pd1850 aes or rms
Printed From: Speakerplans.com
Category: General
Forum Name: Electro Frying Forum
Forum Description: Talk about drivers, processors and mixers
URL: https://forum.speakerplans.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=32667
Printed Date: 27 March 2026 at 8:46am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.08 - https://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: pd1850 aes or rms
Posted By: RUS
Subject: pd1850 aes or rms
Date Posted: 15 November 2009 at 12:49am
|
hi.
on the precision devices website for the pd1850 it states 800watt rms.
http://www.precision-devices.com/showdetails.asp?id=15 - http://www.precision-devices.com/showdetails.asp?id=15
but on the same website the pdf for the pd1850 states 800watt AES.
http://www.precision-devices.com/asps/uploads/super/15.pdf - http://www.precision-devices.com/asps/uploads/super/15.pdf
 so what are they. ?
|
Replies:
Posted By: RUS
Date Posted: 15 November 2009 at 12:59am
| infact on the pdf it states both aes and rms. |
Posted By: pfly
Date Posted: 15 November 2009 at 12:59am
| Does not matter, user should drive them with 1000W-1500W per driver anyway. |
Posted By: RUS
Date Posted: 15 November 2009 at 1:01am
| oh i know it doesnt matter but they are diffrent ratings right. so it cant be both can surely. |
Posted By: Cyklist
Date Posted: 15 November 2009 at 1:21am
|
are you running some 1850's? regards the question: only unless both ratings are not the same thing "Does not matter, user should drive them with 1000W-1500W per driver anyway. " as yourself after reading extensively on this forum what does it matter when: "Does not matter, user should drive them with 1000W-1500W per driver anyway." \me slapping forehead ------------- purple monkey dishwasher |
Posted By: RUS
Date Posted: 15 November 2009 at 1:31am
|
at the moment i am not running 1850's
but i lost you after that
how can a driver be 800w rms and 800w aes at the same time.
|
Posted By: pfly
Date Posted: 15 November 2009 at 1:40am
| RMS and AES are two ways of telling how much driver can take power without coil being cooked. They rely on different ways of measurning it but the results are very similar, usually they are max 100w off each other |
Posted By: jonminns
Date Posted: 15 November 2009 at 1:54am
|
Doesn't matter what it's rated at, it's still the daddy!
------------- 4 ohms is for wimps |
Posted By: RUS
Date Posted: 15 November 2009 at 1:58am
|
[QUOTE=pfly]RMS and AES are two ways of telling how much driver can take power without coil being cooked.
yes i know that.
[QUOTE=pfly]They rely on different ways of measurning it but the results are very similar, usually they are max 100w off each other
do you mean one rating will usually be 100watts maximum higher than the other. ?
''if'' there is a drifrence in watts power handling between rms and aes no matter how small they cant both be 800w at the same time
|
Posted By: RUS
Date Posted: 15 November 2009 at 1:58am
 thats what i like to hear. |
jonminns wrote:Posted By: Spesh
Date Posted: 15 November 2009 at 2:25am
|
I wouldn't read too much into the stated AES figure. These drivers are years old and it's a widely known fact that they should be given at least 1kw (preferably more) for best results. |
Posted By: video_compiler
Date Posted: 16 November 2009 at 8:56pm
|
Unfortunately you're wrong. A driver rated at 800w RMS should give best results at any rated power, not necessarily more than its rated power. That is absurd. |
Posted By: Jake_Fielder
Date Posted: 16 November 2009 at 8:58pm
Haha we have a new catch-phrase!
|
Posted By: Spesh
Date Posted: 16 November 2009 at 9:01pm
You obviously haven't heard a stack of 1850's driven properly.
|
Posted By: video_compiler
Date Posted: 16 November 2009 at 9:18pm
|
I have not, and do not need to.
The power rating is set by the manufacturer, and should not be exceeded. That would be an incorrect use.
|
Posted By: Saul
Date Posted: 16 November 2009 at 9:26pm
right ive come to the conclusion you dont know what your talking about. amplifier as a rule of thumb should be 1.2 to 2 times the rms power rating. REMEBER: rms or aes ISNT peak power handling.
|
Posted By: Spesh
Date Posted: 16 November 2009 at 9:27pm
|
You need to take into account that the 800w figure determined by the manufacturer is an RMS (continuous rating). That driver can reach peaks far in excess of 800w, and since you will not ever be feeding them a constant sine wave, they require to be powered with over 1000w to get the most out of them.
You will also find that 1850's don't really properly get going until you put 1kw into them, but having had no experience with them, I guess you're not to know this.
It is also a general rule of thumb, that when running bass speakers, you should use amps around 1.5 - 2 times as powerful as the spec of the driver. It's a little thing called "headroom".
|
Posted By: Saul
Date Posted: 16 November 2009 at 9:28pm
| me and spesh pretty much just said the same thing at the same time |
Posted By: video_compiler
Date Posted: 16 November 2009 at 9:32pm
|
Do you mean to tell me that you can drive one of these speakers on the bench with 800w? It would destroy itself. Please do not make up facts. |
Posted By: Saul
Date Posted: 16 November 2009 at 9:33pm
|
no-one is making up facts here sonny. everyone on this forum will tell you the same. especially the PD1850 - it's a power hungry driver.
|
Posted By: Spesh
Date Posted: 16 November 2009 at 9:35pm
You sir, are an idiot!
|
Posted By: Saul
Date Posted: 16 November 2009 at 9:38pm
|
lol. the other reason for having amplifier bigger than the rating of the driver is so that your not running the amp near it's limits all the time to get the most out of the driver i.e. CLIPPING. this is a sure way to start killing drivers! |
Posted By: Jake_Fielder
Date Posted: 16 November 2009 at 9:39pm
| Read all his posts, nearly all are slating the 1850... |
Posted By: Saul
Date Posted: 16 November 2009 at 9:40pm
| TROLL |
Posted By: video_compiler
Date Posted: 16 November 2009 at 9:52pm
Does my knowledge of professional audio make you think I am an internet troll? Or maybe you do not like having your thinly-veiled theories deconstructed?
|
Posted By: Spesh
Date Posted: 16 November 2009 at 9:55pm
Yes it does.
|
Posted By: papa see
Date Posted: 16 November 2009 at 9:56pm
|
Posted By: Saul
Date Posted: 16 November 2009 at 10:11pm
|
LOL. whats your real name video_compiler? you say your a professional - whats your website? do you run/work for a sound hire company? or do you work for JBL? seems your targeting the pd1850 in particular.
|
Posted By: RUS
Date Posted: 16 November 2009 at 10:13pm
hi vc.
can you explain how we/them are wrong and your reasons behind powering a transducer.
|
Posted By: PauliePaul
Date Posted: 16 November 2009 at 10:21pm
|
The 1850 is rated at 800W AES.
IMO you should have at least 1.5 times the rated power available to the drivers (EAW recommend 2 times!). Paul. |
Posted By: video_compiler
Date Posted: 16 November 2009 at 10:24pm
| Thankyou Paul. that is very interesting. but please quote the RMS (true) rating. |
Posted By: Saul
Date Posted: 16 November 2009 at 10:29pm
|
v_c the clue is in the name - RMS - root MEAN squared - this means AVERAGE - not peak. |
Posted By: RUS
Date Posted: 16 November 2009 at 10:30pm
would you be so kind.
?
|
Posted By: Spesh
Date Posted: 16 November 2009 at 10:50pm
He can't explain RUS, because he has no knowledge of, nor any experience using these drivers. Quite where he gets his information from, i don't know.
|
Posted By: RUS
Date Posted: 16 November 2009 at 10:51pm
|
video compiler
i put it to you that you are a lier
|
Posted By: RUS
Date Posted: 16 November 2009 at 10:53pm
thought much the same
thanks spesh
 |
Posted By: Saul
Date Posted: 16 November 2009 at 10:56pm
|
he's also awful quiet suddenly....... maybe he's logged back into his "legit" account.
