Adding Rear Speakers to OEM Headunit and enabling Fade
- Thread starter GordyT6
- Start date
I tried this with OBD11 the other day but it wouldn’t work for me, I don’t know if it’s something to do with the Audison system in my van.
I’ve got audison too buddy, in the front door cards and tail gate. Can’t really help as I don’t have OBD11 but VCDS was fine - maybe see if a local independent can help you out. Good luck
Do you have an amplifier and a sub though, or just speakers.
I think my answer may lye in post #125.
Just speakers mate - simple set up
Adding Rear Speakers to OEM Headunit and enabling Fade
Hi peeps anyone taken one of these headunit out yet? Got some new speakers to fit. I've heard you pop the front off? Any tips. Ta ;)
@Deaky, you're a bloody champion, i have wrestled with my own VCDS and gone round and round with no joy. Then i read your post very carefully, followed the instructions, pasted the new code and I now have a front to rear fader. I can hardly explain how happy I am to have got it figured out. If only i had followed the instructions earlier, but regardless it is a sweet victory today. One day I hope to buy you a beer Deaky. Cheers mate. I am over the moon.
I’ve followed the above instructions to install rear speakers to the Discover Media system. After connecting the speakers to the head unit, everything worked fine, only no fader. As I don’t have VCDS a professional third party activated the fader. Now I have the fader working, but the sound of the rear speakers is now very crappy and at low volume. Nothing changed in the wiring.
The third party professional says that he only activated the fader and is not responsible for the quality of the sound. I’m not satisfied with the attitude of the professional, as I also had to pay for 1 hour work (???) and no decent after sales. :-(
What can be the problem with the quality of the sound of the rear speakers?
The third party professional says that he only activated the fader and is not responsible for the quality of the sound. I’m not satisfied with the attitude of the professional, as I also had to pay for 1 hour work (???) and no decent after sales. :-(
What can be the problem with the quality of the sound of the rear speakers?
Sorry, but you did the work, chose the components etc. so why should the person doing software bit be responsible for the crap results?
Had you gone to an audio specialist for the whole job, then yes, you would expect more.
You contracted him to enable the fader, not diagnose the poor quality.
(my wife knows how to clean the bathroom, but I wouldn’t blame her if the shower I fitted leaked!)
I often enable the fader function for members and don’t ask for payment, often wine or beer is offered but if I thought I would then become responsible for the final outcome, I wouldn’t bother.
Had you gone to an audio specialist for the whole job, then yes, you would expect more.
You contracted him to enable the fader, not diagnose the poor quality.
(my wife knows how to clean the bathroom, but I wouldn’t blame her if the shower I fitted leaked!)
I often enable the fader function for members and don’t ask for payment, often wine or beer is offered but if I thought I would then become responsible for the final outcome, I wouldn’t bother.
Last edited:
Are you saying that the sound from the rear speakers was fine until the fader was activated, whereupon it got substantially worse?
This does sound odd. It's a tricky one, the coder isn't responsible for the sound quality, but at the same time I find it very strange that enabling the fader could cause an obvious drop in quality. For an hour's worth of labour, I would at least expect him to toggle his recoding on/off a couple of times to verify whether or not it is the coding that triggers it given that the actual coding is a ten minute job.
It's not impossible that he's accidentally coded in some modification beyond the fader addition itself that has caused the issue but this is going to be difficult to prove and he's unlikely to own up to it if this is the issue! It's also perfectly possible that he did the recoding perfectly and some strange coincidence or unknown interaction is causing the issue.
Also, do you have a more detailed explanation of exactly how the sound quality is 'worse' that might help diagnose the issue? Is it missing high or low frequencies, is it crackling, etc? Is the issue consistent with fader level or does it varying as front/rear volume varies? Has it affected the quality of the front speakers or just the rear? What actual real speakers do you have installed?
The sound quality is very crackling, low output and only high frequencies. No bass. It sounds like a cheap headphone on maximum power, but not on your ears. Like if you directly connect speakers to a headphone output without amplifier.
There is no difference in sound quality at the front, still fine. When I vary the fader to the back, there is no sound difference with the fader in the center. When the fader is in the front, no sound at the back.
I have installed this speakers: Pioneer TS-G1730F
There is no difference in sound quality at the front, still fine. When I vary the fader to the back, there is no sound difference with the fader in the center. When the fader is in the front, no sound at the back.
I have installed this speakers: Pioneer TS-G1730F
hmmm, I wonder if the coding could have mistakenly switched the rear output to low level (i.e. what you'd do if you added an amp)? I don't know enough about the audio coding to know if this is possible? @Absolut5 - I realise this isn't your work, but any chance you could chip in here - can the rear outputs be switched to low-level in coding? Alternatively, any chance the coding can high-pass filter the rear outputs for use with a sub, etc?
It definitely should be a single bit tick. However, it's not beyond the realms of possibility that the coder pasted in a longer chunk of hex that they thought worked which inadvertently changed another setting. I've seen this before on this forum, people recommend a long code for stuff like dipped headlights because that's what they happen to have when in reality it's a single bit change and changing more than that can have unexpected results.
I'm not saying this is what happened in this case, just that we should at least be in a position to discount the possibility given the change in audio did appear to happen straight after the coding, which is rather a coincidence!
Similar threads
