[MOSFET]

sound right. Feel free to pull your dick like that untill
your nuts turn blue. Then let me know what you think.

True. But if you do it JUST right, you can get a pretty good hand-job.

MOSFET

[Captain Howdy]

In article , "MOSFET" wrote:
Is that just today, or just on your off days? Maxie and having balls is in
a

It's moxy you bonehead. It's like trying to explain something to a 9 year
old. Why did I bother? I'm sure nothing I said registered if you don't
even understand the words I use.


Yes I do even when you don't spell them right. But aren't you quick to point
it out when someone else doesn't spell it right.

It's moxie you bonehead. It's like trying to explain something to a 6 year
old. Why did I bother? I'm sure nothing I said registered if you don't
even understand the words I use.

[Eric Desrochers]

You want me totally depressed today aren't you?

But I have those observations on this.

A lot of *younger* people, like students, aren't driving new Lexus and
Infinities, but beat up 92 Jettas or Reliant K from the eighties. Those
people on a budget won't hesitate to put an aftermarket, aesthetical
being damned.

And more importantly, some people won't accept the sound of a Delco, or
even Bose, no matter how well integrated and pleasing to the eye and
will have what they want installed.

Maybe some reputable manufacturer should enter the OEM business with car
manufacturer? Or maybe it's already being done now?

But there surely will be a rationalization to be done in the industry.
I recently came back on the car audio scene after a few years off (with
a satisfying system!) and I cannot believe the sheer number of
manufacturer, mainly in the amp and speaker business!

--
Eric (Dero) Desrochers
http://homepage.mac.com/dero72

Hiroshima 45, Tchernobyl 86, Windows 95

[Eric Desrochers]

Captain Howdy wrote:

You should attended a SQ competition, just to get an idea of what you are
talking about. Then enter a SQ competition and make good friends with a judge
and get him to spend a month in your car setting up your system just right.
Then enter another SQ competition so that the next judge can tell you that
your system does not sound right. Feel free to pull your dick like that untill
your nuts turn blue. Then let me know what you think.

Oh. But such things happens all the time in all spheres of the life in
a society! Judges are being purchased or influenced. A new American
administration arrives and the DOJ release their grip on Microsoft,
things like that...

Anything that is judged by humans, on subjectives criterias on top of
that, are bound to cause injustices and disatisfactions. I don't have
to participate in a car sound competition to know this.

But I really don't see the relevance of your comment with mine.
Independantly of how competitions are held, the quest for SQ means we
expect more from the manufacturers. And this advance the state of the
art.

--
Eric (Dero) Desrochers
http://homepage.mac.com/dero72

Hiroshima 45, Tchernobyl 86, Windows 95

[Captain Howdy]

What the **** are you talking about? Misfit stop talking out your ass again.
Back in the day cars had on OBD that is true. You started your car and it ran
like an ass one morning and one would say, I wonder what could be wrong. Is it
my EGR that has failed or is it just a bad spark plug or wire? Maybe a vacuum
leak, or could it be a stuck float in my carb, or clogged converter, bad
rotor/cap, maybe a bad coil???

Now my little misfit with today's cars since 1996 all cars share one standard,
It's called OBD2 (Onboard Diagnostics). When your check engine light comes on,
you plug in your scan tool under the dash and the scan tool returns a code or
codes. Say P0301 which means that you have a misfire in cylinder #1. This
boils down to a bad plug/wire, or injector on cylinder #1. If you have a bad
cap/rotor you would see a P0300 code multiple misfire on all cylinders.

In 2008 all cars are going to a CAN standard, this will intergrades all
onboard controllers on to one network, such ABS, air ride, air bag
controllers. But never mind that, would hate to make your brain bleed.

So with this **** said and examples given, how the **** is it all of a sudden
that much harder to fix cars? You silly little freak.







The best analogy to this whole thing is the progression of the automobile
engine. At first, anyone with a set of tools and a little know-how could
work on their own car. They could perform modifications and fix most
problems. Then cars went and became computerized. All of a sudden, you
needed a WHOLE LOT of know-how to work on a car.



Now if we had Onboard Diagnostics in car audio, your check tweeter light would
come on and when you hooked up your DEI can tool it would give a code CXXXX
crossover frequency too low or crossover frequency out of range. That's car
audio progression that you can use. LOL


This is what I see
happening to car audio. As factory HU's become more and more integrated
into other car functions, it will become increasingly difficult for the
DIYer to change or modify anything. And again, I'm not JUST talking about
the electronic end of this, but styling considerations will become more and
more important. Again, people are going to be nervous messing with the
dashes of their new Infinities. This wasn't the case 20 years ago when even
high-end cars (Mercedes for instance) used the standard DIN sized HU.

MOSFET

[MOSFET]

It's moxie you bonehead.

Hey, you're right! Two points for you.

I love you.

MOSFET

[Captain Howdy]

This is why SQ competitions are dead and will never come back, this is the
relevance of my comment to your comment of SQ competitions returning some day.
If the win or loss in drag racing and football depended on a judge, I'm that
these sport would face the same faith. We have beauty pageants and figure
skating that need judges, not car audio.

I don't think that the quest for SQ means we expect more from the
manufacturers, I think that we expect more tools to achieve SQ with little to
no effort and head units loaded with crap don't make them very user friendly.
You have to understand that most people out there that buy head units, don't
want them full of crap that they don't understand. All they want is a head
unit that looks nice and plays sound out of their speakers and this is mostly
because their factory radio failed in some way or they want to change formats.
We the ones that are interested in high performance head units are just a
small percentage of this market.



In article ,
(Eric Desrochers) wrote:
Captain Howdy wrote:

You should attended a , just to get an idea of what you are
talking about. Then enter a SQ competition and make good friends with a judge
and get him to spend a month in your car setting up your system just right.
Then enter another SQ competition so that the next judge can tell you that
your system does not sound right. Feel free to pull your dick like that
untill
your nuts turn blue. Then let me know what you think.

Oh. But such things happens all the time in all spheres of the life in
a society! Judges are being purchased or influenced. A new American
administration arrives and the DOJ release their grip on Microsoft,
things like that...

Anything that is judged by humans, on subjectives criterias on top of
that, are bound to cause injustices and disatisfactions. I don't have
to participate in a car sound competition to know this.

But I really don't see the relevance of your comment with mine.
Independantly of how competitions are held, the quest for SQ means we
expect more from the manufacturers. And this advance the state of the
art.

[Captain Howdy]

True, if self service is your kind of thing.

In article , "MOSFET"
wrote:
sound right. Feel free to pull your dick like that untill
your nuts turn blue. Then let me know what you think.

True. But if you do it JUST right, you can get a pretty good hand-job.

MOSFET

[Captain Howdy]

Okay with that said, feel free to pull your foot out of your mouth.


In article , "MOSFET"
wrote:
It's moxie you bonehead.

Hey, you're right! Two points for you.

I love you.

MOSFET

[MOSFET]

True, if self service is your kind of thing.

Of course it is. But I'd make an exception for you, Howdy. You have SO
much maxie.

I love you,

MOSFET

[MOSFET]

this is the
relevance of my comment to your comment of SQ competitions returning some
day.
If the win or loss in drag racing and football depended on a judge, I'm
that
these sport would face the same faith.

Would they face the same faith? Christianity? Buddhism?

You slip into Bob-speak when you type fast.

I mean, you barely make any sense as is, but it doesn't help when your
grammar is poor.

Oh, and I love you. Big wet kiss......

MOSFET

[Captain Howdy]

You should stay on the topic of engines, seems that you know more about them
then car audio. LOL

Mr Moxy


In article , "MOSFET"
wrote:
this is the
relevance of my comment to your comment of SQ competitions returning some
day.
If the win or loss in drag racing and football depended on a judge, I'm
that
these sport would face the same faith.

Would they face the same faith? Christianity? Buddhism?

You slip into Bob-speak when you type fast.

I mean, you barely make any sense as is, but it doesn't help when your
grammar is poor.

Oh, and I love you. Big wet kiss......

MOSFET

[MOSFET]

You should stay on the topic of engines, seems that you know more about
them
then car audio. LOL

Mr Moxy


I KNOW you can do better than that, but I got to quit for tonight. Until we
meet again....

Take care sugar,

MOSFET

[GregS]

In article , (Eric Desrochers) wrote:
The time alignment crap
was orginally for some arbitrary pa sound system , at some typical selcted
crossover frequency, typically around 1 kHz. This does nothing for the
typical
home or car sound system. Most professionals don't like it.