|
Posted By: RUS
Date Posted: 16 November 2009 at 11:09pm
me thinking so too
|
Posted By: Timebomb
Date Posted: 17 November 2009 at 1:47am
The AES test is an RMS test, so if a driver is rated at 800W AES then thats 800W RMS, by definition it has to be both. Thats not to say all RMS tests are the AES test. The AES test uses pink noise with a 6db crest factor, so thats 1600W short term / program, 3200 peak voltage. It would have to be done on an amp capeble of at least 1600W. How big an amp you put on your 1850s depends a lot on the cab the 1850s are in, but there 800W rating is quite conservative as with most PD drivers. ------------- James Secker facebook.com/soundgearuk James@soundgear.co.uk www.soundgear.co.uk |
Posted By: Father-Francis
Date Posted: 17 November 2009 at 8:07am
Saul you are still feeding the troll ------------- Music is the strongest form of magic.(+45 31879997)blakmanpro@gmail.com, foa@sweetboxaudio.dk |
Posted By: tallmike
Date Posted: 17 November 2009 at 10:12am
| I was under the impression AES and RMS are basically the same thing. |
Posted By: norty303
Date Posted: 17 November 2009 at 12:53pm
This doesn't make sense. The test is about continuous signal taking ability without damage. It either takes it or it doesn't. What you are suggesting is that their rating is 'AES minus a bit' if you are implying they are conservative. Why would they want to do that if the driver can actually take 1000w AES? ------------- My laser stuff: http://www.facebook.com/SubsonicSystems" rel="nofollow - Frikkin Lasers |
Posted By: Meat
Date Posted: 17 November 2009 at 1:16pm
|
The reason why 1850s are seen to take more power is because most people use them in stacks of horns which increases efficiency a lot. Conservation of energy means that if you're emitting more energy as sound, you are also making less heat. AES and RMS driver tests are done in sealed or ported boxes where they can't benefit from horn loading or multiple horn coupling. A ported box will probably be less than 5% efficient (I think 6% is the theoretical limit) wheras a horn can have a much higher efficiency. The other 95% goes as heat. A PD1850 in a reflex box having a power rating of 800W wouldn't surprise me at all. In a massive stack of horns you probably only have to worry about over excursion by over powering or thermal overpowering them with frequencies where it isn't that efficient. ------------- Don't test the champignon sound |
Posted By: Tekasis
Date Posted: 17 November 2009 at 1:25pm
It's not imaginary/virtual that PD1850's can take more power, they literally do take much more power than is specified & it does't need a stack of horns to prove it! One would do!
------------- **Heavy Weight-Line** A home without books is like a body with no soul. |
Posted By: Timebomb
Date Posted: 17 November 2009 at 1:25pm
|
I think because it gives people confidence in there specs. If you look at the void amps rog has said a few times that they actually put out a bit more than the spec sheet says, this way when people buy a 2000W amp they know there getting at least 2000W. I In the audio world where many manufacturers find ways of inflating there specs the companys that under sell themselfs gain more trust from there customers. Thats what i think anyway, i havent done an AES test to destruction on a 1850 so i could be wrong, but i recon it would take a 1000W AES test. Older Turbo and FK1 stuff is the same, the new FK1 21" has a 6" coil but is only rated at 750W. ive seen 4" coil drivers rated at twice that. Im not saying the beyma helicex cant take 1600W, im sure it passed the test, but i feel some manufacturers lower there ratings slightly to ensure people have confidance in those ratings, or at the very least they lean on the side of saftey. ------------- James Secker facebook.com/soundgearuk James@soundgear.co.uk www.soundgear.co.uk |
Posted By: Meat
Date Posted: 17 November 2009 at 1:29pm
I don't doubt they are really taking the powers that people say all I'm saying is that because of the loading provided by the horn it is a more efficient system. 5% efficient reflex box driven with 800W: driver must dissipate 760W as heat. 25% efficient horn driven with 1000W: driver must dissipate 750W as heat. ------------- Don't test the champignon sound |
Posted By: levyte357
Date Posted: 17 November 2009 at 1:33pm
Thought length and guage of VC primarily dictate power handling, not the diameter.
Would be possibe to make 3" VC that handles 2Kw, but sensivity would be about as good as deaf man wearing cheap hearing aid, with no batteries. ------------- "Who am I? I'm the guy who does his job.. You must be the other guy". |
Posted By: Tekasis
Date Posted: 17 November 2009 at 1:34pm
I see, now you're gettin' technical.
Are you including scoops as the horns you mention ? ------------- **Heavy Weight-Line** A home without books is like a body with no soul. |
Posted By: Timebomb
Date Posted: 17 November 2009 at 1:40pm
Im afraid the other 95% dos not all go as heat, there are suspension losses, vibration losses, diffraction losses, there are many reasons why not all the power is transferd into decabels, horns are more effecent as they couple the power fed into the driver too the the air in to the room better, most of the low effecency of reflex cabs is due to the poor coupleing to the air arround the cab. Im not sure i buy the theroy that a driver in a horn with a small closed rear chamber with have better thermal handleing than the same driver in a big rexlex box. The driver in the horn will have higher impedance so yes you can apply a higher voltage to get the same about of power through, but it is still the same thickness copper wire, same pole peice, same heatsinks etc. ------------- James Secker facebook.com/soundgearuk James@soundgear.co.uk www.soundgear.co.uk |
Posted By: levyte357
Date Posted: 17 November 2009 at 1:41pm
|
Problem is, does driver rms rating generally imply the driver could withstand a prolonged sinewave of the specified Power?
As "a small number of amplifiers", are already identified as capable of delivering this to drivers, given appropriate test conditions. ------------- "Who am I? I'm the guy who does his job.. You must be the other guy". |
Posted By: Meat
Date Posted: 17 November 2009 at 1:42pm
|
Yes, a scoops normally a very high efficiency horn so the 25% number may even be better than that. It will also get better as you stack, further increasing your efficiency. If you're getting more noise out you must be producing less heat for a given power. ------------- Don't test the champignon sound |
Posted By: Tekasis
Date Posted: 17 November 2009 at 1:56pm
|
Thinking about it, which one would/could take more power, PD1850 or V18-1000 ? & still sound good ? ------------- **Heavy Weight-Line** A home without books is like a body with no soul. |
Posted By: Timebomb
Date Posted: 17 November 2009 at 1:59pm
Not necessarily, your getting more noise out mainly due to increased acoustic efficiency, bigger radiating area and better coupling of the air to the flux generated in the motor. the power is lost in reflex cabs due to poor coupling, it dosent all go as heat. ------------- James Secker facebook.com/soundgearuk James@soundgear.co.uk www.soundgear.co.uk |
Posted By: PauliePaul
Date Posted: 17 November 2009 at 2:05pm
|
Testing environment (from the spec sheet).......
"Response measured in a half space environment using a vented enclosure of 164 litres. Please note that frequency response measurements are supplied for comparison purposes only and are not a measure of the low frequency performance which may be achievable in a fully optimised system"
Also.........
1. AES Standard (35 to 350 Hz) Program 1600 Watts 2. Sensitivity is derived from the sine wave response between 50 - 350 Hz at 5W/2M using Zmin. It is then scaled to represent 1W/1M. It should be noted that not all manufacturers’ sensitivity figures are based on this AES Recommended Practice. 3. In less demanding applications, the crossover point may be higher. 4. Thiele - Small Parameters follow a 800 Watt preconditioning period. Enjoy..... |
Posted By: teamrob2
Date Posted: 17 November 2009 at 2:41pm
Yes buy you're not producing more heat in the voice coil. You might heat up the air in front of the driver more in a reflex cab than a horn. |
Posted By: teamrob2
Date Posted: 17 November 2009 at 3:11pm
|
Power = force x distance moved per second. In a reflex cab the force the driver can push on the air with is less than in a horn (as it has poorer coupling). This means the driver must travel more distance if it's using the same amount of electrical power. |
Posted By: rich_gale
Date Posted: 17 November 2009 at 4:43pm
|
i never understood the power ratings on the pd stuff. how can i run
1200wrms into a PD188 (600wrms) all night yet if i do the same thing
with an omega pro 18 or even a kilomax things get toasted and i start
to smell more than just the glue warming up?
------------- REFLEX ALL THE WAY.... (however, im playing with horns again...) That ok Mister Valiant? :) |
Posted By: pfly
Date Posted: 17 November 2009 at 5:01pm
|
I've been thinking this efficiency thing... If I could make a combo of right driver and horn cabinet so it would have efficiency of around 50% through its whole intended bandwith, would it take twice the power since more of the input power would transform into sound and less into heat?
|
Posted By: video_compiler
Date Posted: 17 November 2009 at 5:27pm
|
Unfortunately it is pointless rating a drive unit in anything apart from full-time RMS, as any other rating will mislead folks. |
Posted By: Meat
Date Posted: 17 November 2009 at 5:45pm
|
@ Timebomb: Yes I know there are other loss mechanisms at work other than resistive heating of the coil, thing is if you're getting rid of as much energy in the system as sound as possible (what we want to do anyway) then that energy can't be causing heating in the cabinet because you're chucking it out the front. Unless you think that this is going to lead to large increases in the other losses that you and Rob mention this increased efficiency should lead to less heat therefore higher power rating for the driver in that cab. If theres more energy coming out of the front then there must be less going to other routes. These things must add up. ------------- Don't test the champignon sound |
Posted By: norty303
Date Posted: 17 November 2009 at 6:04pm
|
I'm not sure I understand where/why the efficiency stuff has come into this. The AES rating doesn't say 'but obviously stuff will change like when they're in a horn'.
Its about a common set of parameters by which to compare drivers. So if a driver will do 800w under AES conditions then it can do 800w. If it happens to gain different parameters under horn loading then so what? It's different paramters to how other drivers are being measured. I'd guess that the horn isn't a magic horn for just 1850's, therefore you could say that about any of the other drivers too (assuming they're meant for horns) ------------- My laser stuff: http://www.facebook.com/SubsonicSystems" rel="nofollow - Frikkin Lasers |
Posted By: Timebomb
Date Posted: 17 November 2009 at 7:25pm
|
Exactly, the efficiency of the cab dos not directly affect the thermal
power handling. if you put 150V across a 1850 your going to blow it
whatever cab its in. You may gain better mechanical power handling due
to decreased excursion but that depends on the designs your comparing. If your horn is 6dB more efficient than the reflex, so you put in 1/4 the power to get the same output, then the driver wont get as hot, but that's only because you putting less power in, it hasn't magically been transformed into a driver that can take twice the power. ------------- James Secker facebook.com/soundgearuk James@soundgear.co.uk www.soundgear.co.uk |
Posted By: Timebomb
Date Posted: 17 November 2009 at 7:34pm
Just looked it up and its the area of the coil that primarily dictates power handling, so the circumference multiplied by the winding height. A 2" coil with 20mm depth would have the same power handling as a 4" coil with 10mm depth, assuming everything elce was the same, thermal transfer to the pole peice etc. I think i read the FK1 6" coil driver i mentiond has 2 coils and 2 magnets and 2 top plates, im not sure how that changes the power handleing compaird to 1 longer coil, id assume its similar though the thermal transfer to the top plates would change. ------------- James Secker facebook.com/soundgearuk James@soundgear.co.uk www.soundgear.co.uk |
Posted By: pfly
Date Posted: 17 November 2009 at 9:06pm
| Timebomb but you understand my logic behind the question, if the horn/driver -combo transforms more of that power it receives into sound, then there should be less power transforming into heat... |
Posted By: RUS
Date Posted: 17 November 2009 at 10:19pm
no i wouldnt say so
|
Posted By: Meat
Date Posted: 17 November 2009 at 10:32pm
|
I assume theres something peer reviewed that'd settle it. If anyone knows the paper or has a reference that looks like it could I'll download it. I'm not an engineer. All I know is that thing about free lunches and that the energy input = useful output - losses. If I'm wrong I'd like someone to explain why. I've heard about more horn drivers being consistently overdriven than just the 1850. I love being wrong because then I can learn and move on however I'm going to bark up the wrong kettle of fish until I find out otherwise. Is it possible that PD have actually underrated their driver on purpose because a blown driver is a bad advert for that driver and they'd rather have the reputation of dependability, being built like a tank than just have a bigger number for the marketing department willy waving competition that is spec sheets? Maybe the mark 3 will be like the 'new' fane XB ie. exactly the same but with the less conservative number on it? ------------- Don't test the champignon sound |
Posted By: norty303
Date Posted: 17 November 2009 at 10:41pm
|
I think what you're referring to is not a function of the horn allowing them to be overdriven so hard thermally, but the fact (as someone commented on previously in the thread) that other factors DO NOT prevent such heavy use, most usually Xmech.
In a vented box there will be less resistance to the cone movement so it'll bottom out probably long before the VC burns. In fact, you may well expect the vented box to take more power (if you could control the other factors) as it'll be cooling better with the increased cone movement. ------------- My laser stuff: http://www.facebook.com/SubsonicSystems" rel="nofollow - Frikkin Lasers |
Posted By: RUS
Date Posted: 17 November 2009 at 10:54pm
|
i personally dont think pd would under spec there drivers even tho some amp companys do
its not like they've ever made it know
|
Posted By: toastyghost
Date Posted: 17 November 2009 at 11:10pm
| How many of the people saying that the PD1850 can take more than it's AES spec are actually putting all that extra power in as a continuous sine wave? |
Posted By: Timebomb
Date Posted: 17 November 2009 at 11:19pm
|
To do a proper power test you want to use bandwidth limited pink noise, if you used a sine wave it will depend on what frequency. EG it could well be 50 ohms at 40 Hz so that will throw things way off. I bet 5 internets it would take 1000W ------------- James Secker facebook.com/soundgearuk James@soundgear.co.uk www.soundgear.co.uk |
Posted By: Meat
Date Posted: 18 November 2009 at 2:02am
|
I see your 5 internets and raise you a jelly snake.
------------- Don't test the champignon sound |