Bginvestor's updated install

[bginvestor]

Originally Posted by sprite

Hoffam/bginvestor

I've thought about and read into the cleansweep and RF 3.sixty; I like the stock unit (for now) because I live in an area where aftermarket stereo's tend to get swiped by window-shopping thieves). Also like the in-dash 6 and XM radio, and the cost of getting an aftermarket HU with all of that is considerable.

so my question is: how much do these signal processors help? Is it really more a matter of having a better EQ to fine-tune your music or does it greatly improve the signal quality?
put another way, after my recent upgrades (speakers, sub, amp) would it be silly for me NOT to have a signal processor if i decide to keep the HU?

If you are using high level inputs to amplifiers right now, than the signal quality will be MUCH better using an OEM integrator. The benefit is having a quality signal with the best signal to noise ratio as possible (besides buying an aftermarket unit).

[bginvestor]

Originally Posted by djeaux

bginvestor, I love the grilles! What did the "Specialists" charge for the fabrication work?

I love them too! I'll post pics with the new speakers soon.

They charged me $80 a piece. Reasonable. The guy made a custom mold out of wood to shape the metal grills. I was surprised that he color matched as well! I don't recall asking him to do that...

[hofffam]

For Sprite - I agree with bqinvestor in general about the OEM integrators. But I have never used one like the 3.sixty or cleansweep. I understand what they do. The new OEM integrators have advanced dynamic EQ to compensate for non-linear behavior by the headunit.

But I generally believe the less signal processing - the better. No signal processor can credibly remove distortion or noise in the original source. They can correct response flaws, but that means the signal is going through more transistors, more capacitors, more wires, etc. than they did before.

But if someone is committed to the headunit - I would probably use one of these too.

[bginvestor]

The official link to the kick panel fabrication is here:

http://fiberglassforums.com/showthread.php?t=5145

I'll be done with this thread in about two weeks. At this point, I have them primered, ready for texture and paint!

[Chefelvis]

I agree with Hoffam here. Why bother upgrading if you don't first replace the head unit?
I like the kick panels but the tweeters are going to be aimed at your passengers legs and feet. This is no good for staging. I had that setup in a Camaro in high school and it worked well, however; in the Camaro you are more laying down and the speakers fired over the passangers legs and it sounded good. In the Ridgeline I don't think it will be the same. I opted to put the tweeters in the factory location and it sounds good. You should consider that aswell.

[Chuck]

Looking good BG! I used CDT 3-way components in my last vehicle. I had a 6.5" in the door, a 4" recessed in the dash, with the tweeters on the A pillar. It sounded great and played loud, but it was a bit too "in your face" if that makes sense. If I had it to do over I would have made kicks for the 4" and tweeter, would have sounded much better. Once again...Great job! Can't wait to watch this project unfold.

[bginvestor]

Originally Posted by Chefelvis

I agree with Hoffam here. Why bother upgrading if you don't first replace the head unit?
I like the kick panels but the tweeters are going to be aimed at your passengers legs and feet. This is no good for staging. I had that setup in a Camaro in high school and it worked well, however; in the Camaro you are more laying down and the speakers fired over the passangers legs and it sounded good. In the Ridgeline I don't think it will be the same. I opted to put the tweeters in the factory location and it sounds good. You should consider that aswell.

After doing listening tests, the tweeters are in the kick panels (instead of the door panels or factory location) because they sound the best. Keep in mind I have a secondary tweeter in the A panels that lifts the stage already so factory location is no good. You should always have the main component tweeter as close to the 6.5" as possible. The door panels didn't work because of the sharp angle placement for the driver's side. You have the advantage of cross-axis response of the tweeters being angled in the kick panels. This is the best compromise for me in terms of path lengths and volume.

Chuck - Thanks for the kind words!

[Mr Bigs]

Originally Posted by bginvestor

After doing listening tests, the tweeters are in the kick panels (instead of the door panels or factory location) because they sound the best. Keep in mind I have a secondary tweeter in the A panels that lifts the stage already so factory location is no good. You should always have the main component tweeter as close to the 6.5" as possible. The door panels didn't work because of the sharp angle placement for the driver's side. You have the advantage of cross-axis response of the tweeters being angled in the kick panels. This is the best compromise for me in terms of path lengths and volume.

Chuck - Thanks for the kind words!

Your exactly right and why Q-Forms are designed the way they are.

[bginvestor]

Here's a sneak peak on how the kickpanels are coming along..

[shovelhd]

Very nice!!!