Jump to content

Pro 6602-W vs Pro 6800-W vs CDT-5800 W II


uscpsycho

Recommended Posts

Right now the pricing for these speakers is 5800 > 6800 > 6602.

 

But based on design and specs you would think the sound quality of these speakers would go in the opposite direction: 6602 > 6800 > 5800.

 

Can someone please explain to me why you would spend more money on the 5800 or 6800 over the 6602? Isn't the 6602 the best option among these three speakers? What am I missing???

 

Help!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My question isn't about pricing. My question is about performance. Right now the Pro 6602 is the cheapest of the three. Search around and you'll see.

But if you were to rank the three speakers in order of PERFORMANCE wouldn't it be 1) 6602 2) 6800 3) 5800? If not, how would you rank them?

Edited by uscpsycho
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right now the pricing for these speakers is 5800 > 6800 > 6602.

 

But based on design and specs you would think the sound quality of these speakers would go in the opposite direction: 6602 > 6800 > 5800.

 

It's actually none of the above. :)  

 

6800's MSRP is $999.  

 

6602's MSRP is $749.  

 

5800's is $399.  

 

 

What may be going on is that the pro models that are discounted are actually an older model.  The current 6800's should have a black cone for example.  Look on newegg and it's a white cone.  Most likely the older models got dumped for cheap and they're being blown out online.  The 5800's don't really have that issue going on.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was referring to street price not MSRP. Street price on the current Pro 6000 line is below Reference. Believe it or not.

In any case, I'm not talking about price. As you said the 6800 MSRP is more than 6602. But isn't the 6602 a better speaker? If not, why would the 6800 be more expensive?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will be watching this thread. I have no idea which is best, and this is the first time anybody has even talked about any of them on these forums that I can remember.

 

By the looks of it, the 6602 was designed as a center speaker which is meant to be mounted horizontally. It is a fact that "ANY" double-woofer speaker is better mounted vertically. The 6800 is a single 8" woofer which will struggle less with lower frequencies.

 

For walls, it would be hands down the 8" over the double 6.5". Even if I were using 6800's as my right and left and needed a center, I would us the 6800 before I would use the 6602.

 

Your thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Per Klipsch and per one of their dealers the 6602 can be used as LCR or surround. The center speakers can actually be rotated so that they are always in the optimal position whether mounted horizontally or vertically. Per Klipsh and per this same dealer the 6602 is the better speaker for home theater because the dual woofer design provides much better dispersion.

 

Neither one could explain why the 6800 has a higher MSRP. The Klipsch dealer speculated that perhaps Klipsch pays less for the smaller woofers since they buy more of them. I asked why would anyone buy the 6800 over the 6602 and he again could only speculate that the 6800 might have a higher WAF or it might be better for critical music listening.

 

I should mention that when I say "per Klispch" I am talking about the dude that answers the phone who sounded unsure so I'm not totally convinced really knows his stuff.

 

I started a thread about this over as avsforum and everyone agreed the 6602 is better for home theater; one of the major reasons was the superior dispersion. I am convinced the 6602 is superior for home theater but the pricing still seems so weird to me so I thought I'd ask over here. No idea if any Klispch representatives ever participate on this forum but it would be great to hear their thoughts.

 

WRT the 6800 struggling less with lower frequencies, this really shouldn't be an issue if you are crossed over properly and are using a subwoofer(s). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Per Klipsch and per one of their dealers the 6602 can be used as LCR or surround. The center speakers can actually be rotated so that they are always in the optimal position whether mounted horizontally or vertically. Per Klipsh and per this same dealer the 6602 is the better speaker for home theater because the dual woofer design provides much better dispersion.

 

Neither one could explain why the 6800 has a higher MSRP. The Klipsch dealer speculated that perhaps Klipsch pays less for the smaller woofers since they buy more of them. I asked why would anyone buy the 6800 over the 6602 and he again could only speculate that the 6800 might have a higher WAF or it might be better for critical music listening.

 

I should mention that when I say "per Klispch" I am talking about the dude that answers the phone who sounded unsure so I'm not totally convinced really knows his stuff.

 

I started a thread about this over as avsforum and everyone agreed the 6602 is better for home theater; one of the major reasons was the superior dispersion. I am convinced the 6602 is superior for home theater but the pricing still seems so weird to me so I thought I'd ask over here. No idea if any Klispch representatives ever participate on this forum but it would be great to hear their thoughts.

 

WRT the 6800 struggling less with lower frequencies, this really shouldn't be an issue if you are crossed over properly and are using a subwoofer(s). 

The subject of rotation has been discussed many many times here, bluray, and avsforum.  It is better to be vertical.

 

I don't get how simply having two 6.5's is better for dispersion than a single 8. Both speakers have the exact same specs. The 6.5 has 32% more cone area than a single 8. Maybe that's what they are all about. Perhaps the crossover frequency is too high for the 8' and that is causing some beaming. Not knowing the theil/small specs on the bass drivers, it's only speculation on any of this. I would presume the 8" is a more capable driver, and I know it is more efficient because it has the same output as a pair of the 6.5's.

 

I'm in the 8" court, but I'm sure the dual 65 is a fine speaker. I would not lay it or any of them down, however.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The center speakers can actually be rotated so that they are always in the optimal position whether mounted horizontally or vertically.

 

I should clarify this statement. I mean the two center speakers  on each speaker -- the mid and the tweeter -- can be rotated so that they are properly oriented whether you mount the speaker horizontally or vertically. If you look at a photo of the speaker, the center disk rotates 90 degrees based on the physical orientation of the speaker.

 

 

I don't get how simply having two 6.5's is better for dispersion than a single 8. Both speakers have the exact same specs. The 6.5 has 32% more cone area than a single 8. Maybe that's what they are all about. Perhaps the crossover frequency is too high for the 8' and that is causing some beaming. Not knowing the theil/small specs on the bass drivers, it's only speculation on any of this. I would presume the 8" is a more capable driver, and I know it is more efficient because it has the same output as a pair of the 6.5's.

 

I'm in the 8" court, but I'm sure the dual 65 is a fine speaker. I would not lay it or any of them down, however.

Well the two 6.5's are a lot farther apart than the one 8. So it seems logical that the dispersion pattern for two speakers would be greater than for one speaker. Or maybe I'm oversimplifying it.

 

It's also not just two 6.5's vs one 8. It's also a midrange + tweeter vs just a tweeter. 

 

Just to play devil's advocate, if you had to have 6602's for all your surround speakers would you still be in the 8" camp for LCR or would you use the 6602?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was referring to street price not MSRP. Street price on the current Pro 6000 line is below Reference. Believe it or not.

Yes I'm aware of what you were getting at. I offered my theory as to why this is true. Re-read the bottom of post 5. If it were current models, those retailers wouldn't be able to advertise that low.

 

In any case, I'm not talking about price. As you said the 6800 MSRP is more than 6602. But isn't the 6602 a better speaker? If not, why would the 6800 be more expensive?

Their 8" in-walls usually have the best bass response and cost the most. That's just how it is. I wouldn't consider one better just because it has two smaller woofers over one larger one.

Edited by MetropolisLakeOutfitters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't get how simply having two 6.5's is better for dispersion than a single 8. Both speakers have the exact same specs. The 6.5 has 32% more cone area than a single 8. Maybe that's what they are all about. Perhaps the crossover frequency is too high for the 8' and that is causing some beaming. Not knowing the theil/small specs on the bass drivers, it's only speculation on any of this. I would presume the 8" is a more capable driver, and I know it is more efficient because it has the same output as a pair of the 6.5's.

 

I'm in the 8" court, but I'm sure the dual 65 is a fine speaker. I would not lay it or any of them down, however.

Well the two 6.5's are a lot farther apart than the one 8. So it seems logical that the dispersion pattern for two speakers would be greater than for one speaker. Or maybe I'm oversimplifying it.

That's not how it works though. MTM designs have pretty limited vertical dispersion of the tweeter and/or are subject to comb filtering on the woofers when situated vertically. Horizontal dispersion should be about the same. The only question in terms of something like this would be if the 8" driver is crossed over low enough to prevent beaming, which is where the output above a certain frequency narrows to less than 90x90 degrees.

Supposedly there is an overly simple rule of thumb you can use, the speed of sound in inches per second divided by the driver diameter in inches, which is 13,500" / 8", to see what frequency it starts beaming at. That's 1,687 hz and the cone is actually smaller than that. Horizontal dispersion with that 8" just shouldn't be an issue unless it's crossed over WAY above that. Having two 6.5's isn't going to help horizontally. It may actually get much worse vertically, or horizontally if you situate it as a center channel. With this in mind, the single 8" isn't really inferior.

Edited by MetropolisLakeOutfitters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I don't get how simply having two 6.5's is better for dispersion than a single 8. Both speakers have the exact same specs. The 6.5 has 32% more cone area than a single 8. Maybe that's what they are all about. Perhaps the crossover frequency is too high for the 8' and that is causing some beaming. Not knowing the theil/small specs on the bass drivers, it's only speculation on any of this. I would presume the 8" is a more capable driver, and I know it is more efficient because it has the same output as a pair of the 6.5's.

 

I'm in the 8" court, but I'm sure the dual 65 is a fine speaker. I would not lay it or any of them down, however.

Well the two 6.5's are a lot farther apart than the one 8. So it seems logical that the dispersion pattern for two speakers would be greater than for one speaker. Or maybe I'm oversimplifying it.

 

That's not how it works though. MTM designs have pretty limited vertical dispersion of the tweeter and/or are subject to comb filtering on the woofers when situated vertically. Horizontal dispersion should be about the same. The only question in terms of something like this would be if the 8" driver is crossed over low enough to prevent beaming, which is where the output above a certain frequency narrows to less than 90x90 degrees.

Supposedly there is an overly simple rule of thumb you can use, the speed of sound in inches per second divided by the driver diameter in inches, which is 13,500" / 8", to see what frequency it starts beaming at. That's 1,687 hz and the cone is actually smaller than that. Horizontal dispersion with that 8" just shouldn't be an issue unless it's crossed over WAY above that. Having two 6.5's isn't going to help horizontally. It may actually get much worse vertically, or horizontally if you situate it as a center channel. With this in mind, the single 8" isn't really inferior.

 

I think the actual cone diameter is what you use here. On that 8" driver, the cone width is probably something like 6.5". In that case the crossover would need to be well above 2,077 Hz.  Even if the crossover is 2.5KHz, I wouldn't call beaming a problem on this speaker. 

Edited by mustang guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Their 8" in-walls usually have the best bass response and cost the most. That's just how it is. I wouldn't consider one better just because it has two smaller woofers over one larger one.

 

I think the actual cone diameter is what you use here. On that 8" driver, the cone width is probably something like 6.5". In that case the crossover would need to be well above 2,077 Hz.  Even if the crossover is 2.5KHz, I wouldn't call beaming a problem on this speaker.

OK, so the 6800 is capable of producing better bass, that goes without question. And according to your formulas the dispersion of the 6602 is no better than the 6800. But is there no benefit to the 6602 of having a twitter + mid instead of just a tweeter on the 6800?

And in a HT situation where you're leaning on the sub(s) for bass, will the 6800 have a discernable bass advantage?

Here's my situation. I cannot use the 6800 as surrounds because they are too wide to fit in one or two spots, so I have to use the 6602. For LCR I have enough room to use either 6800 or 6602. Taking price out of the equation should I use the 6602 for LCR so that all seven speakers match? Or should I use the 6800?

For two channel music the 6800 is clearly superior but in my situation which do you think is best option for LCR?

Edited by uscpsycho
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do like the 6802's due to the 3-way design, not solely due to the dual woofers. Not much sense in having 2-ways up front and 3-ways behind you. The midrange should be smoother and you can get those 6803's to match everywhere and have 3-ways in all speakers, would be real nice.

Edited by MetropolisLakeOutfitters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There isn't anything wrong with the 6602. They may or may not be better than the 6800. If that's what fits, then by all means use it. If there is a sonic difference between the 6.5 and the 8, it would likely have more to do with the 3way design. I still have no idea why the 6800 is more, but it must be something about that 8" driver, because the 6.5 speaker not only has 2 extra drivers, a squawker and a second woofer, but the network for a 3 way has twice as many components than a 2 way network.

 

In-wall LCR are not going to be nearly as good as even a set of bookshelves on stands. Those are also called your "Mains" and for good reason. I would never recommend wall speakers for mains. The same goes for inwall subs. The only way that works is if you plan and build an IB sub system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In-wall LCR are not going to be nearly as good as even a set of bookshelves on stands. Those are also called your "Mains" and for good reason. I would never recommend wall speakers for mains. The same goes for inwall subs. The only way that works is if you plan and build an IB sub system.

 

You're over generalizing a bit here. I am sure the 6602 are better than lots of bookshelf speaker options. And when you find a bookshelf that is a little better than the 6602 there is probably a higher end in-wall that is better than this bookshelf, and so on.

 

I have no room to put speakers behind my screen unless they go in-wall. So I also have a decision to make between ideally-positioned in-wall speakers behind an acoustically transparent screen or towers/bookshelves that are way off to the sides or down low under the screen, neither of which is ideal for HT soundstage.

 

I don't have the luxury of doing everything the best way so I have to balance between speaker sound quality and price and location. I think when you're immersed in a movie you're going to appreciate a correct soundstage more than you are going to notice acoustic performance. And it will help that I will have an in-room sub. No in-wall subs for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only in-walls that I'm pretty confident can easily hang with towers when comparing apples to apples is James. You're looking at an enclosed aircraft grade aluminum housing while being blocked up and reinforced with studs though. When somebody orders towers, I think they more or less just take an in-wall and put it in a box. :)

These will be fine though, midbass won't be insane or anything but otherwise there's nothing wrong with them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I totally get what you mean but you're still generalizing. You're implying that the James are the only in-wall that can hang with any tower. I'm sure you're thinking "audiophile grade towers" but there are some pretty crappy towers out there too. And there are some pretty good in-walls. I'm sure there are plenty of good in-walls that are better than plenty of crappy towers.

 

It is semantics, but we're on the Internet here and there might be a lot of dumb people among us. You don't want someone reading your post in the future and thinking that some $100/pair towers are automatically better than $500/each in-wall speakers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...