# Best High-end SQ Amps Suggestions for Dynaudio Speakers



## mitsukid (Apr 17, 2012)

Would like some opinions on the best high-end amps for Dynaudio Esotar2 430's and 650's. 

I am currently considering Sinfoni and Brax, and would like to hear other's recommendations about these and other amps, particularly from those who have experience with many different brands. Any advice would be appreciated.


----------



## IBcivic (Jan 6, 2009)

Any "quality amp" will work. 
Your budget, available mounting space and available power are the main things to consider.
Brand X speakers + brand Y amplifier = fantastic sound.... is a common misconception.


----------



## qwertydude (Dec 22, 2008)

Any decent amp of sufficient power will sound the same. If you want to increase SQ more then it's better to spend money on a DSP as it will have more an effect on sound quality than spending a ton on an amp.


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

I run JL HD amps on my Esotars. I couldn't tell the slightest difference between my McIntosh and my HDs in sound quality and it was a no brainer with the HDs efficiency and size. I would shoot for at least 150w on the 650s. The Dyns are not inefficient but they sound better the more power you give them and they handle lots of power really well.


----------



## mitsukid (Apr 17, 2012)

I am running an Arc Audio PS8 processor. The Dynaudio speakers are currently powered by JL Audio HD 600/4's. I was thinking that the speakers and processor are much higher end than the amps, so the most improvement could be made with better amps.

I was also thinking that installing a device like the Mobridge DA1 Digital pre-amp would be an improvement since it would allow me to plug the factory toslink cable in the car coming from the head unit into the Mobridge and provide a toslink output that I could plug directly into the PS8 processor. This way I could avoid using the speaker level signal output from the factory amplifier.


----------



## mitsukid (Apr 17, 2012)

BuickGN said:


> I run JL HD amps on my Esotars. I couldn't tell the slightest difference between my McIntosh and my HDs in sound quality and it was a no brainer with the HDs efficiency and size. I would shoot for at least 150w on the 650s. The Dyns are not inefficient but they sound better the more power you give them and they handle lots of power really well.


I am also using JL HD amps: two 600/4s. I have one 430 and one MD102 on the same channel with 150w to each channel. And 300w to each 650.


----------



## turbo5upra (Oct 3, 2008)

pg elite going in to power mine.


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

In that case I would work on tuning. I also have 300w to my 182 mid bass and 150w to each 430 and 110 and its just about right. What is it you feel you're missing? I've run some higher end amps but came back to the HDs.


----------



## mitsukid (Apr 17, 2012)

BuickGN said:


> I run JL HD amps on my Esotars. I couldn't tell the slightest difference between my McIntosh and my HDs in sound quality and it was a no brainer with the HDs efficiency and size. I would shoot for at least 150w on the 650s. The Dyns are not inefficient but they sound better the more power you give them and they handle lots of power really well.


How do you like the Dynaudio MW 182s? I am thinking of adding some more midbass and have been looking at these. The 650s I have are in very small enclosures so are not performing to their full potential, especially at the lower frequencies. I noticed that the frequency curve below 100Hz of the 182s seems to be better than the 650s so I was thinking of adding the 182s to play just between 70Hz and 200Hz.


----------



## gijoe (Mar 25, 2008)

Without sounding like an ass, it sounds like you just want to throw money at the problem, instead of trying to make the best of what you have. You will not get a significant improvement in the sound by changing all of the things that you are suggesting. BuickGN's suggestion about working on the tuning, is going to do much more for you than switching from a very high performance amp to another (more expensive) high performance amp. Tuning and install should be your focus, if after those are perfect you still need more, then maybe you could justify the teeny-tiny difference that those amps could make.


----------



## mitsukid (Apr 17, 2012)

BuickGN said:


> In that case I would work on tuning. I also have 300w to my 182 mid bass and 150w to each 430 and 110 and its just about right. What is it you feel you're missing? I've run some higher end amps but came back to the HDs.


Everything sounds great. If there is anything missing, it would have to be the midbass because of the small enclosures for the 650s (see my other reply to your post). This is my first true SQ install and I was just wondering if there was any sound improvement to be gained by upgrading the amps.


----------



## mitsukid (Apr 17, 2012)

gijoe said:


> Without sounding like an ass, it sounds like you just want to throw money at the problem, instead of trying to make the best of what you have. You will not get a significant improvement in the sound by changing all of the things that you are suggesting. BuickGN's suggestion about working on the tuning, is going to do much more for you than switching from a very high performance amp to another (more expensive) high performance amp. Tuning and install should be your focus, if after those are perfect you still need more, then maybe you could justify the teeny-tiny difference that those amps could make.


Thanks for the advice. I've spent a good amount of time on tuning, probably over 50 hours, but I'm certainly no expert on tuning. I've had local car audio shops listen to the system and made adjustments based on their advice which has definitely improved the sound. I realize that there are some improvements that could be made with the install, primarily with the 650 enclosures and location, but that is going to great deal of time and modifications. This is my first true SQ install and I wanted to get a general idea of what sound improvements could be expected by using very high-end amps.


