Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Jens Droessler]

Yes, the manual I received says, in Mono mode with crossover engaged, to use Channel B's 2+ and 2- poles for LF.
BUT, I have yet to find a signal there.....it's on B's 1+ and 1-
Hey, at least it's LF 

I think you missunderstood what they meant. The output signal from channel B will be on 2+/- of the speakon output of channel A. They could have formulated that better. It means you can put a 4wire speakon cable to channel A or C and have ch A/C on 1+/- and ch B/D on 2+/-.

[Luke Geis]

Thx Luke, yep, but I guess that would leave the subs pretty under powered..

I've decided to just give in and use an old x-over.... x-over HP to stereo  A & B mains, x-over LP to C&D in either mono or bridge...

Disappointing not to have an all-in-one solution as potentially available from online documentation....but the dang amp still represents the cheapest way I can find to power the old boxes...

Well if the tops are what I think they are in ohms, the subs will actually pair up well. In theory there will almost twice the wattage for the subs which should be at 4 ohm's.  Also running it that way you have the ability now to turn the tops down a little to match the subs if need be. It's an option that in theory should provide better results than the basic method currently used.

[Mark Wilkinson]

I think you missunderstood what they meant. The output signal from channel B will be on 2+/- of the speakon output of channel A. They could have formulated that better. It means you can put a 4wire speakon cable to channel A or C and have ch A/C on 1+/- and ch B/D on 2+/-.

Jens, yes, you are correct as stated. Thanks, I did miss what they meant.
 
As you say, the output from Channel B is on speakon 2+/- of output channel A if you want to 4-wire it.   
And as I found, it is also on output B 1+/-
So either way, I guess nothing changes from the available output combinations, other than being able to run 4 wire speakons, or 2 wire ones.

[Mark Wilkinson]

Well if the tops are what I think they are in ohms, the subs will actually pair up well. In theory there will almost twice the wattage for the subs which should be at 4 ohm's.  Also running it that way you have the ability now to turn the tops down a little to match the subs if need be. It's an option that in theory should provide better results than the basic method currently used.

The S115IV tops, and SW118IV subs (2), are all 8 ohm boxes.  Tops and subs have same wattage specs; noise 250, program 500, max 1000.  Tops are 99db 1w, subs 96.
So I'm thinking that level power to all leaves me at least 3 db short on the subs...and probably more like 6-9db short, given the usual sub boost bias...

It's why I thought this amp would be perfect if I could high pass two channels in stereo, and low pass two channels bridged into parallel subs. (with maybe a little cut to the subs)

I'm still going this route I guess, but with an external x-over.......unless I'm missing something?
Thx again. Mark

[Scott Holtzman]

That would make it a Beechcraft, not a Behringer...

Tim, you are tough man.  Indeed I am used to typing the aircraft type rather than the proper word barren.  Rather than try and use big words I should have just said that the construction sucks and the stuff that's now wave soldered looks like they used the solder blob/bomb method.  Honestly I think the Kenwood Class D amp I have in my truck is beefier that the inside of the iNuke's.  Compared to the brick shit house EP series from Behringer it was a shock.  Say what you will but the EP's are very usable but heavy amplifiers.  Used within limits they get the job done.  With the iNuke stuff it just looks like a fan failure or an undetected fault would cause the amp to meltdown.

One of the things I learned in the last year, especially from listening to the big iron drivers like yourself Tim is you have to count on your gear.  When I would role a Behringer EP amp in I always would have a spare in the truck and a reluctance to use them to capability that they just could not take it.  With the Crown XTI, QSC, B&M drivers and Sennheiser Wireless I use today I have confidence.  Sure things can still break but I haven't been let down yet. 

The difference between flying a Baron or a Cherokee!

[Lyle Williams]

So you need to be bridged into the subs?  Stereo left into input A, stereo right into input C, switches to mono+crossed.

Output A gives you left tops, output B gives you left sub, output C gives you right tops, output D gives you right sub.

Uses all of your speakers, is stereo, relative sub/tops level is controllable, and it will be way louder than you can run in the appartment.

[Mike Caldwell]

That would make it a Beechcraft, not a Behringer...

Don't worry I got your joke and laughed! Things will really be scary if Behringer starts up an aircraft division.

[Mark Wilkinson]

So you need to be bridged into the subs?  Stereo left into input A, stereo right into input C, switches to mono+crossed.

Output A gives you left tops, output B gives you left sub, output C gives you right tops, output D gives you right sub.

Uses all of your speakers, is stereo, relative sub/tops level is controllable, and it will be way louder than you can run in the appartment.

Thanks Lyle.  How does this give control of relative sub/tops level?  In mono mode, level for A & B is controlled solely by A pot,  C & D by C pot.

This is the config I'd decided to try first, hoping relative balance is close enough for low shelving eq to suit to taste.

And sure, for apt use I get about anything works .... but I have told my son he is welcome to play with the rig here and there, outside included. So looking for all the available sub there is....

[Lyle Williams]

Ok, I see the problem now.  Yep, that seems to be a dumbass design decision.

Especially as they had this sorted out properly in their earlier amp designs.

[Luke Geis]

The S115IV tops, and SW118IV subs (2), are all 8 ohm boxes.  Tops and subs have same wattage specs; noise 250, program 500, max 1000.  Tops are 99db 1w, subs 96.
So I'm thinking that level power to all leaves me at least 3 db short on the subs...and probably more like 6-9db short, given the usual sub boost bias...

It's why I thought this amp would be perfect if I could high pass two channels in stereo, and low pass two channels bridged into parallel subs. (with maybe a little cut to the subs)

I'm still going this route I guess, but with an external x-over.......unless I'm missing something?
Thx again. Mark

Well sort of...... The general rule is 2x the power to the subs as to the tops. If you run the tops at 8 ohms you would have X watts. Now the subs would be ran in parallel, which is a 4 ohm load. This should nearly double the watts supplied to them. Now you could bridge mono the last two channels which would give you about 5x the power. However I do not think you could utilize the X over with the last 2 channels in bridge mode? The literature seems to present that it can? Based on what you say it will not.

Here goes:

1. Run channel A & B as a basic stereo setup. No there will not be a low pass, but there could be worse things, plus you really could use one anyway.

2. Run channel C & D in mono with the crossover engaged and run the subs out of the appropriate output. This will yield nearly twice the power or about a 3db boost. Not as much boost as many would like, but you can turn the tops down 3db to acquire a 6db difference.

3. Test and see if in bridge mode for C & D that the X-over function still works? If it does this will yield 5X the power to the subs.

4. get a X-over that will allow 3 inputs ( L, R, and mono/subs ) then set it up for your speaker config of L & R with mono subs. Now set the amp up to run A & B in stereo and C & D in bridge mono. Left and Right to A & B and subs to the appropriate +/- output terminals on the C & D outputs. This is the best option and will yield the best results all around.

[ProSoundWeb Community]