Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
ICE Topic of the Week - Component vs. Two/Three/Four-way/CoaxialSpealers
I.C.E. School now in effect.
Topic for this week is choosing speakers. Many people choose component speakers with outboard crossover modules for their sound quality and imaging advantages over other types of speakers. Two way coaxials are popular for their ease of installation. The debate is up in the air. What would you reccomend?? Please share your opinions/experiences/information/suggestions on component speakers versus two/three/four-way (no, i'm not talking about sex here) or coaxial speakers. Lets help the newbies! EFFENDI |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
ICE Topic of the Week - Component vs. Two/Three/Four-way/Coaxial Spealers
That way I see it, there are definitive advantages to both choices -
separate or integrated(co-axials). If the factory speaker location is a poor location/angle for high frequency listening, a component set will allow the installer to place the tweeter in a better position and restore the highs. Firing the tweeter directly at the listener in a direct line of site is usually considered optimal. The down side to this, is it will most likely add path length differences between each driver and the listener. This will cause some response anomalies at different frequencies within the crossover overlap. These response problems will be determined by the path length difference and might not be easy to correct with an equalizer. If the factory speaker location is suitable for full spectrum response (or another suitable location is used) a co-axial could be the ideal "package solution." The point source nature of a co-axial all but eliminates path length differences between the drivers, and greatly simplifies the installation. Unfortunately many co-axial speaker sets come with poor filtering and have inferior sound quality. I have seen a positive trend developing in car audio in the last 5 years involving co-axials. An increasing number of manufacturers are adding a second set of terminals to their co-axials for the tweeter. This allows the installer to use a good quality external crossover. Some allow the tweeter to be swiveled on a ball joint to improve it's radiation pattern in the car, and some even allow the drivers to be separated and mounted in different locations. This gives the consumer the choice to use either mounting system after purchase, and make a different choice if moving the system into another vehicle. These are a few of my observations on the subject. My apologies to those offended ;-) Kevin Murray "EFFENDI" wrote in message ... I.C.E. School now in effect. Topic for this week is choosing speakers. Many people choose component speakers with outboard crossover modules for their sound quality and imaging advantages over other types of speakers. Two way coaxials are popular for their ease of installation. The debate is up in the air. What would you reccomend?? Please share your opinions/experiences/information/suggestions on component speakers versus two/three/four-way (no, i'm not talking about sex here) or coaxial speakers. Lets help the newbies! EFFENDI |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
ICE Topic of the Week - Component vs. Two/Three/Four-way/CoaxialSpealers
IMHO more important than WHAT is installed is HOW its installed.
Minimize path length differences between the right and left and both can image very well and produce most of the audible spectrum. The best coax's Ive heard were about 10 years ago made by Acoustic Research (AR). They were unique in that the voice coil for the woofer and tweeter were at the same plane. The idea was to minimize the phase difference between the woofer and tweeter to increase transient clatity. Just my thoughts, Garrett \ EFFENDI wrote: I.C.E. School now in effect. Topic for this week is choosing speakers. Many people choose component speakers with outboard crossover modules for their sound quality and imaging advantages over other types of speakers. Two way coaxials are popular for their ease of installation. The debate is up in the air. What would you reccomend?? Please share your opinions/experiences/information/suggestions on component speakers versus two/three/four-way (no, i'm not talking about sex here) or coaxial speakers. Lets help the newbies! EFFENDI |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
ICE Topic of the Week - Component vs. Two/Three/Four-way/Coaxial Spealers
I believe that most casual listeners can benefit from coaxials if their
particular installation accomodates it. In my Maxima, when replaced the Bose system, I used Focal coaxials in the front doors and it sounded GREAT. The HC line of Focal coaxials, IMHO, sound better than many component sets. I have heard a/d/s also makes a fine coaxial, but I have not heard them. However, for the serious listener, I believe coaxials won't do the job. My experience with the best speakers I have personally owned (Dynaudio system 360) involved a tweeter, midrange, and 8-inch midwoofer. Using kickpanels for the tweets and mids, and then mounting the 8s low in the doors (as near as possible to the kicks) have yielded the best results for me by far. Of course, you absolutely have to apply copious amounts of sound deadening material to the door cavity for this to pay off. With components, with or without kickpanels, I have learned that I prefer the sound if the tweeter is mounted close (within 6 inches) of the main driver. I am a firm believer that the farther away they are mounted the more they start sounding like separate speakers rather than working together as a unit. Most cars I have listened to with the woofer mounted low and the tweeter mounted high I have not cared for as much. So I am a firm believer that a properly installed component set can outperform a coaxial. But since a coaxial is easier to "plug and play" than a component set, the potential for the installer to screw things up by choosing a poor mounting location is greater for a component set than a coaxial. Tony -- What's more likely? That an all-powerful mysterious god created the universe and then decided not to give any proof of his existence? Or, that he simply doesn't exist at all? And that we created him so that we wouldn't have to feel so small and alone. -Eleanor Arroway, Contact |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
ICE Topic of the Week - Component vs. Two/Three/Four-way/Coaxial Spealers
If the coaxial speaker was built with the same parts and had a crossover as
good as the comp set then there's no reason they shoudn't outperform the components. Probably the best speakers I've owner were the Kef KAR UniQ point source drivers. The mid and tweeter had the magnets on the same plane and were absolutely gorgeous sounding. Paul Vina "EFFENDI" wrote in message ... I.C.E. School now in effect. Topic for this week is choosing speakers. Many people choose component speakers with outboard crossover modules for their sound quality and imaging advantages over other types of speakers. Two way coaxials are popular for their ease of installation. The debate is up in the air. What would you reccomend?? Please share your opinions/experiences/information/suggestions on component speakers versus two/three/four-way (no, i'm not talking about sex here) or coaxial speakers. Lets help the newbies! EFFENDI |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
ICE Topic of the Week - Component vs. Two/Three/Four-way/Coaxial Spealers
I wanted to mention the KEF UniQ line in my previous post (but decided to
keep it short). I have a set of KEF home speakers using the UniQ design philosophy and they still impress me after 12 years. It's the closest design I have seen to a point source, aside from a single cone (full range) speaker. Just to add two more cents to this discussion, a single cone speaker is near ideal for low volume listening. Putting one in a vented enclosure will limit the low frequency excursion (tuning the port is critical in this case) and will keep Doppler problems under control. At least until the listener begins to crank up the power, then all bets are off. I built a set of garage speakers to test this theory after reading a Floyd Toole paper on the subject of "point source". I'll concede it's not an ideal listening environment, but I think they sound great at a reasonable volume. Many of you would no doubt laugh at my suggestion of low volume listening, but once again each unto his own. When I'm waiting to pick up my g/f from work with my stereo on and the engine off I'm grateful that my system behaves itself during quiet passages. No hiss, ticks, rattles or ridiculous idle current. On the topic of HOW being better than WHAT you install... I'd agree that how is more important than what, but this thread was started to discuss the choices available (mainly for the newbies-gawd I hate that word) and I suspect another ICE topic will be started regarding factory location vs. attempting a custom install. No disrespect intended towards the poster, his point was certainly valid. I just wanted to bring this to light before an internet argument starts in a thread intended to help people with speaker choices. I think this ICE is a great idea and I'd like to see it continue. My two cents Kevin Murray "EFFENDI" wrote in message ... I.C.E. School now in effect. Topic for this week is choosing speakers. Many people choose component speakers with outboard crossover modules for their sound quality and imaging advantages over other types of speakers. Two way coaxials are popular for their ease of installation. The debate is up in the air. What would you reccomend?? Please share your opinions/experiences/information/suggestions on component speakers versus two/three/four-way (no, i'm not talking about sex here) or coaxial speakers. Lets help the newbies! EFFENDI |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
ICE Topic of the Week - Component vs. Two/Three/Four-way/CoaxialSpealers
Kevin Murray wrote:
I wanted to mention the KEF UniQ line in my previous post (but decided to keep it short). I have a set of KEF home speakers using the UniQ design philosophy and they still impress me after 12 years. It's the closest design I have seen to a point source, aside from a single cone (full range) speaker. Just to add two more cents to this discussion, a single cone speaker is near ideal for low volume listening. Putting one in a vented enclosure will limit the low frequency excursion (tuning the port is critical in this case) and will keep Doppler problems under control. At least until the listener begins to crank up the power, then all bets are off. I built a set of garage speakers to test this theory after reading a Floyd Toole paper on the subject of "point source". I'll concede it's not an ideal listening environment, but I think they sound great at a reasonable volume. Many of you would no doubt laugh at my suggestion of low volume listening, but once again each unto his own. When I'm waiting to pick up my g/f from work with my stereo on and the engine off I'm grateful that my system behaves itself during quiet passages. No hiss, ticks, rattles or ridiculous idle current. On the topic of HOW being better than WHAT you install... I'd agree that how is more important than what, but this thread was started to discuss the choices available (mainly for the newbies-gawd I hate that word) and I suspect another ICE topic will be started regarding factory location vs. attempting a custom install. No disrespect intended towards the poster, his point was certainly valid. I just wanted to bring this to light before an internet argument starts in a thread intended to help people with speaker choices. I think this ICE is a great idea and I'd like to see it continue. My two cents Kevin Murray "EFFENDI" wrote in message ... I.C.E. School now in effect. Topic for this week is choosing speakers. Many people choose component speakers with outboard crossover modules for their sound quality and imaging advantages over other types of speakers. Two way coaxials are popular for their ease of installation. The debate is up in the air. What would you reccomend?? Please share your opinions/experiences/information/suggestions on component speakers versus two/three/four-way (no, i'm not talking about sex here) or coaxial speakers. Lets help the newbies! EFFENDI Kevin feel free to expand the thread as you want to. Its not my thread I just started it. I do think some discussion should be had about factory vs. custom speaker locations. Lets NOT start arguments,and it is easy to avoid them, think about who we are trying to help. I also think you should explain what point-source means. (I dont completely understand myself) I purposely posted a broad topic in the hope that some of the "less experienced users" (is that ok instead of dropping the "N" bomb) can read this thread and see all the options available. Hopefully to help them make a decision on what route to go. The fact is a custom installation is not for everyone and sometimes stock speaker locations sound excellent. As a matter of fact more car manufacturers are using component sets in the "premium" audio options. Eg. Lexus' Mark Levinson system. BMW Harman Kardon system. With very good imaging and sound quality. I think this is a good step forward for the industry as most stock speaker locations are less than ideal. Remember when car audio meant the only speaker was a 4" in the center of the rear seat. We have definetely come a long way. Just something I thought I would throw out there. EFFENDI |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
ICE Topic of the Week - Component vs. Two/Three/Four-way/Coaxial Spealers
I would like to emphasise the importance of factory locations for speakers
(for those who don't appreciate this point already). I have a fairly standard family car, a Honda Civic 4 door sedan. The factory locations for the fronts are low in the doors, near to the hinge of the door. The stock configuration has the front speakers mounted parallel/flush with the door. I replaced the stock 6.5" woofers with two way Blaupunkt co-axials and noted a HUGE improvement! But after listening for a while, the highs still sound like they're in the footwells (they are really!) and so I'm going to get some components ASAP for the sheer reason that I'll be able to set up my "soundscape" (did I use that term correctly?) a helluva lot better so my highs sound like they're in front of me around head(ish) level so that I don't have to grow ears in my feet! I imagine that should my factory locations have been angled up towards the driver and passenger (as opposed to their feet), there would be a significant improvement. I was considering manufacturing some custom mounts that angled the Blaupunkt integrated two-ways up towards the driver, but this would protrude the speakers into the footwell, increasing the chance of damage (some of my careless friends sometimes kick quite close to this area as they are closing the door). Also, I'm not entirely fond of kick whatever mounts, they just don't do it for me. Just My Thoughts Cheers, Daniel "EFFENDI" wrote in message ... I.C.E. School now in effect. Topic for this week is choosing speakers. Many people choose component speakers with outboard crossover modules for their sound quality and imaging advantages over other types of speakers. Two way coaxials are popular for their ease of installation. The debate is up in the air. What would you reccomend?? Please share your opinions/experiences/information/suggestions on component speakers versus two/three/four-way (no, i'm not talking about sex here) or coaxial speakers. Lets help the newbies! EFFENDI |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
ICE Topic of the Week - Component vs. Two/Three/Four-way/Coaxial Spealers
It was suggested that I explain the term "point source" I used in my post, so here is my explanation.
In this case the term point source refers to a point of origin in space. It doesn't imply that it takes up space, simply that it's an imaginary point of reference and could be anywhere, a car door, dash, rear deck etc. When sound reaches our ears it has an apparent point of origin. Our brains are able to interpret the stereo input from our ears and determine the location of the sound source. This is why hi-fi systems use two (stereo) channels. With two channels a recording engineer can fool our brains into perceiving a moving source, or even multiple sources. Since modern music program material is in stereo we aim to have only two points of origin, the left and right. "OK so ideally my stereo system needs to have only two sound sources (left and right) to be accurate, what problems did I cause by separating my drivers?" For this discussion I'll explain one channel since the principles apply to both. For each channel in most modern hi-fi audio systems, the job of reproducing music is tasked out to two or more drivers. Each driver covers a part of the audio frequency spectrum, and when the sound from each reaches our ears it should sound like it came from one point in space. However, the sound from each driver comes from a different point in space, so we don't have a single point source for this channel. The problem with this setup is a possible time delay due to differences in distance between the listener and the location of each driver. "Who cares right? Due to the speed of sound and the relatively small difference in distance between the listener and each driver, the distortion in the music due to time delays will be negligible right?" The problem lies in the region of the audio spectrum where the two drivers share program material. This occurs at the crossover point, and the width of the band in which it occurs is dependant upon the crossover slopes (ie 12db/octave...18db/octave...). The difference in path lengths cause a phase shift dependant on frequency (ie wavelength) and will cause cancellation at some frequencies, and summing at others. This phase shift is in addition to that caused by the active components in the crossovers. The problem compounds when the second channel is taken into account because the path lengths between the listener and the drivers are again different from each other and often don't mirror the other channel because of the off-center listening position (unless you drive a McLaren:-). This will leave you with strange peaks and valleys in your in-car frequency response. The response problems were absent when you listened to the drivers in the store because they were likely installed very close together and in a vertical alignment which minimizes path length differences. Further more, you were probably standing half way between the left and right speakers giving you near perfect stereo. Another problem is the apparent change in location of an instrument depending on the frequency of the note. A piano for example is capable of playing notes that span most of the audio spectrum. It is a strange thing when the piano player starts a scale and the apparent position of the piano moves from your feet to the top of your dash! "So what can I do to achieve a 'point source' in my car?" Ideally, only use one full range speaker for each of your stereo channels. Of course this isn't practical in car audio because the high volume levels (to overcome wind noise of course will inevitably result in excessive Doppler distortion. The next best solution is to use separate high and low frequency drivers and install them in the same point in space. Of course this is impossible, but co-axial(shared axis) type speakers come close. If you have your mind set on using separates then care should be taken to mount the drivers an equal distance from the listening position. In the automotive environment this is rarely possible. Furthermore, a passenger invited to listen to your "great system" will hear a different sounding system because of the different listening position. One way to reduce the interference between the high and low frequency drivers is to use steeper crossover slopes. While adding more phase shift, it will also narrow the band where they overlap. Installing car audio should be more about minimal-izing problems inherent to the listening environment than about getting your hands on the most expensive gear. Like many have said before me: it's how you install it, not necessarily what you install. No particular hardware choice condemns anyone to poor sound. Care must be taken to balance ease of installation, budget, and available space. Then optimize the installation of what you have. I have seen countless poor installations of expensive gear that sound no better (more often worse) than far less expensive systems. The KEF Uni-Q line mentioned by another poster is the best attempt at a point source I have ever seen. The tweeter was mounted right down in the center of the woofer's dust cap. I suspect this may have increased diffraction problems, but I still think they sound great. Co-axial designs are steadily improving and may replace component sets as the standard of quality in a few years. Hopefully the prices for the better units will fall too... I'm not sure I've succeeded at explaining point source and how it applies to car audio here. Phase relationships are such a complex thing to explain, maybe someone with better technical writing skills could clarify my scratchings. If anyone has any questions feel free to email me. Perhaps a discussion on Doppler distortion, stereo imaging, or phase relationships should follow next week? Or is this getting into the physics too much and taking the fun out of the hobby? Kevin kev{remove "EFFENDI" wrote in message ... I.C.E. School now in effect. Topic for this week is choosing speakers. Many people choose component speakers with outboard crossover modules for their sound quality and imaging advantages over other types of speakers. Two way coaxials are popular for their ease of installation. The debate is up in the air. What would you reccomend?? Please share your opinions/experiences/information/suggestions on component speakers versus two/three/four-way (no, i'm not talking about sex here) or coaxial speakers. Lets help the newbies! EFFENDI |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
ICE Topic of the Week - Component vs. Two/Three/Four-way/Coaxial Spealers
Daniel,
Is there enough room behind the grill to mount a tweeter? In my Accord that I used to have, I was able to mount a 5.25 woofer in the stock location, and then mount a tweeter directly over it using (I don't remember what it's called) metal strapping with all the holes in it. I could bend the strapping and angle the tweeter anywhere I wanted and it was concealed behind the grill. This was either in my Accord or my Prelude, I can't remember which. Hope that helps. Tony -- What's more likely? That an all-powerful mysterious god created the universe and then decided not to give any proof of his existence? Or, that he simply doesn't exist at all? And that we created him so that we wouldn't have to feel so small and alone. -Eleanor Arroway, Contact "Daniel Stocker" wrote in message ... I would like to emphasise the importance of factory locations for speakers (for those who don't appreciate this point already). I have a fairly standard family car, a Honda Civic 4 door sedan. The factory locations for the fronts are low in the doors, near to the hinge of the door. The stock configuration has the front speakers mounted parallel/flush with the door. I replaced the stock 6.5" woofers with two way Blaupunkt co-axials and noted a HUGE improvement! But after listening for a while, the highs still sound like they're in the footwells (they are really!) and so I'm going to get some components ASAP for the sheer reason that I'll be able to set up my "soundscape" (did I use that term correctly?) a helluva lot better so my highs sound like they're in front of me around head(ish) level so that I don't have to grow ears in my feet! I imagine that should my factory locations have been angled up towards the driver and passenger (as opposed to their feet), there would be a significant improvement. I was considering manufacturing some custom mounts that angled the Blaupunkt integrated two-ways up towards the driver, but this would protrude the speakers into the footwell, increasing the chance of damage (some of my careless friends sometimes kick quite close to this area as they are closing the door). Also, I'm not entirely fond of kick whatever mounts, they just don't do it for me. Just My Thoughts Cheers, Daniel "EFFENDI" wrote in message ... I.C.E. School now in effect. Topic for this week is choosing speakers. Many people choose component speakers with outboard crossover modules for their sound quality and imaging advantages over other types of speakers. Two way coaxials are popular for their ease of installation. The debate is up in the air. What would you reccomend?? Please share your opinions/experiences/information/suggestions on component speakers versus two/three/four-way (no, i'm not talking about sex here) or coaxial speakers. Lets help the newbies! EFFENDI |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
ICE Topic of the Week - Component vs. Two/Three/Four-way/Coaxial Spealers
I'm not a big fan of mounting tweeters behind grills. I can hear the
difference when a tweeter is covered with a grill and it makes them sound more muted. Have you noticed this? What do you think? Cheers, Daniel "Tony Fernandes" wrote in message ... Daniel, Is there enough room behind the grill to mount a tweeter? In my Accord that I used to have, I was able to mount a 5.25 woofer in the stock location, and then mount a tweeter directly over it using (I don't remember what it's called) metal strapping with all the holes in it. I could bend the strapping and angle the tweeter anywhere I wanted and it was concealed behind the grill. This was either in my Accord or my Prelude, I can't remember which. Hope that helps. Tony -- What's more likely? That an all-powerful mysterious god created the universe and then decided not to give any proof of his existence? Or, that he simply doesn't exist at all? And that we created him so that we wouldn't have to feel so small and alone. -Eleanor Arroway, Contact "Daniel Stocker" wrote in message ... I would like to emphasise the importance of factory locations for speakers (for those who don't appreciate this point already). I have a fairly standard family car, a Honda Civic 4 door sedan. The factory locations for the fronts are low in the doors, near to the hinge of the door. The stock configuration has the front speakers mounted parallel/flush with the door. I replaced the stock 6.5" woofers with two way Blaupunkt co-axials and noted a HUGE improvement! But after listening for a while, the highs still sound like they're in the footwells (they are really!) and so I'm going to get some components ASAP for the sheer reason that I'll be able to set up my "soundscape" (did I use that term correctly?) a helluva lot better so my highs sound like they're in front of me around head(ish) level so that I don't have to grow ears in my feet! I imagine that should my factory locations have been angled up towards the driver and passenger (as opposed to their feet), there would be a significant improvement. I was considering manufacturing some custom mounts that angled the Blaupunkt integrated two-ways up towards the driver, but this would protrude the speakers into the footwell, increasing the chance of damage (some of my careless friends sometimes kick quite close to this area as they are closing the door). Also, I'm not entirely fond of kick whatever mounts, they just don't do it for me. Just My Thoughts Cheers, Daniel "EFFENDI" wrote in message ... I.C.E. School now in effect. Topic for this week is choosing speakers. Many people choose component speakers with outboard crossover modules for their sound quality and imaging advantages over other types of speakers. Two way coaxials are popular for their ease of installation. The debate is up in the air. What would you reccomend?? Please share your opinions/experiences/information/suggestions on component speakers versus two/three/four-way (no, i'm not talking about sex here) or coaxial speakers. Lets help the newbies! EFFENDI |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
ICE Topic of the Week - Component vs. Two/Three/Four-way/CoaxialSpealers
Kevin Murray wrote:
It was suggested that I explain the term "/point source/" I used in my post, so here is my explanation. In this case the term /point source/ refers to a point of origin in space. It doesn't imply that it takes up space, simply that it's an imaginary point of reference and could be anywhere, a car door, dash, rear deck etc. When sound reaches our ears it has an apparent point of origin. Our brains are able to interpret the stereo input from our ears and determine the location of the sound source. This is why hi-fi systems use two (stereo) channels. With two channels a recording engineer can fool our brains into perceiving a moving source, or even multiple sources. Since modern music program material is in stereo we aim to have only two points of origin, the *left* and *right*. "/OK so ideally my stereo system needs to have only two sound sources (left and right) to be accurate, what problems did I cause by separating my drivers/?" For this discussion I'll explain one channel since the principles apply to both. For each channel in most modern hi-fi audio systems, the job of reproducing music is tasked out to two or more drivers. Each driver covers a part of the audio frequency spectrum, and when the sound from each reaches our ears it /should/ sound like it came from one point in space. However, the sound from each driver comes from a different point in space, so we don't have a single point source for this channel. The problem with this setup is a possible time delay due to differences in distance between the listener and the location of each driver. "/Who cares right? Due to the speed of sound and the relatively small difference in distance between the listener and each driver, the distortion in the music due to time delays will be negligible right?/" The problem lies in the region of the audio spectrum where the two drivers share program material. This occurs at the crossover point, and the width of the band in which it occurs is dependant upon the crossover slopes (ie 12db/octave...18db/octave...). The difference in path lengths cause a phase shift dependant on frequency (ie wavelength) and will cause cancellation at some frequencies, and summing at others. This phase shift is in addition to that caused by the active components in the crossovers. The problem compounds when the second channel is taken into account because the path lengths between the listener and the drivers are again different from each other and often don't mirror the other channel because of the off-center listening position (unless you drive a McLaren:-). This will leave you with strange peaks and valleys in your in-car frequency response. The response problems were absent when you listened to the drivers in the store because they were likely installed very close together and in a vertical alignment which minimizes path length differences. Further more, you were probably standing half way between the left and right speakers giving you near perfect stereo. Another problem is the apparent change in location of an instrument depending on the frequency of the note. A piano for example is capable of playing notes that span most of the audio spectrum. It is a strange thing when the piano player starts a scale and the apparent position of the piano moves from your feet to the top of your dash! "/So what can I do to achieve a 'point source' in my car/?" Ideally, only use one full range speaker for each of your stereo channels. Of course this isn't practical in car audio because the high volume levels (to overcome wind noise of course will inevitably result in excessive Doppler distortion. The next best solution is to use separate high and low frequency drivers and install them in the same point in space. Of course this is impossible, but co-axial(shared axis) type speakers come close. If you have your mind set on using separates then care should be taken to mount the drivers an equal distance from the listening position. In the automotive environment this is rarely possible. Furthermore, a passenger invited to listen to your "great system" will hear a different sounding system because of the different listening position. One way to reduce the interference between the high and low frequency drivers is to use steeper crossover slopes. While adding more phase shift, it will also narrow the band where they overlap. Installing car audio should be more about minimal-izing problems inherent to the listening environment than about getting your hands on the most expensive gear. Like many have said before me: it's how you install it, not necessarily what you install. No particular hardware choice condemns anyone to poor sound. Care must be taken to balance ease of installation, budget, and available space. Then optimize the installation of what you have. I have seen countless poor installations of expensive gear that sound no better (more often worse) than far less expensive systems. The KEF Uni-Q line mentioned by another poster is the best attempt at a point source I have ever seen. The tweeter was mounted right down in the center of the woofer's dust cap. I suspect this may have increased diffraction problems, but I still think they sound great. Co-axial designs are steadily improving and may replace component sets as the standard of quality in a few years. Hopefully the prices for the better units will fall too... I'm not sure I've succeeded at explaining point source and how it applies to car audio here. Phase relationships are such a complex thing to explain, maybe someone with better technical writing skills could clarify my scratchings. If anyone has any questions feel free to email me. Perhaps a discussion on Doppler distortion, stereo imaging, or phase relationships should follow next week? Or is this getting into the physics too much and taking the fun out of the hobby? Kevin kev{remove "EFFENDI" wrote in message ... I.C.E. School now in effect. Topic for this week is choosing speakers. Many people choose component speakers with outboard crossover modules for their sound quality and imaging advantages over other types of speakers. Two way coaxials are popular for their ease of installation. The debate is up in the air. What would you reccomend?? Please share your opinions/experiences/information/suggestions on component speakers versus two/three/four-way (no, i'm not talking about sex here) or coaxial speakers. Lets help the newbies! EFFENDI Great post Kevin. I think most people will at least have a basic understanding of what point source means. DVD Audio is most likely nexst weeks topic but if you want to expand upon what you have explained please feel free to do so in this thread. This is a little rabbit trail but an important aspect to consider in the Co-Axial vs. Component decision. Most of the "basic electronics" pages do not cover this and i have been unable to find any information as to the physics of sound waves, phase, etc. If anyone out there, particularly those that have competed in IASCA who know the importance of understanding these factors, is willing to contribute I will consider compiling some information about it into a separeate thread. Please feel free to contact me through email. (No spam please) EFFENDI |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
ICE Topic of the Week - Component vs. Two/Three/Four-way/Coaxial Spealers
-- "Daniel Stocker" wrote: "I'm not a big fan of mounting tweeters behind grills. I can hear the difference when a tweeter is covered with a grill and it makes them sound more muted. Have you noticed this? What do you think?" Well, in your case that will not be an option then. Some tweeters NEED to be muted somewhat (lol), others don't (not that I use grills specifically to mute tweetes, mind you). Tony |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
ICE Topic of the Week - Component vs. Two/Three/Four-way/Coaxial Spealers
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 08:12:29 GMT, EFFENDI
wrote: I.C.E. School now in effect. Topic for this week is choosing speakers. Many people choose component speakers with outboard crossover modules for their sound quality and imaging advantages over other types of speakers. Two way coaxials are popular for their ease of installation. The debate is up in the air. What would you reccomend?? Please share your opinions/experiences/information/suggestions on component speakers versus two/three/four-way (no, i'm not talking about sex here) or coaxial speakers. Lets help the newbies! EFFENDI I personally, use "plate" speakers... in other words, i buy those speakers the fit stock locations, and have componet built into the same speaker size. You get small er speakers as a result...but i dont listen to LOUD music |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
ICE Topic of the Week - Component vs. Two/Three/Four-way/Coaxial Spealers
That way I see it, there are definitive advantages to both choices -
separate or integrated(co-axials). If the factory speaker location is a poor location/angle for high frequency listening, a component set will allow the installer to place the tweeter in a better position and restore the highs. Firing the tweeter directly at the listener in a direct line of site is usually considered optimal. Usually not. The down side to this, is it will most likely add path length differences between each driver and the listener. This will cause some response anomalies at different frequencies within the crossover overlap. Not a big deal. There are already electrical phase shifts in these regions - component or coaxial. Additional phase shifts can indeed have a negative influence, or the converse may be true - it could restore important phase information. It all depends. These response problems will be determined by the path length difference and might not be easy to correct with an equalizer. If the factory speaker location is suitable for full spectrum response (or another suitable location is used) a co-axial could be the ideal "package solution." The point source nature of a co-axial all but eliminates path length differences between the drivers, and greatly simplifies the installation. Unfortunately many co-axial speaker sets come with poor filtering and have inferior sound quality. Very true. I have seen a positive trend developing in car audio in the last 5 years involving co-axials. An increasing number of manufacturers are adding a second set of terminals to their co-axials for the tweeter. This allows the installer to use a good quality external crossover. Good point. And companies like Boston Acoustics are just putting better crossovers in their coaxials, and others are offering external crossovers for their coaxials. Neither of these solutions to the problem are even necessary. Using drivers that are optimal for even the simple crossovers found in most coaxials is just as beneficial of an option. I really think the fact they don't is a reflection on shoddy design more than anything else. I'd love to hear what some in the manufacturing industry have to say about this. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
ICE Topic of the Week - Component vs. Two/Three/Four-way/Coaxial Spealers
IMHO more important than WHAT is installed is HOW its installed.
Minimize path length differences between the right and left and both can image very well and produce most of the audible spectrum. ....among other things. Yes, the way it's installed is more important. From my own observations, 95% of professional installers do not have the know-how to properly install a set of speakers. No, this is not an exaggeration. I don't recall it ever being this bad in the past. Maybe some old farts like Eddie would like to tell us more about the good ol' days? The best coax's Ive heard were about 10 years ago made by Acoustic Research (AR). Which AR was this? The old AR owned by Teledyne(?), or the new crap? They were unique in that the voice coil for the woofer and tweeter were at the same plane. The idea was to minimize the phase difference between the woofer and tweeter to increase transient clatity. It's the diaghrams that matter, not the coils. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
ICE Topic of the Week - Component vs. Two/Three/Four-way/Coaxial Spealers
Just to add two more cents to this discussion, a single cone speaker is near
ideal for low volume listening. Putting one in a vented enclosure will limit the low frequency excursion ?? On the topic of HOW being better than WHAT you install... I'd agree that how is more important than what, but this thread was started to discuss the choices available (mainly for the newbies-gawd I hate that word) and I suspect another ICE topic will be started regarding factory location vs. attempting a custom install. How about custom installations in factory locations? That's something I'm trying to hire someone to do now, but no one seems to want to give it a go. I think maybe they need the ICE thread. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
ICE Topic of the Week - Component vs. Two/Three/Four-way/Coaxial Spealers
Kevin feel free to expand the thread as you want to. Its not my thread I
just started it. Yeah, this is the thread where we're supposed to be all long-winded and stuff. I do think some discussion should be had about factory vs. custom speaker locations. Lets NOT start arguments,and it is easy to avoid them, think about who we are trying to help. I also think you should explain what point-source means. (I dont completely understand myself) I'm not Kevin, but I'll say something about it anyway. Maybe Kevin has a clearer explanation, and if so he can just tell me to shove it. Point-source is exactly what the name implies: the source (of the sound) should come from a single point. Well, of course this is impossible because a speaker has a finite size, but in the context of this thread it refers to separated speaker components being oriented in such a manner as to best reproduce the "point-source" concept. This is important because it minimizes the negative influences of two waveforms unfavorably interacting at a given point in space (the listener's ear - wherever it may be in relation to the speakers). I purposely posted a broad topic in the hope that some of the "less experienced users" (is that ok instead of dropping the "N" bomb) can read this thread and see all the options available. Hopefully to help them make a decision on what route to go. The fact is a custom installation is not for everyone and sometimes stock speaker locations sound excellent. As a matter of fact more car manufacturers are using component sets in the "premium" audio options. Eg. Lexus' Mark Levinson system. BMW Harman Kardon system. With very good imaging and sound quality. Let me add the newer Caddy Bose systems. The speakers are IMO lacking, but they do a tremendous job of creating a good soundstage with their placement. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
ICE Topic of the Week - Component vs. Two/Three/Four-way/Coaxial Spealers
"Daniel Stocker" wrote in message ...
I'm not a big fan of mounting tweeters behind grills. I can hear the difference when a tweeter is covered with a grill and it makes them sound more muted. Have you noticed this? What do you think? It can, but it depends on the grille. In any case, "muffling" a tweeter isn't necessarily a bad thing. In some cases, it's done on purpose in a variety of different ways. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
ICE Topic of the Week - Component vs. Two/Three/Four-way/Coaxial Spealers
Nobody has really said much about 2,3 or 4 way speakers, is this because
they do not compare to co-ax or component speakers? Thanks PoNDeR |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
ICE Topic of the Week - Component vs. Two/Three/Four-way/CoaxialSpealers
no its because the choices of car audio
3 way or 4 way components is nearly non existant. Eddie PoNDeR wrote: Nobody has really said much about 2,3 or 4 way speakers, is this because they do not compare to co-ax or component speakers? Thanks PoNDeR |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
ICE Topic of the Week - Component vs. Two/Three/Four-way/Coaxial Spealers
Do you say this because some tweeters can sometimes sound too "bright"?
In some cases, it's done on purpose in a variety of different ways. Can you elaborate? Cheers, Daniel "Mark Zarella" wrote in message om... "Daniel Stocker" wrote in message ... I'm not a big fan of mounting tweeters behind grills. I can hear the difference when a tweeter is covered with a grill and it makes them sound more muted. Have you noticed this? What do you think? It can, but it depends on the grille. In any case, "muffling" a tweeter isn't necessarily a bad thing. In some cases, it's done on purpose in a variety of different ways. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
ICE Topic of the Week - Component vs. Two/Three/Four-way/CoaxialSpealers
largely because retailers have lost interest in selling or installing
them (3-way or 4-way systems), or because they have forgotten what the benefit is for having them in the first place. JD Eddie Runner wrote: no its because the choices of car audio 3 way or 4 way components is nearly non existant. Eddie PoNDeR wrote: Nobody has really said much about 2,3 or 4 way speakers, is this because they do not compare to co-ax or component speakers? Thanks PoNDeR |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
ICE Topic of the Week - Component vs. Two/Three/Four-way/CoaxialSpealers
Wish I could tell you Mark... I think they may have been owned by harman
intl, recoton, Jensen. or some other "big guy". At the time Jensen owned phase linear and made graphite conponent speakers, if that gives you any time frame... think 90-91. The speakers I heard are of the same design principle as the KEFs referenced in the other post, where the tweeter rests in the voice coil of the woofer and is planar with the woofer. They had a metallic tweeter... gold/aluminum colored. Thats all I remember. Let me ask my brother, and search the www. They weren't the bassiest speakers Ive heard but clarity above 200Hz was excelent. Garrett Mark Zarella wrote: IMHO more important than WHAT is installed is HOW its installed. Minimize path length differences between the right and left and both can image very well and produce most of the audible spectrum. ...among other things. Yes, the way it's installed is more important. From my own observations, 95% of professional installers do not have the know-how to properly install a set of speakers. No, this is not an exaggeration. I don't recall it ever being this bad in the past. Maybe some old farts like Eddie would like to tell us more about the good ol' days? The best coax's Ive heard were about 10 years ago made by Acoustic Research (AR). Which AR was this? The old AR owned by Teledyne(?), or the new crap? They were unique in that the voice coil for the woofer and tweeter were at the same plane. The idea was to minimize the phase difference between the woofer and tweeter to increase transient clatity. It's the diaghrams that matter, not the coils. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
ICE Topic of the Week - Component vs. Two/Three/Four-way/CoaxialSpealers
in PRO audio circles it is common to scotch tape a
piece of tissue paper to hang down in front of a tweeter thats too bright.... Eddie Daniel Stocker wrote: Do you say this because some tweeters can sometimes sound too "bright"? In some cases, it's done on purpose in a variety of different ways. Can you elaborate? Cheers, Daniel "Mark Zarella" wrote in message om... "Daniel Stocker" wrote in message ... I'm not a big fan of mounting tweeters behind grills. I can hear the difference when a tweeter is covered with a grill and it makes them sound more muted. Have you noticed this? What do you think? It can, but it depends on the grille. In any case, "muffling" a tweeter isn't necessarily a bad thing. In some cases, it's done on purpose in a variety of different ways. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
ICE Topic of the Week - Component vs. Two/Three/Four-way/Coaxial Spealers
Wish I could tell you Mark... I think they may have been owned by harman
intl, recoton, Jensen. or some other "big guy". At the time Jensen owned phase linear and made graphite conponent speakers, if that gives you any time frame... think 90-91. Carver comes to mind. Back in the 80's though, they were owned by a Boston area company and made some decent home stuff. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
ICE Topic of the Week - Component vs. Two/Three/Four-way/CoaxialSpealers
whereas in 12V circles we usually carpet over it... or make sure the
customer is drunk when they pick the car up. JD Eddie Runner wrote: in PRO audio circles it is common to scotch tape a piece of tissue paper to hang down in front of a tweeter thats too bright.... Eddie Daniel Stocker wrote: Do you say this because some tweeters can sometimes sound too "bright"? In some cases, it's done on purpose in a variety of different ways. Can you elaborate? Cheers, Daniel "Mark Zarella" wrote in message .com... "Daniel Stocker" wrote in message ... I'm not a big fan of mounting tweeters behind grills. I can hear the difference when a tweeter is covered with a grill and it makes them sound more muted. Have you noticed this? What do you think? It can, but it depends on the grille. In any case, "muffling" a tweeter isn't necessarily a bad thing. In some cases, it's done on purpose in a variety of different ways. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
ICE Topic of the Week - Component vs. Two/Three/Four-way/CoaxialSpealers
Do you say this because some tweeters can sometimes sound too "bright"?
In some cases, it's done on purpose in a variety of different ways. Can you elaborate? "Muffling" a tweeter is generally done to tone down the brightness. An important point here is that this can be very different from simply attenuating the tweeter. Muffling a tweeter changes the tonal quality, whereas attenuation simply...attenuates. For instance, take a look at the off-axis frequency response of a tweeter vs. the on-axis response. It's quite different. Anyway, one way to "muffle" it is with mounting location. Another way is to actually place an occluder in the path (as Eddie mentioned). |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
ICE Topic of the Week - Component vs. Two/Three/Four-way/Coaxial Spealers
Eclipse - Fujitsu Ten also has a line of speakers based on the 'point source' concept. They do a decent write-up of the idea on their website (http://www.eclipse-web.com).
"Kevin Murray" wrote in message able.rogers.com... It was suggested that I explain the term "point source" I used in my post, so here is my explanation. In this case the term point source refers to a point of origin in space. It doesn't imply that it takes up space, simply that it's an imaginary point of reference and could be anywhere, a car door, dash, rear deck etc. When sound reaches our ears it has an apparent point of origin. Our brains are able to interpret the stereo input from our ears and determine the location of the sound source. This is why hi-fi systems use two (stereo) channels. With two channels a recording engineer can fool our brains into perceiving a moving source, or even multiple sources. Since modern music program material is in stereo we aim to have only two points of origin, the left and right. "OK so ideally my stereo system needs to have only two sound sources (left and right) to be accurate, what problems did I cause by separating my drivers?" For this discussion I'll explain one channel since the principles apply to both. For each channel in most modern hi-fi audio systems, the job of reproducing music is tasked out to two or more drivers. Each driver covers a part of the audio frequency spectrum, and when the sound from each reaches our ears it should sound like it came from one point in space. However, the sound from each driver comes from a different point in space, so we don't have a single point source for this channel. The problem with this setup is a possible time delay due to differences in distance between the listener and the location of each driver. "Who cares right? Due to the speed of sound and the relatively small difference in distance between the listener and each driver, the distortion in the music due to time delays will be negligible right?" The problem lies in the region of the audio spectrum where the two drivers share program material. This occurs at the crossover point, and the width of the band in which it occurs is dependant upon the crossover slopes (ie 12db/octave...18db/octave...). The difference in path lengths cause a phase shift dependant on frequency (ie wavelength) and will cause cancellation at some frequencies, and summing at others. This phase shift is in addition to that caused by the active components in the crossovers. The problem compounds when the second channel is taken into account because the path lengths between the listener and the drivers are again different from each other and often don't mirror the other channel because of the off-center listening position (unless you drive a McLaren:-). This will leave you with strange peaks and valleys in your in-car frequency response. The response problems were absent when you listened to the drivers in the store because they were likely installed very close together and in a vertical alignment which minimizes path length differences. Further more, you were probably standing half way between the left and right speakers giving you near perfect stereo. Another problem is the apparent change in location of an instrument depending on the frequency of the note. A piano for example is capable of playing notes that span most of the audio spectrum. It is a strange thing when the piano player starts a scale and the apparent position of the piano moves from your feet to the top of your dash! "So what can I do to achieve a 'point source' in my car?" Ideally, only use one full range speaker for each of your stereo channels. Of course this isn't practical in car audio because the high volume levels (to overcome wind noise of course will inevitably result in excessive Doppler distortion. The next best solution is to use separate high and low frequency drivers and install them in the same point in space. Of course this is impossible, but co-axial(shared axis) type speakers come close. If you have your mind set on using separates then care should be taken to mount the drivers an equal distance from the listening position. In the automotive environment this is rarely possible. Furthermore, a passenger invited to listen to your "great system" will hear a different sounding system because of the different listening position. One way to reduce the interference between the high and low frequency drivers is to use steeper crossover slopes. While adding more phase shift, it will also narrow the band where they overlap. Installing car audio should be more about minimal-izing problems inherent to the listening environment than about getting your hands on the most expensive gear. Like many have said before me: it's how you install it, not necessarily what you install. No particular hardware choice condemns anyone to poor sound. Care must be taken to balance ease of installation, budget, and available space. Then optimize the installation of what you have. I have seen countless poor installations of expensive gear that sound no better (more often worse) than far less expensive systems. The KEF Uni-Q line mentioned by another poster is the best attempt at a point source I have ever seen. The tweeter was mounted right down in the center of the woofer's dust cap. I suspect this may have increased diffraction problems, but I still think they sound great. Co-axial designs are steadily improving and may replace component sets as the standard of quality in a few years. Hopefully the prices for the better units will fall too... I'm not sure I've succeeded at explaining point source and how it applies to car audio here. Phase relationships are such a complex thing to explain, maybe someone with better technical writing skills could clarify my scratchings. If anyone has any questions feel free to email me. Perhaps a discussion on Doppler distortion, stereo imaging, or phase relationships should follow next week? Or is this getting into the physics too much and taking the fun out of the hobby? Kevin kev{remove "EFFENDI" wrote in message ... I.C.E. School now in effect. Topic for this week is choosing speakers. Many people choose component speakers with outboard crossover modules for their sound quality and imaging advantages over other types of speakers. Two way coaxials are popular for their ease of installation. The debate is up in the air. What would you reccomend?? Please share your opinions/experiences/information/suggestions on component speakers versus two/three/four-way (no, i'm not talking about sex here) or coaxial speakers. Lets help the newbies! EFFENDI --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.543 / Virus Database: 337 - Release Date: 11/21/2003 |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
ICE Topic of the Week - Component vs. Two/Three/Four-way/Coaxial Spealers
Some feel that one is better than the other. I personally have had both
components and coaxial and can say from experience that one is not better than the other. Components do allow for more installation options to try and best setup imaging and sound stage. Each vehicle is different and so that is what really defines how a speaker will perform. One thing I have noticed is the importance of off-axis listening. When a speaker is listened to on a demo board, it is usually on-axis and will sound excellent, but when placed in a vehicle it will exhibit a different sound. This is primarily due to the fact that if the speaker is placed in a factory location (eg. lower door) the listener is now off-axis from the speaker. Usually a speaker will sound different (some will say distorted or harsh at higher volumes) compared to its on-axis sound. I've noticed this with serveral speakers. If I place my head down lower between both speakers everything sounds fine even at volume. Now if I move back to the drivers seat I notice the 2-4khz region to be quite harsh. One way to fix that is to place or buy some kick panel enclosures which will then place these speakers on-axis (or closer to that) and should sound fine. Some manufacturers actually spend time designing for off-axis listening (some Pioneer and Bazoka coax and components) because of the fact that the speakers will end up in factory locations which will be off-axis. Also I've noticed that the difference between coax and components is narrowing. Take a look at JL Audio's line of speakers (and probably others). The TR,VR and XR series of speakers come in both component and coax lines, each using the SAME drivers as its counterpart. So the argument that the drivers and/or materials used in components is better than in coaxials is no longer the limiting/deciding factor. "EFFENDI" wrote in message ... I.C.E. School now in effect. Topic for this week is choosing speakers. Many people choose component speakers with outboard crossover modules for their sound quality and imaging advantages over other types of speakers. Two way coaxials are popular for their ease of installation. The debate is up in the air. What would you reccomend?? Please share your opinions/experiences/information/suggestions on component speakers versus two/three/four-way (no, i'm not talking about sex here) or coaxial speakers. Lets help the newbies! EFFENDI --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.543 / Virus Database: 337 - Release Date: 11/21/2003 |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
ICE Topic of the Week - Component vs. Two/Three/Four-way/CoaxialSpealers
One thing I have noticed is the importance of off-axis listening. When a
speaker is listened to on a demo board, it is usually on-axis and will sound excellent, but when placed in a vehicle it will exhibit a different sound. This is primarily due to the fact that if the speaker is placed in a factory location (eg. lower door) the listener is now off-axis from the speaker. Usually a speaker will sound different (some will say distorted or harsh at higher volumes) compared to its on-axis sound. I've noticed this with serveral speakers. If I place my head down lower between both speakers everything sounds fine even at volume. Now if I move back to the drivers seat I notice the 2-4khz region to be quite harsh. One way to fix that is to place or buy some kick panel enclosures which will then place these speakers on-axis (or closer to that) and should sound fine. That's an odd description. Most people report the opposite. Even off-axis frequency graphs usually show a pronounced DIP in the 2-4kHz region. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
ICE Topic of the Week - Component vs. Two/Three/Four-way/Coaxial Spealers
Well I wasn't noticing whether it was an increase or decrease in sound
level, I was noticing the harshness of the midrange in the 2-4k region off-axis, which may be a factor of how the waves interact off-axis vs. on-axis with the ear, and the ear being particularly sensitive to the 2-4k range. The dip in the graphs you may be referencing could be due in part to the way the crossover may be interacting. "Mark Zarella" wrote in message .. . One thing I have noticed is the importance of off-axis listening. When a speaker is listened to on a demo board, it is usually on-axis and will sound excellent, but when placed in a vehicle it will exhibit a different sound. This is primarily due to the fact that if the speaker is placed in a factory location (eg. lower door) the listener is now off-axis from the speaker. Usually a speaker will sound different (some will say distorted or harsh at higher volumes) compared to its on-axis sound. I've noticed this with serveral speakers. If I place my head down lower between both speakers everything sounds fine even at volume. Now if I move back to the drivers seat I notice the 2-4khz region to be quite harsh. One way to fix that is to place or buy some kick panel enclosures which will then place these speakers on-axis (or closer to that) and should sound fine. That's an odd description. Most people report the opposite. Even off-axis frequency graphs usually show a pronounced DIP in the 2-4kHz region. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.543 / Virus Database: 337 - Release Date: 11/21/2003 |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
ICE Topic of the Week - Component vs. Two/Three/Four-way/CoaxialSpealers
Ivan Lopez wrote:
Well I wasn't noticing whether it was an increase or decrease in sound level, I was noticing the harshness of the midrange in the 2-4k region off-axis, which may be a factor of how the waves interact off-axis vs. on-axis with the ear, and the ear being particularly sensitive to the 2-4k range. The dip in the graphs you may be referencing could be due in part to the way the crossover may be interacting. No, it's not an electrical dip. It's the same driver. I think the Morel site (morelusa.com) may have some of these graphs for their drivers available on the web. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
ICE Topic of the Week - Component vs. Two/Three/Four-way/Coaxial Spealers
CD-T had a diagram about the difference between 1, 2, and 3-way system,
should check that out. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
DJ 2004 - 2003 | General |