# Door vs. Kick Panel



## BlueSQ (Mar 22, 2007)

I did a search, i couldnt find a straight up comparison so I hope this isnt too much of a repeat.

I have 6.5" mids in the door. I play them at 80hz @ 24db & 2k @ 24db HPF&LFP. Tweeters are in sail panel, and run at [email protected] db w/ another filter at 1.9. 

Thing is, Ive heard SEAS perform well in doors because they enjoy airspace, and Im not skilled enough to vent a kickpanel, I can hardly make one. 

Given that in my particular setup can angle the mid slightly in the door towards the opposite passenger, (I have 1 1/2" of spacer to work with to bring the driver up to the door trim panel from the door skin), what would you guys recommend? Kick, or door based on experience? 

Has anyone actually gotten their door mounted 6.5" speakers to sound better than kick panel or 3 way installs?


----------



## tcguy85 (Oct 29, 2007)

BlueSQ said:


> I did a search, i couldnt find a straight up comparison so I hope this isnt too much of a repeat.
> 
> I have 6.5" mids in the door. I play them at 80hz @ 24db & 2k @ 24db HPF&LFP. Tweeters are in sail panel, and run at [email protected] db w/ another filter at 1.9.
> 
> ...


a 6.5" door mounted mid can sound just fine. you'll just start to suffer from beaming and have a roll off at the listening position if extremely off axis.


----------



## BlueSQ (Mar 22, 2007)

tcguy85 said:


> a 6.5" door mounted mid can sound just fine. you'll just start to suffer from beaming and have a roll off at the listening position if extremely off axis.


Thanks! Heres the point Im driving at: Am I doing a quality driver (and myself) a disservice by putting it in a door rather than making its own enclosure?

This is DIYMA, we're all completely insane, "fine" never quite cuts it


----------



## SQ_Blaze (Sep 29, 2008)

BlueSQ said:


> Thanks! Heres the point Im driving at: Am I doing a quality driver (and myself) a disservice by putting it in a door rather than making its own enclosure?
> 
> This is DIYMA, we're all completely insane, "fine" never quite cuts it


Again, like *tcguy85* said, you can run into beaming issues with those high crossover frequencies (2kHz), unless you can get those mids angled up high enough within the door/panel limits.

With a 6.5" driver, I think you start getting some beaming around 1.5-2kHz, so you're right on the edge.


----------



## J0ne (Aug 7, 2007)

BlueSQ said:


> Thanks! Heres the point Im driving at: Am I doing a quality driver (and myself) a disservice by putting it in a door rather than making its own enclosure?
> 
> This is DIYMA, we're all completely insane, "fine" never quite cuts it


well, a speaker is definitely going to sound better in its own enclosure built to spec VS putting the same speaker in a door....

does that answer your question?


----------



## chuyler1 (Apr 10, 2006)

Option 1 would be to angle them up.

Option 2 should not be installing in the kicks.

Unless you can provide adequate airspace, you will not get a smooth response down to 80Hz in your kicks. I have tried before and it has always sounded peaky no matter how thick the fiberglass or how much deadener/fill I install. You can tweak with an EQ like crazy but in the end you're going to want more output from them, and that can only be achieved with airspace.

So my option 2 would be to install a 3-5" speaker in the kicks instead of the 6.5". Leave the 6.5" in the door where it works great for up-front midbass. Granted this requires more amplifier channels...but you wanted an honest answer.


----------



## chuyler1 (Apr 10, 2006)

dbl post


----------



## tcguy85 (Oct 29, 2007)

buy or make these and use them in your doors to angle your mids more on-axis.
http://cgi.ebay.com/Large-Angled-6-...photoQQcmdZViewItemQQ_trksidZp1742.m153.l1262

i keep considering trying something like this.


----------



## J0ne (Aug 7, 2007)

i will comment that the best midbass response I have ever gotten from my front stage, was a door mounted\sealed\deadened solution. 
I tried kick panels once in my car, and have not since.


----------



## BlueSQ (Mar 22, 2007)

chuyler1 said:


> Option 1 would be to angle them up.
> 
> Option 2 should not be installing in the kicks.
> 
> ...



Gotcha, thanks. If 3 way was the case, its a matter of $$, theres no point in having a seas reference set stuck as a bass driver, I'd have to sell them if I were to go active and get a 7". 

Anyway, so angle em up huh? What kind of axis am I shooting for in the door? Ive heard as it stands doors keep speakers about 65 degrees off axis. Maybe turn em to 40 or something? I think I know the answer: its driver dependant. 

Check out these specs maybe someone can chime in? Its the PDF document at the bottom of the page.

http://www.seaslotus.com.au/index.p...&category_id=4&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=1


----------



## braves6117 (Feb 13, 2008)

chuyler1 said:


> Option 1 would be to angle them up.
> 
> Option 2 should not be installing in the kicks.
> 
> Unless you can provide adequate airspace, you will not get a smooth response down to 80Hz in your kicks. I have tried before and it has always sounded peaky no matter how thick the fiberglass or how much deadener/fill I install. You can tweak with an EQ like crazy but in the end you're going to want more output from them, and that can only be achieved with airspace.




So, presuming adequate air space can be achieved or manipulated, the benfits of kicks will outperform an in door application?

I *know* this is install specific, but having a driver fire into my leg off axis seems dentramental to me...


----------



## BlueSQ (Mar 22, 2007)

J0ne said:


> well, a speaker is definitely going to sound better in its own enclosure built to spec VS putting the same speaker in a door....
> 
> does that answer your question?


Yes. thank you. 

Have you tried both?


----------



## BlueSQ (Mar 22, 2007)

braves6117 said:


> I *know* this is install specific, but having a driver fire into my leg off axis seems dentramental to me...


Yup, which is why im wondering should i hone my fiberglassing skills or settle for the doors? Am I really missing out on all that much....


----------



## chuyler1 (Apr 10, 2006)

kicks gives you more equal path lengths and more on-axis angling. So if you were to take airspace out of the equation then yes kicks are the better location...but you always have to keep in mind that your passengers may kick them and if you drive stick you often have to give up most if not all of the dead pedal.


----------



## chuyler1 (Apr 10, 2006)

BlueSQ said:


> Yup, which is why im wondering should i hone my fiberglassing skills or settle for the doors? Am I really missing out on all that much....


Kicks are often more than just fiberglassing. Often times you have to relocate electronics. If you are going for optimum SQ then it is the only solution (whether you are putting 3"s or 6.5"s down there)...but for a daily driver and not a show vehicle you need to pick and choose your sacrifices. I for one won't build kicks that will get in the way of every day use of the vehicle so it's been a while since I've done them for a 2-way system. You can make up for path lengths and angling with time alignment and eqing...it won't be perfect but you can get pretty close.


----------



## J0ne (Aug 7, 2007)

BlueSQ said:


> Yes. thank you.
> 
> Have you tried both?


numerous times. In my vehicle, I have my midbass in the doors. Sealing off the door panel is a must. with the proper driver, I have a hard time seeing how one could be disapointed with a sealed\deadened door panel


----------



## tcguy85 (Oct 29, 2007)

J0ne said:


> numerous times. In my vehicle, I have my midbass in the doors. Sealing off the door panel is a must. with the proper driver, I have a hard time seeing how one could be disapointed with a sealed\deadened door panel


yes, other than not being able to use the driver higher up. 

it's all a compromise. 

in the doors it's easy to get good mid-bass, in the kicks it's harder to get good mid-bass.

in the kicks you should be able to cross the drivers over higher and get more top end out of them, in the doors it's harder to get good top end out of the drivers because of beaming.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

Kicks: Don't forget the option of aperiodic enclosures. They are perfect for the instances where you have small volume. Quite honestly, as well as it seems to work in my car I'm pretty sure that it may be a 'go to' for me from now on in future installs. Heck, when I switch it from 3-way to 2-way I'm literally amazed at how great things sound. It's a big step but well worth it in my opinion. My midbasses are another animal in the kicks; in the doors I just couldn't ever get anything to work the way I wanted it to. Truthfully, I'm thinking the next install I do will incorporate the same midbasses AP'd in the kicks, a good tweeter to match and be done; no midrange, no sub. They do the job that well. 

I've heard quite a few good door IB setups, too. Everything has its tradeoffs. It comes down to a lot of variables: budget, craftsmanship ability, willingness to cut into car, drivers to be used, etc. All of which you really should nail down before a decision is made.


