Impious

Bass boost doesn't boost one frequency. It boosts a range of frequencies, with the boost centered at a certain frequency. The "loud" setting, if I recall correctly from the Pioneer owners manuals I've read, adds boost to both the low end and upper end of the frequency range. Max'ing all settings is not setting them correctly. SLA = Source Level Adjustment. It adjusts the volume level of the other sources (i.e. CD Player, etc) in relation to the FM radio. Just about anywhere, really. Local audio stores, just about any online audio store, ebay, etc.

The W200 has optical output also. Some say the W200 has a better screen than the W205, I've never side-by-side compared to two. Also the graphics for EQ/Xovers are better on the W200 (the W200 has a graph type deal for the EQ/Xover display, the W205 just gives numbers to my understanding). The optical output on both the W200 & W205 are in a retarded location, FYI. But the PITA of getting a cable to fit is worth it IMO, as M5 said. Zero worry about picking up any noise in the signal path between the HU and processor.

FYI, so people don't believe the above nonsense that my comment was mindless HAT bashing....the review is here; http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/member-product-reviews/2974-legatia-3-vs-trius-3-a.html And they were $30 each, not $30/pair.

Too many. I wouldn't even want to try to come up with an actual number. Joined many of them in their heyday that have since disappeared, and joined many shortly after they started up only to watch them peak then get flushed down the drain. I've virtually stopped actively contributing to any of them besides here.

IMO as long as you get back all of the money you paid out, be happy and move on. It was apparently a raffle, so there was a possibility you would have paid money out and received nothing in return. If you break even and get your money back, you did better than everyone else who participated.

I guess my question would be how you plan to run a 3-way frontstage until you get the H701? Reason I ask is because it might be better to run 2-way until you move to a more advanced processor like the H701. You could, in theory, run a 3-way frontstage off the Imprint by using an amplifier's built-in crossovers to lowpass the midrange and highpass the tweeter (for example).....but I don't know how or if the Imprint's auto-tuning function would be affected by this.

Well, going 3-way and running midbass in doors does save one problem of aiming as that's not really important in the midbass frequency range. Time arrival is however very important in this frequency range and will need to be corrected electrically via time alignment......but I believe Imprint will attempt to correct time arrival, so that hopefully should be able to be corrected. It also would allow you to have ample airspace for the midbass driver, just need to be sure you select a midbass that will perform well essentially IB. What type of midbass performance are you looking for? Do you want them to be very "punchy", or just smooth and tight? Where did you plan on mounting the midranges? Is there a factory location you will be dropping them into, or custom building a pod for them? Also, were you using the H100 for the Imprint? Because from what I could find, it's only a 3-way processor (tweeter/mid/sub), meaning you wouldn't be able to go fully active 4-way (tweeter/midrange/midbass/subwoofer) through the H100. It can work, and do well (from one seat) if tuned properly. There might be some hard-to-tame reflection issues depending on how/where the midranges are installed....but everything is a give and take, so sacrifices will always have to be made somewhere.

More correctly stated, you are the only one ignorant enough to recommend specific models before even fully understanding the particulars of how the OP will be using the drivers and his install plans, which are essential to knowing what drivers will and won't fit his needs. Anyone can throw out model numbers, making good suggestions that best fit the needs of the requester is much more important, however. You are also assuming the OP has the same sound preference as you.

sounds good! so here's the list I have of Alpine compatible HUs: CDA-9887 looks simple, plain, solid. cheap...$270 The W200 looks awesome, plays DVD's? About $400 on ebay. I've been trying so hard to keep from going surround... just too much work as it is stereo 4way active, and, I'll have remote turn on wire toggle switches so I can turn the tweets/4's/6.5's/21's off and on separately... amping is easy if I stick to what i got...but 5.1 would be SICK! W205 I like the A/V in and out, I'll need a rearview cam for the wall, I want easy RCA input so I can hook up a laptop, hell a guitar if I want, about anything. Almost $600 ebay... more processing and amplification? D105 DiviX!!!! I just started downloading movies again, I need to get Hulk, WOTWs, Pods? The super low stuff! Not even on ebay LOL ACC? D106 crutchfield doesn't say discontinued! $900! Not much info on it. $700 ebay. ACC files? The Alpine DVA-9860 and DVA-9861 are both single DIN DVD players that will also control the H701. They are both discontinued units, so will either be NOS or used......but possibly more affordable. The W505 will also control the H701, but IIRC it uses a proprietary optical cable which can be a PITA to find and expensive. I have a 9860 that I used to use, and currently use a W200 with my H701.

