosgate system in our new Outlander sounds very good for stock, and it's around 300W RMS. 150W or so of which is subwoofer. To the average listener, this setup is "very good". 

So a lot of it depends on your speakers, the OEM speakers are designed to work with less power, are more efficient, and are able to do their job well with the tools given to them. Aftermarket companies have to cater to a lot of different groups (even entry level systems have these absurdly high power ratings nowdays for the SPL junkies and their 4x 15s and 4kW), and so they can't make a speaker that's solely for systems of up to say 35W RMS (And even if they did, they'd run into the people who think that their head unit really puts out 25W RMS per channel destroying them).

I'm rambling now, but my point is that you can build a system that sounds very nice without a ton of power or money. But as consumers and enthusiasts, very few of us want to. We enjoy this a lot, so we're subconsciously wired to want to spend more and have more. Whether that's more power, bigger speakers, bigger subs, etc. it doesn't matter. We just want more, even though we might be able to do essentially the same thing for a lot less money.


----------



## TrickyRicky (Apr 5, 2009)

Machine7 said:


> I can understand how "over amplification" with gains turned down can produce cleaner sound- or at least it seems like a fair enough assumption.
> 
> However another consideration is alternator output. If the total vehicle current use is creating fluctuations in the supply, this will greatly influence SQ as well.
> 
> *So would it be better to run a "digital amp" which I think are all class D for the best compromise? I recently asked a shop if the class D digital amps sound as good as AB amps and they swore they sound better.*


Joke of the year!:laugh:

I hope that shop didnt tell you Class D is for "DIGITAL" otherwise I would never go back in that store or talk to that specific sales person.


----------



## Gcarpenter87 (Aug 12, 2011)

I'm going for an SQ setup. All hertz Mille. Mlk 3 up front and ml1600 rear with 2 ml3000. 600w RMS into each sub (HDP1x2) and 150w RMS x4 (HDP4) into the speakers.
all about SQ but still heaps of juice.


----------



## envisionelec (Dec 14, 2005)

As much as I can afford or have room for. My last system was a little over 1kW and wasn't enough on regular chamber music. Rock was just meh. Rap - well, it clipped a lot...and the bass measured relatively flat in-cabin.

I'm never an SPL junkie, but you gotta remember that most car audio people listen to clipping systems on a regular basis.

I think 1kW is a starting point for any active system that doesn't clip at moderate listening levels on music with a high crest factor.


----------



## envisionelec (Dec 14, 2005)

strakele said:


> 3500 watts, and I compete in SQ. Lots of headroom = awesome dynamics. Also, none of my drivers are especially efficient. Mid 80's.
> 
> 500 x 2 to the midranges
> 500 x 2 to the midbasses
> ...


I should have read more before posting. You nailed it. 3500W is a good place to be and not at all outrageous.


----------



## strakele (Mar 2, 2009)

Yep. With the gains set right, I can max the volume and it never clips or distorts... just gets super loud and maintains clarity, while having great dynamics.

Still may seem like a crazy amount of power to a lot of people, but driver sensitivity is huge. If you have very efficient drivers like 90+dB, you obviously won't need as much.

But like I said, none of my speakers are very efficient so lots of power helps.


----------



## PottersField (Mar 18, 2011)

I'm running 75x4 to my front and 500x1 to my subs and I'm beginning to wish for more up front. It's _almost_ enough but I've found that listening to rock or country the sound is well balanced, but listening to rap or hip hop the subs easily drown out the mids. Then again, this is all at loud listening levels. Below say, 1/2 volume, the subs fall flat on their face at times.


----------



## humandrummachine (May 17, 2010)

I was trying to run around 600 watts, figured out due to the alt/battery I probably was only around 200-300.

Is upgrading the alt and battery worth it?


----------



## strakele (Mar 2, 2009)

Must have a pretty weak alt/battery if the system is only capable of 2-300W.

What size battery, alternator, and what amps? If you electrical system is really only capable of providing 20-30 amps, upgrading cabling, alternator, and battery could be quite beneficial.


----------



## strakele (Mar 2, 2009)

First time I have ever fallen victim to the auto-dupe feature..


----------



## gjmallory (Apr 13, 2010)

I am running 580 rms total. 140 x2 going to old school 64.3 Boston Acoustic 3-way separates (using thier passive x-overs) & 300 rms going to my sub. The separates sound Phenomenal! 

