real peak power of the 1200.1 jbl

[Randy Savage 5,000+ posts]

Originally posted by Wonderbread Which one are you?

this had me laughing soooooooooooooo hard //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif :laugh: //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif

I'm sorry, phazeone, you are from FLORIDA, not COMPTON....so wake up, please.

 

[marauder 10+ year member]

Originally posted by Wonderbread matematically, peak is doulble the RMS...

peak is the top of the wave, while RMS is the average of the positive of the wave.. the middle of hte posistive portion...; half...

you may want to re-think that theory. i'm not trying to be a smart alec but i've been doing electricity and electronics for several years now (and i must admit that i made a mistake in my earlier post i said 1.404 when it's 1.414 sorry that i quoted the wrong number).

here is a link to a webpage that explains the RMS to PEP exchange

http://www.sfu.ca/sonic-studio/handbook/Root_Mean_Square.html

enjoy

 

[cmbyomamma 10+ year member]

wow did some one let the anger out from a bad day at work .

that was getting sticky for a little bit.................................lol

 

[marauder 10+ year member]

i mean if i came over hateful i'm sorry i wasn't trying to be i just hate to see people quote things incorrectly. and then find out that i did too LOL. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

 

[Wonderbread 5,000+ posts]

Originally posted by marauder you may want to re-think that theory. i'm not trying to be a smart alec but i've been doing electricity and electronics for several years now (and i must admit that i made a mistake in my earlier post i said 1.404 when it's 1.414 sorry that i quoted the wrong number).

 

here is a link to a webpage that explains the RMS to PEP exchange

 

http://www.sfu.ca/sonic-studio/handbook/Root_Mean_Square.html

 

enjoy

theoreticlaly, you are corrent... however, those numbers are for a *PURE* sine wave,... not a signal with MIXED sine waves such as music...

when dealing with music (as it is NOT a pure sine wave) the math is doulbing the RMS...

 

[DaBaller504 10+ year member]

so u just double the rms, thats how i always did it, ive heard the numbers before, but i thought it had to be a pure wave

 

[Wonderbread 5,000+ posts]

yup... for a pure Sine wave - 1 tone you multiply by 1.414

when its a mixed signal - such as music which is what we generally deal with on here - you double

 

[marauder 10+ year member]

i understand that it is not a pure wave but RMS to PEP is always 1.414. the impure wave you speak of is very similar to amplitude modulation or AM. regardless of the size of the sine wave RMS is still only .707 or rougly 70% of the peak value.

 

[marauder 10+ year member]

but on your defence the peak value may be double the average power that is being consumed since not every peak will be max. that would get us into a theoretical discussion of amp output. mainly what i am saying is that the true RMS value of an amp is never going to be more than the fuse value times the voltage value.

example

14.4volts

20 amp fuse

the amp can only put out up to 288 watts RMS value and the peak could only be 407 watts.

thanks

 

[Wonderbread 5,000+ posts]

Originally posted by marauder but on your defence the peak value may be double the average power that is being consumed since not every peak will be max. that would get us into a theoretical discussion of amp output. mainly what i am saying is that the true RMS value of an amp is never going to be more than the fuse value times the voltage value.

 

example

14.4volts

20 amp fuse

the amp can only put out up to 288 watts RMS value and the peak could only be 407 watts.

 

 

thanks

what about efficieny rating.. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif

theoretical physics are strangely unapplicable sometimes...

What about the Cadence A7hc? 80A worth of fusing, yet still does well over 1200 watts RMS... have been benched as doing near 1400 watts at 14.4 v no less...

 

[marauder 10+ year member]

well 80 amps times 14.4 volts makes for 1152watts RMS so yeah the peak value would be as high as 1629 watts. that's a perfectly acceptable test but i still must doubt the RMS would ever get over 1200 and if it did it couldn't do it for very long before the fuse burned out due to excessive current draw. look we should not get into a lengthy debate over this we need to simply agree to dis-agree and go on about our merry ways.

thanks

 

[Wonderbread 5,000+ posts]

it bencehs RMS at near 1400 watts... run for extended periods of time...

 

[marauder 10+ year member]

ok if you say so //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif

 

[Randy Savage 5,000+ posts]

Originally posted by Wonderbread it bencehs RMS at near 1400 watts... run for extended periods of time...

I've seen such birthsheets on these bad boys...

 

[marauder 10+ year member]

Originally posted by Wonderbread what about efficieny rating.. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif

theoretical physics are strangely unapplicable sometimes...

What about the Cadence A7hc? 80A worth of fusing, yet still does well over 1200 watts RMS... have been benched as doing near 1400 watts at 14.4 v no less...

so what you are saying is that this amplifier is 117% efficient? proposterous! look you can believe what ever you want i for one will take proven positive physics and electrical principal over a berth sheet probably written by the manufacturer. i've provided proof that the RMS to PEP conversion is not to simply double the value. can you provide proof that i'm wrong?

thanks