Shaker Pro "Real World Wattage"

[pctek]

The information posted from Ford about the Shaker Pro system lists it's output power at 550 Watts. This obviously isn't per channel. I was playing back so old CD's and found that I really had to crank the volume level nearly all the way up.

I know the Sub in the trunk has it's own amp. The rear deck mounted speakers are counted as 4 since each speaker has two speaker elements inside (we used to call that bi-amped) So what is the amp up front powering? I was really expecting more audio power from the Shaker Pro.

Are the 3 speakers in the drivers side considered 1 channel (Left/front?) and the 3 speakers simply use a cross over to split the audio frequencies and the amp isn't really powering 3 discrete speaker elements?

In that case, I'd have a 4 channel system with my Shaker Pro.. Left/front, Right/Front, Left/Rear, Right/Rear and then the sub which goes from the amp at line level then to the sub's dedicated amp. So the amp would have 4 discrete output channels to power... which means ~137 watts per channel?? The audio level still seems low for that much wattage...

Sponsored

 

[JimmyTwoTimes]

The information posted from Ford about the Shaker Pro system lists it's output power at 550 Watts. This obviously isn't per channel. I was playing back so old CD's and found that I really had to crank the volume level nearly all the way up.

I know the Sub in the trunk has it's own amp. The rear deck mounted speakers are counted as 4 since each speaker has two speaker elements inside (we used to call that bi-amped) So what is the amp up front powering? I was really expecting more audio power from the Shaker Pro.

Are the 3 speakers in the drivers side considered 1 channel (Left/front?) and the 3 speakers simply use a cross over to split the audio frequencies and the amp isn't really powering 3 discrete speaker elements?

In that case, I'd have a 4 channel system with my Shaker Pro.. Left/front, Right/Front, Left/Rear, Right/Rear and then the sub which goes from the amp at line level then to the sub's dedicated amp. So the amp would have 4 discrete output channels to power... which means ~137 watts per channel?? The audio level still seems low for that much wattage...

It's 550 watts TOTAL spread among 14 speakers. Assuming the subwoofer is 150 watts, that's about 30 watts per speaker for the remaining speakers.

 

[Todd15Fastback]

12 speakers total, including the sub.

 

[Nanashii]

Anyone have a diagram of the speaker locations?

 

[pctek]

It's 550 watts TOTAL spread among 14 speakers. Assuming the sub-woofer is 150 watts, that's about 30 watts per speaker for the remaining speakers.

I guess that is one way to look at it, but I don't think it's right. First, the Shaker pro only has 12 speakers (11 speakers and a sub). The 3 speakers mounted on the driver/passenger sides don't interdependently go back to the main amp. The are treated by the amp as "channels". The audio frequencies are split between the woofer, mid and tweeter by means of a cross-over network. So the amp only has 4 "amplified" channels out (L/F, R/F, L/R and R/R) and 1 pre-amp level out to the sub. So quick math tells me that the 550 watts is divided among the 4 channels, for a rating of ~137 watts each.

I would think 137 watts RMS would "shake" the glass at the 3/4 setting, but it doesn't. I also don't think the sub has a 150 watt amp mounted behind the sub casing, but i could be wrong.

 

[davekro]

It sounds like Ford is stating maximum/peak wattage for the system. Do they claim 550 total watts RMS? Then I woul assume it is 550 peak watts. Marketing in full swing here.

Wouldn't RMS or normal continuous wattage be about half of peak? And THD is usually higher for OEM amps vs. quality aftermarket amps I believe. The sub's amp would be a larger proportion of the system's 'quoted power' because obviously subs need MUCH more power than each of the 4 regular speaker channels.

So IF sub was 150 Peak, 75 RMS,
Then each of the four channels would be
400/4 = 100 peak, 50 watts RMS (but at what THD % Total Harmonic Distortion)

I wonder if the parts dept could tell the manufacturer an then they could be called for specs on the amps. My convertible will come with a base 6 speaker system, so I have no dogs... ;)

 

[MSamuels]

What a pitiful system for the dollars. Had no idea the wattage was so low. I mean the Shaker 1000 in the 2005 Mustang I got it is pretty damned amazing in comparison. Lower wattage combined with more useless speakers and a smaller sub and you have this 'Shaker Pro'

 

[JimmyTwoTimes]

12, not 14, my bad.

I agree that the sound is disappointing for what it is. It's not as loud as the regular Shaker system in my S197 with the bigger woofers in the doors and no sub. But wattage is always a really sketchy measure anyway... my 7 x 100 Onkyo amp in my living room with a 250 watt sub and seven Boston Acoustics speakers doesn't put out as much sound as my Dynaco 35 wpc tube amp.

 

[Herr_Poopschitz]

40 watts/channel through midrange/tweeters and 200 watts through a reasonably sized sub is more than enough to hurt my ears (root mean square).

How loud are you guys wanting them to be?

 

[JimmyTwoTimes]

40 watts/channel through midrange/tweeters and 200 watts through a reasonably sized sub is more than enough to hurt my ears (root mean square).

How loud are you guys wanting them to be?

A friend of mine had a 2002 Mustang that he built a sub for that took up the ENTIRE trunk. You could feel your teeth rattling; used to get crazy cowl-shake on the rear. The type of bass you can feel in your intestines, set of car alarms as you drive down the street. That'd be nice.

I was legitimately expecting that when you played it at top volume with the windows down, people on the sidewalk would have their conversations drowned out.

 

[GiddyUp15]

I won't lie, I'm underwhelmed by the Shaker Pro. My 2011 Fusion has the premium sound that's also 12 speakers (Sony) and it sounds great. Was expecting the Shaker Pro to be at least as good as that. Maybe I need to mess with the settings more, but it seems like the system has too much high frequencies going on, it's ear piercing when cranked up like I like it. On a similar note, MFT sucks...good thing I love the rest of the car so much I'll be upgrading my "sound system" here soon when my Roush axle-back arrives

 

[TonyT930]

The information posted from Ford about the Shaker Pro system lists it's output power at 550 Watts. This obviously isn't per channel. I was playing back so old CD's and found that I really had to crank the volume level nearly all the way up.

I know the Sub in the trunk has it's own amp. The rear deck mounted speakers are counted as 4 since each speaker has two speaker elements inside (we used to call that bi-amped) So what is the amp up front powering? I was really expecting more audio power from the Shaker Pro.

Are the 3 speakers in the drivers side considered 1 channel (Left/front?) and the 3 speakers simply use a cross over to split the audio frequencies and the amp isn't really powering 3 discrete speaker elements?

In that case, I'd have a 4 channel system with my Shaker Pro.. Left/front, Right/Front, Left/Rear, Right/Rear and then the sub which goes from the amp at line level then to the sub's dedicated amp. So the amp would have 4 discrete output channels to power... which means ~137 watts per channel?? The audio level still seems low for that much wattage...

Do you know what the frequency response of the stock head unit is?

 

[TonyT930]

Do you know what the frequency response of the stock head unit is?

More specifically, the sub out lead...

 

[5doorsoffury]

just take the fuse for the system and use ohms law. then multiply it by .80 for efficiency losses and that's a ball park. rms is based on a constant sine wave so .707 peak is about the rms but audio will fall somewhere in between that and half. then divide by the speakers. and that's only if the speakers are all the same resistance. for example a aftermarket head unit put out 10- 15 watts rms per channel

 

[Pistol_91]

It sounds like Ford is stating maximum/peak wattage for the system. Do they claim 550 total watts RMS? Then I woul assume it is 550 peak watts. Marketing in full swing here.

Wouldn't RMS or normal continuous wattage be about half of peak? And THD is usually higher for OEM amps vs. quality aftermarket amps I believe. The sub's amp would be a larger proportion of the system's 'quoted power' because obviously subs need MUCH more power than each of the 4 regular speaker channels.

So IF sub was 150 Peak, 75 RMS,
Then each of the four channels would be
400/4 = 100 peak, 50 watts RMS (but at what THD % Total Harmonic Distortion)

I wonder if the parts dept could tell the manufacturer an then they could be called for specs on the amps. My convertible will come with a base 6 speaker system, so I have no dogs... ;)

Peak and RMS ratings depends on manufacturer typically. Most well known ones will rate them basically in half. Peak ratings are absolutely useless. Just make them seem better than they are.

Sponsored