My sub stage needs to be re-worked though. I am about to completly redo it. It is fine for pure SQ, but sometimes I want to show-off! I plan to change my sub and upgrade to 1Kwatts. My situation is a bit different than most though...I have a convertible, so massive road noise combined with no transfer function and the rear shelf and rear seat are solid sheets of sheetmetal.


----------



## billbillw (Aug 25, 2009)

I voted for 300-600, but I gotta tell you, I was more than happy for about 5-6 years running a single Sony XM-C2000 for amplification. That provided an active system with 30x4 for mids and tweets and a solid 80w bridged mono for subs. That was running a set of early 90s Sony components and four R-F 8" subs. It was plenty loud.

More recently, I ran everything off of an Audison SRx3 which gave ~70x2 for front stage and ~250w for sub. It was a much less efficient set of speakers compared to what I had in the 90s.


----------



## humandrummachine (May 17, 2010)

strakele said:


> Must have a pretty weak alt/battery if the system is only capable of 2-300W.
> 
> What size battery, alternator, and what amps? If you electrical system is really only capable of providing 20-30 amps, upgrading cabling, alternator, and battery could be quite beneficial.


Alt: 117A or 136A, not sure. anyway battery is around 600 or 700amps or something. And i was _trying_ to run anywhere between 300-1000 Rms

Also I read on the internet that my truck uses 100amps I think. I did some sort of math a couple days ago and found out i was probably getting around 200 watts/10-20 amps @ 12 or 13 volts for audio after all was said and done.


----------



## sqshoestring (Jun 19, 2007)

My car has a 125A and it has no problems with 1Kw total but is class D. I only have a 5ga wire to the amps actually. If I turn the lights and stuff on and just max it out it will start to dim some but not real bad, if it is not at idle it barely dims. Stopped with brakes on and AC and lights/etc, it is kind of bad but above 12v. But I hardly crank it max at night so not a big deal, I hardly ever run it hard stopped at idle only in the garage just to test it. On the other hand I don't know if I ever maxed out the 500rms on my IB subs and highly doubt the 4x125 is putting out that much either with a HP at 80Hz, since I don't do bass music and don't audibly clip it. So your use can change how much power the amps use.


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

It's nice being all class D with IB subs. 1,500w total and a very loud, clean system. Should only draw around 1,800w on the input side peak, probably 1/4 of that on average.


----------



## humandrummachine (May 17, 2010)

For sure, sometimes I think it would sound better without that gray area for me at least. Perhaps some sort of better response with perfectly ideal wattage.

I can notice a difference in sound when the engine is at idle compared to having more rpm.


----------



## ampaddiction (Jan 15, 2012)

I run a pre 99 USA-400 on my mids/highs with a real world output of 300+watts per channel My front stage is a single set of A/D/S al5's which I have used for over 15 years. I also have a USA-400 on two 10 mid bass up front. Then 2 more USA-400's on 2 15" subs. Well over 4000 watts of sq power. There is no such thing as to much power but over 1500/2000 watts will require electrical upgrades for sure.


----------



## Richv72 (May 11, 2012)

coyote-1 said:


> A home system only needs 30 watts per channel and 150 or less to the subwoofer to blast out a large room. I'm a musician, and I've gigged in situations where the sum-total of all (bass amp, guitar amps, PA amp) was around 700 watts and the club owner would tell you to turn it down.
> 
> The car system I'll be installing (in spring) is 45 RMS per channel, and if I do a sub it'll be perhaps 200 max. Unless your goal is to use SPL break the windows in houses and storefronts as you drive past, that's really all you need for most applications.


This is my goal, but i want to sound good at the same time.


----------



## gjmallory (Apr 13, 2010)

The only problem with coyote -1's post is that the venues he played probably didn't have the sound of a freeway, sirens, the sound of rubber rolling against cement at 70 mph... Or wind rushing by inches away. That's why we need so much power.


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

Some of those pro audio setups are 4x more efficient than our car stuff. I have 900w available for the front stage and 500 for the subs and its just about right. I certainly wouldn't want to give any of it up.


----------



## strakele (Mar 2, 2009)

Efficiency plays a huge role. If you run all pro audio stuff that's 95+ dB efficient, you'll need 1/4 or less of the power that someone running even pretty high efficiency 89dB car audio stuff will need for the same output. Less required power also means less power compression, less heat, less electrical strain.. lots of good stuff. 40W vs 160W is a huge difference.

