ok so I finally decided Ishould intall the outlaw and bandit
outlaw will drive
a single xmax 12 off of the M100 part bridged
a pair of focal 6W2 off of the M50
bandit will be used for a pair of focal 4W2 and matching tweet with the passive
I would rather go fully active for the front stage, but would need another 2 channels to do so
any advice/opinions on what would be best?
install advice
-
itchnertamatoa
- Itchy Tomato
- Posts: 2301
- Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2006 1:15 am
- Location: TAHITI
- Contact:
I know for certain if I had those amps and it were me, I would be running the M100 side to what ever subs I were using, and I would take the M50 side and bridge it into the front right passive component set, with the Bandit running the front left passive component set.
No rear fill or active crossovers aside from the bass to treble transition would be used.
No rear fill or active crossovers aside from the bass to treble transition would be used.
-
itchnertamatoa
- Itchy Tomato
- Posts: 2301
- Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2006 1:15 am
- Location: TAHITI
- Contact:
If you use doc's route, you will need a 3-way passive crossover (I'm not sure if you have it or not), since all of the front speakers will be driven off 2 channels.
If you go your route you'll need to have an external active crossover, unless you want to play the midbass speakers in either high or low pass.
I used to power my fron ADS comps off a 600ti and my midbass speakers off another 600ti, however, I had to use a 3-way active crossover.
Probably the cheapest was to get around this is use passive midbass crossovers (focal makes some, I have a set 165KBE). That way you can run your entire front 3-way off 2 channel (sorry about the redundancy).
If you go your route you'll need to have an external active crossover, unless you want to play the midbass speakers in either high or low pass.
I used to power my fron ADS comps off a 600ti and my midbass speakers off another 600ti, however, I had to use a 3-way active crossover.
Probably the cheapest was to get around this is use passive midbass crossovers (focal makes some, I have a set 165KBE). That way you can run your entire front 3-way off 2 channel (sorry about the redundancy).
-
itchnertamatoa
- Itchy Tomato
- Posts: 2301
- Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2006 1:15 am
- Location: TAHITI
- Contact:
Ditch the EPX if you can.
Having worked for Rockford, I now the details on that unit’s long and spotted past. The EPX, and EPX2 hold the Rockford corporate record for lowest reliability and lowest quality.
I ran one in my car for a week before I became totally sick of it and scrapped the idea.
Turn on pops, background hiss, noises when changing filters, and the worst of the worst, non constant Q adjustments which made tuning the system nearly impossible. Adjust one band and the adjacent bands change significantly also. With an AudioControl product for example, the bands are constant Q and changing one band will have a minimal affect on the adjacent bands.
Even with an RTA the EPX was a royal pain to setup.
Having worked for Rockford, I now the details on that unit’s long and spotted past. The EPX, and EPX2 hold the Rockford corporate record for lowest reliability and lowest quality.
I ran one in my car for a week before I became totally sick of it and scrapped the idea.
Turn on pops, background hiss, noises when changing filters, and the worst of the worst, non constant Q adjustments which made tuning the system nearly impossible. Adjust one band and the adjacent bands change significantly also. With an AudioControl product for example, the bands are constant Q and changing one band will have a minimal affect on the adjacent bands.
Even with an RTA the EPX was a royal pain to setup.
I'm behind Eric on this one. You'd get the full output from the amplifiers, plus you would more than make up for the passive crossovers by giving the speakers more power. Then you can use equalization to get it where you want from there.
Also, I ran those two Xmax with no problems on 250w. Running the pair off of the M100 would be absolutely no problem if you have the room and/or lust for retarded amounts of bass.
Also, I ran those two Xmax with no problems on 250w. Running the pair off of the M100 would be absolutely no problem if you have the room and/or lust for retarded amounts of bass.
The majority of the top home audio speakers in the world use passive components. The benefit of active setups is marginal at best for car audio, other then for use with low frequency filters where the component sizes are simply to large and expensive to be practical.
