# Going active, please help?!



## Fricasseekid (Apr 19, 2011)

I have an MB Quart Q 4.150 and a set of Massive RK6s. I'd like to run the Massive Woofers off the amp and the tweets off of my HU (Pioneer DEH 6900 UB)

My question is, what electrical components do I need to safely run those tweets off my HU?


----------



## Fricasseekid (Apr 19, 2011)

Anyone?
How long should I be letting this cork sit before I reel it in to make sure there is still bait on the hook?


----------



## azngotskills (Feb 24, 2006)

Are you talking about putting a cap inline with the tweeter? If so, that is not really running active. How do you plan on bandpassing your mids?

So you plan on powering the tweeters with the HU power and the mids off amp power? Please make more sense in order for your question to be answered properly


----------



## Fricasseekid (Apr 19, 2011)

azngotskills said:


> Are you talking about putting a cap inline with the tweeter? If so, that is not really running active. How do you plan on bandpassing your mids?
> 
> So you plan on powering the tweeters with the HU power and the mids off amp power? Please make more sense in order for your question to be answered properly


The amp has full band pass capabilities. I'll be running mid bass drivers off two channels and the RK6 woofers off the other two channels and was hoping I could run the tweets of the headunits. 

Yes I was referring to a capacitor, but I don't know what size I need and if there is anything else I'd need to achieve the proper high pass point and to protect the tweets.


----------



## ZeNmAc (Sep 11, 2010)

Fricasseekid said:


> The amp has full band pass capabilities. I'll be running mid bass drivers off two channels and the RK6 woofers off the other two channels and was hoping I could run the tweets of the headunits.
> 
> Yes I was referring to a capacitor, but I don't know what size I need and if there is anything else I'd need to achieve the proper high pass point and to protect the tweets.


Here's a calculator. I'd go with at least a 2nd order xover. That same site shows how to wire the components for different slopes.


----------



## Fricasseekid (Apr 19, 2011)

So I'm gonna have to build a small passive network for just the tweet? 

I thought you could just install an inline capacitor or a resistor or something like that? 

I really have no idea about this, I don't mind doing my own research so if anyone has any other good resources, I'd appreciate a couple points in the right direction.


----------



## ZeNmAc (Sep 11, 2010)

Fricasseekid said:


> So I'm gonna have to build a small passive network for just the tweet?
> 
> I thought you could just install an inline capacitor or a resistor or something like that?
> 
> I really have no idea about this, I don't mind doing my own research so if anyone has any other good resources, I'd appreciate a couple points in the right direction.


Yea, since you don't have an active xover for the tweeter you need a passive one. Unless your HU has an active xover as well.

All you really need is a high pass filter at the slope of your choice. All a 2nd order hpf is is a cap and a coil. IIRC 3rd order is two caps and one coil.

Relatively simple, but the only problem is you don't have the versatility to change the xover point. You make it sound more complicated than it is, a single capacitor in series with the tweeter is a 1st order (6dB) high pass filter. 1st order is not recommended though .


----------



## Gcarpenter87 (Aug 12, 2011)

You're probably better off getting a 2 channel amp for the tweeters. HU has no power. And most good 2 channels will have a HPF good enough for the job.


----------



## Fricasseekid (Apr 19, 2011)

Ok, thanks for the info guys.


----------



## robert_wrath (Apr 24, 2011)

Source receivers units don't have High Pass filters built in. Feeding a full range signal to your tweeters would lead to instant blow out to them. You're better off running both tweets and mids to an amplifier with crossover built in.


----------



## Fricasseekid (Apr 19, 2011)

robert_wrath said:


> Source receivers units don't have High Pass filters built in. Feeding a full range signal to your tweeters would lead to instant blow out to them. You're better off running both tweets and mids to an amplifier with crossover built in.


You mean I can't get bass from my tweeters? I don't have any subs and was hoping to use my tweeters in the meantime. Aw damn!


----------



## robert_wrath (Apr 24, 2011)

Your speakers, your money! Just added my $0.02 of added value.


----------



## Fricasseekid (Apr 19, 2011)

robert_wrath said:


> Your speakers, your money! Just added my $0.02 of added value.


No offense but your 2¢ would've been worth more had you read the thread before posting.


----------



## starboy869 (Dec 16, 2006)

Why not just get a cheap set of passives from ebay and use it with the mid range on the amp?


----------



## Fricasseekid (Apr 19, 2011)

starboy869 said:


> Why not just get a cheap set of passives from ebay and use it with the mid range on the amp?


I may just use the passives that came with the RK6 comp set.


----------



## Fricasseekid (Apr 19, 2011)

Word on the street is that the tweeters from the RK6 set are a bit bright. So I was hoping that the 15 watts or so from my HU would help subdue them a bit. 

Does it work that way?


----------



## minbari (Mar 3, 2011)

I agree with the passive crossover idea. weather you make your own or use the ones you have. you just want to make sure you cross them over at the correct frequency

are the passive you have the ones that came with the tweeters?

yes you can run the HU power for the tweeters, assuming you dont have like 200watts of midrange, cause if that is the case you wont hear them, lol. (HU wont have enough power)


----------



## Fricasseekid (Apr 19, 2011)

minbari said:


> I agree with the passive crossover idea. weather you make your own or use the ones you have. you just want to make sure you cross them over at the correct frequency
> 
> are the passive you have the ones that came with the tweeters?
> 
> yes you can run the HU power for the tweeters, assuming you dont have like 200watts of midrange, cause if that is the case you wont hear them, lol. (HU wont have enough power)


Yes, I have the passives that came with the set and I'll be running around or less than 150 watts to the mids. 

Can you bridge a pioneer head unit?


----------



## minbari (Mar 3, 2011)

no, you cant bridge HUs. technically each channel is already bridged internally, that is how they get 35+Watts out of a HU on 12V.

just be carefull with the volume knob. you will be lacking treble when you only have 15W to give your tweeters and you have 150W to your mids.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

starboy869 said:


> Why not just get a cheap set of passives from ebay and use it with the mid range on the amp?


Because they're cheap, that's why. Because you have a $200+ set of components and you're about to hook them up with a random craptastic and generic crossover and expect good results?



Fricasseekid said:


> I may just use the passives that came with the RK6 comp set.


The supplied crossover is made like crap. High gauge iron core inductors, electrolytic caps (hell, even the $75 cadence components have better capacitors), and very poor tweeter damping. I'd imagine that given the amount of harshness at any volume, the tweeter is also crossed too low and with too low of an order crossover.



Fricasseekid said:


> Word on the street is that the tweeters from the RK6 set are a bit bright. So I was hoping that the 15 watts or so from my HU would help subdue them a bit.
> 
> Does it work that way?


More accurately, the crossover is designed terribly. The idea was that you would install the tweeters in very close proximity to the drivers in the kicks and that would help some of that harshness, but in all reality the provided crossover is a pile of crap. 

15 Watts won't do a damn thing to subdue them. That tweeter will provide 90+db of output from 1 watt. Every doubling in power results in a 3db increase, so by the time you get to 16W of power, you're at 102db. That, and its not the fault of the tweeter, its the fault of the crossover design. 

Now, I invite you review the thread I've created for this component set:
http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum.../113054-new-crossovers-massive-audio-rk6.html

Didn't I send you this link in a private message just last week?

In any case, what you were thinking of doing was bi-amping a passive crossover set which is unnecessary. You will get mediocre results using a textbook crossover without the ability to test the woofer's impedance, phase, and frequency response in-cab. 

I would install them as is with the supplied crossover and wait a bit longer till I design a proper crossover for them.


----------



## Fricasseekid (Apr 19, 2011)

XtremeRevolution said:


> Because they're cheap, that's why. Because you have a $200+ set of components and you're about to hook them up with a random craptastic and generic crossover and expect good results?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I will def. be installing them in close proximity to the woofers in custom door pods. 

I would really like to run the woofers without the passives; 
A. Cause I've never gone active and would like to experience the benefits. 
B. Cause I'd like to take full advantage of my amps power and versatility. 

I suppose I could be patient, but don't wanna wait in vain for your love XR!


----------



## Fricasseekid (Apr 19, 2011)

Ha! A lil quote for my Bob Marley fans out there.


----------



## Fricasseekid (Apr 19, 2011)

I'm not really sure I understand what bi-amount is.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

Fricasseekid said:


> I will def. be installing them in close proximity to the woofers in custom door pods.
> 
> I would really like to run the woofers without the passives;
> A. Cause I've never gone active and would like to experience the benefits.
> ...


If you want to go active, you need a head unit, amplifier, or digital signal processor (DSP) that is capable of selecting various crossover points and slopes for both the tweeter and the woofer. These are typically quite expensive. 

You can take full advantage of the amp's power and versatility with a bi-ampable passive crossover as well. The difference is that a passive crossover will cost you a fraction of the price that a DSP would. Without one, you won't get anywhere near the same results. Run them with the supplied crossover till I get one designed. Trust me, I'm running these components now, and with how sick I am of these crossovers, it won't be very long before I get one designed. 



Fricasseekid said:


> I'm not really sure I understand what bi-amount is.


Bi-amping, not bi-amounting. Bi-amping is when you use two amps to power one speaker or speaker set. One amp powers the tweeter and the other the driver, but they either go through an active processor, or through a bi-ampable passive crossover.


----------



## Fricasseekid (Apr 19, 2011)

XtremeRevolution said:


> If you want to go active, you need a head unit, amplifier, or digital signal processor (DSP) that is capable of selecting various crossover points and slopes for both the tweeter and the woofer. These are typically quite expensive.
> 
> You can take full advantage of the amp's power and versatility with a bi-ampable passive crossover as well. The difference is that a passive crossover will cost you a fraction of the price that a DSP would. Without one, you won't get anywhere near the same results. Run them with the supplied crossover till I get one designed. Trust me, I'm running these components now, and with how sick I am of these crossovers, it won't be very long before I get one designed.
> 
> ...


Ok, I got ya. So a bi-"AMP" capable comp set has a passive with two sets of inputs. 

My amp has high pass and low across a very wide range of frequencies, as well as the capability to band pass, and it has a 1st or 2nd order slope selection. I could easily go active with this 4 channel amp but two of the channels are running my mid bass drivers so I need some power for my tweets. Which leaves me with having to buy another two channel amp, or making use of my HU's power supply.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

Fricasseekid said:


> Ok, I got ya. So a bi-"AMP" capable comp set has a passive with two sets of inputs.
> 
> My amp has high pass and low across a very wide range of frequencies, as well as the capability to band pass, and it has a 1st or 2nd order slope selection. I could easily go active with this 4 channel amp but two of the channels are running my mid bass drivers so I need some power for my tweets. Which leaves me with having to buy another two channel amp, or making use of my HU's power supply.


I wouldn't use your head unit power. How much power do you have for the two remaining channels?


----------



## Fricasseekid (Apr 19, 2011)

XtremeRevolution said:


> I wouldn't use your head unit power. How much power do you have for the two remaining channels?


The amp is 150x4 @ 4ohms.


----------



## BowDown (Sep 24, 2009)

Not really the way I would go... but if your HU can crossover/TA/EQ it's own internal amp.. then why not give it a shot. Tweeters don't take much power to move. If you find your tweeters getting harsh at med/high vol, or not blending well then I would look to purchase a 4channel amp.


----------



## Fricasseekid (Apr 19, 2011)

BowDown said:


> Not really the way I would go... but if your HU can crossover/TA/EQ it's own internal amp.. then why not give it a shot. Tweeters don't take much power to move. If you find your tweeters getting harsh at med/high vol, or not blending well then I would look to purchase a 4channel amp.


The HU has high pass, but only up to 125 hz and it has a 7 band graphic EQ.


----------



## Fricasseekid (Apr 19, 2011)

I thought with a well built passive network on the tweeter there should be no problem sending it a full signal? The only down side I'm seeing here is that I would lack the ability to adjust my crossover point for fine tuning. 

Is that right?


----------



## BowDown (Sep 24, 2009)

Ya you will end up with a fixed crossover point and slope if you make a dedicated network. It's going to basically be a guess where you want it. If you go full active you will be amazed at how effecting the slope and point will completely change the sound of your system.


----------



## Fricasseekid (Apr 19, 2011)

BowDown said:


> Ya you will end up with a fixed crossover point and slope if you make a dedicated network. It's going to basically be a guess where you want it. If you go full active you will be amazed at how effecting the slope and point will completely change the sound of your system.


Running the comps on a complete passive network, even a really good passive built by XR, will limit me no less. I figured run a fixed xo point on the tweet and run the woofer full active I could at least retain a fraction of that tuneability without having to buy a new amp. 

If I'm really setting myself up for failure then I won't try this.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

Fricasseekid said:


> The HU has high pass, but only up to 125 hz and it has a 7 band graphic EQ.


That high pass is for sub-to-midbass crossover points



Fricasseekid said:


> I thought with a well built passive network on the tweeter there should be no problem sending it a full signal? The only down side I'm seeing here is that I would lack the ability to adjust my crossover point for fine tuning.
> 
> Is that right?


Correct. However, a passive network would need to include the driver as well as the tweeter. They have to work together. You can't cross the driver at 1000hz and the tweeter at 3000hz, or vice versa, and you have to pay attention to phase.



BowDown said:


> Ya you will end up with a fixed crossover point and slope if you make a dedicated network. It's going to basically be a guess where you want it. If you go full active you will be amazed at how effecting the slope and point will completely change the sound of your system.


If everything is designed correctly, you won't need more than one fixed crossover point and slope. It will work the first time you plug it in, and it will sound great. 

Of course, if you go full active you will also be amazed at how quickly your wallet shrinks. If you have the money, go for it. If not, wait for my crossover.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

Fricasseekid said:


> Running the comps on a complete passive network, even a really good passive built by XR, will limit me no less. I figured run a fixed xo point on the tweet and run the woofer full active I could at least retain a fraction of that tuneability without having to buy a new amp.
> 
> If I'm really setting myself up for failure then I won't try this.


You're not understanding it. If you run full active, you need to run it on both tweeter and driver. You either do it all, or you don't do it at all. 

A really good passive built by me will have no limitations except the fact that you can't tinker with it to suit your preferences. I don't really call that a limitation unless you obsessively love to tinker. What limitations exist with a crossover that is designed correctly the first time? The inability to modify something that doesn't need modifying? I am getting the feeling that nobody here has ever designed a passive crossover for automotive use (or for any use for that matter). Considering that nobody here has ever modeled a sub box with cabin gain factored in, it wouldn't surprise me. 

The other thing is that you have absolutely no measurements for that tweeter and you have no idea what its capable of and at what frequencies. For all you know, it may have a natural rolloff starting at 2.5k, so even if you get a textbook crossover set up for it, the actual crossover point will be completely different. Everything you do from that point forward will be a shot in the dark because you have no way of knowing how these drivers behave. This is why you can't even just run a textbook crossover on the tweeter.


----------



## Fricasseekid (Apr 19, 2011)

XtremeRevolution said:


> You're not understanding it. If you run full active, you need to run it on both tweeter and driver. You either do it all, or you don't do it at all.
> 
> A really good passive built by me will have no limitations except the fact that you can't tinker with it to suit your preferences. I don't really call that a limitation unless you obsessively love to tinker. What limitations exist with a crossover that is designed correctly the first time? The inability to modify something that doesn't need modifying? I am getting the feeling that nobody here has ever designed a passive crossover for automotive use (or for any use for that matter). Considering that nobody here has ever modeled a sub box with cabin gain factored in, it wouldn't surprise me.
> 
> The other thing is that you have absolutely no measurements for that tweeter and you have no idea what its capable of and at what frequencies. For all you know, it may have a natural rolloff starting at 2.5k, so even if you get a textbook crossover set up for it, the actual crossover point will be completely different. Everything you do from that point forward will be a shot in the dark because you have no way of knowing how these drivers behave. This is why you can't even just run a textbook crossover on the tweeter.


XR, your alot easier to talk to without that superiority complex on your shoulder. 

I like the idea of using a custom passive network, but if your passive is gone cost me $70-100 bucks then I might as well buy a decent 2x40watt amp that can high pass and be done with it.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

Fricasseekid said:


> XR, your alot easier to talk to without that superiority complex on your shoulder.
> 
> I like the idea of using a custom passive network, but if your passive is gone cost me $70-100 bucks then I might as well buy a decent 2x40watt amp that can high pass and be done with it.


My tone of voice is a bit annoyed at this point because I have to explain something a dozen times over in a dozen different ways before it actually means something. I don't like having to explain in great detail why I know something.

Can you find a 2x40 watt amp that can adjust crossover points and slopes in the range you're looking for, for a low price? Then, can you adjust those and the midbass in a way that's not just a shot in the dark?

If you read my thread more carefully, you'll notice I posted a range of pricing to expect. That range was $45-$70, not $70-$100. I'm really not sure where you got that $100. Also, that $70 was on the expensive side of a 3-way crossover for this component set and another midrange, not for a 2-way. Expect closer to $60 on the high end of a 2 way for a crossover with some high end parts. 

Let me put it this way. If you get a 2 channel amp and tune that and the other 4 channel you have for hours upon hours to get them just the way you like it, then listen for a week, scrap everything, and install my crossover on one channel, my crossover will still sound better, because mine will be based on precise measurements, a more linear frequency response, and a measured and modeled phase alignment that you have absolutely no way of simulating. Any vehicle specific anomalies can be EQ'd from that point forward. All you can do with two amps in an active crossover configuration is keep changing values until you get one that sounds better, without really having any way of measuring it to know exactly what's going on.


----------



## Fricasseekid (Apr 19, 2011)

XtremeRevolution said:


> My tone of voice is a bit annoyed at this point because I have to explain something a dozen times over in a dozen different ways before it actually means something. I don't like having to explain in great detail why I know something.
> 
> Can you find a 2x40 watt amp that can adjust crossover points and slopes in the range you're looking for, for a low price? Then, can you adjust those and the midbass in a way that's not just a shot in the dark?
> 
> ...


A. I enjoy tuning. 

B. Your crossover can't and probably won't cater to my listening tastes. 

Im not against the idea of using it, but I'd rather weigh and understand ALL of the pros and cons first. Your smug attitude isn't helping either.


----------



## gokiburi (Jul 20, 2007)

Fricaseekid, I bought that same amp about a month ago with the same intentions about going active - actually to *continue* running active, but using the Q4.150 in place of an older amp. I promptly blew my tweeter on one channel due to a turn-on pop. Another user had similar problems with this amp and had to replace it. I'm not trusting a Maxxsonics product again, sorry, that's just how it goes.

The advice I got for next time was to add a capacitor to protect the tweeter. Ideally, the capacitor should be sized so that its frequency pass would be below the desired tweeter x-over point so that you retain the ability to tweak the tweeter's crossover (i. e. altho it's "fixed", the high pass signal can still be tweaked in the tweeter's usable frequency range if I am understanding it), and it still provides protection from a turn-on thump, low frequencies, etc. Haven't done it so I'm still studying up.

*BowDown, ExtremeRevolution, Minbari, others*, what's your take on this?

While I did run active for a couple of years (before my "upgrade" attempt went south) on my 1995 Earthquake PA-4050, it was awesome, and as soon as I find some new tweeters to mate up with my TS-C720PRS mids, I'll be back at it. I don't want to discourage what you're doing, just a warning about a potential quality problem with the Q4.150 amp.


----------



## Fricasseekid (Apr 19, 2011)

Now you listen. 

Put it this way: I'm a purist. I'm not the kinda guy who's gonna make a
decision because you said that's the way it should be. I'm gonna research and understand the details for myself even your too "above" explaining it.


----------



## Fricasseekid (Apr 19, 2011)

gokiburi said:


> Fricaseekid, I bought that same amp about a month ago with the same intentions about going active - actually to *continue* running active, but using the Q4.150 in place of an older amp. I promptly blew my tweeter on one channel due to a turn-on pop. Another user had similar problems with this amp and had to replace it. I'm not trusting a Maxxsonics product again, sorry, that's just how it goes.
> 
> The advice I got for next time was to add a capacitor to protect the tweeter. Ideally, the capacitor should be sized so that its frequency pass would be below the desired tweeter x-over point so that you retain the ability to tweak the tweeter's crossover (i. e. altho it's "fixed", the high pass signal can still be tweaked in the tweeter's usable frequency range if I am understanding it), and it still provides protection from a turn-on thump, low frequencies, etc. Haven't done it so I'm still studying up.
> 
> ...


Yeah, I read your thread and thanks for the heads up.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

Fricasseekid said:


> A. I enjoy tuning.
> 
> B. Your crossover can't and probably won't cater to my listening tastes.
> 
> Im not against the idea of using it, but I'd rather weigh and understand ALL of the pros and cons first. Your smug attitude isn't helping either.


My smug attitude isn't helping the fact that I'm going to design a crossover that will sound better than a hunting and picking and guessing 2-amp "active" setup?

If you want to understand everything, learn how to design passive crossovers. If you don't, then stop doubting every damn thing I say as if I don't know how to design them. I'm not charging for this. I'm designing these crossovers and making the schematic available to everyone for free because the supplied crossover is garbage. 

As for your point B, I'd invite you to learn something about crossover design before you even attempt either of your options. Your listening tastes have absolutely *nothing *to do with your crossover points and very little to do with the overall crossover design. Good phase alignment is good phase alignment. Nobody wants their drivers out of phase. That's like saying you prefer your sub box with holes drilled into it for whistling air leaks. A linear frequency response is a linear frequency response, and anyone who doesn't like that can EQ or ask me to give them an option that runs the tweeters a bit on the bright or on the warm side. Your listening tastes will determine how you adjust your EQ settings, not which crossover points or slopes you choose. Those are determined by the type of tweeter and driver being used, where they will be mounted in proximity to each other, and where your ears will be relative to their location. 

Knowing that, my crossover will sound better that a shot in the dark with two amps that you can't measure accurately because it will be designed, not guessed. I'm not going to say I think it will sound better. I'm not going to say it might sound better. I'm saying it will sound better because I know what I'm doing when it comes to crossover design and I have the equipment and tools necessary to get better results than the other option you have. 

At this point, if you want to run your dual amp active setup just in spite of me, and my "smug attitude," go ahead. I'm sure there will be plenty of people who will benefit from and will be quite happy with my crossover design once its finished.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

Fricasseekid said:


> Now you listen.
> 
> Put it this way: I'm a purist. I'm not the kinda guy who's gonna make a
> decision because you said that's the way it should be. I'm gonna research and understand the details for myself even your too "above" explaining it.


If you're a purist and you want to understand, then learn how to design passive crossovers and learn how those slopes affect phase alignment because the principles will be the same between passive and active. Learn how frequency response and impedance affects phase alignment, and how important it is to have measurements for both in order to get an accurate simulation. Then learn how phase alignment affects the way your speakers will sound together depending on how in or out of phase they both are. Once you've got that down, learn how different crossover slopes *and types* affect near and far field response, how off-axis response both vertically and horizontally affect phase alignment and phase wrap with respect to tweeter and driver location, and how different crossover slopes affect off-axis frequency response and phase alignment. Learn what nulls are, what they look like on a frequency response chart, and how they are created when listening off-axis. Learn what cone resonance sounds like and why it needs to be tamed or tanked with a crossover network. Learn how to shape the frequency response of a tweeter using resistors before and after the crossover network in a way you cannot do with an EQ or a 2-amp active setup. 

Once you've got a firm knowledge of all of those concepts, shoot me a PM and we can talk about the pros and cons of running a 2-amp active setup with no prior measurement or ability to simulate any of the factors mentioned above, compared to a passive crossover that takes all of those factors into account. 



gokiburi said:


> Fricaseekid, I bought that same amp about a month ago with the same intentions about going active - actually to *continue* running active, but using the Q4.150 in place of an older amp. I promptly blew my tweeter on one channel due to a turn-on pop. Another user had similar problems with this amp and had to replace it. I'm not trusting a Maxxsonics product again, sorry, that's just how it goes.
> 
> The advice I got for next time was to add a capacitor to protect the tweeter. Ideally, the capacitor should be sized so that its frequency pass would be below the desired tweeter x-over point so that you retain the ability to tweak the tweeter's crossover (i. e. altho it's "fixed", the high pass signal can still be tweaked in the tweeter's usable frequency range if I am understanding it), and it still provides protection from a turn-on thump, low frequencies, etc. Haven't done it so I'm still studying up.
> 
> ...


When designing crossovers, a capacitor placed anywhere will affect most of the frequency response, even if its a minor effect. You'd have to place it *very *low in order for it to have no effect. Whether or not this is going to be an issue depends on how the rest of your crossover configuration is set up. 

I have no doubts that it can sound decent using that method, especially if you had the ability to measure and simulate what you were changing (which coincidentally, JBagby's PCD can.)

To do so however, you still need the driver and tweeter measurements, which I will be getting in order to design the passive network. Once you have a good simulation, you can tweak, but having no starting point really is just a shot in the dark.


----------



## Fricasseekid (Apr 19, 2011)

XtremeRevolution said:


> If you're a purist and you want to understand, then learn how to design passive crossovers and learn how those slopes affect phase alignment because the principles will be the same between passive and active. Learn how frequency response and impedance affects phase alignment, and how important it is to have measurements for both in order to get an accurate simulation. Then learn how phase alignment affects the way your speakers will sound together depending on how in or out of phase they both are. Once you've got that down, learn how different crossover slopes *and types* affect near and far field response, how off-axis response both vertically and horizontally affect phase alignment and phase wrap with respect to tweeter and driver location, and how different crossover slopes affect off-axis frequency response and phase alignment. Learn what nulls are, what they look like on a frequency response chart, and how they are created when listening off-axis. Learn what cone resonance sounds like and why it needs to be tamed or tanked with a crossover network. Learn how to shape the frequency response of a tweeter using resistors before and after the crossover network in a way you cannot do with an EQ or a 2-amp active setup.
> 
> Once you've got a firm knowledge of all of those concepts, shoot me a PM and we can talk about the pros and cons of running a 2-amp active setup with no prior measurement or ability to simulate any of the factors mentioned above, compared to a passive crossover that takes all of those factors into account.
> 
> ...


I am familiar with some of the concepts you mentioned. I'll be the first to tell you that I have a long way to go. But if you hadn't noticed I'm one of the sharper tools in the shed and I'm a quick study. But when I do reach thy upper level of expertise I'll have to make sure I'm not as condescending as you tend to be. I like you XR but you should keep that in check. 

And for the record, with my plan as it sat I was gonna ask you to recommend a proper slope and xo point for my tweeter based on my setup and listening tastes, cause I knew your were measuring the speaker. I do value your expertise and see you as a useful resource but I wouldn't let the Dahli Lama talk down to me and I won't let you.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

Fricasseekid said:


> I am familiar with some of the concepts you mentioned. I'll be the first to tell you that I have a long way to go. But if you hadn't noticed I'm one of the sharper tools in the shed and I'm a quick study. But when I do reach thy upper level of expertise I'll have to make sure I'm not as condescending as you tend to be. I like you XR but you should keep that in check.
> 
> And for the record, with my plan as it sat I was gonna ask you to recommend a proper slope and xo point for my tweeter based on my setup and listening tastes, cause I knew your were measuring the speaker. I do value your expertise and see you as a useful resource but I wouldn't let the Dahli Lama talk down to me and I won't let you.


I never talked down on you, so keep that accusation in check too. I'm only here to help and you damn well know that. You also know I don't take too kindly when people argue with me on topics where I have to explain myself repeatedly and in great detail as if I'm teaching a course on the topic. I admit when I'm wrong, and speak strongly and confidently on topics I know I'm right. Call it a character flaw if you must, but I make every effort to give good information and actually help people. It should be enough that if someone knows how to and has already designed passive crossovers and has the tools to do it, what they say should be taken with some gravity considering designing a good passive crossover requires a thorough knowledge and understanding of how they work. There are people on the techtalk.PE forum that I don't argue with. I take what they say as fact and apply their advice to my designs. 

If I thought you could get better results going with an active setup, I'd teach you right now how to simulate those settings in JBagby's PCD similarly to how I'll be designing the passive crossover, but I know for a fact you won't be getting the same results which is why I didn't. I have a plethora of amplifiers at my disposal which I could use for an active setup or sell for better amps that could do the same thing, and if I thought for a second they would sound as good as a passive crossover that I could design, I wouldn't even be thinking about a passive crossover. 

With regard to what you actually want help on, you can't choose a crossover point to suit your listening preference. I went over this earlier. You choose a crossover and slope point based on the capabilities of your drivers, how far apart you'll have them, and how far off-axis you'll be listening, and those have to be simulated and designed together. The only way its based on preference is if you're running an active setup and you're going into it blind, choosing mildly educated crossover points. I say mildly because you at that point don't have the frequency response, impedance, or T/S measurement data for those components. At that point, getting closer to a good crossover point will sound better and one might take that as a preference, but its nowhere near as accurate or close as what you'd get with a passive crossover that someone designs with all of the tools and software necessary, or a good active crossover designed in a similar fashion, and by good I mean a digital signal processor. 

What does have to do with preference will be the amount of damping you will use on the tweeter and how you can shape it (if at all). You can shape it and you can work with preferences a bit on the tweeter if you go passive. 

If you liked to tinker a lot, what I would do is have you get Jeff's PCD on your computer, send you the impedance and frequency response files and the project file with the designed crossover, and let you tinker with the resistors on the tweeter till you get a few scenarios that look good to you. Then, you would buy up all the resistors you need (they're only $1.25 each), and listen to each of your variants to see which one suits you the most. At that point, the crossover points on the driver and tweeter will have been set to their ideal values. Once you get something that looks as close to what you like as possible, you build that design and use your EQ to take care of your own personal preferences. 

At least this way, you aren't going in blind and you have something to simulate before you start flipping switches and turning knobs without any way to predict what's going to happen.


----------



## Fricasseekid (Apr 19, 2011)

XtremeRevolution said:


> I never talked down on you, so keep that accusation in check too. I'm only here to help and you damn well know that. You also know I don't take too kindly when people argue with me on topics where I have to explain myself repeatedly and in great detail as if I'm teaching a course on the topic. I admit when I'm wrong, and speak strongly and confidently on topics I know I'm right. Call it a character flaw if you must, but I make every effort to give good information and actually help people. It should be enough that if someone knows how to and has already designed passive crossovers and has the tools to do it, what they say should be taken with some gravity considering designing a good passive crossover requires a thorough knowledge and understanding of how they work. There are people on the techtalk.PE forum that I don't argue with. I take what they say as fact and apply their advice to my designs.
> 
> If I thought you could get better results going with an active setup, I'd teach you right now how to simulate those settings in JBagby's PCD similarly to how I'll be designing the passive crossover, but I know for a fact you won't be getting the same results which is why I didn't. I have a plethora of amplifiers at my disposal which I could use for an active setup or sell for better amps that could do the same thing, and if I thought for a second they would sound as good as a passive crossover that I could design, I wouldn't even be thinking about a passive crossover.
> 
> ...


Now that's an answer! 
Thanks!

BTW, I said "to me" not "on me". You do tend to get a bit condescending when someone shares an opinion that differs from your own.


----------



## Darth SQ (Sep 17, 2010)

Fricasseekid said:


> Ok, I got ya. So a bi-"AMP" capable comp set has a passive with two sets of inputs.
> 
> My amp has high pass and low across a very wide range of frequencies, as well as the capability to band pass, and it has a 1st or 2nd order slope selection. I could easily go active with this 4 channel amp but two of the channels are running my mid bass drivers so I need some power for my tweets. Which leaves me with having to buy another two channel amp, or making use of my HU's power supply.


I'll pm you.

Bret
PPI-ART COLLECTOR


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

One more thing I forgot to mention. I'm planning on running a 3rd order on the tweeter. In order to be able to cross it low enough and reduce harshness on the low end. With the kind of beating I know these will take, I wouldn't mess with a 2nd order, and the cost of 2 caps will be minor at that point.


----------



## Fricasseekid (Apr 19, 2011)

XtremeRevolution said:


> One more thing I forgot to mention. I'm planning on running a 3rd order on the tweeter. In order to be able to cross it low enough and reduce harshness on the low end. With the kind of beating I know these will take, I wouldn't mess with a 2nd order, and the cost of 2 caps will be minor at that point.


Sounds like the ideal thing would be to cross the tweet as low as they can comfortably play with a steep enough slope to keep them safe. Where the need to take measurements and all that jazz? Are manufacture specs not accurate enough? 

3rd order? That's an 18 db slope right? 

Any kinda time frame in mind with how long this is gonna take?


----------



## Fricasseekid (Apr 19, 2011)

XR, Im suprised you didnt jump all over that last post. Hmm.....


----------



## chefhow (Apr 29, 2007)

Why not just by a MiniDSP?


----------



## Fricasseekid (Apr 19, 2011)

chefhow said:


> Why not just by a MiniDSP?


I'd love to. It's definitely on the list.


----------



## chefhow (Apr 29, 2007)

They are CHEAP, can give you TONS of options and they have done lots to clean up the signal, including a 12v setup on the board.


----------



## Fricasseekid (Apr 19, 2011)

chefhow said:


> They are CHEAP, can give you TONS of options and they have done lots to clean up the signal, including a 12v setup on the board.


Yeah, cheap is relative.. I'm a single parent and a student so...
But, I read Erin's review of them. But don't you have to pay for all the different processing software?


----------



## minbari (Mar 3, 2011)

Fricasseekid said:


> Yeah, cheap is relative.. I'm a single parent and a student so...
> But, I read Erin's review of them. But don't you have to pay for all the different processing software?


depending on which one you get, you have a couple different options, but they all cost $10, so not a big deal, in the big picture.


----------



## Fricasseekid (Apr 19, 2011)

minbari said:


> depending on which one you get, you have a couple different options, but they all cost $10, so not a big deal, in the big picture.


That, I didn't know.


----------



## minbari (Mar 3, 2011)

Audio plug-ins | miniDSP

all the plugins you can buy, all $10


----------



## Fricasseekid (Apr 19, 2011)

Unfortunately I still don't have the money for the DSP unit. I just found out I have to put a computer in my truck.


----------



## chefhow (Apr 29, 2007)

Its worth it to spend an extra $50 now to save you from doing it 2+ times down the road. If you are on a TIGHT budget it doesnt get much better than that for a fully active highly adjustable xover, eq and TA and it does everything in real time.


----------



## Fricasseekid (Apr 19, 2011)

$50? I thought they were around $100?


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

Fricasseekid said:


> Sounds like the ideal thing would be to cross the tweet as low as they can comfortably play with a steep enough slope to keep them safe. Where the need to take measurements and all that jazz? Are manufacture specs not accurate enough?
> 
> 3rd order? That's an 18 db slope right?
> 
> Any kinda time frame in mind with how long this is gonna take?


The time frame is "as soon as I can get to it." At this point you know how funds can be. You said you're a single parent and a student so you know money is tight. Well money is tight for me as well, and when I can spend my time build home theater speakers that cost me $65 and sell for $250+, I have to prioritize and squeeze these crossovers in there somewhere. I'm not exactly getting paid for this. 

You do have the idea right though. Cross the tweeter as low as you can without getting into harsh territory, and put a steeper slope on it for protection and to increase power handling. 

I already went over why the measurements are necessary. With those measurements. In addition to what I said earlier, you can extract driver phase from the frequency response file and from the impedance file. You cannot do so without the measurements. You have absolutely no idea where the driver or the tweeter naturally roll off, whether or not there are resonance peaks in either, and what the actual capabilities of each are. You seem to think that good sound has only to do with a linear frequency response, when in reality that's only a piece of the puzzle. You want to run an active setup, but all you have to go by is your ears. Do you have a measurement microphone with which you can get a baseline tune and then tweak based on preference? 

Also, what manufacturing specs? Where have you found manufacturing specs for the RK6 component set? They don't exist to my knowledge. For other drivers, you can sometimes trace the impedance and frequency response, then extract the phase from that, using an application called splcopy or spltrace, but even that's not guaranteed to be accurate, and some manufacturers (cough Tang Band cough) post inaccurate numbers. In the end, testing is very highly recommended for passive crossover design or active crossover simulation. 

That is of course, if you want great results. If all you're looking for is mediocre results that sound better than the factory passive crossover, you don't need any of this. 



Fricasseekid said:


> XR, Im suprised you didnt jump all over that last post. Hmm.....


I have a bit of a life. Don't want to wait? Drop the money to go active and spend the hours needed to tune everything. You can simulate what you're doing once I get you the measurement files and start the active tuning from scratch at that time if you're so desperate to avoid using the supplied passive crossover.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

Fricasseekid said:


> $50? I thought they were around $100?


$125 + shipping for the "MiniDSP in a box" (not the balanced one).


----------



## gokiburi (Jul 20, 2007)

chefhow said:


> an extra $50


Over the cost of some passive crossover from somebody.


----------



## Fricasseekid (Apr 19, 2011)

gokiburi said:


> Over the cost of some passive crossover from somebody.


Gotcha.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

gokiburi said:


> Over the cost of some passive crossover from somebody.


Don't forget that you need 4 amplifier channels as well, and don't forget the $70 was the expensive side of a 3 way. A MiniDSP is $125. My 2-way passive will be ~$50 or less. Those are on the very "safe" side of the expensive end of a passive crossover. I've never designed a 2-way crossover that cost me more than $55 for the pair, and even that was using a large polypropylene cap on the woofer, which is absolutely unnecessary as electrolytics are perfectly fine to use as parallel caps. I had a 2 way on the woofer, 3 way on the tweeter, and an l-pad for that design. This one should be pretty similar, if not identical. I'm realistically expecting $45 in parts for the pair. 

So, assuming an absolute worst case scenario on my end, active would cost you $70 more (plus shipping), or nearly 2.5x as much.


----------



## chefhow (Apr 29, 2007)

Fricasseekid said:


> $50? I thought they were around $100?


An extra $50 compared to what XR quoted you for a passive.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

chefhow said:


> An extra $50 compared to what XR quoted you for a passive.


See the post above yours posted 23 minutes before. Its also not a quote, but more of an estimate, he'd still have to bust out his soldering iron and make his first crossover.


----------



## minbari (Mar 3, 2011)

this is just for me personally, because I have gone the passive x-over route before. if you build em and they dont sound like you want them to, then chuck $50+ out the window and start over. (you might be able to salvage some parts) 

go active and you can just adjust it.

it might cost $50 more initially, but it might save you more later. my $.02


----------



## el_chupo_ (May 27, 2007)

$50 - $75 more. 
Ability to switch out drivers. 
T/A. 
Full EQ
take it from car to car, using different locations for drivers


OP - consider looking for an older deck with crossovers built in, use your existing amp? Then you can sell your deck to help pay for it?

If XR is honest about doing this for the community, he should have no problem simply telling you the crossover points and slopes he builds into his design, and you can simply use that as your starting point for your own tuning.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

minbari said:


> this is just for me personally, because I have gone the passive x-over route before. if you build em and they dont sound like you want them to, then chuck $50+ out the window and start over. (you might be able to salvage some parts)
> 
> go active and you can just adjust it.
> 
> it might cost $50 more initially, but it might save you more later. my $.02


Genuine question here...

When you built your passive crossover, did you have the following?

A. Measurement microphone like the Behringer ECM8000 or Dayton EMM-6 *with *a calibration file
B. Microphone pre-amp and separate amplifier for testing
C. A woofer impedance and phase tester like the Dayton WT3
D. Passive crossover design software
E. An accurate measurement of in-cab response for both tweeter and driver at ear listening level

If you didn't have any one of those, you have found the reason why your passive crossover sucked and why active crossover tuning is only a quicker and cheaper way to do the exact same thing unless you have what's listed above.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

el_chupo_ said:


> If XR is honest about doing this for the community, he should have no problem simply telling you the crossover points and slopes he builds into his design, and you can simply use that as your starting point for your own tuning.


I wish it were that easy. I spent this entire thread telling the OP why its not that easy. You also can't pinpoint exact crossover frequencies using the simulation software. I don't think most people have a real understanding of what a crossover frequency is defined as. A crossover frequency is technically the point at which one driver crosses over to the next driver. What you design in a passive crossover or active processor is not that frequency, and the only way to know what settings to actually use is to simulate it. 

So yeah, I do have a problem telling him the crossover points and slopes, because its impossible to do so.


----------



## minbari (Mar 3, 2011)

XtremeRevolution said:


> Genuine question here...
> 
> When you built your passive crossover, did you have the following?
> 
> ...


why do you feel the need to attack me? I didnt say anything about how well you do or do not biuld cross-overs. simply offering an alternative method.

BTW, I didnt need any of that stuff, I didnt say i biult them myself.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

minbari said:


> why do you feel the need to attack me? I didnt say anything about how well you do or do not biuld cross-overs. simply offering an alternative method.
> 
> BTW, I didnt need any of that stuff, I didnt say i biult them myself.


I didn't attack you. I responded to your post. What you mentioned wasn't the same scenario. You said you used passive crossovers yourself as if to imply that doing it again would be a bad idea for the OP. This situation is entirely different.

Regardless of if you build them yourself or you get a pre-fabbed crossover, you're in the exact same boat with the exact same problem.

I do agree that it is an advantage to have the ability to switch out drivers and keep the active setup, so take that as a factor, but also factor in that a properly designed crossover with the RK6 component set is worth more than a used RK6 component set with the factory crossover.

If the OP does decide on an active setup, if he wants great results he will need my measurement files and JBagby's passive crossover designer to simulate the settings he could apply on his amp in the software to get a truly good starting point, leaving the need for only minor EQ tweaking.


----------



## chefhow (Apr 29, 2007)

XtremeRevolution said:


> I wish it were that easy. I spent this entire thread telling the OP why its not that easy. You also can't pinpoint exact crossover frequencies using the simulation software. I don't think most people have a real understanding of what a crossover frequency is defined as. A crossover frequency is technically the point at which one driver crosses over to the next driver. What you design in a passive crossover or active processor is not that frequency, and the only way to know what settings to actually use is to simulate it.
> 
> So yeah, I do have a problem telling him the crossover points and slopes, because its impossible to do so.


I'm not trying to be an ass here, but if its impossible to give him the info as you stated how are you going to build him an effective passive network, or have him build one based on your design that you know will work? If he is on a budget and you get it wrong or dont judge it properly its money wasted.


----------



## Fricasseekid (Apr 19, 2011)

XR. I'm sure you passive network will sound great. But they don't exist yet. 

No offense but you also promised to write a useful sub modeling tutorial and explain boundary loading, cabin gain, group delay, and other concepts in depth. That hasn't happened yet, so why should I hold my breath for this. 

And even if your passive were ready tomorrow it still would lack the T/A, EQ, and other tuning features that the mini DSP can offer. Not to mention the versatility, what if I break off $70 for what I'm sure will be a fine passive xo, then swap speakers? What then?

These guys have given me some very good points to think about. Besides people have built great spending systems without you in their lives before so try and practice a little humility.


----------



## el_chupo_ (May 27, 2007)

XtremeRevolution said:


> I wish it were that easy. I spent this entire thread telling the OP why its not that easy. You also can't pinpoint exact crossover frequencies using the simulation software. I don't think most people have a real understanding of what a crossover frequency is defined as. A crossover frequency is technically the point at which one driver crosses over to the next driver. What you design in a passive crossover or active processor is not that frequency, and the only way to know what settings to actually use is to simulate it.
> 
> So yeah, I do have a problem telling him the crossover points and slopes, because its impossible to do so.


So you plan on building a crossover, selling to people here (after telling them you all but guarantee they cannot do better themselves), but you dont have the ability or knowledge to give someone a starting point on the crossover frequency or slope that you will be using so they can do this themselves?


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

chefhow said:


> I'm not trying to be an ass here, but if its impossible to give him the info as you stated how are you going to build him an effective passive network, or have him build one based on your design that you know will work? If he is on a budget and you get it wrong or dont judge it properly its money wasted.


I'm not trying to be an ass here either. In your response, I went in to some detail as to why. 

The fact is that I do have all of the equipment necessary to measure, simulate, test, and tweak the crossovers for near perfect frequency response and phase alignment *at ear listening level*. 

When I design passive crossovers, I don't use specific numbers. Peaks, dips in the frequency response, and l-pads, zobels, and LCRs all change what your actual components are going to be to get you that correct "crossover point." Its not a set of numbers. These aren't textbook crossover values. Let me be more blunt: the numbers do not exist. It has to be simulated so you can see what actually happens to the frequency response. 

Here I'm going to attempt to explain this a bit further. Say you have a crossover like that of the Tymphany 2" mid range driver. See this frequency response:

http://www.parts-express.com/pdf/299-249s.pdf

Now, say I want to cross it to a midbass and I apply a textbook 6db/octave slope on it at 1khz. But wait, at 1khz, its already on a decline. A natural rolloff slope already exists. There's a huge difference between electrical transfer function and frequency response, and their correlation makes it impossible to determine a crossover point without actually simulating it. If I apply a 6db/octave filter at 1khz to that driver, its actual rolloff/slope will be greater than 6db/octave because it was already rolling off before I started. 

This is why you can't just pick and choose a specific crossover frequency, and why I can't just give him a crossover frequency to use. Its also why its impossible to get as good of a result out of an active setup without any measurement equipment than if you actually had the driver files, the software, and the willingness to simulate it to see exactly what's going on with regard to both frequency response and phase alignment before you start picking random values.


----------



## Fricasseekid (Apr 19, 2011)

XtremeRevolution said:


> If the OP does decide on an active setup, if he wants great results he will need my measurement files and JBagby's passive crossover designer to simulate the settings he could apply on his amp in the software to get a truly good starting point, leaving the need for only minor EQ tweaking.


If this were true, fine measurement and Bagsby's software must be behind every great sq system that ever existed. It's the only way right?


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

el_chupo_ said:


> So you plan on building a crossover, selling to people here (after telling them you all but guarantee they cannot do better themselves), but you dont have the ability or knowledge to give someone a starting point on the crossover frequency or slope that you will be using so they can do this themselves?


Please, for crying out loud, read what I'm writing and think about it before you respond like you just did. Its *IMPOSSIBLE*.


----------



## el_chupo_ (May 27, 2007)

XtremeRevolution said:


> I'm not trying to be an ass here either. In your response, I went in to some detail as to why.
> 
> The fact is that I do have all of the equipment necessary to measure, simulate, test, and tweak the crossovers for near perfect frequency response and phase alignment *at ear listening level*.
> 
> ...



After you do all your simulations in Jbagby's software, you will have to build a crossover, right? With real parts and a board and solder and everything? Not just in the simulator, but actual parts, with defined values that can be bought at PE? 

If this is the case (and unless you plan on custom winding inductors) then if you have access to a decent calculator (or understand the crossover design, and what the parts involved do) you will be able to come up with a defined crossover point and slope *that the physical crossover on the board in front of you is built upon*

A real world, physical crossover WILL HAVE definable numbers that can be given out. It may turn out to be 2783hz with an 18db slope, but you should be able to use math to determine that point.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

Fricasseekid said:


> If this were true, fine measurement and Bagsby's software must be behind every great sq system that ever existed. It's the only way right?


Fine measurement at a minimum, and either some crossover designer software or a GREAT deal of time. Either way, measurement equipment is always needed. 

I don't get why you're being a collosal ass about this. I went into LOTS of detail why its impossible to get as good results without that equipment, and for some reason you're blatantly refusing to understand or believe what I'm saying. What language do you want me to describe it in? Why am I not getting through to you?


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

el_chupo_ said:


> After you do all your simulations in Jbagby's software, you will have to build a crossover, right? With real parts and a board and solder and everything? Not just in the simulator, but actual parts, with defined values that can be bought at PE?
> 
> If this is the case (and unless you plan on custom winding inductors) then if you have access to a decent calculator (or understand the crossover design, and what the parts involved do) you will be able to come up with a defined crossover point and slope *that the physical crossover on the board in front of you is built upon*
> 
> A real world, physical crossover WILL HAVE definable numbers that can be given out. It may turn out to be 2783hz with an 18db slope, but you should be able to use math to determine that point.


Read the response I just made. You CANNOT use just math to determine what your crossover point is. That is a theoretical practice that works ONLY if your drivers have a perfectly flat frequency repsonse across their usable range, which they do not. It also only works if they are SPL efficiency matched and you don't have any peaks, dips, resonances to get rid of first. 

And yes, I do have access to a passive crossover designer (do I need to count how many times I've said that?)


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

Fricasseekid said:


> If this were true, fine measurement and Bagsby's software must be behind every great sq system that ever existed. It's the only way right?


Oh, here's another way to do it. Go shell out out $500+ for a JBL MS-8 (or similar) that will auto-tune for you (provided you have the measurement microphone I mentioned earlier, and the pre-amp, and the cables). That's one way, if you're made of money, and you and I both are not made of money. If I had that kind of cash, I wouldn't be making a passive crossover.


----------



## Fricasseekid (Apr 19, 2011)

XR. I'm sure you passive network will sound great. But they don't exist yet. 

No offense but you also promised to write a useful sub modeling tutorial and explain boundary loading, cabin gain, group delay, and other concepts in depth. That hasn't happened yet, so why should I hold my breath for this. 

And even if your passive were ready tomorrow it still would lack the T/A, EQ, and other tuning features that the mini DSP can offer. Not to mention the versatility, what if I break off $70 for what I'm sure will be a fine passive xo, then swap speakers? What then?

These guys have given me some very good points to think about. Besides people have built great spending systems without you in their lives before so try and practice a little humility.


----------



## trumpet (Nov 14, 2010)

Come on, now, this is a community of helpful people. XtremeRevolution is talking about the R&D and real science of car audio, which is not something he alone holds the keys to. Why do you have to break his balls for trying to educate you? I don't see him getting rich off of this site's member base.


----------



## el_chupo_ (May 27, 2007)

XtremeRevolution said:


> Read the response I just made. You CANNOT use just math to determine what your crossover point is. That is a theoretical practice that works ONLY if your drivers have a perfectly flat frequency repsonse across their usable range, which they do not. It also only works if they are SPL efficiency matched and you don't have any peaks, dips, resonances to get rid of first.
> 
> And yes, I do have access to a passive crossover designer (do I need to count how many times I've said that?)


After you have used someone elses modeling software, and placed your order at PE. You will have to build a crossover with some solder, and a little time.

At that point, once you are all done and everything - you will have a crossover in your hand. With the parts you ordered and soldered together. 

You can use the little numbers to find out the crossover slope and frequency. 
This is nothing new, people do it all the time. you will use some math (or your calculator) and plug in the numbers. It should give you a crossover point and frequency for the crossover you have just built.

FIND OUT THAT POINT. GIVE IT OUT TO PEOPLE.

That clear it up a little?


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

Fricasseekid said:


> XR. I'm sure you passive network will sound great. But they don't exist yet.
> 
> No offense but you also promised to write a useful sub modeling tutorial and explain boundary loading, cabin gain, group delay, and other concepts in depth. That hasn't happened yet, so why should I hold my breath for this.
> 
> ...


I take offense. I'm a busy guy, and I do as much as I possibly can. If you were so into telling me I'm doing a bad job at what I promised to do, where do I see you asking me if you can help out? Alongside to making that writeup (which you have absolutely no right to give me a hard time for), I'm modeling sub boxes for people for free without asking a damn thing in return. I'm offended by the fact that I even have to bring it up. Its really easy to sit back and ask me to do more, more, and more for you so you can sit there and smile because someone else is doing the work.

If you're in the business of swapping speakers every year, perhaps you have more money than you claim you do. If I barely had enough money to afford a mini-DSP and it was actually an issue for me, I wouldn't be in the market for a set of speakers often enough for this to be an issue. I've been using my Polk DB series speakers since 2007, and provided they don't break, I'm planning on using the RK6 components for at least 3-4 years. If I have to sell them, I have the added selling point of a vastly more valuable crossover. But, if you go through more speakers than you do socks, this has been a colossal waste of my time. 

I'm not going to sit here and waste my time trying to explain crossover design to some people who may never have held or seen a measurement microphone in their life only to get this kind of crap. I already pointed out in vast detail why this would sound better, even if you did go with an active setup. I've spent the last page going into detail why its better to have it *measured and simulated*, not necessarily why its better to go *passive*. Did you miss that part, or do you still think I'm trying to "sell" you a passive crossover. That's another thing, people need to go back to 1st grade to learn how to read. Read the following, posted above:



> This is why you can't just pick and choose a specific crossover frequency, and why I can't just give him a crossover frequency to use. Its also why its impossible to get as good of a result out of an active setup without any measurement equipment than if you actually had the driver files, the software, and the willingness to simulate it to see exactly what's going on with regard to both frequency response and phase alignment before you start picking random values.


How many times did I tell you that you have a perfectly legitimate option to take the frequency response files I measure and simulate your own active crossover to get a better result than if you went into it blind. Its seriously not that hard. I even mentioned repeatedly that if the wait was killing you, you could run the supplied passives till you at least go the measurement files, never mind the actual crossover design.


----------



## chefhow (Apr 29, 2007)

So XR, you are saying that with a simple RTA and a calibrated mic I cant get as good of results as I could with a properly built passive network?


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

trumpet said:


> Come on, now, this is a community of helpful people. XtremeRevolution is talking about the R&D and real science of car audio, which is not something he alone holds the keys to. Why do you have to break his balls for trying to educate you? I don't see him getting rich off of this site's member base.


Because its really f*ing easy for people to give you a whole lot of **** when you try to help because they don't agree with you, especially when they haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about.



el_chupo_ said:


> After you have used someone elses modeling software, and placed your order at PE. You will have to build a crossover with some solder, and a little time.
> 
> At that point, once you are all done and everything - you will have a crossover in your hand. With the parts you ordered and soldered together.
> 
> ...


I have permission from Jeff Bagby to use his software for both profit and non-profit purposes. I sell home theater speakers that were designed using his software. 

You are 100% right, you can get the components and figure out the math to see what your crossover point is. However, that's only useful for the driver as the tweeter will be padded and re-shaped, and those values as well will change the crossover point. I'm already thinking an l-pad and a series resistor for shaping. 

Now, if you wish to help out since you know how its done, you can take the values of the crossover I designed and figure out the crossover point for anyone who wants to run the RK6 component set passive. I'm sure you would love to figure out what the crossover point is on a tweeter with a 3rd order electrical and 2-3 resistors would be.


----------



## chefhow (Apr 29, 2007)

trumpet said:


> Come on, now, this is a community of helpful people. XtremeRevolution is talking about the R&D and real science of car audio, which is not something he alone holds the keys to. Why do you have to break his balls for trying to educate you? I don't see him getting rich off of this site's member base.


Thats all fine and good, but to say one way, a PROVEN way, isnt right and his way is (even though he cant tell us how to do it) is the wrong way to go about it. 

One of the best sounding cars in this country uses an active xover and eq network. Youre going to tell me that its not the right way to do it?


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

chefhow said:


> So XR, you are saying that with a simple RTA and a calibrated mic I cant get as good of results as I could with a properly built passive network?


Doesn't matter if its passive or active, the ability to simulate your settings to determine your frequency response visually and your phase alignment would be of great benefit. Your RTA software and your calibrated Mic are a very good start, but all you'd need is some impedance data (which I can get today since its 10x easier than measuring the frequency response), and you can import these numbers into JBagby's crossover designer. Its one more small step that helps you more than you can imagine. 

I see no reason to avoid freely available tools that could perfect your design.


----------



## chefhow (Apr 29, 2007)

XtremeRevolution said:


> Now, if you wish to help out since you know how its done, you can take the values of the crossover I designed and figure out the crossover point for anyone who wants to run the RK6 component set passive. I'm sure you would love to figure out what the crossover point is on a tweeter with a 3rd order electrical and 2-3 resistors would be.


Dont these come with passive crossovers already?


----------



## chefhow (Apr 29, 2007)

XtremeRevolution said:


> Doesn't matter if its passive or active, the ability to simulate your settings to determine your frequency response visually and your phase alignment would be of great benefit. Your RTA software and your calibrated Mic are a very good start, but all you'd need is some impedance data (which I can get today since its 10x easier than measuring the frequency response), and you can import these numbers into JBagby's crossover designer. Its one more small step that helps you more than you can imagine.
> 
> I see no reason to avoid freely available tools that could perfect your design.


Tru RTA is a free tool as well. Put it with my laptop in the car, set it up and tune away.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

chefhow said:


> Thats all fine and good, but to say one way, a PROVEN way, isnt right and his way is (even though he cant tell us how to do it) is the wrong way to go about it.
> 
> One of the best sounding cars in this country uses an active xover and eq network. Youre going to tell me that its not the right way to do it?


I never said that's not the right way to do it. Where did I say that was the only or right way to do it? Keep in mind the context. The OP has a limited budget, not $500+ for an MS8 (or similar) processor that can auto-tune, that can surely sound better.

I never said this would be better than an MS8. I said this would be better than going in blind and setting random values without having any way to measure anything.


----------



## Fricasseekid (Apr 19, 2011)

XtremeRevolution said:


> I take offense. I'm a busy guy, and I do as much as I possibly can. If you were so into telling me I'm doing a bad job at what I promised to do, where do I see you asking me if you can help out? Alongside to making that writeup (which you have absolutely no right to give me a hard time for), I'm modeling sub boxes for people for free without asking a damn thing in return. I'm offended by the fact that I even have to bring it up. Its really easy to sit back and ask me to do more, more, and more for you so you can sit there and smile because someone else is doing the work.
> 
> If you're in the business of swapping speakers every year, perhaps you have more money than you claim you do. If I barely had enough money to afford a mini-DSP and it was actually an issue for me, I wouldn't be in the market for a set of speakers often enough for this to be an issue. I've been using my Polk DB series speakers since 2007, and provided they don't break, I'm planning on using the RK6 components for at least 3-4 years. If I have to sell them, I have the added selling point of a vastly more valuable crossover. But, if you go through more speakers than you do socks, this has been a colossal waste of my time.
> 
> ...


Dude you need to calm the **** down! Your not obligated to help anyone, I never implied that you were. I simply stated that you obviously don't have all the time to come through on the things you say your gonna do in a timely fashion. It ok guy, we all have lives outside of the forum. But I need something I can count on and use, not a fairy tale. 
Plus I know your not just trying to "sell" me a passive. I never even ****ing said that. For someone who tells people to reread **** so much you sure are quick to take a muh-****a outta context. Even if you did make a few dollars off the passive, as long as I thought it was a good deal I would give a rats ass if you built it for $5. But that's beyond the point cause your attitude is the main thing keeping me away from your option anyways. 

Everytime someone has an opinion that differs from your own you turn into a fat little 10 year old ****** holding your breath and stomping up and down screaming "Daddy! They just won't listen to me!" 

Now take offense to that cause I don't give a **** anymore. You done made me lose my religion up in this *****!


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

chefhow said:


> Dont these come with passive crossovers already?


Yes, and I have a thread about designing a new one. I'll summarize it for you so you don't have to go back and re-read my answer to the question you asked. 

The supplied passives SUCK. The tweeter is crossed too low and doesn't have enough damping, the tweeter uses an electrolytic caps, which have tested to increase distortion and reduce sound quality on the higher end, and both tweeter and driver use iron core inductors with high gauge wire which I'm 100% sure saturate at the levels these components are designed to play. Even the Cadence $75 components use better crossover parts than the Massive Audio RK6 comps.


----------



## chefhow (Apr 29, 2007)

Who brought up an MS8? I suggested a $99 MiniDSP.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

chefhow said:


> Who brought up an MS8? I suggested a $99 MiniDSP.


I mentioned an MS-8 because that removes the need to model or simulate anything. Even with a MiniDSP, it would still benefit anyone to get a simulation of what you're setting on that device.


----------



## chefhow (Apr 29, 2007)

XtremeRevolution said:


> Yes, and I have a thread about designing a new one. I'll summarize it for you so you don't have to go back and re-read my answer to the question you asked.
> 
> The supplied passives SUCK. The tweeter is crossed too low and doesn't have enough damping, the tweeter uses an electrolytic caps, which have tested to increase distortion and reduce sound quality on the higher end, and both tweeter and driver use iron core inductors with high gauge wire which I'm 100% sure saturate at the levels these components are designed to play. Even the Cadence $75 components use better crossover parts than the Massive Audio RK6 comps.


Thanks


----------



## Fricasseekid (Apr 19, 2011)

So a mic, some RTA software, and a mini DSP and I'm set! Should cost about $250. Sounds like the best and most Cost effective option available for some technology that actually exist! Thanks a bunch for the help fellas! 

You say truRTA is free and it's good software chef?


----------



## chefhow (Apr 29, 2007)

XtremeRevolution said:


> I mentioned an MS-8 because that removes the need to model or simulate anything. Even with a MiniDSP, it would still benefit anyone to get a simulation of what you're setting on that device.


But with real time changes and adjustments and the knowledge of where the speakers naturally roll off the hard part is done. Do some initially xover setting, tune. Dont like it, redo until you do. Set TA tweak, DONE.


----------



## chefhow (Apr 29, 2007)

There are different levels but the basic startup software is free to DL to your PC. You can get a mic from PE for a fair price and have at it.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

Fricasseekid said:


> Dude you need to calm the **** down! Your not obligated to help anyone, I never implied that you were. I simply stated that you obviously don't have all the time to come through on the things you say your gonna do in a timely fashion. It ok guy, we all have lives outside of the forum. But I need something I can count on and use, not a fairy tale.
> Plus I know your not just trying to "sell" me a passive. I never even ****ing said that. For someone who tells people to reread **** so much you sure are quick to take a muh-****a outta context. Even if you did make a few dollars off the passive, as long as I thought it was a good deal I would give a rats ass if you built it for $5. But that's beyond the point cause your attitude is the main thing keeping me away from your option anyways.
> 
> Everytime someone has an opinion that differs from your own you turn into a fat little 10 year old ****** holding your breath and stomping up and down screaming "Daddy! They just won't listen to me!"
> ...


Sorry, I've been getting extremely irritated at how many times I've had to explain and re-explain something in this thread that will go over some peoples' heads anyway. Its like me trying to explain to my 14 year old brother why my engine tune benefits varying fuel trims for each cylinder because I don't have equal length headers. It will go over his head and probably 99% of people. Its something you have to research, experiment, and test for yourself. I've practically written a book here on this ****. 

Oh, and for the record, I've sent two people now (via email) quick tutorial guides for the modeling I said I'd write up. Don't get the impression that just because its not being published that its not being worked on. I know I'm not obligated to help anyone, but it rubs me the wrong way really bad when someone gives me a hard time for trying.

Technically, you don't need something you can count on. If you believed what I was saying with regard to this design, you could easily run the passive crossovers until I have at least those frequency response files. Not having these right here, right now will not prevent you from using those speakers.

If you were in my shoes, you'd understand really fast why I have the attitude I have about this.


----------



## MiniVanMan (Jun 28, 2005)

WOW!!! I read most of this thread, from page 2 on, had to shoot myself in the head, gave a stick to my 2 year old to stir my brains around a bit, then shoved them back into my head. I think I'm ready to proceed now. 

WHAT IN THE WORLD ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT XR??????

Every post you've made about your passives has completely shown your amateur, AT BEST, understanding of how passives really work. I was going to quote some of the more ridiculous statements made by you, but I think it crashed the server when I tried.

If you don't know the final crossover point and alignment of your network, then you don't know what you're doing. 

You don't arbitrarily pick a slope because you think it's better. You pick a slope based on measured response. ESPECIALLY when you use an odd order filter which will throw off phase by 90 degrees. I mean if you want to discuss the validity of using an odd order slope on a tweeter I'm more than willing to "explain" it to you, how I know, why I know, and put it into language that everybody here can understand, including your 14 year old brother, and then still admit that it's not always the right solution. 

You gave us a list of all your test equipment, but what modeling software are you actually using? What measuring software? 

Are you going to do the actual measuring in the car you're purportedly building these superior crossovers for? If not, then your crossovers have as much chance of working as a stock crossover.

The individuals in the audio community that are capable of actually building a good passive crossover still opt for active when they can in a car. Why? Because in a car a good passive crossover will lose you half your hair, most of your wallet, and all of your teeth when you shatter them chewing rocks.

Stop throwing around words like you know what they mean. You know what I think when I see you unwilling to explain a statement you made? I think that you don't know what you're talking about and just throwing fancy words out there. I don't see arrogant elitist, I see fragile ego that's afraid of being caught in his lies.


----------



## minbari (Mar 3, 2011)

Fricasseekid said:


> You say truRTA is free and it's good software chef?


level 1 is free, but only gives 1 oct resolution. if you really want to tune with it, buy the 1/6 or 1/24 oct version.


----------



## Fricasseekid (Apr 19, 2011)

minbari said:


> level 1 is free, but only gives 1 oct resolution. if you really want to tune with it, buy the 1/6 or 1/24 oct version.


How much can I expect that to cost?


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

Fricasseekid said:


> So a mic, some RTA software, and a mini DSP and I'm set! Should cost about $250. Sounds like the best and most Cost effective option available for some technology that actually exist! Thanks a bunch for the help fellas!
> 
> You say truRTA is free and it's good software chef?


Its free and its also good software, as is ARTA. 

However, you missed something. You still need a pre-amp and cables. That microphone won't be able to supply a strong enough signal for any decent measurements. Many guys also use an external sound card. You think all of those XLR cables are free? Add $100 for the pre-amp (used) and more for the cables. You'll probably end up around $400. Why not just go $500 and get an MS8? Oh yeah, because its $500. 

The technology already exists. What makes you think you're any better off with that equipment than without it? The ability to take matters into your own hands and get this done tomorrow? The technology has already existed. Its the design that's missing. 



chefhow said:


> But with real time changes and adjustments and the knowledge of where the speakers naturally roll off the hard part is done. Do some initially xover setting, tune. Dont like it, redo until you do. Set TA tweak, DONE.


Which is precisely what you can do if you have the equipment. That's if you have the equipment. However, in the end, it will still benefit you to simulate phase alignment. It could sound off and you won't know why. The software will tell you why, and phase alignment is a pretty big deal. 



chefhow said:


> There are different levels but the basic startup software is free to DL to your PC. You can get a mic from PE for a fair price and have at it.


I mentioned before, don't forget the pre-amp. Those microphones are not designed to be fed directly into a PC sound card. At least, that isn't the way any of the guys on techtalk.PE do it, and many have noted that the signal isn't strong enough.


----------



## stereo_luver (Oct 30, 2007)

:dead_horse:

Chuck


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

MiniVanMan said:


> WOW!!! I read most of this thread, from page 2 on, had to shoot myself in the head, gave a stick to my 2 year old to stir my brains around a bit, then shoved them back into my head. I think I'm ready to proceed now.
> 
> WHAT IN THE WORLD ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT XR??????
> 
> ...


You are an ass. You have absolutely no idea what I'm doing because you didn't read this thread or the original thread, or seen any of the other work I've done. I'm seriously not even going to bother responding to your accusations. The answers to your "questions" are already here, and I don't need to answer them for you for the 100th time. Read the whole thread, then send me a PM not acting like a complete douchebag if you still don't get something, but don't come in here attacking me like that. I know perfectly well that using a different order filter will change your phase alignment. This isn't my first time around the block buddy. If my attitude was condescending or rude, you've certainly made me look like a saint.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

Oh, and here's to MiniVanMan, for being a complete ass about this. Here's my last crossover design. Enjoy.

Excellent phase response, a very impressive reverse null (which isn't showing in this graph), and excellent phase alignment/wrap in the crossover region. Box effects aren't modeled here, but baffle diffraction and loss is, and the design goes linear down to 55hz with a 5.25" driver in ~.35 cubes.


----------



## gokiburi (Jul 20, 2007)

XtremeRevolution said:


> I'm seriously not even going to bother responding to this.


Responds anyway.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

gokiburi said:


> Responds anyway.


Thank you for your contribution.


----------



## chefhow (Apr 29, 2007)

That's funny, at all the shows I go to and throw all these guys use is a laptop and a Berihnger mic plugged into a USB port.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

XtremeRevolution said:


> I take offense. I'm a busy guy, and I do as much as I possibly can. If you were so into telling me I'm doing a bad job at what I promised to do, where do I see you asking me if you can help out? Alongside to making that writeup (which you have absolutely no right to give me a hard time for), I'm modeling sub boxes for people for free without asking a damn thing in return. I'm offended by the fact that I even have to bring it up. Its really easy to sit back and ask me to do more, more, and more for you so you can sit there and smile because someone else is doing the work.



just be happy you weren't posting real data (ie: FR/HD/Klippel) here. Wanna talk about getting ****?.... yea... try opening up _that_ can of worms.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

chefhow said:


> That's funny, at all the shows I go to and throw all these guys use is a laptop and a Berihnger mic plugged into a USB port.


You think they design their systems from scratch right at the show? That's more of a tuning thing and for measurement right at that spot. The design (obviously) happens before the show, and chances are they do at least some simulation. Sometimes you can predict what your phase will be based on your crossover slopes, but it helps to have the software to give you that exact edge.


----------



## chefhow (Apr 29, 2007)

stereo_luver said:


> :dead_horse:
> 
> Chuck


Hey Chuck, what do u have running your RTA on the laptop?


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

bikinpunk said:


> just be happy you weren't posting real data (ie: FR/HD/Klippel) here. Wanna talk about getting ****?.... yea... try opening up _that_ can of worms.


Been there, and you were there too, and thanks to you taking the time to give me advice and encourage me, I stuck it out and I'm still happy to have the opportunity to help people. What I do here doesn't hold a candle to what you've contributed.


----------



## Fricasseekid (Apr 19, 2011)

Ok so for all the active fans replying to this thread..

I'm looking at a minidsp with the proper software 

This:http://www.adorama.com/MXLMICMATEB.html

TruRTA software 

And a mic (Anyone care to recommend a decent budget mic)

Does that sum it up?


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

Fricasseekid said:


> Ok so for all the active fans replying to this thread..
> 
> I'm looking at a minidsp with the proper software
> 
> ...


I'm not trying to be an ass, so put the gun down, but I would very highly suggest a pre-amp. Jeff Bagby was selling his kit recently but it got sold. The guy I bought mine from sold it to me for $30 shipped. He has another if you need me to get you in contact with him. 

Your best bet otherwise is this, and don't forget the cables:
Dayton Audio EMM-6 Electret Measurement Microphone Allows For Accurate Acoustic Measurements At A Fraction Of The Price

I would also play with ARTA and see which you like better. I've used both. Its also free. When you're done, you can use my impedance .zma files and the .frd files you export (or trace) out of ARTA or TrueRTA and import them into Jeff's PCD to design your crossover with some visual representation of at least phase alignment.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

aRTA (free) + xlr mate ($35) + cross spectrum labs calibrated mic ($85-$95)

That's the cheapest solution I know of.

Otherwise, you can try HolmImpulse which is another free program. 
TrueRTA is my favorite just because it's quite a bit easier to operate, however it doesn't have a lot of the extra benefits a true FFT program like holm or arta has; the kind of benefits that let you view phase alignments. That said, I'm of the camp that believes these things are trivial in car audio where the reflection times are WEEEEEELL within a few milliseconds and there's no way to really do anything about it (for the most part).

Having spent _months_ building a test rig for home audio testing and using the RTA in the car, I've come to understand the pitfalls of mls testing in the car (ie: don't bother). For kicks, check out the the progress of my test baffle build, the calculations I made, the gear I bought, and the room treatment I did to get me reflection free out to ~15ms, which is pretty damn awesome. That build was what taught me a whole lot about a true measurement system; not some dinky **** you buy to do some RTA with... and it also taught me just how complext this stuff can really be (especially when you get in to phase response).


http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum...ing-get-back-old-ways-wanting-your-input.html

This is where I posted up all my driver testing. 
http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/bikinpunks-product-review-forum/
I used SoundEasy and a calibrated mic, along with an external preamp and a spankin' new soundcard for high frequency content for distortion measurements. 
I will say that I've not seen anyone else here put that much effort in to building a test rig. Not really bragging... just really trying to emphasize that *a test rig is not something you throw together in one day* and there is quite a bit of science behind even that.
The baffle was about 8x6 _FT_. I also built a sealed enclosure to accurately measure T/S parameters for smaller drivers (<8") and for larger drivers above 8" in diameter, I used the added mass method.





bikinpunk said:


> Added some absorption panels. Roxul. 2" thick. 2 x 4 ft panels covered in grille cloth.
> The mic distance was approximately 19" from the driver in the test shown below. I am gating my window starting at the instance the impulse comes arrives.
> I zoomed in 8x on the impulse time scale and still see no impulse after the initial measured response, with a rectangular window set up to 30ms (figuring that setting it out this far would active anything I may not be getting with a smaller window?).
> My room now has 2" absorption panels on the sides, ceiling, and floor.
> ...


----------



## MiniVanMan (Jun 28, 2005)

XtremeRevolution said:


> You are an ass. You have absolutely no idea what I'm doing because you didn't read this thread or the original thread, or seen any of the other work I've done. I'm seriously not even going to bother responding to this. The answers to your "questions" are already here, and I don't need to answer them for you for the 100th time. Read the whole thread, then send me a PM not acting like a complete douchebag if you still don't get something, but don't come in here attacking me like that. I know perfectly well that using a different order filter will change your phase alignment. This isn't my first time around the block buddy. If my attitude was condescending or rude, you've certainly made me look like a saint.


You don't know what you're doing either. I'm fine with, "Hey, I'm an amateur crossover builder, and I've built a few networks, and I'd like to give it a go with your system", but no, we have to all sit here and listen to how you're the expert crossover builder, when anybody with half a clue can see right through your bull ****. Maybe you truly do think you know everything. I can tell you without a doubt you're delusional then. 

What questions did I ask that you answered 100 times? In fact, I only asked one question and that was modeling software. I went back and saw that you're using Bagby's PCD. Okay, so this leads to this.



XtremeRevolution said:


> Genuine question here...
> 
> When you built your passive crossover, did you have the following?
> 
> ...


So, you have all this equipment, utilizing free modeling software, of which I fully support, and then state that your passive will be better than an active solution, but are absolutely BLIND to the fact you can achieve the same thing with a fully functional DSP unit like the miniDSP utilizing the same measurements, AND have the flexibility to change something, should something not quite work out the way you intended, which is something EVERY experienced crossover designer understands is going to happen.

You understand the need to measure in a car, but you don't seem to understand WHY that's important on a level other than in car response will be different than a larger room. 

See, the problem is there is NO WAY you can possibly come through on your promises of a superior passive crossover. I have no doubt you can make something that works within a very specific set of boundaries, but you can't possibly make something that works outside of those boundaries. Because the reality is that passives only work in the very specific circumstances in which they were built.


----------



## minbari (Mar 3, 2011)

if you go with trueRTA they have mic cal file for the ECM8000. only like $50


----------



## Fricasseekid (Apr 19, 2011)

Ok this seems reasonable. I like this route because I might be able to get my buddy to go in with and tune his ride too.


----------



## chefhow (Apr 29, 2007)

XtremeRevolution said:


> You think they design their systems from scratch right at the show? That's more of a tuning thing and for measurement right at that spot. The design (obviously) happens before the show, and chances are they do at least some simulation. Sometimes you can predict what your phase will be based on your crossover slopes, but it helps to have the software to give you that exact edge.


Of course not, but you're talking about investing $100's that is totally unnecessary. Part of what we do is thru trial and error, learning how things react in our vehicles, taking that info and applying it. Not thru models and simulators, while they may be helpful every vehicle has a sonic signature based on an infinite amount of variables that mY include, temp, amount of dampening, types of dampening...


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

Also, here are a couple videos of the testing:



bikinpunk said:


> I made a short video last night of FR testing. Put it in the Testing Methods sticky but thought it might get overlooked...






bikinpunk said:


> Thought you guys might like to see a quick video of the HD tests.
> 
> The way I go about figuring out the amp's voltage output is pretty simple:
> Take the mfg/measured sensitivity
> ...


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

minbari said:


> if you go with trueRTA they have mic cal file for the ECM8000. only like $50


I would not trust this calibration file at all. I understand there are a few cal curves floating around out there. However, using them is a roll of the dice. The ONLY way I'd use a cal file is if it's a cal file *specifically for my mic*.


----------



## MiniVanMan (Jun 28, 2005)

XtremeRevolution said:


> Oh, and here's to MiniVanMan, for being a complete ass about this. Here's my last crossover design. Enjoy.
> 
> Excellent phase response, a very impressive reverse null (which isn't showing in this graph), and excellent phase alignment/wrap in the crossover region. Box effects aren't modeled here, but baffle diffraction and loss is, and the design goes linear down to 55hz with a 5.25" driver in ~.35 cubes.


Golf clap.

What's the alignment? Why'd you choose it over other options? What's the crossover point? You stated earlier that it's impossible to tell, but I can clearly figure out the point and alignment.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

MiniVanMan said:


> You don't know what you're doing either. I'm fine with, "Hey, I'm an amateur crossover builder, and I've built a few networks, and I'd like to give it a go with your system", but no, we have to all sit here and listen to how you're the expert crossover builder, when anybody with half a clue can see right through your bull ****. Maybe you truly do think you know everything. I can tell you without a doubt you're delusional then.
> 
> What questions did I ask that you answered 100 times? In fact, I only asked one question and that was modeling software. I went back and saw that you're using Bagby's PCD. Okay, so this leads to this.
> 
> ...


I don't want ********, so cut it out. If you have questions, ask questions, but attacking me forces me into a position where I have to defend myself. If you think that's fair, I'm sorry for you.

I've designed more than a dozen crossovers for speakers I've sold in the past. For proprietary reasons, I'm not going to be posting all of them. I gave you one example. Unless you're blind, look at it again. I'm learning, but that doesn't make me an idiot or a newbie, and it doesn't mean I haven't the slightest clue what I'm doing. I never claimed I was an expert, but I did claim I had more insight than most people who will go into an active setup just flipping switches till they get something they like more than the previous setting. 

I know for a fact I don't know everything, but that's an entirely irrelevant point. Does the fact that you don't know how to replace head gaskets on a car mean you can't change your oil? Does the fact that you don't know how to rally race mean you can't go to a drag strip?

I asked you to read the whole thread, and I don't want to ask you again. Just do it. I never said my passive will be better than an active, ever. You need to take things into context. I said a properly designed, measured, tested passive with some EQ to tweak to each car's individual anomalies would be better than a passive setup that you start going into and flipping switches with no prior indication of how its all going to respond, in an effort to just "listen" for what sounds best. I've said this a dozen times, which is why I told you to go back and read, so you wouldn't have to come here forcing me to be an ass just to tell you to knock it off because I already went over that and you were too damn lazy to read more than one or two pages. 

I know for a fact that it never works out the way you want the first time. There's always tweaking to be done, a voicing stage if you will. I understood perfectly well that a final crossover design will take that into consideration. I also understood that give the same mounting point for the midbass and the tweeter, the phase alignment should be similar, as should the frequency response, and as mentioned before, any anomalies can be equalized. A DSP makes it easier, but going from the $40-$50 I originally estimated for a 2-way passive, the OP is now going to spend $50 for a microphone, $25 at least for cables, $35 for an XLR Mate, or even $100+ for a good microphone pre-amp, and top it off with $125 for an active setup. Meanwhile, he's a single parent, a student, and has a job. I take things into context and I offer to help when I can. At a bare minimum, he's now up to $235 (plus shipping where applicable) and the need for another amp for the tweeter channels. If he has that kind of money, I'm not one to stand in his way, but I can't advise him to burn it all when you could get similar results with a well designed passive with drivers in the exact same mounting locations as mine will be and nearly identical listening positions. 

Passives don't only work in the very specific environments that they were built. If they did, they wouldn't be sold with every component set on the market. I said I could do it better than Massive Audio did, and I said I could do it better than an active setup with no prior measurement or simulation, and I said I could do it cheaper. In context of when it was said and what it was being replied to, you'll realize that really is all I said. 

I can and will make a superior crossover than that of the supplied one with the Massive RK6. I will do so because its cheaper and 10x simpler than going active, and because there are many people on this board who have that component set and are unhappy with the way it sounds. 9 people responded to the poll in my thread indicating interest in such a crossover.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

MiniVanMan said:


> Golf clap.
> 
> What's the alignment? Why'd you choose it over other options? What's the crossover point? You stated earlier that it's *impossible to tell*, but I can clearly figure out the point and alignment.


*In context.*

I can tell where those cross over, but determining what setting to tell someone to use on an active system is an entirely different scenario. I chose that phase alignment because it wraps closely within the crossover region. I made a small adjustment on the cap on the woofer to get a better reverse null that isn't reflected in that model. Obviously you can tell that its a 2nd order on the mid-range and a 3rd order on the tweeter with a series and parallel resistor for frequency response shaping and damping. 

I can estimate they cross at 2600hz, but that's not the electrical filter at all. This is a different case than it would be for mobile audio because baffle loss created a dip below ~700hz, so me crossing over much, much lower actually extended the region where baffle loss wasn't experienced (and consequently peaked in the adjusted frequency response) in order to create a more linear response. My frequency response on the woofer is actually somewhat linear down to 1500, after which it starts to fall, yet my electrical filter there starts rolling off at 300hz. Exactly what would you tell someone who wants to replicate this exact crossover network on an active setup? That's why I said its impossible, and its 10x easier if you can get the .frd measurement and .zma impedance in Jbagby's software and use the part on the right of the page I screenshotted that is *clearly marked for active crossover simulation.*


----------



## Fricasseekid (Apr 19, 2011)

XtremeRevolution said:


> I never said my passive will be better than an active, ever. You need to take things into context. I said a properly designed, measured, tested passive with some EQ to tweak to each car's individual anomalies would be better than a passive setup



"The thing is, a passive crossover here would be cheaper, easier, and would sound better than most active setups, because I can make adjustments that cheaper active setups would not be able to. Zobel networks, notch filters, phase alignment, you name it. You'd be getting into the realm of some serious active processing with an EQ to get the same results as I will be getting."--- XtremeRevolution


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

Fricasseekid said:


> "The thing is, a passive crossover here would be cheaper, easier, and would sound better than most active setups, because I can make adjustments that cheaper active setups would not be able to. Zobel networks, notch filters, phase alignment, you name it. You'd be getting into the realm of some serious active processing with an EQ to get the same results as I will be getting."--- XtremeRevolution


Quote me again in its entirety. What exactly was being discussed?



> You need to take things into context.


At the time, we were looking at that option over you running an extra amp and using the active setups on those amplifiers, without absolutely any measurement equipment. At least, that's what I remember. 

I did after all say cheaper active setups, aka, no DSP. If I remember correctly, I may have clarified that in the post I made in my own thread for these crossovers. DSP = serious processing with an EQ, and the money you now have to put down to get similar results will not be considered a cheaper setup.


----------



## Fricasseekid (Apr 19, 2011)

Actually that quote came from your RK6 crossover thread. It was one of the first few posts before I was ever involved in this at all.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

Fricasseekid said:


> Actually that quote came from your RK6 crossover thread. It was one of the first few posts before I was ever involved in this at all.


I defended that in the post above yours. I made a few corrections.


----------



## Fricasseekid (Apr 19, 2011)

XtremeRevolution said:


> A DSP makes it easier, but going from the $40-$50 I originally estimated for a 2-way passive, the OP is now going to spend $50 for a microphone, $25 at least for cables, $35 for an XLR Mate, or even $100+ for a good microphone pre-amp, and top it off with $125 for an active setup. Meanwhile, he's a single parent, a student, and has a job. I take things into context and I offer to help when I can. At a bare minimum, he's now up to $235 and the need for another amp for the tweeter channels.


I'll tell you what XR. I'm gonna start saving the dough for this setup and you keep working on that passive. Whichever one happens first will be the best option. I'm still banking on the DSP though.


----------



## MiniVanMan (Jun 28, 2005)

XtremeRevolution said:


> I don't want ********, so cut it out. If you have questions, ask questions, but attacking me forces me into a position where I have to defend myself. If you think that's fair, I'm sorry for you.
> 
> I've designed more than a dozen crossovers for speakers I've sold in the past. For proprietary reasons, I'm not going to be posting all of them. I gave you one example. Unless you're blind, look at it again.
> 
> ...


Please, defend yourself. I have a smidgen of experience in this, so I'm sure I'll be able to understand your defense of your methods and ideology. 

Of course people want you to do work. People also really like it when you tell them you can provide superior solutions for very cheap. The whole reason the website was founded. You provide cheap solutions that you do all the legwork with. What's not to like? People are also generally not smart and like to have their hands held. So, you having a petition of people wanting you to do work for them is not really that impressive. 

"Hey guys, I've been thinking of picking up the trash along Gougar, or Lincoln Hwy, which do you think would be better?" Yeah, the fact that the entire town of New Lenox comes out and states their opinion doesn't make you popular, respected, or even liked. They just want you to pick up trash so they don't have to. 

Over "a dozen" crossovers you've designed. Well, blow me away. I'm sorry I questioned your absolute expertise on the matter. Maybe if you did away with the arrogance and accepted the fact that just because you sold something doesn't make you a professional.  Or rather, let me use car references, because you seem to like those. Because you can change a head gasket doesn't make you a mechanic. Because you ran a drag race in your car a few times doesn't make you a professional race car driver. 

If you'd like to discuss the finer points of crossover design, and tips and tricks you've found in the implementation within vehicles, then let's start up a discussion, but this attitude that you're the first to do this, or that you've mastered the art, or found some secret sauce is delusional. 

The fact that you think you've stumbled on some kind of proprietary form of crossover design utilizing "FREE" software, and readily available test equipment is laughable. Also, while using readily available drivers on square baffles. Yeah, NOBODY else is doing that.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

MiniVanMan said:


> Please, defend yourself. I have a smidgen of experience in this, so I'm sure I'll be able to understand your defense of your methods and ideology.
> 
> Of course people want you to do work. People also really like it when you tell them you can provide superior solutions for very cheap. The whole reason the website was founded. You provide cheap solutions that you do all the legwork with. What's not to like? People are also generally not smart and like to have their hands held. So, you having a petition of people wanting you to do work for them is not really that impressive.
> 
> ...


You really can't stop being an ass can you? Everything you say has to be loaded. I asked you to cut the ******** and I tried to ask nicely. 

I don't claim to know everything, but name for me who on this board in the past has even ATTEMPTED a passive crossover setup that was properly measured, simulated, designed, voiced, and published. I can't find anyone, so I assume I'm the first to really give it a wholehearted shot. Sorry if I'm assuming I'm doing something nobody here has done before. The first answer that ever comes to mind when someone has component set they don't like and they want to keep the speakers is "go active" as if it will solve all their problems. 

Why? Because as you mentioned, most people don't know what they're doing. VERY few people on here know how to even poorly design a crossover, let alone design one that actually blows away speakers 10x their price in components. 

I already said I don't expect to be an expert, but if you've designed crossovers, which you presume to be a much bigger expert on it than myself based on your attitude, you'd know that getting a *GOOD* final design that actually sounds amazing is no minor accomplishment. It does take a lot of knowledge, experience, and time to get right, and that's one thing you cannot deny. 

I never said I was born with a microphone, laptop, and soldering iron in my hand. I learned a lot over time to get to this point. And yeah, the software is free, and the design isn't proprietary nor is the software, nor did I ever claim or imply that it was, but there sure as hell isn't anything else like it out there that's as easy to use or cheap (read: free). Stop being a douche. The fact is that nobody else is doing it in car audio because nobody else either

A. has the equipment 
or 
B. has the knowledge. 

Those who do have the knowledge have better things to do, and those who do have both can often afford the active setups anyway, which can do practically the same thing for a bit of a higher cost. The fact is that I can do it better than the factory crossover can, and for cheaper than the active setup can, and make it infinitely simpler and less time consuming. I'm not trying to be a snob but how many people are going around saying that? How's about you just hold your tongue till I design the damn thing and you can get some opinions from people using them. 

I'm not an idiot. Stop implying that I am, and stop insulting me. I'm 100% aware of the hundreds of published designs out there that are also "readily available drivers on a square baffle." Put a sock in it.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

Fricasseekid said:


> I'll tell you what XR. I'm gonna start saving the dough for this setup and you keep working on that passive. Whichever one happens first will be the best option. I'm still banking on the DSP though.


I don't have the money for the DSP. The microphone, cables, and pre-amp were everyone's gift to me for box modeling (purchased using donations since I started doing this), and I intend to use it to help everyone else. 

If you don't mind spending the extra money for the DSP, then go for it. It will give you a bit more versatility than using the passive (EQ capability). I will still give you the impedance and frequency response measurements so you can do some simulations on your own, and will still walk you through using PCD if you want me to. Not calling you an idiot, just making myself available.


----------



## Fricasseekid (Apr 19, 2011)

XtremeRevolution said:


> I don't have the money for the DSP. The microphone, cables, and pre-amp were everyone's gift to me for box modeling (purchased using donations since I started doing this), and I intend to use it to help everyone else.
> 
> If you don't mind spending the extra money for the DSP, then go for it. It will give you a bit more versatility than using the passive (EQ capability). I will still give you the impedance and frequency response measurements so you can do some simulations on your own, and will still walk you through using PCD if you want me to. Not calling you an idiot, just making myself available.


Well I do appreciate that. I've got alot to learn ahead of me.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

XtremeRevolution said:


> I know for a fact that it never works out the way you want the first time. There's always tweaking to be done, a voicing stage if you will. I understood perfectly well that a final crossover design will take that into consideration. I also understood that give the same mounting point for the midbass and the tweeter, the phase alignment should be similar, as should the frequency response, and as mentioned before, any anomalies can be equalized. A DSP makes it easier, but going from the $40-$50 I originally estimated for a 2-way passive, the OP is now going to spend $50 for a microphone, $25 at least for cables, $35 for an XLR Mate, or even $100+ for a good microphone pre-amp, and top it off with $125 for an active setup. Meanwhile, he's a single parent, a student, and has a job. I take things into context and I offer to help when I can. At a bare minimum, he's now up to $235 (plus shipping where applicable) and the need for another amp for the tweeter channels. If he has that kind of money, I'm not one to stand in his way, but I can't advise him to burn it all when you could get similar results with a well designed passive with drivers in the exact same mounting locations as mine will be and nearly identical listening positions.


the crux of the problem is: you NEED either 
a) really well trained set of ears
or
b) a good measurement setup

to really flesh out the problems. A passive crossover for car use, IMO, is only helpful in limiting the frequency a driver is playing (ie: protection for the driver). Not in any sense would I ever recommend a passive for a true, well balanced system, which is what it seems you're trying to win us over with here. It just won't happen unless you sit in the person's car and do some trial/error by ear or have them do the same with an RTA*.

That's where your notion of being able to use a passive wholly is flawed. You (nor the owner, if they're coming to you for help) understand the complexity of the car for which you're designing the network. That's all there is to it.

And, therefore, is why I encourage people to spend the money on a good RTA and find someone to help them understand how to use it _in addition to_ finding someone to help you understand how to tune a system. To take it a step further, a real good reference is needed.

I can't stress just how blind your method is... but to your benefit a person with a mic and a laptop and no idea of what they're doing is just as blind to the pitfalls. As a community, that's what we're here to do.
The bottom line to me is this: your passive solution is nothing more than to protect the drivers from distortion. I understand you think you're doing due diligence but it's wasted if you think there's anymore usefulness than that. The car is such an animal, the results of a computer modeled crossover with no accounting for location of drivers, reflection points, etc make it useless. I know that's a strong word, but sometimes the truth isn't easy. 



*RTA will easily show FR but not phase and therefore is still not an absolute method.




XtremeRevolution said:


> I can and will make a superior crossover than that of the supplied one with the Massive RK6. I will do so because its cheaper and 10x simpler than going active, and because there are many people on this board who have that component set and are unhappy with the way it sounds. 9* people responded to the poll in my thread indicating interest in such a crossover.*


Just because someone less knowing than you offers you money (or takes you up on an offer) for a service doesn't make you a professional. 





I'm not trying to be an ass, so don't flip my post on it's head and take the defensive. What I'm telling you is based on my own experience both modeling for home and for car. You can take it or leave it. I'm NOT saying you have to go active to have a great setup. I AM saying you have to have an understanding of what you have and how to achieve what you want. Not just an understanding of what you want. I hope the collective here on this site understand my POV.

- Erin


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

bikinpunk said:


> the crux of the problem is: you NEED either
> a) really well trained set of ears
> or
> b) a good measurement setup
> ...


With that in mind, I beg to differ. Obviously I can't EQ, but the crossovers are more than just protection for tweeter and driver. Its more than just a 4-5 component setup. The crossover I posted earlier that I designed for home theater use had an extremely linear response, and I believe I can get at least close to that. I understand cars will have variations, but I have doubts that this crossover will result in gigantic nulls or peaks. 

Better than active with a measurement rig? No. Better than active without one? Yes. Cheaper and easier than both? You know the answer to that.

This isn't some holy grail. Its somewere in between for those who don't have the amps or don't have the money for a DSP and measurement rig, while being significantly better than the factory crossover, at least for the RK6.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

bikinpunk said:


> I can't stress just how blind your method is... but to your benefit a person with a mic and a laptop and no idea of what they're doing is just as blind to the pitfalls. As a community, that's what we're here to do.
> The bottom line to me is this: your passive solution is nothing more than to protect the drivers from distortion. I understand you think you're doing due diligence but it's wasted if you think there's anymore usefulness than that. The car is such an animal, the results of a computer modeled crossover with no accounting for location of drivers, reflection points, etc make it useless. I know that's a strong word, but sometimes the truth isn't easy.
> 
> 
> ...


I noticed you updated your post after I responded. 

How exactly is this just as blind as going in with an active and no measurement? Also, how is this inferior to the passive supplied with the crossovers? To imply that its pointless is to imply that its no better. 

RTA will not show phase, but JBagby's software does. I don't recall how, but the combination of phase extraction from the FRD measured in the car, and the impedance measured with the WT3 provides something usable. That's part of the whole idea here. Not only will it show you the phase, but it will simulate it both on and off axis. On that same note, an active setup won't show you the phase either, will it?

I never said I was a professional, but I'm also not trying to win SQ competitions with a $40-$50 crossover. The alternative is significantly more expensive for anyone and requires two additional amp channels.

With regard to driver placement, I went into that a bit. The plan is that everyone will be mounting these in the kicks, with the tweeters in roughly the same location, and their listening position relative to the tweeters will be pretty close, give or take 10 degrees horizontally or vertically. The only thing I can't account for is reflection points, but getting now you're getting into active configurations where all you care about is the listening point of the driver and its being turned into an all out SQ perfection system. That's not my goal.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

XtremeRevolution said:


> With that in mind, I beg to differ. Obviously I can't EQ, but the crossovers are more than just protection for tweeter and driver. Its more than just a 4-5 component setup. The crossover I posted earlier that I designed *for home theater* use had an extremely linear response, and I believe I can get at least close to that. I understand cars will have variations, but I have doubts that this crossover will result in gigantic nulls or peaks.
> 
> Better than active with a measurement rig? No. Better than active without one? Yes. Cheaper and easier than both? You know the answer to that.
> 
> This isn't some holy grail. Its somewere in between for those who don't have the amps or don't have the money for a DSP and measurement rig, while being significantly better than the factory crossover, at least for the RK6.


*go back and re-read my post. I posted too soon. *


(bolded)
Yes... for _HT._
Again, I really think you just don't understand the complexity of the car audio environment. While your crossover may look nice on paper or even in a home theater, it WILL ABSOLUTELY NOT look/sound the same in a car (any car unless it's Whiteledge's bus... and even that's a stretch). When a person gets your passive, what are the odds you've accounted for the EXACT aiming and the EXACT location. Nevermind FR for a minute... what about levels alone? Did you factor in a 3dB attenuation for the tweeter to mate properly on paper? Well, ****... what do we do now when the guys decides he doesn't want them in his pillar and moves 'em to the floor? Or, what do you do if he turns them off axis? Back to the drawing board.

Everyone who designs for even home audio use will tell you there's a level of experimentation and tweaking. Zaph has said the same about his ZRT design numerous times and the reason is... the user... and the environment can't always be accounted for. 

You're lending your services to a group of people who, at best, don't really understand what they want. They know what sounds bad but they don't know what sounds good. 



Look, don't misunderstand me. I'm (again) not saying you have to have DSP, but I AM saying you (YOU, xtreme) have to understand the environment these drivers/crossovers are used in and you have to have a way to tweak the final design. You simply don't have the luxury unless the user is one of the two things I posted above (great ears and/or owns an RTA). 
So, again, what you're designing is driver protection. You're not designing for relative phase and certainly not for diffraction/boundary nodes/constructive and destructive interference and (most importantly) user preference.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

XtremeRevolution said:


> How exactly is this just as blind as going in with an active and no measurement?


Don't hinge your rebuttals on RTA alone. Like I said, the user you're helping needs an RTA and/or good ears. With a passive, you're stuck. With active processing (or even a good EQ) adjustments can be made _*on the spot*_. With your passive design, are you also going to allow the user to help you tweak the final design or is it a one off? 

THAT'S the sole point I'm replying to. It's not that a passive cannot and will not work. It's not that... at all. It is that you don't know the user and the environment so what you're doing is designing something on paper in some ideal environment. 


If you don't understand what I'm saying then there's really nothing else I can say.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

bikinpunk said:


> *go back and re-read my post. I posted too soon. *
> 
> 
> (bolded)
> ...


I don't fully understand the complexity of the car environment, and I'm not trying to overcome all of its shortfalls. I fully understand these anomalies produced by the car over a square room with speakers on axis 10 feet away. However, I'm also not trying to do everything here. I'm not sure where I gave off that impression, but consider what you need in order to get a better result than what this passive will produce. 

You need an RTA setup. Not cheap. You need a DSP, which alone will run you 3x the price of the passive. Then you need the knowledge and time to tune it all, or the money to pay someone who can do it for you.

I did plan to factor in the 3db boost for the tweeter due to being off axis, but that's part of the voicing stage. I addressed driver location in the last post, which is why I believe I am designing for phase. Phase and general frequency response are my two biggest goals, which is something I can say for a fact I can do better than the factory supplied crossover.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

In simple terms:
A passive is not a one-size fits all.

It takes multiple sessions with it. You are not there on site and the end user isn't able to provide you with the data needed to tweak a design to the best possible setup. Therefore, your passive setup is a stab... but not really even a good one unless you know EVERYTHING about the car. Again, what you're providing is driver protection. That's it.

Again, I take you to the HT realm. Ask your HT buddies on Tech-Talk how many iterations it took before they finalized a design. That was in a house... imagine a car.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

bikinpunk said:


> Don't hinge your rebuttals on RTA alone. Like I said, the user you're helping needs an RTA and/or good ears. With a passive, you're stuck. With active processing (or even a good EQ) adjustments can be made _*on the spot*_. With your passive design, are you also going to allow the user to help you tweak the final design or is it a one off?
> 
> THAT'S the sole point I'm replying to. It's not that a passive cannot and will not work. It's not that... at all. It is that you don't know the user and the environment so what you're doing is designing something on paper in some ideal environment.
> 
> ...


I do understand what you're saying, and I do understand that with a passive you're stuck, but I feel like a broken record re-stating what my goals are. To get anything better, you need to spend a lot more money or have some really good ears. 

The user will need to EQ whatever they don't like in the frequency response. I doubt people prefer the sound of drivers that are completely out of phase. 

With my design, I'll tweak to what I believe will sound good for most people. Past that, they'll need some kind of EQ. Not too warm, not too bright, somewhere in the middle.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

XtremeRevolution said:


> I do understand what you're saying, and I do understand that with a passive you're stuck, but I feel like a broken record re-stating what my goals are. To get anything better, you need to spend a lot more money or have some really good ears.
> 
> The user will need to EQ whatever they don't like in the frequency response. I doubt people prefer the sound of drivers that are completely out of phase.
> 
> *With my design, I'll tweak to what I believe will sound good for most people. Past that, they'll need some kind of EQ. Not too warm, not too bright, somewhere in the middle.*


And how do you plan to even get to this point without having measurements of the car and a solid understanding of what the end user wants? You can't. 

I see what you're saying... you can design something close. But, TBH, it's nothing more than the mfg's are doing and this quote solidifies it for me:


> Past that, they'll need some kind of EQ. Not too warm, not too bright, somewhere in the middle.


They're (mfg's) just shooting for a 'best guess'... typically driver protection.... and letting the end user rock it or correct it themselves. So, while you may think you're accounting for all these things to make a great passive, you're really not doing anything out of the ordinary. 


Again, I'm not trying to be an ******* about it. I just don't know any other way to tell you this.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

Let me make this a bit more clear. The Massive Audio RK6 crossover sounds like complete ****. I've attempted it with the tweeter on and off axis now in two cars. They're well broken in by now. The tweeters are way too harsh on and off axis, indicating they are crossed too low and the are not attenuated enough. At a bare minimum, this needs to be resolved. The only options people have if they don't like it are to sell them or go active. I want to give them another option if they don't have an active processor and RTA or the funds to buy one, let alone the knowledge to use both.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

XtremeRevolution said:


> Let me make this a bit more clear. The Massive Audio RK6 crossover sounds like complete ****. I've attempted it with the tweeter on and off axis now in two cars. They're well broken in by now. The tweeters are way too harsh on and off axis, indicating they are crossed too low and the are not attenuated enough. At a bare minimum, this needs to be resolved. The only options people have if they don't like it are to sell them or go active. I want to give them another option.


Okay, we've got SOMETHING to work with. 


What you should be doing (IMO, take it or leave it) is helping the user resolve this.

however, who's to say that your design won't cause issues in someone's car? You don't know until they get it in their hands and installed.
This is what I'm hinging my replies on.

What you can do from here is to say "OK, what didn't you like about it, and what did you like".
When they reply, you say "alright, send it on back, let me make some adjustments and we'll try that one".
Guaranteed the 2nd shot will be much better than the first (assuming they know how to accurately describe the problem enough for you to know what to correct). The more iterations the better.

So, again, while I understand you think you can make a one-off design, it's just not that realistic. Sure, it may sound OK, but if you want it to sound great you've got to put in a **** ton of legwork.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

bikinpunk said:


> Okay, we've got SOMETHING to work with.
> 
> 
> What you should be doing (IMO, take it or leave it) is helping the user resolve this.
> ...


Erin, countless people have complained about this tweeter. No matter who installs this component set, they complain. I think I've heard only one person who thinks its fine. Some people can't stand it to the point where they use tweeters from their old component sets till they figure it out. I have mine EQ'd down to hell like crazy to keep from having my head hurt on my drive home. It really is that bad. Its a severe design flaw and something I think will be an issue in any car. 

That being said, if I build these and someone complains that something doesn't quite sound right, I certainly can have them send it back and I can make adjustments to the values to correct it, but I'm hoping people will want to build their own. I'm only guessing that if everyone installs them in the same location (which they will have to or it won't work), the only adjustments they should need to make will be based on tweeter attenuation. 

I understand its not going to sound as good as an active processor with an RTA, but I'm not going for that. I'm going for better than the supplied crossover and I've been hoping for better than cheap "active" configurations (amplifier based without a DSP of any sort).


----------



## MiniVanMan (Jun 28, 2005)

XtremeRevolution said:


> You really can't stop being an ass can you? Everything you say has to be loaded. I asked you to cut the ******** and I tried to ask nicely.
> 
> I don't claim to know everything, but name for me who on this board in the past has even ATTEMPTED a passive crossover setup that was properly measured, simulated, designed, voiced, and published. I can't find anyone, so I assume I'm the first to really give it a wholehearted shot. Sorry if I'm assuming I'm doing something nobody here has done before. The first answer that ever comes to mind when someone has component set they don't like and they want to keep the speakers is "go active" as if it will solve all their problems.
> 
> ...


Less time consuming? See, it's comments like those that tell me you're really not fully fleshing out your designs. A properly designed, and implemented passive will be so much more time consuming. 

As for who has done this sort of thing before? Ummmmmm? Never mind. I'll give you a hint, it's SOOOOOOOOO rare that even a guy that lives a few miles from you has done it. Hmmmmm? I'll bet you didn't know that the same Klippel Erin is using was actually used in a basement only a few miles from you. Hmmmmm? Nope, I don't know ANYTHING about what you're trying to accomplish. I mean, who am I? I'm nobody. Actually, I am nobody. I'm a DIY audio enthusiast, of which there are a bazillion of, that happens to have a good amount of experience in what you're doing and telling you that what you're claiming you can do is deceptive because you're more interested in inflating your own ego.

See, that's the problem. Your arrogance. Limited experience, a huge amount of arrogance.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

MiniVanMan said:


> Less time consuming? See, it's comments like those that tell me you're really not fully fleshing out your designs. A properly designed, and implemented passive will be so much more time consuming.
> 
> As for who has done this sort of thing before? Ummmmmm? Never mind. I'll give you a hint, it's SOOOOOOOOO rare that even a guy that lives a few miles from you has done it. Hmmmmm? I'll bet you didn't know that the same Klippel Erin is using was actually used in a basement only a few miles from you. Hmmmmm? Nope, I don't know ANYTHING about what you're trying to accomplish. I mean, who am I? I'm nobody. Actually, I am nobody. I'm a DIY audio enthusiast, of which there are a bazillion of, that happens to have a good amount of experience in what you're doing and telling you that what you're claiming you can do is deceptive because you're more interested in inflating your own ego.
> 
> See, that's the problem. Your arrogance. Limited experience, a huge amount of arrogance.


I know who you are. You're a guy who doesn't understand "stop being an ass" and "cut the ********." Do I have to say pretty please with a cherry on top to appease you?

I'm designing the passive for others to use. They're not designing it. Learn to read, PLEASE. It is less time consuming for someone who wants to fix their massive audio rk6 crossover problem to solder mine together than to go active. You have a great way of twisting my words. I never, ever suggested that anyone should design their own passive crossover. Where the hell have you been this entire thread and the original I posted where I blatantly stated that I would be building them for others???

Inflating my own ego? That's rich. Real mature.

Sent from my HTC Awesome using Tapatalk


----------



## MiniVanMan (Jun 28, 2005)

XtremeRevolution said:


> Erin, countless people have complained about this tweeter. No matter who installs this component set, they complain. I think I've heard only one person who thinks its fine. Some people can't stand it to the point where they use tweeters from their old component sets till they figure it out. I have mine EQ'd down to hell like crazy to keep from having my head hurt on my drive home. It really is that bad. Its a severe design flaw and something I think will be an issue in any car.
> 
> That being said, if I build these and someone complains that something doesn't quite sound right, I certainly can have them send it back and I can make adjustments to the values to correct it, but I'm hoping people will want to build their own. I'm only guessing that if everyone installs them in the same location (which they will have to or it won't work), the only adjustments they should need to make will be based on tweeter attenuation.
> 
> I understand its not going to sound as good as an active processor with an RTA, but I'm not going for that. I'm going for better than the supplied crossover and I've been hoping for better than cheap "active" configurations (amplifier based without a DSP of any sort).


Define "same locations"??  Because the door of a VW Jetta and the door of a Honda Civic will present a different frequency response with the same driver, period. 

So, now you're going from my crossovers will be just as good as an active setup, and much cheaper, to just being cheaper, when in reality, to do it right you're going to be buying a **** ton components during your model, build, install, test, model, build, install, test, etc.

So, now you just want to provide a working solution that doesn't have such a shrill tweeter, and then you're not really doing it for the benefit of the community, you want people to pay you. You want people to pay for limited experience, and at best a moderate solution with claims of superiority. 

There's a reason there aren't any professional car audio crossover builders out there other than prepackaged component sets. It's not because nobody thought of it before you.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

MiniVanMan said:


> Define "same locations"??  Because the door of a VW Jetta and the door of a Honda Civic will present a different frequency response with the same driver, period.
> 
> So, now you're going from my crossovers will be just as good as an active setup, and much cheaper, to just being cheaper, when in reality, to do it right you're going to be buying a **** ton components during your model, build, install, test, model, build, install, test, etc.
> 
> ...


Who ever said I was charging for more than the time to solder components if they don't want to do it themselves? I am posting the schematic.

Reported. Consider this the last response you get from me. I am thoroughly sick of your insults.

Sent from my HTC Awesome using Tapatalk


----------



## MiniVanMan (Jun 28, 2005)

XtremeRevolution said:


> Who ever said I was charging for more than the time to solder components if they don't want to do it themselves? I am posting the schematic.
> 
> Reported. Consider this the last response you get from me. I am thoroughly sick of your insults.
> 
> Sent from my HTC Awesome using Tapatalk


Insulting?? No. Condescending? Yes. If you want insulting, I can be insulting. 

You're insulted and now crying because you've presented a platform that just doesn't exist as you say it does. I could give a crap what you do with your time. I would normally encourage people to do what you're doing. I would continue to encourage you pursue your endeavors with this, but STOP with the arrogance. You are not a professional, and you continually try to present yourself as a professional. Stop trying to act like an authority on things you have limited experience with. If you want to have a debate, fine, we can do that. But you don't want to debate because you don't want to explain yourself. What that means in the scientific world is that you're a quack. 

If you want to be an authority on something, present evidence that you are, and be able to stand up to scrutiny and criticism, neither of which you've managed to do, and like I said, I'm merely a DIY hobbyist myself and not a "professional". You're a hobbyist as well. You've managed to get yourself into some pretty deep pits with people with much more advanced knowledge of the topics you purport to have expertise in. You seem capable of reading some instructions, but you don't seem to have a solid grasp of "why". Your mouth, and your ego are what's keeping you from the second part. Shut those two things down, and you'll find the real experts to be MUCH more likely to look at you as a peer than a peon.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

You're not here for a debate. You're here to prove me wrong in any way you can. How do I come to that conclusion? The last post you made was pretty clear, as well as a few of the rest of them. You twist my words to make them sound completely asinine, like the "fact" that I'm charging for these crossovers? I never said that, you did, but I'm glad you were able to use it to add in the fact that I'm "charging" for "inexperience." Then the part where you claimed I'm telling other people to design their own crossovers when I said that active setups would be more time consuming. Had you actually read, you would have realized I never suggested that to anyone. But of course, more fuel for the fire, more bullets to fire at me because I'm sure you get off on it. If you didn't, one should really ask why you kept at it. And you wonder why I have an attitude? Get a clue.

I don't care about my ego at this point, if you're going to go on and on and on, at least show me that SOMEONE has done it, someone has designed a well executed and thought out (at least as well as is possible) automotive crossover and failed, and they failed because of so and so reason.

It is impossible to be "better" than the factory provided crossovers without going active. Nevermind the very high gauge iron core inductors, the completely terrible crossover point, the electrolytic cap on the tweeter (and on the driver, though its less of an issue). Nevermind the extremely poor tweeter damping. Its a textbook crossover through and through, yet one that's designed better by any stretch of the imagination with higher quality parts, a steeper crossover slope to protect the tweeter, better tweeter damping, and eliminating all harshness from running the tweeter too low is clearly a complete and futile waste of my ****ing time and I and everyone else who has a Massive Audio RK6 component set should instead drop another $100 on a 2 channel amp and $125 for a miniDSP because it will in fact be infinitely better (especially per dollar), $35 for an XLR mate or $100 for a pre-amp, $50 on a microphone, and so on and so forth than a $40-$50 crossover that was designed with more than just cost cutting in mind that would also satisfy those that aren't out to have ultimate audio perfection (which as far as I'm concerned does not exist). 

But yet, something that sounds better is completely out of the damn question and I'm an idiot for saying it would sound better. 

I would have been GLAD to create this crossover, try it out, and discover it sounds like crap and be disappointed in it. I would have been fine with it because it would be a learning experience if I did fail. However, seeing how utterly poorly the factory supplied crossover is, I can hardly believe that my $40-$50 will be poorly spent in getting me better sound. Hell, even if I succeeded and had the impression that it could have been a one-off design, Quickaudi07 on here has the same component set nearby and I'm sure would be VERY happy to give them a try one day to see how they sound and measure in his car. 

You know what's truly arrogant? Telling me I have to spend upwards of $300 to get better sound than the factory supplied crossover, and that it would sound 6-7x better if I just went active, and that its my and everyone else's only option. That's true arrogance right there, telling me that unless I have the money to burn (which I don't), I have to just live with this **** or sell it. Those notions piss me off more than anything else, but the opposition to even the thought of a custom designed crossover to replace this garbage I have bolted to my car door is mentally sickening. What's more sickening is that I so far have not seen proof of a single truly well executed attempt and consequential failure, yet having finding the money to waste on car audio (because clearly everyone here can afford to drop over $1000 into their car audio) is my only option. 

Let me build my damned crossover for those who don't have the time, expertise, or money for the exponentially more expensive active setups but want something that fixes the design flaws in the factory supplied crossovers. If you have a suggestion to make, make it, but keep your damn insults and condescending tone out of it because I am thoroughly fed up with it.

We're not all rich snobs who can afford this expensive equipment just to make it work, and there IS a middle ground between a ****ty "flawed by design" factory crossover and an expensive rta+dsp. That middle ground is what I intend to accomplish.


----------



## Fricasseekid (Apr 19, 2011)

XR. Your arrogance and lack of humility has caused you alot of grief. This thread is a testament to that. You know ALOT, nobody will deny that. But you don't recognize that there are people that know alot more than you and you should listen to them. You also don't realize that even a novice like myself is capable of having a fresh perspective that maybe you haven't thought of. This forum is an audio discussion forum not a listen to ExtremeRevolution forum. 

The guys around here who really know their **** are the ones who chime in the least bro. Do you know why? Cause they don't need our respect and don't have **** to prove to anyone, no one can say the same for you. Everytime you go on one of these little tirades it just sheds more light on your insecurity, cause it's like your shouting at the top of your lungs "LOOK AT ME AND SEE MY VAST KNOWLEDGE EVERYONE!".

I was gonna send this to you in a private message but I decided to call you on it publicly cause I know others will agree with me. I thought maybe if you could hear it from a few people then you'd finally calm down, lose the arrogance, and set yourself on a path towards the respect that you could one day deserve. 

What are your credentials anyways? Cause you seem so bad to wanna be one of this sites most valuable assets like Bikinipunk, a few of our vendors, or one of the amp experts we have floating around. 
But it's gonna take alot more than some sub models made on free bagsby software and a few temper tantrums for you to earn that kinda value and respect. 

Who the **** do you think you are? 


As for Minivan; of course he wants to debate and just prove you wrong, wtf do you think the definition of debate is? Yes his point about the amount of time it takes to design and implement a successful passive network was poorly played. Because everyone can see that you weren't suggesting others put in the time. But thats really all you got on him. He raised some good points to which you had no retort aside from calling him an ass. He also asked you a few technical questions giving you the chance to validate yourself and you had no response. 

This is a public thread and your losing your cool and everyone is watching. Your making yourself out to be a fraud and a poor sport. All of this can be avoided on your part by a simple attitude adjustment. 

Now don't go getting your panties twisted. This is just constructive critisism, It would be prudent of you to take it for what it's worth!


----------



## MiniVanMan (Jun 28, 2005)

XtremeRevolution said:


> You're not here for a debate. You're here to prove me wrong in any way you can. How do I come to that conclusion? The last post you made was pretty clear, as well as a few of the rest of them. You twist my words to make them sound completely asinine, like the "fact" that I'm charging for these crossovers? I never said that, you did, but I'm glad you were able to use it to add in the fact that I'm "charging" for "inexperience." Then the part where you claimed I'm telling other people to design their own crossovers when I said that active setups would be more time consuming. Had you actually read, you would have realized I never suggested that to anyone. But of course, more fuel for the fire, more bullets to fire at me because I'm sure you get off on it. If you didn't, one should really ask why you kept at it. And you wonder why I have an attitude? Get a clue.
> 
> I don't care about my ego at this point, if you're going to go on and on and on, at least show me that SOMEONE has done it, someone has designed a well executed and thought out (at least as well as is possible) automotive crossover and failed, and they failed because of so and so reason.
> 
> ...


Why does it sound like you just read, and understood every post I made in the 5 years I actively posted on this board.

Since we're playing the "where did I say that" game, where did I say that you have to spend gobs of money to get decent sound? Again, you have no idea who you're talking to as I was the most vocal here for half a decade for low cost, minimalist solutions. Never once did I say that passive crossovers can't be implemented well into a vehicle. Again, reading comprehension > you. 

As for misunderstanding you. Nah, I understand everything you're saying, and you're a clown (that was an insult). You can design, redesign, create, recreate, snort a bucket of coke off a strippers tits, whatever, I don't care. What I care about is misinformation. Misinformation has been my battle for well over a decade. Anybody that's known me for any period of time knows that's my biggest trigger point.

You obviously missed the epic battles/debates over speaker design, and crossover design that I partook in with vendors, and nuthuggers over the years. Many leaving with their tails between their legs. Never ONCE did I say, "I don't have to explain why I know what I know". That's completely ridiculous and makes you look like a child throwing a temper tantrum. To anybody with a brain, all it says is "I don't know nearly as much as I'm letting on". I've called many people to task over the years and many have been found lacking. The ones that do okay have reasoning behind why they do things the way they do. A difference of opinion is fine as long as your opinion is supportable. You refuse to support your "opinions". Yes, you are stating "opinions" in many of your posts. When "opinions" are stated like they are facts, then fact Nazis like myself crawl out from under rocks and start flinging poo at you. 

So, you can take it as insults all you want. 

You want to be compensated for labor. News flash, that's charging for your work. Whether you charge for the components, or the labor, it's still part of the finished product, and therefore means your crossovers cost money. If you don't believe me, you are welcome to call the IRS and ask them.

You state moderation in your approach, looking for the middle ground. ****ing fantastic. March on! But understand that moderation requires compromise. You state NO compromises in your methodology. Just that yours is better. Okay, so you used a better quality inductor. Fancy that. Why? Why was the inductor in the factory crossover insufficient? 

Why is an electrolytic cap a poor choice for audio signals? 

You raised the crossover point, but how did you combat the beaming that would surely be the compromise by doing that? 

You steepened the slope on the tweeter, and raised the crossover point. How were your phase measurements after doing so? What distances were the tweeters as opposed to the mids for your measurements. A higher crossover point is going to cause much greater phase shifts due to distance. 

Ah **** it, gonna go for broke.

How did you measure the power response of the mid and tweeter? You raised the crossover point because you said the tweeter was strained. Okay, poor power response, but you sacrificed polar response to get better power response. While also adding greater power compression on the mid. What were your final slopes, electrically and acoustically? Did you pick a slope that would help with the polar response? What slopes would do that? Given you need a slope at all on a mid in a car aimed extremely off-axis. 

Or was the mid ran wide open and the tweeter had the cheap ass inductor on it? If that's the case, you're going to have to come with a whole lotta science to convince me that that makes a difference on the parallel portions of the circuit. Same with caps. In they're in parallel who cares. I don't know because you like to keep your secrets. 

See, I never said you couldn't design a better crossover than the one that comes with a component set. You're welcome to quote me where I said that. What I've been saying is that if you're going to claim superiority over something, then you'd better use a solid platform for your argument, and not just "because I said so, don't make me repeat myself". God I wish I could tell that to my customers when they're asking me to clarify a technical concept. 

See, professionals explain, in great detail why, and how they do things. It's what gives validity to their work. Then if somebody else comes along and asks, the professional says why and how they do things. Professionals also use resources and will state resources to add weight to their arguments as to why they do things the way they do. Especially if the professional is doing his work based on the work done by other professionals. Professionals also challenge each other. Professionals accept challenge as a natural course of their careers. Why? Because if nobody challenged each other the Earth would still be flat, and Columbus would have never been found lost at sea. 

There are professionals that stomp around and pout but they get laughed at, insulted and treated in a generally condescending manner. Then they get told that they're not very professional.

Always remember that no matter how cool you think you are, there's going to be some snarly, old man that will thoroughly put you in your place because he's dealt with young punks, egos and attitudes for longer than he can remember, and it's just easier to beat them with a rock (metaphorically... usually) than try to talk reason with them.

I've tried the rock and I've tried reason. If neither have worked, then either way, some are going to read this and at least see you for who you really are.


----------



## MiniVanMan (Jun 28, 2005)

Fricasseekid said:


> As for Minivan; of course he wants to debate and just prove you wrong, wtf do you think the definition of debate is? Yes his point about the amount of time it takes to design and implement a successful passive network was poorly played. Because everyone can see that you weren't suggesting others put in the time.


Nope! It wasn't. He can put in the work all he wants, but if the "customer" isn't happy with the results then one of two things happens, "**** you, deal with it", or "let me make a few tweaks". For somebody wanting it to work out of the box, that could mean a great deal of time to dial in a passive network to "listenable" under the "customer's" criteria. 

See, he's assuming responsibility for nearly an infinite amount of variables. He's trying to design a static piece of equipment around an infinite amount of variables, including the most chaotic variable out there, customer satisfaction, and then claiming his solution is easier than a dynamic solution. For some it may be. I'll concede that. For others, not so much. But there have been no "buyer beware" statements. The pure physics of audio doesn't play well with static solutions when there's so many variables in the utilization.


----------



## Fricasseekid (Apr 19, 2011)

MiniVanMan said:


> Nope! It wasn't. He can put in the work all he wants, but if the "customer" isn't happy with the results then one of two things happens, "**** you, deal with it", or "let me make a few tweaks". For somebody wanting it to work out of the box, that could mean a great deal of time to dial in a passive network to "listenable" under the "customer's" criteria.
> 
> See, he's assuming responsibility for nearly an infinite amount of variables. He's trying to design a static piece of equipment around an infinite amount of variables, including the most chaotic variable out there, customer satisfaction, and then claiming his solution is easier than a dynamic solution. For some it may be. I'll concede that. For others, not so much. But there have been no "buyer beware" statements. The pure physics of audio doesn't play well with static solutions when there's so many variables in the utilization.


Well from my point of view as long as he is the one who is putting in all that RnD and assuming he is capable of building a successful product then his solution is way easier than going active. But at this point that wouldn't make me a smart consumer would it?

I've owned a few component setups before and I've never sent one back to be tweaked before. In the same spirit I wouldn't buy XR's passive until I thought it was good chance he worked out all the kinks already. Guess that's kinda the chanc you take anytime you purchase a generic "one size fits all" passive network. Which is the reason I started this thread. 

So the lack of time for just purchasing the new passive only works if it is being purchased after the RnD phase is finished. Which is what XR was implying. 


On another note, I found it funny that we used almost identical vocabulary in our descriptions of XRs behavior. Either you read my post or we see him in the same light (the latter I'm sure). 

He's a good guy. He's just trying to wear britches a bit too big for him.


----------



## Darth SQ (Sep 17, 2010)

Fricasseekid said:


> Well from my point of view as long as he is the one who is putting in all that RnD and assuming he is capable of building a successful product then his solution is way easier than going active. But at this point that wouldn't make me a smart consumer would it?
> 
> I've owned a few component setups before and I've never sent one back to be tweaked before. In the same spirit I wouldn't buy XR's passive until I thought it was good chance he worked out all the kinks already. Guess that's kinda the chanc you take anytime you purchase a generic "one size fits all" passive network. Which is the reason I started this thread.
> 
> ...


Britches?

Who says that anymore?

Britches britches BRITCHES Briiiiiiiiitcheeeeeesss.

Bret
PPI-ART COLLECTOR


----------



## Fricasseekid (Apr 19, 2011)

PPI-ART COLLECTOR said:


> Britches?
> 
> Who says that anymore?
> 
> ...


Don't be such a briatch Bret!


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

Fricasseekid said:


> XR. Your arrogance and lack of humility has caused you alot of grief. This thread is a testament to that. You know ALOT, nobody will deny that. But you don't recognize that there are people that know alot more than you and you should listen to them. You also don't realize that even a novice like myself is capable of having a fresh perspective that maybe you haven't thought of. This forum is an audio discussion forum not a listen to ExtremeRevolution forum.
> 
> Perhaps I don't recognize people here, but join any other forums I'm on and you'll notice I haven't once had this "problem." Somehow, I'm an arrogant and proud moron only on diyma. Walk over to techtalk.PE and all of a sudden I'm the one asking for help and taking every bit of advice I can, even when I disagree with those giving advice. A bit of a different culture there when people actually give you advice instead of storming into a thread telling you your an idiot.
> 
> ...





MiniVanMan said:


> Why does it sound like you just read, and understood every post I made in the 5 years I actively posted on this board.
> 
> Since we're playing the "where did I say that" game, where did I say that you have to spend gobs of money to get decent sound? Again, you have no idea who you're talking to as I was the most vocal here for half a decade for low cost, minimalist solutions. Never once did I say that passive crossovers can't be implemented well into a vehicle. Again, reading comprehension > you.
> 
> ...





Fricasseekid said:


> Well from my point of view as long as he is the one who is putting in all that RnD and assuming he is capable of building a successful product then his solution is way easier than going active. But at this point that wouldn't make me a smart consumer would it?
> 
> I've owned a few component setups before and I've never sent one back to be tweaked before. In the same spirit I wouldn't buy XR's passive until I thought it was good chance he worked out all the kinks already. Guess that's kinda the chanc you take anytime you purchase a generic "one size fits all" passive network. Which is the reason I started this thread.
> 
> ...


Every time I actually try to help someone, I end up with a monumental disincentive to actually help those people. Remember the part where I needed a higher attachment limit? After a ton of ******** and drama, I was brought in contact with the site owner and everything got resolved overnight. Amazing how that happened and how the owner actually saw what I was trying to do, when there were a dozen people (most of them are also in this thread) who were trying to tell me I'm an idiot. Guess who's donation paid for my site subscription? The very moderator who sent me a warning and an infraction. Guess who I've been helping since then? All of the people hat supposedly didn't exist. Amazing how taking another perspective changes things. 80+ box models so far, and I'm not saying that to brag or inflate my ego. I'm saying that to point out that after everyone told me that this "service" is not needed and would be useful, I was given the opportunity, and the service proved to be very useful indeed. Now, I'm starting to get more sub box modeling requests in than I have time to work on. Funny how that worked out when everyone disagreed with me and I was the only idiot who thought I was doing the right thing. 

But hey, what does that matter in this thread. This whole thread has become a display of who "I truly am." 

Well, here's more of who I truly am. I'm a truly irritated and pissed off guy who genuinely wanted to help and now has zero desire to help you for shoving it all back in his face. I think there are other threads on this board where I'm more needed than this one. Good luck with your active setup.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

MiniVanMan said:


> Nope! It wasn't. He can put in the work all he wants, but if the "customer" isn't happy with the results then one of two things happens, "**** you, deal with it", or "let me make a few tweaks". For somebody wanting it to work out of the box, that could mean a great deal of time to dial in a passive network to "listenable" under the "customer's" criteria.
> 
> See, he's assuming responsibility for nearly an infinite amount of variables. He's trying to design a static piece of equipment around an infinite amount of variables, including the most chaotic variable out there, customer satisfaction, and then claiming his solution is easier than a dynamic solution. For some it may be. I'll concede that. For others, not so much. But there have been no "buyer beware" statements. The pure physics of audio doesn't play well with static solutions when there's so many variables in the utilization.


Could. Might. Possibly. Maybe. I think if we follow that slippery slope, we might as well demand a refund from every passive crossover bundled with a component set that we don't quite fancy. I don't yet think that even after all this time, I've gotten through to you what the goal of this project is if you still think I'm assuming responsibility for every variable possible.


----------



## Fricasseekid (Apr 19, 2011)

Maybe you get talked to as a child cause you act like a child. I have no idea how old you are but from your actions I'd guess your about 18. 

Also, why are you so sensitive?


----------



## Fricasseekid (Apr 19, 2011)

1st off this is only a low blow if the things I'm saying are true. I never claimed to be a super nice guy. But I know for a fact through PMs and what not that several people on this forum agree with me about your behavior. I won't say who because that is their business if they want to be revealed. But I'm not as nice as others and I damn sure "don't put my hand over my mouth, whatever comes up, comes out"-Brother Ali
Everyone else is just too nice to say it. I've made attempts to shed light on this in more constructive ways in the past but your too stubborn for subtlety. I been sitting here watching you argue argue with everyone trying to help me for 3-4 pages now in my thread and I just couldn't bite my
tongue any longer. You don't know how to involve yourself in a constructive conversation because your so sure of everything you think you know. 

Credentials mean alot. Cred mean proof that you can apply your knowledge and proof that you have experience. 

I dint give a **** if your the dahli lama on PE Tech or whatever. I don't give a **** if you'll never help me again (don't remember you helping me the first time). I'm here for one thing and one thing only The Love of Music! These are my true colors. I say it how it is!

If I make a friend or a frenemy along the way, so be it.


----------



## goodstuff (Jan 9, 2008)

Looking for the "Can't believe I read the whole thing" meme.


----------



## minbari (Mar 3, 2011)

goodstuff said:


> Looking for the "Can't believe I read the whole thing" meme.


lol, lots of good information in there


----------



## Rudeboy (Oct 16, 2005)

This is epic. Not sure I've ever seen more words (in more colors) not adding up to much. The assumption that active is harder or more expensive is just wrong. This forum was started to explore using inexpensive drivers with active crossovers. There are plenty of inexpensive amps that will give you all you need. You don't waste power and you have the flexibility to improve things as you learn. The standard set by a one-size-fits-all passive setup is so low that it's actually hard to take a wild guess at your active settings and come out worse. 

That's not to say that a passive crossover might not have a role in a system. I submit that the place it may have is in a more complicated configuration than a simple active setup. The assumption that you need complicated measurement equipment to get good sound is as ridiculous as the active is expensive and complicated canard. You know what's best about going active? You learn things. The only way to get good sound on a limited budget is to learn enough to do it yourself. That's also the only reason to spend time on a DIY forum. There are no magic boxes.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Passive sucks, period. End of sentence.


----------



## chefhow (Apr 29, 2007)

sqnut said:


> Passive sucks, period. End of sentence.


You are joking right?


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

chefhow said:


> You are joking right?


Well, considering what you can dial in with dsp and an active network, passives are limited.  Don't your agree bro?


----------



## chefhow (Apr 29, 2007)

sqnut said:


> Well, considering what you can dial in with dsp and an active network, passives are limited.  Don't your agree bro?


Limited yes, but suck, no. In the correct application they can be EXTREMELY effective. I can remember in the 90's guys running extremly intricate passive networks that were designed specifically for their cars to do specific things.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

Fricasseekid said:


> Maybe you get talked to as a child cause you act like a child. I have no idea how old you are but from your actions I'd guess your about 18.
> 
> Also, why are you so sensitive?


Far from my actual age, but we'll leave that out because it wouldn't mean anything anyway. 



Fricasseekid said:


> 1st off this is only a low blow if the things I'm saying are true. I never claimed to be a super nice guy. But I know for a fact through PMs and what not that several people on this forum agree with me about your behavior. I won't say who because that is their business if they want to be revealed. But I'm not as nice as others and I damn sure "don't put my hand over my mouth, whatever comes up, comes out"-Brother Ali
> Everyone else is just too nice to say it. I've made attempts to shed light on this in more constructive ways in the past but your too stubborn for subtlety. I been sitting here watching you argue argue with everyone trying to help me for 3-4 pages now in my thread and I just couldn't bite my
> tongue any longer. You don't know how to involve yourself in a constructive conversation because your so sure of everything you think you know.
> 
> ...


I'm impressed. I thought I was the only one who could be arrogant. Oh wait, I never was. I also know you don't give a ****. I knew that before I got into this thread. As far as a low blow, it doesn't have to be true. It just has to be out of very bad taste. Of course, you'll think whatever you want to. 

As far as arguing, you've put yourself in quite a position to moderate. I'd like to invite you to look through this thread and tell me exactly where I argued with someone profusely. With bikinpunk? That was a pretty respectful discussion if you don't mind me saying. Its more than I can say for anyone else in this thread. There's a difference when you say "this is why it won't work out" instead of "you're stupid, inexperienced, and full of ****, prove me wrong." Most of this was an argument that was entirely invalid. I can go through and pick every single point out and address it all, but it would be a collosal waste of my time because in the end, people would still fail to read it. 

Minivanman came in here and didn't even read past the 2nd page (if even that far), then attacked me on points that I had already addressed. How exactly do you think I was going to respond? How would you respond, after you're already frustrated enough about the situation? Most of the problem has been because people have thought I was trying to push a passive crossover as superior as all active processors or a DSP. My words were quite clear but people apparently still can't read. What I said still holds true, that I can make a passive crossover that sounds better than the factory one, and would sound better than an active based on two amplifiers with some knobs, settings, and absolutely no RTA. If everyone is getting butthurt because I pushed that notion so heavily and refused to accept that there could be another possibility, perhaps I'm not the one who's so sensitive. I don't recall being the first one to start hurling insults and personal attacks. I'm not as good at that as some of you are. 

People lost sight of the goal for this passive crossover from page 1. Something that works better than an amp-based active with no RTA and is cheaper than any DSP based active you can get done properly. I went into the costs involved at least a few times and of course, any facts I put out there were instantly ignored, and any responses I made past that were taken as arrogance instead of discussion or debate. 



chefhow said:


> You are joking right?


I don't think anyone's joking in this thread.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

True yes. But back in the day active options were severely limited. The ideal xover point and slopes would depend on your placement and your environment. This would vary from car to car and different placements. So get the ideal point and slope you would have to go active and then build the ideal xover? That doesn't make sense.


----------



## trojan fan (Nov 4, 2007)

sqnut said:


> Passive sucks, period. End of sentence.



Some of the best sounding speakers in the world use passive networks :bash:


You need to make a trip to CES :laugh:


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

trojan fan said:


> Some of the best sounding speakers in the world use passive networks :bash:


 right son!!!


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

sqnut said:


> True yes. But back in the day active options were severely limited. The ideal xover point and slopes would depend on your placement and your environment. This would vary from car to car and different placements. So get the ideal point and slope you would have to go active and then build the ideal xover? That doesn't make sense.


And today, they aren't limited, but peoples' funds still are. I think we already went over how much these cost, but since people don't like to read an entire thread, I'll go over it again. 

MiniDSP: $125
Measurement Microphone: $60 shipped
XLR & RCA Cables: $25 shipped (or more?)
XLR Mate or a good preamp: $35-$100+

Total: ~$250+, plus the laptop you already need to have.

Passive crossover that performs somewhere in the middle between the above and the factory RK6 crossover: $40-$50.

Never lose sight of a project's goals.


----------



## minbari (Mar 3, 2011)

trojan fan said:


> Some of the best sounding speakers in the world use passive networks :bash:


those speakers are installed in controlled environments. I wont disagree about the passive thing. but the manufacturer puts them into specific enclosures then biulds the passives to make them perform correctly.

in a car, you do not have that luxury.


----------



## Rudeboy (Oct 16, 2005)

XtremeRevolution said:


> And today, they aren't limited, but peoples' funds still are. I think we already went over how much these cost, but since people don't like to read an entire thread, I'll go over it again.
> 
> MiniDSP: $125
> Measurement Microphone: $60 shipped
> ...


The MiniDSP is one way to get there and adds tremendous flexibility that a passive solution won't approach. Since you have already stated that your passive solution will require EQ adjustment and apparently don't believe people have ears, all of that testing equipment would be required either way.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

Rudeboy said:


> The MiniDSP is one way to get there and adds tremendous flexibility that a passive solution won't approach. Since you have already stated that your passive solution will require EQ adjustment and apparently don't believe people have ears, all of that testing equipment would be required either way.


The EQ idea was to tune to preference or to any vehicle anomalies that create significant peaks or dips that are very audible.

Yeah, if you wanted the same results you would have to, which I never claimed you would get. Never lose sight of the goals. Why do people STILL think I'm trying to do the equivalent of an active setup with an RTA? Have you caught on yet as to why I've become so easily frustrated in this thread?

Then again, its hard to lose sight of the goals if you don't truly understand what they are to begin with.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

minbari said:


> those speakers are installed in controlled environments. I wont disagree about the passive thing. but the manufacturer puts them into specific enclosures then biulds the passives to make them perform correctly.
> 
> in a car, you do not have that luxury.


and, furthermore, like I said in one of my replies to Xtreme, a lot of the DIY guys build a crossover network, listen, and re-tweak. I've been studying up on scan speak designs such as Zaph's and Troels' EKTA (here) and have found numerous times where Zaph has encouraged builders to tweak the design either by changing the value of the coil or simply by altering the port length.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

bikinpunk said:


> and, furthermore, like I said in one of my replies to Xtreme, a lot of the DIY guys build a crossover network, listen, and re-tweak. I've been studying up on scan speak designs such as Zaph's and Troels' EKTA (here) and have found numerous times where Zaph has encouraged builders to tweak the design either by changing the value of the coil or simply by altering the port length.


Just so we're on the same page (as if it even matters anymore?), what do you think my goals are for this project? I haven't yet found one person who understands what they are. In 8 pages, not a single one.


----------



## Rudeboy (Oct 16, 2005)

XtremeRevolution said:


> The EQ idea was to tune to preference or to any vehicle anomalies that create significant peaks or dips that are very audible.
> 
> Yeah, if you wanted the same results you would have to, which I never claimed you would get. Never lose sight of the goals. Why do people STILL think I'm trying to do the equivalent of an active setup with an RTA? Have you caught on yet as to why I've become so easily frustrated in this thread?
> 
> Then again, its hard to lose sight if you don't truly understand what they are to begin with.


You seem to have problems understanding the difference between discussion and personal attack. Your original goal is pretty transparent. It hasn't worked out as you expected and now you are defending a failed idea as if your life depended on it. You're tossing out irrelevant requirements to buttress a faulty premise. If we focus on the OP's goals, the reason for this forum's existence and the experience of others we can toss out declarations from the sun king and realize that there are many different ways to skin this cat.


----------



## el_chupo_ (May 27, 2007)

Meh. At the end of the day, you are still throwing a generic passive crossover, designed for one persons car, speaker placement, and ideas into something it wasnt designed for. Just like every other generic passive crossover, designed for a generic car and speaker placement.

Thats the whole point. Its not a custom solution for anyone but you. 

Hence, the proposed idea that after you do all your measurements, you give out the crossover points and slopes for the passive you design for your car, and with a DSP unit a person can start working on their car, making adjustments to their active crossover to set it up for them, in their car, with their speaker placements.

AKA, post 68.


----------



## Fricasseekid (Apr 19, 2011)

In 8 pages of banter and through two whole threads, youve gone from saying you can "build a passive network that will sound better than most active setups" to saying your passive "will sound better than an active setup with poorly chosen x-over points". Your now even saying "at least it'll sound better than the RK6 passive". So is that what you shooting for? Mediocre at best? 

Why has your story changed?


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

I'm at a loss as to why one needs a microphone to set up an active DSP unless they are competing or have some odd reason to want a ruler flat response. Hundreds of folks here do it by ear alone.


----------



## Fricasseekid (Apr 19, 2011)

Hell of a thread here. Aside from all the whining and bantering there is some great info provided. Thanks everyone for all the input, I've learned alot about active setups and about a few forum members. 

PS. I'm really glad I'm on tapatalk so I don't have to look at all the colored text and whatnot.


----------



## Fricasseekid (Apr 19, 2011)

chad said:


> I'm at a loss as to why one needs a microphone to set up an active DSP unless they are competing or have some odd reason to want a ruler flat response. Hundreds of folks here do it by ear alone.


I'd thank you for this but I can't from my phone.


----------



## trojan fan (Nov 4, 2007)

sqnut said:


> right son!!!


Donkey :laugh:


----------



## minbari (Mar 3, 2011)

el_chupo_ said:


> Meh. At the end of the day, you are still throwing a generic passive crossover, designed for one persons car, speaker placement, and ideas into something it wasnt designed for. Just like every other generic passive crossover, designed for a generic car and speaker placement.
> 
> Thats the whole point. Its not a custom solution for anyone but you.
> 
> Hence, the proposed idea that after you do all your measurements, you give out the crossover points and slopes for the passive you design for your car, ...................


and I might add, that if those measurments are made in free air, they are worthless. once you install that speaker in a door or enclosure the speaker FR and impedance responses will change. since impedance is a function of freq point in a passive, that will change too.


----------



## chefhow (Apr 29, 2007)

XtremeRevolution said:


> And today, they aren't limited, but peoples' funds still are. I think we already went over how much these cost, but since people don't like to read an entire thread, I'll go over it again.
> 
> MiniDSP: $125
> Measurement Microphone: $60 shipped
> ...


Lets just say I go ahead and spend the money you say its gonna cost, I only have to do it ONCE. If I change my speakers once a year I have to get a new passive. And again, and again.... On top of that I cant make any adjustments, tweaks nothing. I would rather make the investment up front for the infinite ability I have with my option than be cornered with yours. No offense but I like options.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

Rudeboy said:


> You seem to have problems understanding the difference between discussion and personal attack. Your original goal is pretty transparent. It hasn't worked out as you expected and now you are defending a failed idea as if your life depended on it. You're tossing out irrelevant requirements to buttress a faulty premise. If we focus on the OP's goals, the reason for this forum's existence and the experience of others we can toss out declarations from the sun king and realize that there are many different ways to skin this cat.


I can quote personal attack if you really want me to. Have you read this thread? I can hardly call some of this discussion. You'd have to live in a pretty hostile area if you call that discussion. This has long ago gone past what the OP's goals are. 



el_chupo_ said:


> Meh. At the end of the day, you are still throwing a generic passive crossover, designed for one persons car, speaker placement, and ideas into something it wasnt designed for. Just like every other generic passive crossover, designed for a generic car and speaker placement.
> 
> Thats the whole point. Its not a custom solution for anyone but you.
> 
> ...


Alright, this is where things get frustrating. Define what you think a passive crossover does. Also define what you think would be the difference between one I will make and the one that came with my component set. I'm tired of giving people answers that don't answer their questions. 



Fricasseekid said:


> In 8 pages of banter and through two whole threads, youve gone from saying you can "build a passive network that will sound better than most active setups" to saying your passive "will sound better than an active setup with poorly chosen x-over points". Your now even saying "at least it'll sound better than the RK6 passive". So is that what you shooting for? Mediocre at best?
> 
> Why has your story changed?


Let me correct it for you. 

Build a passive network that will sound better than most cheap active setups. Did you forget the cheap part? Do I need to define cheap for you? One of your options was to run crossovers off your amps. I call that cheap. Let me repeat something else again. People who can't afford the time and money to run the $250+ active setup I listed earlier have three options:

1. deal with the ****ty factory crossover: very harsh and way too hot of a tweeter
2. sell the component set and buy another
3. use my crossover design

If you only had $40-$50, you're telling me you'd rather lose money and sell the speakers or listen to a terrible crossover over? 

I'm not shooting for mediocre at best. I'm shooting for decent. Better than the RK6 passive and cheaper and less time consuming (for others - yes I have to clarify or someone will chew me out for it) than active with an RTA. The measurements I would make may be vehicle specific, but if I do find that they are, I have the option to measure them outside of the car to isolate some of those values. It sounds like if I don't have everything absolutely figured out from start to finish, its a terrible idea. 

I should put this in my signature so I don't have to keep repeating it.


----------



## trojan fan (Nov 4, 2007)

sqnut said:


> right son!!!



Donkey :laugh:


----------



## chefhow (Apr 29, 2007)

Fricasseekid said:


> I'd thank you for this but I can't from my phone.


I did it for you...


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

XtremeRevolution said:


> What I said still holds true, that I can make a passive crossover that sounds better than the factory one, and would sound better than an active based on two amplifiers with some knobs, settings, and absolutely no RTA.


I don't want to get into an argument here -- I'm just trying to help -- but I'd like to remind everybody that you can use an active crossover to achieve EXACTLY what you can achieve with a passive. That is, there are zero advantages to a passive (aside from practical ones, like price, aesthetics, etc). This statement, of course, assumes that you use versatile active equipment. Some folks mentioned the miniDSP, which is a low cost option that will pull it off -- a carPC can be even lower cost, generally, but adds a pretty substantial layer of complexity.

So, I'm sure your approach to building passives is wonderful (although I'm a bit puzzled from what I've read so far, about building out-of-the-box passives without regard for vehicle- and installation-specifics ), but it's hard to be on-board with the idea that your passives will "sound better" than an active implementation.

Again, I'm not trying to take a shot at this business endeavor of yours. I'm just trying to be helpful.


----------



## Fricasseekid (Apr 19, 2011)

XR. I know you recently bought all your equipment with donations from here, but how did you design build the dozen bad ass passive networks before that?

Cause two months ago..... (and everyone should check this out): http://techtalk.parts-express.com/showthread.php?t=225514


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

chad said:


> I'm at a loss as to why one needs a microphone to set up an active DSP unless they are competing or have some odd reason to want a ruler flat response. Hundreds of folks here do it by ear alone.


Ask bikinpunk about that one. I'm not the one who suggested that it was necessary to getting great results. 



minbari said:


> and I might add, that if those measurments are made in free air, they are worthless. once you install that speaker in a door or enclosure the speaker FR and impedance responses will change. since impedance is a function of freq point in a passive, that will change too.


Enclosure =/= door. Want me to run a WT3 on my speaker in the door and out of the door. $50 says the readings will be the same. My door is essentially a free air environment. Frequency response will naturally change, but impedance won't. 



chefhow said:


> Lets just say I go ahead and spend the money you say its gonna cost, I only have to do it ONCE. If I change my speakers once a year I have to get a new passive. And again, and again.... On top of that I cant make any adjustments, tweaks nothing. I would rather make the investment up front for the infinite ability I have with my option than be cornered with yours. No offense but I like options.


Hey, and I respect that. I'm glad you 

A. have the money to buy the active
B. have the money to change components every year
C. have the knowledge to do it all

However, those people are not who I was trying to design the crossover for.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

Fricasseekid said:


> XR. I know you recently bought all your equipment with donations from here, but how did you design build the dozen bad ass passive networks before that?
> 
> Cause two months ago..... (and everyone should check this out): Need help designing a crossover - Techtalk Speaker Building, Audio, Video, and Electronics Customer Discussion Forum From Parts-Express.com


Some on my own, and some with help from other people. You really think I publish all of my designs? You really think I do zero research before I start? I have spent more hours on crossover design in the past 2 months than you've can possibly imagine. Nearly every waking moment when I'm not at work or not eating has been spent in front of my laptop modeling crossovers with a variety of FRD and ZMA files I've traced with random drivers that supply those graphs. You might also notice that on PE, I actually take advice from people. Funny how that works.

But if it makes you feel better to look up my screen name on PartsExpress to see what I've done to try to find dirt on me, then go ahead. Shows some real character.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

XtremeRevolution said:


> Just so we're on the same page (as if it even matters anymore?), what do you think my goals are for this project? I haven't yet found one person who understands what they are. In 8 pages, not a single one.


Simple. You're designing a protection circuit for tweeters and establishing a LPF to mate a mid with the tweeter 

MFGs do this with their component crossovers. 

In 8 pages I can't believe you're missing what I'm trying to tell you. There is no single solution for everyone. 

Want a good example? Look at alpine's F1 component crossovers with all the adjustment opportunities for the end user to tweak the final response. They're the only company I've seen do more than just providing a tweeter attenuation (which, surprisingly, you've not seemed to mention and is the least I would provide the end user). If you have mentioned this, I apologize in advance. I'm not going to read 8 pages to hunt it down, though.


----------



## Fricasseekid (Apr 19, 2011)

XtremeRevolution said:


> I can quote personal attack if you really want me to. Have you read this thread? I can hardly call some of this discussion. You'd have to live in a pretty hostile area if you call that discussion. This has long ago gone past what the OP's goals are.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I call ********! In the other thread "cheap active" was never your original stance. You may have gone back and changed it to save face. I don't care though, cause I've been following both threads the whole time and your original stance was (and to paraphrase) that your passive network would be gods gift to audio and anyone who owns the RK6 components.


----------



## minbari (Mar 3, 2011)

XtremeRevolution said:


> Enclosure =/= door. Want me to run a WT3 on my speaker in the door and out of the door. $50 says the readings will be the same. My door is essentially a free air environment. Frequency response will naturally change, but impedance won't.



yes please. add it to the 2 or 3 other things you said you were gonna prove to me and never have


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

XtremeRevolution said:


> Enclosure =/= door. Want me to run a WT3 on my speaker in the door and out of the door. $50 says the readings will be the same.


I would not make that bet if I were you without specifying a margin of deviation and as a hint I would make that margin considerably larger than that of the build tolerances of the drivers.

In other words the ceiling fan in my shop simply moving air can alter the WT3 readings.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

bikinpunk said:


> Simple. You're designing a protection circuit for tweeters and establishing a LPF to mate a mid with the tweeter
> 
> MFGs do this with their component crossovers.
> 
> ...


Just because I didn't mention it, doesn't mean it wasn't planned. I do think that somewhere, I mentioned giving people options on resistor choices on the tweeter to suit their preference on how warm or bright they want them to sound. 

I'm designing a protection circuit, I'm damping the tweeter, I'm applying a zobel to shape frequency response if necessary, and I'm applying an LCR, tank, or notch filter if I find that there's a cone resonance or breakup that needs to be addressed. Is that better?


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

chad said:


> I would not make that bet if I were you without specifying a margin of deviation and as a hint I would make that margin considerably larger than that of the build tolerances of the drivers.
> 
> In other words the ceiling fan in my shop simply moving air can alter the WT3 readings.


Send me a PM so I don't forget.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

Fricasseekid said:


> I call ********! In the other thread "cheap active" was never your original stance. You may have gone back and changed it to save face. I don't care though, cause I've been following both threads the whole time and your original stance was (and to paraphrase) that your passive network would be gods gift to audio and anyone who owns the RK6 components.


You can call ******** all you want. I never modified my posts in that thread. Clarified, perhaps. Learned, perhaps, but didn't modify what I originally stated. 

Now you're just being rude, and I haven't done a damn thing recently to cause that. Your paraphrase is insulting at best. 

I keep telling people not to lose sight of what my goals are. Now I'm 100% sure you never knew what they were.


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

I don't utilize the PM services here.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

XtremeRevolution said:


> Enclosure =/= door. Want me to run a WT3 on my speaker in the door and out of the door. $50 says the readings will be the same. My door is essentially a free air environment. Frequency response will naturally change, but impedance won't.


*That is flat out wrong. 
*

Hell, even the force placed on the drivers from the screws holding it in change the impedance. Not to mention the the geometry of the enclosure and the mounting method
I did a test like this years back and also one for sbwoofers to show the effect of doors shut, open, etc. 
The results absolutely differ. I posted the data here and some of these guys may remember seeing it. I've since deleted a lit from my photobucket acct but might be able to find the thread if I get a chance to search for it later.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

chad said:


> I would not make that bet if I were you without specifying a margin of deviation and as a hint I would make that margin considerably larger than that of the build tolerances of the drivers.
> 
> In other words the ceiling fan in my shop simply moving air can alter the WT3 readings.


Between people that have tested drivers, it should be assumed that there's a margin of error or deviation. It should also be assumed that inconsequential differences within a given margin of error are irrelevant. If those are not assumed, you're just arguing with my poor choice of words, not with the point I'm trying to make.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

chad said:


> I don't utilize the PM services here.


Then I guess I'm going to forget about it shortly.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

bikinpunk said:


> *That is flat out wrong.
> *
> I did a test like this years back and also one for sbwoofers to show the effect of doors shut, open, etc.
> The results absolutely differ. I posted the data here and some of these guys may remember seeing it. I've since deleted a lit from my photobucket acct but might be able to find the thread if I get a chance to search for it later.


I'll make the measurements when I run the RTA for the drivers. If you're right, I'll stand corrected. If not, well nobody will give a crap because nothing I really say has any bearing anyway.


----------



## el_chupo_ (May 27, 2007)

XtremeRevolution said:


> Alright, this is where things get frustrating. Define what you think a passive crossover does. Also define what you think would be the difference between one I will make and the one that came with my component set. I'm tired of giving people answers that don't answer their questions.



Really? Ill take it to Wiki for this one:
*Audio crossovers *are a class of electronic filter used in audio applications.
*Electronic filters* are electronic circuits which perform signal processing functions, specifically to remove unwanted frequency components from the signal, to enhance wanted ones, or both. 
A *passive crossover* is made entirely of passive components

So lets put it all together - A passive crossover is an electronic filter using passive components to perform signal processing functions, specifically removing unwanted frequency components from the signal.

The difference between yours and the included one - different components.

Still does not address the points of my post. You seem good at deflecting when you have no answer. It still boils down to:



me said:


> Meh. At the end of the day, you are still throwing a generic passive crossover, designed for one persons car, speaker placement, and ideas into something it wasnt designed for. Just like every other generic passive crossover, designed for a generic car and speaker placement.
> 
> Thats the whole point. Its not a custom solution for anyone but you.
> 
> Hence, the proposed idea that after you do all your measurements, you give out the crossover points and slopes for the passive you design for your car, and with a DSP unit a person can start working on their car, making adjustments to their active crossover to set it up for them, in their car, with their speaker placements.


And guess what? With a DSP, that L-Pad you plan on adding for the tweeter - it can be handled by the dsp program. You can change output levels


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

el_chupo_ said:


> Really? Ill take it to Wiki for this one:
> *Audio crossovers *are a class of electronic filter used in audio applications.
> *Electronic filters* are electronic circuits which perform signal processing functions, specifically to remove unwanted frequency components from the signal, to enhance wanted ones, or both.
> A *passive crossover* is made entirely of passive components
> ...


I didn't ask you what you thought the definition was in order to have to look it up on wiki with the search bar in the top right of your browser. I asked you to make sure we were on the same page. 

The difference between mine an the included one is precisely different components, and a few additions. The reason why I asked is to point out that its not really a custom solution at all, but in reality, its a solution that fixes the issues present in the current crossover that makes the tweeter sound so absolutely terrible, and includes a few tweaks for frequency response shaping if there's a need for it. How I plan about doing this is an entirely different discussion that people seem to have taken the liberty to assume, and wrongfully so in many instances.

I know what you can do with a DSP.


----------



## ChrisB (Jul 3, 2008)

sqnut said:


> Passive sucks, period. End of sentence.


Actually, properly designing a passive setup for a mobile environment sucks. I know someone locally who used his LEAP analysis setup to custom build passives in his older F150 AFTER the drivers were installed where he wanted them. I could also use LspCAD to accomplish the same relative outcome, give or take.

My only problem with putting so much time into passive development is that thing called Murphy's law. Murphy's law dictates that I will roast a driver and not be able to obtain an approximate replacement, therefore making all my hours spent on building the passive network moot. Also, there is nothing like starting over from scratch if I want to try a different combination of drivers.

In the end, I found active was just the easier way to go for my particular needs. While it may not be perfect, it is good enough for the mobile environment!


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

XtremeRevolution said:


> I'll make the measurements when I run the RTA for the drivers. If you're right, I'll stand corrected. If not, well nobody will give a crap because nothing I really say has any bearing anyway.


You don't have to. I've already proved it. In numerous applications, nonetheless. Unfortunately, I've since deleted all my test results off PB. Dammit. But, here are the posts, to which I've left the links in so you don't try to call BS even though they're no longer valid.

These are all from 2009. I'm sure some things below may not be completely the same way I understood it then but regardless, the posts tell the story of a changing impedance curve in doors, and IB in the trunk as well as compression force of screws. 

I've also offered up my wt3 for people to test their doors with to get an idea of what kind of Qts they should shop for when looking at drivers.


*The first is Alan (BigAl205) woofer in door/free-air results.* He may remember more about this than I do. It's been a while.



me said:


> Here's some results from testing Alan's Polk Momo db6501's.
> 
> #1 = Free Air on bench
> #2 = Mounted to door, door open
> ...


*Compression force of screws on driver impedance:*


me said:


> Rain this week, ftw!
> That means I have an excuse for not laying sod, so I can actually start working on my car.
> 
> I used the woofer tester last night on one of my midranges and had some interesting results.
> ...



