Let's say I wanna build an IGC sub amp...since I have control of amp construction and sub construction:
what is the difference, quality and/or level, if I build:
(1) a 2 chip parallel IGC, which I would then then drive the sub's 2 voice coils in parallel for a nominal 4R load.
(2) a 2 chip bridged IGC, which I would then drive the sub's 2 voice coild in series for a nominal 16R load.
TIA
what is the difference, quality and/or level, if I build:
(1) a 2 chip parallel IGC, which I would then then drive the sub's 2 voice coils in parallel for a nominal 4R load.
(2) a 2 chip bridged IGC, which I would then drive the sub's 2 voice coild in series for a nominal 16R load.
TIA
The easiest solution would be to build two identical gainclones driving one voice coil each. This would avoid the additional circuitry needed for parallel operation (servos, load-share resistors etc). Also, there's no power benefit to paralleling two GCs into 4R over two seperate GCs driving 8R each.
Come to think of it, there's also no benefit bridging two GCs into 16R - the power will be the same as two seperate GCs driving 8R each.
Nice one,
David.
Come to think of it, there's also no benefit bridging two GCs into 16R - the power will be the same as two seperate GCs driving 8R each.
Nice one,
David.
Yup, I agree, two normal GCs, one per VC.
Or, you could just drive one coil with your bridged/paralled GC, and use the other with a 250Ohm wirewound pot wired across it, that way, you can tweak your Q for room response. 😉
Or, you could just drive one coil with your bridged/paralled GC, and use the other with a 250Ohm wirewound pot wired across it, that way, you can tweak your Q for room response. 😉
- Status
- Not open for further replies.