[cnut334]

Hello to all. I was looking at purchasing the HAT Unity set but am interested in saving a dollar where I can. I currently have a Mb Q 4 ch. (80x4),and a Alpine 117 to work with whatever route I choose to go. Will going with the DIY route be better going passive or will the Unity set be better passive? I've done some reading and want the most bang for the buck. Is active the way to go when you don't have a processor or don't have any intentions on getting one? BTW, it's going in a minivan if that's of any help. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Marcus

 

[schmiddr2]

There are too many variables to state that a passive comp set will sound better or worse than an active crossover on raw drivers.

Now, if we are talking about a DSP unit to adjust crossover point, slope, EQ, and T/A then that will make a large difference.

With the amp you have, you have the ability to set crossover point, but have non of the other stuff and are limited to the slope(s) that are preset. Unless, you have T/A on your HU then you have T/A ability for each speaker, but still not the massive EQ most DSP units have.

 

[cnut334]

^^ Thanks! I do have time alignment on my deck. Would a diy setup be able to still sound good being ran passive I guess I what I should be asking?

 

[thomasluke]

If you go with raw drivers designing a passive cross over for them will be hard.
sounds to me like you just need to with the hat. Its pretty much plug and play and that what you pay for.

 

[kyheng]

Well, with your current Hu, may consider run it passively first... But make sure you wire your tweeter and midbass such that it can go active at any 1 time... Meaning the wires should be near to the amp... If your amp are located at trunk, the passive crossover should be located near to the amp, then next time when you are going active, you no need to redo wirings...

 

[cnut334]

Thanks Luke and Kyheng! I'll probably go that route then,passive, and see how I like it. I'll listen to them and then decide whether I will change anything or not (amp, going active etc...).

 

[cnut334]

Going active on a diy set is always best is always best is what I'm gathering. Would that be an accurate statement?

 

[thomasluke]

Going active on a diy set is always best is always best is what I'm gathering. Would that be an accurate statement?

Yes, but running raw drivers off of just any passive xover is not a good idea.
The xover should be disigned specifcally for the drivers at hand.

 

[cnut334]

Yes, but running raw drivers off of just any passive xover is not a good idea.
The xover should be disigned specifcally for the drivers at hand.

Thanks that's what I needed to know. Thanks for the help. I'm looking forward to the unity set. Any recommendations for components in the 350 price range.

 

[thomasluke]

Thanks that's what I needed to know. Thanks for the help. I'm looking forward to the unity set. Any recommendations for components in the 350 price range.

Thought you where going with hat?

 

[schmiddr2]

CDA-117 has a decent EQ and T/A. EQ can be used passive or active, but T/A usually can only be maximized in an actively crossed-over setup. Also, the amplifier has optional 6db or 12db crossovers for both channels. That's 100% of the equipment to get the most out of raw drivers and an active setup.

Regardless of the speakers you get, I would use all of the electronic signal processing in your equipment. With sealed doors and proper placement of the tweeter you will have great potential for SQ.

 

[cnut334]

I am! Where are you in GA? I was in Cumming this past weekend and gave some a listen and really liked them.

 

[cnut334]

After reading your post a little closer, I see you have a CDA-117. It has a decent EQ and T/A. EQ can be used passive or active, but T/A can only be used in an active setup. Also, the amplifier has optional 6db or 12db crossovers for both channels. That's 100% of the equipment to get the most out of raw drivers and an active setup.

Regardless of the speakers you get, I would use all of the electronic signal processing in your equipment. With sealed doors and proper placement of the tweeter you will have great potential for SQ.

My doors are deaden as of now. I've thought about placing the tweeters in the sail panels or in the A pillars. I'm pretty green when it comes to fabbing anything up. If I do the A pillar I would like for them to be pointed more towards my ears than the windshield. Any thoughts?

 

[cnut334]

Any more input anyone?

 

[schmiddr2]

It's always a variable; which speaker, which car, your preference, etc. I think you should read some build logs. Especially the ones that used RTA to show the tweeter angle in the A-pillar vs frequency. Then when you go to install if you have access to an RTA then great, if not then do listening tests with them at different angles.

Using google advanced search should get results, like this --> https://www.google.com/#sclient=psy....,cf.osb&fp=682774cd339f5d00&biw=1680&bih=925

 

[cnut334]

It's always a variable; which speaker, which car, your preference, etc. I think you should read some build logs. Especially the ones that used RTA to show the tweeter angle in the A-pillar vs frequency. Then when you go to install if you have access to an RTA then great, if not then do listening tests with them at different angles.

Using google advanced search should get results, like this --> https://www.google.com/#sclient=psy....,cf.osb&fp=682774cd339f5d00&biw=1680&bih=925

Thanks for the help!

 

[kyheng]

I'll make it as simple as possible, if just a 2-way front + sub setup.... Meaning I go for passive setup for front and full control actively from HU for sub...
Since you can't do much from a tweeter and midbass... I'll go for full active if going 3-way front + sub setup as you got more varibles....

 

[cnut334]

I'll make it as simple as possible, if just a 2-way front + sub setup.... Meaning I go for passive setup for front and full control actively from HU for sub...
Since you can't do much from a tweeter and midbass... I'll go for full active if going 3-way front + sub setup as you got more varibles....

Thanks for trying to keep it simple for me!

 

[ZAKOH]

.....................

 

[ZAKOH]

Here is my front setup right now:

Kenwood KDC-x994 stereo
4-channel MB Quart Ref4.80 amplifier
HAT Imagine running "quasi-active"
By quasi active, I mean that the woofer is running full range mode and the tweeter has a 2.2uF capacitor inserted inline for its high pass filter duty. This setup seems strange but it actually replicated the passive crossover of the HAT Imagine speaker.

The stereo's 'front' outs are driving tweeters and the 'rear' speaker outs are driving the woofers. I have dialed in some time delay for the left tweeter and left woofer through my stereo, the best I could. The woofer is high passed at [email protected] This sounds great. I would not change it (except for Clarus or Legatia-grade gear..)

My advice to you of course to go active or "quasi active". If you go active, there is relatively little value in buying HAT Unity instead of HAT Imagine. According to product description, the HAT Unity woofer is based on HAT Imagine. The only improvement is that you get a Clarus tweeter instead of Imagine tweeter. I am not sure if that's worth the extra $100 or so if you're not going to use the passive crossover boxes that come with Unity. A word of warning though.. HAT Imagine tweeter's mounting diameter is a few mm longer than that of many other tweeters. I had to cut a little excess material in my tweeter pods to make it fit.