# To bi amp or not to bi amp



## Kyle5521 (May 21, 2015)

When should you bi amp? Or not bi amp?
Are their any cut and dry answers to this question?

What are the benefits of bi amping components? Or similar, what is the reason TO bi amp?

Does a bi amped signal affect sound quality? For better or worse? 

Taking all these answers into context, and considering my front stage which I have listed below....
Should I bi amp or not!?!?!?

Upfront I'm running a set of Focal PS 165Fx components powered by an Alpine MRV-F300 4 channel amp sending 50W RMS*4


----------



## mmnjtwa (Apr 6, 2015)

Are you only running a sub and front stage? I'm not too sure about the Focal speakers; are they 2 or 8 individually? They are rated at 80w nominal and 160w max. Your Alpine amp puts out 150wrms bridged at 4 ohm. If you bi-amp it you'll get up to 75wrms at 2 ohms. 

Now that I've just told you what you could have read on the manuals of each, either way you ran it, you'd likely have a but of headroom. Generally speaking, the tweeters often take less power, so you would be able to adjust the gains individually by bi-amping. If you have the equipment, I would suggest bi-amp.


----------



## Kriszilla (Jul 1, 2013)

Bi-amping is really beneficial when you're using a DSP so that you can set the time-alignment of each individual driver. Then again, if you're using a DSP, you won't be using the included passive crossovers that came with your speakers.


----------



## Kyle5521 (May 21, 2015)

mmnjtwa said:


> Are you only running a sub and front stage? I'm not too sure about the Focal speakers; are they 2 or 8 individually? They are rated at 80w nominal and 160w max. Your Alpine amp puts out 150wrms bridged at 4 ohm. If you bi-amp it you'll get up to 75wrms at 2 ohms.
> 
> Now that I've just told you what you could have read on the manuals of each, either way you ran it, you'd likely have a but of headroom. Generally speaking, the tweeters often take less power, so you would be able to adjust the gains individually by bi-amping. If you have the equipment, I would suggest bi-amp.


I am thoroughly inclined as to what my own equipment is rated, in terms of power handling limits, and bridging capabilities. I still thank you nonetheless, albeit your interpretation of the question presented was, confusing. 

Kriszilla I like that option very much mainly because a mid bass driver is in my plans and possibly another set of mid range. Does the benefit of having a standalone DSP considerably outweigh using the crossover provided with the speakers?


----------



## Kyle5521 (May 21, 2015)

Kriszilla said:


> Bi-amping is really beneficial when you're using a DSP so that you can set the time-alignment of each individual driver. Then again, if you're using a DSP, you won't be using the included passive crossovers that came with your speakers.


Is their a particular DSP you recommend? I'm running 2 10'sin the trunk components up front and plans to add mid bass and possible mid range drivers.


----------



## mmnjtwa (Apr 6, 2015)

Kyle5521 said:


> I am thoroughly inclined as to what my own equipment is rated, in terms of power handling limits, and bridging capabilities. I still thank you nonetheless, albeit your interpretation of the question presented was, confusing.
> 
> Kriszilla I like that option very much mainly because a mid bass driver is in my plans and possibly another set of mid range. Does the benefit of having a standalone DSP considerably outweigh using the crossover provided with the speakers?


I wasn't saying you didn't know about your equipment. I am at work and got sidetracked and forgot where I was initially heading with the response, so I was making fun of myself about it. 

Only reason not to bi-amp is if you don't have enough space for extra equipment if required.


----------



## Gn4rkillz (May 13, 2014)

Kyle5521 said:


> Is their a particular DSP you recommend? I'm running 2 10'sin the trunk components up front and plans to add mid bass and possible mid range drivers.



There are tons of DSP's that will do what you need them to do. Some are better than others but the popular ones include:

Rockford Fosgate 3sixty.3
JBL MS8
Mosconi 4to6 or 6to8
Audioson Bit ten/ Bit one
Alpine PXE-H800
The Helix processors have a lot of great review ect.

When you say bi amp, what I am assuming you are talking about is running your speakers active. By actively being able to adjust your crossovers you gain tons of control. You have some nice speakers and I have personally heard those speakers both passive and active. Let me tell you that the difference is night and day. There is a lot of voltage that gets "lost" when going through a passive crossover which in turn will not get you the full benefit of your speakers. By going active, when set up properly, you will gain a lot of volume, a lot of clarity and a bit of accuracy. It is the way to go. That all being said, your amp won't allow you to do this alone, you will need either an active crossover, not very common orrrrr DUN DUN DUN, a DSP. Cut and dry: Yes you should go active, your ears and speakers will thank you.


----------



## mmnjtwa (Apr 6, 2015)

Gn4rkillz said:


> When you say bi amp, what I am assuming you are talking about is running your speakers active. By actively being able to adjust your crossovers you gain tons of control.


Actually, I think he is asking about bi-amping through the crossover and running them passive. (I could very well be incorrect, but that's how I interpreted it.) 

If you get a dsp, I'd definitely recommend going active. I have the Audison Bit One and like it. The software could be a bit better, but I hear that's kinda the case with most of the dsp out there. If you're looking to add some more channels, then you'd want to get the Bit One instead of the Bit Ten. Another good one is the Mosconi 6to8. Those two are typically the higher end, and little bit pricier. As Gn4rkillz mentioned, the RF 3sixty and the JBL MS8 are also fairly popular on the board. 

I'd post some links to some dsp threads, but I'm still at work. Also, sorry for the brevity and if I'm not answering well enough, I'm trying to type between customers. If nobody has answered by the time I'm home, I'll try to come back and elaborate a little better for you.


----------



## Kyle5521 (May 21, 2015)

Gn4rkillz said:


> There are tons of DSP's that will do what you need them to do. Some are better than others but the popular ones include:
> 
> Rockford Fosgate 3sixty.3
> JBL MS8
> ...


Yea you assumed correctly.
I was aware of the lack of control but I did not know about the drop in voltage with passive. 
As of right now I'm haulting my entire build and going the DSP route!!! I'm all about sound quality and this route will clearly give me that.
This presents me with another question. My head unit only has 2 pre outs so I will need a new unit with more if I'm correct?
I don't want to go the Y-adapter route if at all possible. I would prefer extra preouts to integrate any add ons I do in the future, seamlessly, and the most preferred way.
Damn if been so close to getting this system all buttoned up and now I'm back at square one!! Hahah I'm stoked tho it's a good thing because it will all be worth it. 
Are there any head units you would recommend that give me the most functionality for what I'm doing?

Thanks for the help man! 
This thread has been a huge breakthrough for me.



mmnjtwa said:


> Actually, I think he is asking about bi-amping through the crossover and running them passive. (I could very well be incorrect, but that's how I interpreted it.)
> 
> If you get a dsp, I'd definitely recommend going active. I have the Audison Bit One and like it. The software could be a bit better, but I hear that's kinda the case with most of the dsp out there. If you're looking to add some more channels, then you'd want to get the Bit One instead of the Bit Ten. Another good one is the Mosconi 6to8. Those two are typically the higher end, and little bit pricier. As Gn4rkillz mentioned, the RF 3sixty and the JBL MS8 are also fairly popular on the board.
> 
> I'd post some links to some dsp threads, but I'm still at work. Also, sorry for the brevity and if I'm not answering well enough, I'm trying to type between customers. If nobody has answered by the time I'm home, I'll try to come back and elaborate a little better for you.


Yes I was talking about bi amping through the crossover. And yes technically it would still be running passive, only because of where it sits in the signal chain. 
Otherwise this is commonly called "poor mans crossover" due to the fact that it is essentially off,as it is no longer presenting the load with a crossover point.
Thanks for your input bro


----------



## Kyle5521 (May 21, 2015)

As for focal, I'm curious as to why they still are operating with bi ampable crossover networks on their high end equiptment. You'd think they would 
Cut out the middleman and pair these types of components with some sort of DSP network. Even if it was ultra basic and couldn't handle any other signal but the one going through this set, it would simplify set up and really allow these speakers to shine as they should. They might even spark and increase intreast in their hi end speaker lines.


----------



## mmnjtwa (Apr 6, 2015)

Kyle5521 said:


> As of right now I'm haulting my entire build and going the DSP route!!! I'm all about sound quality and this route will clearly give me that.
> This presents me with another question. My head unit only has 2 pre outs so I will need a new unit with more if I'm correct?
> I don't want to go the Y-adapter route if at all possible. I would prefer extra preouts to integrate any add ons I do in the future, seamlessly, and the most preferred way.
> Damn if been so close to getting this system all buttoned up and now I'm back at square one!! Hahah I'm stoked tho it's a good thing because it will all be worth it.
> Are there any head units you would recommend that give me the most functionality for what I'm doing?


