DiyMobileAudio.com Car Stereo Forum banner

1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
18 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I'm having a discussion with my installer right now. I'm trying to understand the logic of my installer and I'd like some other opinions on the current configuration.

I have three amps:

Mosconi AS 200.4
Mosconi AS 100.4
Mosconi AS 200.2

Components:

Dynaudio Esotec System 362 up front, which is an 8" woofer, 3" midrange, 1" tweet. I'm running these active.
Esotec System 242 in the rear speakers, which is a 7" woofer and a 1" tweet. I'm running these passive using Dyn's crossover.
Audiofrog GB12D4 sub set to 2 ohms.

I'm also using a Helix DSP.3 processor.

So right now my installer bridged the AS 200.4 just to power the front woofers. The AS 100.4 to power the midrange and tweets. the AS 200.2 bridged to power the sub.

Since I range out of channels on the DSP.3, nothing is going to the rear speakers right now. I understand the DSP channel limitation and I was planning on maybe upgrading to the Helix DSP Ultra, even though I was advised by someone from Helix that I could run mono to both the rear passives and my sub. This is basically how I was running things until I took my car back for the subwoofer upgrade and sub amp install. I just found out today after I've had my car back for a week that the AS 200.4 is bridged just to power the front woofers. Also, the installers were against doing mono channels off the DSP for the rear speakers and sub. I said ok and decided to go without rear fill until I upgrade the DSP to something with more output channels.

The Dyns are rated at 100watts continuous. I understand that Dyns like power but running 640 watts (which is what the AS 200.4 is bridged) in to the front woofers feels like overkill and not only that, it eliminates an output channel.

Why not use the AS 200.4 to power the woofers and midrange, the AS 100.4 to power the front tweets and rear passive speakers, and the 200.2 bridged to power the 2ohm Audiofrog sub? It seems like a much more efficient way to utilize the equipment. I'm fine with the idea of upgrading the DSP so I can at least run everything stereo, even though I feel like the sub stage shouldn't make a huge difference between stereo and mono.

As it stands now, if I upgrade the DSP to bring the rear speakers back in to play, I have to also buy another amp, which just feels like a waste.

Thoughts?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
605 Posts
The 200.4 is rated for 200x4, and that appears to be an RMS rating. So even running it as 4 separate channels, it's capable of putting out double the rated power for the front woofers. So yes, bridging it put even more power to the woofers is a waste. Is the gain turned way down or are the levels on those channels in the DSP way down?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,548 Posts
I agree with your thinking. Bridging the 200.4 to the midbass is unnecessary. Also, no reason what so ever to not run the sub in mono... it's only a single sub - so using two dsp output channels to it is a waste. And I think running the rear speakers in mono is not an issue just for some attenuated rear passenger sound. Upgrading to a DSP with additional channels will open the possibility of setting up L-R/R-L rear fill but it's not worth the extra expense IMO.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
The 200.4 is rated for 200x4, and that appears to be an RMS rating. So even running it as 4 separate channels, it's capable of putting out double the rated power for the front woofers. So yes, bridging it put even more power to the woofers is a waste. Is the gain turned way down or are the levels on those channels in the DSP way down?
I haven’t even looked at the dsp config, but I believe the level output on the amp is all the way down.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
I agree with your thinking. Bridging the 200.4 to the midbass is unnecessary. Also, no reason what so ever to not run the sub in mono... it's only a single sub - so using two dsp output channels to it is a waste. And I think running the rear speakers in mono is not an issue just for some attenuated rear passenger sound. Upgrading to a DSP with additional channels will open the possibility of setting up L-R/R-L rear fill but it's not worth the extra expense IMO.
Can you explain what you mean by “L-R/R-L” rear fill?

thanks
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
369 Posts
There is no correct or incorrect way to setup rear fill. One can have whatever rear fill however they want. Mine is full range for rear seat passengers and I don't hear it at all above my front stage. Rear passengers say it sounds great back there. They like the vibrating seat also o_O
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
Thank you. This was actually suggested to me by either Helix or @SkizeR some time ago but looking at this post, it’s obvious I was doing to wrong. It makes much more sense to me now.

So how do you deal with an installer that is doing things that you know is wrong? The installer intimidation factor? Also why is it so bloody difficult to find an installer in southern California? I have yet to speak to anyone that convinces me they have the depth of knowledge that I see on this board.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,750 Posts
Thank you. This was actually suggested to me by either Helix or @SkizeR some time ago but looking at this post, it’s obvious I was doing to wrong. It makes much more sense to me now.

So how do you deal with an installer that is doing things that you know is wrong? The installer intimidation factor? Also why is it so bloody difficult to find an installer in southern California? I have yet to speak to anyone that convinces me they have the depth of knowledge that I see on this board.
JT Audio & Acc, Bespoke Audio, and Audio Systems in Moreno Valley
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Top