Phoenix Gold Phorum

Morning guys,

Heres a nice easy one for someone im sure... The Ti Elite 3 way set is always referred to as the 951 set... i was wondering whether there was any reasen that the 6.5" set couldnt be used with the Ti9's....to create
961 set! I take it the XO from the ti5 and ti6 sets are identical?

Nope.

People here have done it before. No reason why you shouldn't.

COol thanks for the quick answer!

Yes. The '9' in the 951 or 961 was simply adding the 9" driver to the package. The x-over does not have outputs for the 9. It must be processed outboard of the passive x-over. So it literally was just the addition of the 9"driver to either component set.

yea it just confused me why it is ALWAYS referred to as 951 (9=mid bass 5=mi range 1 = tweet) and never heard the term 961 coined?

worth running it all active or to stick to the mid range and tweet through the passive XO?

GO ALL ACTIVE.....the passive robs your set-up of power and active gives you more precise control of the sound

I, on the other hand, am an adamant believer of running the Elites passively. I have tried them active before, but I just can't get the same quality sound out of them. Even when I RTA them both flat, they still sound quite different. I have tried crossover underlap, overlap, etc. and I just can't get it to sound as natural as with the XO.

The Ti XO I feel is a work of art. PG installed a lot of good quality passive filtering components, which make the tweeter and mid blend much better together. I simply have not been able to replicate this digitally, and this was my third time trying (and second car!).

If you want to run active, I wouldn't suggest paying the price premium for the Ti Elite component set, only to remove the crossover anyways. In that case you might as well get cheaper and/or better sounding drivers directly from Morel, Dynaudio, SEAS, Tymphany, etc. For the price of Ti Elite components you can get much better single drivers.

stipud
What have you tried as far as running active ?

dBincognito wrote:stipud
What have you tried as far as running active ?

As I said, i've tried nearly everything. I started off at the factory crossover spec of 3.2kHz. However, with the midrange playing this high (especially the 6" vs the 5"), I got audible ringing from it, and had to drop its crossover frequency. Unfortunately I couldn't drop the tweeter too much lower than that, as it would start to show stress signs.

I ended up with approximately 2.5kHz 12dB for the mid and 3.2kHz 24dB for the tweeter as my best sounding setup, but then the gap was noticeable on certain songs. With the passive crossover installed, PG had definitely corrected this region, as I never had this ringing issue.

In the Saab I didn't have that much crossover adjustability, since I retained the stock deck instead of my DEX-P1R. In that case I was only using my Ti500.4, so I couldn't underlap the crossovers. Any time I have tried to switch the Elites to active, the crossover region is always problematic. There also seem to be some phasing concerns that are much more difficult to describe (and maybe it's just my mind playing tricks on me).

Even with the passive crossover that seems to be my trouble area, as I have to EQ about 10dB down there, while it plays very flat otherwise. After EQing both active and passive setups flat, the active setup still retains some of the ringing and distortion, while the passive setup seems buttery smooth. The difference in power ends up as less than 3dB difference on my RTA, so I consider it a negligible advantage.

Have you ever run a AudioControl DQXS with the optional Remote Mount Controller ?

No, but frankly to fix the tonal differences that my passive resolves, I would need an active crossover, followed by two equalizers so I could EQ and time align the tweeter and midrange SEPARATELY. Only then do I think I could get it anywhere near what it sounds like with the passive, but even then, that's not guaranteeing it will be better, only similar.

I have never had a problem with my Elites run passively, and am content to leave them this way for a long time to come. I have only switched them over as an experiment, based on feedback from others here. So no, I certainly don't plan to go any further with this. I think I have done enough to satisfy my opinion that the Elites are better run passively.

Considering the average of ~$300 that these speakers cost, you could get new Morels for the same price. Though I would probably spend a bit more on the tweeter side of it, so that I could reduce the crossover frequency without having the underlap.

stipud wrote:No, but frankly to fix the tonal differences that my passive resolves, I would need an active crossover, followed by two equalizers so I could EQ and time align the tweeter and midrange SEPARATELY.

The DQXS will do that. 6 chs in 8 chs out. Each channel can be set at different slopes/points and each has a 31 band EQ plus 2 parametric EQ bands. Phase and TA are the only things it couldn't do.

My DQS is in for repair. Sent out yesterday. I now count down the days and wait.

Phase is probably the critical element here. Passives shift phase, many actives do not.

Has anyone reverse engineered the PG crossover, or knows more about its design? Maybe this is common knowledge within the Ti Elite owner circles, but I have no clue what its points and slopes are, or if there is any other non standard filtering going on.

3K Hz at 24dB/Oct

smgreen20 wrote:3K Hz at 24dB/Oct

Both high pass and low pass?