----------



## gijoe (Mar 25, 2008)

mitsukid said:


> Thanks for the advice. I've spent a good amount of time on tuning, probably over 50 hours, but I'm certainly no expert on tuning. I've had local car audio shops listen to the system and made adjustments based on their advice which has definitely improved the sound. I realize that there are some improvements that could be made with the install, primarily with the 650 enclosures and location, but that is going to great deal of time and modifications. This is my first true SQ install and I wanted to get a general idea of what sound improvements could be expected by using very high-end amps.


High end amps will offer little, if any, improvement to the sound. That doesn't mean they don't have their appeal. It's perfectly reasonable to buy high end equipment, but if you're hoping that high end amps will offer a noticeable improvement to the sound, that's not a very good reason for the switch. You can change the sound of your system significantly more with a basic eq than you can from replacing your perfectly good amps.


----------



## teldzc1 (Oct 9, 2009)

turbo5upra said:


> pg elite going in to power mine.


Post a review when you get the elites. They look really awesome.


----------



## turbo5upra (Oct 3, 2008)

teldzc1 said:


> Post a review when you get the elites. They look really awesome.


already have mine... i've auditioned them also... big fan!


----------



## Viggen (May 2, 2011)

Pg elite amps are quite awesome...... Very pleased with the two elite amps I run


----------



## qwertydude (Dec 22, 2008)

Save the money for the better amps for improving your install. If you need more midbass of course enlarging the enclosure will help.

Right now we have no idea what your install is other than your speakers and amps. The more you can tell us the more we can make suggestions to improve your system. Throwing money at this problem won't solve it, neither will buying platinum plated amplifiers with solid gold cabling and speaker wire elevators.

There's likely some weak point which is hobbling your system. The more we know the more we can help.


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

mitsukid said:


> Everything sounds great. If there is anything missing, it would have to be the midbass because of the small enclosures for the 650s (see my other reply to your post). This is my first true SQ install and I was just wondering if there was any sound improvement to be gained by upgrading the amps.


I would start with letting the 650s breathe. They will produce great mid bass and dig deep. I only switched to the 182s because I bottomed the 650s a couple times with a 70hz high pass. I didn't realize at the time for whatever reason they were running with practically no high pass even though my MS8 was set at 70hz. They sounded great with no signs of stress up until they bottomed. Once you open yours up I doubt you will be wanting more mid bass as long as you're high passing from 63hz and higher. They will go lower and sound great but you might run into their mechanical limits with 300w behind them. 

The 182s are nice because they can be used with no high pass filter if you want. There's decent output at 35hz. They play past 2khz so in a 3-way you have a lot of flexibility in the crossover points. I highpass them between 63-80hz and usually low pass them from 300-800hz depending on what I'm trying to do. The 650 is a better driver no doubt, but in a 3-way the 182s will really slam and sound good doing so and you're giving up very little resolution. They have a small profile and only 3" mounting depth. I've run them with no high pass up to 2000hz and just the 110 tweeters also at 2000hz just for fun and it made a pretty good sounding 2 way even without subs and mids. 

I definitely would not make the switch before giving the 650s some breathing room. I think you will be very happy with them and other than more mid bass/bass output, the 650 is better. I know everyone says to high pass the mid bass as low as you can get away with but now that I have all the mid bass displacement I could want, I find myself still crossing at about the same points as I did with the 650 and running the subs up to 90hz sometimes. 

You have a great set of speakers, a great processor, good amps, but a potential problem with the install. 

Going off topic, have you thought about the 110 tweeter? I added them last but I think they're the star of the Esotar lineup. I still haven't found a good way to mount them though.


----------



## mitsukid (Apr 17, 2012)

qwertydude said:


> Save the money for the better amps for improving your install. If you need more midbass of course enlarging the enclosure will help.
> 
> Right now we have no idea what your install is other than your speakers and amps. The more you can tell us the more we can make suggestions to improve your system. Throwing money at this problem won't solve it, neither will buying platinum plated amplifiers with solid gold cabling and speaker wire elevators.
> 
> There's likely some weak point which is hobbling your system. The more we know the more we can help.


Here are more details on my system:

*Vehicle*: 2011 BMW X5

*Processor:* Arc Audio PS8

*Amps:* 
(2) JL Audio HD 600/4
Arc Audio 4000SE

*Speakers/location/power/crossover points:*

*Pair of Dynaudio Esotec MD102s *
Front doors, factory location (door sail panel)
150W per channel (MD102 and 430 on same channel)
Passive Xover HP @ 4200 Hz

*Pair of Dynaudio Esotar2 430s*
Front doors, factory location
150W per channel (MD102 and 430 on same channel)
Active Xover HP @ 500 Hz with 12db slope

*Pair of Dynaudio Esotar2 650s*
Under Seat, factory location
300W per channel
Active Xover HP @ 80 Hz and LP @1800 Hz both with 12 db slope

*Pair of Pioneer Stage 4 TS-S062PRS 2-5/8" midrange*
Center of dash, center channel, factory location
150W
Active Xover HP @ 500 Hz with 12 db slope

*Pair of Focal Dome 2.0 (4" mid and 1" tweeter)*
Rear - on swivel mount so they can be rotated to face the rear of the car when the tailgate is open
150W total to both - mono signal
Active Xover HP @ 180 Hz with 12db slope (tweeters are passively @ 2500 Hz)

*Critical Mass UL12*
Rear in vented enclosure (wavebox) tuned at 31 Hz
Approx. 1700W
Active Xover HP @ 30 Hz and LP @ 70 Hz both with 12 db slope


Reason for the monster 4000SE amp is I plan to add another UL12.

The parametric equalization is nearly flat for all speakers.

The underseat enclosures were modified to fit the 650s. The enclosure volume is very small with no real practical way to enlarge them because of the very limited surrounding space. There is a factory port/vent (approx. 2" x 4") at the bottom of each enclosure which extends into the sheet metal floor of the car.


----------



## jon w. (Nov 14, 2008)

dear mitsukid,

i believe you may benefit from my tuning services. please see 

Tuning/Mobile

i'd be honored to help you.
jon


----------



## edzyy (Aug 18, 2011)

.....


----------



## turbo5upra (Oct 3, 2008)

much too much going on there imo- the 650's are way too much cash to be playing as a dedicated midbass. I'd be using something else if unless I was going 2 way. The 430's should be coming down to around 200-250hz- depending on output needed. The midbass should be playing from 50- 200 or 250... then start to blend the tweeter in at 5k and work from there. 

I also would leave the center channel out at first as well as the rear tweeters... once you have a solid tune you can reevaluate using them.


----------



## avanti1960 (Sep 24, 2011)

I keep seeing these threads about high end amps ultimately being compared to (for example) a JL HD amp. 
I have JL amps and am in the same boat- would I realize better (noticeable) sound quality with a Helix competition amp, for example, which score near the top of the list rated on sound quality category in the European publications. 

I wonder if McIntosh are not as good as the euro amps- it seems like the Mac mobile amps are discontinued (not available on their site). 

Basically I have tuned my system to death, have good quality drivers, etc and still find it tune sensitive- and harsh on occasion. The overall sound quality is excellent, but maybe I had to spend lots of time to tune out the amplifier's harsh characteristics?
Maybe a smoother higher end amp (e.g. Helix, Mosconi) would be easier to tune because it isn't so sensitive- you wouldn't have to worry so much about tuning out any objectionable characteristics?


----------



## qwertydude (Dec 22, 2008)

Even with a perfect tune you have to realize that there are differences in the recordings you play.

I can tell with different albums on CD even with the same band the recording process can be entirely different. Then it could change depending on the genre and even recording house. My Telarc CD's are always consistent, some of my generic classical recordings are all over the place, some with bass -12 db from the rest of the signal it seems, or with way over boosted midrange.


----------



## mitsukid (Apr 17, 2012)

avanti1960 said:


> I keep seeing these threads about high end amps ultimately being compared to (for example) a JL HD amp.
> I have JL amps and am in the same boat- would I realize better (noticeable) sound quality with a Helix competition amp, for example, which score near the top of the list rated on sound quality category in the European publications.
> 
> I wonder if McIntosh are not as good as the euro amps- it seems like the Mac mobile amps are discontinued (not available on their site).
> ...



Yes, I've read many threads where most say there is little to be gained, or even no audible difference, between a quality amp and a high-end amp. And I've seen posts like this one - Amps & SQ - Sound Quality Discussion - Car Audio & Entertainment - where it is said that amps can make a considerable difference. Read the last post where they say a JL amp, although they don't say which one, was tested and it didn't compare to the others.


----------



## t3sn4f2 (Jan 3, 2007)

mitsukid said:


> I am running an Arc Audio PS8 processor. The Dynaudio speakers are currently powered by JL Audio HD 600/4's. I was thinking that the speakers and processor are much higher end than the amps, so the most improvement could be made with better amps.
> 
> I was also thinking that installing a device like the Mobridge DA1 Digital pre-amp would be an improvement since it would allow me to plug the factory toslink cable in the car coming from the head unit into the Mobridge and provide a toslink output that I could plug directly into the PS8 processor. This way I could avoid using the speaker level signal output from the factory amplifier.


I'd definitely get that digital preamp.


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

turbo5upra said:


> much too much going on there imo- the 650's are way too much cash to be playing as a dedicated midbass. I'd be using something else if unless I was going 2 way. The 430's should be coming down to around 200-250hz- depending on output needed. The midbass should be playing from 50- 200 or 250... then start to blend the tweeter in at 5k and work from there.
> 
> I also would leave the center channel out at first as well as the rear tweeters... once you have a solid tune you can reevaluate using them.


I was going to question being under the seats too. I would think under the seat and playing only to 250hz, displacement might be important and the qualities that make the 650 so good will never be seen in the way it's being used. I figured since he already bought it and since it has a nice midbass punch and as much displacement as the Dyn 8" he might as well keep it.


----------



## mitsukid (Apr 17, 2012)

turbo5upra said:


> much too much going on there imo- the 650's are way too much cash to be playing as a dedicated midbass. I'd be using something else if unless I was going 2 way. The 430's should be coming down to around 200-250hz- depending on output needed. The midbass should be playing from 50- 200 or 250... then start to blend the tweeter in at 5k and work from there.
> 
> I also would leave the center channel out at first as well as the rear tweeters... once you have a solid tune you can reevaluate using them.



