Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Danometal" data-source="post: 7552876" data-attributes="member: 636337">Intriguing info. One reason I&#039;m concerned with watts is that, in my wife&#039;s setup, I have a Kicker 200.2 (75 watts RMS/channel) pushing Polk DB comps, which are rated for 100+ RMS. It gets a little raspy at high volume, so I&#039;m thinking the lack of overhead power on tap is making the difference. However, I&#039;m running a LOC off her factory HU until tax time, so maybe a nice clean 4V signal will help that, plus I might buy her a nice 4 channel and bridge it. And, I plan to get enough material to seal her doors and mine, and maybe some deadener to do the 25% coverage approach. I suppose deadener can cover small holes where solid material isn&#039;t practical.I definitely don&#039;t know the ins and outs of passive Xovers. Do you have any suggestions for a comp set with a proven passive Xover design? Lots of midbass is important too. Thanks bro.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Danometal, post: 7552876, member: 636337"] Intriguing info. One reason I'm concerned with watts is that, in my wife's setup, I have a Kicker 200.2 (75 watts RMS/channel) pushing Polk DB comps, which are rated for 100+ RMS. It gets a little raspy at high volume, so I'm thinking the lack of overhead power on tap is making the difference. However, I'm running a LOC off her factory HU until tax time, so maybe a nice clean 4V signal will help that, plus I might buy her a nice 4 channel and bridge it. And, I plan to get enough material to seal her doors and mine, and maybe some deadener to do the 25% coverage approach. I suppose deadener can cover small holes where solid material isn't practical. I definitely don't know the ins and outs of passive Xovers. Do you have any suggestions for a comp set with a proven passive Xover design? Lots of midbass is important too. Thanks bro. [/QUOTE]

Verification