JL SOUNDSWEEP
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 7,584
Likes: 1
From: Baton Rouge, LA
(This is my main point) Flat response or not, that response is NOT the same flat response from the original signal before the head unit got a stranglehold on it. In this case, to get the original flat response of the original signal, purchase a head unit that doesn't monkey with the signal in the first place and remove the CleanSweep from the equation altogether.
There's no way you can confuse what I'm saying about signal degradation with listening quality... those are two different things. Signal degradation is objective... the output is not equal to the input, period. Listening quality is subjective... the input sounds like the output.
If the CleanSweep does it's job correctly, the subjective matter is moot as the signal "sounds" clean to the listener. My contention is you could have done the same thing by purchasing a head that didn't screw with the signal in the first place, use the money you would have spent on the CleanSweep on the heaad unit, and save the space otherwise taken up by the CleanSweep.
There's no way you can confuse what I'm saying about signal degradation with listening quality... those are two different things. Signal degradation is objective... the output is not equal to the input, period. Listening quality is subjective... the input sounds like the output.
If the CleanSweep does it's job correctly, the subjective matter is moot as the signal "sounds" clean to the listener. My contention is you could have done the same thing by purchasing a head that didn't screw with the signal in the first place, use the money you would have spent on the CleanSweep on the heaad unit, and save the space otherwise taken up by the CleanSweep.
personally, i think the Cleansweep is a God-send for people w/ heavy integration and no choice to get a good aftermarket solution. otherwise? it's just one more noise adding component in a signal path.
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 7,584
Likes: 1
From: Baton Rouge, LA
i think one of Dan's main points is that there is a big difference between signal purity (measurable) and signal clarity (audible).
and i definitely agree with him... sorry ASDF, i think you've missed his point and you're going a bit off the deep end on this...
ANY processing of a signal will reduce the purity of that signal. at each stage some noise will be introduced... it is simply unavoidable.
HOWEVER, a poorly sounding signal can be improved in clarity (audible), even if a small amount of noise is added, if the original signal was of poor sound quality.
the point being this -- our ears are much more sensitive to bad clarity (audible shifts from a clear signal) then they are to poor purity (introduction of noise).
sorry ASDF, but i think you've missed the point he's trying to make. he's not going against you, you are just misunderstanding his terminology. go back and try to non-biased re-read Mac's posts. he's simply working via a different angle of approach.
Bob hit it right on the head, imo.
PLEASE, keep in mind, we are discussing 2 attributes of the same signal: noise/purity AND clarity/audible 'flatness' of the signal. any modification of the signal WILL add noise, but the additional noise may be worth the payout of a better sounding (equalization) signal.
and i definitely agree with him... sorry ASDF, i think you've missed his point and you're going a bit off the deep end on this...
ANY processing of a signal will reduce the purity of that signal. at each stage some noise will be introduced... it is simply unavoidable.
HOWEVER, a poorly sounding signal can be improved in clarity (audible), even if a small amount of noise is added, if the original signal was of poor sound quality.
the point being this -- our ears are much more sensitive to bad clarity (audible shifts from a clear signal) then they are to poor purity (introduction of noise).
sorry ASDF, but i think you've missed the point he's trying to make. he's not going against you, you are just misunderstanding his terminology. go back and try to non-biased re-read Mac's posts. he's simply working via a different angle of approach.
Adding any additional component degrades the signal in one way or another. Some components improve the signal in one way or another. If the improvement is noticeable in listening tests and the degradation is not - sounds like a good thing to me and I would agree that the overall effect is an improvement.
I would agree with MR ASDF that if you added a Clean Sweep to any standard stock stereo (not the 'high-end' stuff) that most people, including the audiophiles, would prefer the Clean Sweep system in a blind listening test.
In general, noise and distortion are low on the human ear's perception scale. Frequency response and dynamic range is much higher. Make any audio system louder and better equalized and it will sound better, even if there is more noise and THD.
I would agree with MR ASDF that if you added a Clean Sweep to any standard stock stereo (not the 'high-end' stuff) that most people, including the audiophiles, would prefer the Clean Sweep system in a blind listening test.
In general, noise and distortion are low on the human ear's perception scale. Frequency response and dynamic range is much higher. Make any audio system louder and better equalized and it will sound better, even if there is more noise and THD.
PLEASE, keep in mind, we are discussing 2 attributes of the same signal: noise/purity AND clarity/audible 'flatness' of the signal. any modification of the signal WILL add noise, but the additional noise may be worth the payout of a better sounding (equalization) signal.
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 7,134
Likes: 3
From: Columbia, MD
Phil did a really good job of clarifying, but I would like to take it (semi-) point-by-point in my own words so Phil doesn't get blamed when you fail to correctly read what I've written... again.
[QUOTE]Originally quoted by MR_ASDF
by reading the last few posts and according your first post, a clean signal is the reason why the radio is good? it clearly states that. so basically, sound is not a factor in a unit, it is the integrity of the signal?
[QUOTE]Originally quoted by MR_ASDF
by reading the last few posts and according your first post, a clean signal is the reason why the radio is good? it clearly states that. so basically, sound is not a factor in a unit, it is the integrity of the signal?
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 7,584
Likes: 1
From: Baton Rouge, LA
'm not about to roll into an argument about who can make a better soounding install... that's why I keep people like Dave, Phil, John, etc. around.
or wait, am i a kept man now? are we all kept men?
jeez, i'm not looking forward to those booty calls from Dan...
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 7,134
Likes: 3
From: Columbia, MD
Originally Posted by PJK3,Jun 27 2005, 06:03 PM
Dan's keeping us around?!?
or wait, am i a kept man now? are we all kept men?
jeez, i'm not looking forward to those booty calls from Dan...
or wait, am i a kept man now? are we all kept men?
jeez, i'm not looking forward to those booty calls from Dan...
Besides, Phil, I can't afford those Prada and Gucci handbags you keep begging for
