My 2016 Transit Connect SQ build

[Ge0]

It may sound pretty nuts (well, yeah it is), but I'm getting great midbass articulation with the Dyns. They are very snappy and blend quite well with the midrange, plus I get great impact with a driver with that much cone area, a light moving mass and less xmax required.

Do you mind elaborating on this concept a little more? Dyn also makes the MW182 which makes an excellent midbass and would probably be much easier to package in a kick panel. Within a midbass drivers pass band I would think that would be more than adequate. Why did you decide to step it up that much? Was it "just because I can" (which I respect) or for a specific technical reason? I assume lower X-MAX means less power, heat, and distortion.

Not knocking your decision in the least bit. Your builds rock. Just trying to understand it better.

Ge0

[SkizeR]

Do you mind elaborating on this concept a little more? Dyn also makes the MW182 which makes an excellent midbass and would probably be much easier to package in a kick panel. Within a midbass drivers pass band I would think that would be more than adequate. Why did you decide to step it up that much? Was it "just because I can" (which I respect) or for a specific technical reason? I assume lower X-MAX means less power, heat, and distortion.

Not knocking your decision in the least bit. Your builds rock. Just trying to understand it better.

Ge0

If I might answer for what I believe the answer is... its because it was needed to keep up with the rest of this system.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[Ge0]

If I might answer for what I believe the answer is... its because it was needed to keep up with the rest of this system.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Interesting. It appears he is runnig 5-1/4" midranges in a small enclosure size for that driver. Must have them crossed pretty high. Again, limiting X-max and distortion? Am I seeing a pattern???

Ge0

[SkizeR]

Interesting. It appears he is runnig 5-1/4" midranges in a small enclosure size for that driver. Must have them crossed pretty high. Again, limiting X-max and distortion? Am I seeing a pattern???

Ge0

7's... ill let Steve explain, but he's crossing high due to the driver itself. Its a midrange. Not a mid-woofer like most 7s

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[LBaudio]

Great instal , Steve and Nick! Love the big ass pillars!

[captainobvious]

Do you mind elaborating on this concept a little more? Dyn also makes the MW182 which makes an excellent midbass and would probably be much easier to package in a kick panel. Within a midbass drivers pass band I would think that would be more than adequate. Why did you decide to step it up that much? Was it "just because I can" (which I respect) or for a specific technical reason? I assume lower X-MAX means less power, heat, and distortion.

Not knocking your decision in the least bit. Your builds rock. Just trying to understand it better.

Ge0

Interesting. It appears he is running 5-1/4" midranges in a small enclosure size for that driver. Must have them crossed pretty high. Again, limiting X-max and distortion? Am I seeing a pattern???

Ge0

The midrange is closer to a 7", and like Nick said- it is a pure midrange, designed for a specific passband and high sensitivity within that range (about 96db). The enclosure size is actually quite good for this driver. If you take a look several posts back, you will find a comparison of measurements of the midranges raw response. The comparison shows the difference (Left and Right midranges only) between the previous install with the (very) large dash pod sealed enclosures, and the newer, sleeker A pillar pod enclosures. What you will find is that there is no rising low end response, no high Q peak and no loss of low frequency extension in the new enclosures. What you will also see is the difference in response that the location/angle present. In this case, I got to have my cake and eat it too, because I now have much nicer, smaller and more aesthetically pleasing pieces without any real drawback sonically.

As for the midbass, I just wanted something capable of higher output, lower distortion, lower crossover (to experiment using without rear subs) and more SD. Since they were being vented outside either way (and I could fit them), the more capable MW190 made sense. I did consider doing the MW182, and had both here to test at the time, and honestly you can't go wrong with either as a woofer in a 3 way plus sub type system. But after installing and tuning, I knew it was the right choice. I have the best midbass I have ever had in any of my vehicles now. Very articulate, plenty of impact and great kick drum snap. It is really hard to best Dynaudio midbasses.

[captainobvious]

Great install , Steve and Nick! Love the big ass pillars!

Thanks bro. A fine compliment coming from the fellow who makes some of the nicest looking pillars on the planet

[captainobvious]

[Ge0]

The midrange is closer to a 7", and like Nick said- it is a pure midrange, designed for a specific passband and high sensitivity within that range (about 96db). The enclosure size is actually quite good for this driver. If you take a look several posts back, you will find a comparison of measurements of the midranges raw response. The comparison shows the difference (Left and Right midranges only) between the previous install with the (very) large dash pod sealed enclosures, and the newer, sleeker A pillar pod enclosures. What you will find is that there is no rising low end response, no high Q peak and no loss of low frequency extension in the new enclosures. What you will also see is the difference in response that the location/angle present. In this case, I got to have my cake and eat it too, because I now have much nicer, smaller and more aesthetically pleasing pieces without any real drawback sonically.

As for the midbass, I just wanted something capable of higher output, lower distortion, lower crossover (to experiment using without rear subs) and more SD. Since they were being vented outside either way (and I could fit them), the more capable MW190 made sense. I did consider doing the MW182, and had both here to test at the time, and honestly you can't go wrong with either as a woofer in a 3 way plus sub type system. But after installing and tuning, I knew it was the right choice. I have the best midbass I have ever had in any of my vehicles now. Very articulate, plenty of impact and great kick drum snap. It is really hard to best Dynaudio midbasses.

Steve,

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I see what you're talking about with raw unfiltered midrange response from old to new designs. Both old, and especially new, responses look pretty damn good to me. It's great that you made modest improvements in sound quality AND improved aesthetics at the same time. I really dig your two part design. Tweets in sail panel and midranges in pillar. When the door closes they come together perfectly. Just like peas and carrots (a reference from Forest Gump that I watched the other night). One question about your pillar design that makes me curious:
Attachment 10935

Is this sharp edge at the transition from the midranges face into the pillar a design element? Or, did you just do this to make Nicks job wrapping this pillar with Alcantara more difficult. Oh, and Nice job Nick. The thing looks factory fresh.

I also read your comments about the larger midbass. You confirmed the suspicion I had rattling around in my head. I have to admit you made me laugh. The guy who cut holes in the floor of his vehicle to accommodate specific subs wanted to experiment with larger midbasses to see if he could go without subs. WHAT!!! . I know, I know. You were just experimenting...

Ge0

[captainobvious]

The recess/swoop in the pillars is for aesthetics really more than anything else. I didn't want to have blobs with no design element or visual interest. When I build pieces I like to either blend in with the factory look, or provide some tasteful visual interest.

Cheers