Well I know i shouldnt be doing this... but im considering it sadly. What do people think of the Dynaudio 240MK II system this has the 7" woofer with it And how do these compare to the Boston Z6 speakers the rest of the system i own is all Boston

The current model is System242.

dyn's have a warmer sound than Boston.
I personally didn't like the Z6 tweeters

cant commend them enough personally... we've done alot of systems using the 242's and they've all sounded fantastic, if you can, get the gt version, its mostly a basket re-design but people that have upgraded to the gt over the mw160 have been very pleased with the outcome

isnt the GT just a slimline version of the woofer?

more a 'narrow line' version.

the size of the basket differs considerably. i can't fit the MW160 into my doors this time around without having to cut the hole bigger - a no-no for me. so i'm fitting the MW160GT instead. though i would prefer the stiffness of the basket of the regular MW160 to the GT version.

they pretty much sound the same! so fit whatever fits!

Im yet to be dissapointed by the sound of Dyns. As mentioned in your other thread, installation has much to do with the over all sound.

Ive never been a fan of the Dyn 2ways. Way to flawed in my opinions. They dont play low enough, or high enough, lack details, and colour the image way to much when comparing them to other splits at the same price level.

However, in defence to Dynaudio, there 3way system sounds much, much better, and would rate up there as one of my favourite speaker sets.

bro i think we could blind fold u and run a set of $30 jaycar 5" coaxials , which happen to be the greatest cheapest speaker in the world and you would give a better opinion than the one you gave for dyn

Going to stick with the Z6's for now..

my next upgrade will most likely include Dynaudio speakers

I express no regrets for my opinions on the Dyn 2ways. I know others who share my opinions. Muzzy is an example.

However, as critical as I am of the Dynaudio, i admit I have only heard them run passive (perhaps active is a huge improvement). I also am very found of the 3way Dyns, and believe the added midrange driver takes away alot of the flaws.

I also admit that I have never hear the Dyns in a car, only in a demo room, but, I think this was the best place to make a fair, and balanced comparison.

Lastly, it may seem I am saying that the Dyn 2ways are crap, this is not the case. This is all relative to other things in their price range, I am sure that the Dynaudios would be better than any product Jaycar produces.

Dyn's are tricky when run active, and sound a lot different in-car to a demo board.

Brands are important factors of our mobile sounds but for me either of the two brands can be considered to have a good quality sound system... It only depends on the owner of the car and who's listening to the music..

I do, indeed.

The Dynaudio's I heard (back to back with several competing speakers, in the same listening room) definately had considerable technic flaws in a number of areas. Given the price tag and reputation they carry, they left me unimpressed to say the least.

Most of their flaws I'd consider to be significant on a $300 set of splits, and (in my humble opinion) are straight-out unnacceptable on a component set costing in excess of $1,000.

A pity too, because I really wanted to love those speakers.

tbh Ive never had a chance to listen to Dynaudio's...
In auckland we only get a limited range of speakers to listen to in shops...
brands like Sony, Fusion, Soundstream, JVC, Kenwood etc

there is one or 2 shops that have a set of Rainbow Van's and boston splits... but thats it!

We at SQ central want you to go back to the room with a video camera a set of blind folds and we want a verbal explenation of the weakness of all said speakers after you listen to each one , then we want you to catergorise each of them in regards to SQ. Lets see if u really have golden ears
dont be shy ,

The first time i demo'd the dyn sys 242 on a demo board, i too though the price seemed a bit inflated for the performance as with no eq and auditioned back to back with others (eg. focal k2p), they seemed to be lacking in a couple of areas. However, i did like the sound and, in order to cater to my listening tastes and based on the advice of professionals on how they perform in-car (which is all that matters really), i optioned for them over the other ~$1k alternatives. Now, properly installed with dynamat and plain chant, run off a good amount of power and with some eq fiddling, i can say they truly are worthy of their price tag. Lack of tuning especially seems to mask what they are capable of but they are also not very forgiving when it comes to poor recordings. I can understand those that have doubts as to their quality but i recommend these people autition them in-car in an sq setup and i'm sure they will be far less critical.

Just my 2c

I'm sure when the boffins in Denmark designed the 242 they specifically had in mind how they would sound in a demo board, especially as they are a 'car' speaker.

If you've got something intelligent to say, I'm all ears, otherwise, pipe down.

Never have I been disappointed in the performance of a Dynaudio product. I have on many occasions discovered failings in my design concepts using them. Without question Dyn audio gear is among the very best and the comment by one poster about using Jaycar gear has value.

Critical to any speaker is the design criteria and most importantly acoustical environment. IMO if you intend to achieve great results. it makes sense to start with great gear, It may be more rewarding to use average gear and achieve great results. {save a crap load of money the way}.

Boston makes a great driver but to me has always sounded …… un-natural.

But then I listen to real instruments …..

Go ahead - put your money where your mouth is and have it organised.

