# is the HK stereo not worth all the potential hassle?



## kelli67 (Dec 18, 2002)

is the HK stereo not worth all the potential hassle? there seems to be so many problems with it- is the stock system all that bad? from what I could hear the HK was a little bit better but maybe it's just not worth it..


----------



## jaisonline (Mar 24, 2002)

*my opinion...*

it's not worth it if u like to feel and hear SOLID tight bass (this requires aftermarket upgardes which will run slightly more the HK price). if u want loudness w/ a little bass, go for the HK.

actually, u should listen to it at a dealership.


----------



## jw (Dec 21, 2001)

kelli67 said:


> *is the HK stereo not worth all the potential hassle? there seems to be so many problems with it- is the stock system all that bad? from what I could hear the HK was a little bit better but maybe it's just not worth it.. *


Hassle? I haven't had one problem. The HK system is not too shabby and is worth the $$. I think the real hassle would be doing a custom installation to achieve better quality.


----------



## apar330i (Aug 19, 2002)

I think the HK is pretty good, aside from the piss poor AM reception. I'm sure that is more a result from the anteana than the unit itself. It's plenty loud and doesn't sound too bad.


----------



## 31st330i (Jan 11, 2002)

the HK system is a good one and I ended up retrofitting it myself to replace an aftermarket system (which was a very nice system). check out my E46 stereo page:
http://www.mindspring.com/~pmbenn/stereo.htm


----------



## machmeter (Aug 6, 2002)

*Get the HK*

Unless you want ghetto style bass. Then, you'll need something else.

For just "loud, clear, hurts-your-ears, rock / pop / whatever" the HK is splendid. Try Billy Squier or Ozzy and turn it up 'til your ears can't take any more. It's SWEET!


----------



## nate (Dec 24, 2001)

I have had both; HK is worth it.

Significantly better sound.


----------



## xmas63 (Sep 11, 2002)

nate328Ci said:


> *I have had both; HK is worth it.
> 
> Significantly better sound. *


Completely agree. My CD's sound almost as if they're different CD's!


----------



## eboller (Mar 23, 2002)

I haven't had any hassles with the HK at all. As for bass...it has all you should ever need unless you like to be thumping around your neighborhood. Frankly, for a strict audiophile it may be slightly too much bass as it is imo.

Eric


----------



## webguy330i (Jan 9, 2002)

eboller said:


> *I haven't had any hassles with the HK at all. As for bass...it has all you should ever need unless you like to be thumping around your neighborhood. Frankly, for a strict audiophile it may be slightly too much bass as it is imo.
> 
> Eric *


Especially for back-seat passengers.

Sometimes my friends complain, then I turn around and pimp slap the hell out of them. :bigpimp:


----------



## machmeter (Aug 6, 2002)

webguy330i said:


> *Sometimes my friends complain, then I turn around and pimp slap the hell out of them. :bigpimp: *


:lmao: :lmao: :lmao:


----------



## apar330i (Aug 19, 2002)

*Re: Get the HK*



machmeter said:


> *Unless you want ghetto style bass. Then, you'll need something else.
> 
> For just "loud, clear, hurts-your-ears, rock / pop / whatever" the HK is splendid. Try Billy Squier or Ozzy and turn it up 'til your ears can't take any more. It's SWEET!  *


werd up, especially Ozzy :thumbup:


----------



## Jspeed (Dec 23, 2001)

Here's an audiophile's review to the H/K.

http://bimmer.roadfly.org/3series/messages/archive/msgsy2000w17/43413.html

Here's Edmunds' review...

http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/list/top10/58886/article.html


----------



## 31st330i (Jan 11, 2002)

for the record, I'm a long time audiophile myself and have had equiptment such as McIntosh electronics with Dynaudio speakers in sealed enclosures in vehicles. present home theater system cost more than my subaru but less than the bimmer. the HK system is a good one.


----------



## ObD (Dec 29, 2001)

Unless you plan to install an aftermarket stereo, get the HK.


----------



## 31st330i (Jan 11, 2002)

ObD said:


> *Unless you plan to install an aftermarket stereo, get the HK. *


I don't know if I'd quite agree. there may be folks out there who are satisfied with the H/K apart from the bass. aftermarket subs can easily be added to this system. the crossed over signal can be tapped into under the decklid where the original sub amp is.


----------



## Kaz (Dec 21, 2001)

For a factory system, the HK is actually pretty decent. I don't know how the coupe compares to the sedan I listened to as the sub setups are different.

OTOH I think the wagon HK is a rip, as it doesn't have a sub at all.

6.5" aftermarket 'subs' I put in back aren't working out. These things I have seem to need a real enclosure which the body cavity can't provide. I'm gonna attempt to build a tiny sonotube sub recycling an old Solobaric from my old car and put it in the center of the spare tire.


----------



## ObD (Dec 29, 2001)

31st330i said:


> *I don't know if I'd quite agree. there may be folks out there who are satisfied with the H/K apart from the bass. aftermarket subs can easily be added to this system. the crossed over signal can be tapped into under the decklid where the original sub amp is. *


Stereo as in system. Head unit, speakers, amps. AKA An Ack upgrade.


----------



## OBS3SSION (Oct 1, 2002)

Here's an observation...

Many people seem to complain that the bass isn't strong enough for them on the HK system.

Many people seem to complain of the rattles in a car.

The more bass, and the stronger the "thump", the more likely you are to loosen up the car and cause rattles. Trust me, I know this from installing $3000+ in aftermarket on my Passat. And I only have a single 10" sub!

I'm looking forward to getting my 330i which comes standard with the HK. I'll have in-dash CD, clean sound, and some other perks without having to cut into my car at all. If the HK bass doesn't quite rattle the windows, then that's fine. I'm sure the act of driving will loosen the car up and cause rattles well enough without it.


----------



## 31st330i (Jan 11, 2002)

DougDogs said:


> *If I need to listen to clean, decent music, I listen to one of my systems at home. Maybe I'm just one of the few who believe that a car is a means of transportation, and home theater and sound reinforcement belong in the home:dunno: *


I tend to agree with you but perhaps you've never had a long commute where a really nice stereo system makes a difference (specifically that it sounds so good that you are drawn into the music - a lot of this has to do with the quality of the *recording*as well). the most expensive stereo I ever had in a car was ~$5K and I had it at the same time that I had my longest commute.

the other thing I touched on and that most peopledon't take into consideration is the quality of recorded material. on a good system, mediocre recordings (most of what you buy) don't sound much better, in fact they often sound worse. similarly, a good recording I have found will sound good on almost any system.


----------



## Kaz (Dec 21, 2001)

31st330i said:


> *
> the other thing I touched on and that most peopledon't take into consideration is the quality of recorded material. on a good system, mediocre recordings (most of what you buy) don't sound much better, in fact they often sound worse. similarly, a good recording I have found will sound good on almost any system. *


Actually, I think poor recordings sound _worse_ on a good system, as it lets you hear all of the problems with it, whereas a poor system tends to mask them. Good recordings can't make a $30 boombox sound like a McIntosh and a pair of Thiels, though.


----------



## eboller (Mar 23, 2002)

31st330i said:


> *the other thing I touched on and that most peopledon't take into consideration is the quality of recorded material. on a good system, mediocre recordings (most of what you buy) don't sound much better, in fact they often sound worse. similarly, a good recording I have found will sound good on almost any system. *


I've always speculated that many of the folks that had issues with the system were...buzzes..rattles...etc, were probably listening to mp3 crapola recordsing burned to a cd. I'm sure some of the rattles and hums were legit but frankly the recording quality of mp3 is pretty poor so it wouldn't surprise me if the sounds weren't so great.

Eric


----------



## Eugie Baange (Sep 23, 2002)

Ah! another heretic :lmao: :thumbup:
I've been beating this drum for years and most folks think I'm nuts.

Now, granted, I just have an -ahem- adequate stereo (VPI Jr, Benz-Micro, Tara Labs RSC interconncts, Linn Genki, PS Audio 100c, Vandersteen 2c's) but there is just "stuff" there in the LP grooves that get lost in a 44.1KHz sampling rate. 
People say that "stuff" isn't important. Aaaa.....



DougDogs said:


> *Absolutely, and anyone who thinks CD's sound better than albums is more than welcome to come hear how albums are supposed to sound at my house. (as long as the album is in good shape ) I'm very fussy about how I treat records. (down right anal about it)
> 
> Back to the thread topic, the HK system is not bad at all, and I think Germany has fixed most of the earlier rattle problems in the 3 series. *


----------



## ff (Dec 19, 2001)

I'm amazed at how often I hear comments on the quality of a sound system, that only refer to the amount of bass it puts out. Talk about juvenile. Maybe we can get BMW to start installing Cervin Vega's in all their cars?

"dude...."


----------



## 31st330i (Jan 11, 2002)

ff said:


> *I'm amazed at how often I hear comments on the quality of a sound system, that only refer to the amount of bass it puts out. *


good point. the H/K system IMHO has a decent image and soundstage whereas the standard system just barely has decent image and soundstage (after twiddling the knobs, of course).

there are indeed design flaws in the H/K system from an audiophile perspective, though. the tweeters are badly placed. they should be close to the mid/woofers for a central focal point and they would probably be better placed down lower on the door panel, close to the 5.25" mid-woofers. the idea is to keep the left and right speakers the same distance from your ears. this is why serious audiohpiles place the main components down in the kick panels and aimed up at the dome light (or in our case with E46s, aimed at the motion detector cover). the other flaw is the high range of the rear door speakers. ideally, these should be configured with a bandpass crossover (highs and lows rolled off - just midrange at a lower volume) this is for rear fill.


----------



## 31st330i (Jan 11, 2002)

on the subject of high end home audio....

I sold off all of my vinyl and analog gear (highly modified hafler amp & preamp, rega planar3, older NAD tuner, audio alchemy CD player) as I just don't have the time anymore. vinyl does indeed sound much more life like but I just don't have the time or desire to clean records and flip them over half way through the album. in fact, as I got older, I found that I no longer had the time to sit in front of a stereo system and do critical listening (and that is something difficult to do with one's significant other due to their time constraints as well). I replaced all that with a high end home theater which is much more user friendly even for my wife (thanks to a good remote control with lots of memory for macros) so this system is much more enjoyable by the whole family. it's also much easier to invite house guests over to the theater room to see a movie versus (even though movies tend to be at least twice as long as the average album) popping on my favorite jazz record and asking them all to sit still and listen.

here's what ~$30K buys:
http://www.mindspring.com/~pmbenn/HT.htm

don't have a web page up yet for the new bedroom system.


----------



## RKT BMR (Sep 7, 2002)

DougDogs said:


> *Absolutely, and anyone who thinks CD's sound better than albums is more than welcome to come hear how albums are supposed to sound at my house. (as long as the album is in good shape ) I'm very fussy about how I treat records. (down right anal about it)*


I'll answer that challenge. I'm 40, so I'm no neophyte when it comes to audio technology. Like you, I'm anal about how my vinyl is treated, and I have a large collection.

That said, vinyl simply can't measure up to digital as a technology. Some of the best Master Recording pressings I have on vinyl are nonetheless limited in dynamic range and flat frequency response, simply as a consequence of the needle/groove technology. Channel separation is also an issue compared to CDs.

Analog tape suffers from similar limitations. Analog also suffers severely from generational degradation, limiting the flexibility of editing operations. All of this is why digital has pretty much become the standard in the recording industry for Masters, as well as for final, consumer format (CD).

CDs do a better job of making a faithful copy of the original source material, across the board: Frequency response, dynamic range, noise immunity, stereo spatial separation. For old farts like us, who have been listening to compressed, frequency compensated, cross-talk infused, snap-crackle-and-pop analog formats for a good chunk of our lives, more accurate reproduction can sound "bad", as its not what we're used to.

I left vinyl behind in the 80s, and have become acclimated to the more accurate sound of CDs over two decades. Interestingly, when I drag out an LP now and play it, it sounds "bad" in the same abstract, general way that CDs sounded "bad" to me for some time back in the early 80s.


----------



## RKT BMR (Sep 7, 2002)

Eugie Baange said:


> *... but there is just "stuff" there in the LP grooves that get lost in a 44.1KHz sampling rate.
> People say that "stuff" isn't important. Aaaa..... *


There certainly is. There's noise, left channel leakage in the right channel and vice-versa, resonance artifacts due to harmonics of the pickup needle, and on and on. With all of this, at the peak of the technology, LPs and their playback systems did a remarkable job of reproducing high fidelity stereo sound. Very much audiophile quality, to be sure.

"Better/worse" or "important/unimportant" are value judgements, not absolutes, so there is no point in ever arguing over this. If you prefer the sound of well-maintained vinyl played on a top-knotch turntable/pickup combo, that's all that matters, really.

Where there is a legitimate argument is regarding how close/faithfully these competing technologies reproduce the sound as recorded, edited, and intended to be heard by the artist and producer. Digital does a much better job, and this can easily be demonstrated with a frequency analyzer and oscilliscope.


----------

