Wats the difference btw amplifier nd a woofer?

Answer 1

an amplifier amplifies the signal. It pushes more power *too* the sub-woofer (or other component speakers). The subwoofer is just a large speaker designed to produce the lower frequencies. You need both to complete the system and you should match the wattages on both as closely as possible.(but you shouldn't exceed the subwoofers' rms wattage)

(this example is for a car set up)

Example: 2 amplifiers
1x Amp that makes 400w RMS (100w per channel on 4 channels)
that would be plugged into your highs (your front and rear speakers)
1x Amp that makes 600w RMS (600w on 1 channel) which would be plugged into your subwoofer.

In a home theatre your speakers will be plugged into your amp (which is in turn plugged into your receiver) your subwoofer will probably have an auxilliary amp built into the enclosure (read: box)

Answer 2

a subwoofer is a large speaker that emits purely a monotone bass sound. you can get them in 8",10", 12" or 15". you have to install them into an acoustic box to get the full effect from them. because of the size of them and the air that they move they will require an amplifier. an amplifier basically gives the sound from your stereo a stronger signal and increases the ampage of the signal which therefore gives the speakers alot more power. an amp is absolutly necesary if you want to install a subwoofer. the most ideal amplifier to get for a subwoofer would be a mono block amp which amplifies purely the bass. there are amplifiers on the market that have filters to only pass bass or treble sound to the sub or speakers. amps can also be used to power any speakers. i read above a comment about speakers make or break the system this is incorrect! it is equally important to spend money on the amp as it is the speakers themselves. ifyou go and buy a cheap low quality amp it will be poor quality and will distort the sound. also another tip is if you can afford it buy two sepreate amps. i.e one for you sub and one for the rest of the speakers, this will allow you to get much higher quality sound beeing produced by your system. kenwood is very very good at everything in audio. my whole system is kenwood. the only better brands if you can afford it is either kicker, pheonix gold, or vibe. also dont fall into the trap of not spending enough on getting a decent head unit. with out a high quality head unit you are wasting your time with amps and subs. and the other tip is power isnt everything you need to look at the quality of the product i.e the good brand names instead of the cheap and nasty products foud on ebay!!!!! good luck!

Answer 3

An amplifier: One that amplifies, enlarges, or extends.

A woofer: A loudspeaker designed to reproduce bass frequencies.

Answer 4

An amp is a device that boosts sound, a woofer is a speaker specifically designed to output deep bass. :)

Answer 5

amp is your power source woofer is a bass speaker

Answer 6

AMP is what makes the WOOFER work

AMP=metal device

SUB-WOOFER = speaker

Answer 7

I think the only difference is >>maybe<< the crossover point between the mid and the tweeter. I have the ones that are listed on CDTs site as the 560i but they say 560 on the board and all of the parts appear to be identical to the red board 560.


The main op-amp concept closely resembles the general principle of error-driven control systems. You drive the positive input with a refferential signal and you drive the negative input with an output signal of the system. If there's an instantaneous difference between the input refference and the output, the differential input of the control system evaluates it as an error between the actual output state and the state desired, and moves the output in an opposite direction than is the one of the error.
With general control systems, this interpretation applies for various classes of input and output signals, and system designs. With op-amps and audio amps, the situation is quite simple: all the signals are contiguous voltages, variable in time. Note that, although in the whole theory we only operate with three 'signals' (+in, -in, out), we always end up needing a fourth signal to refference the rest to - this signal is the Ground. This is because the voltage, processed by real op-amps, is a difference of potentials. Gimme a fixed point in the universe and I'll move the earth. (Anyone remembers who said that?) Even though in some cases we don't need the ground on the input, we always need something to connect the output load to. In my example given above, we need the ground both on the input and on the output.
An ideal op-amp amplifies the difference between the two inputs with an infinite amplification ratio and with a zero response time. You can picture an op-amp as a comparator: if the (-)in is higher than the (+)in, the output is -(infinity). If the (-)in is lower than the (+)in, the output is +(infinity). An upward motion of the (+)in causes the output to climb high and vice versa. An upward motion of the (-)in causes the output to go low and vice versa. Or maybe I'd better say 'flip low'/'flip hi' as long as we work with ideal devices. I've got no idea of how the theory deals with all these infinities, and in fact I don't care, as no ideal devices really exist. Practical op-amps amplify the difference between their two inputs with a pretty high amplification within a reasonable response time. Their input and output voltage range is limited by the power supply rails.
If you connect the (-)in to the output and drive the (+)in with a reasonable signal, the output will exactly follow the (+)in, because this way the feedback tells the op-amp to minimize deviations between the given input and the output. Now imagine what happens, if you connect the (-)in to the middle point of a resistive voltage divider (e.g. a trimpot), that's connected between the op-amp's output and ground. This sort of a feedback network tells the op-amp to minimize error between the input signal (+in to GND) and the 'output signal (output to GND) divided by the ratio of the two resistors in the feedback'. This way you can do all sorts of things with the negative feedback, like setting it to various amplifications or making it frequency dependent by including capacitors (or coils). You can even make the op-amp oscillate, which often happens as an unintended by-product of a miscalculated feedback experiment.
Negative feedbacks are usually used in self-stabilizing circuits. Positive feedbacks, on the other hand, are de-stabilizing. You can achieve one by involving the (+)in in a feedback network. Such feedbacks are often used to introduce hysterisis in flip-flop circuits and comparators.
Introduction of frequency dependent devices into feedbacks makes quite a mess about the topic. These devices not only cause the amplification to be frequency dependent, but also introduce phase shifts. Thus, in some cases, the border between a positive and a negative feedback becomes rather fuzzy. Or I'd better say that in such cases we have to work with all sorts of feedbacks within a single theory, that would allow us to make some conclusions. Due to my limited education in electronics and math, I only know a little bit in this field, but I'll try to explain it.
There's a concept called the Nyquist's criterion, concerning system stability (in this case meaning convergence in time). It applies for control systems in general, not only op-amps and their linear feedback networks. Imagine a control system with a feedback (an audio amp is a good example of a negative feedback system). The Nyquist's criterion applies for the loop as a whole, i.e. in our example the external feedback network AND the amp itself. Both the external network and the internal devices of the amp introduce phase shifts (in case of the amp I rather percieve it as a response time or delay). The overall phase shift is a sum of partial shifts of the loop components. The overall amplification around the loop is a multiplicative product of partial amplifications (i.e. the gain in dB is a sum of partial gains). The criterion says, that the feedback system is stable, if at all frequencies, where the overall phase shift equals an integer multiple of 360 degrees, the overall amplification is lower than one. I can say it the other way around, too: if you can find a frequency, where the phase shift is an integer multiple of 360 degrees, and the amplification is equal to or greater than one, the loop won't be stable. Unstability may either mean, that the output will wander off into one of the limits forever, or that the system will oscillate. A positive DC feedback is an example of the former, an oscillating system with a complicated frequency-dependant feedback is an instance of the latter.
In op-amp systems with a negative feedback, the 'negativeness' itself presents a 180 degrees phase shift. In this example, please forget about the (+) input - it's just a DC biasing reference. Since it's impractical to take care of each individual integer multiple of 360 degrees separately, another approach is usually taken. Imagine the loop as an ideal amplifier and a series of low-pass filters (first-order RC integrators). The "ideal amplifier" stands for the overall gain, and the low-pass filters represent the frequency dependent damping and phase shift. Now we've got 180 degrees in either direction to start with. There's no problem with the negative 180 degrees. There's however quite a puzzle with the positive direction. The easiest way to avoid the Nyquist's frontier is to add another low-pass filter into the already existing series. This low-pass filter must reduce the overall gain to such extent, that at 180 degrees it's lower than one. This compensation is usually introduced by a local capacitor feedback across the stage that accounts for most DC amplification. The trouble is, that this additional compensational filter stage eats another 90 degrees, so that we've only got 90 degrees left for the remaining stages. Also, within 90 degrees, this additional filter stage has got quite a limited steepness. As a result, in order to stabilize our amplifier, we either have to use pretty fast active devices, or we have to cut open-loop amplification at higher frequencies, thus increasing distortion.

Answer 8

spelling