Impious

Blind leading the blind.His equipment isn't calibrated.....so how do you know it's only off .01V That's one of the points....you don't. I don't. He doesn't. Therefore we can't call the test accurate. Because we don't know. And that's just one of the many reasons.

Just to clarify, higher preamp voltages do not "minimize" the source of noise. Higher preamp voltages increase the signal to noise ratio (SNR).....the level of the induced noise is the same, but the level of the signal is higher so the SNR is also higher. Saying the noise is minimized implies that the higher voltage has some inherent ability to "reject" some of the noise, reducing it's level....which it does not. The noise is the same, but the SNR has increased.M5's point was that in the cases where you have an audible amount of induced noise, the problem is the signal cables or routing near sources of noise in the vehicle (which does not include the amp's power cable), and increasing the voltage of the signal is masking the problem rather than fixing it. I know this, and that's what I said. The final noise is less (at the same volume) from the 4v preouts, and yes, that is because of the higher SNR. I never said anything about some sort of fairy dust that accompanies higher voltage preouts and repels noise. I said that because the signal is amplified more, the noise is amplified more... I guess that assuming my point would be made was too generous of me. And either way, masking the problem is still better than ignoring it altogether. That's not what you said. You've yet to use the phrase SNR until you quoted my post, which if that's what you meant then it would have been a wise choice of words. When we are discussing signal transmission, which is what we are doing when we are discussing preamp voltage levels, minimizing noise would mean reducing the level of noise present in the signal. And I don't recall anyone suggesting we just ignore the problem. Silly thing to say, not even sure where that came from.

But, but, but, it didn't do rated. It has to be flawed.... No one here arguing against clamp tests gives two shits what the "test" showed for power compared to rated. Why? Because the test isn't a valid test to start with, so no matter what the results should be discarded. We've always stated the same thing regardless of manufacturer, regardless of who did the test, regardless of what the claimed results were.Props to Taylor for trying. But trying hard doesn't make the results any more meaningful. I don't care if the amp is in fact over rated. Just prove it with a valid test.

But, but, but, it didn't do rated. It has to be flawed.... But but but.. the owner said he will retest because all testing prior to marketing is correct and will retest.. However once he said that.. many people started bashing the "potential" for his other products to be flawed, etc.. I only trust the owner and\or companies who do this for a living. If one person can be trusted to "fail" an amp publicly, then all companies might as well shut their businesses down because you know what they say.. The customer is always right... So professional testing must be pointless.. We don't care about getting close We, as a business community, care about doing it right. Why would a business rely on a customer's test as the official ruling of their products potential. That is the dumbest thing i've seen this year so far and that's pretty damn bad. But keep supporting the "close testing". We'll support professional test results. I'm fairly sure you can consider Taylor's tests "professional." Your average consumer doesn't have a bank of fixed resistance and all of the equipment to properly test amplifiers like he does,He doesn't have the equipment to PROPERLY test amplifiers. That's the problem.

Just to clarify, higher preamp voltages do not "minimize" the source of noise. Higher preamp voltages increase the signal to noise ratio (SNR).....the level of the induced noise is the same, but the level of the signal is higher so the SNR is also higher. Saying the noise is minimized implies that the higher voltage has some inherent ability to "reject" some of the noise, reducing it's level....which it does not. The noise is the same, but the SNR has increased.M5's point was that in the cases where you have an audible amount of induced noise, the problem is the signal cables or routing near sources of noise in the vehicle (which does not include the amp's power cable), and increasing the voltage of the signal is masking the problem rather than fixing it.

Agreed. I just find it a little irritating that we as a hobby perpetuate misinformation of basic electrical laws.

RMS as defined by Theile and Small and used by Klippel is not average voltage x average current. It is the average of the instantaneous power readings gathered by testing. Voltage and current is not gathered averaged then tallied at the end. The instantaneous power is calculated so many times a second and is averaged at the end of the test. Just taking the average voltage and average current and then multiplying them would not give an accurate account of power. It's an algorithmic expression that incorporates multiple instantaneous power readings over time. They may have definitions for RMS power as a matter of convention and so as to express how they are using the term...but the purpose of the RMS calculation is for use with terms that have both positive and negative values. Since power isn't negative (voltage and current are both positive or both negative, multiplying either together always results in a positive power figure), there isn't an RMS calculation for power.....or it would be a meaningless answer if you tried to perform it. I'm no EE, but from everything I've learned from werewolf (an MIT Master Degreed EE), RMS power as an electrical quantity doesn't exist. Average power and instantaneous power, yes. RMS power, no.There actually is an average voltage and current for a sine wave, Vavg and Iavg, which is not the same as Vrms and Irms which we use in calculating average power. They describe two different things.

RMS power is a misnomer and doesn't actually mean anything. RMS voltage * RMS current = average power, not RMS power. As for the 'scope thing....No, completely unnecessary and given the variable nature of things still wouldn't be completely accurate. Ears is a much better method, especially since it doesn't give the user a false impression of safety or "perfectness" that people fool themselves into believing they have when they use some tool to set their equipment.

95Honda and m5 have already taken care of most of it. I don't care who he is, or that he has a scope......his method and "test" is flawed for multiple reasons and results are meaningless. And that is part of the problem....people don't understand this, and instead defend and regurgitate the meaningless results. I don't believe I have ever seen a real, meaningful, valid test done by an average (or advanced) user or competitor of an amplifier......ever. That includes Taylor. They don't have the equipment and they don't have the testing rigor. They have the blind leading the blind. Nothing more.

It makes me feel old to pull the "back in my day" line.....but it wasn't that long ago $1/watt was reasonable and $.50/watt was a pretty darn good deal. Now you have all of these internet rebadger a selling amps for pennies and suddenly $.28/watt is expensive. Well sure all of the other guys stuff are cheaper when they're ordering amps like it's a Chinese takeout menu......order an OEM buildhouse board, make a couple small changes and throw their label on the heatsink.

No, because you have no real need for an o-scope. Not to be an ass, but didn't we discuss this before? It can be a useful tool in the right hands and for the right purposes, but for the average enthusiast and installer there really isn't a need unless you want to get into the business of electronics analysis and repair....in which case I'd suggest you hit up some electronics or engineering classes before you start pulling out the equipment. An o-scope isn't going to help you set gains, or crossovers, or many other daily functions that most people think they want an o-scope for. In fact I think they're dangerous because once you have something that spits out numbers or graphs people stop thinking and put all of their faith into the numbers without even considering the flaws of their methods and without understanding what those numbers or graphs really mean. So they think they've measured something they didn't or set something in a manor they haven't because they have this fancy machine they don't understand and a flawed methodology and understanding of how to use said machine. Just look at how many people put their faith in "clamp tests" because they own a DMM and clamp meter and those two things give them some "numbers" without understanding why those numbers don't mean anything. Or the number of people who set their amps with a DMM, o-scope or DD1 and then can't figure out why it either sounds like shit or why they're still blowing shit. Because they have these fancy machines spitting out numbers and they stop thinking and assume the machine must be right because it spits out numbers, and numbers don't lie. [/soapbox]

Not even clicking the link because it doesn't matter what it says.....a clamp test is meaningless. The rest of it...meh. Just because you read it on the internet doesn't make it true. As 95Honda correctly stated, majority of the internet car audio crowd doesn't understand objectivity. They do one thing, assume it's a foolproof method of comparison when it was flawed from the start, and then the rest of the sheep hop on the bandwagon with them. Having access to equipment that produces numbers (clamp meters, SPL meters, etc) only makes things worse because the assumption is there that if they post numbers, those numbers must be valid. Which couldn't be more wrong.

That's every man's problem.

A 4th order enclosure is any alignment that has a high pass roll off that approximates a 4th order slope, which is 24db/oct. A standard ported enclosure is a 4th order enclosure. A passive radiator system is a 4th order enclosure as well. There is also the single tuned bandpass enclosure which I assume you are referring to, in which case you need to specify that. Otherwise as Bassmaster said all of the questions you are asking are the wrong questions. There is no golden ratio to designing the enclosure and you can't ask about tuning without specifying more details of the enclosure....you can't single out design features like that. It has to be designed as a whole. And why are you looking at a bandpass enclosure anyways? Given the bandwidth you want to cover a standard ported enclosure appears to be a more logical choice.

they are pointed head level slightly toward the centerHave you tried playing with the aiming? Horn loaded tweeters are going to be very sensitive on the top end to aiming as their off-axis response falls very quickly.

.....Why ?

So I've bought several CDs over the past 18 months or so and can't figure out what the damn problem is. I have a 5 or so year old Sony CD player that I use until I get my stereo install done, and it won't play almost any of my newer purchases. It acts like the laser can't properly pick up the tracks. It spends about 30 seconds glitching out making odd noises while the laser tries to lock onto the track, then errors out. Normally I'd tack it up to the tracking mechanism or laser pickup going out, but I can toss any one of my older CDs in and it works just fine. It's only the newer CDs that it has problems with. Sometimes if I mess with it for 10-15 minutes either by ejecting and reinserting the disc or cycling thru sources it will miraculously work, or if I play an older CD for a while then insert the new disc it will work.....but it skips REALLY easily and if I change tracks too quickly it glitches out again. I can rip the CD to my computer and burn it to another disc, the burned copy works just fine. But that is a giant pain in the ass since my PC sucks ass. Any idears? the only thing I can figure is that they changed physically something with the CD itself recently and the older player just can't handle it.

It was many years too late. Shouldn't have even been here to start with.

I thought about that, but I couldn't figure out why they would develop an anti-piracy type of formatting that wouldn't work with a standard CD player yet allow me to rip & burn it with no problem. Seems self defeating and pointless.

$250 for a high quality set of studio monitors is cheap when compared to a lot that are over a grand. Budget under $500. Just as a Ferrari is cheap compared to a Veyron, still wouldn't call the Ferrari "cheap"

Your idea of cheap and mine differ greatly if $250 is "cheap" While I can't assist, stating an actual budget would help others.

Skin effect is irrelevant in audio. It's affect on AC over our bandwidth is so minuscule it can be completely ignored. The very fact it was mentioned at the shop is a little scary considering it plays virtually no role in audio signal transmission and for our purposes can literally be ignored. No reason to even be discussing it in relation to car audio.And then of course there is the fact that it does not affect DC at all.

Unless you are an electrical engineer and also have the accompanying schematics, then pictures of any amp are meaningless. People on the internet like to ooh and ahh over pics, but 99.9% of the members commenting on or who are impressed with those pictures haven't a clue what they are looking at or should be looking for. They just see a lot of big parts or a high parts count and assume that makes it better. To make matters worse dozens of members post comments talking about how awesome these amps look in the pics when they have no idea what they are looking at, so novice members take those comments as fact.Amp guts pics are as useless to the average user as clamp tests. Another case of money-see monkey-do internet boners where a bunch of people talk and brag about something when they really have no clue.

Saw an article about a similar pre-preganated fiberglass material about 2 years ago in Hot Rod magazine. The cost stated in the article was a lot higher which is why I assumed it hadn't caught on, but maybe now that it's becoming more available the prices are coming down.

Yes, as the Re changed and parameters shift the impedance curves will change