Impious

Stereo. Simple rule of thumb.....you need a "left" and a "right" for everything except the subwoofer. Midbass, midrange, treble (tweeters)....all stereo. You can still run the system from the single 4-channel amplifier.....it'll just require you use a passive crossover for the mids and tweeters instead of running active. I had a system like this a couple years ago and really loved the simplicity of it. Were you wanting a single amplifier for space reasons, simplicity reasons, or budget reasons?

Keep in mind the enclosure, vehicle and system tuning has as much to do with the sound as the subwoofer itself. Simply listening to a driver doesn't qualify someone to make factual statements about it's performance, nor does it mean you received an accurate representation of it's performance characteristics. Your experience might have been negative simply because the system was designed with SPL as the primary goal rather than maintaining relatively decent sound, or a dozen other factors. I'm not saying that the SoloX is necessarily the best driver for you, or the better option of the two. The Fi very well could be a better option for your goals. I'm simply clarifying that having "listened" to a driver is not as meaningful as people make it seem. This applies to all speakers, not just the SoloX. People misinterpret having "listened" to a speaker, or even owning one, as qualifying them to make factual statements about it's performance without considering the all of the factors involved in and contributing to that listening experience. What sounds like ass in one system might sound like magic in another.

World Champion in SQ for years had 6 L7 15"s....... And for quite some time the SQ champ (Gary Biggs) had a pair of SoloX 18's. What's your point? The 18's didn't even play till they did the SPL portion. When I competed in SQ I had a judge tell me there was too much bass from the subs in the back when the amp wasn't even on. I believe this was said because I did a 153 before that. Subs don't sound bad because of their shape, Xtant's hex sub actually sounds quite good. Both Eldridge and Biggs, as well as about a dozen other competitors, have used L7's as the subwoofers in their system for the SQ judging portion as well.

Or that the nut for the kompression fitting was taller than the block itself, so the nut would scrap the bottom plate when you tried to tighten it which made it a complete PITA to try to tighten or loosen the fitting I hated the kompression block I had and the kompression fitting (wire always felt loose). Knu products are cheap in price, and after using several of their blocks I know why........ Great CS, I'll give them that. But I won't be ordering anymore of their products.

I wouldn't draw too many conclusions from that story. Doesn't really demonstrate much of anything.

Can't run active with a mid and tweeter sharing a channel. Active requires each driver have it's own dedicated channel as the processing occurs at the preamp stage.

Do NOT do this. Your music is stereo. You must maintain independent left and right channels for the speakers in order to maintain stereo sound. Your proposed plan would not separate left and right signals, the results would be disastrous.....an aural abomination. The left speakers must only receive left channel information, the right speakers only right channel information. You have three main options; Run the front speakers (mids and tweeters) with passive crossovers, with the left mid and tweeter on channel 1 through a passive crossover and the right mid and tweeter on channel 2 through a passive crossover. Add a smaller 2-channel amplifier to the system to run the tweeters and try to run the system actively. Then you could have one tweeter on each channel of the 2-channel amplifier (left TW on CH1, right TW on CH2) and use two of the channels on the 4-channel amp for the mids (left Mid on CH1 and right Mid on CH2; CH3/4 bridged to the sub). Add a dedicted subwoofer to the system and run both the mids and tweeters from the 4-channel amplifier actively (left TW on CH1, right TW on CH2, left mid on CH3, right mid on CH4; subwoofer on the mono amp). Honestly, given your experience level.....active sounds like an extremely bad plan for you. Your best option would be to go with a passive component set. In other words, don't look for mids and tweeters separately.....look at one of the many predesigned component sets from the main manufacturers. Really, we need to start from scratch. What is your budget? Axis basically refers to the speakers aiming in relation to your listening position (the drivers seat). If the speakers are aimed towards you, that's on-axis. If they're not aimed towards you, the are off-axis.

Why are you connecting the tweeters in parallel to a single channel? Additionally, it's impossible to give recommendations for tweeters without knowing what your implementation is. What mids will you be using? How low do you need the tweeters to play? Can you fit large format or small format only? Will the tweeters be on-axis or off-axis? Do you have a preference in sound? And, again, why are you connecting the pair of tweeters to a single channel?

The guy with the foam on his trunk lid on the first page in that thread isn't too bright either. That egg crate foam he has on his truck lid isn't going to do shit to absorb subbass frequencies. That quote you posted here is one of those posts not worth responding to as it's so wrong there's really no way to argue against it. One of those situations you just shake your head and walk away......

Dude, you posted this thread 50 minutes ago. Give it time.

See the thread HERE in the Ascendant Audio forums with details on how to obtain dealer information.

I voted Kinetik, but willing to admit that I'm a little biased in that direction.

It's messed up that a shop who's in business to make money sells a product for enough of a profit to actually stay in business and make money? You paid the guy $20 over internet prices (which are probably pretty close to if not less than his dealer cost on the product). His rent is probably a couple grand, plus utilities, employee payroll and benefit expenses, inventory carrying costs, taxes, etc etc etc. So you made a $20 dent in his $10,000+ monthly expenses, not including room for actual profit margin so he can actually feed his family.....and he's ripping you off? More than likely the guy isn't rolling to the bank in his brand new Mercedes laughing all the while that he just stuck it up your ass without atleast lubing first.....more than likely he's just thankful for every week he can actually stay in business and doesn't have to close his doors. The more sales dealers lose due to the internet market, the more of a profit they have to make on the product that does sell to simply maintain the business. For everyday little products like that I usually buy local, knowing full well it's costing me a little extra but I'm glad to give my business locally when I can.

What? Proven how? Where? Let's look...... Here's the BL curve of a Peerless 12" XXLS. Well centered with a smooth, relatively symmetric and flat roll off at both ends: Peerless XXLS BL curve of the Peerless SLS 8" driver. Again, well centered with a smooth and symmetrical roll off at both ends: Peerless SLS8 Here's the BL curve of a CSS Trio8 with XBL^2. Coil appears offset about 3mm forward rather than being properly centered (one of the problems with these "exotic" motor designs is manufacturing consistency) and not as symmetric: Trio8 BL Curve BL curve of Adire Extremis with XBL^2. Ripple in the curve, not as symmetric, and again would appear off centered: Adire Extremis Adire's DUMAX of the 12" Brahma. Same results as above: Adire Brahma Dumax Please, explain to me the deficiencies of the two Peerless motor design in comparison to any of the three XBL^2 motors. Where are they? Because I'm not seeing them. And, for reference, there is nothing particularly special about the Lamda motor you were referencing earlier as far as "exotic" linear BL motor designs go. It's nothing more than a well executed standard motor topology AFAIK. And for reference, I run a Shiva-X as my subwoofer in my vehicle and have a pair of Trio8's waiting to be installed this spring/summer as my midbass. I also have six Exodus Anarchy's with XBL motors I plan to use in my HT, and when the 8" Anarchy's hit the market I'd like to grab a pair or three of those. I'm definitely not against XBL^2. But there is certainly more than one way to skin a cat, and more than one way to design a driver with a linear, well executed motor. Lastly, keep in mind when you listen to a subwoofer you are listening to more than just the subwoofer. You are listening to the subwoofer in particular enclosure in a particular vehicle with specific system settings. You might have listened to a subwoofer in a friends (or strangers) car. You might not have liked the sound of the subbass. But was it actually the driver you were listening to? No, it's not. You were listening to the entire system, which includes the affect of the enclosure on the response of the driver, the affects of the environment, as well as the affects any particular system setting(s). You can't properly evaluate the subwoofer itself under such conditions, as you are listening to far more than the subwoofer itself. I'm not telling you that a Fi Q is a great sounding driver....I've never listened to one. I'm not telling you that a Fi Q (or similar) is the driver for you....it very well may not be. But you don't seem to fully comprehend the entire picture, either from a driver design perspective or from a system response perspective.

You are incorrect on your understanding of subbass. First, the "type" of bass has nothing to do with the size of the subwoofer and everything to do with the design of that particular subwoofer and, just as importantly, the design of the enclosure. I believe by "beat beat bass" you are referring to the driver's ability to play the higher region of the subbass bandwidth. The size of the subwoofer has nothing to do with it's ability to play that frequency range. This is directly related to the driver's design, not it's diameter. The 15" will not inherently be better in this frequency range than an 18" subwoofer. It's entirely possible for a 15" driver to perform worse in the upper subbass/lower midbass frequencies than an 18" subwoofer. So, first and foremost, stop using the subwoofer's diameter as a reference for how well they will play into the higher frequency range as the subwoofer's diameter has absolutely nothing to do with this ability. Second, you are going to need very strong midbass driver's by going either route. Either option is going to end up being significantly louder than a standard set of midbass speakers. Third, both drivers are going to perform pretty poorly in a sealed enclosure. They were both designed to perform optimally in a ported enclosure. Sealed is not going to be an option for either the SMD or the BTL. A sealed enclosure for those drivers is not going to result in a flat frequency response. They simply were not designed for that purpose. The SMD was not designed as an SPL only subwoofer. It was designed for musical purposes.

Keep in mind there is more to it than THD. A shift in Bl and/or Cms will also affect the parameters of the driver, which will in turn affect the response of the driver. Some people consider a linear design that decreases the parameter shift more important in subwoofers than the distortion lowering mechanisms involved as we are less sensitive to distortion in this bandwidth. A properly handled inductance is likewise important for reasons other than distortion, as an improperly treated inductance can likewise affect or limit response within the intended/necessary bandwidth. I'm sure you already know all of this, and probably more than myself in regards to driver design. There's much more to the discussion but that really isn't pertinent. My simple point is that I think it's wrong to focus the discussion solely in terms of THD. That said it doesn't necessarily take an "exotic" motor design to achieve these goals. For example, companies such as Peerless and Scanspeak have consistently built high performance drivers without much in the way of "exotic" motor designs. A well executed standard motor topology can be designed to be more than sufficient at supporting a high performance loudspeaker.

