# Scan Speak 10f Pod size



## mortele210 (Apr 30, 2008)

I just got a set of the Scan-Speak Discovery 10f/4424G 4" Midranges and im looking to build my first a-pillar fiberglass pods.

But before i begin, i'd like figure out what pod size i'll need to play these little guys. I'll be running them from 300hz up (cant cross them any higher) so Pod size might be important.

Currently i have a set of peerless fullranges 3" mids in the a pillars in some PVC pipe for an enclosure and to be honest, i don't like the way it sounds. I'm not sure if its the drivers or the pvc enclosures, but i figured id go with a whole new set-up.


Heres what zaph has to say about this driver:



> Frequency response on the infinite baffle is first rate, nearly a flat line for a 6 octave span. That could open the door for some interesting design oportunities. . Use with a small neo tweeter for closer spacing and a higher crossover point.
> 
> Midrange subenclosure size is generally unimportant as long as it is properly damped. Once I got the T/S parameters, I did some power handling sims and they show that this driver does not need to be treated like a dome midrange with minimal excursion. Even at 300Hz LR2 electrical filtering, calculated Xmax is not exceeded even with 256 watts. .



What did zaph mean by "midrange subenclosure is generally unimportant"

Does this mean i can use a relatively small pod?

I just dont want to have to worry about getting enough volume for my pods if i can avoid it.


----------



## The A Train (Jun 26, 2007)

i have the same 10f drivers and have been toying around with different enclosures myself. as you read zaph's blog, you see that he says that its pretty flat over 6 octives when ran IB. im home audio you can sometimes get by with sticking a driver on a board. idealy though you dont want anything around it. so in a car this is almost impossible because there isnt that much free space. so after chatting with the great binkin, he thought i should build just any sized enclosure and vent the enclosure into the a pillar. this will make the enclosure, infinite in size. i have been testing mine on the dash. one i have sealed (not sure on Vas), and the other just mounted on a baffle. the sealed enclosure has a better overall sound. the one just mounted on a baffle, has a nice wide sound stage but is lacking in midrange. my next pods will be vented into the a pillars.

What did zaph mean by "midrange subenclosure is generally unimportant"
-the graphs he used to test the driver doesnt show a large difference from enclosure size

Does this mean i can use a relatively small pod?
-kinda, it all depends on how you want to go about it

for the small amount of time that i have tested/tuned, i can tell you that these are the cleanest mids i have heard so far. such a wide and flat frequency response its incredible! A+ in my book


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

Keep in mind that the term 'infinite baffle' has taken on different meanings between the car audio world and the home audio world. They truly mean broaching the effect of infinite _baffle_ whereas we often just mean infinite vas, rather than baffle. Iow, free air. 

Enclosure size will depend on crossover; vice versa. 
I think ameba hit it right: zaphs comment was in relation to enclosure size effecting FR. However, I can't be sure without seeing the data and I don't have a means to do so from mobile. So, I'd double check his plots and compare the differences with each size enclosure. That should give you your answer. 

As far as enclosure vs ib in the car...well, you're pretty much ham stringed by the fact that you have adjacent boundaries in your car. The further away you can move the driver, physically, from any corner (ie: pillar+windshield) the better your chances for a more open baffle response. Of course, you'll have Ito be more careful with the driver this way. On the flip side, an enclosure will help protect the driver from over excursion. Bad thing is finding the space to put the enclosure large enough to keep from having resonance. 
Six of one, half a dozen of the other. 


Tried to catch it all. Hard to do this from a measly phone.


----------



## The A Train (Jun 26, 2007)

^^^yea what he said


----------



## mortele210 (Apr 30, 2008)

Ok, well that at least sounds somewhat comforting. I'll just build something that is both aesthetically pleasing and not too small, although its the aesthetics that kill me.

Can't wait to hook up these badboys and give them a spin...


Thanks for the replies!!!!