I'll hapilly do it, and I can say with a very high degree of confidence that I will come to the exact same conclusions for every single speaker.

I have no 'personal' bias against speaker brands or speakers. If i hear a speaker, and it sounds good, then I'll say it sounds good regardless of who built it. Likewise, if it sounds very flawed I will say so.

My personal feeling towards Dynaudios was increadibly positive before I listened to them (several times) back to back with those other speakers. My personal feeling towards Focal's was also a little negative after hearing a cheaper pair and being unimpressed.

So if my personal bias came into it in any way, I would have ignored the Dynaudio's flaws and said they were great, and I would have made up bs to criticise the Focals - I didn't.

Also, If personal brand bias determined my car audio directions, then I'd still be using Rainbow.

You can throw any blind folded challenge you want at me and I'll hapilly take part. As long as it's the same speakers in th same room off the same source/amp I will come up with the same conclusions.

This is the problem with a lot of stores.

If you foud the Focal's sounded better, then chances are they DID sound better to you. I think it's silly for the person from the store to tell you 'speaker A sounds better to you, but speaker B sounds better in a car so get them". With all due respect to the salesperson / installer this is merely a BS statement made in order to either cover up their lack of expertise, or the lack of care in making the speakers sound good.

In this particular circimstance it's not that the Dyn's sound better in a car, they are just EASIER to install effectively in a car. The reason for this, is that they use very low crossover points on very shallow slopes, and the result is that when they are thrown randomly into car doors completely off axis, they suiit it better. Because they are crossed lower then say, the Focals, the tweeters take over from the mids sooner and so the off-axis rolloff on the mids is less pronounced, which translates into less midrange gap. The crossover design of the Dynaudio's makes them easier to adapt effectively into a car environment, but it's not without sacrifice. The crossover is built to suit a 'just chuck it all in' car install, rather then being designed to suit the drivers. This means that Dyn's are quite limited in terms of HOW good they can sound in a car. They'll be more consistent because they are easy to have sounding decent, however provide far less reward and benefit for extra installational care. If you spend the time to work out the perfect positions, the perfect tuning, etc they don't rewards you as much because the components limit their outright performance.

With the Focal's, they run a significantly higher and steeper crossover point, up over 3khz. They do this because the 6K2P is a very good midbass driver, and is actually one of very few 6.5" car audio drivers out there that legitimately CAN play pretty cleanly up to 3khz and slightly beyond. This midbass driver does perform better in pretty much every area then the Dynaudio midbass does, and I can confidently conclude that it is a better driver by a good margin. The issue with the Focals is that the crossovers are designed for the components, and to make the most of the capabilities of the components. In this regard, the crossovers are built very well and suit the drivers pretty much to perfection. The high crossover point makes life easier on the tweeter, and they can afford to do that because the brilliant midrange has the performance to match. any 6.5" driver begins to roll off somewhere around 1.5khz-2khz. Slapped in doors, heavilly off axis, the more you go above this frequency range the more loss of signal you will get. Because the Focals mids are crossed to play up to about 3.5khz, you are essentially loosing almost all detail between 2khz and 3.5khz which is dead in the middle of the critical upper midrange. Such a significant gap in such an important place can have all kinda of nasty effects on sound, because we humans often percieve sound relatively (i.e. we dont hear it for what it is, we hear it relative to the frequencies around it). Such a gap will exhagerate harsh areas elsewhere in the frequency range, will kill vocal detail, and can even cause perceived harshness in areas where it doesn't exist.

So this is the reason why people claim that Dyn's work better in a car. The reality is that the Focal's are a more accurate speaker, but installation is absolutely critical to their performance. Because of the nature of their crossovers and drivers, they must be installed on appropriate angles, in appropriate positions in order to achieve their potential. When they are give appropriate attention and thought into their install, they will reward you with brilliantly ballanced sound that (from car audio speaker sets) is very, very hard to beat. However, if your idea of a good installation is chucking them randomly into car doors, and depending on the hope that sound deadening will defy the laws of physics and correct for poor speaker positioning, then the speakers will likely dissaopint someone who knows what to listen for.

Dynaudio's take a very similar approach to Morel in their speaker system designs in that both companies use low crossover points (usually 2khz - 2.5khz). This helps to correct for poor installations somewhat by minimising the impact of off axis response, however it also adds additional strain in the tweeters (most of which face dramatic inegative impacts on distortion and power handling once they go below 3khz). They also use shallow crossover slopes (usually 6dB / 12dB) - these further assist with reducing off axis roll off, but also futher contributes to tweeter strain and distortion. This is why Dynaudio's are more isntall friendly. They work ok in bad installs, and above average in good installs. The Focal's (and alot of other speakers) work poorly in bad installs, and brilliant in good installs.

So in conclusion, are Dynaudios more suitable for car installs? No, but but they are more suitable in circumstances where you know you are strictly limited to installing in car doors off axis, because youa re limted by stealth, space, cost, or general sytem complexity. In no compromise installs that are carefully thought out, the K2P's should win out pretty much every time.



