question for those running active

[Bake]

first, what processors or crossovers are you using.

second, If going three way what are your opinions on using two 6.5's and a tweet vs
using a 6.5 , a 5.25 , and a tweet per side.

Thanks for any opinions.

[snebes]

personally, if I were to go three-way, I would choose an awesome tweeter...there are plenty of those. But I wouldn't use 5.25/6.5. I would do dual 6.5, or 6.5/8 in a sealed enclosure...not just for the cone area, but the 8 could produce mid-bass (80-200ish) much better than a 6.5, and a 6.5 could cover 200-2Kish much better than a 5.25...

as for crossovers, mine are all custom passives....never used an active crossover.

if I were to choose equipment, wow.....lots of choices....let me be an RE fanboy, and say...RE XXX mids matched with an aura tweeter....as for the 8, I don't know...
and for amps, probably some phoenix gold equipment...

[DBfan187]

IB 8's, HORNS.

[squeak9798]

first, what processors or crossovers are you using.

Was using a Coustic DX-28 external crossover, now I'm simply using the internal processing on my Eclipse 8053.

second, If going three way what are your opinions on using two 6.5's and a tweet vs using a 6.5 , a 5.25 , and a tweet per side.

For a dedicated midrange, I'd use smaller than a 6.5" to avoid beaming issues and such....unless you were using a tweeter that could handle a very low crossover point. But, the point of a 3-way is to allow the dedicated midrange to cover the majority of the midrange frequencies......so, using the dedicated midrange over a very narrow bandwidth isn't really worthwhile.

I'd go for the smaller midrange.

[supa_c]

IB 8's, HORNS.

Or some nice 6.5" mids sealed.

[adam71]

My sig says it all. But I'm considering going with a 2 way instead consisting of the PRS tweeters and the PRS 6.75" mids and sealing them in the kicks. And if it lacks in the midbass area I can always add my Black Gold 6.5s back into the equation.

[fossil99ca]

[QUOTE=squeak9798]Was using a Coustic DX-28 external crossover, now I'm simply using the internal processing on my Eclipse 8053. QUOTE]

Going to thread jack here. What the Eclipse HU's able to do as far as X-over points/frequencys. Can they only HP and LP or can they band pass too and at what frequency's, max min? Eclipse's website does not really say.

[adam71]

[QUOTE=fossil99ca]

Was using a Coustic DX-28 external crossover, now I'm simply using the internal processing on my Eclipse 8053. QUOTE]

Going to thread jack here. What the Eclipse HU's able to do as far as X-over points/frequencys. Can they only HP and LP or can they band pass too and at what frequency's, max min? Eclipse's website does not really say.

I think that deck has a pro mode just like my 860 does. Which is "low/mid/high" so I would have to say yes the mid section is a bandpass (I.E. a lp and a hp). That deck squeak has is arguably Eclipse's best effort.

[squeak9798]

Going to thread jack here. What the Eclipse HU's able to do as far as X-over points/frequencys. Can they only HP and LP or can they band pass too and at what frequency's, max min? Eclipse's website does not really say.

Eclipse have Lowpass, Bandpass and Highpass outputs (my 8053 also has a "full pass" output, don't know about the newer models). As for frequencies:

Highpass:
200Hz -16000Hz

Bandpass:
Highpass from 63Hz to 200Hz
Lowpass rom 200Hz to 10000Hz

Lowpass:
63Hz-200Hz

All have variable slopes from 6db/oct to 24db/oct in 6db/oct steps.

[Bake]

Thanks guys, after looking around a bit I think I might do an Eclipse or Clarion unit and just use their built in processors. Was thinking of using an Audio Control DQXS but if the processors in the new heads are that good I may as well use them. And ditch my old school eclipse 5303.

[squeak9798]

Yeah....those Eclipse units are solid performers. My only complaint is that in pro mode there's no EQ on the subs Life goes on I guess.........

[adam71]

Actually if the funds are available I would go ahead and get a DQXS anyway. I don't know of any head unit that has the signal processing power that matches something like the DQXS or the DQX.

[Bake]

Well If I go with the DQX or the DQXS I will most likely just keep my 5303. It has performed great for many years. As a matter of fact the only complaint I have about it is that it is kind of hard to see in daylight. I would love to play around with one of those new Audio Control units. I just need to get rid of my symmetry first.

[adam71]

Well If I go with the DQX or the DQXS I will most likely just keep my 5303. It has performed great for many years. As a matter of fact the only complaint I have about it is that it is kind of hard to see in daylight. I would love to play around with one of those new Audio Control units. I just need to get rid of my symmetry first.

Yes the DQX and DQXS are quite nice. You do know that the DQXS has a 6 channel input right?? So if you're only running 1 set of rca's back you would only need the DQX not the DQXS. Even better yet you can get the DDC so you can remotely control any of the digital processors.

By the way, GC Adiddas is looking for something like a symetry.


http://www.caraudio.com/vb/showthread.php?t=107701

[Bake]

Yeah I would definitely get the controller. I have two sets going back because my sub output runs through an Epicenter. I mentioned the Symmetry in that thread but I don't think it peaked his interest. I will probably just throw it on Ebay. I have been looking at both the DQX and the DQXS trying to decide which one I want. I like that the DQXS has more inputs and will be more flexable down the road. You know we are never satisfied for long and always seem to be planning our next upgrade.