quest about these amps

Systems · January 2003

im planing on purchaseing new alpine amps,

the mdrf540 for my mm465's and 6.5coaxial db's in the rear

the mrdv500 sub amp for my 2 mm100's

will this be enough power or should i go with
2 2-channel amps for the front and rear,

i am currently runing a alpine mrvt757 for subs

and a mrvtf407 the old v12 4channel for the front and rear, the seem to want a little more power, is the new alpine amp any stronger??????

but i noticed that u used the same amps i plan on purchasing for the bmw m3,,,,, well how did it sound and .........

thanks my deck is the alpine 7995 no deck power so i cant run the rears off of the deck.

sntnsupermen131 · January 2003

does the mrdv500 only push 500x1?
if thats the case it wont push 2 mm100s
going by the 75% rule(75% of the rms as the minimum amount of watts to feed it) you would be 100 watts short
you need at least 600
but an 800-900watt amp would suit you much better
im not sure of the coaxial's rms rating but for the mm465's should have about 125watts going to each crossover--250 total
-Cody

PoweredByDodge · January 2003

I completely agree with Cody.

Systems · January 2003

well, why are they using the exact same setup in the bmw on the install page, and have in many other setups, so ur telling me polk is under powering there speakers in there on demo cars,
what gives, i'm not going for an spl contest, i just like my sub to blend well with my fronts, i'm not one for massive amounts of bass!!!???????

so any more sug, i did notice alpine is coming out with a new
1000watt mono amp, it was posted on there website today, but i do not really wnat to wait until march to buy it...

thanks for the replys jaron

sntnsupermen131 · January 2003

if youre talking about 2 mm100's, and that amp is rated at 500 x1, then yes, i am saying they are underpowering them

PoweredByDodge · January 2003

no company or person is infallible... fact is... they are underpowering those speakers in that car...yes.

does that mean they are right or wrong? neither --- if you're goal is to make a car that sounds very good, but looks even better than it sounds, then you'll want to choose your pieces based on cosmetics as much as based on performance.

polk uses almost exclusively alpine amps for their demo show cars... why? who knows -- i'm an mtx junkie... my buddy likes cadence... maybe somebody at polk just loved alpine and they decided to go with them... either way.... they're picking from the alpine tree... and at the moment there is no CURRENT PRODUCTION MODEL alpine amp that really will push the momo subwoofers.

What I find funny is this --- the momo 10's are 400 rms... now the 500 watt alpine class D would give you 250 watts per sub, which is poor. But the alpine MRV-T420 is 350 x 1 bridged into 4 ohms... now that's respectable... its still a little low, but you know its close... and its a lot closer to paydirt than the 500 watt class D.

two of thow mrv-t420's would be a much more robust, strong system than a single dblock 500.

but i imagine alpine wants their subwoofer amp showcased, show off, and given the silent endorsement of another, and addmittedly higher quality, speaker manufacturer, so i dont really give any wonder to "why" the class D.

alpine's never been a "power" company -- they've been a "clean / high quality / cut glass precision" company -- the only alpine amp that i'd really rest easy with on any of my subwoofers would be the 1507, but they discontinued that baby... nice amp though... 900 - 1000 x 1 into 4 ohms... it was a true stud. I heard two 8 ohm polk db 12's on a 1507 four years ago... the same day i walked back into the store and bought two polk dx subs because i wanted my truck to sound like that car did ... but the mtx 500d i bought for them didn't quite "bump" them like the 1507 did. dont get me wrong... i loved that mtx 500d, it was a great amp, but the 1507 beat the living piss out of a lot of its competition. i really dont know why they got rid of it.

you know you're seeing a lot of companies up until this past year cutitng back on the high power 2 and 4 channel amps... putting out amps that wont do over 80 x 4 or 125 x 2... the only big amps they made being these class D jobs that pump out as much distortion as they do power... i was really really really glad when i saw that rockford came out with a bunch of high power hybrid amps that are straying from the class D haze and cutting back on thd while putting out stud ratings for power. with the top end models of the new mtx line coming out (the low end do look poor though) i'm starting to think they're following rockford here as well... mtx 1004 is pushing 500 x 2 rms... sounds like the right mix for a dual 4 ohm coil 1000 watt sub. lets just hope the thd is less than 1% -- heymaybe they'll put on the big pants and make it less than 0.1% ---- i'd frickin kiss them...

i hope class D gets buried in the years to come -- i wanna see some more 1000 watt 2 channel amps from the circuit city / best buy / tweeter store brands. alpine would be smart to abandon the 1000D idea and start building a better 1507 -- maybe ones that 2 ohm stable in bridged mode.... pushing maybe 1300 x 1. that would be nice... i'd pay 750 bucks for that.

Systems · January 2003

poweredbydodge ... that was a great reply, thanks, i guess you caught me on one aspect, i am big in the looks department,
i love the alpine look this year, and some friends and i just talk about the low power 2/4 channel that are coming to market a while back, you are exactly right,

thanks once agasin for your input and the long post explaining it all, its poeple like u that makes these boards great

thanks again jaron

ted_mmz · January 2003

Not only knowledgeable...PBD is also funny as hell.

I haven't been here that long, and I've already learned some and laughed may **** off while reading through some of the old post.

ted

PoweredByDodge · January 2003

hey no problem... happy to be of help....

and thanks for the props..

I've got fans! lmfao.

quest about these amps

Comments