So, I've started a new installation and I'm not sure which woofers to go for my midbass. I'm most likely going to get Focal 165K2P splits for the front, but was considering getting the whole K3P setup with their additional bass driver component for rear fill.

I've also heard good things about the DDW6.5 woofers. So I'm asking anyone out there if they've heard either of these bass drivers in action? Or just any opinions in general...

Cheers guys!

by all reports you'll be hard pressed to beat the focal midbass extension kit I reckon.

The DD's have a very good reputation too, but I reckon you might as well stay with Focal. that way you have the option of passive or active setups.

See if you can have a listen to a car with the Focal K3P's in them - I doubt you'll be underimpressed...

doesnt Trav from Stylyn have this set up?

So you're wanting to put the midbass/midbass driver in the rear? Seems like a waste to me?

Trav has a very similar setup, but instead of the midbass extension kit, he just has another set of K2P splits in the back tuned a bit lower than the fronts. I went down there on saturday to have a listen to his system, but he only had his fronts operational at the time. I might have to go back there when everything's working. He said that the K3Ps will be just that little bit better than what he currently has.

The reason why I was comparing the DD bass drivers to the Focals was because of the price difference too. If their performance is on par, then I might as well save some cash and go the DD's, but I'm finding it very hard to find someone who actually has a pair installed in their car.

I assume all this will be run actively then? or are you going to run the midbass active and the splits passive?

I'm planning a similar setup, but two-way as compared to three-way. How would those DDW6.5 drivers run in a two way component setup? I'm thinking along the lines of DDW6.5 active, tweets (undecided yet, but soft dome) passive off an Eclipse XA4000.

are you going to build your passive crossover yourself?

might need to email DD_phil and ask his advice on that one then...

MGNTZD..


i've got a set of 100KP & 165KBE's running in my senator.. you're more than welcome to have a listen.. but the overall system needs fine tuning..
if you've got the focal's already, might as well go the KBE..

haha, realised what I wrote after i turned the pc off blond moment

I actually meant I might go passive with the the DDW6.5 woofers and DDX01a xovers, and decide on a tweeter. Wouldn't mind hearing the DDW6.5set with DD tweeters somewhere though. Anyone here know how the DD tweeters sound?

^^ Fudd does.

focal kbe in doors, deadened to the max and solid mounting... you cant go wrong imo...

bridged my jl amp from 75 to 150rms and they came alive. so feed em well...

soon im adding the k2 bass ext' kit, and having 150 on it aswell..
and keeping 150rms to the mid/tweet like it is now,, i cant wait..

hard pressed to find better for the $$$ i believe..

Have you heard W6.5s?

Phil

Yep and whilst theres no disputing the DD driver has the balls - it (IMO) doesnt have the finesse of the french speaker.

Going 3 ways I'd be tempted to go the focals - but for sheer output i'd be taking a close look at the DD for the $. But im a focal fan boy and I'd probably end up with the focals any way

I'm still not sure how I'm gonna set it all up. I'm leaning towards running the splits passive and the midbass active.. but is there much of an advantage of this over a full passive setup?

this setup is called "semi-active" and is not a bad way to go for people who havent run active before.

It allows you to vary the crossover point and slope (given that you have the processing power to do this either at the HU or the amp), and means that more power is available to the midbass because it isnt being used as heat by the passive crossover. It also means that you can delay (time align) your midbass speakers and your splits separately (again, assuming you've got the processor to do it) which can be a good thing too.

It also means that you're less likely to blow up a tweeter because you cant screw around with the crossover point/slope of the tweeter, and therefore cant give it too much power very easily.

Its a good place to start, yeah.

Also, the higher the crossover point, the better passives tend to work. You get a lot more significant gains going active on subs/midbass /mid than you do on mid/tweeter.

Phil

Not true.

One of the biggest advantages of running off a good active processor is the ability to control every speaker individually (crossover points, crossover slopes, time alignment, etc) to tailor for your specific installation / environment.

The weakness of factory passives (in general) is that they are generic - they are designed more or less on a 'one size fits all' basis with only the bare minimum of adjustability which is usually far from sufficient.

One of the technical weaknesses of passive crossovers is the major negative affects they have on damping factor, and this will likely affect lower frequency drivers moreso then higher frequency drivers...however as far as the 'tunability' advantages of active systems, it's just as important on tweeters as it is on subs. Even the best tweeter/mid combination will benefit from adjustability, because no two car environments are the same.

In fact, I'd actually rather run a tweeter/mirange active even then a midbass...simply because our ears are more critical with the music reproduced at those frequencies, and so it's even more important to have adjustability on those components.

Back onto the driver question, I actually would have to agree with Phil the the DDW6.5 drivers too (on paper) appear to be a very capable midbass driver on a budget. There are some other's are there that are comparable and possibly better overall such as Rainbow's 7" Power driver, Focal's 6.5" Be driver (midbass version from the 3-way Be set) and Scanspeak's 7" Revelator...but all of these are roughly triple the price of the DD driver.

On paper, the DDW6.5 definately looks like a good value dedicated midbass driver.

I agree that it's good value (a few hundred cheaper than the focal bass extension kit), but do you think this price difference is worth it? I mean, I'll only be able to run the DD's passively, so I'm wondering how that would compare to actively running the focals...

I would still really like to try to have a listen to some DDW6.5's, so if anybody knows where I can trial some that would be greatly appreciated!

hrmmm righto. I'm really confused at this point about what you will be running actively and passively, and how you intend to set it up (ie via headunit crossovers, amp crossovers, external eq etc). If you could explain your system map (HU model, amps, current components, processors etc) that would help..

As for price "being worth it", that depends on how much money you have and how much you value certain things like accuracy, sound quality, aesthetics etc. Everything is subject to the law of diminishing returns, that is, your $200 DD drivers will sound 10 times better than, say, your factory speakers, but your $2000 Focal Be drivers will not sound 10 times better than the DD's...if you get my drift. It all depends on your tastes and audiophilability as to whether or not its worth the extra coin...you may very well prefer the sound and output of the W6.5's over the focals, and save yourself some moolah in the process

You knock him down and dismiss his suggestions, but you provide no logical explanation as to why his statement is incorrect (besides baffling on about 'damping' factor and other non-related bits and pieces - God how I hate talk about DF...).

So, why is it not true that passives work better at higher crossover points?

Also, why is it not true that gains are larger in the lower frequencies by going active then they are in the higher frequencies?

I believe that many standard passives work better at higher frequencies because there are fewer losses in the components.

to get good performance at a lower frequency, you need to multiply the L/C values, but halve the resistances. otherwise losses (and hence lower DF ) start to become an issue.

most tweeters should be crossed at least double their Fs - many are not!

lol. mate, you're good at what you do, but you just can't go around making up words!

One word - adjustability.

This is the single greatest benefit of actively processed systems, over factory passive systems. Yes there are some other (more technical) advantages - but they are less important because they impact less on 'what you actually hear'.

Now in terms of tunability, common factory passives typicaly offer two main things - tweeter level and occasionally crossover slope. Tweeter level is usually adjustable in 3dB steps - maybe 1.5dB if you're lucky. A good ear can pick up a difference of 0.5dB relatively easilly, so steps of 1.5dB (and god forbid, 3dB) are nowhere near fine enough to give good results (unless luck is on your side). As for slopes, you usually get a choice of two - probably 6dB and 12dB. This is a choice that it doesn't hurt to have, but it doesn't exactly give you a world of options. Now, on a factory passive crossover (unless it's a $2,000+ component set, maybe) this is about all you're going to get.

Here is where the power of an active system comes in. Not only do active crossovers add finer adjustment to speaker level (usualy 0.5dB or 1dB steps on all components) and crossover slope (6dB, 12dB and 18dB at least)...even simple, affordable in-car active processors will also offer adjustablity of at least two additional aspects: Time Alignment and Crossover point. In the inconsistent world of car audio, both are critical.

Now by nature, all speakers have an upper frequency limit - and certain frequency at which output will begin to reduce. Call it what you will, but the greater the off-axis angle of the speaker to the listener, the sooner this occurs. It's also dependant on the speakers size and individual characteristics. Generally, the smaller a speaker is, the later (higher frequency) this will occur, and the bigger the speaker is the sooner it will occur (lower frequency). A 1/2" tweeter may not start to drop off-axis until 14khz, while an 18" sub may start to fall as soon as 400hz (purely as an example).

The nature of car interios usually results in two things:
1 - It's usually not possible to mount all drivers entirely on-axis
2 - There usually isn't enough space to use 12" midbass drivers

As as result of point (2), midbass driver sizes are usually limted to 6.5", 8" or (in very rare occasions) 10". Even 10" drivers usually won't begin to fall off-axis until at least 500hz, so considering midbass drivers are rarely crossed above 400hz, the upper frequency isn't really effected significantly by mounting angle of the midbass drivers. As such, it doesn't really matter that much where you cross the midbass driver over to the midrange, as long as it's within the midbass region. As such, running a midbass driver off a 'fixed value' factory passive (that's designed for it) will work somewhat ok regardless of how you position and angle the driver. The lower limit doesnt really become significant, because even the cheapest 'decent' head units with a sub pre-out will have an adjustable HPF for the midbass/front.

However...tweeter's aren't as flexible as midbass drivers. Even the most impressive of tweeters have significant lower frequency limits to which they can comfortably play. 90% of tweeters will struggle see performance reductions when crossed below 3khz, and this is a problem because it means you need to physically set their limits somehow. You also then need a dedicated midrange/midbass driver to take over where the tweeter lets go, and that's usually somewhere between 2khz-4khz. The only way you can really do this effectively (without building a custom passive) is either via the factory passive crossover, of via an active processor.

Here lies the problem. Any midbass from 6" to 8" (any many beyond) can handle the highest midbass frequencies well before the reach their off-axis roll-off point. However, in the midrange, it's another story altogether. Mounted on axis, a good 6.5" mid will play up to 2khz, maybe even 3khz...however mounted highly off-axis, even the best 6.5" will struggle to produce serious output above 1.5khz - they will either roll-off heavilly above this, or the response will become erratic and lose composure. As such, a midrange driver's output (and thus performance) will vary significantly depending on where it is mounted, and how far off-axis it's angled.

This is where a simple, fixed passive crossover becomes insufficient. Such a crossover will set a single crossover point based upon what the manufacturer 'assumes' will be the most likely mounting method. If they assume off-axis mouting, then they will bring down the crossover point to help minimise the loss in upper midrange, but as a result they will increase distortion, reduce power handling, and increase the risk of damage to the tweeter. If they assume on axis-mounting, they will raise the crossover point to make the most of the mid-range drivers upper end response, increasing power handling and life of the tweeter, while also reducing it's distortion levels. However in this event, if you mount the drivers off-axis the mid will roll-off too early and you will be left with a gap in your critical upper-midrange that can't be re-filled. It's the limitation of a factory passive - once it's set, it's set...there is no guarantee that it will suit your specific scenario.

With an active crossover, you have the freedom to adjust those crossover points to suit your installation. If you have to mount off-axis, you drop your crossover point on your tweeter and you sacrifice that little bit of extra distortion and power handling to optimise your midrange...or if you can get a bit of angle on it, you can raise your crossover point accordingly. However you mount you speakers, you can adjust your settings to take advantage of it and properly match your installtion.

This is why active can give just as much gain (if not more) on midrange/treble frequencies as it can on midbass frequencies. The fact that midbass drivers (in their typical applications) are not effected significantly by off axis response means that they are less critically effected by which crososver points you use, and as such you can kinda get away with a 'generic' crossover point on a midbass driver if you really need to. However, because off-axis response is more significantly effected at higher frequencies, your upper frequency performance is actually more sensitive to accurate crossovers selection - the crossover point is easier to get wrong, and if you do the effects are more noticable.

I didn't get into the technical passive/vs/active babble here because i really didn't need to - if you can't get your crossover settings right, then all of those little niggly technical phenomenons with fancy names are the least of your worries.