Bi-amping is a useful practice, but passive crossovers are still untouched by active ones for the ability to blend components together.
Until mainstream crossovers can do multiple slopes and filter styles all in one unit, and with different settings for the high and low or mid pass filters, passives win out for overall performance and cost effectiveness.
But, like your opinion, this is just my opinion.
Bi-amping is a useful practice, but passive crossovers are still untouched by active ones for the ability to blend components together.
Until mainstream crossovers can do multiple slopes and filter styles all in one unit, and with different settings for the high and low or mid pass filters, passives win out for overall performance and cost effectiveness.
But, like your opinion, this is just my opinion.
Eric D wrote:The majority of the top home audio speakers in the world use passive components. The benefit of active setups is marginal at best for car audio, other then for use with low frequency filters where the component sizes are simply to large and expensive to be practical.
Bi-amping is a useful practice, but passive crossovers are still untouched by active ones for the ability to blend components together.
Until mainstream crossovers can do multiple slopes and filter styles all in one unit, and with different settings for the high and low or mid pass filters, passives win out for overall performance and cost effectiveness.
But, like your opinion, this is just my opinion.
I think why most home speaker system have passive networks 99% of the time is for these three reasons.
1.) Easier to sell as "plug and play"
2.) Your avg person is a fucking tard and will try to tune an active set up w/o any testing equipment which = HELL ON EARTH.
3.) The Placement of drivers in home towers is a different world then then placement of drivers 99% of the time in car audio, making it impossible to compare the two IMO.
The main reason in a car why I think active is supireior, is how can any company design a passive xover and expect it work well in every set up? It wont and never will. Every car's response is different, how the drivers sits, speaker placement, ect.....and the only way I've found to make up for these things is to go active and design your own network optimizes your speakers to the best of their ability. You also by going active bypass any all problems passive xover face w/ impedence and sensitivity.
But both have their place IMHO.
Can one send others to war if hes not willing to go himself?
Those are very good points, but the problem these days is the lack of flexibility with active crossovers. Other than crossover point, they offer little adjustment.
If a component set is properly designed in the first place, it will work well in the majority of vehicles and any additional tuning can be done with an EQ. Many manufacturers design passive crossovers for performance on a display board in a shop. This is not good for people in car audio. However some design them for performance in a car audio environment where off axis performance is critical. A properly designed passive system will never be beaten by any mainstream active unit on the market today.
This is a simple list of the bad points I see to active setups.
Complexity:
Active systems are more complex with more room for error as far as noise or improper installation is concerned.
Wasteful of Power:
Using two expensive amps to power 4 speakers vs a single more powerful amp is a waste of power. Clean power is the number one cause of good sound, and throwing away so much power, but then demanding a high SPL output is a recipe for blown speakers, distortion, and an unhappy customer.
Performance:
A well designed passive crossover will be tailored to the speakers used, not just generic. For example, use of most Seas speakers requires the use of a specific notch filter which eliminates noises from cone resonances. No mainstream active crossover can perform this task.
Impedance Compensation:
A properly designed crossover will improve impedance characteristics of tweeters and midranges, and present less work on an amplifier, which will in turn improve performance. But, a passive could be just as easily made wrong and present a more challenging load to an amp, but this is not often the case with quality components.
Signal Quality:
A well designed passive, operating below saturation will not color the signal like the addition of yet another active component will. Poor quality op-amps, ADCs, and DACs (if the unit has them) along with even more low grade electrolytic capacitors in the signal chain further damage the original signal.
Reliability:
As a bonus, most passives include some sort of tweeter protection. And, depending on the complexity of the passive, some also will protect mids from harmful DC in the event of amplifier failure.
Flexibility:
Some passives these days offer tweeter attenuation, tweeter phase, midrange contour, axis compensation, and more. And they do all of this well maintaining the correct blending between the components, which is nearly impossible for the DIY guy to pull off on his own.
Now, for the record, I am not saying active crossovers are junk. I just don’t see the benefit from them in car audio, yet. Some day when I can get an active crossover with variable slope, frequency, phase, notch filtering, and top notch build quality, all in a simple single chassis unit compatible with any analog inputs and outputs, then I will be getting one in my hands.
If a component set is properly designed in the first place, it will work well in the majority of vehicles and any additional tuning can be done with an EQ. Many manufacturers design passive crossovers for performance on a display board in a shop. This is not good for people in car audio. However some design them for performance in a car audio environment where off axis performance is critical. A properly designed passive system will never be beaten by any mainstream active unit on the market today.
This is a simple list of the bad points I see to active setups.
Complexity:
Active systems are more complex with more room for error as far as noise or improper installation is concerned.
Wasteful of Power:
Using two expensive amps to power 4 speakers vs a single more powerful amp is a waste of power. Clean power is the number one cause of good sound, and throwing away so much power, but then demanding a high SPL output is a recipe for blown speakers, distortion, and an unhappy customer.
Performance:
A well designed passive crossover will be tailored to the speakers used, not just generic. For example, use of most Seas speakers requires the use of a specific notch filter which eliminates noises from cone resonances. No mainstream active crossover can perform this task.
Impedance Compensation:
A properly designed crossover will improve impedance characteristics of tweeters and midranges, and present less work on an amplifier, which will in turn improve performance. But, a passive could be just as easily made wrong and present a more challenging load to an amp, but this is not often the case with quality components.
Signal Quality:
A well designed passive, operating below saturation will not color the signal like the addition of yet another active component will. Poor quality op-amps, ADCs, and DACs (if the unit has them) along with even more low grade electrolytic capacitors in the signal chain further damage the original signal.
Reliability:
As a bonus, most passives include some sort of tweeter protection. And, depending on the complexity of the passive, some also will protect mids from harmful DC in the event of amplifier failure.
Flexibility:
Some passives these days offer tweeter attenuation, tweeter phase, midrange contour, axis compensation, and more. And they do all of this well maintaining the correct blending between the components, which is nearly impossible for the DIY guy to pull off on his own.
Now, for the record, I am not saying active crossovers are junk. I just don’t see the benefit from them in car audio, yet. Some day when I can get an active crossover with variable slope, frequency, phase, notch filtering, and top notch build quality, all in a simple single chassis unit compatible with any analog inputs and outputs, then I will be getting one in my hands.
I'll play little devils advicate w/ you now for fun...
Also I may be wrong but can you add the notch filter inline anyhow to do the job w/ an active proc. signal?
Just my side of the story... heres a fun thread on this at eca
http://forum.elitecaraudio.com/showthre ... did=139936
VERY TRUE, and couldn't agree w/ you more. I would only recommend active set up for people going for the all out approach. If done correctly none of those things will be an issue.Eric D wrote: Complexity:
Active systems are more complex with more room for error as far as noise or improper installation is concerned.
HEADROOM, HEAD ROOM,and HEADROOM. WE ALL FRICKING LOVE IT, running an amp to one speaker instead on an entire passive network; to put out a 1/4 of the work load, which will allow for the amp to live longer and run more linear. You will also be able to use lower ohm drivers too, allowing for more linear use of your amps, which I know you love that idea Doc.Eric D wrote:Wasteful of Power:
Using two expensive amps to power 4 speakers vs a single more powerful amp is a waste of power. Clean power is the number one cause of good sound, and throwing away so much power, but then demanding a high SPL output is a recipe for blown speakers, distortion, and an unhappy customer.
This is true...and the only time would make me think of using a passive again. Like for instance, focals be utopia passive I would prob use, but for what it costs give me an active proc. Yet, takign away active proc. you loose the ability to have far better level matching and bypass any impedence problem 99% of passives have.Eric D wrote:Performance:
A well designed passive crossover will be tailored to the speakers used, not just generic. For example, use of most Seas speakers requires the use of a specific notch filter which eliminates noises from cone resonances. No mainstream active crossover can perform this task.
