Chevy Impala SS Forum banner
1 - 3 of 3 Posts

· Registered
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.

:)
 

· Registered
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
 

· Registered
Joined
·
11 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.

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
 
1 - 3 of 3 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top