Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
HomeAnnouncements
Discussion Groups
By Brand
BMWChevroletDodgeFordGMHondaLexusMercedes-BenzNissanPeugeotToyotaVolkswagenOther Brands
By Topic
4x4 CarsRVsDrivingMaintenance & RepairCar AudioCollectible Cars
Country Specific
Australian ForumsUK Forums
ArticlesAuto InsuranceBuyingCars & TechnologyMaintenanceMiscellaneousSafety
DMV Resources
Related Topics
MotorcyclesBoatsMore Topics ...

Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Car Audio / March 2007

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Rare 6x9 from Sony

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Mariachi - 16 Mar 2007 06:39 GMT
Anyone heard of this speaker from Sony before?

http://www.crutchfield.com/S-MMj9utVnELQ/cgi-bin/ProdView.asp?g=52300&tab=essent
ial_info&i=158XS6945#Tab


the Sony XS-V6945X

I heard that Sony made very few of these and they are very hard to
come by.  Specs wise, they look better than any other 6x9 that Sony
has made before, probably better than most 6x9's out there.

I think crutchfield sold one scatch and dent and that was it...
KU40 - 16 Mar 2007 07:28 GMT
but in the end it's a 4 way, which is stupid and 1/2 worthless.  and
coaxial, which means each speaker likely only has a capacitor on it (i
anything) to filter low frequencies out at a -6db clip, also not grea
for accurate reproduction

--
KU40
D.Kreft - 16 Mar 2007 16:04 GMT
On Mar 15, 11:28 pm, KU40 <KU40.2ni...@no-mx.forum.carstereos.org>
wrote:

> but in the end it's a 4 way, which is stupid and 1/2 worthless.  and a
> coaxial, which means each speaker likely only has a capacitor on it (if
> anything) to filter low frequencies out at a -6db clip, also not great
> for accurate reproduction.

I have to take exception to this generalization. If done properly, a
1st-order filter (6dB/octave) can actually lead to *superior* audio
reproduction because of the minimal (90-degree) phase shift that it
imposes on the signal. Higher-ordered filters impose a phase shift on
the signal that is 90*n, where n is the order of the filter. This,
coupled with a coaxial alignment, has the potential for giving far
more accurate (in the time domain) reproduction than separates because
the ideal source of sound is a single point, not a dispersed array of
loudspeakers.

Unfoturnately, though theory and reality rarely meet like this in a
6x9 or most other speakers on the market today. Dynaudio, however,
produces some *amazing* speakers that, if memory serves, all use 6db/
Octave crossovers to maintain optimal phase alignment (http://
dynaudio.com). I've auditioned their home and car stuff personally,
and they are *extremely* impressive (and almost as expensive).

-dan
KU40 - 16 Mar 2007 16:32 GMT
but do they not also use inductors to cut off high frequencies from th
mid?  And also, I've never seen caps on the mid straight out of th
box, just the tweets.  So the mid is left wide open.  my point was mor
that they don't have a bandpass filter system than just a cap.  ver
rarely am I a fan of letting mids naturally roll off on the top end

--
KU40
D.Kreft - 16 Mar 2007 23:26 GMT
On Mar 16, 8:32 am, KU40 <KU40.2nj...@no-mx.forum.carstereos.org>
wrote:

> but do they not also use inductors to cut off high frequencies from the
> mid?

If by "they" you mean Dynaudio, then yes, I'm pretty sure they do.

> And also, I've never seen caps on the mid straight out of the
> box, just the tweets.  So the mid is left wide open.  my point was more
> that they don't have a bandpass filter system than just a cap.  very
> rarely am I a fan of letting mids naturally roll off on the top end.

Your points are all valid, and I agree...rare is the midrange speaker
that sounds good when allowed to play "off the top" without filtering.
I just wanted to point out that the way your post read, it seemed to
be implying that 1st-order filters are undesireable, when in general
that is not the case.

In a mobile audio setting where the tweeters are sometimes necessarily
distant from the midrange drivers (e.g. tweets atop the doors in a
tweeter pod, mids in the bottom of the door) having a simple 1st-order
(6dB/octave) filter is normally undesireable because it tends to cause
a "smearing" of the image due to the large overlap in frequency
reproduction between the two drivers. In these situations, having a
steeper cut-off is more desireable.

Now, to all of those wanna-be "golden-eared tweaks" who are feeling
the urge to rush out and replace all your 2nd-order filters with 1st-
order filters--don't. In order to use a 1st-order filter, you have to
jack up your XO frequency on your tweeters to seemingly insane levels
w.r.t. the 2nd-order filter, and even then you have to be sure that
your tweeters (which are *extremely* delicate) can handle a filter
with such a gradual roll-off. Also worth noting is that 1st-order
filters are not for all tweeters--some tweets will just plain sound
better (phase shift notwithstanding) when used with steeper filters
and lower XO points.

