Salvi

First time poster! Hello!

Anyway, I'll get right into it. I'm transferring my system from my Trans Am, which I am storing, to my 2002 Intrepid R/T.

I am looking for opinions about the system I am about to build. I have included an attachment with a .gif diagram of the system. So far, I have everything you see in the diagram, except the front speakers, which is why they are not named. Just to give you the background on my amps, the Power 50.1 is the grey grill Fosgate from the late 90s, I think 1998. The Punch 400x4 is the black grill amazing way under-rated amp from the mid 90s. They are both in like-new working order.

I am interested primarily in having amazing quality sound with no shortage of loudness.

So, I need some opinions. Should I change anything? For example, I am not sold on the single 12" sub, since I've never heard a singe 12" setup with this kind of power. In my Trans Am, the 50.1 Power powered 4 10" Punch subs wired in parallel for 1ohm load, and they absolutely pounded (amazing what a 50W amp is capable of, lol). I obviously don't want to go with 4 10s again, and for some reason I am drawn to 12", but anyhow, give me some opinions on what to expect in my change from the 4 10s to the 1 12. How about 2 10s, or perhaps even 2 12s? Upgrading the amp is out of the question, so remember whatever sub setup I go with, they will be getting around 350W continuous power (which should be plenty). I am willing to give up some SPL to gain some SQ. So, what sub setup would be best for me iyo?

Now to the fronts, I have no idea what to do here. One thing is for sure, I will be running the amp at 2ohm per channel to get the most out of it. It is well under-rated at 100x4 @2ohm, in fact, my factory sheet says 695W total power (80wrms x 4 @4ohm, 174wrms x 4 @2ohm, 348wrms x 2 bridged @4ohm).

What options do I have for best sound quality inside the Intrepid? Does it make sense to put midbass drivers in the rear like I have in the diagram? Or should I go with midrange there as well, or perhaps nothing? I could go with a component set in the doors/dash, and another set on the floor, custom built?

I have a specific budget for the fronts, so how about forgetting about 4 speakers, and instead spend the same amount on only 1 component set, with more power handling and more quality (for double price, it better be)?

Any ideas would be great before I fork out major bucks and am dissapointed. I am open to any ideas, except changing the amps, those are staying. The only thing I might consider is getting more power for the subs if I see most of you think the front power delivery is way too much as a ratio to bass power, but this is a future consideration. For example, if I stay with the diagram setup, I may get another 50.1 and another identical sub in the future, to effectively double the surface area and power to the low freq. My biggest concern is the best balance between subs and fronts, and from what I understand, the subs should have about the same power as the rest of the system, which is what I think I am achieving.

Thanx in advance, and sorry for the long post, I just hope it won't be ignored. Once I post it, I will edit it to shorten ta hell of it.

selective sound

iTrader: (11)

I would go two twelves in that car. For components I would get yourself a good set of componenets in the front and a set of co-ax in the rear just for fill and you will be fine.

JohnVroom

Howdy


OK SQ it is, I am going to try to stay away from naming brands since this is not the point of my reply, you will get plenty of opinions of what 'sounds best'


Simple is always good, a good 15" is a nice practical size with good extension with lots of slam, an 18" is very impractical but it will give a nice WOW factor and it 'should' give more low bass response. Feed it with an amp capable of enough power to drive it to the SPL you want (personally 300 to 1000 watts RMS would be good for the power available to the front speakers depending on the music you listen too). I remember a 1989 demo with a little Rockford Punch amp and a paper Rockford 18" sub and I must say it produced one of the most realistic and loudest bass reproductions I have ever heard but it was about 8 cubic foot of box too... impractical


I dont think getting 2 ohm fronts will be that easy out of the box... if you bridge respect the higher impedance limit.


All I will say here is the Intrepid is capable of very good SQ, BUT... RUN A FULL COMP SET (or coax) in the front stage and if you want run a full set in the rear that will give you and your passengers more music.



OK I will commence ignoring it immediately if not sooner

Salvi

Thanx to both of you for the replies.

15"?? 18"????? I never even considered anything larger then 12", in fact, the reason I was asking about moving to the 12 to begin with is because I was worried about losing SQ by going to 12 from 10". On the other hand, I found that the 10s, while hitting very hard, did not rumble like I wanted when I wanted. I figure 12s will be able to hit hard and low, and rumble, and be accurate at the same time, especially the IDQ I chose. Why 15"? Won't it just give me boom but with no accuracy?

Also, about the comment to go with 2 12s instead of just 1. Remember, I am not changing the amp, I have 300-350 watts of continuous power, and thats that. I would think that spending the same amount on a higher quality sub as two lower quality subs would be better in SQ if not in SPL. Am I wrong? What advantage would there be by going with 2 12s here? Remember, the sub budget is set, so i am spending the same amount whether I get 1 or 2, so obviously going with 1 will get me a higher quality sub, but with half the surface area!


Now, onto the front stage..

JohnVroom, what do you mean by "Full Comp Set"? What do you mean by "more music"? How is what you have in mind different from my setup? Are you just talking about the midbass in the rear, switch it to full range instead? Cuz as far as I understand, having two tweeters and two midrange drivers in the front is a full setup, no?

And do I really need filler in the rear? Won't that just add interference to the overall SQ? If I do go with 4 speakers (not counting tweets), I figure I put all 4 in the front if they are all going to be full or midrange.

That being said, what is the downside of my front setup in the diagram? I always thought the best setup is when the highs and mids come from in front of the listener, and the bass from everywhere (rear). That is why I am considering using 6.5" set in the rear with a midbass setup, rather then fullrange. What you think?


Also, John.. about 2ohm.. This is what I meant: My 4-channel will push about 75 continuous watts per channel at 4ohm, and about 150 at 2ohm. To keep up with the bass, I want the full 600W utilized for the front stage. With only a comp set in the front and a midbass set in the rear, the only way this is possible is to get 2ohm speakers all around.


EDIT: Instead of posting a new thread, I'll just ask here. Obviously I am on a tight budget. Really, I cant even afford this buy being a lover of both cars and music, especially when the two are combined, I have to spend on this luxury.

That being said, look at the following diagram and let me know if there will be any difference between this setup and the above. If not, I could sell the extra amp which would make me a happy camper indeed.

In this setup, the sub will be the same, and will get around the same power, the difference being it will be 4ohm and get it from the bridged rear channels of the Fosgate 400x4 rather then the 1ohm 50.1. Both push more then 300wrms, but less then 400wrms.

The front stage will be identical, except the 300w will be shared by all the speakers, instead of 300w per set.

Really, I think the two setups would sound the same, the only diff is that with the first one I have much room to expand the system.

What you think?

Hardwrkr

iTrader: (5)

I would recommend staying with a dual amp setup.

If SQ is your goal don't install any rear speakers. Keep everything up front (and that includes the midbass).

A 2 or 3-way setup up front is up to you. You certaily have the power for a good 3-way but if price is a huge concern a 2-way can work just fine also. If you're plannng on going passive you could bridge the amp to 2ch if you decide on a rather power hungry set (ie. Boston Pros, etc.).

As for the sub you're correct that in this day your power level is definitely going to lessen your options. Is a single 12" going to be enough for you compared to what you're used to?

Salvi

Very imformative reply Hard, thanx!

So, let me go through it..

Thats what I thought, especially mid/full range. As far as midbass, I would think that it wouldn't interfere with the soundstage, but I guess I am wrong?

So, if I put all 4 speakers (plus the tweets) in the front, and I put a set in the door and a set on the floor (each front corner, forget what thats called, kick-something rather), which would go where? Similarily, if all four go in the doors, does it matter which is on top or which is to the front/rear etc? I am talking about both size and type, meaning if I go with two sizes (5.25 and 6.5), which would go where, and same for midbass vs. midrange (door vs. floor, position, etc)

My fav two speakers are the 6.5" and the 5.25", they both sound awesome. So, let me ask for your opinion. What combo should I go with in the front, with one set being midbass and the other midrange? 6.5" for midbass and 5.25" for midrange, or both 6.5" or what?

Umm.. What exactly is a 3-way setup and what do you have in mind? Do you mean 3-way setup per channel, or do you mean what I already am planning (2xtweeter, 2xmidrange, 2xmidbass in the front)?
Also, when I was considering only going with one high-end component set rather then two mid-level sets, I was looking at the Boston Pros exactly. Is going with one high-end set a better idea? The budget is the same for the front stage, and the amp stays, so its a matter of more speakers or higher quality speakers but less of them. I don't really understand what you mean by full 3-way setup, so once you explain, perhaps I'll have another option. Is this something that you buy already in a group of speakers, with crossovers and all? I mean, is it just a component set that you buy that comes with 3 speakers instead of 2? Meant to connect to 1 channel per side like a 2way component?

Finally, can I actually bridge the left two channels and the right two channels and get double power at 4ohm? If thats possible, I'll definitely consider going with one expensive set only, as opposed to two lesser sets. However, I was under the impression that only the front two channels can be bridges, and the back two, meaning you cannot make a 4-channel amp a 2-channel stereo amp, but I could be wrong. How is it done?

Whats a passive setup?

Hardwrkr

iTrader: (5)

2-way set would be a mid/midbass and a tweet. Or basically two speakers per channel.
3-way will have a tweet, mid, and dedicated midbass. Or basically 3 speakers per channel.

If you were to go with a 3-way set a tweet and 4" mid in the kickpanels and a 6" midbass in the doors would be an excellent combo.

Yes a 4ch amp can be made into a 2ch amp by bridging and yes stereo can be maintaned.

I would recommend you put your money into one good component set instead of two lesser one's.

The Boston Pro component set is a very good sounding set and would work very well with the power you have available. I recommend it for an audition including the new Boston set the SPZ.

MR2NR

iTrader: (66)

I agree, go with one good component set for now. Leave any rear speakers out of the equation at this time, you can always add them later. I would not go the 3way component speaker route due to a myriad of reasons.

1) price - good speakers cost good $
2) installation - they are a PITA to install and use properly
3) installation $ - they cost some huge $ to install properly.

Keep it simple. Channel your $ into one good set of front component speakers. Bridge your 4 channel amplifier to 2 channels and power those components properly. My ears prefel Morel speakers, they should be a speaker that makes your short list right away. A good set of 2way 6.75" component speakers are all that you are going to require.

www.morelhifi.com

As far as the sub goes, I think that going from 4 10" down to one 12" is going to be too much of a shock for you. It will be "dude, where's my bass" for you. I would look at a pair of 12" subs and build the proper box for them. You can always make it expandable if it is not in your budget right now. Buy one sub, build the box for two. Add the second sub later on down the road. You have a full size car, you have the power, now concentrate on doing it right.

Salvi

I love the idea of going with a high-end component set only, for sure. I will check out the link you provided.

Let me comment on your advice, I don't fully understand and would love for you to explain further.

1. What must be done to bridge the left channels and the right channels in order to mentain stereo? Or is there some other way I am not familiar with that bridges the regular front and rear channels but somehow creates stereo?
2. You realize that bridged the 4-channel amp will push around 300wrms per side! Do components even exist that can take that kind of power? And what will happen if I do decide to add another set later on, am I going to be shocked going from 300W to 150W for the 6.75" you're suggesting?

Going to 1 12" is going to be underwhelming even tho its getting the exact same power then the 4 10s were getting? I know the surface area of 4 10s is almost 3x larger then 1 12, but that shouldn't make that much of a diff. Also, I am moving from giving less then ideal power to each sub, with entry level quality subs, to a mid/high level sub with optimal power. I guess I won't know till I try. Are you suggesting that I build a box for 2 12s then upgrade to a second 12 but also upgrade the amp? Or are you saying just adding a second sub, and splitting the power between them, will give me the desired result?

I could easily get 2 ID12s instead of 1 IDQ12. About the same price, and the optimal power for 2 IDs is about the same as 1 IDQ, so the only diff would be the surface area (and the quality of the sub).

MR2NR

iTrader: (66)

Bridging the amplifier is a easy task. Channels 1 and 2 combine to make a new channel and is powered up with the left input rca. Channels 3 and 4 combine to make a new channel and are powered up with the right input rca. What you have now is a 2 channel stereo amplifier that has combined the output power of all 4 channels.

Your amp was rated at 50w x 4 into a 4 ohm load and like most Rockfords in that era, made more power than advertised. Power is a good thing when it comes to making a speaker perform. You can always turn the gain down on the amp if it becomes overwhelming. If you go to adding another set later on, you can either unbridge the amplifier and operate it as a 4 channel amplifier or purchase another amp to drive the second set of speakers.

Two subs given the same amount of power as one single one, will in pretty much all cases deliver more output. There may be some exceptions to this and granted that there are those on this site that this is truly a possibility for. The SPL side of things is where this may be more prevalent.

Depending on the amount of output you are hoping for and the amount of real estate you want to give up in the trunk, a single Digital Designs DD3512 with dual 2 ohm coils might be another exceptional performer in the single sub arena. It is a sub that can and will deliver devastating amounts of output and maintains it's tonal response while doing so. It is capable of huge amounts of input power, much much more than what you have now. There are just lots of options to consider.

Personally, I would be going to the dual 12" sub route in this car and use a pair of respectable subs in the properly built custom enclosure.