Go Back   Team-BHP > Under the Hood > In-Car Entertainment


Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 6th February 2009, 20:01   #196
BHPian
 
arpandiv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Mumbai
Posts: 428
Thanked: 27 Times
Default

@frank come on you need to upgrade your mono man. a STEG would fit in perfectly.
leave the HU same.
but just one Q why dint you go in for a 3 way setup in front ?
arpandiv is offline  
Old 7th February 2009, 00:12   #197
Senior - BHPian
 
frankmehta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Mumbai
Posts: 3,866
Thanked: 2,229 Times
Default

esteem doesnt have too much of space on the doors for a good 3 way setup. also, imaging wouldnt be good with the 3 way setup due to the weird moulding of the door pads which would compromise speaker placement. i'd be happy with this setup, im quite sure
frankmehta is offline  
Old 7th February 2009, 17:10   #198
Senior - BHPian
 
frankmehta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Mumbai
Posts: 3,866
Thanked: 2,229 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by frankmehta View Post
Ok i'm back on planet earth now. Just one question.
I just wanna take a call on whether i should amplify my rears or leave all 4 channels for the Luccents? Like 2 channels for the mids and 2 for the tweets?
And i'm seriously reading about crossovers and all but i dunno if i should go active with my alpine 9887 or go passive with the cx2 luccent crossover.
B&t any suggestions? Sound byte?all gurus plz do leave your 2 paise

i still stand puzzled. which crossover will be better, the Alpine's or the Luccent CX-2?
I have seen quite a few ppl leave their components active, esp 9887 and 7200MKII and HX-D2 owners.
Also, I just wanted a consensus on whether i should 'biamp' my Luccents. I wanted to give full power to them, but I shall stand corrected if there's a limitation somewhere that doesnt allow me to do so.
frankmehta is offline  
Old 7th February 2009, 17:23   #199
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: India
Posts: 4,346
Thanked: 16 Times
Default

You can try both.
First go active with the 4 channels of your amp. If you like it, go ahead and try the other. Put in the crossover with the lucents.
Compare with your ears, eyes and the thingy in between. Whichever one gives you better satisfaction and control, is the setup you should keep.

You should also consider bridging the channels for the lucents if possible/achievable.
speedzak is offline  
Old 8th February 2009, 01:24   #200
Team-BHP Support
 
navin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: mumbai
Posts: 22,502
Thanked: 3,880 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by frankmehta View Post
i still stand puzzled. which crossover will be better, the Alpine's or the Luccent CX-2?
Without studyiing the transfer function of the Lucent XO I'd not guess.

1. trance the Lucent XO - it aint difficult
2. get LspCad Lite version which is free and plug in the component values and see the transfer function
3. If the transfer function is largely linear then it is better to use the Alpine XO and biamp but I suspect it wont be.

you might even end up with a hybrid XO using the passive XO to compensate for impedance anamolies and the active XO to do teh actual division of the frequency spectrum.


Quote:
Originally Posted by speedzak View Post
You can try both..
Zak, I'd expect better from you. You cannot just attach any XO to any speaker.
navin is offline  
Old 8th February 2009, 01:35   #201
BHPian
 
vikram18's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: pune
Posts: 615
Thanked: 19 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by navin View Post

Zak, I'd expect better from you. You cannot just attach any XO to any speaker.
I think he meant trying active as well as with the Lucent crossover, when he said "both"
vikram18 is offline  
Old 8th February 2009, 02:16   #202
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: India
Posts: 4,346
Thanked: 16 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by navin View Post
You cannot just attach any XO to any speaker.
It is a bit difficult. But there are only 2 ways he is thinking ahead here. Either the built in crossover of Alpine 9887 or the supplied crossover which comes with Lucents. Ain't it?
So, isn't it possible to byepass the Lucent crossovers and try running the speakers directly from Alpine crossovers?
All he is going to loose is some meters of wiring (which he can use later for some other purpose).

This is what I think. Navin, please correct me.
speedzak is offline  
Old 8th February 2009, 17:45   #203
Senior - BHPian
 
frankmehta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Mumbai
Posts: 3,866
Thanked: 2,229 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by speedzak View Post
You can try both.
First go active with the 4 channels of your amp.

You should also consider bridging the channels for the luccents if possible/achievable.

arent these two the same thing??? i really am quite illiterate about this stuff


Quote:
Originally Posted by navin View Post
Without studyiing the transfer function of the Lucent XO I'd not guess.

1. trance the Lucent XO - it aint difficult
2. get LspCad Lite version which is free and plug in the component values and see the transfer function
3. If the transfer function is largely linear then it is better to use the Alpine XO and biamp but I suspect it wont be.

you might even end up with a hybrid XO using the passive XO to compensate for impedance anamolies and the active XO to do teh actual division of the frequency spectrum.
navin can you translate? what does this mean???


Quote:
Originally Posted by speedzak View Post
It is a bit difficult. But there are only 2 ways he is thinking ahead here. Either the built in crossover of Alpine 9887 or the supplied crossover which comes with Lucents. Ain't it?
So, isn't it possible to byepass the Lucent crossovers and try running the speakers directly from Alpine crossovers?
All he is going to loose is some meters of wiring (which he can use later for some other purpose).

