Trade less power on midrange for more power on midbass?
07-15-2012, 01:39 AM
#1
Team Owner
Thread Starter
Trade less power on midrange for more power on midbass?
So I'm faced with a dilemma. The original goal of this system was to be efficient so no upgrades to the stock charging system were needed, to deliver life-like dynamics, and to not cut into the functionality of the car such as space and retaining the spare tire.
To me, that means lots of power, cone area, class D efficiency and size, IB, and a 2-amp solution that will fit under the seats. So far so good. I'm trying to to spend more money right now but I'm thinking about changing up the configuration of what I currently have. It would mean the center can't be used but I don't use it anyway. Currently I have 2 unused channels on my HD900/5.
So to my point.... I have the option to bridge my 600/4 and move the midranges to the HD900/5. The impact on the system would be 300w to each midbass instead of 150w. But the midrange would lose power, going from 150w to 100w.
So I double the power on the midbass and lose a little in the midrange. The reason I think this would be an upgrade is the midbass requires more power due to the frequencies played and the midbass speakers are roughly 3db less efficient than the midrange which is pretty significant. The only thing I'm unsure of is if there's much cabin gain in the 60-320hz range the midbasses are playing.
The system likely uses less than 150w total for normal use but this is about dynamics and headroom.
Last but not least, it bothers me more than it should to have unused channels on my amp. I feel like they're being wasted. So do I keep it the same: 150w for the midbass and midrange or change it: 300w for the midbass, 100w for the midrange? It's free so I'm likely going to give it a try when I install the new carpet but I thought I would get opinions first.
This is to try and stop me from doing what I actually want to do next. A pair of 600/4s for 300w on the midbass, 150w for the tweeters and midrange and a 1200/1 for the subs.
To me, that means lots of power, cone area, class D efficiency and size, IB, and a 2-amp solution that will fit under the seats. So far so good. I'm trying to to spend more money right now but I'm thinking about changing up the configuration of what I currently have. It would mean the center can't be used but I don't use it anyway. Currently I have 2 unused channels on my HD900/5.
So to my point.... I have the option to bridge my 600/4 and move the midranges to the HD900/5. The impact on the system would be 300w to each midbass instead of 150w. But the midrange would lose power, going from 150w to 100w.
So I double the power on the midbass and lose a little in the midrange. The reason I think this would be an upgrade is the midbass requires more power due to the frequencies played and the midbass speakers are roughly 3db less efficient than the midrange which is pretty significant. The only thing I'm unsure of is if there's much cabin gain in the 60-320hz range the midbasses are playing.
The system likely uses less than 150w total for normal use but this is about dynamics and headroom.
Last but not least, it bothers me more than it should to have unused channels on my amp. I feel like they're being wasted. So do I keep it the same: 150w for the midbass and midrange or change it: 300w for the midbass, 100w for the midrange? It's free so I'm likely going to give it a try when I install the new carpet but I thought I would get opinions first.
This is to try and stop me from doing what I actually want to do next. A pair of 600/4s for 300w on the midbass, 150w for the tweeters and midrange and a 1200/1 for the subs.
07-15-2012, 01:59 AM
#2
I think that is an excellent idea as you would be happy with the result and save some money. Just one rather inexperienced opinion though. I would guess that 90% of the output power is used in the first few hundred hertz just looking at impedance vs frequency. If I am right, I am sure somebody will correct me anyway. 
Kidding but I would also like to learn more about how power is utilized across the frequency spectrum Im a speaker system.
Kidding but I would also like to learn more about how power is utilized across the frequency spectrum Im a speaker system.
07-15-2012, 02:08 AM
#3
For sake of grey matters so to speak(er), what do the gains end up looking like without processing between the source signal and amplifier? I believe that could tell something about the result. Perhaps the impedance values rule out my earlier theory.
07-15-2012, 12:58 PM
#4
Matt, that is a much better use of your power. Your midrange is not using all the power and won't be using all of even the 100 watts you have to produce the frequencies it plays. The Midbass will really like the extra power and you will notice the difference. I would do it!
07-15-2012, 01:03 PM
#5
Team Owner
Thread Starter
Matt, that is a much better use of your power. Your midrange is not using all the power and won't be using all of even the 100 watts you have to produce the frequencies it plays. The Midbass will really like the extra power and you will notice the difference. I would do it!
Off topic, but do your 430s have any visible excursion when you have them cranked up? Even when mine were running 200hz/24db they had to be loud before you could see any movement. At the current 320hz, you can only see movement if you stare at them from a foot away with the volume nearly maxed out.
07-15-2012, 01:34 PM
#7
Team Owner
Thread Starter
That's interesting how the "experts" on DIYMA call it an oversized tweeter and that it could never dig anywhere close to 200hz.
I'm pretty close to shutting down my account over there. You can see where Erin didn't bother reading my topic in the myths section. Too quick to talk shit to bother reading the whole thing.
I'm pretty close to shutting down my account over there. You can see where Erin didn't bother reading my topic in the myths section. Too quick to talk shit to bother reading the whole thing.
Trending Topics
07-15-2012, 02:34 PM
#8
Starting to think he works for ScanSpeak with how hard he pushes it & nothing else compares.
About your situation, i'd definitely do it. I'm with Jerry in that your 430's will never see that much power. I'm sure the new 10's would love to take that extra power. I can't imagine how good some of you all's setups sound. Ran about 5 different calibrations since I've had the ms-8 and it sounds pretty damn good. Can't localize anything and the stage is glued about a foot above the dash.
About your situation, i'd definitely do it. I'm with Jerry in that your 430's will never see that much power. I'm sure the new 10's would love to take that extra power. I can't imagine how good some of you all's setups sound. Ran about 5 different calibrations since I've had the ms-8 and it sounds pretty damn good. Can't localize anything and the stage is glued about a foot above the dash.
Last edited by Trunk Monkey; 07-15-2012 at 02:40 PM.
07-16-2012, 08:01 PM
#10
Dogmatic Dinosaur
I doubt that your mid range could even use half of that power, anyway. ...maybe 50 watts? Put it to work where you need it below 200 hertz.
Do the JL HD support transient power needs well, or do you have to use RMS for transient power? ...or can you just match RMS to RMS and let the amps go above RMS when something dynamic comes along? With the slash, you needed RMS for this.
Do the JL HD support transient power needs well, or do you have to use RMS for transient power? ...or can you just match RMS to RMS and let the amps go above RMS when something dynamic comes along? With the slash, you needed RMS for this.
07-16-2012, 09:00 PM
#12
I hooked up my Sony amp to the front speakers taking the post amp signal. (65w .05%Thd)Amazing! Thanks for putting the information out there that these speakers sound better with more power. I can even crank to 40 with no high pass and I notice very little distortion if any. I even checked for noise by setting it to aux with my new Samsung Galaxy S3 hooked up and turned the phone volume to 0 and crank ed head unit volume to 40.... dead silence! Looking at my RTA, near perfect sound reproduction.
Thank you and others here for supplying all of this useful information to create the system for me. With pink noise I got 100db reading on my phone (amazing phone btw. I recorded a crow cawing from my car and played it back through my system. I could not tell which was the recording and what was the crow cawing in realtime)
Thank you and others here for supplying all of this useful information to create the system for me. With pink noise I got 100db reading on my phone (amazing phone btw. I recorded a crow cawing from my car and played it back through my system. I could not tell which was the recording and what was the crow cawing in realtime)
Last edited by stevemk07; 07-16-2012 at 09:05 PM.
07-16-2012, 10:37 PM
#14
07-16-2012, 11:48 PM
#15
Team Owner
Thread Starter
I doubt that your mid range could even use half of that power, anyway. ...maybe 50 watts? Put it to work where you need it below 200 hertz.
