# HAT I6 vs Massive CK3



## subiemax (Nov 19, 2007)

All right, im an idiot. Should be massive CK6. Anyone tell me how to edit the title?

I've been putting this off for a while, trying to get together what I want to say. Also giving me time to listen to the Massives for a while.
Background- I had the Hats for about 6 months. First in my RX8 with well dampened and sealed doors. Mids in the doors and tweets in the sails. Ran them passive off deck power, passive with 250x2, active with 75x4, active with 250x2 to the mids and tweets ran of of deck power. Best sound came from 250 mids and resets off deck. Next they went into my 2011 WRX with a MS8. Mids 120x2 and tweets of the ms8. Mids in the door, tweets in the kicks. So I think I have a good handle on them.
On the the Massives. Had these only in the WRX. First ran 120x2 mids and tweets off ms8. Now running 240x2 on mids and 120x2 tweets. Have since got rid if the ms8 and now run a prs880. 
The WRX doors are sealed well. And dampened with 1 layer a damplifier on outer skin and probably 60-70% inner skin covered with 1 layer. Not quite as good as the RX8 was, but kept as light as possibe because I autocross and track the car. 


Current set up is prs880, nx4 bridged to mids and nx2 on the tweets. Tweets are in the kick pannels.

Couple side by side pics of the mids. Did not get any of the tweets.


----------



## subiemax (Nov 19, 2007)

Construction:
Midrange construction here is easily goimg to go to the Massives. The ck6 uses a cast basket vs the plastic of the i6. If you can see in the pics of the i6, they are showing signs of being installed and uninstalled. The ck6s on the other hand seem like they will last forever. And the cone material is just plain sexy compared to the paper the Hats use. Cosmetic I know, but they are better to look at.

Tweeters and hardware are going to have to go to the hats. Both sets come with the usuall surface, flush and angle mounts. Flush mounts allow you to aim the tweets in both sets. I used both sets flush mounted. The Hats snap into the hole and feel solid in their adjustment. The Massives instead use a metall ring with teeth to hold them in the hole, which they never seem to do a good job of. And when they were installed felt like a big bump would knock them out of alignment. Not to mention they kept falling apart. The back of the mounting hardware would come unclicked from the front. All this was solved with some dampening material I had laying around. Nothing that cant be delt with easily but the hats just had better hardware.


----------



## subiemax (Nov 19, 2007)

Midrange:
Now the hard part. Ill start with the Hats, as I had and loved these first. I did a lot of listening and playing around with the crossovers and ended up at 6k. Yes 6k. I found the tweets didn't like to go low and the mid really had no problem playing this high. They are made to just roll off on the top when used as hat intended.They had a really rich musical midbass, and a surprising amount of it. Ill have to say these are the more musical of the 2. More laid back and natural sounding. Probably more acurate. 
Now the Massives. Have these crossed over at a more normal 3.1k. Have not really experimented at all, but this seems to work good so far. And how they sound. Holy mid-bass batman! Kind of corny, I know, but I was really impressed with the output of these. I will have to say that drums are little more hollow than the hats, but there is just so much output that it kind of makes up for it. On vocals and midrange the Massives are a little more "in your face" than the hats. Not that this is a bad thing, probably just a matter of taste.

On lower vocals and drums the Hats seem to be fuller and more musical. The Massives, although a little more hollow, just put out more. The hats seem more natural and laid back in the midrange. The Massives are a little more in your face and seem to have the ability to image better than the Hats.


----------



## subiemax (Nov 19, 2007)

Tweets:
The Hats did not like to play low. Which was really no big deal for me, the mids are able to play plenty high to blend nicely. These tweets just did their job nicely in the RX8, mostly on axis. They sounded natural and not too bright. Blended well and fairly transparent. I don't have a lot to say other than they are good middle of the line tweets. Which is not a bad thing, really no complaints. When they went in the WRX and into the kicks, they became more noticable. I guess because they had to play a little louder, maybe they strained a little. Even with the ms8 they were noticable and caused a little rainbow effect.
The massive tweets, as you've probably read, are pretty bright. I never had these in the RX8, so I never ran them anywhere near on axis. I would guess they would be a little bright. But, put that same tweet off axis in the kick panels and it just comes alive. The highs come through clear and soaring. They did a great job of disapearing and image was up over the dash.

