# More Tinkering in the Santa Fe



## MiniVanMan (Jun 28, 2005)

Okay chilren, here's the latest installment of general crap into my wife's Santa Fe. These are the times I really love my wife, and when she wonders who the hell she married. 

Originally this install was a 2-way with mids in the door, and tweeters in the sail panels. Then it went to a 3-way with midbass in the doors, midrange in kicks and tweeters in sails. There were a ton of problems inherent in each design. It wasn't driver selection, or power, or tuning, etc, etc. It was just that this vehicle hates drivers down low. It absolutely kills the vocal range frequencies. Midrange frequencies sounded very flat. Originally I thought adding the dedicated midrange on-axis would help, but the separation between tweeter and mid created even more problems, and once again, I was left not overly happy with the install. 

So, I went back to a 2-way, changed around some drivers, and got the thing sounding pretty decent. Now, I know what to do, but it's my wife's vehicle, so I have to worry about appearance. She will let me do whatever to her vehicle, but the less she sees, the less she ends up telling me something is ugly and she wants it gone. 

Then spurred on by a lot of talk about line arrays I started looking at some 2" fullrange drivers. I kicked around some ideas with Durwood, and concluded that I could get a 2" driver into the sail panels where the tweeter was currently located. So, I picked up a pair of Peerless 2" full range drivers. I agonized over the decision between that driver and the many various Tang Band offerings. In the end I'm not sure it's matters too much. Durwood has some preferences, but it didn't seem that anything really stood out too much as an excellent performer compared to the others. So, I went with the Peerless due to mainly the name. 

What this would allow me to do would drop my high pass crossover point down to 500 hz. I figured this would be a boon for my install as, like I said, my midrange frequencies were just dying somewhere between the floor and my ears. Also, the closer you can get your drivers the better. This is pretty frequency dependent though. You can get away with more separation with lower frequencies. At 500 hz, your wavelength is about 25". The distance between my sails and the mid location in the doors is about 22". So, 500 hz would be fantastic, as I'd get a good summing of frequencies at the crossover point, and I wouldn't have any nulls in the sound field due to lobing, or combing. 

So, I get the Peerless drivers in and then get immediately struck down by the audio gods. The Alpine 9887 doesn't allow a high pass below 1000 hz. DAMNIT!!!! Well, as it turns out, 1000 hz is a HUGE improvement over 2-3khz. That extra 1.5 octaves up high as opposed to down low made an amazing difference. So, while it didn't go as planned, it still worked out well. 

Anyway. Overall the Peerless driver was great. However, it displayed the one drawback that a full range driver has, a depleted top end. The natural roll off of your typical 2" driver, including the Peerless is about 10k. Much less if you play them off-axis. Now, I'm not one for that sparkly top end. I can live without it. But hell, why not take this project a bit further. I still had room in the sails for a tweeter possibly, and this is where the pictures and the real install began.

Since I didn't have 3-way active capability, I knew a passive crossover was going to be needed. So, I started modeling up some tweeters with the Peerless in my trusty ole Speaker Workshop program. I had a set of Dayton ND20FDs laying around, and decided to go with them. 

Here's the baffle.










Here's how the baffle fits on the sail.



















It took a couple of tries on the crossover. The first design was pretty good, but I attenuated the tweeter a bit much. Based on some reviews of the ND20, and my own experience and personal preference, I thought I'd need to take out some top end bite. I was wrong. So, I lowered the crossover point a tad bit, and changed the L-Pad. That did the trick and the crossover works extremely well.

This is the original crossover. I'm not going to post the finalized one.










Here's the assembled crossover. Nice and tidy. I used 20 gauge inductors. I had to unwind L2 from a 1.0 mH inductor, but that's not a big deal. 










I then needed to figure out a way to protect the crossover, i.e. case. The toodling through Lowes, I find this little gem. It's a cable cleaner upper gizmo for all your cables in your home theater. 





































As you can see, it worked out VERY well.

Here's a picture of the sail panels all glassed up, with drivers, kind of, installed.



















