I just wanted to know if there is any advantage to setting your crossover points on the HU vs. setting them on the amps?
Thanks,
Aaron
Printable View
I just wanted to know if there is any advantage to setting your crossover points on the HU vs. setting them on the amps?
Thanks,
Aaron
easier
I know with my old Alpine not only was it much easier to adjust from the front seat, but I could also change th slope of the filter as well.
mine dont sound as "full" using the HU crossover as supposed to the amp x/o
much better SQ through the amp, but thats just my setup
Amplifier crossovers can typically be set to anywhere within the specified range of the crossover. I.E anywhere between 30hz and 300hz. Most headunits only have specific frequencies you must select from; 50hz, 63hz, 80hz, and 100hz (for example).....which offers much less benefit. So, the amp xover is "better" in this regard.
Headunit xovers can be adjust from the drivers seat "on the fly" and most of them now-a-days include adjustable slopes, where the larger majority of amp xovers typically are either set at one specific slope or are very limited in their slope adjustability.
Neither is inherently better. You basically just have to try them both and see if one provides a substantial advantage in your specific situation over the other.
Likewise, you can use them both in conjunction with each other.
Just have to play around with it.
Wow, that was a excellent answer. I guess that's why your a moderater. I was curious about that my self. Thanks!
Yeah, thanks guys. My main problem right now is that my current HU doesn't have the crossover capabilities to run an active system. I'm going 4-way, so it would be a pretty exxpensive upgrade to get the kind of HU and processing necessary to control it from the HU.
However, I can set my HU to send full range frequencies (turn off all filters and x-over), and then set the cross points on the amps.
Until i can afford to upgrade to something like a H701, DRZ9255, P9 combo, etc.
I use both usually.
I use my 9853 and my amps filters are off.. ;) i personally like having the option of changing frequencies and stuff on the head unit... different strokes for different folks
Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that the other reason I used the filters in the HU was that my amps were made before having crossovers in amps was commonplace and as such don't have crossovers. Made things really difficult when the HU died...
The Alpine HUs (the older good ones and the two they still make that have anything, anyway) and digital processors have cutoff freqs at 1/3-1/6 octave intervals. That is pretty close to continuously variable. The benefit here is accuracy compared to a continuously adjustable setup. Especially if you like to mess with it a lot. It makes it really easy to go back to what you started with if you mess it up. Add in time alignment...
The biggest drawback IMO to using the HU filters is you are pretty much limited to what the HU has when it comes to EQ. If it has enough for you, that's great but the use of an outboard EQ is pretty much out.
Well my curretn HU has time alignment, and all my stuff is going in a single cab s10, so it's not like I have to go that far if I want to adjust. As far as EQing goes, I'll probably just leave it flat. I listen to a variety of music, and don't really feel like changing it all the time. Plus I figure that the people who mix the CDs generally know how it's supposed to sound.
That's great as long as you have an output for every driver if you are going with an active setup. Otherwise the TA is of only marginal use.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hintzyboy
The purpose of a system EQ is to fix speaker response irregularities to get them to reproduce the music as it was recorded/mixed. Ideally, you set it and leave it.Quote:
As far as EQing goes, I'll probably just leave it flat. I listen to a variety of music, and don't really feel like changing it all the time. Plus I figure that the people who mix the CDs generally know how it's supposed to sound.
squeak doesnt f*ck around. if u get a response from him, the thread is normally concluded and your question is answered.Quote:
Originally Posted by MBrock4u
plus, he's a TOOL fan.
today a young man on acid realized that all that mattered was merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness appearing of ourselves subjectively, that life is just a dream, and we're its imagination of ourselves, here's Tom with the weather.
get an audiocontrol dqxs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hintzyboy
http://www.woofersetc.com/index.cfm?...ategory_id=all
its 500 on woofersetc. my install guy is running Morel SUPREMO 2 way components, which do not include a passive crossover, as they are meant to meant to be run active (they do come with 'recommended' crossover points).
he is using the dqxs with those drivers. as BOTH an EQ and a Crossover, the DQXS gives u a level of control over the crossover pts, slopes, and everything else that u may need if u go active. if u go active, from what men much wiser than me have told me, you need flexibility to control x-over pts bc it will be very vehicle specific.
i am never going to be satisfied with my system, and will always be striving to improve it (either by tuning or upgrading the components). however, until i can afford the DQXS or something even sicker, i will not consider going active.
Well for now, I guess I'm just going "Half-active". I plan to upgrade to better source and processing units this summer, but for now I have to do with what i have.
As for the time alignment, my midbass and midrange speakers are going to be mounted right next to each other, so I'll just put those on the same set of outputs with some RCA splitters or something.