DiyMobileAudio.com Car Stereo Forum banner

1 - 20 of 23 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
25 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I want new front components that can handle at least 150rms. I'm thinking either the massive audio CK6V, alpine SPR-60c, ID CTX65cs or polk mm6051. I'm open to other sets too.

I have a subaru and would like to keep the depth under 2.9 so that it wont be a pain to install.
I have a JL 300/2 and 300/4 all wired up and was planning on using 150 for each woofer and 75 for each tweeter just not sure about ditching the passive crossovers. (might just keep the passive and use just the 150)

I have a pretty loud exhaust on my car right now and would like them to have good midbass and get pretty loud.(From what I've read I'm leaning towards the CK6v's)

Can you guys give me some advice which components to get? The only ones I have heard are the alpine type r's and I liked the midbass on them. I could also bi-amp them with there passive crossovers for an easy install.
Also would like to keep it under $200

I thought about the ID cxs64 but i think they will be to deep.


Summary
-around $200
-less than 2.9 depth
-150 rms or more
-loud midbass
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,777 Posts
I want new front components that can handle at least 150rms.

IMO, it's unreasonable to limit your options in this way. First, a speaker with 3dB higher sensitivity can play as loud on half amount of power as the other speaker. Second, most or many mids will exceed their xmax at low frequencies, even with a high pass crossover, with as little as 60-80watts RMS power.

The claims on woofer labels that say they can handle 100 or more watts, are a B.S. I have seen the previous generation Alpine SPR woofer sound harsh on drums (clearly driven past its xmax IMO) and bottom out with test tones driven with only 60watt amp channel with high pass crossover in place.. The RMS rating of the speaker was 110watts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
457 Posts
ck6v's are awesome. get plenty loud to completely drone out road noise, and i have a 98 civic with very loud tires, lots of road noise, as well as my daily commute being on a terrible stretch of highway (very loud road in any car). midbass is not only very strong, it is very punchy and just overall a great sounding set of speakers. i just put mine in this weekend so they're still breaking in, and they sound great; tweeters might need a little bit of eq down around 8k hz or so, at very high volumes there's a tad bit of sibilance but nothing major; this is with the 0db setting on crossover. should handle 150 rms no problem, the box says they are 200 rms i believe, though i would be careful how low you cross them over with that much power. i'm giving them somewhere around 50 watts per side.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,777 Posts
I will attempt to give a realistic view of power handling of these speakers. Massive Audio is one of the very few companies that provides the T/S parameters for its speakers. I load the CK6V T/S parameters into WinISD and start a project. There is not option for infinite baffle setup, so I start with a 2cu ft sealed box which I hope is a rough approximation for a door that's sealed.

Next I add a 3rd order Butterworth high pass filter with frequency 70Hz. Then I switch to the cone excursion chart and keep adding wattage in the signal tab below until this speaker exceeds 4.5mm of excursion at low frequencies. This woofer needs approximately 100watts RMS to reach its xmax of 4.5mm (the manual states xmax of 8.9mm, but I think they list peak to peak xmax, such high number can't be true.. that's a subwoofer level xmax if its one way).

Now most amplifiers are rated using 14.4 voltage which is probably not seen in a normal car operation. This probably means that you need an amplifier channel rated roughly for 120-150 watts of power at 14.4V to reach this speaker's xmax. You could throw more power, but at the point the speaker is operating outside of its "SQ range". If you use a lower high pass frequency, then it will handle less power.

Overall looks like a nice woofer for those with more than 100watts RMS of power per channel.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
^well should I get rid of the jl 300/2 and just run 75 watts to the front stage? I thought it was good to have overhead
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
102 Posts
Another option that may fit would be the HAT Imagine set. I know you stated that you wanted to stay around $200, but the HAT set can be picked up for $249. I used to run them in my car before I replaced them with the Clarus set. The mounting depth is 2.75, and you can run them active with the power you have on tap from your JL amps. I had them active off of my HD900/5. Very nice set of comps for the money. I have zero experience with the other sets you have mentioned, but thought I could chime in with my experiences.

Best of luck.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
457 Posts
^well should I get rid of the jl 300/2 and just run 75 watts to the front stage? I thought it was good to have overhead
not necessarily, the crossover will sap some power and the tweeter will take some as well. running active, 75 watts per side would be good, but using the passives, i wouldn't hesitate to use 150 per side.

thanks for the modeling info ZAKOH, i have a Mac and can't model, not really interested in using crossover/wine to make it run and not ready to install windows on it yet.

if you still have the model saved, what does it look like in 10ft^3? curious how big of an enclosure is enough to basically be IB for these. and how much power for their stated 8.9mm Xmax? i find it hard to believe as well but it should be more in line with their rms figures. might have to get a response from a massive rep!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
144 Posts
not necessarily, the crossover will sap some power and the tweeter will take some as well. running active, 75 watts per side would be good, but using the passives, i wouldn't hesitate to use 150 per side.

thanks for the modeling info ZAKOH, i have a Mac and can't model, not really interested in using crossover/wine to make it run and not ready to install windows on it yet.

if you still have the model saved, what does it look like in 10ft^3? curious how big of an enclosure is enough to basically be IB for these. and how much power for their stated 8.9mm Xmax? i find it hard to believe as well but it should be more in line with their rms figures. might have to get a response from a massive rep!
LinearTeam

I use this to model my drivers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,777 Posts
Well. I am running HAT Imagines right now too. To me their main selling point is that I can run them active without having any processors with active crossover. This is because this set can run on a very primitive crossover setup with woofer having no low pass crossover hanging directly off amp channel and the tweeter only using a capacitor inline before connecting to amplifier. Once I run them active, I was able to tune time alignment separately for the woofers and for the tweeters (my stereo has time alignment on all 6 out channels). Without using any sophisticated TA methods, I just aligned tweeters and woofers by ears, and the result is very good. Very good imaging. Vocals are dead centered, even if I turn my head around, etc. Perhaps there exist speakers that sound better than HAT Imagine if you compare them in their passive crossover setups, but I wouldn't have been able to accomplish this result with the components running in passive mode. These speakers have good sensitivity, so you can run them on just 60watts per channel, although running in active mode the woofer has been said to be able to take 120watts RMS in stride. I did the same kind of rough modeling with WinISD for this woofer. It seems like the woofer will go past its 6mm of one way xmax with about 70-80watts of power. So an amplifier rated for 100-120watts at 14.4V should be enough to bring the best out of Imagine woofers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,777 Posts
if you still have the model saved, what does it look like in 10ft^3? curious how big of an enclosure is enough to basically be IB for these. and how much power for their stated 8.9mm Xmax? i find it hard to believe as well but it should be more in line with their rms figures. might have to get a response from a massive rep!
Switching from 2 to 10cu ft does not seem to affect the results (excursion, SPL, etc)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,382 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
25 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
How do you like them?
They're ok. The tweeters are were very harsh at first but seem to be getting better. The bass is really rattling my doors that I need to re dampen correctly. I don't have anything to compare them to other then the type r's
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
69 Posts
They're ok. The tweeters are were very harsh at first but seem to be getting better. The bass is really rattling my doors that I need to re dampen correctly. I don't have anything to compare them to other then the type r's
are they better than the alpines ? are they worth it ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
Hard to say. The ck6 had more bass. Alpine tweeter was better. I wish i could have just listened to them all side by side
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15 Posts
They're ok. The tweeters are were very harsh at first but seem to be getting better. The bass is really rattling my doors that I need to re dampen correctly. I don't have anything to compare them to other then the type r's
Did you try setting the tweeters to -3 on the crossover? I've had mine on the 0 setting for a while, but think I'm gonna try -3 tomorrow as they're a bit much at higher volumes mounted in my sail panels.
 
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
Top