Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="keep_hope_alive" data-source="post: 8053822" data-attributes="member: 576029">good deal.that&#039;s a lot of EQ flexibility.you should avoid maxing out signals from the head unit until you&#039;ve verified on an oscilloscope that the HU won&#039;t send clipped signals out with them maxed (or contact Kenwood and ask them).&nbsp; it also depends on how much volume you use.you should pay attention to what the mids are doing and at least put a subsonic high pass on them.&nbsp; basically filter them below their range.i&#039;ve found that my best sound comes from minimal EQ, no boost, no sound enhancements, and lots of head unit volume.&nbsp; what sounds quieter and dull at first will quickly reveal itself to be natural and revealing.&nbsp; i want my system to do what a great pair of headphones does - give me all of the detail and nuances.&nbsp; when I do use an EQ, I use it to cut frequencies. I avoid boost whenever possible, and if I need boost somewhere, I look at the speaker installation and crossover points before I look to an EQ.for example, i only have a 5-band parametric, and I only use 3 of the 5.&nbsp; and my system has the best response it&#039;s had - better than when I ran an Alpine H701 will dedicated 31 band EQ for each speaker.&nbsp; with the H701 myself and other acoustic engineers spent time listening and tweaking the EQ.&nbsp; the result was always something nice but not natural.&nbsp; i improved my speaker installation with new techniques and did away with the EQ/processor and everything is better.that&#039;s not to say that a processor is a bad thing.&nbsp; i do like them and they are useful - mostly for time alignment and crossover flexibility.&nbsp; a flexible crossover is so much more important than an EQ.&nbsp; clarity is achieve when you limit the range of each speaker based on location and capability.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="keep_hope_alive, post: 8053822, member: 576029"] good deal. that's a lot of EQ flexibility. you should avoid maxing out signals from the head unit until you've verified on an oscilloscope that the HU won't send clipped signals out with them maxed (or contact Kenwood and ask them). it also depends on how much volume you use. you should pay attention to what the mids are doing and at least put a subsonic high pass on them. basically filter them below their range. i've found that my best sound comes from minimal EQ, no boost, no sound enhancements, and lots of head unit volume. what sounds quieter and dull at first will quickly reveal itself to be natural and revealing. i want my system to do what a great pair of headphones does - give me all of the detail and nuances. when I do use an EQ, I use it to cut frequencies. I avoid boost whenever possible, and if I need boost somewhere, I look at the speaker installation and crossover points before I look to an EQ. for example, i only have a 5-band parametric, and I only use 3 of the 5. and my system has the best response it's had - better than when I ran an Alpine H701 will dedicated 31 band EQ for each speaker. with the H701 myself and other acoustic engineers spent time listening and tweaking the EQ. the result was always something nice but not natural. i improved my speaker installation with new techniques and did away with the EQ/processor and everything is better. that's not to say that a processor is a bad thing. i do like them and they are useful - mostly for time alignment and crossover flexibility. a flexible crossover is so much more important than an EQ. clarity is achieve when you limit the range of each speaker based on location and capability. [/QUOTE]

Verification