# Please don't shut this thread



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

I didn't realize the DSP thread had been shut, till I tried to post a response. I'm carrying it forward here and request the Mods to let this run for a bit.



Andy Wehmeyer said:


> This is precisely why I killed the link. After reading it again, I realized that all of what I know from having been able to ask questions of the world's leading acousticians, mathematicians. systems and transducer engineers while I was at Harman combined with 30 years of experience as a retail installer, product manager, and enthusiast was all complete and useless ******** that just steers people in the wrong direction.
> 
> Thanks SQNUT for pointing that out so clearly.


Andy believe it or not, I have tremendous respect for you and I have lost count of the number of times I have said that in various threads. 100% of the technical stuff I talk about while helping others, is learned from you. I have never questioned your credentials, c'mon man I'm 50 and I have some perspective, I'm not a stupid teenager / millennial. 

I would be pushing it if I claimed to have achieved 25% in my field compared to what you have in yours. Find me one post where I have directly or indirectly questioned your credentials and I will leave this forum. In my seven years here I have never seen you post your credentials like you have above and I apologize if I have driven you to this. But are you sure that the line between questioning your credentials and having a different view point, is still as sharp as it should be?

TBH we both have been talking at each other, through other peoples posts. If it's ok with you, can we please talk with each other for a bit without pre conceived notions?


----------



## V 2the C (Mar 12, 2015)

Sqnut, that was a stand up move on your part regardless of the documented dumbassery you've shown toward him. Hopefully he will reach out to you and you guys can fix it through pm.


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

SQnut,
Email me at [email protected]. We can discuss this offline. I'm not going to argue with you here anymore. My objective on this forum has always been to be helpful and to provide answers that are true and that can be or have been proven and processes that work. I'm not going to change that and I'm not going to start giving information that promotes audio tomfoolery a pass. I'm still learning and I'm completely open to being shown a better way.


----------



## imjustjason (Jun 26, 2006)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> My objective on this forum has always been to be helpful and to provide answers that are true and that can be or have been proven and processes that work. I'm not going to change that and I'm not going to start giving information that promotes audio tomfoolery a pass.


This is why the other thread was closed. I didn't close it, but I know it was closed because it had turned into a bash Andy thread and he's done too much for the members of this forum to allow it to continue.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

imjustjason said:


> This is why the other thread was closed. I didn't close it, but I know it was closed because it had turned into a bash Andy thread and he's done too much for the members of this forum to allow it to continue.


The other thread had turned into a bash Andy thread. Since when has having a different POV counted as an attack? NO one is questioning Andy's contribution or his credentials. I'm just questioning Andy's opinion on tuning by ear and giving _my_ perspective why all auto tunes don't get you where you can get with manual tuning. Yes the debate got heated, but it takes two to tango.

On the contrary I was the one attacked twice, to the point where a separate thread was started and even there I clarified I wasn't offended. I don't see things the way you do. :shrug:


----------



## Victor_inox (Apr 27, 2012)

imjustjason said:


> This is why the other thread was closed. I didn't close it, but I know it was closed because it had turned into a bash Andy thread and he's done too much for the members of this forum to allow it to continue.


Right, only kiss Andy`s ass threads allowed....


Is there list of members with whom we not allowed to disagree? I`d love to see that list to stay out of trouble.


----------



## imjustjason (Jun 26, 2006)

sqnut said:


> I don't see things the way you do. :shrug:


Where did I state my position? I just presented the reason that the thread was closed. Did you see the part where I said "I didn't close it"?


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> SQnut,
> Email me at [email protected]. We can discuss this offline. I'm not going to argue with you here anymore. My objective on this forum has always been to be helpful and to provide answers that are true and that can be or have been proven and processes that work. I'm not going to change that and I'm not going to start giving information that promotes audio tomfoolery a pass. I'm still learning and I'm completely open to being shown a better way.


Andy,

The way I see it, I was attacked twice publicly and I'd like to put my POV and have a fair discussion on the same forum. If that is unacceptable, there's no point taking it to email, it's not that important. May I ask how you're open to being shown a better way if you've already labeled it as tomfoolery.

Take care

Arun


----------



## imjustjason (Jun 26, 2006)

Victor_inox said:


> Right, only kiss Andy`s ass threads allowed....
> 
> 
> Is there list of members with whom we not allowed to disagree? I`d love to see that list to stay out of trouble.


Dude?!

<=== messenger


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

imjustjason said:


> Where did I state my position? I just presented the reason that the thread was closed. Did you see the part where I said "I didn't close it"?


Doesn't seem like you're disagreeing with the other mods or whoever shut it. 



imjustjason said:


> ......... but I know it was closed because it had turned into a bash Andy thread and he's done too much for the members of this forum to allow it to continue.


----------



## benny z (Mar 17, 2008)

nuthuggers.


----------



## Victor_inox (Apr 27, 2012)

imjustjason said:


> Dude?!
> 
> <=== messenger


 Just saying out loud what others think to themselves or discuss outside of forum to avoid authoritarian censorship.


----------



## V 2the C (Mar 12, 2015)

At least Sqnut is trying to resolve this. I was born, bred in Ky, not north nor south, so naturally I've settled on the fence regarding this seemingly childish back and forth.


----------



## imjustjason (Jun 26, 2006)

sqnut said:


> Doesn't seem like you're disagreeing with the other mods or whoever shut it.





Victor_inox said:


> Just saying out loud what others think to themselves or discuss outside of forum to avoid authoritarian censorship.


----------



## hot9dog (Mar 23, 2013)

I would love to go to a "kegger" with all the characters on this forum, it would be wild ride and the venue would be TRASHED afterwards! LOLOLOL


----------



## benny z (Mar 17, 2008)

hot9dog said:


> I would love to go to a "kegger" with all the characters on this forum, it would be wild ride and the venue would be TRASHED afterwards! LOLOLOL


come to finals in october. that's pretty much how it goes.


----------



## Victor_inox (Apr 27, 2012)

imjustjason said:


>


 Not a single written forum rule was broken yet thread got closed without warning. What that is if not censorship and favoritism?


----------



## Guest (Jan 29, 2016)

benny z said:


> come to finals in october. that's pretty much how it goes.


LOL...


SQNUT.... congrats to you sir for standing your ground... :thumbsup:


----------



## claydo (Oct 1, 2012)

I never saw any "Andy bashing" only people arguing their point of view, one member getting heated, taking the disagreement as a challenge to their long valued experience, getting butt hurt, then lashing out. As a matter of a fact it seemed to be sqnut against the world, and he remained completely calm..........hmmm, whatever.....we all know andy's career and experience, we all value his knowledge and contributions, we all hang on the edge awaiting his product anouncements, does this make it off limits to question him? At the end of the day he's just a dude, a very knowledgeable dude.......


----------



## imjustjason (Jun 26, 2006)

sqnut said:


> Doesn't seem like you're disagreeing with the other mods or whoever shut it.





Victor_inox said:


> Not a single written forum rule was broken yet thread got closed without warning. What that is if not censorship and favoritism?


Again, let me re-iterate this point, I was just explaining why it was closed. I did not close it, I did not state agreement or disagreement with the closing, I merely stated the fact of why it was closed. I did not have to do so, but I feel that the members of this forum should know why. I am only a small messenger boy that has no opinions in any of these matters.


----------



## Victor_inox (Apr 27, 2012)

claydo said:


> I never saw any "Andy bashing" only people arguing their point of view, one member getting heated, taking the disagreement as a challenge to their long valued experience, getting butt hurt, then lashing out. As a matter of a fact it seemed to be sqnut against the world, and he remained completely calm..........hmmm, whatever.....we all know andy's career and experience, we all value his knowledge and contributions, we all hang on the edge awaiting his product anouncements, does this make it off limits to question him? At the end of the day he's just a dude, a very knowledgeable dude.......


 that`s how i feel about all of it.


----------



## Victor_inox (Apr 27, 2012)

imjustjason said:


> Again, let me re-iterate this point, I was just explaining why it was closed. I did not close it, I did not state agreement or disagreement with the closing, I merely stated the fact of why it was closed. I did not have to do so, but I feel that the members of this forum should know why. I am only a small messenger boy that has no opinions in any of these matters.


 Understood. Nobody blamed you, certainly not me. sorry if you got that vibe.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

imjustjason said:


> Again, let me re-iterate this point, I was just explaining why it was closed. I did not close it, I did not state agreement or disagreement with the closing, I merely stated the fact of why it was closed. I did not have to do so, but I feel that the members of this forum should know why. I am only a small messenger boy that has no opinions in any of these matters.


No issues from my end.


----------



## imjustjason (Jun 26, 2006)

Group hug... 

now back to arguing amongst yourselves.


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

OK, SQnut. 

The process i suggest for tuning is geared toward retail implementation of audio systems. For something to be a retail solution, it has to be predictable, repeatable and efficient. We use all kinds of means for all kinds of other processes to make use of our most acute and most highly developed sense--eyesight. That's what the test equipment we use for audio tuning is designed to do. The examples in my document of the speedometer and speed limit sign, the stove and even the shoe salesman and the Brannock device were all intended to make this point. Even volume controls often include some kind of way to determine VISUALLY where the volume control is set. 

My document was also written originally as a powerpoint presentation for RETAIL installers who need a process and a defined goal in order to provide better service to their customers. It's a recipe for getting to an acceptable end with some room for adding tweaks to accommodate listener preference in a way that allows the customer to be involved in the process in a predictable way. 

The document and the presentation were designed to be persuasive. It's important to me that the people who are in charge of the final performance of systems that customers purchase are better able to achieve an acceptable level of performance and remain in business. There are too many "professionals" touting ridiculous tips and tricks that often work in isolated cases and are then presented as acceptable in all cases. Many beginning installers and technicians take all of these tips and tricks, put them all in their basket of tools and deploy them without an understanding of when they are likely to provide the intended outcome. This process can be a disaster for the shop, the installer and, ultimately, the customer. 

The fact that the ultimate evaluation of the audio system by the customer is subjective doesn't mean that all of the principles by which a system is designed and built are also subjective. Too many times, the suggestion that appreciation is subjective is simply a foil for protecting the installer's, judge's or enthusiast's reputation as a "golden ears". This "golden ears" thing is a huge turn-off for many customers who choose not to purchase a great system for fear that they aren't sufficiently qualified or talented enough to hear the difference. This doesn't serve anyone. The golden ears thing also helps to perpetuate fraud in the audio industry. "Professional courtesy" paid to the hucksters by qualified engineers and marketers also perpetuates the fraud.

Many of you here are enthusiasts. For many enthusiasts, the end is not simply to build a great system and enjoy listening to it. The constant experimentation and constant tuning is the end rather than the means. I get that. I also understand that, for an enthusiast who DIYs, building a system that suits the builder's preference is the goal. However, listener preference CAN and has been correlated with OBJECTIVE measurements. That means that there is a baseline and there can be an OBJECTIVE process for achieving it. That's what I'm pitching in the interest of predictable success that also provides for personal preference.

With that said, humans design processes for validating and explaining what we experience. An RTA shows us on a screen the levels of sound at various frequencies. An impulse response measurement shows us on a screen the level of energy at various points in time. A combination of these measurements and some math can show us on a screen the phase of a signal, measured at some point in space, at various frequencies. An understanding of these measurements help us verify what we hear. They can also help us determine how to get to the baseline quickly and predictably. Are they a substitute for simply using our ears? Of course they are. Because they are a substitute and because achieving that baseline is a collection of processes designed to achieve an objective that can be correlated with preference, that process works. 

A 31-band EQ is not sufficient for achieving that baseline. If that's the tool you're using, then achieving performance that approaches that baseline is a process of choosing from a collection of compromises that, when added together, are the best POSSIBLE solution set, given the limitations of the tools and the ability of the tuner to iterate his way to an acceptable solution. If you're tuning your own car, then you get to choose the point at which you say, "I've completed the job". If you're doing the work for someone else, then they are ultimately the judge of whether your solution set is acceptable. If your best solution falls short of the baseline and your customer won't accept it, then what do you do? 

Too many times, we say, "the customer needs to be educated". Or the system and the ultimate performance is constrained by the designer to his level of expertise. This leaves customers who want better solutions without a place to get them. 

My little mission is to spread what I've been fortunate (even lucky) enough to have learned around so more people can be better satisfied more predictably. 

When you say, "We only know 40% of what accounts for good sound", who are you talking about? When I read things like that used to discount objectivity in favor of subjectivity it's hard for me to let it pass because it perpetuates the "basket of tricks" method which fails more often than it succeeds.


----------



## MacLeod (Aug 16, 2009)

Gotta say this is kinda sad. Not sure I care for the "I've been doing this longer than you and you never wrote an algorithm so you don't know ****" mentality. And now a thread gets shut down because some members disagree with one guy? 

