Prompted by another thread its been suggested that there are two types of Canton sub , one for the VBF and one standard

 

Looking at mine the port is under the VBF meaning that the bass is somewhat muffled / disappointing , its better with the boot floor stowed up but still pretty lame, not that I was expecting thumping bass and it may improve with time as the car is a week old . 

 

Have I got the right sub , is this consistent with other cars with this spec ?

 

 

Yes there are indeed two Canton systems (subs), there is the RA3 for use without the variable boot floor and the RA4 for use with the VBF when you spec a new car

 

From what it looks like you do have the correct one for the VBF (RA4). Although sub-bass is not as directional as higher frequencies the more "stuff" you put between your ears and the sub the less impact it will have.

 

The Canton system does give a better sound, but by how much is debated to death in other threads. Suffices to say that although you have a sub in the boot you are not going to be winning many sound-offs with this system as standard 

 

It may of course not be working but you should be able to rule that out by putting on some bass and feeling the unit

I have a super spec vrs at the moment and I have to say I think the canton system is ****, sure it goes loud in volume and has OK separation but I would have expected a little more to it, better mids and bass for a start especially since its a £500 option. If I was buying a vrs would I spec it over standard system? Absolutely NOT

By the way it's a demo with every option ticked

I get good bass out of my canton (non-vbf) but it does take some tweaking and has to have a very good source high Kbps etc - some normal CDs aren't that great at times but guess it depends on the 'levels'' used when it was recorded.

I get good bass out of my canton (non-vbf) but it does take some tweaking and has to have a very good source high Kbps etc - some normal CDs aren't that great at times but guess it depends on the 'levels'' used when it was recorded.

I am comparing the system to the standard system which is actually not bad definitely not £500 worse than canton. For that money you could get a very nice components system installed with under seat sub which would give more bass.

Obviously I agree canton is better but nowhere £500 better and again not a massive difference to standard system which I would expect if I had spent extra £500. Also I think the bose system in my mk1 TT had a much better sound although it definitely didn't have the volume the canton has

6.5" paper cone driver, in a plastic box of limited size....also placed in the boot sidewell and 200w (whatever that means in reality) of amplification that doesnt drop that low in frequency.....I guess its never going to be an absolute thumper.

From what I hear Canton takes a while to run in (same is true of the standard system too) and is very source sensitive....basically garbage in, garbage out. If its anything like the standard audio its probably also subjected to some artificial output capping to prevent the speakers being overdriven/blown so that might not help on very bassy tracks.

i agree though the VBF being up and in place will limit the amount of air it can move in the boot and will hamper the effect for sure. I do however think the default offering for the VBF is to drop it to maximise load space?

I cant see how Canton cant be a fair margin better than the stock offering....but whether its worth the £500 it now commands...I dunno.

Obviously I agree canton is better but nowhere £500 better and again not a massive difference to standard system which I would expect if I had spent extra £500. Also I think the bose system in my mk1 TT had a much better sound although it definitely didn't have the volume the canton has

I thought the standard system was pretty poor when I tried it on a demo car. I'm not saying the canton is like a high end hifi but think its considerably better and its also fitted seamlessly into the car without you having to take anything appart on your brand new car to fit aftermarket parts. I'm sure someone posted a link to a car magazine where they rated it quite well against other "upgraded" factory systems.

Maybe the canton should be standard and ditch the naff standard setup that sounds like a 90s Citroen system

The standard system is actually pretty good once you've tweaked the EQ and use a high quality audio source (not to mention have given it some time to run in). I've been positively surprised actually, maybe because of everything I've read about it on here made me fear it might be awful...but the artificial (software) tone clipping is pretty idiotic.

 

I bet that if you could really adjust the EQ (not just low/mid/high tones) and disable the artificial limits it could be quite impressive.

Edited 10 April, 201511 yr by kallekilponen

The standard system is actually pretty good once you've tweaked the EQ and use a high quality audio source (not to mention have given it some time to run in). I've been positively surprised actually, maybe because of everything I've read about it on here made me fear it might be awful...but the artificial (software) tone clipping is pretty idiotic.

I bet that if you could really adjust the EQ (not just low/mid/high tones) and disable the artificial limits it could be quite impressive.

Agreed...it has alot of potential and suspect the speaker componentry employed isnt alot worse than the Canton stuff....the tone clipping just tends to ruin it for me.

I do wonder whether that is something that could possibly be coded out by VCDS?

I wasn't expecting a great deal but don't think £500 is a too much for Canton. £500 won't buy you very much in terms of decent audio perhaps two speakers , or a sub or an amp .

I tested the demo cars standard system with 320kbps mp3 from an SD card. I tried increasing the treble to help with the highs that were muffled and it still sounded nearly as bad as the system I'm my wife's old saxo that didn't even have tweeters!

The canton is a nice upgrade and as Richf states you really wont get much for £500 in aftermarket parts let alone getting it installed if you don't want to do it yourself.

I've posted decent length posts previously after back to back testing but the Canton was easily worth the extra money when used with the highest quality digital source IMO. Separation and focus are far better and reveal detail that the standard eight speaker setup isn't capable of. It goes high without artificially clipping and is simply more controlled. What other factory upgraded system offers more for less?! (Apart from the 12 speaker Sony upgrade on the newest Ford Mondeo IMO)

I wasn't expecting a great deal but don't think £500 is a too much for Canton. £500 won't buy you very much in terms of decent audio perhaps two speakers , or a sub or an amp .