----------



## knysten (Nov 4, 2009)

I just purchased the Scan 10F as a 8 ohm version. To be installed on axis in the sail panel of my E91 BMW together with a mini tweeter (Brax NOX20) in about a week or so. I also have an option for the mid, the Brax Matrix 3.1, so some comparisons can be made. The Matrix should work in 0.4l of enclosure volume, filled with lambs wool.
I would really appreciate any suggestions and real life experiences of the 10F and different enclosures. I have found a lot of info on the drivers, but reviews including different enclosure sizes are nowhere to be found...


----------



## knysten (Nov 4, 2009)

Upping the topic cause I really want some 10F enclosure experiences 

Sure, I will find out, but getting an opinion *before* building would be nice.


----------



## perfecxionx (Sep 4, 2009)

knysten said:


> Upping the topic cause I really want some 10F enclosure experiences
> 
> Sure, I will find out, but getting an opinion *before* building would be nice.


im bumping this for the same info


----------



## james2266 (Sep 24, 2009)

perfecxionx said:


> im bumping this for the same info



Same here. Anybody have something to say on this? I have been lookign at potential replacements for my ML700 as I can't get a response I like so far. I will be playing with my new pods and see if that makes them sound better to my liking. I was thinking I needed to go to a 4 inch driver maybe but most of those it seems are more designed for IB. I am hoping to keep it to a small sealed enclosure as I don't want to be drilling holes in my apillar or dash. I actually thought the 10f was larger than it is. It is actually only a tiny bit larger than the ML700 in all dimensions and I might just be able to do a straight swap if needed with minimal modifications. The 12M would be my first choice but that one appears to be much larger in all dimensions and likely meaning complete new build which I would like to avoid. Pretty bad that I haven't even got my pod build complete yet and am already looking at potential replacements. I honestly hope the ML700 surprise me later today and sound perfect to my liking with the new pods. Would be a lot cheaper that way


----------



## james2266 (Sep 24, 2009)

This thread was started over 2 years ago. There is noone with something to say on this? I am very seriously considering replacing my Hertz ML700s with a set of these. I would like as much info as I can get on them. How small of an enclosure can these go into and still sound great crossed around 250 Hz/24 db Butterworth? I think my current pods are around 0.8-1 L or so and stuffed. I am hoping to just hollow out the mounting holes a little with my dremel to make these fit (5mm shouldn't be too difficult I think). Don't know if my baffles will still fit tho - sure hope so.

Also, anyone that has experienced these drivers first hand, I would love to know what their strong points were? Detailed? Laid back? More in your face? Spaceous? Smooth? Flat? etc. Let's hear some reviews of this driver guys. I know there are alot of you familiar with it. I did talk to Erin briefly about it on the phone a while back but more opinions are always welcome.


----------



## WLDock (Sep 27, 2005)

Check the links below if you have not seen these. While there is not as much subjective detail as we(Myself included) would like to see, the ojective detail and test show this driver as being fairly flat for 5-6 octaves with a pretty extended top end. That is enough for me, I'm giving the driver a try at some point. 

WinISD shows a 0.71 Qtc in a 0.4 Liter enclosure with a -3dB down point at 218Hz. Distortion test show that it is not the best 3" driver for going low. The Fountek FR88-EX is actually better in regards to lower distortion at the low end of the spectrum but its sensitivity is much lower. However, the Scan seems to have a more extended top end. So pick your weapon of choice!

Personally, I would not want to push any 3" driver too low...300Hz-400Hz with a steep slope just seems the lowest some will play cleanly.... some need a 400Hz-500Hz crossover point. *The 10F has a ~ 2-1/2" cone! Just keep that in mind...*

Compact Midrange Roundup - Forums - Mobile Electronics AU

Vance Dickason tested new SS 10F - Techtalk Speaker Building, Audio, Video, and Electronics Customer Discussion Forum From Parts-Express.com

Your next extended range driver? Scan Speak Discovery 10F/4424G00 - diyAudio

Dipole Build: SS 10F/8424G, Usher 8137A, Dayton RSS315HF

Audi A6 Avant OEM + - SQ & Technical - Talk Audio

Will need Google Translate for these:
Scan speak 10F im Spiegeldreieck (Astra gtc) - Praxis - Carhifi Forum
Scan Speak 10F • Klangfuzzis.de

A Quote from the above German posts:


> I run the 10F in about 650ml filled with wool from 250Hz - is quite excellent,













Enjoy! :thumbsup:

Walt


----------



## its_bacon12 (Aug 16, 2007)

The smaller the enclosure, the higher the Qtc and you'll end up with a bump towards the lower end of the FR. If you're running it from 500+, enclosure size almost doesn't matter. But please, chamfer the backside of the cutout so the driver can breathe better.

As long as it's better than about half a liter, I don't think you'll have any issues. I would recommend moving that xover point up to 500 though, especially if its 12 dB/octave.


----------



## WLDock (Sep 27, 2005)

its_bacon12 said:


> ... But please, chamfer the backside of the cutout so the driver can breathe better....


Yes sir! That had been talked about big time regarding this driver and mids and fullrange drivers in general

http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum...-cutout-scan-speak-discovery-10f-4424g00.html

...I think the Parts Express forum posted above was even stating that this might have been an issue in the VOICE COIL mag test.

But the Mark K and Zaph tests show that you don't want to cross the driver over too low:
Midrange test data
Zaph|Audio


----------



## perfecxionx (Sep 4, 2009)

james2266 said:


> How small of an enclosure can these go into and still sound great crossed around 250 Hz/24 db Butterworth? I think my current pods are around 0.8-1 L or so and stuffed. I am hoping to just hollow out the mounting holes a little with my dremel to make these fit (5mm shouldn't be too difficult I think). Don't know if my baffles will still fit tho - sure hope so.


 i guess ill just add that madisound recommends 1 liter sealed giving you an f3 of 275. So with that and the above posts it sounds like your current pods are perfect, but you may want to try to up the xover point a bit.


----------



## james2266 (Sep 24, 2009)

WLDock said:


> Check the links below if you have not seen these. While there is not as much subjective detail as we(Myself included) would like to see, the ojective detail and test show this driver as being fairly flat for 5-6 octaves with a pretty extended top end. That is enough for me, I'm giving the driver a try at some point.
> 
> WinISD shows a 0.71 Qtc in a 0.4 Liter enclosure with a -3dB down point at 218Hz. Distortion test show that it is not the best 3" driver for going low. The Fountek FR88-EX is actually better in regards to lower distortion at the low end of the spectrum but its sensitivity is much lower. However, the Scan seems to have a more extended top end. So pick your weapon of choice!
> 
> ...



Thanks for all the info guys and especially all of these cool links provided here. I have read some of them but a number of them are new to me. I have some reading to do now I think. Just by reading the first link (Aussie site I think) I think I have myself convinced to give these guys a try. I think Zaph said these wouldn't reach xmax even with 250+ watts rms on them?!? What do people run to these things normally in a car anyways? I am looking for a driver that will sound great running on 100-150 watts rms crossed somewhere between 250-350 Hz and probably on a 24 db butterworth. I thought my current Hertz ML700 would be perfect but I find it just can't handle that kind of power. Give it 50 watts rms and it is golden tho.


----------



## t3sn4f2 (Jan 3, 2007)

edited


----------



## james2266 (Sep 24, 2009)

t3sn4f2 said:


> edited


I have 150 watts rms 'available' but I obviously don't expect any 3 inch driver to take that and sound good doing it. What I am hoping for is to not have to turn it down around -10 db in my Bit One for it to sound good. This is the current situation with my ML700. On some songs it still seems to fall apart at high volume even turned down that much.

About the only thing I have found in the stats for the 10f that I am concerned about is the size of the voice coil. I like that it has more cone area and ALOT more xmax and also a lower fs if t hat matters. I love all of the fr plots I have seen for it thus far. I looked closely at what some of those threads listed as power for their 10f too. It looks like most guys are running amps that put out 75-100 w rms so if they are having no issues there, then I think that I should be happy with them in this regard. The voice coil is only 20 mm which is the same as my ML700 which could mean I would have to be carefulof overheating moreso than overexcursion from what I have read. This might be a dumb question but is there a tell tale sound a driver makes before its too late or something? I assume it would sound like crap long before it burnt up?


