# AF vs Stevens Audio vs SI



## Gonzo2770 (Aug 22, 2016)

Alright I have a 2018 ram megacab (6 speaker) that I am still trying to nail down a system for. I am going for a 2 way active using the stock HU and stock speaker locations (door and dash). AF gs690 with gb15 were my pick then I started reading more about the Stevens Audio components and the SI components. Between those three would one possibly work better than another with my stock locations in mind. I like a strong midbass also. Probably going to power/dsp with Audio Control d.4-800 or their six channel . Subs were either two 10W3's or maybe a couple of the SI BM MKV. Of course doors will be deadened. I have done several searches and would like to hear from those who have personal experience with these products. Any comments or suggestions would be appreciated.


----------



## MrGreen83 (Jun 11, 2015)

AF front stage, AF subs 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ToNasty (Jan 23, 2013)

I love the Stevens audio comp set. That gets my vote


----------



## Gonzo2770 (Aug 22, 2016)

Not knowing anything about reading the graphs on all of these speakers are there any that maybe are better off axis as the tweeters will be reflecting off the windshield or can the dsp fix all of that. I know most will say they like what they have installed and vote for that but can you give me some of your impressions on why you like them and a little more about what kind of power and sound treatments. Thanks.


----------



## Mashburn (Jun 26, 2018)

Budget is a big deciding factor. Audio Frog’s are on the pricy side (for me anyways). From the reviews I have read they are all very capable drivers. Personally I have a full SI system waiting to be installed right now.

If those are the only two subs you are deciding between, definitely the BM MkV. There’s a comparison thread somewhere between the two. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Gonzo2770 (Aug 22, 2016)

The three sets of components are within about $180 of each other. I like most also have budget restraints otherwise I would probably just go a complete AF gb 3 way with their subs and call it a day. I personally don't think I can go wrong with any of the three listed but just want to choose the best for my vehicle. Hopefully the shop I take it to can tune it properly also.
I mainly just picked the 10W3 for price and I know they would be sufficient for my listening. The SI subs would be a little bit more but I think they would probably sound better also and probably dig deeper. Right now the amp for the subs is probably going to be the Audio Control lc1.800 so it should produce around 400W apiece. I assume this is sufficient. I would love to hear your impressions of the full SI setup when it is completed.


----------



## Hillbilly SQ (Jan 26, 2007)

They're all capable options. What type of sound (timbre) do you prefer? I know from experience the Frogs have somewhat of a warm and natural timbre.


----------



## Gonzo2770 (Aug 22, 2016)

My last system consisted of Focal access components ran passive in the front and coax in the rears. I loved the clarity and how they stayed clean at higher volumes but were a little harsh with some songs and would cause me to turn it down. They lasted me nine years and I really did like them except for that which I found out later is a trait of their tweeters. This go around I want something warmer and no harshness. I want a really good midbass. I am leaning the SQ route and still going loud. I have been able to demo a few AF products and they sounded good. I doubt I would be able to hear the other two options though.


----------



## Lanson (Jan 9, 2007)

Gonzo2770 said:


> My last system consisted of Focal access components ran passive in the front and coax in the rears. I loved the clarity and how they stayed clean at higher volumes but were a little harsh with some songs and would cause me to turn it down. They lasted me nine years and I really did like them except for that which I found out later is a trait of their tweeters. This go around I want something warmer and no harshness. I want a really good midbass. I am leaning the SQ route and still going loud. I have been able to demo a few AF products and they sounded good. I doubt I would be able to hear the other two options though.



I've got about an hour of untuned listening in on the Stevens component (active) set, and while I need to tune and frankly probably stress the speakers a bit to find their true limits, I'm very pleased. Those tweeters are a thing of both visual, and acoustic beauty. I have only run the GS version of Audiofrog but wow, great stuff as well. Neither of these are harsh, especially not the razor-harshness that Focal tends to create.


----------



## Gonzo2770 (Aug 22, 2016)

What kind of power are you running to the Stevens Audio components? How is the midbass on the Stevens audio vs the gs690?


----------



## Lanson (Jan 9, 2007)

Gonzo2770 said:


> What kind of power are you running to the Stevens Audio components? How is the midbass on the Stevens audio vs the gs690?



A bridged BLX5 for power, so plenty. The GS690's I ran were offf a bridged Massive NX4, also plenty.


Here's the deal: The GS690 has cone area on the Stevens Audio, or any other 6.5" driver. So for outright bass response, the GS690 wins. Now, excepting the physics of cone area, the Stevens components are fantastic drivers. 



One observation, and this just a comment: I pulled the GS690's out of a door install, a few years after being installed, right before I sold the vehicle. They looked as new as the day I installed them. The Audiofrogs replaced the Image Dynamics 6x9's I had in there before, drivers that I guess we could call predecessors to the Stevens at least in some way... those drivers failed due to rust contamination of the voice coil. The phase plug steel began to rust, and flake off in the coil, ruining an expensive set of woofers.