Perhaps you should think about what others say before criticising their views and telling them to 'pipe down'.

You see, ar3nbe is actually in a way correct in what he says. A good listening room (such as the one I auditioned all of the speakers in) is generally a far better environment then a car is for listening to a speaker and determining it's capabilities. It actually makes a LOT more sense auditioning these speakers in a listening room then it does auditioning them in a car, and let me tell you why.

Firstly, no two environments are the same, but car environments typically vary a LOT more then room environments. Car environments feature many different strange shapes and materials all within very close proximity to the drivers, and so these environmental variations affect the speakers more in general then they do effect a room (because a room is larger, so the effects play less impact).

Secondly, listening rooms (or at least the one I listened in) are usually set up with a single straight source, a single amplifier, a single set of speakers, and a subwoofer - all set at the same crossover point and all set up with absolutely no aftermarket tuning.

Thirdly, in listening rooms you are typically always going to have the speakers in a similar location (in front of you, with similar L/R seperation, and at comparable heights), while in a car speaker location, position and angle can differ dramatically.

And finally, in a listening room speakers are typically always installed into MDF based enclosures of a sufficient volume, properly wired up, and correctly installed. Car installs can vary dramatically from door installs with and without sound deadening, to enclosure installs, to different doors having different volumes/shapes/rigidity, to tweeters placed in different places with different degrees of glass reflection, etc.

The point I'm trying to make here, is that when you audition different speakers back to back in a listening room, you are almost exclusively comparing the speakers themselves. When you compare speakers in cars, you are comparing the installation, the tuning, and the environment as much as you are comparing the speakers. A set of speakers will potentially sound completely different from one car install to another, even if all components (sub, amps, source, cables) are identical. The changes in environment, positioning and tuning are enough to change the sound completely. How do you know if you really like speaker A better then speaker B? Maybe you only like speaker A's installation better, but not the actual speaker?

I can most likey install a pair of fairly average speakers to sound better then a pair of very good speakers worth double the money...all I have to do is install the good speakers poorly, and the average speakers very well. If people listen to both cars, they will be convinced that the average speaker is better but it isn't...the reality is that the quality of the installation is higher to the point where it offsets the other speaker's strenghts.

However, in listenign rooms, comparing different speakers side by side in the same position and the same room, off the same components, presents no bias to any one speaker. What you are hearing in this situation is pretty much PURELY the speaker. If one speaker sounds better, it's because it IS better - not because someone sabotaged the other one via an unsiutable install.

I hope this helps things make a little more sense

muzzy, just to clarify, i was never informed (or stated) that the focals did not perform as well as the dyn's once installed, just that the dyns were not to be written off as inferior as they have proved themselves in multpiple installs. I personally opted for the dyns primarily because i am not a fan of focal tweeters as i feel they dont suit my tastes or the music i listen to (and I say this having owned focals in the past, professionally installed of course).

I can respect your opinion on the dyns differs from many other people, and clearly you are not a fan of the sound. I still dont feel this is a reason to write them off as a completely inferior option though, I'm sure many users (including those using them for sq comps) would agree that they have some merit.

PS. i'm not sure how many people purchasing speakers with an rrp of just over $1000 would be favouring the 'just chuck it all in' install approach.

Quit this jibber jabber.

I'll bring some sanity to this thread.

Send ME all the speakers you want rated.

I'll do blind fold test on all of them in my lounge and in the car.

I note that the dyns and focals are comping up a lot in this thread.

Put your money where your mouth is.

send over a set of Utopia BEs and a set of thoe fancy new Dyns for the test.

All results will be youtubed (i.e. just a vid of my grinning face as I listen to the speakers)

geez can some one start bagging the overrated ness of the morel supremo set so that we can hassel rma to send over a set for me to play with too?

p.s. speakers will nto be returned.

Ahh, fair enough!!

I realised after I typed it that my post probably looked as though i was attacking / arguing with you, but that wasn't my intention - my apologies if it came across the wrong way.

The disagreement is with the retailers / installers, because many of them do have this viewpoint that certain speakers are a better 'demo board' speaker, while others are a better 'in car' speaker.

This is a common thing that I hear people suggest quite often - the perception that a certain speaker will sound better when you it into a car. It saddens me when i hear these things from professionals in the industry, because it's not true. A car environment doesn't change a speaker's capabilities. If a speaker is better in a board, then it will be better in a car as long as it is installed in a suitable manner. This is the main point I was trying to make.

Sorry if it sounded like an attack in any way!!



To be blatantly honest, I used to be a bit of a die-hard Rainbow/Dynaudio man for years. I heard Dyn's a couple of times when I first got into audio (before I was experienced with it, and when I had limited knowledge) and the Dynaudio's absolutely blew me away. For years since that day, I always told myself that one day, I would buy Dynaudio speakers.

Early last year, I broke down my custom three-way Rainbow front stage and decided it was time to downscale to a more simple two-way system. I had uni to concentrate on, and I found that a three-way actve system just took too much of my time and effort on tuning, installing, and cashflow. In the end I ended up deciding to downscale to a relativlely affordable two way system with the challenge of buliding myslf the best modestly-priced two way system possible.

My tweeter choice became Scanspeak, and it was a no brainer. There was nothing on the planet that i could find that came close to those tweeters for overall performance, and although they were not cheap they were so much better then everything else that I didn't care.

The mids, was a more difficult choice. Being two-way, i didn't have the luxury of a dedicated midrange/midbass, so I needed a majorly impressive midrange: something with strong midbass, yet something that could play flat up to at least 2.5khz to allow for a comfortable crossover point for the tweeter. It came down to Dynaudio 242 GT midbass, or the 6K2P midbass.

Based on the past history, I really wanted the Dyn's. I was almost going to just buy them, so convince was I by my previous love of them. But, I decided I wanted no regrets, so I decided to listen to the two back-to-back. I had a chance to do this with about 5 or 6 other high end speaker sets and from a purely objective point of view (i.e. based on characteristics not personal preference) the Dynaudio's dissapointed me so much I was almost heartbroken.

Most notabable weaknesses were:
1) Despite being in a well setup listening room, the Dyn's displays noticable image drift. Given the room was essentially a hi-fi style setup (sitting on a couch, speakers in custom carpetted enclosures about 3 metres in front of me, about 2 metres apart, and about 30deg off axis) every other speaker presented a rock solid image with no significant drift as frequencies changed. This could only lead me to assume that the Dyn's either had inconsistent performance (i.e. left speakers and right speakers had weak frecuency matching) or that they had poor control over phase.

2) Strong exhageration in the lower midrange (400hz-800hz, give or take) which gave the speakers an unnatural overtone on vocals (kind of a horn like note). The result was that a wide range of midrance frequencies really screams out above everything else, and it gave the speakers an overall aggressiveness in the midrange that led to me not being able to listen to them for more then about 10-15 mins.

3) Heavy and early roll-off in the lower midbass. On one test track with a scaling bass guitar sequence, the Dyn's did the weakest job at reproducing the sequence. They played about the first 35% of the notes solidly, the next 15% of the notes very softly, and then the next 30% of the notes pretty much inaudible. After this the subwoofer kicked in and filled out the final 20% of the notes. The result was a clearly audible 'U' effect where the bass guitar seemed to start out strong, thin out, disappear, and then come back again (when the sub kicked in). While every speaker had this "U" effect to a certain degree, in the Dynaudio's it was clearly the most pronounced. By comparison, the Focals did the best in this test only softening out only on roughly 10% of the notes (i'd estimate around 70hz-80hz) and reproducing the rest of them with impressive even-ness. Other strong performers in this test were the Hertz Mille (which overall managed to dissapoint a little overall) and the Boston Z6 (which overall, pleasantly surprised me). It didn't only effect that track - on another track (Nothing else matters by Metallica) the initial kick drums sound had a thin yet boomy nature to them. Rather then a tight, solid snap they sounded as if they had a thin hollow tap filled out slightly boomy 'droop'. It was clear that those lower midbass notes in betwee that provide that 'punch' just weren't there - it seemed as if there was almost nothing from 80hz - 120hz. We tried the same tracks with the Focals did a much more impressive job of reproducing every solid impact from each kick. I actually plays both tracks on both sets of speakers (as a couple of people didn't belive me) and all people present (one of whom had experience working in a high end hi-fi store) unanimously aggreed that the Focal's reproduced the track far more convincing, and that the Dynaudio's just didn't quite sound right.

Thinking of the way the Dynaudio's performed it pretty much came down to this.
* Out of selection of quality high end speakers (every speaker was $800+ rrp), the Dynaudio set was the only set I listened to for which I couldn't identify any real strenghts. There just didn't seem to be anything that they did well enough to stand out above any other speaker.

* In addition to their lack of strengths, they were the only speaker that had flaws significant enough to make me not want to listen to them. Every speaker had some degree of faults that I picked up (some more significant then others) but every speaker aside from the Dynaudio set left me with an overall positive impression (to varying degrees).

* I didn't want my conclusion to be what it was (I was looking for new mids, and the Dyn's were at the to of my list), but in the end I had no choice but to come to the conclusion I came to. If they were a $600 speaker system or maybe a $700 speaker system, then I could probably recommend them without too much trouble. As a $1,000+ speaker system, I just don't feel as if that have what it takes to compete against speaker sets in that price range...and it's a pity.

P.s. To finish the above story, I was this close *makes hand action* to buying the Focal's when I bit the bullet and took a risk on Scanspeak Revelators instead. They are billiant mids, and for a combination of midbass and midrange, they proved very impressive. Not perfect (they some peakiness in the upper midrange) but the single flaw was easy enough to correct for, and they were overall about as good as anything else out there.



