cea-2006?

[kr15 5,000+ posts]

is this rating certification meaningless? It know it is supposed to certify that an amp does its rms rating, but I now see shitty amps with this rating...for example, my girlfreind had a class d jensen power 900, that was cea-2006 rated 340rms at 2 ohm. however, this amp wasnt very powerful. for example, I had a newer Punch 250.2 (and newer RF sucks) that was rated for 250 rms and the birthsheet actually read 316 rms at 2ohm. The fosgate was quite a bit more powerful then the Jensen. I know Jensen sucks, and that even bad Fosgate is better than most brands, but I figured CEA meant that it would do the power. I also didnt have the bass knob for the punch, so it was essentially on no bass boost. I guess what Im wondering, is it possible for a company like Jensen, Kenwood etc to send "weak, shitty" watts that meet the rating while a company like Fosgate, Kicker etc sends "strong, solid" watts?

In addition, many good amps are not CEA rated. Case in point, I had a Hifonics TXi 4008, one of the weakest amps Hifonics makes. It was rated at 400rms, and we all now that Hifonics wont do rated power (hence no CEA rating). I figure it was closer to 300rms, yet still was more powerful than aforementiond Jensen. That Hifonics was about the same as the Punch 250.2. The Jensen was supposedly class d mono, and was weaker than both class a/b 2 channels.......

So, do we throw that CEA shit out the window?

Click to read more...

 

[bubbagumper6 5,000+ posts]

wow, there's a lot of fail in your post...

first of all, there's no such thing as weak watts or strong watts. Power is power, whether or not it's clean, is another story.

second, we don't all know that Hifonics won't do rated, your generalizing an entire brand and your assessment is incorrect. There's plenty of Hifonics amps that will do more than rated.

 

[kr15 5,000+ posts]

well, if power is power, why were the 2 "lower" power amps by cea standards stronger than the Jensen? Was it merely cleaner watts that perhaps made me think it was stronger? Maybe the subwoofer sounding cleaner made me think that? Or turn it up a little louder due to less distortion? Like the newer Kenwood 1800d are Cea-2006, and while im not sure of the rms, I believe its around 900. I have never heard one of those Kenwood amps come close to my Fosgate 800a2. Perhaps Im just confusing clean watts with power. Does a subwoofer more effiiciently convert clean watts opposed to sloppy, or is it all the same?

And I have nothing against Hifonics. I dont know for sure what they do, all I know is that my little Txi pushed the heck out of 2-12s at 2ohm mono and rarely cut out. I just have difficuly believing some of the Brutus ratings.

 

[n2audio 5,000+ posts]

The jensen's an a/b, not that it matters.

Sonic's the only place I see that has it wrong.

My question is did you compare them fairly? If you had a 4 ohm load for the RF and then swapped to the Jensen how did you get the 2 ohm load?

If you used them in different installs then the comparison doesn't have much value.

Also - the cea2006 spec is for 14.4v. It's not very likely it would run at no less than 14.4v in a car. Even at 13.8 it's probably around 300.

It's a lower price, lower quality amp. I would expect the RF to last longer, have more precise controls etc, but I would be surprised if there was much, if any audible difference in performance if they're operating at the same rated power level. There would have to be a 50%+ difference in power for it to be clearly audible.

 

[cleansoundzz 10+ year member]

And newer RF does not ****.

 

[kr15 5,000+ posts]

Everything else remained the same, only variable was amp. We used a dvc4 memphis pr 15 wired to 2ohm on all 3 amps, then a memphis dvc m3 12 on the Jensen and fosgate. Now, dont amps have different ranges of what they play? For instance if amp "a" only plays down to 40hz, yet amp "b" plays to 20hz? Because I dont know that the power felt "more", so much as it felt deeper (or sounded more accurately perhaps). Especially with the Fosgate. That seemed to play deeper than both the Jensen and Hifonics.

And by newer Fosgate, Im not referring to the newest ones. Its actually i think around a 2006 model. All black. I believe its after the chrome ones, and before the style that you have pictured. Even the audio shop was tellin me that for whatever reason, RF just kinda missed with that particular line. Every other fosgate Ive seen and heard has been great, except those particular ones. Its not a bad line honestly, just not on par with other Fosgate lines. Mine in particular was about the same as my Hifonics Txi 4008. And the only RF amps Ive ever seen that arent 2ohm stable. (I know there not supposed to be, but myself and others have always ran RF at 2ohm mono)

 

[JimJ 5,000+ posts]

Now, dont amps have different ranges of what they play?

Not unless something's broken.

 

[cleansoundzz 10+ year member]

You are right 2006 was a crappy year particularly with the all black Punch models.

 

[RAM_Designs 5,000+ posts]

If you were bridging the RF at a 2ohm final load then you were getting more power. The 316 watts are with both channels combined, both operating at 2ohms, which is what they do when you're bridging the amp to a 4ohm load. When you bridge the amp to your 2ohm sub, each channel is working at 1ohm, thus the greater power.

 

[kr15 5,000+ posts]

Yes, the 2006 black punch models...crap...but still better than Sony, Kenwood etc...and yes, the punch 250 was bridged at 2ohm mono, not 2ohm stereo. So u might be right, the birth sheet indicated a 2ohm stereo load of 316rms 947 max. So maybe 2ohm mono was 400 or so rms? Well, if this is an indication, one day I was running the Fosgate 2ohm mono for a while on very high volume and it popped and completely melted a 50amp inline fuse holder. The amp had a 40 amp fuse, but would it have drawn more current at 2ohm mono (hence not 2ohm stable) and thus increasing the power?

 

[RAM_Designs 5,000+ posts]

Yeah, I'd imagine it'd do more like 450+ at 2ohms bridged, and be pretty inefficient, which is probably why the fuse popped. Also, there are a far greater number of amps that are not CEA rated, doesn't mean they don't do rated power. In many cases the non CEA rated brands will be better and do more power, but they don't have to comply to CEA because they are already known as solid equipment. This is especially true for internet based companies that aren't in big box stores.

 

[kr15 5,000+ posts]

well, if it was doing 450, which i believe as it pushed some decent power, i guess that would explain 450 clean watts sounding better than 340 "jensen" watts