Okay, I think that just about does it for the disclaimer. :-)

-dan
Mariachi - 18 Mar 2007 04:13 GMT
> On Mar 16, 8:32 am, KU40 <KU40.2nj...@no-mx.forum.carstereos.org>
> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 37 lines]
>
> -dan

I have a question about 4-ways... Is it true that a 4-way's midrange
will sound better when it only has midrange frequencies going through
the speaker, as opposed to when all three bass, high, and midrange
frequencies are playing at the same time.  Does the 4-way "cut out"
some midrange frequencies when all three frequencies are being
filtered through the speaker at once.  So say at a beginning of a rock
song, the singer sings by himself with no instruments playing.  Then,
20 seconds later the cymbals start crashing and the percussion starts
beating, will the speaker still produce the same midrange quality as
it did before (given the audio data is sufficient to maintain the
quality and the amplifier is ideal also).
D.Kreft - 18 Mar 2007 04:53 GMT
> I have a question about 4-ways... Is it true that a 4-way's midrange
> will sound better when it only has midrange frequencies going through
> the speaker, as opposed to when all three bass, high, and midrange
> frequencies are playing at the same time.

Well, in theory with *any* speaker in any configuration, the narrower
the range of frequencies that you demand it play, the better it is
going to sound--that just means that the waveforms that is has to
reproduce are that much less...."cluttered" and less complex. It also
will mean that the speaker will have to dissipate less power, thus
resulting in less distortion caused by non-linear speaker behavior.
So, ideally, the best situation would be to have one speaker
reproducing exactly one frequency using a "brick wall" (infinite dB/
octave roll-off) filter...and yet somehow have all of these 1Hz-
bandwidth speakers acting as a single point source.

However, in practice, we don't deal with "brick wall" filters (infite
dB/octave roll-offs after the crossover point), so there's going to be
overlap. And in this overlapping range between drivers, you're going
to have phase shifts introduced by the crossovers themselves. Also, we
can't stack a bunch of drivers atop one another and achieve the
equivalent of a single point source--you have to either put them side-
by-side or on to of one another on the same axis, in which case the
high frequency drivers would be much closer to you than would the low-
frequency drivers.

So, in the real world of imperfection and compromise, you do the best
you can and divide up the audio spectrum into smaller "bit-sized"
bands that are handled by specialized drivers.

> Does the 4-way "cut out" some midrange frequencies when all three frequencies are being
> filtered through the speaker at once.

Every speaker is going to have a natural frequency response (absent
any enclosure) that is going to "roll-off" at both the high and low
ends...loudspeakers are essentially bandpass devices--there is no such
thing (to the best of my knowledge) as a true "full-range" (20Hz -
20kHz, +/- say 3dB). This is pretty obvious if you apply unfiltered
music through a subwoofer--you won't hear the "tssk tssk tssk" of a
high hat, nor will you get very good output in the 20Hz range (again,
absent an enclosure of some type). Likewise, unfiltered music applied
to a midrange will result in most of the guitars and vocals getting
through, but not much in the way of cymbals and kickdrums. The same
goes for tweeters.

But we rarely let speakers play with unfiltered program source--we
apply a lowpass filter to the subwoofers, a bandpass (low + high pass)
to the mids, and a high pass to the tweets. The LP filter on the subs
keeps Barry White from sounding like he's in your trunk, and allows
you to crank up your bass amp and get more "oomph" out of it since the
human ear is not as sensitive to distortion at the low end of the
ear's response curve. The high-pass filters on the mids and tweets
protect these smaller, delicate speakers from being literally roasted
by high-energy, low-frequency signals (a typical tweeter playing full
range will probably only handle about 0.5 to 1 Watt before it goes
*poof*); and the low-pass filter on the midrange speakers keep them
from trying to reproduce frequencies for which they were not designed--
which is right around where those speakers have their resonant peak
and start sounding screechy.

I know I've taken the long way around answering this question, but I
figured that the basics of why we use crossovers needed to be laid
out. Does all of this help, or did I just muddy the waters for you?

-dan
Mariachi - 18 Mar 2007 05:58 GMT
> > I have a question about 4-ways... Is it true that a 4-way's midrange
> > will sound better when it only has midrange frequencies going through
[quoted text clipped - 61 lines]
>
> -dan

I pretty much understood everything you said and I agree to mostly
everything.  Except, I know in some of JBL's stereo loudspeakers
[meant for DJs or rock concerts], they have a 2 14" speaker components
with a horn or ribbon tweeter on top.  One 14" speaker is used for
midrange and the other 14" is used for the low to mid bass (around 46
Hz - 120 Hz).  And I think the 14" components are exactly the same
except they are filtered differently.

Array Series 4894, 4894-10
http://www.jblpro.com/pages/tour/array.htm

So, in cars for example, you could have a subwoofer filtered for
100-300 Hz and another sub for 20-100 Hz and it would probably sound a
lot better (better quality i mean) than if you had the same subs
filtered the same way.  And also, I'm all for bass in my front
speakers for a virtual live setting where the bass seems like its
coming from the front and not from the back, but once you get so low
it doesn't really matter anymore because the bass waves have such a
big wavelength that you can't really tell where they are coming from
anyways.  And also, if you have too much bass coming from your front
speakers it could take away the stereo effect and hence the music
would sound more "mono" like, because you're front speaker would roll
off the frequencies in the higher end in order to keep up the more
"mono" waves in the lower end.  Therefore the "best" solution (in my
opinion) would be to have your 2/3/4-way front speakers to be filtered
to 65-20,000 Hz to achieve the maximum stereo effect, all at the same
time maintaining the live bass setting.
D.Kreft - 19 Mar 2007 04:22 GMT
> I pretty much understood everything you said and I agree to mostly
> everything.  Except, I know in some of JBL's stereo loudspeakers
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Hz - 120 Hz).  And I think the 14" components are exactly the same
> except they are filtered differently.

I'm not sure why you would say that this is not in agreement with what
I posted earlier, nor am I sure how this is really even relevant.

> So, in cars for example, you could have a subwoofer filtered for
> 100-300 Hz and another sub for 20-100 Hz and it would probably sound a
> lot better (better quality i mean) than if you had the same subs
> filtered the same way.

Well, if a driver plays from 100-300Hz, then by definition, it is a
woofer not a subwoofer. Subbass is typically defined to be those
frequencies between 20Hz to about 90 or 100Hz.

This also is in agreement with my last post.

> ...but once you get so low
> it doesn't really matter anymore because the bass waves have such a
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> off the frequencies in the higher end in order to keep up the more
> "mono" waves in the lower end.

Huh? I'm a little confused. You first say (in essence) that "low
frequencies are not localizable"--which is true. Then you go on to say
that if you have too much LF information up front it'll make your
system sound more "mono-like" which I completely disagree with. I
can't think of the last time my home audio system sounded "mono-like"
because I had "lotsa lows" coming from up front. This is silly. We get
our localization cues from high frequencies, not low ones, so it
doesn't make a difference where your lows are. In the *ideal* setup,
you'd want it all in front of you anyway--just like at a concert (I've
yet to meet anyone who likes to go to concerts and sit with his back
to the stage).

> Therefore the "best" solution (in my
> opinion) would be to have your 2/3/4-way front speakers to be filtered
> to 65-20,000 Hz to achieve the maximum stereo effect, all at the same
> time maintaining the live bass setting.

I'm not sure what you mean by "live bass setting."

Your XO point for your mids should be as low as possible to allow for
the greatest portion of musical program to come from the front of the
car...limited, of course, by the physical and thermal limitations of
your midbass drivers.

-dan
Mariachi - 19 Mar 2007 16:20 GMT
I wasn't disagreeing with you or anything, just mentioning a
particular example.

What I meant was, speakers like a 6.5" 4-way will play better mids and
highs when it is not overloaded with subbass, therefore you have
better stereo imaging because the mids and highs are better.  But if
your 6.5" can play highs and mids without any distortion because of
the subbass frequencies going through them, then it's ok.

> > I pretty much understood everything you said and I agree to mostly
> > everything.  Except, I know in some of JBL's stereo loudspeakers
[quoted text clipped - 52 lines]
>
> -dan
D.Kreft - 19 Mar 2007 19:40 GMT
> I wasn't disagreeing with you or anything, just mentioning a
> particular example.

Ahh.

> What I meant was, speakers like a 6.5" 4-way will play better mids and
> highs when it is not overloaded with subbass, therefore you have
> better stereo imaging because the mids and highs are better.  But if
> your 6.5" can play highs and mids without any distortion because of
> the subbass frequencies going through them, then it's ok.

I'm still not sure I agree with the notion that you'll get better
stereo imaging because subbass frequencies are filtered-out. All the
filtering is really going to do is allow you to play your system at
higher volume levels with less distortion. Stereo imaging, however, is
not a function of the loudness of the system--it's a function of
having good phase alignment of your drivers with respect to each
other. If your argument were true, then you'd have to say that the
louder your system gets, the better it images...which does not seem to
hold true in practice.

Does that make sense?

-dan
95Honda - 18 Mar 2007 07:02 GMT
Only in Newsgroups would you type entire paragraphs on Sony 6x9s..
LOL..

--
95Honda
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.