Also I may be wrong but can you add the notch filter inline anyhow to do the job w/ an active proc. signal?
yet, most high end drivers, which I would be expected to used active don't even have this problem due to being well designed unit, defeating the need for the passive network to deal w/ this.Eric D wrote:Impedance Compensation:
A properly designed crossover will improve impedance characteristics of tweeters and midranges, and present less work on an amplifier, which will in turn improve performance. But, a passive could be just as easily made wrong and present a more challenging load to an amp, but this is not often the case with quality components.
Op amps effect the signal on .000000008 something like that, which brings up an argument that I had with werewolf and other heavy hitters on ECA. They will argue that ops do not matter and are below the human hearing so no matter what kind you use will make a difference. I dont know what the answer to this question is but just throwing it out there. Also most proc. now keep the signal in the digital realm which IMO the longer the signal is in the digital realm the better. So with all of the signal changes done in digital realm it is better then analog since it is not as likely to pick up noise.Eric D wrote:Signal Quality:
A well designed passive, operating below saturation will not color the signal like the addition of yet another active component will. Poor quality op-amps, ADCs, and DACs (if the unit has them) along with even more low grade electrolytic capacitors in the signal chain further damage the original signal.
This is the only benefit of passive over active IMOEric D wrote:Reliability:
As a bonus, most passives include some sort of tweeter protection. And, depending on the complexity of the passive, some also will protect mids from harmful DC in the event of amplifier failure.
Active network is far more flexible, as most active networks now a days come w/ eqing, ta, phase control, xover points, and slopes. Some even offer different types of xover now a days, like my rane proc. which is a pro audio piece but still.Eric D wrote:Flexibility:
Some passives these days offer tweeter attenuation, tweeter phase, midrange contour, axis compensation, and more. And they do all of this well maintaining the correct blending between the components, which is nearly impossible for the DIY guy to pull off on his own.
Just my side of the story... heres a fun thread on this at eca
http://forum.elitecaraudio.com/showthre ... did=139936
Last edited by bdubs767 on Wed Apr 04, 2007 4:01 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Can one send others to war if hes not willing to go himself?
Running active is throwing away headroom. Use the case of a 4-channel amplifier. Say it is 75W x 4. You run two channels to the tweeters, and two to the mids. You have a 75W system, nothing more. Now take that 4-channal amp and bridge it. Now you have 300W a channel into a set of components which is WAY more headroom for the same price.
Yes you can place a notch inline with a speaker in an active setup, but just made it even more complex, and impossible to tune properly by even an advanced user.
Impedance characteristics of highend drivers are typically the ones with issues, not cheaper components. High end drivers are optimized for sound, with compatibility as an afterthought. Their passive crossovers compensate for these issues.
Differences in op-amp quality are for the most part below human hearing, but not design problems associated with op-amps, op-amp failures, decreased signal to noise ratios, and unwanted filtering from AC coupled circuitry.
Since you are coming from the point of the Clarion and Alpine units, we are not on the same page to begin with. Those are digital processors and sources, not active crossovers. They require you to use their equipment to gain all of the features. I am talking active crossovers using the very best units money can buy, which do not limit your choice of headunit, or force you to go digital.
I just skimmed though that ECA thread, and I have to admit, a good portion of it is what I refer to as “audio voodoo”. Much like people claiming they can hear the difference between solid and stranded copper wire.
When I worked on the Fanatic Q component speaker project at Rockford Fosgate, we spent a long time synthetically developing a crossover using a very elaborate Yamaha digital crossover. We actually started first with response curves of the individual drivers, and then processed them mathematically to generate a “proposed” start of the crossover. We then created the crossover digitally and tweaked it further to get things right, and finally, we built a passive network and began a process of educated trial and error to work towards a finished product which deemed “optimal” by a panel of listeners. And, we did all this for a component set which is by many standards, far from high end. Most manufactures go WAY beyond what we did to get things just right.
