Eq'ing the Gsub
Printed From: Speakerplans.com
Category: Plans
Forum Name: Other plans
Forum Description: Discussion / Questions about all the other plans
URL: https://forum.speakerplans.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=10598
Printed Date: 26 March 2026 at 7:09pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.08 - https://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Eq'ing the Gsub
Posted By: pooju
Subject: Eq'ing the Gsub
Date Posted: 26 June 2007 at 1:13pm
|
How do I'm using a pair of Fane xb loaded g-sub's for a D & B gig at the weekend, and was wondering if anyone had any eq'ing advice? I'll be using a behringer 3/4 way crossover and one of their ULTRA-GRAPH PRO GEQ3102 31 band eqs. [http://www.behringer.com/GEQ3102/index.cfm?lang=eng] Both subs will be powered by a PV2600. ta. edit: spelling. |
Replies:
Posted By: Robbo
Date Posted: 29 June 2007 at 10:17pm
| Peavey PV2600 is not powerful enough to drive Fane XB loaded G subs--it is only 900 watts per channel into 4 ohms, so it will be clipping before you get any decent output from your speakers---you need an amp that is capable of delivering 1500 to 2000 watts minimum per side into 4 ohms--that kind of power will drive them nicely and you will have less chance of blowing drivers rather than by driving them with a less powerful amp. |
Posted By: pooju
Date Posted: 02 July 2007 at 3:16pm
|
yeah the peavy will not but powerful enough to get the most out of the fanes, obviously it would be better to have a bigger amp or one per box run bridged at least. But as they're new drivers we didn't want to spanner them too hard, 2000w in that type of box, isn't that bit too much? Do mean to allow for headroom and minimize distortion, or are you talking about the actual output vs. output quoted by manual, doesn't this all depend on your gain structure? |
Posted By: Robbo
Date Posted: 04 July 2007 at 10:39pm
| Fane XB drivers require little or no running in as they have quite a wide voice coil gap unlike drivers such as PD1850 which are extremely critical on tolerances and do need running in gradually---2000 watts RMS into a 1200 watts RMS cabinet is about par for the course nowadays as most of the experienced members on here will tell you and is the best way to avoid clipping power amps,distortion and ultimately blown drivers as you will have plenty of headroom,more clean power and a more ballsy sound on bass or sub. |
Posted By: pooju
Date Posted: 05 July 2007 at 5:31pm
|
It must be an old burger van tale that the fanes need running in, cheers for clearing that up. Agreed, headroom is definitely important like you say, don't think anyone will disagree with that, cheers for the heads-up all the same.  If an amp that isn't straining, and hence distorting through clipped signal etc, is whats needed, but as long as there is a clean signal, i.e. a good gain structure, there should be no problem right? only a loss in output/efficiency? what i meant was that its the signal level/quality that's going to make the drivers pop no? Much in the same way a bad signal on 50w through a 1850 can still blow it. 300W above AES as headroom ok i see, but not at the same signal level that you need to get the same output from 600w alone right [even though you shouldn't be running it that low]? We could have properly powered one cab but isn't it better -in terms of driver wear and tear- to underpower two as long as its got a clean signal- more cones, more air coupling, etc. Obviously the effect not as noticeable with just the two cabs but in principle right? a member of this forum who powers his punishers with 500w as appose to the recommended 1500w, did so precisely to get less wear and tear on the drivers no? Admittedly this is a slighty different - but related - issue due to the fact that they're horns not reflexes, but there's still some coupling with reflexes right in a mono stack as we had it? - like the looney linkup at Lakota, couldn't they have given more power to less bins and achieved a similar spl output, not as a deep - or distorted - mind, but similar? got a bit off the point i know, that clearer? any thoughts? - or eve ... eq advice   ? ta. edit: grammar. |
Posted By: levyte357
Date Posted: 05 July 2007 at 5:56pm
|
Pooju, listen to the man.. He's spot on..
Ideally you would be driving each Gsub on one side of a Vz5000.
There aren't many low priced decent amps out there that do 2kw per channel of sub @ 4 ohms all night without going "pop" .
A matrix str3000 will give you 1.5kw per channel @ 4ohms for approx
£350 used.
------------- "Who am I? I'm the guy who does his job.. You must be the other guy". |
Posted By: pooju
Date Posted: 05 July 2007 at 6:26pm
|
Cheers Levyte357 [and robbo] Lol, i haven't been very clear!  I thought i'd listened and agreed: robbo is dead right: risky under powering them, like you both say headroom/ appropriate power for the job, improve depth of the sound etc. a pair of matrix's or a second peavey bridged could be loooooovely. all i was trying to say was that despite putting the g-sub at more risk by removing any headroom and overstretching the amp, as long as the signal is clean we've potentially minimized possible damage. I.e. with a weaker amp you'd have to increase the signal level - more than you would with a bigger amp - to the point of clipping [removing head room], to attain the highest output, also reducing the reproduction quality. If that same high signal level was given to an amp of appropriate [2000k] power it be *no good for the drivers. Make sense? Obviously you wouldn't need the same high signal on an amp of appropriate power, like you both say headroom. Its bad practice to run it with a weaker amp as we did, its just that was what was available at the time, and luckily in this situation no more volume was need. Just thought what i said might have made the logic behind robbo 's comments clearer - or not as its turned out. edit: * left the not out! |
Posted By: OllieMan
Date Posted: 11 July 2007 at 9:46am
Seems like a familar config Levyte, Ha ha, you have a good memory, or have you also moved to a vz5000/ Gsub combo? Ollie. |
levyte357 wrote: