Thoughts on this set up?
11-16-2018, 07:36 PM
#11
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
I hadn't updated anything since posting my change of heart the other evening where I said I was going to bite the bullet and change over to a component speaker system. Wanted to wait to talk to my installer in more detail. Anyway I ended up ordering those Morel's after first deciding on the MM6502's based on a few things. I'd heard the baby brother Polk's a few days before, the DB6502's, thought they sounded really good and the Crutchfield advisor recommended them to me as well. (I was only looking for tweeters LOL) He also said kinda off-hand that the MM's were even better sounding tho quite a bit more expensive. Then my installer told me he was also running those Polk's in his truck when I texted him for a second opinion. So that's what lead to the MM6502's.
By the next morning, and after doing a little more research I got concerned that maybe I was paying for all-weather protection that I wouldn't need and might be overpaying for the sound I was going to get, could do better for the same money. there's also not a whole lot of reviews on those Polk's atho what there is is overwhelmingly positive.
So I got a case of cold feet and opted for what I considered the easy and safe choice of the Morel Tempo Ultra's. Crutchfield's sale on' em made it easier.
I'm probably stubborn (in fact I know I am) but really want to stick with the Kicker Key amp rather than an amp and separate DSP, and the installer had already assured me that those Polk's were plenty efficient and the Key would be fine if that's what I wanted to use. Already using a Hideaway which is all the sub I want so no concerns there.
So going with the Morels, Key ports 1&2 going to tweeters and 3/4 to woofers, which should give enough power to drive 'em in your estimation? That's what my guy was going to do with the Polks, but I'd love to know what you think too. I know you would say amp and DSP, but all I really want for now is just an easy and compact set-up, and something I can easily re-calibrate myself if I decide to change out the rear door speakers later on. As long as the Key can drive the new speakers satisfactorily I don't care if I can go loud. SQ is all I'm after.
Doing the install this coming Wednesday, with everything coming in on Monday.
On those tweeters...
He wants to mount those midway up on the door pillar rather than bottom forward where the existing factory ones are. I'd kinda like to avoid drilling holes in the pillars but he says that moving them closer to the driving position and aiming to the opposite headrests will give me noticeably better vocals. Is he right?
By the next morning, and after doing a little more research I got concerned that maybe I was paying for all-weather protection that I wouldn't need and might be overpaying for the sound I was going to get, could do better for the same money. there's also not a whole lot of reviews on those Polk's atho what there is is overwhelmingly positive.
So I got a case of cold feet and opted for what I considered the easy and safe choice of the Morel Tempo Ultra's. Crutchfield's sale on' em made it easier.
I'm probably stubborn (in fact I know I am) but really want to stick with the Kicker Key amp rather than an amp and separate DSP, and the installer had already assured me that those Polk's were plenty efficient and the Key would be fine if that's what I wanted to use. Already using a Hideaway which is all the sub I want so no concerns there.
So going with the Morels, Key ports 1&2 going to tweeters and 3/4 to woofers, which should give enough power to drive 'em in your estimation? That's what my guy was going to do with the Polks, but I'd love to know what you think too. I know you would say amp and DSP, but all I really want for now is just an easy and compact set-up, and something I can easily re-calibrate myself if I decide to change out the rear door speakers later on. As long as the Key can drive the new speakers satisfactorily I don't care if I can go loud. SQ is all I'm after.
Doing the install this coming Wednesday, with everything coming in on Monday.
On those tweeters...
He wants to mount those midway up on the door pillar rather than bottom forward where the existing factory ones are. I'd kinda like to avoid drilling holes in the pillars but he says that moving them closer to the driving position and aiming to the opposite headrests will give me noticeably better vocals. Is he right?
11-16-2018, 07:37 PM
#12
Senior Member
The morels are excellent off axis which mean they don't require being aimed so close to center. I would avoid drilling any new holes and mount the tweeters in the factory position in the a-pillar. If you don't like the way they sound there, then you go back and drill holes.
11-16-2018, 09:05 PM
#13
Senior Member
The morels are excellent off axis which mean they don't require being aimed so close to center. I would avoid drilling any new holes and mount the tweeters in the factory position in the a-pillar. If you don't like the way they sound there, then you go back and drill holes.
11-16-2018, 10:52 PM
#14
Pick any respectable brand and research their flagship speaker lines:
Morel- Virtus and above
Focal- Expert Series and above
JL Audio- entire speaker line
DynAudio- entire speaker line
AudioFrog- GB line
Audio Development- entire speaker line
Illusion Audio- Luccent and above
Hertz Audio- entire speaker line
Audison- Voce and above
ScanSpeak- entire speaker line
This list goes on.
What do all of these speakers have in common? It's not price. Some of these drivers cost thousands, some hundreds. What they have in common is none of them offer a 6x9's in their flagship lines. Many of them dont offer 6x9's period. Even in their cheapest offerings. This goes back to today's manufacturing abilities being able to create better speakers with more precision, higher efficiency, lower distortion, etc. The extra cone area of the 6x9 simply isn't needed anymore for output. The 6.5 is now the industry standard and for good reason.
11-17-2018, 08:40 AM
#15
The TW3 is a great sub, but going low-budget on the amp and speakers to afford it isn't the best choice for overall sound quality IMO.
In your budget, having a lower class of subwoofer is much less noticeable than having lower class component speakers.
For a simple 3 channel setup in the $5-600 range, I would go with something like:
Morel Tempo Ultra 692 components ($300)
Pioneer TS-SW2502s4 subwoofer ($70)
Pioneer UD-SW250t box ($60, this box is made for the above sub and fits perfectly behind the rear seats)
Pioneer GM-D8604 amp ($125) or GM-D9605 ($220)
The Morels are worlds ahead of the Kickers, and the price-to-performance on Pioneer's subs and amps is hard to beat.
The GM-D8604 will give you 100w x 2 + 300w for sub
The GM-D9605 will give you 200w x 2 + 350w for sub. Adding a second sub for a 2 ohm final load will give you 600w for subs.
Both Pioneer amps will do their rated power and more. The same can't be said for any of the newer Soundstreams.
In your budget, having a lower class of subwoofer is much less noticeable than having lower class component speakers.
For a simple 3 channel setup in the $5-600 range, I would go with something like:
Morel Tempo Ultra 692 components ($300)
Pioneer TS-SW2502s4 subwoofer ($70)
Pioneer UD-SW250t box ($60, this box is made for the above sub and fits perfectly behind the rear seats)
Pioneer GM-D8604 amp ($125) or GM-D9605 ($220)
The Morels are worlds ahead of the Kickers, and the price-to-performance on Pioneer's subs and amps is hard to beat.
The GM-D8604 will give you 100w x 2 + 300w for sub
The GM-D9605 will give you 200w x 2 + 350w for sub. Adding a second sub for a 2 ohm final load will give you 600w for subs.
Both Pioneer amps will do their rated power and more. The same can't be said for any of the newer Soundstreams.
Do I need a DSP with this set up?
11-17-2018, 09:11 AM
#16
Senior Member
The following users liked this post:
Ricksastar (11-17-2018)
11-17-2018, 10:27 AM
#17
Senior Member
There used to be a stereotype that more cone area meant more output because you are moving more air. This idea is pretty archaic but it's stuck around. While there is some truth to the concept physically, the reality today is that speaker technology and manufacturing methods have defeated this notion. Ultimately, a 6.5 can play louder and lower with less distortion than a 6x9 can. Think about this.
Pick any respectable brand and research their flagship speaker lines:
Morel- Virtus and above
Focal- Expert Series and above
JL Audio- entire speaker line
DynAudio- entire speaker line
AudioFrog- GB line
Audio Development- entire speaker line
Illusion Audio- Luccent and above
Hertz Audio- entire speaker line
Audison- Voce and above
ScanSpeak- entire speaker line
This list goes on.
What do all of these speakers have in common? It's not price. Some of these drivers cost thousands, some hundreds. What they have in common is none of them offer a 6x9's in their flagship lines. Many of them dont offer 6x9's period. Even in their cheapest offerings. This goes back to today's manufacturing abilities being able to create better speakers with more precision, higher efficiency, lower distortion, etc. The extra cone area of the 6x9 simply isn't needed anymore for output. The 6.5 is now the industry standard and for good reason.
Pick any respectable brand and research their flagship speaker lines:
Morel- Virtus and above
Focal- Expert Series and above
JL Audio- entire speaker line
DynAudio- entire speaker line
AudioFrog- GB line
Audio Development- entire speaker line
Illusion Audio- Luccent and above
Hertz Audio- entire speaker line
Audison- Voce and above
ScanSpeak- entire speaker line
This list goes on.
What do all of these speakers have in common? It's not price. Some of these drivers cost thousands, some hundreds. What they have in common is none of them offer a 6x9's in their flagship lines. Many of them dont offer 6x9's period. Even in their cheapest offerings. This goes back to today's manufacturing abilities being able to create better speakers with more precision, higher efficiency, lower distortion, etc. The extra cone area of the 6x9 simply isn't needed anymore for output. The 6.5 is now the industry standard and for good reason.
I had first put the Tempo Ultra 6.5's in the cart, but saw the 6x9's were $130 off, so instead of $439 it came to $299. Seemed like a no-brainer and the law of diminishing returns was telling me that approaching retirement ears probably wouldn't hear enough difference goin higher end. I'll assume on that particular line since it's more their mid-rangers than premium that most of us older owners might be hard pressed to notice a difference in the 6x9's compared to the 6.5's? I did nearly go for the entry level Expert Series Focals but there were numerous mentions of how bright the tweeters were, and with these older ears of mine I'm looking more for warm than bright. The brightness of the tweeters was in fact the only negatives I saw mentioned in the Focals.
Last edited by Gatorguy; 11-17-2018 at 10:45 AM. Reason: speeling ;)
11-17-2018, 10:29 AM
#18
Senior Member
There used to be a stereotype that more cone area meant more output because you are moving more air. This idea is pretty archaic but it's stuck around. While there is some truth to the concept physically, the reality today is that speaker technology and manufacturing methods have defeated this notion. Ultimately, a 6.5 can play louder and lower with less distortion than a 6x9 can.
Sound is made when air moves (vibrates). The more air you can move, the louder the sound (at a given frequency).
It's not an archaic stereotype, it's a scientific fact. So (cone area) x (Xmax) is still very much relevant.
A 6x9 has nearly identical cone area to an 8" round driver. So, saying a 6.5 equals a 6x9 (in output & FR) is also like saying it equals an 8.
By that logic, you could then argue that a 5.25 equals a 6.5, and a 4 equals a 5.25. So now, you could say 4 equals 8.
And so on, to the point that you're saying technology has made the physical size of a speaker irrelevant to its capabilities. This is obviously not true, though.
We can get better output/FR out of a given size thanks to technology, but each speaker size still performs in a general manner relative to other sizes.
Give the same feature set, a 6.5 absolutely can not play as loud or as low as a 6x9. Because you can't beat physics.
If you're comparing speakers in the same lineup that all use the same technologies/ features (like the Tempo Ultras for example), the 6x9 will always be capable of more output than the 6.5" due to the extra cone area. The 6x9 will have the output and low FR of its comparable 8" driver due to cone area, and the high FR of a 6" round driver due to its one narrow axis (given the proper orientation).
If you took all the tech and features of say an Illusion C6 or Audiofrog GB60, and put them into a 6x9 woofer, the 6x9 would uniformly beat their 6/6.5 counterparts in output and FR. You can see this in the mid-high end with the Audiofrog GS690, Hybrid Audio U69, and Image Dynamics XS69.
What do all of these speakers have in common? It's not price. Some of these drivers cost thousands, some hundreds. What they have in common is none of them offer a 6x9's in their flagship lines. Many of them dont offer 6x9's period. Even in their cheapest offerings. This goes back to today's manufacturing abilities being able to create better speakers with more precision, higher efficiency, lower distortion, etc. The extra cone area of the 6x9 simply isn't needed anymore for output. The 6.5 is now the industry standard and for good reason.
As you said, the 6.5" is basically the industry standard size. The 6x9 isn't very common when compared.
And you can mount a 6.5 in a 6x9 hole, but you can't mount a 6x9 in a 6.5 hole.
High end speakers (say over $500/pr) are already an extremely small niche market, within the already small niche that is aftermarket car audio as a whole.
So, a high end 6x9 would be a microscopically small niche, within an extremely small niche, within a very small niche. It just doesn't make financial sense for a business to go there.
The following users liked this post:
searvy (08-29-2019)
11-17-2018, 10:32 AM
#19
Senior Member
11-17-2018, 11:04 AM
#20
Originally Posted by tenx82
Technology has changed, but the way sound is produced hasn't and won't.
Sound is made when air moves (vibrates). The more air you can move, the louder the sound (at a given frequency).
It's not an archaic stereotype, it's a scientific fact. So (cone area) x (Xmax) is still very much relevant.
A 6x9 has nearly identical cone area to an 8" round driver. So, saying a 6.5 equals a 6x9 (in output & FR) is also like saying it equals an 8.
By that logic, you could then argue that a 5.25 equals a 6.5, and a 4 equals a 5.25. So now, you could say 4 equals 8.
And so on, to the point that you're saying technology has made the physical size of a speaker irrelevant to its capabilities. This is obviously not true, though.
We can get better output/FR out of a given size thanks to technology, but each speaker size still performs in a general manner relative to other sizes.
Give the same feature set, a 6.5 absolutely can not play as loud or as low as a 6x9. Because you can't beat physics.
If you're comparing speakers in the same lineup that all use the same technologies/ features (like the Tempo Ultras for example), the 6x9 will always be capable of more output than the 6.5" due to the extra cone area. The 6x9 will have the output and low FR of its comparable 8" driver due to cone area, and the high FR of a 6" round driver due to its one narrow axis (given the proper orientation).
If you took all the tech and features of say an Illusion C6 or Audiofrog GB60, and put them into a 6x9 woofer, the 6x9 would uniformly beat their 6/6.5 counterparts in output and FR. You can see this in the mid-high end with the Audiofrog GS690, Hybrid Audio U69, and Image Dynamics XS69.I'm pretty sure the basic reason for the lack of high end 6x9 woofers is simply due to the cost/benefit.
As you said, the 6.5" is basically the industry standard size. The 6x9 isn't very common when compared.
And you can mount a 6.5 in a 6x9 hole, but you can't mount a 6x9 in a 6.5 hole.
High end speakers (say over $500/pr) are already an extremely small niche market, within the already small niche that is aftermarket car audio as a whole.
So, a high end 6x9 would be a microscopically small niche, within an extremely small niche, within a very small niche. It just doesn't make financial sense for a business to go there.
Sound is made when air moves (vibrates). The more air you can move, the louder the sound (at a given frequency).
It's not an archaic stereotype, it's a scientific fact. So (cone area) x (Xmax) is still very much relevant.
A 6x9 has nearly identical cone area to an 8" round driver. So, saying a 6.5 equals a 6x9 (in output & FR) is also like saying it equals an 8.
By that logic, you could then argue that a 5.25 equals a 6.5, and a 4 equals a 5.25. So now, you could say 4 equals 8.
And so on, to the point that you're saying technology has made the physical size of a speaker irrelevant to its capabilities. This is obviously not true, though.
We can get better output/FR out of a given size thanks to technology, but each speaker size still performs in a general manner relative to other sizes.
Give the same feature set, a 6.5 absolutely can not play as loud or as low as a 6x9. Because you can't beat physics.
If you're comparing speakers in the same lineup that all use the same technologies/ features (like the Tempo Ultras for example), the 6x9 will always be capable of more output than the 6.5" due to the extra cone area. The 6x9 will have the output and low FR of its comparable 8" driver due to cone area, and the high FR of a 6" round driver due to its one narrow axis (given the proper orientation).
If you took all the tech and features of say an Illusion C6 or Audiofrog GB60, and put them into a 6x9 woofer, the 6x9 would uniformly beat their 6/6.5 counterparts in output and FR. You can see this in the mid-high end with the Audiofrog GS690, Hybrid Audio U69, and Image Dynamics XS69.I'm pretty sure the basic reason for the lack of high end 6x9 woofers is simply due to the cost/benefit.
As you said, the 6.5" is basically the industry standard size. The 6x9 isn't very common when compared.
And you can mount a 6.5 in a 6x9 hole, but you can't mount a 6x9 in a 6.5 hole.
High end speakers (say over $500/pr) are already an extremely small niche market, within the already small niche that is aftermarket car audio as a whole.
So, a high end 6x9 would be a microscopically small niche, within an extremely small niche, within a very small niche. It just doesn't make financial sense for a business to go there.
The AF GB60 won in 8" driver competitions.
Finally, you didn't discus distortion which is the main reason the transition from 6x9 to 6.5 occurred. Yes music didn't change, but recording technologies has, requiring higher fs in speakers which you simply can't get with a convex cone. It's a known fact. Yes, more cone area moves more air but at what cost? At the cost of distortion and sound quality.
Lastly, this increased distortion is why high end speaker makes don't build 6x9's. There would be no point. It's not the technology within the speaker, it's convex cone that is the limiter.
Last edited by dhmcfadin; 11-17-2018 at 01:35 PM.