Now, I'm not saying Stevens will do the same, I pray they do NOT. But it was a really sour experience for me. Andy claims Audiofrog speakers are optimized for all-weather installation scenarios like door panels, so I don't doubt they will survive. If the Stevens Audio drivers have no issues with weathering, then I'd say they are on equal footing once more. Only time will tell, so I can't tell you what will happen yet.


----------



## I800C0LLECT (Jan 26, 2009)

I almost went with the Stevens Audio tweeter in my build. In the end, the AF drivers are built to take abuse and weather over the long term. I have no reservations that AF will last. If you swap out often...no big deal.


----------



## Lanson (Jan 9, 2007)

And to Stevens Audio's defense. they may be bulletproof for weather now as well. We just don't have years of experience with them to find out, yet. 



The Stevens tweeter is a piece of jewelry, that happens to make amazing sound. 



If Eric made a 6x9 in the image of the SA6CS woofer, I'd definitely consider them, if he acknowledged the issues of the old ID 6x9 are behind us.


----------



## Gonzo2770 (Aug 22, 2016)

This is the exact kind of info on the three sets I was looking for. Still sounds like I couldn't go wrong with any of them. Sounds like the mids all perform very well.

I would have to agree that the Stevens audio set is a thing of beauty. If I was just picking based on looks that would be a sure bet. 

Any experience to share about the SI components?


----------



## miniSQ (Aug 4, 2009)

Gonzo2770 said:


> This is the exact kind of info on the three sets I was looking for. Still sounds like I couldn't go wrong with any of them. Sounds like the mids all perform very well.
> 
> I would have to agree that the Stevens audio set is a thing of beauty. If I was just picking based on looks that would be a sure bet.
> 
> Any experience to share about the SI components?


FWIW..i happen to have the GS690 and GB15 combination in my 18+ Crosstrek, and i and very happy with them. Is the Ram front door a 6x9 drop in? If so i think the GS690 would be perfect. The GB15 tweeters is great as well, but maybe you would be just as happy with the scanspeak and save a $150 bucks? 

The SA and SI options would be great too.


----------



## Lanson (Jan 9, 2007)

miniSQ said:


> FWIW..i happen to have the GS690 and GB15 combination in my 18+ Crosstrek, and i and very happy with them. Is the Ram front door a 6x9 drop in? If so i think the GS690 would be perfect. The GB15 tweeters is great as well, but maybe you would be just as happy with the scanspeak and save a $150 bucks?
> 
> The SA and SI options would be great too.



Yes Rams should be like my Durango, and Brad's Grand Cherokee. 6x9 drop-in.


GS10 is also great for the money.


----------



## Gonzo2770 (Aug 22, 2016)

miniSQ said:


> FWIW..i happen to have the GS690 and GB15 combination in my 18+ Crosstrek, and i and very happy with them. Is the Ram front door a 6x9 drop in? If so i think the GS690 would be perfect. The GB15 tweeters is great as well, but maybe you would be just as happy with the scanspeak and save a $150 bucks?
> 
> The SA and SI options would be great too.


As Fourthmeal pointed out the 6x9 is a drop in. 

Do you feel the GB15 was worth the extra money. I don't mind spending a little extra if it is worth it. Also what kind of power were you running to the GS690?


----------



## fish (Jun 30, 2007)

I REALLY liked the sound of the Steven's comps, but I like the Frogs as well. AF may come off a tad warmer, & with the 6x9 you'll be able to set the highpass a little lower if needed.

It's a tough decision, but you'll be good either way.


----------



## miniSQ (Aug 4, 2009)

Gonzo2770 said:


> As Fourthmeal pointed out the 6x9 is a drop in.
> 
> Do you feel the GB15 was worth the extra money. I don't mind spending a little extra if it is worth it. Also what kind of power were you running to the GS690?


yes its a great tweeter. I am running power from a helix P-six...so about 120wats per channel.


----------



## Gonzo2770 (Aug 22, 2016)

Good to know. I am always worried that 75w-100w is not going to be enough for good mids. You see a lot of guys bridging two channels for 2-300w per speaker and wasn't sure if that was worth it or not. It would be nice to have some head room just not sure of the necessity.

I was leaning towards the AC D-6.1200 for the two way active and bridging two channels for now and if if wanted rear fill later or center channel I would be ready. The more i read the more the plans seem to change.


----------



## Lanson (Jan 9, 2007)

So to add to the fun here, 



I spent more time with the Stevens units in the Flex, this time just running sweeps to find rattles. I turned off all the crossovers (except for the tweeter) and started playing lower, and lower, and lower with pretty loud sinewaves. After a while, I realized, holy crap, the 18" sub isn't playing at all, those are the front woofers only. I double-checked by disconnecting all amp channels except the front woofers. These little guys can boogie down to 50hz. I had to pick my jaw up off the floor, and when I did I realized they actually end up competitive to woofers with higher cone area. We can't get past the Physics but Eric has made some very efficient woofers here. I ran out of time but it changed my perception of what a 6.5" woofer can do.


