I hate to admit it but these new power towers are the new “boomboxes” of today. And they sound incredible.
Last edited:
The king of “boomboxes”. 800 watts RMS and battery powered. Plenty of deep powerful bass
- Thread starter Bassboost432
- Start date
I completely feel you. But here’s the good part: NOW, there’s no excuse for companies not to be able to remake 80’s 90’s style boom boxes that also make 800 watts rms. Imagine a new 800 watt JVC kaboom, or Panasonic dt680. It’s a new frontier!!!
Already starting:
But this JBL thing is not a boombox as to how the members of this community generally sees a boombox, it is a bluetooth powered speaker. I wouldn't even say it compares to the Pioneer DiscoRobo, because even that has a cassette deck and radio, and mixing capability. That's not to say it's not useful. When my daughter recently got married, a device like this was convenient in playing back wedding specific tunes from an iphone, so these types of things have it's place.
But this JBL thing is not a boombox as to how the members of this community generally sees a boombox, it is a bluetooth powered speaker. I wouldn't even say it compares to the Pioneer DiscoRobo, because even that has a cassette deck and radio, and mixing capability. That's not to say it's not useful. When my daughter recently got married, a device like this was convenient in playing back wedding specific tunes from an iphone, so these types of things have it's place.
Hi, I own an integrated amp, a Realistic SA 155, with 1.8 watts per channel @ 8 ohms with 20-20,000 hz frequency response. Not a boombox, but the the volume and full tonal range was literally unbelievable! Modern,800 watt claims, remind me of bargain car audio eq/amp claims of 200+ watts per channel back in the 80s. Look to your output caps . Replaced 470's with 2200's in a Panasonic RX 5100 (5 watts per channel); what a difference! Thanks.
How do car audio systems get water with thousands of watts per channel RMS? Is it possible to do that in a home too?
That’s impressive for only 1.8 watts. Sounds like it would even out perform holy grails like the kaboom with its 20 watts per channel. That’s some SERIOUS engineering going on with that 1.8 watts. I’d love to hear it.
Reli
Boomus Fidelis
Because in most cases it's BS.
Back in the 70s, most manufacturers abided by the FTC standard, where they would measure minimum output across the entire audible spectrum. So when they said 1.8 watts per channel, that was the MINIMUM it could deliver across that spectrum. The maximum would be a higher number which was rarely provided, because who cares what the maximum is if it only occurs at one single frequency?
But today's manufacturers only tell you the maximum, not the minimum. If you see someone saying RMS instead of FTC, and without the word "minimum", that's what they're doing. Plus they measure it at some ridiculously high distortion level like 10%, which is not tolerable by any reasonable person.
And even with all that, it could still be BS, because unfortunately the government doesn't force them to tell the truth. I've seen so many products saying RMS when it's clear that it's really just PMPO, because no plastic bluetooth speaker could handle the RMS they're claiming.
Last edited:
Hajidub
Member (SA)
Very high current ratings. Multiple the fuses ratings by 12volts (car voltage) and that'll be your maximum (or close to it without blowing the fuse). Home audio usually tries to obtain a level of fidelity, not possible with car audio due to speaker and seating placement. All audio amplifiers follow the Lin Topology in some fashion, it all depends on how beefy they make their transformers and associated audio path components. Great video, can't remember the name, on youtube about the wattage wars with stereo receivers during the 70's, where Technics reigned supreme during the final year of the wattage wars.