[toph]

I ordered HK because I wanted Sirius, which was included. I figured the HK system was worth the difference.

[RPM90]

Originally Posted by Tremolo

Let your ears decide. Take a reference CD that you are very familiar with (not a CD with burned mp3s). One that you've heard on a great sound system. Then just try out the 2 systems. People could go on and on about how even the power rating on the HK is not as good as it seems. One 625 watt amp + 16 speakers = not as impressive as it sounds. How many channels is it split to? I've always been in the camp to believe that a few good quality speakers + good amp will return much better sound than a bunch of little speakers.

But, some times it's just better to forget the technical mumbo jumbo and just let your ears decide what you're willing to pay for.

YES, I'm right there with you.
The technical stuff is one thing, but how it sounds IS the true test.
Great call on using a CD vs MP3's.

The best audio system I've ever installed in one of my cars had "only"
5 drivers. 2 silk dome tweeters, 2-6.75" mid-mid bass, an a 12" Infinity reference sub in a simple box enclosure, all driven by a 4 channel Rockford Fosgate Power, not Punch, series amp. 125 watts rms to each left/right corner, and 425 watt rms bridge R/L to the sub. Man, that simple setup could rock, as well as reproduce very dynamic classical and jazz recordings. NO EQ either, just nicely down crossovers for the tweets/mids, and properly crossed and balanced sub, and the bass/treble on the HU. I used that same setup in my E46 325i with the stock HU.
LOVED IT.

The upgraded HK in the 3 does not match that basic system, even with it's multitude of drivers and built in EQ. I do like that BMW included the EQ. Does the standard audio system have a built in adjustable EQ?
My current 135i is what BMW calls it's "hi-fi" system. It has 4 sets of tweet/mid and 2 VERY VERY shallow 8" subs under the front seats.
I switched out the OEM subs with a nicer pair, and it did improve the tonal quality of the bass end. But, it's not very loud at all.
Balancing between volume and distortion just doesn't allow much clean volume.

The main reason I'll probably opt for it though is because of it's ability to play louder and remain cleaner (distortion). I love driving at higher speeds with my window down and sunroof open. Lots of wind, tire, and engine volume needs a lot of SPL to play nicely over all that.
But before ordering I still want to hear the base system.

Anyone know what the base system's amplifier is rated at?
Power in RMS?
Signal to noise?
THD, and what wattage it's rated at?
What about the drivers, size, materials?

[RPM90]

Originally Posted by Elk

Exactly. And very gently expressed given the reality.

EQ is not going to fix the issue. At best, you move the problems around (I'll spare everyone the function and limitations of EQ presentation. Summary: it typically does much more harm than good in a consumer context with consumer equipment, ten-fold true for a car.)

I'm always amused how many think an EQ "smile" (boost the bass and the treble so a graphic EQ looks like a smile) makes a system sound "better." Often a better tweak is a couple of dB in the 200Hz - 500Hz range.

Summary: The dreadful sound of satellite radio and eMPty3s played in the hideous acoustic environment of a car renders crude consumer EQ a poor toy.

Of course, if you like a car system with EQ and it increases your enjoyment go for it.

A friend of mine from long ago used to set his EQ by setting patterns on it. Some times a smiley face, some times a V, the strangest was a saw tooth pattern.

For me, I like that BMW included a graphic EQ. If you know how to use it, it can help to compensate for one's individual hearing limitations, and to help some CD's. Just because it's a professionally made CD that doesn't mean that it will sound good in your car. CD's are engineered to sound good in the studio, and maybe was tested on a good home audio system or boom box, etc... But you'll never optimize a recording to play it's best in every environment, so it's best to optimize for studio and home audio.
By having an EQ in the car, and if you know what you're doing, you can adjust the in car audio so that it sounds as good as it can be in a car.

Over all though, I understand the point you're making, and mostly agree.
I just don't agree on the "toy" aspect, as the EQ can still be useful and serves a purpose.

[verbs]

Has anyone heard how it sounds with HD radio? I have yet to hear any comparisons with HD.

[clarence]

How abt HK vs standard hi-fi at low to mid volume levels? I don't crank it up at all & there's no fast driving here, plus it's a/c on all the time.

[dmontic71]

Originally Posted by Elk

Exactly. And very gently expressed given the reality.

EQ is not going to fix the issue. At best, you move the problems around (I'll spare everyone the function and limitations of EQ presentation. Summary: it typically does much more harm than good in a consumer context with consumer equipment, ten-fold true for a car.)

I'm always amused how many think an EQ "smile" (boost the bass and the treble so a graphic EQ looks like a smile) makes a system sound "better." Often a better tweak is a couple of dB in the 200Hz - 500Hz range.

Summary: The dreadful sound of satellite radio and eMPty3s played in the hideous acoustic environment of a car renders crude consumer EQ a poor toy.

Of course, if you like a car system with EQ and it increases your enjoyment go for it.

Not sure how you could give advice on what frequency to adjust. Wouldn't that depend on how the audio source sounded?

I find CDs to be the best, followed by FM, and unfortunately satellite the flattest and most compressed. I do use the "smiley face", especially on the treble side to get a bit more brightness when listening to sat...

I agree with the posts that ultimately encourage you to just go listen yourself to decide.

[Elk]

Originally Posted by dmontic71

Not sure how you could give advice on what frequency to adjust.

I'm not. At all. My point is that many make EQ changes with their eyes rather than their ears. What a graphic EQ "looks" like is irrelevant, yet this is how most change EQ.

My comment about adjusting the midrange is merely an observation that the frequencies must poorly reproduced is typically in this area. Most people think that big changes to frequency extremes improve the sound while typically the most effective is a small change to the midrange. For example, boosted highs is not increased clarity - it is just unnaturally boosted highs.

[Elk]

Originally Posted by RPM90

CD's are engineered to sound good in the studio, and maybe was tested on a good home audio system or boom box, etc...

This is not how it works.

A mastering studio is set up to provide a flat frequency response with a DAC, pre, amp speakers, and - most importantly - room, which provide exceptional clarity. A recording is mastered to sound its best, period. A mastering engineer cannot control, or even know, the environments in which a recording will be reproduced.

A mix/master is "checked" against poor equipment (e.g., limited range speakers referred to as shit boxes) only as part of one's learning how one's work translates. It's great for the garage band learning how to record, etc. Even then, you do not make changes to make it sound good on the bad system; you learn what you did wrong on your reference.

This getting very far afield of our topic however.

Regarding HD radio: Hybrid Digital is our second worst audio source, above only satellite radio. Thus there is much less a better system can do with the sound.

[Micleg]

Originally Posted by Elk

I'm not. At all. My point is that many make EQ changes with their eyes rather than their ears. What a graphic EQ "looks" like is irrelevant, yet this is how most change EQ.

My comment about adjusting the midrange is merely an observation that the frequencies must poorly reproduced is typically in this area. Most people think that big changes to frequency extremes improve the sound while typically the most effective is a small change to the midrange. For example, boosted highs is not increased clarity - it is just unnaturally boosted highs.

I have adjusted the EQ according to a thread for the HK in E90 and the purpose of that is to "correct" the environment in the car. Flat the HK stereo sounds very dim, but it totally awakens with the correct EQ.

Don't even know what the curve looks like since it is of no interest as you write, but you can't honestly say that all EQ's are bad just because there are some moments of misuse out there?

[shoptb]

Originally Posted by justinnum1

Really? i think the HK in the e92 sucks. If you thought that was great the F30 HK will blow your socks off.

[Elk]

Originally Posted by Micleg

. . . you can't honestly say that all EQ's are bad just because there are some moments of misuse out there?

If you kindly re-read wrote I wrote you will discern this is not my position.

It is separately true however that most people have absolutely no idea what to do with EQ, even if given an opportunity to use a quality EQ.

If you find an automobile's EQ enjoyable, by all means use it.

[soopra]

Did a test drive and ordered my f30 yesterday. Before the test drive, the premium audio package was on my list of things to get but after tinkering with the stock audio for about 15 minutes, I concluded it was "good enough" for me and I got a couple of other options instead of the H&K audio.

I'm not an audiophile but I appreciate good sound and the stock system is good enough to meet my needs.

[Robin_NL]

Question about the HK Equalizer.

I have more or less all of them 2/3 clicks to the right except for the highest Hz. That one I have maybe 5 clicks to the right. I'm more of a Metal/Rock/Blues kind of guy, but just want to know what settings you have.

No answers here:

http://www.f30post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=650519

[Micleg]

I only have the E90 HK Eq settings but I know that one is far from your settings.

This is a really good thread for F30 that many of you should check out

http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=492794

It's mostly about lowering the frequencies that the F30 & HK seem to exaggerate. When a flat response is achieved you can max out the bass setting in Tone if you want to, it will still sound good.

[Elk]

Originally Posted by Robin_NL

Question about the HK Equalizer.

I have more or less all of them 2/3 clicks to the right except for the highest Hz. That one I have maybe 5 clicks to the right. I'm more of a Metal/Rock/Blues kind of guy, but just want to know what settings you have.

As you have everything boosted, I recommend decreasing all bands the same amount so that the majority are at zero. There is no good reason to boost everything, but lots of reasons not to.

Remember that cutting one is the same as boosting all but one (as an example). Cutting a band or two often sounds the best.

The volume control is there to make up the difference in perceived loudness if you cut instead of boost.

Good luck!

[RPM90]

Originally Posted by Elk

This is not how it works.

A mastering studio is set up to provide a flat frequency response with a DAC, pre, amp speakers, and - most importantly - room, which provide exceptional clarity. A recording is mastered to sound its best, period. A mastering engineer cannot control, or even know, the environments in which a recording will be reproduced.

A mix/master is "checked" against poor equipment (e.g., limited range speakers referred to as shit boxes) only as part of one's learning how one's work translates. It's great for the garage band learning how to record, etc. Even then, you do not make changes to make it sound good on the bad system; you learn what you did wrong on your reference.

This getting very far afield of our topic however.

Regarding HD radio: Hybrid Digital is our second worst audio source, above only satellite radio. Thus there is much less a better system can do with the sound.

Since you don't know my background and I don't know yours, before I respond, I think it best to ask questions first, before declaring a "right" or "wrong".

Please explain or clarify what the following means, "This is not how it works"?
Or perhaps I need to clarify my point.
I can if need be.

[Flavio77]

Anyone else have the HK system and have a mini review?

[SL01]

I've got the HK system in my 328i and really like it.

I've done upgraded factory audio in all of my cars to date (several Mustangs, an RX-8, a 135i, and, now, 328i), and this one is very solid. I'd say it's a slight improvement over the 1's upgraded audio, which is also very good. Both BMWs sound cleaner than the RX-8 (Bose). The RX-8 wasn't quite as good as the Mustang's Mach 460, but it was close.

The EQ is my favorite feature - you can fiddle with that until the music you like to listen to sounds good to you. The L7 surround mode is ok - I left it on, but... meh...

I am disappointed with the satellite radio, however. It's just way too compressed (low bit rate) and over-processed for my ears to enjoy it. If it had been a separate option, I would not have chosen it.

[clarence]

How abt a mini review for standard hi-fi?

[jj970]

Originally Posted by ric124

I love my HK, its money well spent. I notice that the comments from ppl who say dont get it, save your money dont even have a f30.

I havent tested it with the s7 off but with the S7 on it sounded amazing. I cant believe that i have been listen to these crappy systems in my cars all these years. from now on all my cars are going to get the upgraded system.

I actually do have an F30, I just didn't update my garage.

[TWiTCHY]

I actually went to the dealer and told them that I wanted to test standard and premium sound in the F30, so they gave me two keys and I walked out to the lot and compared them side-by-side.

I was running Spotify from my iPhone (320kbps) through USB cable and both cars recognized album art and song titles just fine.

For $900, I would pocket it and save it...after you adjust the equalizer and fade/balance settings in the standard setup, it sounds just as nice as the premium setup.

The biggest difference is the quality of the bass. The premium system's bass was more smooth and controlled. I like to see it as getting punched in the face with a boxing mitt (premium) vs. bare fists (standard). The bass on the standard was rougher and harder, but still acceptable when you consider the cost difference.

Highs and mids were relatively the same between standard and premium. The average listener won't notice the improvements, and even for an audiophile like me, I would say the $900 isn't worth the cost for such a small improvement. My $250 KRK Rokit 5 setup at home beats them, just to give you an idea of how much $900 is in the speaker market.

I don't know how much a new subwoofer is and if you'll need to change the amp, but I would imagine that it would cost less to upgrade the sub from the standard setup and you'll have a system that sounds as nice, if not nicer, than the $900 premium sound package.

[clarence]

Originally Posted by TWiTCHY

For $900, I would pocket it and save it..

For me it's more like $2.5k due to taxes. Tested F30 standard hi-fi against F10 5er standard hi-fi, X5 professional hi-fi, & a BMW Individual Sound System-equipped Steinway edition 7er.
Found the 5er standard system very tiring to listen to at high volumes. The F30 is much smoother at high volumes. Compare to the 7er & X5, the treble & bass are slightly sweeter on the upgraded systems, but the difference is not night & day (I listen to classical music).