Hertz Dieci Speakers

gunbir · 17th September 2005, 12:56

Sam, you're like me then... I use my HX-D2 to run my active setup, output to my amps, onto my speakers.

Autophile · 17th September 2005, 12:58

you can its just that you dun need any active crossover playing.....if you want to use active crossover get rid of the passive crossovers. I have used biamping using passive crossovers.

We use passive crossovers in our Mille range which can be mono-biamp-triamp on the passive crossover networks. If you want to active dun buy the crossovers.

If you want to have a look on the speakers with biamping facility on the passive crossovers look at the Alpine SPX-177 X type speakers. One with the blue cone midbass. You can configure the crossover to mono or biamp/biwire by removing jumpers.

navin · 17th September 2005, 12:59

actually I use the HPFs and LPFs in my HU to run to my sat and sub amps. then my sat amp has freq. above 100hz. my passive XO is 1st order even for the tweeter!

navin · 17th September 2005, 13:05

ok you guys beat it out of me. my speakers are not really alpine/vifa i their original form.

The 1st thing I did was discard the XO. then I LEAP/LMSed the drivrers and for the tweeter i wanted the true Fs. Then I added a rear chamber (plastic) over the tweeter to lower Fs. I did not remove the ferro fluid for the alpine tweeters but only for the vifa tweeters.

Now my tweeter XO for the Vifa is just a single 4.7uf poly cap. For the alpines I used a small inductor as well (I am not so sure about the alpine's power handling capacity) and got a slope of about 9db/octave vs a tradtional butterworth alignment of 12db/octave.

etc. etc...we can take this offline if you wish.

Autophile · 17th September 2005, 13:08

You can use a good quality active network to get rid of all these hassles. Run the system active it will give you better control over the system.

navin · 17th September 2005, 13:10

true but then i add an external XO to the signal path vs a single good cap and inductor.

not that one solution is better but i thought mine would be simpler.

navin · 17th September 2005, 13:11

Besides I am DIY. Almost everything i buy gets modified.

Autophile · 17th September 2005, 13:15

Yes you are right its much cheaper but in case of active systems you get rid off variations which a passive network presents to a power amplifer.

You use your power better and there is more control over the speakers.

But yes active systems have added cost of active network, cables and most prominent one is cost of additional amplifier.

We have used both in large variety of systems. But at the end we preffered the active system sounds much better.

navin · 18th September 2005, 02:25

1st oder netwroks are quite simple if you look at from a power amps point of view. also when you have good components with nice roll offs and smooth impedance curves with little reactive component a power amp can easyily drive it. Active would be nicer but given the complexties it creates (another amp, an active XO both sources of noise) etc... i stuck to my acitve sub, passive tweeter combo.

Autophile · 19th September 2005, 11:13

As you have mentioned the quality of speaker components and shallow slope crossovers..you tend to find them in expensive componets.

In active if you use good crossovers and amps you dont face any noise related issues.

The Audison range of amplifers LRx and VRx both have very good quality crossovers in them. In VRx range you can pick and choose any kind of crossover types and use in the amplifer because VRx amplifiers are open deck design.

navin · 19th September 2005, 12:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Autophile

In active if you use good crossovers and amps you dont face any noise related issues...

the noise related issues are priamrily due to install problems. the greater the number of active components in a car the greater the chances for noise to enter the audio chain.

Autophile · 19th September 2005, 12:37

you said it right. its a Installation problem

navin · 19th September 2005, 12:43

so given the disadvantages I prefer to stick to the "active sub, passive tweeter" filteration. the active sub prevents the mid-hf amp from cbeing distressed and the passive tweeter reduces the number of amps and eliminates the active XO.

so a good 1 channel amp with a LPF and a good 4 channel amp with a HPF is adequate. fewer components, shorter signal path, less chances of an installer making a mess.

in fact a good 1 channel amp and 4 channel amps are all you need if the HU's LPF and HPF can be used. I found that the LPF and HPF on my HU sounded better than the ones on the amps i had besides tuning was a bit easier on my back.

navin · 19th September 2005, 12:46

JB, i hear you are one motivated installer. there are few like you. it is not easy to find them and they prefer to work on the crazy on of installs (EQs, DSPs, etc...) and not the standard HU+amp+speaker installs we ordinary guys got.

Over the past 30 years I have gone from 5 way to 3 way to 1 way at home.

Autophile · 19th September 2005, 17:38

But going active is not tough these days...you can do this from your headunit only...lot head units like Pioneer 8650 and Alpine 9855 has this feature...so its HU to Amp straight without any further processing unit in line.