Especially considering the fact car audio is a terrible environment for sound (your room is traveling 60MPH at times), I see the only real benefit to active crossovers is for bragging rights, or psychological compensation to a system which is lacking in some other area.
Yes you can place a notch inline with a speaker in an active setup, but just made it even more complex, and impossible to tune properly by even an advanced user.
Impedance characteristics of highend drivers are typically the ones with issues, not cheaper components. High end drivers are optimized for sound, with compatibility as an afterthought. Their passive crossovers compensate for these issues.
Differences in op-amp quality are for the most part below human hearing, but not design problems associated with op-amps, op-amp failures, decreased signal to noise ratios, and unwanted filtering from AC coupled circuitry.
Since you are coming from the point of the Clarion and Alpine units, we are not on the same page to begin with. Those are digital processors and sources, not active crossovers. They require you to use their equipment to gain all of the features. I am talking active crossovers using the very best units money can buy, which do not limit your choice of headunit, or force you to go digital.
I just skimmed though that ECA thread, and I have to admit, a good portion of it is what I refer to as “audio voodoo”. Much like people claiming they can hear the difference between solid and stranded copper wire.
When I worked on the Fanatic Q component speaker project at Rockford Fosgate, we spent a long time synthetically developing a crossover using a very elaborate Yamaha digital crossover. We actually started first with response curves of the individual drivers, and then processed them mathematically to generate a “proposed” start of the crossover. We then created the crossover digitally and tweaked it further to get things right, and finally, we built a passive network and began a process of educated trial and error to work towards a finished product which deemed “optimal” by a panel of listeners. And, we did all this for a component set which is by many standards, far from high end. Most manufactures go WAY beyond what we did to get things just right.
Especially considering the fact car audio is a terrible environment for sound (your room is traveling 60MPH at times), I see the only real benefit to active crossovers is for bragging rights, or psychological compensation to a system which is lacking in some other area.
Just so everyone knows, the only reason I am going into such detail is I am disputing your original comment…
Which even though it is your opinion, and technically I have no ability to dispute it, I just find the word “BLOWS” to be so far out of line as far as describing passive crossovers, I feel compelled to dispute your point.passive BLOWS IMO
no problem, and I love you being back in the flow of things tooEric D wrote:Just so everyone knows, the only reason I am going into such detail is I am disputing your original comment…
Which even though it is your opinion, and technically I have no ability to dispute it, I just find the word “BLOWS” to be so far out of line as far as describing passive crossovers, I feel compelled to dispute your point.passive BLOWS IMO
as Im sure many others are too, as your wealth of knowledge is great to have.but your forgot the rest of my statment
passive BLOWS IMO for an all out set up
I think passive has its place....and can sound amazing.
Can one send others to war if hes not willing to go himself?
This argument is also a mater of intelligence. Not mine or yours, but society in general.
When I was in school, no one wanted to take any analog circuits classes. Everyone flocked to the digital circuits classes. After all, digital is the way of the future, right? Well, I opted to take some analog classes, and they for the most part beat me to a pulp with mathematics well beyond my comprehension. The digital classes were for the most part a cake walk.
Society has taught us that digital is automatically better than analog, which has really become out of control, and far from reality. Digital systems are at their root analog. Power supplies still use analog concepts at their core. Traces on motherboards are laid out with analog principals to maintain signal integrity, due to such high signal frequencies.
Analog systems are far more challenging for most to understand, and require very intelligent people to get right. Less and less people are going into these areas, and the demand is growing higher and higher. It is sad for me to see analog pushed by the wayside with a lot of modern unjustified concepts…
“Active is better than passive”
“Digital is better than analog”
“Lawyers are useful people”
When I was in school, no one wanted to take any analog circuits classes. Everyone flocked to the digital circuits classes. After all, digital is the way of the future, right? Well, I opted to take some analog classes, and they for the most part beat me to a pulp with mathematics well beyond my comprehension. The digital classes were for the most part a cake walk.
