ZED says running @ 1 ohm is dumb

[thegreatestpenn 5,000+ posts]

Your argument makes no sense. How would you like me to prove Hoffman's Iron Law to you? And for what purpose exactly? What examples have you provided that alter anything I said? You are just being contrary and argumentative imo.

as in you have no proof of ANYTHING you say. thought so

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

as in you have no proof of ANYTHING you say. thought so

Actually, I asked how, and why, you require proof that Hoffman's Iron Law exists. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif Do you have anything to add that isn't simply being argumentative? Like, say, a reason you require proof a well known and already well documented topic like HIL?

Here, lets make this easy on you:

"It is not possible to combine high efficiency (especially at low frequencies) with compact enclosure size and adequate low frequency response. One can, more or less, choose only two of the three parameters when designing a speaker system. So, for example, if extended low-frequency performance and small box size are important, one must accept low efficiency.[25] This rule of thumb is sometimes called Hoffman's Iron Law (after J.A. Hoffman, the "H" in KLH)." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudspeaker

Now, disprove it. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif And no, your 'multiple personal examples' of 'gee my amp and sub are really large' dont prove anything.

Cheers.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

I'll check back this evening to see what hard evidence against HIL you've dug up Penn. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif

 

[thegreatestpenn 5,000+ posts]

Actually, I asked how, and why, you require proof that Hoffman's Iron Law exists. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif Do you have anything to add that isn't simply being argumentative? Like, say, a reason you require proof a well known and already well documented topic like HIL?
Here, lets make this easy on you:

"It is not possible to combine high efficiency (especially at low frequencies) with compact enclosure size and adequate low frequency response. One can, more or less, choose only two of the three parameters when designing a speaker system. So, for example, if extended low-frequency performance and small box size are important, one must accept low efficiency.[25] This rule of thumb is sometimes called Hoffman's Iron Law (after J.A. Hoffman, the "H" in KLH)." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudspeaker

Now, disprove it. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif And no, your 'multiple personal examples' of 'gee my amp and sub are really large' dont prove anything.

Cheers.

how about a real world example you've used regarding car audio? i've posted all throughout this thread with examples with real equipment in my car. you just say babble on and on and on. All you had to say was the law if that's all you have. but hey some people like attention, I hope you get all the attention you're looking for //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/thumbsup.gif.3287b36ca96645a13a43aff531f37f02.gif

 

[thegreatestpenn 5,000+ posts]

I'll check back this evening to see what hard evidence against HIL you've dug up Penn. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif

my intention was never to disprove the law, read all my posts in the thread kthx

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

how about a real world example you've used regarding car audio? i've posted all throughout this thread with examples with real equipment in my car. you just say babble on and on and on. All you had to say was the law if that's all you have. but hey some people like attention, I hope you get all the attention you're looking for //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/thumbsup.gif.3287b36ca96645a13a43aff531f37f02.gif

my intention was never to disprove the law, read all my posts in the thread kthx

Then what, exactly, are you here to disprove? What, exactly, are you expecting from me in terms of 'real world' examples? I was running those higher efficiency old school subs 20 years ago when they were new (how about you?), and have run plenty of 'new school' subs since then. So again, what exactly are YOU doing here other than trying to gain attention from arguing with me about something Im not even sure is the topic of your contention? I find it fascinating that when asked specifically what your point of argument is, your best reply is to go reread your posts. So, basically, you aren't even sure what you are arguing against. Well, that makes both of us. Its clear you simply want to be contrary to myself, you simply haven't figured out how to exactly. I'll check back in about 12 hours and see if you've figured out your position yet.

 

[thegreatestpenn 5,000+ posts]

Then what, exactly, are you here to disprove? What, exactly, are you expecting from me in terms of 'real world' examples? I was running those higher efficiency old school subs 20 years ago when they were new (how about you?), and have run plenty of 'new school' subs since then. So again, what exactly are YOU doing here other than trying to gain attention from arguing with me about something Im not even sure is the topic of your contention? I find it fascinating that when asked specifically what your point of argument is, your best reply is to go reread your posts. So, basically, you aren't even sure what you are arguing against. Well, that makes both of us. Its clear you simply want to be contrary to myself, you simply haven't figured out how to exactly. I'll check back in about 12 hours and see if you've figured out your position yet.

if you read my posts you'd see I wasn't arguing at all until you felt the need to challenge everything I said. I just related my personal experience with the OP's pasted post by Zed. but since you're too lazy to look at my prior posts then you wouldn't know that.