I have run both passive and active systems in the past, and in the switch from passive to active the tweeter / midrange performance benefitted just as much as the midbass performance did - purely due to finer control over levels and crossovers (which allowed each driver to play within it's optimal range).

You can run a signal from the finest soruce in the world, to the finest crossovers, to the finest amplifiers running the finest speakers - but if your tuning doesn't suit your situation it will still only ever sound mediocre.



Edit:
And yes, I know you can biuld custom passives to solve this problem, however I'm pretty sure the 'semi-active' suggestions metioned earlier in the thread referred to the use of factory passives which means at this stage, that hasn't been mentioned as a valid option.

WOW that HUGE POST and you still gave no input to the comments that Phil and Matt made, from how I took it Phil made no claims that a passive was better then an active xover only that if he is to use a passive such as in a semi active setup to use it on his tweeter or upper mid points rather than his midbass etc...

Next time READ and take in what is being said rather then going off on some massive speal that is totally unrelated to the posts your responding to, because it's really frustrating to read some huge post that turns out to be the same speal that's been repeated 20 other times and has no relevance to what it was replying to.

Great quote, "We have two eyes, two ears, and one mouth (keyboard in this case) use them in proportion"

Luke

p.s. I quoted that whole post just in case any one missed it the first time.

Exactly my thoughts!! Lower power draw @ same voltage = lower current = Square Rooted resistive losses = very very small power loss (not even close to 3dB).

Glad I'm not the only one to notice that through all that, there was not a single answer to my question. Nice to feel someone can make a statement, and be shot down without any explanation or justification. Hey, if Phil's wrong he's wrong. But no-one has yet said how or why.

Then again, I'm sure Muzzy was answering some question someone asked somewhere. Maybe.....

Exactly. Mid/Tweet is generally very well handled by the pasive x/o in the generally expensive set of split you just bought.

Phil

The headunit I currently have which will be running the rest of this setup is the Clarion DXZ786USB. This headunit has time alignment, HPF/LPF and a few other handy features for tuning, but I'd like to be able to do most of the tuning on the amp. I don't really think I'll be getting any external equalisers or what-not.

I plan on having the Focal 165K2P's in the front running passively.
Rears will contain either the Focal 165KBE kit or the DD6.5s.
The amp will either be a Rockford Fosgate T600-4 or DD C4B (1 channel for each split and a channel for each midbass driver).

So if I get the 165KBE's for the rear, I can run them active or passive, but if I get the DD's I'll need additional components to run them actively, correct?

Just so you know if you are going the way of the Focals and going to run active you can save some cash by buying just the raw driver brand new without Xovers as i did. Not sure how the DD's are sold, Phil will have to fill you in there

Why not run the tweeters from the front channels, front midbass' from the rear channels, and rear midbass' from the sub output.
The midbass drivers in the rear are substitutes for a subwoofer arent they?
Problem is for full active you would need a minimum of 5 channels of amplification.

Yeah the midbass drivers will be substitutes for a sub. How exactly could you wire all that up to a 4 channel amp?? Or are you saying I can do only do that if I have a minimum 5 channels?

You would need, at minimum, 5 channels of amplification. If you can add a small two channel/mono it can be done.

How I originally had my system in my commodore was:

fronts ran channel 1+2 of my amp to the tweeters
rears ran channel 3+4 of my amp to the front mids
sub ran channel 5 to my rear midbass (the factory subs in my case)
However i was using the RF 3sixty.2 which used HPF for tweeters, bandpass (hpf AND lpf) for the mids and LPF and subsonic filter for the subs.

I'm not familiar with that headunit, but I'm sure it would work if the rears can be bandpassed and would be of great help if your sub output had an adjustable subsonic filter (stops them bottoming out on low notes)

HAHA! sucker! thats where you, my furry friend, are dead wrong!

Ahaha.. Nice work Matt. Sure showed him who was boss

ROFL Matt, nice addition at the end

there's about 3 cheap shots in one easy link right there.

fcuk I love urbandictionary...

quickly, now go create a wiki entry and link to that too. then you will have supporting arguments to back you up.

ahh the internerdz...