I've approached the tuning basically the way you have suggested - with the center channel and rear speakers off, and often with the sub off. I get a good tune with only the Dynaudio speakers (102s, 430s, and 650s) and then add the center, the sub, and the rears. The rear mids/tweets are turned down relative to the front so there is no rear localization.

I've tried the 430s at 250 Hz and they play way too loud and break up fairly quickly. The Dynaudio dealer I bought them from also suggested to cross them over higher (around 500 Hz) for this reason.

As for the 650s, I've tried many different band passes - 60, 70, 80, 90, and 100 to 200, 250, 500, 1000, 2000, etc... If I go below 80 Hz or if I boost output around 80 to 100 Hz, I will often get overextension depending on the music. I attribute this to the small enclosure which they are in.


----------



## 07azhhr (Dec 28, 2011)

mitsukid said:


> Here are more details on my system:
> 
> *Vehicle*: 2011 BMW X5
> 
> ...


That is a big overlap for the midrange by playing the 650's up to 1800. Limiting then to 250 or so will let you give them a strong signal by allowing them to focus on just midbass frequencies. 

Having looked ad plots for the 430's hey certainly seem to be able to play down to 250 nicely. This gets the majority of the vocals playing as wid as possible insted of having a good amount coming off the floor directly under your legs. 

I also see that you are letting the 430's play to natural roll off. This may not be bad at all. But have you tried having a LP filter on them? You would then be able to play the 102's lower without worry of overlapping the two.


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

Not running a low pass on the 430s might be the reason for the breakup. I've tried mine at 180hz for the heck of it with 150w available and I've never had any sort of breakup. There was a time I thought I did but it was the enclosure resonating. Xmax is good for a midrange and xmech is nearly an inch peak to peak. I cant see having any issues at full tilt above 200hz. I would check for resonances and use a high pass, starting around 3,500hz. The 102 tweeters have no problem playing 2,200hz loudly so you have some wiggle room. I've run mine IB and in a small enclosure and they do well in both. 

I run mine 400-3.8khz currently. I've run them at 180-250hz but I lose stage width so 400 is what I settled on. Plus the 9s are always going to have an easier time reproducing 200hz. 

I also don't see the point in the huge midbass to midrange overlap especially with the 650s under the seat. Maybe a 300hz LP on the 650, say an 80hz to 300hz bandpass and 300hz - 3.5khz bandpass on the 430s would be a good starting point. 

How much work will it take to open up the 650 enclosure? How much work would it take to try the MW182 9" keeping in mind they're only 3" deep? With the location and bandpass, you will probably only gain sound quality from going larger.


----------



## mitsukid (Apr 17, 2012)

Okay, based on the suggestions, here are some changes I've made:

Pair of Dynaudio Esotar2 430s
Xover changed from HP @ 500 Hz with 12db slope 
to HP @ 400 Hz with 12 db slope

Pair of Dynaudio Esotar2 650s
Xover changed from HP @ 80 Hz and LP @1800 Hz both with 12 db slope 
to HP @ 80 Hz and LP @400 Hz both with 12 db slope 

Pair of Pioneer Stage 4 TS-S062PRS 2-5/8" midrange
Xover changed from HP @ 500 Hz with 12 db slope
to Hp @ 400 Hz with 12 db slope

These changes did improve the sound. However, interestingly, another change I made resulted in a bigger improvement. There was a harshness coming form the 430s and the Pioneer Stage 4's (center channel). I kept experimenting with different band passes to identify the frequencies which I determined were occurring between about 1250 Hz and 5000 Hz. 

So I cut the output in this range on the parametric equalizer with a gradual decrease starting at 1250Hz to a maximum (-2.25 db) at 2500 Hz and then a gradual increase back up to 5000 Hz.

I did the same with the Pioneer Stage 4's, but with a steeper cut at a max of -4.50 db at 2500 Hz. I'm guessing a steeper cut was necessary since these speakers are more sensitive to that frequency range.

Do you think this harshness could be due to the JL amplifiers?


As for other suggestions that have been made:

I can't run the MD102's actively unless I run new speaker cables, which sounds like something I should plan to do in the future.

I may be able to find a way to fit Esotar2 110s and replace the MD102s with them. BuickGN made this recommendation. I'm wondering how much improvement everyone thinks these would be over the MD102's?

As far as increasing the under-seat enclosure of the 650s, that's not going to be possible without major modifications. And before I even consider doing the modifications, I would want to listen to some 650s in larger enclosures to hear how much improvement there is to gain.

Thanks for everyone's suggestions so far.


----------



## teldzc1 (Oct 9, 2009)

I think you should add a LP to the 430 as others have suggested. You'll probably need less eq after that. Also, do you have steeper slopes on the crossover?


----------



## mitsukid (Apr 17, 2012)

teldzc1 said:


> I think you should add a LP to the 430 as others have suggested. You'll probably need less eq after that. Also, do you have steeper slopes on the crossover?


I have the options of crossover slopes from 6db to 48db in 6db increments. Also can choose between Butterworth, Linkwitz-Riley, Variable Q, or Bessel, and am currently using Butterworth.


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

I've experienced no harshness with that same combo of amps, processor, and tweeters. 

