DiyMobileAudio.com Car Stereo Forum banner

1 - 19 of 19 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
26 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Can you guys help me put together a new system for my Jeep? I've decided on the head unit, but up in the air on the rest. My Jeep has front door speakers and speakers in the rear roof area. This will be my first set of component speakers. I will be running passive.

For the front I'm leaning toward the new Massive CK6V, but also hear good things about the Alpine SPR-60C. These will be for the front. When running components, what do I put in the rear? I've read that many don't even run rear speakers. Can the rear roof holes be used for bass?

I also need suggestions on an amp that will sufficiently run these speakers. While I want volume when listening to metal, I am really interested in SQ.

HU: Kenwood Excelon KDC-X895
Front door speakers: Massive Audio CK6V or Alpine SPR-60C
Rear roof speakers: ?
AMP: ?
Sub: 8" custom cubby sub or Sound Ordnance B-8PT
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,291 Posts
How much is "cheap" to you?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
26 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
I don't really have a budget. I will probably buy in pieces. I figured I'd buy the speakers, the HU, then the amp. The sub will be last. I'm not looking for booming bass that will rattle the doors, just enough to fill the low ends properly.
 

·
Registered
1999 Pontiac Firebird Formula
Joined
·
155 Posts
How often do you have passengers? If you don't have rear passengers or ones that care about hearing music, then rear fill (in my opinion) is a waste and can (from what I've read) distort the sound stage.

I like the Massives and have been considering them myself for my install. It looks like a solid 300W RMS amp should do the trick. Are you looking to go new exclusively or would you consider used? I'm personally going to be purchasing my amps off of the classifieds section here to try and get a good deal.

If you do want to go new and arent going with rear fill, this might be a good option:

JL Audio JX360/4 (JX3604) 360W RMS, 4-Chan Class A/B JX Amplifier

If you do go with rear fill and want to run the rear speakers off of the same amp, then you would want a different amp. I wouldn't recommend rear fill, but that's a matter of personal choice.

Again, matter of opinion, but I wouldn't run bass from the roof. If you're already going to have an 8" doing the job, don't complicate things. I would use a custom stealthier box for the sub. Plus, it would be hard to get the right volume for the sub in those roof holes. Although, it might be interesting to see you try.

I hope this helps! I'm not the most experienced at this, but that's what DIYMA is all about!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
254 Posts
What year Cherokee? Do you have power windows/locks?

The reason I ask is because on '97 and newer Cherokee (XJ) models you'll have shallow front door locations, and if you space the speaker out from the door this will interfere with window operation in the stock location if you have manual windows (like my old Jeep)...if you have power windows you can do so without affecting anything.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,921 Posts
What model year is your Jeep?

Do you have any shops or retail stores that deal mobile audio in your area that you can audition some speakers?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
26 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
How often do you have passengers? If you don't have rear passengers or ones that care about hearing music, then rear fill (in my opinion) is a waste and can (from what I've read) distort the sound stage.

I like the Massives and have been considering them myself for my install. It looks like a solid 300W RMS amp should do the trick. Are you looking to go new exclusively or would you consider used? I'm personally going to be purchasing my amps off of the classifieds section here to try and get a good deal.

If you do want to go new and arent going with rear fill, this might be a good option:


If you do go with rear fill and want to run the rear speakers off of the same amp, then you would want a different amp. I wouldn't recommend rear fill, but that's a matter of personal choice.
I don't have passengers often enough to buy speakers for. I guess I could keep my current cheap Sony Xplode speakers in the rear in case there was ever a need. I would keep them off when I didn't have passengers.

I'm open to buying used. This whole amp / RMS stuff has me confused. The CK6V's are rated for 130w RMS per side. Does this mean 65w RMS for the mid and 65w RMS for the tweeter? So I need an AMP that does up to 65w RMS per channel?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
26 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
It's a 2001 Jeep Cherokee Sport. Power windows / locks. I recently replaced the stock 5.5" speakers with Sony Xplode 6.5". I'm pretty sure the CK6V's will go right in.

I'm sure there are some audio shops around here. Of course, we have Best Buy, HH Greg, etc.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
26 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
Hi All,

I'm looking forward to suggestions. Just to summarize...

  • 2001 Jeep Cherokee Sport w/ power windows and locks
  • Currently running stock head unit with four 6.5" Sony Xplode 4-ways mounted in front doors and rear roof
  • No set budget, but will purchase in stages. Probably speakers, then AMP, HU, then sub.
Looking for a complete system. Interested in sound quality over volume, but would like the ability to crank at times. I will be running passive, at least for now.

Proposed hardware

HU: Kenwood Excelon KDC-X895
Front door speakers: Massive Audio CK6V or Alpine SPR-60C (leaning towards CK6V)
Rear roof speakers: Leave in Sony Xplode 6.5" 4-ways for rear passengers
AMP: Need suggestions on 5-channel
Sub: 8" custom cubby sub or Sound Ordnance B-8PT

Questions

The CK6V's are rated for 130w RMS per side. Does this mean 65w RMS for the mid and 65w RMS for the tweeter? Meaning I need an AMP that does up to 65w RMS per channel?

Don't I need a 5-channel since I want to run a sub?

What are your thought on my above equipment choices?

What else should I be considering?


Thanks, everyone!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,291 Posts
If the components are rated at 130 rms watts, you need a amp that does atleast that amount of power per channel so they can perform optimal. As far as amp a 5ch would be great, but i would personally bridge the speaker channels to your front stage and power the rear speakers off the head unit. That's my .2 cents...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
26 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
If the components are rated at 130 rms watts, you need a amp that does atleast that amount of power per channel so they can perform optimal. As far as amp a 5ch would be great, but i would personally bridge the speaker channels to your front stage and power the rear speakers off the head unit. That's my .2 cents...
That's what has me a bit confused. The spec are as follows:

Power Handling:
Peak: 560 watts per set / 280 watts each side
RMS: 260 watts per set / 130 watts each side
Recommended Minimum Power: 50 watts RMS each

When using 2-way components, each side has a mid and a tweeter. Shouldn't each one of these run off it's own amp channel?

Also, when it says 130 watts each side, does this mean that the tweeter is 65w and the mid is 65w? If that is the case with the above specs, wouldn't I need a 65w x 4 channels just for the components?

That is where I came up with a 5 channel amp. One channel per component and one for the sub. The rears would run off the head as you mentioned.
 

·
Registered
1999 Pontiac Firebird Formula
Joined
·
155 Posts
You don't need more than 100WRMS for any component speakers from any brand. Anyone suggesting otherwise needs to be slapped.
I guess that I need to be slapped for my previous post.

I wouldn't recommend running the 6x9"s. If you're spending money on a pair of decent components, you don't want to muddy the system with coaxials that you can buy at Wal-Mart.

I'm not certain about the wiring set-up for a pair of components and I could be completely wrong in my next statement, but I believe that the power from the amp goes to the crossover "box" and then the crossover distributes the signal to each speaker depending on the frequency that's playing.

That having been said, you only need 1 channel for a pair of speakers (midbass driver and tweeter) unless you wanted to run active. But for running passive, which is I think what you're going for, a 2 channel would be fine as long as you don't insult your comps with the xplods ;). I'm not trying to sound like a snob, I have two pairs of xplod 6x9"s myself, but those speakers are basically just a beefier OEM replacement and would complicate things for you without adding anything valuable.

Consider the source of all of this: I've never installed a set of components in my life. I'm just trying to impart the small understanding that I've gained from spending many nights reading old posts on here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11 Posts
This is cool I was just searching around for speakers for my 1999 Jeep Cherokee and I ran across this website with this recent posting.

I was looking at the Zaph audio car kit on madisound, can't post the link yet. It comes with:

(2) Zaph ZA14W08 Aluminum Cone Midwoofers
(2) Seas Prestige 27TAFNC/G (H1397) Aluminum Dome Tweeters
(2) Professionally Assembled Crossovers


Anyone have any experience with these?


Your suggestions look pretty good though. I wanted 6.5" speakers for the doors in the front. Is there any benefit to the 6.5" as apposed to the 5-1/4" speakers? I also want to muddy up the sound by adding rear speakers in the sound bar. Would it be bad to go with the same speakers all the way around? Or should I look at getting some different speakers for the rear sound bar and the front doors? The sound bar has 5-1/4", in the rear, but I can modify it to hold 6.5" speakers.

Thanks
 

·
Registered
1999 Pontiac Firebird Formula
Joined
·
155 Posts
I also want to muddy up the sound by adding rear speakers in the sound bar. Would it be bad to go with the same speakers all the way around?
I want to make myself clear. I was not implying that adding rear fill muddies the sound-- some people argue that it throws off the sound stage. I was stating that those particular 6x9"s could muddy the sound.

I hope I'm not coming off as an ass.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11 Posts
I hope I'm not coming off as an ass.
No your not. I have heard the same about 6x9s in general. I have been reading here a little, and lots of people prefer to just have the front speakers running, for better sound. I don't think that I am that much of an audiophile to know the difference. I just want some good clear speakers with good midrange.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
80 Posts
Questions

The CK6V's are rated for 130w RMS per side. Does this mean 65w RMS for the mid and 65w RMS for the tweeter? Meaning I need an AMP that does up to 65w RMS per channel?

In general, power is split between speakers in a component set run through a passive crossover. You began stating that you intended to go passive which would only require two channels of amplification to a single crossover in its easiest application. If the crossovers permit biamping (meaning each speaker gets its own channel), you could do this as well. Some are of the opinion that this can reduce the strain on an amp and result in cleaner sound. To be honest, I have heard systems run both ways and your mileage may vary. The benefit of running a 4-channel amp in the bi-amp configuration is that it permits more levels of adjustment. You can now theoretically match the two tweeter levels in addition to the woofer levels. Obviously, while amp specifications don't vary significantly, any two different channels can have some variance. By engaging in a bit of rigor and matching levels, you can theoretically center the image of the sound so that it replicates the live performance with you at the center of the concert stage. If I was biamping in your case, I would use an amp that produced at least 65watts RMS x 4. Bear in mind that more people blow speakers by underpowering them than overpowering them. Otherwise, any two channel amp that offers at 100 watts RMS x 2 would be fine.

Don't I need a 5-channel since I want to run a sub?

You would only need your 5th channel if you decided to avoid using the 8" powered sub. Otherwise, it would remain dormant however it does provide you with the option to expand or modify your system later.

What are your thought on my above equipment choices?

In my opinion (used to own an '95 Nissan Pathfinder with similar setup), I would focus on the front and leave the back speakers in as they are currently. For SQ when you're in the car, just fade to the front and when you have passengers restore the balance.

With regard to the 8" powered sub, I think you will find it to be just a tad bit too small for your space. I saw that the 8" goes for $179 on Crutchfield, but for $20 more you could install an Infinity Basslink with 10" driver which is slightly larger with a significant enhancement in capability....a good trade-off in my estimation.

What else should I be considering?

This is a good start. But if you are like most of us, you will be upgrading as soon as you find or want something better. I would strongly consider buying damping sheets for those front doors. Putting power to comps will expose rattles and vibrations not present with factory speakers. You can get good effect with any reputable company RAAMmat, Second Skin Audio, or Dynamat are the major players here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,665 Posts
No, the power is not split equally between the midbass and the tweeter. See section 1.3 of this link: BiAmp (Bi-Amplification - Not Quite Magic, But Close) - Part 1

3000Hz is a fairly typical 2-way crossover point, so according to that chart, approximately 85% of the power will go to the woofer/midbass there. (The 15% says "Mid+High" but in a 2-way, that just means tweeter - in a 3-way, you'd pick the crossover frequency between the woofer and midrange, where that smaller number would mean both the midrange and tweeter... if you were curious.)

You don't NEED a 5 channel amp. You can run it from a single channel on a multichannel amp (uncommon unless the amp is intended for subwoofers specifically), or you could bridge 2 channels from a 2 or 4 or 6 channel amp... Or you could use a monoblock for the sub and a separate amp for your speakers. A 5 channel amp is just one of a handful of ways to accomplish this.

I've never heard Massive speakers but they don't seem to be about sound quality from what I read. Personally, I wouldn't take the chance on them. I don't like the interfaces on Kenwood H/Us but if you do then that's fine.


And remember: Power handling is NOT a requirement!

For 5 channel amps, maybe PPI P900.5 or Polk D5000.5? The only 5 channel I've used was a JL 500/5 and it was fine. Not a TON of power on the sub channel in that particular amp, but decent. But JL amps are, IMO, terrible values at anywhere near MSRP.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
80 Posts
No, the power is not split equally between the midbass and the tweeter. See section 1.3 of this link: BiAmp (Bi-Amplification - Not Quite Magic, But Close) - Part 1

3000Hz is a fairly typical 2-way crossover point, so according to that chart, approximately 85% of the power will go to the woofer/midbass there. (The 15% says "Mid+High" but in a 2-way, that just means tweeter - in a 3-way, you'd pick the crossover frequency between the woofer and midrange, where that smaller number would mean both the midrange and tweeter... if you were curious.)
First, let me say I don't disagree with anything Dragonrage was saying aboove. He is exactly on-point with the article referenced. The general split of power may be 85 / 15 in your case, however my point (not made very well I admit) was that if you are trying to get a relatively better SQ benefit from the efforts you described I don't believe that you will necessarily go wrong by providing the RMS power to both speakers through a crossover [I did not mean to imply that there was an equal split of power between the speakers by describing power in bi-amp as 4 x 65...merely suggesting as I had success with similar power arrangements before]. While even at the very lowest level, you can get increased clarity by bi-amping....but as they say in all things your mileage may vary depending upon the installation techniques, quality of installation gear and time/effort expended to tweak and obtain greater sound quality.

As an example, I once had a set of Morel 9 - 2 ways installed in my old '05 Toyota Tacoma (see here: My Truck and Stuff :: TacoTunes 1inch adapter - not big enough for Morels but good template! :) picture by bombzombie - Photobucket)

I used two Alpine PDX-4.150 to run the entire system through an H701 processor. The tweeters and mids all ran off separate channels of the 4 x 150 rms. The rears [Ovation 6.5 coaxials] ran off two channels and the JL 10W1 ran mono from channels 3/4 on the second amp.

Before I settled in on bi-amping, I ran all of the crossovers neutral on the front stage and bridged the front amp to put 300 watts per side through the Morel crossovers. Later I also hooked up the amp in bi-amp fashion and also listened to the crossovers in the native neutral manufacturer setting. This took only a few minutes to change out and I listened to both setups back and forth a few times. I did not begin to feel there was a significant change in SQ until I spent several hours setting levels, changing crossover points and doing T/A with the H701 processor in an active setup. In short, the passive setup bi-amped did not sound appreciably better to me until I employed the H701. Maybe others have had the opportunity to do fancier comparisons (admittedly, this is not double blind) but that is how I came out.

I ultimately ended up bi-amping for the ability to level match. At 150 watts RMS per channel, level-matching was very critical for centering the sound stage. But I listen to techno (mostly) and country, so I'm not sure what good that really does. :)
 
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
Top