View Single Post
Old 03-03-2009, 04:09 PM   #11
sandt38

Associate
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: So, how's that HOPE and CHANGE $hit workin out for ya?
Posts: 13,715
sandt38 has a reputation beyond reputesandt38 has a reputation beyond reputesandt38 has a reputation beyond reputesandt38 has a reputation beyond reputesandt38 has a reputation beyond reputesandt38 has a reputation beyond reputesandt38 has a reputation beyond reputesandt38 has a reputation beyond reputesandt38 has a reputation beyond reputesandt38 has a reputation beyond reputesandt38 has a reputation beyond repute



Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Bentwrench View Post
Given the increased component count, it appears that the 550 may be an entirely different animal than the 450. The 450 may have been a 'good' design but the 550 is probably what it really needed anyway. In short, this shows that a good x/o design can make the difference between 'really nice' and 'Oh yeah!'. Did you audition with just changing x/overs first w/o the new tweets? Didn't catch that.

With active x/o being all the rage in car audio, I still believe that a proper passive design will be superior. As you said, you (and I too probably) hear or listen to more things than regular folks.
Yeah, the crossover point on the EX450 is listed at 4.3kHz, but I felt it was closer to 4.7... Fiberglass cone breakup at that point was apparent to me, and I would have thought CDT would have chosen to compensate with a lower crossover point. I am not sure if CDT offered this as a set, or if it was a mix and match by a dealer that bought old stock (No, I did not buy the initial set from Mike, but I have bought my upgrades from him).

From what Mike told me the 550 was designed to work with the ES-06 mids, which are true midwoofers and have a listed FR of 50-4kHz, and the DRT26 tweeter, which I have upgraded to. So the intended implementation is different then my set (Maybe the EX480 would have been a better candidate for the original set). So there is no doubt this is a completely different animal, with completely different design goals.

I did not audition the crossovers alone, I just went ahead and swapped out the crossovers and tweeters at the same time. I will be auditioning a set of EF61CF (carbon fiber) cones for Mike, and he asked me to use the 450 as well as the 550 and offer feedback. I am willing to bet the CF cones will hold up better to the 450 crossover. I will go one further and guess the CL with the pulp cones would handle it even better... there is really no substitute for good old fashioned pulp cones IMO.

And as far as active vs passive, I agree completely! I have heard far too many poorly set up active systems in my day to tell anyone to bypass passives. I also feel outside frequency adjustments create phasing anomalies (which is why i always try to have my install all install, rather then slap them in and EQ them) which are difficult to contend with from an electronic standpoint. In most cases I have found the passive crossover "voice" of a well designed set to be far more pleasing then an active set's "digital" voice. Being an anal listener has it's advantages, but as you know the disadvantages usually result in spending more damn money to get it right . This was supposed to be a sub $1000 install for a daily driver. At this rate I will have that in the front stage alone! Thank God I have a couple Adire subs laying around here, and all I need is power for them, or I would be way too deep into this
sandt38 is offline   Reply With Quote