anasazi

GM lies about wattage of sound systems

Threxx

Basically the higher end sound system companies use more realistic standards when measuring their wattage.

If you go to the computer show you'll probably see a "500 watt sattelite/sub" sound system in a box for your computer for only 10 bucks. Do you really think it's a true 500 watts? The way they rate those things is that yeah, it'll produce 500 watts. But only at about 99% distortion (you would have no chance of even understanding what was being played) for 2 hundredths of a second before it explodes and sends plastic shrapnel in all directions.

Go listen to, for example, a 300 watt Mark Levinson sound system in the new GS, or the 260 watt Bose system in the new M35. They will sound MUCH louder and stronger than even a Mach 1000 system in a Mustang.

Just because it hurts your ears more doesn't mean it's louder... it's more likely just more distorted and more shrill. Good controlled high sound quality music can get loud enough to where you feel like you're there front row at the recording of that movie or song and it'll still sound completely natural and comfortable.

Need4Camaro

The mental image of that had me roling...

Gord's Green Z28

Threxx is correct. When I bought my CD player for the car, I looked at the numbers.

140 watts!
35x4 (peak)
14x4 RMS (at 1% THD into 4 ohms)

In other words, the thing puts out maybe 1 or 2 real watts. Compare that to one of my amplifiers at home. 85 watts/channel from 10-20,000 hz at 0.002% THD. This amp feels like a tank. It would survive World War III. People never believe it's only 85 watts.

I have a watt meter on my home stereo, and most of the time it's sitting in the tenth of watt to maybe maybe half a watt. And that's at 90dB or so. The last time I got up to 500 watts was when I was watching the first Lord of the Rings during the battle scene in the first five minutes. That was at 105 dB in my living room. Now take a small enclosure like a car and 500 watts is brutal overkill unless you're a major subwoofer idiot. This was done with a different amp than the one I described above.

What I'm getting at is that Monsoon's 500 watt rating is 100% BS.

spootydinkcamaro94

The 3 speaker Bose setup I had in my 94 sounded better than the 5 speaker Bose and the Monsoon, in my opinion.

Usually if you have anything other than just 2 front speakers the staging and imaging is all screwed up, hence my single pair of JLs up front

rat55chev

Thanks for the input. Bose it is. Although the car is a 93, there are five speakers. Apparently two have been added.

Beyonce Knowles

I kept the stock Bose subwoofer and replaced the front speakers with Fosgate components, hid the crossovers behind the door panels. Best of both worlds that way.

TTlord

i have a 1994 z and it has the 5 speaker bose system in it. it came with a tape deck and was switched to a cd deck from the same year. my car was built in 94. i have read, and you all say that the 94 z bose system only came with 3 speakers, mine did not. the only thing i have to say is that when i turn my volume up to past 50% there seems to be some loss of power. i can tell the difference but others cannot. i have a 95 tahoe with a factory cd and it pushes 6 speakers just fine, no extra amp. i am thinking of doing something different, but am unsure which way to go. i have a friend at best buy that can get me a jensen motorized dvd player w/ 7'' screen for around 300$. i would like to keep the factory bose speakers. like i said i am unsure of what i am going to do or how to go about it.

94'_Z28

If it's got no highs and no lows it's Bose . The Monsoon is the better of the two.

Threxx

You think so just because of that saying? Most people I talk to say the Bose sounded better overall than the monsoon (that's by far my opinion, too). I think it's even more ridiculous that the Monsoon brags to be a "500 watt 10 speaker stereo" nowhere near 500 true watts and they should used more quality drivers instead of a bunch of crappy ones, IMO.

I don't care much for Bose, but the 5-speaker setup, especially, was much better than the Monsoon.

chuckd4more

I was very happy with my bose. Most people thought I had an amp and subs. Could not believe that the bass came from that little speaker and definately did not believe that it came that way. Never heard the monsoon system so cannot choose. But I can say that when the bose system was 'new', it didn't get much better than that for a stock system out there. Especially for what we paid for the car. Besides, it's a sports car, not a luxury car. Although it has it's misgivings regarding the highs, if you appreciate the bass then it was worth it.

94'_Z28

I've had the Bose and it sucked. It did have crappy highs, and pretty much no lows. I've also heard the Monsoon and it to me sounded better than the Bose. Also just cuz it has 5 or 10 speakers makes it good, it makes it worse IMO. Oh well, of couse to me they both are no good, and aftermarket is the only way

Threxx

Huh? The monsoon has 10 speakers, the Bose only has 5. So you just agreed with me that 10 speakers makes the monsoon crappy?

94'_Z28

No, but to me the Monsoon was the better of the two. Personaly I think they are both bad IMO. I've never heard a stock stereo that has impressed me, that's why I never keep it stock.

lbls1

I haven't heard the Bose, but the trick with Monsoon's is to somehow help its anemic low frequency (bass) response. It leaves a lot to be desired IMO, and since you crank the system sometimes to make up for the weak bass, you could blow the speakers if you are not careful.

Monsoons need an aftermarket subwoofer before they will sound decent. Most of the other sound ranges, to be honest, are pretty good. If you can get a good quality subwoofer and adapt it to the Monsoon, you will see a dramatic difference in its sound quality. That is something that GM could've done perhaps to improve the system if they wanted to.