# Sound Quality a dying breed?



## Punkrocka436 (Jul 8, 2003)

Alright, I have read a couple of articles about how sound quality is dying and that no one in the car audio business really cares about it anymore. My question is why? When i get into my car and turn on my stereo (listen to a lot of Ska and punk), I like to be able to listen carefully and tell you what rhythm the guitar, the bass guitar, and drums are playing. In a lot of ska they also integrate brass instruments. I love hearing the trumpets, trombones etc eminating out of my tweeters with crystal clarity.

The last thing i want to hear is too much bass. Bass is a very good thing, in moderation. I like hearing the sub play the bass drum notes as well as some of the bass guitar notes. Why in hell would i want to hear all bass, and no guitars or any of those instruments? Why should I need to run 200 RMS to my front components, just to hear the music over the bass?

I dunno, SQ competitions may be dying, but honestly...how many of you can stand to listen to 140 dB's of bass while driving to school/work and back every day. 

Discuss


----------



## wes (Apr 30, 2002)

I totally agree with you. I had a VERY nice SQ setup in my car. As far as running so much power, it's not to obtain volume, it's to obtain headroom. The upper frequencies are tougher to reproduce because of the larger range of frequencies that are covered and the dynamic changes. 

I still miss my SQ setup but the sound of the turbo is nice too....


----------



## sr20dem0n (Mar 19, 2003)

don't worry, I'm still holdin in there 

I know what you're saying though, sound quality seems to be dying, that's the one thing I've picked up after being on all these audio forums for several years.


and what's this about 200+ rms going to each of the front components being a bad thing?


----------



## asleepz (Feb 24, 2004)

Same here but I had to do it on a budget until I can get better stuff. My sound quality is amazing at low levels counting in I only spent 250 bucks for EVERYTHING

HU 
Amp 
speakers (already had them)


----------



## wickedsr20 (Aug 8, 2002)

wes said:


> I totally agree with you. I had a VERY nice SQ setup in my car. As far as running so much power, it's not to obtain volume, it's to obtain headroom.


So true, but you wouldn't believe how many people don't know or understand that concept. Too much power is only a bad thing when abused.



wes said:


> The upper frequencies are tougher to reproduce because of the larger range of frequencies that are covered and the dynamic changes.


It's not just that they're tougher to reproduce, but it takes a lot more work to make highs actually sound good. Getting proper imaging goes a long way in the overall sound of a system. Some choose to work on next level imaging, the others just are missing out and don't know it. It seems like the new generation of enthusiasts are just into SPL and trying to max out the meter and then dropping in a pair of underpowered coaxials if your lucky. 



wes said:


> I still miss my SQ setup but the sound of the turbo is nice too....


Yes it is. :cheers: 
However, mine is still getting a small system upgrade built around a 5 channel amp. Gotta have a lil something to listen to. The Altima is gonna be a heavy hitter soon. Another work in progress.


----------



## Punkrocka436 (Jul 8, 2003)

SKD_Tech said:


> Same here but I had to do it on a budget until I can get better stuff. My sound quality is amazing at low levels counting in I only spent 250 bucks for EVERYTHING
> 
> HU
> Amp
> speakers (already had them)


Low levels dont count. What do you have? I spent 300 on my head unit alone


----------



## wes (Apr 30, 2002)

Punkrocka436 said:


> Low levels dont count. What do you have? I spent 300 on my head unit alone


UH OH, lets not get in to audio budgets. I got out of car audio and in to home audio which was not the best move for my wallet.


----------



## WhiteFox (Sep 4, 2002)

If you're so concerned over too much bass, why not just tone it down with the equalizer? I hear they're standard equipment on just about every radio made since like 1970..


----------



## Binger (Aug 29, 2002)

I compete in USACI competition. I am rebuilding my car for 2005. I think alot of it has to do with how the audio companies are marketing everything.

I think that if you look at the Import show scene, like HIN and such, so many of those cars have amazing installs. I think it would be great to see them incorparate SQ into all those type of shows. We have done several show and shine shows through stereo west. SQ is always a huge part of that.


----------



## captain_shrapnel (Sep 10, 2004)

IMHO, it is because hip hop fans are doing the lions share of purchasing car audio gear. Big power and big bass sell. When was the last time you saw an Escalade slammin out Joe Satriani or Wagner? SPL pays the bills and the sound companies know it. If I were you, I wouldn't even bother with subs if you listen to punk and ska. Instead, get some solid components and clean amplification.


----------



## Ninety-Nine SE-L (May 5, 2002)

I don't think SQ is "going out of style." SQ is for the people in the middle, just below the competition freaks and well above the imbeciles who think Extreme Highs and Extreme Lows are cool. 

IMO, There are 4 categories of people:
1. Stock/near stock who don't know shit about SQ or SPL, they might upgrade their head unit and that's about it.
2. Big Bass goofs - The ricers of the audio world who think that setting off car alarms and completely flooding out all mid-range frequencies is the shizznite.
3. SQ junkies - People that spend their time, effort, money and knowledge building an audio system that as just as functional as it is awesome to listen to. Eliminate dostortion, rattles, and make sure all frequencies are at proper levels.
4. SPL junkies - Spend all money and effort into the most powerful and best rated components. Only goal in mind is to compete and blow the doors off the next car, even if it is horrible to listen to.


SQ is the only thing I want out of my system, I enjoy my music too much to ruin it. Flooding out the sound with huge subs isn't my idea of listening to music. True, I just purchased 2 Kappa 12VQ subs which can run up to 1600W a piece, however, my love for these subs is in their impressive sound quality. My intention is that you won't be able to hear much OUTSIDE of the car.


----------



## Binger (Aug 29, 2002)

Alot of SQ comp vehicles, you can't hear much bass out side, but they do have the potential to pound it out if you want to.


----------



## sr20dem0n (Mar 19, 2003)

captain_shrapnel said:


> If I were you, I wouldn't even bother with subs if you listen to punk and ska. Instead, get some solid components and clean amplification.



I don't know about that....I only have one cd in my collection (out of 100+ cds) that I can't hear the sub on. I can turn the sub on and off and hear no difference in the sound on that cd and that cd alone ("In Flames - Colony" if anyone is curious), and that's only because my sub is lowpassed at 63hz. On an 80hz lowpass there isn't a song that I have ever heard that won't have any info for a sub to play, and without a sub playing those parts it just sounds retarded IMO. Punk and ska is no exception.


----------



## Ninety-Nine SE-L (May 5, 2002)

I only listen to rock, hard rock, punk and I usually can hear the bass hitting. I miss my sub to death. I wish I had enough money for an amp and a clean trunk setup b/c those VQs are just begging to be used.


----------



## Punkrocka436 (Jul 8, 2003)

captain_shrapnel said:


> If I were you, I wouldn't even bother with subs if you listen to punk and ska. Instead, get some solid components and clean amplification.


whatever you say boss.... [/end sarcasm]


----------



## asleepz (Feb 24, 2004)

Punkrocka436 said:


> Low levels dont count. What do you have? I spent 300 on my head unit alone



Well put it this way I can crank it up about 3/4's of the way and have absolutely no distortion in the speakers or sub. Anything past that I get clipping. Anything under 3/4 sounds awesome. I guess low-levels was an understatement.

I had to do budget shopping though. I had no radio or cash so I had to come up with something quick. I have big plans for it later but I have a few things to work with first such as

Rear Shocks (ordered yesturday)
Electric Fan
BOV


----------



## captain_shrapnel (Sep 10, 2004)

Punkrocka, I just reread your post. Sorry, thought you wanted to FIX a problem w/ your system drowning out the high end. Guess you are satisfied w/ what you got. My point was simply that good sq can be acheived at moderate levels w/o a sub. A nice set of ~8" mid bass drivers in an infinite baffle, coupled w/ say, a horn loaded compression driver can give you clear and BALANCED sound. The bass is clearly audible w/o overpowering the detail of the bass notes being plucked. To address sr20dem0n, yes virtually all music contains frequencies at 80 hz and most has energy in the 65hz area. Usually though to compete with the midrange detail in a balanced and clean way, a sub has to be adjusted down to an appropriate level. Maybe even to the point that it is not worth the extra money for a sub and amplification. Of course this assumes moderate levels of listening, not blasted. A good set of midbass drivers with clean amplification and headroom are enhanced by the resonant characteristics of an enclosed space (like a car). It is the same idea as a good pair of headphones. The sound may be full and extend well into the lower frequencies, but the drivers are only about an inch across. This is because a pressure field is created in the space between you ear and the driver. This creates an enormous bass shelf, and can be used to your advantage in designing a well balanced car stereo. The Loudspeaker Design Cookbook describes the bass shelving in a 110 cubic foot 240sx for a sealed enclosure to be around 12db/octave rolling up from ~100hz. An IB would be less shelving than a sealed, but low end roll off is sometimes desireable for overall SQ. In pro sound reinforcement, the engineers RARELY amplify anything below 40hz. They feel its a waste of amplification, and tends to muddy up the sound. Alot of music will subjectively benefit by the reinforcement of lower frequencies, however punk and ska is typically not one of them. That is why I suggested not using a sub. Sorry for the long post, but there was no quick way to say any of that.


