What does the position of the amplifier gain control have to do with the
sound quality?

The systems I heard with the Eclipse decks had a lower noise floor and
didn't
seem as "boosted" because of the higher voltage output from the deck and
from
the lower gain settings.

What do you mean by "boosted"?

Pioneer DEX-P9

So what makes it cleaner? Disinfectant?

Why you being stupid?

It's a bad habit.

"MZ" pam
wrote:

....snip to content....
Problem is, with 30 bands
per
channel, there's too many variables. It usually takes me several months
to
get it right, and even then I'm tweaking it a little here and a little
there!

Well said.

EQ good. RTA bad.

Actually 1/3 octave RTA is too gross to use effectively without a great deal of
prior experience. This is often the case with a 1/3 octave EQ as well although
both can (and are) be effectively used in the rigth hands.

Generally speaking 1/12 octave supplies enough detail without being impossible
to analyze to be the more effective level of display and EQ. Parametric EQ is
a good substitute.

"MZ" pam
wrote:


Dave, I actually currently have both in my closet (well, actually the Nak is
a CD45z). I did a blind switched level-matched comparison a couple years
ago between several head units, and found no difference. Was your test
blind, level-matched, and a/b?

It's impossible to improve on perfection. All HU preamps these days are
essentially perfect. That is, they don't have distortion components that
are significant. Put a Jensen HU on a scope and you'll see what I mean.

Nearly a decade ago I compared a car-audio cd system with a comparable high-end
home audio system in a high-end home reference system and found no reliable
difference in sound with several subjects in a time-synch'd level matched
double blind comparison. This was published in Car Stereo Review.

I find no reason to believe that either medium has improved/degraded to an
extent that they are no longer sonically equivalent. IMO the primary reason
that people tend to "perceive" differences between nominally sonically
identical gear is that listening comparisons are seldom level-matched and often
are made with different programs and other system differences not compensated.

"MZ" pam
wrote:


As scientists have demonstrated over the ages: An inability to measure
something does not negate its existence. Likewise, not knowing how to
measure something doesn't negate its existence (or impact) either.

That's right. So if there are other forces at work here (literally, forces
not consisting of the four basic forces that modern physics has thus far
defined), therein could lie the difference. But based on what physics has
currently set in front of us, we can make logical conclusions.

A logical inference here is that distortion is not the component of sound
quality that matters to this listener. There is a difference between two
channels of music and stereo. Contrary to the popular misconception, the
root of stereo pertains to "truth" or "reality", not "two." The original
specification for stereo reproduction was actually three channels - left,
center and right.

I don't pretend to be able to explain why one system images better than
another, but I can clearly here the difference between a system that
images
well and one that doesn't. And no, "imaging" is not a synonym for
"separation." "Imaging" and "sound stage", as these terms relate to music
reproduction are as important to me as accuracy of timber, dynamic range,
and adequate frequency response in my assessment of the sound quality of a
system. Apparently, the OP shares my concerns. Some folks think a lack of
harmonic distortion is sufficient to declare a system "high-end." As far
as
I'm concerned, low distortion is a necessary characteristic; but not
sufficient in and of itself to make a system acceptable.

Nowhere did I mean to imply that harmonic distortion was the only aspect of
the signal that was important for the analysis. There are other forms of
distortion as well (which frequency response and crosstalk between channels
are technically a part of), and noise. There are only three components that
define a the output of a system: the signal goes in, and out comes 1) the
signal, 2) distortion, and 3) noise. So my point is to quantify #2 and #3,
and note that if #2 and #3 are zero, then according to the laws of physics
(those that we currently have a grasp on, as you point out at the beginning
of your post), you have no difference in sound quality.

That's absolutely true when you remain in the electrical domain with modern
electronic products. It remains true in the acoustical domain but it is more
difficult to find 2 speakers and speaker placements that produce identical
acoustic outputs.

Ii is quite common to find a large number of electrical devices that deliver
identical outputs right to the speaker terminals. It also tells us that, by and
large, real sound quality differences are most likely to be a function of
loudspeakers/placement differences WHEN the signal is preserved in the
electrical media.

"MZ" pam
wrote:

.....snip to content ....

What sonic difference does brand "A" D/A converter have over brand "B"
converter? Or does it all hinge on THD?

DACs use different strategies to recreate the signal because the resolution
of the amplitude of the signal is finite. So DACs tend to "connect the
dots", so to speak, differently than others. As a result, the recreated
signal is a bunch of steps or ramps connecting each point (warning:
oversimplification). Some DACs, for instance, go through a lot of effort to
reduce these discontinuities in the signal. The end result is that one
DAC's signal is a better recreation of the original than another's. But the
differences are so small that the ear cannot possibly pick them up.

I agree with Mark's assessment of those "differences" but I'd like to comment
on the stair-case example of digital explanations and the connect-the-dots
paradigm of a sampled sine-wave, for example.

We should remember that the picture of a sine-wave as seen on an analog 'scope'
, for example, is NOT the "signal" itself but simply a way of characterizing it
with a simple drawing or picture. The signal itself is not continuous but the
movement of individual electrons (electrical) or air molecules (acoustic.) It
is not, and never was, continuous.

Likewise the digital reconstruction of a sampled signal implies that somehow
there is "signal" lost between samples that has been retained with an analog
characterization. This is not true; analog isn't infinite and digital isn't
missing anything. These examples are just different ways of looking at signal
or sound in an intellectual way.

Here's another good way to think about it. Most folks think of film as being
"analog" in nature when, in fact, film is quite digital in that it samples the
signal in frames per second. For full fidelity you only need to sample faster
than any human sensory mechanism can respond.

That's another argument, of course, but I thought I'd like to bore all of you
with my take on the sine-wave digital staircase model for describing one aspect
of information theory (which by the way was described in full by Shannon at
Bell Labs in the 40s; and was first used by the American public in 1962 when
Western Electric installed the first digital carrier systems in Illinois.)

"MZ" wrote in message
...
Pioneer DEX-P9

So what makes it cleaner? Disinfectant?

Why you being stupid?

he's NOT being stupid.. you're being stupid for posting blanket
statements.... please PROVE the DEX-P9 is cleaner than disinfectant!!!

FHLH


"electricked" no_emails_please wrote in message
...
"MZ" wrote in message
...
Pioneer DEX-P9

So what makes it cleaner? Disinfectant?

Why you being stupid?

Well put Mark. I enjoyed the "tech talk". I have a bit to add and I believe it's
basically a summary of your point. Manufacturers like to tailor their test
methods in order to get the best performance data for marketing purposes. In
reality, the differences between the performance of HU's (all things considered)
tend to be in the thousandths of a percent and are imperceptible to the human
ear.

I wouldn't say that a bottom dollar CD player is all you should want. I myself
was disappointed recently by an MP3 capable HU I purchased. After installing it
I listened mostly to loud pop/rock music and I was very happy with it. A few
weeks later I was listening with the engine off and during quiet passages I
could hear a persistent ticking noise. The noise was only present during MP3
playback and was on every disc I tried. Playing the same discs on my PC showed
the noise was not present on the discs. I can live with it considering it didn't
cost much and any wind drowns out the noise anyway. If I'd paid upwards of $1000
would have taken it back to the store right away.


"MZ" wrote in message
...
Mark Zarella, aka MZ wrote: "If a signal contains no distortion (and no
noise), then the signal is perfect and cannot be improved upon. Yes, I'm
considering freq. resp. irregularities in with distortion where it
belongs.
So to answer your question, the only SQ-limiting factor is distortion (and
noise)."

So, if a CD player "A" has .0004% THD and CD player "B" also has .0004%
THD,
then I won't be able to hear a difference? So every manufacturer has the
same standard for measuring THD?

Well, see, the THD ratings should be thrown right out the window. Harmonic
distortion arises from a number of different sources, and these sources tend
to be dependent on things like temperature, load, frequency, output level,
and others. As you can see, these things all vary in a given head unit. So
when you make dist measurements, you'll often see hundred-fold differences
when you test at different frequencies, or test with white noise instead of
tone bursts, or at full power instead of half power or low power, or into
reactive loads instead of high impedance resistive loads or other reactive
loads, etc. In short, manufacturer ratings are useless. This really sucks
if you're a consumer, because it gives us a less objective measurement of
performance.

One example is with power amplifiers. Whenever I've measured harmonic
distortion (using some tests, but not others...hmmmmm....), the THD% tends
to be highest at the lowest volume levels. This probably isn't surprising,
because one prominent source of harmonics ("crossover distortion" in AB
amplifiers) is somewhat constant across all power levels, so when you're
expressing THD in percent it would cause the percentage to rise as the
signal is decreased. So one question should always be: at what power level
is the manufacturer measuring THD? They usually tell you THD+N @ 1kHz, but
they don't always state power and load.

Besides, many would argue that IMD (intermodulation distortion) is more
important than harmonic distortion anyway. Based on the
psychoacoustical evidence that I've encountered, and my own distortion
measurements, I'd tend to agree with that notion. And still others lump IMD
in with THD+N...

Basically, if you're a numbers guy, you're screwed.


There's absolutely nothing else to consider?

Noise can sometimes be an issue. Some units produce more noise than others.
But, much more importantly, some units are more PRONE to noise than others.
Tone controls are of course always an issue. Some center their tone
controls at different spots and with different Q's. Frequency response is
another issue that's usually looked at, but perhaps surprisingly, the freq
response of virtually all HUs is essentially flat. The only perturbations
tend to be (not always, but usually) at the very high frequencies (ie.
10kHz). Humans are very insensitive up there anyway, and it's almost
always dips and not peaks, and they're broad and steadily decreasing. You
may be asking: so what if they're broad and steady? And why should it
matter that they're dips instead of peaks? Well, there's evidence that our
auditory systems can actually be more sensitive to peaks rather than dips.
And the width of the dip/peak and its spectral location is vitally
important.


What sonic difference does brand "A" D/A converter have over brand "B"
converter? Or does it all hinge on THD?

DACs use different strategies to recreate the signal because the resolution
of the amplitude of the signal is finite. So DACs tend to "connect the
dots", so to speak, differently than others. As a result, the recreated
signal is a bunch of steps or ramps connecting each point (warning:
oversimplification). Some DACs, for instance, go through a lot of effort to
reduce these discontinuities in the signal. The end result is that one
DAC's signal is a better recreation of the original than another's. But the
differences are so small that the ear cannot possibly pick them up.

So you're basically telling me that my C90, which many of us agree is one
of
THE best sounding players EVER made, sounds no different than the 8053?
If
you tell me it does, I'm gonna have to go out and buy one and see for
myself.

And what's the deal with all the short answers?? :-) I'm trying to learn
something here!!!

Hopefully these answers provided more insight.

"electricked" no_emails_please wrote in message I do not think you
require either one of those to effectively use an EQ.
There is no black magic involved with tweaking an EQ, you can adjust it
until it sounds good. That is the goal after all.

Les

In practice, no. For competition purposes, you have to fine tune it so
actually need one of those.

--Viktor



Maybe I am missing something but why do you have to have an O-scope to tune
a system, competition or not?
If it sounds good it sounds good, and I have never heard a "flat" system
that sounds good. If you cannot enter a SQ competition without it actually
sounding good then I do not see the point of entering. But alas, I have not
competed in several years.

Les

"MZ" wrote in message

Well said.

EQ good. RTA bad.



RTA's can be bad when they become your ears. I use RTAs all the time, but
never in car audio. They do give you a good idea of what is going on in a
room when I put in PA systems or travel to other venues.

Les

RTA's can be bad when they become your ears. I use RTAs all the time, but
never in car audio. They do give you a good idea of what is going on in a
room when I put in PA systems or travel to other venues.

I don't like them for our purposes (entertaining ourselves with music)
because they introduce a potential bias.

"MZ" wrote in
I don't like them for our purposes (entertaining ourselves with music)
because they introduce a potential bias.


Very true. That is why I never use them for car audio. I also never use them
to EQ a system. They are merely a tool to see what is going on in the room
as you walk in, which is not car audio. I have always been a big fan of if
it sounds good it sounds good.

Les

IMHO.... RTA tuned car audio systems sound like ass


"MZ" wrote in message
...
RTA's can be bad when they become your ears. I use RTAs all the time,
but
never in car audio. They do give you a good idea of what is going on in
a
room when I put in PA systems or travel to other venues.

I don't like them for our purposes (entertaining ourselves with music)
because they introduce a potential bias.

"Les" wrote in message m...
"MZ" wrote in message

Well said.

EQ good. RTA bad.



RTA's can be bad when they become your ears. I use RTAs all the time, but
never in car audio. They do give you a good idea of what is going on in a
room when I put in PA systems or travel to other venues.

Les

I use SIA Smaart as an RTA but flat is bad, study up on your
Fletcher-Munson curves, know what level you are going to be at and try
to hit a target curve. I usually ignore everything from 160Hz down
and go for the feel by ear (gut).

As said earlier even 1/3 octave is like using a chainsaw for a
vasectomy. Best off with a parametric with an adjustable Q. Anyone
using the live intended DSP based loudspeaker processors in cars yet?
Sorry, I've been out of the loop for a while!

Live sound and car audio people HATE each other for the most part, but
we do the same thing! Take gear, put it in extreme operating
conditions and run the hell out of it. A lot can be learned from each
camp. I was really happy to live audio mentioned.

I am a touring engineer, the only real reason I am here is to brush up
and install a modest system in my truck. New girlfriend lives a ways
away and the drive is killing me without good sounding tunes! I put
car audio away and got into drag racing and touring, I'm glad to see
the group thriving still, It seems a friendly place, thanks to all for
the help already!

Chad

"Les" wrote:

....snip to content .....

Maybe I am missing something but why do you have to have an O-scope to tune
a system, competition or not?
If it sounds good it sounds good, and I have never heard a "flat" system
that sounds good. If you cannot enter a SQ competition without it actually
sounding good then I do not see the point of entering. But alas, I have not
competed in several years.

Les

One thing that is not well understood by many is the idea of "flat" in an
acoustic sense only applies under anechoic conditions. If you have a speaker
that measures "flat" under near-field or anechoic conditions when measured in
the far field in a real room it will have a downsloping shape as frequency
rises.In a car, where there is only a far field the downslope will be greater;
such that the overall slope, at a driver seat head position, will fall at
roughly 3 dB per octave as frequency rises.

Subsequently folks who try to equalize to "flat" in the far field will have
schreeeeechy sounding systems.

"Chad Wahls lt" wrote in message

I use SIA Smaart as an RTA but flat is bad, study up on your
Fletcher-Munson curves, know what level you are going to be at and try
to hit a target curve.

I know that flat is bad, but I also use Smaart to give me an idea of what is
going on in an unfamiliar room. If I see the room itself has a huge peak at
2k then that will give me a starting point. I have always said use your
ears.

I usually ignore everything from 160Hz down
and go for the feel by ear (gut).

As said earlier even 1/3 octave is like using a chainsaw for a
vasectomy. Best off with a parametric with an adjustable Q. Anyone
using the live intended DSP based loudspeaker processors in cars yet?
Sorry, I've been out of the loop for a while!

Not that I have seen. But it would be nice to use a soundweb Though I
think that a DSP would offer too many choices for most car audio installs
and the end user would constantly tweek it. Though I suppose a DRPA wouldn't
be bad, but I am unfamiliar with that particular one.


Live sound and car audio people HATE each other for the most part, but
we do the same thing! Take gear, put it in extreme operating
conditions and run the hell out of it. A lot can be learned from each
camp. I was really happy to live audio mentioned.

I am a touring engineer, the only real reason I am here is to brush up
and install a modest system in my truck. New girlfriend lives a ways
away and the drive is killing me without good sounding tunes! I put
car audio away and got into drag racing and touring, I'm glad to see
the group thriving still, It seems a friendly place, thanks to all for
the help already!

I have never figured out why live and car guys don't like each other. I am a
live sound guy 50 hours a week for work and then do car audio in free time.
While I still had my Bronco I was doing some measuring to see if I could fit
an EAW SB1000 into the back, just for fun.

Les

What do you mean by "boosted"?


It's hard to verbalize. When you turn up the gains on an amp, your noise floor
rises as a result (although you may need to turn the gains up a quarter way or
more before the noise becomes audible) and it also has a tendacy to "boost" the
sound by seemingly adding artificial volume. The only way I can truly convey to
you what I'm talking about is to have you go play with the gains on an
installed system. Something tells me the results may differ when playing around
with equipment on a demo board.

It's hard to verbalize. When you turn up the gains on an amp, your noise
floor
rises as a result (although you may need to turn the gains up a quarter
way or
more before the noise becomes audible)

Depends entirely on the amplifier and, more importantly, the installation.
You can make the noise floor indetectable at all gain settings with a decent
amplifier and a good installation.

and it also has a tendacy to "boost" the
sound by seemingly adding artificial volume.

I don't understand. The gain control doesn't "boost" anything. It's a
resistor in a very high impedance op amp circuit. If it's presenting
distortion or noise, then something is broken with your amplifier.

The only way I can truly convey to
you what I'm talking about is to have you go play with the gains on an
installed system. Something tells me the results may differ when playing
around
with equipment on a demo board.

I still don't know what you mean. Sorry.

..