----------



## braves6117 (Feb 13, 2008)

bikinpunk said:


> Kicks: Don't forget the option of aperiodic enclosures.


I dont think I have even heard of aperiodic enclosures Huge Newb feeling


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

braves6117 said:


> I dont think I have even heard of aperiodic enclosures Huge Newb feeling


stupid ECA is down. There was plenty of talk on them there.

Basically the idea is that you have the ability to use a 'vent' via an aperiodic membrane that changes how the enclosure 'breathes'. These vents allow you to use a smaller volume than usual and get a flat response by adding/removing material from the vent. 

That's a really simple version. There's a lot of talk about it on home audio forums which, to me, are the best sources for this. There's a tutorial on how to make them on ECA, too. Google should take care of you:
http://www.google.com/search?q=aper...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a


In my situation the vent is in the floor (check my build thread if you care to see pics) and venting outside through the firewall/floorboard. This was a pretty big step but the payoff was well worth it in the end. Contrarily, you can put an AP enclosure in the doors. There are multiple ways to do this, too. I can't say its for everyone, but it'll always be at the top of my list of options. Like I said, you just have to lay it out in front of you and weigh your options. I did some research on this last year, but only recently had it done. Because I'm so happy with the results, you and the other forum go-ers can expect to see me always recommend this option; at the least suggesting folks look into it. I don't think most people would want to do this, and I was scared even after dropping the car off, but like I said, to me the end result is worth it. 

- Erin


----------



## Mic10is (Aug 20, 2007)

a key point was touched on but I dont think the whole idea was expressed

what is the goal of the system?
Primary purpose for Kick panels as mentioned earlier is to increase pathlengths and decrease pathlength difference--Which is all done to improve imaging from Both listening positions.
But the main point is, kick panels were used for speaker installation to improve imaging from Both sides.

If u dont care much about optimal imaging or driver and passenger imaging, then stock locations will work just fine with very minimal work.

next is tonality. Its much easier to get tonality right or how a driver sounds or "should" sound in a large enclosure like a door.
Kick panels require more work to gain airspace, whether its through AP venting, IB venting or other means without making the kicks so large they take up precious footspace.

so again--what is the goal? pin point imaging or just good sounding car?

and TA and EQ cannot properly compensate for true equalization of pathlengths.
if anything its a bandaid. You may be able to get one side to work well, but never both


----------



## BlueSQ (Mar 22, 2007)

Mic10is said:


> a key point was touched on but I dont think the whole idea was expressed
> 
> what is the goal of the system?
> Primary purpose for Kick panels as mentioned earlier is to increase pathlengths and decrease pathlength difference--Which is all done to improve imaging from Both listening positions.
> ...



Hi there, well I originally wanted to keep this thread fairly general. A lot of times I come by threads that are so specific to someones problem it doesnt answer any of my questions. 

For ME, my doors are very large, and the speaker location is fairly close to where the kickpanel WOULD be if there was one. Its a 2002 Eclipse. I made pods out of the factory speaker spacer, and angled them maybe 20 degrees off axis. The design for the speaker pod is flawed though, I need to remake it smaller with less of an angle. It resonates at higher volume (the pod itself, which leads to door resonation no matter what I do) and kills me tonally at the crossover region. Before I remake them, I wanted advice about the pros and cons. Theres just something about the door location that I cant get over, like taking a home theater front stage and putting it on the sides of the room. Thats why I wanted to change things up a bit.

Kick panels are going to be tricky in this car. Theres no way Im going to find 20 liters of airspace. WinISD says I can get away with 5 or 6 liters, or .3 cubic feet. The other thing about the car is the dash is big and sits low, meaning the first soundwaves would be partially trapped under my dash.

As it stands my soundstage is good. Think 21 out of 25 points for competition. Tonally though...I just HAVE to change something. My crossover region is awful, the rest sings pretty well though. 

My main goal is to first find a spot where I can get a sound reproduction true to the way the speakers SHOULD sound (aka what the graph says). Then, after I find that, I'll worry about staging. I've been using time alignment anyway, so i dont have an issue with that but I WOULD like to move away from it eventually.


----------



## AWC (Mar 31, 2008)

chuyler1 said:


> Option 1 would be to angle them up.
> 
> Option 2 should not be installing in the kicks.
> 
> ...



What are the trade-offs with this approach? This is exactly what I have. I have the 6.5 as an ankle biter, midrange in kick panel, and tweet in stock location. I have a 3800 12db high pass to the tweets. Should I cut that to a 6 db high pass at 3800? Otherwise I need to look to new crossover point modules.


----------



## BlueSQ (Mar 22, 2007)

So I wanted to hear some of your real life experiences out there. I have a few here, thanks guys, but I want to hear experiences moving the location of your 6.5" or 5" mids from the kicks to doors or doors to kicks. Try to compare using the same driver, rather than, say, moving locations AND swapping drivers...so everything is compared equally.

Im very curious to see the outcomes from you guys, there are lots of people in here who have the means to experiment more than me, and maybe we can all save a little time and $ with this.


----------



## TXwrxWagon (Sep 26, 2008)

tcguy85 said:


> buy or make these and use them in your doors to angle your mids more on-axis.
> http://cgi.ebay.com/Large-Angled-6-...photoQQcmdZViewItemQQ_trksidZp1742.m153.l1262
> 
> i keep considering trying something like this.


THAT sir is an AWESOME find!!

I've always wanted to figure out a way to angle my rings.. for that price & they are a day away.. worth every penny.

thanks!

Rob
2004 WRX Wagon


----------



## Hernan (Jul 9, 2006)

BlueSQ said:


> Has anyone actually gotten their door mounted 6.5" speakers to sound better than kick panel or 3 way installs?


I run a 3 way active frontstage. 6,5s at the doors, dome midranges and tw at the kicks.

The stock door location is fine for a midbass but not the best for a 6,5 (fairly big) woofer to perform as midrange. The frecuency response between L & R is very different. Some drivers perform better than others at extreme off axis installs.

I can get my system to sound very similar as 2 way or 3 way. Tonality is about the same, the difference is in staging and how loud it gets before distortion.

In the 2 way setup the mid plays from 70/18 to 3,2/6dB, paper cone driver with very smooth rolloff (is not the CA18, they are out and I'm not missing them)
The tws came in at 4khz/18, the same xo point used in the 3 way setup.

A good compromise could be building some good door panels. Using the door as a sealed enclosure but with the drivers angled. Anything below 45degrees off axis should be a lot better than stock.

Is this cheaper/easier then add a small dedicated midrange...


----------



## AWC (Mar 31, 2008)

chuyler1 said:


> Option 1 would be to angle them up.
> 
> Option 2 should not be installing in the kicks.
> 
> ...


considering the position, would a 3 inch in a kick panel be advisable? Or would you lean more towards 5 inch? Seems *they* always recommend to keep the 3" within .000000000009 inches of the tweet....*they*, however, talk alot. If he had say...an FS of 280 on a 3 inch, is he going to have the flexibilty in crossover settings to achieve his goals...considering a tweeter FS of 900-950? or would he need a tweet that croosed even lower? IOW, will this set up offer greater or lesser flexibilty?

Considering frequency traits along the spectrum, how would he process this? would he split a tweet signal so that time allignment is less critical in the upper end, and time allign to the lower end of the three inch? Or should he split a midbass signal since his 3" would be so close to the midbass that the difference in driver position would be nill, even at those frequencies that are more sensitive to time allignment. 

I would gues that splitting the tweet signal would be bad, considering that is where you would want the most conrtol to dial in the stage from the tweeters after having the midbass/mid set-up. 

Does it seem too obvious that I'm not bringing this up for him:blush:


----------



## BlueSQ (Mar 22, 2007)

AWC said:


> Considering frequency traits along the spectrum, how would he process this? would he split a tweet signal so that time allignment is less critical in the upper end, and time allign to the lower end of the three inch? Or should he split a midbass signal since his 3" would be so close to the midbass that the difference in driver position would be nill, even at those frequencies that are more sensitive to time allignment.
> 
> I would gues that splitting the tweet signal would be bad, considering that is where you would want the most conrtol to dial in the stage from the tweeters after having the midbass/mid set-up.
> 
> Does it seem too obvious that I'm not bringing this up for him:blush:





4 channel amp to replace the 2 channel driving my tweeters
active 4 channel crossover
midrange dome and tweeters close, so time alignment is exactly the same

lots of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


----------



## AWC (Mar 31, 2008)

BlueSQ said:


> 4 channel amp to replace the 2 channel driving my tweeters
> active 4 channel crossover
> midrange dome and tweeters close, so time alignment is exactly the same
> 
> lots of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


nooo...in addition


----------



## cotdt (Oct 3, 2005)

in kick panels, your legs get in the way. i never had much success using anything larger than a 4.5" in the kickpanel.


