Well the way I have started looking at my build has changed, it is now an evolving process not just a one time install and it is done. Reminds me of my home theater build, stereo amp 2 ch, surround sound, 5.1 surround sound, plasma, 7.2 surround sound with added 106" screen and PJ, swap out PJ for 1080P pj and HD DVD, then Blu Ray. This took me a few years but in the end I have a kick *** system. I think that this will be the way to build a system and in the end over time get a great result.

I think with the HP4 running the fronts and tweets and the sub with the head unit pushing the rears for fill sound will be fine for now. What I plan on doing is getting a second dedicated amp for the sub and if there is not enugh bass add a second sub and swaping out the rear door speaker for a set of Hertz 165's. Running all the door speakers off the original HP4 and the new second amp for the sub or subs.

This being said it will most likely be more $$ than I planned to spend in the long run but will not be a heav on the pocket for the initial purchase. The one HP4 and speakers + sub will most likely leave me room to purchase a new head unit if I need to. I just hate ripping out the stock one and disrupting the stock look. I know that to get the full potential out of the system you need to replace the HU, but I am going to give it some time with the stock unit to see how it sounds first.

I thank you all for your input and time

Phil

 

go take the challenge and be the first to proove your ability...and get 10,000 to boot(if it's still available). Forget the money, you can take pride in knowing that you are the only human to date that has beaten the challenge.

 

you dont understand the challenge and what it does, it does not prove all amps sound the same it proves they can in and A/B test with their outputs matched and with the correct use of equalization (thus proving they dont sound the same). It is a good test, not quite what RC had in mind when he started doing it. Bob Carvers null test in the 90's also showed the performance of amps can be matched (thus also proving they dont match now).

It really makes you wonder if laying out big bucks for an exotic amp is justified, and that is the point dont rely on cost to produce the sonic performance of the build, there are too many other factors.

 

Funny, how people with no actual experience, but know how to google, always throw this garbage with the challenge. Dont waste my time with this. Come talk to me when you have actual listening experience.

 

Exactly, too many variables. For example, take one amp, and switch some parts from it for different ones, and the sound will be changed on the same amp. Preamp section makes the biggest difference, as preamp on different amps sound like they have different EQ settings, and once the sound goes through it, the sound is altered as if it was processed with different EQ presets. Another thing, a regulated vs unregulated amps may sound similar on the board, cause the voltage is constant, not the same performance in a car, where voltage can change depending on engine rpm and how the amp is being driven. Another biggy is the stage openness. Some amps sound much much narrower in comparison to others, and again it probably has a lot to do they way preamp section is designed.

That stupid challenge is a marketing tool for Steven Meade is it, which is schoolbook to get a rise out of people, so his name will be burnt into your memory, and he gets to be famous and remembered, so he can make more money, and people believe anything they hear. It's something similar when celebrities need to be on the news just to remind everyone they exist, and it does not have to be good news. No such thing as bad publicity, anything shocking will work wonders. And this amp challenge shocked car audio fanatics, but mainly people who dont know any better, those who do are not affected by this non-sense. You do get what you pay for, but there is a point of diminishing returns in effect here as in any field. Of course, there are cheesyass amps that will sound similar, cause they have similar designs, and the market is flooded by mediocre stuff, because that what most people want, and they do sound very similar, but there are higher amp categories, and the cheaper designs cannot touch them. Cheaper amps dont even sound the way they did when they were new after like a year. Cheap parts(like caps) all dry out and others change physical properties, because they can't handle to be pushed to the specs, so the sound is not what you payed for only a year ago.

 

Aren't you happy you did. There is no way a cheaper TV will outperform an expensive one, especially when we are talking over 50". Night and day. Having an expensive receiver does wonders too for sound and image, as it can have better processing than your players.

There are many differences between expensive gear and cheap. Speaker control is noticeable, and its not just about spec listed damping factor, as I have heard amps with 250DF have better control that 1000DF. Do not believe the spec hype, and the thing about only 25DF is required, anything above is not noticeable. Everytime you change your impedance, damping drops, and you can hear it, if you know what to listen for, and it doesnt have to be in 25DF region. Also, power specs. I have heard Harmon rated at 65wrms a side blow away Pioneer rated at 100wrms a side. Zuki amps are rated like 5wrms a side, but do like 200. Another marketing tool for Zuki to strike an interest. So power rating are bogus too, as every other rating. Sounds like a conspiracy theory, doesnt it? I am starting to think, even CEA2006 is bogus. The change was needed, because people were catching on, and there was a need to create another diversion and a new sense of hope. Some amps by design have higher distortion, like a lot of SPL geared machines. To our ears, distortion makes the amp sound louder and adds to db's. I can go on....

So, no, I do not think all amps sound the same, and who the heck will take that Meade amp challenge? Who will make the time for you? It is not a like making a Dr's appointment - "Hi, I am here to take the challenge, here is my health card" That is just ridiculous, and anyone who believes that needs to see a bigger picture.

 

Sorry Sasha but you read way to much marketing and I think you are catching on to some aspects (ratings are often exagerated or underated) but grasping at the "audiophile" sense of blindely identifying parts and knowing --without using any scientific method-- that they change the sound is wrong IMO.

 

Any input on the original topic or gear selection LOL. Love your comments I look forward to them every evening with a bag of chips but kinda over my head. But to put my 2 cents in I am a believer that more expensive gear = greater value either it be in sound or build quality.

Later
Phil

 

This is off the beaten track from the original topic... I guess it has value (for the 100th time it has come up). Pardon me while I give a partial history lesson.

The basic amplifier block diagram design has changed very little in 30 years, there are significant advances in many of the basic blocks though, particularly in power supplies and distortion performance. The basic audio gain stage is the transistor (not so much tubes or mag-amps anymore) and transistors in audio use now include bipolar, mosfet, and IC types with each having their place but all is not equal here some are better at heat rejection and others at cost and miniaturization (IGBT are still on the outside looking in). Firing circuits are much more advanced and micro-processing has made amplifier circuit boards resemble computers with upgradable boards that can be slid in. Many of the higher priced as well as higher powered amps still use point to point wiring but fewer do every year.

A lot of amps are sourced overseas, many competing amps are made off essentially the same circuit board (this has embarrassed a number of high end names when their boards were found to be a little too similar to others). So frankly the gene pool can be pretty static if you don't dictate your products content. Also certain factories have been known to substitute parts of lesser value and alter performance unknown to the 'owner' (remember the melamine in dog food and milk from China). Some factories are operated with a tremendous amount of rigor and integrity and just because a product is made in China, Taiwan, or Korea does not mean 'crappy'!!! We enjoy inexpensive wattage and better than reasonable quality for less than we would have paid 18 years ago. JMLab (Focal) and B&W are having speakers made in China that are crazy good BTW.

Given all that has changed and all that hasn't this argument is still as lively as it was in the 70's and 80's. I find it hard to believe that two amps are capable of performing the same given the variances and tolerances of 'bin' manufacturing. Bin manufacturing means your piece parts will be a common lot and will have similar tolerances (until you buy the next bin anyway). The tighter the bin performance standard the higher the cost (so even though two amps look the same, they may be built to different standards, or even have special circuits... or not). Still the most expensive item in many amps is the heat sink and the sinks performance dictates the output stages limitations (go cheap and suffer). If their electrical performance is not identical into a 4ohm resistive load then it is reasonable their performance driving a complex capacitive and inductive load would deviate even more. So from a purely logical point of view one must say it is possible that some of the deviations should be audible. But the rub comes from the measurable and repeatable thing. It has often been proven that listening levels are the most significant difference we hear. THD levels in the output are pretty much inaudible till 4-10% and the sound of THD is not what you might expect either. Stereophile (a hated audiophile magazine) publishes THE MOST comprehensive test data ever performed on amplifiers yet they are the first to admit their perceived sonic impressions are not reinforced by the measurements. To put it another way, one can not predict how an amplifier will sound from most of its specifications. MANY amps start to roll off at 18k Hz to help eliminate a HF edge so yes manufacturers do mess with measurable things to alter the sound of a linear product to make it more pleasing and yet less linear.
After all this flopping and twitching has anything been solved, if one amp out performs another does that mean we will like it more??? Yet we go to a sound board and we listen to 2 amps and we hear a difference... is it really there? Is it significant? Does negative feedback sound bad? What does an even or odd distortion product sound like? Is it due to volume/ gain differences? I think this is an individual dilemma and each individual must decide

BUT the better product might be cheaper, it might be made better, or it might be overly bass heavy and you like it that way!

I am not a big fan of specs in SQ as they don't really tell you too much and their are surprising products out there that just break the mold (boulder amps are $50,000 with IC outputs, Nuforce has a PWM power supply that measures poorly but sounds good (go figure)).

The bottom line: Buy what makes you happy

 

Not sure what you mean by any of that. However, I did not say anything I havent experienced myself, and did not blindly make any statements that I have no personal proof of. In fact, the changes were so drastic, who needs scientific method, whatever you mean by that, I trust my ears.

"I read too much marketing" What does that even mean, and how did you come up with that? It seems you made several statements, but did not bother to expand. Anyone can do that. If you're saying I am wrong, tell me where, so we can have a discussion. Back-up your statements, and provide some useful information, so everyone can benefit. So far, you provided 4 lines of pointless comments.