Under-rated WRMS is it just bull

[really****loud 10+ year member]

The reason I ask is if you do RMS output rating, its useless unless you know the amps buffer output voltage to its amplifing stage. Then you can do the calulation. Also Manifacturer A may use a sine wave to calulate WRMS output, which is at 75% of its peak to peak value. Manifacturer B may use a complex wave to calulate WRMS output, which is at 50% of its peak to peak. The thing is neither is wrong in its calulations, but Manifacturer B (complex wave to calulate WRMS output, which is at 50% of its peak to peak) may then say its underated, misleading the public by showing a birth cert with a WRMS done with a sine wave which will show anything from a 15-25% increase in power, but in actual fact is the same? //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/bsflag.gif.21f42eccd34b7d1eb1608fb1b59b69c3.gif//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/nono.gif.eca61d170185779e0921b0faa9704973.gif I may be wrong but I don't think so! Anyone with any knowledge on this matter please set me straight or confirm what I have written.CHEERS

Click to read more...

 

[3.5Max6spd 10+ year member]

I think some manufacturers underate their amps to perhaps offer the consumer at least rated wattage at lower voltage (12.5v)street apllication since most are rated to do so at 14.4v

regardless of company though, YOU WILL NEVER ACTUALLY SEE that wattage in your car on a stock alternator- Its a numbers game.....

 

[squeak9798 5,000+ posts]

regardless of company though, YOU WILL NEVER ACTUALLY SEE that wattage in your car on a stock alternator- Its a numbers game.....

You will never see that wattage during actual music either.

But I think some companies intentionally set out to "deceive" the consumer. For instance, intentionally and consciously building a 100w RMS amp, but then "labeling" it a 50w RMS amp just so people will look at it and go "wow, look at how underrated this amp is." And ofcourse the birthsheet shows some number that is WAY higher than the "rated" wattage. Those Pioneer Premier amps come to mind.....I'm sorry, but nobody (especially Pioneer) overbuilds an amp THAT much to cause it's true output to be 200% higher than rated. They started off by building a higher powered amp, then released it as a lower "rated" wattage and sent a birthsheet with it so ppl would go //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/crazy.gif.c13912c32de98515d3142759a824dae7.gif

 

[3.5Max6spd 10+ year member]

^^^Another thing squeek , amps dont necessarily double they're output @ 2ohms,

more like 60/40......so your average amp rated @ 100rms X2 @4ohms/200x 2 @2ohms is actually underated @ 4ohms putting well over 100rms- this is due to the difference in efficiency between the two loads- alot of people dont know that- ratings can be deceiving

 

[`pr0digy 10+ year member]

You will never see that wattage during actual music either.
But I think some companies intentionally set out to "deceive" the consumer. For instance, intentionally and consciously building a 100w RMS amp, but then "labeling" it a 50w RMS amp just so people will look at it and go "wow, look at how underrated this amp is." And ofcourse the birthsheet shows some number that is WAY higher than the "rated" wattage. Those Pioneer Premier amps come to mind.....I'm sorry, but nobody (especially Pioneer) overbuilds an amp THAT much to cause it's true output to be 200% higher than rated. They started off by building a higher powered amp, then released it as a lower "rated" wattage and sent a birthsheet with it so ppl would go //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/crazy.gif.c13912c32de98515d3142759a824dae7.gif

Sounds like processors and overclocking... Both AMD and Intel built lots of the higher speed chips, and if they needed some lower speed chips, they'd just take the high speed ones and "neuter" them. So instead of being an amp they purposely underrate for acclaim, it could just be that they had extra higher powered amps.

Hopefully what I wrote makes sense

 

[drkodin 10+ year member]

Sounds like processors and overclocking... Both AMD and Intel built lots of the higher speed chips, and if they needed some lower speed chips, they'd just take the high speed ones and "neuter" them. So instead of being an amp they purposely underrate for acclaim, it could just be that they had extra higher powered amps.Hopefully what I wrote makes sense

actually intel and amd do a bit worse than that lol. intel's P4 3GHz chip is actually the only one they try and produce, but it is hard to get the processor prefect so all the rejects that don't make rated power are sold as lower models //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif . a good idea actually, but if you own a 2.3GHz chip it is actually a reject 3GHz, but it still works well so i guess it is ok.

basicly intel just recycles, not handicapping the higher model.