I have bridged amps on most of my speakers because they aren't efficient. But I'd sure like to do a pro audio build one day.


On the other hand, I think most people would be surprised at what they find when measuring the voltage output on their amps when listening at volume they think is "loud." Probably won't be nearly as high as you think...


----------



## bamelanc (Sep 13, 2009)

I have 150 watts a channel to my Focal KR2s (I don't think is enough) and 750 watts to one 10w3v3-2. I want to go active so I can increase the headroom to my components up front and all the nice things that come with being able to TA/phase adjust each individual speaker...ditching rear fill all together. I think 750 watts to my sub is enough...plenty of headroom.


----------



## eggyhustles (Sep 18, 2008)

strakele said:


> Efficiency plays a huge role. If you run all pro audio stuff that's 95+ dB efficient, you'll need 1/4 or less of the power that someone running even pretty high efficiency 89dB car audio stuff will need for the same output. Less required power also means less power compression, less heat, less electrical strain.. lots of good stuff. 40W vs 160W is a huge difference.
> 
> I have bridged amps on most of my speakers because they aren't efficient. But I'd sure like to do a pro audio build one day.
> 
> ...


I have a **** load of headroom in my pro audio setup. 

6300 watts

300 to each midbass, midrange, & horn
4500 on 1 18 

Every speaker in the car(including the sub) is at least 90db efficient.


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

eggyhustles said:


> I have a **** load of headroom in my pro audio setup.
> 
> 6300 watts
> 
> ...


Hmmm. Yet you didn't like my idea of putting a 750/1 on each 89db 10" midbass. Having 300w on a horn is a lot more insane than 750 on a midrange or midbass.


----------



## gtsdohcvvtli (Aug 17, 2011)

1910 rms total

2 class AB amps

320 x 2 front 2 way passive Focal krx2
160 x 2 rear fill mid bass Focal kr2
950 x 1 on a pair of Hertz Mille 10's

Plenty of dynamics. Very rarely played loud unless the wifey is riding in the car with me.


----------



## eggyhustles (Sep 18, 2008)

BuickGN said:


> Hmmm. Yet you didn't like my idea of putting a 750/1 on each 89db 10" midbass. Having 300w on a horn is a lot more insane than 750 on a midrange or midbass.


The plan was 1 600 4 for the midrange and horns, but the seller i bought them from didn't want to break the 2 up.


----------



## oilman (Feb 21, 2012)

95x2 on tweeters
95x2 on midrange 
280x2 on 16 DVC midbass 
1400x1 on 13" sub

It's plenty for me. Though from a experimental standpoint I would like to hear my system on with double what I have now, just to know if a ton of headroom makes that big of difference. Or even better a switch between the two amp setups so I could change back and forth playing the same song. That last part was a pipedream. 


Damn auto correct


----------



## djbreal87 (Jun 24, 2012)

Between my front stage, rear fill, and 2 subs, im running 1500 watts


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

My near future system with an additional HD amp will have 1200w for the front stage, 750w for the subs. That's only 200w above the front stage's combined thermal power handling and below the subs' thermal power handling. Some other very high end SQ systems I've hard have 2-3x the speaker's rated thermal power handling available for transients. I doubt mine pulls more than 200w on average during normal listening but head room is nice.


----------



## eggyhustles (Sep 18, 2008)

moar powa!


----------



## SaturnSL1 (Jun 27, 2011)

If I throw in a 225A fuse and run a sine I should* be able to get about 2500 watts out of my subwoofer amp 

Car may go up in flames trying though lol


----------



## JeremyC (Dec 20, 2007)

I had to vote SPL Junkie, but that isn't really the case. 

I'm running 600 watts RMS on my front stage. 150 per channel x 4. 

And around 700 watts RMS to each sub. 

But my car isn't designed to be an SPL car. I just like having the ability to get decently loud. 

And I still want more power on my mid bass when I swap cars. ;-)


----------



## JeremyC (Dec 20, 2007)

billbillw said:


> I voted for 300-600, but I gotta tell you, I was more than happy for about 5-6 years running a single Sony XM-C2000 for amplification. That provided an active system with 30x4 for mids and tweets and a solid 80w bridged mono for subs. That was running a set of early 90s Sony components and four R-F 8" subs. It was plenty loud.
> .


I had the same Sony amp in a 1990 grand am. That little bastered rocked for being as small as it was.


