thats why i wonder how the SR6500 set sounds! lol, there's no MOMO on that set!

http://www.polkaudio.com/car/product.php?name=sr6500

 

Help me understand this. You bridged a 2 channel amplifier and ran 4 speakers off it? I didn't know Rockford even had a 150.2 model, but Lightning Audio did (and they manufactured by RF) Don't forget that underpowering speakers is the fastest way to destroy them as well. Maybe some of the blame can be placed on the amp?

 

I'm positive RF had a 150.2. and yes it was a 2 channel. It's self bridging when you use the hi-pass input wire instead of the standard allen head connectors. I'm willing to bet if you do a search for RF 150.2 you'll get a response on it....it's also known as the 150S...
As far as underpowering the speakers...I can't give you exact RMS, but it did power 2 Kenwood DB+ 10"s for about 3 months...then i upgraded to a new amp for the subs and used the 150 to power my mid's and high's....plenty of power to go around for all 4 of them....As a matter of fact, once i ditched the Polk's and threw in the Lanzar 3-way's with built in tweeters I noticed a drastic improvement, with no changes to wiring. I just feel Polk/Momo's are junk.

 

oK, I did find the 150S, but I doubt you could buy one outside of a pawn shop today. It's rated @ 75watts per 2 channels @ 2 ohms (150 watts bridged in 1 channel)
75 watts gives you about 37.5 if you ran two speakers per channel wired parallel. Power levels were adequate, but high level inputs are not condusive to quality output, typically. Bass boost or not, I wouldn't send any bass to a 4x6 speaker which is a 4" "woofer" and a tweeter installed on the same plate.

Anyway good speakers need good power (and good enclosures). I bet the lanzars were designed to be more "free air" and just plopped into the door panels and forgotten. Their power requirements were probably much less, and they probably had a larger woofer for the mid bass as well (I doubt the 150S has much in terms of crossover potential) Their tighter suspension and thicker surrounds for the more brutal sound levels need more energy for the same levels of output. Under powering through an cheap amplifier on high level input from whatever head unit, well you can see why I pressed for further explanation.

Not doubting your belief that those speakers sucked, but being an analyst (does it show?) it's hard to substantiate your findings based upon the facts as you presented.

 

i don't mind the analysis....that's how we all learn lessons....and i just learned one heck of a lesson....never post anything that you might be able to dig into again!!!! Just kidding...thanks for the lesson though, seriously....you made a couple of real good points that I really didn't take into consideration at that time...although at that time i was just getting into stereo system setup...and it was my first...nonetheless, that was still a good lesson you just gave....

I...I....think i just got owned...lol....

 

It's all good, but now I finally get to use this pic:

Who remember's GI Joe?

 

lol...and knowing is half the battle

 

Here you go.....I dont know if this is any good or not....just thought I would share...lol

Phoenix Gold

 

i had both the titanium 5 and 6 elites, lol.. they were good speakers.. crossovers sucked tho, so i only had them for about 2 months each. i then switched to morels which were probably IMO twice as good, and wanted more power (needed another amp, dammit!)

PS- michael i love that sign in your avatar! is it somthing photoshopped or is there an actual sign like that out somewhere?

 

Nah I found it on a google image search. If you look closely, it's got a canadian symbol on it, so maybe there is a bar in Canada somewhere called that? Either way, I'm a Doors fan...

 

hell yeah! i love the doors! i wanna go to canada and steal it, lol.. doesn't that song take place in alabama?? lol, maybe there's an alabama in canada! i wonder how legal it would be to make a sign saying "this way to the next little girl" haha.