I know that flat is bad, but I also use Smaart to give me an idea of what is
going on in an unfamiliar room. If I see the room itself has a huge peak at
2k then that will give me a starting point. I have always said use your
ears.


Gimme a '57 and my voice and I'm set, actually happy. Those are two
things you can find ANYWHERE. And I always fall back on them.

Not that I have seen. But it would be nice to use a soundweb Though I
think that a DSP would offer too many choices for most car audio installs
and the end user would constantly tweek it. Though I suppose a DRPA wouldn't
be bad, but I am unfamiliar with that particular one.

I was thinking Shure P4800, untweakable to the end user. Or even the
Media Matrix X-frame 88, Gives 'em a few limited presets.

I have never figured out why live and car guys don't like each other. I am a
live sound guy 50 hours a week for work and then do car audio in free time.
While I still had my Bronco I was doing some measuring to see if I could fit
an EAW SB1000 into the back, just for fun.

I've always wondered about that. I did enter a contest with a pair of
JBL4719X's but was quickly DQed. An SB1000 Would probably dislocate
ribs, esp. in the bed of a pickup venting into the tiny cab. See what
you got me doin' now?

WTF!!! You're a live eng and have free time!?!?!? Either you have a
lot of energy or great time management skills! Just kidding

On a side note there's a couple mentions about sound guy's stereos,
both car and home on roadie.net


Chad

"Chad Wahls lt" wrote in message
om...

I was thinking Shure P4800, untweakable to the end user. Or even the
Media Matrix X-frame 88, Gives 'em a few limited presets.

That would work too.


I have never figured out why live and car guys don't like each other. I
am a
live sound guy 50 hours a week for work and then do car audio in free
time.
While I still had my Bronco I was doing some measuring to see if I could
fit
an EAW SB1000 into the back, just for fun.

I've always wondered about that. I did enter a contest with a pair of
JBL4719X's but was quickly DQed.

Why did they DQ you?

An SB1000 Would probably dislocate
ribs, esp. in the bed of a pickup venting into the tiny cab. See what
you got me doin' now?


Exactly. Which is why I wanted to try it. Although I am unfamilar with the
LAB sub, in the respect I have never used one, I think they would be
punishing to anyone in such a small space. They would never believe it was
only one 12.


WTF!!! You're a live eng and have free time!?!?!? Either you have a
lot of energy or great time management skills! Just kidding

Well I didnt say how much free time I thought I had lots of energy but
these past few weeks are testing it.


On a side note there's a couple mentions about sound guy's stereos,
both car and home on roadie.net

I will have to check that out. I usually pop in there a couple of times a
year, usually when something falls (truss) and I want a non-news story
about it.


Les

I still don't know what you mean. Sorry.

I'm not going to go into a technical debate about what an amp does or why gains
"should or should not" affect anything. The only thing I can tell you is that
there are differences, easily audible ones (to my ear) that I picked up when
the gains were adjusted on the systems I listened to. I noted that the systems
I heard using Eclipse decks sound slightly "cleaner" than the ones I heard with
other brand decks. As we should have all learned from Mark, there aren't enough
differences in the way different decks send out their data for them to be
making any sonic difference unless some other factor, such as EQ settings, are
in play. Other than the *small* differences I heard, there was nothing of note
that changed sonically between decks, and I heard units in several different
price points. It's the features and the user-interface that should really sell
you on a deck.

"fhlh002" wrote in message
...
he's NOT being stupid.. you're being stupid for posting blanket
statements.... please PROVE the DEX-P9 is cleaner than disinfectant!!!

FHLH

He was acting stupid. You're just stupid.

--Viktor

Steve Grauman wrote:

The only thing I can tell you is that
there are differences, easily audible ones (to my ear) that I picked up when
the gains were adjusted on the systems I listened to.

If you are using a HU in which the output volume is set by DSP instead
of an analog attenuator, then using a higher volume setting (with lower
gain on the amp) *will* give you a better resolved signal because you're
using more of the available dynamic range (bits). But it have to do
with the HU DAC, not the amplifier gain.

This could be what you are hearing.

Regards,
--
Eric (Dero) Desrochers

Hiroshima 45, Tchernobyl 86, Windows 95

Les wrote:

Don't stop to just a SB-1000, go all the way to a Servodrive Basstech 7

--
Eric (Dero) Desrochers

Hiroshima 45, Tchernobyl 86, Windows 95

"Steve Grauman" wrote in message
...
And unless I'm mistaken, output
voltage has nothing to do with SQ, only noise rejection.

