Alpine SWX-1043D VS Polk SR104DVC
06-16-2011, 12:32 PM
#1
TECH Fanatic
Thread Starter
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alpine SWX-1043D VS Polk SR104DVC Alright, some may remember my troubles with the Polk SR104DVC, the wiring from the terminal to VC was too short and in the path of the cone causing it to rip one of the wires from the solder at the terminal. I have a new one on the way but I wanted to compare these subwoofers in case the problem isn't resolved.
The Alpine unit can handle more power which I may need. I am running a Boston Acoustics GTA-800m mono amplifier that delivers 800W RMS @ 2 Ohms. Here is the comparison of specs on Crutchfield's website. This also happens to be one of the few subwoofers that meets the required sealed enclosure volume I have as well as exceeds the power rating of my amplifier.
Looking at the comparison chart, the sensitivity for the Alpine unit is rated at 82 dB @ 1 Watt - meter while the Polk is rated at 84 dB @ 2.83 Watt - meter. I am going to ASSuME this is a typo on Crutchfield's website and they are referring to voltage sensitivity versus power sensitivity for the Polk driver. According to this site you can utilize the log functions and the resistance value to convert back and forth. Now, I understand these driver specifications are often inflated, and can be useless as frequency can play a large role as well as other factors, BUT, according to that site, the conversion comes out to PS = VS - 10 * log (8/Re) which is 84 - 10* log (8/3.5) = ~80.4 dB. If these tests happened to be equal, wouldn't the Alpine be 1.5X louder than the Polk? Here I am just testing my understanding of the theory, not actually using this to influence my next purchase.
What about the materials for the cone and surround, is one better than the other?
So, would you switch to the Alpine driver if the Polk driver was not redesigned due to their flaw? Would the Alpine be the same, worse, or a better driver for my application? Does anyone have experience with both drivers or either of them for that fact?
The Alpine unit can handle more power which I may need. I am running a Boston Acoustics GTA-800m mono amplifier that delivers 800W RMS @ 2 Ohms. Here is the comparison of specs on Crutchfield's website. This also happens to be one of the few subwoofers that meets the required sealed enclosure volume I have as well as exceeds the power rating of my amplifier.
Looking at the comparison chart, the sensitivity for the Alpine unit is rated at 82 dB @ 1 Watt - meter while the Polk is rated at 84 dB @ 2.83 Watt - meter. I am going to ASSuME this is a typo on Crutchfield's website and they are referring to voltage sensitivity versus power sensitivity for the Polk driver. According to this site you can utilize the log functions and the resistance value to convert back and forth. Now, I understand these driver specifications are often inflated, and can be useless as frequency can play a large role as well as other factors, BUT, according to that site, the conversion comes out to PS = VS - 10 * log (8/Re) which is 84 - 10* log (8/3.5) = ~80.4 dB. If these tests happened to be equal, wouldn't the Alpine be 1.5X louder than the Polk? Here I am just testing my understanding of the theory, not actually using this to influence my next purchase.
What about the materials for the cone and surround, is one better than the other?
So, would you switch to the Alpine driver if the Polk driver was not redesigned due to their flaw? Would the Alpine be the same, worse, or a better driver for my application? Does anyone have experience with both drivers or either of them for that fact?
