F#1 Status Up and Running
07-28-2005, 08:58 AM
#31
Cheddar
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 558
Yeah, he really took everything into consideration. Made sure the voice coils of the tweeters lined up with those of the mids. The left tweeter had to be angled differently from the right, because of the shape of the dash on the driver's side. The speakers could not be mounted any higher up on the pillar because of the side curtain airbag cord being in the way.
BTW, Disco DUKK, if you are reading this, make room in your mailbox. Couldn't PM you last night.
BTW, Disco DUKK, if you are reading this, make room in your mailbox. Couldn't PM you last night.
08-07-2005, 02:11 PM
#33
Cheddar
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 558
It didn't sound fantastic at first. Once I used the time alignment feature of the F#1, it sounded way better.
Something is still missing, but I don'thave the time right now to play with it. All speakers are in phase at the moment. I can't use the individual speaker phase control built into the F#1 because the woofer, mid, and tweets connected via the passive crossover.
The crossover has phase switches, but is hard to get at -- installed way up behind the dash.
When I first played the system after the A-pillar install, the tonal balance was exceptional. Imaging, however, sucked to the bone. Now that it images well (time alignment), the tonal balance is not there. I haven't EQ'd it at all.
At least everything is installed and sounding decent, just not great. In time, in time........
I keep forgetting to tell Tim how happy I am with his work. It turned out awesome!
Something is still missing, but I don'thave the time right now to play with it. All speakers are in phase at the moment. I can't use the individual speaker phase control built into the F#1 because the woofer, mid, and tweets connected via the passive crossover.
The crossover has phase switches, but is hard to get at -- installed way up behind the dash.
When I first played the system after the A-pillar install, the tonal balance was exceptional. Imaging, however, sucked to the bone. Now that it images well (time alignment), the tonal balance is not there. I haven't EQ'd it at all.
At least everything is installed and sounding decent, just not great. In time, in time........
I keep forgetting to tell Tim how happy I am with his work. It turned out awesome!
08-08-2005, 08:25 AM
#36
Cheddar
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 558
Not really.............
I didn't buy the F#1 just for all its processing options. To get what I really want, I would have to get two PXI-H990. The lowest mid range crossover point on the PXI-H990 is too high for the speakers I have. I would lose 5.1 capability, too, unless I went with two processors. I guess I can go with the lowest crossover point and choose a gentle slope. The Morel passive crossover is very nice. Active is not always better.........
I didn't buy the F#1 just for all its processing options. To get what I really want, I would have to get two PXI-H990. The lowest mid range crossover point on the PXI-H990 is too high for the speakers I have. I would lose 5.1 capability, too, unless I went with two processors. I guess I can go with the lowest crossover point and choose a gentle slope. The Morel passive crossover is very nice. Active is not always better.........
08-08-2005, 05:02 PM
#38
2000 Watt CAFz'r
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 2,406
Dave, he is running a 4-wat setup, Morel 10", Morel 6" Midbass, Morel 4" Sealed mid and the Morel tweeter, how do you use everything,
According to a buddy of mine at Alpine it won't do 4-way AND 5.1 (rear and center).............unless you buy another H990..........
According to a buddy of mine at Alpine it won't do 4-way AND 5.1 (rear and center).............unless you buy another H990..........
