SQ people...take a look at this 8" for me...

[The Natural 0]

I'm always looking for ways to improve my daily driver. I am not an audiophile that can tell a whole lot about staging and imaging but I do listen to alot of music that reveals the best and/or worst of a system and I do love clean output at extreme listening levels.

I have been pretty happy with my Morel tweeters and Peerless 6.5" mids with passive crossovers (my favorite amp on them to date was a US Amps USA-2000 running at only 8 ohms...extremely clean with a ton of headroom. Anyone have any USA-2000x's for sale? ) Anyway...my problems have been as follows: I burned the coils in the 200w rms Morels once already and had to rebuild them...and the two 6.5 Peerless mids cannot keep up with the tweeters. I have considered using two 6.5's per side because my crossovers have a 4ohm jumper built into them but I'm also considering switching to 8's. As you can tell, I listen to my system entirely too loud from time to time and I am tired of replacing damaged speakers.

What do you guys think of the Aurum Cantus AC-200MKII? Here's an overview from Parts Express...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aurum Cantus midwoofers feature high-performance cone materials, long-excursion designs, and high quality construction. The AC-200MKII utilizes a special non-woven carbon fiber sandwich cone with foam core for light weight and extreme rigidity. A high-power motor offers exceptional cone control, high sensitivity, and substantial power handling.

Specifications: *Power handling: 200 watts RMS/250 watts max *VCdia: 2" *Le: .62 mH *Impedance: 8 ohms *Re: 7.0 ohms *Frequency range: 26-3,500 Hz *Fs: 26 Hz *SPL: 90.0 dB 2.83V/1m *Vas: 2.47 cu. ft. *Qms: 4.41 *Qes: .19 *Qts: .18 *Xmax: 8 mm *Dimensions: A: 8-3/4", B: 7-1/4", C: 3-7/8".

Multi-layer composite non-woven carbon fiber cone

Heavy-duty chassis, vented pole and extended back plate

Large magnet and high-power motor structure

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The 200 watts rms is very important to me for longevity and extreme dynamics, as well as the 8mm Xmax. Fs looks low enough to make a nice sub, is this too low for my application? What other specs stand out to you that would make this a good or bad choice for either an IB or sealed midbass in the car, and why?

Thank you,

Paul

[///M5 2,833]

What were you previously using for crossovers and what are you planning to use when you change drivers?

[The Natural 0]

What were you previously using for crossovers and what are you planning to use when you change drivers?

Why did I know that you were going to ask that? I'm a little embarrased by this but...here's a link to what I'm using...can't remember the exact crossover point I went with but I think it was 3k...

http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showdetl.cf...tnumber=260-144

I have never read up on building my own crossovers but I have always wanted to. Would the gains of custom matching x-over components to the drivers be worth it or should I just go active? I've been considering each option.

[The Natural 0]

...and here are my beloved tweeters...

http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/pshowdetl.c...tnumber=277-045

I went with the horn loaded model for the couple of dB of extra sensitivity. I figured it might help me keep me from blowing them up as easy.

[///M5 2,833]

What were you previously using for crossovers and what are you planning to use when you change drivers?

Why did I know that you were going to ask that? I'm a little embarrased by this but...here's a link to what I'm using...can't remember the exact crossover point I went with but I think it was 3k...

http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showdetl.cf...tnumber=260-144

I have never read up on building my own crossovers but I have always wanted to. Would the gains of custom matching x-over components to the drivers be worth it or should I just go active? I've been considering each option.

Your crossover is what really caused the failure of your drivers. Having a mismatched passive is a terrible idea. If you haven't ever built a passive and don't have access to measuring gear to measure the response of your drivers in your installation you will be much better off with an active implementation.

You asked about the Aurum, while I haven't heard that exact driver my expectations are that it is a nice driver from others I have heard; however, if you try to implement this with an off the shelf crossover it will sound WAY worse than your current setup. Having a hard cone material means there is going to be break up that will really need to be tamed. It would stand a better chance of living than the 6.5 you currently have, but mostly due to the extra xmax and cone size causing you to throw a bit less at it.

Before really settling on a driver or even recommending one we should really take a step back and look into your mounting locations, available amplifier power, available crossover networks, installation skills, and of course your listening preferences. Without understanding the whole lot it would be pretty tough to help you narrow down your speaker choice as there are a ton that will work.

[The Natural 0]

I'll post the model of the Peerless 6.5's as soon as I can find my way over to check out the ones I bought my brother, since he hasn't installed them yet. If two of the Peerless 6.5's would be better than the Aurum Cantus 8's, then I might just go that route, but I would buy four new ones since these have a couple years of use on them now.

[///M5 2,833]

That isn't at all what I said.

[///M5 2,833]

In fact that would be way worse, your thread it titled SQ. First and foremost you really, really should not run more than one driver playing a particular frequency range.

[The Natural 0]

"Before really settling on a driver or even recommending one we should really take a step back and look into your mounting locations, available amplifier power, available crossover networks, installation skills, and of course your listening preferences. Without understanding the whole lot it would be pretty tough to help you narrow down your speaker choice as there are a ton that will work. "

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for the input. The car is/was a 1997 Dodge Stratus that I may decide to either keep or get rid of and start with something else now that it has spun a bearing.

I've had the Morels in the factory dash location, dare I say it...reflecting off the windshield. I wanted to cross fire them from the base of the A-pillars but their size has kept me from committing. I'm just not sure what that big of a bulge at the base of the A-pillar will look like. The kicks have been another thought...which would be better?

The 6.5's are also in factory door positions, which in the 1st Gen Stratus, is a real dissapointment. But I made the cuts needed, beefed up the backside of the panel, and sealed everything up around the location on the panel to at least get a decent IB setup within the doors.

Amplifier power now is a Crunch V-Drive 4300 amp bridged into two channels until I can (hopefully) sneak a USA-2000x past my wife. "Correctly" blending my front stage with my bass may be a moot point...I'll always put as much bass in a vehicle that money and space will allow and try to make the best of it with the front stage. But I try to keep everything tunable enough to make some quick adjustments from the diver's seat to accomodate different recordings. It's not always full tilt with the bass, but I like having it available when I want it.

Installation skills? Depends on who you ask. The lifelong installer friends of mine laugh and say my skills are nil. But I have been into car audio my whole life, installed every system I've ever owned, fabrication skills are pretty good, and my brother's middle name should be McGuyver. The one thing that might be lacking here is proper driver test equipment, as you stated, and the knowledge to properly match crossover components to the drivers. Plus I can always call on the guru installers mentioned above.

I have never competed in SQ (only dB Drag...2002 Extreme 1-2 World Champion BTW...sorry, I just don't get the chance to say that very often anymore! ). I have never owned a 1/3 octave eq, or any serious sound processors for that matter. Think of me more as an Epicenter and 1/2 din parametric eq kind of guy (with the eq mounted in the console so I can keep my fingers on the volume knob). In fact, I actually thought my old Pioneer DEH-P930 had me covered pretty good for processing.

Listening preferences? I literally listen to everything but I've always been heavy into classic rock and rap. I always keep some demo discs on hand from Boston Acoustics, Focal, and others. I love my old Spies discs "Music of Espionage", and "For My Friends" by Greg Mathieson. Micheal Jackson's stuff always has great dynamics and great production. I've even been known to keep "Bachbusters" by Don Dorsey in the deck for a week at a time. Some country as of late also. If it is clean, dynamic, and moves me then I'm into it.

I hope some of that made sense and yes, I will understand if you give up on me at this point!

[///M5 2,833]

Haven't given up yet, but now I don't understand. You ask for SQ people, but then talk about a sub installation that is as loud as possible. By default you do realize that SQ is defined by the whole system and not just the parts. If it doesn't blend, then SQ is a moot term.

It sounds to me that you just want the most output possible out of your front stage.

Oh, I might blame the combo of your Crunch amp with your passives on the demise of your Peerless mids. Drivers that nice should not be tormented with such things...you need to get rid of both.

[The Natural 0]

That isn't at all what I said.

I know, what I posted was not a response. Checkout the times...we posted those almost at the same time.

[///M5 2,833]

That isn't at all what I said.

I know, what I posted was not a response. Checkout the times...we posted those almost at the same time.

Damn linear reading skills, I didn't notice. Sorry.

[The Natural 0]

Haven't given up yet, but now I don't understand. You ask for SQ people, but then talk about a sub installation that is as loud as possible. By default you do realize that SQ is defined by the whole system and not just the parts. If it doesn't blend, then SQ is a moot term.

It sounds to me that you just want the most output possible out of your front stage.

Oh, I might blame the combo of your Crunch amp with your passives on the demise of your Peerless mids. Drivers that nice should not be tormented with such things...you need to get rid of both.

Sorry for the confusion. I asked for the expertise of "SQ people". I just got some really good recommendations from another SQ forum before when selecting the Peerless mids, they told me what specs to stay away from if using an IB setup and so forth.

The Crunch didn't blow up the Morels, it's only a temporary thing in order to have something to listen to. The almighty power of the USA-2000 did the deed on the Morels. Man do I miss those amps.

Edited September 25, 2007 by The Natural

[///M5 2,833]

My question is really why are you asking for SQ help if your sole goal is thundering loud. I don't think that any advice you have received so far makes a lot of sense since in my impression you are asking for something you don't want.

[The Natural 0]

I understand, and you're right. The question would probably be better aimed at LSQ people. Daily driver types with an ear for good clean sound.

All I really wanted to know was whether the AC driver (given it's specs) would be better in my application than the Peerless, or possibly 2 of the Peerless 6.5's. I know there is a complicated relationship between all the components, the vehicle, the install, etc.

But now you've raised some more questions in my mind...

What are the pluses and minuses of mounting the tweeters in the A pillars vs in the kick panels?

Same question for the mids in the doors vs the kick panels?

What are, and how great are, the benefits of keeping the mids and tweets close and on the same axis?

What active crossovers would you recommend? I have always been partial to the features of the old Coustic models (XM5e seems to come to mind)...would they hold up, sonically, to US Amps, Peerless, and Morel?

Edited September 25, 2007 by The Natural

[The Natural 0]

You guys got this forum rigged or something? I edited 'ell ess que' back to 'ess que ell' three times and it won't stick!

[///M5 2,833]

I understand, and you're right. The question would probably be better aimed at 'LSQ' people. Daily driver types with an ear for good clean sound.

All I really wanted to know was whether the AC driver (given it's specs) would be better in my application than the Peerless, or possibly 2 of the Peerless 6.5's. I know there is a complicated relationship between all the components, the vehicle, the install, etc.

But now you've raised some more questions in my mind...

What are the pluses and minuses of mounting the tweeters in the A pillars vs in the kick panels?

Same question for the mids in the doors vs the kick panels?

What are, and how great are, the benefits of keeping the mids and tweets close and on the same axis?

What active crossovers would you recommend? I have always been partial to the features of the old Coustic models (XM5e seems to come to mind)...would they hold up, sonically, to US Amps, Peerless, and Morel?

The bold part is not a question anyone can answer yet, as the relationship is really important.

As for the tweets, it will come down to blending and staging and will determine which ones that you can run. i.e. it would be pretty dumb to run a tweet with only a good on axis response off axis.

Generically speaking having the drivers as close together as possible and on equal path lengths (distance to each driver) as well as as high as possible are what you are trying to do. Everything else is a bit of a compromise, but depending on your scenario you will have to choose different compromises.

[///M5 2,833]

You guys got this forum rigged or something? I edited 'ell ess que' back to 'ess que ell' three times and it won't stick!

Yes since SQL is a very misused term, but now LSQ is as well.

SQL to most people is an SPL setup that plays more notes than just the burp frequency nothing else.

LSQ is a term I coined meaning a Loud SQ setup; however, our word filter has now bastardized it to basically be as useless as the original term.

The real problem is that SPL and SQ are complete and dire opposites so combining the terms makes absolutely no sense.

[The Natural 0]

LSQ...nice trick.

I don't think SQ and SPL have to be complete and dire opposites, unless of course you take SPL to mean something like dB Drag. All SQ systems have to have some SPL or you wouldn't hear them right? I don't mean that to be funny, but everyone has different tastes when it comes to system dynamics. I'm sure alot of winning SQ cars over the years could get very loud. Richard Clark's Buick comes to mind (the only time I saw it was at the '96 Georgia Masters Invitational). Six speakers including horns and 15" subs, with a 500 watt amp on each speaker if I remember correctly. I'll bet it would get loud.

A good sounding system to me is only annoying if I can't turn it up until my hair moves. I admit that I'm a bit of a basshead, but bass can be clean also. A couple of Soundsplinter RL-s15's or RL-p18's with a USA-2000 on each would be loud and accurate.

I dunno, I'm just a music lover I guess. I don't see how anyone could enjoy either a 160dB system that sounded like crap, OR a perfect RTA scoring, SQ contest winning system that only plays 110dB. Granted, the accurate 110dB system would be my choice between the two, but I have to hav a compromise.

[///M5 2,833]

They are opposites in nature.

SPL - sole purpose is to make one note really loud at the expense of all others

SQ - sole purpose is to have a perfect frequency response

One note does not and can never equally a great frequency response. In the process of designing a sub box it is most definitely completely opposite as for the rest, in an SQ system the front stage is the highlight and by far the most important part. Most true SQ systems I have heard rarely have anything hardly at all coming from the subwoofer and you surely cannot locate it. It isn't unusual to have it play only below 30Hz. In an SPL system, the front stage doesn't even need to exist and the sub probably has no information (especially relative) below 30hz. They are dire opposites in the truest sense of the word.

[///M5 2,833]

Oh, by the way 110dB is actually pretty loud just not in sub frequencies where your ears are terribly inefficient.

[JimJ 11]

Daily driver types with an ear for good clean sound.

How is that not SQ?

Coustic is good...Audiocontrol would be another brand to look at.

[The Natural 0]

They are opposites in nature.

SPL - sole purpose is to make one note really loud at the expense of all others

SQ - sole purpose is to have a perfect frequency response

One note does not and can never equally a great frequency response. In the process of designing a sub box it is most definitely completely opposite as for the rest, in an SQ system the front stage is the highlight and by far the most important part. Most true SQ systems I have heard rarely have anything hardly at all coming from the subwoofer and you surely cannot locate it. It isn't unusual to have it play only below 30Hz. In an SPL system, the front stage doesn't even need to exist and the sub probably has no information (especially relative) below 30hz. They are dire opposites in the truest sense of the word.

Now we're talking about two totally different things. I'm using SPL as in a Webster's dictionary sort of way, and you are saying SPL as in a competition SPL-only system. Your car may not have an SPL system but it does have both SQ and SPL. Same with my car. It's just yours probably has alot more Q in the SQ part, and at some point in the past mine probably had more P in the SPL.

Also, when you say an SQ system is to have a perfect frequency response, that may be true for competitions and it might fit your taste, but to me it's a more general term meaning the overal quality of the sound. Many things can be included in the quality of a particular sound. Accuracy (I was thinking clean and undistorted when I thought of accuracy, but I guess I am also saying uncolored and true to the source) and extreme dynamics are high on the list for me, obviously not necessarily in that order. Soundstage and imaging are not as high on the list because my ears haven't been trained well enough to pick out the oboe on my hood. Frankly, I'm happy with that because that would make things that much more frustrating for me.

[///M5 2,833]

Here is where your logic doesn't hold true, I am using the pure Websters definition and you are using what you think you have learned the terms to be based on incorrect posts on the interweb.

First off throw competition out the window, neither one of us are talking about that at all. If you are looking for an SPL system, it is to maximize the sound pressure level for a given install. In that case you build a box and tune it in such a way that it will have a peak response. This is the opposite of a flat response. I used perfect before as the "flat" portion is a bit subjective as everyones ears are different and this isn't for competition or anything else just personal listening. As a side since you bring up dynamics, you could not have an SQ system without really nice dynamics. Consider classical music which regularly has dynamics of over 60dB and I would also guarantee that nearly all classical listeners would prefer an SQ system. Obviously dynamics are much more important in an SQ install.

Basically this comes down to compromises which is my whole point. I am not really concerned with your definitions but am very concerned about what compromises you are willing to make to gain what you feel you need. All of my posts have been trying to understand just that for your current install.

[The Natural 0]

Maybe we've solved it then. You said that the AC drivers should hold up better due to their larger diameter and Xmax, since, all thing being equal, I won't drive them as hard. If they can keep up with the Morels better, and not die on me, I'll be a happy man.

You pointed out that without proper test equipment and the knowledge to match crossover components to those drivers, I should go active with the crossover. The only thing I don't like about that is it puts me needing a pair of whatever amps I was going to use. Then if I add in a pair of Morel domes and go three-way with the front stage...three amps. Hrmmm, maybe God was trying to tell me something when I traded and got those four USA-2000's. I should have listened and kept them!

I also learned that I should stay away from more than one driver playing the same frequencies. I guess I got this idea from the MTM setup I see so often on home audio designs.

So, not to throw another wrench into the gears, but am I spitting against the wind if I am not using a serious dedicated processor (I was eyeballing an AC DQX to cover EQ and crossover duties) in the system? I know enough people with RTA's that it wouldn't be a problem scheduling a tuning session with them.