I didn't mean you should replace the 102s with the 110s to solve any problems you're currently having, just a suggestion for a future upgrade. I started no less than 4 threads on whether they would be an improvement over the 102 in a 3-way where they're not required to play as low. After a year, one of the guys that had some never installed 110s for sale was passing through town and let me try them. I literally unplugged the 102s and plugged in the 110s in the parking lot just sitting on top of the dash with no tuning and immediately there was a massive difference. Even with a 4khz crossover point the difference was more than I could have imagined. You will gain detail and top end sparkle and more snap to instruments but without being harsh. They transformed the whole system, I had no idea a tweeter could make this kind of difference, especially going from an already good tweeter. I know this is a little off topic. 

Are you not able to low pass the mids because they share a channel with the tweeters on a passive crossover?


----------



## mitsukid (Apr 17, 2012)

BuickGN said:


> I've experienced no harshness with that same combo of amps, processor, and tweeters.
> 
> I didn't mean you should replace the 102s with the 110s to solve any problems you're currently having, just a suggestion for a future upgrade. I started no less than 4 threads on whether they would be an improvement over the 102 in a 3-way where they're not required to play as low. After a year, one of the guys that had some never installed 110s for sale was passing through town and let me try them. I literally unplugged the 102s and plugged in the 110s in the parking lot just sitting on top of the dash with no tuning and immediately there was a massive difference. Even with a 4khz crossover point the difference was more than I could have imagined. You will gain detail and top end sparkle and more snap to instruments but without being harsh. They transformed the whole system, I had no idea a tweeter could make this kind of difference, especially going from an already good tweeter. I know this is a little off topic.
> 
> Are you not able to low pass the mids because they share a channel with the tweeters on a passive crossover?


That's right, the 430s and the 102s are on the same channel with a passive crossover on the tweeter. I guess I should run more speaker wires so I can run each of them active and run a low pass on the 430 starting around 3.5kHz as you have suggested.

Thanks for the info on the comparison between the 102s and the 110s. That will definitely be a future upgrade for me.

Strange that I am getting the harshness in both the 430s and the Pioneer Stage 4s. If it's not coming from the amplifiers, I don't know what could be causing it other than possibly it is somehow originating from the input signal into the PS8?


----------



## 07azhhr (Dec 28, 2011)

Have you tried the 430's without the stage 4's and the stage 4's without the 430's to see if it truely is all of them?


----------



## mitsukid (Apr 17, 2012)

07azhhr said:


> Have you tried the 430's without the stage 4's and the stage 4's without the 430's to see if it truely is all of them?


Yes, I tuned them separately, with only one channel on at a time.


----------



## 6spdcoupe (Jan 12, 2006)

The 650s are being wasted under the seats. While there is adequate airspace (the enclosure is vented) there is no advantage to having them, especially crossed anything higher than 200 or so. Look into a different driver and if you're really concerned with getting more mid bass consider an array per door .. 
Produkte Doorboards Soundsystems | Bmw | X5 | Bmw X5 E70 Suv %C2%BB Ab Bj 112006 %C2%AB 75191 Doorboards Mit 3 Wege Soundsystem | Jehnert Sound Design Automotive


----------



## avanti1960 (Sep 24, 2011)

qwertydude said:


> Even with a perfect tune you have to realize that there are differences in the recordings you play.
> 
> I can tell with different albums on CD even with the same band the recording process can be entirely different. Then it could change depending on the genre and even recording house. My Telarc CD's are always consistent, some of my generic classical recordings are all over the place, some with bass -12 db from the rest of the signal it seems, or with way over boosted midrange.


understood and agreed. still the question- are higher end amps more forgiving and easier to achieve a high quality tune?


----------



## avanti1960 (Sep 24, 2011)

mitsukid said:


> Yes, I've read many threads where most say there is little to be gained, or even no audible difference, between a quality amp and a high-end amp. And I've seen posts like this one - Amps & SQ - Sound Quality Discussion - Car Audio & Entertainment - where it is said that amps can make a considerable difference. Read the last post where they say a JL amp, although they don't say which one, was tested and it didn't compare to the others.


thanks for the link- very interesting side note. i'm pretty convinced that a higher end amp is in my future based on that and other info.


----------



## turbo5upra (Oct 3, 2008)

avanti1960 said:


> understood and agreed. still the question- are higher end amps more forgiving and easier to achieve a high quality tune?


I would say headroom is biggest factor- a cheap amp that only idles along will outperform a low output high end amp... 

I'm not in that camp that thinks all amps sound the same- I've heard the hd's sound really good- just not a huge fan of the sq of the 900/5 after swapping to a g/h based amp- then again can only ask so much of something that size running 20 to 20...


----------



## edzyy (Aug 18, 2011)

turbo5upra said:


> I would say headroom is biggest factor- a cheap amp that only idles along will outperform a low output high end amp...
> 
> I'm not in that camp that thinks all amps sound the same- I've heard the hd's sound really good- just not a huge fan of the sq of the 900/5 after swapping to a g/h based amp- then again can only ask so much of something that size running 20 to 20...


x2

Headroom>"high end amp sq"


----------



## gijoe (Mar 25, 2008)

I certainly believe that headroom is a good thing, but at the same time I think it can be a little over-rated. Being able to play the dynamic sections of music can certainly require extra power, but generally, at normal listening levels, most amps have enough power to do that without a problem. The amps that you're using right now should get plenty loud while still maintaining the dynamics. You may notice a difference at higher levels, but even then I'd say that in a moving vehicle that is unlikely. High priced, high end amps have their place, but they themselves shouldn't cause a noticeable difference in the sound quality. Adding a lot more power might make a small difference, but simply switching from a good quality amp to a luxury amp won't.


----------



## Hanatsu (Nov 9, 2010)

avanti1960 said:


> understood and agreed. still the question- are higher end amps more forgiving and easier to achieve a high quality tune?


In my opinion, no. Used a ton of different amps, tried some very high end stuff like Brax and Sinfoni way back. I was very much under the impression that changing amps made a huge increase in SQ. After I made some controlled listening tests I couldn't hear as much difference as I'd hope, nowadays I rather go for efficient class D designs.

I find it funny that lots of people complaining about harshness and stuff and blame the amps for it. If you got decent speakers and enough power form the amp to drive them, I'd say it's 99% about the environment (car's interior) and the means to compensate for it (DSP and install locations). My computer system (a cheap logitech z5500) sound very natural and lack any form of harshness. The fullrange speakers, a "OEM" version of TB w3-871s ain't even good drivers, yet staging and tonality is great. Why is that? It's because they are located on my desk in very large room and NOT in the car. It's the car's environment we should blame, not the equipment. Most "decent" equipment do a very adequate job doing what they are doing. 

Also, in my opinion the DSP in a P99RS is inadequate to tune a system to the fullest. The lack of EQ on each set of speakers made me buy an external DSP instead. THIS made my system a millions times easier to get right.

The OP got a great DSP, I'd keep all the equipment and work on the install and tuning. There's where the real improvements will be found.


----------



## edzyy (Aug 18, 2011)

Luxury amp?


----------



## avanti1960 (Sep 24, 2011)

Hanatsu said:


> In my opinion, no. Used a ton of different amps, tried some very high end stuff like Brax and Sinfoni way back. I was very much under the impression that changing amps made a huge increase in SQ. After I made some controlled listening tests I couldn't hear as much difference as I'd hope, nowadays I rather go for efficient class D designs.
> 
> I find it funny that lots of people complaining about harshness and stuff and blame the amps for it. If you got decent speakers and enough power form the amp to drive them, I'd say it's 99% about the environment (car's interior) and the means to compensate for it (DSP and install locations). My computer system (a cheap logitech z5500) sound very natural and lack any form of harshness. The fullrange speakers, a "OEM" version of TB w3-871s ain't even good drivers, yet staging and tonality is great. Why is that? It's because they are located on my desk in very large room and NOT in the car. It's the car's environment we should blame, not the equipment. Most "decent" equipment do a very adequate job doing what they are doing.
> 
> ...


personally I have replaced amplifiers that have reduced the harshness factor. granted they were very cheap amps but it made a difference nonetheless. 
some class d amps have an "edgy" sound that is compounded by the issues of the system being in a car interior- reflectivity of ear sensitive frequencies, bass cancellations and comb filtering effects. in other words, the car installation can magnify any harshness present in the amp or program material. it is not easy to tune this out. some cars / vehicles are likely worse contributors to harshness than others. 
i still wonder that since going from cheap to decent amp made a big improvement, will going from decent to high end make any improvement- especially in a vehicle that is probably one of the worst in terms of unfriendly acoustics? 

i would be interested to understand how you used individual driver EQ to help tune your system. conventional wisdom says that if you have an active system and left / right EQ, crossover freq and slopes you should be able to acomplish the same thing.


----------



## TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL (Jan 31, 2011)

You usually have far more eq control with eq per channel than eq per side, along with parametric eq. Ive banged my head against this multiple times with my p99, graphic eq just isnt good enough. Even when I set up my home system with the p99, there wasnt enough eq to fix some areas.


----------



## Hanatsu (Nov 9, 2010)

TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL said:


> You usually have far more eq control with eq per channel than eq per side, along with parametric eq. Ive banged my head against this multiple times with my p99, graphic eq just isnt good enough. Even when I set up my home system with the p99, there wasnt enough eq to fix some areas.


This ^^

and... You can't EQ the crossover region between drivers. It's very important IMO.


----------



## avanti1960 (Sep 24, 2011)

Hanatsu said:


> This ^^
> 
> and... You can't EQ the crossover region between drivers. It's very important IMO.


thanks for the info gents. it would be helpful if you mention what specific issues you had -examples- and what did they sound like- and how did you use the parametric and EQ per channel to solve the issue. 
maybe additional processing is a worthy investment.


----------



## Hanatsu (Nov 9, 2010)

avanti1960 said:


> thanks for the info gents. it would be helpful if you mention what specific issues you had -examples- and what did they sound like- and how did you use the parametric and EQ per channel to solve the issue.
> maybe additional processing is a worthy investment.


