# 5.25" vs 6.5" any real noticable difference?



## freeride1685 (Oct 3, 2007)

So i just found out that my car actually takes 6.5" woofers rather than 5.25". this is a bit upsetting because i have the impression that 6.5"s are "better" (leave it to my American mindset to mess things up)

does anyone have any commentary? i assume that midbass will be a bit lacking on the smaller one but does anybody have some good data to suggest what the difference is?


----------



## Thumper26 (Sep 23, 2005)

my thoughts on them are in line with yours - you have less midbass, but i'd guess a little better midrange. I can't wait to hear what others say about this.


----------



## SSSnake (Mar 8, 2007)

Don't forget that smaller drivers tend to be less dynamic. 

It really all depends on the rest of the system. With large format tweets and no midbass, I would definitely go with the 6.5". With small format tweets and midbasses I would go with 5.25". It is all a trade off.

One more thing, there are some 5.25" that would eat some 6.5"s lunch.


----------



## ///Audience (Jan 31, 2007)

i doubt ill ever use a 5 1/4" driver again... My subs sound trying to play up to them and pulls my stage away anyway.. not sure id even use below a 7" again. 


and your post was a little confusing sorry.... your upset that your car accepts 6.5" when you think that 6.5" is better? maybe im just misreading? 


SSSnake... i also dont see a point in using a 5.25 as a midrange with a midbass. It rather defeats the point of a 3 way to have such a large driver attempt to cover such an important part of the sound spectrum. Plus if im doing a 3 way, it will most likely involve me crossing over my tweets at 6k+ and i dont want a 5.25" driver playing that high


----------



## SSSnake (Mar 8, 2007)

I am a dynamics nut... I do admit that I am now running 4" for mids because of the increased upper midrange clarity but I SORELY miss the dynamics that I used to get.


----------



## freeride1685 (Oct 3, 2007)

BassBaller5 said:


> i doubt ill ever use a 5 1/4" driver again... My subs sound trying to play up to them and pulls my stage away anyway.. not sure id even use below a 7" again.
> 
> 
> and your post was a little confusing sorry.... your upset that your car accepts 6.5" when you think that 6.5" is better? maybe im just misreading?
> ...


i guess i failed to mention that i am most upset because i got the 5.25" versions because i didn't think anything larger would fit. i was basing that off of my father's BMW 525. it only takes 6.25" speakers or something silly like that and so i figured that the 3 series was a weird European number as well, so i bought small to ensure fitment. but alas, proper planning was not proper enough :blush:


----------



## invecs (Jul 30, 2005)

5.25s will sound better on the top end of the midrange. 6.5s will tend to beam and become directional at the top end.

I'm using dyn 5s because of better midrange clarity than the 7s. It has less midbass if mounted in the doors though...so I built an enclosure to improve on the midbass of the 5s. The impact of using an enclosure for the mw150 is tremendous...it blows the dyn 160s in IB or even some 8s in IB. I have both the system 220 and 240 at one time and sold of the 240s.


----------



## DonutHands (Jan 27, 2006)

its easy to compare simmilar drivers of different sizes on zaphaudio.com


----------



## ///Audience (Jan 31, 2007)

invecs said:


> 5.25s will sound better on the top end of the midrange. 6.5s will tend to beam and become directional at the top end.
> 
> I'm using dyn 5s because of better midrange clarity than the 7s. It has less midbass if mounted in the doors though...so I built an enclosure to improve on the midbass of the 5s. The impact of using an enclosure for the mw150 is tremendous...it blows the dyn 160s in IB or even some 8s in IB. I have both the system 220 and 240 at one time and sold of the 240s.


any pics? im assuming enclosure being vented kicks?


----------



## ///Audience (Jan 31, 2007)

^hey that rhymed!


----------



## freeride1685 (Oct 3, 2007)

invecs said:


> 5.25s will sound better on the top end of the midrange. 6.5s will tend to beam and become directional at the top end.
> 
> I'm using dyn 5s because of better midrange clarity than the 7s. It has less midbass if mounted in the doors though...so I built an enclosure to improve on the midbass of the 5s. The impact of using an enclosure for the mw150 is tremendous...it blows the dyn 160s in IB or even some 8s in IB. I have both the system 220 and 240 at one time and sold of the 240s.


what kind of enclosure did you build? and how did you integrate it into the door panel properly? i will be leaving the external appearance of my door panel bone stock so if this is an "internal" mod that gets hidden then i am all for hearing about it.


----------



## invecs (Jul 30, 2005)

I moved the speakers out from the doors as it is impossible to fit a 0.2 cuft enclosure and still make the windows roll down. They are mounted in the floors...not in the kicks though. I can send pictures if someone is willing to host them.


----------



## Pseudonym (Apr 17, 2006)

send them here. theyll be happy to host them for u.


----------



## freeride1685 (Oct 3, 2007)

host them on photobucket, it is free and you can link it direct, too.

i would like to see photos but i dont think this is an option for me. as i would like to keep my door panels looking stock a bumpout is not really possible.

do you think there is any way, however, to determine if a specific sized hole in the door panel deadening would be beneficial whatsoever to output (specifically midbass)

the door panel itself is my only option for enclosure, but i feel like it would be tremendously complicated to determine if a "port" in the sealing and deadening of the door panel would be usable and helpful at reinforcing the frequency response.


----------



## invecs (Jul 30, 2005)

Here are some pix:

http://i230.photobucket.com/albums/ee122/george331/floormounts004.jpg?t=1193200403

http://i230.photobucket.com/albums/ee122/george331/floormounts007.jpg?t=1193200461

http://s230.photobucket.com/albums/ee122/george331/th_floormountcivic001.jpg

http://s230.photobucket.com/albums/ee122/george331/th_floormountcivic004.jpg


----------



## khail19 (Oct 27, 2006)

invecs said:


> Here are some pix:
> 
> http://i230.photobucket.com/albums/ee122/george331/floormounts004.jpg?t=1193200403
> 
> ...


That's new.  I've never seen speakers floor mounted right in front of the seats like that. Don't your legs block a lot of the sound while in the car? And I don't see how you could get much imaging, it seems like your stage would be lacking depth and width. How's it sound?


----------



## invecs (Jul 30, 2005)

It images pretty well for both sides. A friend of mine who judges IASCA and EMMA was surprised on how it stages. The stage is quite narrow...it spans from the left pillar to 5 inches from the right pillar. Stage is stable and height is on the dash but below eye level. The stage is pretty far on the hood. My center is slightly on to the left of the center of the dash and is at the center of the soundstage. It is very focused...Clair Marlo's Too Close track is literally very pinpoint but still has the warmth of her voice...most people tend to eq out the midrange to get good focus so they lose the warmth of her voice. Image placement is good...only the left center is quite near the center image. Tonally, I can't really ask for more...it sounds very smooth even without eq.


----------



## drake78 (May 27, 2007)

^^^ WOW, that's interesting speaker placement. Where did you get the idea? Very original I must add.


----------



## invecs (Jul 30, 2005)

In some old mag. But they only put the mids on the floor and the tweeters in the pillars...then I saw PerryB's sounddomain page...he has his mids in the floor and the tweeters mounted in the doors. I also saw some installs with horns below the dash and mids on the floor. I tried various tweeter placements but in my install putting them beside the mid made the images more focused...but width suffered abit. I decided to put the tweeter beside the mid since it has the least amount of compromise as compared to other placements.


----------



## drake78 (May 27, 2007)

invecs said:


> In some old mag. But they only put the mids on the floor and the tweeters in the pillars...then I saw PerryB's sounddomain page...he has his mids in the floor and the tweeters mounted in the doors. I also saw some installs with horns below the dash and mids on the floor. I tried various tweeter placements but in my install putting them beside the mid made the images more focused...but width suffered abit. I decided to put the tweeter beside the mid since it has the least amount of compromise as compared to other placements.


