# Higher End vs Lower End Speakers



## speakeasy (Aug 2, 2011)

Hi folks,

Just wanted to get some other peoples opinions - this post is in no way meant to encourage a bash fest of any kind.

I have been getting back into car audio after an extremely long absence from both car and home audio. So I was in the car audio stores again A-B-ing different component sets on their soundwall stations. In my search I started to get the feeling that many higher cost components tend to have more pronounced higher and lower frequencies while the mid frequencies were a tad recessed. I am not talking about bass here - just what you would get out of a 5.25" or 6.5" comp/coax set. I feel that clean/nice full sounding midrange is probably one of the hardest things to achieve. Are perhaps some manufacturers using this as a way of making their equipment sound cleaner by somehow cutting some of the power or certain tones out of the mid areas by use of different materials/electrical components?

I seemed to have to lower the treble and bass on the more expensive components within the same speaker maker lines to get similar amounts of midrange. Anyone have thoughts on this?


----------



## mattchan2000 (Nov 7, 2008)

U need to decide U going active or passive first. In passive, quality of the crossover do made some different. If active, you got lots of choices.


----------



## speakeasy (Aug 2, 2011)

Thanks, but I'm not really asking about how to set up my system, I'm just asking if anyone has noticed what I posted originally and if they had thoughts on this.


----------



## gnesterenko (Mar 17, 2011)

speakeasy said:


> In my search I started to get the feeling that many higher cost components tend to have more pronounced higher and lower frequencies while the mid frequencies were a tad recessed. I am not talking about bass here - just what you would get out of a 5.25" or 6.5" comp/coax set. I feel that clean/nice full sounding midrange is probably one of the hardest things to achieve. Are perhaps some manufacturers using this as a way of making their equipment sound cleaner by somehow cutting some of the power or certain tones out of the mid areas by use of different materials/electrical components?


This may be the store setup more then anything else, depending on where you are going. One thing I learned since I've been reading these forums is that there is a trend in the mainstream to have a 'smily face' EQ curve - boost the bass, boost the treble, cut the midrange... it sounds 'louder' which the unitiated tend to translate into 'better'. So this may be the store catering to mass preference or perception.

Second, there is also the acoustical conditions of the store vs your car. I dont fully understand the concepts like cabin gain, but I do have a pretty good mental grasp on wave interference within an acoustically challanging environment that is a car cabin. What I'm saying is that the way a speaker will sound once installed (of course depending on the quality of the install too!) in a car door or rear deck or pod is going to differ greatly from a store install (although again, depends on what kind of store you are going to - best buy vs local audio shop vs true professional car audio shop).

Finally, when we are talking about true high end woofers and tweeters, I think there is at least in part an expectation of a 3 or 4 way setup in the vehicle - dedicated subwoofer, dedicated midbass, dedicated midwoofer and dedicated tweeters - so that no particular speaker excels at the whole range, just a narrow band. Perhaps this also contributes?

Just some thoughts....

Posting from work, so need this disclaimer:
"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."


----------



## speakeasy (Aug 2, 2011)

Thanks for the response. It is possible they did hook it up to an eq or dsp. The thing is that the speaker sets should all be hooked up to the same eq so the comparable difference between speaker sets should remain the same. Some of the stores I went to were lower end, and some higher end, but I really doubt either would have such a sophisticated soundwall setup as to have each set of speakers on the wall running through a different dsp setup.

I understand what you are saying in regards to in-car vs in-store setup but again, they are set up the same way on the in-store wall so the comparisons between speakers there should be somewhat relative.

I totally get the 3-4 way setup with a dedicated mid usually being ideal. Odd then that many of the high end stuff is still sold as a 2-way setup supplied by the manufacturer with an expensive high end crossover, instead of selling a 3-4 way initially. I understand that many people don't want to bother with the extra hassle of installing a dedicated mid, but why then include a pricey crossover that reduces the mid frequencies right off the bat? If you go 3-4 way you will need to redo the crossover settings anyway.

I come back to the same comparison of 1 sound wall, 1 manufacturer and how their higher end speakers had lower mid frequency volume than the lower end. I've noticed this across many lines including the Alpine line, JL Audio line, Hertz line, and a few others.


----------



## mattchan2000 (Nov 7, 2008)

speakeasy said:


> Thanks for the response. It is possible they did hook it up to an eq or dsp. The thing is that the speaker sets should all be hooked up to the same eq so the comparable difference between speaker sets should remain the same. Some of the stores I went to were lower end, and some higher end, but I really doubt either would have such a sophisticated soundwall setup as to have each set of speakers on the wall running through a different dsp setup.
> 
> I understand what you are saying in regards to in-car vs in-store setup but again, they are set up the same way on the in-store wall so the comparisons between speakers there should be somewhat relative.
> 
> ...


