# Rockford Fosgate 3Sixty.2 -Long- Review



## Technic (Jun 24, 2002)

Recently, I upgraded the HK audio system on my 2004 M3 with all new CDT component speakers and Upstage system, an AudioControl EQS and a JBL GTO755.6ii 6-Ch 560 Watts amp; photos and review are here: http://forum.e46fanatics.com/showthread.php?t=392755

This combo was an excellent improvement over the OEM audio system in all areas, sound quality, volume, definition, adjustability. However, this improvement at the same time increased my desire to go even higher in certain audio areas that the analog EQS is technically limited to accomplish, like DSP and individual time delay. After reading several so-so reviews of the JL Cleansweep I decided to take a look at other OEM DSP integration processors currently available -AudioControl DQXS- or in the future -like the JBL Fix8 and the Alpine PXE-H650- to find out which one can give me the best set of audio features that I really want over the EQS.

The Rockford Fosgate 3Sixty.2 was the one that really have all the features that I was looking for -OEM signal DSP "conditioning", time delay, built in crossovers and EQ and remote control. That it is the only one currently available for sale with the full specs made the decision easier too.

*Features:* The 3Sixty is actually two models, the .1 and the .2. The main difference is the number of bands of EQ and of crossovers, which pretty much determines the price to pay. Street price of these processors is between $250.00 (.1) to $450 (.2).

*Installation:* Because the main wiring and speaker upgrade was already done, this was an almost plug 'n play installation. The 3Sixty.2 is a six channel processor, with front/rear/mono sub/mono center with RCA (low level) and speaker wire (low level) inputs sections. It also accept differential/balanced inputs into the low level port straight (this is not stated in the owner's manual but confirmed before purchasing by RF engineers), perfect for our E46's OEM tuners. No separate LOCs are required or needed. Output level is 5Vrms, more than enough for the use of the OEM Tuner volume control without any negative sound effects instead of the separate volume control included.

In my installation, the EQS was removed, all the OEM tuner outputs RCA plugs (6) were cut and now connected to the 3Sixty.2, then just power, ground and remote wires were connected. That's it.

*Setup*: The 3Sixty.2 requires a Palm PDA with Bluetooth to be remotely controlled and adjusted; I'm using a Palm Tungsten E2 and it works flawlessly. A special CD with two tracks (pulses and whitenoise) is included; the CD is played and the instructions in the PDA followed for the initial setup. There are two initial setups, _the OEM_ and the _New Setup. _

In OEM, the 3Sixty takes the OEM output and normalize it, removing any equalization and any peaks; basically it flatlines the sucker's amplitude all across the full bandwidth (20-20,000hz) and modifies whatever peaks and valleys the original signal has to compensate for the specific vehicle acoustics. The cool feature is that once this setup is finished the PDA will show you in the screen the before and after graph of this normalization. The JL Cleansweep supposedly does this kind of normalization also, but most of its reviews that I have read stated that it is not that noticeable once you hear the process completed.

In the 3Sixty you can really hear and see the improvement; the graph shows a very good OEM curve -the "before"- at around the 3 db level all across but with some emphasis in the lows (50Hz - 300Hz) and a slight roll off around 3 kHz. The "after" curve is pretty much flat across the bandwidth at 0db with some 1 db variances in the low to mid (50Hz-800hz) and really flat in the highs (>3KHz).

In New Setup, because it is for aftermarket tuners applications there is no signal normalization at all, just manual selection of number of inputs thru the PDA. This can be used as a factory "reflash" of the processor if anything is not working right after OEM set up. I already used that "feature"&#8230;

*Sound:* Each speaker (front or back) have their own EQ and time delay set up, so you can actually have an EQ curve of the front left speaker different from the front right, and then change the time delay between them in inches or in feet if you want. If you don't want individual speaker adjustment then you can link pair of speakers in EQ and crossover settings (whatever you adjust for the left speaker will be applied to the right). You can set a frequency curve in your PDA screen for the EQ like it is a drawing by one stroke of the stylus. Output levels to the amp can also be set by speaker or by pair of speakers.

Once all the personal preferences with the EQ, crossovers and output levels are set, you will find that this 3Sixty.2 is no joke. IMO, this is in another, very different level over the analog EQS. First, right out of the OEM initial setup, without any adjustment of EQ (153 bands) or crossovers (AP, LP, HP, BP), any song that is played -be in the CD player, radio, iPod, Sirius, even a telephone conversation thru the OEM Bluetooth- will have a very subtle 3-D effect. Something like the person singing or speaking is separate from whatever is in the background; very, very nice DSP effect. Then each music source of the song sounds like it is better defined from the next one. This was very evident by playing FourPlay's _Max-O-Man_ and Jeff Lorber's _Ain't Nobody_. All together makes the music -especially coming from the OEM Sirius, which sounded like crap most of the time before- just nicer, richer, better.

There is absolutely no induced or radiated noise whatsoever, be the car on and the tuner off (that's the best opportunity to check for hiss caused by incorrect input level matching), or driving (no alternator noise). Each speaker sounds now like it is really getting a new, louder and cleaner by a lot signal (crossovers are set at 24db slope). The front stage is better defined than the one provided by the EQS by much, just because of the increased adjustability of the EQ, crossovers and time delay. The subs hit is _perfect_ for a pair of 8" free air drivers, there is no other word to describe it; I'm using the Center speaker output as my right subwoofer and the Sub output is the right subwoofer, both at 150Hz low pass crossover.

*Conclusion:* This is it. This unit has all the DSP power and adjustability that anybody will want with a radical sound quality improvement over stock that is worth its price. It is a really excellent DSP processor all around. :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## el_duderino (Aug 1, 2005)

The CleanSweep is intended to get you to baseline and has no user controls.

The 360.2 is intended to let you tweak a lot of adjustments.

That's one reason the 360.2 costs twice as much.

Neither one is _needed _in a BMW.

Since I've measured the output of the head unit with an RTA, and all I've been able to find is slight auto loudness that is actually probably a good thing at very low levels, in my opinion you are essentially reviewing an equalizer time correction processor with a line driver in it. The de-OEM feature is not needed in any BMWs other than the new Bangle cars with MOST.

Systems can benefit from equalization and from line drivers and from other things.

But many shops present 360s and CSs as must haves for OE upgrades. As you point out, that's not really accurate.

It sounds like the $600 processor made your existing system perform better. How would you characterize your system's performance BEFORE EQing it? The same as with the A/C?


----------



## Technic (Jun 24, 2002)

el_duderino said:


> The CleanSweep is intended to get you to baseline and has no user controls.
> 
> The 360.2 is intended to let you tweak a lot of adjustments.
> 
> ...


The main difference between the 3Sixty.2 OEM setup and the AudioControl EQS that I used to have is the normalization of the OEM signal, somehow this creates some kind of "ambience" in the music that I personally like -the same way that I liked the "Spatializer" trick in the OEM HK system, but this effect is way less intrusive- and could not be present in the EQS; there is no "ambience" in the finished New Setup mode either (this setup does not normalize the OEM signal). Maybe this "ambience" in the audio is not desirable for some, but it works for me in a way that the EQS was technically impossible to replicate. Playing the same music I can detect a better audio definition with the 3Sixty.2 than with the EQS. The music sounds fuller and richer than before inmediately after the setup is finished.

The biggest difference in sound quality comes from doing the "New Setup" first and then doing the "OEM". IMO, the "New Setup" sounds like crap compared with the "OEM" processing, right after finishing and before any further adjustments are made to the EQ/crossover/output level/time delay features.

The EQS was, and still is, a great EQ/line converter for the E46 OEM radio. But this 3Sixty.2 really does what it says it should do to the OEM signal, make it sound better IMO. :thumbup:


----------



## el_duderino (Aug 1, 2005)

Technic said:


> The main difference between the 3Sixty.2 OEM setup and the AudioControl EQS that I used to have is the normalization of the OEM signal, somehow this creates some kind of "ambience" in the music that I personally like -the same way that I liked the "Spatializer" trick in the OEM HK system, but this effect is way less intrusive- and could not be present in the EQS; there is no "ambience" in the finished New Setup mode either (this setup does not normalize the OEM signal). Maybe this "ambience" in the audio is not desirable for some, but it works for me in a way that the EQS was technically impossible to replicate. Playing the same music I can detect a better audio definition with the 3Sixty.2 than with the EQS. The music sounds fuller and richer than before inmediately after the setup is finished.
> 
> The biggest difference in sound quality comes from doing the "New Setup" first and then doing the "OEM". IMO, the "New Setup" sounds like crap compared with the "OEM" processing, right after finishing and before any further adjustments are made to the EQ/crossover/output level/time delay features.
> 
> The EQS was, and still is, a great EQ/line converter for the E46 OEM radio. But this 3Sixty.2 really does what it says it should do to the OEM signal, make it sound better IMO. :thumbup:


One point I'd like to make is that the "normalization" _can _be performed with the EQS... it just requires an RTA, a tool that all Audio Control dealers are required to own and use, but DIY guys usually don't have (although True Audio offers one for your laptop inexpensively).

I need to meter the output of a 360... hm.


----------



## Technic (Jun 24, 2002)

el_duderino said:


> One point I'd like to make is that the "normalization" _can _be performed with the EQS... it just requires an RTA, a tool that all Audio Control dealers are required to own and use, but DIY guys usually don't have (although True Audio offers one for your laptop inexpensively).
> 
> I need to meter the output of a 360... hm.


That's true, although by performing the A-D and the D-A and filtering process in the 3Sixty we no longer are using the same signal anymore; in the EQS the same signal is always present during normalization. Both perform the normalization, but one is working with an image of the original with changes already made before optimization and the other is the same signal that is being optimized.

That I believe is the main difference in my perception of a better audio environment with the 3Sixty. :thumbup:


----------



## el_duderino (Aug 1, 2005)

Technic said:


> That's true, although by performing the A-D and the D-A and filtering process in the 3Sixty we no longer are using the same signal anymore; in the EQS the same signal is always present during normalization. Both perform the normalization, but one is working with an image of the original with changes already made before optimization and the other is the same signal that is being optimized.
> 
> That I believe is the main difference in my perception of a better audio environment with the 3Sixty. :thumbup:


And this is why it should be worse.

Taking a signal, running it through an A/D conversion, and running it through a D/A conversion, degrades it.

You'd better do some impressive stuff to that signal while you have it, to overcome that.

If the signal was flat when you got it, my question is, what got done in the blaack box?


----------



## Technic (Jun 24, 2002)

el_duderino said:


> And this is why it should be worse.
> 
> Taking a signal, running it through an A/D conversion, and running it through a D/A conversion, degrades it.
> 
> ...


I'm not an audiophile, maybe that's the main trick done in the box... to get only the _perception_ of better sound thru some digital tricks applied to the original signal. 

If you test this procesor, please compare also the OEM vs. the New Setup modes. I think that you will find some interesting differences there that will explain what is done in the OEM and not in the New Setup mode. :thumbup:


----------



## esoteric (Dec 10, 2005)

technic,

no matter what you do or say, he will better ya. plain and simple. I have done 2 360.2's already. Both in non BMW's and one being used as a stand alone in a vehicle that feeds the rear tailgating area, which in turn feeds 4 12" woofers, 4 8" midbass, and 2 beyma horns for a very incrediblely loud crisp and clean sound while watching whatever on the 42" flat screen. Anyways, i did play with the 360 in a 760li for a day, and it is the next upgrade for that vehicle. yes BMW's are a pretty flat signal offthe headunit, but any major upgrades with speakers and amps should use the 360.2.

The cleansweep had serious drawbacks in the begining but manville Smith of JL said they did some upgrading. I am not a JL dealer but am a Rockford along with Alpine. i look forward to the release of the Alpine piece, but can wait as long as the 360 is available.

another nice thing that was not mentioned (besides it being used as a stand alone or non oem system) is that it has a stereo aux input .

Now since El duderino and i don't get along, i get a few calls from X5 owners that are like WTF, because they followed his so called custom audio interface and are not happy with the results. Actually one is from your state. I recommended an alpine 5.1 processor and 360.2 for both, both are very happy now. in fact i also recommended a Phoenix Gold eq215 for the one that he seen at a sale for $120.

The signal needs to be shaped and boosted before it hits the amps then speakers. the 360.2 fullfills it and is cheap if you compare it to what you get. Plus it is the central brain of the system and makes tuning a breeze.

Also if you own the palm with the software, you can set the vehicle up for you, front passengers, or spatial with the rears. or even as far as rock, jazz, pop, classical, hell even all combined and have stored then select

and I am most confident that when the AD to DA takes place you don't lose 1's and 0's...

nice write up on the 360.2 and i would suggest it 24/7 in a vehicle that one is upgrading with amps, speakers, and subs.

I will forward this to Rockford to clear up a few details also, because i am sure Tony Janke, design engineer for Rockford.

also there is a post about it on carsound.com where manville Smith of JL, Andy Wehyemer of harmon kardon, and gary bell of Alpine also discuss the ins and outs

http://www.audiogroupforum.com/csforum//showthread.php?t=45819

Anyways great write up and yes the 360.2 is "THE" piece.


----------



## tdjanke (Sep 9, 2006)

el_duderino said:


> The CleanSweep is intended to get you to baseline and has no user controls.
> 
> The 360.2 is intended to let you tweak a lot of adjustments.


3Sixty.1 is designed for simple OEM integration which gives you access to SOME of the 153 bands of EQ. You are correct saying that 3Sixty.2 is an advanced DSP that gives you a lot of control, some insiders say "too much control".


> That's one reason the 360.2 costs twice as much.


Let's compare apples to apples here. 3Sixty.1 retails for $299, last time I checjked CS was $349 (although I think they have lowered their price). That makes 3Sixty.1 the same or cheaper AND you have the internal summing feature built in (CS requires another $199 box that isn't shipping yet) so apples to apples 3Sixty is CHEAPER. You also get access to some EQ and can adjust the output level on each channel. Oh, and the included controller can be master volume OR subwoofer level. I know your statement above referenced 3Sixty.2 but thats like comparing a Kia to a BMW!


> Neither one is _needed _in a BMW.


a 3Sixty can enhance ANY system be it OEM integration or otherwise. Can you as an instaler spend more time in the bay and sell a customer some LOC's (how much do those go for installed by the way) and bring out your RTA (how long does it take to set that thing up and analyze all the channels of a system) and lets say that you did need to sum a channel or two (which maybe you didnt know until you got the car in the bay) how easy si it to tell the sustomer that they need an LC6/LC8 and how much will it cost to add that? You see all of these issues (plus MUCH MUCH more) are all seamlessly handled by 3Sixty (Yes, even the 3Sixty.1).



> Since I've measured the output of the head unit with an RTA, and all I've been able to find is slight auto loudness that is actually probably a good thing at very low levels, in my opinion you are essentially reviewing an equalizer time correction processor with a line driver in it. The de-OEM feature is not needed in any BMWs other than the new Bangle cars with MOST.


You are correct, loudness is a good thing and it is built into the radio for a reason, to compensate for the human ear. You notice that at max volume, the loudness curve is [should be] gone! At loud levels, your ear doesn't need the compensation. you'll see by this gentlemens install that when he ran OEM, he say variations in his response at max volume. Looks like more than just a loudness curve to me.


> Systems can benefit from equalization and from line drivers and from other things.


Systems can benefit from:

EQ
Line Drivers
Xovers
Delay
Proper freq response delivered to every speaker

and 3Sixty has every one of those features.



> But many shops present 360s and CSs as must haves for OE upgrades. As you point out, that's not really accurate.


We saw above that in his case it was needed as it provided him with exceptional sound. Thats the reason why people upgrade their sound systems anyways isn't it? Hypathetically lets say a cusomter wants a better sounding system, not necessarily louder one. And you could put a 3Sixty in using the factory radio , amp and speakers and it made the customer happy! WOuld you say that it can't be done and to make a system sound better you need to replace everything? Stop by the booth this CES and we'll chat 



> It sounds like the $600 processor made your existing system perform better. How would you characterize your system's performance BEFORE EQing it? The same as with the A/C?


----------



## tdjanke (Sep 9, 2006)

el_duderino said:


> And this is why it should be worse.
> 
> Taking a signal, running it through an A/D conversion, and running it through a D/A conversion, degrades it.
> 
> ...


Hmm, lets talk about degradation for a second. When a signal is converted from analog to digital what really happens? Well, pieces of the signal are measured and the rest is simply thrown away! Our sample rate is 48kHz (I think CS is the same too) so that means every 20.8uS a sample is taken. One would think that would cause a lot of distortion as when the signal is converted back to analog, where does all that data come from?

Let's also look at the resolution or number of steps that can be measured during this process. An analog signal can have a infinte number of steps but this is not possible in the digital domain so we have to pick a number. We choose 24-bit which equates to 2^24 = 16,777,216 steps. Not quite infinite but I'd say a LOT considering the voltage range of the digital signals here is 1VRMS!

With all of that said, the THD+N of 3Sixty is < 0.01% and the SNR is >100dB.

Let's look at that CD player (be it factory or aftermarket)

CD sampleing rate: 44.1kHz < 48kHz 3Sixty
CD resolution: 16 bit (65,536 steps) < 24 bit 3Sixty

You see, let's look at the weak link in the chain here, because your CD player can't even reproduce a true analog signal! Now where does the issue lie?

Note: Now I'm not saying 44.1kHz / 16-bit audio isn't good enough because the CD has the crown for most poplular media and even with DVD audio and other formats available people still enjoy their CD's. Persoanlly, I think CD's sound amazing (but then again, I'm not the type to tell people that I can hear the grass grow either). Let's take one step further and look at todays music, it comes from the internet and is probably either burned onto a disc or played from an iPod. Consumers aren't truely concerend with fidelity, sure its important but it takes a backseat to convenience.


----------



## esoteric (Dec 10, 2005)

Thanks Tony, I know you are busy over there designing my next new toy. I appreciate the clarification, and same with everyone else i am sure. I am going to need one for that Bentley. 

Thanks again.

me


----------



## el_duderino (Aug 1, 2005)

tdjanke said:


> You are correct saying that 3Sixty.2 is an advanced DSP that gives you a lot of control,


Don't condescend - working for RF hasn't given anyone that right for over a decade.



tdjanke said:


> Let's compare apples to apples here. 3Sixty.1 retails for $299, last time I checjked CS was $349 (although I think they have lowered their price). That makes 3Sixty.1 the same or cheaper AND you have the internal summing feature built in (CS requires another $199 box that isn't shipping yet) so apples to apples 3Sixty is CHEAPER. You also get access to some EQ and can adjust the output level on each channel. Oh, and the included controller can be master volume OR subwoofer level. I know your statement above referenced 3Sixty.2 but thats like comparing a Kia to a BMW!


Actually, it's more like comparing a Honda to a Toyota. No one can think these products as a category don't have a lot of room for improvement.

You haven't checked lately. CS has dropped. Twice. $249.

Stop trying to sell the CS over the 360 and address the question. There was no point here where a CS was advocated over a 360.anything.



tdjanke said:


> a 3Sixty can enhance ANY system be it OEM integration or otherwise. Can you as an instaler spend more time in the bay and sell a customer some LOC's (how much do those go for installed by the way) and bring out your RTA (how long does it take to set that thing up and analyze all the channels of a system) and lets say that you did need to sum a channel or two (which maybe you didnt know until you got the car in the bay) how easy si it to tell the sustomer that they need an LC6/LC8 and how much will it cost to add that? You see all of these issues (plus MUCH MUCH more) are all seamlessly handled by 3Sixty (Yes, even the 3Sixty.1).


Well, if you want to sell to Best Buy, I guess it had better be foolproof, hadn't it?

I'm sure most RF installers can't do any of the above. Might want to look at your marketing.

The BMW in question has full range balanced unequalized outputs. BB needs a 360 to figure out what to do there. I don't.

But you as a company need to sell to the fat part of the market's curve to make your numbers.



tdjanke said:


> Can you as an instaler spend more time in the bay and sell a customer some LOC's (how much do those go for installed by the way) and bring out your RTA (how long does it take to set that thing up and analyze all the channels of a system) and lets say that you did need to sum a channel or two (which maybe you didnt know until you got the car in the bay) how easy si it to tell the sustomer that they need an LC6/LC8 and how much will it cost to add that? You see all of these issues (plus MUCH MUCH more) are all seamlessly handled by 3Sixty (Yes, even the 3Sixty.1).


This entire statement attempts to imply that ALL cars are like some of the MOST enabled cars at the moment. This car was not, and most BMWs on the road are not. Most OEM HU integration today, including BMWs, does not need summing OR amp-side conversion (although all newer Bangle cars will probably need it).

There are lots of cars out there with full-range, unequalized outputs, that your company would like your dealers' 19-year-old ignorant salespeople and installers to sell a 360.1 or .2 into simply because they don't know any other way. I remember when RF used to educate the installer base.

I can do this car with no LOCs and no LC6/8s. And I use my handheld RTA almost every day.



tdjanke said:


> You are correct, loudness is a good thing and it is built into the radio for a reason, to compensate for the human ear. You notice that at max volume, the loudness curve is [should be] gone! At loud levels, your ear doesn't need the compensation. you'll see by this gentlemens install that when he ran OEM, he say variations in his response at max volume. Looks like more than just a loudness curve to me.


More condescension. If you didn't look at it with an RTA, you are talking out your ass.



tdjanke said:


> You are correct,


Ohh... _more _condescencion. You don't get to decide when I'm correct and when I'm not. You can agree or disagree, but you are not king of all audio.



tdjanke said:


> Systems can benefit from:
> 
> EQ
> Line Drivers
> ...


Fluff. Systems benefit from proper design. If you can't get that, throw an EQ at it.

The question on the table is, why would this system at flat sound different on a radio that has a flat output? You still haven't addressed it.



tdjanke said:


> We saw above that in his case it was needed as it provided him with exceptional sound. Thats the reason why people upgrade their sound systems anyways isn't it? Hypathetically lets say a cusomter wants a better sounding system, not necessarily louder one. And you could put a 3Sixty in using the factory radio , amp and speakers and it made the customer happy! WOuld you say that it can't be done and to make a system sound better you need to replace everything? Stop by the booth this CES and we'll chat


I don't agree that it was needed to provide him with exceptional sound. It seems to have improved his system.

We install 80% of our systems with OEM HUs, without Cleansweeps, and without 360s. Doesn't mean they don't have a place, doesn't mean they don't have some features.

I personally think we get exceptional results every time. If the industry is a baseline, then we definitely do.

BUT, you're not responding to the question, which leads me to believe that you know you're blowing smoke.

What you're trying to do is get people to think that a part is required, when it's not required except by installers that shouldn't be working on your BMW anyway.

Is it an option? Sure. Is it a reasonable way to add EQ once the rest of the system is there? Sure.

Do we know why this guys system sounded better? Not exactly.



tdjanke said:


> Stop by the booth this CES and we'll chat


No. I've already trained Bill Jackson on 12V products, I don't need to train you too.


----------



## el_duderino (Aug 1, 2005)

tdjanke said:


> Hmm, lets talk about degradation for a second. When a signal is converted from analog to digital what really happens? Well, pieces of the signal are measured and the rest is simply thrown away! Our sample rate is 48kHz (I think CS is the same too) so that means every 20.8uS a sample is taken. One would think that would cause a lot of distortion as when the signal is converted back to analog, where does all that data come from?


This is the kind of statement made by someone who isn't really discussing the function of a codec.



tdjanke said:


> Let's also look at the resolution or number of steps that can be measured during this process. An analog signal can have a infinte number of steps but this is not possible in the digital domain so we have to pick a number. We choose 24-bit which equates to 2^24 = 16,777,216 steps. Not quite infinite but I'd say a LOT considering the voltage range of the digital signals here is 1VRMS!


It is established that 24-bit dynamic range is sufficient for resolving 16-bit Red Book audio.



tdjanke said:


> With all of that said, the THD+N of 3Sixty is < 0.01% and the SNR is >100dB.


Understood and expected.



tdjanke said:


> Let's look at that CD player (be it factory or aftermarket)
> 
> CD sampleing rate: 44.1kHz < 48kHz 3Sixty
> CD resolution: 16 bit (65,536 steps) < 24 bit 3Sixty


Spurious data. Whether the codec in the 360 is higher rez and faster than a 360 or not has NOTHING to do with the question of whether there is signal degradation in an A/D/A conversion.



tdjanke said:


> You see, let's look at the weak link in the chain here, because your CD player can't even reproduce a true analog signal! Now where does the issue lie?


Now this is total marketing fluff.

All recording systems leave out data.

Anyone interested in a real discussion of digital audio can read many books, all of which have facts in them.



tdjanke said:


> Note: Now I'm not saying 44.1kHz / 16-bit audio isn't good enough ...


Oh, you're implying it.



tdjanke said:


> Let's take one step further and look at todays music, it comes from the internet and is probably either burned onto a disc or played from an iPod. Consumers aren't truely concerend with fidelity, sure its important but it takes a backseat to convenience.


Ah, finally, we get to the meat of the entire argument and the motivation for RF's entire philosophy circa 2006:

People listen to lousy sound, so our product really doesn't have to sound that good, because they won't know anyway.

Add this into the earlier statements about installers, and what we have is a company that is all about selling electronics that are about sensation.

This is America. You can be in business to do that. Have fun aiming at the part of the market that really doesn't care how good it sounds.

And I'm sure Best Buy installers will be happy to help you get there (when they're not connecting returned woofers to 120VAC to keep from filling out exchange paperwork).


----------



## tdjanke (Sep 9, 2006)

While not everyone on this foum is professional, I will remain so...

I will continue to enjoy my job of developing cutting edge technology while you enjoy doing whatever it is that you do (<-- condesending YES). You claim to have unsurpassed knowledge in the electronics field, yet you have failed to mention your qualifications? Do you have a degree in Electrical Engineering? Do you have training in anything?

I am not here to argue with you even though your response to everyone on this forum is both aggressive and opiniated. You say (several times) that I am condescending, have you read ANY of the posts you made? I am here to present the facts on our products, that is all. You can debate with whoever you like on OPINIONS. Everyone has a right to their own opinion but please do not falsify facts. The real problem with these forums is that anyone with a valid e-mail address has the ability to profess to everyone who will listen.

Feel free to continue as you do in doing your "custom" OEM integrations. I'm sure there's plenty of money to be made in that area. You don't have to use anyones products and I'm not telling you to do so. I never said nor implied that 3Sixty does what can't be done any other way, it is simply an EASY solution to get the job done. Just because it's an easy solution, don't slam it because you don't happen to like it. Ever hear the phase "Work smart not hard"...guess not.

I will continue to watch this thread for anyone who has questions on our products but I refuse to argue with anyone on their opinion.


----------



## tdjanke (Sep 9, 2006)

Technic said:


> *Conclusion:* This is it. This unit has all the DSP power and adjustability that anybody will want with a radical sound quality improvement over stock that is worth its price. It is a really excellent DSP processor all around. :thumbup: :thumbup:


It seems as tho 3Sixty did its job for you. Glad to hear it, and thanks for spreading the word!


----------



## esoteric (Dec 10, 2005)

since i like to remain unprofessional on the forums i will state the cold hearted facts, El Duderino is a pompus, stuck up, prick. I know many people in the industry and in Portland that think he is a condensending arse in person. In fact he talked to one of my current customers and told him some crap that was off the wall. 

I will post the vehicle on the site when it is completed, still have some performance stuff to add to it over the next month. 

Anyways he is salty, i geuss the bavarian Soundwerks car audio and electronics upset him over it being the avincar...

If you or anyone else that follows the topics, if any one comes in here with a shop or even an installer, now Rockford's design engineer, he runs them off trying to humiliating them. I geuss he has a complex problem... or a few ?!?!

Anyways he believes that the JENSEN CI-2RR Dual Channel Line Input (RCA/RCA only) for$177.95 multiplied by 2, maybe 3 is the answer to every audio system... Damn Tony, at almost $540 for 3 you might want to up the 360's price, because it does all of the above plus Eq and time alignment, crossover...aux in... I am sure he can build a comprable unit to the 360... figuring what he is starting with (jensen) for somewhere near $2500 LMAO...

If you haven't noticed he went the political route in his first post to you, attacking rockford, best buy, and installers.... insecurity with him! Nothing he posted was valid about your company,best buy, or the installers. it was just an assumption...

I remember in physcology that the people always trying to muscle their views on others (like a dictatorship) have inferiority issues... I have a few pals at ALpine that know him also... and would concur.

So duderino...i think you need to relax a bit and quit being so aggressive towards others, your post is starting to showing your true colors, and I would hate to see you lose any credibility. because 12v is a very small community.

Lucky for people around you, benchmark motoring is only a state away, and also that Portland has chris church and jason kranitz, 2 of the top fabricators and installers in the USA.

Sorry tony that you were subjected to this moron...


----------



## Technic (Jun 24, 2002)

I did not realize that this thread was going to get nasty.

It is just a product that works as it is advertised -at least for me. This is not a personal attack against anybody or anything. :tsk: 

Before buying it I searched left and right in the net for any reviews -BMW's the better- and I was surprised that there were very few and far in between. Thus that's the reason of posting mine...

I'm still in testing mode because I have my suspicion that this unit is not that stable with balanced/differential inputs thru the high level port. Although I personally discussed this with the RF design enginneer and got his assurance that indeed it does accept these signals before installing it, I've been experiencing a decrease in the output levels and the ocurrence of a slight alternator noise after one day of operation. I reset the unit and it will work perfectly for a day, and then I have to reset it again.

I observed the same exact behavior in the AudioControl EQS that I used to have previously of this 3Sixty. After a day or so, a decrease of the output levels of the EQS and alternator noise appreared. I found out that the EQS came from factory with its internal input jumpers in the wrong default setup. They are supposed to be in a balanced signal input mode by default and they came all mixed up, some were balanced and some were unbalanced. Setting the input jumpers all Balanced this behavior was eliminated completely. 

The 3Sixty does not have any input jumpers to set, so I getting a new box to test next week to find out if it is indeed an input/design problem.


----------



## tdjanke (Sep 9, 2006)

Technic said:


> I did not realize that this thread was going to get nasty.
> 
> It is just a product that works as it is advertised -at least for me. This is not a personal attack against anybody or anything. :tsk:
> 
> ...


That is a very strange problem you describe, I have never heard of a noise that takes a day to begin. How exactly do you "reset" the unit? Unlike other processors out there, 3Sixty completely shuts down when the device is turned off. The data is stored in FLASH which is non volatile so unlike RAM it doesn't need power to retain its info. So in theory, the unit is "reset" everytime it is turned off.

You say the output level goes down. Can you try this for me...

Day 0: Unit is either recently "reset" or installed. Put in a 1kHz test tone, measure the output from the front left channel.

Day 1: Unit is exhibiting "low output", without turning the device off, play the same 1kHz test tone (at the same volume level you did yesterday) and measure the output of the front left channel.

Are they different, the same?

Now, turn the 3Sixty off and back on again. repeat the measurement again at 1kHz.

now "reset" the device as you did in the past and remeasure for a fourth time.

Do you notice a difference in ANY of the measurements, if so which ones? Maybe we can get some hard data on this issue for you.


----------



## Technic (Jun 24, 2002)

tdjanke said:


> That is a very strange problem you describe, I have never heard of a noise that takes a day to begin. How exactly do you "reset" the unit? Unlike other processors out there, 3Sixty completely shuts down when the device is turned off. The data is stored in FLASH which is non volatile so unlike RAM it doesn't need power to retain its info. So in theory, the unit is "reset" everytime it is turned off.
> 
> You say the output level goes down. Can you try this for me...
> 
> ...


You sound like the RF engineer that I talked in the phone last Wednesday... 

I did all that, using 50Hz and 1 kHz tones... according to the engineer that I spoke to, for 1V of input, at -10dB level in the PDA, all EQ's flat, I should see 1.6V out. The very first time that I did it I saw only .2V in the sub out and 1V in the front and rear outs. That's in line with what I started noticing in the audio, a gradual decrease in sub output first (thus using the 50Hz as reference jointly with the 1 kHz tone).

Part of the phone conversation was related to ways of getting the 3Sixty to "reset", and Jeremy -that's the only name that I remember in the conference call- recommended running the New Setup and checking all the boxes. So I did that, and when it finished it sounded like there was no processing at all. However, running the same 50Hz and 1kHz tone now the levels were .8V in the sub and 1.6V in the rest of the outputs. Ummm... 

Reran the OEM setup and the level jumped to 1.7V in all outputs... it sounded so great that I wrote this review. Unfortunately, the decrease in output level has ocurred three times in the last three days, as recently as this morning. Reran New Setup, it comes back (it even sounds much better in New Setup now), put it back in OEM, works for that day, shut the car off, in the morning it start great and within an hour it happens again: the sub is gone first and gradually the music start sounding not bright. Some alternator noise is present that it was not there before once this starts happening. New Setup seems to keep the levels longer than OEM, so I could guess that maybe, just maybe, some OEM processing is detecting something in the input that forces the 3Sixty to get into some kind of limp mode after some time frame.

Again, exactly the same thing I noticed in my AudioControl (as other forum members in here http://forum.e46fanatics.com/showthread.php?t=317203, post #26 and #36) after also one day. The fix was setting the internal input jumpers of the EQS to balanced and the output jumper to ground (balanced to unbalanced, to match the OEM HU outputs and the aftermarket amp inputs). Thus my suspicion that this is somewhat related to my OEM HU outputs and the 3Sixty way of converting them...

I'm getting a new box by mid week; this time I will test it in two ways: I will start with the exact same configuration that I have right now -speaker level inputs. If it behaves the same way I will then convert first the speaker level to low level (balanced to unbalanced) using a SVEN4 and use the low level inputs instead.

Let's see... thanks for your tips. :thumbup:


----------



## tdjanke (Sep 9, 2006)

Technic said:


> You sound like the RF engineer that I talked in the phone last Wednesday...
> 
> I did all that, using 50Hz and 1 kHz tones... according to the engineer that I spoke to, for 1V of input, at -10dB level in the PDA, all EQ's flat, I should see 1.6V out. The very first time that I did it I saw only .2V in the sub out and 1V in the front and rear outs. That's in line with what I started noticing in the audio, a gradual decrease in sub output first (thus using the 50Hz as reference jointly with the 1 kHz tone).
> 
> ...


Yes, I was on the phone with Jeremy last week. When you measure the output of the 3SIxty, I would like to you measure the input level as well to MAKE SURE that you are getting 1V into the 3Sixty. Let me know how that turns out.


----------



## mdqtech (Jun 26, 2007)

I'm looking at adding one of these to my grand am and I have a few questions for you.

What's the cheapest way I can get a good quality signal to the 3sixty? I'm assuming something like this wouldn't do a very good job.

Is there any chance my stock deck has RCA out? I can't find anywhere that has the specs of factory decks. It's your standard GM deck.

Assuming I use a similar setup to you, with something like the Matrix feeding the 3sixty, am I going to loose the automatic volume adjustment that makes the music louder as the car speeds up?


----------



## SammyXp (Jan 3, 2006)

mdqtech said:


> I'm looking at adding one of these to my grand am and I have a few questions for you.
> 
> What's the cheapest way I can get a good quality signal to the 3sixty? I'm assuming something like this wouldn't do a very good job.
> 
> ...


I'd like to know the same thing. The LC6i and Matrix are expensive pieces! 
Elias, what exactly did you not like about the SVEN4?

I do believe you lose the speed sensitive volume compensation when using a LOC from the amp's input side as the compensation occurs inside the amplifier. You'd need to sum the amp's outputs to retain that function.


----------



## Technic (Jun 24, 2002)

mdqtech said:


> I'm looking at adding one of these to my grand am and I have a few questions for you.
> 
> What's the cheapest way I can get a good quality signal to the 3sixty? I'm assuming something like this wouldn't do a very good job.
> 
> ...





SammyXp said:


> I'd like to know the same thing. The LC6i and Matrix are expensive pieces!
> Elias, what exactly did you not like about the SVEN4?
> 
> I do believe you lose the speed sensitive volume compensation when using a LOC from the amp's input side as the compensation occurs inside the amplifier. You'd need to sum the amp's outputs to retain that function.


In my experience, I have never seen a stock HU with RCA outputs. However, my issue is limited to the BMW OEM radio tuner and whatever change in voltage is happening that makes the 3SIXTY.2 unstable, not necessarily to any other brand of OEM HU.

This is what I know of the E46 speed sensitive volume compensation: the BMW OEM Nav tuner speed sensitive volume compensation gets its speed signal inputs a little differently from the dash mounted OEM HU as the tuner changes its volume relatively to speed thru the I Bus line and not from a dedicated speed signal wire (at least after 09/2002). I proved this by removing the OEM HK amp from my system and still having the volume change based on speed without any speed signal wiring.

The HK amp has its own, dedicated speed signal wire (as well as the OEM HK subs amp) but the purpose of this signal is not the same as in the OEM Tuner: this speed signal control the speed dependent _equalization_ in the HK amp, not volume. This EQ is supposed to increase the bass as speed increase. There is no speed EQ in the non-HK amp.

So adding a LOC after the OEM tuner or HU does not defeat the speed sensitive volume compensation, which could explain my problems with the 3SIXTY.2 and the OEM Tuner outputs. This variation of input voltage apparently was not tolerated by the 3SIXTY.2 so it became unstable; this is the main reason that this device also includes a Master Volume feature, _to secure a fixed voltage level input for optimum processing_. The addition of the Matrix line driver in my case simply _raised_ the minimum voltage input of the 3SIXTY.2 to over a constant 2.3V (from approximately 1.6V OEM if I remember correctly), so even if this speed sensitive volume compensation is triggered the 3SIXTY.2 remains stable no matter the increase or decrease.

The SVEN4 that I used before the Matrix did not do anything to bump the minimum voltage input level, so although it sounded better than using the high input level section of this processor, still its stability was compromised by the low voltage input level.

Again, that was my experience... maybe the GM deck will not require any LOC and you just could use the high level inputs of the 3SIXTY.2 straight from the deck. Maybe you will have to use the Master Volume feature of the 3SIXTY.2 to set a minimum voltage level and secure stability. I could have used it too, but I do not like the idea of not using my steering wheel volume controls and much less installing an ugly button in my dash or hidden and be opening and closing lids to change the volume as I'm driving. So instead of using the Master Volume I went with the Matrix solution.

My recommendation is to start with the simplest combination - high level inputs to the 3SIXTY.2- and see what happens in your particular case. If you notice inestability then go with the Master Volume feature. If you do not like the Master Volume feature then try the low level inputs with a LOC or a line driver if your budget allows. I think that my case is just specific of this OEM Tuner and not of a design defect of the 3SIXTY.2. At least the 3SIXTY.2 offers an _optional_ Master Volume, in the JL Audio Cleansweep the Master Volume is _the default and only_ configuration.

Hope that this helps ... :thumbup:


----------



## SammyXp (Jan 3, 2006)

Thanks for taking the time to follow up! 

I'm going to do as you said - try the inputs directly into the 360.2. If I have any trouble, then try the SVEN4. If I can't get those to work, I am very, very reluctantly going to get a Matrix or LC6i!


----------



## mdqtech (Jun 26, 2007)

Thanks for the aditional perspective. I'll let you know how things go when I try this. Won't be buying one for a little while, only once funds allow.


----------



## dcg (Jun 21, 2007)

Sorry to bump an old thread, but I had a question about the 360.2.

I'm planning an upgrade to me 330i sedan, and am thinking about going DIY on the front speakers and using an active crossover. Since I'll be leaving the rear speakers untouched, I'm wondering if the 3sixty.2 will cover all of my needs in one piece of equipment. I need the following:

1. Line output conversion (I know it has me covered there)
2. Possibly channel summing, which I know it does, but can I just connect it before the factory amp and skip this step?
3. Adjustable bandpass crossover for the mids up front, and adjustable high pass for the tweets (this is my main question - I can use the front outputs for the mids and rear outputs for the tweets, but will this mess up the auto eq function?)
4. Subsonic filter (has it)
5. Individual channel gain control would be nice, but can do this at my amp if necessary (not sure if the 3sixty.2 does this).

Amp will be a Helix HXA-500 mkII. Haven't decided on drivers for the front yet. Sub will probably be a Phoenix Gold Titanium 10D that I've got laying around form a few years ago, unless there's some great reason I should use something else. I'm really trying to keep things fairly cheap here, so if there's an option out there that can do what I want for less than the $450 or so that the 3sixty.2 will cost me, I'm all ears. 

I considered something like an AC LC8 (probably overkill when I could get a cheap LOC) and one of their active crossovers, but I'll be playing w/ xover frequencies and don't want to have to buy a ton of the plug in modules.


----------



## SammyXp (Jan 3, 2006)

1. Line output conversion (I know it has me covered there)
Yes, but some have experienced problems interfacing with the HK system. Read through this entire thread. An AC LOC ended up solving the problem.

2. Possibly channel summing, which I know it does, but can I just connect it before the factory amp and skip this step?
Yep. Tap into the amp inputs.

3. Adjustable bandpass crossover for the mids up front, and adjustable high pass for the tweets (this is my main question - I can use the front outputs for the mids and rear outputs for the tweets, but will this mess up the auto eq function?)
You can actually just use a single input and the 360.2 will split it for the bandpass mids and highpass tweets.

4. Subsonic filter (has it)

5. Individual channel gain control would be nice, but can do this at my amp if necessary (not sure if the 3sixty.2 does this).
Yep.

Definitely buy it from an authorized RF dealer. I bought one used on eBay and couldn't get it to connect to Bluetooth. Would have been an expensive repair so I got rid of it. 
Such a sweet concept, though. I wish I could have gone with one, but ended up getting a deck with 3 way crossovers built in (Pioneer P880PRS).


----------



## Technic (Jun 24, 2002)

dcg said:


> Sorry to bump an old thread, but I had a question about the 360.2.
> 
> I'm planning an upgrade to me 330i sedan, and am thinking about going DIY on the front speakers and using an active crossover. Since I'll be leaving the rear speakers untouched, I'm wondering if the 3sixty.2 will cover all of my needs in one piece of equipment. I need the following:
> 
> ...


Yes, the 3SIXTY.2 could run your system _as long as _:

- the OEM HU *front* outputs are tapped (no summing needed).
- there's a *2-way *component set in the front; a 3-way could be possible, but you will need an extra 2-channel amp.
- the rear speakers are run by the OEM amp

To avoid cutting any OEM wiring you will need to use these connectors and create a "Y" joint to get only the front OEM HU output wires for the 3SIXTY.2 front inputs. Then those 3SIXTY.2 inputs could be configured to drive all 6 output channels (max) of your system:

Front outputs: front door woofers/mid
Rear outputs: front door tweeters
Sub output: Sub
Center output: could be used for an extra driver in front (3-way), additional amp will be required.

Please post your experience with a 3SIXTY.2 connected to an OEM HU if you go thru all this... :thumbup:


----------



## jitra1965 (Jun 30, 2008)

*3Sixty.2 with 2008 520d e60*

Technic,
Do u have experience on 3sixty.2 in an e60? Do we relly need the LOC. Do u think the unstability of the 3sixty would be a problem in e60 just like yrs?


----------



## tdjanke (Sep 9, 2006)

jitra1965 said:


> Technic,
> Do u have experience on 3sixty.2 in an e60? Do we relly need the LOC. Do u think the unstability of the 3sixty would be a problem in e60 just like yrs?


Since the introduction of the 3Sixty, we have added a ground lift pin inside the unit. This allows you to isolate the power supply ground from the audi ground. We also increased the CMRR of the product. I recommend trying the 3Sixty without a LOC as long as you are using a current prodcution 3SIxty and not an old version. The label on the bottom of the unit will have a small "V2" printed on it. This will indicate if your unit is the newer revision.


----------



## jitra1965 (Jun 30, 2008)

tdjanke said:


> Since the introduction of the 3Sixty, we have added a ground lift pin inside the unit. This allows you to isolate the power supply ground from the audi ground. We also increased the CMRR of the product. I recommend trying the 3Sixty without a LOC as long as you are using a current prodcution 3SIxty and not an old version. The label on the bottom of the unit will have a small "V2" printed on it. This will indicate if your unit is the newer revision.


tdjanke,
does this apply to BMW 520d e60 (i'm not interested in audi!). by the way what's CMRR?
another questions - i'm ordering a 3sixty.2 from electrawarehouse.com - they said they were (and are) yr authorized delaer. do they have the new version and do the older version still floating around the market? when did the new version hit the market - was it long time ago?
thanks for yr post.


----------



## tdjanke (Sep 9, 2006)

The improvements made to the 3Sixty are not vehicle specific but are intended to improve product performance in all installations.

CMRR is Common Mode Rejection Ratio which simply means how good the audio inputs are at rejecting engine noise.

I am not a sales person but I think the only online authorized dealer is Crutchfield, I could be wrong but I doubt your source is authorized. I cannot tell you what inventory they may have in stock but the newer revision has been in production for over a year now.


----------



## jitra1965 (Jun 30, 2008)

Tony,
I'm a bit worried and kind of vervous about the 360.2 being unstable when it comes to the fact that it has to handle variable input (and be variable EQ/loudness) generated by the speed dependent volume of the BMW HU. What's yr opinion on this?
One more question,
how would u descrbe or identify the root cause of the 'unstable' behavior that Technic was experiencing and hence have led him to putting the MATRIX in between the HU and the 360.2.
It's kind of nice to know for me before I go all the way wrt the upgrading.


----------



## tdjanke (Sep 9, 2006)

jitra1965 said:


> Tony,
> I'm a bit worried and kind of vervous about the 360.2 being unstable when it comes to the fact that it has to handle variable input (and be variable EQ/loudness) generated by the speed dependent volume of the BMW HU. What's yr opinion on this?


If you are concerend about using a variable input then you better stop listening to music. Music is a continuously variable signal. It changes amplitude from no output to max, back to none, back to negative max and back to none every cycle. You can't get much more variable than this.

If you are concenered about the speed dependant volume, then you must listen to music at the same level all of the time? Do you ever adjust the volume on your radio? Thats the same thing your car does based on its speed.



> One more question,
> how would u descrbe or identify the root cause of the 'unstable' behavior that Technic was experiencing and hence have led him to putting the MATRIX in between the HU and the 360.2.
> It's kind of nice to know for me before I go all the way wrt the upgrading.


We have sold thousands upon thousands of 3Sixty's installed in almost every car imaginable and nobody has ever complained of this issue. No offense to Technic but we don't feel there is a problem.


----------



## Technic (Jun 24, 2002)

tdjanke said:


> We have sold thousands upon thousands of 3Sixty's installed in almost every car imaginable and nobody has ever complained of this issue. *No offense to Technic but we don't feel there is a problem.*


No offense taken, as it took me three 3SIXTY.2 units and an external line driver to be satisfied with your product. That you now separate the 3SIXTY into a "current production" and an "old version" tells me that my issues with the "old version" were not an "imagination"...


----------

