• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Cabinet under powering?

#82
FWIW, I wouldn't play a single note into two 700W cabinets unless I had a least 3000W going into them. Even double their power rating is not enough. Any less than that and they will disintegrate from lack of power.


NOTE: The above is sarcasm. However, it does illustrate the absurdity of the underpowering myth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: madjazzbass
#83
moody said:
Hi Fi and bass reproduction have no fundamental differences. Under the pseudo-gabble all this is talking about is clipping an amp (producing more watts than it is rated at) and overpowering the speaker.
Click to expand...
Actually, there are quite different demands on amplifiers and speakers in bass guitar applications than home hi-fi applications. A bass amplification system is much more likely to be called upon to deliver its rated power than a home system which will usually be delivering less than 5W average, and even 5W will be rather loud in an average living room. Further, a bass amplification system will be expected to deliver frequencies below 100Hz at high volumes which places much more stress on the drivers, especially if they are fed a significant amount of power below the frequency of the port tuning in vented enclosures. Also, the peak to average (or crest) ratio differs between the two scenarios.
 
#85
12bass said:
Actually, there are quite different demands on amplifiers and speakers in bass guitar applications than home hi-fi applications. A bass amplification system is much more likely to be called upon to deliver its rated power than a home system which will usually be delivering less than 5W average, and even 5W will be rather loud in an average living room. Further, a bass amplification system will be expected to deliver frequencies below 100Hz at high volumes which places much more stress on the drivers, especially if they are fed a significant amount of power below the frequency of the port tuning in vented enclosures. Also, the peak to average (or crest) ratio differs between the two scenarios.
Click to expand...

My answer was in a response to somebody saying that an underpowered HI-FI full range signal that was overdriven would be more damaging than a Bass signal.

In that respect, sound is sound. Specifics about tuning of bass cabs, sizing of bass cabs etc. did not come into the conversation.
 
#86
madjazzbass said:
Yeah Man, Thanks, it sounds great with just the one cab., but I'm definitely adding the 2nd one soon.
Click to expand...
As to your question, your speakers will be less stressed if you use two 2x10" cabinets than only one. A bass cabinet power rating is not a statement of how much power the cabinet "sucks out of the amp". Rather, it is a rating of how much power the drivers will take before damage may occur, and most manufacturers are highly optimistic with their figures.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bob Lee (QSC), madjazzbass and spaz21387
#87
moody said:
My answer was in a response to somebody saying that an underpowered HI-FI full range signal that was overdriven would be more damaging than a Bass signal.

In that respect, sound is sound. Specifics about tuning of bass cabs, sizing of bass cabs etc. did not come into the conversation.
Click to expand...
I see your point. However, a hi-fi system could be at higher risk if the bass amplification system does not include tweeters, as tweeters are more likely to be damaged by the extra high frequency power generated by a clipping amplifier than woofers. Also, many bass cabinets have light bulbs or other devices which absorb some of the power to protect tweeters. It is not uncommon to find hi-fi speakers with tweeters that were blown by someone who cranked it up to 11 at a house party....
 
#89
agedhorse said:
Driving speakers that hard would result in cumulative damage... Xmech does not reflect cumulative damage but "instantaneous" mechanical limits that result in "smack-kaboom"

There are displacement versus time curves that reflect estimated lifespan of the mechanical suspension components. The more power over time you use, the greater the cumulative damage and the shorter the lifespan. How long you expect a speaker to last determines where on this curve you will want to operate.
Click to expand...
Over time. Good point.

Stupid car analogy time....


...your shocks (or struts). They can take a helluva beating, long travel, under adverse conditions, but might be lucky to last 10, 000 miles treating them like that. Whereas under smooth operating conditions (defined as operating well within their design parameters), they could last 100, 000 miles or more.

Bottom them out with enough force one time (overexcursion), they're shot and they ain't comin' back.

Some folks may think they're working them harder than they really are, thus the margin for "over-rating" while still not having an "economically unviable" amount of blown warranty returns as compared to units sold.
 
  • Like
Reactions: agedhorse, madjazzbass and S-Bigbottom
#95
Pretty darn unlikely with any reasonable sensitivity.

Remember, a hot plate pr hair drier can be designed and rated at 700 or 800 or whatever power you wish, but the sensitivity will not be very good. Making a driver that handles 1000 watts isn't all that hard, but designing one that's actually sonically useful if MUCH more difficult.

Sensitivity and low frequency linear excursion are at odds with each other as power levels increase. As a design engineer, the goal is to have sensitivity decrease at a lower rate than the power rating increases. Sometimes, (if you are a poor engineer or just a marketing wizard behind the curtain) you can gain 3dB in power handling but lose 4dB in sensitivity... A good example of a net performance loss overall.

Has anybody actually met David Eden? Just a hunch, but I don't think that's his name. ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bob Lee (QSC), monsterthompson, S-Bigbottom and 1 other person
#97
agedhorse said:
Pretty darn unlikely with any reasonable sensitivity.

Remember, a hot plate pr hair drier can be designed and rated at 700 or 800 or whatever power you wish, but the sensitivity will not be very good. Making a driver that handles 1000 watts isn't all that hard, but designing one that's actually sonically useful if MUCH more difficult.

Sensitivity and low frequency linear excursion are at odds with each other as power levels increase. As a design engineer, the goal is to have sensitivity decrease at a lower rate than the power rating increases. Sometimes, (if you are a poor engineer or just a marketing wizard behind the curtain) you can gain 3dB in power handling but lose 4dB in sensitivity... A good example of a net performance loss overall.

Has anybody actually met David Eden? Just a hunch, but I don't think that's his name. ;)
Click to expand...
I met him a NAMM a couple times. :smug: See? He's even got the "E" monogram on his shirt.

David-Eden-and-Munji.jpg
 
#100
Omega Monkey said:
Oh FFS, how do people even get this crazy idea into their heads? Also yeah, 700 for a 2x10 is EXTREMELY optimistic.
Click to expand...


I can imagine it started like this.

People believed the advertised power rating of their cabs, bought a 700 watt cab to go with their 300 watt amp. Feeling safe because of the numbers, they boosted the hell out of the bass and volume and toasted a speaker. Then some sales guy told them that they killed the cab from under powering it so he could sell them a larger amp. Then dude was more conservative with his more powerful amp and didnt bow his cab and assumed it was true. Then someone cooked up some junk science reason for it and the myth was born.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Munjibunga, johnpbass, S-Bigbottom and 2 others

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back