Audio/Visual Electronics Wired up? Everyone's got some sort of electrical modification... let's hear about it here.

Fosgate 3Sixty.1 or 2 opinions

  #1  
Old 10-11-2007, 02:55 PM
Been Around A Long Time Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Wayne, NJ
Posts: 6,213
Default Fosgate 3Sixty.1 or 2 opinions

What do people think about this. Does anyone have it? I already have a Windows phone, so that's not a problem. Can it do parametric? 153 bands are a lot to deal with. Are there places/shops that you can go to to tune this with actual measurement electronics?
 
  #2  
Old 10-11-2007, 05:15 PM
MacLeod's Avatar
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Ringgold, GA
Posts: 455
Default RE: Fosgate 3Sixty.1 or 2 opinions

The 360.1 is basically an OEM integration thingamjig. Its not really an EQ.

The 360.2 is a full blown processor with tons of EQ bands, time alignment and crossover settings.

Im not fond of the 360.2 as a processor and here is why:

The sub crossover wont go below 50 Hz.

The time alignment increments are .15 ms. By comparison, the Alpine 701 TA increments are .05. .15 is way too big a jump for precise tuning.

Only 2 way capable. You cant run midbass speakers as youve only got 4 outputs + a sub.

The whole having to use a PDA thing is stupid. They cost too much.

The adjustments arent real time. When you change the crossover on the PDA it takes a good second or two to translate over to the unit. Why RF didnt make a remote with a cord is beyond me.

For the same money you could get an Alpine 701 and remote and have twice the processing power.
 
  #3  
Old 10-12-2007, 11:57 AM
Been Around A Long Time Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Wayne, NJ
Posts: 6,213
Default RE: Fosgate 3Sixty.1 or 2 opinions

Thanks Mac ..... the Crutchfield add just got my attention. I'll look into the Alpine 701 ..... as for the PDA, I already have one for my business, so that's not a problem, but the delay does seem kinda rediculous. The other thing that got me is the size and that I can probably squeeze it behind the head unit. Trunk mount is not a problem either since all of the wires are there already. I'm not looking to compete, just for better sound.
 
  #4  
Old 10-12-2007, 03:54 PM
MacLeod's Avatar
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Ringgold, GA
Posts: 455
Default RE: Fosgate 3Sixty.1 or 2 opinions

If youre just looking for the better sound and for your own private enjoyment, the 360.2 would be a fine piece especially if youve already got a Bluetooth capable PDA. I dont mean to imply that the 360.2 is junk. Quite the contrary, its a very flexible unit. But for those wanting the absolute most control and tuning flexibility possible, its not the best option. (did that sound diplomatic enough? )
 
  #6  
Old 10-15-2007, 03:49 PM
MacLeod's Avatar
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Ringgold, GA
Posts: 455
Default RE: Fosgate 3Sixty.1 or 2 opinions

ORIGINAL: jwerner

Don’t let all the features of the 3sixty.2 sway your decision away from 3sixty.1. Its far more than a simple LOC. It digitally reprocesses the factory analog signal into digital, corrects the frequency to flat using its 153 bands, then outputs a strong 7volt analog signal to your amps just like the 3sixty.2. (I realize the manual says only 5volts but its actually 7volts RMS) Not too many after-maket CD with their 4 volts “max” spec can come close.
But a JL Audio Cleansweep for $200 less can do the same thing and run it thruan actual 8 volt line driver.....regardless what the manual says.

The 7 band EQ is PLENTY of tuning for a well designed system. Only audio nuts need more than what the 3sixty.1 is capable of so don’t let anyone express their bias on the little Rockford unit.
This is true if you have fabricated a custom interior with custom speaker mounting locations. However if youre using basic, stock speaker locations it doesn matter how fancy or high quality your speakers are, theyre still going to have to contend with being out of phase with other drivers, hard reflective surfaces, big transmission humps in the middle of the floor and so on. 7 bands of EQ aint shabby but by no means is it "plenty" for any car audio enthusiast. Now if youre just wanting some decent tunes to listen to while driving back and forth from work, then yeah. 7 is the way to go.

Time correction is a novelty. Just lean to the middle of the vehicle and back to the drivers position. Is it really a must? Heck no give me a break. Take it from a guy that been in car stereo for 20 years as a buyer and seller of car audio equipment.
Are you kidding? So you like having all your music coming from the left door with some things bleeding in from the right? If so then you dont need time alignment. But if you like an accurate stage with good distance between right, center and left stage youre going to have to use TA.

