murcod wrote:The deeper bass will be from the Kizashi using the boot ("trunk" in USA speak) as the subwoofer enclosure. The Outlander doesn't have a boot so would be using something substantially smaller as an enclosure- which tends to affect bass response. The Kizashi's sub is also mounted to the body, I assume the Outlander's is probably is part of the rear boot area trim?
Here's some info on the two:
http://www.rockfordfosgate.com/products ... -outlander
http://www.rockfordfosgate.com/products ... 13-kizashi
Also note the specs- Kizashi is rated at 425 Watts
RMS and the Outlander 710 Watts
MAX. Basically there's a huge difference in the way those two ratings are measured - RMS is effectively the average power the system can produce, MAX is exactly that- what the system can produce for only a split second.... RMS is the true way of rating an amplifier. MAX (or peak) is used by companies to make their poor performing amps look better on paper.
The RMS rating of the Outlander system is quite likely substantially less than the Kizashi's
Gotta love marketing ploys to make products
look more impressive. Shame on RF for stooping to those levels.
Exactly right on BOTH acounts my friend! I would go a bit further and say that both systems are, more than likely, exactly the same components. Most after-market manufacturers are esentually using the same components across a broad spectrum of clients. Bose, for instance, use the same system in dozens of different vehicles, but the auto manufacturer prices them differently. Most RF amplifiers are rated at MAX power. It's unfortunate and should be illegal as it is extremely missleading. RMS (or Root Means Squared) is actually what the amplifier is essentially designed to produce while keeping the total harmonic distortion under a designated level. (I believe it's >0.01%, but I could be wrong) An amplifier with a RMS rated 50 watts will often outproduce an amplifier with a peak rated 500 watts because the output will be cleaner and more useable. I once had an amplifier attached to two competition built 15 inche subs that was RMS rated to deliver 25 watts to 4OHMs. once bridged properly, the amp was tested and certified to produce close to 2,000 RMS watts PER SUB at 0.5 OHMs and produced 156.6 decibels at an IASCA sanctioned event in 1996.
The actual location of the sub definately makes a HUGE difference. The "free air" set up in the Kizashi (aperodic in technical terms) works on the notion that simply seperating the sound waves in front of the sub from the standing waves in the rear of the sub will supply sufficient air movement. It doesn't work well unless the sub has a good enough motor structure. Heavier cone material to resiste flexing and more power are also needed. This is why the stock, non-RF sub doesn't play as loud or deep, even though they are the same size. An enclosed sub with the enclosure built to proper spec for that sub will more than likely produce a harder initial "punch" from a bass drum, or a more accurate "musicality" to bass guitar, but the free air system will ALWAYS play deeper notes, although less acurate and punchy. My personal preference os the sealed bow (the enclosed) as I prefer musicality and acuracy more than communicating with whales. I am rather impressed with the RF system in my wife's Kizashi though. I never expected a free air sub to be that acurate in a factory system.
It's called the ASX here, like you said.