This is what I think. Navin, please correct me.
true, and i have read on a lot of forums that 9887's are quite successful at going active and bypassing the x'overs totally.
the best person to answer this is B&T because he's worked extensively with illusions and 9887's.
let's wait for a kind of verdict from him. sometimes i feel that the heavy duty x'overs of the Luccents are much more competent than the inbuilt x'over from the 9887. but then i feel that the signal is anyways being processed in the 9887, then why reprocess the same signal again, if similar/better results can be achieved with the 9887.
besides, on many international forums i have read, that people have bought 9887s for the sole reason of going active, but that is even with expensive components, like rainbows and seas so that leaves us confused as to the function of the passive crossovers, which must be much more expensive than those of the luccents.
frankmehta is offline  
Old 8th February 2009, 18:02   #204
Senior - BHPian
 
abhinav.gupta88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Delhi , India
Posts: 4,087
Thanked: 308 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by navin View Post
Without studyiing the transfer function of the Lucent XO I'd not guess.

1. trance the Lucent XO - it aint difficult
2. get LspCad Lite version which is free and plug in the component values and see the transfer function
3. If the transfer function is largely linear then it is better to use the Alpine XO and biamp but I suspect it wont be.

you might even end up with a hybrid XO using the passive XO to compensate for impedance anamolies and the active XO to do teh actual division of the frequency spectrum.




.
How will the transfer function being linear help the decision to use the Alpine and biamp?
abhinav.gupta88 is offline  
Old 8th February 2009, 19:33   #205
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: India
Posts: 4,346
Thanked: 16 Times
Default Oh no!

Quote:
Originally Posted by frankmehta View Post
arent these two the same thing??? i really am quite illiterate about this stuff
I should've been more specific.
When I meant both:
1. Going active directly from the Alpine 9887. It's built in crossovers put into use.
2. Going passive with Illusion Lucent crossovers.

And bridging the channels should be considered in both methods if possible.

Another thing to note is that if you're going the passive way, then put the 9887 into Defeat mode so that Lucent crossovers will be the only thing controlling the frequencies.
speedzak is offline  
Old 8th February 2009, 19:46   #206
Senior - BHPian
 
frankmehta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Mumbai
Posts: 3,866
Thanked: 2,229 Times
Default

yea my 9887 is always in defeat mode. i dont like to dial in any equalization. defeats the purpose of listening to music the way its made!
anyways, coming back to the topic, I am going to experiment with this active/passive business. or if someone has actually experimented, i request them to come forward and brief me on what is better. does any one on team bhp have an active setup in their car? why hasnt anyone experimented despite having quite complex head units like the higher end alpines and eclipses??
frankmehta is offline  
Old 8th February 2009, 20:28   #207
BHPian
 
vikram18's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: pune
Posts: 615
Thanked: 19 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by frankmehta View Post
does any one on team bhp have an active setup in their car? why hasnt anyone experimented despite having quite complex head units like the higher end alpines and eclipses??
I do I have an active setup with CDT components and a Genesis amp and an Eclipse 7100
vikram18 is offline  
Old 8th February 2009, 20:40   #208
Senior - BHPian
 
abhinav.gupta88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Delhi , India
Posts: 4,087
Thanked: 308 Times
Default

Contact B&T. He would know about fiddling with such stuff.
abhinav.gupta88 is offline  
Old 8th February 2009, 21:03   #209
Senior - BHPian
 
frankmehta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Mumbai
Posts: 3,866
Thanked: 2,229 Times
Default

he's doing the install as always so i shall speak to him tomorrow. the sub is almost finalized!
**beware** its the most unexpected upgrade!!
no spl, no sqpl pure sq!
frankmehta is offline  
Old 8th February 2009, 21:04   #210
Senior - BHPian
 
frankmehta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Mumbai
Posts: 3,866
Thanked: 2,229 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vikram18 View Post
I do I have an active setup with CDT components and a Genesis amp and an Eclipse 7100

CDT crossover lying unused??? what makes you think the 7100 has better processing than the actual crossover itself? im quite keen to know how its sounds with and without the crossover! vikram please let us know
frankmehta is offline  
Closed Thread


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Indica V2 DLS -Indica V2 DLS - Electricals falling apart - 57,000 km update cyberwhizs Long-Term Ownership Reviews 5 25th April 2013 13:04
Indica DLS / DLS TURBO / DICOR?.....What BUY? musicmanaman Hatchbacks 20 8th May 2010 19:05
vRs(q)® Monster : Eclipse | Illusion Audio | Harman Kardon | Stereo Integrity abhinav.gupta88 In-Car Entertainment 691 11th October 2009 04:02
Frankmehta reviews his ICE: Part 1: Rockford Fosgate 325.2 MONO+Illusion Luccent Sub frankmehta In-Car Entertainment 23 21st February 2009 20:29
Indica NA DLS vs Turbo DLS vs Turbo DLG greenhorn Hatchbacks 10 5th May 2007 17:20


All times are GMT +5.5. The time now is 19:07.

Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Team-BHP.com
Proudly powered by E2E Networks