|
Post by garbulky on Oct 20, 2014 12:18:59 GMT -5
Well I have a UPA-2, and have tried an XPA-2, XPA-5, XPR-2 and XPA-1 L's. I've heard differences with all of them. Some small, some significant (laid back vs more forward/agressive). I've also tried the mini-x and UPA-1 for a briefer period. The XPA_1 L and the XPA-5 being somewhat similar in sound signature. The mini-x and xpa-2 being surprisingly similar in sound signature too! Though the XPA-2 could really crank it if needed and was a very fast amp - superior to cheaper amps on the list. The UPA-1 and UPA-2 sounded very similar.
I listen at very low volumes - probably barely hitting 80db at nearfield. Have also heard differences between pre-amps and dacs. Not a blind test by any means but I trust what I heard.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 9,981
|
Post by KeithL on Oct 20, 2014 14:09:27 GMT -5
Agreed... We really should reserve the term "snake oil" for things that fail to live up to their claims. In the case of balanced and unbalanced interconnects, from time to time I hear claims that the two "sound different" above and beyond the ability of the balanced cables to reject noise interference. I have never heard this difference under that condition, and personally doubt that it is audible. (It is true that connecting a fully differential preamp to a fully differential power amp will only result in "a fully differential system" if you connect them with balanced cables, and that this should result in somewhat lower THD, but the numbers involved are so small that I honestly doubt they are audible.) However, even assuming you hear no difference, that is not at all the same as saying that they are "snake oil". For one thing, those balanced inputs provide extra flexibility. Someday you may want to run those fifty foot interconnects, or you may notice some interference, and switching to the balanced interconnects may fix it. (Even if it doesn't fix the problem, being able to rule that out as a cause while doing diagnostic steps has some value.) Those balanced inputs also provide a bit of "future proofing". Someday you may buy a preamp that only has balanced outputs, or you may wish to sell the amp, at which time having balanced inputs will probably add to its resale value. I would agree that, barring any problems that need solving, I wouldn't expect to hear an audible improvement with balanced connections. Actually, if you read through my posts here, you'll find that I mention highly unusual electronic interference as one of the two reasons why you might need XLR. The number of people on this board who have XLR inputs to whom that applies is so infinitesimal that it's barely worth mentioning. What you didn't note, in your post, is that unless the condition in quote or the one you mentioned applies then spending extra money for XLR inputs is snake oil. Thank you so very much for proving my point. There are so many problems here that I don't know where to start. Let's try this, a product can't legitimately be described as "snake oil" when it is in fact useful in many circumstances. Especially when the describer has no idea of the situation in which the product is going to be used. In this particular example you didn't know how long his interconnect run was nor were you aware of the interference potential at his premises. You bluntly told him that XLR's were "snake oil", hence that they never did anything, placebo effect only. Whereas the truth is that in the right circumstances XLR's are extremely useful, can turn an otherwise unlistenable system into something worthwhile. You didn't qualify it, you didn't quantify it, you quoted no exceptions, no explanations just the blanket "snake oil" branding. By doing so you could have quite easily turned someone away from the very product that they needed. That's about as bad a piece of advice as one can give. Using the "other posts" excuse is pretty lame, what's he supposed to do? Somehow magically know that you have posted contradictory information in other threads? Then find something that he doesn't even know exists? If you want people to refer to other information then you really should tell them. Or post a proper answer in the first place instead of something which is factually erroneous and grossly misleading. You also need to be aware of the calling "wolf" problem, if you incorrectly label legitimately worthwhile products as "snake oil" then no one will believe you when you really are talking about a "snake oil" product. Cheers Gary
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 9,981
|
Post by KeithL on Oct 20, 2014 14:34:42 GMT -5
I would disagree entirely. Anything can be analyzed statistically - if you do the analysis properly. However, you need to be very careful about what questions you're asking, and how you ask them. You need to define all the details very carefully and unambiguously. For example, if you want to "prove" that there's no audible difference between balanced and unbalanced connections, then you need to do a double-blind test and see if people can identify which they're listening to.... probably by asking them to tell you which one they're listening to a bunch of times. If you ran the test that way, then a result near 50/50 (meaning that people were wrong as often as right - as you would expect by blind chance) would indeed prove that there's no audible difference (and, by implication, that neither is superior). However, my guess would be that at least some people will be able to identify the two amplifiers. Now, assuming that you establish that at least some people hear a difference, THEN you can try and ascertain which is "better" or "preferred by more people". If only 10% of people can taste the difference between Coke and Pepsi, but those 10% are accurate about which is which 90% of the time, then you've established that there's a real difference. You've also established that only 10% of the population is discerning enough to recognize that difference. Now, after all that, you can ask what percentage of the 10% who could tell the difference actually preferred Coke and what percentage preferred Pepsi. (The fact that only 10% could taste a difference does NOT at all suggest that the difference isn't there. However, if 10% claimed they could taste the difference, yet those 10% proved unable to identify which was which in a blind test, then that WOULD suggest that there really is no difference. It could also turn out that, of the 10% who can taste the difference, the number who prefer either one is the same - and so 50/50.) "On top of that you're taking a completely statistical and analytical approach to something that just isn't completely so." Yes, is it completely so. When you take people and have them listen to things like different amps, XLR cables, etc, and the outcome is basically 50/50 then it is completely so. It's hard for people to face if they're spent a lot of money on that type of thing. Your points on Emotiva are correct. I didn't say that there was any snake oil in choosing Emotiva. Just in getting an XPA over a UPA for the sake of having balanced inputs or in thinking that the XPA is going to outperform the UPA inside of the UPA's operating envelope, which it won't.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 9,981
|
Post by KeithL on Oct 20, 2014 14:39:12 GMT -5
I would disagree entirely. Anything can be analyzed statistically - if you do the analysis properly. However, you need to be very careful about what questions you're asking, and how you ask them. You need to define all the details very carefully and unambiguously. For example, if you want to "prove" that there's no audible difference between balanced and unbalanced connections, then you need to do a double-blind test and see if people can identify which they're listening to.... probably by asking them to tell you which one they're listening to a bunch of times. If you ran the test that way, then a result near 50/50 (meaning that people were wrong as often as right - as you would expect by blind chance) would indeed prove that there's no audible difference (and, by implication, that neither is superior). However, my guess would be that at least some people will be able to identify the two amplifiers. Now, assuming that you establish that at least some people hear a difference, THEN you can try and ascertain which is "better" or "preferred by more people". If only 10% of people can taste the difference between Coke and Pepsi, but those 10% are accurate about which is which 90% of the time, then you've established that there's a real difference. You've also established that only 10% of the population is discerning enough to recognize that difference. Now, after all that, you can ask what percentage of the 10% who could tell the difference actually preferred Coke and what percentage preferred Pepsi. (The fact that only 10% could taste a difference does NOT at all suggest that the difference isn't there. However, if 10% claimed they could taste the difference, yet those 10% proved unable to identify which was which in a blind test, then that WOULD suggest that there really is no difference. It could also turn out that, of the 10% who can taste the difference, the number who prefer either one is the same - and so 50/50.) I can tell you that many people hear a difference between those amplifiers. (I hear a difference, but I'll concede that it may be because the one amplifier "hit its operating limit" - and so clipped a little more - before the other.) In order to do that test fairly, you would have to be very careful to ensure that the less powerful amp never clipped - even the tiniest bit - which can be a bit tricky if you're playing things loudly. "On top of that you're taking a completely statistical and analytical approach to something that just isn't completely so." Yes, is it completely so. When you take people and have them listen to things like different amps, XLR cables, etc, and the outcome is basically 50/50 then it is completely so. It's hard for people to face if they're spent a lot of money on that type of thing. Your points on Emotiva are correct. I didn't say that there was any snake oil in choosing Emotiva. Just in getting an XPA over a UPA for the sake of having balanced inputs or in thinking that the XPA is going to outperform the UPA inside of the UPA's operating envelope, which it won't.