----------



## Alrojoca (Oct 5, 2012)

Component sets in the $600 plus range, like Hertz HSK, MK or Hat, Clarus, Legatia. Those sets are very efficient at 91-93db sensitivity.

The questions I have are:

Why do they need more power to sound better (over 125 w rms) ? is the reason the passive crossover? Assuming going active on a set like this. Is it worth it (for SQ and SPL or use their passive crossovers)? 

What is a better scenario in this case>? assuming a good HU with SP is used or any other external SP is used. 

30W per driver going active?

30W per driver with passive by amplified?

or 200watt per channel going with their passive crossovers?

Whatever works better is a good answer but not the preferred one , I guess it will also depend if the manufacturer made the set to sound better with their passive crossover and more power. I think the ones that currently active systems and tried all configurations can provide a better answer.

Not quite off topic, since many components can be efficient but they still need extra power to sound better at louder levels and not quite good at lower levels.


----------



## MinnesotaStateUniversity (Sep 12, 2012)

meh, I forget. Probably 20-30 wrms on my woofers & 10-20 on my tweeters. I have a single 8" IB in the rear deck right under 100 wrms

amplifiers are all homemade. 

You don't need a lot of power. Talk to don ...edit, you won't get a response. 

I'm more of a quiet vehicle/low wattage kinda guy


----------



## narvarr (Jan 20, 2009)

My current system wattage is 3050...1300 watts on front stage and 1750 watts on subs. I went from 500 watts total to 3050 watts and the difference is like night and day! Headroom rules!

Sent from my SAMSUNG GALAXY NOTE using Tapatalk 2


----------



## sqshoestring (Jun 19, 2007)

I ran an old alpine 4x50/1x150 mrv-f357 5 channel, it worked really well. That was when I had quad 12s IB. My boston comps likely are not that efficient since they can handle a lot of power. It sounded great just didn't go that loud, certainly should compete with a very good factory system these days and likely a lot better bass. Why do I have 500rms on subs and 4x125 on 4 doors now....well even 350 on subs would go much louder than the 4x50 and 4x75 I ran on highs before, so I needed something more. The 500 has that extra kick when you hammer it and the 125/ch can almost keep up. So more or less on Friday when I feel the need to dial it up on the way home I can get the most out of it. And I sometimes like to listen to bass heavy music or I would not bother with a pair of 15s in my car.

What is with headroom, I'd say some here are a little overboard but its not bad either. What happens is if you clamped an amp to see the power you might see 5% power and when a midbass/bass section hits you might see 50% power. Music is dynamic and there can be that much difference at the same volume level. Given a lot of popular music is compressed these days and that gets rid of some dynamics. I don't like a lot in a car anyway, its like a HT system you get loud passages and very quiet ones, you need a car quiet as a coffin to listen to that on the road. So if you listen at higher volumes your music is getting clipped off because a small amp can't supply the peaks of power necessary.


----------



## syc0path (Jan 23, 2013)

I'm running a 1400WRMS sub amp to 2 12s, and 200WRMS to 6.5s in the front (100W/side). But my subs are in a small sealed box, and they're incredibly accurate and punchy. I could put them in a huge ported box if I really wanted to be crazy loud. But instead I'd rather be decently loud w/ very good SQ.


----------



## 8675309 (Jan 8, 2007)

You want as many as you can get.


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

BuickGN said:


> My near future system with an additional HD amp will have 1200w for the front stage, 750w for the subs. That's only 200w above the front stage's combined thermal power handling and below the subs' thermal power handling. Some other very high end SQ systems I've hard have 2-3x the speaker's rated thermal power handling available for transients. I doubt mine pulls more than 200w on average during normal listening but head room is nice.


Since this was brought back to the top, I'll mention I did what I said I was going to do and I have 1200w to the fronts, almost 1200w to the subs. Forget how loud it will go, there is a difference in the way it sounds even without the volume cranked too loud. It kind of makes me want to try more power but I have to stop it somewhere. If I do add more power it will be to the front stage, the subs have way more than enough power.


----------



## TheScottishBear (Feb 3, 2011)

30 watts to the horns
120 watts to the 12" in the door (Just installed them today.)
1200 to 3 18" IB subs
Doubling the power to the frontstage speakers in a month or two.