Trust me, I've learned a ton from Andy dating back to the Carsound days and I'm sure I'll continue to learn from him but the idea that winning contests doesn't mean anything unless an MS8 tuned the system and it has pretty graphs I disagree with. I agree that you're probably not going to be able to fix all the errors and peaks and valleys by ear and will need to use some measurements but I don't agree that measurements and algorithm are the only way to tune a Car right. I also think sometimes we can over think this hobby and end up being too smart by half. I've heard way too many systems rival home systems that were tuned by a lot of hard work and some RTA usage and without $100,000 in measuring devices and algorithms to believe otherwise. 

This ain't religion. You can disagree with a brother and still have mad respect for him without being "full of ****". 



Andy Wehmeyer said:


> {snip}


Now this I can about totally agree with.


----------



## Victor_inox (Apr 27, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> This ain't religion. You can disagree with a brother and still have mad respect for him without being "full of ****".



You don`t even have to have mad respect for him as far as you stay civil.


----------



## benny z (Mar 17, 2008)

MacLeod said:


> Gotta say this is kinda sad. Not sure I care for the "I've been doing this longer than you and you never wrote an algorithm so you don't know ****" mentality. And now a thread gets shut down because some members disagree with one guy?
> 
> Trust me, I've learned a ton from Andy dating back to the Carsound days and I'm sure I'll continue to learn from him but the idea that winning contests doesn't mean anything unless an MS8 tuned the system and it has pretty graphs I disagree with. I agree that you're probably not going to be able to fix all the errors and peaks and valleys by ear and will need to use some measurements but I don't agree that measurements and algorithm are the only way to tune a car right. I also think sometimes we can over think this hobby and end up being too smart by half. I've heard way too many systems rival home systems that were tuned by a lot of hard work and some RTA usage and without $100,000 in measuring devices and algorithms to believe otherwise.
> 
> This ain't religion. You can disagree with a brother and still have mad respect for him without being "full of ****".


precisely.


----------



## Victor_inox (Apr 27, 2012)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> The process i suggest for tuning is geared toward retail implementation of audio systems. For something to be a retail solution, it has to be predictable, repeatable and efficient.


 This is absolute truth in retail.


----------



## Mic10is (Aug 20, 2007)

I dont recall anywhere where Andy said that using an RTA or any other device replaced using your ears. In Fact, every section mentions going back and listening to the system. 
The only time he really ever mentioned to not use your ears is listen is when the system is 1st fired up, unless its to verify that every speaker is producing sound.

At the end of the day, what Andy posted is a tried and true method to get to the end product faster and more reliably than just sitting for hours on end using just your ears.
a Machine doesnt get tired or fatigued. Unless its damaged, a machine doesnt change how the information is processed, your ears do. hearing changes and fluctuates throughout the day.


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

MacLeod said:


> Gotta say this is kinda sad. Not sure I care for the "I've been doing this longer than you and you never wrote an algorithm so you don't know ****" mentality. And now a thread gets shut down because some members disagree with one guy?
> 
> Trust me, I've learned a ton from Andy dating back to the Carsound days and I'm sure I'll continue to learn from him but the idea that winning contests doesn't mean anything unless an MS8 tuned the system and it has pretty graphs I disagree with.


This is not what I was suggesting.


----------



## Darth SQ (Sep 17, 2010)

I closed it With the intent of it only being for a few days or so to let everyone just chill out and get back on topic.
I'll close this one two if the knives come back out again
Play nice gentlemen and we'll consider merging this thread with the other.


Bret
PPI-ART COLLECTOR


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

I missed that thread, maybe this is why the boards have been so stagnant lately. 

I love all of ya! I enjoy talking to you guys so very much and appreciate all the time everyone puts on the boards. 
Andy


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Mic10is said:


> I dont recall anywhere where Andy said that using an RTA or any other device replaced using your ears. In Fact, every section mentions going back and listening to the system.
> The only time he really ever mentioned to not use your ears is listen is when the system is 1st fired up, unless its to verify that every speaker is producing sound.
> 
> At the end of the day, what Andy posted is a tried and true method to get to the end product faster and more reliably than just sitting for hours on end using just your ears.
> a Machine doesnt get tired or fatigued. Unless its damaged, a machine doesnt change how the information is processed, your ears do. hearing changes and fluctuates throughout the day.


Just two quick points. First, the mic and ears hear reflections differently. Secondly, the resolution at which you measure is very different from the resolution at which you hear. Measurements are a good way to get in the ballpark, but beyond that it's largely about tuning by ear.


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

I'd agree that after getting in the ballpark, it's about VALIDATING using your ears. I go back to the test equipment to retune after validating that something has been missed. 

I just did that in my car. When I tuned the first time, a phase problem appeared to me to be something else because I ran out of time and didn't MEASURE it. Had I measured, I would have know. When i listened again, it occurred to me that it was a phase problem. I measured it, improved it, verified the improvement with the test equipment and then verified it by listening. The point at which tuning by ear takes over is the point at which one doesn't have the tools to use some objective gear. That point is different for different people.


----------



## claydo (Oct 1, 2012)

I'm really thinking there isn't much arguement here anyways......I believe we all are pretty close on our tuning methods.......we're just picking nits and fine points to be honest.....lmao.

I mean those who have access to more expensive measuring mediums, rather justified by retail production needs, employment, or just deep pockets, by all means use them. Those who don't have access have trained there ears to get to a happy place, either way I don't think anyone is arguing for tuning solely by ear.....or solely by computer and mic....


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

sqnut said:


> Measurements are a good way to get in the ballpark, but beyond that it's largely about tuning by ear.


I don't think anyone disagrees with this. I've been saying it for as long as I've been writing tutorials on how to use TrueRTA and posting measurement data. Andy has practically said as much. Numerous others in this forum tend to agree. I don't know anyone who tunes via an electronic process only and then never listens to it. 

The disagreement comes in at this: where does the 'ballpark' end. IOW, where the split between measuring and ear comes in. This is where the process needs to be discussed. 

For some, they use impulse response to set delay. Some set it by ear (I do). For some the RTA is 85% of the EQ process because they don't have a trained ear or trust themselves to stray too far from a target curve (this is a problem for another discussion). Some use the RTA to identify approximate level differences and particular problem areas and some use the RTA to simply back up what they thought they heard. Some go a step further by using decay (I've posted numerous times about this in my build log for identifying room modes). 

In short, there are NUMEROUS ways to use measurements. And your knowledge/experience/comfort level all determine just how much you rely on your ear or a measurement. And this is exactly where we as a group could use more discussion of the hows/why's of a method we use instead of being total ****ing douchebags to each other about who's method is the best... because rarely does anyone say more than "I use an RTA". "RTA" has become to broad of a term. So when someone says that, maybe provide some details (ie; spatially averaged measurements, a single impulse sweep, etc). 

We start working as a group together instead of a bunch of braggarts about who can 'ear tune' a system or who has the best method for a mic and we MIGHT _finally_ get somewhere.


----------



## Darth SQ (Sep 17, 2010)

ErinH said:


> I don't think anyone disagrees with this. I've been saying it for as long as I've been writing tutorials on how to use TrueRTA and posting measurement data. Andy has practically said as much. Numerous others in this forum tend to agree. I don't know anyone who tunes via an electronic process only and then never listens to it.
> 
> The disagreement comes in at this: where does the 'ballpark' end. IOW, where the split between measuring and ear comes in. This is where the process needs to be discussed.
> 
> ...


Bravo.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

hot9dog said:


> I would love to go to a "kegger" with all the characters on this forum, it would be wild ride and the venue would be TRASHED afterwards! LOLOLOL


oh hell yeah. PARTY AT HOT9DOGS PLACE!



benny z said:


> come to finals in october. that's pretty much how it goes.


you serious?


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

SkizeR said:


> you serious?


I'm pretty sure he's joking. I've been to finals the past 6 years straight and it's never been like that.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

ErinH said:


> I'm pretty sure he's joking. I've been to finals the past 6 years straight and it's never been like that.



photo uploading


----------



## Orion525iT (Mar 6, 2011)

Quick question.

How long does it take to train ones ear for the ability to critically analyze what you are hearing?

For those who have always tuned by ear, I am willing to bet it took years.

When I first started, I tuned by ear because I didn't have the equipment. That only got me so far; starting from scratch and my very limited experience. When I got the ability to measure, things improved massively. There are some (most) of us that don't have the time or energy to dedicate to years of ear training. The best we can do is get 90% of the way there as quickly as possible. IMHO, the best way to do that is with measurements. Then you can spend the rest of your years training to tune by ear. You may get good enough to rely on measurements less and less. But your ears and your mind are not perfect instruments. They are influenced by so many factors. So, even with years of experience and training, measurements can show you things that your ears and mind cannot, especially if you are having a "bad" day.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

I just rta like 100 times and get to know the car how the car sounds and make adjustments based on the cars sonic characteristics. Some cars sound good flatter than others , mine for example has a extereeme house curve with a stron slope down, my wife's can is ruler flat and sounds good (btw I'm digging my new AF midbass and scan be tweet combo) so I would suggest there really is more than one way to skin this cat.


----------



## Victor_inox (Apr 27, 2012)

Orion525iT said:


> Quick question.
> 
> How long does it take to train ones ear for the ability to critically analyze what you are hearing?
> 
> ...


"I'm having a bad bad day
It's about time that I get my way
Steam rolling whatever I see, uh
Despicable me
I'm having a bad bad day
If you take it personal that's ok, 
Watch this is so fun to say, uh
Despicable me


----------



## cjbrownco (Apr 30, 2014)

Subbed :snacks:


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

cjbrownco said:


> Subbed :snacks:


oh so you got your snacks in hand ? Me too. 
Snacks in arms reach of every place in the hose.


----------



## BlackHHR (May 12, 2013)

First out of the box, No body is perfect and we all do things in a very different way. 
Erin figured out something and made it work very well in a confined hostile environment.
They even took personal time to create an online calculator. Thanks !!
Mic also has found the magic to make his car sound very well. He donates his personal time to judge. He gives back to the community also.
Now onto Andy W. Andy has brought a product to market. Andy has a vision of making a car sound very good from all seats. From what I understand this is also the rear seats. Just like if I was sitting watching a movie at home with my family. 
I am sure he will get it figured out. 
He brought up a great point about being able for our retailers to duplicate this process for the end user, every time. 
Andy I support you and wish you very well. What you are trying to accomplish for all seats will not be an easy task. Personally I would like to see that work for the consumer from a retail level, every time. 
I am sure if you keep plugging at it, you will make it happen. It would be a great selling point.

Pobody is nerfect.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

My issue is with the general attitude towards tuning by ear. Can the vast majority do it? No. But it's a skill that can be learned by anyone, if you put the in time and effort. Does that make it a total waste of time? Is it half baked tomfoolery? Is it repeatable? Listen to KP or Aarons car. 

Sure for the vast majority measurements are the fastest way to get into the ballpark. But is it the only way? Let's see. What do we do when setting up a car? Broadly we do:

1. Set the network.
2. Set TA
3. Balance L/R
4. Dial in the base curve and fine tune.

Some do 2 before 3, while some do it the other way. It doesn't make a difference which you do first, because to do it right you will go back and forth between the two a bit. So Lets take TA. You can measure with HI and other tools, you can measure with a tape and get in the ball park or mark the acoustic centre of your car with some coloured electrical tape and play full range mono PN playing tweets only and align the image to the acoustic centre, using your ears and eyes. Repeat with the mids and now your mids and tweets are timed right, done. Or you can just play one set of drivers and do the same with an AM talk show like I was taught. Either ways it's a 5 min job. Aaron made a great point that we over complicate things.

Let's look at balancing L/R for a bit. So we use an RTA and mic to measure L&R response and then correct. Let's assume we get it exactly matched, to the point where the two lines overlay each other. Balanced? The question to ask here is, at what resolution are the two sides matching? +/- 2db? 1db? 0.5db? I don't know and maybe Andy can comment on this. The longer you tune by ear, the better you get at picking small differences. Let's say the threshold is +/- 0.1-0.2 db. Now the balanced RTA can mean that 7 frequencies are hotter on the left by 0.1-0.4 db while 8 are hotter on the right by an equal margin. Fuzzy imaging.

For me the quickest, most accurate and repeatable way to balance L/R is to again mark the acoustic centre and then balance each frequency to the centre using my ears and eyes. This time I'm doing it at whatever resolution I'm hearing at.

One last thing on the mic. Based on how we hear, reflections make the incident sound louder. So about 500 hz and up where reflections are beginning to kick in perceived loudness and measured loudness can mean different things and this will impact the shape of the overall curve if you are trying to keep say 1 khz and 500 hz at similar perceived loudness. The mic doesn't hear like our ears.

Dialing in the final tonality from whatever house curve is ALL about what you're hearing. If 600 and 800 hz are a touch honky and grainy because they need to be cut 0.3 db, your ears will you that your RTA may not even show that peak. The more solid your ref and the more defects you hear the better the sound gets. You have to get intuitive with your eq, based on what you're hearing and hence what you need to correct. You tune to what sounds the more correct to the original recording played on your ref.

My simple point in conclusion is that there are many competitors on this forum, how many have slaved over a tune for weeks and then run it by someone like a KP or Eldridge and have them improve things by a significant margin in 10 mins without really measuring anything? Aaron is another who can do it. Just as they can take any auto tune and make it better in 10 mts. Tuning by ear is not a waste of time or tomfoolery once you know what you're doing, it is fairly quick and repeatable. Yes it is an alternate way but please don't rubbish or decry it. I absolutely do not get the implied assumption that it's ok to to use your ears to validate but not for tuning. 

[edit] FWIW to the best of my knowledge, the only thing Aaron uses uses for measuring is a Radio Shack SPL meter. Look at his sig. [edit]


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Orion525iT said:


> Quick question.
> 
> How long does it take to train ones ear for the ability to critically analyze what you are hearing?
> 
> ...


I could be wrong but I think it would be impossible for the most part. I think and I could be wrong , but unless a person has a reference system that he is used to listening to to distinguish the spectral balance it wouldn't be possible. 

If I have a current system that is flat and I listen to it a lot I can quickly dial another system to be close. Very close. If I don't have a system on hand and jump in a car with 30 or more bands. I can make it sound good but far from correct. 

There's good sounding cars and correct sounding cars. We prefer correct and I believe we need out measurements and data to get it fully dialed in where you can tell its correct. Otherwise we pick up on reflections or other anomalies that makes us loose the ability to get it fully right. By ear.


----------



## Victor_inox (Apr 27, 2012)

It's easier to dial by eyes than ears.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G925A using Tapatalk


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Victor_inox said:


> It's easier to dial by eyes than ears.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G925A using Tapatalk


You use both and it makes sense because the two are used to working together. They do 100% of the time we're awake.


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

Dude let it go. You got made to look like a fool, suck it up


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

SQnut, validating a process is simple no matter whether the process uses ears or instruments. In order to validate it, you simply define an objective goal and measure then number of times you can achieve the goal within some defined margin of error against some benchmark of consistency. That benchmark can be some scientific analysis or it can be a matter of pleasing some particular critic. If the goal is a scientific analysis that can be documented, then it can be disseminated easily to others. If it's to please a critic, then it is more difficult to disseminate. That critic has to be present for the evaluation. In both cases, the goal is defined and the results of the process are measured against the goal.

If the goal is completely subjective and not consistent, then no process can be validated. Winning a SQ contest where the judging is subjective but constrained is pleasing a critic where the critic is provided some objective criteria against which he is supposed to make a subjective determination. Is it valuable? Sure. Is it a process that lends itself to a clearly defined objective besides winning? That's debatable. 

For me, the VALUE of the process is whether it can be taught to someone else and implemented successfully and expeditiously by the person learning the process. 

Let's say I'm teaching someone to make a pizza and they ask, "How much salt should I add?" The answer, "one teaspoon" is more useful than, "you have to taste it to determine that" because the first instruction doesn't depend on the acuity of someone's sense of taste, which changes with experience. If the amount of salt in the dough is too great, it doesn't rise. If it's too little, it rises too much. There's a range in which it doesn't matter because the dough works well enough. The answer "one teaspoon" isn't intended to get someone within that margin, it's intended to provide the OPTIMUM amount. Why force the guy who's learning to make dough to fail over and over and over when simply using the teaspoon better ensures success?


----------



## Victor_inox (Apr 27, 2012)

Let's say I'm teaching someone to make a pizza and they ask said:


> Never seen a successful cook to follow recipe precisely. Each and everyone of them use their guts.
> Not the case in fast food chains.
> How would any entrepreneur position himself on the market as fast food or gourmet restaurant is up to that person, there is no really ground in between.


----------



## MacLeod (Aug 16, 2009)

Victor_inox said:


> Never seen a successful cook to follow recipe precisely. Each and everyone of them use their guts.
> Not the case in fast food chains.
> How would any entrepreneur position himself on the market as fast food or gourmet restaurant is up to that person, there is no really ground in between.


I think I get what he's saying. Andy's not saying you have to follow this recipe to make a perfect pizza. However you have to have a "baseline" recipe to make the pizza in the first place and to be able to teach somebody how to make one. You can't just tell the newbie "just add what your gut tells you to" because he's not experienced enough for his gut to tell him anything. 

By having an established baseline to begin with then it's up to the individual cook, or tuner in our case, to add their own adjustments and shape it to their preferences. Without the baseline "recipe" you have no true starting point because every different cook would make something totally different.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

Sq nut, you keep mentioning kirk profits car. How do you know his is tuned by ear? Last I heard, he didn't even tune it (heard Steve cook did, not sure if 100% true though)

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> If the goal is completely subjective and not consistent, then no process can be validated. Winning a SQ contest where the judging is subjective but constrained is pleasing a critic where the critic is provided some objective criteria against which he is supposed to make a subjective determination. Is it valuable? Sure. Is it a process that lends itself to a clearly defined objective besides winning? That's debatable.


How is judging any different from listening to a speaker to see how accurate it is. You can tell the difference between a really good speaker vs a decent one within the first 5-10 secs right? How is this different from what the judge is doing?


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

SkizeR said:


> Sq nut, you keep mentioning kirk profits car. How do you know his is tuned by ear? Last I heard, he didn't even tune it (heard Steve cook did, not sure if 100% true though)
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


I use KP's car as a benchmark. Let's just say I have inside info that he knows how to tune by ear.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

I guess I'll have to trust ya

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## gumbeelee (Jan 3, 2011)

sqnut said:


> I use KP's car as a benchmark. Let's just say I have inside info that he knows how to tune by ear.


I just want to say that sqnut stated an opinion and he totally got bashed for it, andy has been nothing but a help to everyone on this site, but everyone has the right to there own opinion.


----------



## MacLeod (Aug 16, 2009)

For the 2007-2009 seasons, I have it on good authority that Kirk actually hired NASA to tune his system. I never had a chance. I'm still combing through the rules to see if I have any way to appeal.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

sqnut said:


> I use KP's car as a benchmark. Let's just say I have inside info that he knows how to tune by ear.


Kirk lives 30 minutes from me. Cook lives 50 minutes from me. I consider both of them friends. Both use whatever tools they feel is necessary at whatever point they are at to help them. There is no ear only or mic only method with either of them.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

ErinH said:


> Kirk lives 30 minutes from me. Cook lives 50 minutes from me. I consider both of them friends. Both use whatever tools they feel is necessary at whatever point they are at to help them. There is no ear only or mic only method with either of them.


My point is that guys like the ones you mention and Aaron can take any tune in any car and make it better in 10-15 min without really measuring anything. That's tuning by ear in my book. Living close to both you may have experienced what I'm talking about.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

MacLeod said:


> For the 2007-2009 seasons, I have it on good authority that Kirk actually hired NASA to tune his system. I never had a chance. I'm still combing through the rules to see if I have any way to appeal.


What makes NASA any good at tuning?


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

sqnut said:


> How is judging any different from listening to a speaker to see how accurate it is. You can tell the difference between a really good speaker vs a decent one within the first 5-10 secs right? How is this different from what the judge is doing?


I can more easily tell the difference between a good speaker and a bad one by looking at it and looking at an on-axis frequency response measurement, 15, 30, 45 and 60 degree off axis measurement, a distortion plot of fundamental, 2nd and 3rd order at small and large signal and by looking at the Thiele and Small parameters. 

In fact, I could give you a much better assessment that way than by listening.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

sqnut said:


> What makes NASA any good at tuning?


Good question.

It might very well have a good answer, I don't know.

But good question.


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

It's necessary to respect one's right to have an opinion. It isn't a requirement that all opinions should be regarded as valid.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> I can more easily tell the difference between a good speaker and a bad one by looking at it and looking at an on-axis frequency response measurement, 15, 30, 45 and 60 degree off axis measurement, a distortion plot of fundamental, 2nd and 3rd order at small and large signal and by looking at the Thiele and Small parameters.
> 
> In fact, I could give you a much better assessment that way than by listening.


The point I'm making is, assume you didn't have the data. Would you be able to hear the difference between A & B and pick the one that sounds more accurate? Of course you would.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> It isn't a requirement that all opinions should be regarded as valid.


Depends on the frame of reference you're using.


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

When I was demoing my car for people at CES, a notable competitor listened to it. The evaluation by that competitor was that something wasn't right. Of course, it isn't perfect and I wanted to know what the objection was so I could figure out how to change the system to eliminate the objection so I could include the preference of this particular listener in the collection of target customers. When I asked what was objectionable, the response was, "I can't explain it. I don't know. I just trust my ears. Something puts some strange pressure on my ears."

So what's the process for fixing that? That description is one that's sometimes used to indicate phase problems at low frequencies. I agreed with the assessment, especially in the driver's seat and fixed it later.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

sqnut said:


> My point is that guys like the ones you mention and Aaron can take any tune in any car and make it better in 10-15 min without really measuring anything. That's tuning by ear in my book. Living close to both you may have experienced what I'm talking about.


Well, in that case, I tune by ear as well. And for that matter, I've never seen anyone at at a meet or comp jump in someone's car with a laptop/RTA setup for a 10-15 minute session. At this point, these guys have their system to the level where only a 10-15 minute session would be needed. When it's RTA time is typically at the beginning of the process. 

I've been around the hobby for a while now. Attended many comps and GTG's. I've done pretty well in the comp scene, if I am allowed to say so without negative energy being thrown at me. I'm friends with the guys you referenced (though, I haven't seen Aaron in about 2-3 years). I've heard and given feedback on numerous systems and I've been given the reigns to help people out now and again. Heck, I helped Cook beat me in MECA Finals in 2014 when he showed up with his system in total disarray. I was at Cook's shop a couple weeks ago and gave him feedback on his system and one he just built for a customer. If you ask most of the people I've helped tune they'd tell you I tune by ear. They don't see me break out the RTA gear. That's because of what I mentioned above: most of the people who show up to a comp or meet are past that stage. They've already taken the time to get their system tweaked and at that point they just want another ear to help them out and recommend changes. I don't remember the last time I used a mic in someone else's car. A few guys in this thread and the previous one can attest to that (Chris, Clay, etc). However, if I were starting from scratch then at some point a mic _would_ be involved because that takes a LOT of guesswork out of the equation and helps streamline the process. 

I'm pretty sure at this point everyone that I personally know has benefited from even a 5 minute RTA session. People who want to improve their sound are willing to experiment and learn in order to get a better result.


----------



## Orion525iT (Mar 6, 2011)

sqnut said:


> My issue is with the general attitude towards tuning by ear. Can the vast majority do it? No. But it's a skill that can be learned by anyone, if you put the in time and effort...Sure for the vast majority measurements are the fastest way to get into the ballpark.


So you are basically agreeing with the premise that is being leveled against you. The only area that you seem to strongly disagree is where you have created a strawman to refute. It is easy to attack a position that nobody has actually stood upon. 



sqnut said:


> Does that make it a total waste of time? Is it half baked tomfoolery? Is it repeatable? Listen to KP or Aarons car....But is it the only way? ...


^This is what I mean by strawman. Nobody is really making those arguments, are they? If they have (I didn't read every single post), then they are just as foolish.




sqnut said:


> My simple point in conclusion is that there are many competitors on this forum, how many have slaved over a tune for weeks and then run it by someone like a KP or Eldridge and have them improve things by a significant margin in 10 mins without really measuring anything? Aaron is another who can do it. Just as they can take any auto tune and make it better in 10 mts. Tuning by ear is not a waste of time or tomfoolery once you know what you're doing, it is fairly quick and repeatable. Yes it is an alternate way but please don't rubbish or decry it. I absolutely do not get the implied assumption that it's ok to to use your ears to validate but not for tuning.


Other than this being mostly anecdotal, and possibly not even an accurate historical account, you seem to be reinforcing and agreeing with major points made by those you are arguing against. Whatever gets you there the fastest, the best...then by all mean do it! But you just used 3 guys with _massive_ experience and training to try prove your point. But what you have done is the opposite, because nobody has tried to argue _for_ the position you claim you are against.


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

sqnut said:


> The point I'm making is, assume you didn't have the data. Would you be able to hear the difference between A & B and pick the one that sounds more accurate? Of course you would.


Yes. But picking one that sounds more accurate is not the same as determining by listening to one speaker whether it is accurate. In your example, one serves as a benchmark for the other. Establishing a set of objective criteria makes it possible to streamline the exercise and more easily identify WHY the speaker falls short and fix it. 