*IB woofer impedance testing with various situations (ie: doors shut, doors open, windows down, trunk open, empty, filled, etc, etc, etc)
*


me said:


> Thanks to Gary for letting me borrow his woofer tester 3. I plan to use this sometime next month to help fine tune some enclosures. Just wanted to tinker with it today, though to see how it does. Also, I wanted to see just what would happen if I added things to either side of the baffle and see which caused the most effect.
> 
> Starting off with midbassed only. Will do IB configs tomorrow or later tonight.
> 
> ...


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

continued from above....






me said:


> continued from above...
> 
> Testing the IB wall with (2) AE 15's wired in parallel.
> 
> ...






Next time, before you make a bet your bank account can't support, think about what you're saying. 
It's utter ******** and anyone with any experience in this regard knows this. I'm not attacking you. Just your outlandish claims.

So, do you want my PP info to send the $50 to? I've accepted your bet. 
Here you go:
hardisj @ gmail.com

Send away, dude. I need the coin to purchase a new PC mobo for future testing. 

TIA! 

- Erin


----------



## AAAAAAA (Oct 5, 2007)

XR, did you ever even listen to those RK's?


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

bikinpunk said:


> continued from above....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I stand corrected. At least I can say I've learned something from this thread. How well sealed was that door? A shift of 5 ohms is huge.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

AAAAAAA said:


> XR, did you ever even listen to those RK's?


Yeah, I have them installed in my car right now. I have a 7 band Clarion EQ that I put in there a while back and I have all frequencies above 2.2khz tuned down severely, and the tweeter running off axis in the kicks. That's coming from a guy who likes his speakers on the bright side. The degree to which these tweeters sound harsh is something you have to hear for yourself. I'm even considering finding another tweeter to use on the off chance that its the tweeter's fault and not the crossover, but some have noted good results with adding a parallel resistor, so I'm not sure what to believe till I get some measurements. Either way, something is seriously wrong with the way its all set up from the factory and people need at least one decent option that doesn't have the word "active" in it. God knows there are enough people running passives happily for them to be a viable choice.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

XtremeRevolution said:


> I stand corrected. At least I can say I've learned something from this thread. How well sealed was that door? A shift of 5 ohms is huge.


FYI: I edited your post because I screwed up my quotes and had to fix it... you got in before I got the fix. 
I just edited my extra "/quote" out. Didn't change what you said. 


I don't recall. Honestly, that was 2 years ago (or thereabouts). 


I'm saying, though, dude... send me the $50.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

bikinpunk said:


> FYI: I edited your post because I screwed up my quotes and had to fix it... you got in before I got the fix.
> I just edited my extra "/quote" out. Didn't change what you said.
> 
> 
> ...


Fortunately it wasn't you I made the bet with. Either way, I'd only send you monopoly money. 

That being said, I would imagine how well a door is sealed may make a significant difference.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

Figures.

*kicks dirt*


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

bikinpunk said:


> Figures.
> 
> *kicks dirt*


Want some free drivers instead? I have no use for them. I have 4 Peerless India 3" buyout drivers I have no use for. Paid ~$5 for each.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

XR :

1. Your attitude sucks. You're pompous, ignorant and juvenile. (I'm being polite here)

2. Your knowledge is limited. Your knowledge of CAR audio is virtually zero. Remember car audio and HT/2ch home home audio are totally different..

3. You have an over inflated sense of your worth.

4. There are about a handful of guys here whose cars I would die to listen to. Yours is certainly not one of them.

This is based on reading all 9 painful pages of this thread. To be fair FK has an attitude too.


----------



## trojan fan (Nov 4, 2007)

Fricasseekid said:


> XR. I know you recently bought all your equipment with donations from here, but how did you design build the dozen bad ass passive networks before that?
> 
> Cause two months ago..... (and everyone should check this out): Need help designing a crossover - Techtalk Speaker Building, Audio, Video, and Electronics Customer Discussion Forum From Parts-Express.com



Smells like fraud oliceman:


----------



## el_chupo_ (May 27, 2007)

You can send Minbari the funds, since he accepted your bet. Proof is proof, and it has been provided.


----------



## AAAAAAA (Oct 5, 2007)

XtremeRevolution said:


> Yeah, I have them installed in my car right now. I have a 7 band Clarion EQ that I put in there a while back and I have all frequencies above 2.2khz tuned down severely, and the tweeter running off axis in the kicks. That's coming from a guy who likes his speakers on the bright side. The degree to which these tweeters sound harsh is something you have to hear for yourself. ....


I know them quite well, I reviewed them when they came out, posted TS parameters etc. (Same tweet as the CK set)

I like those tweets, I have been through many different tweets and I find them to be pretty solid. The xover is indeed crap, but I can't say the RK mid is all that great either IMO.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

sqnut said:


> XR :
> 
> 1. Your attitude sucks. You're pompous, ignorant and juvenile. (I'm being polite here)
> 
> ...


Thanks for your input? I don't like listening to my car either. The crossover on the RK6 sucks and the whole thing sounds terrible. 

I'm many things. Lookign back, I can see how I could be pompous. It comes with the way I write online and I've been told this before. Ignorant is one thing I'm not. Stubborn perhaps, but not ignorant. 

I don't really have much of a sense of worth. If anything, I often wonder if what I do is actually worth anything to anyone or if I'm wasting my time. I'm also being consistently reminded how little my contributions actually matter, so its not too hard to lose sight of that. I've been on the verge of quitting on a few occasions, but that would be juvenile.


----------



## Rudeboy (Oct 16, 2005)

XtremeRevolution said:


> Fortunately it wasn't you I made the bet with. Either way, I'd only send you monopoly money.
> 
> That being said, I would imagine how well a door is sealed may make a significant difference.


Incorrect:



> Enclosure =/= door. Want me to run a WT3 on my speaker in the door and out of the door. $50 says the readings will be the same. My door is essentially a free air environment. Frequency response will naturally change, but impedance won't.


No one specified, open to all. You made the challenge now act like an adult or STFU.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

trojan fan said:


> Smells like fraud oliceman:


Did you read my reply?


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

Rudeboy said:


> Incorrect:
> 
> 
> 
> No one specified, open to all. You made the challenge now act like an adult or STFU.


Wow. I can see where you got your screen name.


----------



## el_chupo_ (May 27, 2007)

XtremeRevolution said:


> Yeah, I have them installed in my car right now. I have a 7 band Clarion EQ that I put in there a while back and I have all frequencies above 2.2khz tuned down severely, and the tweeter running off axis in the kicks. That's coming from a guy who likes his speakers on the bright side. The degree to which these tweeters sound harsh is something you have to hear for yourself. I'm even considering finding another tweeter to use on the off chance that its the tweeter's fault and not the crossover, but some have noted good results with adding a parallel resistor, so I'm not sure what to believe till I get some measurements. Either way, something is seriously wrong with the way its all set up from the factory and people need at least one decent option that doesn't have the word "active" in it. God knows there are enough people running passives happily for them to be a viable choice.




You have A 7band EQ. You have 40-50 bucks to spend on crossover components (assuming it is perfect the first time, and you dont need to make changes). Why not just sell the EQ, dont buy the components, and you should be most of the way to buying a Mini DSP. 

Then you can use your measurement equipment and laptop you already have to fine tune the kit, and provide that info for others.

Seems like a pretty inexpensive way to get into active processing, and still keep lots of EQ options, and get some time alignment options in there as well.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

el_chupo_ said:


> You have A 7band EQ. You have 40-50 bucks to spend on crossover components (assuming it is perfect the first time, and you dont need to make changes). Why not just sell the EQ, dont buy the components, and you should be most of the way to buying a Mini DSP.
> 
> Then you can use your measurement equipment and laptop you already have to fine tune the kit, and provide that info for others.
> 
> Seems like a pretty inexpensive way to get into active processing, and still keep lots of EQ options, and get some time alignment options in there as well.


Don't think I haven't considered that option, and don't think I'm not still considering it. I have 3 more 2-channel amps sitting around at home, and I could make a miniDSP happen in no time. I even have two Dayton ND65 drivers I could use for a 3-way. I could sell that EQ for probably $20-$25, and offset the $50 for the crossover parts and the dozen hours of time I could spend doing something else, it really is a no brainer, especially with the amount of car audio I could put up for sale.

The only problem is (and I'll get flak for this for sure), is that I'm not the only one with this problem, and I told people I'd design them a better crossover. If I go active, I'll get better results, but I might never get the passive done. Despite what people might think I am, I genuinely want to help.


----------



## Rudeboy (Oct 16, 2005)

XtremeRevolution said:


> Wow. I can see where you got your screen name.


You know it comes from the name of a dog I used to have? Weirdly perceptive. Even so, it really doesn't get any more basic than walking away from a bet.


----------



## minbari (Mar 3, 2011)

el_chupo_ said:


> You can send Minbari the funds, since he accepted your bet. Proof is proof, and it has been provided.


I like how you think


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

Rudeboy said:


> You know it comes from the name of a dog I used to have? Weirdly perceptive. Even so, it really doesn't get any more basic than walking away from a bet.


Well I'm walking away from this one because 

A. it was said out of a whim to make a point and not directed at anyone in particular
B. the results would vary based on environment

On that note, everyone on this forum could potentially flood my mailbox with demands for $50 with a copy to bikinpunk's post. Not exactly fair.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

Well, I accepted the bet and provided proof.


----------



## MiniVanMan (Jun 28, 2005)

XtremeRevolution said:


> Some on my own, and some with help from other people. You really think I publish all of my designs? You really think I do zero research before I start? I have spent more hours on crossover design in the past 2 months than you've can possibly imagine. Nearly every waking moment when I'm not at work or not eating has been spent in front of my laptop modeling crossovers with a variety of FRD and ZMA files I've traced with random drivers that supply those graphs. You might also notice that on PE, I actually take advice from people. Funny how that works.


You've designed?? Big difference between "designed" and built and tested.

You've managed to pull quite a few of the old timers back in here over this one. FRD Consortium, which is what you're using has been around for a long time. Extremely useful resource and it's also quite fun if you're inclined toward that sort of thing. As a matter of fact, in 2007 or 2008 I posted an entire thread on designing a crossover from start to finish using the FRD Consortium tools with graphs pictures, as an illustration on how crossovers generally work. I took the graphs down over proprietary concerns on this website but they still exist elsewhere. 

Here's an example of my work, and how a properly laid out thread on building a passive crossover could look. Like you said, nobody really does this sort of thing. http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/diyma-member-build-logs/38490-more-tinkering-santa-fe.html

Again, schematics are taken down so the thread loses some of it's reference points. 

And one last thing. This is DIYMobileAudio, not "LetMeDoThatForYouAudio". So, when you make the statement 



> Hey, here's a better idea, how about I don't make that an option at all! Just have everyone do it themselves instead. Nevermind the fact that I'll already have spent at least dozen hours designing and tweaking the damn thing for free.


I say, ummmmm, yeah, it's *DIY*MobileAudio. They sure as hell should do it themselves and you are not entitled to an income here. I think you've been told that as well, or are at least aware of the regulations concerning income on this website. The government is also very interested in "incomes". They really don't care if you've made a profit or not. 



> Professionals actually don't need to explain in great detail how they do things. Sometimes their work speaks for itself.


*SAY WHAT!!???????* What world are you living in? It's not one where you've actually worked in a professional field that's for sure. Especially a technical one. You can't possibly understand how many regulating authorities are out there. In fact, probably the number one thing that separates a professional from an amateur is accountability for their work. Damnit son! That's what being a professional MEANS!!


----------



## Rudeboy (Oct 16, 2005)

XtremeRevolution said:


> Well I'm walking away from this one because
> 
> A. it was said out of a whim to make a point and not directed at anyone in particular
> B. the results would vary based on environment
> ...


So you're willing to admit and have it recorded for posterity that you have no integrity and nothing you say has anything behind it? For $50? Obviously a stupid bet to have made in the first place, but nobody forced you into it. "A", "B" and sub-"B" are irrelevant and frivolous. Donate the money to charity and everybody will be happy. Are you 12? How did you come up with $50 in the first place?

Take me seriously! Take me seriously! Just kidding.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

MiniVanMan said:


> You've designed?? Big difference between "designed" and built and tested.
> 
> You've managed to pull quite a few of the old timers back in here over this one. FRD Consortium, which is what you're using has been around for a long time. Extremely useful resource and it's also quite fun if you're inclined toward that sort of thing. As a matter of fact, in 2007 or 2008 I posted an entire thread on designing a crossover from start to finish using the FRD Consortium tools with graphs pictures, as an illustration on how crossovers generally work. I took the graphs down over proprietary concerns on this website but they still exist elsewhere.
> 
> ...


With regard to professionals, there are instances where that isn't true. The one where I design and build speakers and people pay me money for them is one of those. Obviously, that's not always the case, so its probably correct for either of us to make it a blanket statement, let alone use it as a reason to argue. 

I'm not really using FRD consortium much. I didn't make much use of any of the tutorials, and the tools are a bit unnecessary, though the tools I'm using have a link on there as well. JBagby's software is all I use. 

As for built not designed, I've built at least half of the crossovers I've designed and ran them in test boxes. I have too many empty and unfinished MDF boxes than I can count that I've used for testing drivers and crossovers. The problem I have is that I have to constantly clarify everything I have to say. If everyone's here to nitpick every little detail they can find, I get the feeling I really shouldn't be here.

That being said, thanks for the link. If I still decide to make this crossover after all of this ********, I'll be taking whatever information I can from that thread to help me.


----------



## Fricasseekid (Apr 19, 2011)

sqnut said:


> XR :
> 
> 1. Your attitude sucks. You're pompous, ignorant and juvenile. (I'm being polite here)
> 
> ...


I don't always have an attitude. I don't know enough. I'm actually pretty congenial. Im just quick to call BS when I smell it. If that makes me an *******, then eh... oh well. Been called worse!


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

Rudeboy said:


> So you're willing to admit and have it recorded for posterity that you have no integrity and nothing you say has anything behind it? For $50? Obviously a stupid bet to have made in the first place, but nobody forced you into it. "A", "B" and sub-"B" are irrelevant and frivolous. Donate the money to charity and everybody will be happy. Are you 12? How did you come up with $50 in the first place?
> 
> Take me seriously! Take me seriously! Just kidding.


No, that was your conclusion, and an idiotic one at that. You know damn well it wasn't a serious bet and it was something people use conversationally on a daily basis. You're being an unnecessary ass about it and I'd like you to stop. 

Donate the money to charity? Right. Because I don't already do enough for charitable causes on this board. I haven't already donated enough of my time, resources, money, and life, now I have to "honor" a $50 "bet" that you know perfectly well wasn't serious, just to give yourself another reason to insult me. 

I hope it makes you sleep better at night.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

Fricasseekid said:


> I don't always have an attitude. I don't know enough. I'm actually pretty congenial. Im just quick to call BS when I smell it. If that makes me an *******, then eh... oh well. Been called worse!


You've called more than just BS, especially when it hasn't been there. You've refused to acknowledge there have been misunderstandings, and you've taken things to unnecessary levels with zero authority to do so. 

I can be an ******* too, but I try my best not to.


----------



## Fricasseekid (Apr 19, 2011)

XtremeRevolution said:


> No, that was your conclusion, and an idiotic one at that. You know damn well it wasn't a serious bet and it was something people use conversationally on a daily basis. You're being an unnecessary ass about it and I'd like you to stop.
> 
> Donate the money to charity? Right. Because I don't already do enough for charitable causes on this board. I haven't already donated enough of my time, resources, money, and life, now I have to "honor" a $50 "bet" that you know perfectly well wasn't serious, just to give yourself another reason to insult me.
> 
> I hope it makes you sleep better at night.


In this post I counted 2 personal attacks, 4 uses of sarcasm, 2 times you implied what you thought the original poster meant (out of context), 1 time you admitted to the use of frivolous claims ($50) that had no weight, and nothing of value whatsoever. 

Most of your posts are like this.


These are all the things your always bitching about others doing I might add.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

Fricasseekid said:


> In this post I counted 2 personal attacks, 4 uses of sarcasm, 2 times you implied what you thought the original poster meant (out of context), 1 time you admitted to the use of frivolous claims ($50) that had no weight, and nothing of value whatsoever.
> 
> Most of your posts are like this.
> 
> ...


Hey, you want me to leave? Say the word. I think I've spent enough energy on this thread and very likely on this forum as well.


----------



## Fricasseekid (Apr 19, 2011)

XtremeRevolution said:


> Hey, you want me to leave? Say the word. I think I've spent enough energy on this thread and very likely on this forum as well.


No! You don't get me at all. 

I want you to practice some humility, learn from what others are telling you, and become a more valued member of this forum for it. 

Until you learn to do those things, I guess I wouldn't mind if you didn't post in my threads any more.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Fricasseekid said:


> No! You don't get me at all.
> 
> I want you to practice some humility, learn from what others are telling you, and become a more valued member of this forum for it.
> 
> Until you learn to do those things, I guess I wouldn't mind if you didn't post in my threads any more.


And it would help if you calmed the F down.


----------



## Rudeboy (Oct 16, 2005)

XtremeRevolution said:


> No, that was your conclusion, and an idiotic one at that. You know damn well it wasn't a serious bet and it was something people use conversationally on a daily basis. You're being an unnecessary ass about it and I'd like you to stop.
> 
> Donate the money to charity? Right. Because I don't already do enough for charitable causes on this board. I haven't already donated enough of my time, resources, money, and life, now I have to "honor" a $50 "bet" that you know perfectly well wasn't serious, just to give yourself another reason to insult me.
> 
> I hope it makes you sleep better at night.


Incorrect again. "Wanna bet?" is a figure of speech. "I'll bet you $50 you can't prove me wrong" is a wager. Being forced to pay off frivolous bets is how children learn not to make them. 

I've been reading this thread and debating in my mind whether you are a serious person with something useful to contribute or just a big mouthed hustler pretending to be helpful. We may see the world in very different ways, but the only way I can interpret your response is that you don't have $50. From that I conclude that you can't be old enough to have acquired anything close to the expertise you'd need to back up your statements. 

Arrogance is unattractive in anyone. It can be ignored if the person exhibiting the behavior brings enough to the table to ignore the negatives. Certainly not worth dealing with when it's just a cover for ignorance. I want the 50 bucks for the time I've wasted reading your drivel.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

Fricasseekid said:


> No! You don't get me at all.
> 
> I want you to practice some humility, learn from what others are telling you, and become a more valued member of this forum for it.
> 
> Until you learn to do those things, I guess I wouldn't mind if you didn't post in my threads any more.


Alright, I'll be perfectly honest with you. 

I have no ****ing clue how this all blew out of proportions. I've gone back 3 times to review my posts to figure out where the hell I deserved to be treated like ****, and here's what I found. 

I stated things that weren't clear enough, and got called out on it. I clarified them, and they were left alone. 

I acted very proudly stating that I could design a good passive crossover. Others begged to differ and argued irrelevant points. I had to repeat myself dozens of times. That became increasingly frustrating. 

I came in here to help and thought too highly that I could do so. Call it being arrogant, call it having an ego, I thought I was being determind. If I say I'm going to make a kickass passive crossover, even to protect my pride, I will go through stupid lengths to make it happen for the people I promised it to. I will spend hours of my time learning what I need to in order to make it happen as well as possible, and if I end up finding out that I cannot, I ALWAYS stand corrected and apologize to those who I made the promises. 

Once I got irritated enough with how things were going and with the kind of responses that were being given, it started to show in the way I responded. I'm not the only one guilty of it, though I'm obviously guilty of it. 

I got even more irritated when I started getting responses regarding my crossover from people who clearly had no knowledge of passive crossover design. I'm no expert on the topic, but when you've done the research and you know something for a fact, you don't take well to people arguing with you about it, and it only causes you (more specifically me) to step on a pedestal and talk down because you know for a fact you know what you're talking about. There's a difference between thinking highly of yourself (which given the amount I've accomplished in the last 2 months, I admittedly do on occasion), and telling someone off out of sheer frustration because they're arguing with you on a topic they have little to no understanding of. 

Humility? You were the first to doubt that I could get this done in a timely fashion. I claimed I knew what I was doing to try to give you some confidence that I would actually pull through. I don't take failure as an option, even if I have to tweak a crossover for each individual person who needs the help. That all went to **** when I went from a position of being proud of what I thought I could do (naturally haven been given no chance to actually prove myself) to a position where I had to defend myself. I don't like having to defend myself. In fact, I am 10x more aggressive and irritable when I have to defend myself. To add insult (literally) to injury, I don't exactly understand how any resemblance of a humble response was expected from me when every damn thing I said was instantly shot down by someone who didn't even care to read the entire thread. So I responded in kind, and it went back and forth right up until this post, where it ends. 

I've learned too much about my own bad side and seen enough of everyone else's bad side. What started out as an attempt to help you turned into a ****fest. There's no denying that I had absolutely nothing to gain from this. Instead, its caused me more frustration than I care to mention. This is not what I signed up for when I posted in this thread. If you had a shred of decency you'd realize why I came here in the first place, and it was not to inflate my ego regardless of how you might see it.

This is the part where I keep my word in exiting this thread. Thanks to all who gladly and willingly participated in the drama.


----------



## AAAAAAA (Oct 5, 2007)

XtremeRevolution said:


> You know damn well it wasn't a serious bet and it was something people use conversationally on a daily basis. You're being an unnecessary ass about it and I'd like you to stop.


I don't think anyone knew '"damn well" you were kidding. I sure didn't.

The only guys that speak like that on a "daily basis" are BSers... you throw that kinda BS talk like that daily? Crazy....


----------



## chefhow (Apr 29, 2007)

XR, the OP asked for help going active, you came in talking about using passive xovers taking the thread where it wasnt intended to go. I offered up the MiniDSP and you shot it down saying that it wasnt cost effective. I gave a way it was, and again shot it down again saying your way was better, that is where it got out of control and you let a mole hill turn into a mountain by not leaving well enough alone.


----------



## minbari (Mar 3, 2011)

chefhow said:


> XR, the OP asked for help going active, you came in talking about using passive xovers taking the thread where it wasnt intended to go. I offered up the MiniDSP and you shot it down saying that it wasnt cost effective. I gave a way it was, and again shot it down again saying your way was better, that is where it got out of control and you let a mole hill turn into a mountain by not leaving well enough alone.


x10 on that! 

take a look at page 3 where I suggested that the miniDSP might be more cost effective since it is only $50 more than passives.............I get attacked for it...............downward spiral from there, lol.


----------



## MiniVanMan (Jun 28, 2005)

XtremeRevolution said:


> With regard to professionals, there are instances where that isn't true. The one where I design and build speakers and people pay me money for them is one of those. Obviously, that's not always the case, so its probably correct for either of us to make it a blanket statement, let alone use it as a reason to argue.


You are not a professional. Taking money for a skill that you're barely capable of is called a scam artist. Receiving money for a service does not automatically entitle you to professional status. Plenty of professionals that don't make money doing what they do. Money is not an indicating factor of professional status. Expertise is the most defining factor. 

Doctors are professionals. Engineers are professionals, Teachers are professionals, firefighters are professionals, police are professionals and even the military has a professional code of ethics that holds members accountable for their professionalism. All have one very strong commonality. They are ALL held accountable for their actions. They ALL have to report, and explain their actions. 

You know who doesn't like being accountable? Scam artists. Scam artists shun accountability so they can make a quick buck. Scam artists hide behind fancy words with no substance. 

Now imagine a world where there was no accountability for professionals? Every product you bought would be subject to question. Instead, professionals are questioned from the outset so that their work isn't questioned later after it's too late. 

You want to be a professional? You want to be taken seriously? Take your lumps, and learn. Want to play with circuits and zappy things, go to college, or join the military or trade school. Get educated, and while getting educated, educate yourself. Until then, you're an amateur. There is nothing wrong with that.

I'm an amateur audio DIY enthusiast. I'm a professional engineer working in the field of nuclear magnetic resonance. I have a lot of qualifications that say I should be able to build a pretty damn solid passive crossover, but I'm only an amateur in that regard. The difference is I'm held to an extremely high standard of ethics, and accountability in my professional career. 

You're arguing with the big boys here. We're all DIY audio enthusiasts, but you've pulled REAL career professionals into this conversation that are trying to tell you to curb the attitude and ego. You've got potential. There's not a person here that's throwing stones at you that wouldn't take you on in an internship type role based purely on your motivation. What's keeping you back is your damn ego, stubbornness, and arrogance. I can teach a lot more to one motivated person than I can teach to one college graduate that thinks they know it all. 

Take your motivation to learn, and shut down your mouth and ego for a bit and get some real training under your belt. A highly trained and motivated individual is the core essence of what a true professional is. [/QUOTE]


----------



## Fricasseekid (Apr 19, 2011)

In all fairness: the definition of professional is anyone who makes a living performing a skill set, ie. gets paid for a task. 

There are lots of professionals who do **** work. Especially in the HVAC field.


----------



## minbari (Mar 3, 2011)

Fricasseekid said:


> In all fairness: the definition of professional is anyone who makes a living performing a skill set, ie. gets paid for a task.
> 
> There are lots of professionals who do **** work. Especially in the HVAC field.


not sure i would buy that. is a burger flipper a professional? they get paid money to fulfill a skillset, but I wouldnt call them a professional.

its the difference between a job and a career

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Career_vs_Job


----------



## MiniVanMan (Jun 28, 2005)

Fricasseekid said:


> In all fairness: the definition of professional is anyone who makes a living performing a skill set, ie. gets paid for a task.
> 
> There are lots of professionals who do **** work. Especially in the HVAC field.


Are they seen as "professionals" by their peers, or are they just "****ty workers"? 

To me, "professional" has always be a title granted by your peers. A customer may say that someone showed great "professionalism". Either way, ****ty work has never led to the title of professional given by either peer or customer. 

Somebody may see themselves as a professional, but my whole point is it's not the individual who decides if they're a professional or not.


----------



## Fricasseekid (Apr 19, 2011)

minbari said:


> not sure i would buy that. is a burger flipper a professional? they get paid money to fulfill a skillset, but I wouldnt call them a professional.
> 
> its the difference between a job and a career
> 
> http://www.diffen.com/difference/Career_vs_Job


pro·fes·sion·al
[pruh-fesh-uh-nl]

- adjective
1.
following an occupation as a means of livelihood or for gain: a professional builder.
2.
of, pertaining to, or connected with a profession: professional studies.
3.
appropriate to a profession: professional objectivity.
4.
engaged in one of the learned professions: A lawyer is a professional person.
5.
following as a business an occupation ordinarily engaged in as a pastime: a professional golfer.
6.
making a business or constant practice of something not properly to be regarded as a business: “A salesman,” he said, “is a professional optimist.”
7.
undertaken or engaged in as a means of livelihood or for gain: professional baseball.
8.
of or for a professional person or his or her place of business or work: a professional apartment; professional equipment.
9.
done by a professional; expert: professional car repairs.


----------



## Fricasseekid (Apr 19, 2011)

Yes the term professional has a connotation of "quality" to it. But by definition it simply implies that one makes a living doing something.


----------



## minbari (Mar 3, 2011)

not trying to split hairs (although this convo seems to have taken a new directions, lol ) 


```
professional
[pruh-fesh-uh-nl]   Origin Like this word?
pro·fes·sion·al
   [pruh-fesh-uh-nl] Show IPA
adjective
1.
following an occupation as a means of livelihood or for gain: a professional builder.
2.
of, pertaining to, or connected with a profession: professional studies.
3.
appropriate to a profession: professional objectivity.
4.
engaged in one of the learned professions: A lawyer is a professional person.
5.
following as a business an occupation ordinarily engaged in as a pastime: a professional golfer. 

profession
[pruh-fesh-uhn]   Origin Like this word?
pro·fes·sion
   [pruh-fesh-uhn] Show IPA
noun
1.
a vocation requiring knowledge of some department of learning or science: the profession of teaching. Compare learned profession.
2.
any vocation or business.
3.
the body of persons engaged in an occupation or calling: to be respected by the medical profession.
```
so to be a professional, you have to be working in a profession. burger flipper doesnt qualify.

I have had plenty of jobs that paid the bills, I wuoldnt call myself a professional at those jobs. again, it is splitting hairs.


----------



## Fricasseekid (Apr 19, 2011)

minbari said:


> not trying to split hairs (although this convo seems to have taken a new directions, lol )
> 
> 
> ```
> ...


So I guess it depends on rather or not you consider burger flipping a skill set requiring knowledge! Lol

What if you were the head chef at a restaurant that sells gourmet burgers?


----------



## Fricasseekid (Apr 19, 2011)

Is a ****ty lawyer a professional? 

What about a plumber who makes a living but isn't good at his job?

What about an engineer who sucks at math but still manages to retain a job?


----------



## minbari (Mar 3, 2011)

lol, I think we could go back and forth forever citing examples. I like minivans definition the best. for those examples. they may believe they work in a proffesion, but are hardly professional

I will leave it at that


----------



## Fricasseekid (Apr 19, 2011)

Fair enough. I was just playing devils advocate anyhow. Lol


----------



## OSN (Nov 19, 2008)

There's a mechanic down the street from me that has a sign that says:

Jim's Auto "Professionals" 

Yes, Professionals in quotes. I laugh every time I see it.


----------



## minbari (Mar 3, 2011)

Fricasseekid said:


> Fair enough. I was just playing devils advocate anyhow. Lol


lol, its one of those words that the definition changes based on the context. hard to pigeon hole into a concrete definition.



> There's a mechanic down the street from me that has a sign that says:
> 
> Jim's Auto "Professionals"
> 
> Yes, Professionals in quotes. I laugh every time I see it.


that is funny. almost making fun of his own business, lol


----------



## ChrisB (Jul 3, 2008)

OSN said:


> There's a mechanic down the street from me that has a sign that says:
> 
> Jim's Auto "Professionals"
> 
> Yes, Professionals in quotes. I laugh every time I see it.


That DEA agent was a "professional" too, but he still shot himself!


----------



## minbari (Mar 3, 2011)

" I am the only one special enough to handle a glock 40 *bang!*"


good thing he is alright. funny stuff.
I like that he uses it as a way to show how NOT to handle guns, lol.


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

All this time I have pruhnouncing professional wrong....


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

minbari said:


> " I am the only one special enough to handle a glock 40 *bang!*"
> 
> 
> good thing he is alright. funny stuff.
> I like that he uses it as a way to show how NOT to handle guns, lol.


Too bad the pruhfessional does not know that Glock does not make a "Glock foetee"

That's likely a Glock 22 or 23


----------



## Darth SQ (Sep 17, 2010)

chad said:


> Too bad the pruhfessional does not know that Glock does not make a "Glock foetee"
> 
> That's likely a Glock 22 or 23


I own a Glock 20 and it's fully active; nothing passive about it. 
Right down to the Black Talons I put in it.

_Further derailing of this thread......_

Bret
PPI-ART COLLECTOR


----------



## Darth SQ (Sep 17, 2010)

How about this rule of thumb:

Going active means never having to say your sorry. 

Bret
PPI-ART COLLECTOR


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

PPI-ART COLLECTOR said:


> I own a Glock 20 and it's fully active; nothing passive about it.
> Right down to the Black Talons I put in it.
> 
> _Further derailing of this thread......_
> ...


I'd love to have a ten millionmeter Glock.. But ammo is scarce for them round these parts.


----------



## Darth SQ (Sep 17, 2010)

chad said:


> I'd love to have a ten millimeter Glock.. But ammo is scarce for them round these parts.


Now that sucks.
How can that be?
I can get them and I live in Cali.

However, I do reload my own for around the ranch plinking.
And in case anyone asks where, I get my components from Dillon Presicion in Scottsdale, AZ.

Bret
PPI-ART COLLECTOR


----------



## Fricasseekid (Apr 19, 2011)

Screw glock. I wouldn't take that junk. 

I'm a springfield man.


----------



## Darth SQ (Sep 17, 2010)

Fricasseekid said:


> Screw glock. I wouldn't take that junk.
> 
> I'm a springfield man.


Really?

Ted Nugent doesn't think so.
The 10mm Glock 20 was his side arm while hunting for decades.

Maybe you should go passive afterall......

Bret
PPI-ART COLLECTOR


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

PPI-ART COLLECTOR said:


> Now that sucks.
> How can that be?
> I can get them and I live in Cali.
> 
> ...


Just not common around here at all and ungodly expensive when you find it.

A buddy and I are going in on a Dillon reloading setup soon. My main interest is .223/5.56 though as the AR should be done this winter. I also have a metric assload of 9mm brass to re-use.



Fricasseekid said:


> Screw glock. I wouldn't take that junk.
> 
> I'm a springfield man.


Ford/Chevy. Yamaha/Kawasaki/Suzuki. Coke/Pepsi... Whatever gets your rocks off.

I'm not one to really criticize one's choice in firearm as long as they are safe, comfortable, and accurate with it... ****, I even own a Hi-Point..... Carbine, I actually dig it too. I do understand one's distaste in glock due to their grip structure... but I dig mine, you dig yours, so **** it, let's go to the range  Nomesayin?


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

XtremeRevolution said:


> The problem I have is that I have to constantly clarify everything I have to say. If everyone's here to nitpick every little detail they can find, I get the feeling I really shouldn't be here.


Don't be silly. You shouldn't feel like you have to leave because people are challenging you. Ignore the ones who you think are being unreasonable. 

If you have a problem expressing your goals and your points clearly, to the point where you have to restate things all the time, then my suggestion is to spend more time formulating what you have to say before submitting it. Your words should stand on their own without the need for clarifying things. You post a lot (so it seems), so my guess is that some of the miscommunication that's occurring between you and the other forum members may just be the result of rushing to get your post out there.

Take your time, dude. Think carefully about what you write (including making bets that you have no plan on honoring!), and half of the problems you're facing will go away. I promise.


----------



## gokiburi (Jul 20, 2007)

Edit


Fricasseekid said:


> Screw glock. I wouldn't take that junk.
> 
> I'm a springfield man.


Don't start.


----------



## Darth SQ (Sep 17, 2010)

MarkZ said:


> Don't be silly. You shouldn't feel like you have to leave because people are challenging you. Ignore the ones who you think are being unreasonable.
> 
> If you have a problem expressing your goals and your points clearly, to the point where you have to restate things all the time, then my suggestion is to spend more time formulating what you have to say before submitting it. Your words should stand on their own without the need for clarifying things. You post a lot (so it seems), so my guess is that some of the miscommunication that's occurring between you and the other forum members may just be the result of rushing to get your post out there.
> 
> Take your time, dude. Think carefully about what you write (including making bets that you have no plan on honoring!), and half of the problems you're facing will go away. I promise.


Bet ya he doesn't do any of those things. 

Bret
PPI-ART COLLECTOR


----------



## Darth SQ (Sep 17, 2010)

chad said:


> Just not common around here at all and ungodly expensive when you find it.
> 
> A buddy and I are going in on a Dillon reloading setup soon. My main interest is .223/5.56 though as the AR should be done this winter. I also have a metric assload of 9mm brass to re-use.
> 
> ...


Make sure to measure the 5.56 neck everytime.
They get thin and don't like to be resized a lot.

Range? I just walk out my back door.
Everyone's invited as long as they bring their own ammo. 

Bret
PPI-ART COLLECTOR


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

minbari said:


> lol, I think we could go back and forth forever citing examples. I like minivans definition the best. for those examples. they may believe they work in a proffesion, but are hardly professional
> 
> I will leave it at that


I like MVM's definition better too.

People have to stop believing that the dictionary is an authority on anything. The dictionary is a guide to give you a very coarse definition of a word, mostly to give people the gist of what a word means when they don't know its meaning. It's not something that should be cited once you pass the 3rd grade.


----------



## Fricasseekid (Apr 19, 2011)

Blah!


----------



## minbari (Mar 3, 2011)

PPI-ART COLLECTOR said:


> Bet ya he doesn't do any of those things.
> 
> Bret
> PPI-ART COLLECTOR


 too funny


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

*blah* noun \ˈblä\

Definition of BLAH
1
also blah–blah : silly or pretentious chatter or nonsense 
2
plural [perhaps influenced in meaning by blasé] : a feeling of boredom, lethargy, or general dissatisfaction 
See blah defined for English-language learners »
Examples of BLAH
She had a bad case of the blahs.
<gave me the usual blah that my manuscript did not meet their current publishing needs but thanks for considering them>
Origin of BLAH
imitative
First Known Use: 1918


----------



## trojan fan (Nov 4, 2007)

PPI-ART COLLECTOR said:


> Really?
> 
> Ted Nugent doesn't think so.
> The 10mm Glock 20 was his side arm while hunting for decades.
> ...



That was funny Bret :laugh:


----------



## Fricasseekid (Apr 19, 2011)

trojan fan said:


> That was funny Bret :laugh:


It made me laugh too.


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

PPI-ART COLLECTOR said:


> Make sure to measure the 5.56 neck everytime.
> They get thin and don't like to be resized a lot.
> 
> Range? I just walk out my back door.
> ...


Will do! Will most likely be running .223 mostly.

I have a range out of my back door too but I work at a university that allows Faculty/Staff use of the police training range for incredibly cheap, as in 30 bucks a year cheap. It's where the cool cats from work hang out a couple times a month so it's a good time.


----------



## Darth SQ (Sep 17, 2010)

chad said:


> Will do! Will most likely be running .223 mostly.
> 
> I have a range out of my back door too but I work at a university that allows Faculty/Staff use of the police training range for incredibly cheap, as in 30 bucks a year cheap. It's where the cool cats from work hang out a couple times a month so it's a good time.


I like it!

Bret
PPI-ART COLLECTOR


----------



## Fricasseekid (Apr 19, 2011)

The reason I was gonna say (I might get sone flamage for this) I like Springfield better is cause glock uses the same frame for most if not all of it's calibers. Springfield designs a balanced frame for everyone one of it's guns. That's why Glock feels like such a cannon when you fire it, not all the energy is delivered down the barrel. 

Glock is a passive crossover and Springfield is the active setup. 

If the $600-800 is your price point and you love Glock you owe it to yourself to go shoot Springfield's XDm, that's one nice gun.


----------



## Darth SQ (Sep 17, 2010)

Fricasseekid said:


> The reason I was gonna say (I might get sone flamage for this) I like Springfield better is cause glock uses the same frame for most if not all of it's calibers. Springfield designs a balanced frame for everyone one of it's guns. That's why Glock feels like such a cannon when you fire it, not all the energy is delivered down the barrel.
> 
> Glock is a passive crossover and Springfield is the active setup.
> 
> If the $600-800 is your price point and you love Glock you owe it to yourself to go shoot Springfield's XDm, that's one nice gun.


Fric,
My 20 is Glock's large frame and holds the 15 round magazine.
Feels similar to an Israel Arms Desert Eaqle in my hand....well maybe not that big. 

Can't buy anymore guns, amps, rc trucks, paperview porn; wife's put her foot down.
And if that foot is wearing stilettos, she wins everytime. 
Besides, any cash after the bills will be needed to pay for my mega install.

BTW, anyone interested in a numbers matching 1939 Winchester model 12 16 gauge?

Bret
PPI-ART COLLECTOR


----------



## Fricasseekid (Apr 19, 2011)

PPI-ART COLLECTOR said:


> Fric,
> My 20 is Glock's large frame and holds the 15 round magazine.
> Feels similar to an Israel Arms Desert Eaqle in my hand....well maybe not that big.
> 
> ...


Its a 20. It'll take all 15 of those rounds to stop a heroin crazed man raper.


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

Fricasseekid said:


> The reason I was gonna say (I might get sone flamage for this) I like Springfield better is cause glock uses the same frame for most if not all of it's calibers. Springfield designs a balanced frame for everyone one of it's guns. That's why Glock feels like such a cannon when you fire it, not all the energy is delivered down the barrel.


Well I agree with you to an extent. But, by the time the slide is put into action the deed is done in terms of muzzle velocity. I'm kind of a believer that Glock only makes one gun.. The 17. And that's what I shoot. I don't really care for the .40.. but the .45 shoots nice IMHO. Hit and miss but looking at loading, etc, it makes sense.



Fricasseekid said:


> Glock is a passive crossover and Springfield is the active setup.


I don't really see it as that, because IF YOU WANT TO the glock is more _active _in that it has more add-ons.. BUT if we are talking about the 1911.. well. even-steven. I honestly rock mine stock. Given that I'm at a police range I get to play with all the mods on everyone else's. 



Fricasseekid said:


> If the $600-800 is your price point and you love Glock you owe it to yourself to go shoot Springfield's XDm, that's one nice gun.


Absolutely, I just personally don't dig them as much.. but hey, as I said... if the shoe fits. 

Another one to look at in that price-range is FNH, I have come to like a few of those too!


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

Fricasseekid said:


> Its a 20. It'll take all 15 of those rounds to stop a heroin crazed man raper.


the 10mm is a potent round mang. Granted some argue the expansion rate of the 9mm and .40 and it's an un-deniable truth that a .45 will never SHRINK... but a 10mm gets right at it.

There is a reason that round was designed.

Crazed man rapists prey on homesteads here.. That's when I use a smaller diameter round... 7.62MM.


----------



## Fricasseekid (Apr 19, 2011)

springfield armory xd tactical 45 acp









Now thats a gun!


----------



## Fricasseekid (Apr 19, 2011)

I hear S&W's M&P is very nice, and at a much lower price point. Probably gonna be my next firearm. I'm thinking about a subcompact .9
The gun in which I showed the picture above is just too big to do anything aside from pack around in the car or hunt bears.


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

That being said.. I find that they all pretty much make the same size hole in a chunk of paper when viewed from a decent distance.


----------



## Fricasseekid (Apr 19, 2011)

Well many argue that in a doomsday type scenario that 9mm will be the most available ammunition. 
Gotta be prepared for the zombi hoards and man rapers, right?


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

Fricasseekid said:


> I hear S&W's M&P is very nice, and at a much lower price point. Probably gonna be my next firearm. I'm thinking about a subcompact .9
> The gun in which I showed the picture above is just too big to do anything aside from pack around in the car or hunt bears.


I'll be honest with you.. I have my eye on them too......

HOW subcompact are you looking to go?

Just wondering? I carry a LCP with a crimson trace but looked for a BIT into the LC9 because bone stock I SUCKED with the fact that it has NO SIGHTS  the crimson trace made a world of difference, even though I loathe lasers.

I would not be opposed to something in between the 17 and the LCP size wise.. I may have to re-investigate. The glock subcompacts... **** that.


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

Fricasseekid said:


> Well many argue that in a doomsday type scenario that 9mm will be the most available ammunition.
> Gotta be prepared for the zombi hoards and man rapers, right?


This is line of being the least heated and chest bumping firearms discussion EVER on DIYMA.

Which is VERY good.


----------



## Fricasseekid (Apr 19, 2011)

Well Springfield makes an XDm with a 3.5" barrel. That would be my ideal, plus I still have tridium sights for my tactical .45 that I never had installed. But it's out my budget. So a comparable S&W would be nice.


----------



## Fricasseekid (Apr 19, 2011)

chad said:


> This is line of being the least heated and chest bumping firearms discussion EVER on DIYMA.
> 
> Which is VERY good.


This is the calm after the passive vs. active storm. Lol


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

how tough is it to install the sights?


----------



## Fricasseekid (Apr 19, 2011)

Never got around to looking into it before my sidearm got stolen. But I heard that you need a gunsmith with a pretty sturdy press to change the sights on a Springfield and few can do it right.


----------



## Fricasseekid (Apr 19, 2011)

You can probably tell I don't know alot about gunsmithing lol.


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

Fricasseekid said:


> You can probably tell I don't know alot about gunsmithing lol.


There's always time to learn.


----------



## Darth SQ (Sep 17, 2010)

Fricasseekid said:


> Its a 20. It'll take all 15 of those rounds to stop a heroin crazed man raper.


This ain't no ***** 9mm.
Read the specs on the 10mm round.
You will be very surpised at it's velocity and applied impact force.

Bret
PPI-ART COLLECTOR


----------



## Darth SQ (Sep 17, 2010)

Fricasseekid said:


> Well Springfield makes an XDm with a 3.5" barrel. That would be my ideal, plus I still have tridium sights for my tactical .45 that I never had installed. But it's out my budget. So a comparable S&W would be nice.


Tritium sights are good for around 10 years.
Mine are 15 now and getting very weak.
I need to replace them.

To do them yourself, you need to be able to press out the old rear sight and press in the new one for the rear on the Glocks.
Most importantly, you need a laser bore sighting tool that inserts into the barrel so you can get the rear sight lined up exactly right.

Not something I am equipped to do, so I buy my sights at gun shows and have the seller install them for me; usually for free.

Bret
PPI-ART COLLECTOR


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

PPI-ART COLLECTOR said:


> This ain't no ***** 9mm.
> Read the specs on the 10mm round.
> You will be very surpised at it's velocity and applied impact force.
> 
> ...


The 10mm is a great round, like I say, there's a reason it was made. It just never took off for some reason. 

As for ***** 9mm. Really? Nobody really wants to get shot with either, so that's where the peaceful conversation tends to end, bit in reality... You don't want to get hit with it period. I'm not quite hip to getting hit with a well placed or improperly placed .22 for that matter.



PPI-ART COLLECTOR said:


> Tritium sights are good for around 10 years.
> Mine are 15 now and getting very weak.
> I need to replace them.
> 
> ...


I got everything but the press, which should happen within the holidays. Well, I have a ****ty press but it works now. Hoping the good one excels the ****ty one on fine adjustment.

My bore-sight rocks, I have found it damn close on the 7.62 and the .22LR target rifle. I can get a good 100 Yd sighting out in the pasture and within 10 shots it's IN THERE. Problem is, finding the right time in daylight to do it, you have a small time-frame this time of year, summer is better.


IT TOTALLY SUCKS you live in CA and I live in IL. It seems we come from the same fold of cloth. I saw your radio pic, and was like... YEP he's one of us.

I'm a former BE, ran radio for a long time.


----------



## BigAl205 (May 20, 2009)

bikinpunk said:


> You don't have to. I've already proved it. In numerous applications, nonetheless. Unfortunately, I've since deleted all my test results off PB. Dammit. But, here are the posts, to which I've left the links in so you don't try to call BS even though they're no longer valid.
> 
> These are all from 2009. I'm sure some things below may not be completely the same way I understood it then but regardless, the posts tell the story of a changing impedance curve in doors, and IB in the trunk as well as compression force of screws.
> 
> ...


If I recall correctly, we did the passenger door which has the single 6.5 mounted on the door panel. The only treatment the door had was a single layer of Dynamat.


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

Mine's pretty simple, scored a 82.5 MECA




STOCK CLASS, somewhat invisible.







FRESH OUT OF THE GARAGE as a DD. unwashed.





But I was running active, with less than 200 dollars in drivers, and active headunit and a 5 ch amp........ not fair in this thread.


----------



## ChrisB (Jul 3, 2008)

chad said:


> The 10mm is a great round, like I say, there's a reason it was made. It just never took off for some reason.


I remember the FBI initially adopting the 10mm, but it was too much recoil for most to handle with a full powered round. Sadly, most commercially available 10mm ammo today is loaded to .40 S&W pressures, NOT true 10mm pressures.


----------



## trojan fan (Nov 4, 2007)

chad said:


> Mine's pretty simple, scored a 82.5 MECA
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Don't be shy.....throw up some picks of this 82.5 unwashed DD


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

Doesn't even have fancy wheels.



















2 days ago...










I have a build thread and several other threads in said section of tinkerings and other odd musings.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Was that a 1 for stage height?  jk. Just curious where your sub and mids bass was crossed.


----------



## minbari (Mar 3, 2011)

looks like a 4.3 to me


----------



## trojan fan (Nov 4, 2007)

Thanks for the pics....nice car

Besides Chevy trucks(for towing my toys) Honda is the only brand of car we have owned for the last 20 years


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

sqnut said:


> Was that a 1 for stage height?  jk. Just curious where your sub and mids bass was crossed.



Sub plays to 80 with a SHALLOW slope midbass to 80 with a steep slope, yes there is an overlap.


----------



## Darth SQ (Sep 17, 2010)

trojan fan said:


> Thanks for the pics....nice car
> 
> Besides Chevy trucks(for towing my toys) Honda is the only brand of car we have owned for the last 20 years


Ditto.

Bret
PPI-ART COLLECTOR


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

chad said:


> Sub plays to 80 with a SHALLOW slope midbass to 80 with a steep slope, yes there is an overlap.


50hz with a 36db/oct on your sub and the highest slope you can get on your midbass, with no overlap. You did real good on all the other parameters.


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

You are on crack.. Unless you have a REALLY great explanation for that post


----------



## Fricasseekid (Apr 19, 2011)

I'd like to hear this too.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

chad said:


> You are on crack.. Unless you have a REALLY great explanation for that post


I'm older than you, so I'll ignore that. Just curious what makes you say that.

From a tuning stand point, sub running too high will pull your stage down. 60-200hz too hot will have the same effect. Good balance between your sub and midbass will raise your stage height.


----------



## Rudeboy (Oct 16, 2005)

80 doesn't seem high to me, especially since it's where mine is crossed. Could be 125, can't remember. How does the sub's output influence stage height perception?

This is a sincere question. I'm not challenging the assertion, just asking how it works.


----------



## Fricasseekid (Apr 19, 2011)

Too hot? Does that mean too loud as in it needs to be gained down or EQed out?


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

sqnut said:


> I'm older than you, so I'll ignore that. Just curious what makes you say that.
> 
> From a tuning stand point, sub running too high will pull your stage down. 60-200hz too hot will have the same effect. Good balance between your sub and midbass will raise your stage height.


Yeah sure, you are doing the equivalent of determining someones blood type by talking to them on the phone. it's fairly evident by the score-sheet that the midbass integration is fine and a 4 out of 6 in STOCK CLASS for stage height is not bad. This means I'm using the stock speaker locations BTW. I did score a bit low on stage depth, and I'll admit it's a bit forward... maybe I should reverse the flow of my blower motor in the car for judging 

You tune how you want, I'll do it my way  Seems to have worked for me now for 20 years since it's how I make my living.... Just not in a car. But next time I want my flown line arrays to sound more intimate I'll just raise the crossover point on the subs under the stage. In other words.. that does not work either.


----------



## goodstuff (Jan 9, 2008)

chad said:


> Yeah sure, you are doing the equivalent of determining someones blood type by talking to them on the phone. it's fairly evident by the score-sheet that the midbass integration is fine and a 4 out of 6 in STOCK CLASS for stage height is not bad. This means I'm using the stock speaker locations BTW. I did score a bit low on stage depth, and I'll admit it's a bit forward... *maybe I should reverse the flow of my blower motor in the car for judging*
> 
> You tune how you want, I'll do it my way  Seems to have worked for me now for 20 years since it's how I make my living.... Just not in a car. But next time I want my flown line arrays to sound more intimate I'll just raise the crossover point on the subs under the stage. In other words.. that does not work either.


Polarity swap ftw.


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

In reality with proper alignment, sans filter based phase issues, you should not have to swap polarity unless you are using a second order filter on each side of the crossover.


----------



## trojan fan (Nov 4, 2007)

chad said:


> Yeah sure, you are doing the equivalent of determining someones blood type by talking to them on the phone.


Classic....:beerchug:


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

Yeah I re-read that and I feel as if I came off as a dick.... probably should not have typed that reply after finding out what I found out earlier :blush:

It just kinda goes against A LOT of what I believe in.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

chad said:


> Yeah I re-read that and I feel as if I came off as a dick.... probably should not have typed that reply after finding out what I found out earlier :blush:
> 
> It just kinda goes against A LOT of what I believe in.


Not sure I understand the above, but I feel a bit like one myself, for making a silly comment :blush:


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

Someone within my physical presence made an extremely stupid mistake even after being told repeatedly not to do so and in what scenario that they would do it in.....

You know, people being stupid, put me in a rather heated mood for a bit


----------