|
|
|
Post by Cogito on Oct 20, 2014 14:42:10 GMT -5
I would disagree entirely. Anything can be analyzed statistically - if you do the analysis properly. However, you need to be very careful about what questions you're asking, and how you ask them. You need to define all the details very carefully and unambiguously. For example, if you want to "prove" that there's no audible difference between balanced and unbalanced connections, then you need to do a double-blind test and see if people can identify which they're listening to.... probably by asking them to tell you which one they're listening to a bunch of times. If you ran the test that way, then a result near 50/50 (meaning that people were wrong as often as right - as you would expect by blind chance) would indeed prove that there's no audible difference (and, by implication, that neither is superior). However, my guess would be that at least some people will be able to identify the two amplifiers. Now, assuming that you establish that at least some people hear a difference, THEN you can try and ascertain which is "better" or "preferred by more people". If only 10% of people can taste the difference between Coke and Pepsi, but those 10% are accurate about which is which 90% of the time, then you've established that there's a real difference. You've also established that only 10% of the population is discerning enough to recognize that difference. Now, after all that, you can ask what percentage of the 10% who could tell the difference actually preferred Coke and what percentage preferred Pepsi. (The fact that only 10% could taste a difference does NOT at all suggest that the difference isn't there. However, if 10% claimed they could taste the difference, yet those 10% proved unable to identify which was which in a blind test, then that WOULD suggest that there really is no difference. It could also turn out that, of the 10% who can taste the difference, the number who prefer either one is the same - and so 50/50.) "On top of that you're taking a completely statistical and analytical approach to something that just isn't completely so." Yes, is it completely so. When you take people and have them listen to things like different amps, XLR cables, etc, and the outcome is basically 50/50 then it is completely so. It's hard for people to face if they're spent a lot of money on that type of thing. Your points on Emotiva are correct. I didn't say that there was any snake oil in choosing Emotiva. Just in getting an XPA over a UPA for the sake of having balanced inputs or in thinking that the XPA is going to outperform the UPA inside of the UPA's operating envelope, which it won't. I for one, can tell the difference between Coke and Pepsi 100% of the time. I admit, I have "Golden Tastebuds".
|
|
|
Post by memotiva on Oct 21, 2014 2:57:54 GMT -5
I would disagree entirely. However, my guess would be that at least some people will be able to identify the two amplifiers. Now, assuming that you establish that at least some people hear a difference, THEN you can try and ascertain which is "better" or "preferred by more people". "On top of that you're taking a completely statistical and analytical approach to something that just isn't completely so." Yes, is it completely so. When you take people and have them listen to things like different amps, XLR cables, etc, and the outcome is basically 50/50 then it is completely so. It's hard for people to face if they're spent a lot of money on that type of thing. Your points on Emotiva are correct. I didn't say that there was any snake oil in choosing Emotiva. Just in getting an XPA over a UPA for the sake of having balanced inputs or in thinking that the XPA is going to outperform the UPA inside of the UPA's operating envelope, which it won't. Another case in point. You disagree entirely but it's based on your guess. I hope you're not a physician by trade. Plenty of people 'hear' the difference in things. That doesn't mean that they actually hear differences. There's plenty of ways for the mind to trick itself. www.cbc.ca/natureofthings/episodes/brain-magic-the-power-of-the-placebo goes into it pretty well if you have a Canadian proxy handy. We trick ourselves in many ways and while we're being subjective, we're far from being objective. That applies in many ways. Look at other things that are subjective like wine. Economists have proven a pretty distinct lack of objectivity in the subjectivity. If XLR cables, fancy HDMI cables, speaker cables, etc, actually mattered, those people who make money from them would be parading studies. They're not. It's a load of garbage upon which the industry is mostly silent for their own good.
|
|
|
Post by mgbpuff on Oct 21, 2014 4:37:03 GMT -5
XLR cables were designed for noise rejection. If there is no noise in the environment, then there is little need for XLRs. However, environments change, people move to different environments, so XLR cables may be a good investment. Other cables have IR voltage drop considerations that may come into play given the length of the run and the load and resistance does indeed vary with frequency. So larger cross section cables and/or special designs for high frequency optimization may be useful. Similarly some HDMI cables have failed to meet requirements depending on length and many on this blog have encountered this type of problem solved by going to a better HDMI cable. Science is science and snake oil is snake oil, don't confuse the two.
|
|
|
Post by Cogito on Oct 21, 2014 7:38:37 GMT -5
Some just prefer a Lexus over a Toyota. Both cars get you from point A to point B but one car just cost more to maintain. I do agree that there are snake oils in audio but if people prefer to get the Lexus than let it be. It makes them feel better and hear better lol Your argument completely avoids the topic of "snake oil". The Lexus and Toyotas cars have easily measurable objective differences that can EASILY be measured and duplicated. In fact, there are most likely GLARING differences in performance and technology. "Snake oil" on the other hand, MIGHT create measurable differences, but these differences are most often a magnitude BELOW the threshold of human hearing. Some snake oil claims such as my three favorites, the Tice clock, green markers and cryogenic treatments are so outrageous, so unscientific, so unreasonable, that they seem to be the product of a child's imagination and yet the most gullible people I know, "audiophiles", STILL bought them! As wonderful a hobby this is, it's full of fools.
|
|
cawgijoe
Emo VIPs
"We made too many of the wrong mistakes." - Yogi Berra
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by cawgijoe on Oct 21, 2014 7:50:03 GMT -5
None of this is new. There are those who swear they can hear differences in cables and others who say they can't. Same with amplifiers.
