# Helix A4 Competition



## Dinobots (Aug 31, 2009)

Just new to this forum and car audio. Any reviews about this amplifier? I'll be running my whole system with this only (passives up front and a subwoofer).

Seems there is little review about this. Thanks!


----------



## kyheng (Jan 31, 2007)

A fast and meaningless(sort of) review : you can't go wrong much with European amps, except DLS.


----------



## asawendo (Nov 22, 2009)

Dinobots said:


> Just new to this forum and car audio. Any reviews about this amplifier? I'll be running my whole system with this only (passives up front and a subwoofer).
> 
> Seems there is little review about this. Thanks!


They can give you detail, dynamic and spatial Sound Bro...

Best Regards

Wendo


----------



## Ianaconi (Nov 11, 2006)

kyheng said:


> A fast and meaningless(sort of) review : you can't go wrong much with European amps, except DLS.


You don't like DLS?


----------



## kyheng (Jan 31, 2007)

Not really, because they have fakes around. A company's products got fakes I'll treat them all as fakes just for safety on my invesments.


----------



## SkodaTeam (Feb 26, 2009)

kyheng said:


> Not really, because they have fakes around. A company's products got fakes I'll treat them all as fakes just for safety on my invesments.


----------



## SouthSyde (Dec 25, 2006)

dls makes great amps.... just inspect before you buy if not certain... doesnt mean the company makes bad products...


----------



## ~Spyne~ (Oct 17, 2008)

Helix make some very beautiful amps with good quality components. You can't really go wrong with them


----------



## kyheng (Jan 31, 2007)

SouthSyde : Nope, I not that agree with you on this. The reason they have fakes is, their circuit design(certain models) is very easy to be copied. I won't waste money on a brand that uses a simple circuit design just like old Lightning Audio Bolt series amps.


----------



## matdotcom2000 (Aug 16, 2005)

Look what I found

Mobile Electronics Australia > any one heard much on these amps?

muzzy66:

Here you go!

There are results from a review database of German publication Auto-Hifi, linked from a fellow MEA member a little while back. The ratings list a lot of popular amps, so it was pretty interesting to see where they all stand. The entire Helix Competition range of amps (A2/A4/A6) scored right up the top with some of the very best amps - very impressive considering the price of them.

I've pulled a few models from the 'database' that might be popular (or of interest). I've sorted them first by the SQ rating they were given, and then by their price in Euro's.

* Audison VRx 4.300 CS2 (29/30; 1485 Euro) - [4x116 @ 4ohm]
* Audison VRx 6.420 CS2 (29/30; 1745 Euro) - [4x77 + 2x99 @ 4ohm]
* Steg Master Stroke Classe A (29/30; 1900 Euro) - [2x119 @ 4ohm]
* Brax X2400.2 Graphic Edition (29/30; 2300 Euro) - [4x148 @ 4ohm]
* Helix A2 Competition (27/30; 660 Euro) - [2x151 @ 4ohm]
* Helix A4 Competition (27/30; 700 Euro) - [4x93 @ 4ohm]
* Helix A6 Competition (27/30; 700 Euro) - [6x88 @ 4ohm]
* DLS Ultimate A4 (27/30; 1250 Euro) - [4x84 @ 4ohm]
* Sinfoni Amplitude 120.4x (27/30; 1350 Euro) - [4x148 @ 4ohm]
* Soundstream Human Reign 2 (27/30; 4500 Euro) [2x501 @ 4ohm]
* Lanzar Opti 500 XS (26/30; 900 Euro) - [2x456 @ 4ohm]
* Rockford Fosgate Power T 15004 (26/30; 1300 Euro) - [4x286 @ 4ohm]
* Zapco C2K-9.0XD (26/30; 1800 Euro) - [2x639 @ 4ohm] <-- wholy cow!!
* Helix B2 Precision (25/30; 380 Euro) - [2x138 @ 4ohm]
* DLS Ultimate A2 (25/30; 675 Euro) - [2x86 @ 4ohm]
* Helix B4 Precision (24/30; 400 euro) - [4x70 @ 4ohm]
* DLS Reference RA20 (24/30; 480 Euro) - [2x136 @ 4ohm]
* DLS Reference RA40 (24/30; 520 Euro) - [4x77 @ 4ohm]
* Soundstream VGA 800.5 (24/30; 950 Euro) - [4x90 + 1x302 @ 4ohm]
* Pheonix Gold Ti 500.4 (24/30; 1300 Euro) - [4x87 @ 4ohm]
* Boston Acoustics GT-28 (23/30; 780 Euro) - [2x221 @ 4ohm]
* Precision Power DCX 1000.4 (23/30; 1150 Euro) - [4x114 @ 4ohm]
* Audiosystem Twister F2-500 (22/30; 400 Euro) - [2x214 @ 4ohm]
* Zapco Reference 750.2 (22/30; 580 Euro) - [2x209 @ 4ohm]
* Alpine MRV-F 545 (22/30; 650 Euro) - [4x165 @ 4ohm]
* Zapco Reference 650.6 (22/30; 800 Euro) - [6x64 @ 4ohm]
* Clarion APA 4320 (20/30; 400 Euro) - [4x86 @ 4ohm]
* Audiosystem Twister F4-600 (20/30; 450 Euro) - [4x142 @ 4ohm]
* Audison LRx 4.300 (20/30; 515 Euro) - [4x69 @ 4ohm]
* Focal FP4.75 (20/30; 550 Euro) - [4x77 @ 4ohm]
* Audiosystem twister F4-380 (19/30; 350 euro) - [4x93 @ 4ohm]
* Steg QM 75.4x (19/30; 375 Euro) - [4x79 @ 4ohm]
* Audison SRx3 (18/30; 425 Euro) - [2x71 + 1x253 @ 4ohm]
* Audiosystem Twister F6-380 (18/30; 450 Euro) - [6x64 @ 4omh]
* Audison SRx4 (17/30; 330 Euro) - [4x63 @ 4ohm]
* Alpine MRV-F450 (16/30; 550 Euro) - [4x65 + 1x187]

For the record, don't think that the amps are the bottom of the list are necessarilly badly rated - I only listed the ones I felt might be of interest here, and there were some amps with scores as low as 7/30....so the ones at the bottom of this list still faired pretty well.

I've highlighted (in bold) some of the ranges mentioned in this thread - note that the Audison LRx is the old model, not the current one.

Now, I know that just because one publication says something doesn't immediately mean it's an undisputable fact - but I posted this anyway because I thought that the sheer range of amps tested (including some mentioned in this thread) makes it interesting reading. You'll generally find that the way the amps are rated here seems to be pretty consistent with other independant reviews on the net as well, so it seems like they are reasonably reliable.


----------



## SouthSyde (Dec 25, 2006)

kyheng said:


> SouthSyde : Nope, I not that agree with you on this. The reason they have fakes is, their circuit design(certain models) is very easy to be copied. I won't waste money on a brand that uses a simple circuit design just like old Lightning Audio Bolt series amps.


the fake dls's circuit board is totally different... the color is different... its been soo long but i think the fake one is green..


----------



## kyheng (Jan 31, 2007)

The 1 I seen is purple.... But I don't care anymore on DLS products... For me DLS = fakes.


----------



## chefhow (Apr 29, 2007)

To get this back on track, I have run several Helix amps in the past few years and while they are beautiful to look at they are a bit temperamental and touchy. Be careful when bridging your sub channels that they are at 4ohms IIRC the Helix didnt like to be bridged and clipped, got very hot and even shut down on me once or twice. Once I changed it and used the 4 channel as it was intended as a 4 ch it was great and ran my comps active with the built in xover effortlessly.


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

kyheng said:


> Not really, because they have fakes around. A company's products got fakes I'll treat them all as fakes just for safety on my invesments.


