9887..the right choice?

[UCF52 10+ year member]

If you're not planning on getting amplification for your mids/highs just get something like this. It will do what you want it to do.

 

[Selkies 10+ year member]

We are trying to explain that you cannot go active without an external amplifier (I think you can on the 880/800, but you're getting ~20rms/ch.)

You are correct. I was just giving him a heads up about the auto time alignment/eq stuff people were talking about. I know the hidden additional cost for the 9887 in that department has me leaning toward the 880/800.

Anyhow, they're right man. If you're not going active, there's not really a need for such a feature-rich headunit. But, it's your money. Spend it as you wish.

 

[UCF52 10+ year member]

You are correct. I was just giving him a heads up about the auto time alignment/eq stuff people were talking about. I know the hidden additional cost for the 9887 in that department has me leaning toward the 880/800.

Yea, the 880/800 has a pretty good autoEQ. I have heard mixed reviews about the Imprint though.

Anyhow, they're right man. If you're not going active, there's not really a need for such a feature-rich headunit. But, it's your money. Spend it as you wish.

x2

If you think you are going to want to run an active setup in the future then go for it, but at the moment you will not use many of the features you are paying for.

 

[xdeadpixel 10+ year member]

We are trying to explain that you cannot go active without an external amplifier (I think you can on the 880/800, but you're getting ~20rms/ch.)




Read my post above. If you are really looking for a sound quality setup start with the head unit/front stage/4channel. Otherwise you do not need a deck capable of going active.

What are you using right now for mids/highs?

What do you mean by external amplifier (4 channel? right?) or front stage? Pardon my ignorance //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

Also, where can I find out more about this active setup? It sounds like something I'd like to consider. Really, I want to spend the money AND take advantage of all the features. Do I just need more wattage? Cuz this 500 JL hits harder than any of my higher wattage amps.

Also, what is what you're talking about DSP?

Thanks //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

 

[UCF52 10+ year member]

What do you mean by external amplifier (4 channel? right?)

Yes, something like the JL 300/4

or front stage?

A front stage is basically 2-way or 3-way speaker setup. Most common is the 2-way. It consists of a mid and a tweeter. In an active setup they are each powered by a separate channel from the amplifier (4 channels ~ 2 tweets + 2 mids). You also control; the frequency response for each driver (speaker), the attenuation (roll off ~ 12db, 18db, 24db), and time alignment. Some reiceivers also allow a separate left and right EQ (Pioneer 880/800)

Pardon my ignorance //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

It's no problem; the forum is for people to learn.

Also, where can I find out more about this active setup? It sounds like something I'd like to consider. Really, I want to spend the money AND take advantage of all the features.

I think there is a sticky in the speaker section that goes into further detail about the difference between active and passive.

Do I just need more wattage? Cuz this 500 JL hits harder than any of my higher wattage amps.

JL amps are nice in that they provide the same power from 1.5-4 ohms.

Also, what is what you're talking about DSP?

Digital sound processing ~ basically another way to say active, but most manufactures use this term.

Thanks //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

 

[UCF52 10+ year member]

The biggest downside to going active is the time it takes to tune and tweak everything. Most people are never really done... always changing something.

A much simpler route would be to go with a nice set of components (a mid, tweeter, and passive crossover ~ external). No tuning really and you still get a pretty decent sound delivery.

 

[xdeadpixel 10+ year member]

The biggest downside to going active is the time it takes to tune and tweak everything. Most people are never really done... always changing something.
A much simpler route would be to go with a nice set of components (a mid, tweeter, and passive crossover ~ external). No tuning really and you still get a pretty decent sound delivery.

