Amplifier questions

[Largo]

So, doing some research, i've decided I want to get 2 ascendant audio assasin 10's. But now I need an amp, and I have no clue about amps, I just know I want to be able to push these amps well, at 4 ohms. Manufacturer says recommended power is 200watts, so I would want a 400/2 amp that runs at 4 ohms... anyone have any advice on amps?

[TJElite]

Originally Posted by Largo

So, doing some research, i've decided I want to get 2 ascendant audio assasin 10's. But now I need an amp, and I have no clue about amps, I just know I want to be able to push these amps well, at 4 ohms. Manufacturer says recommended power is 200watts, so I would want a 400/2 amp that runs at 4 ohms... anyone have any advice on amps?

I'm not sure what you mean by 400/2...I'm assuming you mean an amp that has can deliver 400 watts into two channels. Also called 200x2. That would work, but is not ideal, imo.

I'd go for a mono Class D subwoofer amp that is stable to 2 ohms (two 4 ohm subs in parallel). Amongst other benefits, Class D will be lots more efficient. I'd also probably look for something that is more like 500+ watts at that level, since I prefer to provide more than the RMS power to the subs. You're actually less likely to blow them this way. Ideally, you'd pick up a 1 ohm stable, 1000 watt amp...that would give you the 500 watts at 2 ohms you need now, and give you room to add two more subs down the road. The Crossfire VR1000D meets these requirements, as do many other amps, I'm sure. This month's Car Audio and Electronics is the annual directory issue, and lists specs for most of the major brand amps. You might want to pick one up somewhere.

Toby

[Largo]

I'm looking more for a 2 channel stereo amp. so I would prefer not to get a mono block

[TJElite]

Originally Posted by Largo

I'm looking more for a 2 channel stereo amp. so I would prefer not to get a mono block

Why do you want a stereo amp for subs? There is no benefit that I can think of, and you'll spend more, for less power, and lower efficiency.

Toby

[VolvoBoiClw]

agreed, go mono, bridge it, better sound..

[93ex]

For subs, monoblock. Save the hassle.

[mbanks21]

Originally Posted by VolvoBoiClw

agreed, go mono, bridge it, better sound..

Ill give you a second to edit that....








Okay, did you suggest to bridge a mono amp?

[mbanks21]

Oh, and I suggest a JL 500/1

[Notladstyle]

Originally Posted by VolvoBoiClw

bridge it, better sound..

I so didnt catch that

maybe you meant bridge the subs together

[P057]

Maybe he thinks with a 2 channel he can power a sub on each channel and avoid having to use two amps for each sub? i dunno thats the only kind of (il)logical reasoning i can think of for why he'd want to do that..

[mbanks21]

One mono amp can run multiple subs. Mono D amps are more efficient and are designed to run subwoofers. Are the subs dual 4 ohm?

[Miles]

get a mono amp. stop being gay.

[TBSpyder]

Originally Posted by Miles

get a mono amp. stop being gay.

[Largo]

haha, yeah, and that would be the reason to get a dual channel. I don't listen to pop music, more rock, so the bass can hit on either channel depending on the recording company basically. I would prefer to use a stereo sub vs 2 mono blocks. But again, I don't know much about amps so maybe this is the wrong way of thinking

[93ex]

Originally Posted by P057

Maybe he thinks with a 2 channel he can power a sub on each channel and avoid having to use two amps for each sub? i dunno thats the only kind of (il)logical reasoning i can think of for why he'd want to do that..

or he wants to someday power other speakers with them.. he could power some real good components. Just sayin.