- Joined
- November 6, 2000
- Messages
- 5,431
- Reaction score
- 44
- Year, Model & Trim Level
- 2018 EX Sport Concept
Generally a 4 ohm setup is more efficient than a 2 ohm setup.
What that means is the amplifier converts more of the juice from the battery/alternator into the 200 watts needed to push the sub at 4 ohms and move air to make bass, and less into heat as waste energy.
This isn't always true, though. There are amps that are purpose-built for a 2 ohm, 1 ohm, even 0.5 ohm load that are most efficient at that load rather than 4 ohms.
But, as above, the general rule is, 4 ohms is the "sweet spot" of highest efficiency for most car audio amplifiers, for the most watts with the least heat.
The specs on the R600X5 are:
CEA-2006 Power Rating
50Wx4 + 200Wx1 @ 4Ω
≤1.0% THD+N
Efficiency (average):
Front/Rear: 64% @ 4-Ohm
Sub: 85% @ 4-Ohm
Given that the CEA-2006 specs are @ 4 ohms AND that the efficiency is rated @ 4 ohms, I would guess that the amp, like most, is most efficient at 4 ohms. If it had a higher efficiency at 2 ohms, surely they would proudly print that in the specs.
It looks like RF is pulling the industry BS tactic of using the "600W" designation in the advertising and model number even though that's only what the amp puts out at 2 ohms.
You can of course use a 2-ohm sub rated for 300W and it'll work fine, and might put out more bass if that's what you're after. If you just want decent bass, the 200W sub @ 4 ohms will give you that 85% efficiency, and the amp will be sucking 1/3 less juice to push the sub.
What that means is the amplifier converts more of the juice from the battery/alternator into the 200 watts needed to push the sub at 4 ohms and move air to make bass, and less into heat as waste energy.
This isn't always true, though. There are amps that are purpose-built for a 2 ohm, 1 ohm, even 0.5 ohm load that are most efficient at that load rather than 4 ohms.
But, as above, the general rule is, 4 ohms is the "sweet spot" of highest efficiency for most car audio amplifiers, for the most watts with the least heat.
The specs on the R600X5 are:
CEA-2006 Power Rating
50Wx4 + 200Wx1 @ 4Ω
≤1.0% THD+N
Efficiency (average):
Front/Rear: 64% @ 4-Ohm
Sub: 85% @ 4-Ohm
Given that the CEA-2006 specs are @ 4 ohms AND that the efficiency is rated @ 4 ohms, I would guess that the amp, like most, is most efficient at 4 ohms. If it had a higher efficiency at 2 ohms, surely they would proudly print that in the specs.
It looks like RF is pulling the industry BS tactic of using the "600W" designation in the advertising and model number even though that's only what the amp puts out at 2 ohms.
You can of course use a 2-ohm sub rated for 300W and it'll work fine, and might put out more bass if that's what you're after. If you just want decent bass, the 200W sub @ 4 ohms will give you that 85% efficiency, and the amp will be sucking 1/3 less juice to push the sub.