Ah, no I'm good on that. Not with the car I drive now. Maybe when I hit my goal of an extra $500 a month and get my charger SRT

But really, with a regular setup with 5 1/4 and 6x9 and my amp, its not worth it to get a real nice head unit with a price tag? There's no additional SQ or features I could tweak? If not, I might do the pioneer. But I just want my stuff to sound good, and look good. AND HIT HARD //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/biggrin.gif.d71a5d36fcbab170f2364c9f2e3946cb.gif

 

[UCF52 10+ year member]

Ah, no I'm good on that. Not with the car I drive now. Maybe when I hit my goal of an extra $500 a month and get my charger SRT
But really, with a regular setup with 5 1/4 and 6x9 and my amp, its not worth it to get a real nice head unit with a price tag? There's no additional SQ or features I could tweak? If not, I might do the pioneer. But I just want my stuff to sound good, and look good. AND HIT HARD //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/biggrin.gif.d71a5d36fcbab170f2364c9f2e3946cb.gif

You should be happy with that, 99% of people are happy with stock.

 

[xdeadpixel 10+ year member]

Haha before my HU got stolen I WASN'T happy with it. It was an old $100 sony that sounded horrible IMO. I'm a very musical person actually, I just don't know much about car audio yet

As for speakers i'm using some fusion 5 1/4's and crunch 6x9's. they sound way better than what I had in there before, but were only $20 each.

Everybody that I've talked to says that everything would sound alot better if I got a nicer HU

Also, the reason I don't have a 4 chan amp is cuz my speakers were loud enough (at higher volumes getting louder than the subs) so I don't really have a need to turn up anymore. Even when I turned the old volume up, the speakers would distort a bit. Am I just totally off track here?

 

[UCF52 10+ year member]

Hang around some car audio forums and you will learn. Be careful though it can be a money pit //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

 

[xdeadpixel 10+ year member]

haha absolutely

Alright so you guys are saying I can just spend like 150, and get something that, in my situation, would allow me to tweak all the settings and get the same, or better SQ (and maybe spl?) as the 9887? If yes, whats the best HU

 

[UCF52 10+ year member]

haha absolutely
Alright so you guys are saying I can just spend like 150, and get something that, in my situation, would allow me to tweak all the settings and get the same, or better SQ (and maybe spl?) as the 9887? If yes, whats the best HU

If you are going to be playing CD's a lot get something with 24-bit DAC's.

http://www.eclipse-web.com/cd/cd3200overviews.html

http://www.crutchfield.com/S-ngJ3BfNLWc7/App/Product/Item/Main.aspx?I=099CD3200

 

[xdeadpixel 10+ year member]

If you are going to be playing CD's a lot get something with 24-bit DAC's.
http://www.eclipse-web.com/cd/cd3200overviews.html

http://www.crutchfield.com/S-ngJ3BfNLWc7/App/Product/Item/Main.aspx?I=099CD3200

3 band eq tho..thats what my last one had

 

[UCF52 10+ year member]

3 band eq tho..thats what my last one had

There are tradeoffs between the Pioneer graphic and the Eclipse parametric:

Parametric vs. Graphic Equalizers

A graphic equalizer has usually fixed frequency and Q value. The layout of a graphic equalizer is the typical sliding controls arranged by frequency. The advantage of a graphic equalizer is that in the way it is laid out, it is easy to see what frequency is being boosted or cut and any person without much experience can adjust it. Since a graphic EQ has fixed frequencies and Q, it has limitations on what it can control.

A parametric equalizer consists of knobs that are turned to desired levels, have adjustable frequencies and (usually) Q. The advantage of parametric equalizers is a much greater control, since frequencies and Q values can be adjusted. On the other hand, a parametric equalizer is much harder to adjust than a graphic EQ, requiring an experienced person and measuring equipment.

(I did not write the above - please don't credit me for it)

 

[xdeadpixel 10+ year member]

I'm really not familiar with a panametric EQ. Maybe I should stick with a graphic EQ. What exactly is "Q"? It's on my JL amp too, but what does it do?

The perfect equalizer for me would be something the one on winamp.

btw UCF and others, I really appreciate the help. I know I'm a huge noob, but hopefully I'll turn into one of the guys GIVING advice someday. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif