Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="yacob.naif" data-source="post: 1456089" data-attributes="member: 565696">One more thing i&#039;ll point out is a lot of people complain because kenwoods have less eq expandability, but they don&#039;t mention the fact that kenwood decks let you customize the freq. range CONTROLLED by &quot;bass&quot; &quot;mid&quot; and &quot;high&quot; frequencies in the simple equalizer, and also not only your crossover points, but the slope.I still say the decks are nearly identical besides the looks, alpine has the more simple, clean, organized, &#039;functional&#039; look, while kenwoods have the more gaudy, yet crowded design, which is almost to a fault, since i usually equate gaudy looking decks with poor quality decks who use looks to gain sales, like sony or panasonic. I just don&#039;t think the equalizer debate should be a deciding point between the alpines and the kenwoods, kenwood uses a eq system with less individual settings, but lets you customize the eq itself.Sorry, i&#039;m off my pedestal now.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="yacob.naif, post: 1456089, member: 565696"] One more thing i'll point out is a lot of people complain because kenwoods have less eq expandability, but they don't mention the fact that kenwood decks let you customize the freq. range CONTROLLED by "bass" "mid" and "high" frequencies in the simple equalizer, and also not only your crossover points, but the slope. I still say the decks are nearly identical besides the looks, alpine has the more simple, clean, organized, 'functional' look, while kenwoods have the more gaudy, yet crowded design, which is almost to a fault, since i usually equate gaudy looking decks with poor quality decks who use looks to gain sales, like sony or panasonic. I just don't think the equalizer debate should be a deciding point between the alpines and the kenwoods, kenwood uses a eq system with less individual settings, but lets you customize the eq itself. Sorry, i'm off my pedestal now. [/QUOTE]

Verification