So here, I guess it would just depend on your install. Where the Hats worked great on axis, I don't think I would have liked the Massives. And where the Massives shined in the kick pannels, the hats just didn't do as good.


----------



## subiemax (Nov 19, 2007)

Conclusion:
My car is a 2011 WRX that I race whenever I get the chance. The car is loud and I am not willing to add the weight to make it quiet. This has influenced most of my choices in this install. My subs need to be removable, I used damplifier instead of pro because it was lighter. No difference here, if my car was quiet and my tweets were installed on axis I would have kept the Hats. I found they were more acurate and musical. In a perfect car they would be my choice. But my car is loud and I like to listen loud. The exagerated midbass of the Massives, the tweets just working better in my kickpanel install, and the overall ability of the set to overcome my loud car and sound good doing it made me choose the CK6s. Though I don't think you can go wrong with either set


----------



## kvndoom (Nov 13, 2009)

Looking forward to your views, since I was sold on the Imagines before I took a (totally non-remorseful) chance on the CK6.


----------



## subiemax (Nov 19, 2007)

If someone reads this that has the ability to change the title of this thread, it should be massive Ck6. CK6III to be exact.


----------



## extremepaint (Apr 23, 2011)

im really happy to hear this since i am in the same boat, mud terrains skid plates jingling armor and p/s pumps that like to whine create vibrational chaos in the truck... so i think the ck6III will be still be the best bet. i wonder if the hollow sound is from the cone. i have heard the rk6 with the same cone has similar issues. i play a crap ton of electronic music so i have a feeleing this will go unoticed


----------



## chithead (Mar 19, 2008)

You are going to love the CK6 on some electronic stuff. The midbass they put out is quite staggering to be honest.


----------



## subiemax (Nov 19, 2007)

chithead said:


> You are going to love the CK6 on some electronic stuff. The midbass they put out is quite staggering to be honest.


I do love them. I still say the hat midbass sounded a little more natural, but the ck6s just pound out more. My doors are the limiting factor on how much I can push them now. Door handle is rattling. The outside door handle.
And I got them for $155 on a sonic best offer. Hard to beat.


----------



## chithead (Mar 19, 2008)

Good deal. I really enjoy them and am going to try your tweeter in the kicks idea.


----------



## Miguel.Gto (Mar 25, 2011)

i had the HATs for 3 days now.... a lil dissapointed in the output, i thought they were going to be louder. they do sound nice but i wanted louder mids. didnt know about the massives til now... might wait and see how the HATs break in and then might change in the future.


----------



## eviling (Apr 14, 2010)

OH...I6 not L6 lol


----------



## subwoofery (Nov 9, 2008)

Miguel.Gto said:


> i had the HATs for 3 days now.... a lil dissapointed in the output, i thought they were going to be louder. they do sound nice but i wanted louder mids. didnt know about the massives til now... might wait and see how the HATs break in and then might change in the future.


What did you use to power your HAT? System design? 

Kelvin


----------



## subiemax (Nov 19, 2007)

Miguel.Gto said:


> i had the HATs for 3 days now.... a lil dissapointed in the output, i thought they were going to be louder. they do sound nice but i wanted louder mids. didnt know about the massives til now... might wait and see how the HATs break in and then might change in the future.


I dont know what you are powering them with, But I had no problem reaching uncomfortable levels with them. Without breaking up.


----------



## Miguel.Gto (Mar 25, 2011)

i have a BA GT2125 - 125 x 2 @ 4ohms.... running them passive. using HU crossover at 80hz @ 18db. in a 2006 silverado single cab, mounted on doors same place as factory, have them sealed and dampened. kenwood x995. im not saying they dont play loud, was just expecting more, just had something else in mind i guess idk what i was thinking or expecting. when i get passed 28-29 they start sounding a lil distorted, i lowered the 3rd eq band 1khz to -2 and got a lil better.


----------



## lirik (Jan 31, 2011)

I wouldnt consider the HATs an especially loud speaker. They get there but not really any further. I was considering the massives maybe for a scenario in which the heavier mid bassy stuff, ie various instances of death metal et al., wouldnt push the drivers to their absolute limits (running 110 watts/side passive). If anyone has experience with the massives I would welcome any input, I am thinking of situations where high-gain guitar work/drum fills cause the HATs to bottom out whearas the massives might stay composed. A "these go to 11" type of driver, perhaps?

A break in does the HATs much justice for the record tho.


----------



## subiemax (Nov 19, 2007)

Im running about 240 watts a channel to the massive mids and they can handle it. My door is the limiting factor most of the time. Make sure your doors are sealed and damped very well and the massives will put out considerably more midbass than the hats.


----------



## DAT (Oct 8, 2006)

Awesome, the new CK6 Stage 5 is coming out in a month or so and will be even more improvement over the Stage 3 you reviewed.


----------



## subiemax (Nov 19, 2007)

DAT said:


> Awesome, the new CK6 Stage 5 is coming out in a month or so and will be even more improvement over the Stage 3 you reviewed.


My bank account hates you. Lol.


----------



## kvndoom (Nov 13, 2009)

DAT said:


> Awesome, the new CK6 Stage 5 is coming out in a month or so and will be even more improvement over the Stage 3 you reviewed.


Hey Dave can you PM me with the changes? Will it be in the crossovers only or the drivers as well?

...yeah, my bank account hates you too! :blush:


----------



## DAT (Oct 8, 2006)

kvndoom said:


> Hey Dave can you PM me with the changes? Will it be in the crossovers only or the drivers as well?
> 
> ...yeah, my bank account hates you too! :blush:


they would tell me much info yet, but told me to be ready. also *BAD NEWS *is starting June 1st prices on Amps go up $30 or so and speakers get price increased also.

I guess the Japan thing has jacked prices up.

Dave


----------



## subiemax (Nov 19, 2007)

Well, glad I got my nx4, nx2 and n4 already. Don't forsee needed anything else in the near future.


----------



## kvndoom (Nov 13, 2009)

Well, the CK6 III would have been worth the money at $100 more than what I paid, so I can't complain. Massive crossed a diamond with a pearl and turned it on the world...


----------



## AAAAAAA (Oct 5, 2007)

The CK set is a damn good set. I personally like the tweets crossed at 2.8\24db. sounds best and might make your midrange sound better.

The CK6's are my favorite mids for doors to date. Interesting about the new set comming out.


----------



## subiemax (Nov 19, 2007)

AAAAAAA said:


> The CK set is a damn good set. I personally like the tweets crossed at 2.8\24db. sounds best and might make your midrange sound better.
> 
> The CK6's are my favorite mids for doors to date. Interesting about the new set comming out.


Ill give it a shot. Not sure what the next step down is on the 800, but ill see.


----------



## SQBassHead (Apr 14, 2011)

For a minute I thought you were comparing the "L6" ... Lol


----------



## DAT (Oct 8, 2006)

SQBassHead said:


> For a minute I thought you were comparing the "L6" ... Lol


Haha, not really funny as I have a guy that loves the CK6 over the L6.


----------



## AAAAAAA (Oct 5, 2007)

The new CK set is going to be the same drivers as the current CK set but with a better xover that will especially benefit the tweeter.


----------



## subiemax (Nov 19, 2007)

Running active, so I won't be needing to spend any more money. Lol
AAAAAA- What other mids have you tried.


----------



## AAAAAAA (Oct 5, 2007)

peerless 830883 7inch
dayton rs225 8inch
pioneer prs 5 1\4
rk6 6.5
Tang Band W3-1335SB 3" 
canton qs3.28
ck5 and ck6

Many more through out the years.

CK are my favorites.


----------



## subiemax (Nov 19, 2007)

^^^^cool!


----------



## Miguel.Gto (Mar 25, 2011)

been messing with the system, turned down the gain on the amp, probably around 6v or so right now, not even 1/4 ..... messed with the eq also and starting to sound alot better, the speakers are pretty loud... i mean, they hurt my ears after a couple of minutes, lol


----------



## Thumper26 (Sep 23, 2005)

nice comparison, installing the hats in the near future.

OP, edit your post, and click 'Go Advanced' and you can change the title.


----------



## SirLaughsALot (May 18, 2011)

I've got a question on those HATs. It is possible to run them with a passive crossover, right? I have always liked being able to tune in the tweeters for brightness in their sound representation, and would definitely miss that feature without having any crossover.


----------



## kvndoom (Nov 13, 2009)

SirLaughsALot said:


> I've got a question on those HATs. It is possible to run them with a passive crossover, right? I have always liked being able to tune in the tweeters for brightness in their sound representation, and would definitely miss that feature without having any crossover.


Get an L-pad for them. That way you keep the crossover frequency/slope that HAT intended for them, and can adjust the output level as you desire.

L-PADS from Parts Express ship same day and come with 45 day money back guarantee. Free Shipping Available. Order free 10,000 product catalog.

Should be easy enough to hide with the space you save from not having an outboard crossover.


----------



## trojan fan (Nov 4, 2007)

kvndoom said:


> Get an L-pad for them. That way you keep the crossover frequency/slope that HAT intended for them, and can adjust the output level as you desire.
> 
> L-PADS from Parts Express ship same day and come with 45 day money back guarantee. Free Shipping Available. Order free 10,000 product catalog.
> 
> Should be easy enough to hide with the space you save from not having an outboard crossover.



All you need is (2) simple resistors for each tweeter at a cost of less than $2 total.....use this link for help


L pad calculator - attenuation dB damping impedance decibel loudspeaker speaker - sengpielaudio Sengpiel Berlin


----------



## CGlines (Sep 13, 2010)

What have you guys been setting your tweeters at on the crossover for the CK6's? I have mine at zero but haven't messed around with putting them at + or - 3db. For my application with them being mostly off-axis I think they work well there.

Overall, these speakers are pretty incredible for the money. The tweeters do leave a little bit to be desired in my opinion, but the midbass is phenomenal.


----------



## subiemax (Nov 19, 2007)

Im running active so can't really help you. I love the tweeters more and more. Of course they are in my kicks, off axis, so your results will vary.


----------



## ousooner2 (Jan 6, 2011)

Question mainly for AAAAA but anyone else can answer if they know...

How do the RK6 mids stack up against the CK mids? I picked up the RK6's and the mids sound pretty beefy but a tad sloppy. I only got to listen for 3 days before I had to leave for 5 weeks (be back this sat.). I find the tweeter to be a tad bright for my liking also, and a bit overpowering. I know the CK tweet is the same as the RK tweet so I'm wondering if it's worth it to sell the RK6's and try the new CK6 Stage 5 when it comes out. If they really do attenuate/tone down that tweet it'd be nice. 

When I turn my 2 12w6's off, the mids don't seem all that impressive to me. I'm running them off an Alpine PDX 4.100 bridged for roughly 200 each. They don't sound as snappy and hard hitting as I thought they would. My doors are fully deadened and sealed using CLD Tiles, MLV and CCF for SDS. I'm going with a different amp when I return b/c I've got the dreaded high noise floor on this PDX. Do we have any news of the date of which the new CK's are coming out?


----------



## AAAAAAA (Oct 5, 2007)

In all honesty, the CK set is better in all respects besides power handeling and significantly so IMO.

I personally really like the tweets but I run them active. I also think the CK passives are better then the RK but the upcoming CK5 passives should be even better.


----------

