ProSoundWeb Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: RCF 8003 or 8004  (Read 5998 times)

Wayne Roberts

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1
RCF 8003 or 8004
« on: March 27, 2016, 04:33:28 pm »

Hi,

I am looking for a new sub for my band playing mainly soul blues jazz funk disco pop. I already have the RCF 712a's

Now looking at the 4pro 8003 and the 8004, they are very different on price.

The sub will having the Bass Drum and the Bass players amp DI'd so manly for this.

Is the 8004 worth the extra money.

We will be going gig for around 100-300 people.

Thanks
Logged

Mac Kerr

  • Old enough to know better
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600
  • Audio Plumber
Posting Rules
« Reply #1 on: March 27, 2016, 04:43:02 pm »

Hi,

I am looking for a new sub

Please go to your profile and change the "Name" field to your real first and last name as required by the posting rules displayed in the header at the top of the section, and in the Site Rules and Suggestions in the Forum Announcements section, and on the registration page when you registered.

Mac
Logged

Art Welter

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1575
Re: RCF 8003 or 8004
« Reply #2 on: March 28, 2016, 12:26:36 pm »


Now looking at the 4pro 8003 and the 8004, they are very different on price.

Wayne,

The 8004 claims slightly more power (and convection cooling instead of fan so may be slightly more efficient), more output and a -3dB point of 30 Hz compared to 40 Hz for the 8003.

The low E note on a four string bass is 41 Hz, low B on a 5 string bass is 31 Hz.

If low bass is high on your priority list, the 8004 may be worth additional $$, but best to do an A/B test to hear for yourself- getting 10 Hz lower response and 2 dB more output from basically the same size box with only 1 dB more power sounds fishy.

Art
Logged

David Morison

  • SR Forums
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 632
  • Aberdeen, Scotland
Re: RCF 8003 or 8004
« Reply #3 on: March 29, 2016, 08:02:37 am »

Wayne,

The 8004 claims slightly more power (and convection cooling instead of fan so may be slightly more efficient), more output and a -3dB point of 30 Hz compared to 40 Hz for the 8003.


Last time I looked, the graphs suggested that the -3dB points might be a lot higher, relative to any reasonable estimate of an average level - that being harder in the case of the 8003 as its response seemed to be a single spike at around 80-ish Hz.
That said, the 8004 does indeed seem to go lower.

Cheers,
David.
Logged

Rick Alan

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 160
Re: RCF 8003 or 8004
« Reply #4 on: April 01, 2016, 09:57:41 pm »

1 - 8004 > 2 - 8003

8004 is more superior and sound amazing.  With equally good low end and punch.  When you place the 8004 on its side it will fill the room nicely with more even coverage. 

Disclaimer: RCF dealer and user.

Hi,

I am looking for a new sub for my band playing mainly soul blues jazz funk disco pop. I already have the RCF 712a's

Now looking at the 4pro 8003 and the 8004, they are very different on price.

The sub will having the Bass Drum and the Bass players amp DI'd so manly for this.

Is the 8004 worth the extra money.

We will be going gig for around 100-300 people.

Thanks
Logged

Ivan Beaver

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8888
  • Atlanta GA
Re: RCF 8003 or 8004
« Reply #5 on: April 02, 2016, 08:36:14 pm »

When you place the 8004 on its side it will fill the room nicely with more even coverage. 


I am really curious about this statement.

How does a almost square front loaded sub make a difference in how well it "covers the room" when placed on the side?

At sub freq, the wavelengths are so large (as compared to the size of the cabinet) and there is no directivity in a front loaded cabinet, I don't see a way that it could make a difference.

Maybe you could explain how this happens as it doesn't make sense to me.

Or maybe I am missing something

Logged
A complex question is easily answered by a simple-easy to understand WRONG answer!

Ivan Beaver
Danley Sound Labs

PHYSICS- NOT FADS!

Nick Andrews

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 84
Re: RCF 8003 or 8004
« Reply #6 on: April 08, 2016, 01:03:14 am »

I am really curious about this statement.

How does a almost square front loaded sub make a difference in how well it "covers the room" when placed on the side?

At sub freq, the wavelengths are so large (as compared to the size of the cabinet) and there is no directivity in a front loaded cabinet, I don't see a way that it could make a difference.

Maybe you could explain how this happens as it doesn't make sense to me.

Or maybe I am missing something

Only thing I can think of is that if he's using the built in m20 mount points on the sub, one is pushed back behind the woofer , the other is dead even with the woofer , if he isn't delaying the top he could be getting some cancelation,, but I can't imagine it be that much .... But maybe
Logged

Rick Alan

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 160
Re: RCF 8003 or 8004
« Reply #7 on: April 10, 2016, 10:59:29 am »

I know Ivan has way more IQ point and understand of this topic but my ears do not lie. 

In my pie brain the only thing I can come up with is the front hole goes from being horizontal on the ground to vertical.  When you stack 2 or 3 you can notice the difference even more. 

I am really curious about this statement.

How does a almost square front loaded sub make a difference in how well it "covers the room" when placed on the side?

At sub freq, the wavelengths are so large (as compared to the size of the cabinet) and there is no directivity in a front loaded cabinet, I don't see a way that it could make a difference.

Maybe you could explain how this happens as it doesn't make sense to me.

Or maybe I am missing something
Logged

ProSoundWeb Community

Re: RCF 8003 or 8004
« Reply #7 on: April 10, 2016, 10:59:29 am »


Pages: [1]   Go Up
 



Page created in 0.077 seconds with 25 queries.