A Hi-end 2way passive is already expensive as you mention and I don't think much people can afford it if they made it 3/4way. Also its easier to DIY install your own passive 2way than a 3/4way as of spk placement, bigger Xover footprint etc. So its clear that 2way passive may have a better market overall. It all supply and demand marketing thing and makers do want profits and really want their products to sell.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

The typical 5.25/6.5" driver in a 2 way set, is actually two different drivers squished into one. While the mid bass is about high excursion but lower cycles, the mid range is the opposite. Getting one cone to do both successfully is a huge challenge. Which is why manufacturers will sacrifice a bit in one rage for more in the other. Achieved through design, cone material etc. 

A lot of brands will sacrifice a bit of clarity in the mid range for more 'oomph' in the mid bass. It's also a fact that most people equate 'impact' with the presentation of 20-200hz. Hence the focus on the mid bass and the 70-200hz range. To compensate for the loss in the mid range, the speakers may have tweeters that are crossed low trying to fill in the mid range a bit, hence the mid bass and highs will sound more prominent.

But there are some brands that will go the other route. The mid bass will have great energy but maybe lack a bit of punch / mass when compared to the previous type. Generally these speakers will have a more balanced presentation and greater detailing in the mid range. 



> A midrange driver is called upon to handle the most significant part of the sound spectrum, the region where the most fundamentals emitted by musical instruments and, most importantly, human voice, lie. This region contains most sounds which are the most familiar to the human ear, and where discrepancies from faithful reproduction are most easily observed.


Personally, I prefer the second type. I like my mid bass tight, snappy and even snarly (if thats a word). I don't want it heavy, cause then it will mask out my mid range details.

Going by the above a 3 way is a better solution......BUT, only if I can place and angle the drivers correctly, run an active network and have tons of dsp to tweak the drivers, to integrate it into the environment. 

I'm not sure if its about higher end vs lower end. You can find a fair number of reasonably priced diy drivers that that fall into both schools. I think it's more about the way the speaker was designed to sound.


----------



## GS3 (Feb 19, 2006)

sqnut said:


> The typical 5.25/6.5" driver in a 2 way set, is actually two different drivers squished into one. While the mid bass is about high excursion but lower cycles, the mid range is the opposite. Getting one cone to do both successfully is a huge challenge. Which is why manufacturers will sacrifice a bit in one rage for more in the other. Achieved through design, cone material etc.
> 
> A lot of brands will sacrifice a bit of clarity in the mid range for more 'oomph' in the mid bass. It's also a fact that most people equate 'impact' with the presentation of 20-200hz. Hence the focus on the mid bass and the 70-200hz range. To compensate for the loss in the mid range, the speakers may have tweeters that are crossed low trying to fill in the mid range a bit, hence the mid bass and highs will sound more prominent.
> 
> ...


what are some of the midrange driver or what type of response do i look for in a driver that will present more detail in the midrange region rather than bass heavy?

thanks


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

I'm not sure if there specific specs that will tell you about the mid bass vs midrange performance of a driver. 

There are some basic numbers that I would look at to shortlist drivers and then try and hear as many. Even that is not foolproof because the drivers could be placed and setup differently from how you'd do it. That could be a huge difference.

Some numbers that I would look at would be stuff like 

1. Xmax *linear*, not so much for the number itself but look at drivers where this number is average or just a touch below compared to other brands. Some companies will inflate this number anyways. Speakers that actually have a higher linear Xmax will generally have more mass in the mid bass range.

2. Qts: If you're going to mount the speakers IB in your doors, I would look at a number around 0.5-0.7. Drivers with a low qts *normally* do better in small enclosures, i.e. kicks or sealed ported enclosures within your door. Most Scan for eg have a low qts and hence how you install them is important.

3. Le: Inductance of voice coil. I prefer a lower number here.

4. Fs: This number gives the frequency at which it shows the highest impedence. You will typically to HP the mid above this number. I'd look for a number in the 50-60hz range.

5. FR Graphs: Look for a flatish response from say 70 to2-3+khz. While the response may not be ruler flat, within 2-3dbs is good. Look at on axis vs off axis response. With mids mounted in doors, the off axis response in the 1-3khz becomes important. Some drivers will have a peak / dip more than 2-3dbs across the 70-4khz range. In this case I would go with the one that has a peak rather than the one with a dip. You can eq out a peak but compensating for a sharp dip almost always means a loss of dynamics.

There are other numbers too but I think these are some basic ones. At the end of the day its about how the driver sounds.


----------



## FG79 (Jun 30, 2008)

speakeasy said:


> Hi folks,
> 
> Just wanted to get some other peoples opinions - this post is in no way meant to encourage a bash fest of any kind.
> 
> ...


What you are experiencing is real...

