# Old school is only for SQ



## Ultimateherts

I see more and more people joining this site to sell their old school car audio and labeling it as SQ. This also seems to be the trend on ebay as well. However, I remember plenty of products used for SPL and they were quite loud too. 

When it comes to subwoofers, how come the newest tech is labeled for SPL? 


Also in general, how come old school car audio is labeled SQ?


----------



## hurrication

Lots of people use the black and white train of thought that if it isn't SPL, then it must be SQ. Combine that with the unevolved old school purists who preach about how all current day gear sucks and is inferior to old school gear and now you have guys who think that just because it's old that it must be very desirable as well as being SQ simply because it's not SPL.


----------



## TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL

Modern gear is capable of much higher spl, due to improvements in speaker design and more efficient amps. Not that old school can't get loud, but if you give the same space constraints (small amp, single 10, etc) a new small amp can put out more power than an old school small amp, and a new well designed 10 can take more power and have more output than an old school 10. There are exceptions, but consider that some new 10" subs have as much as 23mm of one way xmax. I can think of any old school 10" that can do that.


----------



## CRUNK

old school does and still can beat most new gen products i demo it all the time at shows and contest, it's about the system layout and design if you take a modern 15" sub and a 500watt amp and a og 15" sub and use the same amp the og sub will be louder in most cases back then subs were made like a prius is today 89-95db effc so with 500watts its pounding a sub from today is like a gas guzzler 80-84db effc so that 500watt amp is like a drop of gas it won't even get going good on it.
system layout and design is the key in which most people just buy stuff because of what they saw on utube or facebook


----------



## hurrication

While that might be true that old school subs are more efficient, new subs have the ability to perform in much smaller enclosures than the old subs. It might take a 1.5 cubic foot sealed enclosure for say an old school 10" sub to be able to perform the same as a modern day 10" sub would in .5 cubic feet.


----------



## thomasluke

CRUNK said:


> old school does and still can beat most new gen products i demo it all the time at shows and contest, it's about the system layout and design if you take a modern 15" sub and a 500watt amp and a og 15" sub and use the same amp the og sub will be louder in most cases back then subs were made like a prius is today 89-95db effc so with 500watts its pounding a sub from today is like a gas guzzler 80-84db effc so that 500watt amp is like a drop of gas it won't even get going good on it.
> system layout and design is the key in which most people just buy stuff because of what they saw on utube or facebook





hurrication said:


> While that might be true that old school subs are more efficient, new subs have the ability to perform in much smaller enclosures than the old subs. It might take a 1.5 cubic foot sealed enclosure for say an old school 10" sub to be able to perform the same as a modern day 10" sub would in .5 cubic feet.


Right, And with a few exceptions most of the old school subs didn't have any major xmax.
Not like you see today.part of the reason the efficiency is so low on the subs today is the box size. in .5cu's you can't expect much. Take the same sub and throw IB in a trunk and you can usually get away with less than half the power.


----------



## theeaudioboy

Ultimateherts said:


> I see more and more people joining this site to sell their old school car audio and labeling it as SQ. This also seems to be the trend on ebay as well. However, I remember plenty of products used for SPL and they were quite loud too.
> 
> When it comes to subwoofers, how come the newest tech is labeled for SPL?
> 
> 
> Also in general, how come old school car audio is labeled SQ?



I Agree . I too have seen that on ebay ! people will list there Old School Amps or Subs as great Sound Quality ! but I think most are just listing them that way because they may have only used it for a SQ set up ! not SPL !? 

I use to use many Old School Subs and Amps back from the mid 90's to compete in SPL and did great ! I think some people just simple forget that fact !?..
but the "newest" as you mentioned ! I know some companies are geared towards making products to compete so they will "label" there products SPL or high SPL or competition ! its just about sells for some companies ! I know "some" don't make any subs worth a crap for SQ as well ! I guess some companies rely on those labels SPL for sales ! its the times now ? Not to many people build True SQ systems anymore ! most are after DB's ! at least around here ! they are all either cheap walmart or best buy stuff for street bass ! or some other systems of somewhat better stuff for SPL ! the "new brands" !..  there are only a very few decent SQ systems around my area ! Im sure its the same by you !?


----------



## PPI_GUY

I'm a gear whore, going back and forth using new stuff for awhile and then back to my tried and true PPI. Each has its pro's and con's. Old school seems to remind me of analog tape. Very rich and warm sounding. New stuff has a very precise sound (feel) to it along with tons of power that's easy on the electrical system. When I listen to new class D, I can almost see the square waveform in my mind. Of course that's total B.S. as the waveform produced by any digital device will be square. But, that's the only way I know to describe it. And it's not a slam on modern equipment as most of us couldn't discern any difference if put to a double-blind a/b test.


----------



## ATOMICTECH62

20 years ago there was a lot of competition between name brands.And there was a lot of brand loyal fans.PPI,RF,PG,SS,Orion,Zapco,Hifonics,MTX,Lanzar,Autotek and Linear Power were made in the USA by Americans and they took pride in their products.The economy was booming(pun intended).Profits were high,they didnt have to skimp on things.They used high quality parts and had big heavy heat sinks.Even big names like Mcintosh,Adcom and Carver wanted a piece of the pie.Kicker even started making amps then.
Then things changed.The economy crashed.Newly emerging cheaper lines from Korea like Crossfire,Fultron,Memphis,Furi and Directed started taking over the market.The US companies couldnt survive and sold out to the Asian's.They dont care about SQ.They make mediocre stuff in huge quantities for anybody who can afford to purchase a large enough batch to have their name printed on them along with whatever specs they want.

Well not all Old School stuff is SQ.There was Pyramid,Legacy,Hot Shots,Power Acoustik,Kraco,Sparkostatic,Audiovox,Frontier,Targa,AWIA and a bunch of others.
But I know what you mean.It seems like Ebay has this Old School SQ category and then there's Every Thing Else.I will admit I list stuff under Old School a lot but it really is SQ.
Older subs are more efficient because they have lighter cones,smaller surrounds and looser suspensions so they need larger enclosures.The newer stuff is built more heavy duty.They need stiffer suspensions,multiple spyders,fat surrounds and heavy cones so they dont rip themselves apart when their 4 inch voice coils are being feed 5000 watts for a foot of excursion.Newer subs have came a long way from the stuff 20 years ago.This is where the competition is now.Every one is looking for an SPL sub for their 5000 watt amp.
But if you look on their web sites most companies will also offer a sub for SQ.Or at least thats what they call them.


----------



## ATOMICTECH62

Double Post


----------



## OldScoolCA

I think you can trace the history of car audio and find a point in time when the goal for sound quality was king. Most contests were centered around SQ almost exclusively. When the SPL wars started so did the industry focus on top SQ. It never went away altogether, but there was a certain decline in ultra high end flagship products ie. Sony XES, Pioneer ODR, Alpine 7909. With that a lot of people right or wrong affiliate that era of car audio as the peak of SQ.


----------



## PPI_GUY

There are some very good headunits being produced right now that cater to the SQ crowd but, you have to look for them. Or, better yet find a forum like DIYMA that will help you slog thru all the average equipment out there. This is especially true if you are a novice or have been out of car audio for awhile. 
Subwoofers have I think, on the whole become more user friendly since the late 80's and early 90's. By that I mean they seem to 'forgive' easier for incorrectly constructed enclosures or overdriven amps. Older subs are more efficient but, there's a little more work involved with extracting every bit of output from them. Meaning; sending them clean, undistorted power at the appropriate levels and placing them in the exactly right enclosure. That doesn't mean older subs aren't better, just that you need to know what your doing to get the maximum from them.
Components have made HUGE leaps in materials and power handling since the original days of car audio. In the late 80's a silk dome tweet was almost an exotic piece. Everything was metal or mylar. Mids were similar to subs in that they may have been more efficient but, were very sensitive to being overpowered. And don't even get me started on the vast improvements in passive crossovers.

Having said all of that, there are a few things that I find odd about newer equipment. With the rise of digital crossover being incorporated into headunits and even excellent passives, why do so many companies still produce standalone, active crossover units? Going active is soooo easy these days I would have thought the stand alone crossovers would have gone bye-bye?
Also, I see some very well known companies offering entry level amps that don't allow their onboard crossovers to be defeated. It's a simple bypass circuit for goodness sakes! Maybe it's just a attempt to move their customers up to the next level? Or, perhaps they think someone buying entry level equipment won't have a h/u with crossover? Who knows but, it's kinda silly.


----------



## helpmeplease

Old school gear looks better and is just cooler to run. Plus, a lot of brands went downhill, and their older stuff is the only good stuff.