How would you know...

TA is indeed used for live sound on about ALL high end pro sound
systems. TA has nothing to do with the quantity of high frequency in
the system, so you obviously are confusing TA with some other gimmick...

I was refering to BBE time or phase. Don't change the topic.

greg

[GregS]

In article , "RG" wrote:
Most professionals do like it, and it is not just a "dynamic" boost of the
highs, nor is it a treble control. I would never buy another HU without it.
But to each their own I guess ...


You must be in another world. Listen what a few recording proffesional say about BBE.
I know exactly what the circuit does.
I have studied it in detail.

greg


- RG


"GregS" wrote in message
...
In article , "RG"
wrote:
My opinion on this differs somewhat. I have had Alpines with time
alignment
and other HU's as well. My current HU's have EQ's with one being a
parametric. My personal experience is this:

1/ Time alignment is not for everyone. I never used this feature as in my
experience it actually degraded the sound (in my particular experience).
Alpine's return to including BBE far outweighs the exclusion of time
alignment. In fact, time alignment would be at odds with the operation of
BBE. Time alignment does nothing for inherent phase delays between highs
and
lows whereas BBE does. The current BBE feature is much better than time
alignment IMO.

BBE is not what its cracked up to be. That demo on their website
is a real winner. SO lame.

What BBE does, is boost the highs dynamically. It has some benefit,
but mostly, you can do that with a treble control. The time alignment crap
was orginally for some arbitrary pa sound system , at some typical selcted
crossover frequency, typically around 1 kHz. This does nothing for the
typical
home or car sound system. Most professionals don't like it. It
can help playing bad compact cassettes, but again, so can a treble
control.

greg

[RG]

Me too, Greg.

- RG

"GregS" wrote in message
...
In article , "RG"
wrote:
Most professionals do like it, and it is not just a "dynamic" boost of the
highs, nor is it a treble control. I would never buy another HU without
it.
But to each their own I guess ...


You must be in another world. Listen what a few recording proffesional say
about BBE.
I know exactly what the circuit does.
I have studied it in detail.

greg


- RG


"GregS" wrote in message
...
In article , "RG"
wrote:
My opinion on this differs somewhat. I have had Alpines with time
alignment
and other HU's as well. My current HU's have EQ's with one being a
parametric. My personal experience is this:

1/ Time alignment is not for everyone. I never used this feature as in
my
experience it actually degraded the sound (in my particular experience).
Alpine's return to including BBE far outweighs the exclusion of time
alignment. In fact, time alignment would be at odds with the operation
of
BBE. Time alignment does nothing for inherent phase delays between highs
and
lows whereas BBE does. The current BBE feature is much better than time
alignment IMO.

BBE is not what its cracked up to be. That demo on their website
is a real winner. SO lame.

What BBE does, is boost the highs dynamically. It has some benefit,
but mostly, you can do that with a treble control. The time alignment
crap
was orginally for some arbitrary pa sound system , at some typical
selcted
crossover frequency, typically around 1 kHz. This does nothing for the
typical
home or car sound system. Most professionals don't like it. It
can help playing bad compact cassettes, but again, so can a treble
control.

greg

[Eric Desrochers]

We the ones that are interested in high performance head units are just a
small percentage of this market.

That's true, but we are also those with the deep pockets, so
manufacturer should keep at least a few high end models with some high
end features that we need since we WILL buy them.

Porsche sells to a small percentage of the population and seem to be all
well thank you!

--
Eric (Dero) Desrochers
http://homepage.mac.com/dero72

Hiroshima 45, Tchernobyl 86, Windows 95

[Eric Desrochers]

I was refering to BBE time or phase. Don't change the topic.

greg

I'm not changing anything, I even quoted you. Here is the text again :

The time alignment crap was orginally for some arbitrary pa sound
system , at some typical selcted crossover frequency, typically around
1 kHz. This does nothing for the typical home or car sound system. Most
professionals don't like it.

You are talking about time alignment. Or you wrote it while thinking of
BBE. If it's the case, may I suggest organizing your thoughts
before typing.

Time alignement is a generic term applicable to a wide variety of
situation. BBE is a product and technology by a company. Maybe
live-sound pros don't like BBE but it change nothing to the fact that
pro sound systems must and ARE time aligned most often than not.

