ohms question
i have 3 dvc subs that can be connected at 2ohms or 8ohms.
now... if i connect sub 1 in series to get 4 ohms and sub 2 in series to get 4 ohms and then these same two subs together in series (to get 8ohms), then the third sub at 8 ohms in parallel to subs 1&2, theoretically i should then get a total load of 4ohms, right???
now... if i connect sub 1 in series to get 4 ohms and sub 2 in series to get 4 ohms and then these same two subs together in series (to get 8ohms), then the third sub at 8 ohms in parallel to subs 1&2, theoretically i should then get a total load of 4ohms, right???
The equation you want to use for resistance is a parallel circuit is 1/Resistance of Parallel=1/R1+1/R2+1/R3 and so on. If you add up 1/4 (the third sub) and 1/8 (the two subs in series) you get 3/8, which then you take the reciprocal of. That gives 2.66 ohms.
So you wouldn't get 4 ohms, you'd get 2.66.
If you do two in parallel and one in series you'd get 6 ohms.
But if I undersand you correctly, you each VC of each sub is 4 ohms, so you wouldn't be able to get 4 ohms out of each sub, only 2 or 8.
[Modified by Ein, 9:55 PM 11/11/2001]
[Modified by Ein, 9:58 PM 11/11/2001]
So you wouldn't get 4 ohms, you'd get 2.66.
If you do two in parallel and one in series you'd get 6 ohms.
But if I undersand you correctly, you each VC of each sub is 4 ohms, so you wouldn't be able to get 4 ohms out of each sub, only 2 or 8.
[Modified by Ein, 9:55 PM 11/11/2001]
[Modified by Ein, 9:58 PM 11/11/2001]
THe only way you're getting 4 ohms on those subs is by using six amps each connected to each VC. I do not recommend doing that though.
You can get either 2 or 8 ohms by using two tweeters. They won't be doing anything except adjust the impedance provided that you're using x-overs.
Why wire them at 4 ohms?
[Modified by redblues, 5:37 AM 11/12/2001]
You can get either 2 or 8 ohms by using two tweeters. They won't be doing anything except adjust the impedance provided that you're using x-overs.
Why wire them at 4 ohms?
[Modified by redblues, 5:37 AM 11/12/2001]
I agree with your math BUT the one speaker you are running at 8 ohms is going to handle the same power as the the two speakers in series and that 8 ohm speaker will blow. You are better off using two speakers only. Keep it simple!!
redblues - "Why wire them at 4 ohms?"
my amp wants to see 4 ohms when bridged.
Ein - "If you add up 1/4 (the third sub) and 1/8 (the two subs in series) you get 3/8, which then you take the reciprocal of. That gives 2.66 ohms"
true, but my third sub is at 8 ohms not 4.
Teken - i understand how your config would yield 4.66 ohms, but if i could get a configuration with an impedence of 4 ohms, i would rather take that configuration.
Let me reiterate the configuration that I posted originally because it was probably unclear.
R1=4 ohms R2=4 ohms R3=8 ohms.
sub 1 and 2 will be configured in series. This series load will then be placed in parallel with my 8 ohm (3rd) sub.
Rt= 1/8 + 1/8 = 4ohms
theoretically, is this correct?
in practicality, i was told that you shouldn't mix subs with different ohm impedance. is this true?
thanks guys for any help you can give me.
my amp wants to see 4 ohms when bridged.
Ein - "If you add up 1/4 (the third sub) and 1/8 (the two subs in series) you get 3/8, which then you take the reciprocal of. That gives 2.66 ohms"
true, but my third sub is at 8 ohms not 4.
Teken - i understand how your config would yield 4.66 ohms, but if i could get a configuration with an impedence of 4 ohms, i would rather take that configuration.
Let me reiterate the configuration that I posted originally because it was probably unclear.
R1=4 ohms R2=4 ohms R3=8 ohms.
sub 1 and 2 will be configured in series. This series load will then be placed in parallel with my 8 ohm (3rd) sub.
Rt= 1/8 + 1/8 = 4ohms
theoretically, is this correct?
in practicality, i was told that you shouldn't mix subs with different ohm impedance. is this true?
thanks guys for any help you can give me.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
EJ1 wilcox
Audio / Security / Video
10
Dec 29, 2009 03:57 PM