Society has taught us that digital is automatically better than analog, which has really become out of control, and far from reality. Digital systems are at their root analog. Power supplies still use analog concepts at their core. Traces on motherboards are laid out with analog principals to maintain signal integrity, due to such high signal frequencies.
Analog systems are far more challenging for most to understand, and require very intelligent people to get right. Less and less people are going into these areas, and the demand is growing higher and higher. It is sad for me to see analog pushed by the wayside with a lot of modern unjustified concepts…
“Active is better than passive”
“Digital is better than analog”
“Lawyers are useful people”
at the same price yes....but I'm taking about all out installs here. Your simply going for the best possible. Yet I can turn it around and say why dont you throw R side and L side of that bridged 4 channel on the tweets and get another 4 channel for the mids. This way more head room and you get in a sense a Dual Mono amp design as 4 channels have two seperate power supplies, which can be argued and is being tested on ECA right now if "crosstalk" is voodoo or not. The first test showed its not voodoo fyi, but one of the mods called for another test which was delay by SNB.Eric D wrote:Running active is throwing away headroom. Use the case of a 4-channel amplifier. Say it is 75W x 4. You run two channels to the tweeters, and two to the mids. You have a 75W system, nothing more. Now take that 4-channal amp and bridge it. Now you have 300W a channel into a set of components which is WAY more headroom for the same price.
yea, but just like when your desining a passive w/ the right equipment it can be overcome w/ dsp set up too.Eric D wrote:Yes you can place a notch inline with a speaker in an active setup, but just made it even more complex, and impossible to tune properly by even an advanced user.
yes I will agree w/ you there lol, many ECAs (not all but some do) guys go for that audio voodoo which I DO NOT BUY, just me, I prefer solid facts. But some of the stuff in their form both sides is good. I've been looking around on diymobileaudio.com for a thread about this where npdang goes through this like we did. He's your kind of guy too, going by objective tests not "voodoo:Eric D wrote:I just skimmed though that ECA thread, and I have to admit, a good portion of it is what I refer to as “audio voodoo”. Much like people claiming they can hear the difference between solid and stranded copper wire.
Rf didn't have the linear X system for you guys to help desing the passive network?
Maybe I was to harsh w/ my statement that they BLOW, but I only put they blow in all out set ups w/ IMO next to it. Heres what I should of said...
IMO Active set ups is better then Passive.
Last edited by bdubs767 on Wed Apr 04, 2007 6:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Can one send others to war if hes not willing to go himself?
I cant really comment on that as my back round hasnt allowed me to learn nearly as much as you have. Im just going off what I've read through various forums and personal experience. When I started out in audio I had only passive/analog set ups, then went on to active/ digital and had better results. To many varibles changed to determine whether passive/analog is better then active/digital, I guess in a sense.....also my knowledge of audio has more then tripled so that could be one part.Eric D wrote:This argument is also a mater of intelligence. Not mine or yours, but society in general.
When I was in school, no one wanted to take any analog circuits classes. Everyone flocked to the digital circuits classes. After all, digital is the way of the future, right? Well, I opted to take some analog classes, and they for the most part beat me to a pulp with mathematics well beyond my comprehension. The digital classes were for the most part a cake walk.
Society has taught us that digital is automatically better than analog, which has really become out of control, and far from reality. Digital systems are at their root analog. Power supplies still use analog concepts at their core. Traces on motherboards are laid out with analog principals to maintain signal integrity, due to such high signal frequencies.
Analog systems are far more challenging for most to understand, and require very intelligent people to get right. Less and less people are going into these areas, and the demand is growing higher and higher. It is sad for me to see analog pushed by the wayside with a lot of modern unjustified concepts…
“Active is better than passive”
“Digital is better than analog”
“Lawyers are useful people”
Can one send others to war if hes not willing to go himself?
