# 'THE' Passive SQ System



## Allan74 (Jun 17, 2010)

*PLESE DON'T BE A DICK - READ BEFORE YOU VOTE TO MOVE TO DUMB QUESTION SECTION.....*

Here's where I find myself today....

Audison HR100 on Ebay, starting @ $1600 shipped....and I wanna pull the trigger.

Let's create a near-ideal situation on paper:

Audison HR100 powering Hertz MLK3 OR Audison TH3 (_each with their specific highend 3-way passives capable of phase/TA/contouring etc_) electronic hipass from Head Unit @ 80hz.

*The 'Budget Variables'......*
*For both comparisons, the SPEAKERS STAY THE SAME.....*
For the sake of argument, let's say that things cost the same in the following comparison.

*Variables#1:*
- MLCX3 or TH3 3-way Passives.
- Audison HR100, 2-channel (A.K.A '_THE_' amp...)

*Variables#2:*
- Audison BitOne.
- 6-channels of Audison SRx power (3 amps).

Given the choice (each costing the same), NO MIXING/MATCHING.....which would you put your money into ? #1 or #2 ?

I just can't see myself buying this amplifier (HR100) to power a single pair of active drivers.......


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

Bitone has a lot more flexibility than ANY premade passive could offer.


----------



## Allan74 (Jun 17, 2010)

thehatedguy said:


> Bitone has a lot more flexibility than ANY premade passive could offer.


Thanks for COMPLETELY missing the point.


----------



## 60ndown (Feb 8, 2007)

my dad used to coach the calagary stampeders


----------



## circa40 (Jan 20, 2008)

cajunner said:


> if the HR100 gives happy endings, possibly...


It better for $1600...maybe some sloppy HJs as well


----------



## circa40 (Jan 20, 2008)

Allan74 said:


> Given the choice (each costing the same), NO MIXING/MATCHING.....which would you put your money into ? #1 or #2 ?


IOW you're asking if you should run speakers passive or active? I'd go active....yeah...real "technical & advanced" question .


----------



## Allan74 (Jun 17, 2010)

circa40 said:


> IOW you're asking if you should run speakers passive or active? I'd go active....yeah...real "technical & advanced" question .


Looks like another one chalked up to the American Educational system......


----------



## SouthSyde (Dec 25, 2006)

I think what he is trying to say is that should he get 1 HIGH QUALITY amp and go passive or 3 REGULAR amp and go active. Im guessing his budget and most people cannot get 3 HR100 and go active...


----------



## Allan74 (Jun 17, 2010)

SouthSyde said:


> I think what he is trying to say is that should he get 1 HIGH QUALITY amp and go passive or 3 REGULAR amp and go active. Im guessing his budget and most people cannot get 3 HR100 and go active...


If you were sitting in front of me, I would give you a $100.

THANK YOU for helping me to get my point across. I just wish others could have actually read the post as you did.

Cheers,
Allan


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

No I'm not the one who missed the point. You couldn't comprehend what I was getting at .



Allan74 said:


> Thanks for COMPLETELY missing the point.


----------



## Allan74 (Jun 17, 2010)

thehatedguy said:


> No I'm not the one who missed the point. You couldn't comprehend what I was getting at .


Well, your glorious BitOne is nothing more than an overblown EQ when working with ONLY A 2 CHANNEL AMP.

How's that for a point ?

Should we go further and throw a DTS decoder into the mix for all those TWO channels ?


----------



## circa40 (Jan 20, 2008)

Oh we understood what you were implying to...we also understood that you were hugging Elettromedia's nuts since you arrived. Nothing wrong with their products but your nut hugging is quite lame. This is probably why no one has taken you seriously


----------



## smgreen20 (Oct 13, 2006)

Nothing wrong w/hugging ones nuts, is there?????? Hmmm.... Phoenix Gold hmmmm....? Me to. 

I too love Audison, that's why I got their LRx5.1k. I'm also thinking about getting the Bitone to put in place of my AC DQS.


----------



## Allan74 (Jun 17, 2010)

circa40 said:


> Oh we understood what you were implying to...we also understood that you were hugging Elettromedia's nuts since you arrived. Nothing wrong with their products but your nut hugging is quite lame. This is probably why no one has taken you seriously


Being taken seriously is over rated anyways.

Thinking that an active system is the only way to achive SQ is lame......


----------



## Allan74 (Jun 17, 2010)

Actually, let me re-phrase that......the whole, _*'Being taken seriously' *_comment.

The only reason I have chosen to use my old Audison SRx **** and a bunch of old AudioControl stuff I had laying around, was to help me in that sense.

I have no problems shelling out the cash to buy whatever suits me on a given day, but how is a guy who walks in here for help, who runs a plethora of Audison TH Amps and Drivers supposed to be taken anymore seriously when asking for help ?

*There are a couple principals I try to adhere to:*
- I don't give **** away, as in sell cheap. I would rather keep it in a box or ACTUALLY GIVE IT AWAY.......I hate bottom feeders in the average Marketplace.

- I like to try and use what I have, rather than wasting cash if I don't have to.

- I don't trust ANYONE in the Car Audio industry, as NONE are honest. Everyone's **** seems to be teh best, when THEY are selling it.


----------



## Niebur3 (Jul 11, 2008)

I would honestly go with option 2. There are just way too many problems to overcome in a car and a very nice DSP will help you fix those problems. I actually chose option 1 (my version) in a previous build and it sounded amazing, but it didn't come close to option 2 (where I ended going after much frustration with option 1) and then later upgraded my amp. The DSP will aide you much more than the differences you would hear with the amp.


----------



## Allan74 (Jun 17, 2010)

Niebur3 said:


> I would honestly go with option 2. There are just way too many problems to overcome in a car and a very nice DSP will help you fix those problems. I actually chose option 1 (my version) in a previous build and it sounded amazing, but it didn't come close to option 2 (where I ended going after much frustration with option 1) and then later upgraded my amp. The DSP will aide you much more than the differences you would hear with the amp.


Thanks.
I am actually pretty much heading towards #2 anyways as all I need is a processor to tie all my amps together.

I still can't help but feel some sort of attraction towards high end passives. I understand they have their limitations, but under the right circumstances, I believe they have their place still.


----------



## circa40 (Jan 20, 2008)

smgreen20 said:


> Nothing wrong w/hugging ones nuts, is there?????? Hmmm.... Phoenix Gold hmmmm....? Me to.


Please read carefully below, especially the bolded area....


Circa40 said:


> Oh we understood what you were implying to...we also understood that you were hugging Elettromedia's nuts since you arrived. *Nothing wrong with their products* but your nut hugging is quite lame. This is probably why no one has taken you seriously





Allan74 said:


> Being taken seriously is over rated anyways.


True, especially around here at times. 



Allan74 said:


> Thinking that an active system is the only way to achive SQ is lame......


I didnt say anything about which is better.


----------



## Allan74 (Jun 17, 2010)

Well, frankly, I am not here to argue or make enemies......

