Rating A Rig

[danger mouse 0]

how would you rate this rig in terms of power, 2x15" fullrange cabs 500w rms each , i sub 800rms one amp for the fullrange cabs , 650 rms a side, and one amp running the sub 1300 rms( Ran in bridged) ie would you say its what the speakers push out or what power you have to play with, as its 1800 rms from the speakers in total but lot more in headroom from amps if you know what i mean . ive seen people say about theres 2kw sound system 2,4kw etc.

[DJB 0]

Well, your question is sort of self explanatory. Watts-wise, it's high I suppose. But, it all depends on the speakers sensitivity and SPL ratings. Watts doesn't tell half the story really.

 

I'm not too sure on how it works, but I do know never to judge a system by wattage.

 

Ben

[Dream Catchers 0]

You rate the system on the lowest power ie, 1300w, even though your amps can supply more, your speakers limit it to the 1.3k.

 

Jim

[Robster 0]

watts smots , i have a piar of JBL eon 15's in my living room ( wife is not happy i am storing them for a friend) I also have a pair of speakers that i made they are a mix mash of drivers from wharfedales home audio and missions home audio the cabinets are shot loaded and spiked the internal cable is cable talk but they are really a Frankenstein creation BUT they sound way better than the JBLs that on paper have a high power rating and SPL

 

Sound quality is what counts not power or SPL.. sound quality!! not something we can easily put a number on or brag about with a number

[Danno13 0]

You rate the system on the lowest power ie, 1300w, even though your amps can supply more, your speakers limit it to the 1.3k.

 

Jim

 

That's not entirely accurate. My bins are rated at 600w, but thats RMS.. i'm actually running 2k into the pair and they cope amicably, so I'm actually producing 2k, not 1.2k. Remember RMS is just a rating based on feeding a test signal in, when you're playing actual music you can acheive greater volume and good speakers will hold up even above their RMS rating.

 

The norm is to rate a PA system on the amp output. You could have a 4kw system using 2 x 500w speakers.. yes, they'd distort like mad and wouldn't last long.. but they'd still produce 4kw before they burst into flames tongue out icon

Edited August 14, 2008 by Danno13

[Robster 0]

My Dimplex 3kW Cadiz Eco Oil Free Radiator doesn't sound too good but hey its 3 kW

[danger mouse 0]

thats what i mean prob best to stick to rms as gets bit silly if you go peak power ratings. the sub is 800w rms 1600 peak, the amp can put 1300 rms into it and it sounds nice on full (without clipping), a lot recomend running a more powerfull amp with a sub as it can eat watts thrown into them for breakfast , its 100 db sensitve 1 meter per watt so pretty good quality, suppose its a 1.8 kw rms sound system @ 8 .ohm ,2.6kw or there abouts if you were going down the peak power (like peavy sometimes do) but we all know thats just for advertising and rating at peak is stupid as if you run at peak it wouldnt last very long. so what has everbody else got /use at the rms rating

[Robster 0]

sound volume levels are always measured in dB not watts , room acoustics and speaker efficiency etc etc mean that wattage is irrelevant in terms of how loud something is and dB is also irrelevant when measuring how good it sounds a lot of it is egos and bragging IMHO i would sooner have a system that sounds good and is rated lower than some guys system that makes your ears bleed

Edited August 15, 2008 by enquirer

[eazy 0]

great opportunity to brag !!! what dj dosent like that lol i have / use a 900w rig , 2kw rig , 4kw rig or an 8kw rig depending on what and where .

 

mostly use the 2kw set up as it dosent have to be played full volume so it works in most venues and its tiny and very easy to set up and carry/transport

Edited August 15, 2008 by eazy

[DJB 0]

It's a difficult one really...

 

My old Peavey Pro system, was technically 250w rms per speaker (old version)...and I used to run 500w rms into each one and they ran perfectly, even close to clipping. But then, they aren't very efficient. The mackies are 400w RMS and seem to kick out a lot more. So, wattage really isn't worth looking too much into.

 

From experience, running a speaker with double (or more) their RMS is perfectly safe and gets better results if you avoid clipping. :scared:

 

Ben :Thumbup:

[norty303 0]

The only really effective way to describe a sound system is to quote output in decibels over its operating frequency range with a + or - deviation across that bandwidth. e.g. 136db 40hz-20khz +/-3db. Once you have a good flat response to work with, polar plots and time domain measurements will give a good indication of how clear it'll be over its coverage area.

 

However, most people wouldn't understand that, so you might as well just put down whatever number you feel makes your rig sounds the most impressive. Most people who quote rigs by watts do this anyway. You'll find few people who could tell you the difference between 2 and 4k.

 

On most gigs the size of the rig only matters if its not big enough. After that its sound quality all the way....

[Dream Catchers 0]

You'll find few people who could tell you the difference between 2 and 4k.

 

On most gigs the size of the rig only matters if its not big enough. After that its sound quality all the way....

Also don't forget that you won't normally be pushing your rig to it's maximum, you may have 2K but only using it at 25% capacity compared with a 1K at 50% so there will be little difference.

 

Jim

[norty303 0]

Also don't forget that 2 identical rigs, one with 2k of amps and one with 4k of amps, the 4k is only ever going to be 3db louder (maximum, power compression at high levels will remove a good chunk of that) although the one with 4k will probably sound fuller and more dynamic and generaly nicer.

 

Keeping the 2k amp and switching your speakers for nice horns would make the biggest difference.....

[Andy Westcott 0]

A bit horny, this guy, isn't he?! tongue out icon

 

True though;

Simplified for the benefit of the non-techs, a good horn loaded system could make a 1K amp sound easily as loud as a 4K amp would through conventional speakers.

 

I recall that seemed to be the norm in days of yore when watts were expensive and a speaker rated at 200 watts RMS was a monster. Horn loaded all the way, and capable of some prety high SPLs despite the power limitations.

[norty303 0]

The other good benefit of a horn is that they are bandwidth limited, meaning that they play very efficiently in a narrower bandwidth than conventional speakers and roll off very quickly either side of this (bandpass subs work the same way) This means they act as very efficient filters for some of the unwanted noise artefacts produced by cone speakers, especially when driven hard. The downside is its harder to tell when you're near the mechanical limits, meaning failures can happen suddenly. Also some people tend to not like the characteristic sound of a horn.

 

But in relation to the original question, you could then advertise your rig as '4k, but louder and nicer sounding than his 4k!'

 

 

[eazy 0]

i find its very difficult to notice much difference in volume between my 4k and 8k , you will feel more bass but the biggest difference is how far the noise travels ( usually get complaints about noise :damn: )

 

but as long as the sound is balanced right between bass and treble it wont hurt your ears ( until you hear them still ringing in the morning

 

but as was said loads of top end can give the impression of loud volume as its not balanced right it sounds louder on the ears ( it wont be quality sound but it will sound loud )

[norty303 0]

Distortion also creates a perception of loudness, particularly on the bass end. When you have a very clean sounding rig its often quite surprising how loud it is when you meter it compared to a (seemingly) really noisy distorted one.

 

I often wonder if DJ's/engineers have had an ear transplant when you hear just how nasty sounding and cutting the high mids and tops are.

[Andy Westcott 0]

I agree - some of the upper-mids I've heard reaaly do feel as if they are cutting through your brain...

 

I've just come back from a holiday in Cornwall, and the entertainment had a set of such speakers (peavey). Brilliant for vocals due to the 'enhanced' upper midrange, but quite painful when used for music.

 

Possibly been EQd by someone with an earful of wax...

[norty303 0]

Funnily enough, the country of origin of the rig can influence this sound quite a lot.

 

In the North American market where the predominant music tends to be rock gigs, they like(d) a very forward sounding upper mid which is why JBL and others stuck with large diaphragm 2" compression drivers whilst european manufacturers started to look at smaller format comps over paper cone mids (6.5" or 8" typically) or most recently Funktion 1 with their impressive 5" mid and high device.

 

I run 2" comps and whilst they have a lovely snap to them, its VERY easy to overdo them in the 5-6khz range. They do throw for miles though!