This setup sounds absolutely amazing. Now it's not perfect. The pods are not aimed directly on-axis. Again, the eyesoreness factor for my wife precludes me from aiming them directly on-axis. This means the sweet spot is about 6" in front of me. Kind of annoying because I know it's better right in front of me. 

When I designed the crossover, I designed it to be played about 30 degrees off-axis. However, understand that by doing that what I'm doing is making the off-axis angling less of a detriment, I'm not defying physics, and somehow making off-axis into on-axis. It still sounds better on-axis, as any driver will. However, it does sound very good off-axis.

In the end, I'd put this little combo up against just about anything out there in a car. For about $45.00 in drivers, $30.00 in crossover components, and some various other accessories, this combo is unbeatable. I still wish I could drive them down to 500 hz, but I'm not about to change head units, or add any more processing.

I know I said that I wasn't going to post the finished crossover. I have my reasons. With that said, I'm going to finish with some notes.

1. No, I don't think they'll perform well in kicks. That's not what this project is for.

2. No, you can't use other drivers with this crossover. And no, using an 8 ohm TB widebander will not just drop the crossover point. I HATE it when people say that.

3. If you want the finalized crossover, be VERY nice to me and I might give it to you. If you ask stupid questions, and I get the impression that you're not very electronically inclined, I will probably deny you. Why, because if you screw it up, it'll probably come back on me as having a faulty design. 

4. No, I have not tested the Peerless down to 3 hz. I know they'll handle 500 hz well. There's really no point in dropping them further unless you have a massive separation between mid and midrange. I'm talking 54" for 250 hz. So, it's not important at that point, so don't ask. 

5. No, I will not design a crossover to allow for a midbass.

6. Yes, I do think an 8" midbass, or even 10" midbass would be FANTASTIC for this setup. The Dayton RS225s come to mind as an excellent choice for a phenomenal setup that would cost well under $200.00 total. 

Feel free to ask me any questions. There was a lot of thought that went into this. I'm surprised this route hasn't been really pursued before in the car audio industry. CDT has a 2" mid/tweeter that they charge an arm and a leg for that looks surprisingly like a $15.00 TB mid/tweet. But that's about it. This is small, compact, and allows better acoustic solutions in your car. Hmmmm?


----------



## Abmolech (Nov 2, 2006)

Why stereo?


----------



## captainobvious (Mar 11, 2006)

Install looks good and Im glad you're happy with the result, but one gets the impression from reading this that you like to stroke your ego.


http://www.eclipse-web.com/component/sc8365.html


----------



## MiniVanMan (Jun 28, 2005)

captainobvious said:


> Install looks good and Im glad you're happy with the result, but one gets the impression from reading this that you like to stroke your ego.
> 
> 
> http://www.eclipse-web.com/component/sc8365.html


You mean their $350.00 component set with an "optimum" Butterworth crossover, crossover point of 1400 hz, not 500 hz, or even 1000 hz. That I just accomplished DIYing for under, if you include my midbasses, $150.00. With more capability, to include maintaining time alignment with all drivers.

So, yeah, I'm stroking my ego. 

Oh, and I'm being a bit snarky because every time I post something like this that involves passive crossovers, I get inundated with PMs. Some are well thought out questions, but most are inane dribble that have simple answers, which is usually "no". I'm saving myself the trouble.

Oh, and I personally posted this install into Peter Euro's "Car Audio Install Hall of Shame". So, no, I'm not completely full of myself. I know my limitations.


----------



## MiniVanMan (Jun 28, 2005)

Abmolech said:


> Why stereo?


Because I can't seem to convince my wife to let me turn her windshield into a line array. I love her and all, but she's awfully damn unreasonable.


----------



## captainobvious (Mar 11, 2006)

Didnt mean to offend. Just saying that the way you worded some of it, it comes off sounding that way.
I didnt see it mentioned, but what are you running in the door locations for midbass if anything? RS225's are much less visible to the wife BTW, (wink wink)


----------



## MiniVanMan (Jun 28, 2005)

I'm using Seas CD18RE 4 ohm mids. 

The Santa Fe is a dream to work on, and getting an 8" or maybe even a 10" mid in the doors is feasible, but would take some work that I'm not willing to get in to. I'm very happy with the Seas performance. 

As this project evolved, I really started to think of possibilities. It really is a great solution for stage height issues, and it will allow for the larger midbasses, while not having to combat the problems inherent with an 8" or 10". 

My fabrication skills suck, and I'm dreading painting these things. It was really dicey glassing the pods, as the tweeter had to be installed. I covered them with aluminum foil, but it was still delicate work. 

The driver's side pod looks a bit off in the picture, but that's just a weird angle or something. It's not that bad. 

Oh, and I hate passive crossovers in a car. That's probably something I should have mentioned. If you design your own passives, then great, but the idea that a blanket crossover can be "optimized" really torques me. A lot of work went into the passives to include testing, measuring and modeling several times. They work great, but I wanted to nip in the bud any questions regarding whether or not the crossover could be used in different mounting locations. Nope, it's pretty damn specific. When I say I changed the L-Pad, I mean that I added about .5 db to the top end overall from about 10k up and also brought up 18-20k about 1.5 db. So, when I see packaged component sets that have the tuning capability of +3/0/-3db options on the tweeter I want to throw up. Our ears are pretty sensitive up there, and .5 db can be the difference between very good, and shrill, or dull and shimmery. So, a 3 db difference is more like using a chainsaw to mow your lawn. 

Maybe up on the A-Pillars would be okay, but the same rules would have to apply as the sails. The tweeter and mid need to be as close as absolutely possible, and they need to be aimed on-axis for the best results, but no more than 30 degrees off-axis for good results.


----------



## KAP (Mar 18, 2007)

were did you get the peerless drivers, thanks.


----------



## MiniVanMan (Jun 28, 2005)

Madisound


----------



## durwood (Mar 7, 2007)

MVM, why paint? Have you thought about just wrapping it in grill cloth and call it a day? If the shape is a little funky before you finish the wrap job, go back and smooth it out.

Stealthy, quick, done.


----------



## captainobvious (Mar 11, 2006)

Well, he will probably have to paint it underneath anyway as the light color of the baffle and bondo will probably be visible behind the grill cloth. But a quick painting and then wrap would probably look very good.


----------



## MiniVanMan (Jun 28, 2005)

Excellent idea. I usually shape with grill cloth initially, but this was a quick job, so I used a t-shirt. I didn't need a ton of strength, so the t-shirt was just fine.

I have a ton of grill cloth lying around, so that should be a very easy solution. Especially since I HATE PAINTING. A two year old with finger paints would be more adept at it than me.


----------



## khail19 (Oct 27, 2006)

I used grill cloth to cover my A-pillars, it came out looking pretty nice. You can also use spray dye on the cloth after you put it on if you want to match the dash color or something.


----------



## niceguy (Mar 12, 2006)

Nice choice in components, that's DIY at its purest....good to see folks happy w/the ND...

I tend to stay away from the forum in spurts, especially the Install Gallery because I don't have time to tinker lately, but I'm going to find some spare A pillars and finally start an a pillar setup....the dash setup w/the Northcreeks has been great but the stock dash speaker 'slot' openings aren't conducive to 5" tweeters

Jeremy


----------



## t3sn4f2 (Jan 3, 2007)

Why didn't you go with the insanely efficient, 300Hz reaching, 8 Tang Bang B1S per side line array setup in the pillars? Fabrication complexity? It would be pretty stealthy if done right and grill clothed.


----------



## MiniVanMan (Jun 28, 2005)

t3sn4f2 said:


> Why didn't you go with the insanely efficient, 300Hz reaching, 8 Tang Bang B1S per side line array setup in the pillars? Fabrication complexity? It would be pretty stealthy if done right and grill clothed.


The B1S is a HiVi offering that does pretty miserably without a lot of additional work, i.e. chambering it. 

This is the Tang Band offering. http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?&Partnumber=264-860

It's not very efficient at all, and power handling will absolutely suck down low (300 hz), so I don't think it would be very usable unless in a line array which is a no go for the wife. She thinks there's too many speakers in there already.

Overall, I toyed with the idea of either of those drivers, but in the end, power handling was a concern so I went with the safer 2" driver. 

To get a line array onto the a-pillars and still maintain on-axis alignment, things would get ugly. It just wasn't meant to be.


----------



## t3sn4f2 (Jan 3, 2007)

MiniVanMan said:


> The B1S is a HiVi offering that does pretty miserably without a lot of additional work, i.e. chambering it.
> 
> This is the Tang Band offering. http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?&Partnumber=264-860
> 
> ...


My bad, got the brands confused :blush:. 

Oh well. Here's the thread I saw on this idea on anyways, link


----------



## MiniVanMan (Jun 28, 2005)

*UPDATE*

Okay, with some further tinkering, I've changed the crossover once again. It was driving me crazy about the off-axis alignment problem. It was easily EQ'd out, however, in the end the passive is a failure is I have to use EQ for anything other than driver response within it's bandwidth. In other words, the area that "needed" to be EQ'd out was due to an improperly placed low pass on the mid. 

Originally I went with a Linkwitz-Riley type alignment, and I designed the crossover with a 30 degree off-axis response. The drivers are placed about 20-30 degrees off-axis, and I still had a drop in response right before the crossover point. 

So, now, I've dropped the value of L1 in the circuit, and created a bump in response at about 8khz. This totally did the trick and now on-axis is a bit harsh at 8k, but with the drivers installed, at 20-30 degrees off-axis the system sounds fantastic. 

It's just another example of how passive crossovers are very finicky when it comes to driver positioning and aiming. Just a small adjustment on one of the components can cause a 3 db hump, or a slight aiming off-axis can create a 3 db null (or worse).


----------



## npdang (Jul 29, 2005)

Haha... now you know why I refuse to design any passives for other people. It's a pain in the ass. I have about $1k in caps, coils, and resistors leftover from my previous experiments. Are you just going by ear, or are you using Lspcad or Leap?


----------



## MiniVanMan (Jun 28, 2005)

npdang said:


> Haha... now you know why I refuse to design any passives for other people. It's a pain in the ass. I have about $1k in caps, coils, and resistors leftover from my previous experiments. Are you just going by ear, or are you using Lspcad or Leap?


Worse, Speaker Workshop. I've had my eyes on SoundEasy for quite a while, but the $250.00 price tag in comparison to "free" is somewhat of a deterrent.

I've been cheating, as I HATE hooking up the jig to make the entire thing work. So, I've just been using a 1/8th octave RTA, tracing the response, and converting it to a .frd format for input into SpeakerWorkshop. Then I compare to the manufacturer graphs and see if there are any HUGE discrepancies. Works pretty well. Obviously not perfect though. Then I just steal the impedance graphs from wherever I can find them (i.e. Zaph, manufacturer, etc). This is not a method I would use for a Home project. Ugghhh!

Speaker Workshop is just such a pain in the ass to work with.

The crossover simulation works very well though, and as long as you have response, and impedance graphs it works very well. If anything, the learning curve for just the crossover simulation is pretty easy to get through. So, it's DEFINITELY worth it for that feature alone. 

The real problem arose because the initial measurements were taken prior to building the pods. When I built the pods, the baffle didn't fit the in the same way as when I took the initial measurements. OOOPS!!! That's where the problem really started to occur.

There are a couple of places that I lucked out at. First is the overall baffle. Not just where the drivers are mounted, but the entire side of vehicle is acting as a flat baffle, so minus any small, inaudible diffraction artifacts, I was able to maintain a relatively flat response. I'm thinking my null at 8k, could be exacerbated a bit by a diffraction artifact. 8k would be about where the wave would start to wrap around the pod. Pod is approximately 3" wide, and sitting out from the window about 2-3", and 8k has a wavelength of about 1.65". So, that's probably pretty dead on. It's not the entire problem, but it's surely not helping.


