# ID OEM 2.0 vs 2.5 - battle to the death



## katodevin (Feb 14, 2008)

I'll be updating this thread with my listening impressions of these two monsters in versus mode. For now, you get a tasty pic.


----------



## katodevin (Feb 14, 2008)

So like many of you, I am eagerly anticipating the release of the new "ID OEM" drivers, dubbed 2.0 and 2.5. Hessdawg generously has lent me one of each to test and post up my impressions. 

A few months ago, I received one of the 2.0 drivers, which boasted the ability to cross higher and go lower than the original OEM drivers. I verified that this was definitely the case, and also found that they displayed better off axis performance as well. 

I recently received one of the 2.5 drivers. On the specs that were posted, these were supposed to have the ability to handle more power and play lower, but not necessarily higher. 

Sensitivity - When I threw the 2.5 drivers into my test system, I immediately noticed that these were less sensitive than the 2.0 drivers. Hessdawg mentioned the possibility of 2ohm drivers, which would definitely offset this characteristic of the driver. I have 150 watts on tap for each channel, so these speakers got up to a very nice listening level without a problem. For those of you looking to blast the crap out of your ears, you may want to look at the 2.0 drivers. 

Crossover point (high) - While on paper, the 2.5's don't extend as high as the 2.0's, in my testing, I found that they did. I took them up to 3khz without a problem. At this point as well, I found that they were smoother, and less harsh than the 2.0's. Much more pleasant to listen to. I am not sure if this is due to a smoother roll off, or if the 2.0's have a peak ~ 3khz, but these were a much nicer listening experience than the 2.0's when taken up high. I would feel EXTREMELY comfortable using these at 2.5khz with some seas neo's at 3.0khz. I think that may be the killer budget combo.

Crossover point (low) - The 2.5's are monsters. I played them down to 20hz, no problems. I don't know much about speaker design, but these things are beefy, and if you told me they were designed as subwoofers, I would believe you. They displayed no mechanical noise at all, and smoothly played what I asked them to. The 2.0's had a bit more punch/impact, but that may simply be due to sensitivity issues. 

Cone construction - As the picture above shows, the 2.5's have a dust cap that moves with the cone, it does not remain stationary like a phase cap. I'm sure there is a mathematical or theoretical reason for having this over the flat-ish cone of the 2.0's, but I was not able to quantify any effect this cap would had on the sound. 

Surround construction - The surround is of very nice quality, as the 2.0's are, and is very soundly attached all the way around the driver. The original OEM's surround had a foam ring attached (marine use?) that could easily be torn up if the foam was compromised. These are much better built drivers than the original OEM's. 

Overall - After about 1.5 weeks of listening, I prefer the 2.5's. They may not have the punch and impact that the 2.0's do, but they were much more smoother and musical. I played a wide range of music, and found no glaring weaknesses with any particular type. The advice that I'd give is that if you've got the power, go with the 2.5's. If you are looking for high impact with less than 200 watts on tap, go with the 2.0's. They are both extremely fantastic values, and I don't think that Hessdawg will have any trouble providing these to satisfied customers.


----------



## ItalynStylion (May 3, 2008)

Thanks for the review. I'd heard much about these different ID drivers but I'd never really read into them. If you had to pick another driver that was most similar to them what would it be?


----------



## Mless5 (Aug 21, 2006)

Thanks katodevin


----------



## Chaos (Oct 27, 2005)




----------



## katodevin (Feb 14, 2008)

I'd say that these are close to the focals k2ps in terms of their power handling and impact in IB setups. When compared to my seas reed cones, they definitely have quite a bit more impact. The 2.0's seem a bit more sterile at the top end when pushed, but the 2.5's roll off more warmly like my seas. The originals, I wouldn't cross those higher than 1.6 with a 12db slope.


----------



## Ziggy (Nov 29, 2007)

Ah... Hey, Kato -did you have these mounted in your doors? or did you test them out of the car environment?


----------



## katodevin (Feb 14, 2008)

Ziggy said:


> Ah... Hey, Kato -did you have these mounted in your doors? or did you test them out of the car environment?


I put them in the doors. I only had single drivers, not pairs, so I could not do a full test. Most of my testing however, was done in home, in an IB type setup. I also tried them in cabinets, but I don't think they were big enough, and they got super boomy.


----------



## Pseudonym (Apr 17, 2006)

is there a difference in size between both tested versus the old oem's?


----------



## Stel (Mar 11, 2008)

katodevin said:


> I'd say that these are close to the focals k2ps in terms of their power handling and impact in IB setups. When compared to my seas reed cones, they definitely have quite a bit more impact. The 2.0's seem a bit more sterile at the top end when pushed, but the 2.5's roll off more warmly like my seas. The originals, I wouldn't cross those higher than 1.6 with a 12db slope.


How does the impact and lower midbass output compare to the 1.0's?


----------



## JayBee (Oct 6, 2006)

Any word on when these might be hitting the streets?


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 12, 2008)

i still dont get why they are called "id"


----------



## CupCak3 (Jan 4, 2009)

Stel said:


> How does the impact and lower midbass output compare to the 1.0's?


I am also interested in a performance comparison in an IB application.


----------



## BLACKonBLACK98 (Apr 5, 2008)

BeatsDownLow said:


> i still dont get why they are called "id"


guess they had success riding off the id name. seems to me if you v2 and v2.5 'em it might be time to go ahead and rebadge 'em.:shrug:

disclaimer: not knocking hess or the speakers btw. had a pair of the "v1's" and was pretty impressed. sold em to a buddy and he's still running em.


----------



## katodevin (Feb 14, 2008)

BLACKonBLACK98 said:


> guess they had success riding off the id name. seems to me if you v2 and v2.5 'em it might be time to go ahead and rebadge 'em.:shrug:
> 
> disclaimer: not knocking hess or the speakers btw. had a pair of the "v1's" and was pretty impressed. sold em to a buddy and he's still running em.


Yup, these are no longer associated with ID at all. Referring to these as OEM V2 and V2.5 for now. I think Hessdawg might come up with a cool name.


----------



## katodevin (Feb 14, 2008)

Stel said:


> How does the impact and lower midbass output compare to the 1.0's?


Both the 2.0 and 2.5 have more impact and lower midbass output at the expense of requiring more power. The 2.5's for sure have more lower bass output at the super low end as well. Another thing is the quality of the midbass seems to be better with both of the newer drivers. In my cabinet, they sounded much less boomy. When placed in IB, this difference was lessened.


----------



## katodevin (Feb 14, 2008)

JayBee said:


> Any word on when these might be hitting the streets?


No idea. That's a question for Hessdawg.


----------



## Pseudonym (Apr 17, 2006)

Pseudonym said:


> is there a difference in size between both tested versus the old oem's?


ahem. mostly wondering about the cutout.


----------



## dcm220 (May 22, 2009)

Katodevin - thanks for the review. I have a few questions:

1. The 2.5s are rated up to 2.5 khz, and the 2.0s to 5.0 khz, yet you found that the 2.5s were sounded better at 3.0 khz? I thought that the 2.0s were supposed to be the better choice for 2-ways? Did you try the 2.0s up to 5.0 khz?

2. You mentioned that the 2.0s had more low end "punch". I think it's safe to assume you would recommend the 2.5s for someone without a sub. For someone with a sub (who doesn't need extension down to 20 hz), crossed at 60 or 80 hz, which would you recommend?

3. You mentioned using the Seas Neo tweeter with the 2.5s. Is that what you used for your testing? Metal or fabric?

4. Your review makes a strong argument for the 2.5s. High end, low end, power handling, musical instead of punchy. The price is also better at $90 (2.5) vs. $125 (2.0). Why would anyone want the 2.0s? Or what type of person would enjoy the 2.0s more?

Thanks for the input.


----------



## katodevin (Feb 14, 2008)

See my responses inline below.



dcm220 said:


> Katodevin - thanks for the review. I have a few questions:
> 
> 1. The 2.5s are rated up to 2.5 khz, and the 2.0s to 5.0 khz, yet you found that the 2.5s were sounded better at 3.0 khz? I thought that the 2.0s were supposed to be the better choice for 2-ways? Did you try the 2.0s up to 5.0 khz?
> *I did try the 2.0's up to 5khz and beyond. They performed much better than the 1.0's, but had a more sterile quality. The 2.5's rolled off more smoothly, and had a warmer quality up to 3.0khz. If you're looking for something to pair with a tweeter above 3.0khz, then I would definitely go with the 2.0's. I feel that the rolloff of the 2.5's would cause a freq gap.*
> ...


----------



## katodevin (Feb 14, 2008)

Pseudonym said:


> ahem. mostly wondering about the cutout.


Cutout is the same. I swapped all 3 speakers into my test cabinets with no problems.


----------

