# Linear Power and Blues RETURN!!!!!



## audiogodz1

Blues Car Audio & Linear Power Are Back | 12 Volt News

*Shreveport, LA (10.25.10) – Blues Car Audio by Linear Power, Inc. is proud to announce the results of their competition team participation in the USACI World Finals.
*
A strong showing was made in Shreveport by the Linear Power / Blues Car Audio competition team with six vehicles qualified and five competing in the event. The sixth, Ray Rayfield’s Ford Escape, was on display in the Blues Car Audio booth. They were the largest team at the World Finals and took home the trophy for team championship. The team was recognized with eight awards.

LinearPower, definitely a “power” from the past had a substantial presence on the event floor. Ray Rayfield is leading a group that is relaunching the brand. Rayfield told 12voltnews.com “We are now shipping our Blues speakers -subs to 10″, separates and a component set. Linear amplifiers will be shipping after the first of the year. All of our products are designed and built in the US of A. Our products are all about reproducing music. The dealers we presently have on board find our approach refreshing – and profitable.”

Awards
John Neal – World Champion for Mod Q
Richard Nye – Region 6 overall and World SQ Point Champion
Randal Johnson – Region 2 SQ Point Champion
Herman Smith – World Champion for Intro SQ+
TJ Lacharite – Third place in Super Mod SQ+ and third place in Open SPL

It a field heavily saturated with boom and flash the products and vehicles brought by Blues and Linear Power were strongly focused on sound quality and reliability. These vehicles attracted much attention due to their different approach to demonstrating products. Not one Blues speaker or Linear Power amplifier was damaged during a long weekend of hard abuse. TJ Lacharite was even asked to “turn it down” for the SPL awards.

Linear Power, Inc. and the Blues Car Audio product line are headed strong into 2011 starting with the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas, NV. January 6 – 9. The competition team will be expanding its numbers in the coming year so look to see them at USACI, IASCA, and MECA events in 2011.
This momentum comes right before the highly anticipated release of the brand new line of Linear Power amplifiers.
All Linear Power amplifiers and Blues drivers are designed in house and built in the USA.

Blues Car Audio - Speakers for no compromise sound quality 
Linear Power, Inc. - For The Love Of Music


----------



## CulinaryGod

Very cool!


----------



## audiogodz1

I think what makes Blues relevant in todays society is that nothing has came along since the mid 90's for SQ development and these guys were the good stuff. Therefore, they should still be just as relevant since nothing but SPL products have came since then. You can pull ANY mid-90's SQ system out and put it on the block against whatever is out there today and be right on the money. New products, same great SQ = WIN.

MOST IMPORTANT is this is another MADE IN THE USA setup.


----------



## W8 a minute

Was it Blues that made the isobaric box with 2 8" subs sharing space with a single 10" sub?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## thehatedguy

Yeap. Blues Tri-sobaric.


----------



## audiogodz1

> Not one Blues speaker or Linear Power amplifier was damaged during a long weekend of hard abuse. TJ Lacharite was even asked to “turn it down” for the SPL awards.


This was one of my favorite parts.


----------



## ChrisB

audiogodz1 said:


> MOST IMPORTANT is this is another MADE IN THE USA setup.


I didn't know that re-badged LPG 25NFA tweeter was made in the USA...


----------



## audiogodz1

ChrisB said:


> I didn't know that re-badged LPG 25NFA tweeter was made in the USA...


Have you noticed you pretty much post only negatives? I have. Eat a peach and put a grin on your face every now and then. Live ten years longer.


----------



## TREETOP

audiogodz1 said:


> I think what makes Blues relevant in todays society is that nothing has came along since the mid 90's for SQ development and these guys were the good stuff. Therefore, they should still be just as relevant since nothing but SPL products have came since then. You can pull ANY mid-90's SQ system out and put it on the block against whatever is out there today and be right on the money. New products, same great SQ = WIN.
> 
> MOST IMPORTANT is this is another MADE IN THE USA setup.


LOL!



audiogodz1 said:


> Have you noticed you pretty much post only negatives? I have.


Have you noticed he's right and you're wrong? I have.


----------



## carstereo1

I have read about and talked to the guys at Blues and they openly say the tweeter is made in Germany, for them, to their specs off of an existing design. The ferro-fluid is different, the Fs and power handling a little different. Look at Hybrid Audio they say US built and their tweeters are rebranded Scanspeaks. HELL, the Alpine F1 speakers are Scanspeaks (revelators)totally, and there or more companies doing this with their products, at least 90 percent or more of the Blues stuff is original to them. 

Not many, if any companies make their own tweeters. And if you read close enough Blues says the drivers are designed and built in the USA. A driver is generally considered a woofer or mid not a tweeter. Also under US law you can claim US built if the larger precentage (not sure the exact percentage split)of your product is built here. I also noticed that the woofers have made in the USA on them but the tweeter does not, meaning they are not trying to mis-lead anyone. Some people just want to be negative about everything.


----------



## audiogodz1

carstereo1 said:


> I have read about and talked to the guys at Blues and they openly say the tweeter is made in Germany, for them, to their specs off of an existing design. The ferro-fluid is different, the Fs and power handling a little different. Look at Hybrid Audio they say US built and their tweeters are rebranded Scanspeaks. HELL, the Alpine F1 speakers are Scanspeaks (revelators)totally, and there or more companies doing this with their products, at least 90 percent or more of the Blues stuff is original to them.
> 
> Not many, if any companies make their own tweeters. And if you read close enough Blues says the drivers are designed and built in the USA. A driver is generally considered a woofer or mid not a tweeter. Also under US law you can claim US built if the larger precentage (not sure the exact percentage split)of your product is built here. I also noticed that the woofers have made in the USA on them but the tweeter does not, meaning they are not trying to mis-lead anyone. Some people just want to be negative about everything.


For serious.




TREETOP said:


> Have you noticed he's right and you're wrong? I have.


Ahh witty, well... no, not really.


----------



## ChrisB

audiogodz1 said:


> Have you noticed you pretty much post only negatives? I have. Eat a peach and put a grin on your face every now and then. Live ten years longer.


I only speak the truth and represent the true spirit of the original DIYMA.com because all too many have lost sight of the ORIGINAL goals of this forum: To find drivers that perform just as good as, if not better than, higher priced drivers on the market!

Also, that re-badged LPG 25NFA is not made in the USA because it is made in Germany!

Edit: Isobaric mounting in 2010? Really?


----------



## carstereo1

Really to tell the truth, hummm, seems like your on a one man crusade to be a butthole and my how you do an excellent job of it. If your the spirit of DIYMA, Lord help the site, that would be insulting to everyone else that comes here to be civil and nice even if they don't agree on every point or product.


----------



## subwoofery

carstereo1 said:


> Really to tell the truth, hummm, seems like your on a one man crusade to be a butthole and my how you do an excellent job of it. If your the spirit of DIYMA, Lord help the site, that would be insulting to everyone else that comes here to be civil and nice even if they don't agree on every point or product.


You just arrived and yet you talk like that? 

Chris B is right... The goal of this forum is/was to find equal or better performing drivers for a lot less than higher priced Car Audio sets. 
Now it's not forbidden to use car audio components (I use them in mine) but I'm slowly going the DIY route (madisound, partsexpress, solen, etc...) 

Kelvin


----------



## ChrisB

carstereo1 said:


> Really to tell the truth, hummm, seems like your on a one man crusade to be a butthole and my how you do an excellent job of it. If your the spirit of DIYMA, Lord help the site, that would be insulting to everyone else that comes here to be civil and nice even if they don't agree on every point or product.


Let me guess, you are planning on selling Blues in the near future?

Ok, I'll be civil. Sell me on a pair of the components by telling me what makes a set of stamped basket woofers paired with German tweeters, passive crossovers, and a Zobel network worth the MSRP of $850 for the 6.5" set or $950 for the 8" set? What technology and features are employed that will make me feel that I am getting my money's worth?


----------



## audiogodz1

ChrisB said:


> Edit: Isobaric mounting in 2010? Really?


As the picture indicates and says "1992". Blues has not made any indication of producing iso.




ChrisB said:


> I only speak the truth and represent the true spirit of the original DIYMA.com because all too many have lost sight of the ORIGINAL goals of this forum: To find drivers that perform just as good as, if not better than, higher priced drivers on the market!


 You may want to inform the rest of the forum of that because I just looked in the classifieds and.............


----------



## imjustjason

Picture taken directly from here...

Blues Car Audio










Title of picture... 2010prodline.jpg


----------



## W8 a minute

ChrisB said:


> I only speak the truth and represent the true spirit of the original DIYMA.com because all too many have lost sight of the ORIGINAL goals of this forum: To find drivers that perform just as good as, if not better than, higher priced drivers on the market!
> 
> Also, that re-badged LPG 25NFA is not made in the USA because it is made in Germany!
> 
> Edit: Isobaric mounting in 2010? Really?


Careful there. If they become an approved vendor you might be working towards a ban. ;-)



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## audiogodz1

imjustjason said:


> Picture taken directly from here...
> 
> Blues Car Audio
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Title of picture... 2010prodline.jpg


Cool thank you, I have seen nothing from blues at all since this announcement, I actually scanned an old CA&E. If you read the blues website they are not mentioning producing any iso setups, in fact they are only producing and selling the 8's and tens right now. To produce the iso setup they have to produce a specific rear driver for it and they have not stated anything about doing so yet.

I will still be happy if they are and do. It is a nice sounding setup.


----------



## cubdenno

Woohoo!! Another group of speakers we can send to have Klippel'd


----------



## ChrisB

audiogodz1 said:


> You may want to inform the rest of the forum of that because I just looked in the classifieds and.............


Discovered that this forum is a shell of its former self and has been on a steady decline since 2008...



W8 a minute said:


> Careful there. If they become an approved vendor you might be working towards a ban. ;-)


Good thing I really don't care either way because there are other informational audio forums out there! By informational, I mean ones who discuss actual specs on speakers versus the marketing hype of "trust us, they sound good!" 



cubdenno said:


> Woohoo!! Another group of speakers we can send to have Klippel'd


After the ****storm with the Ultra LV 10, I doubt it. Besides, Ray would probably hang up the phone if he found out it was me on the other end!

*Edit - I am still waiting on an answer to this:*


ChrisB said:


> Ok, I'll be civil. *Sell me on a pair of the components by telling me what makes a set of stamped basket woofers paired with German tweeters, passive crossovers, and a Zobel network worth the MSRP of $850 for the 6.5" set or $950 for the 8" set? **What technology and features are employed that will make me feel that I am getting my money's worth?*


----------



## rommelrommel

audiogodz1 said:


> I think what makes Blues relevant in todays society is that nothing has came along since the mid 90's for SQ development and these guys were the good stuff.


For serious? There have been no advances in speaker technology since 1997 or so?



> Therefore, they should still be just as relevant since nothing but SPL products have came since then. You can pull ANY mid-90's SQ system out and put it on the block against whatever is out there today and be right on the money.


Yeah, if you head to regions with no other SQ competitors that makes you number 1!



> New products, same great SQ = WIN.


Umm, so if the products are new how do they have anything to do with the originals other than marketing? There's no mention about the original designers being on board or these having much to do with the original drivers. 



> MOST IMPORTANT is this is another MADE IN THE USA setup.


Kinda sorta made in the USA anyways...


I like old school gear too but lets be serious, much has improved since the 90's. Given Ray's track record on LP modifications any claims he makes should be viewed with _some_ skepticism.


----------



## audiogodz1

You'll have to do better than bait and switch if you actually intend to converse.


----------



## subwoofery

ChrisB said:


> Let me guess, you are planning on selling Blues in the near future?
> 
> Ok, I'll be civil. Sell me on a pair of the components by telling me what makes a set of stamped basket woofers paired with German tweeters, passive crossovers, and a Zobel network worth the MSRP of $850 for the 6.5" set or $950 for the 8" set? What technology and features are employed that will make me feel that I am getting my money's worth?


I'm also trying to figure what makes those comps so expensive. 
Ok ok, I might not be the kind of guy to be asking a question like this (buying Milberts and Prestigios) but I feel that I might not get my money's worth with those comps. Just saying. 

Too bad I won't be @ CES next January, I would have liked to ask a few ? to Ray and the crew. Maybe listen for their demo car too... 

Kelvin


----------



## brad0069

Never really cared for blues, not bad but not great(at least back then), but I love me some Linear Power amps. Combine a Nak hu, LP amps and AVI speaks, thats some old skool goodness there!


----------



## ChrisB

rommelrommel said:


> I like old school gear too but lets be serious, much has improved since the 90's. Given Ray's track record on LP modifications any claims he makes should be viewed with _some_ skepticism.


I recall a quote where Ray said that TO3s were the only way to make an amplifier (and I WILL find it). Why don't you ask him what transistors his new line of Linear Power amplifiers will have.

Edit: FOUND IT... well sort of...



LinearPower said:


> A very good example of what can be put into a particular case style, Motorola (On Semiconductor) makes one of the best SQ output devices on the market that we had started using in the amps toward the end of original production, we will be using this same device again with new production. This device is offered in both TO-3 metal case packaging and in what is called TO-3P (large body plastic case), both have identical SQ and electrical specs EXCEPT the TO-3 Plastic is 25 watts less power than the TO-3 metal case. This device is also offered in a TO218 style device which is another plastic cased device smaller than the TO-3P but larger than a TO-220 device, the TO-218 makes 50 watts total power less than the TO-3 metal device.
> 
> So you can't judge a device by what case it comes in, or how old the case style is, old does not make it bad, or inferior.
> 
> To further the info on the thermal footprint of a device, the WHOLE metal bottom (basically the size of a half dollar)of the TO-3 metal case dissapates heat into the heatsink,(heat being the enemy to electronics, by way of SQ loss, efficiency loss, and thermal hot spots and premature failures, you want to avoid it as much as possible and keep your electronics as cool as possible) Where as a plastic case device has a thermal metal tab imbedded into the back of the transistor, this pad on a TO-220 style plastic case device is less than 1/4 the area as a TO-3 metal device, the TO-3P (the largest plastic cased device) has a thermal metal tab of only around 60 percent of the area of the TO_3 metal device, this is the reason that Motorola cannot develop the same output from the device as it can from the TO-3 metal device.
> 
> Hope this explains some on transistor case technology.


Edit2: Found another good one -



LinearPower said:


> I have paid my dues in the industry, I don't need to come here to respond to being battered to sell product. I have far better use of my time. I sure hate that is now a requirment to be able to sell product, or make me a man.


----------



## rommelrommel

audiogodz1 said:


> You'll have to do better than bait and switch if you actually intend to converse.


I'd just like to see a non-marketing explanation for why these speakers are worth so much. We know their heritage and you can only tweak an existing driver so far. Maybe Ray stumbled upon some magic combination of $80 driver and $43 tweeter that he added a xover and zobel network to that ends up sounding eargasmic to the tune of eight bills, I guess. 

****, he probably found out about the LPG 25NFA reading threads over here and figured he could make a few bucks off of the free exchange of knowledge between enthusiasts. Since Creedence is about the only US maker that will crank you out a run of mids anymore that was a must for the "made in the USA" line.


----------



## ChrisB

rommelrommel said:


> I'd just like to see a non-marketing explanation for why these speakers are worth so much. We know their heritage and you can only tweak an existing driver so far. Maybe Ray stumbled upon some magic combination of $80 driver and $43 tweeter that he added a xover and zobel network to that ends up sounding eargasmic to the tune of eight bills, I guess.


Don't hold your breath. The question was asked on a forum where Ray actually is and basically the answer was "You don't know jack **** about speaker building!" Of course, I too want to know what makes them worth the MSRP of $850 or $950 other than "They sound better than the Dynaudio components that retail for $1,500!" 

Maybe the better question would have been how does one with a Business Administration degree and a minor in marketing learn so much about designing speakers and amplifiers since engineering wasn't listed on his resume? Maybe his associates degree in drafting and designing helped him with that.



rommelrommel said:


> ****, he probably found out about the LPG 25NFA reading threads over here and figured he could make a few bucks off of the free exchange of knowledge between enthusiasts. Since Creedence is about the only US maker that will crank you out a run of mids anymore that was a must for the "made in the USA" line.


You mean Credence is the only manufacturer that will crank out a line of Made in the USA speakers that one could markup 900% and bank off of!:greedy: As for the German tweeter thing, he could always quote the Sham Wow guy and say "You know the Germans make good stuff!" His fan boys would eat that up.

Lastly, there is always one common trait when it comes to the answers from his fan boys and that is they usually begin the answers to my questions with "Ray says..."


----------



## PaulD

rommelrommel said:


> I'd just like to see a non-marketing explanation for why these speakers are worth so much. We know their heritage and you can only tweak an existing driver so far. Maybe Ray stumbled upon some magic combination of $80 driver and $43 tweeter that he added a xover and zobel network to that ends up sounding eargasmic to the tune of eight bills, I guess.


Sounds like what CDT did, and if you had ever emailed them you would have realized how ignorant they were.


----------



## Tonybommb

Ok ok new here, and I got to say that this debate is why I am here. Because I was kinda turned off by a shop that sold me on the sound of a pair of speakers, but once I found out the price I was blown away. I had a hard time seeing the value
Worth 3-4,000.00 for a pair of speakers. I am not an engineer, but I tend to read and learn a lot, and there have not been that many technological break throughs in speaker technology in awhile. I just don't how I feel about a company that says they have that much R&D in a speaker that hands down is so much better than anything else that they can retail for xyz and it's a fair price when there isn't no real new technology, probably cheaper speakers that sound similar, and that what sounds better is subjective!


----------



## Tonybommb

So that being said I am willing to go full DIY, but I did really enjoy the sound of the Audison Thesis speakers. I am looking to do a 2 or 3 way active setup and looking for speakers that will sound similar or the same to the Thesis line at the best possible price. I want that sound, but do not want to have to pay 3-4,000.00 for a set of speakers.

Please help any suggestions. I don't want to get off topic, so I have another thread started called the best front stage for me, any suggestions there would be great.


----------



## jimmy2345

subwoofery said:


> I'm also trying to figure what makes those comps so expensive.
> Ok ok, I might not be the kind of guy to be asking a question like this (buying Milberts and Prestigios) but I feel that I might not get my money's worth with those comps. Just saying.
> 
> Kelvin



Really? You feel you may not get your moneys worth all by just looking at a picture of the speakers and never hearing the set in action?? Imagine that. Only if a speaker was designed to be stared at and not listened too.

Would you think you were getting your moneys worth if the driver had a fancy looking cone, a shiny motor structure, and was double the price?


----------



## subwoofery

jimmy2345 said:


> Really? You feel you may not get your moneys worth all by just looking at a picture of the speakers and never hearing the set in action?? Imagine that. Only if a speaker was designed to be stared at and not listened too.
> Heh, totally forgot about that thread, thanks...
> 
> Now, there's no need to jump on someone's neck.
> It's been said many times, over and over again: "People need to listen to stuffs before they buy."
> 
> Also please read this post and please answer ChrisB's question: "What makes those comps worth MSRP $879.99 for the 6.5"?"
> I don't know they might sound good but as said earlier, I don't feel I would be getting my money's worth with that set (not telling from the picture but reading on their website)... From reading, their tweet has nothing, everything SEEMS to be in the Xover with the compensation network. Regarding their mid, I read A LOT about the cooling technologies, and twice about distorsion ; that's about it.
> Also, there's only 1 graph, no specs other than the FS of the tweet, freq up to 20kHz and the power handling. Too few if you ask me for that kind of price.
> 
> Would you think you were getting your moneys worth if the driver had a fancy looking cone, a shiny motor structure, and was double the price?
> If there's enough info on the product and specs, then yes, I would feel better about buying a set.
> A great example (at least for me) is FOCAL. I know their history, how their R&D works, how they test speakers (in cars and not in anechoic rooms), how much I can tailor the sound to suit my car's interior and driver placement with their passive Xover (KRX2 for eg. being close in price to the BL6.5C), they have specs, they have graphs, they have product description which tells a little about the product, a great manual, and I'm sure many more that I can't remember...
> I did listen to the KRX2, I like it and would gladly buy it but since my old K3P set is still alive, I'll wait. And in case you've missed it, I feel the KRX2 set is worth the money (even MSRP)



Also, why did you erase the part where I said that I wanted to hear a set in their demo car @ CES? Please answer this one for me  - and please don't tell me it was irrelevant when you questionned my point of view on the subject... 

Kelvin


----------



## jimmy2345

You just reconfirmed that you are willing to pay for what they tell you and how the speakers look over the actual sound.

Thanks!


----------



## subwoofery

jimmy2345 said:


> You just reconfirmed that you are willing to pay for what they tell you and how the speakers look over the actual sound.
> 
> Thanks!


I made a constructive critisism and that's all you have to say?
If that's how you understood it, fine. I think it's no use for me to try and explain why I FEEL a company is better than another... 

However you still haven't answered any question from my post. 

Don't worry, I can wait. Eager to read what you think... Everybody has an opinion, you have yours and I have mine 
And I'm sure I'm not the only one that wants to read about your opinion... 

Kelvin


----------



## ChrisB

I'd still rather take something cheap and make it sound phenomenal through modern technology and processing versus paying a premium for a set of pre-packaged components utilizing passive technology. It only took 20 years for that philosophy to finally sink in since it was constantly preached by a local speaker builder who happens to be a friend of mine. Of course, the CPA in me can't get over the amount of money I literally wasted over the years due to psychoacoustics and marketing. 

I am also starting to see jimmy2345's point as there is more than one way to achieve the goal of great sound in the automobile. One way is to do like I recently adopted and experiment with raw drivers that measure with the characteristics that "should" meet my needs in my install. The other way is to pay someone who developed a pre-packaged product, install it, and be happy. 

Unfortunately, I am one of those who always wants to know how, why, and what if I tried this versus the others who are perfectly content with the first product they chose. In other words, I am not happy with leaving things alone, no matter what hobby of the moment I happen to be involved in at the time because I like to tinker by nature. The only thing different these days is I started taking a more scientific approach, analyzing everything to the Nth degree, prior to shelling out money to buy something different to stick in my vehicle or home.

With all that typed, I am somewhat starting to understand the reason the MSRP is priced high on the Blues component sets. I strictly looked at it from a raw component point of view as an accountant, and totally missed the fact that the LinearX software package costs a small fortune. Now let's take the countless hours involved with experimenting in the automobile to develop a passive network and zobel network that should work in most typical automotive installs. I wouldn't even want to venture to guess how many times that computer theory had to be tweaked to work in the real world automotive environment. Regardless, that's a HUGE investment of time and money that needs to be recouped some way. EDIT: I think I am starting to get it now...


----------



## jimmy2345

...and I think the "recipe" that was acheived is worth something as well.


----------



## subwoofery

ChrisB said:


> I'd still rather take something cheap and make it sound phenomenal through modern technology and processing versus paying a premium for a set of pre-packaged components utilizing passive technology. It only took 20 years for that philosophy to finally sink in since it was constantly preached by a local speaker builder who happens to be a friend of mine. Of course, the CPA in me can't get over the amount of money I literally wasted over the years due to psychoacoustics and marketing.
> 
> I am also starting to see jimmy2345's point as there is more than one way to achieve the goal of great sound in the automobile. One way is to do like I recently adopted and experiment with raw drivers that measure with the characteristics that "should" meet my needs in my install. The other way is to pay someone who developed a pre-packaged product, install it, and be happy.
> 
> Unfortunately, I am one of those who always wants to know how, why, and what if I tried this versus the others who are perfectly content with the first product they chose. In other words, I am not happy with leaving things alone, no matter what hobby of the moment I happen to be involved in at the time because I like to tinker by nature. The only thing different these days is I started taking a more scientific approach, analyzing everything to the Nth degree, prior to shelling out money to buy something different to stick in my vehicle or home.
> 
> With all that typed, I am somewhat starting to understand the reason the MSRP is priced high on the Blues component sets. I strictly looked at it from a raw component point of view as an accountant, and totally missed the fact that the LinearX software package costs a small fortune. Now let's take the countless hours involved with experimenting in the automobile to develop a passive network and zobel network that should work in most typical automotive installs. I wouldn't even want to venture to guess how many times that computer theory had to be tweaked to work in the real world automotive environment. Regardless, _*that's a HUGE investment of time and money that needs to be recouped some way*_. EDIT: I think I am starting to get it now...


That I also can understand. 

I guess I would have hoped (since they have LMS) that they would have made the passive strictly for Highpass, Lowpass and Levels - taking the HAT philosophy somehow: "nothing in the passive to correct the speakers performance" 

Now, if Blues Car Audio managed to produce an outstanding speaker (low distorsion and wide bandwith) and managed to tweak it to perfection with a little zobel network then I guess that would be fine. Just want to know more about their approach and philosophy. And some specs too. 

Just hope there won't be another pissing match if the set gets klippeled and doesn't measure well - making me unsubscribe from the Ultra LV10 thread. 

Kelvin


----------



## jimmy2345

The Blues passive crossover doesnt even really do much to correct speaker performance. That is where you are wrong. They do have a philosophy; keep it as simple as possible.

There is a high pass on the tweet, the woofer rolls off naturally so there is no low pass, and then the zobel was perfected to keep the impedance almost flat throughout the total frequency range. I dare you to find another set of out of the box components that will measure as flat as the Blues for impedance across their frequency range. Some people overlook this spec not understanding the advantage it gives. A normal driver will have peaks or dips in impedance which means you either loose sound or gain extra sound at those peaks and dips. A flat impedance across the board gives a more natural sound.

Alot of people state they want to see more specs but I have have yet to hear anyone ask for something specific. What spec are you looking for that isnt provided that will either make you run out and buy a set or call them junk? I am curious.


----------



## subwoofery

jimmy2345 said:


> The Blues passive crossover doesnt even really do much to correct speaker performance. That is where you are wrong. They do have a philosophy; *keep it as simple as possible*. I need a bit more than you saying this is their philosophy. Their "abous us" page doesn't say much. As stated previously, I'd like to know how they design their speaker.
> 
> There is a high pass on the tweet, the woofer rolls off naturally so there is no low pass, and then the zobel was perfected to keep the impedance almost flat throughout the total frequency range. I dare you to find another set of out of the box components that will measure as flat as the Blues for impedance across their frequency range. I've seen somewhere the impedance measurements for the ID XS65 set and it was as flat as the BL65C - that set sounds damn good out of the box and doesn't cost $880Some people overlook this spec not understanding the advantage it gives. Agreed, not many manufacturers show that on their product page... A normal driver will have peaks or dips in impedance which means you either loose sound or gain extra sound at those peaks and dips. A flat impedance across the board gives a more natural sound.
> 
> Alot of people state they want to see more specs but I have have yet to hear anyone ask for something specific. What spec are you looking for that isnt provided that will either make you run out and buy a set or call them junk? I am curious.


 I don't need spec to know if a set is good or not, I need specs to know if I can use that set where I want and how I want. 
Qts for one is an important spec for install - IB (door or even kickss) or sealed (in kicks) 
I feel Le is also important - knowing how high it can play, how fast the speaker can respond to the signal ; having no graph to see showing the freq response @ 0°, 30°, 45° or 60° is a shame (at least to me) when paying a premium for a set. 
Dimensions would help too, I will never buy a set without knowing how deep it is. 
FS for the woofer 
FS, Vas, Qes for the sensitivity. Sensitivity isn't a necessary spec for subwoofers but for comps (I feel) it is. 
Impedance of each comp would help for those that use active setup 
Xmax, I read that some thought there was a subwoofer in their demo car with only their 6.5" playing but I'd rather have specs to prove it. 

Might sound stupid but I NEED those specs to decide whether I buy a comp, don't you? I'm not stupid, I know I need distorsion plots, BL curve and more to judge whether the set can sound good and not just from basic specs 

Kelvin


----------



## jimmy2345

You need a bit more regarding their philosophy? Hilarious. That has alot to do with how they sound now doesnt it? Their philosophy is to keep things simple as long as that doesnt jeopardize sq. Sq is the main goal.....something every company you buy from lacks.

As far as specs; how about starting on the technical section of their website. Most of what you are looking for is there. I can see clicking around their website proved too much work for you. You sure are interested in their product arent you?


----------



## 2chGUY

Blues sucks donkey dick


----------



## thehatedguy

It's not going to take 300 hours to design a zobel for a tweeter.

You know the impedance rise of the tweeter and that's not going to change not matter what car that it is put in...it is self enclosed.


----------



## subwoofery

jimmy2345 said:


> You need a bit more regarding their philosophy? Hilarious. That has alot to do with how they sound now doesnt it? Their philosophy is to keep things simple as long as that doesnt jeopardize sq. Sq is the main goal.....something every company you buy from lacks.
> 
> As far as specs; how about starting on the technical section of their website. Most of what you are looking for is there. I can see clicking around their website proved too much work for you. You sure are interested in their product arent you?


Ok, seems like I was tired enough not to see the "technical" link. My bad. 

Yes I need to know more about their philosophy, "keep it as simple as possible" or "all about SQ" is not enough for me. I really like to know what they have achieved through testing, what's the engineer's background, etc... 

What I don't like about your attitude is that you generalize all your comments. "something every company you buy from lacks" : Sinfoni, Genesis, Tru, HAT, Focal, Milbert, McIntosh, Audison, ID, SI 
Please tell me those companies, products that I still own, don't care about SQ. And please don't start with the price - some of their products might be overpriced but they are passionate about what they do. I know coz I read all about their history. 

A company that comes back from the dead, claiming that nothing has evolved since the 90', and asking an MSRP price worthy of being called High End with no big technology involved - sorry but I have to say no. 
As said previously, I might be wrong, those comps might sound good, but for now, I'll pass. I'd rather buy from the brands I've listed above... 

Kelvin


----------



## subwoofery

thehatedguy said:


> It's not going to take 300 hours to design a zobel for a tweeter.
> 
> You know the impedance rise of the tweeter and that's not going to change not matter what car that it is put in...it is self enclosed.


My point exactly. Thanks Jason 

Kelvin


----------



## 2chGUY

Not to mention that the notion of creating a standard passive o/x that will play well in all vehicles is a crock of ****...

At best it will be optimized for a given location like door vs kicks, but nothing more.

Plus the owner really does suck donkey dick.... I saw the vid on YouPorn.com


----------



## jimmy2345

thehatedguy said:


> It's not going to take 300 hours to design a zobel for a tweeter.
> 
> You know the impedance rise of the tweeter and that's not going to change not matter what car that it is put in...it is self enclosed.


I take it you are slow. The zobel isn't just for the tweeter. It is for the set as a whole. I take it you didn't realize that a driver doesn't rest on a certain impedance throughout its whole usable frequency range. It's ok. You just learned something new. Keep reading.


----------



## jimmy2345

subwoofery said:


> Ok, seems like I was tired enough not to see the "technical" link. My bad.
> 
> Yes I need to know more about their philosophy, "keep it as simple as possible" or "all about SQ" is not enough for me. I really like to know what they have achieved through testing, what's the engineer's background, etc...
> 
> What I don't like about your attitude is that you generalize all your comments. "something every company you buy from lacks" : Sinfoni, Genesis, Tru, HAT, Focal, Milbert, McIntosh, Audison, ID, SI
> Please tell me those companies, products that I still own, don't care about SQ. And please don't start with the price - some of their products might be overpriced but they are passionate about what they do. I know coz I read all about their history.
> 
> A company that comes back from the dead, claiming that nothing has evolved since the 90', and asking an MSRP price worthy of being called High End with no big technology involved - sorry but I have to say no.
> As said previously, I might be wrong, those comps might sound good, but for now, I'll pass. I'd rather buy from the brands I've listed above...
> 
> Kelvin


Stay in the fog. As long as you don't hear something better you can't argue with yourself as to why your Focal comps now seem to sound like ass.

Also, all the specs you requested (the basis of your arguement) were there all along. Now that you see that you brush them off. Your credibility and opinions just seem to keep diminishing. You do it to yourself.


----------



## jimmy2345

2chGUY said:


> Not to mention that the notion of creating a standard passive o/x that will play well in all vehicles is a crock of ****...
> 
> At best it will be optimized for a given location like door vs kicks, but nothing more.
> 
> Plus the owner really does suck donkey dick.... I saw the vid on YouPorn.com


Let us go back to assuming someones rational. Do you think this guy is rational in any way by making these types of comments about a product he has never heard or toyed with. You guys are really swift. I would like to debate with you in person with the product in hand so I can watch the dumb looks on your faces. Clearly, rationality has never been taught. Look up the definition.


----------



## thehatedguy

And you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground either.

You can't make a one sided fits all zobel for a woofer. The enclosure will effect the impedance curve of the speaker. And depending on where you are crossing the tweeter combined with the roll off of the speaker, you probably will not even need a zobel for the woofer as the impedance rise will never get that high to begin with.

But I take it you don't have two ****s about what a zobel is or what it is used for.

That's ok, you learned something too.



jimmy2345 said:


> I take it you are slow. The zobel isn't just for the tweeter. It is for the set as a whole. I take it you didn't realize that a driver doesn't rest on a certain impedance throughout its whole usable frequency range. It's ok. You just learned something new. Keep reading.


----------



## thehatedguy

Debate with me. I've heard Ray's truck with the Blues speakers in it in 2003.



jimmy2345 said:


> Let us go back to assuming someones rational. Do you think this guy is rational in any way by making these types of comments about a product he has never heard or toyed with. You guys are really swift. I would like to debate with you in person with the product in hand so I can watch the dumb looks on your faces. Clearly, rationality has never been taught. Look up the definition.


----------



## thehatedguy

Now according to the Blues forum on the website since the technical section is worthless...

The crossovers are all Butterworth with impedance compensation.

Now a Butterworth filter is typically a 2nd order filter. It hasn't been mentioned if the BW filter/slope is the electrical filter or acoustical in nature. An electronic BW filter would have a cap and coil. you could get a BW filter to some extent by using the roll off of the top end driver combined with a coil. You could do the same on the bottom side of the tweeter, but you wouldn't protect the tweeter very well.

And seeing as the Blues site said they use air cored coils and the caps are mylar or Wima brand...we can probably assume there is an electrical BW filter on the tweeter. There was no mention of XO frequency, but it would be safe to say the mids aren't playing up high enough to really make use of a zobel to correct their rising impedance...they might be, but a zobel on them would be a waste of parts. Now that leaves the tweeter...and the rising response of the tweeter. This is where a zobel or some sort of impedance compensation would come in to some benefit.


----------



## subwoofery

jimmy2345 said:


> Stay in the fog. As long as you don't hear something better you can't argue with yourself as to why your Focal comps now seem to sound like ass.
> 
> Also, all the specs you requested (the basis of your arguement) were there all along. Now that you see that you brush them off. Your credibility and opinions just seem to keep diminishing. You do it to yourself.


I still don't understand why you're so defensive about the company... You heard a system that was running a set? Which one? or maybe you own a set, then I'd like to hear your thoughts... 

And I'm sorry you've NEVER heard a system that had Focal speakers well installed. And before you ask, I heard that one: http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=23374&stc=1&d=1294715256
Met Yann when he came to Tahiti to represent Focal at a convention. 

I've seen a few threads where you posted comments and I couldn't help but notice you like to pick a fight with people... Not a nice thing to do IMHO. 

Kelvin 

PS: yes I admitted that I didn't see the specs page, but not everything I need to know is listed. Therefore I'll pass... for now


----------



## jimmy2345

I have heard a few properly set up Focal systems and they lacked alot. Not to mention, I purchased a set of Focal components last year just for testing, and once again, they lacked alot and did nothing really well. The tweeters are about the most horrible sounding I have heard. Not to mention, their 6.5's play down to a real low 70 hertz. Come on, most good 5.25 will play that low.

You can keep saying you pass all you want. You are talking like I am trying to convert you. I am not. I just didn't like how you were talking about a product that you have never heard. Not to mention, you requested specs that were there all along. Now the specs you wanted to see aren't even enough...now you need more. Why does this seem like a never ending process with you? Like I said, your bait and switch tactics just show your lack of credibility and rational.


----------



## thehatedguy

You just forget me a few hours before you attacked Kelvin?

Maybe you decided to STFU because you didn't know as much as you thought you did.

And before you call me a hater, I was one of two people actively running Linear Power in IASCA in the last decade. 



jimmy2345 said:


> I have heard a few properly set up Focal systems and they lacked alot. Not to mention, I purchased a set of Focal components last year just for testing, and once again, they lacked alot and did nothing really well. The tweeters are about the most horrible sounding I have heard. Not to mention, their 6.5's play down to a real low 70 hertz. Come on, most good 5.25 will play that low.
> 
> You can keep saying you pass all you want. You are talking like I am trying to convert you. I am not. I just didn't like how you were talking about a product that you have never heard. Not to mention, you requested specs that were there all along. Now the specs you wanted to see aren't even enough...now you need more. Why does this seem like a never ending process with you? Like I said, your bait and switch tactics just show your lack of credibility and rational.


----------



## subwoofery

jimmy2345 said:


> I have heard a few properly set up Focal systems and they lacked alot. Not to mention, I purchased a set of Focal components last year just for testing, and once again, they lacked alot and did nothing really well. The tweeters are about the most horrible sounding I have heard. Not to mention, their 6.5's play down to a real low 70 hertz. Come on, most good 5.25 will play that low.
> 
> You can keep saying you pass all you want. You are talking like I am trying to convert you. I am not. I just didn't like how you were talking about a product that you have never heard. Not to mention, you requested specs that were there all along. Now the specs you wanted to see aren't even enough...now you need more. Why does this seem like a never ending process with you? Like I said, your bait and switch tactics just show your lack of credibility and rational.


Having the midbass playing 30Hz is not what I would consider a good midbass. Their 6w3 be midbass is one of the most respected midbass out there for being full and impactful. Heck the JBL 2118 doesn't play well below 100Hz (even though in most SQ setup you could let it play to 70Hz) but it can't be considered as being the worst midbass being an 8". Hell my ID X65 are highpassed @ 100Hz 24dB/oct and my sub always seems like upfront (even at a higher level). 

You don't like their tweeters, fine. I don't really like Hertz tweets. That's all opinion there. However, that doesn't mean they don't have details. A properly setup system will have smooth highs - that's what Yann's car was all about: details and realism. I didn't like the TN51 at first but after hearing his car, that part has changed. 

I don't know which set you bought but I don't need to know. Their Polyglass v2 sets are really good for the money. Their midrange is high class already. What they might lack is air and output. Their new K2P range has really closed the big gap between their old K2P and the Utopia Be series. Even though some don't like the Utopia Be series and their price, they are still worth every penny when you buy them (MSRP is high, but can be add for a lot less through dealers). 

OK. Regarding the specs, if you read my posts, there are still some missing specs that are important (at least to me) - again for the price, I'd rather buy from another manufacturer that will provide more. When I first joined the website, I though my K2P set was the ****. Now with all the knowledge I acquired through the +1000 threads and articles I've read, I now think my K2P set is worth every penny. I managed to make the most out of my set. 
Since I won new speakers, I'm gonna change my front stage and try something else. 
I like trying out new stuffs, but I try to keep something at least a year at bring out its full potential first before throwing it in the closet. I'm sure from reading your post you don't do that and just listen for the set out of the box. 

I know you're not trying to convert me but you seem like defending that company. 
I still need an answer to a couple of questions I've asked but NEVER got an honest answer: 
1. What technology and features are employed that will make me feel that I am getting my money's worth? 
2. Have you heard or own those speakers? Yes? No? You posted this comment: "You just reconfirmed that you are willing to pay for what they tell you and how the speakers look over the actual sound" so I assume you heard those unless you're just arguing for the sake of it. 
3. "something every company you buy from lacks" : Sinfoni, Genesis, Tru, HAT, Focal, Milbert, McIntosh, Audison, ID, SI
Please tell me those companies, products that I still own, don't care about SQ. 
4. I'm still missing some specs: the Qes, the Le, the Xmax. 

Also, if you have the freq response graphs and impedance curves for EACH speaker. I'd like to see it coz NO hardcore active DIYer will buy that set, especially at that price, without seeing at least those. 

Kelvin


----------



## subwoofery

thehatedguy said:


> You just forget me a few hours before you attacked Kelvin?
> 
> Maybe you decided to STFU because you didn't know as much as you thought you did.
> 
> And before you call me a hater, I was one of two people actively running Linear Power in IASCA in the last decade.


lol :snacks: 

Kelvin


----------



## jimmy2345

thehatedguy said:


> You just forget me a few hours before you attacked Kelvin?
> 
> Maybe you decided to STFU because you didn't know as much as you thought you did.


I don't know as much as I thought I did? Ha! Everything I have stated about the product is correct. I just have no intention of interacting with you. I know who you are....we all do.

Did you want me to stroke your ego? Is that what you were looking for? Fine.

Wow!! You really heard Ray's truck 8 years ago before the NEW Blues were even a thought?? Really?? You are the man!! You heard the truck that had the OLD Blues drivers, tweeters, and lacked the current crossover?? Wow. That must have been something. Wow!! You heard the truck that hasn't had an updated system in 15+ years?? Wow!!

Dude. You are a hater. We all know it and I will say it again, we all know who you are. You failed at building many systems which included Linear Amps and some that were to include the OLD Blues product. Then you come on here and get a big boner by dissing product you have never even heard; the NEW Blues. Not to mention, the OLD Blues were great as well. It takes someone who knows what they are doing to get a system to sound good; something you clearly lack.

There...do you feel better now that I gave you two minutes of my time. I hope so because it won't happen again.


----------



## thehatedguy

Wait, where am I dissing anything? I am speaking strictly about data.

You know who I am? What is my whole name?

You don't have a clue as to who I am based on your comments.

The fail at building many systems that included LP equaled a 2nd place at IASCA Finals. But never once did I even consider Blues speakers- I never have once thought about switching product from a primary sponsor that I love.. Then the next year I got a new amp sponsor and got 3rd at IASCA Finals.

So yeah, I have a 2nd and 3rd at IASCA Finals, but I don't know good sound in the car.

So let me shoot down more of your pompous line of **** with more facts....

And how about talking about crossovers again?


----------



## subwoofery

Bumping just for fun. 
Been reading their forum but they don't seem very helpful regarding specs, graphs and well infos. All Ray and Mike had to say was buy a set and listen for yourself... 
I guess we won't know until we buy a set... 
There was another guy that asked some of my questions but got dropped from the thread. 

Find it interesting. 

Kelvin


----------



## ChrisB

subwoofery said:


> There was another guy that asked some of my questions but got dropped from the thread.


:laugh: wonder if that was me?:blush:

Regardless, it's 2011 and time for me to adopt a more positive attitude. I'll be the first to admit I goofed by questioning the price of the raw components without considering the overall business plan. The high markup could be there to recoup prior costs and fund the future amplifier building that Ray has planned. Also, he needs to eat like everyone else, so I am certain the profits are also used to put food on the table and pay bills.

He has a niche market and it's not like thousands upon thousands of component sets are going to go flying off the shelves at MSRP in this economy. Then again, his markup could be worse, like Critical Mass trying to get $3,000 for their UL12.


----------



## jimmy2345

subwoofery said:


> Bumping just for fun.
> Been reading their forum but they don't seem very helpful regarding specs, graphs and well infos. All Ray and Mike had to say was buy a set and listen for yourself...
> I guess we won't know until we buy a set...
> There was another guy that asked some of my questions but got dropped from the thread.
> 
> Find it interesting.
> 
> Kelvin


90% of the specs you requested were on their website. Now if you want more....contact Ray. I am sure he will help you.

Oh wait...you really don't want to see them or you would have already called him now wouldn't you? All you want to do is jump on the dissing bandwagon with the few other people on this forum.....and let me state again....for a product you have never been within 100 miles of.

You want more specs....call him. It's as simple as that Focal boy. Lol. Focal. Hilarious.


----------



## subwoofery

jimmy2345 said:


> 90% of the specs you requested were on their website. Now if you want more....contact Ray. I am sure he will help you.
> 
> Oh wait...you really don't want to see them or you would have already called him now wouldn't you? All you want to do is jump on the dissing bandwagon with the few other people on this forum.....and let me state again....for a product you have never been within 100 miles of.
> 
> You want more specs....call him. It's as simple as that Focal boy. Lol. Focal. Hilarious.


For your info, I'm waiting for Ray to return from CES so he can reply to my e-mail. Now feel better? 

If I get the infos I need, I'll post them on this thread. 

Now... I admit I've never heard any Blues Car Audio product. And I'm really open minded and would like to listen to those set whenever possible. HOWEVER, I live in Tahiti and there's NEVER going to be any dealer in my area. Why? Because its mostly SPL here. 

Your posting and posting but nothing concrete. I've asked a few questions... easy questions... and you still haven't replied to any of them. 

As said earlier, I didn't hear the new set, did you? If not, this discussion is closed. You will not be able to help me. 

I will not try to defend Focal since you don't like them. Audio is a hit or miss thing - you like it or you don't. 
Am no Focal fan boy either since I'm gonna try a new front stage. 

Kelvin


----------



## subwoofery

ChrisB said:


> :laugh: wonder if that was me?:blush: That I don't know but if that was you... :thumbsup: let me shake your hand  That's the DIY spirit.
> 
> Regardless, it's 2011 and time for me to adopt a more positive attitude. I'll be the first to admit I goofed by questioning the price of the raw components without considering the overall business plan. The high markup could be there to recoup prior costs and fund the future amplifier building that Ray has planned. Also, he needs to eat like everyone else, so I am certain the profits are also used to put food on the table and pay bills. Agreed as posted before...
> 
> He has a niche market and it's not like thousands upon thousands of component sets are going to go flying off the shelves at MSRP in this economy. Then again, his markup could be worse, like Critical Mass trying to get $3,000 for their UL12. It's rarity might be a way to sell. Especially when I see the price of those old school LP amps and for how much the sell on eBay  I have no doubt they did their homework, just want to know what as their plan of attack to achieve the final product


Kelvin


----------



## jimmy2345

ChrisB said:


> :laugh: wonder if that was me?:blush:
> 
> Regardless, it's 2011 and time for me to adopt a more positive attitude.


Good to hear!!


----------



## thehatedguy

The Blues speakers were pretty nice sounding speakers..aside from hearing them in Ray's truck many moon back, a local shop that I hung out at in high school had a few on display and I liked them then. Geez, that must have been the mid 90s...lol. And I'm as big of a fan of Linear Power amps that you'll find...love them. Unfortunately I got a new car and a family now...and I didn't have room to fit 6 of those bad boys in this car.

Now will the Blues speakers be an end all in regards of technical specs? Probably not. Will they sound good? Probably so. Worth MSRP? Eh, not to me...but who buys stuff at MSRP these days?


----------



## Hertz5400LincolnLS

jimmy2345 said:


> 90% of the specs you requested were on their website. Now if you want more....contact Ray. I am sure he will help you.
> 
> Oh wait...you really don't want to see them or you would have already called him now wouldn't you? All you want to do is jump on the dissing bandwagon with the few other people on this forum.....and let me state again....for a product you have never been within 100 miles of.
> 
> You want more specs....call him. It's as simple as that Focal boy. Lol. Focal. Hilarious.


Jimmy...do you work for LP/Blues?


----------



## ChrisB

Ten years ago there was a Jimmy who worked with Ray...


----------



## thehatedguy

Jimmy Walker...he has a screen name of Thunder on the forums that I've seen him on. Jimmy is a pretty mild mannored guy who has some serious install skills, I've met him a few times and used to stay in contact with Jimmy. I want to think he is on my personal Facebook page.


----------



## LinearPower

No, jimmy2345 does not work with us, and I am not sure who he is. As far as the specs we are adding more specs to the site as we go, here is the specs as they will be added to the site soon.

BLT1 BL3.5 BL4.0 BL5.2 BL6.5 BL8.0 BL10 BL5.2CP BL6.5CP/CA BL8.0CP/CA 
TW MR MR MR/MW MW/SW MW/SW SW CS CS CS Speaker type¹ 

80 50 65 75 140 140 150 100 175 175 Power Handling²

2.5K-25K 75-15K 70-10K 48-10K 32-4K 20-4K 20-2K 48-25K 32-25K 20-25K Frequency Range

1800Hz 75Hz 112Hz 68Hz 36Hz 29Hz 32Hz * * * Resonant Frequency(Fs)

92dB 88.6dB 88.3dB 88.1dB 91.4dB 92.5dB 92.5dB 89.8dB 92dB 93dB Sensitivity dB 2.83v/1M

* 0.433 1.178 0.950 0.305 0.358  0.418 * * * Qts 

* 0.495 1.31 1.224 0.323 0.379 0.440 * * * Qes

* 3.427 10.00 4.239 5.540 6.600 8.095 * * * Qms	

* 2.450 1.492 7.935 9.368 52.368 56.833 * * * Vas (L)

* * * * 0.20/5 0.20/5 0.25/6 * * * X max (in/mm) 

* 5.630 8.590 15.270 20.430 29.470 50.270 * * * SD(sq in)

6.8 3.3 3.3 3.5 2.8 3.1 3.4 * * * Re (in ohms)

8 4 4 4 4/8 4/8 4/8 4 4 4 Impedance (ohms)

* * * .20 .35 .60 1.0 .25 .35 .60 Minimum Enclosure³‚⁴

1.813 3.00 4.00 4.6875 5.690 7.080 9.125 4.75 5.690 7.080 Cutout dia.(decimal in.)

1 13/16 3 4 4 11/16 5 11/16 7 5/64 9 1/8 4 3/4 5 11/16 7 5/64 Cutout dia.(fractional)

0.6 1.5 2.25 2.25 2.9 3.4 4.4 2.25 2.9 3.4 Mounting depth (in.)⁵




FOOTNOTES: 

1.	TW – Tweeter, MR – Midrange, MW – Mid/Woofer, SW – Sub Woofer, CS – Component System
2.	Assumes unclipped signals. 
3.	Tailor to your needs, these are minimum “recommended” volumes; larger cabinets will make better use of the low frequency response of the speaker. 
4.	Add 20 percent to the enclosure size for ported enclosures.
5.	Speakers with rear pole venting need at least 1 Inch clearance from back wall of enclosure.
* Not Applicable/No recommendation.


----------



## LinearPower

sorry, it jumbled it all up, but it will be on the site soon.


----------



## LinearPower

As far as hearing my truck (F150 Lightning) it has been down and not to any shows or on the road since the late 1990's it was built in 1993, and there again it was using OLD Blues speakers which are nothing like the new product. There are no comparisions that can be drawn from the old to the new other than the product was a good product then and it has the same name and similar looks, but it is by far improved in the new products. 

Mark La Fountain co-owner of SSA Audio just heard two of the vehicles this past week at CES among others who are hearing the product and spreading the word. You might venture to other sites and read what he and others are saying about the new products.


----------



## Cablguy184

subwoofery said:


> Bumping just for fun.
> Been reading their forum but they don't seem very helpful regarding specs, graphs and well infos. All Ray and Mike had to say was buy a set and listen for yourself...
> I guess we won't know until we buy a set...
> There was another guy that asked some of my questions but got dropped from the thread.
> 
> Find it interesting.
> 
> Kelvin





subwoofery said:


> For your info, I'm waiting for Ray to return from CES so he can reply to my e-mail. Now feel better?
> 
> If I get the infos I need, I'll post them on this thread.
> 
> Now... I admit I've never heard any Blues Car Audio product. And I'm really open minded and would like to listen to those set whenever possible. HOWEVER, I live in Tahiti and there's NEVER going to be any dealer in my area. Why? Because its mostly SPL here.
> 
> Your posting and posting but nothing concrete. I've asked a few questions... easy questions... and you still haven't replied to any of them.
> 
> As said earlier, I didn't hear the new set, did you? If not, this discussion is closed. You will not be able to help me.
> 
> I will not try to defend Focal since you don't like them. Audio is a hit or miss thing - you like it or you don't.
> Am no Focal fan boy either since I'm gonna try a new front stage.
> 
> Kelvin


So now that you had time to "brouse" around *Car Audio - Forum* ... What are your feelings about Linear Power / Blues Car Audio now ??
You seem like a real nice guy, I can't understand why I'm reading all this ??
Thanks, Randal ...


----------



## Cablguy184

subwoofery said:


> Bumping just for fun.
> Been reading their forum but they don't seem very helpful regarding specs, graphs and well infos. All Ray and Mike had to say was buy a set and listen for yourself...
> I guess we won't know until we buy a set...
> *There was another guy that asked some of my questions but got dropped from the thread. *
> Find it interesting.
> 
> Kelvin


Deephaven was a troublemaker moderator from Sound Solutions Audio that bashed all of us on SSA. I (as a CA-F moderator) gave him a warning to ask questions and comment without bashing Team Linear/Blues or any other member of the site ... He knew he was in the wrong so he went back to SSA.
You could have asked me in a PM instead of assuming ... He wanted to know T/S parameters that was not availiable at that time ... That is what we told him (on CA-F and SSA) but he is a true Dick in my personal book and a sorry Moderator at that on a professional side ... 
I wonder sometimes if this forum has any moderators ??? ...
Thanks, Randal ...


----------



## DECHman

interesting..


----------



## imjustjason

Cablguy184 said:


> I wonder sometimes if this forum has any moderators ??? ...


What do you want moderated?


----------



## Cablguy184

I will send you a pm ... I'm eating lunch with the wife now ...
Thanks bro for responding ... Randal ...


----------



## Genxx

He wants anything that he does not like that other people said moderated.LOL


----------



## subwoofery

Cablguy184 said:


> So now that you had time to "brouse" around *Car Audio - Forum* ... What are your feelings about Linear Power / Blues Car Audio now ??
> You seem like a real nice guy, I can't understand why I'm reading all this ??
> Thanks, Randal ...


I have my answers regarding the philosophy, involvement and specs, thanks  

As I said, I am open minded and don't mind trying a product and test it for myself if people says it's good. 
What I don't like is having 1 person bashing anything and everything that is not related to their fetish brand. 
Because Jimmy heard a good system with blues speakers and no EQ, that means any form of EQ is the devil and doesn't apply in car audio  and that any other speaker brands are crap 

Taste is a hit or miss, luckily I've heard some really good systems with MB Quart (never used) and Focal (have used) when I was younger and will never say bad things about them. 

Kelvin


----------



## Cablguy184

My point is that Team Linear Power / Blues Car Audio does not operate like that in any way ... I'm still not sure who that Jimmy character was ... We have a great product, but we really enjoy listening and chatting about other systems as well ...
I've heard a lot of great systems and I give credit where credit is due ... That's one reason, as a team member, we give demos as much as possible ... Great Music should be heard, not talked about (that's what I think anyways) ... People has had their ups and downs with every product at some time or another ... 
I just feel that most of this bashing on this thread was unnecessary, and should have commented on the products after they've listen to it ... That's usually how movies work ...
I take my truck to every show I can, hell I jam it anywhere anyone wants to listen to it .... And I hope I can turn these into positive threads and get things back on track the way they should be .... 

Thanks guys ... Randal ...


----------



## Cablguy184

Genxx said:


> He wants anything that he does not like that other people said moderated.LOL


No, I'm good bro ... No complaining from me ... 

I don't remember your ride at UASCI 09 finals, link to pics or build ??? I'd really like to hear it ... I was planning to compete MECA this year, but my pocket book and work has other plans ... Maybe next year ... Send me a pm sometime for you next shows listings ... 
I plan on being at Scrapin the Coast Biloxi, ms in June ...
Hope to see you guys soon ... Thanks, Randal ...


----------



## TrickyRicky

There will always be some people that get a kick or some type of joy from trying to bash on a product that others enjoy. To those who actually like/enjoy/own that product/brand will not care. I've read just as many negatives as I've read positives on Linear Power. But still we have a bunch of idiots that dont know how to properly hook up an amp (yet alone a LP).

I remember this one guy (no I wont mention his name, his a DIYMA member) that wanted to buy an LP from me and he kept asking if it was 2-ohm mono and if not he would purchase it. Funny uh, well I told him "LP is not for you".

Its even funnier how something so simple to understand is so hard to get through their heads. LESS OHMS DOES NOT EQUAL MORE POWER WITH LP. It just equals more current draw, less headroom, a bit more THD, and may get/run hotter and for what YOU DONT GAIN POWER. Thats why they have taps to switch to either 2-ohm stereo (4-ohm mono) or 4-ohm stereo (8-ohm mono) with taps at 4-ohm your power rail produces more voltage to give it the same power as 2-ohm setting. The higher the impendance is on a LP the better off you will be.


----------



## Cablguy184

Awesome bro ... You figure out your game plan ...
Did you say your 5002 was running feedback ???


----------



## TrickyRicky

No but I plan on using the X03 and maybe the 4503IQ (with no crossovers) for the door and rear components then maybe if I can fit the subs in my trunk then I will run the 5002 with feedback.

But still debating. Atleast I got my wires are done (took a while) because I had to look for a 0/1gauge fuse holder (and I thought I had one, then I went to 3 different stores before actually finding one). Now I have to get a extra RCA set (I have a few but their all flimsy) in order to fully take advantage of the X03.


----------



## Cablguy184

Sounds Awesome bro ... I'd really like to hear it ...


----------



## The Dude

thehatedguy said:


> Yeap. Blues Tri-sobaric.


This would be the one, I believe?:


----------



## GLN305

Does anyone respond to e-mails at Blues or Linear Power? I was going to buy the 8'' woofer and try it out before I pass judgement. Unfortunately I had a response to my first e-mail and no others. I can't buy them locally because there are no dealers and I can't get any more info straight from them...oh well.


