Replace Alpine spx 177r with polk mmc6500?

Bart1981

Do you people think it will be usefull to replace my Alpine component speakers (Alpine SPX 177R) with a Polk MOMO MMC 6500 component set? Will the money be worth the `upgrade`?

http://www.alpine-europe.com/content/english/a465.det.SPX-177R_6-1-2%22165cm-DIN-Component-2-Way-Speaker-Set.htm
http://www.polkaudio.com/caraudio/products/mmc6500/

MacLeod

I dunno dude. The Type X are pretty solid speakers.

If youre not unhappy with their performance, Id say stick with em. You know the old saying. "Dont fix it if it aint broke."

Bart1981

Thnx 4 your answer MacLeod. I had an offer to by the MMC 6500 for about 150 euro (instead of 350 for a brand new pair). But I´ve adjusted some settings on the filters of my Alpine component set, and now they sound better then they did before.

1996blackmax

Tuning can go a long way.

Greg Peters

Bart1981 wrote:

Do you people think it will be usefull to replace my Alpine component speakers (Alpine SPX 177R) with a Polk MOMO MMC 6500 component set? Will the money be worth the `upgrade`?

http://www.alpine-europe.com/content/english/a465.det.SPX-177R_6-1-2%22165cm-DIN-Component-2-Way-Speaker-Set.htm
http://www.polkaudio.com/caraudio/products/mmc6500/

If you had asked if it would be worthwhile to upgrade to the Polk Signature Reference series, I'd probably say... yes .

Both the SR and Alpine Type X use Vifa ring radiator tweeters, with the ones in the Polk set being larger and IMO more capable. The Polk SR6500 mid is also a superior midbass driver, though I believe there have been three different 6.5 midbass (all Vifa-sourced) bundled in Alpine's Type X component sets since their introduction. The only place I'd give the edge to Alpine between these two sets is in the crossover- don't get me wrong, the Polk SR crossover is wonderful and I have no doubt that it is perfectly optimized for the drivers it's meant for. It's just that Alpine's crossover offers far more tuning options, including time alignment- right in the passive crossover.

If you like your Alpine set, the Momo MMC6500 probably wouldn't be an "upgrade" unless you wanted a more aggressive tweeter and greater midbass output.

santosh.s

Greg Peters wrote: »

Both the SR and Alpine Type X use Vifa ring radiator tweeters

Do ALL spx-177r models use ring radiator tweeters?

hough I believe there have been three different 6.5 midbass (all Vifa-sourced) bundled in Alpine's Type X component sets since their introduction.

Referring to following 2 links on ebay:
http://cgi.ebay.com/2-ALPINE-SPX-177R-6-5-1-2-TYPE-X-COMPONENT-CAR-SPEAKERS_W0QQitemZ180135532281QQihZ008QQcategoryZ32819QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
http://cgi.ebay.com/New-Alpine-SPX-177R-6-5-Inch-300W-Component-Speaker_W0QQitemZ190128940486QQihZ009QQcategoryZ130673QQrdZ1QQssPageNameZWD1VQQcmdZViewItem

A few questions:
-The 1st one says it has "fiber hemp" woofer whereas the 2nd one says "wood fiber". Which one is better or are they same?
-Only the 2nd one mentions about ring radiator (1st one doesn't and seems to be cheap too), hence the initial question.
-Are all variants of spx-177r model (since its introduction) in the same league in terms of sound quality? or does it vary considerably?

(Obviously, I am thinking of getting a pair of this speaker for me:) So any suggestions are welcome and appreciated)

Greg Peters

santosh.s wrote: »

Do ALL spx-177r models use ring radiator tweeters?

I believe that's correct- Alpine uses the smaller .75" version of Vifa's ring radiator tweeter in it's Type X component sets.

santosh.s wrote: »

Referring to following 2 links on ebay:
http://cgi.ebay.com/2-ALPINE-SPX-177R-6-5-1-2-TYPE-X-COMPONENT-CAR-SPEAKERS_W0QQitemZ180135532281QQihZ008QQcategoryZ32819QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
http://cgi.ebay.com/New-Alpine-SPX-177R-6-5-Inch-300W-Component-Speaker_W0QQitemZ190128940486QQihZ009QQcategoryZ130673QQrdZ1QQssPageNameZWD1VQQcmdZViewItem

A few questions:
-The 1st one says it has "fiber hemp" woofer whereas the 2nd one says "wood fiber". Which one is better or are they same?
-Only the 2nd one mentions about ring radiator (1st one doesn't and seems to be cheap too), hence the initial question.
-Are all variants of spx-177r model (since its introduction) in the same league in terms of sound quality? or does it vary considerably?

(Obviously, I am thinking of getting a pair of this speaker for me:) So any suggestions are welcome and appreciated)

There were indeed two different midbass speakers offered in the Type X component set (with two more to be offered in the new Type X variants..."Pro" and "Reference", coming soon). Both models currently on the market have been described as having "weak" midbass performance, but if I was getting a great deal on either of these discontinued sets, I'd try to choose the version released last, as it was supposed to be an improvement over the first generation.

