y cant we get a group by on those tweeter pillars
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Joined
·
397 Posts
I'd like a set too.
Joined
·
118 Posts
Joined
·
963 Posts
The issue with something like this is that each tweeter is going to require different positioning. The A pillars would have to be custom made for each application. I guess this really only comes into factor if you're worried about the sound quality aspect (staging, TA, etc.).
Joined
·
656 Posts
I got a pair from RBU and they are sweet.
Joined
·
118 Posts
Yeah, Kinda, Sorta, Tweets in the A-Pillars are usually a secondary tweet, crossed much higher 5-6Khz vs 2.5-3Khz, and much lower volume, used to raise your sound stage. Used in this manner, placement, TA, all the usual critical stuff isn't that critical. All in what your tryin' to get done ! ~~~RBU~~~
Joined
·
963 Posts
True. However, it can still make for a funny sounding stage depending on the tweeter's specific characteristics. I wanted to try to get Bing to make me some of the A-pillars he made for a custom Impala install he did. He let me know why it couldn't be done and it all makes perfect sense. According to you, I wouldn't want a primary tweeter in the A-pillar, especially considering mine are crossed over at 2.5 kHz
. Those Focals I got from you were definitely killer speakers (I'm strongly considering putting them in a Lumina, assuming I can buy it from my parents. They don't use it.), they just really lacked in the midbass department. What can you expect from a 136mm speaker though? I ended up getting a set of Pioneer Premier TS-C720PRS components to replace them. I really don't think there's a better set out there for the money, out of what I've heard.
Joined
·
11 Posts
well, in my opinion, the whole thing about secondary tweets, or so called stage raising tweets, has generally gone away since the newest generation of Digital Signal Processors came out a few years ago.
previously, doing kicks, minimizing Path Length Differential was crucial to getting a good center image, but often resulted in rainbowing of the stage, to compenstate, a set of tweets, as you described, was often used in the A pillars, crossed very high (i have done 10k or even 15k) to raise the two sides of the stage.
however, with the advent of the good dsps with time alignment, it is not perfectly possible to do lower door or kick mounted midbass with dash mounted midrange and or tweets, and still result in a perfect on center image (for the driver). and that is why to me, its very important to aim the tweets properly.
the only people, in the compeittion scene at least, that still run secondary tweets, are generally those using HLCDs or going for SQC2 seater class, though of course, there are notable exceptions.
but i would think that most people where, when they want pillar pods, they would be talking about using them as the location for their primary tweeters?
in either case, aside from shipping and aiming reasons, the other thing baout doing apillar tweets, is that in order to best utlize it, IMO its best to have some form of DSP avaible and actively power the entire thing. when you have a wide separation of tweeter and mid, and running it just passive, you leave a lot to chance as to how the overall system will sound.
previously, doing kicks, minimizing Path Length Differential was crucial to getting a good center image, but often resulted in rainbowing of the stage, to compenstate, a set of tweets, as you described, was often used in the A pillars, crossed very high (i have done 10k or even 15k) to raise the two sides of the stage.
however, with the advent of the good dsps with time alignment, it is not perfectly possible to do lower door or kick mounted midbass with dash mounted midrange and or tweets, and still result in a perfect on center image (for the driver). and that is why to me, its very important to aim the tweets properly.
the only people, in the compeittion scene at least, that still run secondary tweets, are generally those using HLCDs or going for SQC2 seater class, though of course, there are notable exceptions.
but i would think that most people where, when they want pillar pods, they would be talking about using them as the location for their primary tweeters?
in either case, aside from shipping and aiming reasons, the other thing baout doing apillar tweets, is that in order to best utlize it, IMO its best to have some form of DSP avaible and actively power the entire thing. when you have a wide separation of tweeter and mid, and running it just passive, you leave a lot to chance as to how the overall system will sound.
Joined
·
963 Posts
^^^I'm very strongly considering running an active setup and ditching my passive crossovers. I've got an 800PRS head unit and 720PRS components, both obviously Pioneer Premier. I feel like I'll be wasting such a well built passive crossover, but by keeping my setup passive, I feel like I'm wasting so much potential with the head unit. Either way, I'll be losing out on money spent. I'm happy right now with my 4 channel bridged to the components, but I think that an active setup will do my car a lot more justice, assuming I won't have too many issues tuning. I've never done an active setup before, but we all have to start somewhere.
Either way, I'll be losing out on money spent. I'm happy right now with my 4 channel bridged to the components, but I think that an active setup will do my car a lot more justice, assuming I won't have too many issues tuning. I've never done an active setup before, but we all have to start somewhere.
Joined
·
11 Posts
well, the premier is a good starting point, get a feel for it, and then eventually, i would suggest an external DSP that can offer much more tuning potential.
the prs, along with the 9887, are okay for time alignment, but when it comes to crossover and eq, they are somehwat limited. the crossovers i guess are okay, theough they start to jump big once you get up into the higher freq. the eq though, the 5 band parametic makes it so you cant group the frequencies closer together. meaning if you want have a relatively large amount of tuning needed between 150 and 250, where two bands would do better than a single band, i dont think either HU will allow you to do that. the next band has to be spaced further.
thats why i love the zapco DSPs...it had a 10 band parametic eq, and you can type your OWN frequencies into it. meaning if you want to have three bands at say 125hz, 221hz and hell 4354 hz, you can do it. also a really wide range of Q and shelving avaiable. same goes for the crossovers too, technically infinitely adjustable
best of luck on your active endeavor
b
the prs, along with the 9887, are okay for time alignment, but when it comes to crossover and eq, they are somehwat limited. the crossovers i guess are okay, theough they start to jump big once you get up into the higher freq. the eq though, the 5 band parametic makes it so you cant group the frequencies closer together. meaning if you want have a relatively large amount of tuning needed between 150 and 250, where two bands would do better than a single band, i dont think either HU will allow you to do that. the next band has to be spaced further.
thats why i love the zapco DSPs...it had a 10 band parametic eq, and you can type your OWN frequencies into it. meaning if you want to have three bands at say 125hz, 221hz and hell 4354 hz, you can do it. also a really wide range of Q and shelving avaiable. same goes for the crossovers too, technically infinitely adjustable
best of luck on your active endeavor
b
Joined
·
963 Posts
My 800 has a 16 band graphic EQ. I'd say that's better than a 5 band parametric, but it's nothing compared to a large parametric EQ. I plan on getting a spectrum analyzer eventually and measuring for a flat curve. If my 16 band can get me close enough, that's all I'll really care about.
Joined
·
11 Posts
i guess its all preference
i personally will take a true 5 band parametric over a 2/3 octave graphic hehe...espeically if its avaiable on individual channels the ability to adjust the Q on parametic means a lot to me hehe
Joined
·
963 Posts
Adjusting the Q is a pretty nice feature. I've got an Alpine 9855 (probably one of my favorite HUs that I've had) that's got a 5 band parametric EQ and it's great for tuning. I have been able to achieve the sound I'm looking for, so far, with my 800PRS. The 800PRS's 16 band GEQ does offer L/R controls. That's one thing the PEQ on the Alpine doesn't have.i guess its all preference
Joined
·
963 Posts
I also need an RTA. I wish I got the 7200MKII instead of my 800PRS. It's got an 11 band PEQ when you go active with it. I'm overly happy with the overall performance of my 800PRS, but the Eclipse has more options. Would I use these options? I sure don't know. I'm not using my 800PRS to it's fullest potential, yet, but I plan on it soon.
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