I usually factor noise rejection as being part of SQ. Just thought I'd
bring it
up.

but it's a very small part in car audio, in home audio it's more of an
impact. this is why vrms is about as useful as power out puts for spks.

"electricked" no_emails_please wrote in message
...
"MZ" wrote in message
...
Pioneer DEX-P9

So what makes it cleaner? Disinfectant?

Why you being stupid?

he isn't this is funny, can you not see the humor??

"electricked" no_emails_please wrote in message
news

"fhlh002" wrote in message
...
he's NOT being stupid.. you're being stupid for posting blanket
statements.... please PROVE the DEX-P9 is cleaner than disinfectant!!!

FHLH

He was acting stupid. You're just stupid.

--Viktor

no they're making jokes can you not see this. both comments were funny,
yours was just childish.

"electricked" no_emails_please wrote in message
...
"Les" wrote in message
m...

"electricked" no_emails_please wrote in message
...

I do not think you require either one of those to effectively use an EQ.
There is no black magic involved with tweaking an EQ, you can adjust it
until it sounds good. That is the goal after all.

Les

In practice, no. For competition purposes, you have to fine tune it so
actually need one of those.

--Viktor

not if you have a trained ear, the human ear in some regards is better than
any o-scope.

"MZ" wrote in message
...
Mark Zarella wrote: "Then you're not going to be able to tell a
difference

I've heard distinct
differences in several of the HUs I've owned...to name a few:

Alpine CDA-7939
Eclipse 5303R
Nakamichi CD-700
Sony CDX C90

I have no explanation for your experiences. I'd suggest the testing
strategy, the configuration of the setup, or something being wrong with
the
unit. Sorry.

I think the difference would have more to do with the DSPs and filter
shapes, and slopes.

I still don't know what you mean. Sorry.

I'm not going to go into a technical debate about what an amp does or why
gains
"should or should not" affect anything. The only thing I can tell you is
that
there are differences, easily audible ones (to my ear) that I picked up
when
the gains were adjusted on the systems I listened to.

Well, I don't know how to explain what you experienced. But if you want to
convince us that the gain level contributes this "boost" effect, then you're
going to have to suggest a reason. Otherwise, it would have to be
attributed to other known things - noise, or perhaps your testing
procedures. I dunno.

If you are using a HU in which the output volume is set by DSP instead
of an analog attenuator, then using a higher volume setting (with lower
gain on the amp) *will* give you a better resolved signal because you're
using more of the available dynamic range (bits). But it have to do
with the HU DAC, not the amplifier gain.

This could be what you are hearing.

The DAC "resolution" is not dependent on the gain setting.

MZ wrote:

If you are using a HU in which the output volume is set by DSP instead
of an analog attenuator, then using a higher volume setting (with lower
gain on the amp) *will* give you a better resolved signal because you're
using more of the available dynamic range (bits). But it have to do
with the HU DAC, not the amplifier gain.

This could be what you are hearing.

The DAC "resolution" is not dependent on the gain setting.

It's absolute resolution is of course constant but if you are using DSP
to attenuate the signal by, say 12 dB, you are effectively only 14 of
the 16 available bits.
--
Eric (Dero) Desrochers

Hiroshima 45, Tchernobyl 86, Windows 95

The DAC "resolution" is not dependent on the gain setting.

It's absolute resolution is of course constant but if you are using DSP
to attenuate the signal by, say 12 dB, you are effectively only 14 of
the 16 available bits.

I'm having trouble thinking of a head unit that behaves as you suggest.
Even the HUs that provide a constant level output and modify it in DSP
modules in the amplifier (this is common for some newer stock HUs) aren't
losing resolution in the process. The attenuation is merely a control
signal.

MZ wrote:

The DAC "resolution" is not dependent on the gain setting.

It's absolute resolution is of course constant but if you are using DSP
to attenuate the signal by, say 12 dB, you are effectively only 14 of
the 16 available bits.

I'm having trouble thinking of a head unit that behaves as you suggest.
Even the HUs that provide a constant level output and modify it in DSP
modules in the amplifier (this is common for some newer stock HUs) aren't
losing resolution in the process. The attenuation is merely a control
signal.

I use an Alpine CDA-9815. It does EQ, crossover and time alignment in
the digital domain before feeding 6 seperates D to A converter (2 front,
2 rear, 2 sub).