This discussion is an impasse as neither side will ever convince the other.
My take after over thirty years in this hobby is this: cables need to be of good materials quality and build. The connector is extremely important and must be well attached. I personally don't believe you need to spend alot on cables. Monoprice, Bluejeans, Emotiva, even the low end Monster and Audioquest are great. I've also rolled my own using Canare and Belden cable with success.
In terms of amplifiers: My current speakers are Thiel CS1.6. They are 4ohm or lower speakers. I know they can be driven by a Pioneer or Denon receiver, but not well. Both receivers I initially tried on these speakers sounded thin. Bass was lacking. They also became quite hot. I knew I needed a real amplifier. I ended up with the XPA-5. The difference is night and day. The amp does not get hot and the sound is much improved. Could I have saved some cash and gone with a cheaper amplifier from Emotiva? Probably. But the XPA series is well built, has great specs, and I won't miss the extra cash spent over time versus the pleasure of owning one. I also know this amp can drive most speakers out there without an issue.
|
|
cawgijoe
Emo VIPs
"We made too many of the wrong mistakes." - Yogi Berra
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by cawgijoe on Oct 21, 2014 7:57:11 GMT -5
Snake oil.
Yes, there is quite a bit. One of the worst I ever saw was at a Stereophile show in NYC years ago. A vendor had large hose sized speaker cable with a second jacket that had colored water in it! When the light shown through the transparent outer jacket you could see the pretty colors...your choice to match your decor of course!
He claimed that the water improved the sound and had some made up reason for it. I could not believe it.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 9,981
|
Post by KeithL on Oct 21, 2014 8:57:18 GMT -5
Maybe it wasn't just water.... maybe it was "genuwine snake erl". (Hey, I'm sure it could keep your music from sounding "too dry".) I'm not sure if my favorite is the one (which someone still makes) where the sleeve is filled with a powdered ferrite powder mixture (for "high frequency shielding" or some such), or the interconnects Mapleshade used to sell years ago, where the actual cable was a pair of super-thin enameled magnet wires (about 30 gauge), twisted but not shielded, and then covered by a loose fitting "sleeve" of polyethylene (like a long skinny sandwich bag). They even made AC power cables, and power strips with attached cords, using a similar design - which can't possibly have passed safety requirements. And... if you want to read some really interesting stuff... Google: "Peter W Belt" and "Machina Dynamica" Snake oil. Yes, there is quite a bit. One of the worst I ever saw was at a Stereophile show in NYC years ago. A vendor had large hose sized speaker cable with a second jacket that had colored water in it! When the light shown through the transparent outer jacket you could see the pretty colors...your choice to match your decor of course! He claimed that the water improved the sound and had some made up reason for it. I could not believe it.
|
|
|
Post by memotiva on Oct 21, 2014 12:26:23 GMT -5
"n terms of amplifiers: My current speakers are Thiel CS1.6. They are 4ohm or lower speakers. I know they can be driven by a Pioneer or Denon receiver, but not well. Both receivers I initially tried on these speakers sounded thin. Bass was lacking. They also became quite hot. I knew I needed a real amplifier. I ended up with the XPA-5. The difference is night and day. The amp does not get hot and the sound is much improved. Could I have saved some cash and gone with a cheaper amplifier from Emotiva? Probably. But the XPA series is well built, has great specs, and I won't miss the extra cash spent over time versus the pleasure of owning one. I also know this amp can drive most speakers out there without an issue."
None of that really is against the main premise that I put forward in my original argument. Get the cheapest power you can find that meets your specifications. All of the amps will sound the same inside of that realm no matter how fancy they are or how much marketing they are. Plenty of people get things like an XPA because they think that they need XLR cabling, when in reality, the it makes 0 difference for the vast majority of people other than fill vendor's pockets and empty theirs.
|
|
cawgijoe
Emo VIPs
"We made too many of the wrong mistakes." - Yogi Berra
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by cawgijoe on Oct 21, 2014 13:20:09 GMT -5
memotiva:
It definitely sounds like you have a bias against XLR. I also believe that at short distances you won't hear any difference between RCA's and XLR's. They are really meant for long distance runs. That's fine, however I personally really like the look of the XLR cables and connections. Emotiva is able to put these in some of their gear at great price points. You can buy good quality cables from Monoprice for example which won't break the bank.
You can also use RCA cables instead. You have the option. I really like having options.
Is that so bad?
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Oct 21, 2014 13:39:19 GMT -5
"n terms of amplifiers: My current speakers are Thiel CS1.6. They are 4ohm or lower speakers. I know they can be driven by a Pioneer or Denon receiver, but not well. Both receivers I initially tried on these speakers sounded thin. Bass was lacking. They also became quite hot. I knew I needed a real amplifier. I ended up with the XPA-5. The difference is night and day. The amp does not get hot and the sound is much improved. Could I have saved some cash and gone with a cheaper amplifier from Emotiva? Probably. But the XPA series is well built, has great specs, and I won't miss the extra cash spent over time versus the pleasure of owning one. I also know this amp can drive most speakers out there without an issue." None of that really is against the main premise that I put forward in my original argument. Get the cheapest power you can find that meets your specifications. All of the amps will sound the same inside of that realm no matter how fancy they are or how much marketing they are. Plenty of people get things like an XPA because they think that they need XLR cabling, when in reality, the it makes 0 difference for the vast majority of people other than fill vendor's pockets and empty theirs. I'll take you up on that. Your assertion is that nobody is willing to debate the facts and just wave it away because they like their snake oil better right? I'll try to give it a go. These are some of my issues with it. Double blind testing. The first thing is what Keith mentioned - what it shows is that the sucess rate of identifying is 50% or IMPLIED random chance. However, people haven't gone so far as to figure out - of the double blind testing, to find if any INDIVIDUALS were able to identify the differences any better than other people. And then put those individuals through double blind testing ....again. This would be a better test. Other issues: Unfamiliar environment. We don't know how good the environement and we are not used to it. Unfamiliar room setup: what kind of room treatment was used, how good is the room, how well the speakers are setup in the room. . Unfamiliar music. Possible listening position problems. Some of these tests mentioned are produced in a large seating area with most of the people NOT in the sweet spot. Lack of a control group: where is the control group? There usually is none in these tests. LEVEL MATCHING and a/b testing: When the sound is level matched, you are hearing the same volume. This sounds like it should eliminate bias. But what it is doing is making the sound very similar to the other sound. It's easier for the brain to fill in the blanks of anything missing. Try doing blind testing yourself, you will find yourself double guessing yourself. For instance on the B run, you were sure something was mising, but then you played A and then B again, and suddenly it's not missing. The ability of the brain to fool itself by filling in gaps happens just as likely when the two things are very similar (level matched)....imo. They posted a vdeo I think called the mcgurk effect that showed this. Also they had a demonstration where they showed an audio clip of garbled distorted garbage. One is unable to make out what they are saying. Then they played the audio clip with it not garbled where it was clearly understood. Then played back the identical previous garbled version of it and PEOPLE WERE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND IT though it was not possible before. This shows that when A to B is done, the brain can fill in missing gaps in B or whatever they just heard. So if you heard a really good reproduction and heard a very slightly worse one, your brain could fool itself by making it sound just as good and vice versa. Time constraints: there isn't enough time or resources to....spend enough time doing this per person - say several days - with a large enough sample size. One does not equal the other: Most of the tests all use different amplifier comparisons. What that shows is that it was "implied" random chance that those two specific amps sound similar. It doesn;t mean that all amps sound similar. Just the ones on test.
|
|
cawgijoe
Emo VIPs
"We made too many of the wrong mistakes." - Yogi Berra
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by cawgijoe on Oct 21, 2014 14:00:42 GMT -5
Here is a quote from Julian Hirsch who was in the same camp as memotiva: interesting conclusion on his part.
"It came as no surprise that all the amplifiers in this group were capable of delivering excellent performance in almost any home music system. And provided we kept all of them running within their power limits, we heard nothing that would incline us to prefer one over another. Although some people strongly feel otherwise, good amplifiers of comparable quality and power that are not being overdriven will sound very much alike under most conditions to most people. If amplifiers do sound much alike (and these did), then why bother comparing them? Because there is more to an audio component than it's perceived sound character. There are differences in operational limits (maximum power output into various loads, for example), construction quality and finish, size, weight, price and features that can affect an amplifier's suitability for any particular installation."
