What do you recomend?

I'm still somewhat undecided on what I want to do with my front stage. I am extrememly happy with the Koda's, so I will definitely keep them. The 4000X processor gives me a great deal of flexibility over my speakers, and I'm thinking about taking advantage of this.

Right now my Koda mids are in the stock location, with the tweeters wire tied to the grills covering the mids. I played with my processor a little bit and set the delay on the (well that's odd :huh: ) right side to 15.5 inches. I have been very happy with the soundstage I get from this. In fact when Dan Wiggins was down here, he mentioned that it was the best soundstage he has heard in a car ( :blush: ). Of course the night before he mentioned that frequency response accounts for 90% of your soundstage (or was that imaging?). So my guess is that the Koda's are providing a very good frequency response in this location (so he's responsible for my soundstage B) ). I was planning on building kickpannels, but now I'm thinking of building the speakers into my doors. After all the Koda's were designed for off axis response. Plus I will have the advantage of keeping them IB, and not losing any midbass.

Do you guys think I should bi-amp my Koda's? My processor has 4 sets of outputs, which I am now only utilizing 2 sets of them. I figure the advantage of bi-amping is that I can delay my mids and tweeters different if needed. I thought about also dropping the Koda crossovers and just using the digital crossover in the 4000X as well. Although it does have some impressively steep slopes (up to 72 dB per octave), it provides very few crossover points.

So do you guys think I should bi-amp them? Do you think I should put them in kickpannels, or build them into the doors? I'm planning on going crazy with the door pannels anyway.

 

Yeah, I saw that thread and responded. As you can see from my response, I really don't need those rings. I think people are making a bigger deal out of it than it really is. I have not seen ANY problems with the Koda's. In fact I'm looking at one of my mids right now that I have had since they first came out (November or December?). Apparently there were only a couple cases of a true problem. Others just tightened their screws too tight and caused the issues themselves. But even still Adire has taken appropriate steps and has fixed the problem. All new woofers are (and have been for a short while) being shipped with some new, stronger glue. But even still people shouldn't tighten them down too much either. As Dan has said, it should just be snug.

 

Of course my first priority is to install them as best as possible. Kick pannel placement evens out the differences and would be more than ideal for the install, except for what you mention above about their exceptional off axis design. I haven't really played with the mids outside the factory location. But although they are supposed to work well in .2 cubes sealed, I have heard they work better IB. That's why I brought up this thread, to see if people think that it would be better to even out the pathlength differences and mount them more on axis, or keep them in the doors, and maybe overcome any problems with processing.

But I also have the processing power available to fix any minor problems, much more precise than any other processor on the market (AFAIK). Another benifit is that Dan said he would use his high dollar test equipment at Adire to help tune it right. So my guess is that no matter what it will be done right, but which setup would be closest to ideal install to allow the processing to take over? And BTW, the processing is all digital, so the only change to the signal will be what I want it to be. No distortions, phase issues, etc. will be added.

So that brings about my next question. I still need to decide if I want to use the Koda crossovers or not. This will determine if I want to install the crossovers on my door pannels or not. I will definitely run the mid full range, with no crossover on it unless it REALLY needs it. But Dan has assured me that the mid works great with no high-pass OR low-pass crossover. This means that only the tweeter will use the crossover if I include it.

So you might want to know what I have available. Everything about the 4000X is amazingly precise, except for the crossover points. So you understand why I might still use the passive crossover. The processor precisely controls the output of each channel +6 -12 dB in .5 dB incriments. I have 10 parametric EQ bands per side set in 1/18 octave steps, +/-12 dB in .1 dB incriments and Q's from .1 to 25.5 in .1 incriments. The crossover for the tweeter can be set for 24 or 72 dB per octave high pass and has the options of 6.34 kHz, 5.03 kHz, and 4 kHz (like I said, very limited). With such limited crossover point possibilities, but precise controls elsewhere, do you think I could drop the passive crossovers?

If it would help for you guys to play with the Sony DSC software for the processor, you can download it here.

 

Yeah, I understood what you meant, and appreciate the heads up.

 

Thanks flawless. That helped out a great deal. Then I will definitely bi-amp. I was just worried that it wouldn't be worth the added cost (4 channel amp instead of 2 channel).