Ultimate control over your system should only be needed for an overly complicated setup to begin with.
Ultimate control over your system is only needed for ANYBODY wanting the best possible sound quality out of their system. And you wont find any top sound quality systems that are complicated. Most use as few speakers as possible.
p.s. – The 3sixty processors can work off windows xp using software from the rockfordfosgate website. USB Bluetooth adaptors are like 10 bucks. So the “whole PDA thing” isn’t stupid because its not required.
Yeah, its very stupid. Sure, that Bluetooth is onl $10......that is of course if you already have a laptop. If not, then you should add another $1200 to that.

And you still get a lag between adjustments.

Obviously youre not interested in tuning. Nothing wrong with that. But Id get a JL Cleansweep then cause its cheaper and works better.

If youre wanting the most flexibility and tuning options, then both the Cleansweep and 360.1 are not what youre after. Only the Alpine 701 and 360.2 will give you that and again, the 701 performs head and shoulders over the 360.2 and is cheaper.

Rockford Fosgate is a great manufacturer and makes very solid gear. However theyre laggin behind in both OEM integration and processing. But I have little doubt RF will remedy this in the future and be putting out standard setting pieces in no time.
 
  #7  
Old 10-15-2007, 03:59 PM
Been Around A Long Time Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Wayne, NJ
Posts: 6,213
Default RE: Fosgate 3Sixty.1 or 2 opinions

hmmmm .... there's a lot to think about here. The first thing is about the price. If the Alpine unit is the same price, but a better piece of equipment, I'd rate that as a better buy. This is compared to the 3sixty.2 ..... is there a competative unit for the 3sixty.1? I do actually have better hearing than most people which leads to me hearing details that others have to listen specifically for to hear, so I'd think that the time delay could have some benefit, but I don't have a referance to hear what the difference is between 0.15ms and 0.05 increments sound like. Obviously a smaller increment offers better controlability.

I do not have a stock system as implied. My head unit is a Pioneer double DIN tape/CD player that came with the car. This car was wired for multiple amps from the previous owner, but had garbage "Kome" speakers, wiring and amp (maybe installed to sell the car only). The head unit and the main power lead are all that I kept from this installation. I rewired the entire car and replaced the front speakers with MB Quartz entry level component speakers (6.5" woofer) with fully customized mounts in the stock locations. My rear speakers are a pair of 3-way Pioneers that I had and the interior is powered via a Phoenix Gold Tantrum 75W RMS x 4 amp. I've recently added a Sirius tuner with a hard wired FM modulator. I used to have an Alpine V12 amp pushing a couple of 12's, but the amp died and I don't plan to give up my trunk again. I do plan to replace the rear armrest with a custom sealed box with an 8" L7 sub and power it with the JBL/Crown BPX 500.1.

I am pretty technically inclined, so I don't expect that a complicated setup would be much of a problem as long as it performs as expected. Also, please do not belittle my friend MacLeod for his opinions. I asked for them! He may be an audio nut, but that does not mean that he expects everyone else to be nor are his suggestions limited to audiophiles. I appreciate both of your opinions (and anyone else that has meaningful input) and would like this discussion to continue so that I can learn about these futures, how they help and which have more impact than others. Furthermore, I like to see the differances in opinion from different end users to help me decide on what matters to me and what doesn't.

Again, please keep the ideas and opinions comming! (just leave off the opinions about other HAF members please)

*****************************************

Mac, you beat me to the post! So I need to look at the JL Cleansweep and compare it to the 3sixty.1. Are there any functions that 1 does that the other doesn't or are these truely an apples to apples comparison? The bluetooth thing is nice, but I could see the frustration in waiting to hear how the settings affect the sound. How long is the delay? I thought that Cleansweep was meant for stock radio integration; I did not know that it is a line driver and sound processor.
 
  #8  
Old 10-15-2007, 06:43 PM
MacLeod's Avatar
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Ringgold, GA
Posts: 455
Default RE: Fosgate 3Sixty.1 or 2 opinions

ORIGINAL: falkore24

is there a competative unit for the 3sixty.1?
The JL AudioCleansweep. Cheaper, workes better at being at OEM integration.

I do actually have better hearing than most people which leads to me hearing details that others have to listen specifically for to hear, so I'd think that the time delay could have some benefit, but I don't have a referance to hear what the difference is between 0.15ms and 0.05 increments sound like. Obviously a smaller increment offers better controlability.
There is is a noticeable difference between .1 ms delay but when you can only go .15, .30, .45, .60 youre not going to get nearly the flexibility of being able to go .5, 10, .15, .20, .25..... Is it a big deal to Joe Sixpack? No. Is it a big deal to a picky audiophile? Absolutely. As much so as 20 extra horsepower would be to the "go fast" enthusiast.

I do not have a stock system as implied. My head unit is a Pioneer double DIN tape/CD player that came with the car. This car was wired for multiple amps from the previous owner, but had garbage "Kome" speakers, wiring and amp (maybe installed to sell the car only). The head unit and the main power lead are all that I kept from this installation. I rewired the entire car and replaced the front speakers with MB Quartz entry level component speakers (6.5" woofer) with fully customized mounts in the stock locations. My rear speakers are a pair of 3-way Pioneers that I had and the interior is powered via a Phoenix Gold Tantrum 75W RMS x 4 amp. I've recently added a Sirius tuner with a hard wired FM modulator. I used to have an Alpine V12 amp pushing a couple of 12's, but the amp died and I don't plan to give up my trunk again. I do plan to replace the rear armrest with a custom sealed box with an 8" L7 sub and power it with the JBL/Crown BPX 500.1.
This is a pretty stout system and you would benefit from a mroe flexible processor. But in the end its up to you. If you are just wanting to plug and play and not have to tinker with the settings, then a Cleansweep and the bass/treble buttons on your head unit will be pretty good. But if youre any sort of tweak-a-holic like me and enjoy experimenting with different settings are like the challenge of getting the most accurate and enjoyable sound then the more processing power the more youll be able to do and the more youll enjoy it.

Mac, you beat me to the post! So I need to look at the JL Cleansweep and compare it to the 3sixty.1.
I would.

Are there any functions that 1 does that the other doesn't or are these truely an apples to apples comparison?
Not necessarily. The 360.1 is a nice piece and it does have a user EQ which the JL piece doesnt. But for OEM integration, the JL does a better job of flattening the OEM curves and the 8 volt line driver along with the remote gain/volume will mean a much lower noise floor than you could get with the 360.1

The bluetooth thing is nice, but I could see the frustration in waiting to hear how the settings affect the sound. How long is the delay?
Not super long. About 1-3 seconds. Its not a huge deal. More annoying than anything.

I thought that Cleansweep was meant for stock radio integration; I did not know that it is a line driver and sound processor.
A good OEM integration piece will always be these things. The OEMs have started putting EQ curves in their head units to make up for the worthless speakers they use and since a lot of new cars nowadays make it virtually impossible to use anything but the stock HU youre stuck with that EQ curve. The Cleansweep and the 360.1 take this signal from the HU and use DSP to flatten it as much as possible.

The line driver is because of the other inherent problem of OEM HU's - having to use speaker level inputs. These are very noise and if you ran them straight to your amp, youd hear a constant hiss all the time. By boosting the signal, the signal to noise ratio drops signifigantly so the music is much louder than the noise and you get cleaner sound. The RF is 5 volts which is stout but the 8 from the JL is very strong! Also, the CS comes with a remote volume control and if you use it instead of the OEM hu's volume, youll get a even better signal to noise ratio.

If youre already usign an aftermarket head unit, neither the 360.1 or Cleansweep would be great for you. Youre better off with a processor like the 701 or 360.2
 
  #10  
Old 10-15-2007, 08:43 PM
MacLeod's Avatar
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Ringgold, GA
Posts: 455
Default RE: Fosgate 3Sixty.1 or 2 opinions

The easiest way to hear the difference with time alignment - turn the rear speakers off and sit in the drivers seat and listen to the music. Note the soundstage, the width, the location of the singer relative to everything else.

Now climb into the back seat and sit in the middle and poke your head between the headrests. Notice how the stage is much wider, the center image is now in front of you and probably more focused.

Ifyou like the overall sound of your system by listening from the middle of the car then time alignment is for you. If you didnt hear a difference or dont care, then you dont need it.

Again, the 360.1 is a fine piece of gear. Nothing wrong with it at all. But there are better options out there.
 

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Quick Reply: Fosgate 3Sixty.1 or 2 opinions


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

© 2019 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands

We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.