[Sam Kapasi]

http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/ask-gu...tml#post336237

[Technocrat]

Originally Posted by navin
the 554 is only 2K more than the 552 and will match your existing 554 besides you can bridge the 554 to give your front speakers some real power.

Isnt the speaker too small to get powered by a 554 in normal mode, wont bridging be overkill ?
Alternatively can I use the existing 554 to power fronts & use 552 for rear 6X9s ?
The rated input power is just 30w & max is 130w

LBM: Thanks this is clear now & seems quite simple too Just one more clarification the small pic at bottom is for 2 electrolyte type caps right?

[navin]

Originally Posted by Technocrat

Isnt the speaker too small to get powered by a 554 in normal mode, wont bridging be overkill ?
Alternatively can I use the existing 554 to power fronts & use 552 for rear 6X9s ?

Yes. the front speakers are kinda small but one day you will upgrade. right? :-)

you can get the 552 if you are sure you will never upgrade your from speakers or get a DVC sub (in which case you can use 1 554 for the sub and the second for teh front and rear).

if you use the 554 bridged for the front and the 552 for the rear what will you use for the sub? unless you intend to use the 554 in normal mode for the front but the 554 and 552 do not differ sonically. so there is no need for this.

[Technocrat]

upgrade lol yeah that I belive is inevtable, you do see things further than what new in ICE people see :P

I think this would be the final thing for this car & in the next car ICE I would like to get some better equipment(hoping, I got married recently so cant commit )

Yes 554 for front in normal mode as it has HPF controls :-) The 552 should be good for rear since it doesn't need the HPF control as much as the fronts, Is this assumption wrong?

[navin]

Originally Posted by Technocrat

Yes 554 for front in normal mode as it has HPF controls :-) The 552 should be good for rear since it doesn't need the HPF control as much as the fronts, Is this assumption wrong?

the 552 does not have an HPF? Thanks I did not know that. If so use teh 554 for the front and sub and the 552 for the 6x9s in the rear.

[Technocrat]

Yep thats what the specsheet says here the specs for both the models:

XM-552ZR

Product Information
2/1 Channel Stereo Power Amplifier

Maximum Power Output:
2 Ch x 110W at 4
1 Ch x 350W at 4
2 Ch x 175W at 2
Frequency Response: 5 HZ - 50KHz
Rated Power Output: 2 Ch x 55W at
4 (0.04% THD)
1 Ch x 1300W at 4 (0.1% THD)
2 Ch x 65W at 2 (0.1% THD)

Specifications - Model XM-552ZR

Channel Configuration
2/1

High Pass Filter (Selectable)/Slope
-

Low Pass Filter (Selectable)/Slope
80Hz/-18 dB/oct

Signal to Noise Ratio (Rated Output)
100 dB

Total Harmonic Distortion (1kHz)
<0.005%

Stream-Regnum
-

Input: Number of Channels
2

Line Out
-

Subsonic High Pass Filter (15kHz, -12dB/oct)
-

Subwoofer Level Controller
-

Bass Boost
-

Toroidal Transformer
0

Line In: Input Sensitivity (V)
0.3-6

Gold Plated Connectors
-

Load Capability: 2 ohm
0

Dual Mode Capability
0

Current Drain (Rated Output Power at 4 ohm)
15A (at 4 ohm)

Weight approx.
2.0kg

XM-554ZR

Product Information
4/3 Channel Stereo Power Amplifier

Maximum Power Output: 4Ch x 110W at 4
2 Ch x 150W + 1Ch x 300W at 4
2 Ch x 150W at 2
Frequency Response: 5 HZ - 50KHz
Rated Power Output: 4 Ch x 55W at
4 (0.04% THD)
2 x 65W + 1Ch x 130W at 4 (0.1% THD)
4 Ch x 65W at 2 (0.1% THD)


Specifications - Model XM-554ZR

Channel Configuration
4/3

High Pass Filter (Selectable)/Slope
80Hz/-12 dB/oct

Low Pass Filter (Selectable)/Slope
80Hz/-18 dB/oct

Signal to Noise Ratio (Rated Output)
100 dB

Total Harmonic Distortion (1kHz)
<0.005%

Stream-Regnum
-

Input: Number of Channels
4

Line Out
-

Subsonic High Pass Filter (15kHz, -12dB/oct)
-

Subwoofer Level Controller
-

Bass Boost
-

Toroidal Transformer
0

Line In: Input Sensitivity (V)
0.3-6

Gold Plated Connectors
-

Load Capability: 2 ohm
0

Dual Mode Capability
-

Current Drain (Rated Output Power at 4 ohm)
30A (at 4 ohm)

Weight approx.
3.2kg

Though shows HPF selectable for both it show no information for the frequency for 552, is my understanding correct ?

[navin]

Originally Posted by Technocrat

Though shows HPF selectable for both it show no information for the frequency for 552, is my understanding correct ?

Yes .

[Technocrat]

Cool so now the recomended setup should be

If so use teh 554 for the front and sub and the 552 for the 6x9s in the rear.

Thanks a ton

[low_bass_makker]

Originally Posted by Technocrat

LBM: Thanks this is clear now & seems quite simple too Just one more clarification the small pic at bottom is for 2 electrolyte type caps right?

Yes sir...............

[nura]

Some amplifiers e.g. Audison SRx range are described as having filters, others e.g. Audison LRx range as having Butterworth filters. Do the former have 1st order networks & the latter 2nd order or are there some other differences? How do these differences affect the listener? Thanks.

[Autophile]

Audison SRx and LRx amplifiers have second order (12dB/oct) filters for stereo channels and fourth order (24db/oct) for subwoofer (mono) and subsonic filters.

The newer LRx AB amplifers have selectable second / fourth (12/24 db/oct) on subwoofer (mono) channels.

[zenx]

Hmm, I did hear a few subs (the budget's never enough, apparently) - here's some observations/questions :

* most subs seem designed/setup to play deeep thumps
* these start 'falling back' when there's quicker base - base notes moving real fast - sounds very unmusical

Is it only the more expensive subs that can do justice to the lower frequencies ? Where's hope ? Can oval coaxials do justice to this range ?

[hydrashok]

Originally Posted by zenx

Hmm, I did hear a few subs (the budget's never enough, apparently) - here's some observations/questions :

* most subs seem designed/setup to play deeep thumps
* these start 'falling back' when there's quicker base - base notes moving real fast - sounds very unmusical

Is it only the more expensive subs that can do justice to the lower frequencies ? Where's hope ? Can oval coaxials do justice to this range ?

True: What you can comfortably spend will never be enough. At any budget level. :(

For the quick and fast bass notes and the transients, there are some more expensive subs that can handle them really well. IMHO the best of that lot is the IDQ. The ID v3s also do a great job. The Alpine S type subs also do a pretty good job.

A lot depends on the box, though. A sealed box with the perfect volume will really bring the best out of the sub. Zak got an ID V3 for the his recent ICEing of a Montero (http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/sound-...ice-cold.html). That sub sounds about purrrrrrfect. It sounds about as good as the IDQ: I could compare them back-to-back with the same track, but in two different cars. The ID kicked almost as tight as the IDQ, but the IDQ went lower without losing definition and musicality. I tend to like tighter bass, even at the cost of losing a bit of low-end grunt. Now that sub has made me think about getting a smaller volume box (0.85 cu ft) myself.

I'd also listened to an Alpine 'S' type at the same time, and that sounded quite good too. These subs would fall in the 8K to 14K range (with the Alpine 'S' type close to 8K and the IDQ at the 14K end).

Did you try the JBL GT4-12? Drop it in a 1 cu.ft. sealed box, and feed it with a GTO301.1 or the bridged rear channels of a GTO75.4 and you get really good & musical bass for the money. The sub is 5K, and a good box will run to 1.5K.

The under-5K subs are mostly boom-boom subs with lesser definition. But a good enclosure will make even those subs sound better.

[zenx]

Thanks hydrashok (how many times have I said that, and how many more I will.... )

I happened to go towards Lavelle Road today and heard a basic JBL + a bass tube (sub) in the soundfactor guys' Zen - the fronts were 4" and the rears some CS series.

I fiddled around with the Pio controls a tad, and managed to get decent sounding bass eventually for eagles, some clapton and FM too !! Had to turn the bass and treble down a lot before I got there, and also the volume - else the bass was too overpowering. Of course I totally understood what you'd meant by the bass managing to drown out the soundstage at the front (if thats indeed the right way to put it) and was not too impressed with the 4"ers - but I guess 6.5" components should solve that.

Thing is, without the sub it sounded pretty flat, and I'm wondering if the Dieci coaxials will be enough by themselves at the rear - will the Sony 4ch amp or something is that price range, and a decent sub in a box do the job ? The Pio6200 and a decent sub are essentially 15k!!!

As you can see, I'm both trying to get the amp+sub and not get it The add-it-later bit is true, but I'm too lazy and will probably never get around to it.

[hydrashok]

@zenx, the reason you felt the bass to be boomy and with less definition was because you listened to a Bass Tube. The bass tubes are meant for that kind of bass.

Try listening to a Pio 306c. In a sealed box, it should sound much less boomier than a Tube. And the 6200 will drive it decently. I think a 306c should be available at 3.5K or so.

Yep, 6.5" comps in front vs. 4" comps/coaxials will make a big difference in bass up-front in the car. Don't worry on that front.

But I still think you should wait a bit and get better stuff Why spend all the money at one go? Get those 6x9s and drive them with a Pio 6200 or CS60.4. Maybe even get the amp later. Get the sub 6 months or so later.