>I guess it can't, atleast I'm not proving it will, but a
>bigger amp will sound just as good if not better and your
>risk for damage will go down greatly.
So are you agreeing now that the lack of power to sufficently control the cone is not the reason for failure, but it is the distortion, power, heat that a clipping underpowered amp may produce that will make a speaker fail?

If so, then you agree that a clean distortion free signal from an underpowered amp will not blow a speaker right?

 

>No, but at least ten of those posts in that mess I posted say
>distortion leads to complete failure. Take it up with them if want.
>Anyway, I would rather have an amp that could make my sub sound
>good, not tinsel slap, bottoming out, etc

HAHAHA, so you mean you want an amp with LESS power?! ROFL!!

 

>Anyway in the real world, too little power is just fine and
>will not harm your speakers.

This is fine, I agree with this, no problem. But has nothing to do with the size of the amp.
>
>If anyone doubts this statement (I'm sure that some
>amplifier salespersons will beg to differ.), why would we
>have volume controls on our decks?

Well, I didn't doubt it so moving on...

>
>Heck, we'd have to have disclaimers on the volume controls
>that say, "Warning, do not minimize this control or severe
>low-power damage will occur to your speakers!!"
>
OK, this is where he leaps off. You can't say this. This is that same stuff I was calling bunk on page 1. Half volume does not mean your really driving that amp. As a matter of fact, a small amp at maybe 3/4 volume on the head, could be the same as a larger amp at half volume or less. The volume **** has nothing to do with anything. Damage only happens when people turn it up. So, if you want to save your speakers, turn your gains down on the bigger amp and enjoy loudness w/o greater risks.

>We should discuss the REAL vs. BS power ratings of decks,
>amplifiers, speakers, etc., but let's save that for another
>post.

Thank God.

>
>http://www.carsound.com/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=002557

 

"The truth is that if the cone is heavy, it will not react quickly to the input signal. Hence without the application of **considerable wattage**, the signal will be gone from the line before the cone can move"


That still has nothing to do with speaker failure.

 

> So are you agreeing now that the lack of power to
>sufficently control the cone is not the reason for failure,
>but it is the distortion, power, heat that a clipping
>underpowered amp may produce that will make a speaker fail?
>
>If so, then you agree that a clean distortion free signal
>from an underpowered amp will not blow a speaker right?

 

>>No, but at least ten of those posts in that mess I posted say
>>distortion leads to complete failure. Take it up with them if want.
>>Anyway, I would rather have an amp that could make my sub sound
>>good, not tinsel slap, bottoming out, etc
>
>HAHAHA, so you mean you want an amp with LESS power?! ROFL!!

Hey, send some of what you're smokin this way man!
That's the only way I think I could make sense out of that.

Naw dude, I ALWAYS get a BIG amp. No matter what I'm driving. I've done this for years and no problems. Just great sound.

Just turn it down when you smell smokes n you'll be fine

 

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 01-13-03 AT 02:49 AM (EST)]>>>Anyway, I would rather have an amp that could make my sub sound
>>>good, not tinsel slap, bottoming out, etc
>>
>>HAHAHA, so you mean you want an amp with LESS power?! ROFL!!
>>
>Hey, send some of what you're smokin this way man!
>That's the only way I think I could make sense out of that.

OMG TOO FUNNY!

OK, I'll explain it for you (laughing so hard right now in tears, also woke my GF up from laughing too loud). If you want an amp that cant make your sub tinsel slap, or bottom out, you need less power. The more power you feed into a speaker, the farther it will move, so to make it move less, it needs less power. Bottoming out and tinsel slap is caused by the speaker moving too far, to prevent it, the speaker must move less, and to move less, it needs less power. the other way it can move too far is with lower frequencies, but surely you couldnt be saying you want a sub amp that can only play higher frequencies right? LMAO

 

>
>> So are you agreeing now that the lack of power to
>>sufficently control the cone is not the reason for failure,
>>but it is the distortion, power, heat that a clipping
>>underpowered amp may produce that will make a speaker fail?
>>
>>If so, then you agree that a clean distortion free signal
>>from an underpowered amp will not blow a speaker right?

Nope, I still have that one link by Thomas P. Colvin, but I'll save myself from making that argument now as I do not need to any longer to support my stance on amp sizes. One day, maybe, I'll construct a proof (if possible). I know momentum has a role here and bigger, heavier cones just require more power. And the higher the power rating is on the speaker, the more likely it is to NEED that power to play right and sound good. For instance, compare the e12k to the 12w6. One has a heavy coated paper looking cone and the other has a pretty flimsy plastic one. I plotted both on LEAP and verified the 12w6 puts out more spl per watt down to 45hz I think it was, at which point the e12k takes over. I forgot the box size n port freq, but it is posted here somewhere.

 

>>
>>> So are you agreeing now that the lack of power to
>>>sufficently control the cone is not the reason for failure,
>>>but it is the distortion, power, heat that a clipping
>>>underpowered amp may produce that will make a speaker fail?
>>>
>>>If so, then you agree that a clean distortion free signal
>>>from an underpowered amp will not blow a speaker right?
>
>Nope, I still have that one link by Thomas P. Colvin, but
>I'll save myself from making that argument now as I do not
>need to any longer to support my stance on amp sizes. One
>day, maybe, I'll construct a proof (if possible). I know
>momentum has a role here and bigger, heavier cones just
>require more power. And the higher the power rating is on
>the speaker, the more likely it is to NEED that power to
>play right and sound good. For instance, compare the e12k
>to the 12w6. One has a heavy coated paper looking cone and
>the other has a pretty flimsy plastic one. I plotted both
>on LEAP and verified the 12w6 puts out more spl per watt
>down to 45hz I think it was, at which point the e12k takes
>over. I forgot the box size n port freq, but it is posted
>here somewhere.

This is what I mean by replying off topic. the person you quoted is asking you how underpowering can blow a speaker, and your off on a tangent talking about how more massive speakers need more power to play. It has NOTHING to do with how underpowering can cause speaker failure.

 

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 01-13-03 AT 02:56 AM (EST)]>Nope, I still have that one link by Thomas P. Colvin, but
>I'll save myself from making that argument now as I do not
>need to any longer to support my stance on amp sizes. One
>day, maybe, I'll construct a proof (if possible). I know
>momentum has a role here and bigger, heavier cones just
>require more power. And the higher the power rating is on
>the speaker, the more likely it is to NEED that power to
>play right and sound good. For instance, compare the e12k
>to the 12w6. One has a heavy coated paper looking cone and
>the other has a pretty flimsy plastic one. I plotted both
>on LEAP and verified the 12w6 puts out more spl per watt
>down to 45hz I think it was, at which point the e12k takes
>over. I forgot the box size n port freq, but it is posted
>here somewhere.

Ok, so now your sitting at 1 link saying that low power can make undesirable noises (doesn't say this undesirable noise could cause blowing.), and 10+ supporting that the distortion causes failure.

So now you are left to 0 sources that says distortionless underrated power can blow a speaker.

 

>>>>Anyway, I would rather have an amp that could make my sub sound
>>>>good, not tinsel slap, bottoming out, etc
>>>
>>>HAHAHA, so you mean you want an amp with LESS power?! ROFL!!
>>>
>>Hey, send some of what you're smokin this way man!
>>That's the only way I think I could make sense out of that.
>
>OMG TOO FUNNY!
>
>OK, I'll explain it for you (laughing so hard right now in
>tears, also woke my GF up from laughing too loud). If you
>want an amp that cant make your sub tinsel slap, or bottom
>out, you need less power.

Why not just turn the gain down a hair?

>The more power you feed into a
>speaker, the farther it will move, so to make it move less,
>it needs less power. Bottoming out and tinsel slap is
>caused by the speaker moving too far, to prevent it, the
>speaker must move less, and to move less, it needs less
>power. the other way it can move too far is with lower
>frequencies, but surely you couldnt be saying you want a sub
>amp that can only play higher frequencies right? LMAO

Suppose you could turn the volume **** down a bit too. Bigger amps = always better.

 

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 01-13-03 AT 03:02 AM (EST)]Your missing the point still. Why buy a bigger amp, and turn the gain down, when your smaller amp will do the same thing with the gain set properly, AND be safer in case it DOES clip. Accidently clip a 1200w RMS amp hooked up to a 300w RMS speaker, and that 300w RMS speaker is done for before you can say fluck. Accidenly clip a 200w RMS amp on a 300W RMS speaker, and your speaker still has a chance to survive with minimal or no damage.

 

Anyway, Back on topic.

HOW CAN LESS POWER DAMAGE A SPEAKER. Please enlighten us RanDawg.

 

>Anyway, Back on topic.
>
>HOW CAN LESS POWER DAMAGE A SPEAKER. Please enlighten us
>RanDawg.

Cmon.. Dont you know by now. It causes undesireable noises (read: self destruction). This is the only way it can, if the signal is clean and distortion free! If you have AIM or MSN messenger, contact me via aim at "qwigalicious" or msn via "nittoracer1(No Email Addresses In Posts!)".
Later.

 

>>Nope, I still have that one link by Thomas P. Colvin, but
>>I'll save myself from making that argument now as I do not
>>need to any longer to support my stance on amp sizes. One
>>day, maybe, I'll construct a proof (if possible). I know
>>momentum has a role here and bigger, heavier cones just
>>require more power. And the higher the power rating is on
>>the speaker, the more likely it is to NEED that power to
>>play right and sound good. For instance, compare the e12k
>>to the 12w6. One has a heavy coated paper looking cone and
>>the other has a pretty flimsy plastic one. I plotted both
>>on LEAP and verified the 12w6 puts out more spl per watt
>>down to 45hz I think it was, at which point the e12k takes
>>over. I forgot the box size n port freq, but it is posted
>>here somewhere.
>
>Ok, so now your sitting at 1 link saying that low power can
>make undesirable noises (doesn't say this undesirable noise
>could cause blowing.), and 10+ supporting that the
>distortion causes failure.
>
>So now you are left to 0 sources that says distortionless
>underrated power can blow a speaker.

Well, take it up with Thomas P. Colvin. He should know, doesn't he rebuild them for a living or something? All I know is I do not care to go thru the grueling necessities it may take to try to convince you guys when I could just as easy take the clipping defense. Since I cannot say 100% sure I was clip free unless I had a o-scope hooked up at the time in question. But I do know the 300 watt sub blew on a 200 watt rated amp. geolemon said something about my 200 watt amp putting out like 400-600watts or something if clipping. Fine, I don't care, if it did. If it didn't, who knows? But it did blow (seize actually). I watched it come to a halt. Anyway, it doesn't matter because all I need to do is show buying and recommending others to buy a larger amp is a smart thing to do. And I feel I have done that. Whether clipping is good or bad I don't care, I still don't want any part of it and would rather have a larger amp as insurance if for no other reason.