Sr6500 + Pdx 4.100?

ZRide

I was just wondering if running the Alpine PDX 4.100 bi-amped to the SR6500's would be sufficient or if I should go with the 4.150 instead.

The 4.100 sends 100W RMS while the 4.150 send 150W RMS.

Would it be better to power the SR6500's bi-amped with 100W or 150W.

I just want to be sure I don't overpower or under power the components.

thanks.

pentavolvo

4.100 is plenty imo

ZRide

So you would recommend running them bi-amped at 100W to each driver? I also have the option of running them with 200W bridged.

eloplayspolo

more power means higher volumes at cleaner levels and less strain on the amp, so if money isnt an issue, go with the 150, just be carefull with your gains and make sure they are properly set.

MacLeod

A friend of mine says, "get as much power as you can afford." So if you can swing the 150.4 then get it. Youll have plenty of headroom and good clean power. Just remember that youre giving your speakers twice their rated power but as long as you use common sense youll be fine.

Kinetic

i have the polks on a PDX-4.100 bridged at 200 RMS, (with still a wierd sound on the amp) ant the level its at a quarter, becouse my HU is 4V, so i have 100RMS of clean power

but if i could go back on time, i would buy the PDX-4.150

PDX + Polk its a exelent combination

shawnberry45

dont do it! that amp blows big time! I went thru 3 of them before finally just going with a JL SLASH series 4 channel

Kinetic

i have my SRs with the PDX 100

now i recently bought the PDX 150

i dont need more power, i just want to have my 100 RMS as clean as i can

tk421

Kinetic wrote: »

i have the polks on a PDX-4.100 bridged at 200 RMS, (with still a wierd sound on the amp) ant the level its at a quarter, becouse my HU is 4V, so i have 100RMS of clean power

but if i could go back on time, i would buy the PDX-4.150

PDX + Polk its a exelent combination

i have the same exact setup and feel the same exact way.

should go with 4.150

MacLeod

I know several people running PDX amps with no problems.

dirthog

The only thing I've heard about the PDX amps is they can introduce noise when bridging.

Jl on the other hand, I've heard of quite a few where channels 1&2 or 3&4 will go out.

I think they're both good but some have had issues.

Kinetic

dirthog wrote: »

The only thing I've heard about the PDX amps is they can introduce noise when bridging.

Jl on the other hand, I've heard of quite a few where channels 1&2 or 3&4 will go out.

I think they're both good but some have had issues.

thats true...

but i alpine says, that the new ones doesnt have that problem, but ive doubt it

i want the 4.150 to bi amp.

channel 1 and 2 goes to my tweeters, and 3 and 4 to my woofers (mids)

with that, i can turn the gain of the tweeters with respect to the gain of the woofers.

Also the time alignement is way more efective this way..

dirthog

Kinetic wrote: »

Also the time alignment is way more efective this way..

Sounds like a good plan but time alignment is not effected by gain. You might get that sense because level adjustments can shift imaging.

Or are you saying because your bi-amping time alignment will more effective?

Kinetic

dirthog wrote: »

Sounds like a good plan but time alignment is not effected by gain. You might get that sense because level adjustments can shift imaging.

Or are you saying because your bi-amping time alignment will more effective?

i mean becouse of the bi amping, my time alignement on my alpine HU, is more accurate.

becouse i have a channel per driver, instead a channel, for left woofer and tweeter, and a channel for right woofer and tweeter.

dirthog

gotch ya

Kinetic

sorry if my english isnt very good...

dirthog

Kinetic wrote: »

sorry if my english isnt very good...

No need to apologize, you should hear my Spanish. I recently went to Dominican Republic and I felt dumb.

JoshParsons84

I have that exact amp except ran on a pair Boston Acoustics Pro60. Could anybody tell me what my amp settings should be on that?