This now appears to be an exercise in simply arguing. LOL. 

You want me to agree that ears and expertise in using them is ultimately better than equipment and expertise in using it and I'm not going to do it. Conversely, you aren't going to agree that equipment and expertise is better. 

Maybe we are at cross purposes. I want to define a process that can be easily taught to increase the average skill of professionals who provide a service to customers on which the ultimate performance of my gear and everyone else's gear depends. I'm not sure what your purpose is.


----------



## miniSQ (Aug 4, 2009)

i know this is going to sound ridiculous...but maybe people who wish to tune their cars by ear should do that, and those who wish to use a computer can do that? WTF is wrong with people that they have to argue this same point weekly for the past 30 years.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Orion525iT said:


> So you are basically agreeing with the premise that is being leveled against you. The only area that you seem to strongly disagree is where you have created a strawman to refute. It is easy to attack a position that nobody has actually stood upon.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Listen to Aaron, don't over complicate things KISS works best.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

Sqnut, you and I have had plenty of disagreements, and I still think your analogy of using scientific tools to while tuning a system being like swimming "with floaties on" is VERY funny.

HOWEVER, I should say that I also wholeheartedly believe that a person could arrive at a fantastic sounding system tuning by ear. Absolutely. Thats not even remotely debatable to me. Of course they could. With enough practice most people who have the passion to do so could get very good at it.

To me, the real challenge is NOT to use your ears to tune, because like Andy has said many times, thats hard to validate. Its hard to provide reliable, consistent, PROVEABLE results in a scenario where someone is paying you for your time. 

The real challenge is to turn our subjective experience into a scientifically repeatable process. 

I find that for myself, If I would have KEPT tuning by ear, liek I did for the first 14 or so years of my installation career, I would not have anywhere near the still very limited understanding of the physics behind acoustics. 

It was only thru learning how to use acoustic data acquisition and analysis (and prediction) systems that I have finally begun to understand some of the more complex concepts than simple level vs. frequency. 

But thats just me. Many people are very smart and can, I suppose, understand these things without having any experience of directly measuring them and directly working with them. 

I'm not one of those people. I HAVE to know why something is. Why something works. How something works. I MUST find out. 

For me, using more advanced acoustic analysis techniques is like being enlightened after all these years of wondering what it would be like to understand. 

Its not even a choice anymore. I MUST press on. I MUST keep going. I still have alot to learn. 

I know this thread was largely Sqnut/Andy, sorry everyone for butting in.

I dont think that either way is right or wrong in total. Method A might be right for scenario B, and method B might be right for scenario A..........

EDIT: for clarity sake....the analogy of "swimming with floaties on" is very funny....but NOT funny ha-ha


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

sqnut said:


> My point is that guys like the ones you mention and Aaron can take any tune in any car and make it better in 10-15 min without really measuring anything. That's tuning by ear in my book. Living close to both you may have experienced what I'm talking about.


I can't imagine getting in someone's car after they spent hours and hours tuning it and in 15 minutes making some adjustment that fixed everything without some kind of validation or a way to eliminate the change easily.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> I can't imagine getting in someone's car after they spent hours and hours tuning it and in 15 minutes making some adjustment that fixed everything without some kind of validation or a way to eliminate the change easily.


But it happens all the time. The process of what adjustments you make depends on what you're hearing, believe it or not it's as simple as that.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> This now appears to be an exercise in simply arguing. LOL.


We were arguing in the other thread, this is just banter.


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

SQnut, have you heard these cars here in the states that you refer to as evidence of the validity of your claims? With your own ears?


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

sqnut said:


> But it happens all the time. The process of what adjustments you make depends on what you're hearing, believe it or not it's as simple as that.


sqnut, I have some questions for you. And they are in no way a means to slam you. They are sincere.

You are a proponent of solely tuning by ear (it seems). However, your mentor, Aaron, taught you how to tune by ear through the internet. Do you not think that maybe something, somewhere, somehow could be 'dropped on the floor', so to speak since your teaching on how to listen was done via PM's? Do you not think there's any improvement that can be made to your system by you taking the time to measure your system and evaluate via impulse/rta/etc? 

Additionally, how is it you can have such a strong stance against measurements being used to tune when in _numerous_ threads throughout the past couple years you have given advice to people on how to tune their system by suggesting EQ/level/crossover adjustments based on RTA graphs they post? You've had posts spanning days/weeks where someone would post up a response graph and you'd provide feedback on that. 
Here's an example:
http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum.../167561-need-assistance-rtaing-my-system.html

There you were providing advice based on an RTA. If ears are the only way to go, then how do you justify that? I can't help but feel that you were trying to help in those instances, so it seems to me you're just being contrary or have completely changed your mind on measurements since those threads. 




And before anyone here thinks the above is an attack, re-read it. They are legitimate questions.


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> I can't imagine getting in someone's car after they spent hours and hours tuning it and in 15 minutes making some adjustment that fixed everything without some kind of validation or a way to eliminate the change easily.


I most certainly wouldn't do this to someone who had spent HOURS tuning by ear. 

How could I possibly know in 15 minutes how he arrived at the compromises he made and which of the attributes he found most pleasing and most annoying? That would be the MOST disrespectful thing I could possibly do. I know. I've had it done to me regarding engine noise right before a contest. We arrived at a compromise prior to the show. The customer drove the car to Phoenix and some buttholes with a "high end tweak and tune booth" undid everything we did, removed connectors, soldered in new ones, screwed up all kinds of other **** and after an all night session, had the same noise. Unfortunately, they reversed a few channels and made several unreliable connections that cost us more points that the noise would have.


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

This is from the thread that Erin referred to:

"Bring 50 back up. Cut as follows:

80hz on a narrow Q cut by 2db

200 on a wide Q ~4 cut by 4-5db This region is making the bass boomy.

800 on a narrow Q = 2 cut by 2-3db

2 khz on a Q = 4, cut 4-5 db

8 khz on a Q = 2, cut 5-6 db

16 khz on Q = 2 cut 2-3 db

Now how does it sound? Interested in your feedback. Get a mike for better measurement and resolution as already suggested."

Not so fast...

Q= frequency / bandwidth. 

A wide Q has a smaller number and a narrow Q a larger number. For example, a Q of 10 for a filter at 1k has a bandwidth of 1000/10 or 100 Hz. A Q of 1 for a filter at 1k has a bandwidth of 1000 Hz.


----------



## MacLeod (Aug 16, 2009)

Maybe I should clarify a couple things since my name is getting used. 

First SQNut and I are good friends since way back on the Polk Audio forums. We've had lots of conversations and exchanged lots of ideas and his input has helped me a lot over the years. 

Second, I am not against measurements in any way, shape or form. Since 2005 Ive tuned my cars 99% by ear for no other reason than I did not have access to any RTA's or any other kind of equipment. All my competitor buddies were 2+ hours away and I was all by my lonesome up here in Chattanooga figuring it out by trial and lots of error.......and I mean LOTS of error. The only measurements I was able to work with I did with 1/3 octave test tones and an SPL meter. I had good results but never beat the best.

As for re-tuning in 15 minutes, Im flattered but no chance. Tuning is something Ive always had to do over long periods. Your ears can definitely become fatigued. Many, many times Ive spent 4-5 hours in my car and quit for the night thinking Ive found the mac daddy of all tunes only to come out to the car the next morning and wonder where I found the good crack I was obviously smoking. My process has always been to spend several hours in the car, come back the next day or two and re-evaluate. Make some adjustments and then A/B the new curve with the old and compare. Pick the one I like best and tweak on it for a while. Next day, come out and compare the new curve to the old one. If I liked the new one better, save it and tweak from there. Rinse, repeat until I can get it in front of a judge(s) and then re-evaluate based on their scores and critiques and start the process all over again. Just being able to sit in a car and say, "A, B and C are wrong and I think D might be a 1/2 db off", I dont think there is anybody except maybe David Hogan that can do that unless we're talking large problem areas that are immediately obvious.

I view measurements as a necessary tool to get your system to the top levels. I think you can do the vast majority by ear but youll need an RTA or whatever to find those last few details that you just cant pick out with your ears. And while I do think you can get better results tuning only by ear than you could with RTA only, I dont know why nor would I ever suggest that somebody "only" do one way or the other. Why would you not want to use ALL the tools at your disposal to improve your system? Thats been the only thing I took issue with in this debate. I thought Andy was dismissing ear tuning methods because they didnt have all the pretty graphs and that SQ championships and everybody loving a system didnt mean it was good. Now after he explained a little more, I understand that was not what he was implying, so Im pretty much in agreement here although I think I may put a little more emphasis on trusting my ears than measurements. For instance, in my 07 Accord, 630 and 800 Hz were MUCH hotter on the right side but measured hotter on the left side. My guess was because I was hearing the reflection of those two frequencies. I trusted my ears on it and always cut the side that my ears told me were the hottest. My Ford Edge had the same issue around 2.5K if I remember right. Now that is completely anecdotal and it could easily have been because I just didnt have the proper equipment or when I did have it, I wasnt using it right. Right or wrong, it led me to trust my ears if there was a discrepancy between what the RTA said and what I heard. 

And Erin, youll probably see me more this year. The wife's got a new job with weekends off and my finances and free time is a lot better finally. All but certain Ill be hitting several shows this year and probably even making a run at finals.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> This is from the thread that Erin referred to:
> 
> "Bring 50 back up. Cut as follows:
> 
> ...


Would this bandwidth of 100 be on each side? Or 100 total (50 on each side)? Always wondered what determined Q

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Victor_inox (Apr 27, 2012)

It`s center frequency Nick. there is 3 parameters in parametric EQ. bandwidth,center frequency and amplitude.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

Victor_inox said:


> It`s center frequency Nick. there is 3 parameters in parametric EQ. bandwidth,center frequency and amplitude.


Yes but what I'm asking is a quick of (let's use Andys example).. a q of 10 at 1000hz will have a 100 hz bandwidth. Now is that bandwidth 100 hz below AND above the 1000hz? Or is it 100 hz wide total (50 and 50 on each side)

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

Half on each side.


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

This is a great site for getting the answers to some of these questions. I use it all the time:

Q factor vs bandwidth in octaves band filter -3 dB pass calculator calculation formula quality factor Q to bandwidth BW width octave convert filter BW octave vibration mastering slope dB/oct steepness EQ filter equalizer cutoff freqiency - sengpielau


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

MacLeod said:


> Maybe I should clarify a couple things since my name is getting used.
> 
> First SQNut and I are good friends since way back on the Polk Audio forums. We've had lots of conversations and exchanged lots of ideas and his input has helped me a lot over the years.
> 
> ...


Aaron, thanks. This is exactly what I've been talking about This process is fine for someone who has time and is working on the same car over and over and over, or for a hobbyist. In a retail setting, this is not workable. It's VERY expensive for the customer if you can get him to pay for all this time. If you can't, then it's very expensive for the owner of the shop. 

If time is important, and in retail it's very important, any steps that can be taken to improve speed, accuracy or repeatability are good ones to take. 

In my travels to retail shops over the last two years, I've witnessed a big disagreement between shop owners and installers. Installers want to fabricate and experiment on high end installations, but that experimentation in unpredictable. A customer spending a lot on an expensive system has an audio performance expectation that's higher than a basic system. When the installer can't meet the elevated expectation, then those high end jobs turn into money losing propositions. Because of this, owners often want to stick with Mid-fi for self preservation. Those of us who make better gear need places to sell it so that people who want to buy it can find it. In order to do that, we need to make the process of selling, installing and pleasing more predictable.


----------



## Kevmoso (Jun 4, 2013)

This thread, and many like it around the web, makes me want to take a road trip in ANY of your cars! I could care less what your RTA looks like or if your ears are 14, 18 or 24 carrot gold. If anybody reading this is ever in the Sacramento area, PM me! I will buy the gas and point the way to some beautiful roads on which to cruise and listen to music for as much time as you have available!


----------



## Darth SQ (Sep 17, 2010)

Kevmoso said:


> This thread, and many like it around the web, makes me want to take a road trip in ANY of your cars! I could care less what your RTA looks like or if your ears are 14, 18 or 24 carrot gold. If anybody reading this is ever in the Sacramento area, PM me! I will buy the gas and point the way to some beautiful roads on which to cruise and listen to music for as much time as you have available!


Wentworth Springs Rd to Lake Tahoe. 
Youtube it.