----------



## Gonzo2770 (Aug 22, 2016)

fourthmeal said:


> So to add to the fun here,
> 
> 
> 
> I spent more time with the Stevens units in the Flex, this time just running sweeps to find rattles. I turned off all the crossovers (except for the tweeter) and started playing lower, and lower, and lower with pretty loud sinewaves. After a while, I realized, holy crap, the 18" sub isn't playing at all, those are the front woofers only. I double-checked by disconnecting all amp channels except the front woofers. These little guys can boogie down to 50hz. I had to pick my jaw up off the floor, and when I did I realized they actually end up competitive to woofers with higher cone area. We can't get past the Physics but Eric has made some very efficient woofers here. I ran out of time but it changed my perception of what a 6.5" woofer can do.


So it sounds like the midbass on the SA is really good and that is what I am looking for. I just wish he made subs so I could do a whole system. 

I had sent an email to Nick at SI and asked about the availability of the new TM65 MkIII and the out of stock BK MkV's and he said the sub was no longer available due to issues with the build house MOQ. He is trying to negotiate with them so who knows when they will be available again. Hopefully he can work that out soon as they seem like great subs.


----------



## jrwalte (Mar 27, 2008)

fourthmeal said:


> Here's the deal: The GS690 has cone area on the Stevens Audio, or any other 6.5" driver. So for outright bass response, the GS690 wins. Now, excepting the physics of cone area, the Stevens components are fantastic drivers.


Exactly the point I was going to bring up. If your stock location fits a 6x9, then get a 6x9! Especially since you said you like your mid bass. A quality 6x9 will always beat a quality 6.5 in low end response just because of cone surface.

But you said you're also running a 2-way and not a 3-way. You'll want to check what the off axis frequency response is of the AF GS690, which is an indication of when the speaker starts to beam at the higher frequencies. And a 6x9 is going to start beaming before a 6.5. You may have beaming issues in the 2-3Khz between the 6x9 and your tweeter.


----------



## jrwalte (Mar 27, 2008)

Gonzo2770 said:


> Good to know. I am always worried that 75w-100w is not going to be enough for good mids. You see a lot of guys bridging two channels for 2-300w per speaker and wasn't sure if that was worth it or not. It would be nice to have some head room just not sure of the necessity.
> 
> I was leaning towards the AC D-6.1200 for the two way active and bridging two channels for now and if if wanted rear fill later or center channel I would be ready. The more i read the more the plans seem to change.


Keep in mind, for every 3dB increase in volume, you have to double the power. So if at 100dB your speaker is using 70W, it would take 140W to produce 103dB. It takes about 10dB to have a perceived double the output in volume. This is why you won't notice much difference if you have a 100w amp or a 150w. It just isn't that much of an increase in sound volume. 

If you like to play loud, then look for speakers with high efficiency, near 90dB +. This means it can play 90dB at only 1 watt. You can approximate from there how loud they can get by using the 3dB increase is double the power. In this example, a 90dB speaker could go to about 120dB on 100w power. But of course you also have to consider what the speakers recommend max RMS is. Feed it too much power and you bottom out.


----------



## miniSQ (Aug 4, 2009)

Gonzo2770 said:


> So it sounds like the midbass on the SA is really good and that is what I am looking for. I just wish he made subs so I could do a whole system.
> 
> I had sent an email to Nick at SI and asked about the availability of the new TM65 MkIII and the out of stock BK MkV's and he said the sub was no longer available due to issues with the build house MOQ. He is trying to negotiate with them so who knows when they will be available again. Hopefully he can work that out soon as they seem like great subs.


He does make subs...he has a 10 and a 12 coming out...its been coming out for awhile and it will be awesome. You could always throw an old school Image Dynamics in for 6 moths or so. He designed those too


----------



## Lanson (Jan 9, 2007)

jrwalte said:


> Keep in mind, for every 3dB increase in volume, you have to double the power. So if at 100dB your speaker is using 70W, it would take 140W to produce 103dB. It takes about 10dB to have a perceived double the output in volume. This is why you won't notice much difference if you have a 100w amp or a 150w. It just isn't that much of an increase in sound volume.
> 
> If you like to play loud, then look for speakers with high efficiency, near 90dB +. This means it can play 90dB at only 1 watt. You can approximate from there how loud they can get by using the 3dB increase is double the power. In this example, a 90dB speaker could go to about 120dB on 100w power. But of course you also have to consider what the speakers recommend max RMS is. Feed it too much power and you bottom out.



And it actually gets worse the more power you feed, because of power compression.


----------



## Gonzo2770 (Aug 22, 2016)

What I am hearing is 120WPC should be plenty for any of the speakers we have been talking about.

Back to SA 10 and 12" subs that are supposed to come out, has there ever been a discussion about timeframe.


----------



## Gonzo2770 (Aug 22, 2016)

Yeah they (SA) have no timeline for any subs at this time.


----------

