| Author |
Thread: Quiet SQ - The Impossible Dream? |
    
Unregistered guest |
| Posted on Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 05:07 pm: |
|
I am an old man and my dream car would be a car that is quiet (and not just when it is sitting parked). Wouldn't it be nice to carry on a conversation with a friend with a little music in the background without having to shout at each other? If I work to get the car quiet by adding insulation,... is it possible to get good sq at low volumes? I do not want to spend a lot of money <$300.
HU is a Pioneer 3700 in a 1997 Ford Escort. I was thinking of going with Infinity Kappa 62.7 (94db efficiency), REF6000cs (92db) or Boston S65 (92 db) in the front.
I could go with matching 5X7 speakers in the back (Infinity Kappa 682.7 or Boston S85), but I was thinking I would like to put in a subwoofer. However, I don't want to use a lot of trunk space and I do not want to be heard down the street - I like quiet (I'm an old man, remember?), but I also like SQ.
Should I go cheap and easy with a Bazooka EL8A (shudder)? Is there a inexpensive low powered amplifier that I could use with a speaker and build my own enclosure? At low volumes, I am uncertain how much difference there is in SQ.
I would appreciate hearing your opinions on what system you would recommend. Pretend you are helping your Dad or Grandpa. |
|
|
|
Silver Member Username: Illuminator
Post Number: 920
Registered: Apr-05
|
| Posted on Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 06:27 pm: |
|
Everything looks good, though the Bazooka tubes are all SPL based and are terrible for producing SQ. You might possibly consider the Infinity BassLink instead for a powered subwoofer. |
Bronze Member Username: Dr_sharp
USA
Post Number: 58
Registered: Jun-05
|
| Posted on Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 07:01 pm: |
|
How much do you plan on spending on insulation and sound deadening? That will cost you a pretty penny for parts and labor to get it as quiet as you are asking. You'll need to take the entire car apart and soundproof everypanel.
IMHO the references sound identical to kappas at low volumes. just my opinion though.. others may be able to tell the difference. |
Silver Member Username: Illuminator
Post Number: 923
Registered: Apr-05
|
| Posted on Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 07:19 pm: |
|
Well, yes they do because they have a higher sensitivity. |
Unregistered guest |
| Posted on Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 07:45 pm: |
|
First, thanks for the responses!
I insulated my GMC truck and a Geo Prizm with Grace Ice&Water Shield and jute padding. Yes, I took the vehicles completely apart. I'm sure the results were far from professional, but it did make it noticeably quieter. Cost was about $125 for both vehicles ($60 each).
I have thought about the Infinity BassLink. I'm not too experienced about how much a difference it would make at low volumes. I will definitely give it a higher priority.
I notice no one has suggested just staying with rear speakers, so I guess my inclination to go with a subwoofer was the right one. |
Bronze Member Username: Dr_sharp
USA
Post Number: 59
Registered: Jun-05
|
| Posted on Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 10:34 pm: |
|
"Well, yes they do because they have a higher sensitivity."
What? No. They sound the same in sound quality. Sensitivity has nothing to do with quality.
If you aren't going to turn it up don't waste the money on a sub. Subs are meant to pump and pound. Of course they'll give you better bass but at low levels its not worth it. If you were to get a sub at all I would recommend nothing more than a single 10" sub though. |
|
| Posted on Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 12:33 am: |
|
whoa, someone on here doesnt want 15" or 18" subs... <confused> |
Silver Member Username: Illuminator
Post Number: 927
Registered: Apr-05
|
| Posted on Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 01:28 am: |
|
"What? No. They sound the same in sound quality. Sensitivity has nothing to do with quality."
That's taken out of context. I wasn't challenging your opinion either.
At low power output, the references had the ability to sound louder due to sensitivity, now mix in the fact that they have a lower RMS rating they're performing closer to their full potential.
The kappas, however, were not performing as close to their full potential, comparatively.
This makes them comparable, but give each the required amount of power, the kappas will obviously outperform the references.
Of course, I should have mentioned RMS value, I apologize. |
Gold Member Username: Glasswolf
Wisteria,
Lane
USA
Post Number: 8022
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 02:26 am: |
|
first, you buy a Mercedes S class.
Then you take it to a professional and have it gutted inside, and spray lined with LizardSkin
www.newlizardskin.com
Then reassemble the interior, and you have a ride so quiet, you'd have trouble telling if you are moving, or if the engine is running.
sure it's possible.. just not with some econobox escort.
no offense
ford - bad
pioneer - good
kappas - good
bostons - good
5x7s - very bad. stick with 5.25" or 6.5" round speakers. even if it means a little work of modification by an installer.. it can be done and done tastefully
bazooka - very bad. go with JBL, Kicker, MTX, Memphis, or any DEI company like Directed, Viper, Orion, PPI, a/d/s.. and get a good low cost amplifier, then go with a good sealed 10" sub, like a kicker compVR or alpine type R, or any other good sub that's well under $200.. possibly under $120 if ya shop around.. just go with quality gear the first time.. saves money in the end.
|
Gold Member Username: Glasswolf
Wisteria,
Lane
USA
Post Number: 8023
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 02:29 am: |
|
oh and for rear speakers.. that's the last thing I'd add if you use them at all.
only good thing for rear speakers is if you have kids in the back and want them happy while you're miserable.. otherwise all they do is ruin the soundstage in the car by pulling it too far behind you.
ideally you want a concert hall impression, with the singer or musicians in front of you and slightly elevated like a stage
that's good SQ.
|
Silver Member Username: Rzarector
Coquitlam,
Bc
Canada
Post Number: 447
Registered: Dec-04
|
| Posted on Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 06:25 am: |
|
i agree .. its better to just spend the money at first even though it sucks.. to get some quality stuff.. because u will regret it after u have put in some below average speakers and realize its not what you had expected.. then boom u have to spend more to upgrade lots of people do it .. i did .. and fords dont suck my 5l will tool your charger rofl |
Gold Member Username: Glasswolf
Wisteria,
Lane
USA
Post Number: 8038
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 11:28 am: |
|
1988 Ford Mustang 5.0 H.O.
Performance: 5.0 V8 H.O.: 0-60 in 7.1 seconds, 1/4 mile in 15.5 seconds @ 89.7 mph.
I'm not that worried. I'd be crossing the finish line of a quarter mile strip about the time you got to half track, kiddo.
When you're in the low tens, I'll start to consider you a challenge worth considering 
Spending money isn't really a problem if you have a job. It's better to get respectable gear, and have a quality system that sounds good and will last you for years, as opposed to skimping and having to replace things within a year, and being disappointed in the sound of the system.
sound deadening that escort will help. at least yours is a newer style and not the older 80s versions..
the newer ones are built a bit more solidly.
|
Bronze Member Username: Dr_sharp
USA
Post Number: 60
Registered: Jun-05
|
| Posted on Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 06:43 pm: |
|
"Of course, I should have mentioned RMS value, I apologize."
I have no idea what your point is or was.
My point was that the references and kappas have the same clarity UNTIL they start recieving moderate power. Once power is added you will begin to see the kappas shine. RMS power rating and sensitivity have nothing to do with (low-level) quality. Without an amp the references will probably sound louder but that is irrelevant in this case. In fact, all power ratings are irrelevant in this case unless you are talking about a 10W stock speaker (which we aren't) |
Unregistered guest |
| Posted on Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 06:43 pm: |
|
Thanks again for all the responses!
I just found out that my Pioneer HU is not compatible with the Kappa .7 series (2 ohm), so I will probably go with Boston Acoustics.
For the rear, I guess I will try and build a sealed box, find a nice 10" sub, and a clean amp. Since I know so little about subs, I'm off to www.bcae1.com to see what I can learn. If I build the box and work on quieting the car first, I'll probably be able to afford something that will work out nice -- unless I succumb to my daughter and buy her a horse. If I get stuck, you may see me asking for help in the subwoofer section. Thanks again! |
Gold Member Username: Glasswolf
Wisteria,
Lane
USA
Post Number: 8051
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 07:03 pm: |
|
he makes a good point. kappa and kappa perfects do need an amplifier to make them perform well.
don't try driving them from a head unit.. they won't perform that well.. they need the juice to make the midrange move air for a decent lower mmidrange response.
I do recommend you consider a good 4 channel amp for the fronts/rears
that'll make a world of difference for sound quality even at lower volumes.
50x4 is plenty of power, and a 50x4 amp can be found pretty cheap to round out the system
good luck
|
Silver Member Username: Audiobass10
Cape Coral,
FL
United States
Post Number: 134
Registered: Jul-05
|
| Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 12:33 pm: |
|
"he makes a good point. kappa and kappa perfects do need an amplifier to make them perform well.
don't try driving them from a head unit.. they won't perform that well.. they need the juice to make the midrange move air for a decent lower mmidrange response."
I can vouch for this. I've heard the Kappas off a HU and it's just not worth it. They sound nearly the same as the references unless power is applied. Midbass was terrible IMO, however that's not one of infinities strong points anyways.
|
Gold Member Username: Jonathan_f
GA
USA
Post Number: 4267
Registered: May-04
|
| Posted on Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 04:30 pm: |
|
My Ford ran 10s. Unfortunately hindsight is 20/20 and a 427 SOHC engine is worth a ton of money now, wish I would've kept it.
427 SOHC=Hemi Killer |
Silver Member Username: Rzarector
Coquitlam,
Bc
Canada
Post Number: 460
Registered: Dec-04
|
| Posted on Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 07:08 pm: |
|
tell him jon |
Bronze Member Username: Kicker
Slave lake,
Alberta
Canada
Post Number: 100
Registered: Jun-05
|
| Posted on Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 07:56 pm: |
|
glasswolf if fords suck why do all well most use 9" rear ends? and dont say thats the only thing they did right becouse the fastest car always changes ford chev ect but never the rear end sorry had to say this but love the mustang hands down the nicest fastest for the price so the poor can feel rich couse we are not all RICH AND POWERFUL LIKE YOU WOLF |
Gold Member Username: Jonathan_f
GA
USA
Post Number: 4268
Registered: May-04
|
| Posted on Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 08:07 pm: |
|
Apples to oranges anyway. Stock to stock you can compare, stock to modifiedo is pintless. By the time a car is modified, you're comparing aftermarket manufacturers like Holley and Edelbrock more than you are Ford, Dodge, and Chevy to each other. It's just about where your pride and loyalty lies. When a Honda Civic can be modified to run 11s or high 10s, it's pointless bickering which small block can do what, etc. I love Mustangs, but it goes back to sentiment, it was my first car, and my Dad and I used to build our cars up and somewhat compete with each other. Makes it that much more fun to have someone to compete with. He likes Chevy, I like Ford, and we've gotten the best of each other numerous times. |
Silver Member Username: Kicker
Slave lake,
Alberta
Canada
Post Number: 103
Registered: Jun-05
|
| Posted on Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 08:30 pm: |
|
you are right i just get a little sore when people say fords suck it hits a soft spot i dont think chevs or dodge ect. suck they all got good and bad points |
Silver Member Username: Rzarector
Coquitlam,
Bc
Canada
Post Number: 466
Registered: Dec-04
|
| Posted on Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 08:59 pm: |
|
i dont know why we go domestic vs domestic anyway.. should look down on the ricers more hehe |
Gold Member Username: Glasswolf
Wisteria,
Lane
USA
Post Number: 8140
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 09:41 pm: |
|
the ford 9" rear end is used because it's fairly strong, and more importantly, cheap and plentiful.
a better stock rear end is a 9-1/4" dana 60 semi-float, like I'm using now. The problem is they cost more, while being a superior rear end so most people would rather stick to the old school idea of cheapest way to get the most speed out of what you can pull out of a junkyard (hotrodder mentality, which is fine) Note the D60-SF was a stock rear end in the '66 Charger with certain big block engine packages.
as for stock to stock:
http://www.musclecarclub.com/musclecars/general/musclecars-50fast.shtml
16 of the top 17 cars are all GM or Mopar. The only exception is the AC cobra, which Carroll Shelby built and sold by hand.. and cost $6500 in 1963 when any other car on that list of the same era could be had for half that price or less. First real Ford on the list is a Boss way down there at number 18
If you want an Escort, more power to ya rigger, go get one! My initial comment was in regards to an Escort. I've worked on more than I care to remember for audio systems, and I never liked the cars. They felt cheap, and usually looked like they belonged in a trailer park front yard by the time they were a few years old as they fell apart. For the record, Mark S started this when he brought up his 88 Mustang and my car. I have yet to see him respond with any sort of specs on his car that would make me think he has anything other than a great sense of humor, and while a Ford GT handles wonderfully on the track, I'm still over a second faster in the quarter mile than that $143,000 car.
I'm assuming Mark was just being playful unless he's got a pro-street car he takes to the strip. Then I'd love to hear about it. In either case, it was fun.
|
Silver Member Username: Mixneffect
Orangevale,
Ca.
USA
Post Number: 258
Registered: Apr-05
|
| Posted on Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 09:54 pm: |
|
from components and subs to fords vs chevys.........wow........ thats variety........
Does anyone know where i can find a decent shirt to get for a saturday night outing. it has to go well with kakhi shorts and flip flops |
Silver Member Username: Mixneffect
Orangevale,
Ca.
USA
Post Number: 259
Registered: Apr-05
|
| Posted on Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 09:55 pm: |
|
please do not comment on the flip flops for a saturday night outing........... |
Gold Member Username: Glasswolf
Wisteria,
Lane
USA
Post Number: 8147
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 10:03 pm: |
|
haha sam's club has a lot of casuals around here, but mainly I just go to smaller local clothiers for anything that isn't shorts and a T shirt. Khakis, btton down shirts, dressier stuff like that I tend to go to a few local places that carry tommy hilfigger, dockers, etc..
good luck though
|
Silver Member Username: Rzarector
Coquitlam,
Bc
Canada
Post Number: 471
Registered: Dec-04
|
| Posted on Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 10:16 pm: |
|
well im planning some afm heads.. edelbroch rpm2 intake not sure about the cam yet and maybe a vortech 6psi sc and a tremec tko to handle the abuse.. id like to get new bushings all the way around and new tubelar k-member and control arms(smoked a rock driving on a jobsite so there fucked lol)and some subframe connectors,, basicly get the suspension and chassis sorted pit before i start adding power to it.. still wont come close to yours.. chargers are pretty sweet got nothin against dodge... but im "trying" to save some money for more important things right now like apartment or condo downpayment so the upgrades are goin slow.. the car is a blackhole for money ... btw theres no way my car would 15.5 sec run... especially with a worn 2 gear syncro .. i cant remember the last time i shifted into secend .. and it sucks lol.. |
Gold Member Username: Jonathan_f
GA
USA
Post Number: 4271
Registered: May-04
|
| Posted on Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 10:16 pm: |
|
You'll notice that those were tests done by magazines, which modified cars before running them on a track. Similar to how things are now, not a consistent method by any means and dependant on a lot of variables. Speed Channel did a musclecar shootout to set things straight because of that. Put apples to apples, bone stock engine, same tires and brake pad material, same gasoline in all cars.
These cars were used:
• 1970 Buick GS 455 Stage I
• 1969 Hurst Oldsmobile 442
• 1970 LS6 Chevelle SS
• 1969 Ford Mustang Boss 429
• 1970 Dodge Hemi Challenger
• 1969 Pontiac GTO Judge
• 1969 AMX 390 Go Package
Boss 429 spanked all of them, LS6 came second. Mopars didn't fare so well. They tested 0-60, 1/4 mile, stopping distance, slalom, and did a subjective burnout contest. Boss 429 won by a point over the LS6. |
Gold Member Username: Glasswolf
Wisteria,
Lane
USA
Post Number: 8157
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 10:50 pm: |
|
depends on what you consider a stock car as well.. you could use one of the drag darts they had in 67 with the 440 or 426H and swiss cheesed frame, factory undercoating with no paint etc.. did wheelstands off the showroom floor.. but they produced only enough to qualify as a "production" vehicle, as all of the car makers did at the time to squeeze past the rules.. must like Ford's cammer motor for NASCAR that got banned right along with the 426 hemi.
on that 88 mustang, consider switching to some forged H beam connecting rods and new pistons to beef up the bottom end of that motor, then you can run boost that'd be useful.. say 8 to 12psi instead of a measily 6.. No offense but 6psi is what I'd expect on a Toyota 4 banger.. your 8 should take more and be able to really use it.. that'd be a great source of power as long as it breathes well and has a good header setup.
have the cam custom ground for that supercharger, too. you'll get the best results that way at about the same price as a premade job from Summit would cost ya.
the cam for my 440 was custom ground by Straightline Performance (if ya saw the premiere of Pinks, Straightline was the sponsor on the winning car's door) and for a hydraulic cam, made to match the motor build, I paid around $200
Not much more than any edelbrock or crane cam from a catalog.
just some thoughts to mull over.
|
Gold Member Username: Glasswolf
Wisteria,
Lane
USA
Post Number: 8158
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 10:52 pm: |
|
PS Jonathan, Mark needs some help in the "component recommendation" thread with your name on it. He's fairly adament that you offer some thoughts
|
Silver Member Username: Rzarector
Coquitlam,
Bc
Canada
Post Number: 475
Registered: Dec-04
|
| Posted on Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 10:56 pm: |
|
yeh its a daily driver though so i dont wanna be rammin massive psi into it.. i wanted 6 psi because i didnt wanna touch the pistons or crank forged will do, plus itl give a decent increase in power.. im not buildin a supercar.. would definately go for the h beam rods tho |
Gold Member Username: Jonathan_f
GA
USA
Post Number: 4272
Registered: May-04
|
| Posted on Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 11:11 pm: |
|
"PS Jonathan, Mark needs some help in the "component recommendation" thread with your name on it. He's fairly adament that you offer some thoughts "
hehe, saw that.
"depends on what you consider a stock car as well.. you could use one of the drag darts they had in 67 with the 440 or 426H and swiss cheesed frame, factory undercoating with no paint etc.. did wheelstands off the showroom floor.. but they produced only enough to qualify as a "production" vehicle, as all of the car makers did at the time to squeeze past the rules.. must like Ford's cammer motor for NASCAR that got banned right along with the 426 hemi. "
Yeah, they made a specific statement about the "special" production cars that were extremely rare. They concentrated on the more available cars of the era. Really, with Ford and Dodge, you were getting detuned Nascar motors. GM was a different story, while the magazines showed good numbers, the cars weren't really worth screaming about when you took one off a showroom. Their big blocks sucked compared to Ford and Dodge. Bad thing about magazines back then was the manufacturers provided the cars, so there was no telling what they'd get. That was the reasoning behind Speed doing the comparison.
Mark, if you plan extreme mods down the road, you better find a donor car with MAF unless you plan to convert to carburetion. Speed density doesn't allow a lot of room for upgrades without having to reprogram it every single time, especially if you plan to upgrade the camshaft. Anything 89 and up had MAF. It'll cost you to buy it new, best to find a cheap donor car. Other than that, it's a slow process. I usually go exhaust, intake/fuel, then heads. After that comes upgraded camshafts and forced induction if needed. Good thing about exhaust, intake, and cylinder head upgrades is that they make the engine more efficient and can generally yield better gas mileage in the process.
|
Bronze Member Username: Dr_sharp
USA
Post Number: 61
Registered: Jun-05
|
| Posted on Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 11:24 pm: |
|
lol.. forced induction is always necessary (once you've had it). |
Silver Member Username: Rzarector
Coquitlam,
Bc
Canada
Post Number: 477
Registered: Dec-04
|
| Posted on Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 09:59 am: |
|
yeh i can prolly get a maf conversion for around 100 bucks .. seems like alot of people do that around here.. exhaust is done.. bassani o/r X with magnaflow catbacks 2.5 " some bbk shorty headers ,suppose il have to change those with new heads though |
Gold Member Username: Jonathan_f
GA
USA
Post Number: 4277
Registered: May-04
|
| Posted on Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 11:37 am: |
|
Saying your tranny won't go into 2nd, you got two options
1) double clutch it
2) new tranny
Either way, you've got to work around it. 2nd is a must for any kind of racing . After that, If you want a huge seat of the pants upgrade, start by changing the rear axle ratio, it makes a LOT of difference in the acceleration of the car and is one of the best seat of the pants upgrades you can do. It will prep the car better for future upgrades too, and your gas mileage won't suffer a lot either since the car is cruising closer to it's powerband and you won't have to push it as hard up hills and during passing. For those I like 3.73s |
Silver Member Username: Rzarector
Coquitlam,
Bc
Canada
Post Number: 479
Registered: Dec-04
|
| Posted on Monday, July 18, 2005 - 04:09 am: |
|
yeh i was thinkin the 3.73s.. what gears u use jon? and double clutching sucks .. hard to hit it every time and the stupid thing crunches in gear so i dont bother |
Gold Member Username: Jonathan_f
GA
USA
Post Number: 4280
Registered: May-04
|
| Posted on Monday, July 18, 2005 - 09:50 pm: |
|
Don't have a car right now, running stock gears because my truck has a severe addiction to gas. I was forced to learn to double clutch, learned to drive on a 64 Chevy that had the nearly non-existant synchros. You get used to it after a while, just have to learn the engine and it's rev band. And keep a close eye on the tach. |
Gold Member Username: Carguy
Post Number: 3590
Registered: Nov-04
|
| Posted on Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 02:03 pm: |
|
Glasswolf are you sure the 88 Mustang was that slow? I have 86 Mustang 5.0L LX and it ran 0-60 around 5-5.2 sec. Of course that was on a hot sunny day and warm road.
|
Gold Member Username: Jonathan_f
GA
USA
Post Number: 4284
Registered: May-04
|
| Posted on Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 05:51 pm: |
|
You'll see varied statistics as most are measured by magazines. Depends on a lot of things, tranny, tires used, driver, if the timing was altered, climate. Too many to generalize. You can usually get a 5.0 in the 14s with tires, timing advance, and some other little tweaks. |
Gold Member Username: Glasswolf
Wisteria,
Lane
USA
Post Number: 8229
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 07:59 pm: |
|
http://www.musclecarclub.com/musclecars/ford-mustang/ford-mustang-history-3.shtm l
|
