# CDT HD-62 Initial Impressions



## Octopus Jonny (Oct 30, 2007)

This is based off of listening to 2 songs burned from a lossless soundboard recording and 5 or 6 tracks off Devin the Dude's "Waitin to Inhale". 

Amped by an Alpine PDX 2.150, running with the SatNet 480 crossovers. Doors not yet deadened, mids in stock location of front door in a 99 Accord sedan. The tweets are mounted in the top of the door close to the dash. I'll upload some photos when I get home (at work right now).

Midbass output is excellent and the mids really have some output even with the gains turned all the way down. They really pump those kick drums out. 

Now, the tweets(edit: DRT-25 Silks)...I hate them. I'm not sure what it is, but they sound like 
**** to me. Overly bright, echoic sound that I'm not fond of at all. This is off of ~25 minutes of listening and only with 2 discs so far, but initial impressions have me way disappointed. I'm going to be fair and give them time to properly break in and listen to more varied material before I come to full conclusion on these.

This early listening session makes me want to dig through boxes to find my XT19's


----------



## Mazda3SQ (Nov 11, 2006)

I ran pretty much all the cdt lines over a course of about two years and will agree with you 100% on the tweeters, in my experience they didn't get too much better after any sort of break in and were most certainly the weakest link in all the cdt comp sets I used. That said there are plenty of reviews that can be found on this board for other very capable replacements including the xt 19's. I would suggest checking out some of the other offerings as well such as the seas neo's, lpg's and if you've got more cash to drop just about anything from rainbow.


----------



## Octopus Jonny (Oct 30, 2007)

The problem I'm going to face with replacements is finding something that will fit into the holes I cut in my doors so I don't have this big gap or anything. I will want to get something I can fit in the CDT flushmount housing. I'll start looking for replacements after New Year's Eve when my finances straighten themselves back out.


----------



## Hillbilly SQ (Jan 26, 2007)

i'd do the seas neo textiles if they'll fit. the lpg's are 8 ohm so no dice there unless the cdt's are also 8 ohm or the crossover has compensation for it (my satnet480's sure didn't. and have you tried attentuating the tweets down with the attentuator the 480's come with? maybe taking them down a notch or 2 and then boosting/cutting in some places will smooth them out.


----------



## Octopus Jonny (Oct 30, 2007)

TEAM SHIMANO/FALCON said:


> and have you tried attentuating the tweets down with the attentuator the 480's come with?


I'm pretty sure they only have 2 notches at 0 and +3. I can definitely work with some things as I'm running an 8053 as my source unit.


----------



## jrouter76 (Dec 21, 2005)

Octopus Jonny said:


> This is based off of listening to 2 songs burned from a lossless soundboard recording and 5 or 6 tracks off Devin the Dude's "Waitin to Inhale".
> 
> Amped by an Alpine PDX 2.150, running with the SatNet 480 crossovers. Doors not yet deadened, mids in stock location of front door in a 99 Accord sedan. The tweets are mounted in the top of the door close to the dash. I'll upload some photos when I get home (at work right now).
> 
> ...


I would ditched the 480 x-overs and get the 560 x-overs much better sound from them plus your tweeters will not cut off when you put more power to them like the 480s will do.


----------



## Octopus Jonny (Oct 30, 2007)

For the price to upgrade to the 560's I'd rather sell my 2.150 and get a 4.150 and go active. I set this install up so that going active is as simple as running another 2 Ch. RCA, removing x-overs, and swapping an amp. I'm sure I'll be active sometime in the summer.


----------



## Hillbilly SQ (Jan 26, 2007)

try hooking them up the the image tweet outputs. that should cut them by -3 db's.


----------



## Dr.Telepathy SQ (Nov 17, 2007)

TEAM SHIMANO/FALCON said:


> try hooking them up the the image tweet outputs. that should cut them by -3 db's.


True-True. I did that for a friends install with the 560x over. I just wired the tweeters in the image tweeter location on the crossover. It's a 3db cut. 

Some 480s have the tweeter option on the crosover of -3,0,+3. 

I'm not a fan of the silk domes either. The weakest link in the set up IMO. You can always swap for another 4ohm tweeter. Seas neo's would be a good option. The cdt crossovers are made for 4ohm drivers.

I will say though the 560 crossover is a pretty darn good passive crossover to use if you're not running active.


----------



## supra400hptt (Aug 11, 2005)

I put the HD-62s in my supra and hated the tweeters also. I swapped them with BG NEO3s and that did the trick. So far I'm like the CDT mid over the Dayton RS 180 I just installed in my GTI.


----------



## jonnyanalog (Nov 14, 2007)

I have the CDT CL-61a comps and the tweeter in that set sucks too. It literally hurts my ears so bad that I have to turn them way down or switch tracks. There were aweful when first cracked open and didn't seem to get much better after they were broken in. I like the mid/bass okay as it has decent output but the tweets suck a$$. I think I will swap them out for the SEAS neos and see what they can do. Eventually I want to go active so this set will probably go by the wayside soon.


----------



## jomo (Mar 4, 2007)

jrouter76 said:


> I would ditched the 480 x-overs and get the 560 x-overs much better sound from them plus your tweeters will not cut off when you put more power to them like the 480s will do.


I would forget about upgrading to the 560. I'm pretty sure the design and more importantly the inductors are the same. That means you can make a 560 crossover from the 480 (or 400 or 456), by just changing 3 caps. Cost you less than $20

replace 3.3uF with 6.2uF in tweeter network
replace other 3.3uF with 4.7uF in tweeter network
replace 3.9uF? with 10uF in woofer Zobel network

Did the same mod on a Satnet-400. Sounds better for sure.


----------



## Octopus Jonny (Oct 30, 2007)

I bumped the tweets down 3db on the crossovers and it still sounds way harsh for a silk dome tweet. On my 8053 I dropped 2db at 16khz and it's helped a bit more. This is just not at all what I expected, especially after seeing rave reviews scattered across the web. At least the mids are great and I got a pretty solid deal on the set. I'd die if I paid retail for these though.


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

What about switching to the aluminum or titanium version? I used a set of the titanium TW-19s to temporarily replace a set of MD100s and I liked them MUCH better than the MD100s. 

Have you tried reversing the polarity on one of the tweeters?

Just a thought.


----------



## Octopus Jonny (Oct 30, 2007)

I have flipped polarity on both sides one at a time and both at the same time with no real improvement. Something tells me that if the silks are too harsh for me that switching to aluminum or titanium isn't going to improve that aspect. I'll mess around with various settings to see if I can get anything better out of these but it's looking like I'm going to be searching for a different tweet.


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

Octopus Jonny said:


> I have flipped polarity on both sides one at a time and both at the same time with no real improvement. Something tells me that if the silks are too harsh for me that switching to aluminum or titanium isn't going to improve that aspect. I'll mess around with various settings to see if I can get anything better out of these but it's looking like I'm going to be searching for a different tweet.



You'd think so, but IMO they are very smooth. Smoother even than my MD100s...which are silk. There are some other examples as well. I want to say it's the LPGs that everyone like the metal version of better but it could be a different brand.


----------



## Octopus Jonny (Oct 30, 2007)

Well, a week later and things are a little bit better. This does not mean I'm satisfied with the tweets, though. I was in the car for about 4 hours driving out to go snowboarding on Monday and that gave me a lot of time to play with settings on the HU (yes, handslap for tuning while driving, blah blah). I'm not near the car right now, but 16khz is bumped down 6db on the HU right now and it's a bit less harsh, but took away some of the presence. It's looking like I'm in the market for some new tweets. I'm a huge fan of the XT19's I had 2 years ago, so I'll probably be looking for something similarly laid back, but also need something that's going to work well off axis as I don't feel like leaving empty holes in my door panels.


----------



## Mazda3SQ (Nov 11, 2006)

Check out the lpgs and the seas neo's. Both have significant followings here and plenty of reviews and comparison. I tried both the aluminum and silk lpgs and agree with a previous poster that i preferred the sound of the aluminum. They will drop into the same holes that you have the cdt's in as i did the same thing myself. For a bit better idea of where im coming from with my comparisons and such the tweeters have been molded into the a-pillar about half way up facing directly at each other across the dash so again fitting with your requirement for good off-axis response.


----------



## oldloder (Nov 30, 2005)

I have some drt-26 silks I'd be willing to let go if you're interested. You're hearing some good tweet replacement recommendations here, but if you're looking for a drop-in replacement that'd work with your passives they just might do the trick. I was running them active, but they were very smooth, good detail and no harshness at all. Got all the hardware with them ... pm me if you're interested.


----------



## BigRed (Aug 12, 2007)

I have a set of 560's I would sell for $40 plus shipping if you are interested. They are just sitting in a box in my garage  They do improve your setup over what you have.


----------



## its_bacon12 (Aug 16, 2007)

if ur interested in some Morel MDT-12 tweets i have a pair ill sell you for 55 shipped but theyre at school and i dont get back for another 2.5 weeks

they are brand new i got from PE about 2 months ago and theyve been sitting with the rest of my car audio gear in my dorm room


----------



## geo1317 (Aug 22, 2005)

its_bacon12 said:


> if ur interested in some Morel MDT-12 tweets i have a pair ill sell you for 55 shipped but theyre at school and i dont get back for another 2.5 weeks
> 
> they are brand new i got from PE about 2 months ago and theyve been sitting with the rest of my car audio gear in my dorm room



Sorry to hijack the tread...

but can you get back to me on the speakers, i haven’t heard from you in a couple of weeks.


----------



## Hillbilly SQ (Jan 26, 2007)

try eliminating the lower harmonics of what's causing the tweets to not sound good to you. chad said one time that if you cut high you're just making a crapshoot but if you cut low and get the harmonics taken care of you'll nail it every time or something like that. someone corect me if i'm wrong.


----------



## jomo (Mar 4, 2007)

Octopus Jonny said:


> Well, a week later and things are a little bit better. This does not mean I'm satisfied with the tweets, though. I was in the car for about 4 hours driving out to go snowboarding on Monday and that gave me a lot of time to play with settings on the HU (yes, handslap for tuning while driving, blah blah). I'm not near the car right now, but 16khz is bumped down 6db on the HU right now and it's a bit less harsh, but took away some of the presence. It's looking like I'm in the market for some new tweets. I'm a huge fan of the XT19's I had 2 years ago, so I'll probably be looking for something similarly laid back, but also need something that's going to work well off axis as I don't feel like leaving empty holes in my door panels.



Be aware that the design of the CDT crossovers purposely ramps up the very high frequencies above 10kHz. I believe this design is to compensate for high frequency roll off in a typical off axis installation. It also compensates for the peaky response (~8kHz) of the stock tweeters. If you use a tweeter that has very flat response, using it with a CDT crossover will really emphasize the very high frequencies. This may not be desireable.


----------



## Dr.Telepathy SQ (Nov 17, 2007)

jomo said:


> Be aware that the design of the CDT crossovers purposely ramps up the very high frequencies above 10kHz. I believe this design is to compensate for high frequency roll off in a typical off axis installation. It also compensates for the peaky response (~8kHz) of the stock tweeters. If you use a tweeter that has very flat response, using it with a CDT crossover will really emphasize the very high frequencies. This may not be desireable.


This is not true on any level with CDT crossovers.


----------



## Octopus Jonny (Oct 30, 2007)

Last night I decided to throw my Alpine SPX137r passives to see if that would help anything and WHOAAAAA was that a HUGE improvement. The speakers have really opened up and sound rich and full now. Imaging and stage height have been drastically improved. The "hollow" sound I had with the Satnet 480's is now gone.


----------



## jomo (Mar 4, 2007)

sterlingsharp1 said:


> This is not true on any level with CDT crossovers.



