JL Audio 300/4 vs. 300/2

[tracyrick 10+ year member]

I see a lot of people who bridge the 300/4 to drive their front speakers, and don't do anything with the rear speakers.

Why not just get the 300/2? It's a little cheaper. This is what I'm thinking of doing.

Mabye this is a flexibility thing - you can use the 300/4 to drive 4 speakers if needed, but not the 300/2.

But if you have speakers you are driving 150 watts to in the front, the 300/4 would never be enough for the backs also...

Are there any other differences in the amps besides # of channels?

Click to read more...

 

[bri487 5,000+ posts]

the 4 channel gives you the ability to go active with your front components if you have the processing. and the 300/4 would have enough power for fronts and rears if one chose to do so.

 

[tracyrick 10+ year member]

Ahh, I didn't think about that part. Not quite clear on it either though. Let me guess...

So if I'm using MB Quart QSC216 150 RMS speakers in the front, and a JL 300/4, I could send one channel to each tweeter and one channel to each woofer, for a total of 4 channels? Is that called "bi-amping?"

If that is possible, why is it better vs. just sending 1 channel of 150 watts to each speaker? Doesn't the crossover that comes with the speaker do this already?

 

[SlickCMRick 10+ year member]

Both are inefficient amps....

 

[bri487 5,000+ posts]

Both are inefficient amps....

not my favorite amps in the world, but i wouldnt call them inefficient. for their size they put out a decent amount of power and build quality is up there.

 

[SlickCMRick 10+ year member]

not my favorite amps in the world, but i wouldnt call them inefficient. for their size they put out a decent amount of power and build quality is up there.

I was talking about power efficiency, sorry

 

[bri487 5,000+ posts]

I was talking about power efficiency, sorry

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/eek.gif.771b7a90cf45cabdc554ff1121c21c4a.gif seriously dude????

 

[dleccord 5,000+ posts]

lmao