----------



## Punkrocka436 (Jul 8, 2003)

good post!!! I totally understand what you are saying. Punk rock there usually isnt too much low bass, but the sub puts more emphasis on the bass drum. I like tight, clean bass and i am perfectly happy with my setup (IDQ10 amped by a Hifonics Zeus ZX4000).

Ska however, there are many songs with a lot of lower bass. Songs like:

Sublime- Waiting for my ruca, Caress me down, and other various songs sound shitty without a subwoofer. Granted, the same effect can be had with horn loaded compression drivers, with 8's in the doors....but I drive a sentra, 8's in the doors arent really feasable without custom work.


----------



## sr20dem0n (Mar 19, 2003)

*but I drive a sentra, 8's in the doors arent really feasable without custom work.*
god how I wish it was possible......a set of koda 8's in the doors would be heaven


----------



## asleepz (Feb 24, 2004)

It actually wouldn't be as big of a problem as it is being played out to be. You would just have to look at the magnet and basket depth to the clearence with the glass. Now that would be the only problem I could see happening.


----------



## sr20dem0n (Mar 19, 2003)

yeah, but at least in my car I only have 2" of clearance between the door and the window, and as long as the speaker doesn't move too far you can fit up to a 1" spacer. The only 8s that I know of that can fit in that are those shallow midbass/subs made by Morel

Those would kick some major ass, too bad they're something like $250 each.


----------



## captain_shrapnel (Sep 10, 2004)

Punkrocka436 said:


> good post!!! I totally understand what you are saying. Punk rock there usually isnt too much low bass, but the sub puts more emphasis on the bass drum. I like tight, clean bass and i am perfectly happy with my setup (IDQ10 amped by a Hifonics Zeus ZX4000).
> 
> Ska however, there are many songs with a lot of lower bass. Songs like:
> 
> Sublime- Waiting for my ruca, Caress me down, and other various songs sound shitty without a subwoofer. Granted, the same effect can be had with horn loaded compression drivers, with 8's in the doors....but I drive a sentra, 8's in the doors arent really feasable without custom work.


Yeah Punkrocka, I guess you are right about ska. My friend played a Pilfers CD through my old 2k watt system and it definetly had some low end momentum. Still reaching back to the old school (Misfits) where punk sounded best through a set of blown 6x9s. Its good that someone decided to add bass in the studio.


----------



## Zac (Mar 10, 2004)

MB Quart, Focal, US Amps and JL Audio (yess, they still sound clear) havent forgotten about clear sound, just clear price


----------



## superfro86 (May 15, 2002)

it's all a matter of personal taste. i myself would fall under SQL. i want something with a ungodly amount of fat, powerful bass with a mid and high end that can keep up when the bass is attenuated. i think super high-end sq is kind of pointless. i mean spending 1-200 on a headunit, $7,500 components completely rebuilding the dash to make it symetrical is crazy when most people could care less about the sq difference between it and say jl's GTI. i remember reading in CA&E about a Morel's VW bettle that had such a system and the sub bass was just slighty better than a premium stock system. You got to remember different people want diffrent things from their stereo. My opinion is that sq competition is stupid since i don't see the point on spending all that time, money and effort on making a stereo that sounds good to some judge. sound quality is really a matter of opinion thing. i believe that there is a certain general level on what sounds good that can be acheived by any component set made by a good company and decent imaging and from then that point forward its all in the eye of the beholder.


----------



## asleepz (Feb 24, 2004)

What exactly does SQ and SQL stand for.

Besides SQ being balenced and SQL being having a shit load of bass


----------



## captain_shrapnel (Sep 10, 2004)

SKD_Tech said:


> What exactly does SQ and SQL stand for.
> 
> Besides SQ being balenced and SQL being having a shit load of bass


Sq= Sound Quality
SPL= Sound Pressure Level (db drag racing etc...)
SQL= typo.


----------



## asleepz (Feb 24, 2004)

captain_shrapnel said:


> Sq= Sound Quality
> SPL= Sound Pressure Level (db drag racing etc...)
> SQL= typo.



Thank ya much


----------



## sr20dem0n (Mar 19, 2003)

no

SQ = pure sound quality
SPL = pure output
SQL = very good sound, with the ability to get very loud as well


----------



## asleepz (Feb 24, 2004)

Thanks for the correction


----------



## captain_shrapnel (Sep 10, 2004)

Hmmm, thats a new one on me. Let me see...
S= Super
Q= Quality
+
L= Loudness

Is that how it goes?  We used to call that a "really good system". So lets change it from SQL to RGS. Whaddaya say? Any other suggestions?


----------



## Punkrocka436 (Jul 8, 2003)

i agree that rebuilding the entire dash out of fiberglass and spending 7500 dollars on components is crazy for daily listening. I don't think you can have much of an SQ system without spending at least a grand though.

I hate when n00bs IM me to talk about car audio and tell me that they have the best sound quality in their city with best buy coaxials all the way around running off of their JVC head unit with dual subwoofers running off a lightening audio amp. Its just really not possible without hours and hours of tweaking.


----------



## sr20dem0n (Mar 19, 2003)

captain_shrapnel said:


> Hmmm, thats a new one on me. Let me see...
> S= Super
> Q= Quality
> +
> ...



haha, hey I'm not the one who came up with SQL, I think it started off as a typo back in the day but then it sort of made sense, so it stuck

I do like RGS better though


----------



## captain_shrapnel (Sep 10, 2004)

Punkrocka436 said:


> i agree that rebuilding the entire dash out of fiberglass and spending 7500 dollars on components is crazy for daily listening. I don't think you can have much of an SQ system without spending at least a grand though.
> 
> I hate when n00bs IM me to talk about car audio and tell me that they have the best sound quality in their city with best buy coaxials all the way around running off of their JVC head unit with dual subwoofers running off a lightening audio amp. Its just really not possible without hours and hours of tweaking.


Those people have no idea what REAL SQ is. They think that a smiley face curve is the way to set an EQ. But i guess if you just upgraded from an ultra ass-kicking 1000 watt pyramid system, even best buy could be described as "Quality Components". Interesting that you mentioned the elaborate set up for SQ nuts. I think that clearly describes the obsessive nature of the audiophile. In the audio dictionary, audiophile is described as a person who listens to music to enjoy his technology, not his technology to appreciate his music. It goes on to say that true music lovers enjoy music from all types of systems, and can manage even with the shittiest gear. Interesting....


----------



## wes (Apr 30, 2002)

I used to get that all the time from people, talking about how good their system sounded. They had tons of gear, processing, and the like. The sound was always processed and phony with no real sense of presence. 

My setup was simple, expensive but simple. I had a head unit, amp and component set (front stage for daily listening). Everyone that listened to my system always where my subs were. Worst part was I listened daily without them. Granted the 7's didn't play that low but they had decent extension to about 50 HZ. I had to pop the trunk to show them my lack of subs before they believed me. 

The point here is that you can have a great setup by making sure your install is top notch. All of the system's that appealed to my ears were always the most simple. No EQ's or processor's, just straight signal the way the music was recorded. 

I have now switched to home audio and MAN, not to take anything away from car audio, is it ever addicting. I have NEVER heard a car sound the same as my current home setup, and it is fairly modest.


----------



## captain_shrapnel (Sep 10, 2004)

[/QUOTE]
The point here is that you can have a great setup by making sure your install is top notch. All of the system's that appealed to my ears were always the most simple. No EQ's or processor's, just straight signal the way the music was recorded. 

I have now switched to home audio and MAN, not to take anything away from car audio, is it ever addicting. I have NEVER heard a car sound the same as my current home setup, and it is fairly modest.[/QUOTE]
Wes, I agree. I have a 2k watt PA in my place. I started putting it together at 15. At first I bought all kinds of shit to "improve the sound". Really all it did was mess up the balance of everything. Now the only processing I have is 2 1/3 octave Rane EQ's, and honestly I just use them to attenuate 3 frequencies about 3 dbs.

Basicly, the more gear you have, the more chances you have to unbalance your sound. Indeed, simple is key.


----------



## superfro86 (May 15, 2002)

i agree with you there to a certain extent. i don't see the need of having a billion processors when most of them can be eliminated with good imaging. but i wouldn't completely rule out the use of eq's cause they can help if you just can't get that perfect imaging and have to overcome acoustical problems of the enviroment you are listening in. Also eqs can help get the system to sound the way YOU like which to me is more important than the way the artist intended it to.the problem with the really good system thing is that depending on the person(s) you could call a pure sq system a really good system or a pure spl system a really good system. One thing that the sq world seems to forget is that a privately owned system only has to sound good to the owner of said system. i also think that a spl system is kind of stupid because yes its loud but i can only play bass test tones more specifically the test tone equivalent to the resonant freq of the vehicle. i really don't like competition systems that much anyway. i would pefer street and show systems that are "good" enough to do well in comps if you were to enter one. and as far as the topic of this whole post i think you are thinking more about what the current trend is in mainstream audio. sq is nowhere near dead. its just to get really good sq you have to look beyond the mainstream brands. i can name a good sq system using relatively new equipment right of the top of my head. you can get a rockford fosgate platnium 2000 h/u which is really a rebadged denon for 299 on sound domain. you can just buy the most expensive cdt comp set you can afford. get say a image dynamics idq 10 or 12 some where around a 100x2 or 150x2 amp to push the comps and another one bridged to push the sub and you would be done on the equipment side of the sq install


----------



## Binger (Aug 29, 2002)

If any of yall are close to Kansas City go to the USACI world finals. It is on Nov 20th and 21st. Its agreat chance to listen to a variety of vehicles. I'm going to go so I can get an idea of what the popular trends are going to be for next year.


----------



## captain_shrapnel (Sep 10, 2004)

Superfro, I dont at all disagree with you. Eq's are a very good investment for balanced car audio sound, because the acoustics inside a cabin are wacky. I was just making an example of speakers in an open space (or large room). I used to own a RTA and it showed me that my gear was nearly flat out of the gate, from 45hz to 16khz. But cars are such a bad environment for sound that eq's are a requirement for sq competition. Basicly eqs should compensate for the flaws in the environment, NOT the flaws in the equipment. 

BTW, SQL for the home is PA gear. Not quite sonic perfection, but damn close at 136 dbs in your living room.


----------



## Punkrocka436 (Jul 8, 2003)

RTA's are expensive. Man i would love to own one. My friend has one on his laptop though, works good enough for me!

While we are discussing sound quality, how about i throw out another question. What is everyones opinion on the use of sealed vs. ported boxes in a SQ setup.

I am using a sealed box and i prefer it because it cuts down on the boominess of low bass notes. Sealed boxes have better low end extension and they also dont take up as much space in the trunk.


----------



## sr20dem0n (Mar 19, 2003)

depending on the tuning frequency, ported boxes actually have better low end extension. It's pretty obvious when you look at their anechoic response graphs, a low-tuned ported box stays pretty flat all the way down to the tuning frequency and even a little lower, while a sealed box generally has ~12dB/oct rolloff starting at the F3, which is normally in the neighborhood of 40-50hz. Once you stick them in a car, the cabin gain works with the natural rolloff of the sealed box and you end up with a flatter response, while the ported box gets a massively powerful low end.

You can do an effective SQ setup with either, but IMO it's easier with a sealed box because you get a pretty flat response right away, with a ported box you have to do some massive cutting in the lower frequencies to keep the low end from overpowering the upper bass. This is the problem I've been facing with my A in its 26hz ported box, the low end is just TOO strong, and it doesn't sound natural. Meanwhile when it was sealed it had no low end at all....but I think that's because my sub doesn't like sealed boxes. From what I hear the brahma will be a different story though....

And on another note entirely, has anyone out there gone from passive to active on a set of kodas? I know not too many people on here have them, actually I think I'm the only one with the entire set, but I was just wondering if anyone had any insight as to what I might expect. I have an extra amp sitting around, my headunit as all the filtering I'll ever need to do an effective active setup, all I have to do is get off my lazy ass and rewire the kodas and find a place to mount a 3rd amp. I've been thinking about it pretty heavily lately....


----------



## captain_shrapnel (Sep 10, 2004)

Hey Punkrocka, this is the RTA I used to have...

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3750970050&category=23792

This is a reasonably accurate RTA and it really helps train your ears to what frequencies sound like in your music. When I do pro sound installations I dont need an RTA anymore, i can usually nail it on the first try. If you have the cash, get it. It's got pink noise generator, flat response mic, and the ability to plug in the output signal directly to compare. Highly recommended!


----------



## wickedsr20 (Aug 8, 2002)

wes said:


> The point here is that you can have a great setup by making sure your install is top notch. All of the system's that appealed to my ears were always the most simple. No EQ's or processor's, just straight signal the way the music was recorded.