At the design stage of the HU, Alpine engineers had the option of using
six channels of analog attenuators after the D to A converter or perform
the volume, balance and fader functions while still in the digital
domain.

Now what is more economical to do : add some circuitery or add a few
lines of code in an already existing DSP.

I don't have any hard evidence of one or the other but the logic would
suggest the later.

Soooo, if it's actually the case, having a hotter output would be
beneficial for the S/N, dynamic and resolution.

Of course, this may not apply to models older than 2-3 years.
--
Eric (Dero) Desrochers

Hiroshima 45, Tchernobyl 86, Windows 95

I use an Alpine CDA-9815. It does EQ, crossover and time alignment in
the digital domain before feeding 6 seperates D to A converter (2 front,
2 rear, 2 sub).

All wideband?


At the design stage of the HU, Alpine engineers had the option of using
six channels of analog attenuators after the D to A converter or perform
the volume, balance and fader functions while still in the digital
domain.

Or go from digital to analog and then back to digital, which is what I
suspect they did.

Now what is more economical to do : add some circuitery or add a few
lines of code in an already existing DSP.

Depends. It's usually cheapest to use pre-existing designs and ICs for the
implementation, which suggests to me an initial CD decoding with a standard
DAC strategy, putting it back into the digital domain, and processing again.
But this is speculation too.

but it's a very small part in car audio

Not to me. There are a lot of things in an automotive environment that can
introduce distortion and noise into your playback. If that distortion/noise is
audible, I've got a problem with it.

I've always wondered about that. I did enter a contest with a pair of
JBL4719X's but was quickly DQed.

Why did they DQ you?


Jealosy! The enclosures were not mounted in the vehicle, I didn't
want to mount them because I needed them to make money that night, +
they are a little pricey for a automotive sub! It was a hometown
Jerkit Silly thing I was bored and wanted to be a prick, No sweat off
my balls.

Exactly. Which is why I wanted to try it. Although I am unfamilar
with the
LAB sub, in the respect I have never used one, I think they would be
punishing to anyone in such a small space. They would never believe it was
only one 12.



Lab subs have 2 (X) 12's as does the KF940.

We should rename this thread, it could get interesting. I don't think
a bass horn will work in a car, here's why, bear with me I'm rusty on
car audio and have spent the last decade eating, breathing, sleeping,
and sh#tting pro audio. Our terms may differ, but it will all work
out!

Bass horns rely on 1 very primary fundamental, the ratio of air
compression between the throat and the mouth on the horn. They work
in environments where they really aren't pressurizing their working
environment as they would in a vehicle. In a vehicle they would be
working primarily in the pressurization modal zone, because of this,
the ratio at the mouth would approach 1:1 and you would loose the
efficiency of the design, you would be effectively blowing speakers
down a tube. I feel that it is best to stick with vented, bandpass
and sealed enclosures in this senario, the SB1000 is essentially a
vented enclosure, just wrinkled up to save frontal area. So, go nuts
with the SB1000, e-mail me your findings, I'm itching to find out,
I've heard what 2 4719's will do in a small van and it's quite
impressive.

It has been roumored that bandpass enclosures act as "short horns" in
an open space, I plan this summer on playing with this theory
extensively by building 4 single 18 banpass enclosures and working on
their packing. I have to keep this super top secret cuz I will be
banished from my live audio peers for using a "car audio" design to
make low end But think about it, pro guys bandpass their subs
anyway. We put a HPF on them to save cone excursion below the working
freq of the box and filter out the unwanted HF, why not take advantage
of the efficiency gain? AND they are smaller than true horns! Vdosc
and Martin are doing it, so can I! Granted there will be phase issues,
but digital processing comes cheap now and the shortcomings can be
corrected, I believe this is why horns are coming of age again. Hell,
I use my horn loaded rig almost all the time now that I can get some
serious control of it. It's old as dirt and the enclosures are big,
but smaller in that I need less to attain the same SPL, and they pack
nicer in the truck.

I love using Pro LF devices in vehicles! Granted their specs are
rather lackluster to the average bass head pill popper but they don't
know what they will do in an automobile with cabin gain, and just how
indestructable they can be. JBL really had it going on when they made
the GTI series out of the VC and Frame of the VGC series (2206/2226).
They are not as forgiving on box design but the rewards are well worth
the careful math and planning. I had 2 of the 15"gti series (2226) and
loved them, A friend has one and I have the other that was fatally
injured by the other buyer, Know where I can get a recone kit? I
would love to squeeze it behind the seat of my Dakota!