----------



## tyroneshoes (Mar 21, 2006)

Thats a very slick job with the plastic casing for your passives. I may very well want to steal the idea from you.


----------



## MiniVanMan (Jun 28, 2005)

tyroneshoes said:


> Thats a very slick job with the plastic casing for your passives. I may very well want to steal the idea from you.


I do that for kick panels as well. You're pretty much ensured of a perfect fit. The only problem is when you stretch the cloth you can sometimes contort the shape of the original piece and you end up with something that both doesn't fit as well, and two, isn't aimed like you intended.


----------



## CGG318 (Apr 9, 2007)

Hmmmmm....If you share your finalized crossover, I'll tell you how to high pass your 9887 below 1000Hz.


----------



## MiniVanMan (Jun 28, 2005)

CGG318 said:


> Hmmmmm....If you share your finalized crossover, I'll tell you how to high pass your 9887 below 1000Hz.


Oh, you have a PM.


----------



## ClinesSelect (Apr 16, 2006)

I'll tell you for free.


----------



## MiniVanMan (Jun 28, 2005)

Damnit, I just figured it out. Gotta read the fine print I guess. Never knew there were two modes to choose from, "User's" and "Maker's". 

It's late now, but I can't wait to get out there and try it out.


----------



## MiniVanMan (Jun 28, 2005)

Alrighty then!! 

For this application it seems that the difference between 500 hz and 1khz for a crossover point is fairly negligible. I finally settled on 630 hz high pass at 18 db, and 500 hz lowpass at 12 db for the mid.

The Peerless seems to play down to 400 hz with relative ease, however below that is a bit painful, and to quote Chad, can "tear your head off at the shoulders". I would not recommend these below 400 hz. I settled on 630 hz as a decent compromise to still allow for some good power handling. Again, I have these running off of a 70x2 @ 4 ohm amp. They're obviously not getting that kind of power in any kind of sustained manner, but I was able to turn the music up loud enough to "make" me want to turn it back down again. They get very loud.


----------



## MiniVanMan (Jun 28, 2005)

Another update.

Okay, I figured out the harshness exhibited when crossed lower. I was able to get down in the 300 hz range, however I had to tame the peak in response around 3-3.5k. This is evident in the response graphs, and even Zaph mentions it in his review. When crossed higher, I was able to ignore the peak and actually boost the dip around 2k. However, I think what's happening is you're exciting some odd order harmonics that are presenting themselves somewhat harshly at the peak at 3k. By killing the boost at 2k, and cutting 3k by about 1db or so, the harshness went away. 

I lost a bit of dynamics in that region, and if I had a bit more delicate of an EQ except for the chainsaw of an EQ the 9887 has, I'd be able to liven it up a bit in that area. But overall, it still sounded very good. It was more neutral, and for those that like comparisons, I'd say closer to a paper, or poly cone sound. Cross at 1k, boost 2k by about 1 or 2 db, and you get a typical metal sound. 

Understand though, that any problems exhibited are actually pretty minor. My reference is coming in and playing the same songs on my home system. So take it for what it's worth. I've used the RS52 in this vehicle and had a ton more challenges than the Peerless driver has presented. I'm much happier with the much cheaper Peerless in this application. 

Don't get me wrong though. I'm definitely looking to design a home loudspeaker using the RS52.


----------



## BMWturbo (Apr 11, 2008)

Great thread and thorough analysis. I'm currently thinking about adding a midrange to get around install limitations in my current system and you've given me some ideas 

It's a shame being in Australia I can't get the opportunity to listen to some of the systems on here.


----------



## mitchyz250f (May 14, 2005)

Has anyone compared the peerless 2" and 3"? How do they compare when crossover at 400 - 500 hz?


