Share your EQ settings (if different than stock)
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
What sound system so you have? I would think that would make a big difference in EQ settings. Also the source makes a big difference.
I find my 13 speaker Alpine system has to much bass (and I like a lot of bass). On most of my sound systems the EQ curve looks like a "V" (bass & treble highlighted), but in the Pacifica I've left the bass in the middle and have the midtone and treble almost all the way up. I find the midtone lacking, the opposite of all other systems.
I find my 13 speaker Alpine system has to much bass (and I like a lot of bass). On most of my sound systems the EQ curve looks like a "V" (bass & treble highlighted), but in the Pacifica I've left the bass in the middle and have the midtone and treble almost all the way up. I find the midtone lacking, the opposite of all other systems.
I have the Uconnect Theater (not 'and sound') system with the standard Bass, Mid, High EQ settings.
Joined
·
12 Posts
I agree with Pappa60. The mids are very low.
Joined
·
746 Posts
I always do the "V" but I did turn the bass down a few notches.... Now I do have a question on the sound system, I ordered mine with the theatre and sound and it stated it has a Harman Kardon premium audio system,with 20 speakers in 13 locations*— where the heck are all these speakers??? 2 on the tailgate, 2 in the slider doors, 2 on the front doors, 3 on the dash is 9!!!!
They show the locations on page 18 of the brochure located here
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...DIz6kCXfzRFBlbNNw&sig2=X6uhI6At2ra_1cV1m1OnDw
It looks like they count the noise cancellation speakers in the 20 total. Hmm
Joined
·
746 Posts
That shows 13 speakers, not 20.
Joined
·
50 Posts
This is from tech info that went out to dealerships:
Three 3.5-inch and 1-inch speakers located in the instrument panel (6)
Two 3.5-inch and 1-inch speakers located in the rear door (4)
Two 3.5-inch and 1-inch speakers located in the rear quarter panel (cargo area) (4)
Two 6x9-inch speakers located in the front door (2)
Two 6x9-inch speakers located in the rear door (2)
Two 6x9-inch liftgate speakers (2)
One 12-channel class-D amplifier
In combo with the brochure that states that the 20 speakers are located in 13 locations, I would say that the 1 inch speakers are co-located with the 3.5s in those locations.
That being said, I have not popped the covers and looked.
Three 3.5-inch and 1-inch speakers located in the instrument panel (6)
Two 3.5-inch and 1-inch speakers located in the rear door (4)
Two 3.5-inch and 1-inch speakers located in the rear quarter panel (cargo area) (4)
Two 6x9-inch speakers located in the front door (2)
Two 6x9-inch speakers located in the rear door (2)
Two 6x9-inch liftgate speakers (2)
One 12-channel class-D amplifier
In combo with the brochure that states that the 20 speakers are located in 13 locations, I would say that the 1 inch speakers are co-located with the 3.5s in those locations.
That being said, I have not popped the covers and looked.
Joined
·
50 Posts
That was a mistake. It was a news release in January from FCA North America.
Joined
·
377 Posts
I hate being "that guy"... but there are *SO MANY* variables that go into what a sound-system sounds like to ONE particular person at one location in the car. I know it's a fun thread to start and I don't want to deter the discussion, but what ONE person has for a modified EQ curve in THEIR car for THEIR ears on THEIR system... might sound totally horrible (or arbitrarily different) to YOU in YOUR car on YOUR system.
Everything from your own preference, the system your trim-level has, the seat configuration, whether other passengers are in the car or not, cargo or no cargo, outside noise, speed of driving, source of audio (Radio, Satellite radio, CD, Bluetooth MP3s, AUX-in, etc), genre of music, volume that you listen to your music...
Any ONE of those elements can change the need to cut or boost frequencies across the spectrum... but without a good 1/3rd-octave (30-band) EQ... or even 10-12 band... you're really just boosting/cutting a wide sweep of "Bass", "Mids" and "Treble" which is too general for my ears.
Many people do the "Flying-V" or "Smiley face" with graphic EQs to de-emphasize the midrange to compensate for a perceived lack of clarity (high-end) and fullness (low-end). There's nothing WRONG with doing that... it's common for a reason... but it's really an overcompensation for a poor listening environment to begin with.
*sigh* - sorry... not trying to be a "thread killer"... just the opposite. I would say TRUST YOUR EARS. Make adjustments that sound good to YOU. If you make a bunch of adjustments and it doesn't sound much "BETTER" than when you started—just DIFFERENT—then just go ahead and reset to "flat" and start again.
One reality to come to terms with regarding MOST car audio systems... they are not that great to begin with... despite their attempts to convince you differently.
Anyhow... back to your regularly-scheduled discussion... already in progress.
Everything from your own preference, the system your trim-level has, the seat configuration, whether other passengers are in the car or not, cargo or no cargo, outside noise, speed of driving, source of audio (Radio, Satellite radio, CD, Bluetooth MP3s, AUX-in, etc), genre of music, volume that you listen to your music...