----------



## LinearPower

GLN305 said:


> Does anyone respond to e-mails at Blues or Linear Power? I was going to buy the 8'' woofer and try it out before I pass judgement. Unfortunately I had a response to my first e-mail and no others. I can't buy them locally because there are no dealers and I can't get any more info straight from them...oh well.


Steve, Mike, or I respond to every email, what address are u emailing? We also can be reached by phone. All that info is on the site. What is your email address I want to look up your email.


----------



## ANT

GLN305 said:


> Does anyone respond to e-mails at Blues or Linear Power? I was going to buy the 8'' woofer and try it out before I pass judgement. Unfortunately I had a response to my first e-mail and no others. I can't buy them locally because there are no dealers and I can't get any more info straight from them...oh well.


Not to me they don't
I sent a few emails last year offering them free ad space here on DIYMA. 
No reply..

ANT


----------



## TrickyRicky

Dang no reply to free ad-space. I would of being all over that, lol. Am pretty sure they've been really busy with all the shows and the production of the new amps.


----------



## envisionelec

TrickyRicky said:


> LESS OHMS DOES NOT EQUAL MORE POWER WITH LP. It just equals more current draw, less headroom, a bit more THD, and may get/run hotter and for what YOU DONT GAIN POWER. Thats why they have taps to switch to either 2-ohm stereo (4-ohm mono) or 4-ohm stereo (8-ohm mono) with taps at 4-ohm your power rail produces more voltage to give it the same power as 2-ohm setting. The higher the impendance is on a LP the better off you will be.


Hmm. That doesn't sound like a good thing. Why would a company build a solid state amplifier that needs to be switched to drive another nominal impedance?

I know why.

1. Inadequate heatsink area
2. Underbuilt current amplifier stages
3. Improperly-sized power supply

If that's what makes LP special, then _you can_ _have it. _


----------



## subwoofery

lol 

Kelvin


----------



## Cablguy184

DIYMA said:


> Not to me they don't
> I sent a few emails last year offering them free ad space here on DIYMA.
> No reply..
> 
> ANT


We have been working on several vehicles lately ... and alot more things going on too ... 
If you would please look on the Linear site, give Ray a call, I'm sure things can get worked out ... 
Thanks bro ... advertising on this forum would be really nice ... 



envisionelec said:


> Hmm. That doesn't sound like a good thing. Why would a company build a solid state amplifier that needs to be switched to drive another nominal impedance?
> 
> I know why.
> 
> 1. Inadequate heatsink area
> 2. Underbuilt current amplifier stages
> 3. Improperly-sized power supply
> 
> If that's what makes LP special, then _you can_ _have it. _


I'm not sure what you are bitching about, and why ... But Linear Power amps have outlasted just about every amp on the market since the 80s bro ...
They must be doing something right ... 
I get Great remarks EVERY time people demo my ride ... 
So chill out bro ... 
oh yea, just wondering bro ... Have you designed or built a amplifier do do better than the DPS 500, 2.2hv or even the LP 2150 ???
or maybe even the older amps ... like the 2502iq, 5002iq, .... maybe even the 8002sw or the 4.1hv (for all you bassheads) ... ???
if so ... please explain ...


----------



## TrickyRicky

Am interested to read what he says. 

He doesnt understand that at higher impendance LP has a higher rail voltage (so it makes the same freaking power as a lower impendance). 

So its like me saying you can get 250watts on 2-ohm stereo or 4-ohm stereo, but at 2-ohms your amp will run hotter, higher distortion level, less damping factor, less headroom, WHY would you wanna run it 2-ohms (when you can get the same power, but better quality at a higher impendance)??


----------



## envisionelec

TrickyRicky said:


> Am interested to read what he says.
> 
> He doesnt understand that at higher impendance LP has a higher rail voltage (so it makes the same freaking power as a lower impendance).
> 
> So its like me saying you can get 250watts on 2-ohm stereo or 4-ohm stereo, but at 2-ohms your amp will run hotter, higher distortion level, less damping factor, less headroom, WHY would you wanna run it 2-ohms (when you can get the same power, but better quality at a higher impendance)??


Actually, Tricky, I do understand. But you said



TrickyRicky said:


> LESS OHMS DOES NOT EQUAL MORE POWER WITH LP. It just equals more current draw, less headroom, a bit more THD, and may get/run hotter and for what YOU DONT GAIN POWER...*The higher the impendance is on a LP the better off you will be*





Cablguy184 said:


> I'm not sure what you are bitching about, and why ... *But Linear Power amps have outlasted just about every amp on the market since the 80s* bro ...
> They must be doing something right ..


I want to see proof of your anecdotal evidence in this claim.

The engineering standards by which an LP amplifier (especially those in the 1980's to mid 1990s - the ones typically "well regarded") are subpar, if you are expecting a high quality amplifier.
They are built for noise - loud noise. They do not measure well for residual noise and crosstalk or even THD. They are often exaggerated. Look back through some old Car Audio mags. They have pretty poor ratings for the above except when it comes to sheer power. But even then, they can't handle the 1/3 power pink noise tests without overheating in short order, supporting my claim of inadequate heatsink area.

It's nothing personal, *bro.

*


Cablguy184 said:


> oh yea, just wondering bro ... Have you designed or built a amplifier do do better than the DPS 500, 2.2hv or even the LP 2150 ???
> or maybe even the older amps ... like the 2502iq, 5002iq, .... maybe even the 8002sw or the 4.1hv (for all you bassheads) ... ???
> if so ... please explain ...


_Yes_ with the exception of the newer designs (I have no experience with some of them)_._ I have explained my position in a multitude of other threads. I don't feel the need to repeat myself.


----------



## b&camp

^^^voice of reason.


----------



## asota

Since I don't use my amp for welding (I have a Lincoln for that) and a watt is a watt all amps sound the same (I don't really believe this) I will be first in line to get the new LP2150 if for no other reason it is Made In USA and I will be proud to own it.


----------



## TrickyRicky

"The original engineer set up a test one time with an 8002SW at a show. US Amp was there showing at the time how they could arc cut an aluminum can with the output of their amps.


Linear's engineer had a 8002SW with a electrical outlet mounted on the end of the amp. The amp was playing the subs in the demo vehicle and he plugged a vacuum cleaner into the outlet and started vacuuming the carpet in the booth. THe US AMP guy just shut his demo down in he next booth and went to lunch. I have even tapped off the internal power rails to run play stations in SUV and vans for customers that needed houshold type AC voltage."


By - 3stagevtec @ SSA

I heard this from Jeri as well (dont remember if he mentioned he did or another LP engineer). I measured the rail votage on the 5002's @ 120v, the 1752 @ 80v. I wonder how 120v feel? LOL.


----------



## envisionelec

TrickyRicky said:


> "The original engineer set up a test one time with an 8002SW at a show. US Amp was there showing at the time how they could arc cut an aluminum can with the output of their amps.
> 
> 
> Linear's engineer had a 8002SW with a electrical outlet mounted on the end of the amp. The amp was playing the subs in the demo vehicle and he plugged a vacuum cleaner into the outlet and started vacuuming the carpet in the booth. THe US AMP guy just shut his demo down in he next booth and went to lunch. *I have even tapped off the internal power rails to run play stations *in SUV and vans for customers that needed houshold type AC voltage."
> 
> ...I wonder how 120v feel? LOL.


 The rail voltage is DC - 120V DC directly from the rails will fry a Playstation or anything else designed for AC. You can do it with a signal generator set to 60Hz and connect to the speaker outputs.

Cutting aluminum through welding is much more destructive to an amplifier than running an induction/universal motor in a vacuum with an average impedance of 10-16 ohms.

I can tell you how it feels - it hurts. I worked on a HiFonics Colossus once and stupidly laid my arm across the PCB while it was disassembled. The charge stored in the rail caps shot through my inner arm, left a small mark and had my arm tingling the rest of the day. After that, I built a cap discharger when working on the mega-amps.


----------



## TrickyRicky

:lol:

Most Rockford also have to have the rail caps discharge before working on them otherwise your taking a risk at getting shocked. I personally never been shocked by touching the inside, but I did put on hand on one speaker terminal while the other hand on the other terminal and while it was playing I felt small shocks (didnt feel too good when it was some heavy bass notes, lol).


----------



## jimmy2345

TrickyRicky said:


> :lol:
> 
> Most Rockford also have to have the rail caps discharge before working on them otherwise your taking a risk at getting shocked. I personally never been shocked by touching the inside, but I did put on hand on one speaker terminal while the other hand on the other terminal and while it was playing I felt small shocks (didnt feel too good when it was some heavy bass notes, lol).


Any LARGE amplifier should be discharged. Rockfords are not special in this instance.

Do you repair amps Ricky? What Rockfords are you referring to that have an abundance of capacitance stored when off over any other manufacturer.


----------



## TrickyRicky

Ofcourse not. I did repair two of my amps that had bad capacitors but thats it. Its easy to spot the problem when you have help from someone experience and the schematics.

I do wish I learn more about amplifier designs though. But I wouldnt dare mess with SMT, which is mainly everything out today.


----------



## jimmy2345

TrickyRicky said:


> Ofcourse not. I did repair two of my amps that had bad capacitors but thats it. Its easy to spot the problem when you have help from someone experience and the schematics.
> 
> I do wish I learn more about amplifier designs though. But I wouldnt dare mess with SMT, which is mainly everything out today.


Didn't think so. Just wondered why you pulled Rockford out of the air here.


----------



## TrickyRicky

Read it somewhere in Perry's website or software on repairing amps. Not by expirience. 

I didnt discharge my caps in my large amps and I didnt get shocked, I guess I was lucky or too careful.


----------



## Luke352

Cablguy184 said:


> ... But Linear Power amps have outlasted just about every amp on the market since the 80s bro ...
> They must be doing something right ...
> ...





envisionelec said:


> Hmm. That doesn't sound like a good thing. Why would a company build a solid state amplifier that needs to be switched to drive another nominal impedance?
> 
> I know why.
> 
> 1. Inadequate heatsink area
> 2. Underbuilt current amplifier stages
> 3. Improperly-sized power supply
> 
> If that's what makes LP special, then _you can_ _have it. _


Now i know why they last so long the power supply is so undersized that it can't push enough current to damage the output devices...


Another well known amp designer who's been around since the 80's makes the claim that an amp with a sufficient PS and output stages should come close to doubling it's power for each halving of impedence.


----------



## jimmy2345

...or the output devices are above and beyond the capabilities needed for the amp to produce the desired power ultimately resulting in a great deal of headroom.

The masses have spoken years ago. LP built a name for itself by performing which is why the name is still being spoken.


----------



## 8675309

They are trying to carry on that name with new products!!

Jump on a band wagon and you will get what you want! These guys just want to sound good and make everyone else sound good. Oh yeah they want to make money and so does everyone else! Still good guys!! Richard came in head first to help me with my Audison Hertz car if that gives you any idea of what kind of guys they are! Limited companies now days will do that. I can only thing of one hand full that will do that!




jimmy2345 said:


> ...or the output devices are above and beyond the capabilities needed for the amp to produce the desired power ultimately resulting in a great deal of headroom.
> 
> The masses have spoken years ago. LP built a name for itself by performing which is why the name is still being spoken.


----------



## TrickyRicky

The output transistors are being runned at 1/3 of their power capabilities at 4-ohm loads and about 1/2 at 2-ohm loads. The amps are way over built but thats a good thing, plus you have lots of headroom for those dynamic notes. Having 3dB of headroom was a goodthing last time I checked. Most amps today are runned at 85% or higher efficiencies that they have no headroom at all.

And the guys at Blues will help anyone with any system, thats how much they love music.


----------



## jimmy2345

TrickyRicky said:


> The output transistors are being runned at 1/3 of their power capabilities at 4-ohm loads and about 1/2 at 2-ohm loads. The amps are way over built but thats a good thing, plus you have lots of headroom for those dynamic notes. Having 3dB of headroom was a goodthing last time I checked. *Most amps today are RAN at 85% OF THEIR CAPABILITIES SO they have no headroom at all.
> *
> And the guys at Blues will help anyone with any system, thats how much they love music.



FIXED...


----------



## TrickyRicky

thx. But most consumers now a days want a 100% efficient amplifier. The so called "no power to waste" but every amp is going to put out power in heat form, its only normal. So no matter how efficient you get, there will always be lost in power in heat.


----------



## ChrisB

TrickyRicky said:


> thx. But *most consumers now a days want a 100% efficient amplifier.* The so called "no power to waste" but every amp is going to put out power in heat form, its only normal. So no matter how efficient you get, there will always be lost in power in heat.


That is the route I have been leaning towards lately. Since home audio is so much easier to implement than car audio, I decided that I am tired of huge, inefficient amplifiers taking up 1/3 of my trunk. My next amplifiers will more than likely be JL Audio full-range Class D or a couple of Class GH Arc Audio amplifiers that hardly take up any space.

One of the things the smaller, more efficient amplifiers will allow me to do is run more power in the given footprint. As a result, my headroom will be built into the amplifier since I will be running the amplifier itself at a fraction of its capacity. After all, my stage speakers are rated to handle 30 watts RMS and 50 watts RMS respectively. For example, 150 x 4 from a HD600/4 should be MORE than enough power and provide ample headroom at the same time. That is win-win if you ask me OR winning if you ask Charlie Sheen!:laugh:


----------



## jimmy2345

TrickyRicky said:


> thx. But most consumers now a days want a 100% efficient amplifier. The so called "no power to waste" but every amp is going to put out power in heat form, its only normal. So no matter how efficient you get, there will always be lost in power in heat.


I think you are getting the 2 subjects mixed up. Running an output device below its capabilities doesn't make an amplifier any more efficient, or less efficient. It just allows the amp to perform effortlessly which provides headroom and the ability to nail transient peaks with ease.

Efficiency is a totally different topic.


----------



## jimmy2345

ChrisB said:


> That is the route I have been leaning towards lately. Since home audio is so much easier to implement than car audio, I decided that I am tired of huge, inefficient amplifiers taking up 1/3 of my trunk. My next amplifiers will more than likely be JL Audio full-range Class D or a couple of Class GH Arc Audio amplifiers that hardly take up any space.
> 
> One of the things the smaller, more efficient amplifiers will allow me to do is run more power in the given footprint. As a result, my headroom will be built into the amplifier since I will be running the amplifier itself at a fraction of its capacity. After all, my stage speakers are rated to handle 30 watts RMS and 50 watts RMS respectively. For example, 150 x 4 from a HD600/4 should be MORE than enough power and provide ample headroom at the same time. That is win-win if you ask me OR winning if you ask Charlie Sheen!:laugh:


Sounds like you have a plan that will work. However, no matter how much power you get from those full range class D's, you still won't have fidelity. If I had to choose between the 2, I would lean towards the class GH Arcs.


----------



## asota

Has anyone looked into the real cost of running a less efficant amp or the cost of running a higher output alternator? What can it really cost a gallon or two of gas a year? Those spark plugs you should have changed 20k miles ago are costing you way more than that.


----------



## ryan s

jimmy2345 said:


> However, no matter how much power you get from those full range class D's, you still won't have fidelity.


I know that you won't have a good answer for it, but elaborate for us.

Why has ~20 years of Class D development still not surpassed the 40 year old (?) A/B technology in your *opinion*?

Have you been watching the explosion of the microprocessor and silicon transistor in that same ~20 years? Do you have a cell phone? Land lines are more old school with better SQ, after all.



asota said:


> Has anyone looked into the real cost of running a less efficant amp or the cost of running a higher output alternator? What can it really cost a gallon or two of gas a year? Those spark plugs you should have changed 20k miles ago are costing you way more than that.


I've said it before...in 2011, the day I have to upgrade my electrical system to run big, inefficient amps is the day I quit car audio.

Would you go back to dialup internet just to relive "The Days" with AOL chatrooms and Netscape Navigator? :laugh: Why is audio nostalgia different? (Disclosure: I still use film cameras alongside my DSLR, so I understand metal build, mechanical switches, all that. If I had to choose between film and digital, I'd ditch film.)


----------



## jimmy2345

ryan s said:


> I know that you won't have a good answer for it, but elaborate for us.
> 
> Why has ~20 years of Class D development still not surpassed the 40 year old (?) A/B technology in your *opinion*?
> 
> Have you been watching the explosion of the microprocessor and silicon transistor in that same ~20 years? Do you have a cell phone? Land lines are more old school with better SQ, after all.
> 
> 
> I've said it before...in 2011, the day I have to upgrade my electrical system to run big, inefficient amps is the day I quit car audio.
> 
> Would you go back to dialup internet just to relive "The Days" with AOL chatrooms and Netscape Navigator? :laugh: Why is audio nostalgia different? (Disclosure: I still use film cameras alongside my DSLR, so I understand metal build, mechanical switches, all that. If I had to choose between film and digital, I'd ditch film.)


Talk about someone rambling about things that have nothing to do with Class A/B or Class D circuitry.....

What you don't realize is that your class D amps really aren't that efficient. A class D amp is more efficient when played at lower volumes than it is at high volumes, and vice versa for class A/B. 

...and your comment about if you have to upgrade your electrical system in your car you will quit car audio....is just as dumb. Are you so in the fog that you think your class D amps don't need power to make power? They are that efficient huh? So if your home electrical can't handle a dishwasher you are going to settle on washing dishes by hand? 

The thing that makes me laugh is that the people who wouldn't know SQ or fidelity if it slapped them in the face are the ones that state their class D amps sound so good. 

There is also a special someone on this forum who talks about "smoke and mirrors" and "car audio is nothing but marketing gimmicks". The biggest gimmick there is, is a class D amplifier. I would rather have those little extra details in my music, a lively real sound to my instruments, and all the things you don't have....over saving myself 10 amps.


----------



## asota

jimmy2345 said:


> Talk about someone rambling about things that have nothing to do with Class A/B or Class D circuitry.....
> 
> What you don't realize is that your class D amps really aren't that efficient. A class D amp is more efficient when played at lower volumes than it is at high volumes, and vice versa for class A/B.
> 
> ...and your comment about if you have to upgrade your electrical system in your car you will quit car audio....is just as dumb. Are you so in the fog that you think your class D amps don't need power to make power? They are that efficient huh? So if your home electrical can't handle a dishwasher you are going to settle on washing dishes by hand?
> 
> The thing that makes me laugh is that the people who wouldn't know SQ or fidelity if it slapped them in the face are the ones that state their class D amps sound so good.
> 
> There is also a special someone on this forum who talks about "smoke and mirrors" and "car audio is nothing but marketing gimmicks". The biggest gimmick there is, is a class D amplifier. I would rather have those little extra details in my music, a lively real sound to my instruments, and all the things you don't have....over saving myself 10 amps.


woot cool agree 100%


----------



## TrickyRicky

Linear Power had a class D amp that they decided not to produce because the sound was just not as good as the other Linear products. Even though Ray said the SW200 class D amp that was designed 20years ago still sounds better than most class D of todays.

Will I ever be able to agree with him, may be not because I will NEVER ever have a chance to actually listen to a SW200 simply because it was never produce in mass numbers.


----------



## Luke352

jimmy2345 said:


> ...or the output devices are above and beyond the capabilities needed for the amp to produce the desired power ultimately resulting in a great deal of headroom.
> 
> .


Nearly every *well *built amp on the market has that, even my "nasty sounding" Class D (it actually sounds very good) has even greater output device headroom in fact even running a 1.5 ohm load which is below the 2ohm rated minimum impedence the amp is rated for and the output devices will still be under 50% load. You also have no crossover distortion with Class D amps.



TrickyRicky said:


> The output transistors are being runned at 1/3 of their power capabilities at 4-ohm loads and about 1/2 at 2-ohm loads. The amps are way over built but thats a good thing, plus you have lots of headroom for those dynamic notes. Having 3dB of headroom was a goodthing last time I checked. Most amps today are runned at 85% or higher efficiencies that they have no headroom at all.
> 
> .


See comment above.



jimmy2345 said:


> What you don't realize is that your class D amps really aren't that efficient. A class D amp is more efficient when played at lower volumes than it is at high volumes, and vice versa for class A/B.
> 
> Really, I think you'll find your wrong. Class D's like AB amps are only at there most efficient at full power playing a sine wave. Say your Class D is rated at 90% efficient playing music will lower that efficiency by 10-15% bringing it down to 75% percent efficiency. A class Ab with high bias like i imagine the LP's are are probably 50-60% efficient at full power take away our 10-15% and we are down in the 40-50% range or probably lower, so the Class D is still 30-50% more efficient and most of the inefficiency in Class D's as I understand it are in the Power supply which is why a certain manufacturer of Class D's uses a low power and high power rail to further increase efficiency.
> 
> ...and your comment about if you have to upgrade your electrical system in your car you will quit car audio....is just as dumb. Are you so in the fog that you think your class D amps don't need power to make power? They are that efficient huh? So if your home electrical can't handle a dishwasher you are going to settle on washing dishes by hand?
> 
> Yep they need power but a whole lot less which makes designing the electrical system a whole lot easier and cheaper.
> 
> The thing that makes me laugh is that the people who wouldn't know SQ or fidelity if it slapped them in the face are the ones that state their class D amps sound so good.
> 
> Last time I looked there are plenty of very competitive cars running Class D amps
> 
> .


Oh and by the way when the amplifiers state a certain amount of headroom in it's specs that is typically a sign of a poorly designed Power Supply due to sagging rails that can't maintain a steady voltage. Every amp will have some but anything more then 2-3db is generally a bad thing.

Class D is apparently good enough for Mark Levinson MarkLevinson - Product Details $25000 each


----------



## jimmy2345

Class D amps are less efficient when reaching there peak output....go read a book.

They are also less efficient when running at a lower impedance. So when you buy that class d amp that states it is 80% efficient....it may be at 4 ohm (doubt it), but it's even less when you run it at 1 ohm; and then even less when you turn the knob.

I wonder why a Linear Power 4.1 can run cool as day with a 6 gauge power wire hanging out of it while beating the **** out of your subwoofers with utmost clarity, but your ****ty sounding class D has 2 4 gauge power inputs, has trouble making its true power, and runs hot as hell? Hmmm....I wonder why (not really)? It is because your class d isn't efficient at high volumes, and no where as efficient as the manufacturer claims. It needs a ton of current hence the reason it has large power wire inputs. It's common sense.


----------



## asota

Class D is apparently good enough for Mark Levinson MarkLevinson - Product Details $25000 each[/QUOTE]

So a really good SQ class D is $25000 guess i'll get a AB and save a bunch of cash


----------



## envisionelec

jimmy2345 said:


> I think you are getting the 2 subjects mixed up. Running an output device below its capabilities doesn't make an amplifier any more efficient, or less efficient. *It just allows the amp to perform effortlessly which provides headroom* and the ability to nail transient peaks with ease.


Well, that's not true either. Headroom isn't a factor of the output devices, but of the power supply. If it's "stiff" enough, you won't have headroom.



jimmy2345 said:


> The thing that makes me laugh is that the people who wouldn't know SQ or fidelity if it slapped them in the face are the ones that state their class D amps sound so good.


Are you qualified to make these statements? 



TrickyRicky said:


> Linear Power had a class D amp that they decided not to produce because the sound was just not as good as the other Linear products. Even though Ray said the SW200 class D amp that was designed 20years ago still sounds better than most class D of todays.
> 
> Will I ever be able to agree with him, may be not because I will NEVER ever have a chance to actually listen to a SW200 simply because it was never produce in mass numbers.


There is a lot of information in your posts that tells me you have *very limited* experience with Class D amplifiers. 20 years ago, there were not any Hi-Fi full range Class D amplifiers with specifications that could hope to match a conventional design; nope not even Infinity's. The technology did exist, but nobody had invented it yet. In 1994 I designed my first Class D amplifier around an HIP4080 motor drive IC. It was the same IC used in the first MMATS amplifier (and later, Kicker). It had a limited bandwidth of 500Hz because its Fsw was just 25kHz and there was no other feedback option within the IC for anything faster.

Ray made one 200SW. Your homework assignment is to get Ray to provide some evidence on what makes his 20+ year old design "better" than most of today's designs. 
20 years ago the overhead that a old Class D design required made them *much more expensive* per watt than any linear amplifier. Yeah, you could do it, but it was pointless. Now, it's not only viable, but an excellent choice.


----------



## envisionelec

jimmy2345 said:


> Class D amps are less efficient when reaching there peak output....go read a book.
> 
> They are also less efficient when running at a lower impedance. So when you buy that class d amp that states it is 80% efficient....it may be at 4 ohm (doubt it), but it's even less when you run it at 1 ohm; and then even less when you turn the knob.
> 
> I wonder why a Linear Power 4.1 can run cool as day with a 6 gauge power wire hanging out of it while beating the **** out of your subwoofers with utmost clarity, but your ****ty sounding class D has 2 4 gauge power inputs, has trouble making its true power, and runs hot as hell? Hmmm....I wonder why (not really)? It is because your class d isn't efficient at high volumes, and no where as efficient as the manufacturer claims. It needs a ton of current hence the reason it has large power wire inputs. It's common sense.


I don't think it's a* Class D *problem. Sounds like *bad design*. Oh yeah, that's what I keep bringing up.


----------



## asota

. In 1994 I designed my first Class D amplifier around an HIP4080 motor drive IC. It was the same IC used in the first MMATS amplifier (and later, Kicker). It had a limited bandwidth of 500Hz because its Fsw was just 25kHz and there was no other feedback option within the IC for anything faster.
could do it, but it was pointless. 
You designed a class D amp when you were in High School?


----------



## jimmy2345

envisionelec said:


> Ray made one 200SW. Your homework assignment is to get Ray to provide some evidence on what makes his 20+ year old design "better" than most of today's designs.
> 20 years ago the overhead that a old Class D design required made them *much more expensive* per watt than any linear amplifier. Yeah, you could do it, but it was pointless. Now, it's not only viable, but an excellent choice.


First of all, Ray didn't "make" it. 

Can your ears telling your brain that it sounds better be good enough? I sure think so seeing as your ears have the final say as to whether or not something sounds good. The fact that they designed an amp that sounds better than most class D amps marketed today, BUT they still wouldn't release it because the company was, and always will be, about SQ first and foremost says a lot about the company.

My final statement....at this point in time, class D is still lacking and sucks balls. If you are right envisionelec that the fault is not class D but bad design then someone needs to teach 95% of the manufacturers of class D amps today how to properly design a class D amp. To me that sounds like rubbish and more like evidence that class D just plain sounds like ass.

Truthfully, I have tried quite a few class D designs over the years and there was always something lacking. Do you think people who are against class D just don't like them just because? I think not.


----------



## Luke352

jimmy2345 said:


> Class D amps are less efficient when reaching there peak output....go read a book.
> 
> They are also less efficient when running at a lower impedance. So when you buy that class d amp that states it is 80% efficient....it may be at 4 ohm (doubt it), but it's even less when you run it at 1 ohm; and then even less when you turn the knob.
> 
> I wonder why a Linear Power 4.1 can run cool as day with a 6 gauge power wire hanging out of it while beating the **** out of your subwoofers with utmost clarity, but your ****ty sounding class D has 2 4 gauge power inputs, has trouble making its true power, and runs hot as hell? Hmmm....I wonder why (not really)? It is because your class d isn't efficient at high volumes, and no where as efficient as the manufacturer claims. It needs a ton of current hence the reason it has large power wire inputs. It's common sense.


Class D is most efficient just short of clipping I'd call that peak output.


The only one here who seems to be making outrageous uneducated statements is you.


----------



## jimmy2345

Luke352 said:


> Class D is most efficient just short of clipping I'd call that peak output.
> 
> 
> The only one here who seems to be making outrages uneducated statements is you.


It's spelled outrageous. Please elaborate. The basics of class D efficiencies are a well known fact. You are lost hence the reason I stated to read a book.


----------



## Luke352

Following your suggestion for me why don't you do some reading. Class-D Amplifiers
http://hephaestusaudio.com/media/2008/11/class-d-efficiency.pdf


----------



## subwoofery

Luke352 said:


> Really, I think you'll find your wrong. Class D's like AB amps are only at there most efficient at full power playing a sine wave. Say your Class D is rated at 90% efficient playing music will lower that efficiency by 10-15% bringing it down to 75% percent efficiency. A class Ab with high bias like i imagine the LP's are are probably 50-60% efficient at full power take away our 10-15% and we are down in the 40-50% range or probably lower, so the Class D is still 30-50% more efficient and most of the inefficiency in Class D's as I understand it are in the Power supply which is why a certain manufacturer of Class D's uses a low power and high power rail to further increase efficiency.


Actually Jimmy is right, Class D really shines @ lower power. Remembered this post from Eric Stevens: 
http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/332486-post8.html 
So it seems that, at full power, Class D isn't much more efficient than a Class A/B amp. 

Here's another one: 


> Well here's what Mr. Eric Stevens (Image Dynamics USA) has to say on this matter:
> 
> "Class D or switching amplifiers can sound good when done right but cost even more than a class A/B amp when they are done correctly. Most of the class D amps are made because they figured out how to make a lot of power cheaply using that amp topology. The cheap class D amps sound like crap plain and simple and I would recommend a cheap class A/B amp over a cheap Class D every day of the week.
> 
> At full power the class D and class A/B are very similar in overall efficiency. It is at lower power levels that the class D is more efficient."


Last one: 
http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/1326144-post28.html


Kelvin


----------



## Luke352

From one of the links above.
I'd call that greater then 5%. I also wouldn't call that less as Jimmy is trying to claim.


----------



## TrickyRicky

I can say one thing "everyone has a different point of view", but when it comes down to "who is correct" I dont think we will ever know. Because we all hear different, some hear better than others, and some have lost hearing due to high SPL levels.

Oh even the engineers go at it, one says one thing the other another. I've read what Steve Mantz have to say about class AB compared to class D and its the opposite of another well known engineer.


----------



## subwoofery

Here are the real measured numbers I got from a German magazine: (full power at 4 ohm) 
A/B amps: 
Audio-System X--ION 160.4 : 64.2% 
Digital Designs S4 : 62.5% 
DLS Ultimate A4 : 64.1% 
DLS Reference RA20 : 62.6% 
DLS TA2 : 64.5% 
Focal FP4.75 : 63.5% 
Helix B2 : 63.8% 
Helix Competition A6 : 61.7% 
Helix Precision P200 : 63.5% 
Ground Zero Audio GZNA 4125SQ : 74.0% (not a mistake) 
Mosconi AS 100.4 : 75.0% (not a mistake either ) 
Rockford Fosgate Power T 600-2 : 62.2% 
Sinfoni 90.2x : 65.0% 
Steg K2/03 : 65.0% 
Zapco DC 1000.4 : 66.4% 

D amps: 
Alpine PDX-4.150 : 84.5% 
Alpine PDX-5 : 71.2%
Alpine PDX-F4 : 78.1% 
JL Audio HD600/4 : 76.1%
JL Audio XD400/4 : 78.0% 
Kenwood X4R : 72.5% 
Pioneer PRS-D 400 : 76.5% 
Pioneer PRS-D 420 : 71.8% 
Zapco C2K-9.0XD : 76.0% 

Kelvin 

PS: Amps have come a long way... Class D have come a long way... but as you can see, so have Class A/B amps  
Old school amps were closer to 40%-50% and that's why I'm not interested in buying any... 
From the above list, I see no good reason to use Class D amps. *MY OPINION*


----------



## Luke352

subwoofery said:


> Here are the real measured numbers I got from a German magazine: (full power at 4 ohm)
> A/B amps:
> DLS Ultimate A4 : 64.1%
> Helix B2 : 63.8%
> Helix Competition A6 : 61.7%
> Helix Precision P200 : 63.5%
> Zapco DC 1000.4 : 66.4%
> 
> D amps:
> JL Audio HD600/4 : 76.1%
> JL Audio XD400/4 : 78.0%
> 
> Kelvin
> 
> PS: More to be added


I'd call that better, but full power sine wave isn't where you'll see the best gains as per the graph I put in my last post the real gains are probably in the lower 80% of the power range.


----------



## TrickyRicky

ryan s said:


> I know that you won't have a good answer for it, but elaborate for us.
> 
> Why has ~20 years of Class D development still not surpassed the 40 year old (?) A/B technology in your *opinion*?
> 
> Have you been watching the explosion of the microprocessor and silicon transistor in that same ~20 years? Do you have a cell phone? Land lines are more old school with better SQ, after all.
> 
> *
> I've said it before...in 2011, the day I have to upgrade my electrical system to run big, inefficient amps is the day I quit car audio.*
> Would you go back to dialup internet just to relive "The Days" with AOL chatrooms and Netscape Navigator? :laugh: Why is audio nostalgia different? (Disclosure: I still use film cameras alongside my DSLR, so I understand metal build, mechanical switches, all that. If I had to choose between film and digital, I'd ditch film.)


What amps are you using? And since when adding an amplifier doesnt require a power system upgrade, especially with a class D (which draw high amount of current that stock systems never put in mind)?


----------



## asota

So what I have got out of all this is most (not all) class D amps are more efficient. This allows Class D amps to have a smaller heat sink (case) and smaller power supply the two most expensive parts of a amp. This has allowed engineers to design single case class D amps with sick RMS power outputs. You still can't make up watts out of thin air a 2,000 watt class D amp 10 -30% more efficient than a 1,000 AB amp will still draw more power and only give you a 3db increase in volume. To some 3db can mean the difference between winning and losing (spl folks) but to SQ people who cares a extra 3 db that draws more power means very little. Now for the subjective part most ''Golden Ears'' agree class D amps (although they have gotten better) do not sound as good as AB I wouldn't know I will never swap out a non Made in USA amp in my system to compare. What irks me the most is American engineers pushing class D amps knowing that every $1,000 spent on a foreign product puts another american out of work. When Linear Power makes a Made in USA class D amp that sounds as good as there AB amps I will be first in line till then Made in USA old school or the up-coming LP-2150 are the only way to go for me. BE AMERICAN BUY AMERICAN


----------



## envisionelec

asota said:


> You designed a class D amp when you were in High School?


Yes, that's correct. Although it wasn't built until 1995, because it cost quite a bit to make. I still have the handmade Litz wound transformer from it, but nothing else. I talked about this in other threads/posts.


----------



## ChrisB

TrickyRicky said:


> I can say one thing "everyone has a different point of view", but when it comes down to "who is correct" I dont think we will ever know. Because we all hear different, some hear better than others, and some have lost hearing due to high SPL levels.


That's what makes the world go round.:laugh:



TrickyRicky said:


> Oh even the engineers go at it, one says one thing the other another. I've read what Steve Mantz have to say about class AB compared to class D and its the opposite of another well known engineer.


Hell, Mantz even contradicted a white paper that HE wrote on full range class D amplification. In short, he stated that there was no way one could get full range class d to sound great. Care to guess what topology he used for his new amplifiers?:surprised:

Is it a coincidence that the old article was removed from his website upon the launch of his new amplifiers?:laugh:


----------



## chad

envisionelec said:


> Hmm. That doesn't sound like a good thing. Why would a company build a solid state amplifier that needs to be switched to drive another nominal impedance?
> 
> I know why.
> 
> 1. Inadequate heatsink area
> 2. Underbuilt current amplifier stages
> 3. Improperly-sized power supply
> 
> If that's what makes LP special, then _you can_ _have it. _


----------



## chad

envisionelec said:


> Yes, that's correct. Although it wasn't built until 1995, because it cost quite a bit to make. I still have the handmade Litz wound transformer from it, but nothing else. I talked about this in other threads/posts.


internet porn was not as prevalent then. now all we have is a bunch of blind, mis-informed kids with hairy palms....

Go internets!


----------



## envisionelec

chad said:


> internet porn was not as prevalent then. now all we have is a bunch of blind, mis-informed kids with hairy palms....
> 
> Go internets!


I've considered building another one for old time's sake, but the first didn't work that well. Cross conduction is what blew it up when I was taking measurements of...you guessed it....dead-time. It took out the expensive MosFETs and the controller and burned part of the homemade PCB. I never took pictures of it because my film camera's battery was dead. It was one of those $12 lithiums which was out of reach at the time. I grew up in a poor family. I still think gubmint cheese is da best! I worked 30 hours a week while in school so I could fund my projects. So, yeah, I was realy into class d before it was on everyone's lips. 

But back to the design...the HIP4080A was a full bridge motor drive controller. I didn't have any experience before that, but it did work for several weeks before I removed it for testing. It was installed in an old 100+100W Jensen heatsink. But it only occupied about 2/3 of the chassis. I measured it at 250w into 4 ohms. It got real hot at 2 ohms, because of the cross conduction. But I learned, damnit!

Sorry for the poor spelling/grammar...I am blocked at work, so this is by phone.


----------



## envisionelec

chad said:


>


The same goes for Soundstream...but they have (had?) an excellent front end...


----------



## chad

envisionelec said:


> It was installed in an old 100+100W Jensen heatsink. But it only occupied about 2/3 of the chassis. I measured it at 250w into 4 ohms. It got real hot at 2 ohms, because of the cross conduction. But I learned, damnit!
> 
> Sorry for the poor spelling/grammar...I am blocked at work, so this is by phone.


Ha! Mine was an A/B I designed, all TO3P mounted in a Pyramid PB560? Maybe PB590 case. It had a healthy amount of heatsink and was cashed.

And yes, in High School. That sucker still runs! it's been through 3 owners too! It's in my attic somewhere, I should dig it out.

Methinks we are of about the same vintage, actually about 4 years off.


----------



## ryan s

TrickyRicky said:


> What amps are you using? And since when adding an amplifier doesnt require a power system upgrade, especially with a class D (which draw high amount of current that stock systems never put in mind)?


Currently, I have all A/Bs which are coming out as soon as I can find/fund a GH 4 channel and D mono. 

So I'm going to do a little experimenting. I can make my lights dim *slightly* with the car running if I'm playing rap or something. The 4 channel is 80 x 4 with 2 30A fuses, and the bridged amp is 300w with a 25A fuse. Most likely, they will be replaced with a GH amp that does 90 x 4 with 60A worth of fusing, and a D that does 320w with 2 20A fuses.

I'll get on it and see if I can make the lights dim. Not scientific, but neither are Jimmy's hypotheses :laugh: A 25~30% improvement in efficiency should be appreciable, no?


ChrisB said:


> Hell, Mantz even contradicted a white paper that HE wrote on full range class D amplification. In short, he stated that there was no way one could get full range class d to sound great. Care to guess what topology he used for his new amplifiers?:surprised:
> 
> Is it a coincidence that the old article was removed from his website upon the launch of his new amplifiers?:laugh:


Shhhh, don't let reason creep into the conversation. We all know that A/B is the only technology that's advancing  :laugh:


----------



## envisionelec

ChrisB said:


> Hell, Mantz even contradicted a white paper that HE wrote on full range class D amplification. In short, he stated that there was no way one could get full range class d to sound great. Care to guess what topology he used for his new amplifiers? Is it a coincidence that the old article was removed from his website upon the launch of his new amplifiers?


I remember that white paper. I thought to myself that he would change his mind if he were even the least bit scientific.

I wouldn't consider that a problem because Class D technology has evolved very quickly making even the best in the industry make an about-face. I have a friend that happens to be a legendary home and commercial audio amplifier designer...this isn't hearsay: He didn't like switching output amplifiers. But more recent advancements has made him a believer in their potential. They have drawbacks, but quality reproduction is *not *one of them.

I wouldn't have invested months of effort on (re)designing a switching amplifier if I didn't believe in them. But, trying to explain the pros and cons of *any *design is quite worthless in _this_ venue where the best rebuff begins with "I've heard..." or "My buddy said..." 

If I ran my business on what other people thought they knew, I'd never make a dime. :laugh:


----------



## jimmy2345

ryan s said:


> Shhhh, don't let reason creep into the conversation. We all know that A/B is the only technology that's advancing  :laugh:


No need for advancement really. Properly done, they sound amazing and you can still drive your car down the road and listen to them.

Class D on the other hand sound like terds hitting the pool in the toilet and suck almost as much power.


----------



## chad

jimmy2345 said:


> Class D on the other hand sound like terds hitting the pool in the toilet and suck almost as much power.


Your elevator doesn't go all the way to the penthouse does it?


----------



## jimmy2345

chad said:


> Your elevator doesn't go all the way to the penthouse does it?


Here is Mr. "lets try to throw out insults because I have nothing of value to add which is the reason I even got an respect on this forum".


You don't have mine. That is for sure. Take your small local SQ trophy that you won by beating one 17 year old working with a system built from a McDonalds salary and move on.


----------



## ryan s

jimmy2345 said:


> No need for advancement really. Properly done, they sound amazing and you can still drive your car down the road and listen to them.
> 
> Class D on the other hand sound like terds hitting the pool in the toilet and suck almost as much power.


Your willful ignorance is simply stunning. Even in the face of evidence that, given the same input, a more efficient topology *will *make more power on the outputs, you bury your head deeper into the sand.

I notice that Ant renamed the forum "Scientific Car Audio - Truth in Sound Quality." The only truths you possess are in your head.

And if you're going to call out others for spelling errors, it's "turds." 


chad said:


> Your elevator doesn't go all the way to the penthouse does it?


Never heard that one before :laugh:


----------



## jimmy2345

ryan s said:


> Your willful ignorance is simply stunning. Even in the face of evidence that, given the same input, a more efficient topology *will *make more power on the outputs, you bury your head deeper into the sand.
> 
> I notice that Ant renamed the forum "Scientific Car Audio - Truth in Sound Quality." The only truths you possess are in your head.
> 
> And if you're going to call out others for spelling errors, it's "turds."
> 
> Never heard that one before :laugh:


They aren't much more efficient buddy. I have stated that....Subwoofery has posted facts of that.....what more do you want? How am I burying my head deeper? Everything I have stated has been backed up by at least one other poster. You are just jumping on the usual bandwagon bashing cult from DIYMA. You haven't added a thing, nor have the knowledge to.


----------



## chad

jimmy2345 said:


> You don't have mine. That is for sure.


Was not looking for it, thanks for playing.


----------



## chad

jimmy2345 said:


> They aren't much more efficient buddy. I have stated that....Subwoofery has posted facts of that.....what more do you want? How am I burying my head deeper? Everything I have stated has been backed up by at least one other poster. You are just jumping on the usual bandwagon bashing cult from DIYMA. You haven't added a thing, nor have the knowledge to.


An AB amplifier SECTION is actually it's most efficient at clipping, believe it or not. Since a class D amp has the output devices full on or full off all the time.. then YES, it is indeed more efficient. 

As for turds in buckets. Almost EVERY SINGLE touring company out there has switched to some form of class D amplification. Not only do they sound fantastic they also produce less overall current draw actually ALLOWING the system to sound better because it's not sagging the mains as hard. Granted, I DO feel that the professional switchers have more advancements in terms of technology, car audio is not that much farther behind to make a"turd in a bucked" notable difference. You are an obsessive fanboi, that's not helping your stance here.


----------



## Hillbilly SQ

My turds sound better than your turds when gas whistles over them


----------



## sqshoestring

Oh you guys have to stop with this topology argument. Any of those can sound great if properly built. What do you think is in most home equipment and TVs, etc, yes its all class D or going there. Maybe one day we will be lucky enough that all cars are DI its about the same thing. Sure class AB can do the job, and so can a carburetor especially if you are into NASCAR....oops even they are moving into this century. Nearly everything will be class D in audio some day, its a no-brainer Chad is right on the money.

In the realm of things class AB works fine in lower power apps, but you can't power a huge one without extra electrical. Class G/H pretty much have a class AB amplifier with a variable power supply so get one of those if you don't like D. If you don't need over say 300rms class AB works like a charm you don't have to change, that should not dim your lights much if at all....until you get an electric car lol.

Linear Power made great amps in the 80s, have you driven an 80s car lately? New cars are much better but those amps were very good back then. There is not much to do with class AB other than make them cheaper just like a toaster. Even class D is getting easier now. Heck audiophiles are using little T amps made many, many years ago and say they are better than tube amps, go figure.

The reason class AB is inefficient is because the outputs are like faucets they switch part way on with a signal less than max power. This makes heat and that is lost power. The only way they are efficient is a square wave right at clipping....and that is how a class D works, sort of. Full on or off is hardly any loss. Since music is dynamic you hardly ever reach full output except at peaks, if you are not clipping the amp. So you will never reach high efficiency with a class AB with clean music. That is just the way it is, I didn't do it. Class G/H reduces power supply voltage at times of low need, reducing the difference between supply and output raises efficiency. Ideally if you had the rails lowered to the max the outputs needed at any given time it would be as efficient as a class D, but then you really don't need outputs at that point. Someone has made an amp that is just a power supply, but not sure it works like that.

Any car amp I know of will be less efficient at lower loads, that is because more amperage that causes heat flows through the amp with the same voltage. How much depends on how it was designed, where it was designed to work best, etc. Just like some amps double power into half the load and other amps do not. My kicker only went 70 to 85rms at 4 to 2 ohms, but the class D sub section 210 to 420. Why they did that I don't know, maybe some day when I have the time I will design my own amp and learn that involved stuff.

That old literature does not count anymore, class D today is very clean you would have to find a turd of an amp that did not perform on par. Even cheap amps today sound pretty good, though they might explode if you give them a nasty look when pushing some power. The only real issue I see in car audio is if you do push your amps to clipping then _how_ they clip can make a difference. Tube amps are more or less soft clipping, very nice on the ears. A good class AB can do similar a lot of LP amps do this and some others. Cheap SS amps can sound like pink noise clipping, very annoying. Early class D were not nice either I heard some home systems that got ugly in clipping. To be fair nobody rates amps there, so you really can't count it against them even though you might not prefer it.


----------



## ryan s

jimmy2345 said:


> They aren't much more efficient buddy. I have stated that....Subwoofery has posted facts of that.....what more do you want? How am I burying my head deeper? Everything I have stated has been backed up by at least one other poster. You are just jumping on the usual bandwagon bashing cult from DIYMA. You haven't added a thing, nor have the knowledge to.


Yes, they are _much _more efficient, especially when run at normal volume.

Let's compare apples to apples...the list posted earlier contained lots of A/B amps that cost way too much to be in a car. A DLS A4 and JL 600/4 are probably around the same price and power but the JL is 15% more efficient. That's a free 15% extra headroom...or a free 15%-longer-lasting alternator...or a free 15% you can put on your midbass drivers...or...

As for the rest of your post, cool story bro! Let me know when more than one person backs you up.



Hillbilly SQ said:


> My turds sound better than your turds when gas whistles over them


Mine have an airy midrange when they hit the water.





...what was this thread about originally? :laugh:


----------



## subwoofery

ryan s said:


> Yes, they are _much _more efficient, especially when run at normal volume.
> 
> *Let's compare apples to apples...*the list posted earlier contained lots of A/B amps that cost way too much to be in a car. A DLS A4 and JL 600/4 are probably around the same price and power but the JL is 15% more efficient. That's a free 15% extra headroom...or a free 15%-longer-lasting alternator...or a free 15% you can put on your midbass drivers...or...
> 
> As for the rest of your post, cool story bro! Let me know when more than one person backs you up.
> 
> 
> Mine have an airy midrange when they hit the water.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...what was this thread about originally? :laugh:


To be honest, the only A/B amps that cost way too much to be in a car would be the DLS TA2, the Helix A6 and the Sinfoni 90.2x... and maybe the Mosconi too. 
When comparing apples to apples, I feel that the Uranium GZUA 4125SQ is actually a better match to the JL Audio (MSRP $899). As you can see, the difference in efficiency is only 2.1% now. Power output is also close enough to go unnoticed (4x135 VS 4x168). 
Ohh, and for those that want an amp to go active, the GZNA has HP,BP,LP 20Hz to 4kHz. 

I'm not arguing for the sake of it, it's just that everybody raves about new technology (Class D being one) when some companies are also trying to improve A/B class designs by making it more efficient. As I see it, there's no real reason to go Class D (for now ) 
I'm sure some companies can make Class D amps sound good (even Brax has one ) but that would cost a lot of money (€2900 for the Brax). From another post I think one Home Audio amp was like $25,000. 

So it's either full on/off with the Class D power supply? I need to re-read the thread about class D amp topology. Does someone know the switching freq for the JL HD amp?

Kelvin


----------



## TrickyRicky

Why cant we just argue without insults? Are we not adults here?


----------



## jimmy2345

TrickyRicky said:


> Why cant we just argue without insults? Are we not adults here?


Good observation. We were until rex came in here.


----------



## ChrisB

ryan s said:


> Shhhh, don't let reason creep into the conversation. We all know that A/B is the only technology that's advancing  :laugh:


What, things like microprocessor control of the Switched Mode Power Supply and the audio correction circuit? An amplifier builder, who will remain nameless, told me that the audio correction circuit will make or break any full-range class d amplifier. Well, he told me a lot more than that, but that is the only thing I got out of the hour long conversation.:blush:


----------



## LinearPower

subwoofery said:


> Here are the real measured numbers I got from a German magazine: (full power at 4 ohm)
> A/B amps:
> Audio-System X--ION 160.4 : 64.2%
> Digital Designs S4 : 62.5%
> DLS Ultimate A4 : 64.1%
> DLS Reference RA20 : 62.6%
> DLS TA2 : 64.5%
> Focal FP4.75 : 63.5%
> Helix B2 : 63.8%
> Helix Competition A6 : 61.7%
> Helix Precision P200 : 63.5%
> Ground Zero Audio GZNA 4125SQ : 74.0% (not a mistake)
> Mosconi AS 100.4 : 75.0% (not a mistake either )
> Rockford Fosgate Power T 600-2 : 62.2%
> Sinfoni 90.2x : 65.0%
> Steg K2/03 : 65.0%
> Zapco DC 1000.4 : 66.4%
> 
> D amps:
> Alpine PDX-4.150 : 84.5%
> Alpine PDX-5 : 71.2%
> Alpine PDX-F4 : 78.1%
> JL Audio HD600/4 : 76.1%
> JL Audio XD400/4 : 78.0%
> Kenwood X4R : 72.5%
> Pioneer PRS-D 400 : 76.5%
> Pioneer PRS-D 420 : 71.8%
> Zapco C2K-9.0XD : 76.0%
> 
> Kelvin
> 
> PS: Amps have come a long way... Class D have come a long way... but as you can see, so have Class A/B amps
> Old school amps were closer to 40%-50% and that's why I'm not interested in buying any...
> From the above list, I see no good reason to use Class D amps. *MY OPINION*



If a little overall efficiency, and somewhat of a smaller footprint for size is ALL that you are after go far a Class D. 

But for sonic purity, more dynamics, headroom, damping factor, lower distortion levels and currently more reliabilty and longivity, a Class A/B amp, that is well made, easily outperforms a Class D amp on any of these respects. 

A high voltage Class A/B amp is still very competitive against a Class D amp, since a high voltage A/B design can be run into a much higher impedance load than the traditional high current A/B amp and still make lots of power and do it very efficiently. This is where most people are making their assessments of Class A/B (high current, since 80+ percent of the amps are high current Class A/B design) versus Class D, and yes comparing a high current A/B to a Class D both running a low impedance load the Class D will really shine as far as overall power. But when you have a high voltage Class A/B amp with a high rail voltage 160-180 volts total(aka 4.1HVS) that can make tons of power into a 8 ohm or 4 ohm load that makes a difference on the efficiency of the circuit. No, it will never have the overall efficincy of the Class D, but it isn't that far off, and all of the other benefits make choosing a high voltage Class A/B a sound (lol) investment. The other part is that we have newer designs to increase the efficieny of the Class A/B design, our prototype amp will make rated power 150 RMS per channel with only 33 amps of current draw @ 12 volts, that is well over 70 percent efficiency. About equal to the Marconi.

A Class D amp WILL aways have atleast one inherent design downfall, and that is; you have to go thru a "passive crossover" inside the amp (the output inductor and caps), to filter the carrier wave off the music. This also filters out musical dynamics and kills damping factor, so no matter the improvements to the overall design, as long as the carrier wave has to be filtered off thru this procedure the sound will suffer. This filter also traps alot of power, this is why you see internal fans on the inductor and caps, you also see the inductor burnt and the caps buldged and exploded quite a bit. This is where a lot of the loss comes in on the Class D amp at high power output, this necessary restriction "bottlenecks" the process, but has less effect at lower power levels or at higher impedance levels at which the amps are typically rated for their efficiency.


----------



## TrickyRicky

Thx for your input Ray, even though some here will dissagree, but just as I said before everyone sees things differently and may not undersand certain things while they might do very well in another department.


----------



## Fricasseekid

LinearPower said:


> If a little overall efficiency, and somewhat of a smaller footprint for size is ALL that you are after go far a Class D.
> 
> But for sonic purity, more dynamics, headroom, damping factor, lower distortion levels and currently more reliabilty and longivity, a Class A/B amp, that is well made, easily outperforms a Class D amp on any of these respects.
> 
> A high voltage Class A/B amp is still very competitive against a Class D amp, since a high voltage A/B design can be run into a much higher impedance load than the traditional high current A/B amp and still make lots of power and do it very efficiently. This is where most people are making their assessments of Class A/B (high current, since 80+ percent of the amps are high current Class A/B design) versus Class D, and yes comparing a high current A/B to a Class D both running a low impedance load the Class D will really shine as far as overall power. But when you have a high voltage Class A/B amp with a high rail voltage 160-180 volts total(aka 4.1HVS) that can make tons of power into a 8 ohm or 4 ohm load that makes a difference on the efficiency of the circuit. No, it will never have the overall efficincy of the Class D, but it isn't that far off, and all of the other benefits make choosing a high voltage Class A/B a sound (lol) investment. The other part is that we have newer designs to increase the efficieny of the Class A/B design, our prototype amp will make rated power 150 RMS per channel with only 33 amps of current draw @ 12 volts, that is well over 70 percent efficiency. About equal to the Marconi.
> 
> A Class D amp WILL aways have atleast one inherent design downfall, and that is; you have to go thru a "passive crossover" inside the amp (the output inductor and caps), to filter the carrier wave off the music. This also filters out musical dynamics and kills damping factor, so no matter the improvements to the overall design, as long as the carrier wave has to be filtered off thru this procedure the sound will suffer. This filter also traps alot of power, this is why you see internal fans on the inductor and caps, you also see the inductor burnt and the caps buldged and exploded quite a bit. This is where a lot of the loss comes in on the Class D amp at high power output, this necessary restriction "bottlenecks" the process, but has less effect at lower power levels or at higher impedance levels at which the amps are typically rated for their efficiency.


Does this mean that if I choose a class D to run my subs and I push it hard at 1 ohm it may have a rather short lifespan?


----------



## TrickyRicky

Not if it was intended & *build* to do so. I for one dont know how efficient a class D was at very low impendance. Any one knows?


----------



## Luke352

jimmy2345 said:


> They aren't much more efficient buddy. I have stated that....Subwoofery has posted facts of that.....what more do you want? How am I burying my head deeper? Everything I have stated has been backed up by at least one other poster. You are just jumping on the usual bandwagon bashing cult from DIYMA. You haven't added a thing, nor have the knowledge to.


You still don't get it do you the stated efficiency on amps are done at full power and the only time you'll get that is playing a sine wave I don't listen to sine waves, do you. If you listen to sine waves then you will only gain about 20% extra efficiency, but when listening to actual music which has power requirements that bounce up and down you'll be closer to 50% extra efficiency.

A/B have a linear like efficiency which starts off very low and gets better at high power vs D which have almost there full efficiency over the entire power range so whilst playing music there efficiency is probably in the order of 2-3x times better.


----------



## Luke352

jimmy2345 said:


> They aren't much more efficient buddy. I have stated that....Subwoofery has posted facts of that.....what more do you want? How am I burying my head deeper? Everything I have stated has been backed up by at least one other poster. You are just jumping on the usual bandwagon bashing cult from DIYMA. You haven't added a thing, nor have the knowledge to.





ryan s said:


> Yes, they are _much _more efficient, especially when run at normal volume.
> 
> Let's compare apples to apples...the list posted earlier contained lots of A/B amps that cost way too much to be in a car. A DLS A4 and JL 600/4 are probably around the same price and power but the JL is 15% more efficient. That's a free 15% extra headroom...or a free 15%-longer-lasting alternator...or a free 15% you can put on your midbass drivers...or...
> 
> As for the rest of your post, cool story bro! Let me know when more than one person backs you up.
> 
> 
> Mine have an airy midrange when they hit the water.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...what was this thread about originally? :laugh:


Especially when the person who "backs him up" is still only looking at full power efficiency which tells you nothing. That 15% will be much much higher playing music.


----------



## Luke352

LinearPower said:


> The other part is that we have newer designs to increase the efficieny of the Class A/B design, our prototype amp will make rated power 150 RMS per channel with only 33 amps of current draw @ 12 volts, that is well over 70 percent efficiency. About equal to the Marconi.
> 
> .


Great now tell me what it's efficiency is at 1/4, 1/2, and 3/4 power!!! If you still come back with figures close to 70% you'll have my attention.

Going off the graph below I suspect they won't be.


----------



## jimmy2345

I was reading through the review of the Arc minis on pasmag.com and came across a quote that surely hit home with me. Thought I would post it.

"I didn’t notice any of the “compressed” type of sound I have noted on some recent full range Class D designs, and I think the Class AB and Class G designs may still have a slight sonic edge there."

PASMAG | PERFORMANCE AUTO AND SOUND - ARC AUDIO KS 125.4 - Page 2


----------



## Luke352

jimmy2345 said:


> I was reading through the review of the Arc minis on pasmag.com and came across a quote that surely hit home with me. Thought I would post it.
> 
> "I didn’t notice any of the “compressed” type of sound I have noted on some recent full range Class D designs, and I think the Class AB and Class G designs may still have a slight sonic edge there."
> 
> PASMAG | PERFORMANCE AUTO AND SOUND - ARC AUDIO KS 125.4 - Page 2



That's great but it's still just some random guy doing a review, I would say the opposite of my Class D amp after switching from AudioSystem Twisters the predeccessor and the amp which the Mosconi's are based off that everyone has a boner for at the moment. The Class D amp bought the system alive dynamically it was a long way ahead of the Twister's as the music suddenly sounded much more effortless and the top end suddenly became a lot cleaner all the detail was suddenly there.


----------



## subwoofery

Luke352 said:


> That's great but it's still just some random guy doing a review, I would say the opposite of my Class D amp after switching from AudioSystem Twisters the predeccessor and the amp which the Mosconi's are based off that everyone has a boner for at the moment. The Class D amp bought the system alive dynamically it was a long way ahead of the Twister's as the music suddenly sounded much more effortless and the top end suddenly became a lot cleaner all the detail was suddenly there.


To be honest, my friend who's an AudioSystem dealer in Tahiti told me that the Twisters had flaws (even the MkIII). The output stage was not up to par and Twisters were known to be soft like amps - no dynamics even from the biggest 2 channels. To remedy this, they had to tweak the low end range to have a small bump like RF <-- please note that Mosconi does this too but the output stage is much much stronger. 
Second flaw was the gain pot. The more you adjusted the gains up, the less you had top end. It can go from linear up to 30kHz down to linear up to 12kHz - creating a softer top end. <-- from this you couldn't use all the power from the amp. 
I've seen reviews of some amps that had the same gain pot problem so they were not the only ones... 

Those infos were given to him by AudioSystem Italia when my friend asked them what he noticed. 
The old Twisters were good amp don't get me wrong, but compared to the Mosconi, the Twister will only sound softer. 

Kelvin


----------



## bose302s

LinearPower said:


> If a little overall efficiency, and somewhat of a smaller footprint for size is ALL that you are after go far a Class D.
> 
> But for sonic purity, more dynamics, headroom, damping factor, lower distortion levels and currently more reliabilty and longivity, a Class A/B amp, that is well made, easily outperforms a Class D amp on any of these respects.
> 
> A high voltage Class A/B amp is still very competitive against a Class D amp, since a high voltage A/B design can be run into a much higher impedance load than the traditional high current A/B amp and still make lots of power and do it very efficiently. This is where most people are making their assessments of Class A/B (high current, since 80+ percent of the amps are high current Class A/B design) versus Class D, and yes comparing a high current A/B to a Class D both running a low impedance load the Class D will really shine as far as overall power. But when you have a high voltage Class A/B amp with a high rail voltage 160-180 volts total(aka 4.1HVS) that can make tons of power into a 8 ohm or 4 ohm load that makes a difference on the efficiency of the circuit. No, it will never have the overall efficincy of the Class D, but it isn't that far off, and all of the other benefits make choosing a high voltage Class A/B a sound (lol) investment. The other part is that we have newer designs to increase the efficieny of the Class A/B design, our prototype amp will make rated power 150 RMS per channel with only 33 amps of current draw @ 12 volts, that is well over 70 percent efficiency. About equal to the Marconi.
> 
> A Class D amp WILL aways have atleast one inherent design downfall, and that is; you have to go thru a "passive crossover" inside the amp (the output inductor and caps), to filter the carrier wave off the music. This also filters out musical dynamics and kills damping factor, so no matter the improvements to the overall design, as long as the carrier wave has to be filtered off thru this procedure the sound will suffer. This filter also traps alot of power, this is why you see internal fans on the inductor and caps, you also see the inductor burnt and the caps buldged and exploded quite a bit. This is where a lot of the loss comes in on the Class D amp at high power output, this necessary restriction "bottlenecks" the process, but has less effect at lower power levels or at higher impedance levels at which the amps are typically rated for their efficiency.


You do realize that current and voltage are not independent of each other right? The higher your voltage the higher your current as well? Or are you just a marketing guy who doesn't actually understand electrical concepts?

These high current A/B amps also have to be high voltage A/B amps as well, and high voltage A/B amps have to be high current, unless you are going to let the output voltage sag when dynamics are needed and high current is needed.


----------



## ryan s

subwoofery said:


> To be honest, the only A/B amps that cost way too much to be in a car would be the DLS TA2, the Helix A6 and the Sinfoni 90.2x... and maybe the Mosconi too.
> When comparing apples to apples, I feel that the Uranium GZUA 4125SQ is actually a better match to the JL Audio (MSRP $899). As you can see, the difference in efficiency is only 2.1% now. Power output is also close enough to go unnoticed (4x135 VS 4x168).
> Ohh, and for those that want an amp to go active, the GZNA has HP,BP,LP 20Hz to 4kHz.
> 
> I'm not arguing for the sake of it, it's just that everybody raves about new technology (Class D being one) when some companies are also trying to improve A/B class designs by making it more efficient. As I see it, there's no real reason to go Class D (for now )
> I'm sure some companies can make Class D amps sound good (even Brax has one ) but that would cost a lot of money (€2900 for the Brax). From another post I think one Home Audio amp was like $25,000.
> 
> So it's either full on/off with the Class D power supply? I need to re-read the thread about class D amp topology. Does someone know the switching freq for the JL HD amp?
> 
> Kelvin


Well, the JL is about half the physical size...and AB still can't (physically speaking) have the efficiency of a D or GH or whatever at anything but 100% power, no matter what any company does with it.

Making an AB more efficient would be making it a GH hybrid...and we already have those :laugh:

I don't think any modern D or GH has a switching frequency below 44kHz. Don't know the JL's off hand or where to find it...someone's got to know.


subwoofery said:


> To be honest, my friend who's an AudioSystem dealer in Tahiti told me that the Twisters had flaws (even the MkIII). The output stage was not up to par and Twisters were known to be soft like amps - no dynamics even from the biggest 2 channels. To remedy this, they had to tweak the low end range to have a small bump like RF <-- please note that Mosconi does this too but the output stage is much much stronger.
> Second flaw was the gain pot. The more you adjusted the gains up, the less you had top end. It can go from linear up to 30kHz down to linear up to 12kHz - creating a softer top end. <-- from this you couldn't use all the power from the amp.
> I've seen reviews of some amps that had the same gain pot problem so they were not the only ones...
> 
> Those infos were given to him by AudioSystem Italia when my friend asked them what he noticed.
> The old Twisters were good amp don't get me wrong, but compared to the Mosconi, the Twister will only sound softer.
> 
> Kelvin


And the thread comes full circle...don't just buy the name. That's an amp to avoid, I don't care about perceived "SQ" or brand cachet or whatever...


----------



## envisionelec

LinearPower said:


> If a little overall efficiency, and somewhat of a smaller footprint for size is ALL that you are after go far a Class D.
> 
> But for sonic purity, more dynamics, headroom, damping factor, lower distortion levels and currently more reliabilty and longivity, a Class A/B amp, that is well made, easily outperforms a Class D amp on any of these respects.
> 
> A high voltage Class A/B amp is still very competitive against a Class D amp, since a high voltage A/B design can be run into a much higher impedance load than the traditional high current A/B amp and still make lots of power and do it very efficiently. This is where most people are making their assessments of Class A/B (high current, since 80+ percent of the amps are high current Class A/B design) versus Class D, and yes comparing a high current A/B to a Class D both running a low impedance load the Class D will really shine as far as overall power. But when you have a high voltage Class A/B amp with a high rail voltage 160-180 volts total(aka 4.1HVS) that can make tons of power into a 8 ohm or 4 ohm load that makes a difference on the efficiency of the circuit. No, it will never have the overall efficincy of the Class D, but it isn't that far off, and all of the other benefits make choosing a high voltage Class A/B a sound (lol) investment. The other part is that we have newer designs to increase the efficieny of the Class A/B design, our prototype amp will make rated power 150 RMS per channel with only 33 amps of current draw @ 12 volts, that is well over 70 percent efficiency. About equal to the Marconi.
> 
> A Class D amp WILL aways have atleast one inherent design downfall, and that is; you have to go thru a "passive crossover" inside the amp (the output inductor and caps), to filter the carrier wave off the music. This also filters out musical dynamics and kills damping factor, so no matter the improvements to the overall design, as long as the carrier wave has to be filtered off thru this procedure the sound will suffer. This filter also traps alot of power, this is why you see internal fans on the inductor and caps, you also see the inductor burnt and the caps buldged and exploded quite a bit. This is where a lot of the loss comes in on the Class D amp at high power output, this necessary restriction "bottlenecks" the process, but has less effect at lower power levels or at higher impedance levels at which the amps are typically rated for their efficiency.



You're drawing some rather interesting conclusions about the output filter's failure mode based on what you've observed after the fact. The root problem for burnt inductors and blown caps is saturation of the output inductor. The Chinese cores are the _cheapest_ that manage to function.
And while many Class D amplifiers present a poor damping factor, not all do...

On efficiency - yes a Class D is only slightly more efficient than A/B at maximum output. But, unless you're a dB junkie, you're listening to music at 1/10 of maximum output at any given time. Even if it's "loud"...if you're not clipping most of the time, you're operating at fairly low wattage levels - and this is where Class D shines.


----------



## envisionelec

ryan s said:


> I don't think any modern D or GH has a switching frequency below 44kHz. Don't know the JL's off hand or where to find it...someone's got to know.


It's not the switching frequency that's important, but the compensation transient response. For instance, a well made switching power supply may operate at a 50kHz Fsw, but the closed loop gain crossover frequency is much lower...maybe 3kHz. This is fine for power supply regulation but terrible if you're trying to track the amplitude of faster moving sine waves. So maybe they do some other magic to make it work...it would just be nice to know _what._


----------



## Fricasseekid

I'm trying to follow this thread, and really wish I understood all this stuff. But y'all are speaking fu*&ing Greek to me!


----------



## ChrisB

MTU_Husky said:


> You're stupidity makes me laugh. Have you ever taken an electrical engineering class in you life?
> 
> You can have all the voltage in the world but if the power supply can't handle the current load needed for the power then your voltage sags and your "high voltage" amp then becomes a low voltage, low current POS, kind of like all previous LP amps.
> 
> I will post Ohm's law here since you oviously have never seen it before, V=I*R where V=Voltage, I is current and R is resistance. Because they are all directly related to each other the R of the driver determines your V and I since there is only so much current that a poorly designed i.e. LP, amplifier can produce.


Yes, but the Linear Power fanatics that I spoke with when dealing with them swore up and down that Linear Power violated Ohm's law. How else do they tout 1,250 watts RMS on 60 amps of fusing from a 4.1 HVS? Even a 60SC fuse will pop during a 30 second, 55 Hz, SPL burp. I know because I popped one in a matter of seconds with 930 watts RMS of measured output from a 25 to Life Punch 150.:laugh:


----------



## jimmy2345

MTU_Husky said:


> You're stupidity makes me laugh. Have you ever taken an electrical engineering class in you life?
> 
> You can have all the voltage in the world but if the power supply can't handle the current load needed for the power then your voltage sags and your "high voltage" amp then becomes a low voltage, low current POS, kind of like all previous LP amps.
> 
> I will post Ohm's law here since you oviously have never seen it before, V=I*R where V=Voltage, I is current and R is resistance. Because they are all directly related to each other the R of the driver determines your V and I since there is only so much current that a poorly designed i.e. LP, amplifier can produce.


Please explain where ohms law has been violated within Ray's post. The higher the voltage, the lower the current. This is the reason we all have AC in our homes because it is easier to pass high voltage a longer distance than high current. I don't get what you are trying to say because you didn't say anything but try to insult people.

I don't eat up anything Ray says. I use my ears to gauge what I like. Probably the same as all the others that have bought Linear Power amplifiers for the last 20-30 years. Simply, if they were "POS", their wouldn't be so many haters such as yourself nor would they have ever been considered SQ amplifiers. People hate what they can't afford, understand, comprehend, obtain, etc....which is it? A combination of all I assume.


----------



## jimmy2345

ChrisB said:


> Yes, but the Linear Power fanatics that I spoke with when dealing with them swore up and down that Linear Power violated Ohm's law. How else do they tout 1,250 watts RMS on 60 amps of fusing from a 4.1 HVS? Even a 60SC fuse will pop during a 30 second, 55 Hz, SPL burp. I know because I popped one in a matter of seconds with 930 watts RMS of measured output from a 25 to Life Punch 150.:laugh:


If this were in fact true does it really matter? Does that lack of 200 wrms, in your example, mean the amp is a POS and can't sound good? Once again....rhetorical.


----------



## subwoofery

MTU_Husky said:


> You're stupidity makes me laugh. Have you ever taken an electrical engineering class in you life?
> 
> You can have all the voltage in the world but if the power supply can't handle the current load needed for the power then your voltage sags and your "high voltage" amp then becomes a low voltage, low current POS, kind of like all previous LP amps.
> 
> I will post Ohm's law here since you oviously have never seen it before, V=I*R where V=Voltage, I is current and R is resistance. Because they are all directly related to each other the R of the driver determines your V and I since there is only so much current that a poorly designed i.e. LP, amplifier can produce.


I'm not taking sides or anything (I've NEVER used anything from LP or Blues) but was your insult necessary? 

I can surely understand why some manufacturers don't bother posting on a forum when some "no name" person just discredit someone's work. 

I can understand that you don't like their marketing stands but was your insult really necessary? 

Kelvin


----------



## schmiddr2

He is bose301 or whatever and no it is not necessary or appreciated.


----------



## ChrisB

jimmy2345 said:


> If this were in fact true does it really matter? Does that lack of 200 wrms, in your example, mean the amp is a POS and can't sound good?


Nope, it just means that there is no way it can provide the 1,250 watts RMS all day long as it was touted to me by a fanboi. At one point in time, I had systems in three vehicles. Two were geared more towards SQ and one was strictly SPL. Linear Power was the WRONG choice for the SPL setup and I learned that the hard way.

Then again, it's all water under the bridge because I like to think that I learned from the errors of my ways. In fact, I'd like to go on record and state that I hope Ray's revitalization of Linear Power and Blues Car Audio makes him enough money to make the business venture and headaches tied to it worthwhile. Contrary to all the sh*t I talked in the past, I have to give it to him for trying to bring manufacturing back to the USA. That in and of itself is a bold move in this current economy, so my hat's off to him for that one!


----------



## jimmy2345

ChrisB said:


> Nope, it just means that there is no way it can provide the 1,250 watts RMS all day long as it was touted to me by a fanboi. At one point in time, I had systems in three vehicles. Two were geared more towards SQ and one was strictly SPL. Linear Power was the WRONG choice for the SPL setup and I learned that the hard way.
> 
> Then again, it's all water under the bridge because I like to think that I learned from the errors of my ways. In fact, I'd like to go on record and state that I hope Ray's revitalization of Linear Power and Blues Car Audio makes him enough money to make the business venture and headaches tied to it worthwhile. Contrary to all the sh*t I talked in the past, I have to give it to him for trying to bring manufacturing back to the USA. That in and of itself is a bold move in this current economy, so my hat's off to him for that one!


That was very nice of you and I agree.


----------



## MTU_Husky

jimmy2345 said:


> Please explain where ohms law has been violated within Ray's post. The higher the voltage, the lower the current. This is the reason we all have AC in our homes because it is easier to pass high voltage a longer distance than high current. I don't get what you are trying to say because you didn't say anything but try to insult people.
> 
> I don't eat up anything Ray says. I use my ears to gauge what I like. Probably the same as all the others that have bought Linear Power amplifiers for the last 20-30 years. Simply, if they were "POS", their wouldn't be so many haters such as yourself nor would they have ever been considered SQ amplifiers. People hate what they can't afford, understand, comprehend, obtain, etc....which is it? A combination of all I assume.


Ok, let me take you through the math just so you can see what's wrong with pretty much everything Ray says.

So, lets take a 120v rail voltage amp, put a 4 ohm driver on it, that gives you 30 amps of current. Now, with 30 amps of current at 120v you get 3600 watts, do you honestly think the amp is going to do that? Not a chance. So, since the amp can't put out that much power the voltage and amperage will drop to ~5 amps for the 4 ohm driver and 20V for 100 watts of power. This then makes the amp identical to every other amp on the market, because in reality and by the laws of physics it HAS to be. Does that help?

Also, guess what happens to AC power when there is a short or too much demand, you get a voltage drop just like in the amp.


----------



## trojan fan

MTU_Husky said:


> Ok, let me take you through the math just so you can see what's wrong with pretty much everything Ray says.
> 
> So, lets take a 120v rail voltage amp, put a 4 ohm driver on it, that gives you 30 amps of current. Now, with 30 amps of current at 120v you get 3600 watts, do you honestly think the amp is going to do that? Not a chance. So, since the amp can't put out that much power the voltage and amperage will drop to ~5 amps for the 4 ohm driver and 20V for 100 watts of power. This then makes the amp identical to every other amp on the market, because in reality and by the laws of physics it HAS to be. Does that help?
> 
> Also, guess what happens to AC power when there is a short or too much demand, you get a voltage drop just like in the amp.



Thanks for speaking out for what you know is right and wrong.......you can't cheat reality


----------



## jimmy2345

MTU_Husky said:


> Ok, let me take you through the math just so you can see what's wrong with pretty much everything Ray says.
> 
> So, lets take a 120v rail voltage amp, put a 4 ohm driver on it, that gives you 30 amps of current. Now, with 30 amps of current at 120v you get 3600 watts, do you honestly think the amp is going to do that? Not a chance. So, since the amp can't put out that much power the voltage and amperage will drop to ~5 amps for the 4 ohm driver and 20V for 100 watts of power. This then makes the amp identical to every other amp on the market, because in reality and by the laws of physics it HAS to be. Does that help?
> 
> Also, guess what happens to AC power when there is a short or too much demand, you get a voltage drop just like in the amp.


So are you stating LPs are not high voltage and Ray is for some reason lying about the rail voltage? I am not sure what reasoning he would have to do such a thing, or why Linear Power would slap high voltage warning stickers on their amplifiers even before Ray owned the company. You do know that rail voltage can be measured very easily.

Also, shouldn't you be using an 8 ohm driver in your example (4 ohm per channel)?


----------



## MTU_Husky

jimmy2345 said:


> So are you stating LPs are not high voltage and Ray is for some reason lying about the rail voltage? I am not sure what reasoning he would have to do such a thing, or why Linear Power would slap high voltage warning stickers on their amplifiers even before Ray owned the company. You do know that rail voltage can be measured very easily.


Nope, what I am saying is that unloaded rail voltage, the voltage that Ray et al are stating is much different from loaded rail voltage, the laws of physics dictate this. I have no doubt that the unloaded rail voltage is as claimed, but again that doesn't really matter once a driver is hooked up.


----------



## jimmy2345

MTU_Husky said:


> Nope, what I am saying is that unloaded rail voltage, the voltage that Ray et al are stating is much different from loaded rail voltage, the laws of physics dictate this. I have no doubt that the unloaded rail voltage is as claimed, but again that doesn't really matter once a driver is hooked up.


Maybe you had a conversation with him previously because I don't see anything in his post about loaded or unloaded rail voltage, nor did you state anything in your ohms law lesson about loaded or unloaded voltage and what you are trying to claim he claims that isn't correct. I seriously am trying to understand what you are trying to say...so say it.


----------



## subwoofery

Can someone please point me towards the thread that talked about how "Class D" amps handled high frequencies? It was quite a long thread ; decided to save it for later but my comp crashed :S
Been searching for an hour but couldn't find it... 

Kelvin


----------



## TrickyRicky

MTU_Husky said:


> Nope, what I am saying is that unloaded rail voltage, the voltage that Ray et al are stating is much different from loaded rail voltage, the laws of physics dictate this. I have no doubt that the unloaded rail voltage is as claimed, but again that doesn't really matter once a driver is hooked up.


Have you ever measure the rail voltage on an LP both loaded and unloaded? I have, and my 5002 has a 120v rail voltage when playing at loud volumes the voltage drop on each side 2v-3v (4v-6v total). So I dont understand what your trying to state.

How much do you believe it is when loaded? What amps?


----------



## chad

jimmy2345 said:


> This is the reason we all have AC in our homes because it is easier to pass high voltage a longer distance than high current.


The reason we have AC in our homes is not because it's a higher voltage, it's because AC can be converted in voltage using simple passive devices (transformers) whereas DC cannot. You are only slightly partially correct.


----------



## trojan fan

jimmy2345 said:


> Maybe you had a conversation with him previously because I don't see anything in his post about loaded or unloaded rail voltage, nor did you state anything in your ohms law lesson about loaded or unloaded voltage and what you are trying to claim he claims that isn't correct. I seriously am trying to understand what you are trying to say...so say it.



What he's trying to say is some of the LP claims are not on the up and up....let the truth be told.....

too much kool aid can be bad for ones mental health


----------



## jimmy2345

chad said:


> The reason we have AC in our homes is not because it's a higher voltage, it's because AC can be converted in voltage using simple passive devices (transformers) whereas DC cannot. You are only slightly partially correct.


No Chad, I am fully correct. If we used DC in our home it would be nearly impossible to pass high current in the volume needed at those distances. Do you realize how large the power cables would have to be? I believe I still have my college text book stating exactly this and the arguments that went on when trying to decide between the two in the early days of electricity.


----------



## trojan fan

chad said:


> The reason we have AC in our homes is not because it's a higher voltage, it's because AC can be converted in voltage using simple passive devices (transformers) whereas DC cannot. You are only slightly partially correct.





jimmy2345 said:


> No Chad, I am fully correct. If we used DC in our home it would be nearly impossible to pass high current in the volume needed at those distances. Do you realize how large the power cables would have to be? I believe I still have my college text book stating exactly this and the arguments that went on when trying to decide between the two in the early days of electricity.



You guys are both right, these are 2 of the main reasons the government went with George Westinghouse's AC design instead of Thomas Edison's DC design....but later down the line they had second thought about the choice they made


----------



## chad

jimmy2345 said:


> No Chad, I am fully correct. If we used DC in our home it would be nearly impossible to pass high current in the volume needed at those distances. Do you realize how large the power cables would have to be? I believe I still have my college text book stating exactly this and the arguments that went on when trying to decide between the two in the early days of electricity.


You are missing something. AC current and DC current require approximately the same size cabling. But where AC really shines is the ability to passively step it up in voltage (thus reducing current) therefore you can have a boatload of POWER going down a thin wire at tens of kilovolts.

Best way to argue with morons.... Take said moron out to the country and a set of binoculars. Check out and note that many PFC inductors in rural areas are labeled for something like 30A... let the moron chew on that for a while while it's feeding a few square miles of farm industry.


We are on the same page but different sizes of print. Regardless wire sizing for the same voltage/current in AC/DC is remarkable similar. For example if you are reading P-P AC current 20A and 20A DC are equal, but RMS AC current for say 20A AC is 28A but still 20A for DC. in reality it's the difference between 10 and 12Ga in SOME instances ONLY if looking at P-P voltage or current.. BUT since 120V is already RMS with a P-P of around 170V calculating RMS is moot and commercial/residential 120VAC has the same heating potential as that of 120V DC.

I'm still a proponent for moving up to 240V across the board... along with upping automotive voltage considerably too.

Therefore I'm fully correct and you are partially correct, hey, at least I'm not on your ass today and calling you wrong?

You may have the books, you just may want to re-read the terminology used.


----------



## SQ Audi

chad said:


> The reason we have AC in our homes is not because it's a higher voltage, it's because AC can be converted in voltage using simple passive devices (transformers) whereas DC cannot. You are only slightly partially correct.


the reason I have AC in my home is in Oklahoma, the temperature can reach 110 degrees...so AC is needed.

Or is that A/C....?


----------



## jimmy2345

chad said:


> You are missing something. AC current and DC current require approximately the same size cabling. But where AC really shines is the ability to passively step it up in voltage (thus reducing current) therefore you can have a boatload of POWER going down a thin wire at tens of kilovolts.


I have never heard such a contradiction in one sentence.


----------



## chad

Sweet jesus.

Power makes the world go round. 

20A at 120V leaves you with 2400W of available power
20A at 12000V leaves you with 240,000 W of available power

Power=work.

The cabling for 20ARMS AC and 20A DC have the same cross sectional diameter requirements for the conductor regardless of voltage.

Since commercial/residential VOLTAGE is already RMS we do not need to factor in RMS CURRENT, only gotta do that once. THEREFORE in the world we exist in, 120V AC out of the house requires 12Ga [email protected], just like 12V DC requires a 12 Ga wire @20A.


What don't you understand about that?


----------



## Aaron'z 2.5RS/WRX

chad said:


> Sweet jesus.
> 
> Power makes the world go round.
> 
> 20A at 120V leaves you with 2400W of available power
> 20A at 12000V leaves you with 240,000 W of available power
> 
> Power=work.
> 
> The cabling for 20ARMS AC and 20A DC have the same cross sectional diameter requirements for the conductor regardless of voltage.
> 
> Since commercial/residential VOLTAGE is already RMS we do not need to factor in RMS CURRENT, only gotta do that once. THEREFORE in the world we exist in, 120V AC out of the house requires 12Ga [email protected], just like 12V DC requires a 12 Ga wire @20A.
> 
> 
> What don't you understand about that?


This may or may not help chad..


----------



## chad

Where do I select AC/DC?


----------



## Aaron'z 2.5RS/WRX

envisionelec said:


> You're drawing some rather interesting conclusions about the output filter's failure mode based on what you've observed after the fact. The root problem for burnt inductors and blown caps is saturation of the output inductor. The Chinese cores are the _cheapest_ that manage to function.
> And while many Class D amplifiers present a poor damping factor, not all do...
> 
> On efficiency - yes a Class D is only slightly more efficient than A/B at maximum output. But, unless you're a dB junkie, you're listening to music at 1/10 of maximum output at any given time. Even if it's "loud"...if you're not clipping most of the time, you're operating at fairly low wattage levels - and this is where Class D shines.





> It's not the switching frequency that's important, but the compensation transient response. For instance, a well made switching power supply may operate at a 50kHz Fsw, but the closed loop gain crossover frequency is much lower...maybe 3kHz. This is fine for power supply regulation but terrible if you're trying to track the amplitude of faster moving sine waves. So maybe they do some other magic to make it work...it would just be nice to know _what._


I love reading your posts... it all just seems so effortless, I mean I understand partially, but not fully, but I have a good idea and it's just so effortless when I read your posts... :laugh:


----------



## Aaron'z 2.5RS/WRX

chad said:


> Where do I select AC/DC?


You gotta hit the "AC/DC" button... :rockon:


----------



## envisionelec

I notice that I _rarely_ receive a response/ongoing dialogue to my 'technical' posts. Scientific Car Audio? Psh.


----------



## chad

envisionelec said:


> I notice that I _rarely_ receive a response/ongoing dialogue to my 'technical' posts. Scientific Car Audio? Psh.


it's the way she goes, but it's certainly not un-appreciated


----------



## jimmy2345

chad said:


> Sweet jesus.
> 
> Power makes the world go round.
> 
> 20A at 120V leaves you with 2400W of available power
> 20A at 12000V leaves you with 240,000 W of available power
> 
> Power=work.
> 
> The cabling for 20ARMS AC and 20A DC have the same cross sectional diameter requirements for the conductor regardless of voltage.
> 
> Since commercial/residential VOLTAGE is already RMS we do not need to factor in RMS CURRENT, only gotta do that once. THEREFORE in the world we exist in, 120V AC out of the house requires 12Ga [email protected], just like 12V DC requires a 12 Ga wire @20A.
> 
> 
> What don't you understand about that?



I do understand that. I understood that years ago. You still called me out on being wrong and did nothing but substantiate what I originally stated. IT WILL TAKE LARGER WIRE TO PASS MORE CURRENT, BUT NOT HIGHER VOLTAGE.


Here is a perfect example taken directly from my Energy Systems and Sustainability (Boyle, Everett, Ramage) text from years past. Page 345.

Let's consider a town whose normal distribution voltage is 230V. It needs 1 MW of power to be supplied from a dam 50 km away. If we are prepared to lose another 10% or 100kW of power in transmission, how thick will the wires have to be?

Find the current that must flow to the town to supply 1 MW at 230V:

1,000,000/230 = 4,350 A

Find the voltage drop along the cables, if 100kW of heat are developed when a current of 4,350 A flows:

100,000/4350 = 23 V

Find the maximum permitted cable resistance, for a voltage of 23 V with the current of 4,350 A:

23/4350 = 0.0053 ohms or 5.3 m ohms


Data for different sizes of copper wire:

Diameter (mm) / Resistance (100 km of wire m ohms)
20 / 5500
50 / 880
100 / 220
200 / 55
500 / 9
700 / 4
1000 / 2

We would need to choose a cable with wires 700mm in diameter. This would an enormous amount of copper (3,500 tonnes worth)

An alternative would be to use a higher transmission voltage (as we do today). Transmitting 23,000 volts (23 kV) instead of 230 volts would only require 43.5 amps instead of 4,350 amps. The aim of only losing an extra 100 kW as heat could be achieved by using a cable with conductors a mere 6.5 mm in diameter, and we would only have to buy 300 kg of copper.


----------



## sqshoestring

Isn't this cool:
High-voltage direct current - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## chad

It's also kickass for phase matching, dunno if it said that, I skimmed it.


----------



## chad

jimmy2345 said:


> I do understand that. I understood that years ago. You still called me out on being wrong and did nothing but substantiate what I originally stated. IT WILL TAKE LARGER WIRE TO PASS MORE CURRENT, BUT NOT HIGHER VOLTAGE.
> 
> 
> Here is a perfect example taken directly from my Energy Systems and Sustainability (Boyle, Everett, Ramage) text from years past. Page 345.
> 
> Let's consider a town whose normal distribution voltage is 230V. It needs 1 MW of power to be supplied from a dam 50 km away. If we are prepared to lose another 10% or 100kW of power in transmission, how thick will the wires have to be?
> 
> Find the current that must flow to the town to supply 1 MW at 230V:
> 
> 1,000,000/230 = 4,350 A
> 
> Find the voltage drop along the cables, if 100kW of heat are developed when a current of 4,350 A flows:
> 
> 100,000/4350 = 23 V
> 
> Find the maximum permitted cable resistance, for a voltage of 23 V with the current of 4,350 A:
> 
> 23/4350 = 0.0053 ohms or 5.3 m ohms
> 
> 
> Data for different sizes of copper wire:
> 
> Diameter (mm) / Resistance (100 km of wire m ohms)
> 20 / 5500
> 50 / 880
> 100 / 220
> 200 / 55
> 500 / 9
> 700 / 4
> 1000 / 2
> 
> We would need to choose a cable with wires 700mm in diameter. This would an enormous amount of copper (3,500 tonnes worth)
> 
> An alternative would be to use a higher transmission voltage (as we do today). Transmitting 23,000 volts (23 kV) instead of 230 volts would only require 43.5 amps instead of 4,350 amps. The aim of only losing an extra 100 kW as heat could be achieved by using a cable with conductors a mere 6.5 mm in diameter, and we would only have to buy 300 kg of copper.


Has nothing to do with AC/DC size requirements as you originally eluded to, it has everything to do with the ease of said voltage stepping during the period it was implemented, unlike today as expressed in the wikipedia link. AC was simply used because it was easy to convert to higher voltage, I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU on the concept of transmission, guess what? We do it in audio too, that's why 100V and 70.7V distribution systems exist werks great!

The ONLY REASON we use AC is because in that time period the only cost effective way we had to utilize the benefits of high voltage was with transformers. For the one brazillionth time.

That's why I mentioned going out to the country and checking out ratings in current, brings a whole new picture on what voltage is there. Often times the overhead cabling is rated in wind load and strength LONG before it will come close to reaching it's current handling.


----------



## trojan fan

jimmy2345 said:


> I have never heard such a contradiction in one sentence.



I have something negative to say, but I'm not gonna say it.


----------



## jimmy2345

chad said:


> Has nothing to do with AC/DC size requirements as you originally eluded to, it has everything to do with the ease of said voltage stepping during the period it was implemented, unlike today as expressed in the wikipedia link. AC was simply used because it was easy to convert to higher voltage, I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU on the concept of transmission, guess what? We do it in audio too, that's why 100V and 70.7V distribution systems exist werks great!
> 
> The ONLY REASON we use AC is because in that time period the only cost effective way we had to utilize the benefits of high voltage was with transformers. For the one brazillionth time.
> 
> That's why I mentioned going out to the country and checking out ratings in current, brings a whole new picture on what voltage is there. Often times the overhead cabling is rated in wind load and strength LONG before it will come close to reaching it's current handling.


It has everything to do with size requirements. Due to resistance, enough high current cannot be passed long distances without increasing the size of the wire. This is the exact thing I initially stated that you tried to say was wrong. Hence, the reason we use AC in homes. Are there other factors to consider? Of course, but this is the limiting factor.


----------



## chad

This is like nailing jello to a tree.


----------



## MTU_Husky

chad said:


> This is like nailing jello to a tree.


Never heard that one before, lol. But it does perfectly describe trying to explain even the simplest of topics to jimmy.


----------



## jimmy2345

MTU_Husky said:


> Never heard that one before, lol. But it does perfectly describe trying to explain even the simplest of topics to jimmy.


Yeah, even when jimmy pulls a perfect example from a college textbook and uses ohm law for its purpose, he is wrong. Makes sense to me.


----------



## Lanson

And arguing with Chad, an industry professional in the mire that is Audio, is just dumb.


----------



## MTU_Husky

jimmy2345 said:


> Yeah, even when jimmy pulls a perfect example from a college textbook and uses ohm law for its purpose, he is wrong. Makes sense to me.


Your textbook example is correct, what you are saying and what you are inferring from that example however is wrong.


----------



## jimmy2345

fourthmeal said:


> And arguing with Chad, an industry professional in the mire that is Audio, is just dumb.


I didn't realize that the three people with Doctorates who wrote the text from which I quoted were inferior to chad, and were wrong. I also didn't realize that ohms law was no longer proof of which to prove a point seeing as so many of you call people out on this very law daily. 

Foolish non-sense.


----------



## jimmy2345

MTU_Husky said:


> Your textbook example is correct, what you are saying and what you are inferring from that example however is wrong.


Let's here it. What is wrong? Everything I stated was clearly backed up with this example.

You make a claim, back it up.

Are you here to argue Bose, or are you going to actually correct me with proof against ohms law?


----------



## Lanson

Is it just me or is the Strawman fallacy the only defense you have, Jimmy?

People are NOT saying ohm's law is incorrect. They are saying YOU are incorrect.


----------



## chad

Jimmy and I agree, we know about the advantages of stepping up voltage to reduce line loss over long distances. I was just pointing out that DC and AC have the same conductor diameter requirements for a specified current regardless of AC or DC.. That's all, we wasted bandwidth, sorry.

My point was that we used AC because it was easy, it's fairly simple for the period we used it in.. If electrical transmission were invented NOW, then it's a toss up as to what we would be using.....

Some may even argue that AC is safer, some did, some disagreed.

We currently trade electricity with Canada in the form of DC.. It's all good. Their metric hertz are different anyways, because their milk comes in bags.


----------



## TrickyRicky

All this talk about electricity, does anyone (chad) know anything about wireless electricity? I know it was discovered a long time ago, forgot the guys name but can't forget his face or the picture of him I remember by (skinny tall guy, well dress in suit, with a evil looking cat in his arms). Maybe someone can shine some light on this since everyeone wants to talk about AC & DC.


----------



## chad

Tesla, the first proponent to AC, followed by Westinghouse.

The studies of Tesla are epic, owned a few BIG coils myself. Now I just work with them..

Given this place is a sausage fest of ****ery and mythology, and you can't PM me because I have those shut down..... You will have to find me elsewhere for epic links.

The man was the representing KING of resonance, good studies, will help all here with a little transposition.


----------



## Luke352

jimmy2345 said:


> No Chad, I am fully correct. If we used DC in our home it would be nearly impossible to pass high current in the volume needed at those distances. Do you realize how large the power cables would have to be? I believe I still have my college text book stating exactly this and the arguments that went on when trying to decide between the two in the early days of electricity.


Um, Many big transmission lines are actually DC and most the new ones being built are DC. Because the losses in a cable transmitting DC are less then in AC. The Advantages of DC Transmission over AC Transmission Systems | Jcmiras.Net_01


----------



## jimmy2345

Luke352 said:


> Um, Many big transmission lines are actually DC and most the new ones being built are DC. Because the losses in a cable transmitting DC are less then in AC. The Advantages of DC Transmission over AC Transmission Systems | Jcmiras.Net_01


This article just stated what is already known.....for years. However, the benefits still don't outweigh the cost as stated in the article summary. The needed convertors are being improved, but loss of energy is not something that is taken lightly, nor is added cost.

Where are you getting the information that most new power transmission lines are using DC? I would like to read this information.


----------



## chad

jimmy2345 said:


> Where are you getting the information that most new power transmission lines are using DC? I would like to read this information.


It's cool **** man, when doing transmission for a VERY long distance, or form country to country, DC does not have to deal with capacitance. Undersea Lines are DC then inverted. Remember, we RELY on an EXACT 60HZ frequency, that's the second most important thing next to the atomic clock when it comes to averages. The USA was SOOo dead set on 60HZ and accurate with it that most clocks were set to it up till the mid 80's and many still are.

When doing grid to grid it's easier to do DC when phase matching.. And phase matching AC SUCKS on old-skool ****... trust me, been there.

Cool ****, but it's probably for another thread.
Annnnd he pretty much supplied you with the link.


----------



## Cablguy184

WOW ...


----------



## Lanson




----------



## Cablguy184

Thank you guys ... This thread in now completely worthless ...


----------



## chad

You are welcome, Anytime.


----------



## [email protected]

chad said:


> You are welcome, Anytime.


:laugh:


----------



## MTU_Husky

Cablguy184 said:


> Thank you guys ... This thread in now completely worthless ...


Just like LP and Blues' products.


----------



## schmiddr2

Looks like this thread is done. Way to finish it off there champ.


----------

