[updated:LAST EDITED ON 01-13-03 AT 03:15 AM (EST)]>Please tell me that was sarcasm. I'd call fingernails on a
>chalk board an undesireable noise, but playing the sound
>wont damage a speaker if its under the Rated RMS power of
>the speaker.


Please tell me that was sarcasm. I'd call fingernails on a chalk board an undesireable noise, but playing the sound wont damage a speaker if its under the Rated RMS power of the speaker.

 

I just want you to admit once and for all.

It is not due to lack of control from an underpowered amp, but its the heat, power, and distortion from a clipped underpowered amp that could cause a subwoofer rated above the amp to fail.

I flame you none-what-so-ever for reccomending a more powerful (to an extent) amp.

 

>>Please tell me that was sarcasm. I'd call fingernails on a
>>chalk board an undesireable noise, but playing the sound
>>wont damage a speaker if its under the Rated RMS power of
>>the speaker.
>
I figured after all my post, you knew I was on your side.

But if not, Yes, that was sarcasm.

 

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

I told you man, send me that stuff - it's bad for your memory!

geolemon made a nice argument that a lower rated amp can go into clipping a far exceed it's rated power. Doesn't matter if I believe it, coz he is on your side and you listen to him, right? So, therefore, a low powered amp can deliver more watts to a sub during clipping than a higher rated amp probably would if not clipping. So, if you believe power is what kills, then there is your answer.

 

I agree with quinton_h, All I want you to do is admit that underpowering a speaker does nothing, and I'll stop posting. I normally I do reccommend buying the biggest amp you can afford, for two reasons, the first, is its less likely to clip, and the 2nd, is it helps future proof your system.

 

>>Anyway, Back on topic.
>>
>>HOW CAN LESS POWER DAMAGE A SPEAKER. Please enlighten us
>>RanDawg.
>
>I told you man, send me that stuff - it's bad for your
>memory!
>
>geolemon made a nice argument that a lower rated amp can go
>into clipping a far exceed it's rated power. Doesn't matter
>if I believe it, coz he is on your side and you listen to
>him, right? So, therefore, a low powered amp can deliver
>more watts to a sub during clipping than a higher rated amp
>probably would if not clipping. So, if you believe power is
>what kills, then there is your answer.

So then it's not low power. Its high power.

 

I am not talking about clipping. I want to know how ANY signal below the speakers rated RMS power, no matter HOW distorted, can thermally damage a speaker. Or, I want you to admit that it cant. This is how the whole arguement started. you kept insisting that clean power below the RMS of the speaker could damage it. i'll go dig up a quote from you if I have to.

 

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 01-13-03 AT 03:28 AM (EST)]>I am not talking about clipping. I want to know how ANY
>signal below the speakers rated RMS power, no matter HOW
>distorted, can thermally damage a speaker. Or, I want you
>to admit that it cant. This is how the whole arguement
>started. you kept insisting that clean power below the RMS
>of the speaker could damage it. i'll go dig up a quote from
>you if I have to.

He finally stated that he didn't know how it could be done if the signal was distortion free.

But your question, I see a problem. If you are distorting, you are clipping right? If you are distorting a 300w sub with a 250w amp majorly, the power and heat could very easily surpass its thermal limits.

But me and you both agree that a clean distortionless signal wont kill a sub.

 

>I just want you to admit once and for all.
>
>It is not due to lack of control from an underpowered amp,
>but its the heat, power, and distortion from a clipped
>underpowered amp that could cause a subwoofer rated above
>the amp to fail.
>
>I flame you none-what-so-ever for reccomending a more
>powerful (to an extent) amp.

Naw man, I'm called Dawg for a reason. Don't go down til the bitter end. Just because I don't prove something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. But if someone could prove it either did or didn't exist, I'd surely admit it. Like I said, I think there is something to controling the cone motion sufficiently, and until I have reason to believe otherwise, I will continue to. I thought I gave good argument for this already?

"There is a fallacy that a heavy cone will produce better bass. WRONG! There is also the fallacy that a stiff cone suspension means higher power handling. WRONG AGAIN! 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 and thereby causing an undesirable noise, kind of a flopping honk sound. Not to mention the other restrictions placed on a speaker with a heavy cone. The same thing can happen with a suspension that is too stiff." (Thomas P. Colvin -- Musicians Hotline)

 

>But your question, I see a problem. If you are distorting,
>you are clipping right? If you are distorting a 300w sub
>with a 250w amp majorly, the power and heat could very
>easily surpass its thermal limits.
>

Distortion isnt always clipping, but your correct, I should have worded it more clearly. But a 50watt amp blasting a perfect square wave wont touch a 300watt speaker, so we are both techniclly correct, just depends on wattage.

 

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 01-13-03 AT 03:33 AM (EST)]>Naw man, I'm called Dawg for a reason. Don't go down til
>the bitter end. Just because I don't prove something,
>doesn't mean it doesn't exist. But if someone could prove
>it either did or didn't exist, I'd surely admit it. Like I
>said, I think there is something to controling the cone
>motion sufficiently, and until I have reason to believe
>otherwise, I will continue to. I thought I gave good
>argument for this already?
>
>"There is a fallacy that a heavy cone will produce better
>bass. WRONG! There is also the fallacy that a stiff cone
>suspension means higher power handling. WRONG AGAIN! 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 and thereby causing an
>undesirable noise, kind of a flopping honk sound. Not to
>mention the other restrictions placed on a speaker with a
>heavy cone. The same thing can happen with a suspension that
>is too stiff." (Thomas P. Colvin -- Musicians Hotline)

This still has NOTHING to do with a speaker failing, for the 4th or 5th time. What Colvin is saying is that a highly massive cone will cause an undesireable sound, NOT speaker failure.

 

>>I am not talking about clipping. I want to know how ANY
>>signal below the speakers rated RMS power, no matter HOW
>>distorted, can thermally damage a speaker. Or, I want you
>>to admit that it cant. This is how the whole arguement
>>started. you kept insisting that clean power below the RMS
>>of the speaker could damage it. i'll go dig up a quote from
>>you if I have to.
>
>He finally stated that he didn't know how it could be done
>if the signal was distortion free.

Grab those horses a minute here, I'm not going to submit proof for your inspection is all, not that I don't know how it could be done, if I did say that. You guys are leadin me in circles.

>
>But your question, I see a problem. If you are distorting,
>you are clipping right? If you are distorting a 300w sub
>with a 250w amp majorly, the power and heat could very
>easily surpass its thermal limits.

Now we're back to square 2 again. I'm not submitting proof that there is another way to distort other than clipping at this time. Final answer. Write that down. I just don't feel I have to in order to make the argument for bigger amps over smaller ones. geolemon did a lot of that for me by giving you a reason to believe a smaller amp can put out twice its rated power when clipping. So, if you adjust the gains down on the bigger amp, you'll be happy and have no clipping. Therefore, buy a bigger amp, not a smaller one.

>
>But me and you both agree that a clean distortionless signal
>wont kill a sub.

I'm not sure what clean means anymore, or distortionless, except to say that if the signal is the same **exactly** between 2 amps, one big n one small and the small one close to the max, but yet they are both **exactly** the same, then I don't see how they could blow. Given the amps were not too great for the sub to handle and so on.

 

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 01-13-03 AT 03:48 AM (EST)]>I'm not sure what clean means anymore, or distortionless,
>except to say that if the signal is the same **exactly**
>between 2 amps, one big n one small and the small one close
>to the max, but yet they are both **exactly** the same, then
>I don't see how they could blow. Given the amps were not
>too great for the sub to handle and so on.


Hot damn, we have a winner! That is all I wanted to hear. That is exactly what I have been saying the whole time. It does not matter if an amp is near it's limits or not. As long as it's within its limits, and below the speakers RMS power, you can not thermally damage the speaker. There is no way underpowering a speaker will damage it

 

>This still has NOTHING to do with a speaker failing, for the
>4th or 5th time. What Colvin is saying is that a highly
>massive cone will cause an undesireable sound, NOT speaker
>failure.

Yeah, but that's where I make the leap to the 10 other links that say undesireable sound can lead to failure. Don't like it, take it up with them. I don't need to prove it to make the recommendation to buy a large amp, as was originally challenged. Although I do still believe it, given the amp was driven near or at max capabilities. Furthermore, he is saying it is possible for a signal to pass thru the sub w/o making much of a movement. Which is what I was arguing when explaining the cinder block scenario. Just because current is flowing throught the coil, doesn't mean the cone has to move. Therefore, it is not such a leap to believe the cone can operate away from the phase of the current sinewave. Which may or may not lead to damage, due to heat. I was beginning to make a good argument, but things got childish and reasonable proof became difficult. No matter, the original stance is firm.

 

>>I'm not sure what clean means anymore, or distortionless,
>>except to say that if the signal is the same **exactly**
>>between 2 amps, one big n one small and the small one close
>>to the max, but yet they are both **exactly** the same, then
>>I don't see how they could blow. Given the amps were not
>>too great for the sub to handle and so on.
>
>
>Hot damn, we have a winner! That is all I wanted to hear.
>That is exactly what I have been saying the whole time. It
>does not matter if an amp is near it's limits or not. As
>long as it's within its limits, and below the speakers RMS
>power, you can not thermally damage the speaker. There is
>no way underpowering a speaker will damage it

Hold on, make sure you like this too. Just because an amp is at max capabilities, does not mean it will put out the same signal that a larger amp will. I was only saying IF they were EXACTLY the same, then there will be no difference. Because if A=B then B=A.