Exactly. I paid £400 before the last increase. Having posted recently about the quality, I discovered that it is absolutely source-reliant. I have played some very bass heavy music 80's disco, rock etc and unless you intend to hold an open air disco, then it is sufficient to give you a head-ache and without distortion. I doubt that the Skoda Octavia demographic justifies the firm investing in audio levels reserved for Citroen Saxo and Corsa car park racers. How much are the other Bose standard systems? You get what you pay for.

Having had our car just short of a year now, the sub is punchy, run from music from an iPhone via bluetooth. I have had cars which i had a system put in which cost £500-700 12-15 years ago and i think that it is as good as those systems.

Mine is the non-vbf style, was lucky as got it pre price increase. Its good that it is in the boot but does not take up any space, it does run in and gets better with use i have found. Have had it running with the mirror distorting a few times and sound quality was good, would not match a full install of a few thousand pounds, but good value for money overall.

This is what I'm trying to convey to the naysayers. Its not a breath taking HiFi system! Its only £500 and if you really enjoy your music and sound quality then its simply good value for money for a fair improvement over the standard system.

I'd also suggest if your into sound quality you won't be interested in window shaking rear view mirror adjusting bass levels?

Maybe is needs more running in, I have an audio test file on my ipod that I often use to test/set up systems but even with the sub woofer set to high I can only feel vibrations when placing a hand on the top of the unit but no air is moving down by the port

 

I have a bose sub in the Nissan , it fits in place of the rear wheel but its much more punchy

Or buy & fit a Dynaudio wheel sub from a MK7 Golf?....................from the factory Dynaudio sytem gives under passenger seat amp, better speakers, & sub which fits inside the spare wheel (which is face down in the spare wheel well) requires the 18" size space saver (skinny) spare wheel though.........

 

very good sound as the whole space under the VBF acts like a sub chamber................

Thought i'd update this

 

This weekend I finally had to turn the sub down from the max setting , so it has taken 3 months and 3000 miles to loosen up, so might help others that are initially disappointed with canton  .

 

I'm using high quality content from a SD card but its still pretty good from CD's as well  

Maybe is needs more running in, I have an audio test file on my ipod that I often use to test/set up systems but even with the sub woofer set to high I can only feel vibrations when placing a hand on the top of the unit but no air is moving down by the port

 

I have a bose sub in the Nissan , it fits in place of the rear wheel but its much more punchy

Have you found all of the canton sound settings? If every option then do you have Columbus, if so you should have an equaliser to play with as well?

 

Our canton (with VBF) sounds a whole lot better than the stock system and that was clear straight away. However large file compression cuts off the highest and lowest frequencies and this means the bass from highly compressed digital audio especially DAB is practically nill, in terms of Bass FM is about halfway from this to the original source in terms of bass.

 

Personally I buy big digital storage and rip to MP3 at 192Kb/s, this sounds fine in our car we use a class 10 SD card in the glovebox slot.

 

To put this in perspective a CD is a whopping 1411Kb/s!

CD isn't 1411kb/s in the same way as an mp3 is 320kbps - it uses a sample rate of 44.1khz, 2 channels, and 16 bits, so yes, that multiplies out to 1411kbps

 

BUT - how much of the data across the 2 channels is the same?

How much of it can you actually hear?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/44,100_Hz

CD isn't 1411kb/s in the same way as an mp3 is 320kbps - it uses a sample rate of 44.1khz, 2 channels, and 16 bits, so yes, that multiplies out to 1411kbps

 

BUT - how much of the data across the 2 channels is the same?

How much of it can you actually hear?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/44,100_Hz

 

Indeed, but you need a very good stereo to determine a difference between 192Kb/s & CD, once you've found a difference choosing which one is which is another story!

 

Personally I buy big digital storage and rip to MP3 at 192Kb/s, this sounds fine in our car we use a class 10 SD card in the glovebox slot.

 

To put this in perspective a CD is a whopping 1411Kb/s!

 

 

Indeed, but you need a very good stereo to determine a difference between 192Kb/s & CD, once you've found a difference choosing which one is which is another story!

 

Here we go again!..........or should that be "hear" we go!.........

 

Weather you can or cannot tell the difference is down to how good your hearing is & how "trained" it is.....................basically CD which is 16 bits of info at 44.1kHz on two channels........................MOST "old" Studio masters revel enough info to require 20 bits of info at 96kHz, & properly mastered studio tapes 24bits of info at 192kHz.......................I can tell the difference because I have some albums the same eg CD actual, and download Flac at 192kHz ......................& the extra depth & "reveal" in the 192kHz Flac is way better that the CD!!!...................

 

I have a lot of remastered Miles Davis which at the studio tape end is 20 or 24 bit which had to be compressed to 16bit for CD...........Can't wait for the full Flac Studio masters

On a car audio system most people will not be able to tell the difference between FLAC, CD or 320kbps mp3s with all the road noise etc in the mix.

I agree though, on a good hifi 24bit FLAC does sound a lot fuller.

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk