Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="shizzzon" data-source="post: 4819303" data-attributes="member: 590338">really?You just laid that out as if it&#039;s fact...There&#039;s a reason why companies state that a sub is called Dual 2 ohm for instance even though it may be dual 1.4...This is to guarantee that the rise will not fall below the stated load..So, wired in parallel would give a 0.7 load and this is to state that at no time will your impedance curve fall below the 1 ohm threshold.Now, wire 2 of those together, that&#039;s 0.35 ohms with a guarantee that it wont fall below 0.5 ohms.That doesn&#039;t mean it will not fall below 1 ohm.I&#039;ve had 0.9 ohm loads fall down to 1.6 ohms before. That&#039;s a 78% increase.What if that happened to the OP?A 78% increase at 0.35 ohms is 0.62 ohms... far far below 1 ohm.Don&#039;t ever assume something like that will just &quot;happen&quot; when on the other hand, the consequence can result in damage.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="shizzzon, post: 4819303, member: 590338"] really? You just laid that out as if it's fact... There's a reason why companies state that a sub is called Dual 2 ohm for instance even though it may be dual 1.4... This is to guarantee that the rise will not fall below the stated load.. So, wired in parallel would give a 0.7 load and this is to state that at no time will your impedance curve fall below the 1 ohm threshold. Now, wire 2 of those together, that's 0.35 ohms with a guarantee that it wont fall below 0.5 ohms. That doesn't mean it will not fall below 1 ohm. I've had 0.9 ohm loads fall down to 1.6 ohms before. That's a 78% increase. What if that happened to the OP? A 78% increase at 0.35 ohms is 0.62 ohms... far far below 1 ohm. Don't ever assume something like that will just "happen" when on the other hand, the consequence can result in damage. [/QUOTE]

Verification