Sadly, too many!

My definition of the 'just chuck it all in' install approach is this:
1 ) Take expensive components and interconnects with good reputations from fancy brands
2 ) Smother door with Dynamat and Dynaxorb to turn it into a half-arsed enclosure (for a limited bottom end and guaranteed resonances)
3 ) Install midbass into factory door location on factory angle (somewhere between 70deg and 90eg off axis to the listener, so you lose all upper midrange frequencies)
4 ) Install factory passive crossovers, which results in a abysmal damping factor (killing almost all low frequency control over midbass drivers)
5 ) Set HPF on midbass drivers to somewhere aroud 80hz or lower (where pretty much no 6.5" on earth will play down to)
6 ) Attempt to compensate for way-too-low crossover by overlapping with subbass (by using a shallow 6dB/12dB LPF on the sub)
7 ) Stick the tweeters in the kick panels, sails, doors or A-pillrs mounted flush, 70deg-90deg off-axis (so they only play flat up to around 9khz and then start to roll off)
8 ) Make ineffective over-use of time alignment in an attempt to make it sound better (in practice making it 10x worse)
9 ) Massively abuse EQ in an attempt to fix midbass, midrange and treble flaws (in the process causing tons of phase problems, because EQ changes phase)
10) Sit back, listen to the system and think "hmm...that sounds good enough! Lets call the customer and say it's ready!!"

In complete honesty, I would say the above approach has been used in approximately 70% of all professionally installed 'sq' systems I have experienced.

That would make for a very interesting comparison! I have actually heard the Be's but it wasn't in the same listening room as the other speakers, so I can't comment on how they perform in comparison. Based purely on their response graphs I'd imagine they would be very, very good once you take away the common in-car limitations - but I can't say anything until I've heard it for myself.

I would expect nothing short of brilliance from both sets.

That said, it's not really relevant to comparing the K2P's and 242's. Being the same brands, doesn't necessarilly mean the higher end sets will have similar styles of sound.

I like dyn because to me they sound better.

as for easier to install - well, I think a well designed speaker will sound good in most installs -

imagine if you had to install your speakers half-way up the dash and pointing at 10º off-axis with 7litres enclosure and 100mm clear baffle surround with no more than 75mm PLD and special sound absorbing seats... just so your speakers sound good????

an exaggeration, but still what Muzzy is saying... or just chuck in some Dyn's and she'll be apples.

I have toiled long and long (never hard) to get my Dyn's mounted in the right positions for best sound... and it works.

as for the shallow slope crossovers - that's to minimise phase errors, and maximise integration of tonality between the drivers. I am running fully active, but using Dyn's crossover points and slopes... the results are phenomenal. much better than trying to re-guess what the Dyn engineers spent hours of testing to discover.

ahhh yes i want to discredit your professorship here , hmmm not really though .muzzy u keep posting stuff that really needs to be documented, you know everyone who goes on and on about specs and graphs and documented this and that gets in the auditions and says they can hear better than a rta, but when it comes to driver selection they have this anal approach that it needs flat line rta blah blah and phase every documentaion and whatever else there is to measure.
Its the true wine and cheese philosophy in that you will argue till the death of a thread yet your ears are the gold and thats it, YOUR EARS ARE GOLD AND U ARE ABOVE THE REPROACH OF THE COMPANIES SPEC SHEETS.
Now im not having a go at u muzzy so please dont think i am , i would have put the other wine and cheese names in here but i never read their posts and i forgot their names ,haha

pulse-r:
When I say the speakers are very sensitive to the correct installation, all I mean is that actual driver position and angle needs to be carefully considered, rather then the approch most people take of just putting them in the doors on whatever angle the doors happen to provide, and assuming that a few sheets of dynamat will fix everything.

Fact is that essentially every speaker on the planet gets effected by things like off-axis response, even Dynaudio's.

Some drivers, such as Dyn's run specific setup's that assist with this - such as low crossover points with shallow slopes. These specific settings may not be implemented for that specific reason, however because of that reason, it results in them taking less of an impact when mounted on unsuitable angles.

Remember, I'm not saying that Dyn's installed in my above-descibed manner will work briliant well...they won't. In fact, barely anything will. Positioning and angle still matters, and it still matters a hell of a lot. Off axis Dyn mids in doors will still give you a midrange gap, off-axis Dyn tweeters will still roll off pretty heavilly after 10k, and Dyn midbass drivers in doors will still lose extension and resonate in the bottom end. In fact, with the exception of the uppermidrange issue (which isnt as big a problem due to crossover points) everything else on the Dyn's will be effected just as badly.

Also, yes are correct that a 6dB slope on a passive results in better control over impedance then a steeper slope does. It's not all peachy with the shallow slopes either though - the Dyn tweeters are known (from objective tests) to struggle below 3k (they show increased distortion by a big degree below this). A more shallow slope is sometimes just as straining as a lower crossover point (because it results in more low frequencies going to the driver) and so combining a 6dB slope with a low crossover point does the Dynaudio tweeters no favours either. I'd image this has a lot to do with why so many people in the past have reported issues with Dynaudio tweeter protection systems constantly cutting in, and the tweeters themselves blowing.

Basically, it comes down to what you want in a system. Are you really serious about getting the best possible sound with what you have, or are their other things that take priority?

For some people, a 'stealth' or 'factory' look is the most critical requirement, and this takes preference over outright performance. In this case, you'll be very limited in what you can do with your speaker positioning / angling and so you will probably find that Dyns or Morels would integrate a little better then something like K2P's.

For other people, performance is priority number one - they dont care that much whether it's invisible or not, as long as it sounds the goods. In such situations where outright performance is first priority, you put things wherever they give the best performance (realistically of course). In the case of the Focal's, you'd go the mids in MDF of glass enclosures in kicks or on doors (somewhere where you can get them to around 30deg off axis) and tweeters somewhere up high where you can get similar angles without having the path blocked by legs or centre consoles. Achieving this, the mids will beautifully up to around 2.5k - 3k, and then the tweters will take over and play up to around 15k before beginning to significantly roll off. Also, by having a proper sealed enclosure, you can model your mids and get a decent idea of how they will play so that it gives you a good starting point on where you need to cross them over, and where they might need eq (if any). Being in the proper sealed enclosure, you will find you midrange sounds much more precise (the waves aren't bouncing all over the inside of the car door) and you won't get those irritating resonances.

Anyways I'll save the further commenting now as I have written enough annoying essays for one thread!

Btw, I'm not trying to be a big pain in the ass and don't want to come across as some 'know-it-all-who-thinks-he's-god' here, just bringing up a couple of factors that may be worth considering. Alot of people really don't understand how much impact things like angle and position can make - it can absolutely make or break a system.

'zion:
No disrespect intended, but I have no idea what you were trying to say in that post

Dyn's tweeter crossovers are 12dB.
but yes, and I am using Morel tweeters still.
yes, low crossover frequencies help with off-axis driver placement.

3-way for SQ... yay!!
then the off-axis midbass in the doors doesn't need to do the high mids, and the mids and tweeters can be optimised for placement without compromising midbass extension, or optimum dispersion.

You heard my car at Wagga last year - well now it's twice as good (IMHO), and all I did was change the source unit and re-tune the crossovers & TA.

I could have sworn Dyn crossovers used to be 6dB/oct? I must have been something I was smoking!

Indeed three-way is definately the way to go when space permits - it can bring some mighty stunning results for a person willing to put the tuning time in.

Trying a new concept now in my MX-5 - will be interesting to see how it turns out. There are a couple of factors that could potentially hold it back from working as planned, but i'm always up for an experiment!!!

At initial looks they appear to be 6db slopes but I believe Simon (Pulse-R) has a set and he broke down the circuit and it appears they are actually a 6db slope with another 6db slope on top of that, so they get an inital 6db slope then a bit further on it becomes a 12db slope with the addition of the second 6db slope, or something like that, Pulse-R I'm sure can explain it correctly that was just my interpretation of something he wrote about them.

Pulse-R can you explain how they work?

They're both. They have a 6dB shallow slope on one driver, for phase perfect response, with a 12dB on the other.

When the slopes are combined with the natural rolloff of the driver, they do pull down harder. Its a setup utilizing both the mechanical and electrical rolloffs.

the initial slope on the tweeter is 4.5kHz/6dB, and then about 3kHz, another 6dB kicks in, to take the edge off the tweeter response and blend with the mid.
That's on the X360 anyways - not sure about how they do 2-way, but I'd think it was similar.

oo nice

do many other speaker manufacturers do this?

ive always wondered how the boston z6 crossovers are set up

screen shot of composite curves in 3-way Dynaudio system.
Click to view attachment
This is theoretical, based on expected in-car response and passive crossover measurements:

The website lists the X 252 (2-way) crossover frequency as 2.2khz, which is far too low imo as far as optimal driver performance is concerned. I can think of only about 2 tweeters that will handle playing that low reasonably well, and neither of them are car speakers.

It doesn't make any mention of the slopes, however, so not sure on that part.

Wont be more then 12dB/oct. As you reach 18 and 24dB/oct (and up) passives, the number of caps, coils and chokes you need increases substantially to maintain linear playback with good phase characteristics.

sure u didnt , thats why your next post was one of your better essays

No, I really geniunely had no idea of what you were trying to say. My later post was mostly a response to Pulse-R... :S

You should probably apply for a job with Dynaudio and let them know that in your opinion they don't have a clue how to design speakers and crossovers. I guess their thirty years of experience and 70 odd R&D engineers are no match for your long hours of experience behind the keyboard. I never cease to be amused by the posts on this most esteemed website. More please......

Dont always assume companies are out there to make the best quality product, and put a whole heap of research into things. They are out there to make a profit, and a profit only.