-- Eric (Dero) Desrochers

http://homepage.mac.com/dero72

Hiroshima 45, Tchernobyl 86, Windows 95

[Jamie Pruden]

Hi Nick,

You're killing me here... I've put the good Captain on my kill list, so
I read a post you put up... then read your response... etc, etc. It's
almost like you're talking to yourself sometimes.

I am glad Howdy is on the kill list, though...

smiles,
Jamie
On 2006-10-04 18:19:30 -0700, "MOSFET" said:

You're right, I don't know **** about cars. But I'm not the one who
duct-taped his rear-view mirror back on (be careful before you deny that, I
MAY have saved a picture).

Anyway, I'm in a goofy mood right now so I'm ****ing with you just to amuse
myself (because frankly you're just TOO easy to annoy), but I know this
little game of mine ****es the others off so I'm going to stop now.

See ya, Howdy

MOSFET

[GregS]

In article , (Eric Desrochers) wrote:
I was refering to BBE time or phase. Don't change the topic.

greg

I'm not changing anything, I even quoted you. Here is the text again :


You are the one who deleted the reference to BBE.

greg

The time alignment crap was orginally for some arbitrary pa sound
system , at some typical selcted crossover frequency, typically around
1 kHz. This does nothing for the typical home or car sound system. Most
professionals don't like it.

You are talking about time alignment. Or you wrote it while thinking of
BBE. If it's the case, may I suggest organizing your thoughts
before typing.

Time alignement is a generic term applicable to a wide variety of
situation. BBE is a product and technology by a company. Maybe
live-sound pros don't like BBE but it change nothing to the fact that
pro sound systems must and ARE time aligned most often than not.

-- Eric (Dero) Desrochers

http://homepage.mac.com/dero72

Hiroshima 45, Tchernobyl 86, Windows 95

[Dzeq]

Hi could somebody with 9853 HU check one think for me
I had that HU with helix H500 Esprit AMP, Amp has Mono
input for Subwoofer signal. In OwnerManual I can find that HU has
such setting as Subwoofer Channel (ST/MONO), but I can not find it my
HU. Could somebody check it if your unit has it?
Next question, if amp has mono input which channel in HU should be
Connect with ?

Regards
Jacek

[MOSFET]

Dzeq,

I know EXACTLY what you are talking about. It apparently is a flaw in ALL
9853's. When you go to MENU, then SETUP, then AUDIO, one of the choices
should be SUBW CH. That determines whether your sub is in mono or stereo.
BUT IT ISN'T THERE!!!!!! You're not going crazy, it is not accessible on
mine either. It appears to be a flaw. Now, there MAY be a way to get to
SUBW CH, but you can't do it following the instruction manual. It's
possible that it isn't a flaw in the unit as much as a flaw in the
instruction manual. There are TONS of nested menus so you might want to
just start experimenting and trying to find SUBW CH somewhere else.

It was not a big deal to me because I simply combined the two channels (with
a Y adaptor) and ran that into my sub amp. Seems to work just fine for me.
I would recommend doing the same thing.

But no, you are not going nuts, SUBW CH does not seem to exist on the 9853
(at least not where they tell you it should be). I was frustrated at this
as well, but as I said, if jsut combine both channels it doesn't seem to be
a problem. Unfortunately, stereo is the default setting for the subwoofer
output on both the 9853 and 9855, so you WILL have to combine them if you
want bass information from both channels to go to your amp.

If anyone has figured out a way to access this feature (SUBW CH) on a 9853,
I would LOVE to hear it.

MOSFET


"Dzeq" wrote in message
oups.com...
Hi could somebody with 9853 HU check one think for me
I had that HU with helix H500 Esprit AMP, Amp has Mono
input for Subwoofer signal. In OwnerManual I can find that HU has
such setting as Subwoofer Channel (ST/MONO), but I can not find it my
HU. Could somebody check it if your unit has it?
Next question, if amp has mono input which channel in HU should be
Connect with ?

Regards
Jacek

[Dzeq]

Thanks for help, I have spent over 3 hours and I am sure that
there is no SUBW CH in my unit
Any other users ?

regards
Dzeq
MOSFET napisal(a):
Dzeq,

I know EXACTLY what you are talking about. It apparently is a flaw in ALL
9853's. When you go to MENU, then SETUP, then AUDIO, one of the choices
should be SUBW CH. That determines whether your sub is in mono or stereo.
BUT IT ISN'T THERE!!!!!! You're not going crazy, it is not accessible on
mine either. It appears to be a flaw. Now, there MAY be a way to get to
SUBW CH, but you can't do it following the instruction manual. It's
possible that it isn't a flaw in the unit as much as a flaw in the
instruction manual. There are TONS of nested menus so you might want to
just start experimenting and trying to find SUBW CH somewhere else.

It was not a big deal to me because I simply combined the two channels (with
a Y adaptor) and ran that into my sub amp. Seems to work just fine for me.
I would recommend doing the same thing.

But no, you are not going nuts, SUBW CH does not seem to exist on the 9853
(at least not where they tell you it should be). I was frustrated at this
as well, but as I said, if jsut combine both channels it doesn't seem to be
a problem. Unfortunately, stereo is the default setting for the subwoofer
output on both the 9853 and 9855, so you WILL have to combine them if you
want bass information from both channels to go to your amp.

If anyone has figured out a way to access this feature (SUBW CH) on a 9853,
I would LOVE to hear it.

MOSFET


"Dzeq" wrote in message
oups.com...
Hi could somebody with 9853 HU check one think for me
I had that HU with helix H500 Esprit AMP, Amp has Mono
input for Subwoofer signal. In OwnerManual I can find that HU has
such setting as Subwoofer Channel (ST/MONO), but I can not find it my
HU. Could somebody check it if your unit has it?
Next question, if amp has mono input which channel in HU should be
Connect with ?

Regards
Jacek

[MOSFET]

Thanks for help, I have spent over 3 hours and I am sure that
there is no SUBW CH in my unit

Yep, it's just NOT THERE.

There is no SUBW CH setting on a 9853. The instruction manual is wrong.

Again, just combine the left and right channels (with a Y adaptor) and run
that into your subwoofer amplifier. That's what I did and it seems to be
working GREAT!!!

Good luck,

MOSFET

[Captain_Howdy]

LOL

Again, just combine the left and right channels (with a Y adaptor) and run
that into your subwoofer amplifier. That's what I did and it seems to be
working GREAT!!!

Good luck,

MOSFET

[Chad Wahls]

You are not crazy, I have a later 9855 that has an addendum to tha manual
saying "We F'd up" The feature does not exist.

Chad


"MOSFET" wrote in message
news
Dzeq,

I know EXACTLY what you are talking about. It apparently is a flaw in ALL
9853's. When you go to MENU, then SETUP, then AUDIO, one of the choices
should be SUBW CH. That determines whether your sub is in mono or stereo.
BUT IT ISN'T THERE!!!!!! You're not going crazy, it is not accessible on
mine either. It appears to be a flaw. Now, there MAY be a way to get to
SUBW CH, but you can't do it following the instruction manual. It's
possible that it isn't a flaw in the unit as much as a flaw in the
instruction manual. There are TONS of nested menus so you might want to
just start experimenting and trying to find SUBW CH somewhere else.

It was not a big deal to me because I simply combined the two channels
(with
a Y adaptor) and ran that into my sub amp. Seems to work just fine for
me.
I would recommend doing the same thing.

But no, you are not going nuts, SUBW CH does not seem to exist on the 9853
(at least not where they tell you it should be). I was frustrated at this
as well, but as I said, if jsut combine both channels it doesn't seem to
be
a problem. Unfortunately, stereo is the default setting for the subwoofer
output on both the 9853 and 9855, so you WILL have to combine them if you
want bass information from both channels to go to your amp.

If anyone has figured out a way to access this feature (SUBW CH) on a
9853,
I would LOVE to hear it.

MOSFET


"Dzeq" wrote in message
oups.com...
Hi could somebody with 9853 HU check one think for me
I had that HU with helix H500 Esprit AMP, Amp has Mono
input for Subwoofer signal. In OwnerManual I can find that HU has
such setting as Subwoofer Channel (ST/MONO), but I can not find it my
HU. Could somebody check it if your unit has it?
Next question, if amp has mono input which channel in HU should be
Connect with ?

Regards
Jacek