Register    Login    Forum    Search    FAQ

Board index » Technical Talk » ICE




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: PMPO vs RMS
 Post Posted: 09 Dec 2011, 15:41 
Offline
Filter, Exhaust & Branch
Filter, Exhaust & Branch
User avatar

Joined: 08 Nov 2011, 11:30
Posts: 591
Location: Milnerton
Ok here's the thing. Everyone sees either PMPO or RMS on the audio equipment when they look, but no one really understands the cconnection (if there is actually even a connection).

So, I was going to ask, but decided to use my brains. By brains I mean Google of course... :mzekezeke:

This is basicaly what I have come up with:

RMS is the true power of your speakers, where as PMPO is the peak power of your speakers.

What's the difference between true power and peak power you may ask? Because we all know that the true power would be the loudest setting possible right? WRONG! Because as is with most things, the speakers cant run at peak power all the time or they will blow.

Another thing is there doesn't seem to be a standard for calculating PMPO between different manufacturers so a Pioneer, JVC and Sony speaker, all 6x9s and all 300w RMS, could all have different PMPO ratings.

This also means that there is no mathematical way of converting RMS into PMPO or vice versa.

The reason PMPO ratings are used is the simple fact that big numbers sell better, especially when you have no clue what they actually mean. For example, you no nothing about systems, ratings, power, watts. You have the typical assumption that more/bigger speakers mean better sound. Now, you're standing there and you see two sets of speakers. One is rated at 200w RMS and the other is rated at 1000w PMPO. You don't know what that means, but you see they're the same price, so naturaly you go for the 1000w.

Same goes for amps.

So do yourselves a favour when your speaker/amp shopping. Look for RMS and not PMPO.

PS: This is very, very, vvveeerrryyy inconclusive so if anyone has anything to add please do so.
PPS: Not sure here, maybe this should be in reference material although it is sound exclusive...

_________________
.
.|==============|
.............||
.=OO SKYLINE OO

Current:
Opel Kadett GSi 2l 8v
Suzuki KZ650

Ex:
Toyota Corolla 160i GL 16v
Opel Kadett Baby Boss GSi 2l 8v
Opel Astra F 2l 8v
R30 Nissan Skyline 2.8 GTX
Honda VFR400 NC24
GSXR750R Presling
BMW E30 2-door 323i


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: PMPO vs RMS
 Post Posted: 09 Dec 2011, 15:49 
Offline
Turbocharged
Turbocharged
User avatar

Joined: 15 Mar 2007, 12:46
Posts: 5458
Location: kuilsriver
:duim:

_________________
Opel Club Cape Town Chairman
My Ridez
Opel Kadett Superboss Image 16vS 20XE
Toyota Prado 3.4 V6 VX
Hyundai GetzR Open-filter-box 16v
Ex Ridez
2000 Opel Corsa B Image 1.8 16v Image conversion
1991 Opel Cub 1.6i 8v c16ne conversion

Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: PMPO vs RMS
 Post Posted: 09 Dec 2011, 16:12 
Offline
Opel Club Cape Town AFFILIATE
Opel Club Cape Town AFFILIATE

Joined: 17 Mar 2007, 21:10
Posts: 19329
for amps


add up the fuses x 14.4v

= real constant power

_________________
Current:
'13 Alfa Romeo MiTO Quadrifoglio Verde Sport 125kw 250nm
Dont take life so seriously

Swedish House Mafia- Greyhound

Ex:
'12 Fiat Bravo Sport 110kw 235nm
'11 Kia Koup 122kw 203nm
'08 Daihatsu Sirion Sport 1.5 VVTi
'02 Euro Opel Corsa 160is
'85 Opel GSI 2 door Boss


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: PMPO vs RMS
 Post Posted: 07 Mar 2012, 01:32 
Offline
Cruising with a Cone Filter
Cruising with a Cone Filter
User avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2007, 13:21
Posts: 97
Location: Between my girlfriend's legs
2nd time i see you post this crispy and I have to correct you. you right in adding the fuses on the amp and multiplying but rather use 13.8v as 14.4v isn't always achieved even at idle. so your formula now reads for eg. on a 4ch class ab amp
2x30amp fuses x 13.8 = 828 rms (not possible) but lets go further...
take the 828 rms x 0.5 as power is lost due to heat (hence your amp getting warm when playing it) and you end up with 414rms
divide that by the 4 channels and you end up with 103.5rms per channel.
class ab amps arent very efficient due to it losing power through heat, therefore monoblocs (class d amps) tend to run cooler but has a higher distortion level and are therefore mainly used for subs. calculation for a monobloc you would just have to multiply by 0.9 (instead of 0.5) and you wouldnt have to divide by anything as there is only 1 channel.
this is a very useful calculation when shopping for amps especialy when "unbranded" products use PMPO/max power ratings on there amps. please dont change the fuses on your amp to something higher and then do the calculation. you are only going to fool yourself.

enjoy

_________________
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: PMPO vs RMS
 Post Posted: 07 Mar 2012, 07:55 
Offline
Opel Club Cape Town AFFILIATE
Opel Club Cape Town AFFILIATE

Joined: 17 Mar 2007, 21:10
Posts: 19329
Nemesis wrote:
2nd time i see you post this crispy and I have to correct you. you right in adding the fuses on the amp and multiplying but rather use 13.8v as 14.4v isn't always achieved even at idle. so your formula now reads for eg. on a 4ch class ab amp
2x30amp fuses x 13.8 = 828 rms (not possible) but lets go further...
take the 828 rms x 0.5 as power is lost due to heat (hence your amp getting warm when playing it) and you end up with 414rms
divide that by the 4 channels and you end up with 103.5rms per channel.
class ab amps arent very efficient due to it losing power through heat, therefore monoblocs (class d amps) tend to run cooler but has a higher distortion level and are therefore mainly used for subs. calculation for a monobloc you would just have to multiply by 0.9 (instead of 0.5) and you wouldnt have to divide by anything as there is only 1 channel.
this is a very useful calculation when shopping for amps especialy when "unbranded" products use PMPO/max power ratings on there amps. please dont change the fuses on your amp to something higher and then do the calculation. you are only going to fool yourself.

enjoy



thanks nemesis :D

i figured that heat would affect conduction but never knew it would be that much.

i have to get my system sorted next month

_________________
Current:
'13 Alfa Romeo MiTO Quadrifoglio Verde Sport 125kw 250nm
Dont take life so seriously

Swedish House Mafia- Greyhound

Ex:
'12 Fiat Bravo Sport 110kw 235nm
'11 Kia Koup 122kw 203nm
'08 Daihatsu Sirion Sport 1.5 VVTi
'02 Euro Opel Corsa 160is
'85 Opel GSI 2 door Boss


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: PMPO vs RMS
 Post Posted: 30 Apr 2012, 14:27 
Offline
Upgraded to a Flatbed Filter
Upgraded to a Flatbed Filter

Joined: 21 Apr 2008, 22:15
Posts: 222
Location: On top of your GF...
Nemesis wrote:
2nd time i see you post this crispy and I have to correct you. you right in adding the fuses on the amp and multiplying but rather use 13.8v as 14.4v isn't always achieved even at idle. so your formula now reads for eg. on a 4ch class ab amp
2x30amp fuses x 13.8 = 828 rms (not possible) but lets go further...
take the 828 rms x 0.5 as power is lost due to heat (hence your amp getting warm when playing it) and you end up with 414rms
divide that by the 4 channels and you end up with 103.5rms per channel.
class ab amps arent very efficient due to it losing power through heat, therefore monoblocs (class d amps) tend to run cooler but has a higher distortion level and are therefore mainly used for subs. calculation for a monobloc you would just have to multiply by 0.9 (instead of 0.5) and you wouldnt have to divide by anything as there is only 1 channel.
this is a very useful calculation when shopping for amps especialy when "unbranded" products use PMPO/max power ratings on there amps. please dont change the fuses on your amp to something higher and then do the calculation. you are only going to fool yourself.

enjoy






Excellent explanation :clap:

_________________
Current:Opel Corsa C 1.6 Sport(Jazmine)

EX:2002 Opel Astra 1.8 16V(X18XE1 stock)RIP
1998 Opel Corsa Sedan 130i (Freeflow,filter)
1991 VW MK 2 Gti 1.8 16V
1990 VW Mk 2 CSL 1.6 8V


