# Building 3way towers- how many woofers?



## bumpnzx3 (Nov 18, 2007)

I recently decided to dive into home audio. I have had a box set 5.1 system for some time. However- it's nothing worth writting home about. Technics receiver, Bose (aka Blose) rear satalites, as well as RCA bookshelf and center channel for the front stage. The substage is a Sony SA-WM40. I modified that several years ago (mod podge on the cone, polyfill, and clay on the basket). 

I am now reading up and planning to build a new front stage over the winter- as a little project to keep me entertained.

Anway- should I use 2x 5.25" woofers or a single 8" woofer in each tower? I have the tweeters and midrange picked out. I also have the midbass picked out also- just not sure if I should go with one larger woofer or 2 smaller ones.

For substage- I have a few choices of subwoofers to choose from. I have a 12" Fi 'X' series, an Aura Force 12, or a TC Sounds DB500. I am a bit of a subwoofer whore.....I love to try different subs in my car audio installs. When it comes to car audio- I have always been a fan of sealed, single sub setups.


----------



## Geoff St. Germain (Dec 18, 2006)

So are you talking about a 3-way or a 4-way (I'm not sure if you are referring to the woofer and the midbass as the same thing or if you are intending to use a tweeter, a midrange, a midbass and a woofer or woofers). Do you have any experience with crossover design? How did you select the midrange and tweeter that you've already selected?

Jumping in and designing your own speaker can be a very involved process. Most DIYers will build a design that an experienced designer has put together rather than rolling their own from scratch. That's not to say that it can't be done, but driver selection and cross-over design is a big enough topic to fill many books.


----------



## Tiny (Oct 17, 2007)

2 smaller woofers will recover a lot quicker than 1 large one. Depending on your amping of this you have lots of options. I built a pair of dual woofer towers last year from two different speaker kits for under a hundred. (This post is about the setup, not how good they sounded, how physically impressive they looked, or the fact I flipped the pair for $300) The cabinet was made to be two separate chambers. One held dual 8" foster woofers and a port. The top chamber had 2 foster 5.5" midranges and a soft dome tweeter and the a horn. I powered the woofers and horn 1 crossover connected to the A speaker out and the rest connected to the B Speaker out on my receiver.

the point is the speakers were slip a little over 11" but at nearly six feet tall they were physically impressive and put out a room filling sound that was great for both movies and music.


----------



## Geoff St. Germain (Dec 18, 2006)

Tiny said:


> 2 smaller woofers will recover a lot quicker than 1 large one. Depending on your amping of this you have lots of options. I built a pair of dual woofer towers last year from two different speaker kits for under a hundred. (This post is about the setup, not how good they sounded, how physically impressive they looked, or the fact I flipped the pair for $300) The cabinet was made to be two separate chambers. One held dual 8" foster woofers and a port. The top chamber had 2 foster 5.5" midranges and a soft dome tweeter and the a horn. I powered the woofers and horn 1 crossover connected to the A speaker out and the rest connected to the B Speaker out on my receiver.


What do you mean by recover? Is this the old "smaller woofers sound faster than big woofers argument"? The benefit of a lighter cone is almost always going to be in high frequency extension than in what happens at low frequencies (ie where a woofer is working). Also note that two 5.25" woofers have less surface area than a single 8" and as such the 8" will have to move less to achieve the same SPL.


----------



## bumpnzx3 (Nov 18, 2007)

Geoff St. Germain said:


> So are you talking about a 3-way or a 4-way (I'm not sure if you are referring to the woofer and the midbass as the same thing or if you are intending to use a tweeter, a midrange, a midbass and a woofer or woofers). Do you have any experience with crossover design? How did you select the midrange and tweeter that you've already selected?
> 
> Jumping in and designing your own speaker can be a very involved process. Most DIYers will build a design that an experienced designer has put together rather than rolling their own from scratch. That's not to say that it can't be done, but driver selection and cross-over design is a big enough topic to fill many books.


Sorry- I am using terms from car audio. I am planning a 3 way using a dome tweet, a dome midrange, and either 1 larger or 2 smaller woofers/midbass. I have expirience building crossovers- however I am by no means a guru. 



Tiny said:


> 2 smaller woofers will recover a lot quicker than 1 large one. Depending on your amping of this you have lots of options. I built a pair of dual woofer towers last year from two different speaker kits for under a hundred. (This post is about the setup, not how good they sounded, how physically impressive they looked, or the fact I flipped the pair for $300) The cabinet was made to be two separate chambers. One held dual 8" foster woofers and a port. The top chamber had 2 foster 5.5" midranges and a soft dome tweeter and the a horn. I powered the woofers and horn 1 crossover connected to the A speaker out and the rest connected to the B Speaker out on my receiver.
> 
> the point is the speakers were slip a little over 11" but at nearly six feet tall they were physically impressive and put out a room filling sound that was great for both movies and music.


I used to believe that smaller woofers were quicker- but after doing a few different A/B tests using the same amp and the same woofer (different size of course), I'm not so sure I believe that any more.

Cone area would be comparable- possibly more on the 8" driver. I wonder why most every tower you see these days use multiple smaller woofers rather than a single larger one. More visually appealing?


----------



## Geoff St. Germain (Dec 18, 2006)

bumpnzx3 said:


> Cone area would be comparable- possibly more on the 8" driver. I wonder why most every tower you see these days use multiple smaller woofers rather than a single larger one. More visually appealing?


The cone area should be larger on the 8", of course it can vary depending on exactly how the driver is laid out and how large the cone really is. 

I think that multiple smaller woofers are used for a couple of reasons. One is that you can make a narrower cabinet. Another could be that seeing a lot of drivers in a speaker can look impressive to some people. I'm more of a fan or large drivers.


----------



## imbeaujp (Oct 20, 2007)

I agree with Geoff, I definitively prefer one larger woofer that 2 small !

I think that the tower concept is the reason why we see many 2 woofers configuration. I am always disapointed when listening to "tower configuraiton" compare to a big driver (Nautilus 800D vs 801D), but you got to make your own oppinion.

JP


----------



## Tiny (Oct 17, 2007)

Geoff St. Germain said:


> I think that multiple smaller woofers are used for a couple of reasons. One is that you can make a narrower cabinet. Another could be that seeing a lot of drivers in a speaker can look impressive to some people. I'm more of a fan or large drivers.


Like it or not the visual appearance of speakers, especially small ones, effects how we perceive the sound we hear. That is part of why so many people think bose are the be all end all. A tall skinny cabinet takes up a lot less floor space than anything with one with a big driver. So in the eyes and ears of most people two equally good sounding speakers one taking up ten or eleven inches along the wall will almost always sound better like a better speaker than one that takes up 18"

The second reason you see more small dual woofer towers is the fact most systems now are using a powered subwoofer to handle bass. Two small woofers are going to require less power to drive them as well, making them ideal for those who don't use external amps (most receivers simply don't have pre-outs anymore). For example I had an older ****** sony that didn't get it done for my 15" or 18" floor standers (despite the fact they said it gave 100 watts per channel), however it powered dual 8 and 10's just fine. My new Yamaha powers the 15's just fine even though I am pushing them through my adcom 

Given my choice I would much prefer the big driver when I have to make a pick too, they sound warmer to me for music and video games, which gets significantly more play for me than movies right now.


----------



## bumpnzx3 (Nov 18, 2007)

If it matters- the woofers/midbass in question are the Dynavox units that PE sells. A guy I work with built a set of towers around them- and I really like the sound. He also has a set of MBQ dome midrang- I believe they are the ones the Madisound has on clearance. I like the sound of those too- hard to believe they are a metal dome. I don't like his tweets though- much to harsh for my tastes.

I was going to somewhat mach his setup- aside from the tweets.


----------



## BoomieMCT (Dec 11, 2006)

Do you have specific 8" or 5.25" drivers in mind? Also what mids and tweets did you pick?


----------



## bumpnzx3 (Nov 18, 2007)

Midbass/woofer- The Dynavox LW5004PMR (5.25), LW600 (6.5), or LW800 (8.0) I started looking at the price of them a little more today. For $5 more/driver I can get the 6.5. So- why not stop splitting hairs and just get 2x 6.5 drivers per tower- best of both worlds :R

As far as midrange- I have the MB Quart 95-7048. Tweeters- Morel MDT-20.


I have heard the 8" Dynavox and MBQ before and they sounded quite good to me.


----------



## BoomieMCT (Dec 11, 2006)

The graph on the Madisound page (the only thing I could find) makes it looks like your midrangers are 89 dB efficient so I'd go with no woofer arrangement that has less efficiency. More efficiency is okay as it might allow you to do some baffle step compensation.

According to the PE website the efficiency (1W/m) of the LW800 is 88 dB. The LW600 is 87 dB. The LW5004PMR is 85 dB. If you are making a four ohm speaker wiring these in parallel will add 6 dB (someone fact check me on that). 

Although I usually favor larger drivers in this case I'd go with two of the smaller ones. Either should have low enough extention since you are also running a sub.


----------



## bumpnzx3 (Nov 18, 2007)

You are correct- well, in theory (I don't know the exact db- but I know it adds sensativity). 

That's why I love message forums. It brings ideas from outside the box. I was just thinking about sound quality and frequency response- not the theory behind how things worked. I knew what you were saying- but never thought about it in this case.

2x 6.5's it is.

Thanks!!


----------



## Brian Bunge (Apr 21, 2006)

I'm going to be doing a 3-way soon using the Dayton RS52 mid, which is considered state of the art by many. The MB Quarts are discontinued parts so I'd be skeptical about using them unless you buy enough to have a few extras in case you smoke one.

I'm probably looking at a WTMWWW design using Dayton RS180's for the woofers, the RS52 mid, and the Vifa D26 truncated faceplate tweet.


----------



## bumpnzx3 (Nov 18, 2007)

i want this to be a bit of a learning expirience for me- so i don't really want to completely copy an existing setup.

i was just researching drivers for a center channel. i was looing at the price of the dayton rs series as well as the response curves and reviews. people seem to love them aside from the 2 frequency spikes....it got me to thinking......

i could get dual 8" dayton rs for the same price as the dynavox 6.5 or dual 7" dayton rs for $20 cheaper/driver than the dynavox. would those be a better option for my towers rather than the dynavox? given the fact i am somewhat new at designing crossovers- would it be easier for me to get the dynavox to work out since they don't seem to be plagued by the spikes?


----------



## Brian Bunge (Apr 21, 2006)

I really don't know anything about the Dynavox drivers but from my experience, the Dayton drivers are hard to beat at just about any price. Some of the Seas Excels are easier to work with due to their break-up being higher up, but for 3-4x the price I don't see much reason to use them. The Dayton woofers aren't that much harder to work with so I'd think a few extra dollars in crossover parts would be well worth it. I know the more I look at other drivers the harder and harder it is for me to justify trying something different.

Also, a 3-way crossover is going to cost substantially more than a 2-way, usually around 2x the cost.


----------



## bumpnzx3 (Nov 18, 2007)

I will have to read up a little more on proven crossover designs for both drivers and study the specs a little more:reading:. I know that I am most likely splitting hairs given my knowledge at this stage of the game- but that's just how I am. Electronic processing in car audio that I am used to, is much easier to understand and do- than building your own crossover. 

Besides- the performance and cost of the Daytons, who doesn't think those just scream out SEXY:R


----------



## Owen Bartley (Oct 18, 2006)

Josh, if your project ends up anything like mine (and it seems to be going that way) you'll start out with an idea, and want to do everything yourself. then you'll read a bit, some of the folks here will chime in, your ideas will change, your design will get better... and before you know it, you'll just be building an existing design. lol. I don't know, for me it worked out great. I bought the Loudspeaker Design Cookbook, read it through, and ended up using their design for a rear surround speaker. If you're looking for a tower design, there are some really good ones out there at various price ranges, and I'd strongly recommend checking them out before you start, because you'll still get all the satisfaction of building yourself, while adding the bonus of having a pro design and measure (then redesign and remeasure)the components and performance until it sounds really great.


----------



## JCD (Apr 20, 2006)

I thought I'd chime in as well..

The smart move is to go with a proven design. That being said, I can appreciate the desire to go with something completely on your own. Just be aware that it's potentially frustrating, time consuming and expensive. My only real concern would be that you work on your design, build the speaker but not like the final results for "fill in the blank". I'm building a line array right now, but I'm going in to this with the knowledge that the final product can be disappointing -- i.e., I'm just doing it for the fun of it.

What's the point of this post? If you're doing this project for the fun of it and if it'll be ok if the final product isn't up to snuff, I say stay the course. However, if the final product should be "good", I'd agree with the others and say to look at some of the other "proven" designs.

Just my $0.02.

JCD


----------



## bumpnzx3 (Nov 18, 2007)

i am doing it for a couple reasons- for good (better) sound and for fun. no matter what- it will sound better than what i am working with now.

i learned most everthing i know about car audio by trial and error as well as well as reading. i want to build something on my own and listen to it. whatever issues there are, i plan to read about how others have corrected similar issues, and go from there (how i did my first few car stereo installs). i want to see how and why things work- not just copy something and know it will work. 

i don't know if that makes sense- but i know what i am trying to say:R


----------



## JCD (Apr 20, 2006)

bumpnzx3 said:


> i don't know if that makes sense- but i know what i am trying to say:R


I'm with ya.. and more power to you! :T
I hope we can help! :nerd:

JCD


----------



## bumpnzx3 (Nov 18, 2007)

so far- i like this place. you guys are happy to help out a n00b. i am a long time member of several car audio forums and car forums- it's been a while since i have been a n00b. glad to see a site with people that are happy to help. so many that i see/visit, treat the new people like turds and don't really want to help them learn.


----------



## bumpnzx3 (Nov 18, 2007)

after looking at reviews, previous designs, price, specs, and response curves- i think dual 7" dayton's are the way to go for each of my towers. now the only thing i am stuck on is dual 6" or 7" for my MTM center channel. i already have the dayton silk tweeter. it seems like the upper midbass/midrange (to 2K) is close to the same- so why not go with the 7's, but then again- most center channels i see use 4-6" drivers.


----------



## bumpnzx3 (Nov 18, 2007)

thanks for the all the links- it will give me an excuse to get away from the family for a while today.

i love zaph's site- i read that all the time, even before i started reading up about home audio.

the PE project showcase is pretty cool too. i have read a few threads on some of the other forums- mainly on accident. i would do a google search, and something would pop up.


----------



## Brian Bunge (Apr 21, 2006)

If you are thinking of using the Dayton RS series woofers I would strongly consider using something other than the Dayton Silkie tweeter. It will most definitely be the weak link in the design by a long shot. I'd either use the RS28a tweeters or something like the Seas 27TDFC.

If you are going to go with an MTM center you'll want to make sure you offset the tweeter to get the driver spacing closer to allow for a lower crossover point. I'd suggest looking at Chris' site with various designs using the Dayton RS150 6" woofers and either the Seas tweeter or RS28a tweeters. His design won the budget class at the DIY Chicago event a few years ago and he also has helped me with the crossover design of my huge towers as well as various others. 

You can find his page here:

http://www.eldamar.net/audio/RS150MTM/


----------



## F1 fan (Jul 6, 2006)

thylantyr said:


> Just in case you don't have these links;
> 
> 
> A guy built a cool speaker using some of my favorite driver brands.
> http://members.shaw.ca/lcleven/home_page1.html


These are beauties,he certainly nailed the JM Labs/Focal look.


----------



## Mongrel714 (May 23, 2007)

thylantyr said:


> Build a proven design.
> http://www.rjbaudio.com/RS180MTM/rs180-rs28-mtm.html
> 
> Spend more coin to have a loudspeaker that will last for a long time
> ...


Ill have to second thylantyr's motion, this is the design I'm building at the moment, even with a temporary PE two way crossover it sounds fantastic, I'm building the Tower version of this speaker.


----------



## bumpnzx3 (Nov 18, 2007)

Well- I finished up ordering all of my goods. 

I ended up with the following:

4x- RS180 (2x for each tower)
2x- RS150 (for the center channel)
3x- Morel MDT-20 (1x for each tower and center)
2x- MB Quart dome's from Madi (1x for each tower)
2x- PE XO (625/5k- for the towers)
1x- PE XO (2k- for the center)
:hide:

I selected the drivers based on several reviews and/or personal expirience from other stereo's I have heard. I selected the XO's based on response curves and reviews/suggestions that I was able to find. 

I spoke with Roman over email and he suggested around 48L tuned to 38hz for each of the dual RS180's. I am going to model my enclosure for the center channel after Chris' MTM build.

As stated earlier- this is to be a learning expirience. I want to see the correct way to assemble a crossover (hence the reason I bought pre-built units). Any shortcomings in sound, because of the crossovers- I will either mod the units I purchased or build my own.

I will report back with progress and pictures.


----------



## Brian Bunge (Apr 21, 2006)

Oh, there will definitely be shortcomings. Those crossovers are pretty much worthless. They don't take into account any impedance contouring that'll be needed for the speakers and won't offer any baffle step compensation. Having heard a speaker with no baffle step sitting out in a room two words come to mind: NO BASS! 

The 5KHz xo between the mid and tweet isn't such a great idea due to the large center to center spacing. For that kind of xo frequency, you should have gone with something like the Vifa D26 truncated tweeter, not to mention the mid is a clearance item.

The dual RS180's in 48L tuned to 38Hz doesn't look too bad. I would prefer a tuning between 30-35Hz. This will give you a more gradual rolloff down low and probably give you smoother in room response. The higher tuning could potentially give you a boomier sounding bass, but if the speakers aren't pushed up against the wall you will probably be ok. Although, with no BSC they'll probably sound better up against the wall.

I'm hoping you'll have someone that can help you with the xo mods that you're going to require. Otherwise, I fear you will not be happy at all with the initial sound. Keep us posted. We'll help however we can.


----------



## bumpnzx3 (Nov 18, 2007)

because of the way the room is setup- the speakers will have to be pretty close/up against a wall.

granted- i have a very limited unstanding of BSC, but could i not make the baffle a little wider than normal. say 10"-11" rather than 9" that most people seem to use? also- as far as the mid and tweet being spaced far apart- does it really make a difference (not being smart- just asking)? in car audio- it doesn't. this is most likely one of those things in which i have a lot to learn about the differences between what i am used to and HT.

the 3 way in my mercedes i just finished up- there is roughly a foot between the midrange and tweet.


----------



## bumpnzx3 (Nov 18, 2007)

here's another question, just out of curiosity....do you think BSC was taken into consideration in the 3way RCA bookshelfs that I bought a few year back? i don't remember how much i paid- but it was most likely less than $100/pr.


----------



## Brian Bunge (Apr 21, 2006)

A wider baffle will help some, but not much I'm afraid.

I bet if you measured the response of the speakers in your car you'd probably find a whole in the frequency response due to the distance. As much as I love car audio, I've heard very few systems that are up to par with an audiophile home system.

I doubt there was any BSC in those bookshelf speakers, but I could be wrong.


----------



## bumpnzx3 (Nov 18, 2007)

as you said- cars are close to impossible to recreate what you can in a home system. space and shape are the main problems.

i more or less figured there was no BSC in the bookshelfs i currently have. which is fine- the bass output is fine for me and what i am trying to do. my problem with what i have is the fact that it distorts rather easily and occasionally voices (movie and music) are a little on the scratchy side. a lot of that has to do with driver quality and enclosure design. there's certainly crossover issues to, i'm not saying there's not.

i want good imaging and tonality (good- not perfect). home audio buffs seem to be like a lot of car audio buffs- a little more concerned with some theory and electronic gadgets than i am. i am sure you are right- there probably are certain holes in the stereo in my current car and a few of the others i have competed with. however- it has always sounded great to my ears as well as some of the local SQ judges. i compete at a local level and that's all i plan to do. 

i'm not knocking anyone here or any of their ideas and/or proven theory. for the most part, i stick to what i consider the basic theory and go from there. i never think too much about a lot of the other stuff. ****, i don't even own a meter to measure spl. not to mention the fact i still tune 95% my car audio stuff by ear. it's amazing how good you can get something to sound- just using your ear, a little screwdriver, and some phase testing.

also keep in mind that the tv i watch all my movies on is a run of the mill sanyo tube tv (not even a flat screen tube). don't get me wrong- i still plan to ultimately build my own crossover, but i don't plan to spend the next year tweaking things to get it just perfect. i don't have the desire nor the trained ear


----------



## bumpnzx3 (Nov 18, 2007)

in order to lower the tuning frequency- would it be better to keep the suggested 2.5"dia port and shorten it to a little over 5" or go to a 3"dia port and keep it the suggested length of a little less than 8"?


----------



## Brian Bunge (Apr 21, 2006)

the lower tuning will require a longer port, not a shorter one. And I'd personally feel better with a 3" port.


----------



## bumpnzx3 (Nov 18, 2007)

that's right- i read my notes that i took down from the calculator incorrectly. 

so something around 48L, 3"D x 8"L port- and see what happens. on the plus side, i have a boat load of mdf out in the shop.

is there such a thing as a calculator that you plug in volume and desired freq- and it gives you selections of port size/length? i was playing with that feature on WinISD- and it didn't seem like i was getting the correct numbers.


----------



## Brian Bunge (Apr 21, 2006)

If you have excel, download Unibox. It's a much more accurate program. You just have to learn to convert units to metric. With it, you plug in the volume, tuning frequency, and port diameter and it gives you length.


----------



## bumpnzx3 (Nov 18, 2007)

a couple replies from a thread i have going in the HT part of a car audio forum. this guy is well respected in car audio- seems to know HT, but i don't know to what extent.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
1.75 cubes tuned to 33 hz probably isn't the best idea unless you're not planning on giving them much power. At rated power, I come up with 21 liters (.75 cubes), tuned to 42 hz. That would require a 3" flared end port of exactly 12". That would yield a F3 of 46 hz, and a power handling of 120 watts. You can actually tune to 40 hz with that volume, but I figured a 12" long port is very easy to accomplish. You can go bigger and tune lower, but your power handling will go down significantly. You just run out of Xmax pretty quickly with this driver. This design will allow those drivers to really sing.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Also, understand that while you may not be using all of your 100 watts, all of the time, when you crank these things up, you want them to be able to handle what your amp gives them, ESPECIALLY on the low end. I don't know what amplifier you're using, and what kind of ripple you'll see, or clipping, etc. When people run extended bass shelfs (like you're proposing), it's usually with low power, and good amps. Not every amp is capable of producing 30 hz with minimal ripple, especially low to mid level HT receivers. So take that into consideration. Oh, and you'd better have a very good subsonic filter. Also, tuning below the Fs of the driver for the sake of extra bass extension is counterproductive to me when talking about a hi fidelity design. If you want to tune that low, pick different drivers. The lowest you should tune the 8 ohm version is 38 hz, and 40 hz for the 4 ohm. It causes more problems for an amplifiers already struggling on the low end, unless of course you design your crossover with the extra components needed to tame the resonance peaks. At that point though, with the costs rising, just pick different drivers, and trust me the Dayton RS180 will rape you when it comes to the cost of crossover components. 25 liters tuned to 38 hz is about as much as I'd do with those drivers.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Actually modeling up 22 liters at 38 hz isn't too bad (for a single driver). It puts your power handling at about 35 watts per driver, as opposed to 60. In your scenario that may not be too bad. Not much room for error though, and like I said, you'd better have a very stable amp down low. You gain quite a bit of low end extension, but you will need the extra crossover components to tame the resonance peak as your F3 will be around 34 hz. One of the things I've always liked about the RS series drivers from Dayton are the ability to operate in very small enclosures. The subwoofers are no different. That's the one great advantage to them. The disadvantage is the cost of crossover components.
____________________________________________________________________________________


----------



## Brian Bunge (Apr 21, 2006)

I agree with him for the most part. I've seen some softer cone materials that still had bad enough break-up issues to require similar amounts of contouring in the xo.

It all comes down to what you want. If you plan to use a sub, then the smaller enclosure/higher tune will give you better power handling through the frequency range above the sub xo. Without a sub, I'd build a little bigger enclosure with a little lower tune to get more of a full range sound.

Me personally, I'm looking at roughly 50L tuned to 40Hz for 4 RS180's.


----------



## bumpnzx3 (Nov 18, 2007)

lengthy and helpful response- thanks!!

i will most likely wire everything up together just as i had originally planned. if (read: when) it doesn't sound all to great. i will most likely look into something like the 2.5way rjb design towards the top of this page. given my limited (read: almost no) expirience with this sort of crossover, jumping right into a 3 way is most likely not a good idea......i could forsee myself getting frustrated and using all of this as a large set of paperweights.

i do really like the sound of the MBQ's- i kinda hope i am eventually able to find something to use them for (in this project or another).


----------



## bumpnzx3 (Nov 18, 2007)

i still have my first active crossover from when i first tried to go active in a car audio install. it's a Rampage- made by Audiovox :bigsmile: that's what i plan to use.


----------



## bumpnzx3 (Nov 18, 2007)

all of the stuff is easy to get to in my daily driver (Ford Focus)- rather than dealing with getting the old crossover hooked up- i will just play around with the speakers while i sit in the hatch area of the car. i had better be sure i remember to write down the current settings in the car in order to get them back to where they were when i am done.


----------

