Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Car Audio / March 2007
Rare 6x9 from Sony
|
|
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
|
|
|