----------



## RNBRAD (Oct 30, 2012)

I've used the same speakers, 6.5'' 3 way OS quart reference set on amps with 25x2, 75x2, and 100x2 watts. Each bump was noticeable and really noticeable from 25 watts per side. Distortion came way to early with 25 a side. I would guess anything beyond 100 is probably a total waste for me. 100 per side is really impressive with no hint of distortion beyond the pain level. I also went from 300watts powering two 12's to 800 watts on same 12's. Noticed minimal if any difference there. But my 12's are pretty much played out after 100watts anyway. Non spl system with a set of 3 ways and two 12's, 400 watts RMS should be plenty.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

im at about 4500 watts and i dont consider myself an spl junkie. just headroom junkie


----------



## SaturnSL1 (Jun 27, 2011)

SkizeR said:


> im at about 4500 watts and i dont consider myself an spl junkie. just headroom junkie


What kind of batteries and alternator are you going with?


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

SaturnSL1 said:


> What kind of batteries and alternator are you going with?



2 xs power batteries and not sure on alternator. I did order a Tenney and they were just wwasting time and screwing around so i got my money back.


----------



## edzyy (Aug 18, 2011)

little over 7000 watts on tap in my SQ setup

800 on tap per midbass
300 on tap per midrange
300 on tap per HLCD
4500 on tap for the 18

Moms car has 2400
Girlfriends car has 7100

All SQ setups


----------



## cajunner (Apr 13, 2007)

edzyy said:


> little over 7000 watts on tap in my SQ setup
> 
> 800 on tap per midbass
> 300 on tap per midrange
> ...


that's too much!

:laugh:


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

edzyy said:


> little over 7000 watts on tap in my SQ setup
> 
> 800 on tap per midbass
> 300 on tap per midrange
> ...


Alternators? Batteries?


----------



## a-minus (May 7, 2013)

SkizeR said:


> 2 xs power batteries and not sure on alternator. I did order a Tenney and they were just wwasting time and screwing around so i got my money back.


You should hit up DC power. I called everyone else when I was looking for mine, and they definitely had the best customer service and the highest output. I could not be happier with my alt.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

a-minus said:


> You should hit up DC power. I called everyone else when I was looking for mine, and they definitely had the best customer service and the highest output. I could not be happier with my alt.


ive heard horror stories. the only alternator company i havent heard bad things about is singer alternators.


----------



## a-minus (May 7, 2013)

SkizeR said:


> ive heard horror stories. the only alternator company i havent heard bad things about is singer alternators.


In my experience, most alternator companies suck. They're all slow, and communication is usually at a minimum. However, DC power was the only company that consistently answered the phone when I called.


----------



## Schizm (Jun 12, 2011)

SkizeR said:


> im at about 4500 watts and i dont consider myself an spl junkie. just headroom junkie


Now I'm curious to what your system really is! Lol

And buickgn with 1200 to the front stage even. 

You guys running 4ohm front stage speakers? My front stage will be about 900 off 2 arc SEs


----------



## edzyy (Aug 18, 2011)

SkizeR said:


> Alternators? Batteries?


MechMan 320 amp in mine and 3 batts


----------



## SaturnSL1 (Jun 27, 2011)

edzyy said:


> MechMan 320 amp in my mine and 3 batts


Beastly amount of power!


----------



## tnbubba (Mar 1, 2008)

the 3 things you cannot have enough of... money .. horsepower and P***Y


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

Schizm said:


> Now I'm curious to what your system really is! Lol
> 
> And buickgn with 1200 to the front stage even.
> 
> You guys running 4ohm front stage speakers? My front stage will be about 900 off 2 arc SEs


Just good clean power. I'm trying to get the urge to run more power to the midrange to go away. The downside is it seems like there's nothing to signal the brain when it's too loud anymore. Before this last upgrade the midbass would clip and that was the cue that maybe I'm pushing it too hard. I've been in the garage with the car doors shut, windows up and the whole car deadened and with a sound barrier, thick garage door closed, and the fiancée says she can hear every word in the back of the house. I love the dynamic clean power but I had to get used to paying more attention to where the volume is at vs just cranking it up. I almost became one of "those guys" when my friend said he could hear it 2 cars back when we were sitting at a light and with my windows up. I don't like annoying other people with my music. Apparently the IB is not loud near the car but I'm told it travels and gets pretty loud a couple cars back and apparently the front stage is just as easily heard. To me it was moderately loud at the time but nothing I thought even the car next to me could hear. 