How strong are your fabrication skills, and how much or what would you be will to modify in the vehicle in order to fit some subwoofers? If you don't want to squeeze something behind the center console, I'm thinking shallow subs in unorthodox locations might work. But it would take some modification and someone with great craftsmanship skills to pull it off.

Is your Dcon the single or dual voice coil subwoofer?

Generally cost prohibitive. You could spend $100-200 each for a high displacement PR's, or spend $30 on an extra sheet of MDF.

Exodus Audio Tempest I absolutely love the Shiva-X that I run in my car, which is basically the 12" version of the Tempest. Great subs all around.

I don't have pics or videos, but the easiest way to make a false floor is to start by making a template out of cardboard or poster boards. Once you have the layout built, transfer that over to a sheet of MDF. Lay the template on a sheet of MDF, trace the template, then cut out the shape.

You need the entire IPC-106 unit if you want to control the Ipod's functions via the headunit. The other (cheaper) option would be to just connect the Ipod to the headunit through the headunit's auxillary input, which uses standard RCA cables. You won't be able to control the Ipod from the headunit, you'll have to use the Ipod itself to change songs/etc.

Steve's a smart guy, a fantastic installer and from all accounts a good tuner as well. But, from interactions I've observed on the forums, not the most technical person in the hobby and one who also holds on to some popular snake-oil type myths. Though to his credit, he's willing to take advice and perform experiments to help find an answer to a debated question, which is much more than can be said from most. So this certainly isn't aimed at putting him down. So, let's look quickly at the first page I clicked on: the DVC Subwoofers Page. I didn't read the page in detail, just skimmed, so I probably missed a lot of things. But just a couple comments that I caught on a glance: "Parallel configurations also tend to RAISE the resonant frequency(Fs) of the woofer , most likely due to variances in inductance, Qes, or other parameters. " First, Fs is a physical/mechanical parameter. It's mass on a spring, not related to the electrical side of the driver's operation. What's the equation for Fs? Fs = 1 / 2Pi * sqrt(Cms * Mms) So the only parameters that are used to derive Fs are Cms, which is the compliance of the suspension, and Mms, which is the mass of the moving assembly plus acoustic load (i.e. the air). So, by changing the wiring of the driver is either the Cms or Mms of the driver going to change? No, they are not. You are going to have the same mass (Mms) on the same spring (Cms) regardless of how the driver is wired. Which means Fs is going to remain the same between both wiring configurations. Second, is Qes going to change between series and parallel wiring as is apparently suggested in the above statement? Qes = 2 * Pi * Fs * Mms * Re / BL^2 The short answer is no, it's not. Qes is going to be the same. Why? Well, look at the equation and figure out what's going to change. When you wire a driver in series, Re quadruples compared to parallel wiring and BL doubles compared to parallel wiring. Since Fs and Mms are going to be the same, we can ignore basically all of the equation except for Re and BL for this comparison. So let's just look at the "Re/BL^2" part of the equation. Since these two values are going to change proportionally to each other, the actual value of Qes is not going to change. "Obviously, woofer sensitivity specs (db/1watt/1meter) will be least for the woofer in series, highest for the woofer in parallel, and mid-line for the single coil wiring." Wrong. Sensitivity for parallel and series wiring will be identical. You calculate sensitivity with the formula: Sensitivity (SPL) = 112 + 10*Log(9.64 * 10^(-10) * Fs^3 * Vas / Qes) So which of those parameters is going to change between series and parallel wiring? The answer is, NONE. Fs and Qes we explained above, Vas isn't going to change since it's based on Cms and Sd (both of which will remain constant between series and parallel wiring). So what is going to change that will change the sensitivity of the driver between series and parallel wiring? Nothing. Sensitivity would be lowest for a DVC driver with a single coil driven since you only have half of the motor force, so Qes doubles. It would, in fact, be 3db lower than the sensitivity of the driver with both coils driven (in either series or parallel wiring). Anyways.....moral of the story is be careful what you read on the internet. And from reading a little more on that DVC page, there are a lot of comments that are either completely inaccurate or arguable at best. Like I said; Steve's a smart and talented guy who has contributed a lot to the hobby. I wouldn't, however, take everything he says as fact when it comes to the technical side of the hobby.

Loudspeaker Design Cookbook by Vance Dickason is pretty much the standard for an introduction to the more technical side of reference material. It's novice oriented but assumes you have a fundamental understanding to begin with.

Nope, they are telling you that if you have one installed prior to 1/1/12 you are legally required to uninstall or disable the alarm system. No later than January 1, 2012, all motor vehicle alarm systems or features of alarm systems that emit an audible sound that have been installed prior to that date shall be uninstalled or disabled.