If you are going to use a dsp, then the it doesn't matter how many preouts your HU has, as your dsp will run the channels of your amps. You only need one set out preouts to connect to the dsp. Depending on which dsp you get, you will have 6-8 channels of output. Each channel will be adjustable separately so you won't have to worry about the crossovers on the amps. Only thing you will need to adjust on the amps is the gain.

As far as functionality from the HU, you won't be using much from it except for the signal. All of your adjusting will come from the tuning of the dsp.


----------



## mmnjtwa (Apr 6, 2015)

Kyle5521 said:


> As for focal, I'm curious as to why they still are operating with bi ampable crossover networks on their high end equiptment. You'd think they would
> Cut out the middleman and pair these types of components with some sort of DSP network. Even if it was ultra basic and couldn't handle any other signal but the one going through this set, it would simplify set up and really allow these speakers to shine as they should. They might even spark and increase intreast in their hi end speaker lines.


Focal, as well as other companies, sell the components separately as well. You can buy the speakers without the crossovers, but, with the way most companies have the pricing set, you don't save too much buy not getting the crossovers with the package deal.


----------



## Alrojoca (Oct 5, 2012)

Bi amping with or without passives offers separation and cleaner sound. It's nice to have that option with passives, many use components without their passives, with a DSP but in those cases, that may defeat the whole purpose of what the manufacturer intended to do, and the sound they wanted to reproduce, sometimes the passives are designed for the drivers and sometimes the drivers are designed for the passives, 


A head unit, that offers basic time alignment, and front and back output levels controls, is all is needed to benefit from the bi ampable passives, most 6 ch head units with 4 or more volts RCA's offer HP for the main channels and a LP for the sub with phase reverse and sometimes additional slopes a few EQ bands, enough for a good basic SQ system.

I'm not trying to steer the op from a stand alone DSP, but to benefit from such, the rest of the system may have to be upgraded. Starting with more power, a mid range driver, just a few things to mention, besides dealing with a laptop to tune and time consuming issues that is better to let an experienced professional do in my opinion.

A single din pioneer Deh 80 PRS although hard to navigate will offer a powerful DSP built in to play with. Pioneer also has some double din touch screens DVD playback units with HIgh pass and low pass filters for the main channels, 10 basic EQ bands and all the stuff mentioned for decent sound processing, the Alpine CDE 164 also offers active crossovers built in , a 9 band PEQ and limited slope selection
The alpine app may help save a few audio settings also to make it easier


----------



## Kyle5521 (May 21, 2015)

Alrojoca said:


> A head unit, that offers basic time alignment, and front and back output levels controls, is all is needed to benefit from the bi ampable passives, most 6 ch head units with 4 or more volts RCA's offer HP for the main channels and a LP for the sub with phase reverse and sometimes additional slopes a few EQ bands, enough for a good basic SQ system.
> 
> A single din pioneer Deh 80 PRS although hard to navigate will offer a powerful DSP built in to play with.


Hmmm interesting, I knew that the manufacturer use the two together to achieve optimum sound quality. That being said is it that difficult to achieve the same if not better SQ with a DSP? 



mmnjtwa said:


> If you are going to use a dsp, then the it doesn't matter how many preouts your HU has, as your dsp will run the channels of your amps. You only need one set out preouts to connect to the dsp. Depending on which dsp you get, you will have 6-8 channels of output. Each channel will be adjustable separately so you won't have to worry about the crossovers on the amps. Only thing you will need to adjust on the amps is the gain.
> 
> As far as functionality from the HU, you won't be using much from it except for the signal. All of your adjusting will come from the tuning of the dsp.


Based on both of your replies I have this.

Do you guys recommend, or prefer, to make all of your adjustments within the HU or on a seperate DSP? I'm sure they both have their advantages.

I must say, though iv never had a seperate DSP, I much prefer to on a hardware unit VS within software. This is just my opinion because I'm an analogue guy, I like having a unit in front of me and dial it in vs navigating through menus. That's my opinion

You guys are seriously answering so many questions iv had and getting me so much more up to speed than I thought in car audio haha.
I know electronics and I know hardware and wiring, but this is another level you guys are opening my eyes to!!!

I def appreciate it look it!


----------



## Alrojoca (Oct 5, 2012)

A DSP offers more flexibility, 8 channels for a 3 way front and sub or a 2 way front ambience rear speakers and sub.

I have a brand new (NIB) PPI DSP 88R for sale If you are interested 31 BANDS PER CHANNEL, a lot of fun.

You need a laptop, download the software from their site, and save your tuning settings, it has up to 4 or 5 different tuned settings 

A DSP offers more options, you could save one setting for one seat stage, passenger stage, both, more bass, or anything with a single click, once you tune each one, and save it on the laptop to the DSP, with most HU's you can't save different settings on their built in DSP's with a quick click.

PREETY MUCH ALL DSP UNITS AVAILABLE NEED A LAPTOP AND PC in most cases for the initial set up and tuning, if you are willing to put the time and effort, it's worth it


----------



## Kyle5521 (May 21, 2015)

Alrojoca said:


> A DSP offers more flexibility, 8 channels for a 3 way front and sub or a 2 way front ambience rear speakers and sub.
> 
> I have a brand new (NIB) PPI DSP 88R for sale If you are interested 31 BANDS PER CHANNEL, a lot of fun.
> 
> ...


How much for it?


----------



## Alrojoca (Oct 5, 2012)

Kyle5521 said:


> How much for it?


PM sent.


----------



## gstokes (Apr 20, 2014)

Gn4rkillz said:


> There are tons of DSP's that will do what you need them to do. Some are better than others but the popular ones include:
> 
> Rockford Fosgate 3sixty.3
> JBL MS8
> ...


You forgot one of the most popular DSP's on the market, MiniDSP..
If the speakers can handle it there's no reason not to biamp, the benefits of running active are many and all good..


----------



## cajunner (Apr 13, 2007)

DSP has colored the hobby landscape but outside of this enclave, the average audio enthusiast is going to walk in to a shop and begin the incremental path to make audio store owners a living...

but think about it for a minute.

the design of component sets has been that the crossover is more complex, the higher the quality/price.

the design includes bi-amping because it's a feature. The truth is that a passive crossover can and often does include equalization that comes "free" or without the consumer having to make a choice about it. This is crude work for a neophyte but an acoustic engineer will make short work of it, so speaker companies can build in what amounts to good sounding component sets through passive crossover circuit selection, and the buyer doesn't get to move a few sliders and funk it all up. It's pre-arranged, it's even better with bi-amp jumpers because then the salesman can sell you a second amplifier touting the benefits of bandwidth limited amplification. 

So, at the very least, it's a way for companies to make sure their product sounds decent, and long before anyone succumbs to the bug and has to have DSP bits strewn about their car, they can upgrade and see what a taste of active sounds like, just by bi-amping the passives.

And let's face it, if I set up a good set of components using good install bits and it's a good interior for audio, how much is the difference going to be first, coming from stock, and last, going all out on DSP?

mind you, I'm running the speaker manufacturer's selected "EQ" with their passives, and I'm getting 80% of the dynamics of the full-on active by driving each speaker with their own amp channel.

just how much increase is left, just how much is someone going to be able to show my install up, using their big box of dirty electronics A/D jitter-ish, just how much of a true upgrade is there, besides the fun and hobby justifying the expense we incur to balls out SQ the family wagon?

not as much as many would care to admit, I can guarantee.


----------



## Kyle5521 (May 21, 2015)

cajunner said:


> DSP has colored the hobby landscape but outside of this enclave, the average audio enthusiast is going to walk in to a shop and begin the incremental path to make audio store owners a living...
> 
> but think about it for a minute.
> 
> ...


Damn dude, well said. This was my question earlier in this forum and it got convoluted (rightfully) to some degree by the obsession that I'm sure most of us have encountered at one point or another. 
Could you by any chance show me your front stage signal path including HU, AMP, XOVER, WOOFER, TWEETER.


----------



## Alrojoca (Oct 5, 2012)

*I agree with what Cajunner said, except for one thing.
*

Show me or tell me what aftermarket system with just passive crossovers bi ampable or tri ampable 2 way or 3 way componets using passives and an HU with only 9 bands or 12 EQ bands for the whole system or all channels, and time alignment In steps of 2 inches, or output control levels in 1 db increments not being to individually control each channel but rather in pairs, like most HU's have, can have a stage where you can pin point the singers voice centered above the dash and located within 6 inches or less of space.


Only with a DSP you can accomplish that dream stage because you will have over 20 extra bands of EQ per channel, per channel not the whole range for the 6 channels, with a DSP you can delay channels in micro steps maybe as smaller than 1/16" of an inch or less compared to 3 or 2" from TA in an HU. You can adjust output levels in fractions of DB's unlike the HU' s processors in larger increments.

Another thing, time alignment with passives is not effective or as effective as with active filtering, also power is reduced with passives due to post amplified filtering.
The only way you can achieve that dream stage is with a good DSP that offers advanced TA, advanced output levels per channel in smaller increments, or even selecting different slopes for each channel individually and having several EQ bands per channel. That's something a passive crossover and most expensive HU's will not do.

For the average Joe to jam and enjoy their commute every day, bi ampable passives will do, if they buy a component set costing over $800 maybe $3000, might as well use the passives that come with them but for the ones wanting the best stage possible a DSP is the solution. 
As well as good driver placement, and some tuning skills of course.


----------



## cajunner (Apr 13, 2007)

it's a game of diminishing returns, and although there is talk of precision focus, and golf ball sized singer pie holes, the reality is we are wowed by loudness, we are thrown into a reverie when the volume goes past the point where we can still hear other people talk...

so, as long as a system achieves that one basic credential, you are in the room, you enter the field with all those rabbit holes strewn all over, forum experts wise in their years dedicating large swaths of bandwidth divulging secrets of infinite worth, mine field fodder, you set one foot in front of the other, hopefully...

but it's important to realize that bi-amping is not "necessary" and neither is "pinpoint focus" because someone said so, what is important is that what you are getting out of your system is worth your time and effort to put it there.


not necessarily a value judgement on price, or reputation, or feature set from the manufacturer advertising materials, but just that a smile should come on one's face regularly as the music is getting through. The artist, gets through.

now, I personally can have that amount or degree of involvement from coaxials off a high-power deck with no advanced sound shaping tools inserted in the chain, so I'm hardly a good judge of what it takes to please some of the most picky, divisive, and discerning folk that regularly stipple these forum pages with their ultra-sharpness, their ultra-violence towards the mediocre.

I'm a pretty laid back guy all in all. So tabulations of various iterations that I've found to my liking are beyond the pale, or moot, as they say.

You might even catch me at a point in time, reminiscing about cassettes, or more typically, how cassette-based systems I've had were able to bring me to a point of individual, mutually assured satisfaction, that I am not really credible today, my noid of marketing savvy competes well with "where's the beef" but doesn't really do much, other than show how my shelf life has become "past use date" and some might say "best buy" but I'll add, I have decades of smiles to look back on, so there...


and I get it, too. I have a processor in my deck, and I have a processor outboard to that, and I even have a processor for cars that have no easy button, (MS-2) but are they really getting me fundamentally to a different place than if I hadn't taken the time to learn their many hours' worth of dedicated study? Is the final value fees imposed really equal to the buy-in?

I would say the initial rise up from OEM, or stock is a steep hill and after that, mostly a plateau of lateral moves, with small vantage points pockmarked by costs in time and money spent, chasing advertiser spenditures, long past that initial entry point that got me in the room, so long ago...


----------



## gstokes (Apr 20, 2014)

System goals that anybody that turns audiophile should realize he/she will eventually desire: Raw Drivers, Full Active Filtering, Digital Signal Processing, biamped triamped quadruple amped whatever it takes to drive one speaker per channel..
That's where most of us are at so it's probably safe to say that's kinda where it's headed..


----------



## Alrojoca (Oct 5, 2012)

Cajunner 

Have you listened to a State Champ or podium winning System? lately, not a year ago or 10 years ago. 

It may take some training to evaluate most, like in my case, but there were a few that really stood out, the stage, and that can't be done with passives or limited TA, balance or even some expensive Head Units.


----------



## cajunner (Apr 13, 2007)

Alrojoca said:


> Cajunner
> 
> Have you listened to a State Champ or podium winning System? lately, not a year ago or 10 years ago.
> 
> It may take some training to evaluate most, like in my case, but there were a few that really stood out, the stage, and that can't be done with passives or limited TA, balance or even some expensive Head Units.


you got me.

and hey, we can even call me out on the 'reference' since that's essentially the same thing, right?


no, I haven't listened to the best out there. I haven't even legitimately listened to the best in my own town, and it's a really small town.


so, I am coming from a vantage point that makes it easy to dismiss my credibility and I accept that.

my point is that the placement of bi-amping passives as a method of expansion, on the scale with Car PC systems running multi-thousand dollar software somewhere near the top, and the factory FM radio at the bottom, you can do a lot of good before even adding a pre-amp level sound shaping box, that includes using discrete amp channels.


do I somehow injure those that go all out, and make it to the very top of the competitive heap, by saying this?


I think I've been misunderstood.

I believe that if we were to rate things on a functional equivalent basis, the bi-amped system would score better than most people give the speaker company's credit for, because most of us have leap-frogged across that intermediary step and opted for the biggest booty shaker in our Home Owner Association group...


----------



## Kyle5521 (May 21, 2015)

cajunner said:


> you got me.
> 
> and hey, we can even call me out on the 'reference' since that's essentially the same thing, right?
> 
> ...


Word


----------



## Alrojoca (Oct 5, 2012)

Well I can only say that unless you want a better stage you won't need a DSP, and you can jam and boom all you want. 

My point is not DSP SQ vs passives SQ, clean sound, more bass that's not it, it's the stage where the DSP wins. A stage, but sadly many newbies jump in the DSP wagon for just SQ, but it's more about the freaking stage. :mean:

Have you heard an HU with optical output connected to a DSP's digital input?

Mmm Maybe you should, that will beat a passive I bet.


----------



## cajunner (Apr 13, 2007)

it's not about "beating a passive" with DSP, we know there's a nice, significant improvement to most systems that use raw drivers, and even to those systems with advanced networks from the manufacturer, voiced by professionals.

the way it's being construed as a contest, where you aren't winning unless you've dipped into the DSP bucket and smeared your face red and cut off your shirt tails, is not how I perceive it.

I've been in cars that had excellent sound, believable imaging, reasonably loud, and got you involved in the music and unfortunately, was missing the DSP enhancement.

and I say, so what?

The point I'm making is that the push towards DSP that the hobby is gaining momentum towards, is a positive step but man....


don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.


I don't think there's really that many people left who still believe they can build a system that sounds as good as the circuit winners without using digital in their circuit paths, but of course, there should be some hold outs.

Just like some people will propose a system using tubes as adding a dimensional step beyond the best DSP circuits available, and nothing you can say will change their mind, because they know what they like and even if 95 out of 100 people come out of a DSP car that wins competitions at an alarming rate, there's still that 5 who for whatever reason, will buck the current and say they find something missing, or that it's "too clean" or that it's not "live" enough...


----------



## #1BigMike (Aug 17, 2014)

Man this thread has some really good "MEAT" in it. I love reading different opinions. I for one am very curious about the topic at hand. 

I have never heard/tried a really good passive system. So I have decided to build one for this reason. I have and I listen to a active system (f150) on a daily basis. But to be honest, as a newbee to the hobby, I may have bitten off a little more than I could chew. Tuning in itself and/or finding a "True tuner" is not all that simple lol.

I believe that active systems do have the competitive edge. If you are a competitor or purist, this may be the only route you can take (active). However if you are like myself and just want a really good quality sounding system there may be other options also (passive crossovers). 

I am hoping that with a properly installed/powered passive setup (touareg) I can get wonderful results. Without the headache of tuning and chasing perfection. Which I just realized I have no earthly idea what the hell I am doing and I am ok admitting that.

Someday, I do hope to get the next level as my interest (inner purist) for the hobby grows. As for right now, I just want to be able to enjoy a really good system without the worry of chasing perfection.

OP I hope you are enjoying this thread I know I am for sure!! 

*** IF THE PASSIVE SYSTEM SUCKS I AM PULLING IT AND GOING ACTIVE  ***


----------



## Alrojoca (Oct 5, 2012)

Cajunner
I have posted many times, that I liked my bi ampable passives more, to me, they sounded smoother than my active system now. My amp has a built in electronic Active crossover. I try to avoid external boxes if I can too, my amp does what I need, I am still tuning to reduce the fatigue I did not have using the passives, but that is more of a personal issue being too sensitive. There you go, we agree a DSP, may not sound better or smoother than a passive. 

A component set that comes with a passive, either bi amp, or not bi ampable, still needs a high pass for the midbass, if not, excursion at rated power can destroy the midwoofers.

A HP from the HU or amp to protect it, and that Hp will increase the slope, maybe the speaker manufacturers know that, because that slope will change the sound a bit. 

The point is, passives still need a HP to complete a band pass for smoother safe and cleaner sound cause most 6.5" drivers can't play good below 80 Hz and risk destruction without the HP. We all know that rule. Meaning a passive's sound still depends on an external box to operate properly. 

Maybe some custom passives may include a HP or some very expensive components have them. 

Here is a recent link, maybe they need your opinion there. Someone trying to install passives pre amplification. 
http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum...188810-question-about-passive-crossovers.html

I know systems with over 75 points, do not sound like we expect, why do they get podiums? maybe tuned with RTA, there are so many categories to judge a system maybe they score bad on the stage and the most points on the rest on the other 7 plus categories.
Sometimes I think mine sounds better than some of those, even with my 3-4 feet wide stage, that is about as good as it will get with my system without a DSP. Some, it is like if the singer's head was above the dash knowing where voice comes from, very nice, but those had a good a DSP, I enjoyed those, but maybe that is not what real SQ is for some people. 

The tubes, transistors subject, same as class AB, class D amps, I admit some of those systems I enjoyed had Class AB amps, but some also have class D amps.

It will not hurt to check out the latest high scoring systems with an open mind just to see what's out there. 


One little detail I already disclosed about the best systems I heard, there were only 2 way systems with a 5 1/4" on the pillars, and a sub on the front kick panel area. Both had Alpine H800's DSP's through optical digital signals. 


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mike
Sorry to hear you are still searching for good sound and a good tuner, the only thing I can think of is go back to listen to those systems that score above 75 points and and try to pay attention to things you did not notice before to find what your really want. It takes a few times to notice things. The first time, usually it is not what we expect. 

Maybe you need full advice from scratch, or bring your car to the west coast or come and fly over to a meet, listen to some of the high point scoring systems and find out who tunes their cars if you like those. PM me for more details or more options if you want.


----------



## cajunner (Apr 13, 2007)

my opinion, is that the tubes, or valve sound is not the same thing as Class D vs. AB. The general consensus is that at speed tubes make themselves audible, you WILL know when a tube is being overdriven in a circuit as opposed to clipping from good D or AB variants.

so I put tube sound into a box, that a DSP cannot fit. 

never mind that it's entirely possible to have pinpoint imaging using analog bits in a car, you may have a slightly lopsided stage presentation and the tendency to move your head to the mid line axis may be unconsciously provocative, but saying only DSP cars achieve focus is ridiculous to me, maybe I've just been blessed with extremely lucky examples for my own installations?

kind of silly going back and forth over a point that DSP is suddenly no longer optional juice in the good times recipe, and required or else stereo, isn't stereo anymore...


----------



## Alrojoca (Oct 5, 2012)

Maybe you should try to compete one time just for fun, if you score above 60 points, I wont argue anymore. And I'll take it back, my stage now is about 2-2.5 feet wide, I will let you know if I can get it smaller without a DSP, I doubt it.

We need to work with what we have available today, it's just my opinion, from Cassetes, LP's to CD's, MP3's and sadly a lot of music today is just loud and flat with no dynamics, I bet even with tubes it sounds bad.


----------



## papasin (Jan 24, 2011)

Last time I ran passive...was for the Illusion Audio C4CX coaxial in my pillars, and active for the rest. With that experience behind me, even for any other point source, I would avoid passive if I could. I prefer independent gain control that is easily adjustable with a DSP. I could possibly do it with the bi-amp crossovers, but it is SO much easier to adjust with a DSP or a HU such as the P99 which basically is a DSP. I also don't see how one would correct for massive peaks that is caused by the environment (i.e. various hard surfaces and glass) even with the best speakers without the aid of a DSP using EQ. The most well behaved driver on a board, once put in a car...all bets are off IMO.


----------



## cajunner (Apr 13, 2007)

so, my opinion does nothing for you?

if I say that a car can have a believable sound stage without the use of digital circuits, you can categorically deny?

that's kind of out there, man.


but hey, if you think you need the latest box of tricks to cut and delay and slope and phaze out your sound before you're in a good place, you know, I have to say but for the grace of God...


----------



## cajunner (Apr 13, 2007)

papasin said:


> Last time I ran passive...was for the Illusion Audio C4CX coaxial in my pillars, and active for the rest. With that experience behind me, even for any other point source, I would avoid passive if I could. I prefer independent gain control that is easily adjustable with a DSP. I could possibly do it with the bi-amp crossovers, but it is SO much easier to adjust with a DSP or a HU such as the P99 which basically is a DSP. I also don't see how one would correct for massive peaks that is caused by the environment (i.e. various hard surfaces and glass) even with the best speakers without the aid of a DSP using EQ. The most well behaved driver on a board, once put in a car...all bets are off IMO.


and yet, I come from a time when there were no digital delays going on at the middle tiers.


don't get me wrong, I totally understand the need to have control when you know through extensive listening/ear training, and sophisticated RTA software and gear, that you do have some things you can fix in the automotive sound field...

but you have come a long way, baby.


for the average enthusiast, for the guy who doesn't live for it and breathe DIYMA, putting together face painters for the get together young-uns...

for that guy, an active bi-amped system using the passives for their judicious filters and built-in sound shaping using notch filters and impedance compensation, that guy is going to be pretty happy coming from a "deck and 4" or worse, the non-option system from the factory.

but hey, if we can't argue in the off-topic because no one goes there anymore, let's throw some cyber hands up in here, hahaha...


----------



## papasin (Jan 24, 2011)

cajunner said:


> and yet, I come from a time when there were no digital delays going on at the middle tiers.
> 
> 
> don't get me wrong, I totally understand the need to have control when you know through extensive listening/ear training, and sophisticated RTA software and gear, that you do have some things you can fix in the automotive sound field...
> ...



I ran passive in the 90s, and tried my hand again at it for part of my system last year. You are welcome to use a typewriter and nobody is saying you can't. But if you are saying that is the only tool to get your report written with, when there are other options out there, I'm not really interested in arguing with you. I'm more interested in conveying to others what little bits I've learned. I agree with Al though. Why not put your convictions up in the lanes, and see how it does. I'm sure there are a multitude of certified sq judges that would be able to give you objective feedback on your system, myself included.


----------



## cajunner (Apr 13, 2007)

papasin said:


> I ran passive in the 90s, and tried my hand again at it for part of my system last year. You are welcome to use a typewriter and nobody is saying you can't. But if you are saying that is the only tool to get your report written with, when there are other options out there, I'm not really interested in arguing with you. I'm more interested in conveying to others what little bits I've learned. I agree with Al though. Why not put your convictions up in the lanes, and see how it does. I'm sure there are a multitude of certified sq judges that would be able to give you objective feedback on your system, myself included.


I get it, the easiest thing to do is to put up or shut up, as the saying goes.

but I am not interested in a rating system. I am not judging DSP's merits. I am not even defending some analog pipe dream, like some others have in this common "water cooler" argument.

I don't have the ego to want to "win" at the internets, even if that appears to be a solid goal of mine.

my point always has been, that bi-amping the passives is a legitimate upgrade from single amp system design.


And that the passives in some of the better component sets, does address common variables that result in tweeter levels being adjustable, sometimes even midrange "presence" and there's also out of band peaks being attenuated by notch filters, so that in a happenstance of about 50% of the cars out there, a combination of filters, resistor networks and switches result in an outcome that is easily high quality H, two oh.

I'm not arguing the validity of being able to use expensive FIR filters, or rephase, or esoteric ambient delays to recreate a specific concert hall's acoustics in my little moving sky box of 4, or even just to bring stage center a little closer to the rear view mirror and not the murky contents of the glove box, because hey, that's alllllll good... right?

Auto tune, man. I love it! I have a pair of bookshelves at home, I like the way they sound. The first thing that comes into my mind when I dial in the MS-2's auto calibration by pressing a couple of buttons, is it sounds just like the home set up!

And that's kind of the point, I mean I don't know where you need to go from there, I guess I should do *not* like others are doing to me, and just trust in their opinion that DSP is the BORG.

because I resist, it is in my nature.


----------



## Ted J (Aug 15, 2006)

Alrojoca said:


> Show me or tell me what aftermarket system with just passive crossovers bi ampable or tri ampable 2 way or 3 way componets using passives and an HU with only 9 bands or 12 EQ bands for the whole system or all channels, and time alignment In steps of 2 inches, or output control levels in 1 db increments not being to individually control each channel but rather in pairs, like most HU's have, can have a stage where you can pin point the singers voice centered above the dash and located within 6 inches or less of space.
> .


Here you go! 

Big Meat Pix | Tutorials | Team Audionutz

That truck sounds amazing! The center is a pretty high, like between the center of the dash and the rear view mirror and it was such a good center that I felt I could reach out and touch the singer in one spot. Steven Head did am AMAZING job of installing and tuning that truck. The tweeter, mid, and mid-bass are ran off of a 2 channel amp with I think like three para metric bands of EQ'ing. He liked the passives on the setup for they smoothed out the mids. A lot of install went into that truck and it shows!

Some really good info in here if you'd like to try some tuning tricks with passives:

Passive System Time Alignment | Tutorials | Team Audionutz

and if you go active:

Full Active Time Alignment Method | Tutorials | Team Audionutz


----------