So true. A good installer can make average equipment sound real good.
A bad installer cam make real good equipment sound average. 
Many people use EQ's and processors as band aids to try to fix problems that a better install would straighten out. Happens all the time. Then they pull all their hair out when they run into noise problems and can't track down the reason. 



wes said:


> I have now switched to home audio and MAN, not to take anything away from car audio, is it ever addicting. I have NEVER heard a car sound the same as my current home setup, and it is fairly modest.


I agree. Home audio can really break you worse than car audio ever could. Don't get caught up too much unless you have deep pockets.


----------



## Binger (Aug 29, 2002)

I plan to use an EQ for fine tuning so I can have better control over everything


----------



## Punkrocka436 (Jul 8, 2003)

nothing wrong with using an EQ at all. I just wouldnt keep it in anyones reach. People tend to get in cars and see buttons and dials and get curious and play wiht them. Or find an EQ that locks the settings in. 

Personally, I think EQ's are a waste of money. I would rather spend more time making my install better, than spend 200 extra dollars on an EQ. Its all personal preference though. Do whatever makes you happy. Thats what car audio is about


----------



## superfro86 (May 15, 2002)

"This is the problem I've been facing with my A in its 26hz ported box, the low end is just TOO strong"

this is why i think "SQ" is highly opinionated. to me that is the exact reason why i like ported way better than sealed. i myself enjoy a massive bottom end even though i am looking for really good midbass to help level things out a little.


----------



## steelbath (Oct 4, 2004)

Im curently using a sealed box 5.7cuft with 3 PG xenon 12" subs and the sq is very good puts out bout 135db at 35Hz, ive been told a ported box will increse the spl but its already loud enough and im yet to hear a ported box that i like. Sealed all the way!!!!


----------



## sr20dem0n (Mar 19, 2003)

superfro86 said:


> "This is the problem I've been facing with my A in its 26hz ported box, the low end is just TOO strong"
> 
> this is why i think "SQ" is highly opinionated. to me that is the exact reason why i like ported way better than sealed. i myself enjoy a massive bottom end even though i am looking for really good midbass to help level things out a little.


I like a strong low end too, but when you have a bass drop in a song and it's at a reasonable level the whole way until it drops below ~35hz and then it just rips your head off....it doesn't sound too good. It's fun to beat on and impress your friends, but when you're playing a rock song and the uber-deep notes completely overpower the bass guitar it doesn't sound the best.


----------



## Binger (Aug 29, 2002)

I have heard vented enclosures that sound great. Usualy they have the gain on the amp and the bass on the headunit all the way down. Then when they do their SPL testing or are street beating they crank it up.


----------



## superfro86 (May 15, 2002)

steelbath have you ever heard a properly tuned tuned ported box as in one tuned to about 30hz. prefab ported boxes that usually arent tuned but just have a little 2-3 long 3" diamater port or two give ported boxes a bad name. I think that thing about too strong lowend is a thing with all "supersubs" the ported box i worked out for the 4 idq's would have a near flat freq response. and that would also show that a EQ isn't necissarly a bad idea. i'm pretty sure the ones with like 20 bands effect frequencies low enough for you to just attenuate the sub output where it seems too strong for you


----------



## sr20dem0n (Mar 19, 2003)

superfro86 said:


> I think that thing about too strong lowend is a thing with all "supersubs" the ported box i worked out for the 4 idq's would have a near flat freq response. and that would also show that a EQ isn't necissarly a bad idea. i'm pretty sure the ones with like 20 bands effect frequencies low enough for you to just attenuate the sub output where it seems too strong for you


you might have a flat anechoic response, but as soon as you stick it in a car that will be shot to hell.
I've tried EQing mine flat, but it's very hard, I just gave up and ordered a brahma 15 and a 2.5cf sealed box.....

Actually switching out the Avionixx for the Cadence really helped how it sounded, the low end doesn't seem nearly as grossly overpowering (it used to be like a line between the upper and lower bass, with no blending going on), now everything sounds much smoother and more fluid....maybe class t vs class d? budget amp vs not-so-budget amp? I'm still trying to figure it out.


----------



## captain_shrapnel (Sep 10, 2004)

Just for the record, pro sound reinforcement and studios use vented enclosures exclusively. A testament to the quality of sound that can be acheived with proper engineering.


----------



## Punkrocka436 (Jul 8, 2003)

they may sound better in studios....but its easier to get a sealed enclosure to sound good in a car


----------



## captain_shrapnel (Sep 10, 2004)

yes, my point was simply that blanket statements about one being better than the other is just ignorant.


----------



## sr20dem0n (Mar 19, 2003)

yeah, studios are much bigger than cars, and they don't have near the cabin/room gain that cars do, so the flat anechoic response of a vented enclosure is much closer to real life when you're in a studio. When you're in a car it's completely different.

I never said that transient response was bad with ported boxes, or that ported enclosures sounded boomy and crappy, because they can sound very very good in that regard. It's the in-car frequency response of a ported box that I don't like. The problems can be EQ'd out, as with most other issues that arise with sound in cars, but I would just rather have a setup that I don't have to EQ the crap out of to suit my tastes.


----------



## Jasper (Apr 2, 2004)

sr20dem0n said:


> ....maybe class t vs class d?



class t?

ive heard of a, ab, and d.....but never t.


----------



## sr20dem0n (Mar 19, 2003)

Class t is basically a class d with a tripath chip that lets it play the entire frequency range, so it has the efficiency of a class d and the frequency response of a class a/b. Some say they sound "tinny" or "fake" though, that they have a different sound than normal a/b or d amps do. If the main difference in sound between the Avionixx and the Cadence is class t vs class d then they're right, if that's not the cause of the different sound then I don't know what is, because there's definitely a noticeable difference.


----------



## superfro86 (May 15, 2002)

I'm one to believe that a amp itself doesn't affect sound quality and a watt is a watt. the only thing that would make one amp sound better than another is the quality of things like built in crossovers eq's ect. I still believe a more expensive amp has it's benefits such as reliability, current consumption, any added "features" among other things. If you want to get response as flat as possible forget sealed and go infinite baffle especially if you are going to get a brahma (wished i save up longer to get one instead of the idmax even though the 'max still is the $#!t.) I consider getting a desired frequency response (emphasis on desired because of my belief of the importance to get sound the way the particular listener wants not some predefined notion on what sounds good) to be fixing a dent. the enclosure, speaker selection,imaging would be like banging it out and eq to be bondo. you should bang the dent out as much as possible and what you can't bang out you fix with bondo. also there is no such thing as the perfect enclosure because if there was no other enclosure would be used. it all depends on the subwoofer and the listenener. i want a sql system with a slight lean on the spl side so i would perfer a low tuned ported enclosure, someone more on the sq side of sql might would perfer a sealed enclosure with multiple woofers or simply more woofers that one would use if the were to go ported to get the spl.


----------



## wes (Apr 30, 2002)

superfro86 said:


> I'm one to believe that a amp itself doesn't affect sound quality and a watt is a watt. the only thing that would make one amp sound better than another is the quality of things like built in crossovers eq's ect. I still believe a more expensive amp has it's benefits such as reliability, current consumption, any added "features" among other things. If you want to get response as flat as possible forget sealed and go infinite baffle especially if you are going to get a brahma (wished i save up longer to get one instead of the idmax even though the 'max still is the $#!t.) I consider getting a desired frequency response (emphasis on desired because of my belief of the importance to get sound the way the particular listener wants not some predefined notion on what sounds good) to be fixing a dent. the enclosure, speaker selection,imaging would be like banging it out and eq to be bondo. you should bang the dent out as much as possible and what you can't bang out you fix with bondo. also there is no such thing as the perfect enclosure because if there was no other enclosure would be used. it all depends on the subwoofer and the listenener. i want a sql system with a slight lean on the spl side so i would perfer a low tuned ported enclosure, someone more on the sq side of sql might would perfer a sealed enclosure with multiple woofers or simply more woofers that one would use if the were to go ported to get the spl.


As far as amps go I agree to a point. Once you get up the chain of brands to say RF, you'd be hard pressed to tell a difference. This is for typical amps. though. I had a tube driver 1500 that was night and day different from most everything else because of the tubes in the output stage.


----------



## Ninety-Nine SE-L (May 5, 2002)

A watt is a watt only if you're talking about RMS. Some shittier amps cheat and display the Peak wattage when in reality, peak means nothing. I think component quality is important. Even with equal wattage, an amp with shitty components will prolly sound worse, shielding is important, some may use gold terminals over copper, and so on. Also build quality is important when you consider reliability. And, yes, the equilizer/crossover settings are important as well.


