# ID OEM V2 Prototype



## katodevin (Feb 14, 2008)

This info was posted in the original ID OEM for sale thread. Thought this would be a better place for it. Keep in mind this is for a prototype set, and may not be reflective of the production model.

------------------------------------

Hey guys,

I'm the member that Hessdawg generously loaned the new prototypes to.

I have the old OEM's in this cabinet:
They are hooked up to an 880prs and a 150x4 amp running active. I use them at home in a 2.1 system. I think this made me a prime test candidate for the new protypes, as I could easily swap them out with the old OEMs and give an A/B comparison simply by panning left and right. The tweeters I'm using are also very wide range, so they can match up with just about any car audio 6.5". This allowed me to try many different crossover points and slopes. Lastly, using the car audio HU and amp at home allows me to test using the same equipment that many of us have in our cars in a more controlled environment. 

My first impression of these prototypes are not necessarily representative of the final model. Please keep that in mind. 

Build:
It goes without saying, this driver is a BEAST. The magnet is larger than any 6.5 midrange that I've seen. It is well constructed and well machined, with a very nice smooth finish. It reminds me of a mini DIYMA r12 in terms of weight and beefy-ness. 
The cone is some sort of woven fiber, as you can see in my macro shots that were posted above. I'll let Hessdawg go into detail about their construction. This is a departure from the carbon fiber cone that was used on the last cone, which looked really cool, if you're into that sort of thing. I'm really digging the ninja look of this driver.

Initial Listening Impressions:
These things can take some power. I pushed 150 RMS to these things without a problem. Excursion was smooth with no discernable motor noise. 
They sounded very warm and smooth. I enjoyed listening to the new protoype a lot. I ran some bass heavy tracks as well as some more refined music through them, and they performed admirably with both.

Comparison to OEMs v1:
The new prototype was defintely warmer, I am not sure if it was the new cone material, but these reminded me of a treated paper type cone. This may have also contributed to their ability to play quite a bit higher without ringing. I took these up to a 3k xover point with a 12db slope and they sounded fine. They could got a bit higher, but there was no reason to with the tweeters I have. The OEMs v1 I kept at a 2k xover point to prevent harshness. 
The OEMs v1 are a bit more efficient, as they played louder with the same amount of power. However, the prototype could easily match any output level with the simple addition of power. 
In my cabinet, the OEMs v1 are a bit more punchy/boomier. The prototypes had a much better rolloff at the bottom end, and could be taken down to 60hz without a problem at all. I don't really see the reason to do this unless you're not using a subwoofer, but they handled it fine. The prototype still had a good amount of kick, but behaved much better. I'd probally liken it to the performance of a sub with a low qtc, vs a sub with a qtc of .800 or so. Like a DIYMA r12 vs a JL. Keep in mind this may totally change once they're in a real door. I'm trying to fab a leaky box ~ 1cuft to truly test this. 
Off axis performance was really good, without the bullet plug of the 1st version. The bass stayed at good levels as I turned the speaker away from me. Very impressive characteristic there.

Overall:
These are definitely going to remain the value leaders. Even in the prototype state, I would not hesistate to use this driver in my car at all. It is more flexable than the originals, as it can play lower and higher without a problem, and can handle more power as well. Additionally, if anyone attacks you, u can smash their skull with these, they're that well built.
After listening to these, I definitely think that they have an edge in terms of SQ, and I will be picking a pair up as soon as they are available.


----------



## katodevin (Feb 14, 2008)

I fabbed up the 1 cu ft enclosure and stuck the big prototype in it.

Wow. This just gets better. I think my smaller enclosure was limiting it a bit because of the internal pressure. Good to see that the driver was designed for IB/door usage. Cone control remained very good, but the driver dug deeper than in my cabinet. The prototype remained very very quick, and had was very well definied. I limited the frequency at 80hz 12db at the bottom and at 2.5khz 12db at the top. Worked very well. 

I said it in my last post and I'll say it again, this driver really reminds me of the DIYMA r12. The build quality and the beefyness draw an immediate connection in my mind, and the non-obtrusiveness of the sound seals the deal. 

Power handling remained the same, I think this driver can take a good deal more than the 150 watts I was pushing to it. To those of you who are going to try and run these off of a HU, or off of less than 30 watts, I would start saving up for more power. 

In the larger enclosure, the prototype preserved its overall warmth of sound, and off axis performance. I had a spare Focal Polyglass 6.5 on hand, which is a driver I really liked (lets not talk about the tweeter), and the prototype was able to match its mid-range detail and extend more in both directions. The Focal was a bit more efficient, but who cares if you have the power. 

We've got a pretty special driver on hand here, especially when taking into account the price. I for one, will have my paypal ready to go when the production models are ready.

All we need is for hessdawg to get a tweeter made to match also


----------



## prophet_ca (Feb 29, 2008)

I don't know if this was ever mentioned, but those look like idq6's


----------



## enigma (Jul 5, 2008)

Seems like every weakness the original Oems had has been updated, (and it wasnt many  ) 

These seem like very solid drivers, and like the V1s, one hell of a deal. I was pinching my pennies for a set of ID XS comps, but givin how much I liked the previous models, I may have to wait on these. Nice indepth review.


----------



## rmenergy (Feb 15, 2009)

I have not had a chance to listen to the V1's, but for the price I think I'll give these a shot. And I will attempt to use them with low power(20x4 from a Monolithic Class A804) and a 6 or 8ohm tweeter 2way active (still deciding on a tweeter). If it doesn't work I have some other amps to power them with.


----------



## Hillbilly SQ (Jan 26, 2007)

Nice review and the control of it is fantastic. Hess offered me the prototypes first but I turned him down because I knew I wouldn't be able to give a proper a/b review. Looks like it worked out for the better. I'll be tempted to give these a shot. The main weaknesses of the originals that I kept quiet about until recently because it really wasn't a major issue for me was 1) at high excursion something was funky with the sound. It sounded like the soundwaves were getting warbled. Maybe that goofy oversized dustcap was to blame. It WAS NOT a phaseplug. 2)On-axis distortion. They had it from the time they were brand new but wasn't audible off-axis. Buddy of mine commented on how it might be beaming harmonics of frequencies in the upper range it had no business playing. 1600 was my crossover point for them for the better part of their service life with me. I'm also running polyglass mids and REALLY like them. Only weakness they have is they like to bottom out on heavier midbass tracks crossed steep at 80. The original oem v1 could take the cannons of the 1812 overture no problem. Polyglass mids bottomed out HARD and scared the hell out of me.

So to the op, could you elaborate more on the off axis midrange with the oem v2 compared to the polyglass? Been looking for a mid that won't get sent into orbit so easily.


----------



## Oliver (Jun 25, 2007)

Hillbilly SQ said:


> Only weakness they have is they like to bottom out on heavier midbass tracks crossed steep at 80. The original oem v1 could take the cannons of the 1812 overture no problem. Polyglass mids bottomed out HARD and scared the hell out of me.


1] amount of power applied
2] length of travel for piston
3] size of note {frequency} you are trying to reproduce

All about tradeoffs 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLCJEYLIBQY


----------



## katodevin (Feb 14, 2008)

Hillbilly SQ said:


> . Buddy of mine commented on how it might be beaming harmonics of frequencies in the upper range it had no business playing. 1600 was my crossover point for them for the better part of their service life with me.


I'd totally agree with you there. Mine are crossed over with the large format tweeters at 1.6khz, and they work really well. Any higher, I start getting beaming and ringing.



Hillbilly SQ said:


> I'm also running polyglass mids and REALLY like them. Only weakness they have is they like to bottom out on heavier midbass tracks crossed steep at 80. The original oem v1 could take the cannons of the 1812 overture no problem. Polyglass mids bottomed out HARD and scared the hell out of me.
> 
> So to the op, could you elaborate more on the off axis midrange with the oem v2 compared to the polyglass? Been looking for a mid that won't get sent into orbit so easily.


I haven't tried the cannons of the 1812 overture on my polyglasses, but for the most part, I do not notice them bottoming out. I have them currently at 80hz 12db crossover, and have run them at a 100hz 12db crossover. You may be listening to them much louder than I  

Compared to the ID protoypes, the level of detail midrange seems to be very close, which is something I really appreciate. Low end definitely has to go with the ID prototypes. Much more controlled and smoother. If you are short on power though, the Polyglasses are more efficient for sure. 

To me, the Polyglasses' main weakness, shared with the ID V1's is their inability to play high. Worse than the V1's, the polyglasses start to get REALLY ugly and hurt above 2.0 khz for me. I was blaming the tweeters a bit for the harshness I was noticing, but I found the mids to be equally to blame. The V2 stays well behaved up in that range and should be more flexable to meet up with a wider range of tweeters.


----------



## katodevin (Feb 14, 2008)

rmenergy said:


> I have not had a chance to listen to the V1's, but for the price I think I'll give these a shot. And I will attempt to use them with low power(20x4 from a Monolithic Class A804) and a 6 or 8ohm tweeter 2way active (still deciding on a tweeter). If it doesn't work I have some other amps to power them with.


Yeah, you're gonna need some more power than that  I'd suspect these are gonna need ~ 100watts to get moving. BUT, production models may be more efficient.

Trust me, getting more power will make these worth it.


----------



## hessdawg (Feb 20, 2007)

update
called to get some production speakers and was told about a new oem 2.5 that will be different than these 2.0 prototypes. the 2.5 should be cheaper ($90), more efficient(91db), and handle more power (200w) the only trade off would be freq response starts falling off @ 2500k. i should have these new 2.5s in next week. so i'm gonna hold off on the 2.0's for right now.
please post your thoughts on what you want 
the 2.0's on this page $130 shipped,150watt rms, 85db efficient, freq response 47-5k
or 2.5's $90 shipped, 200 watts rms, 91 db efficient,freq response 47-2.5k


----------



## Hillbilly SQ (Jan 26, 2007)

How about offering both? The 2.0's would be the better driver for being user friendly. Right now the 2.5's seem to be a lateral move from the v1.


----------



## TREETOP (Feb 11, 2009)

For my own uses (3-way active front) the 2.5 would be more ideal, but for most people doing a 2-way the 2.0 would be a better bet.

Can't you offer both?


----------



## katodevin (Feb 14, 2008)

I agree, the 2.0's may be a better choice.

You can always buy more power for a 2 way setup, much more expensive to buy a 3 way, or some exotic tweeters that can reach super low.

That being said, the 2.5s are mighty enticing for those of us with tweeters that can play low


----------



## Riveted1 (Oct 23, 2008)

I'll echo what some of the others are saying in that the 2.5's seem like a no-brainer for a dedicated midbass, but the 2.0's might be better for a 2-way setup. That being said, I might have to get a set of the 2.5's!


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 12, 2008)

so why are these gonna be called ID OEM2 when ID has nothing to do with them?

IMO they look pretty cheap from those pics, is that a foam surround on them or rubber cant really tell from that close up pic


----------



## rmenergy (Feb 15, 2009)

katodevin, Monolithic amps are notoriously underrated. I do have other amps that are rated as being more powerful (SS,US Amps,etc) that I'm going to put head-to-head with the Monolithic. If it doesn't work out, I'll leave one of the other amps in my daily driver and use the 804 in my Mustang for the mids/tweets in a 3-way I have in mind. Just doing this for fun to test the limits of the amp more than anything else. Thanks though and I'll let everyone know how it turns out. Back to topic, sorry OP.


----------



## enigma (Jul 5, 2008)

hessdawg said:


> update
> called to get some production speakers and was told about a new oem 2.5 that will be different than these 2.0 prototypes. the 2.5 should be cheaper ($90), more efficient(91db), and handle more power (200w) the only trade off would be freq response starts falling off @ 2500k. i should have these new 2.5s in next week. so i'm gonna hold off on the 2.0's for right now.
> please post your thoughts on what you want
> the 2.0's on this page $130 shipped,150watt rms, 85db efficient, freq response 47-5k
> or 2.5's $90 shipped, 200 watts rms, 91 db efficient,freq response 47-2.5k




Thats a really tough call, but I agree with alot of the previous post. 

The 2.5s would be ideal for a midbass in a 3 way setup, or for someone like me with a tweeter that can dip low, (Blaupunkt VC 100s). However, the 2.0s seem more 2 way "friendly" and able to give more people more options that are looking to do active 2 way setups with various tweeters. 

Both are great deals however, so its hard to say. Personally, I would pefer the 2.0s due to the wider freq range and ability to use whatever tweeter I liked. Not to mention, I have plenty of power on deck to push them


----------



## simplyclean (Jan 23, 2009)

Are there any dimensions anywhere? How is the taper of the basket, mounting hole diameter and the mounting depth? I'd love to try this driver out, but I don't want to cut metal off the door to get it to fit.


----------



## 1zach4 (Feb 13, 2008)

I vote for the 2.0's due to their ability to run very well in a 2-way setup and not be limited to midbass duty.


----------



## newtitan (Mar 7, 2005)

so where do you get these? I need some backups


----------



## Boo (Sep 21, 2008)

check the classifieds.


----------



## Mahna Mahna (Mar 2, 2008)

Nice review


----------



## 1zach4 (Feb 13, 2008)

very nice review, no if only we could get some of these for sale!!


----------



## hessdawg (Feb 20, 2007)

hey guys sorry for the delays 
the 2.0's should be in next week 
the surround is rubber
the oem 2.0 and 2.5 are not ID the are designed and built by Gorge Wu who I was told was involved with ID in the building the idq,idmax, cx speakers i believe.
i will keep everybody posted as soon as i know anything else


----------



## hessdawg (Feb 20, 2007)

double post


----------



## trebor (Jun 30, 2008)

Those 2.5's look like an inexpensive option to try with horns.


----------



## JediMentality (May 7, 2008)

I want to pre-order hessdawg


----------



## hessdawg (Feb 20, 2007)

trebor said:


> Those 2.5's look like an inexpensive option to try with horns.


that is what they are built for. our horns cross @ 2.5k hz


----------



## Ziggy (Nov 29, 2007)

"our" horns, Hess... You workin for ID?:surprised:


----------



## hessdawg (Feb 20, 2007)

no not ID 
LA


----------



## hessdawg (Feb 20, 2007)

no not ID 
LA


----------



## johnmasters (Mar 30, 2009)

Are we getting close?


----------



## dco (Dec 21, 2008)

Are the v2's much different from the CTX mids?


----------



## mSaLL150 (Aug 14, 2008)

katodevin said:


>


Looks almost exactly like my old CTX mids:


----------