I checked again using Jeff Bagby's crossover response program, you get a dip around 7kHz and rising response above 10kHz with the Satnet-400, 456 and 480. Like I stated before, this crossover contour will reduce the peak in the stock CDT tweeter but may not be desireable with a good, flat tweeter. Check it yourself...4th order using two 3.3uF caps and two 0.15 mH inductors. Perhaps I'm using the program wrong.

With regard to the CDT's sounding fuller with the Alpine crossover, I would not doubt it. CDT uses a fourth order tweeter network matched with a first order woofer network which hard to keep from forming a hole or peak near the crossover frequency. This is probably what you heard before.


----------



## jomo (Mar 4, 2007)

oops.


----------



## sirsleepsalot (Mar 1, 2007)

Sorry to butt in here, but I've been running a set of CDT comps for almost a year now and have the DRT-25s installed. To me, they sound great, no harshness whatsoever.

This brings me to think that upgrading your x-over might indeed be what you need. I've had 2 different ones before finaly going active, but I have a 3-way setup, so I doubt recommending these x-overs really help.

If going with your alpine x-over network really did help, then, stick with that, or if you can try out a better x-over from CDT, give it a go, it might allow you to really enjoy the sound the the speakers you have can produce. Or probably you've already reached that using the Alpine X-over. Either way, happy listening !


----------



## evangelos K (Aug 27, 2005)

I ran the CDT HD for about 6 months, and could not take it. The 5K crossover point (not running active back then) made mid freq. sound terrible/inexistent coming from the "bass machine" 6.5 driver. Even a lower x-over did not improve anything really in the mid freq response; it was really bad.


----------



## Luca_Bratzi (Mar 9, 2007)

Agreed.

If you have to run a CDT component set passive, then run at least the 560i unit. The 450 & 480 units aren't worth a squirt of cold piss.


----------



## mvw2 (Oct 2, 2005)

Octopus Jonny said:


> Last night I decided to throw my Alpine SPX137r passives to see if that would help anything and WHOAAAAA was that a HUGE improvement. The speakers have really opened up and sound rich and full now. Imaging and stage height have been drastically improved. The "hollow" sound I had with the Satnet 480's is now gone.


The main problem is CDT generally runs a very high crossover point. From past readings, it seems to generally be in the 4kHz to 5kHz range, which in most cases is quite high. The Alpine crossover would be a large change from this kind of setup and with very different results.

I can't comment on the CDT set. I haven't listened to it. However, my bro has the ED EDi 6500 set which is CDT based and has generally been considered very close to the HD set but runs a different crossover and not specifically sure which tweeter and woofer is used. I don't know if the tweeter is the same, but if it is, I can very much agree on its crappiness, lol. It was one of the worst tweeters I've listened to. However, the EDi 6500 faired considerably better when paired to a decent tweeter. The XT19 based Alpine isn't a good choice due to its slightly low sensitivity. Passively, it won't be loud enough. It's better to run something closer to 90dB like the Seas tweeters. I would assume very similar results with the CDT HD set.


----------



## jomo (Mar 4, 2007)

mvw2 said:


> The main problem is CDT generally runs a very high crossover point. From past readings, it seems to generally be in the 4kHz to 5kHz range, which in most cases is quite high. The Alpine crossover would be a large change from this kind of setup and with very different results.
> 
> I can't comment on the CDT set. I haven't listened to it. However, my bro has the ED EDi 6500 set which is CDT based and has generally been considered very close to the HD set but runs a different crossover and not specifically sure which tweeter and woofer is used. I don't know if the tweeter is the same, but if it is, I can very much agree on its crappiness, lol. It was one of the worst tweeters I've listened to.


The CDT silk tweeter I have (TW-24) can't be crossed over much lower than ~3.5kHz (24 dB per octave) without considerable distortion. The Fs of the tweeter is at least 2kHz. I do agree that this silk tweeter isn't very good. Pretty distorted, peaky, and lacking air. It's too bad because the woofers seem fine to my ears. I bought some of those $8 Aurasound tweeters from Madisound and am going to see if I can mesh them with the mids. I'll use the crossover used in Zaph's mini speaker for the new tweets as a starting point.


----------