----------



## sr20dem0n (Mar 19, 2003)

ugh, not this argument again

When you're comparing amps in the same class (typology, quality, and power), then yes they will sound very very similar, if not exactly the same. But there is a distinct difference between cheap amps and good amps, just like there's a distinct difference between class a/b vs class d, class t vs tubes, class a/b vs class a, etc. Unless your amps are very comparable in style, build quality, and potential, then no a watt is not a watt.

Just because 2 amps put out the same power, that doesn't mean
1 - the original signal was kept perfectly intact from the rca input to the speaker output on both amps
2 - the amps will exert the same control over the speaker (commonly referred to as the damping factor, but the impedance that you're running at and the typology of the amp both also play huge parts in this)
3 - both of these amps actually do put out their rated power and not less


I've said it before and I'll say it again, all amps are not built equal, all amps do not sound the same. Put a sony on some rainbow vanadiums and then switch it out for a us amps and see what kind of a difference you can see. When I switched out my Avionixx 400.2 for the LP, I noticed some differences but they were all very slight (except for power, the LP blows the Avionixx out of the water in that regard). Both are high quality amps, both put out plenty of power, both are class a/b, so the differences that I noticed were very very subtle. The LP is slightly brighter and slightly punchier in the midbass region, but I had to listen for several days before I was able to pick up on all the differences. However, when I switched out the Avionixx 800.2 for the Cadence I noticed a HUGE difference on the very first song I played. Both are high quality amps, the Cadence is better, but the Avionixx isn't bad....neither were running at their max output, the built in filters weren't being used on either, they just sound very different, the only explanation I can come up with is the Cadence is class d and the Avionixx is class t.


----------



## captain_shrapnel (Sep 10, 2004)

An amp CAN color your sound, but USUALLY its your speakers you hear coloring from 1st (referring to midgrade and up gear). Typical good amp specs rate total harmonic distortion at rated rms output in the area of .1%. Technically, this is inaudible distortion, especially when stacked against a voice coil's natural 10%-20% introduced THD. It is this speaker distortion that gives different brands their distinctive sounds. Harmonic distortion is very kind on the ears because it is composed of even ordered harmonics, which tend to sound warm and thick.

The problem is that many car audio manufacturers tell you nothing about the OTHER aspects of the amp's performance. Damping factor, slew rate, and the dreaded intermodulation distortion all carry significant weight in the sound quality. IM distortion in particular is harshening of your sound due to odd ordered harmonics. Unfortunately, it is rarely mentioned.

As long as the amp is a decent one, the effect it has on sound quality will usually go unnoticed until you reach the highest quality speakers.


----------



## wes (Apr 30, 2002)

captain_shrapnel said:


> An amp CAN color your sound, but USUALLY its your speakers you hear coloring from 1st (referring to midgrade and up gear). Typical good amp specs rate total harmonic distortion at rated rms output in the area of .1%. Technically, this is inaudible distortion, especially when stacked against a voice coil's natural 10%-20% introduced THD. It is this speaker distortion that gives different brands their distinctive sounds. Harmonic distortion is very kind on the ears because it is composed of even ordered harmonics, which tend to sound warm and thick.
> 
> The problem is that many car audio manufacturers tell you nothing about the OTHER aspects of the amp's performance. Damping factor, slew rate, and the dreaded intermodulation distortion all carry significant weight in the sound quality. IM distortion in particular is harshening of your sound due to odd ordered harmonics. Unfortunately, it is rarely mentioned.
> 
> As long as the amp is a decent one, the effect it has on sound quality will usually go unnoticed until you reach the highest quality speakers.


Amen to that!!! I always wished that IMD was listed as a spec. but sadly not many people know that it is in fact more important than THD. As far as amp coloration that is why I mentioned anything better than say RF was pretty much going to sound similar and you'd be hard pressed to take the exact same setup, swap amps, and tell the difference. in fact Richard Clark offered up $10,000 for anyone that took his challenge and could continually distinguish between two amplifiers. I also agree that it;s harder to tell the difference until you get to a certain level of equipment and most of the time the other parts of the system are worse off than the amps. Before I tore my setup out I could definately tell when I was running anything other than my tube driver, the ONLY other amp that sounded "right" to my ears was a McIntosh amp that I used for a bit. PPI art series and a few others were just not a match for me. But again this was not an issue until the HU, speakers, and connections were much better than the amplifier I was running. This especially became apparent hen I put the Dyn.'s in the kicks. 

I have switched gears though, i still enjoy great sound through my Dyn.'s at home


----------