There are advantages and disadvantages to both 2-way and 3-way. If this is your first attempt at an active setup, my suggestion would be to stick with 2-way initially. Appropriately tuning an active setup isn't as easy as it sounds.....it would be a much better learning experience, IMO, to start with a 2-way and once you gain some hands-on experience can decide if you think moving to a 3-way would be beneficial. And you would probably achieve better results with a 2-way initially due to the less complicated tuning requirements. Problem is, there are advantages and disadvantages to everything.....what you need to do is decide what set of tradeoffs best suit your needs. Just briefly; Speakers in kickpanels you have to worry about appropriate sizing and aiming of the kickpanels, legroom possibly being given up, early reflections from the underside of the dash, and having or acquiring the skill to build them.....but you typically gain more equalized pathlengths, ability to better aim the speakers, good imaging from both front seats, and while there are early reflections from the dash/etc there are steps that can be taken to tame them. Mids in doors have the disadvantage of typically having worse aiming and not much room for decent aiming, more unequalized pathlengths requiring use of time alignment and inherently limiting good imaging to only a single seat, possibly have early diffraction and reflection due to the door panel that can be more difficult to tame, typically differing listening axis from each driver which not desirable and could decrease imaging/coherence.......but on the plus side, it's an easier install, with the proper processing and install considerations results can still be acceptable for a single listening position, easily accessible airspace for the midbass, and no legroom given up. If you separate the tweeter from the mid (mid in door, tweeter in A-pillar for example) you may help your stage height at the expense of possible coherence and lobing at the crossover point, but that can be helped with proper tuning but typically requires proper tuning to get "right". That certainly isn't a comprehensive overview, but should give you some things to consider when selecting your mounting locations and what best fits your time and abilities. As for drivers, there are so many options on the market it can be difficult for us to make too specific recommendations, especially without knowing specifics as far as how they will be installed and used. Some of them will perform well IB in a door, others could benefit froman enclosure. So that's soemthing to take into consideration. Howhigh they will be playing (2-way or 3-way) for mids and how low they'llbe playing (tweeters) will also play a role. Seas, Peerless, Vifa and ScanSpeak are pretty much staples in the DIY community for building quality, well performing drivers at affordable prices. Scanspeak just released a new line, Discovery, which are reasonable priced. SB Acoustics is relatively new but from all reports are well performing drivers. The Dayton Reference line have good distortion performance but have some cone breakup issues that can limit how high they can be used on the top end. Usher builds good drivers, though are on the higher end of the mid-priced drivers. HiVi and Tang Band can be hit or miss....some of their drivers perform well for the price. LPG has pretty good performing small format tweeters, as does Seas. The LPG however don't do so hot crossed over very low (<2500hz), so for example LPG tweeter with Dayton Ref driver probably wouldn't be an optimal mix. If you want a low playing tweeter, chances are you'll have to end up with a large format tweeter. There's just dozens and dozens of options.

Imprint has much less user adjustability......from the last of it I saw (which was when it was first released, but I don't believe it has changed any) the Imprint only allowed you to select from 3 preset "curves" with no adjustability thereafter. Good for a novice who has no idea what they are doing, but very limiting for anyone skilled in the craft who could get better results from tuning themselves.

I don't know that I've seen an "official" reason from Alpine. My guess would be sluggish sales, or that they planned to phase it out with their integration of Imprint and Imprint-based processors. IMO 5.1 hasn't ever really caught on in car audio for whatever reason, and majority of the masses don't have a clue how to use the H701 for an active setup. Imprint probably meshes better with the masses due to it's relative ease of use and lack of adjustable features, even though it screws us enthusiasts. To be honest, I'm pretty surprised it was around as long as it was.

Yes, you can bandpass two sets of channels, plus have a pair of channels for your tweeters and the subwoofer output. It's capable of 4-way outputs. Yes, the H701 was discontinued by Alpine. I would suggest either ebay or the classifieds section at www.diymobileaudio.com for sourcing one. It seems there is always atleast one for sale at any given time on DIYMA.

Out of those two options, if I were in your position, I personally would get the Pioneers.

I don't know anyone I dislike enough I would feel comfortable giving it to, much less steal their money by selling to it them......

