# What is the RMS rating for stock MKIV speakers?



## Checkpoynt Charlie (Aug 4, 2004)

Standard preferred, Monsoon if you know it.
The reason I ask is because I just put a Pioneer receiver and two speakers in my Ghia and it sounds much worse than my MKIV Golf did with a similar headunit, when it should have actually sounded _better_ since I have higher quality speakers this time around.
Granted, a few days ago I realized that I'm underpowering the speakers (22W headunit matched with 60W RMS speakers...lacking a solid 30W RMS there) and so that's most likely why they sound so terrible at louder volumes. I ordered an amp to solve that problem, but I'm left wondering how well the stock speakers in my MKIV were matched with the 22W RMS headunit, since that combination sounded rather good.
Does anyone have the technical specs for MKIV speakers and/or model names and numbers? Any info is greatly appreciated







-Travis


----------



## vdubnick (Nov 29, 2004)

the main difference is the fact that the monsoon system is a component system, with matched amplifier crossovers. The other is that the speakers are in a decent location, and the mkIV doors work as a good baffle. Try mounting the speakers in the ghia in boxes, or get baffles for them. Im sure it is the bottom end you are lacking, which adds to the "richness" of sound.


----------



## Checkpoynt Charlie (Aug 4, 2004)

I actually do have the speakers mounted in sealed boxes, and they sound much better than they did free air, but still not so great.

















And you're right, the bottom end is what's lacking, though only at moderate to higher volumes. It sounds like the speaker just bottoms out when it should be producing anything below 50hz. 
Thanks for the info so far, though I'd still like to know some numbers










_Modified by -Kage- at 3:42 PM 6-18-2009_


----------



## vdubnick (Nov 29, 2004)

you may want to redo the box, that is awefully small. and dont expect much below 50hz, that is what a subwoofer is for.


----------



## Checkpoynt Charlie (Aug 4, 2004)

Well, the boxes are as big as they can get, no lie. This was more so an experiment to see how well something like this would sound, even though I knew it wouldn't be that great.
And after I get the amp, I'll be able to tell for sure how well it sounds, though a sub is most definitely on the list for the future if I can't get any good bass tones from this setup.


----------



## vdubnick (Nov 29, 2004)

so im assuming you did not do the existing fiberglass, or i would say glass the back, so it is molded and uses every possible space.


----------



## Checkpoynt Charlie (Aug 4, 2004)

Nope, I bought the fiberglass kick panels from jbugs.com since I didn't want to mess around with making my own. Though I must say, that is a good idea.
Do you by chance know the optimum volume of an enclosure for 6.5" speakers?


----------



## Pat @ Pitt Soundworks (Nov 14, 2008)

*Re: (-Kage-)*

Rather than rebuild, grab some metal mesh from Home Depot (or lowes), 1" thick insulation foam, and a 2" hole saw. Cut a hole in the back of the box, cover the hole with mesh, then insulation, then mesh again. Then screw the top mesh down. That should get you some low-end response back.
I've ran 150wrms through the stock speakers in their free-air configuration without problems. an Enclosure will only increase power handling.


----------



## vdubnick (Nov 29, 2004)

^ yeah, because the voice coil is just magic copper wire that can handle any amount of power..... wow. and im sure you had a scope to verify your "150w rms" claim. speakers have physical limits ie. excursion. as well as electrical limits.


----------



## BassNotes (Mar 16, 2005)

There's really no such thing as "underpowering" loudspeakers, but there is such a thing as just not having enough power for what you want to do.
If the amp lacks power enough that it clips significantly at or below the desired listening level, then it's going to sound bad regardless of whether the loudspeakers are "underpowered" or not.


----------



## Pat @ Pitt Soundworks (Nov 14, 2008)

*Re: (vdubnick)*


_Quote, originally posted by *vdubnick* »_^ yeah, because the voice coil is just magic copper wire that can handle any amount of power..... wow. and im sure you had a scope to verify your "150w rms" claim. speakers have physical limits ie. excursion. as well as electrical limits.