----------



## BlueSQ (Mar 22, 2007)

cotdt said:


> in kick panels, your legs get in the way. i never had much success using anything larger than a 4.5" in the kickpanel.


They seem to get in the way in door installs also...


----------



## Dangerranger (Apr 12, 2006)

cotdt said:


> in kick panels, your legs get in the way. i never had much success using anything larger than a 4.5" in the kickpanel.


I Agree, 4.5" drivers are the sweet spot for kick installations. If you're going through the trouble of fiberglassing kick panels, there's no reason not to go with a 3 way setup. 5.25 and 6.5" drivers suffer from beaming in kicks just as they do a door panel setup and they're large enough that you'll trade axis of the drivers to get necessary footroom and enclosure volume for the drivers. You may get them more on axis, but they still won't be on axis. 4.5" I feel is a good compromise, you'll have sufficient airspace, they're not too large, they cover the fundamental frequency range effectively, and they go high enough on and off axis to mate with most any tweeter with good results

3" drivers and soft dome midranges do ok in the imaging department, but they already lack dynamic capability even when they're close to you, they definately don't need to be the farthest driver from you AND blocked by your leg. Soft dome midranges are hindered by being without a suspension and (as hinted by the name) are too soft and have a floppy, distortion producing diaphragm making matters that much worse. That plus high volumes doesn't produce the most desirable results.


----------



## AWC (Mar 31, 2008)

Dangerranger said:


> I Agree, 4.5" drivers are the sweet spot for kick installations. If you're going through the trouble of fiberglassing kick panels, there's no reason not to go with a 3 way setup. 5.25 and 6.5" drivers suffer from beaming in kicks just as they do a door panel setup and they're large enough that you'll trade axis of the drivers to get necessary footroom and enclosure volume for the drivers. You may get them more on axis, but they still won't be on axis. 4.5" I feel is a good compromise, you'll have sufficient airspace, they're not too large, they cover the fundamental frequency range effectively, and they go high enough on and off axis to mate with most any tweeter with good results
> 
> 3" drivers and soft dome midranges do ok in the imaging department, but they already lack dynamic capability even when they're close to you, they definately don't need to be the farthest driver from you AND blocked by your leg. Soft dome midranges are hindered by being without a suspension and (as hinted by the name) are too soft and have a floppy, distortion producing diaphragm making matters that much worse. That plus high volumes doesn't produce the most desirable results.


do you feel this way even with a low FS dome mid (280) with some real power handling? Morel CDM 88, to be precise.


----------



## Dangerranger (Apr 12, 2006)

AWC said:


> do you feel this way even with a low FS dome mid (280) with some real power handling? Morel CDM 88, to be precise.


Yes I do. Simply due to lack of diaphragm rigidity (doped cloth, ever touched a soft dome tweeter without a grill?) as well as a lack of a spider. The drivers simply don't have the linearity to reproduce bass and lower midrange with authority, clarity and low distortion. Even the "good" home audio examples don't use dome midranges below 800hz, and really if you look there aren't many designs out there that utilize dome midranges just due to lackluster performance.

In a car, the inherent enclosure of a dome gives an advantage over some midrange options as well as ease of placement and easier tonality, but in a proper enclosure a cone midrange simply offers much better overall performance.


----------



## AWC (Mar 31, 2008)

Dangerranger said:


> Yes I do. Simply due to lack of diaphragm rigidity (doped cloth, ever touched a soft dome tweeter without a grill?) as well as a lack of a spider. The drivers simply don't have the linearity to reproduce bass and lower midrange with authority, clarity and low distortion. Even the "good" home audio examples don't use dome midranges below 800hz, and really if you look there aren't many designs out there that utilize dome midranges just due to lackluster performance.
> 
> In a car, the inherent enclosure of a dome gives an advantage over some midrange options as well as ease of placement and easier tonality, but in a proper enclosure a cone midrange simply offers much better overall performance.


thank you.


----------