If I got one for free, I'd toss it in the trash personally. The short of it is, the Epicenter creates subharmonics tones that it "finds" to be missing from the music. It looks for what would be harmonics of a fundamental tone, and adds the suggested fundamental tone if the fundamental isn't very strong or not found in the signal. This technology might have been semi-useful back in the '80s when the technology was developed. Anymore it's pretty much useless for it's original intent, which was to add back bass that might have been "lost" through the recording/replay methods. This isn't a problem with modern means of music reproduction, so all it does is unnecessarily overemphasize bass and increase your risk of damaging your equipment.

PLD does not affect stage height, but stage height can be manipulated if you have low mounted drivers With my old kickpanels, and you can ask audiolife on here as he heard it several times, I was running a simple passive coincident component set with no EQ and the soundstage was above the dash. The car imaged and staged well with nothing more than properly aimed kickpanels. Probably could have been pretty darn great if I had actually taken the time to really tune it and dial in the install some more. Yes, there are pro's and con's for midbass in doors (if you have time alignment). But my comment was more pointed towards his coaxials in the door (presumably with no time alignment), and the problems associated with running non-midbass drivers in doors (diffraction/reflection from the door panel, different listening axis between left and right drivers, steep off axis of near side driver, etc) that kickpanels would correct and improve upon.

No need to reinvent the wheel here. It's called OPEN cell foam, and has been known for a good long time. Ensolite is a CLOSED cell foam, which are poor absorbers. But OPEN cell foam is very effective at sound absorption. Here's a couple examples of OPEN cell foam; http://www.parts-express.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?Partnumber=260-516 http://www.parts-express.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?Partnumber=300-900 Again, demonstrating your ignorance.

FYI, real world experience and testing is only useful if the right experience and testing has been done, and you actually understand how and why the results were what they were. You, however, do not and make up your own reasons. This is the driving force behind so many of your errors...you think "experience" is the end-all of objective evaluation. That was the same argument you used in our earlier discussion about speakers, and you're using it now. The problem is you do not understand that your experience and testing is relatively meaningless if not conducted properly, and that the results are meaningless if you don't understand the physics involved and why the results turned out as they did and then incorrectly ascribe them to some arbitrary reason that you determined to be the cause. You simply don't grasp this concept. Second, not much more to say other than anyone who has ever actually researched this, from the interested hobbyist, to those in the industry, to those who conduct studies and engineer the product disagrees with you. What does that tell you? The funny part here is that those oddly shaped curved/bent surfaces are already the lowest resonance pieces of sheetmetal in the car and should be your least concern. You are also here admitting that you would rather use an inferior but easier to use method and product. That doesn't help your position any. You are still trying to separate density and mass. Density is a description of a materials mass per volume, nothing more. Give up. See above. Patently false and demonstrates just how little of this you understand. Demonstrates what I referred to above....incorrect testing and/or failure to understand and comprehend results. Your "testing" is meaningless. Yes, meaningless. And do you know what type of foam they are typically using? Open cell foam, not closed cell foam. Open cell foam works by creating a labyrinth through which the soundwaves must travel and become "trapped", for lack of a better quick explanation. This is why closed cell foam is not a good absorber. Closed cell foam will absorb some, but it's not very effective and the thin foam used (1/8 - 1/4") will only be even mildly effective at the upper most range of the audible frequency spectrum. Closed cell foam works decently as a diffuser, but not an absorber. Please, research it. "BTW I'm glad ya'll can read the "research" done by phatmatt, damplifier, and all the other companies. in the end they all use almost the same exact technology, but use different adhesives and thicknesses." Sure, they call use a "technology" called constrained layer damping. They all use different compositions for the viscoelastic layer, they each use different thickness materials for both the viscoelastic layer and the constraining layer, and each of these factors will alter the various aspect of the products performance such as vibration damping, adhesiveness, performance in temperature variations, etc. Believe it or not, CLD has applications beyond car audio and has been studied, researched and developed in outlets other than car audio marketing. "None of my above statements are false," Nearly all of them are. You're just too ignorant to realize it. "and neither of you have come up with any hard evidence to prove otherwise." All of the research is out there, you are free to look it up for yourself. But you won't, because you like to sit around thinking you know it all based on your flawed "experience" and "testing" and that all of the actual research that has been conducted on the topic is wrong because your flawed experiments are the truth to you. Don recently gave you a reference to research and read....but you won't. "you have either quoted me and simply said I was wrong, or said I was wrong and then your argument almost goes hand in hand with exactly what I had said. my ears are always open to learn new things, but so far on this entire thread, I have yet to hear anything of any value and truth that would counteract my learnings. " It's difficult to counteract your "learnings" when your "learnings" were made up by yourself and you refuse to believe your experience could be wrong or that you don't understand or comprehend what was actually occurring. When someone who has spent probably close to 5 years actually researching deadening, opened a website dedicated to testing sound deadening products, and eventually went on to develop his own line of deadening products based upon all of this research (Rudy) tells you that you're wrong.....chances are good, you're wrong.