At least as I'm told they can hear every detail. Maybe it's time to get my ears checked but a lot of this started when I got rid of the midbass clipping. I sometimes think we need to rethink how many watts a SQ system needs in order to be dynamic at a decently loud level. I don't think I could ever go back to the flat sound when I had 75w per channel. It got plenty loud but it just wasn't dynamic. I wonder how long it will take to toast a VC on one of my Dyns.


----------



## Aleksrussian (Jul 8, 2013)

strakele said:


> Efficiency plays a huge role. If you run all pro audio stuff that's 95+ dB efficient, you'll need 1/4 or less of the power that someone running even pretty high efficiency 89dB car audio stuff will need for the same output. Less required power also means less power compression, less heat, less electrical strain.. lots of good stuff. 40W vs 160W is a huge difference.
> 
> I have bridged amps on most of my speakers because they aren't efficient. But I'd sure like to do a pro audio build one day.
> 
> ...



You are absolutely correct, My Klipsch RF-82's have a 98db sensitivity, and with 90 watts one speaker can go louder than the 300 watts i'm pushing to the 4 speakers in my car. Efficiency is important and can make a world of difference, can also save you a block of cash with smaller less powerful amps providing the same output..


----------



## jriggs (Jun 14, 2011)

Adding another amp to the front (tweeters). When done the front will have 1300 watts and 1500 to the subs. 150 per tweeter, 250 per mid range, 250 per mid bass and 750 per sub.

I agree with BuickGN, the more clean power I add the better.


----------



## Thunderbird88 (Apr 19, 2013)

SkizeR said:


> im at about 4500 watts and i dont consider myself an spl junkie. just headroom junkie


Same for me.
I'm at 3.6kW RMS on the subs, 100w RMS for the tweeters and 150w RMS for the mids.
Not exactly full out SQ. My full out SQ system was extremely nice to SQ music but I did not like it to anything else. So I went SQL. Now I can play SQ music, loud and clear 
But it's not as good as a full out SQ system.


----------



## carlchj (Apr 21, 2013)

That was very informative post!!!!!!!! I was asking the very same question. Reading the thread was not really answering my question until I got to your post. Thank you


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

Thunderbird88 said:


> Same for me.
> I'm at 3.6kW RMS on the subs, 100w RMS for the tweeters and 150w RMS for the mids.
> Not exactly full out SQ. My full out SQ system was extremely nice to SQ music but I did not like it to anything else. So I went SQL. Now I can play SQ music, loud and clear
> But it's not as good as a full out SQ system.


I don't think you have to give up any sound quality to get loud... Well loud for normal people, not what the SPL people call loud. If all you're doing is adding more power and assuming the speakers can take it, you're likely to improve SQ with the additional power at "regular" listening levels. You'll have less distortion for a given SPL with more power available. I'm sure at some point the speakers will have increased distortion as excursion and power go up but at those levels its not likely you'll be able to hear distortion anyway. It seems like some of the best SQ cars have tons of power. I know one guy who has 3x the speakers rms rating going to them and its the best I've heard to date.


----------



## Thunderbird88 (Apr 19, 2013)

BuickGN said:


> I don't think you have to give up any sound quality to get loud... Well loud for normal people, not what the SPL people call loud. If all you're doing is adding more power and assuming the speakers can take it, you're likely to improve SQ with the additional power at "regular" listening levels. You'll have less distortion for a given SPL with more power available. I'm sure at some point the speakers will have increased distortion as excursion and power go up but at those levels its not likely you'll be able to hear distortion anyway. It seems like some of the best SQ cars have tons of power. I know one guy who has 3x the speakers rms rating going to them and its the best I've heard to date.


Definetly.
I don't actually think my sound system qualifies as an SQ system because that would actually be a little bit of a dishonor for those that actually builds SQ system.
But I'm not competing or anything so I just wanted something that can play really good (but not good enough in the good SQ peoples ears) and loud but it wont still not be loud like the real SPL cars. A good rock box in other words


----------



## oilman (Feb 21, 2012)

I think I can speak for some of us in saying we have a few tunes saved. OX points to allow the sub to pick up more gives us better SPL. However, it takes a lot of time to get our car level matched so we don't go there to get more. My car is more than enough but, those SPL guys are at a different level all together.