----------



## MacLeod (Aug 16, 2009)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> Aaron, thanks. This is exactly what I've been talking about This process is fine for someone who has time and is working on the same car over and over and over, or for a hobbyist. In a retail setting, this is not workable. It's VERY expensive for the customer if you can get him to pay for all this time. If you can't, then it's very expensive for the owner of the shop.
> 
> If time is important, and in retail it's very important, any steps that can be taken to improve speed, accuracy or repeatability are good ones to take.
> 
> In my travels to retail shops over the last two years, I've witnessed a big disagreement between shop owners and installers. Installers want to fabricate and experiment on high end installations, but that experimentation in unpredictable. A customer spending a lot on an expensive system has an audio performance expectation that's higher than a basic system. When the installer can't meet the elevated expectation, then those high end jobs turn into money losing propositions. Because of this, owners often want to stick with Mid-fi for self preservation. Those of us who make better gear need places to sell it so that people who want to buy it can find it. In order to do that, we need to make the process of selling, installing and pleasing more predictable.


Yeah I was looking at it only as a competitor thatll spend all YEAR dialing my system in. The local shop down the street doing a system for a customer has a day at most. 



> Because of this, owners often want to stick with Mid-fi for self preservation


Aint this the truth. Did a little driving around today trying to find some speakers to listen to. Im finally retiring my way too old Polk's and want to try something else. Nobody has anything other than mid grade stuff. No Morel or Dyns at all, only mid line Focal and none of those elusive Audiofrogs Ive been hearing about.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> Aaron, thanks. This is exactly what I've been talking about This process is fine for someone who has time and is working on the same car over and over and over, or for a hobbyist. In a retail setting, this is not workable. It's VERY expensive for the customer if you can get him to pay for all this time. If you can't, then it's very expensive for the owner of the shop.
> 
> If time is important, and in retail it's very important, any steps that can be taken to improve speed, accuracy or repeatability are good ones to take.
> 
> In my travels to retail shops over the last two years, I've witnessed a big disagreement between shop owners and installers. Installers want to fabricate and experiment on high end installations, but that experimentation in unpredictable. A customer spending a lot on an expensive system has an audio performance expectation that's higher than a basic system. When the installer can't meet the elevated expectation, then those high end jobs turn into money losing propositions. Because of this, owners often want to stick with Mid-fi for self preservation. Those of us who make better gear need places to sell it so that people who want to buy it can find it. In order to do that, we need to make the process of selling, installing and pleasing more predictable.


F*kn-A right Andy!!


----------



## Kevmoso (Jun 4, 2013)

PPI-ART COLLECTOR said:


> Wentworth Springs Rd to Lake Tahoe.
> Youtube it.


Oh now that's what I'm talking about! That whole area is LITTERED with amazing fun roads! 49 and 193 are common round trips for me! Wentworth Springs Rd just got added to the list! You driving?


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

My favorite thing to do because I'm just silly is tune with rta love the tune and go drive around to try to make it better by ear just to f it up and go back home and tune again with a rta . Yes it's the literal description of insanity at times but gosh it's fun especially when sometimes a get a awesome tune. I like to go tune so much sometimes I purposely delete my settings so I can go do it again and see if I end up at the same spot with gains eq TA all of it and guess what I ALWAYS end up at the same spot. Lol 
It's my time it's my fun I do it because I like to , but seriously, tuning by ear alone is impossible. smoothing out by ear after a rta is imperative most of the time.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

MacLeod said:


> and none of those elusive Audiofrogs Ive been hearing about.



I know where you can get a loaner pair of GB25's to test drive for a week or so...


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

SkizeR said:


> Would this bandwidth of 100 be on each side? Or 100 total (50 on each side)? Always wondered what determined Q
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


The center of the bandwidth . 

Sorry my name is andy also lol


----------



## Darth SQ (Sep 17, 2010)

Kevmoso said:


> Oh now that's what I'm talking about! That whole area is LITTERED with amazing fun roads! 49 and 193 are common round trips for me! Wentworth Springs Rd just got added to the list! You driving?


49 & 193 everyday.
You're talking my backyard.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

PPI-ART COLLECTOR said:


> Everyday.
> You're talking my backyard.


I think he means someone who has a car that actually plays music 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## claydo (Oct 1, 2012)

oabeieo said:


> My favorite thing to do because I'm just silly is tune with rta love the tune and go drive around to try to make it better by ear just to f it up and go back home and tune again with a rta . Yes it's the literal description of insanity at times but gosh it's fun especially when sometimes a get a awesome tune. I like to go tune so much sometimes I purposely delete my settings so I can go do it again and see if I end up at the same spot with gains eq TA all of it and guess what I ALWAYS end up at the same spot. Lol


Lmao, I thought I was the only one. I do this over and over and over........only thing is, the tune is always slightly different......a tick or two here, and there.....sometime it improves, sometimes I go back. I love to play with t/a, then balance the stage with levels, finally fine tuning the l/r response to correct the changed levels.....it's a never ending process and the more I do it, the more I learn. You can change the sound of your system substantially by playing this way........

The only time I tune for serious, following rules a lil closer is right before a meet, the only time I get to show off the system to critical ears....thankfully we have several meets a year locally, so most of the time the car sounds great.....but catch me between meets and request a demo, and there's no telling what you may get, lol.


----------



## Kevmoso (Jun 4, 2013)

PPI-ART COLLECTOR said:


> 49 & 193 everyday.
> You're talking my backyard.


 So you are driving!



SkizeR said:


> I think he means someone who has a car that actually plays music
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


OOOOOO, did this thread take a whole new direction of banter?


----------



## Darth SQ (Sep 17, 2010)

SkizeR said:


> I think he means someone who has a car that actually plays music
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


Lol you should talk Nick.
The Suburban is very close to being ready for tuning.


----------



## Victor_inox (Apr 27, 2012)

SkizeR said:


> I think he means someone who has a car that actually plays music
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


Ouch.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

claydo said:


> Lmao, I thought I was the only one. I do this over and over and over........only thing is, the tune is always slightly different......a tick or two here, and there.....sometime it improves, sometimes I go back. I love to play with t/a, then balance the stage with levels, finally fine tuning the l/r response to correct the changed levels.....it's a never ending process and the more I do it, the more I learn. You can change the sound of your system substantially by playing this way........
> 
> The only time I tune for serious, following rules a lil closer is right before a meet, the only time I get to show off the system to critical ears....thankfully we have several meets a year locally, so most of the time the car sounds great.....but catch me between meets and request a demo, and there's no telling what you may get, lol.


Lmfao!!!!!! Yes!!!! That's exactly it!


----------



## jgscott (Sep 1, 2013)

I am no where near the experience you guys have. But I have interest in respectable debate with some logic. In fact I have little or no experience at all in this field. I have had 2 systems in car in the past that I liked prior to the extend of the hearing problems I have now. Quite possibly the result of the degrading hearing problem start and damage that was diagnose at the hearing Dr's office.

So I have Tinnitus, or ringing in the ears, its the sensation of hearing ringing, buzzing, hissing, chirping, whistling, or other sounds. The symptoms vary at different times. Not as bad sometimes as others. 

I had 2 hearing test at Doctors office that tested me on ear frequencies, with head phones, in a sound proof chamber. In addition to the Tinnitus at all times the test showed that I have a major problem with hearing midrange sounds the most. My left ear has more and other problems with and additionally has only about 60% of hearing that the right ear has including the problems in both.

Every time I see threads like this I wonder the Judgment of the perfect tune, with such variances of the human ears and variances of senses. With that I will say that I doubt that anyone's optimal tune would suit my taste. As a excess in Midrange, and a reduction in Highs is the basis, that's allows me the satisfaction of a good sounding system that I like best. 

Considering the Human ear variable and hearing senses processed to the brain? What's the best tune, according to who? A tune based on factors here would likely not be so great to my ears, or others.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

jgscott said:


> I am no where near the experience you guys have. But I have interest in respectable debate with some logic. In fact I have little or no experience at all in this field. I have had 2 systems in car in the past that I liked prior to the extend of the hearing problems I have now. Quite possibly the result of the degrading hearing problem start and damage that was diagnose at the hearing Dr's office.
> 
> So I have Tinnitus, or ringing in the ears, its the sensation of hearing ringing, buzzing, hissing, chirping, whistling, or other sounds. The symptoms vary at different times. Not as bad sometimes as others.
> 
> ...


Best tune , to some is the ability of the system to re-create what was recorded with accuracy. Meaning a flat responce and no other added sounds the car makes by reflection or defraction or reverbrance or any other added sound other than what was recorded. 

Often times we get the system to have those abilities but prefer more bass or more treble to match our own hearing , that makes it a inaccurate system. So the holy grail is a flat responce that sounds good. Correct timing and phase. ( I've only heard two cars that were flat 20-20 that sounded good (one was mine) the other was Wayne Watkins focal Mazda . So at some point usually because the Schroeder the room takes a part in the sound that is un controllable so we must make compromises based on what sounds good in that particular car with that particular gear and that particular persons tastes.


----------



## KP (Nov 13, 2005)

A good read for sure! I don't really have time to jump in with both feet on much anymore. A few quick comments.

My car is tuned and managed by me. Team mates, fellow competitors, friends, judges give comments and suggestions. What makes it to the system is decided and made by me. Cook and I are team mates and friends but we tune our own systems with each others inputs on the rare occasion we are at the same place.

Andy's posted work is a great example for a retailer or novice tuner to get on the right track quickly. It shouldn't be confused as anything else.

Things that have helped me learn how to tune is:

Have a good reference that doesn't change. For me this is a very simple system in my garage that nothing ever changes, except the volume. Decent CD player, decent amp, Tannoy V8's, self-powered 10". It took a while to get my car better than this modest system but I know now if my car isn't better, I'm not done. 

Use a known accurate recording you are intimately familiar with in said systems. 

Tune with friends. Look at their curves and listen to how that curve sounds. You will be surprised how similar curves sound very different and vice versa.

There is no magical sequence of buttons to mash for the 'perfect tune'. This is about compromises. You have to learn how to manage these compromises into your system.

If you have the chance, tune with folks that know how to tune. Over the years I have had the pleasure of learning from some of the very best there is period. They all tune different. Pay attention and take notes. 

If I use a meter or not depends on the where the system is in the tune and how 'fresh' my ears are. I do use a meter. The same trusty one for more than a decade.

I could go on and on and there is a lot more detail/definitions to clarify but thats all I got.


----------



## Guest (Jan 30, 2016)

Very well said sir. ... thank you for sharing your insight!


----------



## claydo (Oct 1, 2012)

Cool to see ya post here kirk. I must say I've demoed your car twice now, and it is one of my favorite cars I've ever listened to. It's got that whole split personality thing down pat, lul and tickle you with the technical essque prowess, or melt yer face with sheer rocking ability, it's exactly what I shoot for in my car, and it's awesome!


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

PPI-ART COLLECTOR said:


> Lol you should talk Nick.
> The Suburban is very close to being ready for tuning.


Mines been playing since may..

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

KP said:


> A good read for sure! I don't really have time to jump in with both feet on much anymore. A few quick comments.
> 
> My car is tuned and managed by me. Team mates, fellow competitors, friends, judges give comments and suggestions. What makes it to the system is decided and made by me. Cook and I are team mates and friends but we tune our own systems with each others inputs on the rare occasion we are at the same place.
> 
> ...



Yeah, that is very good. I love having a reference system that I know is right. 

Lately I've been addicted to trying speakers. All the ones I look at on PE and such and when I find one I like I get t , try it , and enjoy the prouduct that it has to offer . Listen to it for a while , than try a new one. It's rather expensive for me but I truly love trying diffrent speakers out. Two speaker that have the same tune DO sound diffrent! ( I don't have these uber auto eqs that force the responce to a curve) Just old fashioned 1/3oactave and some TA control)


----------



## Lou Frasier2 (Jul 17, 2012)

my only contribution to this thread because my serious lack of knowledge can be,never ever tune while under the influence of any alcohol,the next day it will sound like dukey,trust me,i know from experience


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Lou Frasier2 said:


> my only contribution to this thread because my serious lack of knowledge can be,never ever tune while under the influence of any alcohol,the next day it will sound like dukey,trust me,i know from experience


^^^^^X1000, been there, done that and regretted at leisure the next morning.


----------



## Lou Frasier2 (Jul 17, 2012)

thats why it takes me forever to tune my stuff,i have one good ipa and all tuning goes out the door


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> SQnut, have you heard these cars here in the states that you refer to as evidence of the validity of your claims? With your own ears?


No I haven't, but do you really need to see the numbers once you have listened to a speaker or vice versa? All I need to do is listen to a good 2ch and I'm hearing the level of sound quality (not necessary the exact same sound) in these cars within say +/- 5-7%, imho at the end of the day it is as simple as that. The caveat being that I should be able to hear a difference between a sound with a fatter 100-300 vs a slightly leaner but more detailed midbass. 

This is why I want you to hear these cars. Not so much for the absolute sound quality, because you already know what good sound is. But more for the level of what's possible in a car.