Additional processing is a very worthwhile investation. The area between 120-250Hz are filled with issues in the frequency response in most cars. I had issues at 140 and 180Hz, the GEQ in the P99 couldn't touch those. Male vocals are much better now. The FR from my door speakers and my 3" midranges are completely different in the 170-250Hz area. Impossible to fix the crossover region without EQing each driver seperately. Much of the EQing done with a graphicEQ are actually at the wrong places, you want to pull down 7kHz? You can't. You have to mess with 6,3/8kHz bands which screws something else up. I had exactly this issue too, a 3dB peak centered at 7kHz... obvious sibliance at some songs, I got rid of the issue by reducing 6,3/8kHz but then I lowered the entire FR from 5,5-9kHz which made the highs sound dull instead =/

You'd be surprised how much better individual EQ with parametric function is over the p99's GEQ. Best audio upgrade of my entire system. 

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy 3 via Tapatalk.


----------



## TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL (Jan 31, 2011)

avanti1960 said:


> thanks for the info gents. it would be helpful if you mention what specific issues you had -examples- and what did they sound like- and how did you use the parametric and EQ per channel to solve the issue.
> maybe additional processing is a worthy investment.


In home, I had a peak at 70hz, that was only a few hertz wide. With the GEQ on the P99, I could play with 63hz, and 80hz. But if I try to fix 70hz with 63hz and 80hz, is messes up the surrounding frequencies, without fully fixing 70hz. With a good PEQ, I could deal with the issue at 70hz, and set the Q as to not mess with anything but the area of interest.


----------



## Hanatsu (Nov 9, 2010)

Also, the parametric EQ is extra useful in the low frequencies, below the Schroeder frequency. Since the FR varies very little below this point depending on location we can use pretty narrow filters here (high Q). Often narrow filters are needed in the lows, especially the midbass region. GEQ only got mid Q filters of ~4,3 at fixed center frequencies.


----------



## avanti1960 (Sep 24, 2011)

thanks for the info gents- understood. 
right now i would be looking at a rockford 360.3 because I need (8) input channels- the helix and mosconi are 6 inputs- the bit one appears discontinued. 
i'm not sure the overall sq would be that much better- my crossover between midrange and midbass is 1.2K- well away from the midbass region.


----------



## Hanatsu (Nov 9, 2010)

Why do you require 8 inputs btw? 

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy 3 via Tapatalk.


----------



## avanti1960 (Sep 24, 2011)

2 front midbass
2 front wideband/ tweeter passive
2 rear passive components
2 sub out


----------



## Hanatsu (Nov 9, 2010)

Yeah but inputs? You can derive all 8 ch outs from 2ch input. Since you have a P99 you can still have some level control and such if you seperate the channels, but I only find extra subwoofer control to be useful. I'm using one output on the P99 for sub, the other one fullrange to the DSP.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy 3 via Tapatalk.


----------



## bbfoto (Aug 28, 2005)

Hanatsu said:


> Yeah but inputs? You can derive all 8 ch outs from 2ch input. Since you have a P99 you can still have some level control and such if you seperate the channels, but I only find extra subwoofer control to be useful. I'm using one output on the P99 for sub, the other one fullrange to the DSP.
> 
> Sent from my Samsung Galaxy 3 via Tapatalk.


Agreed. I don't know why you'd need 8 INPUT Channels for your setup, Avanti1960.  Also, I think the harshness you occasionally encounter is related to tuning and probably the BA tweeters.


----------



## bbfoto (Aug 28, 2005)

mitsukid said:


> I am running an Arc Audio PS8 processor....
> 
> I was also thinking that installing a device like the Mobridge DA1 Digital pre-amp would be an improvement since it would allow me to plug the factory toslink cable in the car coming from the head unit into the Mobridge and provide a toslink output that I could plug directly into the PS8 processor. This way I could avoid using the speaker level signal output from the factory amplifier.


Has the Remote Controller for the PS8 been released to the public yet? I haven't been following up on that lately. Double-check with Arc Audio, but AFAIK you Must Have their wired Remote in order to use the TOSLINK digital Input. That will be your only way to switch the input source, and control master volume (you need this when using a digital input).

I would want to confirm this with Arc before you drop $$$ on the Mobridge.


----------



## avanti1960 (Sep 24, 2011)

True enough. Showing my lack of understanding about outboard processors. Two input channels would be enough.


----------



## Hanatsu (Nov 9, 2010)

bbfoto said:


> Also, I think the harshness you occasionally encounter is related to tuning and probably the BA tweeters.


My thoughts as well. Very unlikely it's the amp imo.


----------



## avanti1960 (Sep 24, 2011)

bbfoto said:


> Agreed. I don't know why you'd need 8 INPUT Channels for your setup, Avanti1960.  Also, I think the harshness you occasionally encounter is related to tuning and probably the BA tweeters.


the harshness is pretty much gone but the sound is still not "pefect" like a home system. 
My BA tweeters are awesome- they are the textile domes and crossed above 8Khz. Best tweeter for my personal tastes and can be run on-axis without issue. 
tuning runs a fine line between clarity and definition, occasional harshness or a muted OEM fletcher munson sound. 
it seems like getting a full even response in a car is a risky proposition and a difficult tune- that if you have any presence of midrange or ear sensitive frequencies the glass and other hard surfaces will create these hot spots that become perceived as harshness. 
i'm betting that my 1/6 octave RTA may not be picking up the whole story either- although my understanding says that narrow low Q spikes need not be dealt with.