----------



## Lukasz_1226

Hi, 
The problem is only with aging electronics, nothing will work forever


----------



## Arcrux

I've never understood this arguement, why would you want to listen to something that is loud and sounds aweful? I guess that's just my opnion.

As far as old amps go... I have a Tru Technology C-7.4T hybrid tube amp, and a H1-C Hammer, both ultra SQ amps and they are amazing, and both 10 years old and still run 100% without fail every day in my truck.

Not to mention having my Dyn's which could seemingly handle a brick being thrown at them and still not distort haha.

If you by high quality equipment, it should last a very long time and sound amazing. It costs more so its better, imagine that!


----------



## FG79

PPI_GUY said:


> There are some very good headunits being produced right now that cater to the SQ crowd but, you have to look for them. Or, better yet find a forum like DIYMA that will help you slog thru all the average equipment out there. This is especially true if you are a novice or have been out of car audio for awhile.
> Subwoofers have I think, on the whole become more user friendly since the late 80's and early 90's. By that I mean they seem to 'forgive' easier for incorrectly constructed enclosures or overdriven amps. Older subs are more efficient but, there's a little more work involved with extracting every bit of output from them. Meaning; sending them clean, undistorted power at the appropriate levels and placing them in the exactly right enclosure. That doesn't mean older subs aren't better, just that you need to know what your doing to get the maximum from them.
> Components have made HUGE leaps in materials and power handling since the original days of car audio. In the late 80's a silk dome tweet was almost an exotic piece. Everything was metal or mylar. Mids were similar to subs in that they may have been more efficient but, were very sensitive to being overpowered. And don't even get me started on the vast improvements in passive crossovers.
> 
> Having said all of that, there are a few things that I find odd about newer equipment. With the rise of digital crossover being incorporated into headunits and even excellent passives, why do so many companies still produce standalone, active crossover units? Going active is soooo easy these days I would have thought the stand alone crossovers would have gone bye-bye?
> Also, I see some very well known companies offering entry level amps that don't allow their onboard crossovers to be defeated. It's a simple bypass circuit for goodness sakes! Maybe it's just a attempt to move their customers up to the next level? Or, perhaps they think someone buying entry level equipment won't have a h/u with crossover? Who knows but, it's kinda silly.


The tube active crossover unit that Milbert sells is better than anything you can get in a head unit. And it's not the only one either.

Old school car audio manufacturers cared more about sound than the modern ones do. Better parts and designs, no playing around. 

Most modern amps rely on high wattage to sell units, but the designs themselves don't have the real world muscle to drive the speakers the way the old ones did. It can't be explained by watts delivered....if anything, it would be current delivered. 

As for subs, people need to realize that excursion is a good thing up to a point. There's a reason why old subs didn't have huge excursion....because it sounds like s***. 

You don't get something for nothing. Too much excursion is a bad thing if you care about SQ (if SPL, it doesn't matter). I love the idea that high excursion was a groundbreaking scientific discovery in the last decade, lol.

The basic formula for a good sounding sub is high efficiency, low excursion. Often this means a bigger enclosure to deliver deep bass. Why that's a big problem for the car audio consumer is beyond me, especially the purported SQ purists. The JL 10W2 sub from the early '90s needed 2.5 -3.0 cubic feet for a ported enclosure, for a single driver. That is in line with what a 10" driver should require, not 1.0-1.5 cubic feet. 

I look at Milbert selling his BaM235 amplifier for around $3,000 and admire that he's still kicking it old school in 2014. If he were to adopt the philosophy of many modern companies, I'm sure he would kill a lot of the good parts about it that you couldn't measure, sell it for $1000-1500 and people would probably still equate it as equal because it put out roughly the same 30WPC it does now. It would sound worse, but many people would say it's still the same power rating!

That's what has happened in the car audio world in a nutshell. Using marketing language and #s to sell gear. And quite honestly, most of the modern car audio consumers like both:

A) Bright highs
b) Boomy lows

And the new amps and subs fit that model perfectly. They can make those products for LESS money than they used to, and only increase their profit margin. 

The 5-10% who prefer it the other way they don't care about. It's all about making money, period.


----------



## Nismo

I disagree with your statement that long excursion causes a driver to sound bad. That's like saying fast cars are automatically ugly.

It ALL DEPENDS ON DESIGN! The high tech motor topologies that are in use today can do some super high xmax with fantastic linearity! I'm partial to XBL myself, but LMT and some other things can do decent. XBL's downfall is the small coil, and the resultant 'low' power handling. It's not widely used due to cost, and the abuse that subs receive.

Adire Audio designed and built the Apocalypse. Almost 8" of 2 way linear travel, using a 4'x4' square cone (in certain configurations). My Brahma 15" had 27mm one way travel--monstrous in 2003--and the Apoc had the linear displacement of 39 of them. I'd say that's a bargain for a mere $6-8k! It could manage 120dB @ 20Hz in a movie theater, without a box.

Aside from being a PITA to ship, and setup, I'd LOVE to have one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1ihQxOU37w

Eric


----------



## hurrication

FG79 said:


> Most modern amps rely on high wattage to sell units, but the designs themselves don't have the real world muscle to drive the speakers the way the old ones did. It can't be explained by watts delivered....if anything, it would be current delivered.


 



> Often this means a bigger enclosure to deliver deep bass. Why that's a big problem for the car audio consumer is beyond me, especially the purported SQ purists.


Space savings is a huge deal for people who want to keep some level of utility in their cars. I'd say space savings is the #1 trend which the whole car audio industry has been following for the past decade. I remember how much of a big deal it was when small box subs were being developed around the turn of the millennium. Now we have 10's that will belt out 30hz like they're getting paid for it in .5 cubic feet, and 400 watt amps that have the same footprint as a CD. With all the advancements in technology, we can now achieve the same level of sound quality in a fraction of the space. It's pretty incredible if you ask me.


----------



## KP

I've put together 4 'old school' systems in the last couple years. What I have noticed:

90% of the amps from the 90's cannot handle todays 4v+ inputs. They clip quickly.
Noise: ALL have on and or off pops.
Current draw: Compared to current amps it is rediculous! My favorite old school system to date I removed simply because I could not listen without either the car running or a charger hooked up. 
B+/- connections. Old school amp 250 x 2 with 90 amp fusing =2ea 8ga. Current 50 x 2 with a 20 amp fuse = 4ga connections.


----------



## ChrisB

hurrication said:


> Space savings is a huge deal for people who want to keep some level of utility in their cars. I'd say space savings is the #1 trend which the whole car audio industry has been following for the past decade. I remember how much of a big deal it was when small box subs were being developed around the turn of the millennium. Now we have 10's that will belt out 30hz like they're getting paid for it in .5 cubic feet, and 400 watt amps that have the same footprint as a CD. With all the advancements in technology, we can now achieve the same level of sound quality in a fraction of the space. It's pretty incredible if you ask me.


I'll take a five (or six) channel full range class d amplifier over three comparable old school class ab relics giving me the same power while taking up 6x the space and requiring a nuclear reactor to power them! I'd do this 7 days a week, twice on Sunday! :laugh:

Why is old school popular? I'll tell you why as someone who once bought into the hype himself... NOSTALGIA! Ever notice that old toys for boys usually go for higher dollars than old toys for girls? That's because generally, men are more nostalgic than women. 

There, I said it, come at me bro!


----------



## hurrication

Oh, I agree 100% because I used to be an old school collector too! I had some bad experiences that cost me a lot of money and broke that habit last year. I'm in the planning stages of a low power (~500 total watts) install in a new beater truck and it will be the first time using only class d mini amps.. I'm kinda excited to see if it will even put any noticeable strain on the stock charging system.


----------



## FG79

hurrication said:


> Space savings is a huge deal for people who want to keep some level of utility in their cars. I'd say space savings is the #1 trend which the whole car audio industry has been following for the past decade. I remember how much of a big deal it was when small box subs were being developed around the turn of the millennium. Now we have 10's that will belt out 30hz like they're getting paid for it in .5 cubic feet, and 400 watt amps that have the same footprint as a CD. With all the advancements in technology, we can now achieve the same level of sound quality in a fraction of the space. It's pretty incredible if you ask me.


No.

You can belt out 30 hz with a small woofer in a small box if you give it a lot of excursion, but then it sounds very sloppy. Maybe not to you, but to somebody who has heard good subs, you realize you cannot get something for nothing. 

And those little amps have no midrange balls, most of the time. Again not a big deal to some of the newer buyers, but for guys who have been around good stuff, it's a very big deal. 

It's expected that we get advances in audio technology because of Moore's law with doubling of CPU performance every two years, and horsepower in cars going up about ~20 hp/liter each decade. "Everything has to get better"; I get it. 