----------



## bighossf150 (Aug 6, 2013)

16,700 before rise in my walled f150, my daily that Im working on will be in the 700-800 range


----------



## GlassWolf (May 8, 2010)

none of the poll answers fit my car. I have a pair of Orion 2250SX amplifiers @ 14.4VDC in a SQ setup. one amp is bridged @ 4 ohms (1200WRMS) on an Fi Q15, and one stereo @ 4 ohms (300WRMS x 2ch) on DynAudio System 360 3-way front stage speakers. It can get loud, but that wasn't the intent of the system at all.

I had an IASCA car in the 90s that hit over 140dB, was a SQ car, and had an Orion 2125SX and 280GX on 4 hard dome tweeters, 4 soft domes, 4 5" mids, and two Cerwin-Vega LE-12D subs. (2125SX on mids/highs @ 4 ohms, and 280GX @ 2 ohm stereo on subs)

I've done other SQ systems that ran entirely on a single Orion 225HCCA in mixed mono/stereo mode.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

A sound quality setup with 8 tweeters, in a car?


----------



## caraudioworld (Sep 18, 2013)

around 1K for subs and 90x4 for front set. If I start over again I will go down with sub power and look for a capable 5 channel amp, something like the alpine PDX, JL HD or something similar.


----------



## RandyJ75 (Dec 4, 2006)

caraudioworld said:


> around 1K for subs and 90x4 for front set. If I start over again I will go down with sub power and look for a capable 5 channel amp, something like the alpine PDX, JL HD or something similar.



Take a look at the Zuki Hybrid 5 channel.


I have to say, threads like this one are the reason I love this forum.


----------



## xxlrg (Oct 2, 2012)

300 to tweeters, 300 to 5.25 mids, 150 to 6.5 rears(logic 7 only), 1000 to single 12. The tweets are the hat L1R2's and hat claims that it isn't too much. Been running 5.25 Focal KPs off the same 300 watts for like 8 yrs or so and they are still going strong. Rears don't do much off the MS8. 1000 watts to either a Arc Black or 12w7. Amps are all JL Slash Series.


----------



## CrossFired (Jan 24, 2008)

It really depends on the car. In my little 2 door hatch with 50 sq-ft of dynamat xtreme, I could get away with 50 per front side and 100 to the single 10 sub, but I like to have power on tap so I run 100 per front side and 300 to the sub.

If you had a 86 Land Cruiser you may need 2000 watts to play as loud as my tiny car.


----------



## tm4n6910 (Jun 26, 2012)

i have 200 rms running front doors , midbass and tweeter in each , and rear channels running 2 12 inch subs , sounds great


----------



## autokraftgt (Aug 28, 2012)

I am at 1920 watts in my dodge ram 2500
100 watts / each tweeter
360 watts / each midbass
500 watts / each 12" subwoofer

I recently went from 90 watts/ each midbass to 360 watts each...what a difference!


----------



## Kriszilla (Jul 1, 2013)

I'm at 3Kw right now, not counting that my amps all birthed appreciably higher than nominal.

500 to each Anarchy midbass
100 to each L3SE mid
100 to each D3004 tweeter
100 to each Morel 5C in the rear
200 to center channel Morel XO4
1200 to FI Q 12 sub


----------



## minbari (Mar 3, 2011)

watts are not really a good indicator of loudness. In the early 90's I had a pair of 10" and 180 watts and it hit 132db with really good SQ. you can have 1000 watts into a 12" 82db sensitive sub in a 0.75cuft box that will put out ALOT less SPL than a 12" 90db sensitive sub in a large ported or IB, with only 200 watts.

I havent measured SPL on my current system but it gets louder than I can listen to it.

only 

140 watts to each ID X65
30 watts to each ID HLCD
500 watts to pair of 15" pyles.


----------



## avanti1960 (Sep 24, 2011)

my experience in a small SUV (all 4-doors getting top notch deadening) told me that 900 watts was not enough for 4-comp sets and 500 watts to the sub. 
it was straining on lots of music at a volume where i needed it to sound good. 
i added a 300 watt 4-channel amp and bridged the front midbass drivers to see 150 watts each- so my system now puts 250 per front channel, 100 per rear channel and 500 to sealed sub (another thing I demand) for a total of 1200 watts. 
this is my bare minimum SQ requirement for a small suv and sealed sub. it sound very clean and loud when i need it to- but quite honestly still lacks if the windows are rolled down.


----------



## bark424 (Feb 16, 2013)

1400 to one Dayton Ultimax, 400 to each door.


----------