Not to mention needing an amplifier that wouldn't burst into flames into an extremely low impedance.

I guess I misinterpreted this statement you made; "This is something we developed over 2 years ago and never sold." We developed generally does not mean it was something presented to you by a 3rd party and you passed on it......it means your company developed the product but decided not to take it to market.

No problem. It really won't be very difficult. I'm no expert on deadener, but I'll try to explain to the best of my abilities. Hopefully Don will chime in aswell as some point. First, you said; "all sound deadener really does is add mass" That in-and-of itself demonstrates that you don't understand how constrained layer dampers (CLD) function. There is a reason they call them constrained layer dampers and not just "mass panels". Constrained layer dampers function due to the interaction of the viscoelastic layer and the contraining layer. The quality and thickness of both the viscoelastic layer and the constraining layer will determine how well the product performs. It does also add mass to the panel that lowers the panels resonance, but that certainly is not "all it really does" as you incorrectly stated. For a brief overview of how CLD works, see HERE To my understanding, because of how constrained layer dampers function each additional layer is increasingly less effective than the layer adhered directly to the host panel. Which means for panel damping it is best to use a single layer of the best damper you can find than multiple layers of inferior deadeners (which are inferior in their deadening properties to begin with). The additional layers may decrease noise transmission, but at that point you are wasting time and money for a benefit that can be had through cheaper and more effective means (MLV, etc). I believe there are also other issues such as open vs. closed termination, but I'm not well versed so I'll simply mention it here incase you decide to research further on your own. Lastly, your "the more you use the better" statement has already been dismantled over the years by people like John (FoxPro5) and Don (Rudy/Rudeboy). Effectively and adequately reducing vibration and resonance in a panel generally does not require 100% coverage and multiple layers of CLD. There is a point of diminishing returns where you are spending time and money on an expensive product for little to no additional damping benefits. Again, you may see some decrease in noise transmission by covering everything and using multiple layers of CLD to do it, but then you are using the wrong product for the job and better results could be achieved more cost effectively by using proper barrier materials. That statement in and of itself doesn't make any sense. How can mass have nothing to do with a barrier but density does, when density is simply mass per unit volume? I would have to disagree that you are more knowledgeable about sound waves and deadening than M5 (it was his statement, not mine). See above. Already covered the inaccuracy contained in these types of statement. Ensolite is actually extremely poor at absorption, as are most closed cell foams. It diffuses better than it absorbs, and a single layer of typical thickness (1/8 - 1/4") is not thick enough to absorb a majority of the frequency range. Open cell foam is what you need if you want to absorb sound, and it's range of absorption frequencies will be related to it's thickness and a few other factors. If you want to absorb sound, Ensolite or any other CCF is not the right tool for the job. As a matter of fact, if you look on the SDS website they sell CCF as a decoupler, not as a sound absorption product as it's simply not effective for that use. It's hilarious that you think you understand sound deadening, frankly. I would suggest you spend some time on the various forums searching out posts by the above mentioned users, as they have shared a wealth of information on deadening and noise control over the years. None of which coincides with your current notion of "correct sound deadening".

Bear in mind that though they are similar products, Ant (SecondSkin) and Don (SDS) have different deadening philosophies. Don @ SDS is the individual who promotes the idea of 25% coverage, and as a result developed the CLD tiles to make it easier and more cost effective to achieve that goal. Ant claims he had developed the SPL tiles a year or two ago, yet interestingly didn't release them until after SDS started marketing their CLD tiles. I would highly recommend the CLD Tiles from SDS. Don is amazingly helpful and always provides useful information aimed at helping people achieve their goals rather than selling them more product. EDIT: I would like to point out that when I posted this response, I had not realized this thread was moved from the General forum to the SecondSkin subforum. Infact I think it was moved while I was responding.

Common psychoacoustic affect. The same reason people think their speakers/subwoofers "sound better" after some extended but arbitrary period of time and incorrectly attribute it to "break in". Your perception of the sound has changed as you've listened to it more.