Its three way mainly apart from the headunits like Clarion HX-D2 or Pioneer P9 Combo...so you dun have rear fills (if one can live without them)

17th September 2005, 12:56	#16
gunbir Senior - BHPian Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: New Delhi Posts: 2,465 Thanked: 32 Times	Sam, you're like me then... I use my HX-D2 to run my active setup, output to my amps, onto my speakers.
	() Thanks

17th September 2005, 12:58	#17
Autophile BHPian Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: New Delhi Posts: 931 Thanked: 4 Times	you can its just that you dun need any active crossover playing.....if you want to use active crossover get rid of the passive crossovers. I have used biamping using passive crossovers. We use passive crossovers in our Mille range which can be mono-biamp-triamp on the passive crossover networks. If you want to active dun buy the crossovers. If you want to have a look on the speakers with biamping facility on the passive crossovers look at the Alpine SPX-177 X type speakers. One with the blue cone midbass. You can configure the crossover to mono or biamp/biwire by removing jumpers.
	() Thanks

17th September 2005, 12:59	#18
navin Team-BHP Support Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Mumbai Posts: 25,198 Thanked: 9,302 Times	actually I use the HPFs and LPFs in my HU to run to my sat and sub amps. then my sat amp has freq. above 100hz. my passive XO is 1st order even for the tweeter!
	() Thanks

17th September 2005, 13:05	#19
navin Team-BHP Support Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Mumbai Posts: 25,198 Thanked: 9,302 Times	ok you guys beat it out of me. my speakers are not really alpine/vifa i their original form. The 1st thing I did was discard the XO. then I LEAP/LMSed the drivrers and for the tweeter i wanted the true Fs. Then I added a rear chamber (plastic) over the tweeter to lower Fs. I did not remove the ferro fluid for the alpine tweeters but only for the vifa tweeters. Now my tweeter XO for the Vifa is just a single 4.7uf poly cap. For the alpines I used a small inductor as well (I am not so sure about the alpine's power handling capacity) and got a slope of about 9db/octave vs a tradtional butterworth alignment of 12db/octave. etc. etc...we can take this offline if you wish.
	() Thanks

17th September 2005, 13:08	#20
Autophile BHPian Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: New Delhi Posts: 931 Thanked: 4 Times	You can use a good quality active network to get rid of all these hassles. Run the system active it will give you better control over the system.
	() Thanks

17th September 2005, 13:10	#21
navin Team-BHP Support Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Mumbai Posts: 25,198 Thanked: 9,302 Times	true but then i add an external XO to the signal path vs a single good cap and inductor. not that one solution is better but i thought mine would be simpler.
	() Thanks

17th September 2005, 13:11	#22
navin Team-BHP Support Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Mumbai Posts: 25,198 Thanked: 9,302 Times	Besides I am DIY. Almost everything i buy gets modified.
	() Thanks

17th September 2005, 13:15	#23
Autophile BHPian Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: New Delhi Posts: 931 Thanked: 4 Times	Yes you are right its much cheaper but in case of active systems you get rid off variations which a passive network presents to a power amplifer. You use your power better and there is more control over the speakers. But yes active systems have added cost of active network, cables and most prominent one is cost of additional amplifier. We have used both in large variety of systems. But at the end we preffered the active system sounds much better.
	() Thanks

18th September 2005, 02:25	#24
navin Team-BHP Support Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Mumbai Posts: 25,198 Thanked: 9,302 Times	1st oder netwroks are quite simple if you look at from a power amps point of view. also when you have good components with nice roll offs and smooth impedance curves with little reactive component a power amp can easyily drive it. Active would be nicer but given the complexties it creates (another amp, an active XO both sources of noise) etc... i stuck to my acitve sub, passive tweeter combo.
	() Thanks

19th September 2005, 11:13	#25
Autophile BHPian Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: New Delhi Posts: 931 Thanked: 4 Times	As you have mentioned the quality of speaker components and shallow slope crossovers..you tend to find them in expensive componets. In active if you use good crossovers and amps you dont face any noise related issues. The Audison range of amplifers LRx and VRx both have very good quality crossovers in them. In VRx range you can pick and choose any kind of crossover types and use in the amplifer because VRx amplifiers are open deck design.
	() Thanks

19th September 2005, 12:37	#27
Autophile BHPian Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: New Delhi Posts: 931 Thanked: 4 Times	you said it right. its a Installation problem
	() Thanks

19th September 2005, 12:43	#28
navin Team-BHP Support Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Mumbai Posts: 25,198 Thanked: 9,302 Times	so given the disadvantages I prefer to stick to the "active sub, passive tweeter" filteration. the active sub prevents the mid-hf amp from cbeing distressed and the passive tweeter reduces the number of amps and eliminates the active XO. so a good 1 channel amp with a LPF and a good 4 channel amp with a HPF is adequate. fewer components, shorter signal path, less chances of an installer making a mess. in fact a good 1 channel amp and 4 channel amps are all you need if the HU's LPF and HPF can be used. I found that the LPF and HPF on my HU sounded better than the ones on the amps i had besides tuning was a bit easier on my back.
	() Thanks

19th September 2005, 12:46	#29
navin Team-BHP Support Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Mumbai Posts: 25,198 Thanked: 9,302 Times	JB, i hear you are one motivated installer. there are few like you. it is not easy to find them and they prefer to work on the crazy on of installs (EQs, DSPs, etc...) and not the standard HU+amp+speaker installs we ordinary guys got. Over the past 30 years I have gone from 5 way to 3 way to 1 way at home. Last edited by navin : 19th September 2005 at 12:48.
	() Thanks

19th September 2005, 17:38	#30
Autophile BHPian Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: New Delhi Posts: 931 Thanked: 4 Times	But going active is not tough these days...you can do this from your headunit only...lot head units like Pioneer 8650 and Alpine 9855 has this feature...so its HU to Amp straight without any further processing unit in line. Its three way mainly apart from the headunits like Clarion HX-D2 or Pioneer P9 Combo...so you dun have rear fills (if one can live without them)
	() Thanks