I am here to get info from experienced people, that is all. Take what I say with a grain of salt, as it's unfortunate that tone of voice and half-smiles do not show when sending a message over the internet.

Allan


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

Also when I said the Bitone, I was inferring that option with the Bitone....I thought you would have read between the lines when I said what I did about the passive crossovers.


----------



## Allan74 (Jun 17, 2010)

thehatedguy said:


> Also when I said the Bitone, I was inferring that option with the Bitone....I thought you would have read between the lines when I said what I did about the passive crossovers.


You lost me......please explain.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

I would go option 2 that you have listed with the B1 and 3 amps over the HR100 and the passives. While the HR100 is one bad mofo of an amp, I think you would be able to get as good or better sound using your amps and the B1 after some tuning keeping the speakers the same.

You have problems in your car that you would not be able to take care of as effectively with the prepackaged (or any passive) that you could with the B1 and going active.

Will the first option sound bad? Probably not. Probably would sound incredible. But IMO, the second option would give you everything the 1st option would and more...much more.


----------



## 89grand (Nov 23, 2006)

I would never even consider option 1. Fist off, $1600 for an amplifier is ludicrous, secondly, option two provides way more bang for the buck, and in the end, surely a much better sounding and louder setup.


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

Allan74 said:


> Well, your glorious BitOne is nothing more than an overblown EQ when working with ONLY A 2 CHANNEL AMP.
> 
> How's that for a point ?
> 
> Should we go further and throw a DTS decoder into the mix for all those TWO channels ?


What YOU missed with his post was that if he's suggesting the B1.1 then you should go full active as well. I didn't think he'd have to connect the dots for you. Sheesh.


----------



## Allan74 (Jun 17, 2010)

89grand said:


> Fist off, $1600 for an amplifier is ludicrous.


I completely agree....but still not as bad as the initial $6,000 price tag when it rolled into stores over a decade ago.....lol


----------



## SouthSyde (Dec 25, 2006)

If it was me id go a bitone.1 or dsp6 and a couple of c2ks, which can be had for pretty good prices now. Wait, thats actually what imm doing with my orchestra... hehe


----------



## kyheng (Jan 31, 2007)

Still, $1600 for an old amp is not worth the hassle.... 
I suggest go for option 2, get your speakers installed right and call it the day.


----------



## jpswanberg (Jan 14, 2009)

If you want to go with the HR100, I would suggest running it with a Dynaudio threeway using the three way passive crossover, the md102, the md142/2 and the biggest of their midbasses (mw182, mw172 or mw162) you can fit into your dors. Put the mids and tweeters in the kickpanels (they are both sealed back designs, so the construction should be simpler than if they were not sealed back designs). You "may" not even need a seperate subwoofer. Buy it, build it, and tell us how good it sounds so we can all turn a nice shade of green .


----------



## bernat (Aug 25, 2010)

Be carefull buying these expensive used HR100, probably you need to recap all the capacitors. If I remember correctly the Elna caps of the HR100 are very good sounding but tends to dry or short very easily as they become old.


----------



## kyheng (Jan 31, 2007)

Recap all the capacitors? That's mad... First of you need to get matching pairs, then strip them off and solder back the new caps.... So the cost for HR100 will be $1600 + capacitors cost + time consume?


----------



## Candisa (Sep 15, 2007)

If both options fit the budget, I'd prefer the passive solution with the HR100 above the active solution with a SRx 6ch amp anytime!

Yes, the MS8 can do more than any pre-made passive crossover can and no, Audison SRx amps aren't crap, but it has its reasons why the HR100 is still know as "THE amp" and still goes quite some money today...

If you want an install that scores very high in competition technically without modifying half your car and building custom passive networks, yes, the active solution will probably be better, but if you don't care if the center of your stage is exactly in the middle of the hood and just want the greatest sound quality for your money: go the passive route with the much much better HR100.

You can always add a 2x30band equalizer and/or custom passive networks later if you want to maximize the technical score of your install...

Isabelle


----------



## bernat (Aug 25, 2010)

From my experience Recap is expensive and time consuming, I changed the caps in a SOny xes system (P1+x1) and one sony amplifier M1, (from 1991 year), I difficult to check the caps on circuit so is better to replce them .


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

There is no "THE" in any of your choices. "THE" passive can be outclassed by any homemade unit that makes a decent attempt at flattening the FR for the given application. "THE" amplifier is not the most efficient, most powerful, or slimmest of all amplifiers. 

Heck, I had a 2 channel Clarion that is far better in just about any application than this dinosaur. It uses an up to date efficient power supply, makes at least 175X2 at 4 ohms, and fits better in most locations. Turn filters off and sound quality is the same. 

Ahh the illusions. I suppose they should have charged $30,000 on this HR100. Maybe the resale value would be $10,000 today.


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

He used "THE" because that's how Audison marketed it, as "THE" amplifier.


----------



## Allan74 (Jun 17, 2010)

cvjoint said:


> There is no "THE" in any of your choices. "THE" passive can be outclassed by any homemade unit that makes a decent attempt at flattening the FR for the given application. "THE" amplifier is not the most efficient, most powerful, or slimmest of all amplifiers.
> 
> Heck, I had a 2 channel Clarion that is far better in just about any application than this dinosaur. It uses an up to date efficient power supply, makes at least 175X2 at 4 ohms, and fits better in most locations. Turn filters off and sound quality is the same.
> 
> Ahh the illusions. I suppose they should have charged $30,000 on this HR100. Maybe the resale value would be $10,000 today.


Listen. Hate the Game...not the Player.

I can tell from your join date and sig that you are infact a hardcore 'DIY' guy, but that doesn't give your voice anymore volume than anyone elses, nor does your choice in DIY equipment make you anymore elite than anyone else.

I'm 36 yrs old, make $75/hour. Married, no kids......WTF else am I going to spend my money on ? I like nice things......and YES, I do feel better when others can't afford them, because I work hard.

Sometimes, on the flipside of the coin, in any given hobbyist circle.....you will find those, such as myself, that enjoy the ownership of prestige, such as the HR100.

I won't judge you for shopping for Vifa at Part's Express......so you shouldn't tell me where to spend my money....all that ****in money 

Cheers,
Allan


----------



## Allan74 (Jun 17, 2010)

Candisa said:


> If both options fit the budget, I'd prefer the passive solution with the HR100 above the active solution with a SRx 6ch amp anytime!
> 
> Yes, the MS8 can do more than any pre-made passive crossover can and no, Audison SRx amps aren't crap, but it has its reasons why the HR100 is still know as "THE amp" and still goes quite some money today...
> 
> ...


FINALLY SOMEONE SAID IT !

Just because it's an accurate Soundstage...it doesn't mean it will actually sound GOOD.

Praise Jebus (....and Belgium  )


----------



## bertholomey (Dec 27, 2007)

I have a good friend that had Morel Elate 3 ways on a Phoenix MS1000 that sounded extremely good. I remember sitting in his car for the first time right after buying my Bit One thinking, "Did I just make a terrible mistake?" 

Of course the Bit One worked out for me, and I probably wouldn't have been better off selling it to get passives and a powerful amp to push them, but it certainly worked for him. He really likes that amp, doesn't care how big it is, and was able to make the system work.

I think if you are willing to do the work, the passive route with a rare , 'special' amp can be very rewarding to you. This is getting into the 'emotional' versus the 'rational' side of the hobby - 9 out of 10 guys would never go this route, but I think you and my buddy mentioned above are that 1 guy that would want to do this and make it sound fantastic. My .02.


----------



## Allan74 (Jun 17, 2010)

cajunner said:


> would you submit to a double blind test?


Probably not. I am far too much of a Name-Brand whore to fall victim to being impressed by a no-name driver and how good it sounds.... or something along those lines.....lol

Although, I do blindly buy drivers at times. Nothing wrong in faith with a product or manufacturer if their track record (for you personally) has never let you down.


----------



## FG79 (Jun 30, 2008)

Allan74 said:


> Thinking that an active system is the only way to achive SQ is lame......


This.


----------



## Candisa (Sep 15, 2007)

A DSP can do 3 important things:
- Time Alignment
- Crossover + attenuation per channel
- Equalizing

Time alignment càn come in handy if you want a perfect stage and/or the pathlengths of each driver are very different, but if you have a passive crossover network with phase a phase regulation in it, it shouldn't be a problem to blend midbasswoofers, mids and tweeters perfectly to a uniform soundfield.

If you choose to get a higher end set of matching drivers and passive crossovernetworks with attenuators for mids and tweeters, you probably won't get this any better with a DSP.

Equalizing: throw a nice 2x30band equalizer in the mix or get a headunit with a decent built-in equalizer and you're just as fine as with a good DSP.

If a HR100 fits your budget and you need to go passive (but with good matching passive crossovernetworks with variable phase shift and attenuation per driver) to keep in budget, I wouldn't get a DSP and lowest-in-the-line amp to get a result that won't be better sound wise...

Isabelle


----------



## SSSnake (Mar 8, 2007)

What I don't get is why ANYBODY would think that passive is the way to go in a car. Unless you mount the speakers in the same plane and the same distance from each other as the designer assumed they will have different interaction in the xover regions. This CANNOT be addressed by an off the shelf passive. OK, so the next solution is building your own. Where do you cross them over, what slopes, do I add any EQ/notch filtering to the xover... The best way to determine these is to try them and see what works. To do this quickly and effectively REQUIRES an active setup for at least the initial tune otherwise you are spending months guessing and tweaking.

Home system, COMPLETELY different story. Car, passive is NOT the way to go for anybody that has at least some similance of a life.


----------



## cubdenno (Nov 10, 2007)

Off topic, I love the car Allan!! My friends son dropped a skyline motor in his 92 300Z. With something like 800+ horsepower. The vids are amazing of him running it at a local track. He loves to play with the Corvette, Viper, M5, Porsche crowd on the street.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

Allan, with all due respect. You asked a question, I answered. Why be a prick and start ssuming things about your respondent. I diy so I can get better sound, saving money is just a bonus. 
My point is that u are falling victim to advertising. There is no" THE" in anything audisson makes. Furtermore, by your logic msrp affects sound quality. It does not, its all engineering. 
The best way to get sound is to learn how it all works. It doesn't take more than a few thousand dollars to get the best gear. Very few of the diy guys are budget limited. Lack of Knowledge is our biggest limitation in this hobby. You are choosing the easy brainless path with passive and you are not helping yourself or the community.


Allan74 said:


> Listen. Hate the Game...not the Player.
> 
> I can tell from your join date and sig that you are infact a hardcore 'DIY' guy, but that doesn't give your voice anymore volume than anyone elses, nor does your choice in DIY equipment make you anymore elite than anyone else.
> 
> ...


----------



## Fast1one (Apr 6, 2007)

The answer to this question is simple:

-Does the manufacture provide you with raw driver distortion measurements? If not, run away.
-In the case of passives, do they provide the crossover and driver's transfer function including the reverse null and/or phase plots? If not, run away. 

In the case of a two way, for simplicities sake: If the crossover point is set low enough to avoid the high frequency break-up nodes of the woofer, high enough to avoid the distortion properties of the tweeter, and low enough for a uniform POWER response (i.e. minimal beaming of the woofer), then the passives would work GREAT IF AND ONLY IF the drivers are closely coupled. Move the tweeter to the A-Pillar, and all bets are off. 

The rest can be done with any deck with time alignment and a damn good EQ. You don't need a ton of active channels. Forget all this BS of the vehicles transfer function screwing up the response of passives. If the passives are designed properly with a flat response, accurate phase summing and a uniform transfer function AND they are closely coupled, the rest can be fixed with EQ and time alignment.


----------



## FG79 (Jun 30, 2008)

SSSnake said:


> What I don't get is why ANYBODY would think that passive is the way to go in a car. Unless you mount the speakers in the same plane and the same distance from each other as the designer assumed they will have different interaction in the xover regions. This CANNOT be addressed by an off the shelf passive. OK, so the next solution is building your own. Where do you cross them over, what slopes, do I add any EQ/notch filtering to the xover... The best way to determine these is to try them and see what works. To do this quickly and effectively REQUIRES an active setup for at least the initial tune otherwise you are spending months guessing and tweaking.
> 
> Home system, COMPLETELY different story. Car, passive is NOT the way to go for anybody that has at least some similance of a life.


Snake, where do you live?

I think it's time you heard what a good passive system sounds like. 

EDIT: I see Huntsville, Alabama....I might get out there for work sometime. Would like to offer you a new perspective!


----------



## SSSnake (Mar 8, 2007)

I have heard good passive systems... In each they could have been equaled or bettered by an active system with much less effort AND less cost. Processors/Amplifiers are CHEAP these days.

Notice how Fast1One kept mentioning "closely coupled". They need to be "closely coupled" and on the same plane otherwise the power response will go to hell. Add in reflections from adjacent surfaces or highly reflective surfaces and cabin gain at lower freqs and I can't understand why anyone believes building a system without extensive tuning capabilities would make any sense at all (I know that I am making arguments for EQ as well but most processors today will do EQ, TA and Xover).

On the trip to Huntsville, I'd love to listen to your car. I have heard passive setups in cars that had dozens of components and they sounded good but why in the hell anyone would go to that trouble/expense to shape the sound appropriately when digital processing is widley available and cheap just blows my mind. If this was 1980 maybe but not in 2010.

BTW - I had been toying with using one passive xover in my car between the mid and tweet in the center channel (I ran out of channels on my processor) but because I want to put the tweet on a different plane I am seriously considering adding a second processor. Why? Because it will be soooo much easier to get great sound. This comes from someone who has designed and built custom passives and has had formal training in their design and fabrication. For the typical DIY guy I wouldn't even consider going passive even in this fairly simple application.

FG79 please don't take this as bashing you or your system. I am VERY confident that passive systems can sound good. As I mentioned I have heard some very good passive systems. For me this is all about return on investment. I can't justify the time and money spent on a passive system when amps/processors are so cheap...


----------



## FG79 (Jun 30, 2008)

SSSnake said:


> I have heard good passive systems... In each they could have been equaled or bettered by an active system with much less effort AND less cost. Processors/Amplifiers are CHEAP these days.
> 
> Notice how Fast1One kept mentioning "closely coupled". They need to be "closely coupled" and on the same plane otherwise the power response will go to hell. Add in reflections from adjacent surfaces or highly reflective surfaces and cabin gain at lower freqs and I can't understand why anyone believes building a system without extensive tuning capabilities would make any sense at all (I know that I am making arguments for EQ as well but most processors today will do EQ, TA and Xover).
> 
> ...


I'll tell you why I think passives in many cases are better than active...

First, your argument that amps/processors are cheap....it depends which ones. Used classics from the glory days of the late '80s and '90s? Yes. Modern stuff that's good? No. 

Most don't know the value of a vintage low wattage PPI, Phoenix Gold, Soundstream, Carver amp so that argument is irrelevant. 

As for the modern day stuff, you are not going to get an amp that's gonna touch my PG MS1000 brand new in 2010 that retails under $1000-1500 (at least that much, and I don't even know if they're as good). You ready to cough up $3000+ in amps?

When people on here worry about crossing over their woofers at 60 hz @ 24 db to avoid bottoming out, I sit back and laugh at a non issue. This is a joke even for the baby brother MS275 amp.

Even if you do cough up 3 big boy amps, you might have more headroom but tuning for coherence is very tough. There will always be a compromise between tonal balance and coherence in an active system. Another thing to worry about is 3 amps worthy of having me part with my money will tax my electrical system a bit. You can make upgrades but not everyone does this. 

The potential upside for active is not much more than potential downside is compared to passive....this nobody seems to talk about. 

Secondly, and this one is big....my experience with passive setups are that they are MORE coherent than active ones. It seems to go against the logic of every DIY college student out there, but it works better (except for horn systems in most cases)....even with standard crossovers from the manufacturer.

A lot of guys need to drop all this obsession with theory and ****. I've been in a ton of cars active and passive, and rarely do these rules apply to a tee each and every time. 

I don't obsess over imaging and staging like most on here do so my comments are primarily aimed at the tonal balance and coherence of a system. When I look to boost or cut a frequency it is to affect the sound, not soundstage....

Believe me bro, I wouldn't come on here to take a contrarian point to 90% of this forum just for the hell of it. I've been privileged to hear some great, simple 2 way passive systems that ROCK....punch, dynamics, midbass, ambience, full sound, etc.

The simplicity of these systems are shocking...shocking enough to change someone's life.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

Candisa said:


> A DSP can do 3 important things:
> - Time Alignment
> - Crossover + attenuation per channel
> - Equalizing
> ...


But that's the point isn't it? Show me a passive that does what the Bit1 does. Furthermore the main benefit of having a passive is to plug in and play. If that passive that you mention exists (I haven't seen one in my life) it will have to be tuned, it's not plug in play. 

You say ...or use built in EQ in headunit. Well *that is DSP* isn't it? If you have a unit that does independent LR EQ it can do TA and gain as well._ If you are using DSP to fix a passive than why use a passive at all? _

It's nonsense. This passive can exist but it doesn't. In the end active will still beat it, it won't saturate when you throw hundreds of watts at it, it will do a better job matching impendance changes etc.


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 12, 2008)

SSSnake, I dont see how days of tuning is called "equal or less effort" and your remark about what you call "similance" is just plain off, because thats not a real word.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

FG79 said:


> A lot of guys need to drop all this obsession with theory and ****. I've been in a ton of cars active and passive, and rarely do these rules apply to a tee each and every time.


When you design a passive or an amplifier yourself using only your ears and no modern science I will listen to what you have to say.

If you don't believe that theory holds then you have to disprove it in a coherent matter. What is wrong with any of the points we brought up about active filtering? Can you design a controlled experiment to prove your theory? Is it repeatable and the same results ensue? Your evidence is anecdotal...


----------



## SSSnake (Mar 8, 2007)

> As for the modern day stuff, you are not going to get an amp that's gonna touch my PG MS1000 brand new in 2010 that retails under $1000-1500 (at least that much, and I don't even know if they're as good). You ready to cough up $3000+ in amps?


Here is the example of where we fundamentally disagree. How is the MS1000 superior to two JL Audio HD600s? Power output would be VERY similar (less than a db difference in output levels). I don't and never will buy into the magic amp argument. They should be and for the most part are simple gain blocks. If they are doing ANYTHING else (ingnoring an internal crossover or eq) they are NOT what anyone should want in their system.

Your next arguments seem to focus on "coherence". Help me out with that one... Meriam says coherent is defined as: logically or aesthetically ordered or integrated : consistent. When you start hammering on those coils in your passive crossover and they heat up and the voice coil on the speaker heats up guess what, consistency goes to hell. The xover point will drift. This does NOT happen with an active xover. 



> There will always be a compromise between tonal balance and coherence in an active system


Why? What is it about an acitve system that creates this flaw? There is nothing about an active system that should effect tonal balance adversly. For coherence, I have already made my case.



> Another thing to worry about is 3 amps worthy of having me part with my money will tax my electrical system a bit.


Go digital and don't look back. There are some very good high efficiency amplifier solutions out there that won't be as taxing on your electrical system as the current amp. Besides running three smaller amps of the same topology as the larger amp is NOT going to consume an appreciable amount of additional power.



> A lot of guys need to drop all this obsession with theory and ****.


None of what I have said is based on theory alone. As I said I have designed and built passives. There is no magic here. The circuitry has been well known for some time. In my epxerience - not opinion - there is nothing a passive does that cannot be done with an active xover.

I do like your comment about a good two way. I like them a LOT! There is a lot to be said for the simplicity of a two way but the magic is NOT is the passive xover.

The rest of the post seems to just rant so I will leave it alone.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

SSSnake said:


> This comes from someone who has designed and built custom passives and has had formal training in their design and fabrication. For the typical DIY guy I wouldn't even consider going passive even in this fairly simple application.


:thumbsup: That's what I call a reliable source. 

I'm also a reliable source since my car is currently using NO crossovers. Stock S2000, one way full range FTW


----------



## SSSnake (Mar 8, 2007)

Beats,

To build a custom passive xover that is nearly as effective as an active setup is VERY time consuming. I have gone the extra mile and hand wound coils put them on an inductance bridge and measured the results. I have used the silver caps and all of that nonsense. There is NO way to build a passive xover that is as effective as an active within an automotive environment (with multiple moutning planes, differing center to center distances, etc.) as quickly and cheaply as just using an active xover.


----------



## Candisa (Sep 15, 2007)

cvjoint and SSSnake: I shouldn't even bother to respond to you guys...
There are passive crossovers out there that have:
- variable phase-shift control per driver --> unless you want an absolutely perfect stage with the center spot-on in the middle, you do NOT need TA to blend the drivers in with eachother and even if you want to get the staging perfectly right, you can still achieve that with L-R TA only, without having to TA each driver independently.
- variable crossoverpoint control per driver --> allows to set the crossoverpoints higher and lower within the safe range of the drivers and to play with overlap or underlap

Those passive crossovers aren't cheap and probably cost as much as a good DSP or even slightly more, but you still have the advantage of only having to buy a 2ch amp instead of a 6ch one, allowing you to get a better amp or save some money there.

ANY modern headunit that's worth connecting to a higher-end amp and dito speakers has enough equalizer bands to not have to buy a DSP for that, but if you want to keep the budget reasonable and don't want to spend $1000+, you will NOT have a headunit or headunit/DSP-combo that's capable of doing 3-ways active + sub.

By the way, I still find that it's not worth and even decreasing sound-quality to connect a seperate DSP to a headunit if you cannot connect it digitally (only 1 DA conversion in the path of each speaker instead of at least 2 DA conversions and 1 AD conversion)...

If you want an absolutely perfect stage and you're willing to spend enough time on tuning to get it right, active processing can do a great job.
If you have enough budget to get the same quality amps to power each driver with its own channel as you would buy if you only need 2 channels, I have nothing against going active.
If you are willing to buy a headunit with a digital output and a good DSP with a digital input or a headunit that is capable of doing 3-ways + sub, I have nothing against going active...

Only if ALL answers to the above statements are "yes", it's recommended to go active. If the budget or your time don't allow you to agree on ALL the above statements, a higher-end ready-made passive solution will most likely do a better job!

PS.: this is said by somebody that is planning an active install herself and recommends it to anybody who has the time, skills and budget for it, but you have to know I'll be using 3 Genesis Dual Mono's (great amps) and 2 Clarion APA4300HX'es (pretty rare amps with McIntosh technology inside, probably the best amps Clarion ever made)!
If I didn't had the chance to find this package of great amps and the necessary headunit/processing combo within budget or wouldn't be willing to spend the time to get it right, I probably would have bought a single Genesis Dual Mono (Extreme) to power the frontset and a nice, ready-made passive 2- or 3-ways frontset...

Isabelle


----------



## lycan (Dec 20, 2009)

SSSnake said:


> None of what I have said is based on theory alone. As I said I have designed and built passives. There is no magic here. The circuitry has been well known for some time. In my epxerience - not opinion - there is nothing a passive does that cannot be done with an active xover.


That statement is certainly true, but it's not strong enough:

*There's nothing a passive can do, that can't be done BETTER by an active crossover/processor*.

And i'm happy to define my use of the word "better":

1. _Higher performance_ : Active wins, hands down, in ANY performance category you want to measure : Active has more freedom from harmonic & intermod distortion, active suffers little (or zero) temperature drift, active won't care if those big inductors are air-core, mounted 90 degrees relative to each other, mounted near a metal surface (you do know that will _change_ the response of that magic passive, right?). And the argument about too many A/D/A conversions (or active filters), in the signal path is no longer valid (it certainly was true, a dozen years ago, but no longer) ... modern converters have dynamic range well in excess of 100dB. Adding an extra data converter in the signal path is no worse than adding an extra opamp ... you won't hear it.

2. _Flexibility_ : no contest, it's not even a fair fight. Active wins. That passive that came with your components was NOT designed for YOUR environment. The designer did NOT know the enclosure for your midbass/midrange drivers, he did NOT know how far apart your mids & tweets would be, he did NOT know what the pathlength difference (delta, and parallel) from your drivers to your ears would be, he did NOT know if your tweets are mounted high or low, he did NOT know the nature of your particular reflecting environment, he did NOT know if you care more about a one-seat or two-seat stage, etc. If you want to argue that none of that matters, compared to "magic components" of a passive crossover, well ... we're done before we even get started.

3. _Cost_ : at one time, this may have been an advantage of the passive. Not any longer. Active processing is getting less & less expensive (case in point: minidsp), amp channels even more so (the new-ish offerings from JL Audio ... some mentioned above ... are good examples). Forget that hideously expensive 2-channel wonderamp ... its utility has become extinct. Also ... do you value your TIME in the cost equation? If so, you shouldn't even be considering passive. Yes ... you can measure the driver & enclosure parameters and design a passive Zoble & Linkwitz Transform to compensate so that your passive crossover behaves appropriately, you can design passive delay lines to compensate for pathlength differences, you can design the appropriate treble EQ to compensate for low-mounted tweeters, you can design a passive parametric EQ to compensate for the nasty reflective environment ... but such a network would be as huge as your trunk, end up costing more than an active network (if you want similar distortion performance), waste power ... and take you _years_ to design.

*Bottom line : The times are changing. Forget about magic passives and 2-channel wonderamps. They are just not well suited to solving the problems of a small, reflective acoustic environment where we sit off center, and are often stuck with less-than-optimal placement and enclosures for our drivers.*


----------



## FG79 (Jun 30, 2008)

Well guys, I'm all about the tonal balance and coherence.....and I've yet to hear any active car WOW me in that area. 

It's not to say that it can't be done, but for the 1 or 2 cars I need to hear that will I've heard 7 or 8 that are pretty good but are either similar or far worse than my rig. 

I don't obsess over the imaging issue and would agree that if all you want to do is tune for that, laboring for years to move drumsticks 3" to the left....fine, do the active thing, do the processing. 

Quite honestly I've been more than content just throwing a mono center channel up there (processing or no processing), and leaving it as is. It's not always a perfect solution but it nails your center vocal with zero effort and adds a lot of energy as well.

Everything I've wanted to improve with my system has been non imaging related. I'm in the process of changing out all the speakers, and improving the front baffle situation. Also changing out my center and rear fill (OMG, did I just say that  ) amplifier. 

I do all the "sins" taught by traditional car audio yet when those who love "the music" listen to it they tend to like it a lot. 

Why does this never seem to register on here? Are we arguing about perfection (whatever the f that is) or getting very enjoyable sound? 

My dream system will be active....only because my dream system has horns. Otherwise I'd stick with the script. 

BTW guys, one final point. I happen to have a nice home system that will outimage any car....and it's really not all that it's cracked up to be.


----------



## FG79 (Jun 30, 2008)

Candisa said:


> cvjoint and SSSnake: I shouldn't even bother to respond to you guys...
> There are passive crossovers out there that have:
> - variable phase-shift control per driver --> unless you want an absolutely perfect stage with the center spot-on in the middle, you do NOT need TA to blend the drivers in with eachother and even if you want to get the staging perfectly right, you can still achieve that with L-R TA only, without having to TA each driver independently.
> - variable crossoverpoint control per driver --> allows to set the crossoverpoints higher and lower within the safe range of the drivers and to play with overlap or underlap
> ...


Well sweetie, this is all fine and dandy but remember that the tuner needs to be a 10 as well. A 6 or a 7 tuning an active system will not be able to beat an 8 or 9 doing a passive.

That's the point I keep trying to make here. I'm not saying one is authoritatively better than the other....that's what others are saying. I'm saying that for active to equal or better a passive setup, is WAY HARDER than people seem to give credit for.

And here's the best part...when you finally make the active better. Is it 100% better or 10%? LOL.

You know the saying, the guy working 100 hours a week to make $200k is still making the same money hour for hour as a 40 hour guy making $80k.

Except now, you work 100 to make $100k.


----------



## FG79 (Jun 30, 2008)

SSSnake said:


> Here is the example of where we fundamentally disagree. How is the MS1000 superior to two JL Audio HD600s? Power output would be VERY similar (less than a db difference in output levels). I don't and never will buy into the magic amp argument. They should be and for the most part are simple gain blocks. If they are doing ANYTHING else (ingnoring an internal crossover or eq) they are NOT what anyone should want in their system.
> 
> Your next arguments seem to focus on "coherence". Help me out with that one... Meriam says coherent is defined as: logically or aesthetically ordered or integrated : consistent. When you start hammering on those coils in your passive crossover and they heat up and the voice coil on the speaker heats up guess what, consistency goes to hell. The xover point will drift. This does NOT happen with an active xover.
> 
> ...


Well, at the end of the day I'm saying let's listen car for car......

You're saying "let's argue the engineering and science"....

Let me ask you this.

Which should be more important?

Another thing I'd like to mention is that a lot of audio theory tends to go against what might be more pleasing to the ear.

For instance, many audiophiles tend to prefer analog playback over digital because it's less harsh in most case. Likewise they will also prefer the sound of WW2 vacuum tube amps over modern solid state amps for the same reason. 

If you bring out the #s and EE, you'll see inferior specs for distortion, signal to noise ratio, etc. etc. But at the end of the day, for a good amount of us the ears say otherwise.

This might be going into an entirely different direction, but what I'm trying to say is be a little more open minded. 

I had to be beaten into the head myself over this passive thing as I was part of the "active only" crowd a few years ago. I had to be shown in person and I was proven wrong. 

It's the only way. I don't expect you to agree to my words and that's fine. 

To make one comment on your amp comparison, I will tell you that two JLs or Alpine PDXs cannot equal an MS amp because even if you can get similar power (which I still highly doubt), the JL & Alpine amps are thinner sounding in the midrange. 

Thinness in the midrange (and midbass) is not a spec that you can interpret with a spec that says 125 x 4. 

The spec I tend to use for that in general is the actual weight of the amplifier.


----------



## FG79 (Jun 30, 2008)

lycan said:


> *Bottom line : The times are changing. Forget about magic passives and 2-channel wonderamps. They are just not well suited to solving the problems of a small, reflective acoustic environment where we sit off center, and are often stuck with less-than-optimal placement and enclosures for our drivers.*


They still belt out the quality tones which is all that matters to some.

It's not so much the magic of the actual passive itself, but the fact that you're running *1* amp instead of multiple. 

The only magic of a better passive is more dynamics, more weight in the sound, more efficiency, all characteristics that have nothing to do with imaging. 

Now this argument also has a lot to do with taking a manufacturer's crossover in a component set and comparing it to an active setup. Like let's say Morel, DLS, Dynaudio, etc.

For guys out there taking raw drivers from madisound in a 3 way configuration...and trying to make a 3 way passive from that. That **** is legitimately hard, harder to do than active I'd imagine. Not worthwhile in most cases I suppose. 

I'd only go full custom on the passive for a 2 way, or replacing a manufacturer's engineered 3 way. 

When I aim to crossover a 2 way, my biggest concern is how high the woofer can play smoothly to integrate with the tweeter. It's a very simple thing....I don't add a trillion extra variables into the equation. 

Fundamentally what I see here is trying to make things harder for the sake of being harder, or feeling that's the only way to make things right. 

BTW, Lycan one of the myths of audio is that it's just like any other technology like cell phones and cars that gets better with time. In most cases it doesn't....usually gets worse because manufacturing and cost cutting is more important than that glorious sound. 

I've heard a lot of the high end home audio dating back from the old school Western Electric era to now....commercial and boutique high end as well. Hate to say it, but not much has changed over the last 60-70 years.


----------



## lycan (Dec 20, 2009)

proper "imaging" is only a _small_ part of why active processing wins.

Let's just focus on _tonality_. If you look at the frequency response of a single, mono driver playing to listeners near the boundaries of a small, reflective environment ... you'll see something pretty damn surprising, and pretty damn ugly. Cabin gain, peaks & nulls from constructive/destructive interference, etc. For anything even remotely resembling accurate _tonality_, something must be done! Otherwise, even the basic issue of _tonality_ is gone (forget about imaging). *Will you attempt to compensate (or equalize) for these environmental issues passively, or actively?*

Now let's imagine two drivers ... but still only using a mono channel (again, just to illustrate that imaging is, by far, not the only issue). At some frequency, i have to crossover between these two drivers. Where they are located, what enclosure they are in, frequency response & power response comprehended in this particular environment, where the ears are located relative to the drivers ... ALL of these factors (and more) will influence an optimal crossover design. *Will you just favor a generic passive crossover designed for these two drivers, that could not possibly take into account all of these ENVIRONMENTAL factors?*

This post has nothing to do with imaging, but yet still argues in favor of the power of _flexibility_.

I will agree that too much flexibility (or too many knobs, in a system without the baseline solution of a generic passive), in the hands of someone who doesn't know what they are doing is a recipe for disaster  But that's not really a defensible argument in favor of passive networks 

*Our hobby puts us in a small, reflective environment, where we sit off-center and are stuck with non-optimal driver enclosures & placement. This ENVIRONMENT impacts EVERY aspect of sound reproduction : staging, imaging, tonality, and dynamic range. What are the best tools to deal with this ENVIRONMENT?*


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

Candisa said:


> cvjoint and SSSnake: I shouldn't even bother to respond to you guys...
> There are passive crossovers out there that have:
> - (...)
> 
> Isabelle


So where is it? Where is the passive crossover that can do what the Bit 1 can do yet tunes itself automatically so that it's plug and play. We got the point about tricking out a passive to do SOME of what an active system can do. We can all agree on that. Now show us one that EXISTS. 

Again you seem to refute your own argument. A headunit with built in Left/Right EQ. will have TA and gain adjustment. IT IS DSP, and you are using it to make up for _passive shortcomings_. 

I am however grateful that you responded to such an insignificant fellow like myself. I have been humbled. 



FG79 said:


> BTW, Lycan one of the myths of audio is that it's just like any other technology like cell phones and cars that gets better with time. In most cases it doesn't....usually gets worse because manufacturing and cost cutting is more important than that glorious sound.


BTW have you designed an amplifier using only your mystical beliefs yet? 

The reason car audio is behind the curve has to do with the customer base being uneducated, stubborn, and gullible. The manufacturers can chrome plate a turd and sell it for a high premium. Why should they invest in cutting edge product? The majority of users don't know how to use it, don't want to learn, and insist that they know better.