----------



## XSIV SPL (Jun 24, 2014)

PPI-ART COLLECTOR said:


> Lol you should talk Nick.
> The Suburban is very close to being ready for tuning.


I'd love to hear it, Brett

Bring it to Tulare, please...


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

ErinH said:


> sqnut, I have some questions for you. And they are in no way a means to slam you. They are sincere.


Thank you, I'll do my best to answer your questions.



ErinH said:


> You are a proponent of solely tuning by ear (it seems). However, your mentor, Aaron, taught you how to tune by ear through the internet. Do you not think that maybe something, somewhere, somehow could be 'dropped on the floor', so to speak since your teaching on how to listen was done via PM's? Do you not think there's any improvement that can be made to your system by you taking the time to measure your system and evaluate via impulse/rta/etc?


When I'm helping people on the forum I always go 90% by measurements, but physically tuning my car? Yes, that's 90% by ear. No, I'm not a proponent of tuning only by ear because I know to most it would be Greek and Latin. I always say measure to a base and then try and learn to tune by ear. If you measure correctly and your base is solid, you'll get to a point where its way better than what it was earlier and that's probably good enough for 90% of the crowd. If however you want to go further, then yes learning to tune by ear will take you further than just measuring.

Something dropped on the floor? Well let's take something like TA/phase. I find it very easy to tell speakers that are out of phase. The sound is stretched, it's not as dynamic. Let's say the tweet lead the mid, now the sound is thin or is dull if the woofer leads. In both cases there would be a lack of dynamics and the sound will have a stretch. Listening to this sound maes me feel like I have a knot in the pit of my stomach. If the timing is out no amt of eq will help. With the right timing and response in the xover zone, suddenly the sound is way more relaxed, more dynamic and the knot is gone. Are there things that would qualify as big and obvious defects that would be caught on measurements? Frankly, I don't know cause I haven't measured in years. That said, of course there are always things that can be improved. But I don't compete and I reached my 'good enough for me' point a while back. I don't tune so much now because this hobby takes up way too much time. 



ErinH said:


> Additionally, how is it you can have such a strong stance against measurements being used to tune when in _numerous_ threads throughout the past couple years you have given advice to people on how to tune their system by suggesting EQ/level/crossover adjustments based on RTA graphs they post? You've had posts spanning days/weeks where someone would post up a response graph and you'd provide feedback on that.
> Here's an example:
> http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum.../167561-need-assistance-rtaing-my-system.html
> 
> ...


Ok so what am I doing? As a first step I try and get the timing right by getting measured distances and then based on the RTA measurement I balance L/R and then finally dial in base curve. While doing 2 & 3 is when I go into the cut 500 on left by 2 db. I'm just reading off the graphs, isn't that how you'll do it?


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

MacLeod said:


> Maybe I should clarify a couple things since my name is getting used.
> 
> First SQNut and I are good friends since way back on the Polk Audio forums. We've had lots of conversations and exchanged lots of ideas and his input has helped me a lot over the years.


You're much too generous Obi Sama, I was the one learning and I will always continue to learn from you. 




MacLeod said:


> As for re-tuning in 15 minutes, Im flattered but no chance.


An average car with some obvious defects? Sure you'd make it better in 10 mts. 



MacLeod said:


> Just being able to sit in a car and say, "A, B and C are wrong and I think D might be a 1/2 db off", I dont think there is anybody except maybe David Hogan that can do that unless we're talking large problem areas that are immediately obvious


But that s exactly how we do it........don't you just listen and based on what you're hearing kinda know f you need to cut 600 or 1.6 or 8?.....and then you hear the next issue and correct for that and so on. Then save and recheck the next day.....

E]


----------



## Darth SQ (Sep 17, 2010)

SkizeR said:


> Mines been playing since may..
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


Stage 1 which was a fully functional audio/video system was completed 12-14 so I'm right there with ya Nick.



XSIV SPL said:


> I'd love to hear it, Brett
> 
> Bring it to Tulare, please...


I wish.
Stage 2 of the build won't be done until March but at that point it will be ready for front stage tuning by my very good friends The Papasins.
Then I can start stage 3 which is the wall in the back, final setup, and final tuning of the entire system.
That part of the tune will be monumental in it's difficulty but I hope it will achieve the same goal as Andy Wehmeyer presented at CES which is a great listening experience in every seat.


----------



## Rrrrolla (Nov 13, 2008)

All I can contribute is that trying to tune by ear with a friggin parametric eq is IMPOSSIBLE for me. I tried for weeks, then I measured the system and found exactly what the problems were and had them corrected within minutes. 

Now could someone please explain to me how to get good (and QUICK) left-right eq'ing with a parametric eq? I cant for the life of me figure out a way to do this by measurement. I'm sure I'm missing something REW that can do this in seconds...

There's nothing more annoying that making a small delay change to a channel then having to go through tweaking again for another 2 hours. Or changing a crossover slope or point... Equally as annoying.


----------



## therapture (Jan 31, 2013)

Lou Frasier2 said:


> thats why it takes me forever to tune my stuff,i have one good ipa and all tuning goes out the door


Oh ****, another IPA junkie??? LoL - I have done the exact same thing, jamming and loving the stereo after a few brews, tweaking some TA or what not, then the next day I am like WTF HAPPENED IN HERE.

I'm fixing to open a Sierra Nevada Torpedo here in a bit.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

therapture said:


> Oh ****, another IPA junkie??? LoL - I have done the exact same thing, jamming and loving the stereo after a few brews, tweaking some TA or what not, then the next day I am like WTF HAPPENED IN HERE.
> 
> I'm fixing to open a Sierra Nevada Torpedo here in a bit.


Manager at the shop I worked at used to drink those.. nasty lol

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Lou Frasier2 (Jul 17, 2012)

i drank a hairy eyeball last night from lagunitas while cleaning my dirtbike in prep for today and man it was delicious


----------



## DavidRam (Nov 2, 2014)

Rrrrolla said:


> All I can contribute is that trying to tune by ear with a friggin parametric eq is IMPOSSIBLE for me. I tried for weeks, then I measured the system and found exactly what the problems were and had them corrected within minutes.
> 
> Now could someone please explain to me how to get good (and QUICK) left-right eq'ing with a parametric eq? I cant for the life of me figure out a way to do this by measurement. I'm sure I'm missing something REW that can do this in seconds...
> 
> There's nothing more annoying that making a small delay change to a channel then having to go through tweaking again for another 2 hours. Or changing a crossover slope or point... Equally as annoying.


+1 on this


----------



## benny z (Mar 17, 2008)

I tuned a friend/fellow DIYMA member's car today. This is how it went. 

Mario showed up at noon - we chit-chatted for a minute and hopped in his car. Spent 10 minutes demo'ing and explaining what I was hearing. We then moved over to my car for another 10 minute demo while I explained the difference to him between my car and his. We then went back to his car for one more listen, then went inside to chit chat, talk to my wife, introduce my daughter, and talk about beer.

Around 12:45 we started getting the laptop going for the h800 software, connected up, and were ready to tackle phase. A rusty old tape measure was used to take measurements to each driver and then I plugged those numbers into Erin's calculator via my phone which did its magic to arrive at starting delay numbers.

Isolated driver pairs, opened up the freq of the drivers, played phase tracks, and fine tuned by ear. Done. We're about 15 mins in. 

Next up, attenuating the left side drivers db to match the right side using nothing more than my iPhone, followed by adjusting the crossover points to implement a more wideband strategy for the midrange, leaving the tweeters to true treble duty. Nothing extreme - think we landed on 315 and 5600 crossover points. Another 15 mins in. 

Next I was ready to take the initial RTA reading for the left side using nothing more than my iPhone. Worked out the obvious problem points, then moved to the right side and did the same. This took about 15 minutes per side. 

1:45. Phew. 15 min break time. 

From 2-2:30 or so I listened to music and tweaked problems I was hearing. Around 2:30 I achieved the level I would judge very well in tonality and image focus and was ready to have Mario take a listen from the good seat. 

If Mario sees this he can post his thoughts on the new tune.

He was happy as **** and rolled home around 3 after we talked about beer some more.


----------



## rockinridgeline (Feb 2, 2009)

MacLeod said:


> Aint this the truth. Did a little driving around today trying to find some speakers to listen to. Im finally retiring my way too old Polk's and want to try something else. Nobody has anything other than mid grade stuff. No Morel or Dyns at all, only mid line Focal and none of those elusive Audiofrogs Ive been hearing about.


How far is Clarksville TN? Sonus Carol Audio


----------



## XSIV SPL (Jun 24, 2014)

PPI-ART COLLECTOR said:


> I wish.
> Stage 2 of the build won't be done until March but at that point it will be ready for front stage tuning by my very good friends The Papasins.
> Then I can start stage 3 which is the wall in the back, final setup, and final tuning of the entire system.
> That part of the tune will be monumental in it's difficulty but I hope it will achieve the same goal as Andy Wehmeyer presented at CES which is a great listening experience in every seat.


I thought you were going straight SQ until I read "WALL" in stage 3.  I'm really looking forward to an opportunity to hear this system once you've got it ready for demo!


----------



## MB2008LTZ (Oct 13, 2012)

MY BRAIN IS DRAINED.....WTF.....I'm just going to do what I always did.....adjust the settings I have at my disposal to "WHAT I LIKE" and say whatever to the "experts"...While I do not doubt your experience and know how and respect your opinions....I think it does not matter one way or the other....I tune to me and me alone....If the person in the passenger seat hates it...so sad for him/her......I'm on a limited budget and build systems for me only....I do not care about the HOLY GRAIL" OF CAR AUDIO......as long as it sound good to me with what I have to work with....!!!!!


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Rrrrolla said:


> All I can contribute is that trying to tune by ear with a friggin parametric eq is IMPOSSIBLE for me. I tried for weeks, then I measured the system and found exactly what the problems were and had them corrected within minutes.
> 
> Now could someone please explain to me how to get good (and QUICK) left-right eq'ing with a parametric eq? I cant for the life of me figure out a way to do this by measurement. I'm sure I'm missing something REW that can do this in seconds...
> 
> There's nothing more annoying that making a small delay change to a channel then having to go through tweaking again for another 2 hours. Or changing a crossover slope or point... Equally as annoying.


How many parametric bands do you have per side?


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

benny z said:


> I tuned a friend/fellow DIYMA member's car today. This is how it went.
> 
> Mario showed up at noon - we chit-chatted for a minute and hopped in his car. Spent 10 minutes demo'ing and explaining what I was hearing. We then moved over to my car for another 10 minute demo while I explained the difference to him between my car and his. We then went back to his car for one more listen, then went inside to chit chat, talk to my wife, introduce my daughter, and talk about beer.
> 
> ...


Processes may vary a bit but yes, what you're describing is accurate from a time frame to get a solid baseline, but imho the fun part really starts now. Swap cars for a week and spend 1-2 hours a day fine tuning and at the end of the week A/B the settings.


----------



## Rrrrolla (Nov 13, 2008)

sqnut said:


> How many parametric bands do you have per side?


16 per side the way its set up right now. Enough to make my life very difficult LOL!


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

*Q*



Rrrrolla said:


> 16 per side the way its set up right now. Enough to make my life very difficult LOL!


Measure left and right side and look at each octave to see whats going on within it. Do you have one peak or two? What frequency do you have the peak at? This dictates the frequency you select on the eq. Is it a sharp peak or a hump? This dictates the Q you use. Look at your graph to see how wide the peak is and then use the link Andy attached to figure out the exact Q. Keep in mind you are using the eq to both eq for L/R AND shape the final curve you want....

Distribute the bands according to the major peaks, but as a thumb rule you can try the following.

30-300hz: 5 bands
300-500: 2 bands
500-4khz: 6 bands
4-20khz: 3 bands

Again, the final selection should be based on your graph.


----------



## Rrrrolla (Nov 13, 2008)

Where is the attachment Andy put up? I cant seem to find it lol!

So youre saying do measurements of left and right seperately? Then eq them each seperately? I did that, but the focus is not centered. It's close, but some frequencies are way off (using band limited pink noise). Is there a way to SEE why they are not centered using measurements? I always wind up running through the pink noise tracks and making best guesses at q and frequency to center things up. That works every time, but my god it takes alot of time with trial and error.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

It was on page 4. Q factor vs bandwidth in octaves band filter -3 dB pass calculator calculation formula quality factor Q to bandwidth BW width octave convert filter BW octave vibration mastering slope dB/oct steepness EQ filter equalizer cutoff freqiency - sengpielau

Focus comes from balancing L/R AND getting the timing right. Mark the acoustic centre as I explained earlier and use mono PN to check timing. Then play the 1/3 oct PN tracks and see which ones are substantially skewed L or R of the centre, correct accordingly.