Do the JL HD support transient power needs well, or do you have to use RMS for transient power? ...or can you just match RMS to RMS and let the amps go above RMS when something dynamic comes along? With the slash, you needed RMS for this.
Do the JL HD support transient power needs well, or do you have to use RMS for transient power? ...or can you just match RMS to RMS and let the amps go above RMS when something dynamic comes along? With the slash, you needed RMS for this.
One of the problems is the MS8 is an impact killer. You can almost tell it's made primarily for stock systems to protect the fragile stock speakers. It's hard to describe but I think Jerry could back me up here. You can play with the eq, install 10" midbasses, boost the bass, etc, and even though it sounds really good there's just something missing. I was starting to doubt myself until I tried the Bit One for a day and that something I just can't describe came back. Obviously a new processor is my next upgrade. It's weird because the midbass will have a lot of excursion and output but that punch you in the chest impact is usually not there and the midranges lack some of the snap that I like which was there without the MS8. I can put the MS8 in bypass where it's nothing more than an active crossover with a little EQ ability and get that impact back.
Part of where the idea of using all of this additional power came from talking to a guy with one of the best if not the best sounding vehicle on the planet, and the most dynamic audio system I've ever heard. Let's just say he uses 3x more power on some drivers than they can thermally take. The average power delivered is pretty low but they supply those transients we all love. Supposedly that's part of the reason Dyn offers the super large VC (4" on my 10" midbass, 3" on their 6.5s) and supposedly that's why they give a "transient 10ms" rating of 1,000w on many of their speakers even when long term thermal is 150-200w. Apparently it's expected, maybe even normal to vastly exceed the long term power handling for a few miliseconds at a time in order to have a dynamic system. Looking at some of the material I've looked at lately, a 50w rms system would need to be capable of a peak of 500w to remain true to the source material's dynamic peaks.
The other thing I'm learning is more power supplies is better than just having a couple of monster amps. Ideally, one monoblock per speaker would be best but obviously that's not happening. I've had a crazy idea of a 750/1 on each sub and each midbass and a 600/4 running the midrange and tweeters. That would be 4- 750/1 amps and a 600/4. My guess is the average power would be the same as it is now but transients should improve. I'm going to bridge the 600/4 to the midbasses right now, recalibrate and see what changes. If there's a noticeable positive change I may just do the 5 amp thing.
I still have my McIntosh amp and a couple of Focal 150w x2 amps if I absolutely need more channels but honestly, the HD amps blow them away.
First step though, get rid of the MS8.
07-17-2012, 12:31 AM
#17
Team Owner
Thread Starter
07-17-2012, 12:42 AM
#19
Team Owner
Thread Starter
07-18-2012, 12:54 PM
#20
Dogmatic Dinosaur
I am saying that some amps can cruise along at, say, 50w RMS and when they need to find 150 or 200w to hit a transient note, they can with reliability. Some cannot. I did not find that they JL Slash amps could hit that transient note unless I went with pure 150w RMS.
Certain filtering and compression will kill transient notes since the algorithms don't do a good job with them, so many people don't even know that they are there. Some of the lossless ones do a better job preserving transient detail to differing degrees. I could play you a song in my car at like 320K mp3 and then play the FLAC (to WAV to DVD-A) and there is one note where the drummer hits something that will make you jump when the flac is playing, just like you were there sitting next to the drum set... and you only hear it at the same dynamic of the rest of the music on the 320k recording like nothing happened.
My point was if the JL amps are good with transient response, then 50w RMS should be fine for your mids and probably 100w RMS for you 8s. If not, then I would try and hit 200w for the mids and 400w for the 8s. RMS numbers are all black magic anyway since some amps can come up with the same sound as other amps with half, or a quarter, of the RMS.
...and all of this assumes that the amps, or processor, don't use an algorithm to manipulate the signal that cuts transients for a better "general customer experience." Some companies have been accused of this on some level or another by altering signal in dangerous or common ranges.
Don't get rid of those focal amps (depending on which ones you have) until you get rid of the MS8. I doubt that you will share the same opinion of them if you can get a different signal.
Certain filtering and compression will kill transient notes since the algorithms don't do a good job with them, so many people don't even know that they are there. Some of the lossless ones do a better job preserving transient detail to differing degrees. I could play you a song in my car at like 320K mp3 and then play the FLAC (to WAV to DVD-A) and there is one note where the drummer hits something that will make you jump when the flac is playing, just like you were there sitting next to the drum set... and you only hear it at the same dynamic of the rest of the music on the 320k recording like nothing happened.
My point was if the JL amps are good with transient response, then 50w RMS should be fine for your mids and probably 100w RMS for you 8s. If not, then I would try and hit 200w for the mids and 400w for the 8s. RMS numbers are all black magic anyway since some amps can come up with the same sound as other amps with half, or a quarter, of the RMS.
...and all of this assumes that the amps, or processor, don't use an algorithm to manipulate the signal that cuts transients for a better "general customer experience." Some companies have been accused of this on some level or another by altering signal in dangerous or common ranges.
Don't get rid of those focal amps (depending on which ones you have) until you get rid of the MS8. I doubt that you will share the same opinion of them if you can get a different signal.
07-18-2012, 04:20 PM
#21
Team Owner
Thread Starter
I am saying that some amps can cruise along at, say, 50w RMS and when they need to find 150 or 200w to hit a transient note, they can with reliability. Some cannot. I did not find that they JL Slash amps could hit that transient note unless I went with pure 150w RMS.
Certain filtering and compression will kill transient notes since the algorithms don't do a good job with them, so many people don't even know that they are there. Some of the lossless ones do a better job preserving transient detail to differing degrees. I could play you a song in my car at like 320K mp3 and then play the FLAC (to WAV to DVD-A) and there is one note where the drummer hits something that will make you jump when the flac is playing, just like you were there sitting next to the drum set... and you only hear it at the same dynamic of the rest of the music on the 320k recording like nothing happened.
My point was if the JL amps are good with transient response, then 50w RMS should be fine for your mids and probably 100w RMS for you 8s. If not, then I would try and hit 200w for the mids and 400w for the 8s. RMS numbers are all black magic anyway since some amps can come up with the same sound as other amps with half, or a quarter, of the RMS.
...and all of this assumes that the amps, or processor, don't use an algorithm to manipulate the signal that cuts transients for a better "general customer experience." Some companies have been accused of this on some level or another by altering signal in dangerous or common ranges.
Don't get rid of those focal amps (depending on which ones you have) until you get rid of the MS8. I doubt that you will share the same opinion of them if you can get a different signal.
Certain filtering and compression will kill transient notes since the algorithms don't do a good job with them, so many people don't even know that they are there. Some of the lossless ones do a better job preserving transient detail to differing degrees. I could play you a song in my car at like 320K mp3 and then play the FLAC (to WAV to DVD-A) and there is one note where the drummer hits something that will make you jump when the flac is playing, just like you were there sitting next to the drum set... and you only hear it at the same dynamic of the rest of the music on the 320k recording like nothing happened.
My point was if the JL amps are good with transient response, then 50w RMS should be fine for your mids and probably 100w RMS for you 8s. If not, then I would try and hit 200w for the mids and 400w for the 8s. RMS numbers are all black magic anyway since some amps can come up with the same sound as other amps with half, or a quarter, of the RMS.
...and all of this assumes that the amps, or processor, don't use an algorithm to manipulate the signal that cuts transients for a better "general customer experience." Some companies have been accused of this on some level or another by altering signal in dangerous or common ranges.
Don't get rid of those focal amps (depending on which ones you have) until you get rid of the MS8. I doubt that you will share the same opinion of them if you can get a different signal.
I won't divulge the person but I can say that an award winning vehicle runs 3x the thermal power rating to his subs, 2x the thermal rating to his midbasses and who knows how much to the mids and tweeters. His system has the potential to consume over 5kw of power on the peaks but a very loud listening level shows only a little over 400w rms. However, I would not power the system with a 400w amp no matter how good it's transients supposedly are.
The HDs have been measured on DIYMA to deliver significantly more than rated power and they're known to be dynamic. I'm shooting for twice the thermal power rating of each speaker to ensure great transients..
07-18-2012, 05:04 PM
#22
Dogmatic Dinosaur
The TL stock amp compresses this stuff to. I think that tons of "consumer grade" amps do the same thing on accident by using less tolerant components and even purposely modifying the input circuitry... but you know that i have never thought that all amps are equal. It makes sense, 99% of who will by their product will never be able to tell, so why scare the shit out of the consumer with the "dum, dum" to start Hotel California where the sub hits like the car got rear ended. It can also save speakers. More happy consumers means more sales.
My offer is still good if you want to borrow some Zapcos once you get the MS8 out. They are big though... at least compared to the HDs.
My offer is still good if you want to borrow some Zapcos once you get the MS8 out. They are big though... at least compared to the HDs.
07-19-2012, 02:20 PM
#23
Team Owner
Thread Starter
The TL stock amp compresses this stuff to. I think that tons of "consumer grade" amps do the same thing on accident by using less tolerant components and even purposely modifying the input circuitry... but you know that i have never thought that all amps are equal. It makes sense, 99% of who will by their product will never be able to tell, so why scare the shit out of the consumer with the "dum, dum" to start Hotel California where the sub hits like the car got rear ended. It can also save speakers. More happy consumers means more sales.
My offer is still good if you want to borrow some Zapcos once you get the MS8 out. They are big though... at least compared to the HDs.
My offer is still good if you want to borrow some Zapcos once you get the MS8 out. They are big though... at least compared to the HDs.
That's an awful generous offer. I agree it would be best to eliminate the MS8 beforehand and I'll send you a good "rental" fee to try one of those out.
This thread made me go out last night and bypass the MS8 again. The midbass and sub impact practically triples. My side view mirrors become useless from the midbass. I think I've tried so hard to get some of the impact and dynamics back that the MS8 has been taking away that I've ended up with a system with great dynamic potential once the MS8 is out of the loop. This processor gives great sound and a good stage and I believe it's great for many setups, especially stock speakers. But it definitely softens the dynamics, no doubt about it.
Hey Steve, since you have stock speakers and aftermarket amplification, I'll make you a deal on an MS8 that you can't refuse if you want to try a processor.
07-19-2012, 03:47 PM
#24
Racer
power requirements
the simply answer here is ...............
200 watts is +3db over 100 watts,
same as
1000 watts to 500 watts its still only 3db.
given your optimum peak usable ranges for the driver in question I estimate the change after tuning and matching outputs will be unnoticed for
200 watts is +3db over 100 watts,
same as
1000 watts to 500 watts its still only 3db.
given your optimum peak usable ranges for the driver in question I estimate the change after tuning and matching outputs will be unnoticed for
So I'm faced with a dilemma. The original goal of this system was to be efficient so no upgrades to the stock charging system were needed, to deliver life-like dynamics, and to not cut into the functionality of the car such as space and retaining the spare tire.
To me, that means lots of power, cone area, class D efficiency and size, IB, and a 2-amp solution that will fit under the seats. So far so good. I'm trying to to spend more money right now but I'm thinking about changing up the configuration of what I currently have. It would mean the center can't be used but I don't use it anyway. Currently I have 2 unused channels on my HD900/5.
So to my point.... I have the option to bridge my 600/4 and move the midranges to the HD900/5. The impact on the system would be 300w to each midbass instead of 150w. But the midrange would lose power, going from 150w to 100w.