Any ONE of those elements can change the need to cut or boost frequencies across the spectrum... but without a good 1/3rd-octave (30-band) EQ... or even 10-12 band... you're really just boosting/cutting a wide sweep of "Bass", "Mids" and "Treble" which is too general for my ears.
Many people do the "Flying-V" or "Smiley face" with graphic EQs to de-emphasize the midrange to compensate for a perceived lack of clarity (high-end) and fullness (low-end). There's nothing WRONG with doing that... it's common for a reason... but it's really an overcompensation for a poor listening environment to begin with.
*sigh* - sorry... not trying to be a "thread killer"... just the opposite. I would say TRUST YOUR EARS. Make adjustments that sound good to YOU. If you make a bunch of adjustments and it doesn't sound much "BETTER" than when you started—just DIFFERENT—then just go ahead and reset to "flat" and start again.
One reality to come to terms with regarding MOST car audio systems... they are not that great to begin with... despite their attempts to convince you differently.
Anyhow... back to your regularly-scheduled discussion... already in progress.
Joined
·
50 Posts
You killed the discussion!
On a serious note--I have the 20 speaker setup and the first thing I told my wife when we started playing different music on it was "This midrange is low." Seems to be common feedback on the system. Whether that is from hardware or software, who knows?
On a serious note--I have the 20 speaker setup and the first thing I told my wife when we started playing different music on it was "This midrange is low." Seems to be common feedback on the system. Whether that is from hardware or software, who knows?
Joined
·
187 Posts
I have the base LX and....flat sounds good to me. I'm surprised how decent the base stereo sounds
Suggested Baseline EQ Settings
I have the 2017 Pacifica Hybrid with the 13 speaker Alpine stereo. I found it to be absurdly heavy on the bass, and decided to prove and eventually correct the problem by setting up a sound level meter and running SPL tests on the system throughout the frequency range. Read on for details on the problem and how to easily mitigate it.
I don't know what Chrysler was thinking on this one, except that it was perhaps a marketing ploy to make the system appear to sound better at first listen, since the average non-audiophile tends to associate high levels of boom with high quality. But the system sounds unnatural and quickly leads to listener fatigue.
The stereo comes with an inbuilt three-band equalizer with a range of +/-9 that can substantially improve the overall sound at no cost, albeit with some limitations. Given a goal of flattening out the frequency response curve, I found the optimal EQ settings (or nearly so) to be the following:
bass: -9
mid: +8
treble: +6
Using that as a starting point, you can then adjust to your preferences, etc., as outlined by user PacificaLimited above. Below are the before (0,0,0) and after (-9, +8, +6) frequency response dB numbers using a reference volume of 10, Stereophile's Test CD 3, speed adjusted volume set to 1, car parked in garage, SPL meter set up near the driver's ear, me sitting in the passenger seat, no one else in the car.
20Hz: 67 -> 60 or less
25Hz: 68 -> 60 or less
31.5Hz: 81 -> 70
40Hz: 90 -> 80
50Hz: 89 -> 78
63Hz: 87 -> 73
80Hz: 78 -> 67
100Hz: 81 -> 72
125Hz: 79 -> 72
160Hz: 70 -> 68
200Hz: 72 -> 70
250Hz: 67 -> 68
315Hz: 64 -> 66
400Hz: 62 -> 64
500Hz: 61 -> 66
630Hz: 62 -> 69
800Hz: 64 -> 71
1kHz: 63 -> 70
1.25kHz: 66 -> 72
1.6kHz: 65 -> 70
2kHz: 65 -> 67
2.5kHz: 64 -> 66
3.15kHz: 66 -> 68
4kHz: 67 -> 70
5kHz: 69 -> 72
6.3kHz: 69 -> 73
8kHz: 64 -> 69
10kHz: 62 -> 65
12.5kHz: 62 -> 62
SPLs above the 16kHz and 20kHz bands did not register on the meter at the test volume, so I omitted those from the list. If you plot these numbers on a chart you can clearly see the reduction in the lows as well as the increased mids and highs. Still not flat by any means, but much better than the stock settings. The bass could stand to be reduced even more (perhaps to as much as -16), but -9 is the farthest down it will go.
I have the 2017 Pacifica Hybrid with the 13 speaker Alpine stereo. I found it to be absurdly heavy on the bass, and decided to prove and eventually correct the problem by setting up a sound level meter and running SPL tests on the system throughout the frequency range. Read on for details on the problem and how to easily mitigate it.
I don't know what Chrysler was thinking on this one, except that it was perhaps a marketing ploy to make the system appear to sound better at first listen, since the average non-audiophile tends to associate high levels of boom with high quality. But the system sounds unnatural and quickly leads to listener fatigue.
The stereo comes with an inbuilt three-band equalizer with a range of +/-9 that can substantially improve the overall sound at no cost, albeit with some limitations. Given a goal of flattening out the frequency response curve, I found the optimal EQ settings (or nearly so) to be the following:
bass: -9
mid: +8
treble: +6
Using that as a starting point, you can then adjust to your preferences, etc., as outlined by user PacificaLimited above. Below are the before (0,0,0) and after (-9, +8, +6) frequency response dB numbers using a reference volume of 10, Stereophile's Test CD 3, speed adjusted volume set to 1, car parked in garage, SPL meter set up near the driver's ear, me sitting in the passenger seat, no one else in the car.
20Hz: 67 -> 60 or less
25Hz: 68 -> 60 or less
31.5Hz: 81 -> 70
40Hz: 90 -> 80
50Hz: 89 -> 78
63Hz: 87 -> 73
80Hz: 78 -> 67
100Hz: 81 -> 72
125Hz: 79 -> 72
160Hz: 70 -> 68
200Hz: 72 -> 70
250Hz: 67 -> 68
315Hz: 64 -> 66
400Hz: 62 -> 64
500Hz: 61 -> 66
630Hz: 62 -> 69
800Hz: 64 -> 71
1kHz: 63 -> 70
1.25kHz: 66 -> 72
1.6kHz: 65 -> 70
2kHz: 65 -> 67
2.5kHz: 64 -> 66
3.15kHz: 66 -> 68
4kHz: 67 -> 70
5kHz: 69 -> 72
6.3kHz: 69 -> 73
8kHz: 64 -> 69
10kHz: 62 -> 65
12.5kHz: 62 -> 62
SPLs above the 16kHz and 20kHz bands did not register on the meter at the test volume, so I omitted those from the list. If you plot these numbers on a chart you can clearly see the reduction in the lows as well as the increased mids and highs. Still not flat by any means, but much better than the stock settings. The bass could stand to be reduced even more (perhaps to as much as -16), but -9 is the farthest down it will go.
Joined
·
1,465 Posts
What meter are you using?
It's an old Radio Shack analog SPL meter I had sitting around. I used the C weighting. Perhaps someone could try to replicate my findings using their own meter, or even an app. There is a free SPL measuring app for iOS called Decibel X that looks decent, although you'd need to upgrade to the Pro version to use it for this purpose.
I have the 2018 with the 20-speaker system, and using a calibrated setup mic, and AudioTool for Android, I wound up with:
Bass -9 Mid -2 Treb 1
The bass was just ridiculously boosted, and even at -9 it wasn't flat. The mids and highs weren't far off, but a little tweaking made it a tad better. The highs in particular just boosted a particular 1/3 octave without making much of a difference with the ones nearby.
Bass -9 Mid -2 Treb 1
The bass was just ridiculously boosted, and even at -9 it wasn't flat. The mids and highs weren't far off, but a little tweaking made it a tad better. The highs in particular just boosted a particular 1/3 octave without making much of a difference with the ones nearby.
13-speaker Alpine suggested EQ
On my TL, I wanted the Premium Audio upgrade which consisted of the Alpine 13 speaker system with the 8.4 UConnect. Put my RTA setup to it and the system proved to be a well-balanced setup with a minor EQ tweak:
Bass -3
Mid +2
Treble 0
Attached is a snapshot of the response in the drivers seat at 1/6 oct resolution. Sounds great with HQ sources with plenty of volume and fair imaging. Deep bass is the weakness here with no true sub and midbass is muddy, but not worth messing around because of the ANC system.
First OEM system that I am satisfied to keep stock!
(This would apply to the Alpine and not the HK 20 speaker setup, which is a different system)
On my TL, I wanted the Premium Audio upgrade which consisted of the Alpine 13 speaker system with the 8.4 UConnect. Put my RTA setup to it and the system proved to be a well-balanced setup with a minor EQ tweak:
Bass -3
Mid +2
Treble 0
Attached is a snapshot of the response in the drivers seat at 1/6 oct resolution. Sounds great with HQ sources with plenty of volume and fair imaging. Deep bass is the weakness here with no true sub and midbass is muddy, but not worth messing around because of the ANC system.
First OEM system that I am satisfied to keep stock!
(This would apply to the Alpine and not the HK 20 speaker setup, which is a different system)
Attachments
Joined
·
187 Posts
what are you using to get that chart?
Totally agree. I'm going deaf over years of exposure to high sound levels but this mostly affects higher frequencies. The bass in the HK system is so over the top I thought something might be wrong with the system until I read this thread. Yes, I usually have the highs boosted in about anything I'm driving, but this is the first thing we've owned that required a big reduction in the lows for it to sound anywhere near "normal". I have to say this is a pretty bad system to parade around a major manufacturers name like HK while charging so much for it. Bose system in my old E55 was far better and the Lexicon in my Genesis makes it sound like an AM radio. I'm not impressed. Even the Boston Acoustics system in the old Grand Cherokee has better balance!
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
