New head unit

1996blackmax

I had thought about going that route, as that is one sweet unit. In the end I just decided that I did not need that much tweaking ability, and what is found inside a higher end HU nowdays works for my application. Since you are competing it may be something worth while for you. You've done pretty darn good so far though . I've had a couple Alpine processors, my last one being my favorite. That thing was built for SQ, very nice, did I mention it was nice .

audiobliss

Wow...I just went to Alpine's website and looked at their F#1 series. :eek:

Their F#1 head unit certainly looks like high quality, but it doesn't have a larg screen with the CD slot behind the screen. They also don't list preout voltage and such. AND it costs $2400! :eek: :eek:

MacLeod

Thats because you have to use it with the C990 processor which is another $1000! Now granted this thing does everything and you can tune it with your laptop. The features are virtually limitless......but for $3500 they freaking should be!

1996blackmax

I think the C990 is only a very high end digital to analog converter.

If you want to get to the control side of things you have to go with the PXI-H990. A good amount more cash going that route.


Beautiful pieces of equipment there.

MacLeod

But for $3500? C'mon!

Id much rather have a $600 Ecliipse and $300 Audiocontrol EQ/processor.

1996blackmax

I am with you Mac.


I love my Eclipse HU, even without the external processing. It has all that my application needs built in.

neomagus00

MacLeod wrote:

But for $3500? C'mon!

Id much rather have a $600 Ecliipse and $300 Audiocontrol EQ/processor.

if you've got the money to burn, that last little 1/10th of 1 percent that you might get out of that equipment might just be worth it to ya... it's all about what you consider expensive...

1996blackmax

That would really help me sleep at night .

audiobliss

1996blackmax wrote:

That would really help me sleep at night .

I think the purchase has now been adequately justified! Go get 'em!

MacLeod

If I shoot one person in the head with a .357 Magnum and another in the head with a .44 Magnum, will the one shot with the larger and better .44 be any more dead than the one shot with the .357? There is a point that youll no longer notice a difference.

audiobliss

And I think neo quite adequately mentioned that.

Hey, we can dream, right?

1996blackmax

Hey Mac the one with the .22 would be more dead.

cam5860

My point is simply this Alpine has gone to ****.

1996blackmax

Hopefully they will come back around for people who want nice gear at resonable prices.

neomagus00

MacLeod wrote:

If I shoot one person in the head with a .357 Magnum and another in the head with a .44 Magnum, will the one shot with the larger and better .44 be any more dead than the one shot with the .357? There is a point that youll no longer notice a difference.

unfortunately for that example, audio isn't a discrete thing, it's a continuum, from terrible to orgasmic, and everything in between...
[img]http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/dhuston/photos/random/SQ graph.GIF[/img]
observe the graph, which represents my theory of audio... to go from A to B, you get a certain amount of SQ increase (as far as such things can be quantified) for a certain amount of money... if, however, you're starting at point C, you need to go to point D to get the same amount of SQ increase, which is a much much larger amount of money... if your example were completely correct (and i do understand you to a point), the graph would look more like this:
[img]http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/dhuston/photos/random/SQ graph 2.GIF[/img]
which means that once you hit a certain point (say a .22) you can't get any better; this clearly doesn't apply in audio...

1996blackmax

This is the way I see things with audio Neo.

audiobliss

Ditto. I'll just never have that much money.

MacLeod

Yes but unfortunately science must prevail. Yes, a .0005% THD signal is a much cleaner signal than one with .005% THD. Doesnt matter, cause you cant hear anything below 1% anyway.

The point is that no matter how much you spend on a fancy new widget, there is a point where you can no longer tell a difference and it has been my experience that point is a lot cheaper to reach than most people think.

audiobliss

But perhaps if you had enough money to buy $3500 worth of just processing equipment for your car, then you also wouldn't have to work and could thus spend 8 hours a day in your truck being mesmerized at first, and then picking it apart, tweaking/tuning, then upgrading gear. You would then be a much more demanding listener with a much more discerning ear, expecting more from your system.

Hmm. I don't have a clue what I just said. LOL

1996blackmax

Weird thing is that I think I understood it

neomagus00

audiobliss wrote:

But perhaps if you had enough money to buy $3500 worth of just processing equipment for your car, then you also wouldn't have to work and could thus spend 8 hours a day in your truck being mesmerized at first, and then picking it apart, tweaking/tuning, then upgrading gear. You would then be a much more demanding listening with a much more discerning ear, expecting more from your system.

Hmm. I don't have a clue what I just said. LOL

<html>pr

audiobliss

Glad to see I did make some sense!

1996blackmax

precisamente....

MacLeod

audiobliss wrote:

******************

neomagus00 wrote:

pr

neomagus00

HAHAHA!!! oooh, i haven't laughed that loud at an internet comment in... probably ever...

heh heh...

MacLeod

Ya know. There is something to be said for reading the manual.

When I messed with my crossover briefly on my HU I thought it only had a 2 way and not very flexible. Well I just happened to be skimming thru the manual today and discovered all I had to do was flip a switch on the bottom of the HU and, bingo, I not have a 3 way, fully variable, active crossover network. With slopes from 6-24 db!

Needless to say, Im off now to go play with it and see what I can make it do!

MacLeod

Well Im active now, or at least hybrid-active. I left my tweeter crossover in place because (A) 3100 Hz is as low as Id want to take the tweeters and (B) Id rather cut off a finger than damage my beloved SR tweets so I like having that x-over in place just in case.

I ended up not really changing them that much. I settled on 4 KHz for the tweet with an 18 db/oct slope and for the mids I took them down to 40 Hz with a 12 db/oct and low passed them at 4 KHz going 18 db/oct.

This HU is great! It just keeps on giving!

exalted512

manuals are for pansies!
-Cody

1996blackmax

All I can say is wow.........

audiobliss

Haha, 'bout time you figured that out, Mac! First a box with four sides, now this? *sigh*

I'm assuming that since you changed the settings for your mid that you're no longer using the SR's crossover for you mids, right? 'Cause if you are, like for your tweeters, then what you do in your HU's crossover doesn't affect anything, unless it's more restrictive than the SR's crossover, right?