----------



## subwoofery (Nov 9, 2008)

SSSnake said:


> Here is the example of where we fundamentally disagree. How is the MS1000 superior to *two JL Audio HD750/1*? Power output would be VERY *different* (*more* than a db difference in output levels). I don't and never will buy into the magic amp argument. They should be and for the most part are simple gain blocks. If they are doing ANYTHING else (ingnoring an internal crossover or eq) they are NOT what anyone should want in their system...


Late for the party but adjusted  

Yes, the HD750/1 are full range amplifiers and will walk all over the MS1000  in power, reliability and dynamic headroom. 
Don't worry about the midrange of those amps, it won't sound "thin" 

Kelvin


----------



## FG79 (Jun 30, 2008)

subwoofery said:


> Late for the party but adjusted
> 
> Yes, the HD750/1 are full range amplifiers and will walk all over the MS1000  in power, reliability and dynamic headroom.
> Don't worry about the midrange of those amps, it won't sound "thin"
> ...


You guys go ahead and stick to your JLs and I'll stick to my PG. 

Unlike you, I've had both and have spent more money on gear and sound in six months than most will spend in 6 years or 6 decades. 

I've learned my lessons the hard way.....and sadly most of us will have to do the same. 

I doubt those JLs can even match up to the Audison flagship amp.


----------



## SSSnake (Mar 8, 2007)

The ability to buy expensive equipment does not make one an audiophile (or as I prefer an audio enthusiast). Someone around here has this as a sig and it is very apropos in this situation. 

Experiment and listen with an open mind and I think you will find yourself changing your mind on this issue (and quite a few others you referenced).

Don't even get me started on tube amps and analog playback over digital...

Snake oil is snake oil in any industry. If you want snake oil fine, buy it. I prefer to spend my money on things that acutally make the system sound better.

Good luck in all your endeavors!


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

SSSnake said:


> I don't and never will buy into the magic amp argument. They should be and for the most part are simple gain blocks.


And yet they're not. Start adding in crossovers, EQs, etc. and even when technically bypassed they WILL alter the sound. Now, you can definitely EQ two amps to sound the same, but even level-matched some amps will sound audibly different.


----------



## SSSnake (Mar 8, 2007)

The statement was about the "magic amp" that generates SQ that others cannot attain... We agree that amps can and do sound different. However, it also sounds like we agree that you can 



> EQ two amps to sound the same,


The point, within this context, is that I would not dump a ton of money into an amp at the expense of digital processing (particularly xovers).


----------



## FG79 (Jun 30, 2008)

SSSnake said:


> The ability to buy expensive equipment does not make one an audiophile (or as I prefer an audio enthusiast). Someone around here has this as a sig and it is very apropos in this situation.
> 
> Experiment and listen with an open mind and I think you will find yourself changing your mind on this issue (and quite a few others you referenced).
> 
> ...


Likewise....

This debate was fun but honestly is not worth continuing until real world comparisons are done in person. 

I just wrote a response disagreeing with what you wrote but deleted it as would be a waste of time....you would rebut it for the sake of rebutting it. 

My buddy has the high end store where he has guys like yourself come in and challenge the "snake oil" and stand firmly behind what you've read. After half an hour, an hour or two they all come around....every single one of them.

This guy is really good...way better than myself and he doesn't have to waste time writing stuff online as he has you there in person, has the gear, etc. 

So the point is, whether you choose to agree with me or not....it will be impossible for me to get you to remotely acknowledge what I say. Firm audio beliefs are like RELIGIONS....trust me!

Only way to settle this is in person, comparing systems. 

Even that is probably futile. 

I really only entered this thread to defend the OP....I hope he was at least reached out to.


----------



## FG79 (Jun 30, 2008)

SSSnake said:


> The statement was about the "magic amp" that generates SQ that others cannot attain... We agree that amps can and do sound different. However, it also sounds like we agree that you can
> 
> 
> 
> The point, within this context, is that I would not dump a ton of money into an amp at the expense of digital processing (particularly xovers).


If you're ever in Washington DC, I'd like to expose you to the $200,100 experiment:

a) $100 speakers from best buy
b) $200,000 amp

Call me when you get there.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

FG79 said:


> Likewise....
> 
> This debate was fun but honestly is not worth continuing until real world comparisons are done in person.


Useful comparisons have been made. See RC challenge. 

I sold things in stores before too, it's nothing like a good scientific exercise. 

It was typical for a well known wire co*m*pany, I'm not going to say who  to set gains higher on the amplifier connected with said cables. 

Likewise I did HDMI vs. composite wire comparisons on HD content only. 

No one with a grain of logic is going to succumb to an in home test. How are they to know you are controlling for variable fairly? Then if you do, then why would it matter that I'm tested, or SSSnake or any other guy? If the experiment is indeed scientific then it won't matter who's getting tested. In fact, you probably want a larger sample size anyway.


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

SSSnake said:


> The statement was about the "magic amp" that generates SQ that others cannot attain... We agree that amps can and do sound different. However, it also sounds like we agree that you can
> 
> 
> 
> The point, within this context, is that I would not dump a ton of money into an amp at the expense of digital processing (particularly xovers).


Agreed, on all points.


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

cvjoint said:


> Useful comparisons have been made. See RC challenge.


Are you saying you agree that you agree with RC that amps operating in their linear range sound the same? I hope not since part of the challenge is to use and EQ to match the freq. response curves of the amps in question. Kinda defeats the purpose IMO. Maybe your reply just reads funny. 



> Likewise I did HDMI vs. composite wire comparisons on HD content only.


What were the results? And did you mean component vs. HDMI? I agree that PQ is the same on component and HDMI but composite isn't even close IME.


----------



## SSSnake (Mar 8, 2007)

> If you're ever in Washington DC, I'd like to expose you to the $200,100 experiment:
> 
> a) $100 speakers from best buy
> b) $200,000 amp
> ...


I actually get to DC fairly frequently. I am not sure what you are proposing and what this "experiment" is supposed to illustrate...

Before we get too far into this I should let you know that immediately out of college I worked as an AV engineer building modeling and simulation based immersive visualization systems (Mostly SGI computers driving a ton of 3-D projectors and audio equipment). Most of those systems had price-tags in the $1,000,000+ price range (before labor). Most AV sales people in the southeast have tried unsuccessfully to get me to believe in magic SQ amps, cables, speakers, and etc. It got to the point that fiedling calls from vendors ate most of my time. So, I decided to do double blind testing with anywhere from 10 to 30 coworkers (the only motivation for attendance was a free lunch following the session). High bandwidth switchers (100MHz range) were used for the low level audio signals and a custom fabbed (in my spare time) RS 232 controlled switch box was used for the speaker level signals. The results were very telling. Following this session we committed to crown amps, JBL speakers, (differing models) and Velodyne servo controlled subs. Standard commercial fare (except maybe the Velodynes). Candidate manufacterers included all of the high end esoteric stuff as well. Admittedly the sample size was too small but the biggest regret I have is not documenting the effort more thoroughly. Since I don't have thoroughly documented results, I will not mention the contenders by name. I will say that one of the amps involved in the test was "THE" audiophile's wet dream of an amplifier at the time. It did perform very well and was very rugged but the results could not justify the cost difference (it was indistinguishable from several other amps in listening tests). Now having a better background in testing, I would have done some things differently but this event caused a VERY large change in my outlook on the AV world.

Long story short is that I will be glad to visit the next time I am in DC with some available time. PM me your phone number and I will give you a call before my next trip.

BTW - I know that this is a little like arguing religion. I do believe that your are absolutely entitled to your opinion and to spend your money in any manner you see fit. However, before these tests I would have very likely argued the merit of an SQ amp versus a middle of the line amp (and there are merits but they typically don't relate to SQ - reliablity, resale value, etc). However, when you remove as many variables as possible (including your own predispositions) and just listen objectively things are very different.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

quality_sound said:


> Are you saying you agree that you agree with RC that amps operating in their linear range sound the same? I hope not since part of the challenge is to use and EQ to match the freq. response curves of the amps in question. Kinda defeats the purpose IMO. Maybe your reply just reads funny.


It teaches us the full gamut of aspects that impact the sound we perceive. That is the benefit. How useful is it? Well, I've seen dozens of bench tests on amplifiers over time. They all seem to be +-1db frequency response wise, and well bellow 1% THD+N just before they clip. Given that one can use a dMM to set gain I'd say the RC challenge is a pretty big deal. 



quality_sound said:


> What were the results? And did you mean component vs. HDMI? I agree that PQ is the same on component and HDMI but composite isn't even close IME.


My point was that the display allowed me to sell the CABLE based on the intrinsic properties of the SIGNAL. Here is a test I would run if I could:
$200 component cables used on HD signal (component out)
$10 GE composite cables (red, white, yellow) used on HD signal (component out). Colors wouldn't match but the quality difference would be indistinguishable. 

But my boss would have my nuts. He wouldn't have cared if I sold an HDMI cable if the old lady used over the air antenna. 

It's a bad example haha


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

cvjoint said:


> It teaches us the full gamut of aspects that impact the sound we perceive. That is the benefit. How useful is it? Well, I've seen dozens of bench tests on amplifiers over time. They all seem to be +-1db frequency response wise, and well bellow 1% THD+N just before they clip. Given that one can use a dMM to set gain I'd say the RC challenge is a pretty big deal.


If RC was so confident that they DO sound the same then why the EQ? Simple, he knows they don't all sound the same either. 



> My point was that the display allowed me to sell the CABLE based on the intrinsic properties of the SIGNAL. Here is a test I would run if I could:
> $200 component cables used on HD signal (component out)
> $10 GE composite cables (red, white, yellow) used on HD signal (component out). Colors wouldn't match but the quality difference would be indistinguishable.


You don't think the difference between 480i and 720p, at a minimum, has a noticeable affect on PQ? putting color aside, the sharpness and clarity difference alone is noticeable to anyone. In fact, I just did this for a firend last weekend. She had her new LCD connected to the BD player with composite. As soon as I swapped it for an HDMI cable it was immediately, and drastically improved. You coudl REALLY see the difference on her son's Xbox 360's dashboard screen.



> It's a bad example haha


But fun to debate anyway.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

quality_sound said:


> If RC was so confident that they DO sound the same then why the EQ? Simple, he knows they don't all sound the same either.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well I haven't seen any amplifier bench tests showing major FR irregularities. That and 1 db is nothing once you throw the car environment in. It's no enough to break the deal for me. Maybe some manufacturers use considerable bass boost built in, that would be aweful. Rumors exist...

No, No. Both sets of cables will give you 720P. Wire jacket colors won't match, but there is nothing special about component vs. rca cables.


----------



## tornaido_3927 (Nov 23, 2009)

quality_sound said:


> You don't think the difference between 480i and 720p, at a minimum, has a noticeable affect on PQ? putting color aside, the sharpness and clarity difference alone is noticeable to anyone. In fact, I just did this for a firend last weekend. She had her new LCD connected to the BD player with composite. As soon as I swapped it for an HDMI cable it was immediately, and drastically improved. You coudl REALLY see the difference on her son's Xbox 360's dashboard screen.


Pretty sure you are missing the point;

He plugged the composite cables into the component outlets and compared the cables directly. Ie. plugging in the yellow, red and white RCAs into the red, blue and green component RCA jacks. So 720p on both, for example.
His main point just being that they are the same cables, with different colours.

Sorry if I misinterpreted though :blush:


----------



## HAmmer32261 (Oct 29, 2010)

60ndown said:


> my dad used to coach the calagary stampeders


ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

tornaido_3927 said:


> Pretty sure you are missing the point;
> 
> He plugged the composite cables into the component outlets and compared the cables directly. Ie. plugging in the yellow, red and white RCAs into the red, blue and green component RCA jacks. So 720p on both, for example.
> His main point just being that they are the same cables, with different colours.
> ...



Ooooooooh, it sounded like he was saying that composite vs. component PQ was the same. If it's strictly a cable thing then I 100% agree with him. The difference is in what's sent down the cables, not the cables themselves.


----------



## Fast1one (Apr 6, 2007)

quality_sound said:


> If RC was so confident that they DO sound the same then why the EQ? Simple, he knows they don't all sound the same either.


You are completely missing the point of the test then. Amplifiers that MEASURE the same, sound the same. He is by no means proposing that all amplifiers sound the same, that is a foolish proposition. Even so, the differences become less discernible as the price range increases for amplifiers that perform well. 

A year or two ago I remember a discussion over on diyaudio.com regarding this topic of measurement. A middle-line amplifier manufacture (Crown I believe) was able to replicate another expensive amplifier's characteristics by modifying an existing model. Search for it if you are really interested.

This discussion is futile anyway. Amplifiers, along with other devices in the signal chain, play a very small role when compared to the performance of the transducers and the transfer function of the environment. The rest is placebo and you would be ignorant to convince yourself that you are somehow immune to psychoacoustics. Buy amplifiers for their rated power output, reliability etc.


----------



## tornaido_3927 (Nov 23, 2009)

Or you get some headphones


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

Carver did that like 15-20 yrs a go.



Fast1one said:


> You are completely missing the point of the test then. Amplifiers that MEASURE the same, sound the same. He is by no means proposing that all amplifiers sound the same, that is a foolish proposition. Even so, the differences become less discernible as the price range increases for amplifiers that perform well.
> 
> A year or two ago I remember a discussion over on diyaudio.com regarding this topic of measurement. A middle-line amplifier manufacture (Crown I believe) was able to replicate another expensive amplifier's characteristics by modifying an existing model. Search for it if you are really interested.
> 
> This discussion is futile anyway. Amplifiers, along with other devices in the signal chain, play a very small role when compared to the performance of the transducers and the transfer function of the environment. The rest is placebo and you would be ignorant to convince yourself that you are somehow immune to psychoacoustics. Buy amplifiers for their rated power output, reliability etc.


----------

