5.25 mid bass recommendations peerless

Thanks again for the info, I would love to go 3-way, but I don't have the means of getting it done, too busy with work, plus I already have my kick panels done and ready to go, it can be modified to fit 5.5" drivers I'll look into that. I'll also be running an alpine pxa-h700 on the active end so i can control the sounds a little bit as I listen to a lot of different kinds of music. A 400 watt Mcintosh amp(i'm a big fan) will be powering my drivers, and an Alpine 7998 will be controlling everything up front.

LAOJOE99 wrote: Steven thanks for the sticky, great stuff. I like how he mentions how important the crossover is, he speaks a bit about what Mr. Von Schweikert told me he can do for me, "A properly designed crossover will contour the acoustic response of the drivers in their intended location." that is from the controversy awaits section.

Yeah, the author of that thread is one of the smartest, funniest, most handsome, and definitely most humble people I know.    Seriously though, I really have to give a brilliant engineer,  my old boss Dan Wiggins credit as he was the one who taught me most of that information.

I wrote that thread to replace the "Advanced Front Speakers" thread since it's important information kind of got spread over the first several pages.  Unfortunately I left a few things out which may be of help to you.  I discuss the design of 3-way systems, kick panel locations, and have a bit more information on speaker selection.  Here's a link if you want some more reading: https://www.the12volt.com/installbay/forum_posts.asp~TID~61864~PN~1~TPN~1

haemphyst wrote: 1: Finding a GOOD 5.25 inch driver is going to be difficult, at best. 5.25 inch drivers are most often found in the car, and very few manufacturers offer good ones, simply due to their intended purpose in life. I'd HIGHLY recommend hogging your hole out for a 5.5 inch driver... Your possibilites then become FAR more varied and vast, with many more significantly higher-end options, especially.

This might have been a typo?  I think Dave actually meant for you to hog your holes out for a 6.5" driver.

haemphyst wrote: 2: I also recommend 8 ohm drivers for mids. As the distortion from ANY amplifier increases as the impedance goes lower, so too, does it DECREASE as the impedance goes higher. Distortion in (again) the most sensitive band of human hearing. With amplifier power as cheap as it is today, there is no reason you shouldn't be able to find ANY amplifier to provide you with more than adequate power for any mid/tweeter combination.

This I totally agree with.  Just because you are installing in a vehicle, it doesn't mean you must go with 4 ohm drivers.  There are a vast number of great 8 ohm speakers on the market for you to choose from.  And unless your amplifier doesn't put out much power into higher impedance's, there really is no reason to exclude them.

haemphyst wrote: 5: Can you actually go three way? The difficulty I see with a two-way, especially a two-way with a 5.25 inch driver, is the matching of the drivers... Physics dictate again how high a driver can go without beaming. With a 5.25 inch driver, I'd never go much over 400Hz for extreme off-axis (such as you'd find in a car) listening. Where are you going to find a tweeter that can go that low without blowing up, and STILL go to 15-18K, clean? (This, by the way, is coming from a guy that HAD been a two-way fan forever, then went three way, and is a convert!) Also, your axis is MUCH steeper on the driver's side than the passenger's.

400 Hz?  That would definitely be ideal if you can design around it.    I know that Dan usually used the point where 30 degrees off axis would be 3 dB down as the limits of upper extension.  The formula for this would be D^2/lambda (the diameter squared divided by the wavelength of the frequency).  And if it still is a concern, I would think that building an angled mounting ring on the drivers side would be easier.

Steven Kephart wrote: This might have been a typo?  I think Dave actually meant for you to hog your holes out for a 6.5" driver.

No, I actually meant 5.5 inch. I was under the impression that he was more limited on space. Certainly a 6.5 will go deeper, but at the further expense of beaming sooner...

Steven Kephart wrote: I know that Dan usually used the point where 30 degrees off axis would be 3 dB down as the limits of upper extension.  The formula for this would be D^2/lambda (the diameter squared divided by the wavelength of the frequency).  And if it still is a concern, I would think that building an angled mounting ring on the drivers side would be easier.

Now I know... I never knew the formula before! I'll be adding THAT one to the memory banks! Thanks, Steven!It all reminds me of something that Molière once said to Guy de Maupassant at a café in Vienna: "That's nice. You should write it down."

haemphyst wrote: 3: Kick panels suck. Period. Put the arrays in the doors, you'll be glad you did.

I think you make a lot of great contributions to this forum, but I can't say that about this statement. Making a blanket statement like that would be like me saying that kick panels will ALWAYS sound better (which they obviously won't). Each vehicle is different, the best solution for one is not going to be the best for all. Some cars lend themselves well to kick panel installs and sound great with them, others don't. Some cars do great with door installs and some don't. Ten or more years ago when I cared about this stuff, cheap time alignment systems didn't exist and getting the path lengths equal was the thing. Now days it seems like nobody cares about individual driver placement as much since digital processing is so available. Personally I think that's still a mistake, but... My favorite setup for a two way, is tweeters in a-pillars or sail panels (aimed) and mids in doors or kicks depending on the vehicle. But that does NOT always work out and I'll do whatever DOES work out to sound the best. Everything is a compromise with this stuff, choosing the best is the hard part. You have to keep an open mind, measure and listen to find out what's best in every case.

falconyellow wrote: haemphyst wrote: 3: Kick panels suck. Period. Put the arrays in the doors, you'll be glad you did. I think you make a lot of great contributions to this forum, but I can't say that about this statement. Making a blanket statement like that would be like me saying that kick panels will ALWAYS sound better (which they obviously won't). Each vehicle is different, the best solution for one is not going to be the best for all. Some cars lend themselves well to kick panel installs and sound great with them, others don't. Some cars do great with door installs and some don't. Ten or more years ago when I cared about this stuff, cheap time alignment systems didn't exist and getting the path lengths equal was the thing. Now days it seems like nobody cares about individual driver placement as much since digital processing is so available. Personally I think that's still a mistake, but... My favorite setup for a two way, is tweeters in a-pillars or sail panels (aimed) and mids in doors or kicks depending on the vehicle. But that does NOT always work out and I'll do whatever DOES work out to sound the best. Everything is a compromise with this stuff, choosing the best is the hard part. You have to keep an open mind, measure and listen to find out what's best in every case.

I actually go into a very in-depth analysis of kick panel locations over lower door locations in the previous links I posted.   I think you will find that the facts support Davids position on them.  I believe the benefits are horribly outweighed by the compromises.

falconyellow. Truly, thank you for your input, and I appreciate the mature way in which you criticized me. Members with good attitudes like yourself are what make (and keep) this such a fantastic forum. Perhaps I should have said that "in my opinion, kick panels suck", because I do know that there are people who enjoy their kicks. I have never, (no, really... N-E-V-E-R) heard a set of kick panels that sound good. Without exception, I must also mention that the mid-woofer and the tweeter must be as close together as is practical, for proper integration of the wavefronts. What sounds best to you, it is true, may NOT sound the best to me, but that is what makes sound the "subjective" part of this, where acoustics is the "science". My ear likes the sound of the science, meaning I prefer an equidistant, homogenous waveform. Your ear obviously prefers the "sound", and this is not bad. I am not saying that your favorite two-way does not sound good to you, but I have never heard a setup such as that sound "right" either. All of the PARTS might be there, meaning the full audio spectrum is present, but due to their great distances apart, the melding of the waveforms simply doesn't work for me... Just too much delay in wavefront arrival times. (As a side note, I almost don't like listening to music anymore - I rarely listen to it, as I find myself analyzing it... I can't even enjoy one of my (as of recently) tiniest little enjoyments, anymore. It really sucks! ) You are correct that digital technology has made our lives easier, and has at the same time gotten cheaper and ever more powerful. The processors in my trunk were only 1600 for the pair, where 25 years ago, they would have been ten times that money. I have to believe that those processors are the very reason my integration is as tight as it is in my car. It would sound good without them, simply due to the quality of the drivers and their placement, but the flexibility they offer me is simply fanatical. Personally, though... I have never heard even a "properly time-aligned" a-pillar tweeter integrate correctly, if the mid-bass is in the door. (In the dash is a very different story, however; but then you have mid to bass integration issues.) Unless the car were vintage, and in no way, shape or form could the inner door skin be cut or modified, lest the cars collectible value take a literal nose-dive, would I ever recommend kick panels for a true audiophile installation.It all reminds me of something that Molière once said to Guy de Maupassant at a café in Vienna: "That's nice. You should write it down."

Cool, I don't mean to distract from the actual topic of this post, I just had to say something and yes, Steven's posts are excellent. I don't think that kicks are the best solution, but they can sometimes be the best compromise. When I mentioned the tweeters in the a-pillar deal, that's my "optimum ideal", but like I said, that won't usually work for the reasons you already stated. I see a lot of "monkey see, monkey do" in this area and we all know that the absolute #1 rule of high-end audio is to BS the customer. This has lead to people trying to do kicks in cars where it's a bad idea (q-forms or too little volume, or both), rear fill where they could have better spent the money on front stage, center channels, and a million other stupid things derived from ignorance. All I can conclude is that there have to be a lot of really bad sounding, very expensive systems out there with semi-satisfied customers who are only marginally happy because they simply don't know any better. Most people are not critical enough to really tell the difference anyway. I'm probably not as critical as you, but I can relate, once an install starts to stage well and tonally sounds accurate, you tend to keep trying to push it to "perfection". Unfortunately then you start to realize how crappy most recordings are and it's a never ending road to musical pain/pleasureville. :) Kicks are a compromise, but so can be doors, dash or wherever else you can dream up a location. Car audio is never perfect. I hope this guy keeps us updated on how the system goes and how his crossover ends up working out. I can't imagine a passive ever being as good as a very nice active (though close), but who knows? If I were in his shoes, I'd say "sure! knock yourself out, I'll build it!" I'd probably end up being good enough and you can always eliminate it and go active later to see the difference.

Steven Kephart wrote: The formula for this would be D^2/lambda (the diameter squared divided by the wavelength of the frequency).

Not to derail the thread, because it's excellent, but I'm interested in the formula you posted. Where did you find it, where can I learn more about it? -JustinMalcom: "This is the captain. We have a...little problem with our engine sequence, so we may experience some slight turbulence and then...explode."

Jayne: "We're gonna explode? I don't wanna explode.