Polk db6501 or Cadence CWM6KIT

[barbaroja 10+ year member]

Price diff aside... opinions on SQ? Who has heard both? Looking for bang for the buck comps.

Click to read more...

 

[dontbeaprix 10+ year member]

Neither is great, depends on what you want. Those polks don't sound that great and I have never heard the cadence, but have heard they are ok for their price.

 

[Sleeklsc 5,000+ posts]

I like my Cadences. I'm doing them no justice on h/u power but I just wanted replacements for my stock jbl system.(complete rewire, f+r sets, 3200dvd ect) They sound good enough to me going on 6 months.

Diyma has a decent thread on them.

 

[pro-rabbit 5,000+ posts]

I have 5 sets of Cadence in the demo truck. Sound amazing and work very well. Good mid bass and decent highs. I keep good clean power to them and from mid to high volume levels they sound great.

My vote for best in the price range.

 

[barbaroja 10+ year member]

Thanks guys. Anyone has heard the ZRS6k from Cadence? Nearly same price range as the polks...

 

[pro-rabbit 5,000+ posts]

I have and they are pretty good as well.

The CWM6KIT from what I have played with/tested is one of the best you can get on a budget. I wish the crossovers where a bit more adjustable, but with in consideration they do the job very well. If you use them just make sure you can fit a massive 6.5 speaker lol

 

[barbaroja 10+ year member]

thanks rabbit. I used a real sample of a CWM6KIT to do a fit-test in the front doors. The magnet hits exactly in the center of the window guide. Its large mounting depth (3") will be surely be an issue to fit them... spacers will be needed. Those ZRS are a little bit thinner, 2.75" depth.

Whats your subjective sound comparison between both?

 

[dontbeaprix 10+ year member]

The zrs series are much better and i swear i saw some for cheap.

Amazon.com: Brand New Cadence ZRS65KS 6.5" 300 Watt (pair) Super Slim 2 Way Component Speaker System w/ Silk Dome Neodymium Tweeters: Car Electronics

 

[barbaroja 10+ year member]

Yesterday I heard the CWM6KIT wich were installed on my brothers car. They are powered by a 125RMS/channel cadence flash amp. These are my impressions. Have in mind I am a music producer and happen to spend a lot of hours daily listening to calibrated studio monitors in a acoustically treated room with a subwoofer set up with calibration mic. Not that its the best studio in the planet with the best monitors, is a standard one, but is finely tuned.

They take a lot of power to sound good.

They seem to have a hole in the middle. Voice was lost, as if the crossover freq would cause a dip in the vocals and the tweets handle the audio from way too low.

The tweets sound harsh to my ears. Could not tolerate the string hits from "Justice - DVNO", those in the studio sound perfect, you can raise the level a lot and u do not get tired. Maybe they also sound harsh because of the above reason, too.

Midbass was nice and clear, very defined. I can see the common person that does not want a sub very happy with these. But, it was a little exaggerated for my taste. Some bass notes would hit harder in that midbass than others.

Clarity in the mids... well that was not clarity for my taste.

So, if these are the best value comps in the category, I have decided not to go budget with the comps. If I have to spend more I prefer holding on and making a better choice. I am also considering an active setup now (studio monitors are active and I really like them). My amp is a cadence 5-channel F100-5 wich would put 100WRMS and handle the sub apart. Also decided not to use rears wich would free up some $ for better comps or the active setup.

Opinions welcome.

 

[pro-rabbit 5,000+ posts]

Yesterday I heard the CWM6KIT wich were installed on my brothers car. They are powered by a 125RMS/channel cadence flash amp. These are my impressions. Have in mind I am a music producer and happen to spend a lot of hours daily listening to calibrated studio monitors in a acoustically treated room with a subwoofer set up with calibration mic. Not that its the best studio in the planet with the best monitors, is a standard one, but is finely tuned.
They take a lot of power to sound good.

They seem to have a hole in the middle. Voice was lost, as if the crossover freq would cause a dip in the vocals and the tweets handle the audio from way too low.