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

I'll just reiterate something we discussed on the phone... don't worry about power levels. worry about desired bandwidth and go from there. with these drivers, power isn't a concern. they're not low sensitivity drivers.


----------



## james2266 (Sep 24, 2009)

bikinpunk said:


> I'll just reiterate something we discussed on the phone... don't worry about power levels. worry about desired bandwidth and go from there. with these drivers, power isn't a concern. they're not low sensitivity drivers.


yes, I know and remember our convo well. My ML700 are not low sensitivity either. I actually think they might be higher sensitivity than these but they sound like crap to me when I crank it up. Yes, my levels are probably too high but when I lower them, the midbass/sub has to come down too and I lose all my impact. This is what I am looking to avoid by making the switch. If I gain even more detail amongst other things like I suspect that would just be icing


----------



## james2266 (Sep 24, 2009)

Another question I had is regarding chamfering. Yes, I know it is greatly suggested for these drivers and I intend to if I can (gonna be a tight squeeze I think). I never chamfered my baffles for my current drivers either. The baffle is out of 1/2 inch mdf. Could this be the cause of my problems with power handling (becomes overbaring on all frequency bands - screetchy) on my ML700 in some way too? I have a sneaky feeling it might be the cause of the quite large hole I have in the response at 1.6 kHz the more I think about it. 

Sorry to take this one a little bit off track here if I am.


----------



## james2266 (Sep 24, 2009)

Oh, figured I would pose this here too. Anyone got a set in good shape they want to part with? Figured maybe I can help someone else out at the same time as helping me out maybe. I will probably grab them from Solen. I probably would have already if their paypal was not down. I have over $110 there waiting to be used


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

james2266 said:


> yes, I know and remember our convo well. My ML700 are not low sensitivity either. I actually think they might be higher sensitivity than these but they sound like crap to me when I crank it up. Yes, my levels are probably too high but when I lower them, the midbass/sub has to come down too and I lose all my impact. This is what I am looking to avoid by making the switch. If I gain even more detail amongst other things like I suspect that would just be icing


but you're missing the forrest because of the trees, here. 


what is it, _exactly_, that you want out of a midrange? why exactly do you need "150w"? To match the midbass and still have output when you lower them? 

The point is, 150w continuous isn't going to be achieved. It's a non-realistic worry. You've got power and that's all you need. 

*Worry about what matters*: finding a driver to fit your install constraints, bandwidth desires (meaning good FR, distortion parameters within some desired bandwidth) and price. Pick the best. Put it in the car, and start tuning. I've not worried about having enough/too much power in years. If you had a 10w amp, maybe this would be a different discussion, but you don't, so it's not. I just think you're seriously worrying about something that doesn't matter at this stage in your install.


----------



## james2266 (Sep 24, 2009)

bikinpunk said:


> but you're missing the forrest because of the trees, here.
> 
> 
> what is it, _exactly_, that you want out of a midrange? why exactly do you need "150w"? To match the midbass and still have output when you lower them?
> ...


Right now I am having to drop the midrange output so they are listenable but in doing so I am getting a bloated bottom end or no impact depending on how I set my gains on each driver. I am trying to avoid this. I find my tweeter is plenty clean and loud but the midrange isn't clean/ non-fatiguing when matched in output to the midbasses. I could care less what the gains are set at for any of them really but I strongly feel that currently the midrange is by far my weakest link. Actually, after switching out a few drivers for Morel, I am thinking all my Hertz drivers might be weak links but that is another story really and I only have a tiny bit of cash right now to spend on this.


----------



## WLDock (Sep 27, 2005)

james2266 said:


> yes, I know and remember our convo well. My ML700 are not low sensitivity either. I actually think they might be higher sensitivity than these but they sound like crap to me when I crank it up. Yes, my levels are probably too high but when I lower them, the midbass/sub has to come down too and I lose all my impact. This is what I am looking to avoid by making the switch. If I gain even more detail amongst other things like I suspect that would just be icing


I really wonder if the 10F is the driver for you? A 250Hz crossover point and cranking it with this driver does not sound like a good mix. I may be wrong as I have yet to use it but it seems you may need to cross higher 400Hz-500Hz? I wonder if that is your current issue? Have you tried a higher crossover point with your ML700 drivers? Sounds like you may be after a 4" or 5" with low distortion???

Don't get me wrong...the 10F seems to have really good output for a driver so small....but I wonder about crossing them at 250Hz? This guy had some decent volume going untill things went South: http://www.htguide.com/forum/showthread.php4?t=35701

Sent from my HTC Sensation 4G using Tapatalk 2


----------



## james2266 (Sep 24, 2009)

WLDock said:


> I really wonder if the 10F is the driver for you? A 250Hz crossover point and cranking it with this driver does not sound like a good mix. I may be wrong as I have yet to use it but it seems you may need to cross higher 400Hz-500Hz? I wonder if that is your current issue? Have you tried a higher crossover point with your ML700 drivers? Sounds like you may be after a 4" or 5" with low distortion???
> 
> Don't get me wrong...the 10F seems to have really good output for a driver so small....but I wonder about crossing them at 250Hz? This guy had some decent volume going untill things went South: HTGuide Forum - Low Budget Speaker Porn
> 
> Sent from my HTC Sensation 4G using Tapatalk 2


A 4 or 5 inch driver is a definite no go due to space constraints. I don't really want to build new pods right now either to accomodate anything bigger (SS 12M for instance). I might try chamfering the inside of the baffle first and see what that gets me with my ML700. I might still have a level setting/tuning issue going on too. I just can't see how this could be causing such a massive problem but then again I am new to this kind of problem.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

james2266 said:


> Right now I am having to drop the midrange output so they are listenable but in doing so I am getting a bloated bottom end or no impact depending on how I set my gains on each driver. I am trying to avoid this. I find my tweeter is plenty clean and loud but the midrange isn't clean/ non-fatiguing when matched in output to the midbasses. I could care less what the gains are set at for any of them really but I strongly feel that currently the midrange is by far my weakest link. Actually, after switching out a few drivers for Morel, I am thinking all my Hertz drivers might be weak links but that is another story really and I only have a tiny bit of cash right now to spend on this.


this is about 95% a cause of the environment/install rather than pure levels alone. 

I'm not really sure why you're set on 250hz. Does your midbass just completely suck above this point? Probably not. My guess is that you're going off what we all have been victims of before; assuming that you have to capture the entire vocal range in a single driver (you don't have to).

you want a midrange that crosses low, but can't give up the space needed for a large one. you're going to have to make a trade off somewhere. 350hz is more than fine for most any real midrange in regards to bandwidth. _tuning_ is key; not a crossover of 200/300hz (even going against what I used to believe). in the real world, a crossover point is usually decided on because of driver capability (to limit distortion - linear (frequency response) or nonlinear (what we all regularly refer to as 'distortion')). These are problems that should be used to determine nominal crossover, rather than some magical number a bunch of guys on a forum swear is the bees knees. The enclosure size matters but the implementation of the driver can also negate the effect of the enclosure. But, again, this all comes down to setting up a system. If you ask too much of a driver, then it's going to fail. I can give you the greatest driver ever, but if you don't use it in a range where it's "greatest", then it doesn't really matter. And you have to understand what is going on behind the scenes. 

IMHO, your real weak link is how you're using the drivers rather than the drivers themselves. Not to say you couldn't improve the system with a more capable driver, but you have to also understand just what you're expecting out of said driver and that at some point you reach some limit (whatever that is). Given all the things you've posted and we've discussed, I stand firmly by my first analysis that you will never remedy the problem by simply using another driver. 

So, I'm going to go back to what we discussed on the phone:
Evaluate your tune. Evaluate how you have set up your system and evaluate just what and why you're doing what you're doing and I bet you good money that you'll find the problem can be resolved with some simple adjustments in bandpass and that would then open you up to more options... or even allow you to keep what you have.


----------



## james2266 (Sep 24, 2009)

bikinpunk said:


> this is about 95% a cause of the environment/install rather than pure levels alone.
> 
> I'm not really sure why you're set on 250hz. Does your midbass just completely suck above this point? Probably not. My guess is that you're going off what we all have been victims of before; assuming that you have to capture the entire vocal range in a single driver (you don't have to).
> 
> ...


Ok, you have me now leaning more toward adjusting my crossover frequencies once again. I am actually running with a 300 Hz cut if I recall currently (24 db Butterworth). In your humble opinion what do you think is a good starting point for a bandpass for my driver - Hertz ML700. Here is the pdf with all the info and frequency plots for it. http://www.hertzaudiovideo.com/Doc/Hertz_Mille_TechSheet_ML_700.pdf

I think I am currently running 300-3500 on them. The main reason I wanted to get down to 250 Hz was two fold actually. the first you touched on. Having all the vocals up high and coming from one driver as much as possible for imaging purposes. The 2nd and arguably more important is my midbass comes on like a frickin' dragon at 250 Hz. I mean I had to have it down 12 db to flatten it out when I was running 2 way before. As it is I have them crossed at 175 Hz I think to try and tame it currently. I still have a pile of eqing going on to get the right shape down there. I really want to swap that driver out too actually because of this. I hate having to use this much eq on these Hertz drivers to get them to sound any good. The Morel ones are so much easier to work with in this regard I find. I really want to try an 8 in the door and the Dyn 172 or maybe Morel Elate 9 are the ones I keep thinking on but don't have the money for it and I need to make sure it will fit and still keep my stock door panels.


----------



## kyheng (Jan 31, 2007)

Vocal starts from 1000Hz.....
If you don't explore higher crossover points and keep on changing drivers, good luck to you....


----------



## WLDock (Sep 27, 2005)

james2266 said:


> Ok, you have me now leaning more toward adjusting my crossover frequencies once again. I am actually running with a 300 Hz cut if I recall currently (24 db Butterworth). In your humble opinion what do you think is a good starting point for a bandpass for my driver - Hertz ML700. Here is the pdf with all the info and frequency plots for it. http://www.hertzaudiovideo.com/Doc/Hertz_Mille_TechSheet_ML_700.pdf
> 
> I think I am currently running 300-3500 on them. The main reason I wanted to get down to 250 Hz was two fold actually. the first you touched on. Having all the vocals up high and coming from one driver as much as possible for imaging purposes. *The 2nd and arguably more important is my midbass comes on like a frickin' dragon at 250 Hz.* I mean I had to have it down 12 db to flatten it out when I was running 2 way before. As it is I have them crossed at 175 Hz I think to try and tame it currently. I still have a pile of eqing going on to get the right shape down there. *I really want to swap that driver out too actually because of this. **I hate having to use this much eq on these Hertz drivers to get them to sound any good.* The Morel ones are so much easier to work with in this regard I find. I really want to try an 8 in the door and the Dyn 172 or maybe Morel Elate 9 are the ones I keep thinking on but don't have the money for it and I need to make sure it will fit and still keep my stock door panels.


Again, I think you are missing some good info just given to you. The bottom line in a nutshell is:

IF YOUR CURRENT SYSTEM HAS REACHED PASS THE LIMITATIONS OF YOUR TUNING ABILITY OR WILL, WHY WOULD A DIFFERENT DRIVER SOLVE YOUR PROBLEMS? Push pass this limitation by at least trying the suggestions of others!

1) The ML 700 seems like a fine driver but its a 2-3/4" driver and has limited excursion (.5 MM). I think the reason it sounds rough at volume is because of distortion. I think your crossover is too low, your pods a tad too large, and given this they are being over driven. Experiment by reducing the size of the pods(put something in to take up some space) and adjusting the crossover to the 500-700Hz range. Now see if they sound better and report back.

2) A 150Hz-250Hz crossover point just does not make sense for a 3" midrange if trying to get a lot of sound out of it. Many have figured that out and started putting 6 1/2" drivers in the dash! Very few small drivers will allow you to have it all ...the very low range of the human voice.









• The fundamental frequency (F0) for an adult male voice is around 120 Hz (80-200 Hz).
• The typical F0 range for an adult female voice is around 220 Hz (140-500 Hz). 
• In terms of frequency, human voices are roughly in the range of 80 Hz to 1100 Hz (that is, E2 to C6) for normal male and female voices together.
• Harmonics can push this range up to 3KHz-4KHZ+.
• In telephony, the usable voice frequency band ranges from approximately 300 Hz to 3400 Hz.

As you can see, a 2-3/4" driver really is not the best driver for the job but if integrated well with the midbass can pull the soundstage up above the dash and fool your ears into thinking that Barry White is sitting on your hood singing and not on your floor.

3) If your midbass is hot at 250Hz then adjust it up or down after changing the midrange crossover freq to see if that helps smooth the transition and report back. What is the highest they will play and sound good? 

4) If you hate having to EQ what was the point in getting the ever so capable Bit One? Whats the draw in having all the EQ bands if you don't want to use them? Some systems need very little tuning and some need all the tools that you have!


----------



## james2266 (Sep 24, 2009)

WLDock said:


> Again, I think you are missing some good info just given to you. The bottom line in a nutshell is:
> 
> IF YOUR CURRENT SYSTEM HAS REACHED PASS THE LIMITATIONS OF YOUR TUNING ABILITY OR WILL, WHY WOULD A DIFFERENT DRIVER SOLVE YOUR PROBLEMS? Push pass this limitation by at least trying the suggestions of others!
> 
> ...


I am always very willing to try anything actually. That is the beauty part of the Bit One. It is so easy to try out new settings at any point really.

My point on having to eq the crap out of my Hertz drivers was not that I don`t like doing it. My point was that I think that I am not getting my money`s worth out of my amplifiers that way. I see your point on some drivers need more than others. It is what I have right now and until I get some cash to do what I want to do I will have to go with what I have and that means eqing the crap out of the Hertz drivers to make them sound good I guess. I remembered when I first installed all of this and turned it on. It sounded like garbage! I was shocked that a $1000 set of comps could sound so bad. A powerful eq really is needed for these speakers to be their best I guess. I have just been thinking more and more (since installing some Morel replacements) about how much better this can all be if I started from a much better sounding foundation. Does that make sense?

I will try out your suggestion on crossover points and see if I can find something to eat up some space in these pods and not be harmful to the drivers. Another thing I have been thinking too is my source could be bad spot too. Unfortunately, I want nav and I have yet to see a true sq nav unit yet. Until then I will have to make do. No money for that either. I hate that damned noisy fan that kicks in. Is there anyone that does mods on these things that you (or anyone) knows of? Something to consider down the road too possibly?


----------



## WLDock (Sep 27, 2005)

Well I guess this system is your initiation into car audio. The Mille drivers seem to have excellent engineering and manufacturing. Put these drivers in the correct enclosures and play them in a sound treated home system and I bet they sound great. But, the auto environment has a way of making a mess of $10 drivers as well as $1000 drivers. Why the hell is everyone coming out with a DSP unit that has enough power to adjust a home studio? Because the auto environment sucks for audio...one needs tools to pull everything together....Especially a four-way system. If one curve or point is not working try another until you dial it in.!

Even OEM's are figuring it out. I've had several people tell me that many of the current cars that they've been in or rented have audio systems that they would be happy with and would not need to upgrade....some were musicians! Component selection, installation, integration, and tuning are key!!! 
Sent from my HTC Sensation 4G using Tapatalk 2


----------



## WLDock (Sep 27, 2005)

Repost


----------



## james2266 (Sep 24, 2009)

Ok, just got back from retuning for the last hour or so. I didn't find anything to put in the pods to decrease volume but looking closer at them I honestly don't think they are too big. I might have been a little high in my estimation of volume too. They are probably closer to 0.5 Liters of so I figure. I don't really have an accurate way of measureing that right now. Anyways, I ended up moving the midrange cross up to 550 Hz and the midbass at 500 Hz both on 24 db slopes. By doing this, I was able to raise the midrange output by 2 db without getting any distortion/screetchiness or whatever it is. I also tried backing off my midbasses by 2 db. I ended up with about a 10 db rise on the low end now. I am headed out for about a 2 hour or so drive now (well, hour both ways) so I will be able to get a better idea of whether this was successful/better sounding later. I also backed the tweets off by 1 db and raised their crosspoint a tad up to 4500 Hz as I noticed a little breakup on them at full throttle that I hadn't noticed before. I was using the one song that caused the most problems before for tuning which was a Matchbox 20 song of all songs. I will report back.

I also pulled a door panel and did some measurements which I have been meaning to do for a while. I am really wanting to try out some 8 inch midbasses It looks like the Dyn MW172 might just fit but the Morel 9s and Dyn MW182 are out I think.


----------



## james2266 (Sep 24, 2009)

My long drive told me a few things. 1. the screetchiness appears to be gone and replaced by more detail and clearer music. 2. some vocals dive into the doors I find. Not nearly as noticeable as when I had this as a 2 way but it is noticeable. I have discussed my findings at greater length in my other thread. This thread has gone a little off course with this as it was meant as a Scanspeak 10f discussion. I am still strongly considering these drivers as replacements.


----------



## subwoofery (Nov 9, 2008)

james2266 said:


> My long drive told me a few things. 1. the screetchiness appears to be gone and replaced by more detail and clearer music. 2. some vocals dive into the doors I find. Not nearly as noticeable as when I had this as a 2 way but it is noticeable. I have discussed my findings at greater length in my other thread. This thread has gone a little off course with this as it was meant as a Scanspeak 10f discussion. I am still strongly considering these drivers as replacements.


Vocals diving into the doors is a tuning problem ONLY... Did you adjust T/A? 

I see your LP for midbass is the same as the HP for the midrange (@ 550Hz)... Why not try to use a lower LP? Something like 400Hz @ 24dB, or better yet 315Hz @ 12dB? 
I know a few people don't like 12dB/oct slopes due to phase problems but I usually use the Xover to fix problems first, then I adjust the EQ... 

Kelvin 

PS: didn't I tell you to move your HP up a few days ago?


----------



## james2266 (Sep 24, 2009)

subwoofery said:


> Vocals diving into the doors is a tuning problem ONLY... Did you adjust T/A?
> 
> I see your LP for midbass is the same as the HP for the midrange (@ 550Hz)... Why not try to use a lower LP? Something like 400Hz @ 24dB, or better yet 315Hz @ 12dB?
> I know a few people don't like 12dB/oct slopes due to phase problems but I usually use the Xover to fix problems first, then I adjust the EQ...
> ...


I know. You and a few others were telling me that. What can I say, I am stupborn sometimes. Also, I still don't like it but it appears to be necessary for this driver how I want to listen to my system. I also modeled this and it's potential replacement (SS 10f) in winisd and it was telling me the same thing actually. The program was telling me that with as little as 50 watts, the driver would reach its xmax at as high as 550 Hz if I recall. With 100 watts I think the number was something like 650 Hz or so. The good thing was that the 10f modelled alot better. I think I can take that driver down to about 310 Hz with 100 watts and still not reach xmax for the driver. The program definitely surprised me by saying it required a smaller enclosure too for the same .707 qtc (0.67 to 0.4 L). Are you familiar with this driver at all? How good is it for producing fine details? I have read that it is fairly smooth and accurate in the midrange and non fatiguing which are the main reasons I am looking at it.


----------