WTF!!! You're a live eng and have free time!?!?!? Either you have a
lot of energy or great time management skills! Just kidding

Well I didnt say how much free time I thought I had lots of energy but
these past few weeks are testing it.

Rest up my friend touring/festival season is just around the corner, I
start late (Mem Day) but go later in the season (early December),
That's right, festivals outside in early December..... IN ILLINOIS...
BRRRRR. We love our football!

I will have to check that out. I usually pop in there a couple of times a
year, usually when something falls (truss) and I want a non-news story
about it.

Same here, I usually read it after having too many bourbons and don't
wanna go to bed yet. I just don't want to read about anything falling
on you, be safe!


Chad

"Steve Grauman" wrote in message
...
but it's a very small part in car audio

Not to me. There are a lot of things in an automotive environment that can
introduce distortion and noise into your playback. If that
distortion/noise is
audible, I've got a problem with it.

the only things that can introduce distortion into an audio system in a car
is alt noise or RFI/EMI so there are not a LOT of things that can.

Yes....

On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 16:38:17 GMT, "jw" wrote:

Do these things have rca outs too?

"Tony Fernandes" wrote in message
...
Stephen Narayan wrote: "Tony I gotta throw one more headunit into the mix
just cus it's such a good deal right now...

Rockford Fosgate RFX8250 that was made by Denon for them. Basically
the same as a Denon DCT-A1 with modifications to work with Rockfords
balanced line cables. They are available on Sound Domain for $299...."

Yes, I've been hearing good things about those decks. Don't get me wrong,
I
realize there are several other good head units available out there, I was
just merely listing the ones I've owned (at least the ones worthy of
mentioning).

Tony


--



What's more likely? That an all-powerful mysterious god created the
universe and then decided not to give any proof of his existence? Or,
that
he simply doesn't exist at all? And that we created him so that we
wouldn't
have to feel so small and alone. -Eleanor Arroway, Contact

"Stephen Narayan" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 9 Mar 2004 07:34:34 -0800, "Tony Fernandes"
wrote:

I've done a thorough Deja search and still haven't found exactly what
I'm
looking for. I'm frustrated (or elated) that Eclipse's CD8053 player
is
mentioned in the same sentence as Sony's CDX-C90, Nak's CD-700, and
Denon's
DCT-Z1 in terms of SQ. I presently own the C90 and I'm quite happy
with
the
sound, but it has a crappy display and is difficult to navigate through
its
menus. I used to own the CD-700 and was REALLY impressed with the
sound
and
ease of use but got quicly bored with it (and tired of the skipping).
What
I want to know is if the 8053 is REALLY on par with these other units.
I've
listened to it at my local retailer, but it's really impossible to
compare
with what I have & have had without some controlled tests, which is
virtually impossible. I'm in love with the 8053's features and good
looks,
but I'm not willing to fork out the money only to find I'm disappointed
in
the SQ dept. after I've had it to listen to a while in my car. It's
certainly a LOT cheaper than the others, which might be an
indicator...I
could go on and on. Help???

Tony

Tony I gotta throw one more headunit into the mix just cus it's such a
good deal right now...

Rockford Fosgate RFX8250 that was made by Denon for them. Basically
the same as a Denon DCT-A1 with modifications to work with Rockfords
balanced line cables. They are available on Sound Domain for $299....


Stephen Narayan | | IASCA Certified Judge
http://www.teamrocs.com | Home of the original RAC Bada$$es
Denon DCT-1000R & Rockford RFX8250
PPI DEQ230/FRX456 EQ/x-over | Orion NT-300 BIQ EQ/preamp | NT-200 BIX
x-over
Four Phase Linear Euro.6s kW Slave amps and 4.8 kW Power Supply unit
Focal TN46 tweeters & 6K1 mids | 2 Aliante 8" midwoofers
Phase Linear Euro HC 15's




Stephen Narayan | | IASCA Certified Judge
http://www.teamrocs.com | Home of the original RAC Bada$$es
Denon DCT-1000R & Rockford RFX8250
PPI DEQ230/FRX456 EQ/x-over | Orion NT-300 BIQ EQ/preamp | NT-200 BIX x-over
Four Phase Linear Euro.6s kW Slave amps and 4.8 kW Power Supply unit
Focal TN46 tweeters & 6K1 mids | 2 Aliante 8" midwoofers
Phase Linear Euro HC 15's