High Power Amplifiers by Julian Hirsch Stereo Review November 1992
|
|
|
Post by sct on Oct 21, 2014 17:10:55 GMT -5
Nowadays, most amps are very well designed and constructed. Spending uber-bucks on an exotic amp is, frankly, a waste of money - money that could be much better spent on better speakers, room treatments, etc. But feel free to drive your $700 speakers with a $2,000 XPR amp - I'm sure it'll make you feel much better...
SCT
PS: Cawgijoe - this is *not* directed at you specifically, your XPA-5 is a great amp for very reasonable money...
|
|
cawgijoe
Emo VIPs
"We made too many of the wrong mistakes." - Yogi Berra
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by cawgijoe on Oct 21, 2014 19:03:23 GMT -5
Nowadays, most amps are very well designed and constructed. Spending uber-bucks on an exotic amp is, frankly, a waste of money - money that could be much better spent on better speakers, room treatments, etc. But feel free to drive your $700 speakers with a $2,000 XPR amp - I'm sure it'll make you feel much better... SCT PS: Cawgijoe - this is *not* directed at you specifically, your XPA-5 is a great amp for very reasonable money... Definite overkill and I hope someone would not do that. It's probable that most separate amps are built and designed well these days. Not the case twenty years ago. These days you have fewer manufacturers of "affordable" amps including Emotiva, Outlaw, Rotel, etc. As to the uber expensive amps such as Krell, Ayre, Mark Levinson, etc.....they may be way too expensive and exotic, but boy are they super well built and beautiful! Kind of like lusting after a Ferrari or Lamborghini. You don't need one....but they look great!
|
|
|
Post by leonski on Oct 21, 2014 20:11:17 GMT -5
The REAL difference in amps is the ability to drive reactive loads. Take 2 amps which have the same (or within a fraction of a DB) power. Like a Rotel RB1070 of 2x130 vs my Parasound A23 of 2x125. Both are into resistors at 8 ohms. However, as soon as you hook 'em up to a speaker, all similarities END. The Rotel has NO factory 4ohm rating. The Parasound is rated at 200 or 225 per channel @4ohms. The Parasounds bridged rating of 400@8 is above the Rotels which I remember as being mid/lo 300s@8. Even into my easy-load Magnepans, the Parasound is much better. The Rotel simply lacked the guts. For a difficult load, with high phase angles, I'd put money on the Parasound being audibly better than the Rotel. Especially as the limits were reached.
The idea of 'unclipped amps sound the same' is not quite right. If the amps are driving uncomfortable loads or huge impedance swings in the case of a tube amp, you can BET they'll sound different. I don't think anyone else in this thread has mentioned level matching, either, which is critical. Louder almost always sounds better.
This is all known stuff. I'm not making this up. For ME? If I had access to all the data on an amp, the one with superior performance into wacky loads would be the amp to get. Even my low-sensitivity Maggies benefit from the Parasounds better 4ohm performance. And since I'm BIAMPING with a PAIR of 'em, that nets me another 3db. If I go to a line level crossover, (passive or active) I'll get even MORE apparent power.
This brings me to my 2nd point.
When biamping or considering such, keep in mind the CROSSOVER FREQUENCY rules. If the crossover is very very high, like maybe 8khz, than you could be by with maybe a 10:1 ratio of amp power. The 50:50 point is fairly low. Maybe 400hz. At that point, 2 identical amps will run out of steam at about the same time, given 'normal' distribution of frequencies. My panels are crossed at 600hz and I low-cut the bass driver at about 50hz. Below that goes to the sub. So I don't feel at all bad with SAME amps on the highs as on the lows.
The original post mentioned an ACTIVE crossover. This will net even MORE power difference but keep in mind that the amps should have SAME GAIN or you'll have problems with freq. balance.
|
|
|
Post by leonski on Oct 21, 2014 20:17:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by pedrocols on Oct 21, 2014 20:40:13 GMT -5
So basically what this shows is that if you drive a Lamborghini and a Kia @ 10 mph in a control driving environment, the Lamborghini won't be any faster. That is a good way to waste anybody's time. Take the Lamborghini and the Kia to the drag strip for a quarter mile race to see what happens. And that my friend is the real world.
|
|