October 29th 03, 08:15 PM
posted to alt.engineering.electrical,rec.audio.car,uk.rec.audio.car
|
|
|
Dragster Subs
Does anyone know what wattage a Dragster DW 124 sub is?
Thanks Dave
|
October 29th 03, 08:35 PM
posted to alt.engineering.electrical,rec.audio.car,uk.rec.audio.car
|
|
|
Dragster Subs
"Dave McMahon" wrote in message
...
Does anyone know what wattage a Dragster DW 124 sub is?
Thanks Dave
150 watts RMS
|
October 30th 03, 03:30 AM
posted to alt.engineering.electrical,rec.audio.car,uk.rec.audio.car
|
|
|
Dragster Subs
In article , sgtslaughter@
{removethis}charter.net says...
"Dave McMahon" wrote in message
...
Does anyone know what wattage a Dragster DW 124 sub is?
Thanks Dave
150 watts RMS
....another audiophool. "Watts RMS", please!
--
Keith
|
October 30th 03, 12:55 PM
posted to alt.engineering.electrical,rec.audio.car,uk.rec.audio.car
|
|
|
Dragster Subs
"Keith R. Williams" wrote in message
. ..
In article , sgtslaughter@
{removethis}charter.net says...
"Dave McMahon" wrote in message
...
Does anyone know what wattage a Dragster DW 124 sub is?
Thanks Dave
150 watts RMS
...another audiophool. "Watts RMS", please!
--
Keith
Don't be so sarcastic. that was all i could see for wattage specs from the
website. if you are gonna be rude, use google and go find the info yourself!
|
October 30th 03, 04:43 PM
posted to alt.engineering.electrical,rec.audio.car,uk.rec.audio.car
|
|
|
Dragster Subs
Scott Johnson wrote:
"Keith R. Williams" wrote in message
. ..
says...
150 watts RMS
...another audiophool. "Watts RMS", please!
Don't be so sarcastic. that was all i could see for wattage specs
from the website. if you are gonna be rude, use google and go find
the info yourself!
Aw, don't mind him he's just fishing for a fight. He's all in a huff
because there is no such thing as Watts RMS, even though it's (mis)used
all over the place. Whenever you think to write Watts RMS, just replace
the "RMS" with "average sine-wave power" and you'll probably not set off
the local land-mines. ;-)
|
October 31st 03, 02:19 AM
posted to alt.engineering.electrical,rec.audio.car,uk.rec.audio.car
|
|
|
Dragster Subs
|
November 1st 03, 01:43 AM
posted to alt.engineering.electrical,rec.audio.car,uk.rec.audio.car
|
|
|
Dragster Subs
"Keith R. Williams" wrote in message
. ..
In article , NOspam-
says...
Scott Johnson wrote:
"Keith R. Williams" wrote in message
. ..
says...
150 watts RMS
...another audiophool. "Watts RMS", please!
Don't be so sarcastic. that was all i could see for wattage specs
from the website. if you are gonna be rude, use google and go find
the info yourself!
Aw, don't mind him he's just fishing for a fight. He's all in a
huff
because there is no such thing as Watts RMS, even though it's
(mis)used
all over the place. Whenever you think to write Watts RMS, just
replace
the "RMS" with "average sine-wave power" and you'll probably not set
off
the local land-mines. ;-)
This group (alt.engineering.electrical) does have *engineering*
in it's title. And by the way Tony, "average sine-wave power" is
also meaningless. It's *average power*, depending on the failure
mechanism "average" may be over a wildly different time scale. Of
course there are other failure mechanisms than power.
I don't think "average sine-wave power" is meaningless, especially if it
was qualified with some specific frequency, say 400Hz or 1kHz. Since
we're splitting hairs and all, I think it's more meaningful than just
saying 200W by itself. I mean if it's a 200W speaker, can I put 50V DC
at 4A into it safely? How about 1kV at 200mA? ;-) Why specifically
wouldn't it be correct to say "Watts RMS" if that's the type of V they
multiplied by A to come up with W? Should it be assumed that Vrms is
always used when calculating AC power and Watts RMS is redundant? It
just seems to me that Watts RMS actually could stand for something
specific. Should the audio world just measure it as PEP? ;-)
|
November 1st 03, 08:10 PM
posted to alt.engineering.electrical,rec.audio.car,uk.rec.audio.car
|
|
|
Dragster Subs
RMS or Root Mean Square, as for putting dc through a speaker it WILL fry the
coil as a speaker is only designed to take AC, to find the peak wattage of
the speaker divide the RMS by 0.707
"Anthony Fremont" wrote in message
...
"Keith R. Williams" wrote in message
. ..
In article , NOspam-
says...
Scott Johnson wrote:
"Keith R. Williams" wrote in message
. ..
says...
150 watts RMS
...another audiophool. "Watts RMS", please!
Don't be so sarcastic. that was all i could see for wattage specs
from the website. if you are gonna be rude, use google and go find
the info yourself!
Aw, don't mind him he's just fishing for a fight. He's all in a
huff
because there is no such thing as Watts RMS, even though it's
(mis)used
all over the place. Whenever you think to write Watts RMS, just
replace
the "RMS" with "average sine-wave power" and you'll probably not set
off
the local land-mines. ;-)
This group (alt.engineering.electrical) does have *engineering*
in it's title. And by the way Tony, "average sine-wave power" is
also meaningless. It's *average power*, depending on the failure
mechanism "average" may be over a wildly different time scale. Of
course there are other failure mechanisms than power.
I don't think "average sine-wave power" is meaningless, especially if it
was qualified with some specific frequency, say 400Hz or 1kHz. Since
we're splitting hairs and all, I think it's more meaningful than just
saying 200W by itself. I mean if it's a 200W speaker, can I put 50V DC
at 4A into it safely? How about 1kV at 200mA? ;-) Why specifically
wouldn't it be correct to say "Watts RMS" if that's the type of V they
multiplied by A to come up with W? Should it be assumed that Vrms is
always used when calculating AC power and Watts RMS is redundant? It
just seems to me that Watts RMS actually could stand for something
specific. Should the audio world just measure it as PEP? ;-)
|
November 2nd 03, 01:17 AM
posted to alt.engineering.electrical,rec.audio.car,uk.rec.audio.car
|
|
|
Dragster Subs
In article ,
says...
RMS or Root Mean Square, as for putting dc through a speaker it WILL fry the
coil as a speaker is only designed to take AC, to find the peak wattage of
the speaker divide the RMS by 0.707
Oh, my! ...and I just promised that I wouldn't go ballistic on
an audiophool again.
--
Keith
==========================
"Anthony Fremont" wrote in message
...
"Keith R. Williams" wrote in message
. ..
In article , NOspam-
says...
Scott Johnson wrote:
"Keith R. Williams" wrote in message
. ..
says...
150 watts RMS
...another audiophool. "Watts RMS", please!
Don't be so sarcastic. that was all i could see for wattage specs
from the website. if you are gonna be rude, use google and go find
the info yourself!
Aw, don't mind him 4551 just fishing for a fight. He's all in a
huff
because there is no such thing as Watts RMS, even though it's
(mis)used
all over the place. Whenever you think to write Watts RMS, just
replace
the "RMS" with "average sine-wave power" and you'll probably not set
off
the local land-mines. ;-)
This group (alt.engineering.electrical) does have *engineering*
in it's title. And by the way Tony, "average sine-wave power" is
also meaningless. It's *average power*, depending on the failure
mechanism "average" may be over a wildly different time scale. Of
course there are other failure mechanisms than power.
I don't think "average sine-wave power" is meaningless, especially if it
was qualified with some specific frequency, say 400Hz or 1kHz. Since
we're splitting hairs and all, I think it's more meaningful than just
saying 200W by itself. I mean if it's a 200W speaker, can I put 50V DC
at 4A into it safely? How about 1kV at 200mA? ;-) Why specifically
wouldn't it be correct to say "Watts RMS" if that's the type of V they
multiplied by A to come up with W? Should it be assumed that Vrms is
always used when calculating AC power and Watts RMS is redundant? It
just seems to me that Watts RMS actually could stand for something
specific. Should the audio world just measure it as PEP? ;-)
|
| Thread Tools |
|
|
| Display Modes |
 Linear Mode
|
|