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

Rrrrolla said:


> Where is the attachment Andy put up? I cant seem to find it lol!
> 
> So youre saying do measurements of left and right seperately? Then eq them each seperately? I did that, but the focus is not centered. It's close, but some frequencies are way off (using band limited pink noise). Is there a way to SEE why they are not centered using measurements? I always wind up running through the pink noise tracks and making best guesses at q and frequency to center things up. That works every time, but my god it takes alot of time with trial and error.


Of course there's a way to see it. Use the sweep measurements in REW. Then click overlay and compare the two channels. You can also view the phase. 

Low Q differences of even 1dB between channels can skew the image away from center.

I do not recommend spending hours tuning a parametric by machine and then making adjustments to the filters "by ear". That's a recipe for disaster. 

In addition, if you're setting delay "by ear", it's really important that the channels are very precisely matched. It's easy to make a mistake if one channel is louder than the other one.


----------



## benny z (Mar 17, 2008)

sqnut said:


> Processes may vary a bit but yes, what you're describing is accurate from a time frame to get a solid baseline, but imho the fun part really starts now. Swap cars for a week and spend 1-2 hours a day fine tuning and at the end of the week A/B the settings.



Yes, obviously if he were willing to leave the car for a week I'd be thrilled to further fine tune it. I was happy enough with it, however, after the short time tuning yesterday, to let him roll home with it. I even encouraged him to compete with it this season, as locally I believe it would be very competitive. Sure, more time with it and it could be even more precisely dialed in - but it is light years ahead of where it was when he arrived yesterday. ...and I'm not gonna just give away a championship-winning tune .


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

benny z said:


> Yes, obviously if he were willing to leave the car for a week I'd be thrilled to further fine tune it. I was happy enough with it, however, after the short time tuning yesterday, to let him roll home with it. I even encouraged him to compete with it this season, as locally I believe it would be very competitive. Sure, more time with it and it could be even more precisely dialed in - but it is light years ahead of where it was when he arrived yesterday


Lol my comment was for folks who would jump to the conclusion that you can dial in a championship tune in a couple of hours



benny z said:


> . ...and I'm not gonna just give away a championship-winning tune .


spoken like a true competitor


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

sqnut said:


> Lol my comment was folks who would jump to the conclusion that you can dial in a championship tune in a couple of hours
> 
> 
> 
> spoken like a true competitor


The MS-8 has done it in 5 minutes.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

DDfusion said:


> The MS-8 has done it in 5 minutes.












We are not going there again.


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

But it did. You keep trying to avoid that FACT
It proves everything you think you know wrong.


----------



## benny z (Mar 17, 2008)

I'm curious - which championship winning car uses an Ms-8 with the auto tune?


----------



## Guest (Feb 1, 2016)

DDfusion said:


> The MS-8 has done it in 5 minutes.


Ok... wait a minute.... 

DDfusion: do you really think championship level sound can be achomplished in 5 minutes using ANY processor ?

The MS-8 was never meant to do this.... it was meant to achieve a high level of improvement over OEM sound systems. ..


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

It did. I'm not going to dig through the internet again trying to find it. 
You all have been around long enough where you should know these things.


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

It was ignored in the last crying sqnut thread in sure it will be ignored in this one.


----------



## Guest (Feb 1, 2016)

SQ_TSX said:


> Ok... wait a minute....
> 
> DDfusion: do you really think championship level sound can be achomplished in 5 minutes using ANY processor ?
> 
> The MS-8 was never meant to do this.... it was meant to achieve a high level of improvement over OEM sound systems. ..


I'm assuming you are talking about the BMW that Andy and Gary put together.... they used a prototype of what would become the MS-8 on the OEM system.... from what I remember, it won a show for whatever class it was in....

That said, one or two shows does not equate to a championship system....


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

It won SBN MECA and ISACA on the highest class.


----------



## Guest (Feb 1, 2016)

Nice, I'll have to look it up... but championship level... to me means World Champion. ...


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

How many of your ear tune members have won any master class?


----------



## Guest (Feb 1, 2016)

DDfusion said:


> How many of your ear tune members have won any master class?


We will find out this season.... most likely I'll be in Master Class....

How about you friend...?

I would love to hear your system one day soon....


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

Amateur


----------



## Guest (Feb 1, 2016)

DDfusion said:


> Amateur


????


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

It's all in stock locations with no mods. No point and going up against fully modded cars.


----------



## Guest (Feb 1, 2016)

DDfusion said:


> It's all in stock locations with no mods. No point and going up against fully modded cars.


I'd still love to hear it sometime....


----------



## KP (Nov 13, 2005)

DDfusion said:


> It won SBN MECA and ISACA on the highest class.



I was there that year.........

I didn't get to hear it.


----------



## benny z (Mar 17, 2008)

Sweet! You competing IASCA Amateur? Last year was my first year competing. I won this at INAC in October. Welcome to the class!


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

Thanks. But so far we only have one event scheduled.


----------



## Guest (Feb 1, 2016)

DDfusion said:


> Thanks. But so far we only have one event scheduled.


What event is scheduled?


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

SQnut,
How is it that you so easily discount a product that you don't understand?


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

SQ_TSX said:


> What event is scheduled?


It's USACi. March 25-27


----------



## Guest (Feb 1, 2016)

DDfusion said:


> It's USACi. March 25-27


In Florida is guess....

It's not on the USACi website...


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

wasnt usaci planning on not doing SQ this season?


----------



## Darth SQ (Sep 17, 2010)

SkizeR said:


> wasnt usaci planning on not doing SQ this season?


Yep that's what I read too.


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

I guess they changed their mind. The event cordinator, Greg Miller said they are having it at this event.


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

SQ_TSX said:


> In Florida is guess....
> 
> It's not on the USACi website...


Fees haven't been paid yet but it's happening


----------



## Kenneth M (Oct 14, 2014)

PPI-ART COLLECTOR said:


> Stage 1 which was a fully functional audio/video system was completed 12-14 so I'm right there with ya Nick.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Could either you and/or Andy be so kind as to elaborate on how this is achieved?


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> SQnut,
> How is it that you so easily discount a product that you don't understand?


Andy,

I am not discounting the MS8 and as a matter of fact, in thread after thread where the OP wants a plug and play solution, I recommend the MS8 above all other processors with an auto tune.

It is true that my exposure to the MS8 is limited to tuning two cars for friends. While I didn't dig deep into various functionalities, the level of sound achieved with a basic tune and some eq work was just at a different level compared to stock, definitely the best auto tune. 

This whole debate started with a member claiming that the MS8 won a championship with a 5 min tune or something to that effect and cited your car. I am not in the full know of things, but I am confident that there was much more to the car than a 5 min auto tune. 

This led to the debate on whether the MS8 tune could be improved upon with manual tuning and my personal pov is that most likely, yes it can _in the right hands_. I probably could have tweaked the sound further on the two MS8 cars if I had better resolution on the eq and manual TA. 

The MS8 is a GREAT product for 90% of the folks, but as a product it cuts out the balance 10%. What if I want to use the MS8 tune as my base and then want 100% manual control to make it better? If I suck at what I'm doing, I can always come back to the auto tune but if I do manage to improve it, then I'm a happy customer and the MS8 saved me a lot of time. That freedom is lacking on the MS8.

Arun


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

WTH!!! Did a reply to the post above just get pulled?


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

???? Get pulled??

I don't THINK so?

I agree with you here sqnut, it would be cool if the ms8 had tho OPTION to be manually controlled.

My experience has also been limited to two installations. 

I seem to remember reading a few posts where meme era who had an ms8 had also a scenario that wasn't jiving perfectly with it's algorithms. It is very fortunate of them to have a resource like Andy who can provide them with advice on a work around. 

However, if it had some manual tune-ability I believe this would would seem to be much desirable in those scenarios.

I could be wrong, too. Maybe I'm not remembering those threads accurately.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Niick said:


> ???? Get pulled??
> 
> I don't THINK so?


I read it .


----------



## benny z (Mar 17, 2008)

total guess, but i'd bet it wasn't andy's decision to not allow much user control.

think about the masses using the product. imagine the tech support required to support the general masses given full control.

i am not defending the product or anything...just kinda why i assume such a commercial product doesn't give any more control than it does.

...that said, it would be nice if there were a password protected "back door" login which *would* allow more control. zapco did that...of course everyone knows the zapco password...lol...but still, at least some ability to "get in".


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

You still have a 31 band EQ post tuning to do whatever you want if it needs it.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

Guys, IMO some of you need to step back and look at the big picture(s) here. 

I think you're so indebted to your convictions that you're failing to realize the application and intents are different. The MS-8 was a product in a different form designed to provide an extremely pleasing result from various seats for the OEM and then worked it's way down to the DIY'r as the MS-8. 

There are different arguments in this thread: some are for the manufacturer/installer and some are for the hobbyist. While I definitely think the two can overlap, the mindset of each is a bit different. So it seems the arguments made by either side are done so from each respective viewpoint. That's why we are getting nowhere here.


----------



## Guest (Feb 1, 2016)

ErinH said:


> Guys, IMO some of you need to step back and look at the big picture(s) here.
> 
> I think you're so indebted to your convictions that you're failing to realize the application and intents are different. The MS-8 was a product in a different form designed to provide an extremely pleasing result from various seats for the OEM and then worked it's way down to the DIY'r as the MS-8.
> 
> There are different arguments in this thread: some are for the manufacturer/installer and some are for the hobbyist. While I definitely think the two can overlap, the mindset of each is a bit different. So it seems the arguments made by either side are done so from each respective viewpoint. That's why we are getting nowhere here.


Well said sir :thumbsup:


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

MS-8 wasn't originally an OEM technology. In fact, the OE group fought like hell for the project to be killed because system tuners feared for their jobs. 

If you think carefully about the manual intervention allowed in MS-8, it isn't so different from manual DSPs except that the simplest and most misunderstood parameter is set automatically--time alignment. The automatic EQ simply matches all the channels (left and right, center, sides and rear). You set the crossovers. You can change the target response with a 31-band EQ designed to implement the curve you draw. You have complete control over channel levels after the autotune is complete by adjusting the gains on the amplifiers that are connected to it. You can also change the relative levels using the balance, fader and center channel level controls. Yo can choose to have a two channel or a multichannel system. 

The only thing you can't do is mess up the delay settings after MS-8 does it correctly.

MS-8 wasn't "designed to do an adequate job for the masses". It was designed to dramatically improve the sound in cars without having to deploy an army of trainers to tech people that a low Q filter is a wide filter, a high Q is a narrow filter, that matching the frequency response of channels is the most important part of making a car that images, that tuning an EQ should NEVER be done with both channels playing, that interpreting an impulse response measurement to determine the actual arrival time is not straightforward without additional analysis tools. Did it win contests? Yes. I used to walk around finals with a Logic 7 encoded CD and discover hidden MS-8s in cars by simply listening to one track.


----------



## Alextaastrup (Apr 12, 2014)

Just one comment on a time perspective: even golden ears will be degrading by time. I am close to 60 and hardly hear above 14kHz. How do you think I could tune a car in, let say, 5 years without mic? We all might wish a desire a of having a health of teenager. But what to do with a knowledge, experience gained through the years and years of work and hobby? It is almost impossible combination (with some exclusions of course). My point is that natural aging and experience gained might show the way to combine optimally tuning by ear and by mic. By time one should be better to interprete the measured results and to compare them to what ears say...


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

^^^ I agree with this.


----------



## Victor_inox (Apr 27, 2012)

why is such awesome unit was pulled out of production without offering something else?


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

That's a long story I am not going to share, but the gist of it is that the source code no longer exists.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> That's a long story I am not going to share, but the gist of it is that the source code no longer exists.


What sucks is were a retailer for them. I try and try and try to sell them and I have sold 1 in last 4 years. The company I work for is arguably the 2nd biggest car audio retailers in the us and company wide we've sold less than 100. 

If the price was at the price the dq61 is at I would have sold hundreds of them. I sell at least 3 dq61s a month. That really sucks because I could have made a ton of factory radios sound good and they left the shop mediocre at best


----------



## MacLeod (Aug 16, 2009)

DDfusion said:


> How many of your ear tune members have won any master class?


I came close a couple times......ok 4 times. :laugh:


----------



## Victor_inox (Apr 27, 2012)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> That's a long story I am not going to share, but the gist of it is that the source code no longer exists.



So for now harman international not offering anything that can do factory integration. MS series amplifiers discontinued as well.
Sonic selling 5001 at 75% off. 

What is the reason MS-8 been discussed here then?


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

oabeieo said:


> What sucks is were a retailer for them. I try and try and try to sell them and I have sold 1 in last 4 years. The company I work for is arguably the 2nd biggest car audio retailers in the us and company wide we've sold less than 100.
> 
> If the price was at the price the dq61 is at I would have sold hundreds of them. I sell at least 3 dq61s a month. That really sucks because I could have made a ton of factory radios sound good and they left the shop mediocre at best


Learn to use the Auto EQ function in REW. It's damn good and will save you tons of time if you have a parametric EQ to work with.


----------



## Victor_inox (Apr 27, 2012)

Alextaastrup said:


> Just one comment on a time perspective: even golden ears will be degrading by time. I am close to 60 and hardly hear above 14kHz. How do you think I could tune a car in, let say, 5 years without mic? We all might wish a desire a of having a health of teenager. But what to do with a knowledge, experience gained through the years and years of work and hobby? It is almost impossible combination (with some exclusions of course). My point is that natural aging and experience gained might show the way to combine optimally tuning by ear and by mic. By time one should be better to interprete the measured results and to compare them to what ears say...


I highly doubt I`d give a f*&k about tuning at the age 60.
Besides there is not a lot of music data above 12KHz anyway.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Victor_inox said:


> I highly doubt I`d give a **** about tuning at the age 60.


You can check out any time you like but.......


----------



## AAAAAAA (Oct 5, 2007)

Victor_inox said:


> So for now harman international not offering anything that can do factory integration. MS series amplifiers discontinued as well.
> Sonic selling 5001 at 75% off.
> 
> What is the reason MS-8 been discussed here then?


They also discontinued their best subwoofer the WGTI. But they are adding a head unit... didn't see that coming.

Every once in a while you see company X come out with crazy stuff...be it what alto mobile was doing or the sony ES gear from way back. It seems like these projects stem from a passionate individual that drives it. When that person leaves then the company seems happy to simply go back to status quo.

Maybe I'm wrong.


----------



## Victor_inox (Apr 27, 2012)

sqnut said:


> You can check out any time you like but.......


But what? Say it!I`m turning 50 this year and my hearing probably better than 90% of teenagers. Unless I hear **** in recording that doesn`t existed to begin with...


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> Learn to use the Auto EQ function in REW. It's damn good and will save you tons of time if you have a parametric EQ to work with.


You know I think I'm going to do just that. Rta with noise is one thing that's worked well , but I have always been intresting in that feature..

Problem with dq61 is there so little control you just about can tune it by ear. The huge oactave eq ya know, kinda hard will all those dials ...lol


----------



## AAAAAAA (Oct 5, 2007)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> Did it win contests? Yes. I used to walk around finals with a Logic 7 encoded CD and discover hidden MS-8s in cars by simply listening to one track.


That is pretty nuts. But I can see why some people would do that...we know expectations affect how we hear so people thinking "auto-tune" would likely have a big bias: "they all have the same ms8 sound", "lacks such and such".


-----

MS8 really is special and it's to bad no one has picked up the torch. An MS10 (12,16 ...) with improved hardware and no doubt the extra things AndyW would have liked to add or thought of since would have been very cool.

But we might still see something resembling it from AF.


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

I'm sure they where worried about being shunned by using a auto tune.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Victor_inox said:


> But what? Say it!I`m turning 50 this year and my hearing probably better than 90% of teenagers. Unless I hear **** in recording that doesn`t existed to begin with...


...but you can never leave - Hotel California.

I'm not questioning your hearing. I still hear the difference between my car and my 2 ch. I was talking about tuning, once it gets in your blood you can't get rid of it. You can step away for a bit, but as long as you hear the difference, the urge to make it better is like an itch you can't get rid of.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Blink and you miss something....


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

sqnut said:


> ...but you can never leave - Hotel California.
> 
> I'm not questioning your hearing. I still hear the difference between my car and my 2 ch. I was talking about tuning, once it gets in your blood you can't get rid of it. You can step away for a bit, but as long as you hear the difference, the urge to make it better is like an itch you can't get rid off.


So true .... That's why I love my p99 !

No laptop , just a easy remote and go for it while driving .


----------



## garysummers (Oct 25, 2010)

Victor_inox said:


> I highly doubt I`d give a **** about tuning at the age 60.
> Besides there is not a lot of music data above 12KHz anyway.


I beg to differ!
61 in May.
Still tuning a 3way fully active 5.1 system, mostly by ear.
But I agree, there is not much 'ART" above 14k.
?


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

AAAAAAA said:


> That is pretty nuts. But I can see why some people would do that...we know expectations affect how we hear so people thinking "auto-tune" would likely have a big bias: "they all have the same ms8 sound", "lacks such and such".
> 
> 
> -----


I can't seem to find Andy's post that you're quoting.....


----------



## Victor_inox (Apr 27, 2012)

garysummers said:


> I beg to differ!
> 61 in May.
> Still tuning a 3way fully active 5.1 system, mostly by ear.
> But I agree, there is not much 'ART" above 14k.
> ?


 Autotune is for dummies!
Problem with technology is that current generation of teenagers unable to think due to gadgetry doing it for them.


----------



## Victor_inox (Apr 27, 2012)

sqnut said:


> I can't seem to find Andy's post that you're quoting.....


Click view post button in quotes


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

garysummers said:


> I beg to differ!
> 61 in May.
> Still tuning a 3way fully active 5.1 system, mostly by ear.
> But I agree, there is not much 'ART" above 14k.
> ?


Hi Gary, 
I'm 40 now and when I tune 5k and up to flat it makes my ears feel like there's needles in them at higher levels. I have to tune 10k to 20k with a 6db diffrance downward . 

Is this because of my age or my hearing? I never had this problem when I was younger . 
Thanks 
Andy


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

Victor_inox said:


> Autotune is for dummies!
> Problem with technology is that current generation of teenagers unable to think due to gadgetry doing it for them.


Wrong
Current generation has no idea what a DSP is. 
It's not for you, it's that simple.


----------



## Victor_inox (Apr 27, 2012)

DDfusion said:


> Wrong
> Current generation has no idea what a DSP is.
> It's not for you, it's that simple.


It`s troubling that it`s that simple to you.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Victor_inox said:


> Click view post button in quotes


Ah yes thanks, my bad.


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

Victor_inox said:


> It`s troubling that it`s that simple to you.


It is that simple. Either it fits or it don't.


----------



## AAAAAAA (Oct 5, 2007)

Victor_inox said:


> Autotune is for dummies!
> Problem with technology is that current generation of teenagers unable to think due to gadgetry doing it for them.


Why are you against technology?
Are you against cars that make it easy for you to get places?
Are you against the internet that allows fast communication and information?
Are you against using a calculator instead of doing it by hand?

Why would you be against auto tune that makes sound better faster?

The other problem is thinking that the current generation is any different then yours. It's all the same, accept your perspective is different because you are now the older generation . Guess what, ever new young generation is the "me" generation that has no work ethic blah blah blah.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Everyone ! I have a question if I may , 

IS IT POSSIBLE for a system to have nulls or disperse energy in a way that the rta shows a response but there is much more energy present and our ears are sensitive to it where the rta is not? 

The reason I ask is ; I HAVE to have 8-k and up attinuated a bit compared to the rest of system otherwise at louder levels it feels like needles are poking my ear drums. 

My thought is there's some sort of cancelation that the rta is reading but there's still a large amount of HF energy that my ears are sensitive to. 

Is that possible ? And if so what are some fixes? Maybe some sort foam in front of HF driver ? Thx in advance maybe I'm just getting old too I don't know


----------



## Victor_inox (Apr 27, 2012)

AAAAAAA said:


> Why are you against technology?
> Are you against cars that make it easy for you to get places?
> Are you against the internet that allows fast communication and information?
> Are you against using a calculator instead of doing it by hand?
> ...


 Why do you think I`m against? 
I`m not. i`m against using tools without understanding how such tools works.
How is my perspective is different? Because I have better education and 30 more years of experience?
Why are you get offended? Because you know something about yourself I suggested?


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

You still have to understand what the MS-8 is doing to get very good results. It's not plug and play if you want it to do what it's capable of.


----------



## Victor_inox (Apr 27, 2012)

DDfusion said:


> You still have to understand what the MS-8 is doing to get very good results. It's not plug and play if you want it to do what it's capable of.


You still missing the point. I know what and HOW is does what it does,do you?
Because of that knowledge I can tune sh*t manually.

Should everyone? Probably not.


----------



## claydo (Oct 1, 2012)

Hidden ms8s?........oh my. So maybe the ms8 has won every contest ever.....Holy ****. I gotta get me one.......


----------



## AAAAAAA (Oct 5, 2007)

Victor_inox said:


> Why do you think I`m against?
> I`m not. i`m against using tools without understanding how such tools works.
> How is my perspective is different? Because I have better education and 30 more years of experience?
> Why are you get offended? Because you know something about yourself I suggested?


Why would you need to understand how it works to use it?
All you need to know is how to operate it. 

This is pretty much the backbone of modern civilisation. Most people don't know how TCP IP works, how the video card works to render images, or understand how an engine or their entire car works.. But they know how to operate their computers and phones and drive cars.

We can't be specialists in everything after all.


----------



## Victor_inox (Apr 27, 2012)

AAAAAAA said:


> Why would you need to understand how it works to use it?
> All you need to know is how to operate it.
> 
> This is pretty much the backbone of modern civilisation. Most people don't know how TCP IP works, how the video card works to render images, or understand how an engine or their entire car works..
> ...


 I guess i`m just that way, I love to understand how stuff works.
You at the other hand can do what you`ve been told.
Once I realise how things works I can move on shortcomings and make my money better serve my needs.


----------



## Alextaastrup (Apr 12, 2014)

All this modern technology... In case of disaster, how many persons out of 100000000 will be able to make a TV, smartphone, not talking of DSP's.

One could add nulls if you wish 

Funny thing is how many have reacted to my post about age and aging, It seems to be a critical issue for many. Earlier or later we all meet this problem. The question is to follow technology development. Sometimes I feel that my children are better to this than me. How long one could struggle against this, how long this hobby, work what ever will last?

Regarding tuning - for me it also age dependent. For 10 years ago I was not interested in the "presence" effect, which might add some more emotions to the music. That is all music about. Emmotions and feelings. It came later to me, sorry.

Things are changing by time.
For 40 years ago it had to be stereo to be cool. 30 years ago - it shoud be loud, 20 years ago - more sub, 15 years - surround sound, 10 years - DSP, TA, pEQ. 5 years ago - 3way front, .. and so on, so on. It is just a hobby for me now, but hope it will last long from now. It was my personal story if you wish, and tuning was a part of it.

How my musical taste have been changed by years - it is another story. Believe, everybody can tell his own.

Why I am talking about this? People have various tastes and therefore my tuning could sound bad for somebody else. It is normal, it is OK. We all are different and the way we are tuning is kind of expression this differrence. Let's exchange positive emmotions with each other here on this forum. Many here are to learn (not to forget about teenagers), do not cancell this opportunity for them.


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

Victor just complains to be complaining.


----------



## Victor_inox (Apr 27, 2012)

DDfusion said:


> Victor just complains to be complaining.


I haven't noticed any complaints.why are you so ticked by my posts is another issue.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G925A using Tapatalk


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

I'm not ticked by anything. How can anyone be mad when you get to listen to the beautiful work a good tune can do everyday. 

I guess I paided Andy to tune my car. He comes free with every MS-8 purchase.


----------



## Victor_inox (Apr 27, 2012)

DDfusion said:


> I'm not ticked by anything. How can anyone be mad when you get to listen to the beautiful work a good tune can do everyday.
> 
> I guess I paided Andy to tune my car. He comes free with every MS-8 purchase.


Point is moot, MS-8 is out of production. New AF DSP is in distant future.
From what I can see so far it might be a great unit.
Brother, I`m not mad, I`m passionate.


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

I share your passion but I'm a realist. 
I know how to tune, done it for years. 
I don't have the time or patience to do it again. 
No need for it. If you find the grail never let it go.


----------



## Victor_inox (Apr 27, 2012)

DDfusion said:


> I share your passion but I'm a realist.
> I know how to tune, done it for years.
> I don't have the time or patience to do it again.
> No need for it. If you find the grail never let it go.


 New car means you`ll do it again. unless you drive the same car for 3 decades.

average US consumer change cars every 3 years.


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

Well it will only take a few minutes next time. No sweat. Not countless hours just to get in the next day and hear crap.


----------



## Lou Frasier2 (Jul 17, 2012)

Victor_inox said:


> But what? Say it!I`m turning 50 this year and my hearing probably better than 90% of teenagers. Unless I hear **** in recording that doesn`t existed to begin with...


old man:laugh::laugh:


----------



## Victor_inox (Apr 27, 2012)

Lou Frasier2 said:


> old man:laugh::laugh:


You'll be there in no time. ....

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G925A using Tapatalk


----------



## Lou Frasier2 (Jul 17, 2012)

Victor_inox said:


> You'll be there in no time. ....
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G925A using Tapatalk


soon my friend,very soon,hahahahahahahah, and im enjoying every minute of it


----------

