DiyMobileAudio.com Car Stereo Forum banner

61 - 80 of 118 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,502 Posts
Woofersetc.com recommended the image dynamics set or the Cdt set
 

·
Blue Collar Audiophile
Joined
·
10,289 Posts
Not saying they're bad speakers. I just think you could do better for the money. Anyone know if they're still rebadging vifa drivers for their higher end drivers? Their lower end stuff just looks like stuff off the shelf of a chinese buildhouse.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
282 Posts
the way i have always looked at it overall is that with the oval speakers, primarily 6x9s, you generally get a higher output in the lower frequencies but i have always noticed in my setups that they seem to have a tendency to distort easier/faster than something that is circular and the reason for this would be the fact that the voice coil is round and an oval woofer attached to the circular voice coil is going to create unwanted flexing/drag at moderate to higher excursion and this flexing/drag will result in the coil heating up from having to work harder to try and keep the woofer moving linear and heat equals distortion in the end, now I'm not saying that circular speakers are exempt from this cause that would plain and simply be a lie but they are much less susceptible to the distortion as they do not exhibit the inherit linearity problems as a oval woofer. as stated before though with the large 6x9 speaker i do believe you do have an edge in mid and low frequency output, not clarity but output. just my .02
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,502 Posts
the way i have always looked at it overall is that with the oval speakers, primarily 6x9s, you generally get a higher output in the lower frequencies but i have always noticed in my setups that they seem to have a tendency to distort easier/faster than something that is circular and the reason for this would be the fact that the voice coil is round and an oval woofer attached to the circular voice coil is going to create unwanted flexing/drag at moderate to higher excursion and this flexing/drag will result in the coil heating up from having to work harder to try and keep the woofer moving linear and heat equals distortion in the end, now I'm not saying that circular speakers are exempt from this cause that would plain and simply be a lie but they are much less susceptible to the distortion as they do not exhibit the inherit linearity problems as a oval woofer. as stated before though with the large 6x9 speaker i do believe you do have an edge in mid and low frequency output, not clarity but output. just my .02
im just a noob so i dont know, which is why im asking

what if they use a larger voice coil than the normal 6.5 speaker in 6x9s? would that prevent it from heating up, or heating up as easily?

and knowing what u just said, wouldnt they do things to fix it?

and lastly, what about 3 way 6x9s? the 6x9 could be playing idk 800hz down, midrange and tweet doing most the clarity and detailed work?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
282 Posts
its possible that the 6x9 may have a larger voice coil but that is not relevant to the whole heating up of the voice coil as the voice coil wouldn't be much larger and wouldn't change the fact that its still a circle pulling and pushing on a oval. in the case of 3 ways yes the tweets would play fine imo but the music that the 6x9 woofer would play would still be distorted. I'm sure someone else will chime in and say more on this, once again this is just the way i have always viewed the subject
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
827 Posts
Unless very well engineered and built I would never use a 6x9 but if done right, they are great, my latest was X69 and full size ID horns and it was a perfect match, very loud when wanted, no single 6.5 could do what those X69's did that I have ever heard.

I advise against 6x9's at least a few times a week as help many building their muscle cars, etc that want to put some in the rear deck, wrong place and usually cheap versions because they do not know any better. Instead I advise a simple two way front stage and a simple sub in the rear deck, even 6x9 subs if they cannot cut up anything to put in a 10 or whatever their needs dictate.

Most just want a simple system but I explain with a little effort and not a great deal of money they can build a much better system than what most think is the right way to go. Unfortunately most do not have a good placement for the tweeters but we work out the best we can for their particular vehicle.

6x9, great if great driver and used right, sucks otherwise:)

Rick
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,487 Posts
I believe 6x9's were designed by car makers due the fact back in the 50'-60's the amps they used were tubes, then early low powered transistors of only a watt or two.They needed a large efficient speaker to over come all the noise those car made.
They were first put in the center dash or console for mono and as fm stereo came in they would fit in the rear shelf.
Then Gm came out with the 4x10 to fit in the rear shelf of their Cutlass.
I dont really think they had sound quality in mind when they designed them, more like they have to fit in the car and be efficient enough to hear.
But then came the late 70's and early 80's with booster EQ's and Dolby tape decks and the demand for higher quality speakers.
I think this is where Clarion,Pioneer and Kenwood started making the high end stuff.
6x9's included.
But I still dont know about those 4x10's.Why even bother.They could of just put 6x9's in those big bulky doors.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,502 Posts
from jl website:

"Many people mistakenly believe that an oval speaker cannot perform as well as a round one, leading to many instances of 5.25-inch speakers being installed into 5 x 7-inch openings. JL Audio's engineers have put in the time and effort to create fantastic-sounding speakers that drop into oval openings and deliver equivalent performance to our 6.5-inch (165 mm) round speaker systems... guaranteed. So, don't make the mistake of losing cone area and efficiency by stepping down to a smaller round speaker... these ovals rock."
what do u guys think of this?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,702 Posts
I believe 6x9's were designed by car makers due the fact back in the 50'-60's the amps they used were tubes, then early low powered transistors of only a watt or two.They needed a large efficient speaker to over come all the noise those car made.
They were first put in the center dash or console for mono and as fm stereo came in they would fit in the rear shelf.
Then Gm came out with the 4x10 to fit in the rear shelf of their Cutlass.
I dont really think they had sound quality in mind when they designed them, more like they have to fit in the car and be efficient enough to hear.
But then came the late 70's and early 80's with booster EQ's and Dolby tape decks and the demand for higher quality speakers.
I think this is where Clarion,Pioneer and Kenwood started making the high end stuff.
6x9's included.
But I still dont know about those 4x10's.Why even bother.They could of just put 6x9's in those big bulky doors.
It's packaging first way before power. Interior room has always been a desired attribute. The rear seats get mounted as far back as possible to get legroom. That is, before it cuts into headroom. What you have left is a typical almost rectangular rear shelf behind the seats.

To get the most output suface area is increased by specifying an irregular speaker. Even if you had 1kw at your disposal the speaker has it's limits. The vast majority of car speakers have been very basic motors that can't take advantage of large increases in power. There was a need for suface area to get output and therefore the ovals.

That's why the same principles apply today, despite increases in stroke. JL's quote is largely correct I would say, use whatever maximizes cone area, be it round, oval, square, etc.

ovals aren't inherently better or worse than round speakers and the ultimate performance does depend on the rest of the design.

However, the oval shape does "spread the chaos" of bending modes around, which often results in a diminishing of the peaks and dips caused by those modes. The different dispersion patters along long and short axes can also be helpful, but a 6x9 woofer (just like other speakers) ought to be low passed before the dispersion narrows if you're using it in a car.
Andy, could you expand on that if you see this?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,487 Posts
Thats kinda what I was getting at.They need as much cone area as they could get to fit into the area they had available.Its like the speaker was just an after thought and shaped to fit.I think the 6x9 worked so well they just kept on using it.The 6x9 was a more efficient design than just a 4,5 or 6.
I have seen oval speakers in older home units also.Some were very large,15x10 inch's.
But I dont think they were as old as the automotive designs.But I could be wrong.
All of the oval speakers I've came across were IB except for the dedicated subs like the Boston SPG555-4.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,702 Posts
It definitely is an afterthought. OEM drivers must cost a few bucks to make for most cars.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,214 Posts
Andy, could you expand on that if you see this?
He's talking about polar response. A 6x9 will beam like a 6" driver on the short axis and like a 9" driver on the long axis. Having read many post from Andy, he's a firm believer in LPing drivers before beaming in order to avoid having to angle the speaker.

Kelvin
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,502 Posts
To me Iwould think today they have looken.at what could fix or help the 6x9 and corrected or greatly improved. But perhaps they just make budget ones that will give the buys lots of bass and they make money off people who.don't know better and want to replace factory speakers
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,702 Posts
He's talking about polar response. A 6x9 will beam like a 6" driver on the short axis and like a 9" driver on the long axis. Having read many post from Andy, he's a firm believer in LPing drivers before beaming in order to avoid having to angle the speaker.

Kelvin
Yeah, I got that part. I wanted more on controlling dispersion in a car. Seems like he's not a big fan. There are two schools of thought on this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,149 Posts
Thats kinda what I was getting at.They need as much cone area as they could get to fit into the area they had available.Its like the speaker was just an after thought and shaped to fit.I think the 6x9 worked so well they just kept on using it.The 6x9 was a more efficient design than just a 4,5 or 6.
I have seen oval speakers in older home units also.Some were very large,15x10 inch's.
But I dont think they were as old as the automotive designs.But I could be wrong.
All of the oval speakers I've came across were IB except for the dedicated subs like the Boston SPG555-4.
You bet... IIRC my parent's console stereo had 6X9's and they were in this strange styrofoam wrapped enclosure....

There was also the "Camaro phenomena" where you could take a set of 6X9's put them in that rear shelf (when they still had shelves (that dates me )) and off that "waveguide" of a sloped rear glass they could and did make an UNGODLY amount of low end for a minimal amount of cone surface area and excursion by today's standards.

There are two schools of thought on this.
[winning]
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
11,394 Posts
When you guys figure beaming frequencies, are you saying an 8" speaker has an 8" cone? Because most 8s have a 6" cone from srround to surround.

Just curious.
 
61 - 80 of 118 Posts
Top