It should be obvious to you that not all of the applied power is used continuously. Of course the speakers would blow if sine waves were ran.
Nevermind the fact that music has a 20-30% duty cycle.
Nevermind the fact that Cds have a 20db crest factor
Nevermind the fact that an average speaker can take roughly 10kw for a couple miliseconds (burst)
Nevermind the fact that power handling is frequency dependent
Nevermind the fact that power handling is enclosure dependent 
Nevermind the fact that power handling is also based on cooling abilities of the speaker
Nevermind the fact that power handling is GREATLY increased when the signal is NOT CLIPPED 
Nevermind the fact that once power compression is taken in to effect, the extra power is easily dissipated through an an increased impedance.
Nevermind the fact that impedance naturally rises in midwoofers as you approach the lower frequencies (50-80hz in most midbass/midrange)
Taking just crest factor in to consideration, on tones that don't fall under peak un-clipped, the speakers would be seeing a whopping 2.14w ((20db/3)root of 150).
Nevermind the fact that the channels are RATED for 150wrms and underrated (actually closer to 175w-180w @ 4ohms bridged), but of course you don't know what amps I was running, or anything else involved with the system .
You have some intelligent input. But please stop talking out of your ass.
Oh, and mechanical limits are based on frequency, power applied, and, of course, the enclosure.


_Modified by Pat @ Pitt Soundworks at 1:28 AM 6-21-2009_


----------



## vdubnick (Nov 29, 2004)

*Re: (Pat @ Pitt Soundworks)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Pat @ Pitt Soundworks* »_
It should be obvious to you that not all of the applied power is used continuously. Of course the speakers would blow if sine waves were ran.
Nevermind the fact that music has a 20-30% duty cycle.
Nevermind the fact that Cds have a 20db crest factor
Nevermind the fact that an average speaker can take roughly 10kw for a couple miliseconds (burst)
Nevermind the fact that power handling is frequency dependent
Nevermind the fact that power handling is enclosure dependent 
Nevermind the fact that power handling is also based on cooling abilities of the speaker
Nevermind the fact that power handling is GREATLY increased when the signal is NOT CLIPPED 
Nevermind the fact that once power compression is taken in to effect, the extra power is easily dissipated through an an increased impedance.
Nevermind the fact that impedance naturally rises in midwoofers as you approach the lower frequencies (50-80hz in most midbass/midrange)
Taking just crest factor in to consideration, on tones that don't fall under peak un-clipped, the speakers would be seeing a whopping 2.14w ((20db/3)root of 150).
Nevermind the fact that the channels are RATED for 150wrms and underrated (actually closer to 175w-180w @ 4ohms bridged), but of course you don't know what amps I was running, or anything else involved with the system .
You have some intelligent input. But please stop talking out of your ass.
Oh, and mechanical limits are based on frequency, power applied, and, of course, the enclosure.

_Modified by Pat @ Pitt Soundworks at 1:28 AM 6-21-2009_

you never specified the RMS rating, you just threw out "150" as if it was substantially more that what the speaker could handle.
and mechanical limits exist because each speaker only has so much excursion, the rate of cooling plays a factor on the voice coil power handling as well. power in=power out, and the majority of power in goes out as heat.
and as far as duty cycle, yeah it is arguable that the average music is around 20-30%, but that plays more a factor on the amp and not as consistently in the speaker. And your 10kw comment is just like the ILS ratings of amps, sure this little amp can hit 2000watts peak with a little 20 amp fuse @12 volts.... ILS=if lighting strikes.
But the whole "overpowering debate" falls short when you consider all factors. Sure you can pump a lot more power through the speaker, as long as the speaker does not mechanically clip, but eventually it will fail from heat.

And the 20-30% duty cycle doesnt matter. that is why there is a RMS rating, it may have higher peaks than a 60-80% cycle, but the power to the speaker is still the same number.


----------



## Pat @ Pitt Soundworks (Nov 14, 2008)

*Re: (vdubnick)*

over 97% of applied power is lost as heat








it should have been assumed that I was speaking about wrms. The power level is even less if you assumed max...
Should also have been assumed that power handling is directly correlated to cooling abilities.
Duty cycle is relevant when you consider just how quickly a speaker can dissipate power. It doesn't matter whether it's for the amp or the speaker, they are both receiving the same signal.
More power is always better until you pass the levels of audible distortion. Always.
OP wanted to know what stock RMS rating was. We *all* know rms ratings are bull. In fact, all ratings are bull. Even TS specs are BS when you move the cone a few mm in each direction.


----------



## vdubnick (Nov 29, 2004)

^ though i agree with most of what you say, a lot of it is fairly one sided. you can make anything true, if you make it general enough.
and you should know that assumptions can get one into trouble rather quickly.
and as to specs being BS, yeah, maybe some, but if you want to go down that road, you might as well start up your own lab and prove the world wrong.


----------



## Checkpoynt Charlie (Aug 4, 2004)

Just thought I'd update this thread -
Today I added the 50W RMS 2 channel amp and it helped out a considerable amount, though the bass still leaves much to be desired. Mids and highs sound great, especially after dialing them in with all the headunit settings.
I must say, a subwoofer is definitely needed to get the music to sound more full, however this is definitely an improvement over the stock AM radio








Even with the extremely small speaker boxes, this setup has come a long way from the open air setup when I first installed it.
And after reading all your posts, what do you guys go by when putting together a system if you don't use RMS ratings? I realized a lot of the wattage ratings are bull****, though I thought the RMS was at least accurate for pairing amps and speakers. What's a better way of putting together a system, regardless of watts?


----------



## Pat @ Pitt Soundworks (Nov 14, 2008)

*FV-QR*

voice coil size and physically examining a speaker to estimate its cooling ability
That and good old common sense.


----------



## Checkpoynt Charlie (Aug 4, 2004)

Do the frequency response technical specs matter at all, or are those bogus too? Take for example these speakers, they have a frequency response of 35-32,000 Hz so I thought they'd be able to handle some bass...but they don't. What's going on there?
For reference, here is the link to my speakers:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISA...42442
Usually I don't buy all that advertising crap, but they fooled me this time










_Modified by -Kage- at 10:26 PM 6-24-2009_


----------



## Pat @ Pitt Soundworks (Nov 14, 2008)

*FV-QR*

Ultimately, it depends. Specs like 35-3200hz, yes. Those are bs. If you look at a FR graph, you can deduct a few things about the speakers response, such as cone breakup modes and approximations for off-axis response.
One thing to remember is just because it CAN play to 35 hz, doesn't mean that it will play to 35 hz WITH AUTHORITY. You can take any speaker and pump a 20hz tone through it, but that doesn't mean it will get loud. 
Low end frequency extension is also a function of the enclosure. In an ideal sealed system, the enclosure will delay the rear-wave of the speaker to 90 degrees out of phase. This will result in constructive wave interference when the rear-wave passes back through the woofer cone.
take a look at this
Seas Excel w15cy-001 
















This speaker uses a magnesium cone. Hard metal cones typically have breakup nodes corresponding to the diameter of the speaker and type of material used. Looking at the graph above. 
First, you can see the response of the on and off axis plots begins to fall around 2000hz-2250hz. Beaming is estimated by (driver diameter in ft)/1143, which works out to roughly 2500hz. 
Next, you can see a crazy peak at approximately 8000hz. This is obviously a result of cone breakup. Something odd, take a look at 16000hz. You also see a peak at this point. What that means is at every interval of 8000hz you are going to see breakup. On the high-end this won't matter. The speaker will never be played that high. However, on the low end, you will see a peak in distortion plots at 4000hz, 2000hz, 1000hz etc. Each octave lower you go, distortion levels will decrease. Take a look at 2000,1000, and 500hz. Notice there is a VERY slight peak at 500hz, slightly larger at 1000hz, but no peak at 2000hz. That's probably due to the onset of beaming or a spot where the cone and suspension affects cancel each other out.
Next, take a look at the response between 600hz and 2000hz. Each little ridge is reflected in every response. What this should mean is a very slight variance caused by the suspension of the woofer, either the surround or spider. These ripples are tiny, most less than 1db of variation. I can attest, the Excel woofers are very good








Even still, this is all just an assumption. Each company rates their speakers differently for frequency response graphs. Some do free air in an anechoic chamber. Some do in an enclosure in a chamber. You really have to read how it's tested. 
Finally, you also have to be careful with multiple voice coil woofers. Testing can vary for how the woofer is wired. If the coils are wired in parallel, series, or only one coil is used will dramatically change the results of all the published specs.


----------



## vdubnick (Nov 29, 2004)

*Re: FV-QR (Pat @ Pitt Soundworks)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Pat @ Pitt Soundworks* »_voice coil size and physically examining a speaker to estimate its cooling ability
That and good old common sense.

better not tell CEA, im sure they are just doing it for the money right?

_Quote, originally posted by *CEA2006.com* »_
CEA2006 is the long-awaited rating standard that makes it easy for costumers to compare amplifiers. It defines characteristics that describe the performance of amplifiers designed for mobile applications and replaces the old standard EIA 517B.
According to the standard some specific ratings must appear on the package of the amplifier. The CEA-logo then declares that these specifications are accurate and comparable.
Since the two most fundamental qualities of an amplifier are how loud it will play and how good it will sound, the two principal ratings, according to CEA2006, are Output Power and Signal-to-Noise Ratio. These two quantities are the most significant indicators of an amplifier’s performance.
CEA offers a full description of the standard through Global Engineering Documents. Note that downloading the document is not a free service.
CEA Standards Catalog


----------



## Pat @ Pitt Soundworks (Nov 14, 2008)

*Re: FV-QR (vdubnick)*

Good thing CEA rates amplifier output and not a speakers ability to handle power








Plus, they test amps at 14.4v anyway.


----------



## Non_Affiliated (Feb 12, 2002)

*Re: FV-QR (Pat @ Pitt Soundworks)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Pat @ Pitt Soundworks* »_Plus, they test amps at 14.4v anyway.

To bad they didn't rate amps with the 1990 standard, Underrated at 12.6V.


----------



## vdubnick (Nov 29, 2004)

*Re: FV-QR (Pat @ Pitt Soundworks)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Pat @ Pitt Soundworks* »_Good thing CEA rates amplifier output and not a speakers ability to handle power








Plus, they test amps at 14.4v anyway.

i know, i was just making a general reference to your "we all know RMS ratings are a bunch of crap" statement.
and yeah, i wish they would at least rate amps at 13v or lower, but then again, i usually install my amp, under the hood, right next to the alternator, so the 14.4 makes sense








MTX used to rate theirs at 12.6, as well as other solid names, years ago.


----------



## Pat @ Pitt Soundworks (Nov 14, 2008)

*FV-QR*

I thought since we were talking about cooling ability, we would be referring to RMS pertaining to the speakers ability to handle power.
While I DO agree with premis of CEA rating, I don't currently agree with the way they are testing. Any push for industry standardization always has a :thumbup in my book. Then again, any amp with a regulated power supply will put out constant power across all "normal" operating voltages.


----------



## Checkpoynt Charlie (Aug 4, 2004)

Here's an update for anyone interested...
I installed a single 12" sub today and let me tell you, it made more difference than I could have imagined!
Mind you, it is a crappy Roadmaster VSW120C put it in a low quality 1.0 cubic foot MDF box from SonicElectronix hooked up to a Boss 50W RMS amplifier...but it sounds great!
Since this was more so an experiment, I am surprised at how much difference one sub can make in a system. I never really thought these things were _that_ essential, but now I'm practically convinced every car should have one. 
Without it, a whole very important frequency range is missing - the drums, bass guitar, and that overall flow from the lower tones. My music in the car finally sounds like what I hear with my Logitech computer speakers and Polk Audio floor speakers. And given that the computer speakers have an 8" subwoofer and the floor's have 10" woofers, I should have realized their importance ahead of time.
Also, one thing that really made a big difference was using the high pass filter. I set it to 100hz and I can now turn the music up nice and loud without the speakers distorting. Woohoo! And now with the sub tuned in, everything blends perfectly.
Thanks for all the info up above, I've learned both from you guys and first hand now that RMS ratings are also bull and don't mean much at all regarding sound quality. I know they must have some purpose, but all I can understand is that it means how loud they can be played before blowing (and I am not even sure on how Watts RMS translates to decibels). So if anyone wouldn't mind clearing it up for me, what *EXACTLY* do these RMS ratings mean??
PS, tomorrow I'll add pictures of this setup so everyone can see what I'm talking about.


----------



## Checkpoynt Charlie (Aug 4, 2004)

Nothing extraordinary, I know, but it sounds excellent for what it is!


----------



## Non_Affiliated (Feb 12, 2002)

*Re: (-Kage-)*


_Quote, originally posted by *-Kage-* »_Nothing extraordinary, I know, but it sounds excellent for what it is!









Yell FIYAAAAA EEEEEYOOOOOOO YOEYOEYOO!!
Man that wiring needs some help.


----------



## Checkpoynt Charlie (Aug 4, 2004)

Nah, the wiring is good to go







I thought the fuse box was a mess until I saw the MKIV wiring harness with the fuse box out of the dash...now _that_ is a clusterfluck.
Plus with this car, I'm going for something different. It's strictly about functionality over aesthetics, and if it works, then it's good. The body lines are the only good looking thing on this car, and that's all it needs!


----------



## vdubnick (Nov 29, 2004)

^ true words of a DDIY backyard timmy.


----------



## Non_Affiliated (Feb 12, 2002)

*Re: (vdubnick)*

Guess that is where I differ, I am more form, function and depenability.


----------