Manufacturers started voicing their speakers to have less midrange, more top end "sizzle", and more low end "boom". It is less SQ as a general principle. This started probably around the late '90s/early '00s.

Most manufacturers are like this. Not all, but a very high percentage IMO are.

The biggest problem is that people associated the very expensive price tag as "best", and convince themselves it is regardless of the actual sound. 

Sadly even the manufacturers whom I believe are keeping it real are still feeling the "pressure" of producing a speaker line that caters to this sound. A company is ultimately in the business of making money, and SQ at all costs is not always feasible. 

If you hear that a speaker has "even more detail", it's a sign to be cautious. Most people equate treble response to detail, openness, etc. Dangerous territory. 

I usually get excited when the masses call a speaker boring. 

My advice to you: Check out DLS, Hybrid Audio, Phass. Those 3 I feel would be best for you not necessarily in that order. 

BTW, subwoofers in general have gone to s***. The old school designs of low excursion, high sensitivity, big enclosures, with fast transient response have transitioned to high excursion, low sensitivity, small enclosures with sloppier response.


----------



## sqshoestring (Jun 19, 2007)

Fg79 has some points. Back in the day speakers were generally simple speakers lot of them paper. They tend to be efficient, and you should look into what that means. Efficient drivers like to peak at some point that usually has to do with cone diameter/mass/dampening/etc. While a less efficient driver will not want to do that, but will lose efficiency because of it. You can see this in small box subs the most, while they do perform in small boxes with tons of power applied, they are a different animal. Now if you do the same thing to a mid what do you get? Going all the way the other way Pro drivers are very high efficiency and low xmax, just the opposite of an expensive high power small box sub for a car. But pro drivers been around for a long time, well sorted, work great for that application, they are the top of that game. They will not make bass that requires xmax, and are not tuned to do so either. Today we have way more choice in the type of speaker we can get, but each has their use depending on what your needs are.


----------



## Ultimateherts (Nov 13, 2006)

FG79 said:


> BTW, subwoofers in general have gone to s***. The old school designs of low excursion, high sensitivity, big enclosures, with fast transient response have transitioned to high excursion, low sensitivity, small enclosures with sloppier response.


The idea of a subwoofer more crudely put is to move air, s it not? Power has become so cheap today that it is more effective for most (even a lot of members on here) to have a smaller enclosure then it is to have a big enclosure. The response is all based on what enclosure you put it in! A poor enclosure design will translate into just that a poor response.


----------



## speakeasy (Aug 2, 2011)

Hey guys,

Thanks for turning this into a discussion. I really appreciate the input, even more so because I'm highly opinionated and self righteous yet still very needy, so any confirmation of my original post makes me feel warm inside.

When it comes to the higher end line of a manufacturers speakers, I do believe that they are made with better materials and can take more power without distortion so there is still something to be said about that. However, it is usually at the expense of efficiency. But the emphasis on the low/high frequencies are silly.

"If you hear that a speaker has "even more detail", it's a sign to be cautious." - FG79

Agreed. "Detail" in most examples is just over emphasized treble.

I know this is a mobile audio site but don't get me started on home audio. The whole "Boom and Tizz" thing is out of control, and it covers both the cheap and the most expensive brands. At the expense of sounding like an old fart - it didn't used to be like this. FG79 nailed it - it started in the late 90's and has progressed until now.

"the muted response in the upper midrange is a design spec that counteracts the "shouty" window glass environment of a car." - cajunner

I understand what you are saying but I really don't believe manufacturers are doing that because of actual environment application. I'm a totally cynical SOB and believe that they will put out what will sell well in-store period. If you want to talk about glass reflection then high treble response would be the biggest issue yet high end tweeters in comp sets are often ear-bleedingly out of control.


----------



## FG79 (Jun 30, 2008)

Ultimateherts said:


> The idea of a subwoofer more crudely put is to move air, s it not? Power has become so cheap today that it is more effective for most (even a lot of members on here) to have a smaller enclosure then it is to have a big enclosure. The response is all based on what enclosure you put it in! A poor enclosure design will translate into just that a poor response.


Unfortunately, IMHO there isn't an enclosure design to save a poorly designed subwoofer. 

The translation these days is that higher excursion is supposed to replace cone area and enclosure volume as a way of moving air. While it does move more air, it comes at a price of SQ. I'm sure the OP would agree with me if he's been in a vacuum and heard nothing but old school JL, Kicker, Rockford Fosgate, etc.

The pro audio speakers that don't go "very low" go plenty low enough, just not low enough to be subs. The low excursion design is not mutually exclusive to low bass, it's just the speaker was designed to play high and still play into the bass region. 

And on this "power is cheap" thing I hear a lot, power in watts is cheap but the "real" power that cannot be expressed in watts is certainly not. What I like to call the "torque" factor.

Why is it that there are 1000 watt amps that you can hold with one hand (JL 1000/1), and other ones that require you to know good lifting techniques to lift (Phoenix Gold MS1000)?

People really are naive to believe you can get something for nothing, all in the name of new technology. They see XT and 286 computers go from home huge to tiny modern processors, etc. etc. They think the same applies to audio.

It doesn't.

You want true big boy amplifier power, it's gonna take up space and/or weight a bit. 

My theory on why manufacturers have switched design methodologies is twofold:

a) It's cheaper to make - smaller, lighter, cheaper parts
b) It's more appealing and marketable - "more watts"

Who doesn't want a smaller amp?

And it's easier to sell someone on the idea of a nice measurable figure than other abstract concepts like Class A design. 

The thinner sound that has come from these amps falls in line with the type of sound the OP is complaining about yet seems to be popular with the masses.

It's win/win for the manufacturers. Their only compromise it seems is in providing high end processing/tuning capabilities. That is nice, but it doesn't correct the fundamental problems. 

An Alpine F#1 head unit still doesn't sound better than a 7909 even if it can do a thousand more things.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Why does a thread about speakers, wind up discussing amps?  Seriously, it's kinda obsessive, this bond between amps and sq on most forums.

Yes amps are important. You want one that puts out a ton of power and has a low noise floor. More power = better dynamics and head room. But does this amp have to be big, huge or expensive? No. The size of the old school amps was linked more to efficiency than sq. They had to be huge to put out the power they did, cause they weren't very efficient. Just a thought. I'm not saying current day digital or class D amps are better cause they are more efficient and smaller. 

In any case, choice of speakers is more important than amps, when it comes to sq. Placement is vital. Where you place the drivers how you angle them. DSP perhaps plays the biggest role. DSP is the reason why the top competition cars today *will* sound much better than the top cars from the early 80's. Managing reflections and deadening is also very important. 

If you really want sq these are the areas you should be focusing on. Ams are just a link in your sound chain. I hope I haven't stirred a hornets nest...


----------



## sqshoestring (Jun 19, 2007)

Sqnut is right, but I would say it was common in old school amps to have some EQ built into the amp while today most amps seem tuned flat. Back in the day it was great to run a RF with contour in the sound because few people had any EQ, and everyone cranked the bass and treble up for whatever reasons. Today most people have some EQ, most people on here have lots of processing power, so there is no need to have it in the amp. Yet I have seen people complain about EQ in old amps they are running off their HU/processor with 31/16/etc band EQ they are cranking around.

I think buying speakers is a mixed bag, some throw stuff together and others follow a specific design. For example in my limited experience common Alpine and Infinity often have a similar response model after model of their coax. Not heard any in a while but Kenwood and Pioneer tended to be brighter, though Pioneer usually had more levels of quality with differences.


----------



## willdabear (Oct 18, 2010)

gnesterenko said:


> there is a trend in the mainstream to have a 'smily face' EQ curve - boost the bass, boost the treble, cut the midrange... it sounds 'louder' which the unitiated tend to translate into 'better'.."


when i put my first system in that is exactly what i did lol. it was until i started doing more research and trying different setting that i started to see how good a system can sound. and i still havent even gone active so i still dont really know lol


----------



## FG79 (Jun 30, 2008)

Just listened to some speakers today on a soundboard.....Focal stuff.

KRX2 @ $1200, K2 Power @ $700, and Polyglass V30 @ $500...

And you know what.....exactly as the OP called it, 100%.

As you went "up" the ranks, more treble, less midrange. The KRX2 I initially thought was ok, but after careful listening it was too thin compared to the other two.

K2 Power was a nice compromise between the two. I can see people liking that one, but for me I'd go with the V30 for the extra weight in the midrange. I'm 90% certain with a good amp in a car it would be my favorite.

So now my favorite Focal is a good 1/6th the price of the company's flagship.


----------



## Ultimateherts (Nov 13, 2006)

FG79 said:


> Unfortunately, IMHO there isn't an enclosure design to save a poorly designed subwoofer.
> 
> The translation these days is that higher excursion is supposed to replace cone area and enclosure volume as a way of moving air. While it does move more air, it comes at a price of SQ. I'm sure the OP would agree with me if he's been in a vacuum and heard nothing but old school JL, Kicker, Rockford Fosgate, etc.
> 
> ...


And there are always some technophobes out there. The debate can go on for years about old versus new technology. In a blind test we would be quite shocked... Digital vs analog, low vs high, new vs old etc. As far as the topic goes there is no real answer as it depends on the install.


----------



## TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL (Jan 31, 2011)

I agree with a blind test surprising some people. Everything in an amp can be measured, if it cant be measured, you cant hear the difference. Im not saying amps dont sound different, im just saying two different amps that measure the same, wont sound different.

However, subs are definately not the same. Small box subs can be louder then large box subs, but it is at a sacrifice in sq. Small box subs require lots of xmax, and the more excursion, the more the sub distorts.


----------



## Ultimateherts (Nov 13, 2006)

TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL said:


> I agree with a blind test surprising some people. Everything in an amp can be measured, if it cant be measured, you cant hear the difference. Im not saying amps dont sound different, im just saying two different amps that measure the same, wont sound different.
> 
> However, subs are definately not the same. Small box subs can be louder then large box subs, but it is at a sacrifice in sq. Small box subs require lots of xmax, and the more excursion, the more the sub distorts.


Not true at all as dual gap, xbl2, and underhung subs have very low distortion!


----------



## TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL (Jan 31, 2011)

Ultimateherts said:


> Not true at all as dual gap, xbl2, and underhung subs have very low distortion!


Those things help, but combine those things with more cone area and less excursion, and you would have even less distortion. In the end, every time the cone moves, it distorts. The more it moves, the more it distorts.


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

The OP has a point here, but the industry's migration to higher Q midbass speakers is an effort to catch the "market leader", which is Focal. In fact, that accentuated midbass is a characteristic of many European speakers. Old MB Quart speakers, years ago had this same characheristic.


----------



## subwoofery (Nov 9, 2008)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> The OP has a point here, but the industry's migration to higher Q midbass speakers is an effort to catch the "market leader", which is Focal. In fact, that accentuated midbass is a characteristic of many European speakers. Old MB Quart speakers, years ago had this same characheristic.


When you speak about _*accentuated midbass*_, do you mean : 
- midbass output/slam and much higher than the overall freq response or 
- midbass definition (without going deep)? Same kind of midbass that you get from proaudio drivers 

Kelvin


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

I mean that it's easy to get a little extra hump in the frequency response of the driver above resonance if you reduce the size of the magnet, the number of turns in the gap or open the gap--to raise the Qes, and consequently, the Qts. It's just like putting a woofer in a box that's a little too small.


----------



## subwoofery (Nov 9, 2008)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> I mean that it's easy to get a little extra hump in the frequency response of the driver above resonance if you reduce the size of the magnet, the number of turns in the gap or open the gap--to raise the Qes, and consequently, the Qts. It's just like putting a woofer in a box that's a little too small.


Interesting... Do you feel that it's the right direction? And is JBL going to follow the trend? 

I do find an extra bump above FS to be desirable only if you have a nice PEQ available to cut down where it's needed... Too much of a bump and you get a muddy sound inside your car (due to the 125Hz-400Hz range)  
When you listen on a store board, that extra midbass can surely sell speakers... 

Kelvin 

PS: (hope I've written in english )


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

sqnut said:


> Why does a thread about speakers, wind up discussing amps?  Seriously, it's kinda obsessive, this bond between amps and sq on most forums.
> 
> Yes amps are important. You want one that puts out a ton of power and has a low noise floor. More power = better dynamics and head room. But does this amp have to be big, huge or expensive? No. The size of the old school amps was linked more to efficiency than sq. They had to be huge to put out the power they did, cause they weren't very efficient. Just a thought. I'm not saying current day digital or class D amps are better cause they are more efficient and smaller.
> 
> ...


THIS. 

The meat of system distortion is in the speaker. Not the source or the amplifier.


----------



## FG79 (Jun 30, 2008)

bikinpunk said:


> THIS.
> 
> The meat of system distortion is in the speaker. Not the source or the amplifier.


I would partially agree if the speaker is not properly installed. But if it is, the amplifier is clearly more important.

If you give me my choice of amps, I'll gladly take a cheap pair of speakers over top $$$ speakers and some low level amps.

Speaker is only as good as the source that feeds it. The power amp is the biggest factor, but pre-amp, DAC, cables also play their role. 

I'm telling you, with great gear you can make a $100 POS circuit city bookshelf speaker sound high end. I've heard it once and was forever sold.

Hook up an $80k pair of speakers to a Best Buy level receiver. See what happens.


----------



## FG79 (Jun 30, 2008)

sqnut said:


> Why does a thread about speakers, wind up discussing amps?  Seriously, it's kinda obsessive, this bond between amps and sq on most forums.
> 
> Yes amps are important. You want one that puts out a ton of power and has a low noise floor. More power = better dynamics and head room. But does this amp have to be big, huge or expensive? No. The size of the old school amps was linked more to efficiency than sq. They had to be huge to put out the power they did, cause they weren't very efficient. Just a thought. I'm not saying current day digital or class D amps are better cause they are more efficient and smaller.
> 
> ...


Yes old amps draw a ton of current and are more taxing on electrical systems than newer amps. I agree with that.

But show me one modern "efficient" amp that will outperform a Milbert or an old Phoenix MS or Orion amp in SQ/bass, and I will kneel. 

An alternator > 100-120A will prevent these older amps from being a nuisance on the system.

Again on the topic of speakers vs. amps, I still feel that amps are more important. I feel more strongly about this than any other debate in car audio, including 2 way vs. 3 way, passive vs. active, sealed vs. ported, etc. etc.

IMHO, I have seen too many high end speakers installed with amplifiers that are not commensurate with the drivers they are pushing. 

If everyone is running great amps or sh** amps, then the playing field is level and of course speakers will be more important. But that's clearly not the case.


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

FG79 said:


> I would partially agree if the speaker is not properly installed. But if it is, the amplifier is clearly more important.
> 
> If you give me my choice of amps, I'll gladly take a cheap pair of speakers over top $$$ speakers and some low level amps.
> 
> ...


 
Certainly the speaker is a MUCH higher distortion device than an amplifier. Even a Class D amp can be extected to perform with less than 1% THD. In fact, the CEA rating standard indicates 1% as the level at which output power is rated. You'd be lucky to get even close to 5% if you crossed the speaker over well above resonance--any speaker. There are plenty fo kinds of distortion, but the one that's easiest to measure is simple--frequency response. 

I'd go one step farther than Erin, however--the CAR is the weakest link. For those of you who have an RTA, try this simple experiment. Connect one channel of the RTA to the output of your head unit. Connect the other channel to the output of your amplifier, through an appropriate voltage divider (unless your RTA is designed to handle more than a volt). Play a pink noise track and check out the difference. Then, keep one channel plugged into your radio's output (this is the reference) and measure the response of the speaker with the microphone placed about an inch from the speaker's dustcap. Hmmm...similar, but not exactly the same (The difference is distortion). Then, place the microphone in the driver's seat, close the door and make the same measurement. 

Do this and you'll stop freaking out about the difference between some esoteric amp and another, about cables, and even about speakers. 

Then, spend a month optimizing the installation of the speakers, etc for equal pathlengths, and all kinds of other stuff and make the same measurement. Improvement? In the sound maybe, but not much in terms of frequency response. 

This is why an EQ is an important tool and why all of this focus on the little stuff is unimportant. I work for a company that makes most of its money selling speakers, and even I'll tell you....speakers don't matter so much so long as they're not badly designed.


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

FG79 said:


> Yes old amps draw a ton of current and are more taxing on electrical systems than newer amps. I agree with that.
> 
> But show me one modern "efficient" amp that will outperform a Milbert or an old Phoenix MS or Orion amp in SQ/bass, and I will kneel.
> 
> ...



For several months I was running a $100 Interfire and a McIntosh both with the same rated power and I couldn't tell a bit of difference. Not one bit. I'll only spend money on powerful amps but I could care less if it's an "SQ" amp as long as the noise floor is low.

The biggest difference I've ever experienced was from swapping out speakers. The second biggest was raising the crossover points on all speakers so they hopefully play with less distortion. IMO, the amp as long as it's decent quality is the least important item in the chain.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

Guys, look at distortion levels for speakers and then compare to source/amplifiers. The THD for speakers is ALWAYS higher than it is for an amplifier. Again, the weak link is the speaker in terms of distortion. 
You cannot do better than the worst in the chain.

That all said, I agree with Andy. The environment and placement are most influential. But that aside, the speaker is certainly the weak link.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> I'd go one step farther than Erin, however--the CAR is the weakest link.
> 
> Do this and you'll stop freaking out about the difference between some esoteric amp and another, about cables, and even about speakers.
> 
> ...


Yes, yes and yes. The car is the weakest link and therefore its all about tuning around the environment. The measurements at ear level vs speaker level is the final nail in the coffin. It takes balls for a guy selling speakers and amps to say neither matter . Speakers still count for more than amps. Given the same level of dsp, I'd rather have speakers with the desired voicing running of a cheap amp than some big brand speaker running off a big $$$ sq amp. Amps certainly don't give you sq, speakers with the desired voicing (how you can get them to sound) will get you further.




BuickGN said:


> For several months I was running a $100 Interfire and a McIntosh both with the same rated power and I couldn't tell a bit of difference. Not one bit. I'll only spend money on powerful amps but I could care less if it's an "SQ" amp as long as the noise floor is low.
> 
> The biggest difference I've ever experienced was from swapping out speakers. The second biggest was raising the crossover points on all speakers so they hopefully play with less distortion. IMO, the amp as long as it's decent quality is the least important item in the chain.


THIS



bikinpunk said:


> THIS.
> 
> The meat of system distortion is in the speaker. Not the source or the amplifier.


I agree with you brother.


----------



## FG79 (Jun 30, 2008)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> This is why an EQ is an important tool and why all of this focus on the little stuff is unimportant. I work for a company that makes most of its money selling speakers, and even I'll tell you....speakers don't matter so much so long as they're not badly designed.


This I can get down with. So long as there are no glaring faults, then all is good. A glaring fault for example would be a tweeter that is just too bright. Hard to correct something like that.



BuickGN said:


> For several months I was running a $100 Interfire and a McIntosh both with the same rated power and I couldn't tell a bit of difference. Not one bit. I'll only spend money on powerful amps but I could care less if it's an "SQ" amp as long as the noise floor is low.
> 
> The biggest difference I've ever experienced was from swapping out speakers. The second biggest was raising the crossover points on all speakers so they hopefully play with less distortion. IMO, the amp as long as it's decent quality is the least important item in the chain.





bikinpunk said:


> Guys, look at distortion levels for speakers and then compare to source/amplifiers. The THD for speakers is ALWAYS higher than it is for an amplifier. Again, the weak link is the speaker in terms of distortion.
> You cannot do better than the worst in the chain.
> 
> That all said, I agree with Andy. The environment and placement are most influential. But that aside, the speaker is certainly the weak link.


I think we're looking at it two different ways.

Are we discussing how to avoid BAD sound, or are we talking about how to get GREAT sound? Two very different things. 

I would agree that if you have very nice speakers, it's hard to make them sound bad. Bad defined as tonally unpleasant to listen to. 

But truly great sound IMO comes from the source. Great sound I define as a lot of power in the music....dynamics, midbass, strong midrange, projection into the cabin, spatial separation....even detail. 

A speaker by itself cannot give you all of that. An extreme example of this is running a high end component set off a head unit (or stereo receiver for home audio)....versus running it with an outboard amp (any amp).

The difference you see there, I often equate between great amps and average ones. In car audio there is a pretty noticeable difference if you search hard enough, but in high end home audio you can have a humongous difference. Like comparing a Ferrari to a Kia.

If I had a $4000 budget for front speakers & amplifier(s) to drive them, I'd split it up about $3000 in amps, $1000 in speakers.....maybe even $3500, $500. 

If the budget was only $1500, I'd do $1200 for the amp(s) and $300 for the speakers.


----------



## subwoofery (Nov 9, 2008)

FG79 said:


> This I can get down with. So long as there are no glaring faults, then all is good. *A glaring fault for example would be a tweeter that is just too bright. Hard to correct something like that*.
> 
> Actually it's possible, difficult yes but not impossible. But for that to work you need a midrange that can play high enough (8kHz+) then Xover the tweet much higher than most passive would (higher than 3kHz)
> TADAAAAA...
> ...


I also have a sin for amplifiers not only due to the performance or anything but it's just that I feel I'm getting more for my money with amps (due to the number of parts) than with speakers... 
^ I can see some people will post a few comments saying that they could just piece an amp together with 3 thousand parts and sell it to me for big money but I'm sure you know what I mean 

Kelvin


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

If you factor in the distortion added to the signal by your environment and the speakers, a THD of 0.1% vs 0.01% at the amp are both irrelevant. 

By all means have a good source, but just know that the 'pure' signal from said hu is going to crapped up when it hits your speaker and then again by your environment, before the sound even reaches your ears. 

You use your eq / ta / active network to try and minimize the impact of the environment and to dial in sound that sounds best for your environment / speakers / placement etc etc.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

sqnut said:


> It takes balls for a guy selling speakers and amps to say neither matter .



That just came out wrong last night. What I meant to say was that its very creditable that a guy involved in making and selling amps and speakers can keep an objective viewpoint. Appologies Andy, the remark does seem a bit rude. 

Now back to the discussion of magical sq amps......


----------



## FG79 (Jun 30, 2008)

subwoofery said:


> I also have a sin for amplifiers not only due to the performance or anything but it's just that I feel I'm getting more for my money with amps (due to the number of parts) than with speakers...
> ^ I can see some people will post a few comments saying that they could just piece an amp together with 3 thousand parts and sell it to me for big money but I'm sure you know what I mean
> 
> Kelvin


You know, I'll stop arguing for amps. It's all about the speakers....;-)

After all, why increase demand and make things more expensive for myself? LOL.

With regards to your comment about bright, I agree that range is the culprit. You can cure it with a high crossover point as you mention but that of course assumes a 3 way setup, as there aren't many car audio woofers that can play to 7-8k. 

While I tend to have a preference for 2 way, for car audio 3 way can be handy with all the flexibility it affords. 

In home audio, you just don't buy a bad sounding speaker because EQ, time alignment is just something you don't do in that world. Car is different.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

I guess there are one of two ways to look at this debate. 

Every link in your sound chain, from your hu to the speakers and the environment you're in, is adding some amount of distortion to the recorded signal. This will happen with both a home 2ch and a car. In real terms the level of distortion added by your equipment is nominal. You don't hear the source / amp / speakers distortion in a home. It's measurable but not audible and hence nominal. Of the three, the speakers add the most distortion. So if you're from the school that says less distortion is better even if you can't hear it, then speakers are more important than amps cause they add more distortion.

Let's go a little further and see what happens next. The signal has now reached your speakers and you have compression. 

This is the response of a mid bass speaker measured 1" from the cone, in a car door. Put the same speaker in a box, as part of a 2ch and you'd get more or less the same response. In both cases, the effect of the environment would not have kicked in. These are Andy's graphs.

This is the the same driver at ear level in the car. Now the distortion from your environment is at play. In a home setup the same driver measured at the sweet spot some, 6-8 feet away would be much closer to the speaker level response. The distortion from your environment makes the nominal one (hu+amp+speakers) seem irrelevant. The sweet spot in a room, is not right next to one speaker. But in a car, that's the way it is. Different arrival times, intensity levels, reflections, summations and cancellations, they're all at play.

The two biggest tools you have to clean this up are dsp and driver placement. You don't need dsp in a room cause there the sound doesn't get messed up this bad. Doing both will take you further than just doing one. Of the two, if I had to pick only one, I'd take the dsp. 

You're using the dsp not to shape the original recording but to reduce the impact of the environment. You're trying to get close to the original recording. 
Which brings me to the second reason. Let's assume the dsp settings and placement are now ideally set. You're close to the way it would sound at home. 

The next brick wall you may hit, is the voicing on your speakers. 'How does it sound?'. Neutral, warm, laid back, bright, detailed these are all voicing characteristics of speakers. Yet how often do you see the same terms used to describe amps? No amp will make the bright speakers sound laid back.

Arun


----------



## TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL (Jan 31, 2011)

Agreed. No matter how bad the speakers are, a good amp wont fix them. No matter how good a speaker is, 99% of the amps on the market today wont change that.

Start with the drivers, placement and angles. Make sure the source unit is decent. Tune around the enviroment with dsp. Worry about power last. Since the amp makes the least impact, and the least amount of added distortion, its simply not as important as something that makes the most distortion, such as the enviroment and speakers.


----------



## FG79 (Jun 30, 2008)

sqnut said:


> The next brick wall you may hit, is the voicing on your speakers. 'How does it sound?'. Neutral, warm, laid back, bright, detailed these are all voicing characteristics of speakers. Yet how often do you see the same terms used to describe amps? No amp will make the bright speakers sound laid back.
> 
> Arun


Arun,

I agree with your last statement, although I'd like to rephrase it...

"No amp will make the bright speakers sound laid back, but a poor amp can make nice speakers sound thin."

A true POS super bright junk component set is probably junk no matter what. But an in between speaker can vary widely depending on it's source material.

The gist of amps vs. speakers to me is not to pick a more ideal s*** scenario but to focus on what matters most with a budget. If I had all of my favorite amps and source units, I'd be content with $500 speakers vs. an unlimited speaker budget and "average" or even above average amps.


----------



## Cooluser23 (Dec 23, 2009)

http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum...al-first-time-loved-what-else-may-i-like.html

I used to think it makes no difference, but high end speakers really do sound better. - Crap, now I have to spend more money. 

I just haven't figured out where the price/performance/stuff I'll like sweet spot is. Still don't know if I'll hear the difference in sq in a vehicle, or if that's just at home/studio.


----------



## subwoofery (Nov 9, 2008)

I find that Higher end (if installed correctly) need less work on the EQ. At least it's true for Focal sets IMO. What your ears like is a different story. 
Install is everything... I can understand people not liking the TN51, TN52 and TN53k due to how they disperse sound... Took me at least 2 years to find the perfect angle for my car. 

Also, I usually find higher end drivers to have a broader bandwith which makes it easier to suit your vehicle acoustics need... 

Kelvin


----------



## novanutcase (Oct 7, 2011)

Just the info I was looking for.

Thanks Guys!!

John


----------



## guisar (Nov 20, 2007)

mattchan2000 said:


> U need to decide U going active or passive first. In passive, quality of the crossover do made some different. If active, you got lots of choices.


Some difference? It's always amazed me that car components even come with a crossover. I know you have to sell them that way retail but without knowing the install, the car, etc. a pre-built passive crossover can't even come close to being optimal. Active is tough too without the flexibility of something like the MS8 or mini-dsp to adjust phase but really, passive crossovers seem like a waste in car audio.


----------



## gu9cci (Mar 28, 2011)

You get what you pay for! Simple


----------