 

[nastyaudioman 10+ year member]

And in fact, running at a lower impedance for increased output capability from the amplifier, and then adjusting your gains artificially low, is superior to running at a lower impedance and setting your gains at their 'proper' position. Why? 'Headroom' for dynamics.

Incorrect.

 

[SicAudio 5,000+ posts]

i dont really care either way on the argument, tho i tend to agree with Penn solely based on the fact that Stephen Mantz has done more for car audio singlehanded than any 1 company has. I think I will trust a 40 year veteran over a post in a thread tyvm //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

when any of you can even design an amp that is marketable to the masses lemme know and i might listen to you. until then it is just your opinion or interpretation of a written form of a law or theory. thats why HIL is a "theory" not a proven fact. look what happened with e=mc2 hmmm didnt it get disproved this last decade? oh yeah thats right it was a theory too, not a fact just and educated guess for now //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif

 

[nastyaudioman 10+ year member]

The only thing of value you just said is basically there is a trade-off, either high efficiency and low power with big enclosures or low efficiency with high power and small enclosures.
i think both extremes have their uses, but most people need to be in the middle somewhere. As much as I loved the old school stuff, class a technology sucks current like a mutha. On the other end I love boasting about how big my 3500wrms monoblock amp is, but i can barely fit it in my little civic, let alone subs that can handle it.

Its all about the trade-off

ZING!

It is like choosing regulated vs unregulated. Regulated is nice to have, but the trade off for efficiency is hard to swallow.

 

[infamous_e46 5,000+ posts]

 

[SicAudio 5,000+ posts]

Originally Posted by audioholic

And in fact, running at a lower impedance for increased output capability from the amplifier, and then adjusting your gains artificially low, is superior to running at a lower impedance and setting your gains at their 'proper' position. Why? 'Headroom' for dynamics.

the dampening factor at 1 ohm vs 4 ohm is dramatically reduced how is that better? if you have 1kw at 4 ohms or 1 kw at 1 ohm 4 ohms will always be superior. prove me wrong!

 

[nastyaudioman 10+ year member]

Originally Posted by audioholic And in fact, running at a lower impedance for increased output capability from the amplifier, and then adjusting your gains artificially low, is superior to running at a lower impedance and setting your gains at their 'proper' position. Why? 'Headroom' for dynamics.

the dampening factor at 1 ohm vs 4 ohm is dramatically reduced how is that better? if you have 1kw at 4 ohms or 1 kw at 1 ohm 4 ohms will always be superior. prove me wrong!

True that, reason I said "incorrect". Many amplifier parameters loose value at lower ohm loads.

And NO, running 4 ohm bridge on a 2 channel isn't "4 ohm".

 

[TaylorFade 10+ year member]

i dont really care either way on the argument, tho i tend to agree with Penn solely based on the fact that Stephen Mantz has done more for car audio singlehanded than any 1 company has. I think I will trust a 40 year veteran over a post in a thread tyvm //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif
when any of you can even design an amp that is marketable to the masses lemme know and i might listen to you. until then it is just your opinion or interpretation of a written form of a law or theory. thats why HIL is a "theory" not a proven fact. look what happened with e=mc2 hmmm didnt it get disproved this last decade? oh yeah thats right it was a theory too, not a fact just and educated guess for now //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif

Uhhh, do whahuh? Yikes, thread jack. I'm going to need your source. I hope you aren't referring to the "gold leaf fan" story or the fact that light has mass.

Physics ftw!

I suppose you think that the "Theory" of evolution is all hogwash, too, huh?

 

[SicAudio 5,000+ posts]

a theory by definition is:

a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge based on a hypothesis.

hypothesis: a tentative insight into the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory