Best stock speaker upgrade

[gfxdave99]

Isnt the whole point of having the tweeter in the door is that your leg tends to block the high frequencies coming from the door speaker?

[PGT]

Sure....that makes logical sense, as long as the midrange is close to it. Human hearing is based on triangulation of our two ears with noise from one source. A stereo image is created by fooling the brain into thinking the sound is coming from between two points. Having the sound come from four points (left mid low, left tweeter high, right mid low and right tweeter high) = no image.

[deneb]

So does anyone know for sure how much depth we have to work with regarding replacement speakers? It seems like if I assume 2" I should be OK? Though there aren't a whole lot of 6.5"'s that have 2" or less of depth, I know Polk (db 650) and Infinity (6012si - 'shallow mount' speaker) will fit depthwise, the Alpine SPS170A's look nice but they're 2 1/4 inch depth (info from crutchfield.com). I actually like the looks of the Polks, they look like they have more than the standard 4 mounting holes such that I wonder if they'd be a direct fit in that I wouldn't even need to drill new holes, just bolt 'em right in.

[sduford]

Sure....that makes logical sense, as long as the midrange is close to it. Human hearing is based on triangulation of our two ears with noise from one source. A stereo image is created by fooling the brain into thinking the sound is coming from between two points. Having the sound come from four points (left mid low, left tweeter high, right mid low and right tweeter high) = no image.

 

True, but with the speaker down near your feet, you won't have any imaging either.

[msmith]

True, but with the speaker down near your feet, you won't have any image either.

 

That is simply not true. My speakers are all in the lower front part of the door and my image is on top of the dash. You don't have ears on top of your head and on your chin to detect height.

 

Manville Smith

JL Audio, Inc.

[sduford]

You may have an "image", but you do not have good imaging where you can precisely locate each instrument in space. That is dificult to achieve at best in a car, let alone with the tweeters down near the floor.

[gfxdave99]

I disagree with the whole image idea of the tweets being a bad idea. The lower the frequency is, the harder a time our ears have locating it. The whole reason you can have a subwoofer in the trunk and as long as its balanced it blends in and doesnt sound like its coming from the back. The same with the in door tweets, The higher freq. that our hearing use to define position are up higher in the door. Which is exactly why you see more and more car mfgs doing this stock these days as the quality of stock systems improves.

 

http://www.tweeter.com/car/index.jsp?page=trends_Speakers

 

Tweeter says it better then i did

 

One of the ways to help correct these problems is by installing component speakers instead of axial models. A component speaker is just that, a speaker system with all of its parts separate. There's a separate tweeter, mid-bass driver, sometimes a dedicated mid-range driver and crossover assembly. This allows you to mount the pieces wherever they will work best. In most situations, the mid-bass driver is mounted in the stock speaker location in the door. This allows it to take advantage of the volume inside the door to create better bass. Bass is largely omnidirectional, so it's harder to tell where the sounds are coming from. Having just the mid-bass drivers in the doors will not affect your stereo imaging as much as having the entire speaker there.

 

The sounds created by the tweeter are largely responsible for creating the sense of realism from your music. With a component speaker system, you can mount the tweeters higher in the door to maximize their sound quality and imaging properties. Many component speaker systems also allow you to pivot the speakers in the optimal direction to minimize the fact that one speaker is closer to the listener than the other. Doing this will also make your music sound better, since your ears are not on your legs where most axial tweeters are pointed.

 

Besides the added benefit of better stereo imaging, component speakers also sound better in general. Since size is less of a concern, component speakers usually consist of better, bulkier components. This is especially important when it comes to the crossover. The crossovers that come with component speakers are much more complex and use higher quality parts than the tiny ones that axial speakers use. This means the sound is much truer and smoother.

 

There is also another advantage to mounting the tweeter separate from the woofer. Having the tweeter positioned in front of the woofer can cause the sound waves to interact with each other, causing alterations to the sound. This is exactly why you'll never see an axial design used in a home speaker. The tweeter and woofer are always mounted in different locations to create the best sound possible.

 

With a component speaker system installed in your vehicle, you will ensure you're getting the best sound you can, especially if your component speaker system is purchased and installed by us. We offer a selection of the best speakers available, and we have the knowledge and tools necessary to make them perform to their full potential.

[sduford]

Exactly right. Ideally, for the best imaging, all frequencies would come from the same location, but it is far more important to have the highs located at or near ear height.

[msmith]

So does anyone know for sure how much depth we have to work with regarding replacement speakers? It seems like if I assume 2" I should be OK? Though there aren't a whole lot of 6.5"'s that have 2" or less of depth, I know Polk (db 650) and Infinity (6012si - 'shallow mount' speaker) will fit depthwise, the Alpine SPS170A's look nice but they're 2 1/4 inch depth (info from crutchfield.com). I actually like the looks of the Polks, they look like they have more than the standard 4 mounting holes such that I wonder if they'd be a direct fit in that I wouldn't even need to drill new holes, just bolt 'em right in.

 

I'm sorry I didn't measure the max. depth when I took my doors apart, but I am pretty sure that you will want to fabricate spacer rings, regardless of how shallow the speaker is... you want to get the front of the speaker to seal up to the flange on the factory door panel. This requires that it be spaced off the metal of the door. If you don't this, your stock door panel will buzz and the sound quality will suffer significantly.

 

For a good series of photos of what I'm talking about, look at Part 2 of my wagon install here:

 

http://www.legacygt.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10187

 

The rear doors and front doors are essentially the same as far as the speaker installation goes. I put JL Audio XR650-CXi coaxials in the rear doors with 1-inch thick spacers.

 

Hope that helps,

 

Manville Smith

JL Audio, Inc.

[sduford]

Are the tweeters pretty much a standard mount or is it something funky?

[msmith]

Well, I hate to disagree with my good friends at Tweeter, but I do. They want to sell component systems (which, in certain cars are a better way to go), but not in the LGT.

 

I understand imaging pretty well, and have designed and tuned numerous car audio systems that are considered reference quality, including CES Best Sound of Show Winners and IASCA Finals Champions. I'm not saying this to brag, but just to point out that I do have quite a bit of experience in getting automotive soundstages right. I'm honestly trying to give you guys some good advice that will give you good results (and actually save you a little money). My company makes more money selling separates than coaxials, so it's not greed that is motivating my suggestions.

 

If the stock tweeter location is so wonderful, ask yourself why the stock system doesn't image properly, then ask yourself what would change if you simply dropped better quality speakers in the same locations. The tonal quality would improve, but the imaging wouldn't. Imaging is all about speaker loation, speaker location and speaker location. It involves getting pathlengths close, using off-axis roll-off to your advantage and carefully evaluating the relative phase of the speakers and making appropriate adjustments (hint: wire the passenger side speaker in reverse polarity).

 

You can always try a coax and upgrade to a component set if I'm full of it.

 

Best regards,

 

Manville Smith

JL Audio, Inc.

[PGT]

Exactly right. Ideally, for the best imaging, all frequencies would come from the same location, but it is far more important to have the highs located at or near ear height.

 

Here's the thing - due to thousands of years of evolution, our hearing is infinitely more sensitive to direction in the horizontal plane than in the vertical plane. Chalk that up to man's earthbound existence......survival meant finding food within reach (read: not up) and avoiding danger.

 

Several studies have been done about this.....not sure of the exact numbers, but that's the basics behind why equal pathlengths to the source are more important than the vertical position of the source with respect the brain's ability to create a stereo image.

 

Another example - typical ear height when seated is about 36" - most hi-end speaker stands are built to place the tweeter on or about this this level, as our ears are more sensitive to high frequencies. Experimenting with placement on the stands can open or close the perceived stage - this has as much to do with the speaker output reacting with the room as with height of the tweeter. I have Canton Ergo 31's - they sound better upside down than right side up. Go figure.

 

Would the speakers sound better if set directly on the floor or if the tweeter was up high on the stand and the rest of the speaker/midrange on the floor? Of course the answer is obvious - keeping the drivers close ALWAYS sounds better.

[GeneWeen]

I think that estimate's a bit high. I'm planning to install a JL system for around $2500 all said and done. Here's what I'm planning:

 

CleanSweep

500/5 Amp

10W60 Sub w/ Pro Wedge enclosure

XR650CXi for both front and rear doors

Dynamat all doors

 

This might not be "high end" in the eyes of some, especially because I'm going on the small side with the sub (250W), but I think that it will be more than enough for me.

This is what I would probably do as well. In the past I had big subs in the trunk with some power and I can't imagine doing something like that again, it was fun at the time. The amount of work for the coaxial install verses doing something that would allow compareable sound from components is attractive to me. I think using the factory component location is not going to be as good as the good coaxials in the stock location.

[sduford]

I'm sorry but there is absolutely no way you can get good imaging with drivers down near your feet because you will be getting far more reflected sound then direct sound.

 

But good imaging and car audio don't really go together anyway.

[PGT]

I'm sorry but there is absolutely no way you can get good imaging with drivers down near your feet....

It's not impossible, but obviously harder than in a room with lots of space to play with

 

...... because you will be getting far more reflected sound then direct sound.

You are in a glass bubble......this goes without saying.

 

But good imaging and car audio don't really go together anyway.

True, but it doesn't mean it's impossible. I have done countless car installs with Dynaudio, B&W, Boston Acoustics, MBQuart Q Series conventional drivers or Veritas AccuWave/AccuBass front stage that would convince you otherwise.

http://www.northamericanmotoring.com/forums/images/smilies/thumb-up.gif

 

[back when I was in the business, I gave a home audio customer of mine a ride home after dropping off his son's car for a sub install. He had a McIntosh stack with BW Nautilus 802's. He liked my personal system so much, he wanted it duplicated in his car. Great impact and range, staging and it just plain 'jammed' (in other words it could play Rusted Root LOUD and not lose dynamic range or sound compressed).]

[sduford]

I didn't say it was impossible to get some imaging in a car. However, that ain't gonna happen with the speakers way down low near the feet.

 

And if you're convinced otherwise, then your definition of imaging is very different then mine. Imaging to me doesn't mean simple left to right placement of instruments. Proper imaging is not trivial even in a treated room with good speakers. And the average CD player is not capable of much imaging either. With MP3, forget imaging completely.

 

Some systems like the dolby systems that are optional in VOlvos make a very good simulation of imaging. But it is just that, a simulation, and it is achieved with much electronic manipulations and by placing a speaker right on the top center of the dash.

 

But I guess we will never agree because our basic definition of imaging is obviously not the same. And you're not impressing me by throwing name brands at me. I've been an audiophile for 30 years and I also worked in the high-end audio industry for several years.

[PGT]

Sduford - we can agree to disagree. (I haven't come across an 'audiophile' yet who has a different opinion than you )

 

Giving some examples wasn't about 'impressing you' - your opinion of me is inconsequential. I was trying to show that with quality components and intelligent placement, what you say is impossible is indeed possible.

 

Why is imaging the 'holy grail' of audio anyways? I have yet to attend a live show where there was any presence of 'imaging', unless you want to consider chamber music and orchestra (blah). 95% of normal people don't listen to that kind of music - for those of us who listen to other types, any live show will hit amplification, processing, and EQ before getting to our ears.

[sduford]

 

Why is imaging the 'holy grail' of audio anyways? I have yet to attend a live show where there was any presence of 'imaging', unless you want to consider chamber music and orchestra (blah). 95% of normal people don't listen to that kind of music - for those of us who listen to other types, any live show will hit amplification, processing, and EQ before getting to our ears.

 

Well, we agree on that one

 

I listen mainly to small jazz bands, mostly acoustic instruments, and it is possible to recreate the ambiance of a small jazz venue with a top notch stereo system. The first time I experienced that it sent chills up my spine, and that's when I became hooked. That is when the experience goes from merely listening to a recording, to feeling like you are "there". It is quite powerful, and that is why that's the holy grail of most audiophiles.

 

Sadly, CDs are not really capable of achieving that. SACD gets damn close. That's why there are still a lot of nutcases out there listening to vinyl LPs. You are quite correct that this whole concept doesn't make sense in the world of amplified electronic music. But then, we ain't talking about imaging either. That's why I pushed back seriously on the notion that you can achieve decent imagining in a car, with speakers down by your feet. Yes you can have car systems with good frequency response and clarity and even purity of tone. You can even have some basic left-to-right stereo imaging. But you'll never have true "3-D" imaging, not in a car, not with CDs.

 

In recent years I've switched my attention to home theater, kicked my addiction to upgrades, and no longer listen to vinyl.

[sduford]

Now that I got all that of my system (sorry for ranting on). What would be a reasonably priced front speaker upgrade that wouldn't require adding an amplifier?

 

I see some Polks that have a sensitivity of 92dBs and are priced well, are they any good?

[PGT]

I haven't listened to the current series of Polks. A good drop in replacement that would sound better than stock without needing an amp would be something like the Boston Acoustics NX Series. JL has an equivalent type solution - I don't remember the exact series though. Both are a solid choice, and affordable.

 

(I have NX67, NX57, and two sets of MBQuart bridge-mount separates in the garage, leftover from previous cars - I need to drop them in and see how they sound)

[msmith]

I didn't say it was impossible to get some imaging in a car. However, that ain't gonna happen with the speakers way down low near the feet.

 

And if you're convinced otherwise, then your definition of imaging is very different then mine. Imaging to me doesn't mean simple left to right placement of instruments. Proper imaging is not trivial even in a treated room with good speakers. And the average CD player is not capable of much imaging either. With MP3, forget imaging completely.

 

Some systems like the dolby systems that are optional in VOlvos make a very good simulation of imaging. But it is just that, a simulation, and it is achieved with much electronic manipulations and by placing a speaker right on the top center of the dash.

 

But I guess we will never agree because our basic definition of imaging is obviously not the same. And you're not impressing me by throwing name brands at me. I've been an audiophile for 30 years and I also worked in the high-end audio industry for several years.

 

Well, let's define imaging then...

 

The dictionary definition from a purely technical viewpoint (courtesy of "The Audio Dictionary" by Glenn D. White - University of Washington Press) is as follows:

 

"The ability to localize instruments when listening to a stereo recording is called imaging, and a great deal of nonsense has been written about it. Accurate imaging of musical instruments on a stage by use of two-channel stereo has been shown to be difficult at best under the most ideal laboratory conditions. To achieve any kind of accuracy, the channels must have precisely the same gain, the frequency response of each loudspeaker must be identical and the phase response of the two channels must be identical. The listener also must be precisely between the loudspeakers. These conditions are impossible to meet in practice."

 

"One must take care, however, to discriminate "stereo spread" from accurate imaging. Most stereo systems provide an impression of diffusion and spread of the sound, which can be pleasing to the ear and can lead the listener to think he is correctly imaging the sound sources. The reverberant sound in stereo recordings can sound quite diffused and "spacious", but again this is a far cry from imaging in the true sense."

 

Some alternative definitions, this time from a home audiophile perspective...courtesy of http://www.soundvideo.com/value_glossary.htm

 

Stereo Imaging

 

"The production of stable, specific phantom images of correct localization and width. Refer to "Soundstaging" & "Wander."

 

Soundstaging / Soundstage Presentation

 

"The accuracy with which a reproducing system conveys audible information about the size, shape, and acoustical characteristics of the original recording space and the placement of the performers within it."

 

Stereo Spread

 

"The apparent width of the soundstage and the placement of phantom images within it. Generally, a group of instruments or voices should uniformly occupy the space between the loudspeakers. The opposite of "Beyond-the-Speakers Imaging"."

 

Wander

 

"Side-to-side vacillation of the apparent position of a stereo image as the instrument plays different notes. Poor imaging stability."

 

Soundstage Shift

 

"Apparent lateral movement of the soundstage when listening from either side of the sweet spot. "

 

And finally some definitions from a car audiophile perspective, courtesy of the International Auto Sound Challenge Association rulebook:

 

Soundstage

 

"The soundstage produced by an audio system can be defined as the perceived space from which the sound originates (much like the stage in a concert hall is the space from which the sound originates)."

 

"The object of judging this is to define the boundaries of the soundstage created by the vehicle's audio system. These boundaries must be identified in order to judge imaging accurately and are defined as follows:"

 

I'll paraphrase a bit here for brevity (MS)...

Listening position relative to the soundstage (orientation and distance from)

Stage Width (lateral spread)

Stage Height (floor height and vertical spread)

Stage Depth (front to rear spread)

Ambience (the perceived space around the sound source)

 

Imaging:

 

"The term 'imaging' defines a sound system's ability to reproduce the sounds of instruments in their correct locations and proportions on the sound stage. The correct locations are defined by their placement as recorded."

 

****************

As you can see, "imaging" is widely defined and understood to mean the placement and scale of specific instruments/vocals on the sound stage.

 

You can have a very narrow sound stage with great imaging within it... you can have a really wide soundstage with lousy imaging. For the sake of clear communication, we should use this terminology to discuss these issues.

 

I'll probably start a new post to discuss some of the topics that have been debated here...

 

Best regards,

 

Manville Smith

JL Audio, Inc.

[iyamdman]

Hahahahahaha:lol::lol:

 

You guys are funny!!!!

 

Someone used audiophile and car in the same paragraph!

 

Hahahahahaha:lol::lol:

 

As an electronic contract mfg, I have built many audiophile product for various companies - you would be surprised.

 

Hell, my business partner's father was the President of Clarian Audio (he also developed the AutoPC), and he built a $100,000+ Audio room in his house - talk about imaging!!!! WOW!!

 

OK, we are talking about a $30,000 car - not a Maybach.

 

If I wanted to blow $5,000, I would buy a new mountain bike - not try to make the windows of the other cars vibrate.

 

I did find some good advice and information - and as Manville knows, the mass market wants to spend $500-$1000 max to upgrade sound in thier cars.

 

It's the funny people who want to do more.

 

The funny people provide the 3 M's - Margin, Media exposure and Motivation for technical advancement.

 

They don't provide the bulk sales needed for a business to stay in business once they have become a mainstream brand or a recognized nitch brand.

 

Hell, I can't turn up the volume in my LGT, without everything vibrating and all kinds of little noises adding to the music.

 

It is useless to talk about all this audiophile crap unless you are in a house, Bentley or Maybach - and a true audiophile would never contemplate jerking off to music in the last two anyway.

 

Four speekers, factory sub, Clean Sweep and a small amp - it will sound better to me - which with the head we get with the car is all I can ask for right now.

 

Now, just got to find the right spacers, pick the best speeker for the money and off I go.

 

Manville's install features are really valuable for this type of stuff - THANX MANVILLE!!!

 

Even though you guys are funny, I love the debate!!!!

[deneb]

Now that I got all that of my system (sorry for ranting on). What would be a reasonably priced front speaker upgrade that wouldn't require adding an amplifier?

 

I see some Polks that have a sensitivity of 92dBs and are priced well, are they any good?

 

I just went to the BA site, according to it, the NX 67's are 90db sensitivitiy. Personally, I'd like to see at least 92 db sensitivity with the stock amp. I'm considering the Polks as well (DB650), they have a 2" depth and 92 db sensitivity. And crutchfield is running a special on them: Buy 1 pair, get the second for 1/2 price. Infinity has a 6.5" in their reference series that's a 'slim mount' design (6012si) and with 92db sensitivity as well. I had Infinity reference series in my last car with the stock amp (which probably wasn't even half the power of the stock amp in our LGT's), and they actually sounded pretty good. Light years ahead of the stock $2 speakers. The BA S65RC's have a sensitivity of 92db according to cruthfield http://www.crutchfield.com/S-hH1AsxeLooJ/cgi-bin/ProdView.asp?g=52000&I=065S65RC, so they could be an option for me as well, they fit depthwise (I'm assuming 2").

 

Personally, I'm thinking all I'm gonna do to the stock stereo is upgrade the 6.5" door speakers to coaxial's and call it good. The stock sub is good enough for me, I'm just looking for a little more definition and clarity. Upgrading the door speakers should do that nicely.

 

Edit: I can't find the S65RC on the Boston site, so I dunno what the deal is there, unless the 65RC is last year's model Crutchfield is trying to get rid of. The Boston FX6 might be a good swap for the stock door speaker http://www.bostonacoustics.com/ca_product.asp?ProductID=84&CategoryID=14

[msmith]

For me and many others, it's not about making windows in other cars vibrate... it's about achieving faithful sound in the only space where I can listen to music I like without getting bitched at or interrupted. I find this valuable.

 

The reasons your LGT buzzes and sounds like crap when you turn up can be easily addressed through careful installation and proper system design... if you wish to do the work/spend the money. A car can be made to provide a very impressive audiophile listening experience (yes, I used the word "audiophile")... it might not be easy nor cheap to do it to the highest level, but it can be done to whatever extent you wish to take it. It doesn't make you a "funny person" any more than spending $5000 on a bicycle.

 

For me, spending $5000 on a mountain bike would be insane, my Raleigh touring bike cost me $250.00 on clearance and it's fine for what I use it for. Some people would find that expensive (you can get a bike for $99 at WalMart)... some, like you, would consider that low end. If you take your bike riding seriously enough to buy a high-end bike, good for you. I take my car audio that seriously.

 

Different strokes, basically.

 

Manville Smith

JL Audio, Inc.

[msmith]

I just went to the BA site, according to it, the NX 67's are 90db sensitivitiy. Personally, I'd like to see at least 92 db sensitivity with the stock amp. I'm considering the Polks as well (DB650), they have a 2" depth and 92 db sensitivity. And crutchfield is running a special on them: Buy 1 pair, get the second for 1/2 price. Infinity has a 6.5" in their reference series that's a 'slim mount' design (6012si) and with 92db sensitivity as well. I had Infinity reference series in my last car with the stock amp (which probably wasn't even half the power of the stock amp in our LGT's), and they actually sounded pretty good. Light years ahead of the stock $2 speakers. The BA S65RC's have a sensitivity of 92db according to cruthfield http://www.crutchfield.com/S-hH1AsxeLooJ/cgi-bin/ProdView.asp?g=52000&I=065S65RC, so they could be an option for me as well, they fit depthwise (I'm assuming 2").

 

Personally, I'm thinking all I'm gonna do to the stock stereo is upgrade the 6.5" door speakers to coaxial's and call it good. The stock sub is good enough for me, I'm just looking for a little more definition and clarity. Upgrading the door speakers should do that nicely.

 

Edit: I can't find the S65RC on the Boston site, so I dunno what the deal is there, unless the 65RC is last year's model Crutchfield is trying to get rid of. The Boston FX6 might be a good swap for the stock door speaker http://www.bostonacoustics.com/ca_product.asp?ProductID=84&CategoryID=14

 

I wouldn't get terribly hung up on efficiency/sensitivity specs. The ones BA gives for that speaker are completely confusing... they qualify it as 1W (2.83V) / 1 meter... which is frankly, nonsensical. 2.83 volts is 2 watts at 4 ohms, not 1 watt. You're going to find all kinds of numbers that are not necessarily very accurate.

 

Most 6.5 coaxials are going to have actual efficiencies of about 87-89 dB @ 1W/1m, regardless of marketing numbers... to make them more efficient would require compromising their low-frequency performance.

 

My best advice is to go to a dealer and take a listen... choose the ones that sound good to you off of head unit power and forget about the numbers.

 

Best regards,

 

Manville Smith

JL Audio, Inc.