----------



## Hanatsu (Nov 9, 2010)

Low Q peaks are VERY important to deal with, high Q peaks on the other hand are less audible, however if you hit that certain note where the high Q peak is, it's gonna be nasty.

Skip the RTA, use the output on your computer into the AUX-in on the P99 and run sweeps (download RoomEQ). Then you can see very detailed FR measurements, distortion and waterfall. I'm confident you'll find the issue in one of those three. Reflections causing comb filtering can cause listening fatigue and sound slightly harsh even if the FR is tamed. Avoiding stock locations behind panels and such can sometimes fix this issue.


----------



## avanti1960 (Sep 24, 2011)

thanks as always for your suggestions. typo with respect to high q low q, i have tamed the wide low q peaks but probably have some narrow high q peaks that i cannot see with the 1/6 octave RTA. I have REW and will give it another try- it definitely has higher resolution than my version of True RTA. 

However, I feel this effort will not help much because I believe the source of the occasional harshness / edginess / lack of absolute quality is the rear components mixing with the front and causing comb filtering. 
The rear focal comps are quite bright and really add mid / high content to the front stage. 
When I mute the rear channels and re-tune the EQ accordingly the sound is near perfect. Harshness gone, stage is dead on and never moves, and with just a few tweaks of the EQ I have better tonality than a year's worth of RTA trying to make the rear drivers part of the mix. 
it is sad because the sound is more spatial and three dimensional, wider stage etc. with the rear drivers engaged. plus a useless set of expensive comps and (2) amp channels. 
i may have given up on the rear fill idea at long last.
at least i know for sure that it isn't the amplifiers.


----------



## Hanatsu (Nov 9, 2010)

Rear fill is very hard to get right. With the P99's DSP it's on the verge to impossible to integrate well. The FR from the rear will very likely be completely different than the fronts, since it doesn't have individual EQ, you're left with crossover control only. Rears can be used successfully, you need lots of time and an external DSP for that imo. Ambiance can be added with rears delayed in time with a bandpass filter from perhaps 300-3500Hz or so. Rears can also be used for acoustical reasons, cancel out room modes and stuff. Tried this lately with great results, lots of trial and error = time consuming... it can archive things electronic processing can't do. Using rears in fullrange mode most often destroys the front stage IME.


----------



## mitsukid (Apr 17, 2012)

bbfoto said:


> Has the Remote Controller for the PS8 been released to the public yet? I haven't been following up on that lately. Double-check with Arc Audio, but AFAIK you Must Have their wired Remote in order to use the TOSLINK digital Input. That will be your only way to switch the input source, and control master volume (you need this when using a digital input).
> 
> I would want to confirm this with Arc before you drop $$$ on the Mobridge.



I'm pretty sure it hasn't been released yet. I asked Arc about it a few weeks ago and it wasn't available then.

I think you are right about needing the controller to use the TOSLINK input. Thanks for the good info.

Do you have any experience with using a Mobridge? Do you think there would be much improvement in using the digital signal input vs. the speaker level inputs?


----------



## avanti1960 (Sep 24, 2011)

Hanatsu said:


> Rear fill is very hard to get right. With the P99's DSP it's on the verge to impossible to integrate well. The FR from the rear will very likely be completely different than the fronts, since it doesn't have individual EQ, you're left with crossover control only. Rears can be used successfully, you need lots of time and an external DSP for that imo. Ambiance can be added with rears delayed in time with a bandpass filter from perhaps 300-3500Hz or so. Rears can also be used for acoustical reasons, cancel out room modes and stuff. Tried this lately with great results, lots of trial and error = time consuming... it can archive things electronic processing can't do. Using rears in fullrange mode most often destroys the front stage IME.


i have it sounding very good- even frequently great- but once i heard the lack of destructive interference while muting the rear channels i have to try and tune the front stage without them- possibly having them ready to go if i have rear passengers. 
i thought about a processor with dolby surround sound for the rear channels (have this on my home stereo and like the depth, especially during live concert recordings)- but the price of admission is too great- e.g. MS-8 or PXA-H800 w/ controller. 
my other option is 3-way active on the front stage. 
just a bummer having the rear doors filled with "dummy" components.


----------



## mitsukid (Apr 17, 2012)

UPDATE

As I mentioned earlier, I was getting a harsh sound from my front left and right channels and center channel.

Front Left and Front Right:
(1) Dynaudio Esotec MD102 and (1) Esotar2 430 (per channel) powered by JL Audio HD 600/4 (each channel with 150 watts)

Center channel:
(2) Pioneer Stage 4 2-5/8" midranges powered by JL Audio HD 600/4 (150 watts)

I just picked up a used Sinfoni Grave and connected it to my MD102's and 430's. I changed the equalization (which I had changed to tune out the harshness) back to flat, and now the harshness is gone.

The Grave is rated at 165 watts per channel at 4 ohms, but with a MD102 and 430 on each channel, it's running a 2.67 ohm load which puts output around 265 watts per channel. It's not a direct comparison since the JL is only rated at 150 watts per channel. I would need to bridge the JL (300 watts per channel) to get a more direct comparison, which I may do soon.

But the harsh sound is gone so it's either due to the greater headroom or related to the design/components of the amplifier.


----------

