STEvil

You might do well to learn the difference between Peak and RMS as well. To put it shortly: when an "RMS" signal clips you double your power to produce the "peak" result. That means if you are set for 3KW RMS then if you clip you could send upwards of 6KW to the subwoofer(s).

3ft, 3.5 or 4 if you want to upgrade later. Turn down gain knob.

Remind me never to compete in SQ, the judges are obviously all biased by how the scoring is explained.

300A is only good for ~4400w. If you want to run the t15k at real full power you need a minimum 1034A. That said, yes, most of us would not run the amp at "full" power for very long and that is why 300A is sufficient (on average) for the average user. not to bump an older thread.....but /\ this...... i believe if i read correctly the t15k uses the same technolodgy as a defribulator so it pulls only 300a at all times.....its not like a normal amp.....it uses "hybrid" technolodgy i also read that the power supply for the amp is good for 5000w just itself. i would like to see proof of this amp needing more than 300a of current at full tilt...... i think this is one of the best looking amps ever built..... not tryin to rip on you just keepin facts facts...... 300A will not power the T15K to full sustained power, only average peak use.

I would run at least 1 dedicated ground cable if you're over 2KW. The chassis/motor/alt/battery ground system isnt always perfect, even with a "big 3."

If you're looking to use yellow/red tops be careful.. they do gas off just like water based batteries:

s/n, thd, dampening factor, impedence curve, input sensativity (oscillations), etc etc etc.. There are class D amps that sound great, and class D amps that sound like crap, same goes for A/B and anything else, and dont forget that your headunit is in general a class D amp, so the analogue signal it is feeding is sub-par to what it could be to begin with. I cant wait for the day that car audio goes to digital signal transfer..

eh, i'll stick to a/b..

You can get to about 1.4 ohms minimum before the amp gives you troubles.. at least thats what mine maxed out at. Gotta be easy on the gain too, it will clip easily at that and go into protect easy too.

Not really cost effective on anything but your own personal amps.

Current is supplied from the battery and the alternator. If you increase current draw and have a resistance factor or not enough current supply you will cause voltage to dip which has the visual effect of dimming your lights. If you're using 100 amps of power it comes from somewhere, you cant just increase the power draw and expect your supply system to cope magically. edit Also, you can not increase power ouput without increaseing power draw (amps)... unless you get a more efficient amp, but the general rule is no power ouput increase without power input increase.

Got a few parts kicking around for when I get time.. bit busy building a mud truck too Came with an Alpine touchscreen, clarion and pheonix gold amps, and a pair of 10" s-type's. Also MTX speakers in the doors.. they'll keep me happy until I put the lanzar Opti5c's in and look into what else is going to go where.. probably going to squeeze in either the Fusion FCA-4000D or the DD Z1 i've got for sub amp.

New ride acquired

5.3's make very good fuel mileage comparred to 5.7 Hemi and 6.0.. Anyways, Hemi is off the list due to incompetance on the part of Dodge. I recently discovered they dont put a bearing race on the front differential of the 1500's that have IFS, so yeah, no IFS dodge for me. 04 1500 GMC 210,000km is top of the list right now but I need to manage to get some time off work to go have a look at it

That'd be the first 5.3 in the list.. but i'm trying to save a few bucks lol. And darn right it will get a system, just gonna take a while due to work schedule, and no money if I blow it all on the expensive trucks

Which one should I choose? 2003 Dodge 1500 4x4 5.7 Hemi quadcab shortbox 210,000km $3500 2004 Dodge 2500 4x4 5.7 Hemi qcsb 310,000km $5000 2004 GMC 2500 4x5 6.0 qcsb 238,000km $4500 2003 GMC 1500 4x4 5.3 qcsb 198,000km $8000 2004 GMC 1500 4x4 5.3 qcsb 224,000km $6800 2004 GMC 1500 4x4 5.3 qcsb 210,000km $7500 I'm leaning toward the first truck. It has some damage on one side from a snow bank, but its fixable and significantly cheaper in the end than the rest.. the 5.3's would be nice for fuel efficiency. Whichever truck wins will be the start of my new system, getting tired of driving my mud/beater truck everywhere lol Here's the damage i'd be looking at fixing on the first truck:

Short answer: Magic smoke appears. Long answer: Lots of thermal induced electromigration (arc welding) in whatever part gives up the smoke first.

You need to learn where X87 comes from.

attach a 9 volt battery to the positive and negative terminals for a short period of time. If the cone moves with no scratchy noise its probably fine. No need for a DMM for this quick test.

You do realize the Pentium4 days are over right? Yes. These CPU's are hyper threaded, you know? He wasn't saying HT doesn't exist anymore. Leaving HT on newer processors is much more beneficial than it used to be. Keep it enabled. Newls1 is a member at another forum I also frequent.. HT works for some things yes, but you need to test if it is beneficial for the program you are intending to use it with still. Are there any video editing or rendering softwares you know of that perform better with HT disabled? Archicad/Lightworks: http://www.archicadwiki.com/Multiprocessing Depends if you are using CPU accelerated or GPU accelerated rendering mostly though. Legacy X87 instructions are the major culprit in either case. When using CPU only then HT helps for the most part due to lesser amounts of X87 that are used. If a GPU is being used then the windows threading management engine basically falls flat on its face. This is why many games accrue such poor performance increases even when programmed to make use of 3+ threads for quadcore CPU's for example. I'm confused here, whats bad about saying to test your target program for performance benefits with certain hardware configurations?

You do realize the Pentium4 days are over right? Yes. These CPU's are hyper threaded, you know? He wasn't saying HT doesn't exist anymore. Leaving HT on newer processors is much more beneficial than it used to be. Keep it enabled. Newls1 is a member at another forum I also frequent.. HT works for some things yes, but you need to test if it is beneficial for the program you are intending to use it with still.

bridged is usually best.

You do realize the Pentium4 days are over right? Yes. These CPU's are hyper threaded, you know?

For the record you can also run without the trunk sealed, you just need to provide a path for the wave that is long enough to not allow the sub to act in a free-air manner.

520rms is per channel. There are two channels. When you bridge channels you are combining them into a single channel.