However, the reality is there's actually been a regression in performance in many sectors because manufacturers prefer to use cheaper parts in their speakers and amplifiers. Parts matter a lot, but you don't need to talk about them in marketing literature because just quoting high measured power outputs is enough. 

It's easier and cheaper to make the modern high watt, thin sounding amplifier than it is to make the nice vintage ones. The nail in the coffin here is that many newer buyers prefer this modern sound of excess treble, so it plays perfectly into the manufacturer's agenda of saving money. That and the ability to "save space" makes it a slam dunk.

ps - I am convinced that the biggest reason ported boxes do not "sound good" is because the manufacturer's recommend size and tuning frequency are too small/high (respectively).


----------



## JayinMI

Hey, I'm a guy and I'm nostalgic. But that wasn't the only reason I went with old school amps in my current setup. It was also because I was on a budget, and I don't feel like the reliability of most newer Chinese/Korean built stuff is as good as some of the older Japanese/American built stuff.

In the past 2 years I've picked up a nice little collection of Pre-Xplod Sony amps. 2 Mobile ES XM-2100G's, an (apparently) extremely rare XM-450G, an XM-5046, and "lower end" XM-4040 and XM-10020.

Great amps in their day, I've probably got less than $500 in all of them. The newest one being about 16 years old and they all _still_ work!

I always liked Sony amps, and was on a budget. I may switch to something in the Full range D or G/H realm later, but for the money it seemed like a good way to go.

I was planning on going with Arc's KS line (2 KS300.4's and a KS 300.2) which would give me roughly twice as much RMS power. But everytime I seriously considering making the jump, we have a customer come in and have an issue with them. Like someone up there is trying to scare me off. lol
Not always something serious, but I don't want to keep switching amps in and out if I don't have to.

The other thing I see, is that new amps are rated differently. IIRC, the new CEA-2016 standard every (reputable) company has adopted tests at something like 1% THD. Back in the 90's, even the low-end Sony amps were rated at something like .04% distortion. I'd love to see what the old school amps would do rated by today's standards.

So, for now, I guess I'll stick with old school power for the sake of my budget, nostalgia and uniqueness. 

Jay


----------



## Sine Swept

I am using a cheap ass Hi/Lo adapter off the front speaker leads into my OS xover, into my OS amplifiers. No turn on pops. I can basically pin the gain on the amps (with some thought to the levels on the xover and hi/lo adapter). No ignition noise, no alternator noise. Regulated power supply. The newest amp in the setup has given me grief with dirty pots that always seem to need cleaning. (A GTO 75.4 amp I had was even worse).

I like that an OS setup can be loud on one 4 channel amp. High efficiency low weight cones!


----------



## hurrication

FG79 said:


> You can belt out 30 hz with a small woofer in a small box if you give it a lot of excursion, but then it sounds very sloppy. Maybe not to you, but to somebody who has heard good subs, you realize you cannot get something for nothing.
> 
> And those little amps have no midrange balls, most of the time. Again not a big deal to some of the newer buyers, but for guys who have been around good stuff, it's a very big deal.
> 
> It's expected that we get advances in audio technology because of Moore's law with doubling of CPU performance every two years, and horsepower in cars going up about ~20 hp/liter each decade. "Everything has to get better"; I get it.
> 
> However, the reality is there's actually been a regression in performance in many sectors because manufacturers prefer to use cheaper parts in their speakers and amplifiers. Parts matter a lot, but you don't need to talk about them in marketing literature because just quoting high measured power outputs is enough.
> 
> It's easier and cheaper to make the modern high watt, thin sounding amplifier than it is to make the nice vintage ones. The nail in the coffin here is that many newer buyers prefer this modern sound of excess treble, so it plays perfectly into the manufacturer's agenda of saving money. That and the ability to "save space" makes it a slam dunk.
> 
> ps - I am convinced that the biggest reason ported boxes do not "sound good" is because the manufacturer's recommend size and tuning frequency are too small/high (respectively).


Sorry, a sub from 1996 in a small sealed box will not even make noise at 30hz. And if you think anything with high excursion sounds sloppy, you must not have heard an XBL, underhung, or LMT sub. 

If there has been a regression in performance and all this new gear is junk, why isn't anybody winning in the lanes with old school installs? 

Can you prove with data that the new gear is inferior to old school?

All this just sounds like the typical closed minded purist attitude ruled by psychoacoustics. I used to be that guy.... until I got a little common sense.


----------



## TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL

Fg79 doesnt believe in data having a role in "true" high end audio.


----------



## ChrisB

hurrication said:


> Sorry, a sub from 1996 in a small sealed box will not even make noise at 30hz. And if you think anything with high excursion sounds sloppy, you must not have heard an XBL, underhung, or LMT sub.
> 
> If there has been a regression in performance and all this new gear is junk, why isn't anybody winning in the lanes with old school installs?
> 
> Can you prove with data that the new gear is inferior to old school?
> 
> All this just sounds like the typical closed minded purist attitude ruled by psychoacoustics. I used to be that guy.... until I got a little common sense.


Therein lies the problem, nostalgia runs strong. Very strong. So strong to the point where people will be blinded into believing that older is better. They will make up whatever argument they can to discount the fact that modern manufacturing processes with tighter tolerance parts are somehow inferior to the hand built stuff of old. They let things like "hand built in the USA with pride" skew their views into thinking that older is automagically better.

I know, I used to be that person myself, and unlike some on this very forum, I believe that perceived differences in sound must have objective scientific measurements to prove those perceived differences. Others seem to tout mythology and other out of this world abilities to subjectively prove why older is better.

Then, the cherry on top is the fact that we are arguing over something that is getting installed in a mobile environment... As in the absolute WORST audio reproduction environment on the face of the planet...


----------



## quality_sound

hurrication said:


> Sorry, a sub from 1996 in a small sealed box will not even make noise at 30hz.


This is absolute horseshit. The Solo-barics from that time period did it easily. So did the KEF KAR subs. 


Sent from my Moto X using Tapatalk


----------



## hurrication

Solobarics were decent with moderate enclosure volumes, but they were nowhere near what a modern small box sub can do. I had a S12d in .88cf and the only noise it made at 30hz was mechanical noise.


----------



## FG79

hurrication said:


> Sorry, a sub from 1996 in a small sealed box will not even make noise at 30hz. And if you think anything with high excursion sounds sloppy, you must not have heard an XBL, underhung, or LMT sub.
> 
> If there has been a regression in performance and all this new gear is junk, why isn't anybody winning in the lanes with old school installs?
> 
> Can you prove with data that the new gear is inferior to old school?
> 
> All this just sounds like the typical closed minded purist attitude ruled by psychoacoustics. I used to be that guy.... until I got a little common sense.


I can't prove/disprove anything with data, nor try to. 

If you think there's bias with psychoacoustics, then there's also bias with just going with the #s. I'm pretty convinced some people around here probably rationalize the better sounding product in their head without ever hearing it, and even if they heard the other product being better would never admit it (even to themselves). 

Usually it's more design philosophy than data. And still at the end of the day, I will almost always wait to hear the finished product before commenting. 

BTW, who said I wanted to use a small sealed box to produce 30 hz? 

My formula for SQL (if we still use that term) is a lot of drivers with a lot of airspace (low Q or big vented tuned low). Not even necessarily large subs either (8s/10s will do, 12s are nice). 

I do not demand a single 8" (or any sub size) in a tiny sealed enclosure to register on the seismic scale while simultaneously playing very low, flat, articulating the midbass notes well, fast transient response, etc. 

If I cannot do at least dual 10s sealed in a QTC 0.5 - 0.7 enclosure, I would consider IB or no subs at all. 

I have realistic expectations in life with audio, cars, women and things. I dream big but know I gotta pay the cost to be the boss. 



TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL said:


> Fg79 doesnt believe in data having a role in "true" high end audio.


I just had a converation with a mastering engineer in LA who finally got put onto a British hi-fi speaker/amp manufacturer that's very, very nice sounding but perhaps doesn't measure up to some of the more commercial stuff. 

Clearly he is in love with this gear, as he should be. 

He told me he cared about the "tone", not the #s. Knowing his work and his good taste in sound, this is not at all surprising.

I wanted to jokingly tell him "Welcome to 2006", but realized that perhaps the reason he has not caught onto this gear is because Stereophile, The Absolute Sound, and other mainstream audio magazines have not pumped it up. They only pump up those that have the #s and/or ad dollars invested. And in the rare cases they do offer legit reviews, they are a needle in the haystack.

Data means a lot to those who cannot physically experience things and/or do not have the experience/talent/desire/etc to interpret what it is they are hearing. That might be a little harsh, but it's just how it is. 

There's no way he would like this brand without the help of listening to them, or a strong second hand opinion from somebody who has. 



ChrisB said:


> Therein lies the problem, nostalgia runs strong. Very strong. So strong to the point where people will be blinded into believing that older is better. They will make up whatever argument they can to discount the fact that modern manufacturing processes with tighter tolerance parts are somehow inferior to the hand built stuff of old. They let things like "hand built in the USA with pride" skew their views into thinking that older is automagically better.
> 
> I know, I used to be that person myself, and unlike some on this very forum, I believe that perceived differences in sound must have objective scientific measurements to prove those perceived differences. Others seem to tout mythology and other out of this world abilities to subjectively prove why older is better.
> 
> Then, the cherry on top is the fact that we are arguing over something that is getting installed in a mobile environment... As in the absolute WORST audio reproduction environment on the face of the planet...


Well, vintage is still king to me (and others) in the home audio world. The modern home stuff isn't bad at all. Much easier to find good to great modern home than modern car.

The nostalgia argument is interesting, but the thing with me is that I wasn't anywhere near the car audio scene when this stuff was around. My first dab at car audio was late 2001, and I didn't get any vintage stuff until 2007. Everything owned up till then was brand new gear from car audio dealers. 

So I started with new stuff FIRST, then vintage second. That's a big "L" for the new gear if it lost out completely on the sound alone, and nothing else. 

Manufacturing tolerances don't mean a whole lot if the engineering/design is not up to snuff (assuming the tolerances are worse anyways). 

BTW, despite my preference it's really f**** annoying in some ways that I prefer vintage over old. Chasing hard to find gear, that's no longer made, hoping it's not abused. Would much prefer in an ideal world that newer would be better (for me).

But it's not. 

On the flip side the advantages are enormous, $ for $.


----------



## tyroneshoes

certain amps such as the os zapco studio 150s were as small and as powerful as many of todays amps. I use the 1990 version of these (z150) bridged mono to give 300 watts a side to my comps. 










Not bad for 600 a/b watts regarding space

were talking 25 year old amps that never had any issues in the 25 years of use. Thats rare these days. Of course I guess we would have to wait 25 years to see 


Otherwise, naustalgia mostly but sony es still makes me happy as does oz audio.

I guess you can compare these to the little prs amps of today but I prefer a nice a/b amp


----------



## quality_sound

hurrication said:


> Solobarics were decent with moderate enclosure volumes, but they were nowhere near what a modern small box sub can do. I had a S12d in .88cf and the only noise it made at 30hz was mechanical noise.



Your memory is failing. I had one VERY recently in .88cf and it would play as low as anything I've ever owned. It wasn't the best sounding sub I've owned, but to say it won't play under 30Hz is just plain stupid.


----------



## ChrisB

quality_sound said:


> Your memory is failing. I had one VERY recently in .88cf and it would play as low as anything I've ever owned. It wasn't the best sounding sub I've owned, but to say it won't play under 30Hz is just plain stupid.


I ran a Solobaric 12" sub in Kicker's sealed enclosure from 1997 to 1999. For the space it took up, that sub did extremely well in the trunk of my 1996 Thunderbird bridged to a pre-HD Punch 150. Don't get me wrong, small box subs have come a long way since then, but power is way cheaper now than it used to be. On the other hand, if Kicker hadn't pushed the envelope first, would we have what we have today?

Lastly, I am waiting on someone to pick these bad boys up and that will be the end of my old school gear once and for all:



Yesterday, someone picked up three Orion 280GX amplifiers from me.


----------



## hurrication

quality_sound said:


> Your memory is failing. I had one VERY recently in .88cf and it would play as low as anything I've ever owned. It wasn't the best sounding sub I've owned, but to say it won't play under 30Hz is just plain stupid.


No, my memory is fine. I drove a single cab truck back in the day and they do not have very much cabin gain, so finding a sub that had low end extension was #1 priority for years and years. The s12d in my truck did not make any noise near 30hz.


----------



## hurrication

FG79 said:


> Data means a lot to those who cannot physically experience things and/or do not have the experience/talent/desire/etc to interpret what it is they are hearing. That might be a little harsh, but it's just how it is.


:laugh: Really? 

So what criteria do speaker and amp designers use when designing their products?


----------



## FG79

hurrication said:


> :laugh: Really?
> 
> So what criteria do speaker and amp designers use when designing their products?


Let me rephrase:

Data *only* means a lot to ..........

That's my beef. Not with data, but the common "this thing only has _____, or this much _____.....no way it can be good", mentality without ever hearing anything.

I liked the old school speaker/subwoofer methodology of less excursion, lighter cones, higher efficiency, larger enclosure requirements. 

Amps I like high current designs, Class A, Class A/B.


----------



## cleansoundz

I have a few old school relics in my garage and I test them out every so often. These relics are a punch 150, punch 250.1 power, punch 240.4 and they amaze me but there is no difference in sound to me from my amps of today. All they do is bring down my voltage a little bit more that my current amps.


----------



## Treesive

This has been beat into the ground over and over. The times are so much different that you cannot relate the two generations apples to apples. Cars were bigger on average back then so the envelope for subs that work in small spaces just wasn't on the front burner. Technology for assembling amp boards has enabled them to squeeze more components etc into a smaller space. My previous zapco z150.4 was almost identical size wise to my usa-442 but the zapco on paper at least had over triple to power. High cost per watt drove the need for efficient subs for sq or spl as power was extremely expensive. Today wattage is almost at a joke price it is so cheap so with that lowered cost subs became much more beefy to push the sound barriers normally at a direct negative to efficiency. I love certain old school brands always have, always will but I have had many current amps that are just as quality but you usually pay more for them than you could for an old high end amp. For example I can buy a Us Amps 400x for 300-500 or I can get an Arc 2300se for 1k+. Very similar specs and sizes but cost is drastic so it can be a huge factor. Class d is getting better but other than a few high end brands a/b will be noticable to me in a common setup. 

With all this rambling I just did I do not like the route that subs are trending... I haven't seen any advances the past decade in subwoofer technology except for the SPL crowd. I can get a massive excursion sub that handles tons of power for cheap and put up big numbers. No matter what is said on other various car audio sites I have not heard a single one that didn't sound like garbage in a daily setup on just plain music. The last big time advances in sub tech were XBL^2 and LMT and they are over decade old technologies now. No one is coming up with anything anymore. Most of them all are going overseas and having minor changes done to a generic built sub to make it "different" from the 30 others that are almost identical. I honestly have only used three current market subs and liked the results from a price, sound, performance standpoint. 15 years ago I could get all three results from many different subs. Everything is just trending to louder at a quality of sound sacrifice.


----------



## T3mpest

Treesive said:


> This has been beat into the ground over and over. The times are so much different that you cannot relate the two generations apples to apples. Cars were bigger on average back then so the envelope for subs that work in small spaces just wasn't on the front burner. Technology for assembling amp boards has enabled them to squeeze more components etc into a smaller space. My previous zapco z150.4 was almost identical size wise to my usa-442 but the zapco on paper at least had over triple to power. High cost per watt drove the need for efficient subs for sq or spl as power was extremely expensive. Today wattage is almost at a joke price it is so cheap so with that lowered cost subs became much more beefy to push the sound barriers normally at a direct negative to efficiency. I love certain old school brands always have, always will but I have had many current amps that are just as quality but you usually pay more for them than you could for an old high end amp. For example I can buy a Us Amps 400x for 300-500 or I can get an Arc 2300se for 1k+. Very similar specs and sizes but cost is drastic so it can be a huge factor. Class d is getting better but other than a few high end brands a/b will be noticable to me in a common setup.
> 
> With all this rambling I just did I do not like the route that subs are trending... I haven't seen any advances the past decade in subwoofer technology except for the SPL crowd. I can get a massive excursion sub that handles tons of power for cheap and put up big numbers. No matter what is said on other various car audio sites I have not heard a single one that didn't sound like garbage in a daily setup on just plain music. The last big time advances in sub tech were XBL^2 and LMT and they are over decade old technologies now. No one is coming up with anything anymore. Most of them all are going overseas and having minor changes done to a generic built sub to make it "different" from the 30 others that are almost identical. I honestly have only used three current market subs and liked the results from a price, sound, performance standpoint. 15 years ago I could get all three results from many different subs. Everything is just trending to louder at a quality of sound sacrifice.


That equipment isn't old school... LMT and XBL^2 are still both new school subwoofer designs, the old school stuff people are really referring to is about 5-10 years before that, early to mid 90's stuff.

Anyway in the last 5 years they finally started adding shorting rings to xbl^2 drivers, which improved their upper bass performance. That makes all the newer stuff like the Exodus audio drivers, SI BM, etc superior in terms of SQ to the older brahmas and XXX's that couldn't do anything above 55hz or so.

However your point still stands, tech innovation wise it's been stagnant on the SQ side.. We've gotten better at using standard designs though with more FEA modelling and what not.. 30mm xmax drivers used to pretty much be the fancy techs and xbl^2, now you can find it more commonly than that..

All that being said, the bar MAY be moving again here soon. Jacob from sundown has his new x and z and nightshade drivers with the retard large surrounds and spiders.. These softparts are VERY linear and suprisingly quiet over their stroke. LMS and XBL^2 might get you 30mm+ xmax, but the surrounds and spiders can't do that without CMS issues getting in the way and becoming the limiting factor, especially when you add shorting rings into it to control inductance modulation.. Jacob has been looking into doing an XBL^2 design with the bigger spiders and surrounds.. Something like that would move the bar forward as he also utilizes shorting rings and pole caps into his newer designs. Oh and his new baskets and surrounds are good for something stupid like 60mm one way.

What modern subs have you liked?


----------



## Treesive

T3mpest said:


> That equipment isn't old school... LMT and XBL^2 are still both new school subwoofer designs, the old school stuff people are really referring to is about 5-10 years before that, early to mid 90's stuff.
> 
> Anyway in the last 5 years they finally started adding shorting rings to xbl^2 drivers, which improved their upper bass performance. That makes all the newer stuff like the Exodus audio drivers, SI BM, etc superior in terms of SQ to the older brahmas and XXX's that couldn't do anything above 55hz or so.
> 
> However your point still stands, tech innovation wise it's been stagnant on the SQ side.. We've gotten better at using standard designs though with more FEA modelling and what not.. 30mm xmax drivers used to pretty much be the fancy techs and xbl^2, now you can find it more commonly than that..
> 
> All that being said, the bar MAY be moving again here soon. Jacob from sundown has his new x and z and nightshade drivers with the retard large surrounds and spiders.. These softparts are VERY linear and suprisingly quiet over their stroke. LMS and XBL^2 might get you 30mm+ xmax, but the surrounds and spiders can't do that without CMS issues getting in the way and becoming the limiting factor, especially when you add shorting rings into it to control inductance modulation.. Jacob has been looking into doing an XBL^2 design with the bigger spiders and surrounds.. Something like that would move the bar forward as he also utilizes shorting rings and pole caps into his newer designs. Oh and his new baskets and surrounds are good for something stupid like 60mm one way.
> 
> What modern subs have you liked?


Jacob has been saying he is going to do a Sq based sub for several years now. I hope he does but haven't seen anything to give me hope. I owned a pair of the x series and they were terribly muddy in 1.5 sealed each. As far as my favorite subs right now I was very impressed with my ia flatlyne pair after break in. The new bm was as expected as well which was refreshing.


----------



## cajunner

to me, it's kind of ridiculous to ask 'where all the sq subs be at' when everything that is improving a subwoofer relates to motor power, basket clearance, and small volume requirements.

everything that can be advanced on the sq front is about the SPL front, first.


the trickle down for a more linear driver is so the driver maximizes it's pressure capacity, we get better SPL drivers but looking at the audience A3, it's like a mini-sub in design but for small applications.


to say that old school stuff was made to perform on fewer watts, was not being entirely factual.

old school stuff performed as well as the existing glues and former, cone structure and surround/spiders allowed.


all the major advances towards aerodynamics in the motor frame, help in keeping the backwave from modulating the cone, so SQ gets a hand from SPL designs.


or is it the other way around...


haha..


the reason SQ is used as a selling point on old school, is because that's all it's got!

it can't run with the little dogs of today who get off the porch with 1000 watts in 4X5 inches, it can't run on a system with ampacity of 40 amp hours when a bank of deep cycles is barely enough, it requires a maximum slam, non-utility use of the vehicle, getting to be a barrier today with so many "project" cars being turned into daily drivers.


no, sound quality is all the old school has left to differentiate it from the low cost, low impact new school that kicks it's ass all over the place in being able to get more from a standard install without having to put in an alternator or whatever.


mixing the two, and getting higher efficiency subs from the old school with high efficiency amps of today looks like it would do the trick but if you realize that most sub makers have the equivalent of old school subs today, in their lower end lines with smaller motors, and more efficient, lighter mass components, then old school is really just nostalgia points.


----------



## CRUNK

cajunner said:


> to me, it's kind of ridiculous to ask 'where all the sq subs be at' when everything that is improving a subwoofer relates to motor power, basket clearance, and small volume requirements.
> 
> everything that can be advanced on the sq front is about the SPL front, first.
> 
> 
> the trickle down for a more linear driver is so the driver maximizes it's pressure capacity, we get better SPL drivers but looking at the audience A3, it's like a mini-sub in design but for small applications.
> 
> 
> to say that old school stuff was made to perform on fewer watts, was not being entirely factual.
> 
> old school stuff performed as well as the existing glues and former, cone structure and surround/spiders allowed.
> 
> 
> all the major advances towards aerodynamics in the motor frame, help in keeping the backwave from modulating the cone, so SQ gets a hand from SPL designs.
> 
> 
> or is it the other way around...
> 
> 
> haha..
> 
> 
> the reason SQ is used as a selling point on old school, is because that's all it's got!
> 
> it can't run with the little dogs of today who get off the porch with 1000 watts in 4X5 inches, it can't run on a system with ampacity of 40 amp hours when a bank of deep cycles is barely enough, it requires a maximum slam, non-utility use of the vehicle, getting to be a barrier today with so many "project" cars being turned into daily drivers.
> 
> 
> no, sound quality is all the old school has left to differentiate it from the low cost, low impact new school that kicks it's ass all over the place in being able to get more from a standard install without having to put in an alternator or whatever.
> 
> 
> mixing the two, and getting higher efficiency subs from the old school with high efficiency amps of today looks like it would do the trick but if you realize that most sub makers have the equivalent of old school subs today, in their lower end lines with smaller motors, and more efficient, lighter mass components, then old school is really just nostalgia points.


This is the most off the track post i have read so far, time and time again i smashed new school products with old school. it's about the build more than anything, plus the new music of today is not true music, much of it is man made below 30hz so yes some of the new school divers can reproduce this. But to state old school is not superior in many ways is to not know what your talking about.
Sig
In car audio since 1985, owned a number of shops in two states,owned two car audio brands,did sq and spl even two dudes lol 2nd in the World idbl,3rd in the World idbl,6th Usaci World finals, Loudest Honda N600 in the World LiL Scrappy, Founding Member Glassman's Custom forums,Lead Tech for Concept/Re Audio.Tech for AutoPage and much more i have forgotten about.

Owner of The Mad Max wagon aka Grey Ghost/ were at a Two Dudes contest in Fl they made me run 3x because i was hitting 160 with a hand held disc man. people were having a fit!! saying that their Rca cable cost more than that build, Classic times.


----------



## rton20s

CRUNK said:


> This is the most off the track post i have read so far, time and time again i smashed new school products with old school. it's about the build more than anything, plus the new music of today is not true music, much of it is man made below 30hz so yes some of the new school divers can reproduce this. But to state old school is not superior in many ways is to not know what your talking about.


So new music is "man made" and that is a bad thing? Who exactly made music before this "new music" came to be? Music is created by men with the instruments, tools and equipment available to them. Always has been. To claim that music made with less advanced technology is by default superior is ignorant. 

I doubt you will find very many people on this site that would debate the fact that the installation and integration of equipment is just as, if not more important than equipment selection its self. So, your claim of "smashing new school products" means very little without knowing how those new school products were integrated. 

So, please explain (with specifics, if possible) how the old school products are "superior in many ways."


----------



## Treesive

There are just some things that make Old School amps special...

http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/06/14/esupusu7.jpg


----------



## CRUNK

rton20s said:


> So new music is "man made" and that is a bad thing? Who exactly made music before this "new music" came to be? Music is created by men with the instruments, tools and equipment available to them. Always has been. To claim that music made with less advanced technology is by default superior is ignorant.
> 
> I doubt you will find very many people on this site that would debate the fact that the installation and integration of equipment is just as, if not more important than equipment selection its self. So, your claim of "smashing new school products" means very little without knowing how those new school products were integrated.
> 
> So, please explain (with specifics, if possible) how the old school products are "superior in many ways."


Many here do not know what True car audio is it's becoming a lost Art. What is music and what is a sound stage. Yes throughout time man has listen and played music, what makes music a natural instrument or voice, now we have unnatural electronically made notes. What is a sound stage it's what you get when you goto a opera house or concert it's laid out for the best effect singer center and band. old school amps had better S/n ratio and noise floors subs were more efc low moving mass thats whats needed to keep accurate response to music.When you get into audiophile stuff like home you don't see 5k amps and crazy stuff you see in car audio today, you see low to mid power high efc setups even tube amps for a richer natural sound, back in the day the 1st cd players sounded too digital and unnatural this is still a problem today with compressed music like Mp3 etc. the problem is the nature of audio has changed no one takes the time anymore to learn or hear True sound.


----------



## cajunner

CRUNK said:


> Many here do not know what True car audio is it's becoming a lost Art. What is music and what is a sound stage. Yes throughout time man has listen and played music, what makes music a natural instrument or voice, now we have unnatural electronically made notes. What is a sound stage it's what you get when you goto a opera house or concert it's laid out for the best effect singer center and band. old school amps had better S/n ratio and noise floors subs were more efc low moving mass thats whats needed to keep accurate response to music.When you get into audiophile stuff like home you don't see 5k amps and crazy stuff you see in car audio today, you see low to mid power high efc setups even tube amps for a richer natural sound, back in the day the 1st cd players sounded too digital and unnatural this is still a problem today with compressed music like Mp3 etc. the problem is the nature of audio has changed no one takes the time anymore to learn or hear True sound.


this post is so far off the mark I don't know what to say...


haha...


in a home you have a low noise floor and the ability to hear a 90 db dynamic range player, or amplifier S/N against the music playback.

with a 25 db background noise, and 125 db capable Geddes Summas, you can do a lot with high resolution recordings and playback equipment.


in a car you have a lot more to do than set up a pair of boxes and slide a listening chair in between them...

so home audio comparisons to old school is not working out from here.


I agree that the technical side of audio has brought the sport/hobby into a new era, but dismissing the new school for some comfortable position, some wayback point of entry when you really knew all there was to know, is more about you than the state of audio today.


----------



## CRUNK

cajunner said:


> this post is so far off the mark I don't know what to say...
> 
> 
> haha...
> 
> 
> in a home you have a low noise floor and the ability to hear a 90 db dynamic range player, or amplifier S/N against the music playback.
> 
> with a 25 db background noise, and 125 db capable Geddes Summas, you can do a lot with high resolution recordings and playback equipment.
> 
> 
> in a car you have a lot more to do than set up a pair of boxes and slide a listening chair in between them...
> 
> so home audio comparisons to old school is not working out from here.
> 
> 
> I agree that the technical side of audio has brought the sport/hobby into a new era, but dismissing the new school for some comfortable position, some wayback point of entry when you really knew all there was to know, is more about you than the state of audio today.


Simple question How many Sq cars have you Judge in a Sound Quality Format like IASCA ??? and how many Sq World Champions and there cars have you sat down to listen too??? My guess would be none, as your comments reflect that. P.S. how many sq score sheets of your own do you have laying around?


----------



## CRUNK

To this day i know people that can lay down a great Sq score some not even using Dsp which is cheating to me. it's about Og Knowledge and skill hell we use to win with Boss American Gear.

This is what's wrong today in car audio, Blind leading the Blind, people preaching about combat and have never seen action or training. i would just love to say, bring it to the Lanes lets see what you got Rta and all.


----------



## rton20s

I haven't judged any, but I do know a few of MECA judges that happen to be active on this forum. I have also had the opportunity to demo several world class SQ systems in the short time I have been attending get togethers and competitions. What exactly is your point? 

Cajunner was correct in his statements. To think that modern equipment can't compete, or is of a lesser quality than "old school" gear is ignorant at best and down right stupid at worst. Something tells me that *you* might need to spend some time listening to some "new school" systems despite your impressive resume.


----------



## CRUNK

rton20s said:


> I haven't judged any, but I do know a few of MECA judges that happen to be active on this forum. I have also had the opportunity to demo several world class SQ systems in the short time I have been attending get togethers and competitions. What exactly is your point?
> 
> Cajunner was correct in his statements. To think that modern equipment can't compete, or is of a lesser quality than "old school" gear is ignorant at best and down right stupid at worst. Something tells me that *you* might need to spend some time listening to some "new school" systems despite your impressive resume.


Ahhh your Stupid lol i get to listen to stuff from all over the world, for the last 10 years i was a tech in car audio for major Mfg's and owned brands so to make that statement shows your a drone, i have 20yr amps i can play today, i have three year old amps that will smoke just from sitting, working for mfg i know we built product to last 2yrs or so in todays market. i use to get samples of stuff from Germany,Japan,Korea,China,denmark,south America just to listen too, like i said people talking out the side of there mouth, no industry work history, no comp backgrounds, just POSERS!!!


----------



## rton20s

CRUNK said:


> Ahhh your Stupid lol i get to listen to stuff from all over the world, for the last 10 years i was a tech in car audio for major Mfg's and owned brands so to make that statement shows your a drone, i have 20yr amps i can play today, i have three year old amps that will smoke just from sitting, working for mfg i know we built product to last 2yrs or so in todays market


Yet, you still can't produce a coherent sentence? 

So because you worked for a manufacturer who knowingly put out product designed to fail in a short period all other manufacturers operate the same way? 

You've already shown your true colors here on DIYMA. (http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/hot-deals/164109-%249-99-8-subs-%3B.html) Your integrity is in question, at best. You are completely entitled to your opinion, even if you are wrong. You'll just have to excuse me if I feel the need to take what you say with just a pinch of salt.


----------



## CRUNK

^^^ Like i said Poser's and yes Mfg do that today because they would be out of business if they did not thats the game, and i am talking vast amounts of Mfg


----------



## CRUNK

That means other products also like Cars, Mfg won't make a car like Ev's because they won't make any money, Aka the fight against Tesla and other ev's. Mainstream mfg build a car to fall apart in less than five years. i swear many here act like the Gop lol they know the truth but act like it's not true, i have 10yr computers that work great, i have 3yr computers that fail every 7mos or so, my computer guy tells me the chips in my older units are just better built to last, the new units are built to last just a few years to keep you buying computers.


----------



## rton20s

CRUNK said:


> ^^^ Like i said Poser's...


Caught me red handed... I guess I was posing! 









Care to guess how much "old school" gear the car that took home the big trophy for Best SQ at the show was running?


----------



## CRUNK

rton20s said:


> Caught me red handed... I guess I was posing!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care to guess how much "old school" gear the car that took home the big trophy for Best SQ at the show was running?


Props but my 8yr old has bigger and more awards than that lol


----------



## rton20s

I'm sure he does. The award wasn't the point. I was showing you that I am, in fact, a poser. 

No desire to respond to my question regarding the car that took Best SQ at the show?


----------



## CRUNK

Enough on this subject old school was better because of the engineering that took place mainly in The U.S.A there were countless brands then, there was no cookie cutter designs like today, True R&D/engineering went into a product, Even the low end brands made neat stuff, no more now it's visit the factory in china/korea chose a product put your name on it and hope you make it in which 98% of the market does not.


----------



## CRUNK

rton20s said:


> I'm sure he does. The award wasn't the point. I was showing you that I am, in fact, a poser.
> 
> No desire to respond to my question regarding the car that took Best SQ at the show?


Get about 20-30 more then i would be interested. other than that no, i don't care.
P.S. thats She ; )


----------



## rton20s

CRUNK said:


> Enough on this subject...


You heard it folks. Enough. CRUNK has spoken. And when this man speaks... you listen.


----------



## CRUNK

Now for the Non Gop Hater Version ; )


----------



## Hoptologist

CRUNK said:


> Ahhh your Stupid lol i get to listen to stuff from all over the world, for the last 10 years i was a tech in car audio for major Mfg's and owned brands so to make that statement shows your a drone, i have 20yr amps i can play today, i have three year old amps that will smoke just from sitting, working for mfg i know we built product to last 2yrs or so in todays market. i use to get samples of stuff from Germany,Japan,Korea,China,denmark,south America just to listen too, like i said people talking out the side of there mouth, no industry work history, no comp backgrounds, just POSERS!!!


----------



## TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL

Dustin, I thought we already discussed how your car will never sound good until you get some old school tube amps, with magic fairy dust in them, and run some old worn out speakers all the way through their fs. Isnt that the true path to sq? Lol


----------



## rton20s

TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL said:


> Dustin, I thought we already discussed how your car will never sound good until you get some old school tube amps, with magic fairy dust in them, and run some old worn out speakers all the way through their fs. Isnt that the true path to sq? Lol


I'm on the hunt for some Sparkomatic 6x9s to replace my new school gear.


----------



## CRUNK

Dam guys are acting like when you pull up in the parking lot and there bumping, you turn on your system and they have to shut down or go home lol


----------



## 63flip

It's unfortunate one person devolved the conversation. I think you can get excellent SQ from old and new school. I personally enjoy both gear from both eras. I also am a firm believer in you get what you pay for, past and present. I do believe that the 90's was a time in car audio that will never be seen again. The gear made by many U.S. companies was some of the best ever made, but advances in car audio didn't end there. I believe today's market is just driven by a different consumer. Mainly high power, high SPL but to say today's SQ gear can't compete is crazy. It just depends on your budget. You buy cheap flea market gear you're going to to get poor sound but you spend money on quality gear and install it properly you can be blown away by the quality. 
Until recently (sold the truck and pulled the system) I had a pair of JL w6v2's and JL components running on JL Slash amps (500/1,300/4) and it sounded amazing. I strongly believe that JL's Slash amps are some of the best ever made. On the other hand I'm currently working on an O.S. Lanzar install with CPS series Optidrive amps and DC series subs/components. I will also be running an Alpine HU & EQ from the same era. I'm pretty sure this system will also sound amazing. Of course both set ups are utilizing some of the best gear made from both eras. It's what should be expected from quality gear wether it be old or new school. To me it's all about the enjoyment I get out of the hobby wether it be gear from my younger days or something new.


----------



## cleansoundz

63flip said:


> It's unfortunate one person devolved the conversation. I think you can get excellent SQ from old and new school. I personally enjoy both gear from both eras. I also am a firm believer in you get what you pay for, past and present. I do believe that the 90's was a time in car audio that will never be seen again. The gear made by many U.S. companies was some of the best ever made, but advances in car audio didn't end there. I believe today's market is just driven by a different consumer. Mainly high power, high SPL but to say today's SQ gear can't compete is crazy. It just depends on your budget. You buy cheap flea market gear you're going to to get poor sound but you spend money on quality gear and install it properly you can be blown away by the quality.
> Until recently (sold the truck and pulled the system) I had a pair of JL w6v2's and JL components running on JL Slash amps (500/1,300/4) and it sounded amazing. I strongly believe that JL's Slash amps are some of the best ever made. On the other hand I'm currently working on an O.S. Lanzar install with CPS series Optidrive amps and DC series subs/components. I will also be running an Alpine HU & EQ from the same era. I'm pretty sure this system will also sound amazing. Of course both set ups are utilizing some of the best gear made from both eras. It's what should be expected from quality gear wether it be old or new
> school. To me it's all about the enjoyment I get out of the hobby wether it be gear from my younger days or something new.


The install counts more than the equipment whether its old or new school.


----------



## dallasneon

This should be nominated for thread of the year. This Crunk dude is pure awesomeness! LOL!


----------



## PPI_GUY

Well, I'll say this, setting up a 100% complete old school SQ oriented system would be very difficult today simply because unused components and subs from 1992 (or any year of that era) are nearly impossible to find at a fair price. 
I was one of the lucky ones who grabbed a set of the PPI 356cs comp sets a few years ago for cheap but, even I don't think they are quite "old school" yet. I do run a set of 1st gen. IDQ 10" subs that weren't new but, very close to it when I found them. Aside from a set of OZ Audio 250L's I owned when they were new, the IDQ's sound the best of any sub I've ever heard. Again, that was pure luck that I found those. 
I do think it is possible to run old school amplifiers and subs with modern components to achieve a nice mix. But, I don't need a 3500 watt system either. Somewhere between 600-1000 has always been enough for me. I guess that thought process is old school too. LOL!


----------



## CRUNK

PPI_GUY said:


> Well, I'll say this, setting up a 100% complete old school SQ oriented system would be very difficult today simply because unused components and subs from 1992 (or any year of that era) are nearly impossible to find at a fair price.
> I was one of the lucky ones who grabbed a set of the PPI 356cs comp sets a few years ago for cheap but, even I don't think they are quite "old school" yet. I do run a set of 1st gen. IDQ 10" subs that weren't new but, very close to it when I found them. Aside from a set of OZ Audio 250L's I owned when they were new, the IDQ's sound the best of any sub I've ever heard. Again, that was pure luck that I found those.
> I do think it is possible to run old school amplifiers and subs with modern components to achieve a nice mix. But, I don't need a 3500 watt system either. Somewhere between 600-1000 has always been enough for me. I guess that thought process is old school too. LOL!


Awesome


----------



## thehatedguy

When was Concept ever made in the US?


----------



## rton20s

thehatedguy said:


> When was Concept ever made in the US?


----------



## thehatedguy

I didn't think it was, not entirely...I can ask Larry Frederick, I am friends with him one Facebook to see. I think Larry was with Concept for a bit...I know he knows Alan Dante, and Alan's old Chevy Malibu "Brady Bunch" wagon was in a lot of Concept's print ads from back in the day.

I thought the line was overseas, especially the amps and mid/highs. I don't know about the top of the line quad coil 18 they had.


----------



## thehatedguy

What do you know...there is a Concept amp on eBay that still has the original stickers on it. They say the amp is made in...Korea. Actually more than one.

Wait, there are a pair of Concept subs on there with original boxes...made in............China.


----------



## thehatedguy

And I am fairly certain that when after RE Audio acquired US Amps after Jack sold the company and Dirk moved west to continue designing them, at some point they were made overseas. They were still made in Florida when I was sponsored by them. My old boss who was from Florida knew Jack and Dirk personally from way back.


----------



## cajunner

CRUNK said:


> To this day i know people that can lay down a great Sq score some not even using Dsp which is cheating to me. it's about Og Knowledge and skill hell we use to win with Boss American Gear.
> 
> This is what's wrong today in car audio, Blind leading the Blind, people preaching about combat and have never seen action or training. i would just love to say, bring it to the Lanes lets see what you got Rta and all.


you're on a DIY site, not some marketing tool for defunct audio brands.

if you think DSP is a cheat, and not a great new resource for creating a more coherent stage and better dynamics in a vehicle, then you obviously haven't gained enough experience using DSP circuits to form an opinion that is valid.

If "Boss American Gear" is the Zed built amplifiers and what? Credence manufactured subs? Then you have the equivalent of PPI produced Sansui or umpteen other brands, even Crutchfield house branding.

And about the whole "my e-peener is bigger, because I wore a company shirt back in the day" I should point out that the most knowledgeable acoustic engineers like lycan, aren't in competitions and what they forget about sound, is more than you'll ever know.

but go ahead, with your easy picks and rant rationalizations. The business of old school is only relevant in old school terms, and old school ways.

the new school is teaching us all, those who care to pay attention.


----------



## ZeblodS

CRUNK said:


> To this day i know people that can lay down a great Sq score some not even using Dsp which is cheating to me. it's about Og Knowledge and skill hell we use to win with Boss American Gear.
> 
> This is what's wrong today in car audio, Blind leading the Blind, people preaching about combat and have never seen action or training. i would just love to say, bring it to the Lanes lets see what you got Rta and all.


I thought the final goal in caraudio was the sound quality.

A DSP nowdays, if used correctly, can achieve a better sound quality (stage, precision, etc.) than ever, why stay stuck in the past and deny the technologic improvment?

I think I speak for most people here, the caraudio setup isn't a goal in itself, it is just a means to achieve a purpose: to have the best sound quality possible in the car.

Personally I can't understand why some people feels the urge to pander their ego with stupid limitations like that...


----------



## thehatedguy

Those car may have won some smaller local type shows, but I will pretty much guarantee no show that mattered like SBN or Finals was done that way...not in the last decade and half at least.


----------



## cajunner

ZeblodS said:


> Personally I can't understand why some people feels the urge to pander their ego with stupid limitations like that...


maybe I can help explain this phenomenon.

first, if you were around at the beginning stage of anything, you feel tied to all those hours learning the basics through trial and error.

those were hard-fought wins, what everybody gets for free today in forums like this one, used to be pulled by sheer will and determination.

there was a triumph, when you did something innovative and it worked.

now, you read in here about installs using new technology that costs more than the systems you made sound great, back in the eighties, and a part of your pride center kicks in, you reject the new technology because you know how good your previous installs were, you know how to use the technology of the past to good advantage.

but you don't want to admit you've created systems that were held back from a lack of sophisticated circuits, you don't want to admit the new school stuff is better.

of course, there's a built-in resistance to having to learn all the new parts that come with DSP processor ownership.

if one were to be directly challenged, let's say we have a contest between CRUNK's skill set vs. the JBL MS-8, using the same speakers and amplifiers, except CRUNK is using electronic crossovers and 1/3 octave equalizers.


I think the MS-8 takes him.


:surprised:


----------



## CRUNK

thehatedguy said:


> Those car may have won some smaller local type shows, but I will pretty much guarantee no show that mattered like SBN or Finals was done that way...not in the last decade and half at least.


I think you would want to speak too Virgil Williams about that.


----------



## sqnut

I think the whole old school vs new school debate is a bit pointless. Fact is that the winning sound at national finals back in the pre dsp days was very different to the winning sound today. Thanks almost entirely to dsp. Quality of equipment hasn't changed much. There was plenty of crappy equipment back then just as there is today. What has changed radically is that the amps have gotten smaller and watts are much cheaper. 

So if you competed and won in that era, that no dsp sound is your reference and that is as good as it gets. The old school guys need to listen to cars tuned by guys like Mark Eldridge, Matt Roberts, KP, my buddy Aaron. Their cars are show pieces of what a dsp can do and what tuning is all about. My issue with old school guys is that for some reason they are all stuck in a time wrap. Hear real SQ today and let your ears tell you if it's better.

Maybe old school champions don't want to start from scratch to re-learn with a dsp.


----------



## Tweeky

I think the only significant changes are in the electronics. Speakers and subs are mechanical devices and the advances in the mechanical aspects of speakers hasn't changed nearly as much as the advances on the electronic side.

I still think the best cars I've ever heard were from the late 80's and early 90's. But its probably similar to a heroin addict trying to replicate that 1st high. It'll never be as good as that 1st time.


----------



## sqnut

cajunner said:


> if one were to be directly challenged, let's say we have a contest between CRUNK's skill set vs. the JBL MS-8, using the same speakers and amplifiers, except CRUNK is using electronic crossovers and 1/3 octave equalizers.
> 
> 
> I think the MS-8 takes him.
> 
> 
> :surprised:


I'm not sure about what crunk is running much less his tuning skills, however it's not that tough to beat the ms-8. I tuned two cars one running ms-8 and the other with a bit1. The rest of the equipment was more or less at the same level. 

With the MS-8 I spent about 50 hours on the eq after the auto tune and it sounded really nice.

The car with the bit1 took a bit longer because I needed to set everything manually tuning took a while. After about 80 hours the car with the bit1 sounded better than the one with the MS-8. 

MS-8 is a great product and you can get really good results, but a processor where you control everything will take you further, imho.


----------



## thehatedguy

I thought we were talking about SQ cars, and not SPL.




CRUNK said:


> I think you would want to speak too Virgil Williams about that.


----------



## CRUNK

Virgil has a sq car out there heard it was doing great things in Iasca with very little gear


----------



## impulse

I've been enjoying reading this thread, brings back a lot of memories. Audio is certainly a very subjective and personal subject, to the point where people literally go apeshit on you if you don't think their way. Preferences play a part even if they are not the most scientific or best bang for the buck. Me for example, I'm more visual than auditory so I really like how things look vs how they sound at least to a point of diminishing return.

And that's how I always thought of audio in general, between the low and high end there is a point of diminishing return both ways where it either sounds slightly worse or slightly better but not necessarily to the point of where it matters anymore, the large area in between seems good enough. I always heard that it's all in the application, that you can make any system sound good, even Pyle or Pyramid if you do it right...never tried to so I dunno.

I started losing interest in car audio in the late 90's simply because cars became more of a pain to deal with. Old cars were pretty easy to wire and swap but now it's quite a time consuming adventure and shops charge too much. I bet that's why most people stick with stock systems nowadays. When I finally got back into it and installed aftermarket HU and front speakers, it took me 5x's as long as it once did with older cars.


----------



## thehatedguy

I haven't seen his name mentioned anywhere in terms of SQ.


----------



## Rodek

CRUNK said:


> Virgil has a sq car out there heard it was doing great things in Iasca with very little gear



Whoa! I haven't seen Virgil in about 10 years. I need to drive down and see how he's getting along.


----------



## gotgixers

This has been an interesting read. I have been into this hobby since '83. And have a mix of gear from the late 80's, right up to the Massive Audio N3 I just got two days ago. I own bnib Crankenstein subs from '92, but I really like the IA flatlyne 15's also. I think subs have come a long way since the early 90's. As far as amps go, the only thing that impresses me with the newer stuff, is that you can get an amp that is 10x7x2.25, and it only cost $2-300 and will bench at 1400-1600w rms. Do I think it sounds as good as my 1023, NO, it sounds and feels to be lacking low volume "drive" and damping. BUT, it's a 1/4 of the size, and cost ... I find that in itself freaking amazing ....As I do my 2001-2005 mmats "D" class HC amps ....Which some of you consider OS. And as such, tells me that not much headway has really been made since 2001. Other than cost, making things cheaper ....2001 mmats, almost 95% efficient, Linkwitz/Riley 24db LP xover, 1700 rms in a 11x7x3 foot print. But cost between $600-$999. What today specs out any better than that????? prob nothing, other than it's cheaper for the same power.

Anyways, as the OP stated, I too have noticed that almost EVERY auction on ebay that involves an OS car audio product, has the label SQ some where in it. And it is a bit rediculous. As the early 90's (around 91-93) was the dawn of the SPL movement really. As up until Wayne sold everyone on his DB Drag format.( in 93) We all had to go through the line and get metered for flat line AND spl to Flash Dance (USAC)...lol....And then you could go penny up a few more bux and go do the Outlaw SPL contests. So, up until then, we all kinda had to buffer SQ and SPL if you wanted to score well in the lanes.Along with theme, and install, ect .. of course .... Then, came DB Drag in '93... and people started leaving the SQ systems behind. It was cheaper to just build a DB Drag sound off car, than a dual purpose car. And getting LOUD was all that really mattered, then came dedicated vehicles that you couldn't even drive, then "BURPS" ...lol .... Car Audio is deff nothing like it was in the early days .... Some gear has come a long ways, other gear really has not, music has changed, tastes have changed IMO... and that's all it is, MY opinion, based on my experiences, yours may differ ....

btw, I have a mix of OS gear, and brand new gear in my daily ride at this time, as it is what works for me right now ....


----------



## cajunner

sqnut said:


> I'm not sure about what crunk is running much less his tuning skills, however it's not that tough to beat the ms-8. I tuned two cars one running ms-8 and the other with a bit1. The rest of the equipment was more or less at the same level.
> 
> With the MS-8 I spent about 50 hours on the eq after the auto tune and it sounded really nice.
> 
> The car with the bit1 took a bit longer because I needed to set everything manually tuning took a while. After about 80 hours the car with the bit1 sounded better than the one with the MS-8.
> 
> MS-8 is a great product and you can get really good results, but a processor where you control everything will take you further, imho.


if all you have to work with is 1/3 octave graphic sliders and fixed wide q, and standard electronic crossover controls (none of that selection that includes Butterworth, Chebychev, or Bessel) with a fixed 12 db/oct on highs and 24 db/oct on lows, I think the MS-8 is able to beat that silly.

I mean, no time alignment, no 500 filter bands per side, none of the trick DSP dealio's, old school is good and set up for 2-seater it's still kind of relevant but it's no match for 24 bits of resolution power, I would put even money on the best system tuners of yesteryear, being able to even beat the Kicker FrontRow dsp...


----------



## tyroneshoes

It still put up an OS audiomobile/crystal comp/oz me against current subs and there wont be much difference. Those tc subs just sound great when in the right box and the OZ had about an inch of xmax one way and was efficient as well.

My home theatre uses a 10" OS audiomobie evo (currently) and sometimes an OZ 250L (prior) in 1.7 cuft tuned to 25 hz and they both sound amazing and replaced a dayton HF 10 which they both better imo.


----------



## Ultimateherts

cajunner said:


> if all you have to work with is 1/3 octave graphic sliders and fixed wide q, and standard electronic crossover controls (none of that selection that includes Butterworth, Chebychev, or Bessel) with a fixed 12 db/oct on highs and 24 db/oct on lows, I think the MS-8 is able to beat that silly.
> 
> I mean, no time alignment, no 500 filter bands per side, none of the trick DSP dealio's, old school is good and set up for 2-seater it's still kind of relevant but it's no match for 24 bits of resolution power, I would put even money on the best system tuners of yesteryear, being able to even beat the Kicker FrontRow dsp...


The sources haves changed dramatically overs the years. Now the audio tracks we are receiving are of much less quality as we are more focused on convenience! Disc less is nice, but if I could readily buy todays billboard top 100 songs in cd quality only digitally I would be very excited.


----------



## CBRworm

I myself have moved from a SQ only setup to a setup that gives me the best SQ possible...using an ipod or Bluetooth source 90% of the time. 

I still want the best SQ possible, but not convenience takes priority most of the time. 

I still use a mix of old school MMats and Helix TO3 amps combined with modern DSP and modernish DLS and SEAS drivers. The best of both worlds? 

I was actively watching and participating in car audio from the mid '80s to about '06. I have seen 1980s Regals with 4 12's and a couple 8's behind the back seat w/ massive EQ's and amps replaced by modern cars with a single 12 that sound better using DSP, and weighing hundreds of pounds less.


----------