Your comment above lacks intelegence as it proves you infact have little knowledge on many audio concepts, and rather than researching/learning for yourself you want to just take onboard anything a company makes, and think its the best thing since slice bread.

In defence of Muzzy he is has a wealth of knowledge, and most of it is not from reading books, or posting forums, but from simply listening, experimenting, and listening somemore.

You honestly need to get out of your shell, and enter the real world, one were people think.

i must say, i really like dynaudio. i think the SQ from their speakers is excellent, and i've had much enjoyment from their products (and success in competition), and most recently continued to support their products (with a dyn upgrade).

so they have great potential.

granted, i think their tweeter in the system240/242 is a relative weak link, but i don't expect a perfect set of speakers for the money.

i also haven't listened to a set of focal 165K2P (for example) to compare.

at the end of the day, dyn and focal offer great products. like most things, it's how you use them to their best potential. most people don't build their systems for competition, nor care too much if they don't win; so there's not a lot of merit worrying too much about it when, at the end of the day, they can sound so good.

btw, i prefer a lowish xover setting for the tweeter. much easier to achieve good imaging and stageheight with the tweeters playing more of the frequency response. i have typically crossed tweeters over quite lower when possible (ie: in active setups).

of course, i'm not saying i'm an expert (in all this technical stuff) or that my way is the best way. i just tweak until it sounds great, and it has worked.

I think one of the main things with the dyns, is that they start to shine when given lots of power. I had them running off 85wrms per side, but when I changed to 350wrms per side, they sounded amazingly better
I love them!

Do me a favour - do some research in the Dynaudio MD100 tweeter (and it's replacement which to my knowledge, has very similar characteristics).

Once you have done this research, you can describe to me how good their distortion levels at 2.2khz and below.

Yes, I know you aren't going to do that. Firstly because you probably don't understand the impact of distortion on sound, secondly because you probably aren't sure of how to read a distortion graph, and thirdly because you know you aren't going to like the results.

Now, tell me how Dynaudio's passive networks can be that well designed that they can actually improve the drivers' natural characteristics (hint: they can't be - a passive crossover can only ever impact on a driver negatively, not positively).

Don't get me wrong, I'm not intending to be rude or have a go at you - I understand your position because I was once the same. Once, I was one of those guys who believed that brand labels, high sticker prices and good reputations made a good speaker.

Then I did some reaearch of my own, and I learned the most unusual surprise - that it's actually good speaker design (not high sticker price) that makes a good speaker. This is why a set of $250 Peerless HDS tweeters outperform a set of $400 Dynaudio MD100's in basically every single objective test taken, and the reason why a set of $250 Peerless HDS Exclusive 7's can hold their own against a pair of $1,400 Rainbow Platinum 7's. Yes I've seen the comparison, and yes I still have a link to that comparison which includes all subjective analysis, as well as objective tests which back it all up.

Truth is, reputation, brand names, fancy labels, big dollar tags - they all mean absolutely d*ck in the real world. It's how a speaker performs that counts.

No, haven't invested millions of dollars into speaker design, no I couldn't build a better speaker system then what Dynaudio has built. In fact, I couldn't build a speaker at all. However, other competing companies (such as Focal, Oz Audio, etc) have also invested similar degrees of money and time into their speaker design, and if you ask me they produced a better end product.

That is all

muzz, i'd be very interested in that comparison involving the hds 7" (is it the 830875? this is the peerless woofer i am considering).
might help me decide on my next set-up (planning to team with either the eton 25sd1, or HAT ProL1)

Spyne, its over at DIYMA in the Klippel test section.

I currently run Dyn, and they aren't that fantastic. Alright in the Car Audio category, and certainly decent considering its competition, but they really aren't that special. 15 year old technology people. That doesn't mean they don't sound good, because they do, but you can get better for cheaper by looking elsewhere, namely home and pro audio.

Anyone who thinks Dynaudio is at the forefront of development has their heads up their ar$es. The man behind the company is called Ejvind Skaaning, and hasn't worked there for years. Before Dynaudio, he started Scanspeak, and before that he worked at Seas. Now, he runs another company called Audiotechnology, which designs and markets drivers that are light-years ahead of Dyn.

Good company, good drivers, average crossovers. Can you get better for cheaper? Yes. Can you get worse, and pay more? Yes. Simply 'listening with your ears' doesnt do much help in this industry, because the majority of flaws are due to the environment.


Thats a statement that I'm afraid, is almost entirely fictional. Do some research on Notch filters, Zobel networks and impedance correction circuits before coming back with that bollocks.

Hence why I was careful in my wording. The passive can't really change the natural characteristics of the drivers in a positive way.

A passive crossover is applied to the signal, not the speaker itself. As such the passive network doesn't really take away the speakers flaws, it's more like it 'masks' them - essentially altering the characteristics of the signal in order to offset the driver's flaws. The actual physical flaws / limitations of the speaker itself remain.

