# Myth: Oval/"odd" shaped speakers can't sound as good as round speakers



## Dangerranger

The source of this "myth" is the commonly held belief that oval speakers are incapable of producing the high fidelity sound that a round speaker is capable of. Note that I'm not in any way stating that an oval speaker is in fact superior, but simply that in many if not most cases an oval speaker can equal and in some cases better it's equivalent round speaker.

The common argument is that the larger and/or odd shape of the cone causes flex in the cone itself and creates more distortion due to a round shape being inherently more stiff. Also, the fact that oval speakers create an odd dispersion pattern as they approach beaming, which they do, but it's not necessarily a detriment.

The problem with this is that it is somehow thought that the common round speaker is inherently very stiff which really isn't the case. It is also believed that an oddly shaped speaker somehow needs huge amounts of reinforcement to approach any level of cone stiffness, which is also untrue. Most "cone flex" is due to the design of the cone itself. If you take a look at the typical speaker, the majority of them use polypropylene or paper cones, which most of them you can easily "bend" or flex simply by pressing on the edge of the cone near the surround. In fact, the only cone designs out there that really achieve a level of stiffness close to achieving the goal of true pistonic behavior would be extreme composites like Kevlar and some metal cones that have a LOT of material density such as the SEAS magnesium cones or the one case of their L18 7" driver which uses a specifically designed cone profile to achieve more stiffness and push the breakup node to a much higher frequency. The other issue presented is the material density required to get such a stiff cone usually results in a heavy cone in and of itself meaning a hit in sensitivity of the speaker. 

What sounds worse: a broad, large increase in even order harmonic distortion in the lower midrange and bass or sharper but narrow band odd order harmonic distortion in the upper treble? This is the classic damped cone vs stiffer cone debate. A very stiff cone generally has lower distortion in the passband but much higher as it approaches the treble region (right before the point that you'd usually hand off to a tweeter) It also means that you are going to have a breakup node somewhere. In extremely stiff drivers like a W18 or W22EX SEAS magnesium cone, this is very apparent to the point that a notch filter has to be designed and the crossover has to be low enough so that harmonic distortion doesn't excite this breakup node. Though not to the same extent, breakup nodes still occur even in the case of softer poly and paper cones. If the design is soft (damped) enough, there's less and less chance of a big nasty breakup node, but more chance of having more distortion overall in the passband due to less than pistonic behavior. But round vs oval cones in this area? Referring to distortion/resonances generated by the cone itself, round cones tend to have a single breakup peak due to being symmetrical. Oval cones, due to their odd/dissimilar cone profile and their not being symmetrical all around tend to lessen single distortion peaks and "spread it around". A lot of the time, they can have less overall distortion in the region where "breakup" would occur due to this. 

The other argument is dispersion pattern. A round cone, being symmetrical, disperses more "evenly" than an oddly shaped cone does. People claim that an oddly shaped cone, say a 6x9 for example, "beams like a 9" driver" which is not entirely true. Take a ribbon tweeter for example, which is much taller than it is wide. The narrower horizontal axis tend to have much better dispersion than the taller vertical axis. So the horizontal off axis performance is very good, where the vertical axis has "poor" dispersion comparatively. Is this necessarily a bad thing? Depends on the application. Of course, the frequencies affected are the ones that the wavelengths are smaller than the cone area, essentially frequencies "confined" within the dimensions of the speaker itself. The 6x9, for example, will beam like a 6" driver on the 6" axis, and like a 9" driver on the 9" axis. You could potentially use this to your advantage, especially in the car or a highly reflective environment where you want a higher direct to indirect sound ratio. A driver that beams like a 9" on a given axis means surfaces in line with said axis are not reflecting as much content as the speaker approaches the treble region, where the 6" axis can be aimed more toward the listener. This is not dissimilar to a line array, where multiple drivers are lined on a given axis, usually vertical to minimize floor and ceiling reflections. Of course, a line array causes the drivers to have cancellation on a certain axis across the full bandwidth of the drivers in question. 

The last point: the intended application of an oddly shaped speaker is to offer more cone area where a round speaker otherwise would not fit. Not many people are considering 6x9s in place of an 8", which both of them are pretty close to one another in terms of surface area of the cone. Most people are entertaining putting something like a 6x9 in a place where the only other option is a 6 or 6.5" driver and perhaps a tweeter. A 6x9 has very close to double the cone area of a 6" driver. This can be effective in a lot of different ways. Such a driver can be designed to accomplish a much lower bass response (around an octave). Such a driver can be around 3db more sensitive on the same power level across the same bandwidth. Cone area wins over excursion for performance every time. There is a reason that pro audio opts for gigantic midbass and midrange drivers. You can accomplish much higher output levels and much lower distortion levels. To do the same with smaller drivers, you would have to have huge excursion (which despite how exotic the motor, you will always increase distortion as the required excursion level increases and the coil is forced to move further away from center position and the BL decreases). You would run into issues with power compression. You'd have to have monster amplifiers to drive them. 

This all said, it is not indicative of the current offerings of the market as generally speaking, there are not many examples of "high end" oddly shaped drivers for car audio. But it is not due to an inherent disadvantage of the design itself, just due to a lack of good examples to base off of.


----------



## omegaslast

Should be filed away in a diyma cabinet of well reasoned arguments... im confused on the breakup nodes though

seas l18 7"

https://www.madisound.com/store/product_info.php?products_id=818

breakup node at 6khz

if there were a seas l18 6x9 would the breakup node be a bunch of smaller peaks starting before 6khz, or what might it look like


----------



## roger_2

interesting point of view... do u think there is significant difference between square shape subwoofer compared with same brand and power one with usual shape?!


----------



## subwoofery

Dangerranger said:


> ...The other argument is dispersion pattern. A round cone, being symmetrical, disperses more "evenly" than an oddly shaped cone does. People claim that an oddly shaped cone, say a 6x9 for example, "beams like a 9" driver" which is not entirely true. Take a ribbon tweeter for example, which is much taller than it is wide. The narrower horizontal axis tend to have much better dispersion than the taller vertical axis. So the horizontal off axis performance is very good, where the vertical axis has "poor" dispersion comparatively. Is this necessarily a bad thing? Depends on the application. Of course, the frequencies affected are the ones that the wavelengths are smaller than the cone area, essentially frequencies "confined" within the dimensions of the speaker itself. The 6x9, for example, will beam like a 6" driver on the 6" axis, and like a 9" driver on the 9" axis. You could potentially use this to your advantage, especially in the car or a highly reflective environment where you want a higher direct to indirect sound ratio. A driver that beams like a 9" on a given axis means surfaces in line with said axis are not reflecting as much content as the speaker approaches the treble region, where the 6" axis can be aimed more toward the listener. This is not dissimilar to a line array, where multiple drivers are lined on a given axis, usually vertical to minimize floor and ceiling reflections. Of course, a line array causes the drivers to have cancellation on a certain axis across the full bandwidth of the drivers in question...


I will not comment on the other points because I'm sure more knowledgeable members can chime in on the subject. 

Regarding what I left from your post, Eric Stevens told me once the exact opposite of what you said. 
It's true that a 6x9 will beam like a 9" (longest side) but will also beam like a 6" (shorter side). Good analogy with the ribbon drivers 
Putting a 6x9 (longest side parallele to the ground) in the kicks in a sport car will beam like a 6" driver. 
Putting a 6x9 (longest side parallele to the ground) in the kicks in a truck will most likely beam like a 9" driver. 

It's all about orientation. If you install it in the door, try to aim the shorter side to your left ear so that beaming can occur higher in freq. 

Another advantage to using oval drivers (and you've said it) is for increased surface area where round drivers of the same cone area wouldn't fit. 

You can call it good marketing from ID if you wish, but I agree with what Eric (ex ID) told me. 

Kelvin


----------



## AAAAAAA

I have recently been trying to get this through some peoples heads, 6x9's are not the enemi to SQ and actually have more beneftis then cons IMO especially in a car.

Great write up.


----------



## Chaos

Dangerranger said:


> Cone area wins over excursion every time.


Great post.

It never ceases to amaze me how often that statement demonstrates itself to be fundamentally true.

I'm not saying there is not a time and place for high excursion, quite the opposite actually, but it is a compromise born out of necessity.

Speaking of compromise, non-round speakers certainly have their advantages, and like nearly anything else they can perform just as well *if* they are implemented properly.


----------



## Paul1217

Typically the problem I have run into is that the oval speakers will typically distort at higher power faster than the equivilent round version. So it mainly depends on the aplication of the speaker. I see a 6x9 in a different category than a 4x6 or 4x10 anyway, can't really get a whole lot out of those anyway.


----------



## subwoofery

Paul1217 said:


> Typically the problem I have run into is that the oval speakers will typically distort at higher power faster than the equivilent round version. So it mainly depends on the aplication of the speaker. I see a 6x9 in a different category than a 4x6 or 4x10 anyway, can't really get a whole lot out of those anyway.


^ that's really a design issue. 
Most older 6x9 were coaxial that were designed with either a small amp to power them or even the HU. 

My ID XS69 doesn't distort with 300rms HP set @ 100Hz 24dB/oct slope. 

Kelvin


----------



## Jonny Hotnuts

I am not convinced....

Dont get me wrong a 6X9 can get a person increased cone area on a rear deck shelf allowing more output with a weak OEM deck but lets talk about the intent of the driver....is it a sub? is it a mid?...wtf is it?

I have never heard a 6X9 have the bass output of a quality 8" sub (arguably the 6X9 would have close to the cone area of an 8"), and I have never heard a 6X9 sound like a good quality 6.5 mid.....so where does that leave the 6X9? 

ALSO....

So the 6X9 typically is designed for a little more bass output....so how does that work with a true dedicated sub?;...so we tweak the XO to the point the sub is sloped below the 6X9s capabilities or maybe we just have 2 different drivers sizes playing in the same zone? 

AND....

New square drivers designed to play in a limited spectrum undergo full FEA stress analysis and are designed that stress loads over the cone surface are supported and reinforced in order to prevent the cone from breaking (note the star shaped bracing on the face of the Kicker square drivers). The uneven stress loads on the cone was a HUGE problem for subwoofer designers to overcome and by proxy of the even loads distributed and relatively easy(er) to engineer on round cones is exactly why square drivers did not come out sooner. This tecknology was not around when egg shaped drivers were originally being designed.

The egg shaped driver to have any real low Hz output would ideally need to have more structural integrity on the 9" spans then the 6" side....now the heavier cone mass looses the ability to effectively play upper hz...making it bad as a sub and worse as a mid. 



IMO, if you are looking to put a driver in the rear deck of your 91 Camaro, with no sub and some sweet paper cone coaxials up front, a 6X9 is the perfect choice....that is as long as you have an EQ-booster under your dash to tweak the sound just right. 

~JH


----------



## Oliver

It's not shape ... but rather what the speakers are designed to do !

Focal 5WS Subwoofer - Test Report - Focal 5WS Subwoofer - Test Report - Subwoofer Reviews - Car Audio and Electronics

6 x 9 sub - 6 x 9 subwoofer | eBay

6 x 9 subwoofer | eBay


----------



## subwoofery

Jonny Hotnuts said:


> I am not convinced....
> 
> Dont get me wrong a 6X9 can get a person increased cone area on a rear deck shelf allowing more output with a weak OEM deck but lets talk about the intent of the driver....is it a sub? is it a mid?...wtf is it?
> 
> I have never heard a 6X9 have the bass output of a quality 8" sub (arguably the 6X9 would have close to the cone area of an 8"), and I have never heard a 6X9 sound like a good quality 6.5 mid.....so where does that leave the 6X9?
> 
> ALSO....
> 
> So the 6X9 typically is designed for a little more bass output....so how does that work with a true dedicated sub?;...so we tweak the XO to the point the sub is sloped below the 6X9s capabilities or maybe we just have 2 different drivers sizes playing in the same zone?
> 
> AND....
> 
> New square drivers designed to play in a limited spectrum undergo full FEA stress analysis and are designed that stress loads over the cone surface are supported and reinforced in order to prevent the cone from breaking (note the star shaped bracing on the face of the Kicker square drivers). The uneven stress loads on the cone was a HUGE problem for subwoofer designers to overcome and by proxy of the even loads distributed and relatively easy(er) to engineer on round cones is exactly why square drivers did not come out sooner. This tecknology was not around when egg shaped drivers were originally being designed.
> 
> The egg shaped driver to have any real low Hz output would ideally need to have more structural integrity on the 9" spans then the 6" side....now the heavier cone mass looses the ability to effectively play upper hz...making it bad as a sub and worse as a mid.
> 
> 
> 
> IMO, if you are looking to put a driver in the rear deck of your 91 Camaro, with no sub and some sweet paper cone coaxials up front, a 6X9 is the perfect choice....that is as long as you have an EQ-booster under your dash to tweak the sound just right.
> 
> ~JH


I won't tell you 6x9 is the sh!t coz I won't be able to convince you. 

Try to find someone that has those: image dynamics | eBay 

^ Those are not subs, they are mids. Efficient @ 93dB 1w/1m (not the 2.83v rating that most use). And can play as high as 5kHz (beaming like a 6"). 
Really... Find someone who has those and take a listen. I don't know what you use but the mid's clarity is outstanding. I'm just gonna let the drivers talk. 

It's not because you've never heard a good 6x9 that it doesn't exist. 

Kelvin


----------



## 14642

ovals aren't inherently better or worse than round speakers and the ultimate performance does depend on the rest of the design. 

However, the oval shape does "spread the chaos" of bending modes around, which often results in a diminishing of the peaks and dips caused by those modes. The different dispersion patters along long and short axes can also be helpful, but a 6x9 woofer (just like other speakers) ought to be low passed before the dispersion narrows if you're using it in a car.