That is beyond stupid...



kyheng said:


> SouthSyde : Nope, I not that agree with you on this. The reason they have fakes is, their circuit design(certain models) is very easy to be copied. I won't waste money on a brand that uses a simple circuit design just like old Lightning Audio Bolt series amps.


And so is this. _Anything_ can be copied.


----------



## kyheng (Jan 31, 2007)

^Am I'm stupid? Maybe, but sometimes I don't mind being called stupid as I won't get a fake for sure on certain brands. From my point of view, a person that bought a fake is called stupid. Because he already know that this brand got fake and he still insist to buy it.

And if a circuit board can be easily copied, I will be looking at Alpine's MRV-F900 or Pioneer's RS-A7 and RS-A9. But then, do you see any of this amps being sucessfully copied?


----------



## subwoofery (Nov 9, 2008)

kyheng said:


> The 1 I seen is purple.... But I don't care anymore on DLS products... For me DLS = fakes.





kyheng said:


> ^Am I'm stupid? Maybe, but sometimes I don't mind being called stupid as I won't get a fake for sure on certain brands. From my point of view, a person that bought a fake is called stupid. Because he already know that this brand got fake and he still insist to buy it.
> 
> And if a circuit board can be easily copied, I will be looking at Alpine's MRV-F900 or Pioneer's RS-A7 and RS-A9. But then, do you see any of this amps being sucessfully copied?


Just listen to the product if you can... If you like it, buy AUTHORIZED! End of story 

Kelvin


----------



## Shooter (Dec 27, 2006)

Dinobots said:


> Just new to this forum and car audio. Any reviews about this amplifier? I'll be running my whole system with this only (passives up front and a subwoofer).
> 
> Seems there is little review about this. Thanks!


Helix Competition series are great amp.
Have heard a few setup using the A series. They are really clean and sweet.
But if you are getting the A4 to drive a pair of sep/ Component up front in passive mode with 2 channel and the other two channel bridge to the sub.
Be very careful on your seletion of woofer in term of power rating and the impedance.

The A4 is rated at.
4X85w @4ohm
4X153w @2ohm
2x270w @4ohm
2x395w @2ohm

So the impedance of your sub cannot be lower then 2ohm and power requirement so not be more then 270w @4ohm or 400w @2ohm.


----------



## h.norman (Nov 30, 2007)

quality_sound said:


> That is beyond stupid...
> 
> 
> 
> And so is this. _Anything_ can be copied.


The guy is always seem in forums posting unconstructive comments.... But I don't care anymore on him... For me Kyheng = Another Level of Idiocracy


----------



## h.norman (Nov 30, 2007)

kyheng said:


> ^Am I'm stupid? Maybe, but sometimes I don't mind being called stupid as I won't get a fake for sure on certain brands. From my point of view, a person that bought a fake is called stupid. Because he already know that this brand got fake and he still insist to buy it.
> 
> And if a circuit board can be easily copied, I will be looking at Alpine's MRV-F900 or Pioneer's RS-A7 and RS-A9. But then, do you see any of this amps being sucessfully copied?



Yes You are stupid. I'm glad that you are aware of that and don't mind being called stupid. 

From my point of view, a person who calls a another person stupid when he or she broughts a fake is a person I can call stupid as well.

You obivously do not understand what makes amplifiers cost differently.


----------



## Knobby Digital (Aug 17, 2008)

kyheng said:


> A company's products got fakes I'll treat them all as fakes just for safety on my invesments.


What's your take on titties?


----------



## matdotcom2000 (Aug 16, 2005)

I wonder how the A4 would stack up against the arc se2400???


----------



## Lanson (Jan 9, 2007)

You know what blows my mind with that list?

The RF Power T (26/30)
The Boston GT (23/30)
The PPI DCX (23/30)

Those are surprising in a list like that. 



matdotcom2000 said:


> Look what I found
> 
> Mobile Electronics Australia > any one heard much on these amps?
> 
> ...


----------



## Dinobots (Aug 31, 2009)

Shooter said:


> Helix Competition series are great amp.
> Have heard a few setup using the A series. They are really clean and sweet.
> But if you are getting the A4 to drive a pair of sep/ Component up front in passive mode with 2 channel and the other two channel bridge to the sub.
> Be very careful on your seletion of woofer in term of power rating and the impedance.
> ...



i'll be running danish acoustics plus dual 2 idq sub. have you heard helix a4 with danish acoustics there in singapore? could you expound a bit in the highlighted text. is the idq dual 2 sub will be ok to use?


----------



## noop (Jan 18, 2009)

Knobby Digital said:


> What's your take on titties?


LOL... sorry for the off topic, I'm on my 17th hour of work and I couldn't help but laugh at this. 

so, this guy won't be buying any Morel, Dynaudio, DLS, or Focal.(pretty sure there are more, I just can't think straight right now)


----------



## cyberdraven (Oct 28, 2009)

Helix amps are very musical and i would say NEUTRAL. It pounds and doesnt sound clinical at all.

I suggest use the A4 for your seps as this is indended for your fronts. You could audition Keanne, Madjohn and my ride - all Helix amps for your appreciation partner.

1pc A4 could power your fronts and IDQ subs, but you will underpower both your seps and sub. if it will sound great, it is very relative and really a gamble.


----------



## kyheng (Jan 31, 2007)

noop : Yup, you are right. There's just got other brands that can perform better than the few you listed. Just to make you think straight again.

Facing fake products problem for a company is like facing a financial crisis. It takes more "walk the talk action" rather than some useless web published statements which makes the original product's price shot up higher.


cyberdraven : Agreed that A4 or their same series do sound better. But not the lower end series.


----------



## DS-21 (Apr 16, 2005)

fourthmeal said:


> You know what blows my mind with that list?
> 
> The RF Power T (26/30)
> The Boston GT (23/30)
> ...


Why? Europeans who think they can hear "differences" in commodity parts are no different from Americans who think so: they base their perception of performance mostly on price and brand snobbery. There's no rule that brand snobbery is identical across the globe for a given brand.

I'm not going to waste my time with the math, but I suspect that a chart of lowest power per euro would correlate extremely well with the "sound quality rankings."


----------



## Just_SQ (Mar 19, 2010)

DS-21 said:


> Why? Europeans who think they can hear "differences" in commodity parts are no different from Americans who think so: they base their perception of performance mostly on price and brand snobbery. There's no rule that brand snobbery is identical across the globe for a given brand.
> 
> I'm not going to waste my time with the math, but I suspect that a chart of lowest power per euro would correlate extremely well with the "sound quality rankings."


I'm just curious about what you are stating here. Are you saying that there is no difference in sound between commodity parts, AMPS?


----------



## DS-21 (Apr 16, 2005)

Of course I am saying that all competently designed, non-broken amps are commodity parts that should be judged on qualities other than "sound," because they all sound the same. With some caveats that have been discussed ad nauseam.


----------



## Just_SQ (Mar 19, 2010)

DS-21 said:


> Of course I am saying that all competently designed, non-broken amps are commodity parts that should be judged on qualities other than "sound," because they all sound the same. With some caveats that have been discussed ad nauseam.


Not sure what you mean by "Nauseam" but as for amps being "commodity parts that should be judged on qualities other than sound", I would have to somewhat disagree with you on this subject. Yes there are other qualities amps should be judged by other than sound, however, all amps do NOT sound the same.

I am not as technically literate as others are in this forum or for that matter outside the forum in the field of and knowledge of car audio and high end equipment. I was seeking the advice of many car audio stores in my area to do a competition system in my car and it was to say the least frustrating because almost every store I went to wanted to sell me their house brand and they all told me the brand they suggested would beat the vehicles in all competition circuits.

Now as I said I am not that experienced and knowledgeable in equipment but I am not a fool either. Mainstream Sony amps can not be compared to Zapco or Audison amps in sound quality. Granted a system with Sony amps can have a better sound quality to it compared to a system with Zapco or Audison amps if the later was not installed and tuned properly. But given an experienced installer doing the same quality install using Zapco or Audison amps over Sony amps, there would be no comparison in Sound Quality. 

Here is my proof.

I drove to a shop about 1 1/2 hours from my house that came highly recommended for installing competition systems. They had mainstream lines such as Boss and Pyle and extreme esoteric lines such as Audison and Milbert. At first the salesman was showing me JL amps and Alpine amps. He told me they could install a competition system in my car that would be very competitive using these brands but that if I wanted an install that would almost be guaranteed to win I would need to step up to higher model amps, processors and speakers such as the Audison Thesis line or Milbert Tube amps.

My thoughts and questions were obviously "do they really sound that much better?" 

The salesman took me into a sound room where he had 3 amps sitting on a table. A JL 300/2 150wx2, an Alpine PDX-2.150 bridged 150wx2, and a Milbert Bam 235ab 30wx2. Yes ONLY 30wx2. All amps were hooked to a switching unit going to a set of Dynaudio mids and tweets.

I had no idea which amp was playing at any time and after switching back and forth numerous times between the three I was blown away by a single amp. It turned out to be the Milbert amp that was only 30 watts per channel. I couldn't believe it. I thought there was something hidden and wanted proof that there was not and what I was hearing was coming from the Milbert amp. After the guy proved it to me I will never say all amps sound the same. ALL AMPS DO NOT SOUND THE SAME.

Again, I am not experienced in all this soundstage, imaging, impact, detail etc. but I can tell you that these qualities are what I was educated on after hearing the Milbet amp and these sound qualities of the Milbert amp were far superior over the other amps. Even at high volume the Milbert amp played the speakers with a rich warm sound and I heard detail that was absent in the other amps.

Now if a beginner can hear this in an amp that should tell you something. 

The salesman wanted me to come back next week when he will have an Audison Thesis Venti amp. He told me that everybody in car audio knows this amp to be the best sound quality amp, the most expensive amp, and the most highly respected amp in the business. But in his opinion the Milbert has better sound quality. I am dying to see if this is true.

Audison Thesis Venti amp; $13,000 200 watts per channel
Milbert BAM 235ab tube amp; $2500 30 watts per channel

So even power and price does not always mean a better sounding amp. 

But the bottom line is that NOT ALL AMPS SOUND THE SAME


----------



## benny (Apr 7, 2008)

Just_SQ said:


> Not sure what you mean by "Nauseam" but as for amps being "commodity parts that should be judged on qualities other than sound", I would have to somewhat disagree with you on this subject. Yes there are other qualities amps should be judged by other than sound, however, all amps do NOT sound the same.
> 
> I am not as technically literate as others are in this forum or for that matter outside the forum in the field of and knowledge of car audio and high end equipment. I was seeking the advice of many car audio stores in my area to do a competition system in my car and it was to say the least frustrating because almost every store I went to wanted to sell me their house brand and they all told me the brand they suggested would beat the vehicles in all competition circuits.
> 
> ...


----------



## SkodaTeam (Feb 26, 2009)

Just_SQ said:


> But the bottom line is that NOT ALL AMPS SOUND THE SAME


Of course - every amp sound diferent, and i see a lot of people who dont believe that, probably the reason is - bad system or ears problem....


----------



## kyheng (Jan 31, 2007)

^Case by case maybe? If comparing same class(AB to AB), 1 may not able to hear the difference. But when A to AB, it may have.


----------



## Shazzz (Feb 2, 2010)

kyheng said:


> ^Case by case maybe? If comparing same class(AB to AB), 1 may not able to hear the difference. But when A to AB, it may have.


Agreed but in general Just_SQ even as a noob understands by means of a valid blind test that all amps DO NOT sound the same and I would be embarrassed to boast of having the audiophile knowledge and experience in the audio field as DS-21 and say otherwise


----------



## kyheng (Jan 31, 2007)

Amps may have difference, but cables........ That's another can of worm......


----------



## Shazzz (Feb 2, 2010)

But then again this is a man (DS-21) who thinks Aperiodic enclosures are as he stated "degenerate closed box" and "marketing ******** for very leaky closed box." 

Obviously the man knows nothing about car audio or the benefits of the Aperiodic. Oh my bad. That's right he admited he was a home audiophile and wants to bash something he knows nothing about nor has the experience of. And he never did rebut the fact that some of the winningest cars in competition employed Aperiodic enclosures. Funny isn't it?


----------



## kyheng (Jan 31, 2007)

^Well, that's the problem when people cannot differentiate objective and subjective reviews(how many people we can see they able to do this?)
And because they spent a big chunk of money, so they will say that they do able to listen there's difference between A and B.
Don't be surprise that sometimes a well known brand will come out some bad QC products. Is rare but it still happens.


----------



## Mooble (Oct 21, 2007)

You people know, don't you, that you cannot open up an amp and point to a "warm" circuit. There is no arrangement of circuits that contributes to a "warm" sound short of artificial EQ work. An amp is an amp. It amplifies, not distorts. Amps do have differences and they can contribute to them sounding different, but not in the way you people think.

Well designed and constructed amps (regardless of price) will typically have a lower noise floor. This is an audible difference, but it's not going to color your sound. Some amps are also better at rejecting noise by design and construction. While this too can be audible, it does not color the sound. 

Put simply, nothing short of artificial EQ will give you this sound you claim you hear. Do you understand? It's not physically possible!!! There is nothing inside an amplifier that can do that. Your mind can be tricked into thinking a sound is fuller or warmer by increasing power, but not through any circuit on the board. If you deny this, show me the blueprint of the "warm" circuit. Tell me exactly where it is on the amp. What combination was used to achieve it. You cannot because it doesn't exist. 

True tube amps (not hybrids) are a different beast. The Milbert may very well have sounded different, but if you'll note, the number of true tube amps on the market can be counted on one hand. They also have tremendous drawbacks. Tube amps will sound different when driven to clipping. Save them, amps do not sound "warmer" unless they have been artificially manipulated with hidden EQ work.


----------



## benny (Apr 7, 2008)

Thanks Mooble. I wish I could put thoughts into words better.


----------



## kyheng (Jan 31, 2007)

^Well, an amp that using MKP/MKT capacitors may sound differently compare to amps that are using bi-polar capacitors. What can be said is, it do have some difference, but not that significant.
I've used some Panasonic bi-polar caps for my passive networks last time(with tolerence of 10-20%) and few weeks just before I go full active, I tried somecapacitors meant for audio(with tolerence of 5%) I do able to hear the difference, but not much.

Guess now the so-called tube amp is just let the amplified signal from output transistors pass-thru a tube and claimed as it is a tube amp.


----------



## Shazzz (Feb 2, 2010)

Mooble said:


> You people know, don't you, that you cannot open up an amp and point to a "warm" circuit. There is no arrangement of circuits that contributes to a "warm" sound short of artificial EQ work. An amp is an amp. It amplifies, not distorts. Amps do have differences and they can contribute to them sounding different, but not in the way you people think.
> 
> Well designed and constructed amps (regardless of price) will typically have a lower noise floor. This is an audible difference, but it's not going to color your sound. Some amps are also better at rejecting noise by design and construction. While this too can be audible, it does not color the sound.
> 
> ...


True, quality amps do have a much lower noise floor which accounts for it's audible difference if you want to call it that and agreed this in itself does not color sound and one might subjectively mislabel this as "Warmer" at speaker output but truly we both know and understand this is simply silly. However, as this is by design, many amps, just as HU's, have signature sounds to them without artificial EQ.

Take for example the Nak TP-1200. There is no HU on the market past or present that can match it in terms of vocals and midrange dynamics. This is due to its superior engineered design of internal components and and the circuit design itself. The Milbert 100% pure tube design from input stage to output stage (unlike others such as the Butler which is a hybrid transistor/tube design) has a much fuller body and smoother analog sound to it due to all tube technology as opposed to transistor technology and when really pushed and driven, the tubes overload and compress comparatively gently, while transistors tend to clip hard and abruptly. Tubes have a natural tonal coloration (for lack of a better term) that is warmer, richer, and softer than transistors. 

All components are NOT created equally. Be it high quality op-amps Vs low quality op-amps, high quality caps Vs low quality caps, circuit designs, and other components in general absolutely have different tonal qualities and aspects to them lending to the harmonic output differences. Simply stating different components and different engineered circuit design will achieve different sounds and though many amps differences are not audible and can only be seen on a scope, others are very audible.

"show me the blueprint of the "warm" circuit. Tell me exactly where it is on the amp. What combination was used to achieve it. You cannot because it doesn't exist." 

It depends on how literal in theory you want to take this. Sure one can not point to a warm sounding circuit by another’s thought of this or their analogy. On the other hand it is simply to point to a well designed high quality vacuum tube amp and say, "there is your complete circuit that is warmer than this other high quality transistor amp".

This is really all subjective material depending on who wants to call it and how they perceive it.

But the fact remains that tube amps have a different sound than a transistor amp and that was all I was eluding to. 

"They (tube amps) also have tremendous drawbacks. Tube amps will sound different when driven to clipping."

Actually yes this is true but it is an advantage not a drawback. Tube amps are much more forgiving at clipping due to their soft clip sine wave as opposed to the hard square clip of transistor amps. 

If you listen to a recording that was recorded by tube technology Vs transistor technology you will hear lower octaves and more detailed harmonics and transients, less decay, and yes a warmer, softer, fuller sound. Now if this by means of component design and how the waveform signal passes through them is considered artificial EQ or coloration then by all means I would agree but nonetheless it is 'Different Sounding' and as many audiophiles say, "Warmer".

The sound differences of transistor equipment is harder to distinguish, however, even in transistor equipment, because of the different quality of components and design many high end pieces have different "Signature Sounds"

I respect your opinions, thoughts, and experience in audio, but my experience tells me that there is an audible difference in equipment.


----------



## Shazzz (Feb 2, 2010)

kyheng said:


> ^Well, that's the problem when people cannot differentiate objective and subjective reviews(how many people we can see they able to do this?)
> And because they spent a big chunk of money, so they will say that they do able to listen there's difference between A and B.
> Don't be surprise that sometimes a well known brand will come out some bad QC products. Is rare but it still happens.


Yes I absolutely agree


----------



## Shazzz (Feb 2, 2010)

kyheng said:


> ^Well, an amp that using MKP/MKT capacitors may sound differently compare to amps that are using bi-polar capacitors. What can be said is, it do have some difference, but not that significant.
> I've used some Panasonic bi-polar caps for my passive networks last time(with tolerence of 10-20%) and few weeks just before I go full active, I tried somecapacitors meant for audio(with tolerence of 5%) I do able to hear the difference, but not much.


The sum of all small differences accumulative from the beginning of the audio chain to the end of the audio chain can potentially make a big difference. 



kyheng said:


> Guess now the so-called tube amp is just let the amplified signal from output transistors pass-thru a tube and claimed as it is a tube amp.


I think I understood your meaning here. There are hybrid tube/transistor amps such as the Butler and then there are pure 100% tube amps such as the Milbert. There is a big difference.


----------



## Lanson (Jan 9, 2007)

DS-21 said:


> Why? Europeans who think they can hear "differences" in commodity parts are no different from Americans who think so: they base their perception of performance mostly on price and brand snobbery. There's no rule that brand snobbery is identical across the globe for a given brand.
> 
> I'm not going to waste my time with the math, but I suspect that a chart of lowest power per euro would correlate extremely well with the "sound quality rankings."



Because I bet the biggest difference they hear is a lower noise floor. 

And that matters to me. The DCX I had weren't that quiet though. So I'm not sure how they test. I don't want to pay money to find out, either.


----------



## Lanson (Jan 9, 2007)

Folks, before this turns into a Richard Clark discussion...


Just remember in the home audio world that extensive abx testing has been performed and proved beyond all doubts that the difference between a $100 basic Pioneer stereo and a $10,000 rack of gear is INAUDIBLE.


----------



## Shazzz (Feb 2, 2010)

fourthmeal said:


> Folks, before this turns into a Richard Clark discussion...
> 
> 
> Just remember in the home audio world that extensive abx testing has been performed and proved beyond all doubts that the difference between a $100 basic Pioneer stereo and a $10,000 rack of gear is INAUDIBLE.


I would be curious to see this test and know what equipment was used


----------



## Mooble (Oct 21, 2007)

Please, no more RC discussions. It's been beaten to death. RC does not say amps sound alike, he says topologies sound alike and that there is no expensive pixie dust in high dollar amps that can't be duplicated with a little EQ work.


----------



## subwoofery (Nov 9, 2008)

kyheng said:


> ^Case by case maybe? If comparing same class(AB to AB), 1 may not able to hear the difference. But when A to AB, it may have.


heh, always wanted to say this: 
I can tell the difference between my Milbert and a C2K, Sinfoni and a Brax. 10 out of 10 times... 

And before you ask, the Milbert amp is also a class A/B  - therefore, same topology. 

Blind tested and level matched to... well 30rms 

Kelvin


----------



## Mooble (Oct 21, 2007)

subwoofery said:


> heh, always wanted to say this:
> I can tell the difference between my Milbert and a C2K, Sinfoni and a Brax. 10 out of 10 times...
> And before you ask, the Milbert amp is also a class A/B  - therefore, same topology.



Ahh yes, but here is the point RC makes, which is a valid one. With the exception of clipping, could he duplicate the "tube sound" of the Milbert with a $200 Clarion amp and $5 in additional parts? 

If you've ever played around with BBE processing, you'll see just how close you can get a standard A/B amp to sound like an all-tube amp.


----------



## kyheng (Jan 31, 2007)

Well, I listened to a made in China pure tube amp before while I visit my repairer. When starting from cold, it sound sucks, when warm, it is better, but it sounds sucks again when it is too hot.

Shazzz : Well, that's why people like to mess around with capacitors when modding an amp or DSP.


----------



## Lanson (Jan 9, 2007)

I know, RC's been beaten to death. But the whole philosophy remains, and there's that huge divide between those that believe there is no audible difference, and those that do.

I might be able to dig it up, ...have you seen the article I'm talking about, where they double-blind tested MANY people and a lot of equipment, ranging from ~$100 to $10,000?


----------



## subwoofery (Nov 9, 2008)

Mooble said:


> Ahh yes, but here is the point RC makes, which is a valid one. With the exception of clipping, could he duplicate the "tube sound" of the Milbert with a $200 Clarion amp and $5 in additional parts?
> 
> If you've ever played around with BBE processing, you'll see just how close you can get a standard A/B amp to sound like an all-tube amp.


BBE as in the Digital domain? Nope sorry. Need to find a house first so that I can jump switch my obsession to HomeAudio  

Kelvin


----------



## jpswanberg (Jan 14, 2009)

There are differences in the types of distortion (1st, 3rd, 5th ... vs 2nd, 4th, 6th ...) between solid state and tube amplifiers. I prefer the sound (distortion) of tube amps to solid state. JPS


----------



## Mooble (Oct 21, 2007)

fourthmeal said:


> I know, RC's been beaten to death. But the whole philosophy remains, and there's that huge divide between those that believe there is no audible difference, and those that do.
> 
> I might be able to dig it up, ...have you seen the article I'm talking about, where they double-blind tested MANY people and a lot of equipment, ranging from ~$100 to $10,000?


Yes, but he manipulates the amps before testing. The test is not to prove amps sound alike. RC knows better than anyone that they do not sound alike. The point of his test is to show that a $4,000 amp does not have any magical properties that cannot be duplicated by a cheap amp, provided they measure the same. The failure of his test is that it doesn't take into account several other factors like testing the amps in a harsh environment like a car trunk. It doesn't take into account noise floor.

If he would let me test my Tru against a PDX with a zero bit silence track, I will bet you $1,000 that I can walk away with $10,000. He won't however, because he knows amps have audible differences in noise floor and discounts it from his test.


----------



## 3fish (Jul 12, 2009)

jpswanberg said:


> There are differences in the types of distortion (1st, 3rd, 5th ... vs 2nd, 4th, 6th ...) between solid state and tube amplifiers. I prefer the sound (distortion) of tube amps to solid state. JPS


Most honest and best statement made in this, round 13, of the amp sound debate.


----------



## 3fish (Jul 12, 2009)

Shazzz said:


> I would be curious to see this test and know what equipment was used


Different test but most compelling, Carver proves that ANY amp sonic signature can be copied

Here's the Wikipedia, I'm too lazy to find the original article as it's posted here in the forums.

Try to keep an open mind...


----------



## DS-21 (Apr 16, 2005)

Just_SQ said:


> I am not as technically literate as others are in this forum or for that matter outside the forum in the field of and knowledge of car audio and high end equipment.


The quoted post makes that obvious.



Just_SQ said:


> I was seeking the advice of many car audio stores


Mistake Number One.



Just_SQ said:


> Mainstream Sony amps can not be compared to Zapco or Audison amps in sound quality.


Why not?




Just_SQ said:


> The salesman took me into a sound room where he had 3 amps sitting on a table. A JL 300/2 150wx2, an Alpine PDX-2.150 bridged 150wx2, and a Milbert Bam 235ab 30wx2. Yes ONLY 30wx2. All amps were hooked to a switching unit going to a set of Dynaudio mids and tweets.


Trusting an "audition" set up by somebody to separate you from your money is Mistake Number Two. 

I'm not discounting the possibility that perhaps the Milbert amp is a ****ty design that sounds different from sonically transparent amps, mind. Sometimes, "boutique" audio products are either badly designed or badly assembled, and people think the flaws are actually amazing just because they're expensive.



Just_SQ said:


> Audison Thesis Venti amp; $13,000 200 watts per channel
> Milbert BAM 235ab tube amp; $2500 30 watts per channel
> 
> So even power and price does not always mean a better sounding amp.


The price is pretty similar. The Audison is an absurd 65USD/watt. The Milbert is more expensive, at an eye-popping 80+ USD/watt. By comparison, a JL HD600/4, an amp more technically interesting than either of the ones you're looking at because it's smaller and more efficient, is around 2.60 USD per watt even at full MSRP.



fourthmeal said:


> I know, RC's been beaten to death. But the whole philosophy remains, and there's that huge divide between those that believe there is no audible difference, and those that do.


Please. That's like saying that there's just a "philosophical difference" between people who think the earth is round and people who think it's flat. There's one position (the "commodity parts") side that is supported by the entire weight of cumulative subjective same/different listening tests, and one side (everything sounds different, and of course the stuff that's on its face the worst value for money must be magically better-sounding) is unsupported by anything reasonable.


----------



## tristan20 (Nov 28, 2005)

People that tend to say all amps sound the same have crappy speakers


----------



## DS-21 (Apr 16, 2005)

Even if that's true, they've probably spent more time optimizing them to work well. After all, they're not wasting time swapping out commodity parts, so they have more time to focus on what matters.


----------



## Lanson (Jan 9, 2007)

Took some time to find, but I got it: 

http://bruce.coppola.name/audio/Amp_Sound.pdf

Its not about RC. Well...its about David but is that the same guy?


----------



## DS-21 (Apr 16, 2005)

No. David L. Clark and Richard Clark are different people. DLC invented the DUMAX, which was a machine to measure woofer excursion that's largely been supplanted by the Klippel. He was also responsible for the old Monsoon planar-magnetic computer speakers, and probably a bunch of other stuff.


----------



## Lanson (Jan 9, 2007)

What do you think of the .pdf then? I think it matches your views, and may be more than a bit of an eye opener for others in this thread.


----------



## DS-21 (Apr 16, 2005)

Thanks for posting the PDF. (I didn't read it until you asked for my opinion on it.) Yes, it's fair to say that my views are a direct result of the work of DLC and others.


----------



## Lanson (Jan 9, 2007)

It was an eye opener for me. I think it would be smart reading for ALL those involved in the process of thinking that all these little things matter an iota.

Also makes me wonder, what would it take to run a home theater receiver in a car, after all. Separate thread, me thinks.


----------



## DS-21 (Apr 16, 2005)

What strikes me today above all about the DLC article is how unlikely such a thing would be to happen today. For better or worse, it seems that the anti-intellectualism of the "audiophile" press and the echo chamber of internet fora would likely prevent assembly of an appropriately-sized sample. When DLC penned this article (my guess, based on equipment used and the typography, is slightly before I got into audio, i.e. late 1980s) I think there was genuine interest among music lovers in exploring whether their biases were grounded in real sonic differences or not. Today, in keeping with the wider infantilization and anti-intellectualism ripping through society, many people prefer the security provided by a head deeply embedded in silica to actual data.

But to your question, a receiver would likely be a PITA. But a _preamp_ with a good room correction program, that might be interesting if you're savvy enough to DIY the power supply. (I'm not.) And if you're willing to make the space for it, as such receivers (the Onkyo/Integra one seems to be the most reasonably priced good one right now) are not exactly Jello HD amp small.


----------



## Shazzz (Feb 2, 2010)

Mooble said:


> Ahh yes, but here is the point RC makes, which is a valid one. With the exception of clipping, could he duplicate the "tube sound" of the Milbert with a $200 Clarion amp and $5 in additional parts?
> 
> If you've ever played around with BBE processing, you'll see just how close you can get a standard A/B amp to sound like an all-tube amp.


Ah yes but now we are geting into artificial EQing 

Bar this and we are right back to subjective opinions that not all amps sound the same and a high quality well built 100% true tube amp sounds different than its transistor counterpart


----------



## matdotcom2000 (Aug 16, 2005)

So after all of this discussion what amps would the Helix A4 compare too???


----------



## Lanson (Jan 9, 2007)

matdotcom2000 said:


> So after all of this discussion what amps would the Helix A4 compare too???



They are very nice, well-made, low noise floor amps that also have unique properties of being very slim. They are probably very reliable and consistent but that's just a guess.


----------



## matdotcom2000 (Aug 16, 2005)

matdotcom2000 said:


> So after all of this discussion what amps would the Helix A4 compare too???


I have one and I have not hooked it up yet but I realllly have been wanting the arc se4200 (for some years now) and I am wondering should I go with the the arc instead.


----------



## Just_SQ (Mar 19, 2010)

Just_SQ said:


> I am not as technically literate as others are in this forum or for that matter outside the forum in the field of and knowledge of car audio and high end equipment.





DS-21 said:


> The quoted post makes that obvious.


Yes it obviously does since I admited this so what is your point in this dribble? 



Just_SQ said:


> I was seeking the advice of many car audio stores





DS-21 said:


> Mistake Number One


Maybe you can tell me why this is a mistake instead of just saying it is? As I admited I do not have the experience or knowledge as you and others so where would I go to learn what I do not know? Granted many shops will lead you to believe what they are selling is a better choice so this is why you go to many different shops to get many different opinions and you will then have a good idea of honesty and BS. 



Just_SQ said:


> Mainstream Sony amps can not be compared to Zapco or Audison amps in sound quality.





DS-21 said:


> Why not?


Now this is stupidly simple. I think you should know as some of the more experienced guys have pointed out here that better quality amps have lower floor noise. So are you saying that a mainstream Sony amp has a lower floor noise than a Zapco C2K amp? If so maybe I shouldn't look to your advise.



Just_SQ said:


> The salesman took me into a sound room where he had 3 amps sitting on a table. A JL 300/2 150wx2, an Alpine PDX-2.150 bridged 150wx2, and a Milbert Bam 235ab 30wx2. Yes ONLY 30wx2. All amps were hooked to a switching unit going to a set of Dynaudio mids and tweets





DS-21 said:


> Trusting an "audition" set up by somebody to separate you from your money is Mistake Number Two.
> 
> I'm not discounting the possibility that perhaps the Milbert amp is a ****ty design that sounds different from sonically transparent amps, mind. Sometimes, "boutique" audio products are either badly designed or badly assembled, and people think the flaws are actually amazing just because they're expensive.


So I shouldn't listen to comparisons of equipment and speakers to conclude what I think sounds better or not? Maybe I should just read books and believe everything I read as to what is better? Yes good idea and then I should buy all 1000 sets of speakers and use them all in my car since they are all rated better by the author. 

You are not discounting the possibility that perhaps the Milbert amp is a ****ty design that sounds different from sonically transparent amps? Transparent as in the Sony Amp? And you would call the Milbert amp a ****ty design? 

WOW. Have you seen any of the highly praised articles on Earl Zausmer's BMW 540? It won more than 90% of all competitions it entered over a 5 year period and it used Milbert amps for the front stage. Every highly respected and experienced person in this industry who listened to the car said it had the best sounding front stage of any car they have ever heard and attributed this mainly to the Milbert amps. Yes they must be a ****ty design. The fact that you would even make this comment tells me that you are nobody to listen to.

Furthermore, you don't make any sense. On one hand you say that amps are nothing more than commodities. Then you say Milbert amps are ****ty design. What would it matter then since all amps are just commodities? I think that is called contradiction. And in case you have not read here that everybody respects the Milbert amp as a well built and designed high quality amp. You are the only opinion that thinks this is a shiity designed amp. Again I discount your opinion based on these facts and that you contradict yourself about all amps are only commodities then say another amp is ****. WOW

Lastly, as you said, ""boutique" audio products are either badly designed or badly assembled, and people think the flaws are actually amazing just because they're expensive." 

Again what does it matter since all amps are only commodities????? 

Why should I listen to you? I would fair better listening to the audition of stereo shops who at least do not stupidly contradict themselves. 



Just_SQ said:


> So even power and price does not always mean a better sounding amp.





DS-21 said:


> The price is pretty similar. The Audison is an absurd 65USD/watt. The Milbert is more expensive, at an eye-popping 80+ USD/watt. By comparison, a JL HD600/4, an amp more technically interesting than either of the ones you're looking at because it's smaller and more efficient, is around a buck thirty per watt even at full MSRP.


First of all you completely quoted me out of context to satisfy your agenda. But regardless my point was not about the cost of amps or watts per dollar. It was about as I said that I believe that the cost of an amp or it's power does not always mean a better sounding or quality amp. This is even pointed out by YOU YOURSELF; 

"By comparison, a JL HD600/4, an amp more technically interesting than either of the ones you're looking at because it's smaller and more efficient, is around a buck thirty per watt even at full MSRP." So all amps are not just commoditeis!

Really your dribble was nothing more than a waste of words to agree with my point of this fact. WOW

Oh and your basic math skills are in serious need of improvement. 

Milbert $2500 30 watts per channel=60 watts. 2500/60= $41 per watt not $80+ per watt. 
Milbert is also 60 watts per channel at 2 ohms being $20.83 per watt.

Audison Thesis Venti $13,000 200 watts per channel=400 watts. 13000/400= $32.50 per watt not $65 per watt.

I'll be glad to send you a calculator 

And here is another tidbit. The audison Thesis Venti simple basic commodity amp can put out 800 watts x 2 = 1600 watts in High Power mode at 2 ohms. So the math says 13000/1600= $8.12 per watt.

Seems that you used all 4 channels of power of the JL amp to compare the price of watt per dollar but you did not give the Milbert and Audison amps this same fair respect and used only 1 channel of power on these amps to inflate the price of watt per dollar on them. 

You must have an agenda here I am sure as it clearly shows.

My goal is to have a high end system installed that will not just compete, but hopefully win a National Tittle. I am not saying that JL amps are bad at all, in fact I like JL amps very much but show me a system that has ever won a national tittle using JL amps.

Smaller? OK. More technically interesting? That depends on the opinion of the individual and what they base interesting on or by. 

I would gladly spend $8.12 per watt as oppossed to $1.25 per watt if thats what it takes to win a National Tittle. 



fourthmeal said:


> I know, RC's been beaten to death. But the whole philosophy remains, and there's that huge divide between those that believe there is no audible difference, and those that do.





Just_SQ said:


> Please. That's like saying that there's just a "philosophical difference" between people who think the earth is round and people who think it's flat.


Are you ****ing kidding me? You have just dribbled the most stupid idiotic comparrison I have ever heard or read in my life. At least use a half dim witted intellegent comparrison. Show me one person on this planet who thinks the world is square. I get your meaning of "Like Saying" but even so this is like comparing fact and NOT as people here call "SUBJECTIVE OPINION" where I think all amps do not sound the same and another thinks otherwise. This is a perfect example of not fact but rather personal subjective opinion that has never been scientifically proven either way.

The subject author of the above referenced study http://bruce.coppola.name/audio/Amp_Sound.pdf is very highly respected and I think more experienced and knowledgeable than you on this matter and subject which he even goes on to say in the very last para; "The source material, different types of amplifiers and ancillary equipment would appear to be capable of showing differences. However, I was hard pressed to tell the differences." 

Now this leads me to believe that, even by hard pressed and the slightest of margins, equipment "IS CAPABLE OF SHOWING DIFFERENCES"

And hey, did you not yourself say, "Yes, it's fair to say that my views are a direct result of the work of DLC and others"

Your Views? So what is it DS-21? All amps are commodities that sound the same? Or "even by hard pressed and the slightest of margins, equipment "IS CAPABLE OF SHOWING DIFFERENCES" ??? As the VIEW AND WORK OF DLC AND OTHERS IS ??????? 

I will definitely NOT be listening to your views and opinions since they have proven to be stupid and contradictive. But I will read them and laugh I am sure.   :laugh: :laugh:



fourthmeal said:


> I know, RC's been beaten to death. But the whole philosophy remains, and there's that huge divide between those that believe there is no audible difference, and those that do.


I think this is the fairest statement I have read on this post


----------



## DS-21 (Apr 16, 2005)

Note: please learn how to quote properly. You've attributed comments to me that were clearly not mine, and my comments to others.



Just_SQ said:


> Yes it obviously does since I admited this so what is your point in this dribble?


That perhaps you should learn something before spewing nonsense, that's all.

There are few people at car audio stores that know a damn thing. Certainly, none who would direct you to relevant research on the audibility of electronic components. It be against their self-interest!



Just_SQ said:


> Maybe you can tell me why this is a mistake instead of just saying it is?


You could learn to draw reasonable inferences from the accumulated weight of controlled subjective same/different listening tests, for starters.



Just_SQ said:


> Granted many shops will lead you to believe what they are selling is a better choice so this is why you go to many different shops to get many different opinions and you will then have a good idea of honesty and BS.


Clearly, that didn't work so well for you. 



Just_SQ said:


> Now this is stupidly simple. I think you should know as some of the more experienced guys have pointed out here that better quality amps have lower floor noise. So are you saying that a mainstream Sony amp has a lower floor noise than a Zapco C2K amp? If so maybe I shouldn't look to your advise.


Stupidly simple, huh? Let's see what a published test of a Sony car amp has to say. Hmm, there's one here. What does it say? Unless my eyes deceive me, here's a relevant quote: "The unit is very quiet, signal-to-noise measured better than –120 dB." 

Regardless of where the Zapco falls, do you think that noise is going to be a deciding factor in a moving car with the Sony amp?



Just_SQ said:


> So I shouldn't listen to comparisons of equipment and speakers to conclude what I think sounds better or not?


You probably shouldn't waste your time "listening" to "equipment." It's all commodity parts. Speaker auditions can be deceptive, too, given the variability in rooms (a car is just a small room, with relatively fixed listening positions, after all) and such.



Just_SQ said:


> You are not discounting the possibility that perhaps the Milbert amp is a ****ty design that sounds different from sonically transparent amps? Transparent as in the Sony Amp? And you would call the Milbert amp a ****ty design?


I'm saying that it's possible, not certain, that the Milbert amp is a piece of ****. Generally, there are two categories of audio equipment: commodity parts and crap. Most "middle class" stuff is commodity parts. At the low end, designing-to-a-price can lead to something being crap. At the high end, incompetent design and build quality can lead to something being crap.



Just_SQ said:


> WOW. Have you seen any of the highly praised articles on Earl Zausmer's BMW 540?


No, I haven't. And I don't care to. 

And who exactly praised the articles about that car, anyway? Did their authors win Pulitzers, or Peabodies? 



Just_SQ said:


> Again what does it matter since all amps are only commodities?????


Well-designed, non-broken amps are commodity parts. Does your brain have insufficient resolution to properly comprehend modifiers?



Just_SQ said:


> First of all you completely quoted me out of context to satisfy your agenda.


When one's talking about relative costs of dissimilar things, it is appropriate to normalize them to a standard. In the case of amps, cost per watt at 4Ω is a reasonable way to normalize amp costs to a standard. 



Just_SQ said:


> So all amps are not just commoditeis!


From a sonic perspective, they are. The Jello is more technically interesting because it is extremely compact and quite efficient, while still being very powerful. And the price. while high, is close to reasonable considering the intellectual property behind it and the build quality. Note that none of those qualities relate to sonics. Sonically, it sounds the same as any other amp. 



Just_SQ said:


> Milbert $2500 30 watts per channel=60 watts. 2500/60= $41 per watt not $80+ per watt.
> Milbert is also 60 watts per channel at 2 ohms being $20.83 per watt.
> 
> Audison Thesis Venti $13,000 200 watts per channel=400 watts. 13000/400= $32.50 per watt not $65 per watt.


_Really?_ 

Your whole argument rests on the fact that I did the comparisons on a per channel-basis rather than a whole-amp basis? 

I did assume without knowing that both were 2-channel amps, admittedly; if I had been wrong in that assumption you would have been correct in pointing out my error. 



Just_SQ said:


> 'll be glad to send you a calculator


You might want to keep it, because you'd then realize that your numbers are all just half of my numbers, reflecting the fact that I did mine on a per channel basis and you did yours on a per amp basis.  



Just_SQ said:


> 'Seems that you used all 4 channels of power of the JL amp to compare the price of watt per dollar


Indeed, I made an error. Thanks for pointing it out. I corrected the post to double the cost/watt of the Jello, reflecting a fair comparison of half the amp for all three units.



Just_SQ said:


> My goal is to have a high end system installed that will not just compete, but hopefully win a National Tittle.


Ah, there's the real difference. I want to listen to music in my car while I'm driving around, not impress people I don't know or care to know. Given that your goal is impressing people with how much you can spend on car audio ****, you are going to reach different conclusions than I will.



Just_SQ said:


> Now this leads me to believe that, even by hard pressed and the slightest of margins, equipment "IS CAPABLE OF SHOWING DIFFERENCES"


Let's leave your inability to comprehend simply-written English language sentences out of it, OK?

PS: No need to reply, as I've added you to my ignore list. You don't want to learn anything about how to design or install an audio system for enjoying music while driving. You want to win some sort of trophy or another in a parking lot. That's fine, and I wish you well in that pursuit. But given that we are striving for totally different goals - allegedly...let's just say your writing style leads me to doubts that you're even old enough to drive - I don't expect anything I write could be of any use to you, or vice versa.


----------



## Just_SQ (Mar 19, 2010)

DS-21 said:


> Note: please learn how to quote properly. You've attributed comments to me that were clearly not mine, and my comments to others.


I did not attribute any comments to you that were not yours. There was one comment I quoted at the end of my post that was not directed to you. Learn how to understand what you read instead of making yourself look like an idiot. 

Perhaps you might not look so stupid if you show the facts of your statement of what was incorrectly quoted instead of just making a knowingly incorrect statement. Oh thats right you can't rebut the truth so instead you just spew dribbled nonsense. What a MORON



Just_SQ said:


> Yes it obviously does since I admited this so what is your point in this dribble?





DS-21 said:


> That perhaps you should learn something before spewing nonsense, that's all.


A person is spewing nonsense if they admit they are not as experienced as others? This in itself is nonsense? WOW you truly are an idiot that spews dribbled nonsense to try and clean up other dribbled nonsense. 



Just_SQ said:


> Maybe you can tell me why this is a mistake instead of just saying it is?





DS-21 said:


> You could learn to draw reasonable inferences from the accumulated weight of controlled subjective same/different listening tests, for starters.


Ah well at least this time you are making an attempt to explain your dribbled nonsense. Now if you go back and read what I said you might see that my statement regarding this was acknowledging exactly what you just said. So what point did you make here other than reciting exactly what I said?

More dribbled nonsense from you



Just_SQ said:


> Granted many shops will lead you to believe what they are selling is a better choice so this is why you go to many different shops to get many different opinions and you will then have a good idea of honesty and BS.





DS-21 said:


> Clearly, that didn't work so well for you


What didn't work? Did I say I bought anything based on anybodies recommendation? Nope not at all so again learn to understand plain English of what you read. 

More dribbled nonsense from you.



Just_SQ said:


> Now this is stupidly simple. I think you should know as some of the more experienced guys have pointed out here that better quality amps have lower floor noise. So are you saying that a mainstream Sony amp has a lower floor noise than a Zapco C2K amp? If so maybe I shouldn't look to your advise.





DS-21 said:


> Stupidly simple, huh? Let's see what a published test of a Sony car amp has to say. Hmm, there's one here. What does it say? Unless my eyes deceive me, here's a relevant quote: "The unit is very quiet, signal-to-noise measured better than –120 dB."
> 
> Regardless of where the Zapco falls, do you think that noise is going to be a deciding factor in a moving car with the Sony amp?


You are off point here with your stupid reference to this material. What did this prove? Did it prove that this Sony amp has a lower noise floor than a Zapco C2K amp? NO IT DID NOT!. I can very easily refer to the writing of a Zapco C2K amp that shows it has a lower noise floor as comparred to this Sony amp which was the point but why bother? It would only prove you to be a bigger moron than what you already show of yourself. Truly you need no help in this area as you do a good enough job of it yourself. 

Oh and nobody said anything about a moving car. The point was simply about which amp has a lower noise floor and nothing else. If you want to add other variables that was not discussed such as this moot point of yours then your point would be even further meaningless about your Sony amp or any amp for that matter because anybody would admit that in a moving car noise floor is thrown out the window. 

However, since you want to go there with your stupid point you should know that competition judging is not done in a moving car so therefor we are back to the main point of what amp for this purpose has a lower noise floor. The Zapco C2K amp hands down. 

More dribbled nonsense from you that proved nothing



Just_SQ said:


> So I shouldn't listen to comparisons of equipment and speakers to conclude what I think sounds better or not?





DS-21 said:


> You probably shouldn't waste your time "listening" to "equipment." It's all commodity parts. Speaker auditions can be deceptive, too, given the variability in rooms (a car is just a small room, with relatively fixed listening positions, after all) and such.


Another rambling runoff of stupidly referenced dribble. 

Speakers do not all sound the same. In a room or in a car a given set of speakers will sound the same or probably worse actually in a car because of the many diffractions. This is basic fact not rocket science Mr Einstein. 

Auditioning speakers is the only way for anybody to know which speakers sound better to them. Get a clue and at least say something intellegent. 



DS-21 said:


> I'm saying that it's possible, not certain, that the Milbert amp is a piece of ****. Generally, there are two categories of audio equipment: commodity parts and crap. Most "middle class" stuff is commodity parts. At the low end, designing-to-a-price can lead to something being crap. At the high end, incompetent design and build quality can lead to something being crap.


Why do you even make an attempt to defend any of this or point any of this out? I mean really its all meaningless because after all, according to you all amps are nothing more than commodity parts so then why would any of this even matter?

DRIBBLE DRIBBLE DRIBBLE



Just_SQ said:


> WOW. Have you seen any of the highly praised articles on Earl Zausmer's BMW 540?





DS-21 said:


> No, I haven't. And I don't care to.
> 
> And who exactly praised the articles about that car, anyway? Did their authors win Pulitzers, or Peabodies?


EXTREMELY STUPID AND IRRELEVANT DRIBBLE!

Who cares who priased the articles? Just as who cares who praised the article you referenced regarding the Sony amp? Did that author win any Pulitzers or Peabodies? 

But to answer your question, Google it and you will see many articles were written on this vehicle by many highly respected people in the industry and if this means nothing simply because the authors or the ones who praised the articles and the car have not won any Pulitzers or Peabodies then by the same token every article that you have ever read is meaningless unless of coarse the author has been awarded Pulitzers or Peabodies. 

Go ahead and keep making yourself look like the idiot moron you are by your stupidly senseless dribble.



DS-21 said:


> Really?
> 
> Your whole argument rests on the fact that I did the comparisons on a per channel-basis rather than a whole-amp basis?
> 
> I did assume without knowing that both were 2-channel amps


What, now you want to play ignorant to try and clean up your agenda? Do you really think people are that stupid not to see the truth here? OMG if you think this then you are a bigger moron than I thought

Take off the skirt and Man Up dude. As clear as day you intentionally comparred all channels of the JL amp and only 1 channel of the Milbert and Audison amp. 

Or do you admit that you can not understand basic English of what you read? Not to mention understanding audio phrases??

IN BLACK AND WHITE 

30 watts per channel=60 watts
200 watts per channel=400 watts

There was absolutely no assuming done. You know damn weel that both of these amps are 2 channel amps. 

But go ahead and play stupid and disrespect yourself by showing the entire forum that you are not man enough to admit your intentional actions of your purposeful agenda.



DS-21 said:


> You might want to keep it, because you'd then realize that your numbers are all just half of my numbers, reflecting the fact that I did mine on a per channel basis and you did yours on a per amp basis


Really? Look again and stop playing stupidly ignorant. Its the exact opposite of what you just stated. You did the comparrison of the JL based on all four channels (or per amp basis) and the others on a per channel basis of only 1 channel. 

C'mon really!! :icon_bs: :thumbsdown: :loser1:



Just_SQ said:


> My goal is to have a high end system installed that will not just compete, but hopefully win a National Tittle





DS-21 said:


> Ah, there's the real difference. I want to listen to music in my car while I'm driving around, not impress people I don't know or care to know. Given that your goal is impressing people with how much you can spend on car audio ****, you are going to reach different conclusions than I will.


To each his own. Its not about impressing anybody to me. Its about the sport of the hobby. 

WHAT A COMPLETE EGOTISTICAL ASS TO MAKE JUDGEMENT CALLS TOWARDS OTHER PEOPLE



DS-21 said:


> PS: No need to reply, as I've added you to my ignore list.


Thank God!!! You should have done that in the first place



DS-21 said:


> You don't want to learn anything about how to design or install an audio system for enjoying music while driving.


Certainly not from you since you have clearly demonstrated that you have no knowledge of car audio 



DS-21 said:


> You want to win some sort of trophy or another in a parking lot. That's fine, and I wish you well in that pursuit.


Thank you for your permission



DS-21 said:


> let's just say your writing style leads me to doubts that you're even old enough to drive


Is this all you have to offer in order to try and make yourself feel better? Whatever floats your boat. And as if your writing style is so superior. PLEASE

Oh and stop pretending that you even have a car :laugh:



DS-21 said:


> I don't expect anything I write could be of any use to you


YOU'RE DAMN STRAIGHT !!!

How stupid you must feel that an amateur in car audio set you straight and pulled your covers of being intentionally ignorant.

You have a good day now


----------



## matdotcom2000 (Aug 16, 2005)

Ok whats the name of this thread???? Does this have anything to do with the helix A4???


----------



## Just_SQ (Mar 19, 2010)

matdotcom2000 said:


> Ok whats the name of this thread???? Does this have anything to do with the helix A4???


My sincere apologies to the forum. I just hate idiots like DS-21. I came here to learn and for suggestions and was bashed by this guy so I felt abliged to give him a taste of his own medicine. 

I'll try to refrain myself from this and stay on point.


----------



## benny (Apr 7, 2008)

All you have done is revealed just how little you know. I'm not a fan of DS-21 in the least, but I don't think we disagree very much on the topic of audio.


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

Just_SQ said:


> You have a good day now


Daym.. yer funny when you are butthurt.


----------



## STI<>GTO (Aug 8, 2005)

For anybody trying to translate the unnecessarily long and generally worthless posts of Just SQ, please replace "dribble" with "drivel". I don't _think_ he was really talking about saliva or bouncing balls.


----------



## Lanson (Jan 9, 2007)

The sooner we as an audio community come to recognize that amps that measure the same sound the same, the better off we will be. 

This goes for Helix, Steg, etc. Anybody out there, really... if the amp is built to a solid standard and you like it for the reliability, quality, and size it is, then by all means you will probably be happy with it.


----------



## Mooble (Oct 21, 2007)

That's not to say that there aren't reasons to buy a Helix, just don't buy it because you expect it to sound radically better than a cheap amp. The differences are subtle at best, but if you have the cash and you want a very quiet and sexy amp, get one.


----------



## el_chupo_ (May 27, 2007)

chad said:


> Daym.. yer funny when you are butthurt.


You got some good ones lately.


----------



## ChrisB (Jul 3, 2008)

I want to propose a new way to ABX test amplifiers. One must be able to pick out which amp is which while traveling down the interstate at 70 MPH in my 1997 Civic. 

Everything will be level matched prior to the start of the test to where the amplifiers will output similar power at volume level 20 and you can't go above that volume level. There will also be no sound output below 70 MPH, just to ensure that the vehicle noise floor stays constant. 

Anyone up for the challenge? Truthfully, I am curious to see who, if anyone, can pick out the difference between amplifiers in a real world, daily use, situation.


----------



## Mooble (Oct 21, 2007)

But that's not my daily use situation at all. If I drove on some rural roads in TX, I would never have put a system in my car in the first place. Seriously, when I drive to Ft Hood, I wear earphones so I can both hear my music and drown out the road noise--far more the latter. 

Driving in Austin with nicely paved roads, I can hear an amp with a high noise floor. Most of my time is spent under 40 mph and with tons of stoplights to boot.


----------