A simple example: Using a passive crossover with a HPF at 2.5khz doesn't actually modify the speaker and stop it from playing those frequencies below 2.5k. It actually modifies the signal itself, removing the unwanted frequencies, and then passing those frequencies to the speaker. The driver (or transducer) simply accepts that signal and converts it into sound energy (to express it in a much simplified form).

Hence, what I'm trying to say is that if the speaker has certain 'limitations' without a passive crossover, it will still have those 'limitations' with one.

An example being those tweeters. If they can't play comfortably below 2.5khz without significant inreases in distortion, then that is a limitation of the speaker. You can 'offset' or 'bypass' that limitation by cutting out those frequencies and avoiding that limitation but you can't actually remove it without physically modifying the speaker itself.

Kinda like using EQ. If a speaker's response has a 3dB peak at 3khz, then that is a weakness of the driver. If you use EQ to flatten that out, you aren't removing the flaw - it may sound like you are, but you aren't. You are actually reducing that frequency by 3dB in the signal so that once it reaches the speaker the 'hole' in the signal and 'peak' in the driver somewhat cancel each other out and ballance out the sound.

It's like having a car which loses stability when you go over 160km/h because of aerodynamics. Now, how can you keep the car stable without physically altering it? The only way is to keep the car below 160km/h. The car's high speed stability flaw still exists, so you aren't making the car any better - you are simply bypassing that flaw by not exceeding 160km/h.

Muz, seriously if that's the way you want to think nothing can improve the natural characteristics of a driver, putting it in an enclosure could be a negative impact because it will affect the drivers natural characteristics, forget the fact that it may be improving the sound. By your theory I should never use any EQ any xover any TA or any Phase alignment etc... whether they be done actively or passively, or any type of enclosure because it's changeing the drivers natural characteristics and is therfore a negative influence to the driver, forget the fact it may be helping to improve the sound of a driver over just plain old full range with no outside affects. I'm sure even your ScanSpeak tweeters would sound bad to if run fullrange, but hey better not use any form of EQ, xover etc, because it will only be a negative impact on the driver whether there active or passive!!!

Stopping a speaker from playing outside it's passband and into breakup nodes/xmax/distortion must be a bad thing?

How is anything you said above different between an active crossover and a passive crossover? It's not. Both affect the signal going into the speaker, not the speaker itself.

Not to mention a passive crossover has the ability to ease the load on the amplifier, through the use of Zobel filters.

A loudspeaker system is the sum of its components, the raw drivers, the enclosure, the crossover (active or passive if you like), the cabling (however minute it might be), the amplifier(s), and ofcourse the source.
If you can use the characteristics of one part in the chain to offset those in another (ie: raise crossover point on midwoofer and on subwoofer to aleviate low end to the midbass), then what's the problem? After all, loudspeaker design is all about compromise.


DynAudio make some of the worlds most critically aclaimed speakers.
I've heard the DynAudio Evidences before, and I was swept away. The musicallity and enjoyment from these speakers was phenominal!
I've also heard Dyn's in many different cars/setups, and have been impressed with a lot of them. I have found them very musical, and smooth, easy to listen to.

Like Fury has said, a driver is simply one part of the overall system we call a 'Speaker'. Simply saying any acoustic response is due to the driver alone, is simply ridiculous. Like saying the entire experience of a drive is down to the type of tyre you have.

The various components into a speaker allow us to change, positively or negatively, the overall response of the speaker, by utilizing parameters of the driver and its natural response. I cant change the tread pattern on my tyres, by I can change camber/spring damping/wheel size/surface conditions to positively enhance my ride. The same applies here.

Luke/Fury:
I didn't say that Dynaudio shouldn't use passive crossovers, nor did I say their drivers should be run full range or unmodified.

I made the argument that the crossover points on the Dynaudio drivers do not suit the driver's characteristics. Another argued that this is bs, and that given the time and money invested itno designing the crossovers, they were obviously designed to suit the drivers.

My argument is that they don't suit the drivers becuase the Dynaudio tweeters are crossed at 2.2khz (according to Dynaudio), and at these frequencies the Dynaudio tweeters have very poor distortion characteristics. This distortion would effect the sound negatiely, as well as adding pressure onto the tweeters (since they are playing out of their comfort zone).

The point I'm trying to make is this: If those tweeters are not naturally capable of handling those frequencies without significant distortion levels, then no crossover design will change that. No passive crossover components will remove that distortion and suddenly allow the tweeters to play cleanly down to 2khz, or 1khz, or 500hz. I.s. The drivers have specific weaknesses that can not be removed via simply connecting a crossover. The only way to really eliminate this distortion in the tweeters is to bypass those frequencies that they struggle with - i.e. crossing them over at a higher frequency. Dyn didn't do this, hence the reasoning behind my statement.

Matt:
Yes, of course I know that a driver's natural response isn't the only thing you hear in a car. I never said that it was.