You got pm for you install technique.


----------



## chuyler1 (Apr 10, 2006)

invecs said:


> In some old mag.


Was it a 2nd gen black Eclipse? If so, I remember it. The guy was running a/d/s tweets in the stock locations (a-pilar I think) and he installed the 5" mids on either side of the center console. The floor was done over to make it look seamless. On the rear deck he had a single dome midrange firing up at the rear glass to improve stage height. In the spare tire well there was a 12" sub. Everything was powered by a single PPI amp and he had a PPI 1/3 octave EQ. Top notch install, wish I didn't throw out all my old magazines.

Anyway, back to what I was going to comment on.

There is a huge difference between a 6.5" driver and a 7" driver with regards to midrange (800-3KHz and beyond). Sure you get some low end punch with the 7" but only by sacrificing the clarity of vocals and many instruments whose detail comes from the 1KHz band. Dropping down to a 5.25" driver further enhances that range. It is our most sensitive range and careful attention must be paid toward it. 

However 5.25" speakers have their limitations and when designing a system you must keep that in mind. If you are a stickler for "up front bass" you will have your work cut out for you with a 5.25". The lowest frequency you could possibly use would be 100Hz but you'd be much safer with 150Hz. You can still keep your subwoofer crossover in the 50-80Hz range but you will have to make sure the rear of your car is completely dead as to not draw the ear to rattles and other vibrations in the back of your car. There have been many award winning installs that utilized 5.25" speakers in the past. You'd be surprised to find out what their crossover settings were. You can trick the ear into thinking it is hearing 100Hz if you properly set up 50Hz and 150Hz. Take a look at stock stereo systems...They rarely play below 120Hz but you still get the sense of having bass (not much but the sensation is there).


----------



## freeride1685 (Oct 3, 2007)

so any more commentary on the difference in size?

what i have gathered so far is that a 5.25 will be a bit stronger for upper midrange while a 6.5 will be stronger for midbass, but that there are also other non-linear issues that come into play that are more subjective to specific speaker designs.

does it help if i note that these speakers (Boston Acoustics SPZ50s) also use a phase plug design?


----------



## freeride1685 (Oct 3, 2007)

oh i missed your post, very informative.


----------



## Thumper26 (Sep 23, 2005)

from what i understand, phase plug helps with off axis dispersion, esp at the higher frequencies. so, they don't have to be aimed at you quite as much to still sound good.


----------



## freeride1685 (Oct 3, 2007)

interesting....i know what you mean about the illusion, it reminds me of some other bass "solutions" that will use harmonics of the original bass frequency to trick you into believing it....that's the idea, correct?

but how about another option. i have the BA SPG555 sub, which (ask AVI  ) is one of the best and most musical subs ever created. I have to vouch for that as well. It could easily come up to touch the 5.25s even if they were crossed at about 150hz, and definitely at 100hz. the question though, is that worth it? is 150 too high of a frequency to play from the trunk without pulling the image back?

also can you clarify...silly question but i never got that saying..."you have your work cut out for you"....that means it is easier for me, correct? i are teh g0od for engul1sh


----------



## ///Audience (Jan 31, 2007)

honestly, for MY tuning abilities, 150Hz is wayyy to high for my substage...

dont get me wrong, im not saying it couldnt work, im just saying that my level of tuning skills just dosent allow for this. I have my CA18's crossed at 2200Hz and couldnt be happier with the 1k range in them... i still have a little more imaging to work through to get them juuust right but overall im very impressed


----------



## chuyler1 (Apr 10, 2006)

"having your work cut out for you" means you have lots of work to do... It's an interesting phrase and I never thought of it literally until now. To summarize, you may need to boost and cut frequencies in the subwoofer and midrange to fill the gap between 80Hz and 150Hz. It will take some experimentation to get it just right.

