PDX 4.100 or PDX 4.150 to power Focal K2Ps?

[geocab 10+ year member]

What would you recommend? Advantages of using one over the other? Is the 4.100 sufficient?

Click to read more...

 

[Monologuist 10+ year member]

keep in mind these little amps are underrated. My 4.100 's birthsheet says it benched at 135W.

 

[geocab 10+ year member]

The K2P's specs say 100W nominal, but I've heard that Focals are power hungry to sound their best. So will the over rating of the PDX 4.100 let these Focals perform their best, or should I give them even more by going with the PDX 4.150?

I guess that's what I'm looking to find out. How much is too much, but how much is enough to let these babies shine?

 

[CrazedCat 10+ year member]

Are you running 1 set of comps? If so, what's the reason for the 4 channel? Are you going to bi-amp?

 

[geocab 10+ year member]

I was going to use an active crossover set-up using an Alpine H701. Or should I just use the passive crossover that comes with the K2P's.

 

[Monologuist 10+ year member]

THe PDX-4.100 should be fine to power those speakers as long as you cross them over properly. I have Polk SR-6500's which are rated very similarly for power. The speakers are the limiting factor , not the power of the 4.100 in this setup. That 4.100 puts out a lot of juice. If you are bi-amping I would say definitely go with the 4.100; 4.150 would be overkill. Personally I'd use the passive crossovers even if bi-amping/active x-overing b/c they probably have tweeter protection circuitry in it and the passive crossovers probably blend the woofers with the tweeters very well already. Just bi-amp to control individual levels and individual time alignment if you have it.

 

[geocab 10+ year member]

Thanks for the advice. I'm going to go with the PDX 4.100, I can always upgrade if it isn't enough, which is doubtful from what you guys are saying. Thanks for the help!

 

[Babs 10+ year member]

Sure...

For powering one driver only per channel (tweet OR mid)...

That 100 I think is all you'd need.

I wonder though about the suggestion of an active setup with the H701, but still using the passive crossovers inline... I don't think that's a good recipe... One of the benefits of going active to begin with is not degrading the powered signal with passive crossovers... Plus, you don't want to apply signal filters by the 701 then apply more filters downstream, I'd think. You just have to be very careful never to send full signal to your tweets.