So I double the power on the midbass and lose a little in the midrange. The reason I think this would be an upgrade is the midbass requires more power due to the frequencies played and the midbass speakers are roughly 3db less efficient than the midrange which is pretty significant. The only thing I'm unsure of is if there's much cabin gain in the 60-320hz range the midbasses are playing.
The system likely uses less than 150w total for normal use but this is about dynamics and headroom.
Last but not least, it bothers me more than it should to have unused channels on my amp. I feel like they're being wasted. So do I keep it the same: 150w for the midbass and midrange or change it: 300w for the midbass, 100w for the midrange? It's free so I'm likely going to give it a try when I install the new carpet but I thought I would get opinions first.
This is to try and stop me from doing what I actually want to do next. A pair of 600/4s for 300w on the midbass, 150w for the tweeters and midrange and a 1200/1 for the subs.
To me, that means lots of power, cone area, class D efficiency and size, IB, and a 2-amp solution that will fit under the seats. So far so good. I'm trying to to spend more money right now but I'm thinking about changing up the configuration of what I currently have. It would mean the center can't be used but I don't use it anyway. Currently I have 2 unused channels on my HD900/5.
So to my point.... I have the option to bridge my 600/4 and move the midranges to the HD900/5. The impact on the system would be 300w to each midbass instead of 150w. But the midrange would lose power, going from 150w to 100w.
So I double the power on the midbass and lose a little in the midrange. The reason I think this would be an upgrade is the midbass requires more power due to the frequencies played and the midbass speakers are roughly 3db less efficient than the midrange which is pretty significant. The only thing I'm unsure of is if there's much cabin gain in the 60-320hz range the midbasses are playing.
The system likely uses less than 150w total for normal use but this is about dynamics and headroom.
Last but not least, it bothers me more than it should to have unused channels on my amp. I feel like they're being wasted. So do I keep it the same: 150w for the midbass and midrange or change it: 300w for the midbass, 100w for the midrange? It's free so I'm likely going to give it a try when I install the new carpet but I thought I would get opinions first.
This is to try and stop me from doing what I actually want to do next. A pair of 600/4s for 300w on the midbass, 150w for the tweeters and midrange and a 1200/1 for the subs.
07-20-2012, 12:29 AM
#25
Agreed. Apparently the stock amp or HU compresses more at high volumes to protect the speakers. The curve I've seen looks like the typical loudness function.
That's an awful generous offer. I agree it would be best to eliminate the MS8 beforehand and I'll send you a good "rental" fee to try one of those out.
This thread made me go out last night and bypass the MS8 again. The midbass and sub impact practically triples. My side view mirrors become useless from the midbass. I think I've tried so hard to get some of the impact and dynamics back that the MS8 has been taking away that I've ended up with a system with great dynamic potential once the MS8 is out of the loop. This processor gives great sound and a good stage and I believe it's great for many setups, especially stock speakers. But it definitely softens the dynamics, no doubt about it.
Hey Steve, since you have stock speakers and aftermarket amplification, I'll make you a deal on an MS8 that you can't refuse if you want to try a processor.
That's an awful generous offer. I agree it would be best to eliminate the MS8 beforehand and I'll send you a good "rental" fee to try one of those out.
This thread made me go out last night and bypass the MS8 again. The midbass and sub impact practically triples. My side view mirrors become useless from the midbass. I think I've tried so hard to get some of the impact and dynamics back that the MS8 has been taking away that I've ended up with a system with great dynamic potential once the MS8 is out of the loop. This processor gives great sound and a good stage and I believe it's great for many setups, especially stock speakers. But it definitely softens the dynamics, no doubt about it.
Hey Steve, since you have stock speakers and aftermarket amplification, I'll make you a deal on an MS8 that you can't refuse if you want to try a processor.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
mlody
5G TLX (2015-2020)
85
12-04-2019 02:11 PM
rp_guy
Member Cars for Sale
9
07-16-2017 07:33 AM