The tweets sound harsh to my ears. Could not tolerate the string hits from "Justice - DVNO", those in the studio sound perfect, you can raise the level a lot and u do not get tired. Maybe they also sound harsh because of the above reason, too.

Midbass was nice and clear, very defined. I can see the common person that does not want a sub very happy with these. But, it was a little exaggerated for my taste. Some bass notes would hit harder in that midbass than others.

Clarity in the mids... well that was not clarity for my taste.

So, if these are the best value comps in the category, I have decided not to go budget with the comps. If I have to spend more I prefer holding on and making a better choice. I am also considering an active setup now (studio monitors are active and I really like them). My amp is a cadence 5-channel F100-5 wich would put 100WRMS and handle the sub apart. Also decided not to use rears wich would free up some $ for better comps or the active setup.

Opinions welcome.

That seems to be a fair analysis of them. If you put that much thought into the setup, then yes you will not be able to purchase things on a budget as with anything else budget minded some corners are cut.

The only issues I found from the CWM6kit are the crossover they come with is lacking which causes a good deal of issues with poor crossover points and virtually no way to be adjustable. Also the tweeters are not all that great, but again for the price they cost it is very hard to complain with the over all sound they reproduce.

I would also say before passing excessive judgement on them try to get a listen from another installed pair. You would be surprised to hear the difference from one application to the next. I'm not saying it would sound better or worse, just saying there would be a difference.

With that said, going active is a much better solution if you plan to purchase amplifiers and/or equalizer/crossovers that will do exactly what needs to be done. There is the issue for me. When I was doing SQ I was very very particular with my own car about processing and that can get pricey depending on your tastes. When debating SQ you have to try and debate a price point as well. Budget SQ is nothing more then a "clear"(to the user) sound at loud levels.

 

[barbaroja 10+ year member]

Thanks rabbit. Good call.

 

[zako 10+ year member]

Give your speakers at least 10 hours of play time before listening critically. Some say 25 hours is where most break-in happens, and 50 hours is fully broken in. Having said that, if you're still not satisfied, buy speakers with bi-amp capable crossovers or go fully active. This way you will have a lot more control over each of the individual four speakers. If your head unit has time alignment, you could achieve some very good results and probably better compared to passive setups that cost more than twice as much. Some speakers with bi-amp crossovers are very affordable. For example, Alpine SPR-60c and RF Power series components. A lot of speaker manufacturers just don't put a lot of thought into passive crossover design in cheaper speaker sets.

 

[pro-rabbit 5,000+ posts]

Give your speakers at least 10 hours of play time before listening critically. Some say 25 hours is where most break-in happens, and 50 hours is fully broken in. Having said that, if you're still not satisfied, buy speakers with bi-amp capable crossovers or go fully active. This way you will have a lot more control over each of the individual four speakers. If your head unit has time alignment, you could achieve some very good results and probably better compared to passive setups that cost more than twice as much. Some speakers with bi-amp crossovers are very affordable. For example, Alpine SPR-60c and RF Power series components. A lot of speaker manufacturers just don't put a lot of thought into passive crossover design in cheaper speaker sets.

This is also great advice. Even some cheaper MA Audio have bi-amp crossovers. Personally I like the control of being active and using my alpine for TA and such.

 

[barbaroja 10+ year member]

My brothers CWM6KITs have been used for about 4 months now. I think they are fully broken in.

I am considering this route: Use an active crossover box such as Kicker KX2 to split the signal before it reaches the amp. Then in the amp use the filters and take the low lows off the mids. For the tweets, the KX2 filter would be sufficient. For the sub I would only use the HU output directly to the amp, also using the amp crossover LPF that I tested today and worked well to my ears.

Then for the midrange and tweets do my homework, maybe thats another thread task.

Only lil issue I can think of right now is thatthe amp uses a 12bD/oct filter and the kickers use a 18dB/oct. With some fine tuning should be enough, I think.

What do you guys think of the setup. No time alignment in plans, tho. I hope the crossover is not detrimental to sound or time factors.

 

[barbaroja 10+ year member]

Opps sorry looks like I rushed it. Was reading the KX2 manual, and only does HP up to 300hz. No good then.