I've got CA18RNXs and for the life of me I can't get them to do anything above 800Hz with finesse. They sound like a load of horse **** unless I cut 1KHz, 2KHz, and 4KHz. Even though I was using a 24db/octave crossover @ 2KHz, they still managed to play quite a bit in the 4KHz range to my surprise. Anyway, I dropped my DLS Ir3 mids in and with the CA18s playing between 50-250Hz they are tamed quite well. My Ir3s don't pick up until 350Hz but the gap is barely noticable. If I bump the CA18s up to 300-350Hz they start to get muddy.

As for getting your sub to reach up into the 100-150Hz range, you won't have to. The roll off on the sub combined with the car's transfer function will fill the gap for you. You'll get deeper, thicker bass to start but if you boost a few frequencies between 150-500Hz on your mids you can add a little 'pop' into the response that will simulate how a typical 6.5" driver might sound crossed over at 80Hz.


----------



## freeride1685 (Oct 3, 2007)

chuyler1 said:


> "having your work cut out for you" means you have lots of work to do... It's an interesting phrase and I never thought of it literally until now.


haha, never knew that...i thought it meant the opposite, like, all this work just got cut out, as in, it doesnt exist anymore  

that is interesting though, i suppose there is no need to fret, as i will be tuning the hell out of everything for days anyway.

thanks for the input.


----------



## chuyler1 (Apr 10, 2006)

I think your best bet is to just try it and see how it goes. For a 2-way+sub system I think 5.25" is a more realistic approach. 

If you look back at some of the more simple SQ installs of the 90's, you will see a subwoofer and a set of 5.25" components mounted in the kick panels. More exotic (and higher power class) installs usually switch to a 4" component set with a 6.5"-8" midbass driver in the doors. Very rarely would you see 6.5" drivers unless they were running a large format tweeter or horns.

I kind of wish someone had a database including photos and system diagrams of IASCA champions.


----------



## Thumper26 (Sep 23, 2005)

per google, 

The origins of the phrase are somewhat obscure, as is so often the case with idioms.

The Oxford English Dictionary’s entry suggests it was first recorded in the sense in which we now understand it only around the middle of the nineteenth century. The first appearance in the sense of “to have (at least) as much as one can handle” recorded in the OED is in A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens, which was published in 1843. I’ve found some examples from the previous century, but their meaning is ambiguous.

That’s because the expression goes back at least to the early 1600s in a related form, “to have all one’s work cut out”. As you suggest, it was borrowed from tailoring, but in that first figurative sense it meant to prepare or plan an activity, to get everything organised before starting work, as a good tailor would. It later went through a period in which it meant that someone else cut out your work for you, that is, gave you something to do. 

The image behind the current sense is that of having some assiduous assistant cutting the cloth at such a rate that it’s a struggle to keep up.


----------



## freeride1685 (Oct 3, 2007)

assiduous assistants....

not to be confused with asinine allotments

or

arbitrary assignments....now that makes me think of High School


----------



## pyropoptrt (Jun 11, 2006)

I am using a two-way upfront utilizing a 5.25" mid (Focal 5w2) and I have it crossed at [email protected] and my subs (2 10" idMax) crossed at [email protected] and I have plenty of upfront bass and excellent midbass. In fact, I got 3rd place at IASCA World Finals in the SQC class.


----------



## bigaudiofanatic (Mar 1, 2009)

Interestingly I'm on this debate currently. 

I've spoken with a few people over choosing a speaker for my wife convertible. Because of her partial hearing loss the louder the better. I'm being recommended that I go with a 5 1/4 component set over a 6.5 because of the increased sensitivity. I'm planning to run 75 Watts and would like to try to spend no more than 260.


----------



## dumdum (Feb 27, 2007)

bigaudiofanatic said:


> Interestingly I'm on this debate currently.
> 
> I've spoken with a few people over choosing a speaker for my wife convertible. Because of her partial hearing loss the louder the better. I'm being recommended that I go with a 5 1/4 component set over a 6.5 because of the increased sensitivity. I'm planning to run 75 Watts and would like to try to spend no more than 260.


Generally a bigger speaker will be more sensitive


----------