----------



## goodstuff

Going to test this myth very soon. Going from xs65's to xs69's everything else will stay the same.


----------



## Gary S

Excellent thread!



subwoofery said:


> Regarding what I left from your post, Eric Stevens told me once the exact opposite of what you said.
> It's true that a 6x9 will beam like a 9" (longest side) but will also beam like a 6" (shorter side). Good analogy with the ribbon drivers
> Putting a 6x9 (longest side parallele to the ground) in the kicks in a sport car will beam like a 6" driver.
> Putting a 6x9 (longest side parallele to the ground) in the kicks in a truck will most likely beam like a 9" driver.
> 
> It's all about orientation. If you install it in the door, try to aim the shorter side to your left ear so that beaming can occur higher in freq.
> 
> Another advantage to using oval drivers (and you've said it) is for increased surface area where round drivers of the same cone area wouldn't fit.
> 
> You can call it good marketing from ID if you wish, but I agree with what Eric (ex ID) told me.
> 
> Kelvin


 - This is true! Google "Oblique" cones also... I have personally tested this with an oblique cone and it's true.

Also, an oval cone has lower midrange distortion, everything else being equal.

But for extreme SPL subwoofers, physics may dictate that a round cone would have a better stiffness to weight ratio? Not really sure on that one.

But for midbass/midrange drivers and sound quality systems, they can work great... to this day, one of the best mids I've ever heard was a 6X9... it had very wide bandwidth, low distortion, and efficiency. If I were going into competition, I'd consider that Image Dynamics XS 6X9 comp set.


----------



## deesz

nice write up.


----------



## TokoSpeaker

I have tried Image Dynamics XS69 from Mr. Eric Stevens.
This mid 6"x9" has an excellent mid-clarity.

I am agree with Mr. Kelvin.

And Myth: Oval/"odd" shaped speakers can't sound as good as round speakers >>> of course not true, if you use XS69 Image Dynamic.


----------



## goodstuff

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> ovals aren't inherently better or worse than round speakers and the ultimate performance does depend on the rest of the design.
> 
> However, the oval shape does "spread the chaos" of bending modes around, which often results in a diminishing of the peaks and dips caused by those modes. The different dispersion patters along long and short axes can also be helpful, _but a 6x9 woofer (just like other speakers) ought to be low passed before the dispersion narrows if you're using it in a car._


So are you saying don't cross too low or it will beam?


----------



## raamaudio

I installed the first set of 6x9's I ever saw 43 years ago, I believe Sparcomatic or something similar, Motorola 8 track, 58 Bonneville. Then my country bumpkin brother and I went to the City, Spokane, and cruised the main drag, the only system there, we were pioneers in audio cruising in Spokane it seems

Only a few oval speakers have ever been worth a crap and when done right, superb. I recently removed my ID X69 and horns from my Duramax as getting ready to sell it, I absolutely loved the results of that setup, if I was using the same level of HU and processors as I used on my Rainbow Ref system I might of liked it the best out of everything I have ever done. (except center imaging which just does not work really well in a full size truck no matter what you do) 

I have been on the cannot stand side of the 6x9 argument most of my life, still am for 99.99% of the craps that is sold. I love the X69, one of my favorite speakers yet

Rick


----------



## Aaron'z 2.5RS/WRX

I wish I could find it... 

Long ago, I saw a little high-speed video clip of a 6x9... 

the cone was flapping like wings of a seagull... 

Now, obviously, different companies will design better cones to reduce this.. but the fact is, in it's application, an oval cone simple isn't as stiff, in a reactive sense of that of a simple round cone... 

how much of this actually relates to sound quality could only be determined though extensive testing... 

Sure a CF cone 6x9 is going to sound good, very little flex... but how about a simple poly cone... ?


----------



## goodstuff

Very close to finishing installing my xs69's....maybe this weekend ( yeah right).


----------



## subwoofery

From Jason and Eric Stevens: 
http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/338954-post8.html 
http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/650895-post17.html 

Kelvin


----------



## 14642

You giys would be amazed at how floppy cones actually are--even the expensive ones. A floppy cone isneither good nor bad, but all of those bending modes are what causes the peaks and dips you see in the frequency response. There isn't one mode, there are many modes. 

For a good explanation of this with pics, check out the 'Loudspeaker and Headphone Handbook" (don't remember the author) or "High Performance Loudspeakers" by Martin Colloms.


----------



## goodstuff

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> You giys would be amazed at how floppy cones actually are--even the expensive ones. A floppy cone isneither good nor bad, but all of those bending modes are what causes the peaks and dips you see in the frequency response. There isn't one mode, there are many modes.
> 
> For a good explanation of this with pics, check out the 'Loudspeaker and Headphone Handbook" (don't remember the author) or "High Performance Loudspeakers" by Martin Colloms.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Andy Wehmeyer View Post
> ovals aren't inherently better or worse than round speakers and the ultimate performance does depend on the rest of the design.
> 
> However, the oval shape does "spread the chaos" of bending modes around, which often results in a diminishing of the peaks and dips caused by those modes. The different dispersion patters along long and short axes can also be helpful, but a 6x9 woofer (just like other speakers) ought to be low passed before the dispersion narrows if you're using it in a car.



So are you saying don't cross too low or it will beam?


----------



## subwoofery

Echo? Echo? Echo? Echo? Echo? 

Kelvin


----------



## goodstuff

subwoofery said:


> Echo? Echo? Echo? Echo? Echo?
> 
> Kelvin


He's probably mad because I want to kill the ms-8 thread with fire. :laugh:


----------



## 14642

Where you cross it over depends on what you need it to do. The dispersion is narrower along the long dimension than along the short dimension. If it's a 3-way 6x9, then don't use a low pass filter. The speaker is designed as a full range driver. If you were going to use it as a woofer in a home speaker with the long axis perpendicular to the floor, then the dispersion in the vertical plane would be a little narrower than in the horizontal plane. You'd choose your crossover according to that. There's no hard and fast rule.

Oh, and I'll kill the mS-8 thread before you do...


----------



## chad

People use phrases like "Beaming" in a derogatory way while others simply understand it as "directivity control"


----------



## its_bacon12

The proof is in the pudding. Maybe someone with a woofer tester and the proper testing equipment to do a nearfield FR/distortion sweep and possibly off axis response modeling in vertical/horizontal to give some substance to this conversation.


----------



## its_bacon12

chad said:


> People use phrases like "Beaming" in a derogatory way while others simply understand it as "directivity control"


I'd imagine in a car, this isn't a terribly big deal because of the mass of reflections in a car. In a home audio design, it is of huge important because one tries to have a speaker perform well off axis as not every seating position can be on axis.

So, IMO, in a car the beaming isn't so much of an issue unless it get's pretty directive.


----------



## AAAAAAA

Beaming is good in the car.
Basically you stick a 6x9 in the door, hopefully the 6 inch side is towards the listener. So you get better off axis response then you would by sticking a 6.5 inch in there... all the while getting the bass output similar to an 8 inch!

WIN WIN!


----------



## goodstuff

getting closer....maybe this weekend.


----------



## FlexnInLa

I was told by a VERY knowledgeable insider that a 6x9 mid would sound much better than a 6.5 mid in a door. I believe him, though I can't afford to test the theory.


----------



## Fricasseekid

FlexnInLa said:


> I was told by a VERY knowledgeable insider that a 6x9 mid would sound much better than a 6.5 mid in a door. I believe him, though I can't afford to test the theory.


I have 6x9s as dedicated midbass in my rear doors and they sound great! 

PS. I hav a group for Louisiana DIYers, you should join!


----------



## deesz

Im going to re-ignite this thread. Im going to have to agree with the op only on this note. Majority of automobile manufacturers use 6.5" speakers. they do this for limitations of room in a door. if 80% of cars out there stock house a 6.5" speaker then there will be more focus for an aftermarket speaker manufacterer to spend more time and money into producing higher end 6.5" speakers not only that but you can fit a 6.5" into 6x9" and 6x8" holes covering all of about 98% of cars. so why spend money in making great 6x9" as well as 6.5" speakers when you could just produce 1 great 6.5" speaker and call it day...
Like others are saying there are plenty of nice 6x9's its just finding them. I dont think its a main focus for aftermarket companys. 
One of my favorite cars to do a nice simple good sounding system is the newer dodge rams. they put 6x9's in the front door and 5.25" speakers in the rear.


----------



## Vengure

I once got to listen to pair of kicker 6x9 sub woofers in the back of a sedan and I was pleasantly impressed with the performance.


----------



## CHEMMINS

deesz said:


> One of my favorite cars to do a nice simple good sounding system is the newer dodge rams. they put 6x9's in the front door and 5.25" speakers in the rear.



Not to mention the panels come off in less than a minute.


----------



## DanMan

I have been running ID's x69 mids for a few years. They continue to impress me. With 500 watts each, I have yet to get so much as a stutter from them. They are in fiberglass kicks vented into the frame rails of a '98 Civic. They fit perfectly under my Ultra Mini horns. A great pairing as far as I am concerned.

I have a pair of Audax PR170MO 6.5" mids I planned to integrate for a 3-way. I can't get motivated to do it, though.


----------



## goodstuff




----------



## andrave

if cone strength was the issue you wouldn't see so many oval shaped domes in stadiums, dating back to ancient roman times.


----------



## 14642

AAAAAAA said:


> Beaming is good in the car.
> Basically you stick a 6x9 in the door, hopefully the 6 inch side is towards the listener. So you get better off axis response then you would by sticking a 6.5 inch in there... all the while getting the bass output similar to an 8 inch!
> 
> WIN WIN!


No, you get the same off-axis response as the 6.5" because the dispersion in that direction is about the same--defined by the speaker's dimension.


----------



## takeabao

Not sure if this is the place to talk about this, but I am VERY intrigued by Infinity/JBL's new 4x6 offerings where they separate the midrange from the tweeter.

Like this:









I think there's some decent potential with this design (one of my cars has a 4x6 on the dash) and if adapted to the 6x9 cutout, with good woofer/tweeter choice, and a simple [yet decent] crossover network backing it up, could sound pretty good.

Thoughts?

Andy Wehmeyer, wanna chime in more?


----------



## minbari

those are not oval speakers though. it is round speakers in a mounting plate. not exactly what this discussion is for.


----------



## GranteedEV

chad said:


> People use phrases like "Beaming" in a derogatory way while others simply understand it as "directivity control"


"Directivity control" and "Beaming" are not synonomous. The thing to realize is that we may want narrowed dispersion to reduce reflections, but we don't want it narrowed to the point where you have to be directly in the path of the woofer (the "beam") to hear the sound correctly.

There's a definite pattern you want and true beaming is not desirable, even for a person on axis.


----------



## sqshoestring

I like 6x9 because the typical 6.5 has a hard time at 80Hz let alone going lower. 6x9 is significantly more capable and should be more efficient just from the cone area. I've not tried any coax 8s yet but I assume they are similar in FR. Sure you can get small subs and expensive 6.5 that do more, but a 6x9 is a woofer not a sub and I was talking similar level speakers.

I used to do a lot of boats and was always surprised what 6x9 could do in an open cabin, then we moved to 7x10. Many of the boats they didn't have room or want weight of subs plus they ran the batteries down faster, the 7x10 were ideal. Given they were mostly party systems not really SQ, but the bass out of quad 7x10 for example was not bad running full range. Even one set with other 6.5 you could listen to and they went loud.

Those 7x10 had a raised grille and would fit a 6x9 hole, and given space available were ideal. You could not fit round drivers that large in many places or find an all weather one. Any quality issue certainly was not something I could notice. Even in a car the better FR in the midbass range usually made up for any other issue, but suppose it depends on how you like your bass. I've rarely been happy with 6.5 in that respect. For me I always look for FR first and once that is good I go on to other issues.


----------



## AAAAAAA

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> No, you get the same off-axis response as the 6.5" because the dispersion in that direction is *about the same*--defined by the speaker's dimension.


So they aren't the same 

I realise the difference is pretty negligeable but slightly in favor of the 6x9 if aimed right.


----------



## Sarthos

takeabao said:


> Not sure if this is the place to talk about this, but I am VERY intrigued by Infinity/JBL's new 4x6 offerings where they separate the midrange from the tweeter.
> 
> Like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think there's some decent potential with this design (one of my cars has a 4x6 on the dash) and if adapted to the 6x9 cutout, with good woofer/tweeter choice, and a simple [yet decent] crossover network backing it up, could sound pretty good.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Andy Wehmeyer, wanna chime in more?


That's not a new design, I've seen Boss Audio doing that for years 

Anyway, 6x9s have weird beaming patterns which I personally don't like.

And finally, pick a few random companies that make expensive speakers. Look at their top of the line models, lots of 6.5s, virtually no 6x9s.


----------



## sqshoestring

Makers just follow the market, back when many cars used 6x9 everyone had 6x9s to sell you it was by far the most popular at one time. Today not so many cars use them. They also had plates in the late 80s even, and if you wanted to lose midbass/bass you could use them...or if you could afford to lose it as they did work in some places.


----------



## chad

GranteedEV said:


> There's a definite pattern you want and true beaming is not desirable, even for a person on axis.


every single speaker beams, in fact by about the same amount, it's merely size related....


----------



## tornaido_3927

And some are smart enough to use beaming to their advantage rather than treat it as evil..


----------



## DiMora

Jonny Hotnuts said:


> ...IMO, if you are looking to put a driver in the rear deck of your 91 Camaro, with no sub and some sweet paper cone coaxials up front, a 6X9 is the perfect choice....that is as long as you have an EQ-booster under your dash to tweak the sound just right.
> 
> ~JH


LOL!!!!!!!!

:laugh:

Only if it is a Kraco or Pyramid booster!


----------



## DiMora

takeabao said:


> Not sure if this is the place to talk about this, but I am VERY intrigued by Infinity/JBL's new 4x6 offerings where they separate the midrange from the tweeter.
> 
> Like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think there's some decent potential with this design (one of my cars has a 4x6 on the dash) and if adapted to the 6x9 cutout, with good woofer/tweeter choice, and a simple [yet decent] crossover network backing it up, could sound pretty good.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Andy Wehmeyer, wanna chime in more?


Those sound very good for what they are...I also have some Boston Acoustics SL-80's in my Mustang which are the same idea.


----------



## mtnbkr

deesz said:


> ...One of my favorite cars to do a nice simple good sounding system is the newer dodge rams. they put 6x9's in the front door and 5.25" speakers in the rear.


My 2011 Laramie has 6x9s in all four doors...soon to be replaced with XR6.5Ms.


----------



## mtnbkr

There are some very respected members of this forum running 6x9s. Nobody has been able to objectively establish that one is better off SQ-wise with 6.5s than 6x9s. In fact, it appears that very good arguments have been advanced favoring 6x9s. So, why are there so few decent 6x9s out there? IDs, HAT Imagines and some BAs. I don't see too much else. Why? Even with HAT, there's no Legatia 6x9. Why? Is it fit issues (i.e. no demand)? I am at a loss on this.


----------



## EricP72

This discussion has me thinking about my next install in my mark VIII. I'm thinking about either a pair of id6x9, cadence 6x9 midbass drivers, a pair of 8x12 lanzar vs a pair of sealed Alpine type r 8"? Damn I have no idea which way to go? I just want an abundance of midbass!


----------



## subwoofery

manish said:


> This discussion has me thinking about my next install in my mark VIII. I'm thinking about either a pair of id6x9, cadence 6x9 midbass drivers, a pair of 8x12 lanzar vs a pair of sealed Alpine type r 8"? Damn I have no idea which way to go? I just want an abundance of midbass!


You could try the Imagine I69, I have used the I6 and it's a very efficient driver that puts out lovely midrange for being an "entry" level  

Kelvin


----------



## mtnbkr

subwoofery said:


> You could try the Imagine I69, I have used the I6 and it's a very efficient driver that puts out lovely midrange for being an "entry" level
> 
> Kelvin


I asked Scott Buwalda about the Imagine 6x9s. Here was his response:

"6X9's are a rough size to convince a buyer to upgrade beyond "good." That's why we don't make a high-end oval speaker. The Imagine I69-2 is a very musical speaker though, especially for midbass duties.

I like the idea of wide-bandwidth L3SE's up top, and then I69-2's in the doors covering midbass. That could work well. The L6SE or even the L6V2, if money's tight, would be a very good approach too. For sheer output, the I69-2 and L6V2 will mirror each other closely because of displacement gains on the I69-2 over the L6V2, but the L6V2 has more linear Xmax. It'll be a wash. The L6V2 has lower inductance though, which is always desirable."​


----------



## Fricasseekid

manish said:


> This discussion has me thinking about my next install in my mark VIII. I'm thinking about either a pair of id6x9, cadence 6x9 midbass drivers, a pair of 8x12 lanzar vs a pair of sealed Alpine type r 8"? Damn I have no idea which way to go? I just want an abundance of midbass!


Why not check out the offerings from CDT?


----------



## Cruzer

would these be any good?
Image Dynamics CTX-69 (CTX 69) 6x9" 2-Way CTX Coaxial Car Speakers

or just their $500 set?


----------



## Cruzer

from jl website:

"Many people mistakenly believe that an oval speaker cannot perform as well as a round one, leading to many instances of 5.25-inch speakers being installed into 5 x 7-inch openings. JL Audio's engineers have put in the time and effort to create fantastic-sounding speakers that drop into oval openings and deliver equivalent performance to our 6.5-inch (165 mm) round speaker systems... guaranteed. So, don't make the mistake of losing cone area and efficiency by stepping down to a smaller round speaker... these ovals rock."


----------



## Hillbilly SQ

Fricasseekid said:


> Why not check out the offerings from CDT?


CDT is so six years ago and way overpriced.


----------



## Fricasseekid

Really? Cause I only paid $160 for my 6x9s, and they sound great!


----------



## Cruzer

Woofersetc.com recommended the image dynamics set or the Cdt set


----------



## subwoofery

Don't know why but CDT never appealed to me... As said before, really don't know why. 

Kelvin


----------



## Hillbilly SQ

Not saying they're bad speakers. I just think you could do better for the money. Anyone know if they're still rebadging vifa drivers for their higher end drivers? Their lower end stuff just looks like stuff off the shelf of a chinese buildhouse.


----------



## jcorkin

the way i have always looked at it overall is that with the oval speakers, primarily 6x9s, you generally get a higher output in the lower frequencies but i have always noticed in my setups that they seem to have a tendency to distort easier/faster than something that is circular and the reason for this would be the fact that the voice coil is round and an oval woofer attached to the circular voice coil is going to create unwanted flexing/drag at moderate to higher excursion and this flexing/drag will result in the coil heating up from having to work harder to try and keep the woofer moving linear and heat equals distortion in the end, now I'm not saying that circular speakers are exempt from this cause that would plain and simply be a lie but they are much less susceptible to the distortion as they do not exhibit the inherit linearity problems as a oval woofer. as stated before though with the large 6x9 speaker i do believe you do have an edge in mid and low frequency output, not clarity but output. just my .02


----------



## Cruzer

jcorkin said:


> the way i have always looked at it overall is that with the oval speakers, primarily 6x9s, you generally get a higher output in the lower frequencies but i have always noticed in my setups that they seem to have a tendency to distort easier/faster than something that is circular and the reason for this would be the fact that the voice coil is round and an oval woofer attached to the circular voice coil is going to create unwanted flexing/drag at moderate to higher excursion and this flexing/drag will result in the coil heating up from having to work harder to try and keep the woofer moving linear and heat equals distortion in the end, now I'm not saying that circular speakers are exempt from this cause that would plain and simply be a lie but they are much less susceptible to the distortion as they do not exhibit the inherit linearity problems as a oval woofer. as stated before though with the large 6x9 speaker i do believe you do have an edge in mid and low frequency output, not clarity but output. just my .02


im just a noob so i dont know, which is why im asking

what if they use a larger voice coil than the normal 6.5 speaker in 6x9s? would that prevent it from heating up, or heating up as easily?

and knowing what u just said, wouldnt they do things to fix it?

and lastly, what about 3 way 6x9s? the 6x9 could be playing idk 800hz down, midrange and tweet doing most the clarity and detailed work?


----------



## jcorkin

its possible that the 6x9 may have a larger voice coil but that is not relevant to the whole heating up of the voice coil as the voice coil wouldn't be much larger and wouldn't change the fact that its still a circle pulling and pushing on a oval. in the case of 3 ways yes the tweets would play fine imo but the music that the 6x9 woofer would play would still be distorted. I'm sure someone else will chime in and say more on this, once again this is just the way i have always viewed the subject


----------



## raamaudio

Unless very well engineered and built I would never use a 6x9 but if done right, they are great, my latest was X69 and full size ID horns and it was a perfect match, very loud when wanted, no single 6.5 could do what those X69's did that I have ever heard. 

I advise against 6x9's at least a few times a week as help many building their muscle cars, etc that want to put some in the rear deck, wrong place and usually cheap versions because they do not know any better. Instead I advise a simple two way front stage and a simple sub in the rear deck, even 6x9 subs if they cannot cut up anything to put in a 10 or whatever their needs dictate. 

Most just want a simple system but I explain with a little effort and not a great deal of money they can build a much better system than what most think is the right way to go. Unfortunately most do not have a good placement for the tweeters but we work out the best we can for their particular vehicle. 

6x9, great if great driver and used right, sucks otherwise

Rick


----------



## goodstuff

I went from xs65's to xs69's. Loving it and still tuning.


----------



## ATOMICTECH62

I believe 6x9's were designed by car makers due the fact back in the 50'-60's the amps they used were tubes, then early low powered transistors of only a watt or two.They needed a large efficient speaker to over come all the noise those car made.
They were first put in the center dash or console for mono and as fm stereo came in they would fit in the rear shelf.
Then Gm came out with the 4x10 to fit in the rear shelf of their Cutlass.
I dont really think they had sound quality in mind when they designed them, more like they have to fit in the car and be efficient enough to hear.
But then came the late 70's and early 80's with booster EQ's and Dolby tape decks and the demand for higher quality speakers.
I think this is where Clarion,Pioneer and Kenwood started making the high end stuff.
6x9's included.
But I still dont know about those 4x10's.Why even bother.They could of just put 6x9's in those big bulky doors.


----------



## Cruzer

Cruzer said:


> from jl website:
> 
> "Many people mistakenly believe that an oval speaker cannot perform as well as a round one, leading to many instances of 5.25-inch speakers being installed into 5 x 7-inch openings. JL Audio's engineers have put in the time and effort to create fantastic-sounding speakers that drop into oval openings and deliver equivalent performance to our 6.5-inch (165 mm) round speaker systems... guaranteed. So, don't make the mistake of losing cone area and efficiency by stepping down to a smaller round speaker... these ovals rock."


what do u guys think of this?


----------



## cvjoint

ATOMICTECH62 said:


> *I believe 6x9's were designed by car makers due the fact back in the 50'-60's the amps they used were tubes, then early low powered transistors of only a watt or two.*They needed a large efficient speaker to over come all the noise those car made.
> They were first put in the center dash or console for mono and as fm stereo came in they would fit in the rear shelf.
> Then Gm came out with the 4x10 to fit in the rear shelf of their Cutlass.
> I dont really think they had sound quality in mind when they designed them, more like they have to fit in the car and be efficient enough to hear.
> But then came the late 70's and early 80's with booster EQ's and Dolby tape decks and the demand for higher quality speakers.
> I think this is where Clarion,Pioneer and Kenwood started making the high end stuff.
> 6x9's included.
> But I still dont know about those 4x10's.Why even bother.They could of just put 6x9's in those big bulky doors.


It's packaging first way before power. Interior room has always been a desired attribute. The rear seats get mounted as far back as possible to get legroom. That is, before it cuts into headroom. What you have left is a typical almost rectangular rear shelf behind the seats. 

To get the most output suface area is increased by specifying an irregular speaker. Even if you had 1kw at your disposal the speaker has it's limits. The vast majority of car speakers have been very basic motors that can't take advantage of large increases in power. There was a need for suface area to get output and therefore the ovals. 

That's why the same principles apply today, despite increases in stroke. JL's quote is largely correct I would say, use whatever maximizes cone area, be it round, oval, square, etc.



Andy Wehmeyer said:


> ovals aren't inherently better or worse than round speakers and the ultimate performance does depend on the rest of the design.
> 
> However, the oval shape does "spread the chaos" of bending modes around, which often results in a diminishing of the peaks and dips caused by those modes. The different dispersion patters along long and short axes can also be helpful, *but a 6x9 woofer (just like other speakers) ought to be low passed before the dispersion narrows if you're using it in a car.*


Andy, could you expand on that if you see this?


----------



## ATOMICTECH62

Thats kinda what I was getting at.They need as much cone area as they could get to fit into the area they had available.Its like the speaker was just an after thought and shaped to fit.I think the 6x9 worked so well they just kept on using it.The 6x9 was a more efficient design than just a 4,5 or 6.
I have seen oval speakers in older home units also.Some were very large,15x10 inch's.
But I dont think they were as old as the automotive designs.But I could be wrong.
All of the oval speakers I've came across were IB except for the dedicated subs like the Boston SPG555-4.


----------



## cvjoint

It definitely is an afterthought. OEM drivers must cost a few bucks to make for most cars.


----------



## subwoofery

cvjoint said:


> Andy, could you expand on that if you see this?


He's talking about polar response. A 6x9 will beam like a 6" driver on the short axis and like a 9" driver on the long axis. Having read many post from Andy, he's a firm believer in LPing drivers before beaming in order to avoid having to angle the speaker. 

Kelvin


----------



## Cruzer

To me Iwould think today they have looken.at what could fix or help the 6x9 and corrected or greatly improved. But perhaps they just make budget ones that will give the buys lots of bass and they make money off people who.don't know better and want to replace factory speakers


----------



## cvjoint

subwoofery said:


> He's talking about polar response. A 6x9 will beam like a 6" driver on the short axis and like a 9" driver on the long axis. Having read many post from Andy, he's a firm believer in LPing drivers before beaming in order to avoid having to angle the speaker.
> 
> Kelvin


Yeah, I got that part. I wanted more on controlling dispersion in a car. Seems like he's not a big fan. There are two schools of thought on this.


----------



## chad

ATOMICTECH62 said:


> Thats kinda what I was getting at.They need as much cone area as they could get to fit into the area they had available.Its like the speaker was just an after thought and shaped to fit.I think the 6x9 worked so well they just kept on using it.The 6x9 was a more efficient design than just a 4,5 or 6.
> I have seen oval speakers in older home units also.Some were very large,15x10 inch's.
> But I dont think they were as old as the automotive designs.But I could be wrong.
> All of the oval speakers I've came across were IB except for the dedicated subs like the Boston SPG555-4.


You bet... IIRC my parent's console stereo had 6X9's and they were in this strange styrofoam wrapped enclosure....

There was also the "Camaro phenomena" where you could take a set of 6X9's put them in that rear shelf (when they still had shelves (that dates me )) and off that "waveguide" of a sloped rear glass they could and did make an UNGODLY amount of low end for a minimal amount of cone surface area and excursion by today's standards.



cvjoint said:


> There are two schools of thought on this.


[winning]


----------



## thehatedguy

Well to really date yourself, they would probably be Detonator speakers off of a booster...


----------



## thehatedguy

When you guys figure beaming frequencies, are you saying an 8" speaker has an 8" cone? Because most 8s have a 6" cone from srround to surround.

Just curious.


----------



## raamaudio

The first install I ever did was in a 58 Bonneville, Motorola 8 track and 6x9 speakers in the rear, not sure what I put up front, speakers were Sparkomatic it seems but my memory is a bit fuzzy since some time ago, this year it will be 44 years since I installed the "system" 

As long as the cone is stiff and lite enough and it makes sense what Andy has to say about beaming, set the crossover below that point, a 6x9 can be cool, way cool, F'ing A cool, done right!

Rick


----------



## cvjoint

thehatedguy said:


> When you guys figure beaming frequencies, are you saying an 8" speaker has an 8" cone? Because most 8s have a 6" cone from srround to surround.
> 
> Just curious.


It's also true that music gets reproduced past the LP filter. Neglecting both of these may simply offset eachother.


----------



## chad

thehatedguy said:


> Well to really date yourself, they would probably be Detonator speakers off of a booster...


Fryanear



thehatedguy said:


> When you guys figure beaming frequencies, are you saying an 8" speaker has an 8" cone? Because most 8s have a 6" cone from srround to surround.
> 
> Just curious.


From center of surround to center of surround, straight across.


----------



## thehatedguy

K, cause that's how I measure them too...and if you do that, you get some different numbers than what always gets posted for where a particular speaker size beams.


----------



## chad

thehatedguy said:


> K, cause that's how I measure them too...and if you do that, you get some different numbers than what always gets posted for where a particular speaker size beams.


yup, but remember, beaming is the devil. 

directivity control


----------



## sqshoestring

chad said:


> You bet... IIRC my parent's console stereo had 6X9's and they were in this strange styrofoam wrapped enclosure....
> 
> There was also the "Camaro phenomena" where you could take a set of 6X9's put them in that rear shelf (when they still had shelves (that dates me )) and off that "waveguide" of a sloped rear glass they could and did make an UNGODLY amount of low end for a minimal amount of cone surface area and excursion by today's standards.
> 
> [winning]


Even better when you slipped a pair of 10s between the 6x9, and then four more tens into the seatback. :bowdown: Fun days for sure. I only had quads but my friends car back then we did six in his....and he still has it, still has the subs in it lol. Problem is he had to run extra batteries in the trunk too and I didn't. Anyway, the 6x9 back there made all the midbass you needed. Talk about wonderful cabin gain, wow.


----------



## tyroneshoes

This thread was very interesting and as it turns out, my new Jeep Patriot has 6x9s in all 4 doors. 4" + depth too.

I have soundstream sst6.9 ($75) in the front now just powered off the pioneer headunit as my temporary install, and the midbass is outstanding. Better than 6.5s amped up in sealed doors. There really is no substitution for cone area. 










Seems like I would expect beaming like an 8" driver according to how they are mounted in the doors, however, there really is no unpleasant beaming and with the eq flat, show very little peaks or drops on the rta. 

What surprised me was the overall clarity from 50 hz up, I am in no hurry to finish the setup. I really think this speaker is a gem. Turns out I did some searching and found out others thought so too.

http://www.soundstream.com/images/magazines/autosalon/SST6.9_shot.pdf

Ill be using critical mass reference pointsource 6x9's up front (if they sound better than the soundstreams and live up to the hype). Im keeping this install extremely simple. X930bt, a set of 6x9 coaxials up front, kenwood x4r and a sub under the seat. 










And I have a very high end 6.5 italian component set I could use, I just like how easy it is to obtain great midbass with 6x9s

good post


----------



## EricP72

I would love to find a pair of pioneer premier Prs 6x9 from like 2004. Those 2-ways were perfect!


----------



## myhikingboots

thehatedguy said:


> K, cause that's how I measure them too...and if you do that, you get some different numbers than what always gets posted for where a particular speaker size beams.


So at what frequency does a 6x9 speaker start to beam?


----------



## sqshoestring

Wonder how those SS 6x9 would work in my rear doors. I was thinking 7x10 but for rears will it really matter, and then I'd have something with a reference that it sounded good and made bass. It has to be under 100.


----------



## Neil_J

I'm loving my Hybrid Mirus 6x9's (MS-8 rear fill). Drop-in fit and they sound incredible, especially with Logic 7 enabled.


----------



## subwoofery

myhikingboots said:


> So at what frequency does a 6x9 speaker start to beam?


Theory explained on page 1 

Kelvin


----------



## myhikingboots

subwoofery said:


> Theory explained on page 1
> 
> Kelvin


Thanks. I read this thread over a year ago and forgot much of what was in it.


----------



## DCaudeo

Isn't it possible that due to different listening preferences among people, as well as many different brands of 6x9's that can all sound different, that maybe the notion that 6x9's dont sound as good as 6 1/2's comes from just so much variance in all this? What sounds good to one person sounds bad to another, and so on.


----------



## Chaos

I too have a new Jeep with stock 6x9 in each door. The first week I had it, I ditched the OEM speakers for two pairs of entry level Kickers we had laying around, until I settled on what I was "really" going to do with the front stage.

I gotta say though, months have gone by and I still haven't worked up the motivation to replace them. They reproduce midbass and midrange with what seems like much less effort then the typical 6.5-7" midwoofers that I have been using for years now, and they are also more "forgiving" in that they simply don't exhibit the typical one or two extremely nasty peaks that I am accustomed to in their overall response. In general, they are much easier to EQ.

Granted, they might not be quite as transparent at full volume as a properly tuned 7" might be, particularly with more power, but the extra efficiency more than makes up for it at normal listening levels.


----------



## junglejuice72

I know it is home audio vs car audio but KEF used to use an oval bass driver and they were extremely highly regarded for sound quality and are still highly sought after....


----------



## gallman

subwoofery said:


> My ID XS69 doesn't distort with 300rms HP set @ 100Hz 24dB/oct slope.
> 
> Kelvin


In what location of the vehicle are you using your xs6x9's? Is the tweeter mounted separate or as coaxial? Thanks.


----------



## xtremevette

I always thought 4x10's put out a ton for their odd shape.


----------



## Fricasseekid

xtremevette said:


> I always thought 4x10's put out a ton for their odd shape.


Kinda like your mom!


----------



## subwoofery

gallman said:


> In what location of the vehicle are you using your xs6x9's? Is the tweeter mounted separate or as coaxial? Thanks.


Had it in sealed kicks as a coaxial - passive

Kelvin


----------



## xtremevette

Fricasseekid said:


> Kinda like your mom!


Think you need to grow the F up a little. My mother is very sick. Might wanna think before you type.


----------



## Fricasseekid

The world is full of momma jokes. Sorry this one hurt your feelings. 

Hope your mother gets better mate.


----------



## DirectionsAndConnections

Momma jokes aside, this thread really changed the way I thought about 6X9's (and other ovals, for that matter). Thanks OP for bringing this up, this was one of the few reasonable, thought-provoking discussions in this section.


----------



## EricP72

I know this thread had died off. But now that chrysler/dodge has been using 6x9 in almost all of their cars and trucks and it's even the driver size of choice in the dodge challenger top Harman Marion audio package. Do u think others will catch on and start putting 6x9 or even 7x10 in their cars? I know for me I'm really into using oval speakers for my doors now. My buddy switched out his 8" sls for a pair of 6x9 and is now never going back. His only gripe is he desires just a Lil more output but he is happy and I'm sold now. I see eric Stevens is now with cadence and they have a 8x12. I wonder if he will bring his ideas on oval drivers to their product line. Btw I wanna try to see if I could fit a 8x12 coaxial or 7x10 in the doors. Car is a dodge challenger.


----------



## subwoofery

manish said:


> I know this thread had died off. But now that chrysler/dodge has been using 6x9 in almost all of their cars and trucks and it's even the driver size of choice in the dodge challenger top Harman Marion audio package. Do u think others will catch on and start putting 6x9 or even 7x10 in their cars? I know for me I'm really into using oval speakers for my doors now. My buddy switched out his 8" sls for a pair of 6x9 and is now never going back. His only gripe is he desires just a Lil more output but he is happy and I'm sold now. I see eric Stevens is now with cadence and they have a 8x12. I wonder if he will bring his ideas on oval drivers to their product line. Btw I wanna try to see if I could fit a 8x12 coaxial or 7x10 in the doors. Car is a dodge challenger.


Eric Stevens is with Cadence? 

Kelvin


----------



## thehatedguy

Yeah...been there for a while. Both he and Matt (I think Matt is still there). He is still going to do his own stuff that has been in the works.


----------



## thehatedguy

http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/general-car-audio-discussion/158701-eris-stevens-cadence.html


----------



## subwoofery

thehatedguy said:


> Yeah...been there for a while. Both he and Matt (I think Matt is still there). He is still going to do his own stuff that has been in the works.


I knew for Matt but never knew for Eric. 

Good stuff  

Kelvin


----------



## rxonmymind

Just got my system tuned up and kept the stock 6x9 (2009 Lexus RX 350) and let me tell you the proof is in the DSP & amp. I've had JL Audio z 6.5 with their amps and these 6x9's rip them. (Just as impressive as a side note is the stock doors of the RX 350 and how they vibrate very, VERY little when the system is turned up loud) Granted I'm running JL 100/6 to each and that alone made a difference over the pitiful 135 watt Pioneer amp. SOO very impressed at the tuning and how much power these stocks can handle at high volume. Surprised me. Not sure sure I'd want to go back to 6.5" but maybe 8" mid bass.


----------



## spaceace60

This is an old post but since subject was on 6x9's has anyone heard the the beastly built Focal 7x10??? id really like to hear opinions from someone familiar with these speakers? thanks Jim


----------



## thehatedguy

What is the model number?


----------



## rxonmymind

thehatedguy said:


> What is the model number?


Maybe these?
PC 710 - FocalPC 710 - Focal


----------



## spaceace60

rxonmymind said:


> Maybe these?
> PC 710 - FocalPC 710 - Focal


yep that them!! they look pretty wicked and built fairly stout also great sensitivity!!! thanks Jim


----------



## rxonmymind

Pretty happy with mine. They can pound. it's any wonder as TWo 6x9's is like having a one ten woofer up front. Shakes the pant legs, vibrates the rear view mirror and tickles the tshirt on the right songs. However, I'm curious how two 8's would do.....
Anyway those Focal look like beasts! NICE.


----------



## Phil Indeblanc

I'm glad I found this thread...

I was just wondering this myth/round vs oval, and posted in the system design area..

The performer 6x9's back in the 80s were the JBL's. They had the intro I think to have the Ti tweeters in them. Also the main reason they distorted was mostly the 2 or 3 way design inside the woofer...well it wasn't much the speakers fault as the user...due to the deeper lows the speaker was ABLE to do, with the tweets within/axis they would be over driven, thinking they can do low sub levels...of course they would distort. But now with separate driver and tweeter, thats less of a problem.

Also those Infinity plates posted are from A/D/S design, which first made them, then Boston saw the success in small 911 doors came out with a set. I maybe mistaken but AR/Teledyne may have had a pair around ADS time as well.

I just picked up a pair of older 6x9 separates, and will see how they do. I am putting them in the rear doors, with tweets off axis neer door handle, and I'm using 2 or 3way 6.5" up front. I think it will do fine.


----------



## therapture

I just got a cherry low mileage GMC 1500 crew cab truck with the uplevel non Bose 8" lcd system with the Kicker 10" accessory sub. I was surprised at how low the stock fronts played. I pulled off the door trims and found a 6x9. So I added mlv on the outer skin about 65-70% coverage, and then sealed up all the holes. Put the oem sound pad back and back together it went.

I was SHOCKED at the improvement!!! So yeah, that surface area is in play, and I now ditched plans for a 6.5 install. I could toss my alpine V9 and RF 360.3 in there, my cdt 2" in the top dash, tune it up and I would probably be very happy.


----------



## Hillbilly SQ

I can say with 100% comfort that the Audiofrog gs690's are incredible. Angled the way they are they have the beaming pattern of a 6" and cone area of an 8". How could you possibly go wrong? Clean sounding too.


----------



## 89grand

My Magnum has factory 6x9's in the door, and they have pretty incredible bass response for a factory speaker. I'm going to be replacing them at some point, but it will be with another 6x9. Possibly the Frogs or maybe some CDT's, but regardless, they'll be 6x9's. I've never had a 6.5" that could produce the same amount of bass.

I remember years back when everyone was raving about the Pioneer 6.75" 720PRS mids, and I bought some, and even those, which I was never all that impressed with, as far as midbass in concerned, can touch my factory Boston 6x9's.


----------



## Gary S

It's a myth - probably because there are few good component ovals (such as 6 X 9's) available......so what you have left is a bunch of crappy 6 X 9's coaxes and a bunch of better sounding comps of which the majority are round.

In theory, an oval or off-center cone can help reduce resonances, so it could actually sound better than round......for midrange anyway. Might not be so good in a high powered sub, cone could be off balance and a problem for that application.

Edit: tHAT Andy of Audio Frog is a smart dude.... if he makes an oval, I'm betting it's pretty good!

Also research oblique cone for more info.

Just watch that 6 X 9 hole saw - it'll rip your arm off!

Edit: "I can say with 100% comfort that the Audiofrog gs690's are incredible. Angled the way they are they have the beaming pattern of a 6" and cone area of an 8". How could you possibly go wrong? Clean sounding too."

- that is hot man. Does he have an optional tweet and passive xover for that? or you can only go active?


----------