----------



## AdrianD (Aug 13, 2008)

Props on the effort and the whole review / writeup


----------



## dashan (Apr 7, 2009)

What's the model number of mids you used?
thanks


----------



## Wheres The Butta (Jun 6, 2009)

wow. now *this* is something I could get used to. I don't have anywhere near the experience/skill to do it, but it would be 100% perfect for what I've been trying to do. I have been trying to find a way to get punchy midbass up front while keeping clear detailed mid/highs, and haven't been able to figure out a place to put woofers since my mids are in the door. If I swapped to mid/tweeter in the sail I could put woofers in the door and call it a day =)


----------



## m3gunner (Aug 6, 2008)

Based on the photo, I think MiniVanMan is using Peerless 830983 drivers. You can buy them pretty cheaply here:

Peerless 830983 from Madisound

Interestingly, I purchased a similar driver ("Peerless 893970") from Parts Express:

Parts-Express.comeerless P830970 2" Full Range Driver 4 Ohm | Peerless P830983

But I'm pretty sure the drivers are NOT 893970 drivers, however, as they don't look anything like what Peerless says they should look like:

830970 | Tymphany

Note that the Peerless 893970 has an inverted surround and a poly cone while the Parts Express 893970 has a normal surround and a silvery finish.

So, I'm stumped. I've got a bunch of these that I'm planning on experimenting with... and I just installed a pair of Dayton ND20s in my car to replace the factory tweets. (HUGE improvement...) I'm running them off of a pair of Dynaudio xovers as I don't really have any experience with custom xovers, but I'm game to try.

I'd love to see MVM's final xover as it may work perfectly with my planned "on dash" paring of the Peerless mid and the ND20. I might even do a center channel off of my 9887 with the same drivers. To MVM, I promise not to ask any dumb questions about the xover... 

The drivers at Parts Express are dead cheap... <$8 each if you buy 4. In fact, I might just buy a few more as I might get around to my line array in the next year or so. Never know when you'll need 20 full range drivers...


----------



## MiniVanMan (Jun 28, 2005)

m3gunner said:


> I'd love to see MVM's final xover as it may work perfectly with my planned "on dash" paring of the Peerless mid and the ND20. I might even do a center channel off of my 9887 with the same drivers. To MVM, I promise not to ask any dumb questions about the xover...


I can't post the final crossover because I don't really know what it is anymore. 

However, I have a crossover that's designed for a bit more off-axis response. Off-axis will never sound as good as on-axis, but I'll post the crossover and explain the differences and how to work with the design to shape the response for your vehicle.










First off, I swapped the resistors in the tweeter circuit. The 2 ohm is now in series, and the 2.5 is in parallel. I also reduced the cap value (C2) to 4.3 as opposed to 4.7 mF. I don't like a hot tweeter, but 4.7 made the tweeter too subdued. You can also reduce the resistor values to shape response as well. Drop the 2.5 ohm to make the tweeter a bit hotter. I would not go under 1.8 ohms though. I think many would actually like 2.0 in series and 2.0 in parallel.

L1 is where much of shaping at the crossover point occurs. The crossover point is around 8k. With this high crossover point, it's critical that you maintain a very close spacing between the mid and tweeter. It's also critical that you try to get the drivers as close to on-axis as possible. However, I understand that this is very difficult, and if you end up with an off-axis angle, you can shape the response at the crossover point by lowering the value of L1. Now, this DOES NOT mean you can aim the drivers 30 degrees off-axis and expect the same quality as an on-axis layout. 

So, my suggestion is to buy a 150 uH and unwind to suit your preferences. I unwound to about 120 uH. 100 uH is about as low as you'd want to go. If you do go with an off-axis option, you'll need to shape the tweeter response as well, by lowering the value of Rp2. 

Now, it's completely understandable to have to different values for each crossover. It could be very likely that your driver side would be more off-axis than your passenger side. You can customize each crossover, and in fact I'd recommend it. Let's say your passenger side is on-axis, which is entirely feasible. You'd utilize an L1 value of 150 uH, and an Rp2 value of 2.5 ohms. But, your driver side is 15-20 degrees off-axis. You'd build that crossover with L1 at around 110-120 uH, and Rp2 at 2.0-2.2 ohms. (These are approximations, and only individual testing will determine the best values for you to use. Once you unwind and inductor you really can't wind it back up. So be careful, and patient).


----------