The systems I worked with at Rockford are as follows…
AudioPrecision System One
Linear X LMS
Linear X pcRTA
Linear X LEAP4-5
Linear X Filtershop
Goldline TEF20
Siasoft SMARRT
The systems I personally own are as follows…
Linear X LMS
Linear X RTAjr
AudioControl SA-3055 RTA
TrueRTA
Now, with all this exposure to different equipment, and even with my own personal stash of test equipment, adjusting the EQ in my stereo was a royal pain, especially due to how anal I am with everything. If I had one of the Alpine processors for example, it would have been downright impossible for me to setup my system. There are simply too many variables, and the environment is not consistent enough to make use of such fine adjustments.
And, please don’t give me the “set by ear” comeback. If you own an EQ215ix, then setting it by ear might fly. With these modern complex EQs and crossovers, they cannot be set by ear. I have heard some nice sounding set by ear systems which I then RTAed, and they were found to have big holes in the response curves. Humans don’t notice holes (after all, we cannot notice what is not there), but this is very far from the intent of an original recording, and makes for quite a difference between one of these systems, and a competent home audio system. You must use test equipment to “get in the ballpark”, and when it comes to so many adjustments, you will never get in the ballpark.
For me and many others, the greatest rule of car audio for “all out” systems is…
“Less is more”
The fewest number of speakers and amplifiers you can use to accomplish your goals, the better your system will perform.
AudioPrecision System One
Linear X LMS
Linear X pcRTA
Linear X LEAP4-5
Linear X Filtershop
Goldline TEF20
Siasoft SMARRT
The systems I personally own are as follows…
Linear X LMS
Linear X RTAjr
AudioControl SA-3055 RTA
TrueRTA
Now, with all this exposure to different equipment, and even with my own personal stash of test equipment, adjusting the EQ in my stereo was a royal pain, especially due to how anal I am with everything. If I had one of the Alpine processors for example, it would have been downright impossible for me to setup my system. There are simply too many variables, and the environment is not consistent enough to make use of such fine adjustments.
And, please don’t give me the “set by ear” comeback. If you own an EQ215ix, then setting it by ear might fly. With these modern complex EQs and crossovers, they cannot be set by ear. I have heard some nice sounding set by ear systems which I then RTAed, and they were found to have big holes in the response curves. Humans don’t notice holes (after all, we cannot notice what is not there), but this is very far from the intent of an original recording, and makes for quite a difference between one of these systems, and a competent home audio system. You must use test equipment to “get in the ballpark”, and when it comes to so many adjustments, you will never get in the ballpark.
For me and many others, the greatest rule of car audio for “all out” systems is…
“Less is more”
The fewest number of speakers and amplifiers you can use to accomplish your goals, the better your system will perform.
I agree, I don't BUY the RTA w/ ears thing over an RTA.
RTA is needed to set even a simple 7 band graphic EQ IMO.
RTA is needed to set even a simple 7 band graphic EQ IMO.
Last edited by bdubs767 on Wed Apr 04, 2007 6:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Can one send others to war if hes not willing to go himself?
Doc what do you think about this program?
look like an all in one program that can do everything....this is at the top of my list right now for the program to order pending price
Features:
- take frequency response measurements
- measure distortion
- see what the frequency response of your setup looks like without reflections
- configure time alignment by measuring the arrival time of each speaker
- create waterfall plots
- oscilloscope
- box measurements
- crossover
- t/s parameters
I wouldn't mind getting the linear X programs but dont have 2k to drop on the program
.
Any other programs you'd suggest?
look like an all in one program that can do everything....this is at the top of my list right now for the program to order pending price
Features:
- take frequency response measurements
- measure distortion
- see what the frequency response of your setup looks like without reflections
- configure time alignment by measuring the arrival time of each speaker
- create waterfall plots
- oscilloscope
- box measurements
- crossover
- t/s parameters
I wouldn't mind getting the linear X programs but dont have 2k to drop on the program
.Any other programs you'd suggest?
Can one send others to war if hes not willing to go himself?