I've listened extensively to the Type X and own Polk Signature Reference components, and find the Polk SR6500 to sound and perform better. I'll reserve judgement on the Type X Pro until I can hear some. Discontinued Type X sets have shown up "unauthorized" for less than $200, so they are a bargain at that price, but if you'll be paying much more than that I'd lean towards either holding out for the "Pro" version or seriously consider the Polk SR6500 instead for a superior speaker.

santosh.s

Thanks Greg!

I am trying to strike a balance between entry level and more expensive speakers, looking for something below $250 (USD) limit. I have pretty much shortlisted polk's MMC6500 and alpine's SPX-177R, both 6.5" components. I cocluded (based on internet forums) that they offer good value for their cost. Woofer-tweeter tuning/alignment options in type-x's crossover look impressive.

So, do you know which one is "newer" model of SPX-177R, hemp or wood cone? As expected for a discontinued product, there is no information on any of the alpine's official sites that I browsed, except a manual located here:
http://vault.alpine-usa.com/products/documents/OM_SPX-177R.PDF

BTW, it does have a mention of ring radiator and woofer cone material written therein is wood (probably the latest one?). However, I am concerned about hemp or wood fiber cones being vulnerable to environmental issues, is it really so? (as opposed to marine grade MMCs ?) I mean will they deteriorate over time? Or get damaged, say due to accidental exposure to moisture/water when it's rainy?

CarSoundDude

I was wondering about a similar comparison between the type X Pros (SPX17 Pro) and the Polk SR series (SR 5250). According to Crutchfield, The larger Alpine type-X pro series will fit in my door where as the SR6500s will not. I know that, to some degree, you get what you pay for, and from what I hear, the polks will be better speakers. Is it fair to compare the alpine 6.5s to the polk 5.25s? Perhaps I should just do whatever door modifications are necessary to get the SR6500s into the doors. Maybe it will not require too much work on the G35's doors.

DemonAstroth

I was able to fit the SR6500's in my G20's doors (original size is 4x6). However, I replaced the SPX-177r's, as I already had fitted 6.5's before.

Soundwise, they are both great sets, but the Polk's are noticeable better, more natural, and have more detail.

I don't know how biased that statement is, as I have biamped and I'm also running an active setup, whereas with the SPX's I was using the passive crossovers.

Regardless, I know I"m not crazy, for my friend (who does not care at all for car audio), has told me that she hears things in music she had not heard before.

Last, for all the different sets of 6.5's I have fitted in the 4x6 location, the polk's were among the most difficult ones,and the Alpine's were relatively easy. Easier than some audiobahns I had (yes at one time I didn't know crap about car audio), and easier than some MBQ PCE216's. The only ones I was not able to fit were the MM6's, as those things are like 7" subs!

Demon

JoshParsons84

Bart1981 wrote: »

Thnx 4 your answer MacLeod. I had an offer to by the MMC 6500 for about 150 euro (instead of 350 for a brand new pair). But I´ve adjusted some settings on the filters of my Alpine component set, and now they sound better then they did before.

Hi, would u care to share with the group what sort of settings u did and where? Enquiring minds would like to know.

CarSoundDude

Thanks for the input, DemonAstroth. Have you ever compared the SR5250 and SR6500s?? I am willing to go through some trouble for the install if the sound will be noticeably different between the two. (since they are the same price, no difference there).

Did you change to an active and biamping setup as you changed the speakers? I am curious how much difference it makes on the same set. Like Josh, I am curious about your settings/setup there.

DemonAstroth

I have not been able to listen to the 5250s, so I cannot be of much help there. However, I was in your same situation before. And MacLeod (who has been the most helpful member to me here) had experience with both of them, after his advice, I decided on the 5250's, but ended up receiving the wrong set (6500's). Fated? Who knows.

Anyway, at the same time that I got the speakers I bought an amplifier (XA4000) for my old Eclipse finally called it quits, and a 3 way capable head unit (CD7100).

When I installed everything I decided to go with the active set up. I have never used the passive crossovers with the SR's.

I am no expert, but I look at it like this. The speakers producing the sound will be the same (active or passive), so the difference will not be huge. I think that with an active set up a lot more things can go wrong, but you have more flexibility. If you have the time and patience, it is worth it in the end though.

It's not that the sound is that much better, but you can really tweak to get the most out of your speakers. The mids I had crossoved at 63hz I think, but started having too much problems at loud volume, so I went with 80hz instead. It had to do with my vehicle and the small enclosure, that would rattle some of the door panel, etc. So it's very nice to be able to fix things very specifically, but on the other hand it can be quite a pain.

Hope that helps... I honestly don't think you'll go wrong with either the 5250's or the 6500's. Just turn down the tweeter a bit and enjoy!

Demon

MacLeod

The 5250's are a great choice if you can fit the 6500's. I competed all thru 2007 with the SR5250's in my car and did just fine. I never got docked for lack of midbass and the midrange was superb. I actually had a judge write "Wow!" on my scoresheet at finals for midrange. That wasnt me, thats all SR's.

The 6500's however have great low end response and will easily play down to 40 Hz while still playing excellent midrange. The 5250's will still work fine and play down to 50 Hz with little problem and you can make up the difference with your sub. Having your mids play down to 40 is mainly important in SQ competition where youre trying to get as much bass up front as possible. For daily driving tho, I guarantee you that after some tweaking that you wouldnt be able to tell a difference between the 6.5' and the 5.25's with the exception of a little less up front sub bass.