BA 6.53 Stock Location Install

HoseHead · Post by **HoseHead** » Tue Aug 21, 2007 10:16 am

I'm currently building a system using BA 6.53 Components. The manual says they'll eat up to 500 watts. I hope to get some really decent results.

My design is:

Neo 5t tweets at dash level - exact location TBD
4.5 MR in the front doors factory location - sealed enclosures
6.5LF in the rear side panels factory location - sealed enclosures

I'm going to use the BA6.53x crossover modules in 3way/bi-amp mode.

Power will be from a SS Tarantula 500.4:
Chnl 1/2 stereo channels (125Wx2) running the tweets and 4.5MR's
Chnl 3/4 mono bridged (250Wx1) to the 6.5LF's wired in parallel

Alpine CDA9885 HU - may use an AC Four1 line driver EQ

Pictures to follow.

I may add a 12" or pair of 10" subs and processor (EpiCentre/BassCube) in the future.

Post by **stipud** » Tue Aug 21, 2007 10:27 am

Bruce, you're not going to separate a 3-way system by having the midbass and lower midrange coming from the back seat are you? That would be disastrous for your staging, by pulling your important midbass region to the rear. With subs in the back, all of your bass would sound like it's coming from the trunk, and the front seat would be treble city!

You should try to keep the drivers as close as possible... possibly 4.5" + tweet in the kick, with the 6.5's in the door. Or 6.5" in the kick with 4.5" in the door and tweets up high as you were planning.

HoseHead · Post by **HoseHead** » Tue Aug 21, 2007 1:51 pm

stipud wrote:Bruce, you're not going to separate a 3-way system by ......

I'm going to try it, Tom. The factory Ford JBL system is set up the same with a single sealed 5" LF woofer for the whole car. It sounds OK for a factory unit, of course, no horsepower. I'm using the factory locations and enclosures, so changing it around is not a concern either. I'll post some pix........

Bruce

HoseHead · Post by **HoseHead** » Wed Aug 22, 2007 8:24 am

Here's my install in progress. I'm going to use the factory Ford enclosure to seal both the 4.5 and the 6.5. All joints will have gaskets or sealant. Enclosures will be lined with deadener.

These are easily built on the bench and then installed as a complete unit into the factory body cavity. Comments?

Post by **stipud** » Wed Aug 22, 2007 8:47 am

I split this off from the other thread so we're not talking through everyone.

Those enclosures look pretty good. Excellent work on the routering! You might also try bonding them with fiberglass. That would stiffen up the plastic a great deal as well. I would also throw some stuffing in to emulate a larger enclosure, especially for the monster 6.5.

From the looks of it the enclosures are the same size, correct? So could you install the 6.5's in the front door? If so, I still highly recommend you look into mounting the 4.5's behind the kicks. You don't need to get them perfectly sealed.. heck, you probably don't even need to have them eating up foot space. Just look at Brian or Brandon's setups... they did it with 6.5's, so I'm sure you can fit a 4.5.

Having your entire front stage coming from the front is much better, I promise

Run them stereo too... separation is definitely audible even at midbass frequencies.

Post by **Bfowler** » Wed Aug 22, 2007 8:54 am

nice workmanship! those look great, hope it works out!

HoseHead · Post by **HoseHead** » Wed Aug 22, 2007 9:15 am

Tom, I hear you and agree in principle. I have several spare kick panels and will probably go that route but have to try it my way and see what happens. Experience, eh. And yes, when my 18 year old says that to me, I want to fifty-five him.

Yes, the enclosures are the same size and interchangable - two in front, two in rear. I can move the 6.5's to the front in a flash. I had to use a full 3/4" MDF for the 6.5 mounts so they would clear the rear of the enclosure. They are also slightly wider than the enclosure, so moving the speaker "out" slightly allows factory enclosure to be used with an oversized mount.

The enclosures have an integral web throughout when they were extruded. I suggest this was a JBL design to reduce flexing of the enclosure. Mind you, they didn't push 100 watts into a BA 6.5LF either.

I just painted the mounts. Will post more pix later.

Bruce

Mastiff · Post by **Mastiff** » Wed Aug 22, 2007 9:37 am

bruce before you do any more call me! it will save you some troble.

HoseHead · Post by **HoseHead** » Wed Aug 22, 2007 10:05 am

More pix.....

Mas - PM a number.

NTF - Mas got his finger prints all over these units.....

Post by **stipud** » Wed Aug 22, 2007 10:41 am

Now that, my friends, is what we call workmanship.

What are you doing messing around with stock locations? With skills like that you should be able to do wild custom installs.

HoseHead · Post by **HoseHead** » Wed Aug 22, 2007 11:15 am

Thanks for the kudos on the workmanship. There's a few nicks where I thought my hand was steady enough. Flat black hides well.

I'll seal these up tighter than a redneck's pucker at the gay pride parade. Speakers have compressed gaskets at mount surfaces. The long screws will pull everything tight when mounted in the door cavity. A little bead of silicon between the enclosure and the mount should suffice.

The power and signal distribution systems within the vehicle are next. And then an amp/processor rack. And then tweeter mounting. And then .....???

System going into this ride. You can see the factory location grills.

Bruce

HoseHead · Post by **HoseHead** » Fri Aug 24, 2007 1:36 pm

Amp change during hardware layout/engineering excercise. The Tarantula is just too massive and I'd like to maintain my rear seat pass-through as functional.

Going to run a pair of PG Tantrum 400.4, one for each side of the car, both bridged giving me 160W X 4.
BA indicates the load is 3 ohms.
I'll set the 6.53x Crossovers to bi-amp mode and push a theorectical 160 watts into each mid/tweet combo (stereo) and the same into each 6.5LF (stereo).

Mock-up in progress. Pictures to follow.

HH

HoseHead · Post by **HoseHead** » Sat Aug 25, 2007 2:52 pm

Some pix of the SC apart. The factory put the enclosures into sound deadener cups. I'll re-use and also line inside the enclosure. The PG/BA gear is what has to "go in the hole". BassCube is there, but won't go in until sub choice is made. I'm curious to hear this without any subs. See what these BA's can do on their own.

HoseHead · Post by **HoseHead** » Sat Aug 25, 2007 2:55 pm

more... The plastic tray holds the Automatic Ride Control Module, the ABS module and a small factory audio amp. Cute little thing. I'm going to re-locate the modules and build an amp rack in that spot.

HoseHead · Post by **HoseHead** » Sat Aug 25, 2007 3:01 pm

I have room under the parcel deck to bolt in a pair of 10" subs firing up onto the rear window. Is this a good idea? I could seal the back side of the subs. It would keep my trunk and pass-through functional. Comments? Thanks.

Bruce

dedlyjedly · Post by **dedlyjedly** » Sat Aug 25, 2007 6:07 pm

I think that's a great idea. Looking at the other work you've done I'm sure that you'd give the job the proper effort and overall execution. I think there is a dramatic improvement in sub sq performance when the driver is located in the same cabin as the listener. Even though bass frequencies typically have no problem penetrating the materials isolating the trunk from the passenger cabin there is certainly a loss in the subtleties of many bass lines. Some people may even suggest that you go as far as running some subs in an infinite baffle configuration on your rear shelf, but I think IB would be compromised if you want to maintain the fold-down capability of your rear seats.

HoseHead · Post by **HoseHead** » Sun Aug 26, 2007 8:20 am

Thanks. Infinite baffle? New to me. Can you explain please?

Options:

1. Firing up into cabin (through 6X9 factory deck holes) with free air behind. (Easy build)

2. Same as #1 with sealed or ported enclosure behind.

3. Same as #1, but cut 10" holes using the 6X9 space to match sub mount with free air behind. (Easy build)

4. Same as #3 with sealed or ported enclosure behind.

5. Firing down with free air to cabin (port the back of the enclosure through the factory 6X9 deck holes into the cabin).

Comments? Thanks again.

Post by **stipud** » Sun Aug 26, 2007 8:28 am

Like 1 or 3, but you have to seal the trunk from the interior completely. This means building up your shelf and possibly covering the back of the seats.

dedlyjedly · Post by **dedlyjedly** » Sun Aug 26, 2007 1:53 pm

I was referring to something like #4. A good sealed enclosure with the sub baffle situated in the main cabin.

#1 & #3 also have potential as Tom suggested but would require a specific sub for "free-air" or infinite baffle duties and would actually require more work to properly execute.

Very few subs are actually designed to play in a free-air setup. This term is often mis-used to describe what is appropriately termed infinite baffle, or IB. Neither free-air or IB have a true enclosure housing the subwoofer, in this way they are similar. The important criteria to achieve a true infinite baffle is to completely isolate the air space on the front of the sub plane from the air space on the backside of the sub. This means when you drop your subs thru the rear deck you would have to go to painstaking measures to seal up each hole in the rear deck and rear seat to isolate the trunk from the main cabin. This is why it's really difficult to do while still allowing your back seats to fold down when you need to. When properly setup the sub essentially performs as if it's in an infinitely large sealed enclosure (that being your trunk). There are sonic benefits to going IB over a sealed enclosure when using a good sub for the job, but it's not for everyone.

HoseHead · Post by **HoseHead** » Sat Sep 01, 2007 12:57 pm

Here's where we be.....

Views of the pallette I have to work with. I just spent two days splicing factory wiring for anti-lock brake sensors, automatic ride control and fuel control systems. Ford ran a single harness (60 wires or so) from the engine control module and then split them in the trunk to run to the "other" side of the car. I needed to massage the "cross harness" to provide a clean slate for my install.

These are the factory holes I referenced in a previous post for mounting either 10" or 12" subs firing up towards the glass. I can easily build sealed enclosures with the amp rack in the centre. If I do this, I can still retain about 12" of the pass through feature of this car. Acceptable for me. Will my efforts result in decent low end? I can also cut the holes to size (10" or 12"). Comments are appreciated. I have an another identical car with Qty 3 XMax12 (sealed) powered by a bridged 2125 (FAS). It's outstanding but the box is huge and eliminates my pass through.

BTW - Yes, this car needs paint. The body is completely rust free, no winters. Ford layed down really shitty clearcoat these years (89-95). Spring 08.....

dedlyjedly · Post by **dedlyjedly** » Sun Sep 02, 2007 3:42 pm

HoseHead wrote: These are the factory holes I referenced in a previous post for mounting either 10" or 12" subs firing up towards the glass. I can easily build sealed enclosures with the amp rack in the centre. If I do this, I can still retain about 12" of the pass through feature of this car. Acceptable for me. Will my efforts result in decent low end?

The subs you decide upon, the power you provide them, and the enclosure you're able to provide them will ultimately determine the low frequency extension and impact. I wouldn't worry about the sub location as much. The enclosure volume as well as the limited power (T400.4 bridged) are going to be a limiting factors when you're selecting which subs to use. With those constraints I don't think it's reasonable to expect output similar to your triple xmax system, but you should be able to get some pretty good results. Given what you're currently proposing I don't think you could do any better than a set of RSD 10" subs. If you had more sub power you would have a lot more options as far as potential subs.

twisted · Post by **twisted** » Sun Sep 02, 2007 8:38 pm

man bruce that is some killer workmanship......i can't wait too see a finished product on this. those speaker enclosures are nice!!

HoseHead · Post by **HoseHead** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 1:04 pm

Well, after much wrangling and mock ups, I'm going to lose part of the pass through. There's simply too much hardware to be installed. I'll model it after my other ride, but will build two 1.2 cuft enclosures for yet to be selected 10" subs. These will have Velcro "feet" and be able to move around the trunk space depending on load carried. The Velcro will adhere to the factory carpet to prevent sub box from launching. Mock up in process. Standby for pictures.

All the positive comments/advice to date are appreciated and boosts my desire to meet the current standard. Mickey Mouse don't live here. Bastards. Much more work......

dedlyjedly · Post by **dedlyjedly** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 1:48 pm

you know you can do an RSD 10" in .5 cubic foot don't you?

HoseHead · Post by **HoseHead** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 3:12 pm

No I didn't. I was using the 1.2 cuft figure referencing a Tantrum10d specification.

I'm a rookie with enclosure design. What dimensions would be appropriate for a .5 cuft enclosure? Please advise. With someting that small, I maybe able to return to the parcel shelf.......

I do have two sets of RSd 6.5cs BNIB right here. Should I use those with RSd10 subs instead of the BA 6.53x Pro Series?

Bruce