[ejschultz]

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.).

 

[ejschultz]

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~~~

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.

 

[ejschultz]

^^^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.

 

[ejschultz]

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.

 

[ejschultz]

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

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.

 

[ejschultz]

I use a 10 band peq on my elciple with dual 1/3 octave geqs for l/r seperation.

I need an RTA

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.