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: PMPO vs RMS
 Post Posted: 16 Jul 2014, 22:17 
Offline
Opel Club Cape Town Member
Opel Club Cape Town Member
User avatar

Joined: 06 Apr 2013, 22:00
Posts: 166
RMS vs PMPO Technically this formula should apply.
RMS = 0.707*Peak ( Not PMPO )
Did you know that the 220V in your house is actually the RMS of the mains voltage.Its Peak goes to 311V.
Peak = RMS/0.707. Thats why its so dangerous to work on TV's The mains capacitor charges t0 311V DC.
Manufacturers is conning us with their PMPO value and you do a RMS calc from there it does not correspond to their RMS value.
Rather go according to RMS value Root Mean Square or the average value.

_________________
_________________
Image

ex: '90 Kadett GSI Sold
ex: '96 Kadett 200is Write Off
Current:
'94 Opel Calibra 2.0 16V Weekend Tool
'07 Opel Corsa UTE 1.4 sport Work Tool


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: PMPO vs RMS
 Post Posted: 18 Jul 2014, 01:00 
Offline
Filter & Exhaust
Filter & Exhaust
User avatar

Joined: 29 Mar 2007, 19:46
Posts: 427
Location: Cape Town
PMPO means as close to absolutely nothing as makes no difference. Ignore it! It's just marketing BS.

For amplifiers you want to look at output power in watts.

For speakers input power in watts is what you are after.

The 2 should be matched or the amp slightly stronger.

Manufactures usually refer to these ratings as RMS values or nominal ratings.

A "50x4" head unit is usually in the region of 22W RMS output on each of its 4 channels.

The RMS value as mentioned earlier is the peak power divided by the square root of two, but only for a sinusoidal wave, such as AC power transmission. Sound is however not sinusoidal and therefore cannot be calculated in this manner. In this case the RMS value can rather be thought of as an average power value for a sound wave which would be iregular in shape.

Sent from my GT-I9500 using Tapatalk

_________________
Ex:'05 Opel Corsa Lite+
Ex:'85 Opel Ascona GSi

"Adding power makes you faster on the straights. Subtracting weight makes you faster everywhere" - Colin Chapman


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: PMPO vs RMS
 Post Posted: 18 Jul 2014, 11:50 
Offline
Filter, Exhaust & Branch
Filter, Exhaust & Branch

Joined: 06 Aug 2012, 09:31
Posts: 816
It's like flywheel horsepower versus wheel horsepower. It doesn't matter if you're making 150kW at the flywheel but you've only got 110kW turning the wheels.

_________________
2007 Subaru Forester XT
197kW and 380Nm of home-cooked, GTI embarrassing tuning. With a little help from Powerflow
ex:
2005 Coupe 168kW 350Nm From Evo Performance


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: PMPO vs RMS
 Post Posted: 21 Jul 2014, 11:45 
Offline
CLUB ADMINISTRATOR
CLUB ADMINISTRATOR
User avatar

Joined: 05 Jan 2009, 14:29
Posts: 16319
Location: Stellenbosch
and then 80kw's worth when you lose traction

_________________
Opel Club Cape Town Member


'06 Astra H GSi 2.0 Turbo
'79 Datsun 160y GX Coupe
'95 200 GXi SR20VE 6spd
Ex:
'92 200sx RB25DET
'06 Opel Zafira 1.8 Enjoy Panoramic
'01 200 STI sr20de
'93 S13 200sx RB25Det
'97 200iE 16v Astra
'71 Datsun 1600 SSS 2.0L
180is Opel Kadett 2.0L
Mk1 Golf GT 2.0 16v


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: PMPO vs RMS
 Post Posted: 21 Jul 2014, 19:15 
Offline
OPEL GURU
OPEL GURU
User avatar

Joined: 06 Jun 2007, 08:48
Posts: 1065
What a manufacturer claims is also useless, if you buy a Chinese cheaper amp, it will not even make what its rating is, that why there is a difference with a good amp, not only sound quality, but you get the actual power you are paying for


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Top 
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 

Board index » Technical Talk » ICE


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

 
 

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron