posted
Every since I got into car audio I was influenced to believe, and always have, that 6x9's suck. The other day I was thinking, Why do they suck? The only explanation I've ever heard is that they have no crossovers and 3-ways often sound crappy b/c they play the same frequences. So then technically wouldn't a 2-way 6x9 with a crossover (like eclipse's point source model) be good? Please give me insight on this matter.
------------------
Posts: 34 | From: South Dakota, USA | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
No crossovers? With the expection of the factory speakers, I have yet to come across a 6x9 without a built in crossover. Ever notice that little cap sticking on the side of the midrange or tweeter...crossover. Addmittedly they are crude crossovers, but they do filter the lows off the tweet and midrange.
My set of PolkDB6930s sound great and my MM6930 sound even better. Most 6x9s are thrown into a car and run off a factory deck. They might sound ok, but I doubt it. If a 6x9 is run with a clean, powerful signal from an amp it will sound a lot better. Problem is, most people run them full range and they should really be run from 80Hz on up.
posted
I remember reading somewhere that the further a speaker gets from "round" that it has less of a chance to produce quality sound without distortion. That's why 4X10s are really bad.
------------------ Overcoming by out-thinking
"Forget about subsonic, I'm trying for supersonic, and I don't mean a high note."
posted
Okay, first, I know all speakers have a crossover, what I meant was an outboard crossover, a seperate, one that you can pick the crossover points. Second, I apprechiate the input but I still haven't heard why non-round speakers suck. Why? Frequinces? What about kicker's L7 square subs? They're not round. It's not that I dont believe you, I'm just curious as to why.please keep the info coming. Thanks
------------------
Posts: 34 | From: South Dakota, USA | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It has to do with the stiffness of the cone and the fact that the very ends of the speaker have a lot of area (almost 1/2 the cone area), but are only driven by 1/3 the speaker motor. I can explain it more if need be.
------------------ Overcoming by out-thinking
"Forget about subsonic, I'm trying for supersonic, and I don't mean a high note."
posted
Hrm, if memory serves me correctly, McIntosh made/makes a 6x9 component set. I can't really imagine McIntosh making anything that was sub-par. I've had my fair share of bad 6x9/5x7 exp, but most of that was with low-cost equipment.
My 5x7 Kappas and 5x7 Kicker Impulses made me rather happy. I would have been better served making them a small enclosure, but at the time, factory replacement was key.
I think a lot of the times it comes down to application, placement, and time. If someone really wanted to replace their 6x9s and go with a non-traditional replacement, they could make the baffle for a 6.5 or 5.25. But, y'already knew that one .
Also, prolly like most things (except for AMD vs. Intel processors) the more you pay, they more you get. A <100 dollar pair of 6x9s will probably not sound as good as a >150 pair. But, also depends on amp, signal clairity, source clarity, etc., but again y'already knew that.
Any material obviously flexes at any given pressure, it is just the amount (of flexion) that is variable.
In the case of a non-symmetrical speaker, the flexion and loss into the surround on the rounder part is different than the flexion and loss into the surround of the more oval-ish part.. This leads to
1) Possible standing waves in the surround. 2) Non-even dispersion of sound wave across radiating area 3) Standing waves IN the cone 4) Poorly controlled moving mass due to unsymmetrical loading of suspension.
Any of these things may make small changes in sound quality... Many 6x9's can be gotten that are dual element (with outboard crossovers) such as Eclipse Point Source, the aforementioned McIntosh equip., et all. Moreover, the actual hear-ability of these things is probably within tolerable (inaudible) limits, but from a purist point of view... ick.
Also- with the square coned L7, the cone is symmetrical on both X and Y axes (when looking straight into the center of the cone) however, the corners are a different distance than the rest.. But, I think the ruffled corner surround would probably kill any sympathetic vibration.
ShadowStar
------------------
Posts: 2579 | From: Somewhere In the Northeast | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic