# how to get soundstage "farther" away? tuning, install or both?



## ccotenj (Jun 10, 2008)

i've read a lot of posts trying to figure this out. what really is the primary component to move the soundstage "farther" away from you (i.e. getting the lead singer on the hood, rather than on the front of the dashboard)? 

i understand how to move the stage left and right. that part i've got figured out. it's moving it "backwards" that i can't really piece together from about a gazillion posts. many people seem to have it out there, but no one explains how they really do it (or i'm hitting the wrong search terms, which is possible, i'm getting old...  ). or i'm simply dense and not getting it.

is it a tuning trick? or is it mostly install dependent? or is it an equal combination of both, and you only hit on it by educated guess or trial and error (i.e. 'sperience  )?


----------



## James Bang (Jul 25, 2007)

have you tried scooting your seat back? 

I've thought about this as well. I believe it's more of a pyschoacoustics type of deal. That's just my opinion, though.


----------



## KAP (Mar 18, 2007)

You gotta get them speakers out in front of you .


----------



## Thumper26 (Sep 23, 2005)

k, so you're wanting depth.

take what i say with a grain of salt b/c i'm still learning a lot of this myself, but i've found the more dead on your stage is, the more depth is there. i was talking to matt roberts about this, and he made a point that makes a ton of sense, and that is it's all about timing. if you get the amplitude of your speakers right, time delay right, and adjust the frequencies to get them all dead center to where everything is in alignment, you'll have that depth b/c everything will be in time. the musical cues for the echoes on the song that adds to that depth will be in time with the singer or whatever, just like they were when the mic recorded them. so, get a frequency separated pink noise track, and go through the bands. try to get each one centered on the dash. i know some people that use separate left and right tracks and a handheld spl meter to get this. others use their ears to get it that way. i prefer to do that b/c you're also training yourself at the same time. do a few bands, go back and listen again. keep doing that until you get through the whole spectrum. then listen to music and make adjustments from there. it's not an exact science, and will take time, but it'll eventually come.

i'm not sure what processing you're using, but if you have something like a 701, this helps a lot.


----------



## 6APPEAL (Apr 5, 2007)

The best I've been able to get is the back edge of the hood or just beyond the windshield. It was all speaker placement and choice. I've never been able to get the image from Richard Clark's GN. Heard it several times and the female singer moving from the leading edge of the hood back to the back edge of the dash blew me away.
John


----------



## Ajay (Jun 26, 2008)

I am new here so this answer might be redundant but time alignment really helped me put the music out infront . Nothing else I di helped very much at all.


----------



## snaimpally (Mar 5, 2008)

Check the tutorial section. There several good threads and I recall that one of them tells you specific frequencies to use to manipulate the soundstage.


----------



## FrankstonCarAudio (Feb 2, 2008)

Give this tutorial a look:

http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/showthread.php?t=33740

Mark


----------



## ccotenj (Jun 10, 2008)

FrankstonCarAudio said:


> Give this tutorial a look:
> 
> http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/showthread.php?t=33740
> 
> Mark


thanks. that's a really good writeup and very helpful. 

now at least some of the fog has lifted, but i think i need to read it a few more times.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

Do you have the ability to tinker with 5khz? If so, start tinkering with that area of your EQ. This should give you more/less depth.


----------



## FrankstonCarAudio (Feb 2, 2008)

bikinpunk said:


> Do you have the ability to tinker with 5khz? If so, start tinkering with that area of your EQ. This should give you more/less depth.


ROFL!! 
Tinker & tinkering in one statement! 

I haven't heard that in a LONG time... and I'm nearly fifty!.. so I am closer to "tinkering" age than some of you!

Thanks Bikin, you just made my day.. 

Mark

PS Sorry for the hijack...


----------



## ccotenj (Jun 10, 2008)

the hijack was amusing...  

yea, i can... this is a learning experience for me...


----------



## FrankstonCarAudio (Feb 2, 2008)

ccotenj said:


> the hijack was amusing...
> 
> yea, i can... this is a learning experience for me...


This is my 34th year in the industry, here in Australia.. and you never stop learning!
This forum is one of the best to expand your knowledge of all things audio... there is some great minds here..

Mark


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

FrankstonCarAudio said:


> ROFL!!
> Tinker & tinkering in one statement!
> 
> I haven't heard that in a LONG time... and I'm nearly fifty!.. so I am closer to "tinkering" age than some of you!
> ...


crazy people...


----------



## FrankstonCarAudio (Feb 2, 2008)

bikinpunk said:


> crazy people...


That just hit the spot to give me a cheer-up for the day.. 

Are you implying that I have some age related problem that is making me crazy?  j/k

Mark


----------



## Matt R (Aug 29, 2007)

If you got the side to side time alignment right or close it's time to delay both mids together. Then both tweets together. There is going to be a time relationship between your speakers that allows the sound waves from all of them to arive at your ears at the same time. Try different things with delay and keep your original as a preset so you can go back and A/B the new settings against the old one.

Matt


----------



## FrankstonCarAudio (Feb 2, 2008)

A couple of questions none of us has asked... 
What vehicle is your system in?
Where are the speakers placed?
What speakers are you using?

More info?

Mark


----------



## ehiunno (Feb 26, 2008)

I, personally, feel that its all just magic.

...and that bikini is secretly 72 years old and masquerading like he just graduated from college.


----------



## candaddy (May 21, 2008)

Matt R said:


> If you got the side to side time alignment right or close it's time to delay both mids together. Then both tweets together. There is going to be a time relationship between your speakers that allows the sound waves from all of them to arive at your ears at the same time. Try different things with delay and keep your original as a preset so you can go back and A/B the new settings against the old one.
> 
> Matt



Yes, what he said.

This subject is all about phase coherency throughout the crossover frequencies, as well as all the other things previously mentioned (eq for center sound staging, etc). This is where an active system allows you to dial in your phase relationships between speakers so that they sum properly. 

The way stereo from two point sources works is by altered phase and amplitude between the two point sources. So if that is automatically screwed up (either with the install, hardware, tuning, or both) then proper reproduction won't happen.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

Both. First and foremost you want the depth sensitive drivers - midrange - at a long pathlenght from the listening position, ie. kick mounting. 

At a far second you want to get as much stereo effect as possible. Here you can do a proper time alignment and equalize left and right speakers as close as you can.

Relatively, you can't get too far with tunning, you want to maximize the mounting location, that's the big ticket item in car audio. 

If you want Diana Krall to sing from the top of your hood you need to place your driver seat in the center of the glasshouse or get smart with advanced DSP.


----------



## bretti_kivi (Dec 3, 2007)

maybe also read http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13888

...


----------



## ccotenj (Jun 10, 2008)

FrankstonCarAudio said:


> A couple of questions none of us has asked...
> What vehicle is your system in?
> Where are the speakers placed?
> What speakers are you using?
> ...


yea, i suppose that would help...  it's not really a "diy" setup like most of you have, all "out of the box" stuff, and i had the install done for me (i have ZERO patience when it comes to installing things)... 

mazda3 hatch
alpine ida-x100 hu
alpine pxa-h100 processor
jl c5-650 components, active, stock locations, doors deadened
jl 12w3v3 sealed
alpine pdx-5 

one of the reasons i went in this direction is that i wanted to learn how to do basic tuning, and i figured that since i can use either the imprint or do it by hand with this setup, i could use the imprint setup as "training wheels", i.e. the "imprinted" sound gives me something to shoot for while i'm playing with it manually... 

right now, it's "imprinted" with the "basic" measuring positions... and to be honest, it sounds pretty darn good the way it is... stage is centered and wide, imaging is good... the thing i'd like to do (once i manually get it to that point, which will probably take me years) is make the stage deeper... so i figured i'd ask the question, so i can tinker with that as i go along...

the same person has done several installs for me (including one in my wife's sc300 that is sweet), so he is "trusted", and has offered to help me out with the tuning when i get stuck, but i want to try and learn how to do it myself, now that i'm a little (well, a lot) older and have learned to have at least a little bit of patience... 

any of that make sense?


----------



## ccotenj (Jun 10, 2008)

bretti_kivi said:


> maybe also read http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13888
> 
> ...


thanks. that's a good read too.


----------



## ccotenj (Jun 10, 2008)

FrankstonCarAudio said:


> This is my 34th year in the industry, here in Australia.. and you never stop learning!
> This forum is one of the best to expand your knowledge of all things audio... there is some great minds here..
> 
> Mark


geez, i have a LONG way to go...  sometimes it becomes overwhelming, trying to process all the information, and then actually do something with it...

yes, one can learn a lot here, unlike some of the other, ummm, "enthusiast" sites... i've lurked here for a long time, trying to suck up knowledge...


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

Rear speakers and some processing for them will increase the depth of your stage.


----------



## 6APPEAL (Apr 5, 2007)

Rear fill didn't do much for my stage depth, but helped the height of my stage. Physo-acoustics? I've found it much harder to get stage depth in my truck than in my cars. I assume it's because you sit so much more upright/higher in the cabin.
John


----------



## capnxtreme (Feb 5, 2008)

6APPEAL said:


> Rear fill didn't do much for my stage depth


Was it decorrelated, delayed, L-R, and lowpassed?

Andy didn't say anything about rear "fill."


----------



## FrankstonCarAudio (Feb 2, 2008)

capnxtreme said:


> Was it decorrelated, delayed, L-R, and lowpassed?
> 
> Andy didn't say anything about rear "fill."


What you are actually trying to say, is it wired in "Hafler Effect"?
Hafler needs to be band-passded, not low-passed..
It also needs to be attenuated by around 7dB in relation to the fronts..
The amount of delay is critical, as well as phase relationship..
There are *many* variables when Hafler is being attempted..

It will raise the soundstage, but to deepen the stage from it's present place requires more from the speaker placement IMO.

I use Hafler in my vehicle, and for proper live recordings, its inflluence is remarkable, but I have spent many months researching and experimenting to get it to the point where it is now.. and probably will spend many more getting it better! 

Just my $0.02


----------



## capnxtreme (Feb 5, 2008)

Cool, good input. That is what I was referring to, and assumed Andy was referring to. I have been an ass once or twice before, though.

Would love to hear even more about it.


----------



## FrankstonCarAudio (Feb 2, 2008)

I don't want to hijack the OP's thread again, but Ge0 also did a lot of research on Hafler.. his thread is on this forum, I just can't remember what gallery it's in.. (since they all changed!)

Werewolf is quite the "fountain of knowledge" on Hafler as well, he also has a thread somewhere..

I got a lot of info from my local library as well...

Mark


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

FrankstonCarAudio said:


> Give this tutorial a look:
> 
> http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/showthread.php?t=33740
> 
> Mark


Good Lord, there is a ton of terrible advice there.

I wish I had time to write a proper thread, but here's some basics, and they're completely different than what the other poster recommended.

"Five Steps to a Great Soundstage by your Pal Patrick"

#1 - Before you buy any speakers, amps, etc, figure out what you're trying to do. There are two basic ways to get a good soundstage in a car.
The simplest way to create a good soundstage in the car is to have two channels which are well balanced where the driver sits. If you go this route, you are tuning your system to sound good in one seat. If you go this route, the passenger's soundstage will be all wrong. There are many methods to achieve this soundstage. The simplest method is with one or two subs in the trunk, midranges down low (kick panels or doors) and tweeters in the A-Pillars. Once you've selected your drivers, complete a professional install, then simply set the levels and EQ so that the left and right are in-phase and at similar levels left to right. You'll have a well centered stage for the driver.

The second method is a lot trickier. Involves the use of waveguides and compression drivers. This is the method Holdaway pioneered, Richard Clark refined, and I've studied for the better part of 20 yrs. See http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=117537&pagenumber=3 and http://www.audiogroupforum.com/csforum/showthread.php?page=2&t=62789

#2 - Don't waste a single minute tuning your soundstage by ear until you've invested in a good measurement setup and tuned it with a mic first. The other poster recommended tweaking levels and EQ bands to make the music sound "better." WTF? I thought we were interested in high fidelity? Just because a tweak makes things sound "better" doesn't mean you've improved things. For instance, lowering the level of the tweets to make things sound "better" may just mask a peak in the tweeter's response, or nasty reflection off the window. Bottom line is use the mic first, your ears second.

#3 - Nothing ruins your image like reflections. Every time there's a reflection, a "phantom" of the original sound is created where that reflection occurs. So avoid reflections at all costs. This is one of the best reasons to put tweeters in the a-pillars. It's also one of the reasons I personally believe that waveguides under the dash are a bad idea. Yes, Richard Clark went that route, but his worked for another reason (I can explain if anyone cares.)

# 4 - Resonances are bad. Your mids and your subs will make your whole car rattle; every one of those rattles is like a little phantom speaker, muddying up your image. So use the most inert enclosure you can get away with. In my new setup I've gone with U-Frame midranges for this reason. It's one of many solutions to the resonance problem.

# 5 - Distortion is bad. The distortion from a subwoofer can be just as loud as the sound coming out of your mids, so go with a sub box that has low distortion. The same applies to midranges, except the distortion from a mid muddies up the sound of your tweets. For example, if your sub plays a note at 75hz, the 2nd order harmonics are at 150hz, and the third at 300hz. That's well into the midrange. The killer part of it is that you CAN'T FILTER IT OUT. Even if you have a 24db/octave crossover at 80hz, it won't make ANY DIFFERENCE. The distortion is being created by the sub, so the crossover can't filter it out (in other words, it's mechanical, not electrical.)

To sum it up: Use a mic first, tune with your ears once that's sorted out, and pay close attention to distortion, resonances, and diffraction.


----------



## ehiunno (Feb 26, 2008)

Please do explain that about richard clarks waveguides. I'm itching to know.


----------



## FrankstonCarAudio (Feb 2, 2008)

Patrick Bateman said:


> Good Lord, there is a ton of terrible advice there.


"Five Steps to a Great Soundstage by your Pal Patrick" ... aka...
"How to expand on what everybody else already knows or has written, and blow my own trumpet"

"I wish I had time to write a proper thread"... I'm sure Mr Marv and all the rest of the guys who contributed to that tutorial/post will be glad that you know better.

In your whole post, I didn't actually see any further constructive advice offered that hasn't already been posted in this thread or other posts that the OP may have already researched.. but gee, it sure did take up a lotta space and look mighty impressive!


----------



## 6APPEAL (Apr 5, 2007)

FrankstonCarAudio said:


> What you are actually trying to say, is it wired in "Hafler Effect"?
> Hafler needs to be band-passded, not low-passed..
> It also needs to be attenuated by around 7dB in relation to the fronts..
> The amount of delay is critical, as well as phase relationship..
> ...


Yep, I'm band-passed. Yep, I'm attenuated roughly 7 db in relation to the fronts. No delay, yet (no h701 yet). I've tried both in and out of phase, without hearing much difference. Placement is low in the rear doors of a Crew Cab truck with a 6 1/2" woofer only.



capnxtreme said:


> Andy didn't say anything about rear "fill."


I consider any speaker behind me (except the sub) to be rear fill. It's coming from the rear and filling in the sound stage, hence rear fill.
John


----------



## FrankstonCarAudio (Feb 2, 2008)

6APPEAL said:


> Yep, I'm band-passed. Yep, I'm attenuated roughly 7 db in relation to the fronts. No delay, yet (no h701 yet). I've tried both in and out of phase, without hearing much difference. Placement is low in the rear doors of a Crew Cab truck with a 6 1/2" woofer only.
> 
> John


Delay is very important, especially given the placement of your drivers side rear..
This probably places this speaker closer to your left ear than the front? (I'm comparing your rear placement to those of Australian Crew Cabs, except we're on the other side of the vehicle!! ), so this speaker can still be dominant in relation to the fronts. ( I'm using simple terminology so as not to get into great lengthy explanations like some do! )

Search for Ge0's and Werewolf's threads/posts for a better and more informative explanation of Hafler setup.. they make for some good reading!

HTH 

Mark


----------



## Ge0 (Jul 23, 2007)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> Rear speakers and some processing for them will increase the depth of your stage.


Yep, couldn't agree more.

Original Poster,

Reading through this thread that describes my trials and tribulations with "proper" rear fill may be beneficial:

http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/showthread.php?t=22523&highlight=L-R

Ge0


----------



## Abmolech (Nov 2, 2006)

> In your whole post, I didn't actually see any further constructive advice offered that hasn't already been posted in this thread or other posts that the OP may have already researched.. but gee, it sure did take up a lotta space and look mighty impressive!


Actually there is. But you have to open to the limitations of (single) radiating drivers and their polar response for the use of stereophonic reproduction. Much of what he suggests will overcome a large amount of the tuning problems associated with stereophonic per-say, but also in a car. You would far more chance of obtaining stereophonic listening, than with single radiating drivers in a car, however even with improvement, you are still only likely to obtain better panned monophonic.

The only reasonable hope of stereophonic listening in a car, would be with surround sound or possibly PI stereophonic. True stereophonic listening should have stage that expands and contracts with the recording, and illusion of depth by the correct amount of acoustic crosstalk. Surround sound/Logic7 and PI stereophonic improve the acoustic crosstalk, compared to two channel stereophonic in a car.


----------



## FrankstonCarAudio (Feb 2, 2008)

Thanks Ge0, 

I have been referring to your thread , but couldn't remember where it was!
Werewolf also had one (and IIRC he chimed in a few times on yours?)

Mark


----------



## FrankstonCarAudio (Feb 2, 2008)

I was wondering when you would get here Abmo... 

Some of your posts were what I was referring to by the OP having already done other research..

As for the rest of the diatribe that was put forth, much is already known or just common sense...

But enough of the hijack.. best we get back OT

Mark


----------



## Abmolech (Nov 2, 2006)

Possibly...

However using waveguides, arrays, or arrays with waveguides are possibly the "ultimate solution" for acoustic reproduction using speakers in a car. They address some of the more fundamental problems, such as early reflections, polar response and standing waves in the listening positions, if implemented successfully. Using an EQ to "tune" these problems out, is poor idea.

*To the original poster,*
Depth with stereophonic replay is about achieving the correct amount of *acoustic crosstalk* in the listening position. For example, headphones inherently don't suffer from acoustic space problems, path-length differences(whatever that means?)ETC, which is the usual diatribe of the ill informed. Yet you have no depth on headphones. (The image is inside your head)

If you were wise, it might lead you to conclude, depth has something to do with the creation of acoustic crosstalk using stereophonic reproduction. Look for solutions that correct this, such as proper rear speaker setup, (DSP) or the use of a PI array.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

Patrick Bateman said:


> #3 - Nothing ruins your image like reflections. Every time there's a reflection, a "phantom" of the original sound is created where that reflection occurs. So avoid reflections at all costs. This is one of the best reasons to put tweeters in the a-pillars. It's also one of the reasons I personally believe that waveguides under the dash are a bad idea. Yes, Richard Clark went that route, but his worked for another reason (I can explain if anyone cares.)


I'm not sure how tweeters in the a-pillars are an answer to the reflections problem. To be honest I've tried a-pillar, top dash on axis, top dash reflected of windshield, sail pod, upper door, lower dash, and kickpanel locations and out of all of these the a-pillar was the worst, especially due to reflections. Furthermore you have partially reflected sound and partially direct. How's that any good?


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

FrankstonCarAudio said:


> "Five Steps to a Great Soundstage by your Pal Patrick" ... aka...
> "How to expand on what everybody else already knows or has written, and blow my own trumpet"
> 
> "I wish I had time to write a proper thread"... I'm sure Mr Marv and all the rest of the guys who contributed to that tutorial/post will be glad that you know better.
> ...


Mr Marv recommended "While listening to familiar music, adjust each individual band up and down slowly. When the music sounds better then move to the next band."

That is patently awful advice - your frequency response should be tuned with a mic first, ears second. Tuning a system by ear exclusively is for rank amateurs.

It's particularly aggravating because a lot of music sounds awful on ALL speakers. Trying to make it sound "good" is just a waste of time. In addition to that, many so-called audiophile recordings are drowning in 2nd harmonic distortion, to make them sound "euphonic."

Trust your mic.


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

cvjoint said:


> I'm not sure how tweeters in the a-pillars are an answer to the reflections problem. To be honest I've tried a-pillar, top dash on axis, top dash reflected of windshield, sail pod, upper door, lower dash, and kickpanel locations and out of all of these the a-pillar was the worst, especially due to reflections. Furthermore you have partially reflected sound and partially direct. How's that any good?


Firing off the top of the dash and reflecting on the windshield will screw up the frequency response because a nasty reflection is created. You can calculate the frequency of this reflection by measuring the distance from the tweeter to the windshield. For instance, if the distance is one inch, there will be a huge suckout caused by the reflection at 3500hz. (speed of sound / 4)

This is due to the reflected wave interfering with the tweeter at one half wavelength, and being perfectly out-of-phase.

So firing into the windshield is a no-go. A lot of cars put tweeters on the dash, and it CAN work, but you have to keep the gap as small as possible. For instance, Honda puts tweeters in the corners of the dash, and it works well, because the distance from the windshield to the tweeter diaphragm is about 1/4", which drives the suckout up to 14khz, where it's all but inaudible due to the stock tweeters lack of high end response.

Putting tweeters in the kicks is problematic because it reflects off the driver.

Putting tweeters in the A-Pillars suffers from the least reflections, as the nearest boundary is a foot or two away in most cars.

Reflections are far more audible when they occur early in the impulse response.


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

ehiunno said:


> Please do explain that about richard clarks waveguides. I'm itching to know.


Were you responding to my post or BlueSQ?

I'd love to talk about Clark's waveguides, I've spent years figuring out his car.


----------



## FrankstonCarAudio (Feb 2, 2008)

Patrick Bateman said:


> Mr Marv recommended "While listening to familiar music, adjust each individual band up and down slowly. When the music sounds better then move to the next band."
> 
> That is patently awful advice - your frequency response should be tuned with a mic first, ears second. Tuning a system by ear exclusively is for rank amateurs.
> 
> Trust your mic.


Unfortunately, a lot of posters in this section (and the forum as a whole) aren't privy to the various test gear that is available to pro shops.. so I guess that puts them in the "rank amateur" category.. and "tuning by ear" is their only option.
Mr Marv's tutorial will work for these "rank amateurs" and that is why he and the others involved, posted it.. 
I agree it is not necessarily the ideal way to "tune" a system, but for many, it is the only way..

now can we let the OP have his topic back?

Mark


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

Patrick Bateman said:


> Putting tweeters in the A-Pillars suffers from the least reflections, as the nearest boundary is a foot or two away in most cars.


You mean like trucks and Mazda suvs?  Most pillars that I see meet with the glasshouse fairly close. I liked the sail pods, upper doors and kicks for minimizing reflections, although my kicks are a bit different.


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

cvjoint said:


> You mean like trucks and Mazda suvs?  Most pillars that I see meet with the glasshouse fairly close. I liked the sail pods, upper doors and kicks for minimizing reflections, although my kicks are a bit different.


Yeah, that's a really good point. I'm used to a lot of "cab forward" cars like the new Civic, Prius, and my own Accord coupe. In those cars the dash is enormous.

If the A Pillar is too close to where the drivers window meets the windshield, then don't use it - there will be nasty reflections.

In that situation I'd put the tweeters high in the doors, even though it will bring the stage forward.


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

FrankstonCarAudio said:


> Unfortunately, a lot of posters in this section (and the forum as a whole) aren't privy to the various test gear that is available to pro shops.. so I guess that puts them in the "rank amateur" category.. and "tuning by ear" is their only option.
> Mr Marv's tutorial will work for these "rank amateurs" and that is why he and the others involved, posted it..
> I agree it is not necessarily the ideal way to "tune" a system, but for many, it is the only way..
> 
> ...


You can get a Behringer mic and a USB preamp for under $100 on ebay.
If people can spend $200 on a sub, they should be able to scrape together $100 for a mic and a preamp.

[cue old man voice] Back when I was a young man you had to buy Clio from Old Colony Sound Lab for $600...

I still have a dusty copy of Calsod in the basement.


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

ccotenj said:


> yea, i suppose that would help...  it's not really a "diy" setup like most of you have, all "out of the box" stuff, and i had the install done for me (i have ZERO patience when it comes to installing things)...
> 
> mazda3 hatch
> alpine ida-x100 hu
> ...


What did you think of the stock system?
My girlfriend bought a 2008 Mazda 3 two weeks ago, the five door. It came with a Bose stereo. The image is probably the best I've ever heard from a stock system. Head and shoulders above 75% of the aftermarket systems I've heard in the imaging department.

Bose is doing the same trick which was recommended here:
http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13888

Basically they're using tons of EQ and possibly even a little DSP to create a great image for the driver.

The image on the passenger side is completely non-existent. But the driver's side! Amazing, the image floats above the center of the dash.

It really REALLY needs a sub though, and the frequency response is kinda wonky (probably due to the heavy EQ.)


----------



## ccotenj (Jun 10, 2008)

is it safe for me to come out yet? train back on the tracks? 

i read through the various links... had to read parts of them a few times before some of it sunk in, and some of it still defies comprehension at this point...

i found the quoted mr. marv post very helpful, as it laid out a path of bread crumbs to follow...

unfortunately, a great majority of the other links are way out of my league right now, as i truly am a "rank amateur" when it comes to tuning... i'm quite intrigued by the whole "ambience" thing, and i'd like to try that someday... but right now, i'm in the "baby steps" phase... 

even though i've read a LOT of posts, and like to think that i understand at least some of the concepts, it's a whole different story to put those concepts into practice... so to attempt to put some of the more esoteric concepts (that i know i don't understand completely) into practice right now probably wouldn't turn out so well...

i see my first "challenge" with manual tuning to be to get it to sound "reasonable"... which is what prompted the original question... from a lot of reading, i was able to piece together where to start, and what various adjustments did, but i couldn't find any real good specific tuning reference to making a stage deeper... so i wondered it it was possible with just tuning, or if install trumped all for that... 

a synopsis of things i learned from this thread so far...

1) playing with eq around 5k can help in moving the soundstage back
2) a few good step-by-step tuning methodologies. these are especially helpful for putting the concepts together in the "correct" order
3) to get a really "deep" stage, additional speakers in the rear (meticulously setup and tuned) would be a big step

oh, and that i'd better be patient... that part could be interesting...


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

I'm not sure how playing with tweeter frequencies ~5khz is going to change the depth of your stage. IIRC depth sensitive frequencies are 200hz to 4khz at the most 1khz at the lowest, ie. midrange.


----------



## ehiunno (Feb 26, 2008)

Patrick Bateman said:


> Were you responding to my post or BlueSQ?
> 
> I'd love to talk about Clark's waveguides, I've spent years figuring out his car.


Yours


----------



## ccotenj (Jun 10, 2008)

Patrick Bateman said:


> What did you think of the stock system?


well, the fact that i just spent a chunk of money to get rid of it speaks volumes... 

mine had dsp issues in the head unit itself (bass dropouts and volume jumps)... so i can't make a fair comparison... i suppose it sounded "ok" when it worked right... let's put it this way, if it wasn't already on the trim level i wanted, i wouldn't have paid extra for it just to get it...


----------



## ccotenj (Jun 10, 2008)

cvjoint said:


> I'm not sure how playing with tweeter frequencies ~5khz is going to change the depth of your stage. IIRC depth sensitive frequencies are 200hz to 4khz at the most 1khz at the lowest, ie. midrange.


hmmm...

i read this:

"13. In tuning you will find some eq bands will raise, lower, move the sound closer, or farther away if adjusted in certain manners. For example, lowering 5 KHz will generally move the soundstage farther away and raising 2 KHz will make the soundstage rise. Each vehicle and system will have different settings that will be the best. The best way to achieve awesome sound is to constantly adjust."

and it was also mentioned by someone else...

i freely admit i may be misinterpreting, and someone should feel free to prod me back in the correct direction...


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

ccotenj said:


> hmmm...
> 
> i read this:
> 
> ...


Add to that boosting or cutting in depth sensitive frequencies is not going to change the depth of your stage. It's all in the physical placement of these drivers, namely how far they are from the listener. 

2khz is not going to affect stage height, you're looking at 4khz and up for that. 

I'd like to hear a rebuttal that includes sensory mechanisms for picking up these cues. Otherwise it's fairly easy to just spurt out magic EQ. cuts or boosts.


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

ehiunno said:


> Yours


Based on what I know about horns (have been doing this for 12yrs now), there are a few reasons Clark and Holdaway got away with putting the waveguides so low.

First, putting the waveguides down low is a compromise; ideally you'd want them up high. I don't think anyone would argue with that. They had to put them down low because Clark used an Altec compression driver which is the size of a cantelope. You're not going to hide that on the dash.

Years later Holdaway did a Camaro where the compression drivers were behind the dash, with the mouth of the waveguide exiting at the windshield.

There's a half doze reasons why they got away with putting them low. The obvious reasons are aiming them high, the use of EQ, and the use of DSP.

A couple of not-so-obvious reasons are that the waveguides used a very large mouth. Basically the larger the mouth is, the more difficult it is to localize the sound. This is one of the reasons conventional tweeters are so easy to locate; the diaphragm is an inch across.

I proved this myself in the former car; I tried both USD waveguides and my own custom waveguides. The USD waveguides didn't image as well as mine (though they're much easier to hide - mine are huge.)

Clark's were even larger.

Of course another reason the stage is so deep is that the pathlength is *extreme*. The waveguide itself is tucked over a foot under the dash.


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

ccotenj said:


> well, the fact that i just spent a chunk of money to get rid of it speaks volumes...
> 
> mine had dsp issues in the head unit itself (bass dropouts and volume jumps)... so i can't make a fair comparison... i suppose it sounded "ok" when it worked right... let's put it this way, if it wasn't already on the trim level i wanted, i wouldn't have paid extra for it just to get it...


I agree, the lack of bass is maddening. I've been begging her to let me drop an amp and a Diyma 12 into the hatch.


----------



## ehiunno (Feb 26, 2008)

Interesting. I know very little about waveguides and there really aren't too many around here using them.

Might be something I try with the next install, far into the future... or when I get bored after I finish this one in a month or so


----------



## kevin k. (May 5, 2005)

cvjoint said:


> Add to that boosting or cutting in depth sensitive frequencies is not going to change the depth of your stage. It's all in the physical placement of these drivers, namely how far they are from the listener.


Not entirely true, George. 

Unless I'm just misunderstanding... as I am prone to doing quite often. Regardless...

Do a search for info on the "Gundry Dip"...

here's a start...

http://www.harbeth.co.uk/usergroup/showthread.php?p=2764

Good seeing you at the bbq, btw, and hope to see you again soon


----------



## ccotenj (Jun 10, 2008)

Patrick Bateman said:


> I agree, the lack of bass is maddening. I've been begging her to let me drop an amp and a Diyma 12 into the hatch.


not to derail my own topic, but it wasn't simply the "lack" of bass... it's that there would be NO bass sometimes, they had a firmware problem on the 08.5 model that caused some "issues"...


----------



## Ge0 (Jul 23, 2007)

Patrick Bateman said:


> Bose is doing the same trick which was recommended here:
> http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13888


This is one of my favorites. Not necessarily because of the technical content (I've had that down for a few years) but for the clever play on words Foxy always seems to use "well slap me on the ass and call me Charlie!!!"

Good sound advice though. Potentially the single most important part when I tune my system.

Ge0


----------



## Ge0 (Jul 23, 2007)

Patrick Bateman said:


> # 4 - Resonances are bad. Your mids and your subs will make your whole car rattle; every one of those rattles is like a little phantom speaker, muddying up your image. So use the most inert enclosure you can get away with. In my new setup I've gone with U-Frame midranges for this reason. It's one of many solutions to the resonance problem.


U-Frame midranges? Please elaborate.

Ge0


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

kevin k. said:


> Not entirely true, George.
> 
> Unless I'm just misunderstanding... as I am prone to doing quite often. Regardless...
> 
> ...


_
"The 'BBC dip' is (was) a shallow shelf-down in the acoustic output of some BBC-designed speaker system of the 1960s-1980s in the 1kHz to 4kHz region. The LS3/5a does not have this effect, neither in the 15 ohm nor 11 ohm, both of which are in fact slightly lifted in that region.

According to Harbeth's founder, who worked at the BBC during the time that this psychoacoustic effect was being explored, the primary benefit this little dip gave was in masking of defects in the early plastic cone drive units available in the 1960's. A spin-off benefit was that it appeared to move the sound stage backwards away from the studio manager who was sitting rather closer to the speakers in the cramped control room than he would ideally wish for."_

Interesting find, I'm guilty of using this technique in the pre-WinMLS and premium drivers days. I started tunning by ear with some car audio drivers and more often than not I had the 1khz to 4khz EQd down for the same reasons these folks did. That region is terrifying on mediocre speakers and high output. Notice the implicit defining reason for the dip and how in later models it seems to be avoided. 

Nonetheless the depth effect is our main target here. This issue seems to be approached with uncertainty that shows in diction "it appeared to move the sound." The whole target frequency can in fact be above the depth sensitive range. I'd venture to say that gain setting the 200hz-1000hz band up might have the same effect. Let's say we force selective perception towards depth defining, the other drivers would be at a relatively lower gain and focus would be on picking up depth. Without in fact changing the relative depth itself the ear would have an easier time picking it up unmasked by other staging cues.

I'd love to see some of the heavyweights on the site go into depth. 

Good input Kevin, always a pleasure. Nice to see you at the BBQ too and congrats. on the success your car had; off course I always knew it would. I'm trying to find time to put in the kevlar SD1 Scan Speak drivers next. Hopefully you can audition them at the next So.Cal meet, you kinda missed out on the B&Cs.


----------



## ccotenj (Jun 10, 2008)

cvjoint said:


> I'd love to see some of the heavyweights on the site go into depth.


me too... even though i wouldn't understand most of it, i'm curious now...


----------



## kevin k. (May 5, 2005)

cvjoint said:


> Nonetheless the depth effect is our main target here. This issue seems to be approached with uncertainty that shows in diction "it appeared to move the sound."


Do further research and try it for yourself... for something to have "appeared" can also mean that is has "become evident" 



cvjoint said:


> The whole target frequency can in fact be above the depth sensitive range. I'd venture to say that gain setting the 200hz-1000hz band up might have the same effect.


Not in my experience. Give it a try and see what you think. 



cvjoint said:


> Let's say we force selective perception towards depth defining, the other drivers would be at a relatively lower gain and focus would be on picking up depth. Without in fact changing the relative depth itself the ear would have an easier time picking it up unmasked by other staging cues.


Relative gain, I think, would be at a higher level, if anything, to create an overall relative drop in the area being discussed... would it not? Of course, the gain of any other drivers doesn't necessarily even have to come into question as the dip in response can be accomplished via eq. 



cvjoint said:


> Good input Kevin, always a pleasure. Nice to see you at the BBQ too and congrats. on the success your car had; off course I always knew it would. I'm trying to find time to put in the kevlar SD1 Scan Speak drivers next. Hopefully you can audition them at the next So.Cal meet, you kinda missed out on the B&Cs.


Thanks for the kind words, George. I was most definitely very surprised at the overall reaction to my car and very gratified, as well. And I'm most certainly looking forward to the next opportunity to listen to your vee-hikkle!


----------



## DaleCarter (Jan 3, 2008)

cvjoint said:


> Add to that boosting or cutting in depth sensitive frequencies is not going to change the depth of your stage. It's all in the physical placement of these drivers, namely how far they are from the listener.
> 
> 2khz is not going to affect stage height, you're looking at 4khz and up for that.
> 
> I'd like to hear a rebuttal that includes sensory mechanisms for picking up these cues. Otherwise it's fairly easy to just spurt out magic EQ. cuts or boosts.



I apologize if I missed something, but that seems contradictory.


----------



## Abmolech (Nov 2, 2006)

If depth perception was a relative comparison of amplitude to frequency, then try it on a set of headphones. (IE acoustic and path-length differences are nullified)

What you will find is 
Height is comparison of frequency amplitudes, and to some extent frequency versus frequency (IE invert the 4 -10 KHz range to change low to high and vica versa)

You can move the stage forward and back (See binaural holographics)This is primarily done with frequency roll-off rates.

Distance of the stage is somewhat dependant on the above roll-off, hence the reason why nearfield listening can be so poor.

Depth (instrument relative positions) cannot be changed by EQ, etc. It can be enhanced by the use of reverberation (direct versus indirect), however artificial reverberation suffers from vector based anomalies. (IE it doesn't have the correct phase) Normally recordings are rehashed to maximise the amount of reverberation addition they can possibly manage, so increasing this will result in a poorer listening experience.


Point
Headphones and ear buds don't have acoustic crosstalk available to them. (They are a far better medium because of this, and if used with a binaural recording will always out perform stereophonic of similar quality) 
Stereophonic requires the right amount of acoustic crosstalk to recreate the illusion of depth. (Panned monophonic can create some depth and of course left-right listening stage but it lacks the ability to to have the stage expand and contract as the music requires)
It is the prime test of stereophonic to have the image shift with a different recordings. (IE wider/narrower and different depths)

One of the harder points to grasp is two channel stereophonic fleeting images. One day it is "perfect" the next day its not. This is because stereophonic requires excellent polar and power response, which direct radiating drivers struggle to perform. This has created the rise of the "audiophile", with the golden ears and the associated cable merchants etc. Because the slightest change in head position, or atmospheric conditions produces an audible change.

I have suggested the use of headphones to test these "EQ theories", because it reduces or eliminates most of the variation in head listening positions etc.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

kevin k. said:


> Not in my experience. Give it a try and see what you think.
> 
> Relative gain, I think, would be at a higher level, if anything, to create an overall relative drop in the area being discussed... would it not? Of course, the gain of any other drivers doesn't necessarily even have to come into question as the dip in response can be accomplished via eq.


I've tried various EQ. shapes to change the staging properties. The only one that appeared to work was to boost 10k to lift the stage. Anything else had no effect from what I could tell. All in all I wouldn't even screw with it because at the end of the day I give preference to tonality over staging. Car is a poor medium for that, why risk something that any listener could benefit from (a good FR) over something that has infinite variance (stage)? There is a good amount of people that can't appreciate a good surround sound setup let alone imaging in a car. 



DaleCarter said:


> I apologize if I missed something, but that seems contradictory.


to continue...that is not to say you'll hear me recommend EQ. work to increase depth. It was an attempt at sarcasm :blush:



Abmolech said:


> If depth perception was a relative comparison of amplitude to frequency, then try it on a set of headphones. (IE acoustic and path-length differences are nullified)
> 
> What you will find is
> Height is comparison of frequency amplitudes, and to some extent frequency versus frequency (IE invert the 4 -10 KHz range to change low to high and vica versa)
> ...


Just what I was expecting from you 

I guess the next big step for me would be to move from direct radiating drivers. What other options are there? Is it even possible to integrate in a vehicle for the whole FR spectrum?


----------



## Abmolech (Nov 2, 2006)

Usual stuff, arrays, waveguides and horns. Of less practicality, may be electrostatics or ribbons.

Some replay methods are less susceptible than others, VIZ surround, ambisonics and VBAP. Some are inherently superior, ambiophonics and monophonic.

However the best contender would be, a binaural recording using ear buds with individual pinna correction, and an adjustment for how much background noise you wish to hear. (IE engine RPM etc)


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

Horn loading a midrange in a car and keeping pattern control will be a fun experiment/waste of money. The best you could do would be down into the mid 400 range without rebuilding the entire dash. You could do this with some large format compression drivers and larger than "stock" horns. Both of which I have and will be using.

And midbass...forget it...not in a car you can drive.


----------



## Abmolech (Nov 2, 2006)

> And midbass...forget it...not in a car you can drive.


Agreed, it is not practical to load it to 8 + Pi steradians in a car, but how much could you load it to in a car, while keeping it practical?


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

Well...midbass could be done in a vehicle. Probably folded horn mounted behind you....in a van.

But in a car would it even be worth it? At that point (speaking of the pass band of the horn), the gains of pattern control would probably be lost, or atleast, not of much benefit.

The midrange is where the money is at. And even then, in a car, there would be a point on the low end of things where the gains would probably start decreasing.

Maybe. I am tired...I might be wrong.


----------



## Abmolech (Nov 2, 2006)

Actually I was kind of prompting for something akin to corner loading a sub bass in a normal room.

IE how much could we load a mid bass if we used our heads and observed the car space as an acoustic space.

Hint 
At least 4 PI steradians.
(Without using a bandpass enclosure)


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

I'd really love to know how attenuating some midrange frequencies is going to increase depth. None of this makes any sense to me. Our perception of distance and room dimensions relies on our ability to process the time arrival and frequency response shaping of additional events--reflections. If there's no additional event, then the sounds come from the speakers or from the source. Attenuating midrange frequencies may seem to move a vocalist farther away WHILE YOU ARE TUNING, but later it'll just sound like attenuated midrange. 

I love to take people into the anechoic chambers in our lab and talk to them or play music. With the lights off, it's nearly impossible to determine how far away the source of the sound is unless it moves. Stereo from a pair of speakers is horrifying in the chamber and eliminating reflections is NOT the way to achieve sonic nirvana.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

Well I tried attenuating 1khz to 4khz the other day during some freeway time. I used the graphic EQ. to adjust about 3db down. The initial and most imposing impression was that the vocals and detail suffered a lot. We're talking about a huge blow to system balance, akin to a muffled sound.

Depth wise I could tell no difference. Since the major changes was in the higher vocals, it minimized their presence. Maybe one could mistakingly correlate the diminished presence as an increase in distance, but I maintain my stance that overall depth cues are not changed.


----------



## candaddy (May 21, 2008)

The two best websites I've read so far on staging and depth are:

http://www.moultonlabs.com/more/principles_of_multitrack_mixing_the_phantom_image/

and:

http://www.linkwitzlab.com/index.html

The more you read, the less you'll need the forum to guide you.


----------



## Abmolech (Nov 2, 2006)

http://www.moultonlabs.com/more/prin...phantom_image/

From this site...



> The stereo phantom is quite similar to the monaural one, but is based on two signals that are not quite identical. Usually, the two signals are derived from two microphones listening to the same source from near each other in the same room. This phantom is more three-dimensional and realistic than the mono phantom, and far more stable in localization. To use it, you usually need to make a true stereo pair of tracks of the instrument you want to have appear in a stereo phantom image, although it is possible to simulate it, as we will discuss later on.


OK fair enough, although I would like to know how he differentiates that from panned monophonic...

Also how depth is more "realistic" from two or more microphones recording in monophonic, with only distance and phase variation. IE Coincident microphones 20 cm apart, = two monophonic recording with a 20 cm delay and 180 degrees out of phase, somehow records depth?



> Figure 1. Basic locations of sounds on recorded sound stage, with lead vocal, bass and kick drum occupying the phantom image, rhythmic material panned hard left and right, often with harmony vocals as well. Stereo instruments (like piano, or string pads) often fill in as a sort of “stereo glue” to hold the mix together. Sometimes, the stereo overhead mics from the drum kit do the same thing.


Can ANYONE explain to me how piano, or strings fulfils his version of a stereo instrument (IE two channels with slightly different information on them)?

http://www.linkwitzlab.com/index.html

This site is very good.
He explains that you can only have one seat, with possibly another directly behind it(adjacent) in the centre to have true stereophonic listening. He also explains how stereophonic is only an illusion and fools nobody. His taped lecture (MP3) is worth listening to.

Note his lecture on monopole and dipole and the reason why it is necessary to obtain stereophonic listening.

How well is your car doing to meet or exceed these standards?

Stereophonic listening is about controlled acoustic crosstalk in the listening position.


----------



## candaddy (May 21, 2008)

The Moulton labs site has good info from the standpoint of recording/mixing and for a newbie, is probably pretty good info. I'm not saying I agree with all of it. He did confirm that fading left or right doesn't do much and that time delay makes an enormous difference. Knowing how things work (or at least how they are done) from a recording/mixing standpoint helps us understand what we need to do to reproduce them.

Linkwitz is the best I've read and there is nothing I can argue with him. Of special note with Linkwitz is how reflections need to be true in character to the directly radiated sound for optimal "illusionary" effect.


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

Ge0 said:


> U-Frame midranges? Please elaborate.
> 
> Ge0


I threw together a post about why I'm going U-Frame for the mids:

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1551719#post1551719


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

thehatedguy said:


> Horn loading a midrange in a car and keeping pattern control will be a fun experiment/waste of money. The best you could do would be down into the mid 400 range without rebuilding the entire dash. You could do this with some large format compression drivers and larger than "stock" horns. Both of which I have and will be using.
> 
> And midbass...forget it...not in a car you can drive.


The windshield makes a fine waveguide. Particularly in many modern cars with "cab forward" design. Chyrsler started it with the Intrepid about ten years ago, and it's really taken off. Next time you walk by a Honda Civic, take a look at the dash and windshield. It's deep and symmetric, and it will make a fine waveguide.

My dash mounted waveguides are crossed over around 400hz at the moment.


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

Before you go to all the hassle to rebuild a dashboard so you can put waveguides in there in hopes of a deeper stage, remember that the source of a horn is the MOUTH of the horn. The benefit of the waveguide will be having 400Hz and up come from the interior point that's furthest away and at the top of the dash. That's not much different than putting a 4" and a tweeter in the top of the dash--like in an old Chevy S-10 pickup.

Try this experiment at home:

Put your speakers in the usual triangle arrangement. Listen for awhile. Then, move the speakers closer to the listening position in several increments, until they are in a straight line with your ears and listen carefully each time you move them. What you'll notice if you listen carefully is that the sense of depth INCREASES as the speakers get closer to you, but the focus of the images is degraded somewhat. The apparent width of the stage will also increase. That argues against the windshield waveguide thing. Does the windsheild waveguide thing work? Well...yes. There are plenty of other ways t increase stage depth too--rear speakers and appropriate processing is the easiest.


----------



## durwood (Mar 7, 2007)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> Before you go to all the hassle to rebuild a dashboard so you can put waveguides in there in hopes of a deeper stage, remember that the source of a horn is the MOUTH of the horn. The benefit of the waveguide will be having 400Hz and up come from the interior point that's furthest away and at the top of the dash. That's not much different than putting a 4" and a tweeter in the top of the dash--like in an old Chevy S-10 pickup.
> 
> Try this experiment at home:
> 
> Put your speakers in the usual triangle arrangement. Listen for awhile. Then, move the speakers closer to the listening position in several increments, until they are in a straight line with your ears and listen carefully each time you move them. What you'll notice if you listen carefully is that the sense of depth INCREASES as the speakers get closer to you, but the focus of the images is degraded somewhat. The apparent width of the stage will also increase. That argues against the windshield waveguide thing. Does the windsheild waveguide thing work? Well...yes. There are plenty of other ways t increase stage depth too--rear speakers and appropriate processing is the easiest.


That experiment is flawed UNLESS you keep the azimuth the same (i.e. 60 degs for stereo effect) as you move the speakers closer otherwise you are changing the required acoustic crosstalk needed. By moving them closer to you and keeping the same acoustic crosstalk needed, you are then altering the direct vs reflected energy ratio ONLY.

Using the windsheild as a waveguide rids yourself of reflections off the glass, however it does no good for acoustic crosstalk and you will end up with panned monophonic, that is unless you use another form of playback or take other measures.

Regarding depth perception:



> However, it is important to realise that the perceived distance of an acoustic source is only weakly dependent on its loudness. Experiments in anechoic chambers have shown errors of more than two to one in subjects asked to guess the distance of a sound source. In fact, the cues we use for judging distance are significantly more complex. They include
> 
> 
> -The ratio of direct to reverberant sound - in a reverberant environment, the energy in the reverberant field stays more or less constant for all combinations of listener/source positioning, (so for a given source level, the reverberation loudness remains the same) whereas the source loudness drops off with increasing distance.
> ...


See anything in there that we might be able to control in such a small environment? Which factors are the most important and which are less important?

There are also other studies that have shown that the reverberation tail is the main determining factor in how our brain decodes space size when looking at direct vs reflected ratios.

I will agree with Andy that in a car, probably the easiest way to get more perceived depth is using proper rear-fill-this helps control the acoustic crosstalk better and takes in other factors of the human hearing mechanisms.


----------



## Ge0 (Jul 23, 2007)

durwood said:


> Regarding depth perception:
> 
> See anything in there that we might be able to control in such a small environment? Which factors are the most important and which are less important?
> 
> ...


Anyone within a reasonable distance of Metro Detroit is welcome to listen to my vehicle. I have my rear fill set up through my systems fade control. You can "dial in" depth by adjusting the level/balance of frontal primary information to more rear ambience/reverb. It really is a dramatic effect. The only flaw so far is that stage height seems to take a dive when dialing in too much rear fill. However, I do believe that can be solved through some work adjusting the rear fill.

Still collecting pieces to implement that CarPC (need a reasonably priced FIREWIRE mini-PCI card and some custom phone jack cabling). Hoping to have it in by fall so I can spend the winter months experimenting with software.

Ge0


----------



## Ge0 (Jul 23, 2007)

Patrick Bateman said:


> The windshield makes a fine waveguide. Particularly in many modern cars with "cab forward" design. Chyrsler started it with the Intrepid about ten years ago, and it's really taken off. Next time you walk by a Honda Civic, take a look at the dash and windshield. It's deep and symmetric, and it will make a fine waveguide.
> 
> My dash mounted waveguides are crossed over around 400hz at the moment.


I agree with this statement. Since moving my tweeters to my Durangos immense cab forward dash I've improved the impulse response of those drivers considerably. This seems to defy logic but reflections were drastically reduced. Albiet, my tweets aren't aimed at the windshield, they are mounted so they aim parallel to it.

Ge0


----------



## durwood (Mar 7, 2007)

Ge0 said:


> Anyone within a reasonable distance of Metro Detroit is welcome to listen to my vehicle.


Hopefully you guys will have another get together this summer and I can actually make it. 



> Still collecting pieces to implement that CarPC (need a reasonably priced FIREWIRE mini-PCI card and some custom phone jack cabling). Hoping to have it in by fall so I can spend the winter months experimenting with software.
> 
> Ge0


 I just learned a new trick last night, needless to say it was a pretty interesting result that worked just as I had hoped, although I don't know if it is 100% correct.


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

1. Other than the obvious frequency response anomalies, what's so detrimental about reflections from the dash?

2. I should have included instruction to turn the speakers so they're always "on-axis", but I don't think there's any mysterious crosstalk BS involved in the requirement to turn the speakers increasingly inward other than to maintain the same frequency response in each position. Depending on the bookshelf speaker you use for the experiment, the off axis response may be dramatically different at high frequencies and at the crossover point.


----------



## Ge0 (Jul 23, 2007)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> 1. Other than the obvious frequency response anomalies, what's so detrimental about reflections from the dash?


1.) First and foremost trying to minimize frequency response anomalies without resorting to the excessive use of post processing. I have that capability. However, that does not mean I necessarily have to use it 

2.) I'm going to stick my neck out here because I'm sure someone will argue, but, minimizing reflections should help maintain a more focused image. Both by correcting freq response anomalies and by getting rid of some of the reflections that can confuse the brain.

I've read that early reflections are primarily responsible for frequency response anomalies. This covers goal #1.

Later reflections (the ones that bounce off a few objects before reaching your mellon?) are responsible for setting the ambient effect. Where the cutoff point is I don't know. Still learning. This tackles goal #2.

Ge0


----------



## durwood (Mar 7, 2007)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> 1. Other than the obvious frequency response anomalies, what's so detrimental about reflections from the dash?


False spatial cues and precedence effect can factor in. So you plan to fix frequency response anomolies with EQ and introduce phase errors instead? Or do you plan to fix a 3 dimensional space with a tool that does not work in 3 dimensions? Why don't we compare three impulse responses from the same speaker measured in three different spaces-1)anechoic or open field, 2)ordinary sized home living room, 3) a car. If the reflections show up in the impluse measurement, compare it to precedence effect and see how it will effect your listening experience.

In home audio, you will see speakers spaced evenly in the room and away from walls by a decent distance. In a car we don't have room for that, so the other option is to turn the reflecting surfaces into a psuedo waveguide that helps to control the sound.



> 2. I should have included instruction to turn the speakers so they're always "on-axis", but I don't think there's any mysterious crosstalk BS involved in the requirement to turn the speakers increasingly inward other than to maintain the same frequency response in each position. Depending on the bookshelf speaker you use for the experiment, the off axis response may be dramatically different at high frequencies and at the crossover point.


I wasn't talking about on-axis although this is assumed it would be followed since it is important as well. Azimuth however is different (-30deg and +30deg) and is important to create the stereo effect. ITD and ILD depend on it. Too much and the ILD goes to crap, too little and the ITD goes to crap.


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

I think I may be outta my league on this one--especially if I am to somehow believe that two speakers placed in front of me have to form an equilateral triangle with the listening position in order for images to appear in between them.


----------



## durwood (Mar 7, 2007)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> I think I may be outta my league on this one--especially if I am to somehow believe that two speakers placed in front of me have to form an equilateral triangle with the listening position in order for images to appear in between them.


No one said you can't have images not appear between two loudspeakers placed in front of you. There is a defining line between panned monophonic and stereo (both of which will give you images between the speakers) however many factors have to be correct to get away from panned mono. That's all. 

At least you embrace the possibility that correct spacial sound in a car might actually require some other means to reach that goal.


----------



## 3.5max6spd (Jun 29, 2005)

ccotenj said:


> yea, i suppose that would help...  it's not really a "diy" setup like most of you have, all "out of the box" stuff, and i had the install done for me (i have ZERO patience when it comes to installing things)...
> 
> mazda3 hatch
> alpine ida-x100 hu
> ...


It would be a pleasure to meet you and I would highly encourage you to make the effort to make this event since its in your backyard...

http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/showthread.php?t=40887

There has been some good advice in this thread, but I know that from first hand experience to grasp some of these concepts is much easier when you have a base for comparison. Here you will find various setups similar to your system complexity/install and others that may use more ideal locations/pathlengths. Its a great opportunity to learn,get ideas, and there will be several of us that wont mind troubleshooting with you and try several things in the tuning dept. 

Getting that depth/3dimmensionality in the vocal range will ultimately be limited by your speaker placement /location. Thats not to say we cant work with what you have.

The idea of cutting 5k to address depth, while it its ok to encourage experimentation and may help in some regards, it bothers me in several aspects. Theres more that can be done in 1k-4.5k region to adress depth, moreso around the xover point where theres inherently more phase distortion introduced by high frequency collisions from the coned driver, amplitude sensitive. 5k is the initial area I use to begin to address sibilance(then 8k, then 10k...), but if you dont have sibilance issues you essentially are lowering amplitude in a sensitive area of midrange dynamics. There are compromises in a system, but tonality and dynamics should never be victim, particularly in the midrange-if a particular vocal has bite, leave it there...it must be true to the recording/vocalist.

So much more can be done via amplitude/level matching and the xover before touching EQ. Starts with the basics. You'll find a fat underlap between drivers in my active systems before i touch an iota of EQ. 


Hope you can make it!


----------



## 6APPEAL (Apr 5, 2007)

My head hurts from all this reading. From what I've been reading, I've been doing it "almost" right since I got serious about car audio. Good mentors from many years ago. I gotta get some processing power in my systems.
John


----------



## Mr Marv (Aug 19, 2005)

Patrick Bateman said:


> Good Lord, there is a ton of terrible advice there.
> 
> I wish I had time to write a proper thread, but here's some basics, and they're completely different than what the other poster recommended.
> 
> ...





Patrick Bateman said:


> Mr Marv recommended "While listening to familiar music, adjust each individual band up and down slowly. When the music sounds better then move to the next band."
> 
> That is patently awful advice - your frequency response should be tuned with a mic first, ears second. Tuning a system by ear exclusively is for rank amateurs.
> 
> ...


First off I did not write the tips, I posted them with the comment that I have used them (along with tips from many others) for many years with great success. The thread is titled a "A simple way to tune courtesy of cmusic". Nowhere does it say "this is the only way to tune" or "this is the best way to tune for everyone". 

You say there is "tons of bad advice there" yet the only thing you comment on is the EQ part. Have you ever tried any of these tips and if so would you care to post why you believe they are "bad advice? (if you have never tried them please don't bother with an explanation). Raising and lowering each band of an EQ to "hear" what changes when you do is an excellent way to learn about using an EQ IMO and has worked well _for me_ (you see _I actually tried it_ ). And since it appears you like to drop names it might behoove you to search some of Mark Eldridges writings where you will see he suggests a similar technique. 

"trust your mic"?  Unless that mic is stuck in your ear and wired to your brain it CANNOT tell you what sounds good TO YOU. I prefer to trust MY EARS because they are what tell ME what sounds good TO ME.

BTW, 12 years doing the same thing can't always be used as a "credential" IMO. I know people who have been doing the same thing for more years than that yet they still can't get it right because they think they already know it all and won't open their minds.

To the OP, my apologies for taking your thread off track. I would like to post *my actual experiences* stating how I obtained good depth in my car however I am afraid I don't know all of the big words nor all of the technical reasons for why it worked (luckily there is already some good advice posted here if you weed through the egos). All I have is a bit of knowledge gained from those on these forums whose interests are NOT to show "I know more than you do so there ", a bit of experience gained from *actually experimenting* with what I have learned from those guys and most importantly *my own ears*.........


----------



## ccotenj (Jun 10, 2008)

3.5max - thanks, i will try to make it, that sounds like fun. maybe someone will feel like playing and get me a good baseline to start from. 

mr. marv - no worries about going ot. i have learned MUCH from your posts...

i'm attempting to digest some of the other posts... thanks for spreading the knowledge...


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> Before you go to all the hassle to rebuild a dashboard so you can put waveguides in there in hopes of a deeper stage, remember that the source of a horn is the MOUTH of the horn. The benefit of the waveguide will be having 400Hz and up come from the interior point that's furthest away and at the top of the dash. That's not much different than putting a 4" and a tweeter in the top of the dash--like in an old Chevy S-10 pickup.


The idea with the waveguides is to match the angle of the windshield and dash as closely as possible. Once you do this, the transition from waveguide to windshield is as gentle as humanly possible, in order to minimize reflections back down the throat.

Basically I'm doing everything possible to minimize ANY transition, so where the "mouth" is located is arguable.

This is counter to what USD and Image Dynamics do, where there's an enormous transition from their horns to the airspace in the car. The only way to avoid this with the USD and ID horns would be by building a baffle BELOW the horn, which is completely impractical. (Where would your feet go?)

Up on the dash, not so much of an issue. Top of the waveguide is formed by the windshield, bottom by the dash, and the sides are formed by the corner where the windshield meets the dash and the door forms the other side.

Admittedly, it's not perfect, but it's a quantum leap beyond putting them down low. Believe me, I've run them there for years. Putting them up high is a revelation.

Also, I'm not cutting a single panel. I'm using a BMS compression driver that's 3" in diameter, and fits in the palm of your hand. The waveguides simply rest on the dash.


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

Mr Marv said:


> First off I did not write the tips, I posted them with the comment that I have used them (along with tips from many others) for many years with great success. The thread is titled a "A simple way to tune courtesy of cmusic". Nowhere does it say "this is the only way to tune" or "this is the best way to tune for everyone".
> 
> You say there is "tons of bad advice there" yet the only thing you comment on is the EQ part. Have you ever tried any of these tips and if so would you care to post why you believe they are "bad advice? (if you have never tried them please don't bother with an explanation). Raising and lowering each band of an EQ to "hear" what changes when you do is an excellent way to learn about using an EQ IMO and has worked well _for me_ (you see _I actually tried it_ ). And since it appears you like to drop names it might behoove you to search some of Mark Eldridges writings where you will see he suggests a similar technique.


Absolutely I've tried what you suggest. I used to sit in the car for hours trying to make things sound good. In fact I probably wasted the better part of my early 20s doing that.

Once I began to embark on this process with a MICROPHONE, it changed me forever. I suddenly understood that trying to make things sound "good" is usually a waste of time. In audio, all the variables are connected. If you tweak one setting to make things sound "better", chances are good you'll make another track sound worse.

To make a long story short, it's fun, but it's a waste of time.

Doing the same process with a microphone is so much more productive. You can tweak one variable, and see how everything else is affected. For instance, adding a dose of EQ near the crossover point will often interfere with the frequency response of the other driver. The mic will show you that; your ears are easily fooled.

I'm not saying your methods are invalid; I'm saying they should ONLY be used in conjunction with a mic however.


----------



## ehiunno (Feb 26, 2008)

Patrick. I NEED to see pics of what you are doing on the dash. If you could even take pictures as you go along and post them, that would be really cool. I'd really want to see how your pulling that off, not just read about it.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

Patrick, how are you using a mic, though?

There seem to be different ways. Some use them as a 'summed' mic in the case where they measure entire system response. Some will point the mic toward the left/right to mimic ears. I've done both, and the latter seemed to work better for me.

My problem with RTA setups is that, to me, they seem to be so diverse and frankly, complicated to use. As simple as they should be, to me, they simply aren't.


----------



## FrankstonCarAudio (Feb 2, 2008)

ehiunno said:


> Patrick. I NEED to see pics of what you are doing on the dash. If you could even take pictures as you go along and post them, that would be really cool. I'd really want to see how your pulling that off, not just read about it.


I wouldn't be holding my breath if I were you..
I visited another site today where this dude is dropping names and sprouting forth with lots of theories, but no pics of his progress to be found there either.. lots of posts by himself with very little feedback from other users..
I think his "elevated view" of himself, has turned away others as well..
What's the old saying?.. "a picture equals a thousand words"... this guy just goes the thousand words...

Mark


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

He had some pictures on DIYAudio. Go to the Loudspeaker section and find the post titled "Another Unity Horn" from him. Also, we had a good talk on Carsound last year.


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

FrankstonCarAudio said:


> I wouldn't be holding my breath if I were you..
> I visited another site today where this dude is dropping names and sprouting forth with lots of theories, but no pics of his progress to be found there either.. lots of posts by himself with very little feedback from other users..
> I think his "elevated view" of himself, has turned away others as well..
> What's the old saying?.. "a picture equals a thousand words"... this guy just goes the thousand words...
> ...


The most famous car stereo install of all time is the Buick Grand National.
I followed it since I was a teenager, half a lifetime ago.
I flew down to California on my own dime to listen to Harry Kimura's Acura, courtesy of Eric Holdaway.
Based on what I learned, I took it a step further.
When I chronicled this, I wound up creating the most viewed thread of all time in Richard Clark's own forum.

http://www.audiogroupforum.com/csforum/forumdisplay.php?f=16&daysprune=-1&order=desc&sort=views

And you're saying I'm a poser?

Dude, my life has practically been devoted to creating a great soundstage in the car. I live for this.


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

thehatedguy said:


> He had some pictures on DIYAudio. Go to the Loudspeaker section and find the post titled "Another Unity Horn" from him. Also, we had a good talk on Carsound last year.


Thanks for the positive feedback. Good to hear someone appreciates the posts. Just uploaded pix of the new mold.

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=117537&perpage=25&pagenumber=1


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

Patrick Bateman said:


> Dude, my life has practically been devoted to creating a great soundstage in the car.


Mine too.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

Jon, heard a couple things about Harry's car...from a couple of different sources, there were more midbasses in the car than just the rears.


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

thehatedguy said:


> Jon, heard a couple things about Harry's car...from a couple of different sources, there were more midbasses in the car than just the rears.


I've heard that about Clark's too. Not certain I believe it, but if so, it's easy enough to implement. Basically throw a couple of mids up front to 'steer' things back towards the front.

My unity waveguides should go lower than the USD waveguides, since the F3 of the mids in my Unity is around 400hz, versus 900hz for the Altecs.

Also, if possible please post any replies on this subject over on Diyaudio, I don't want to threadjack


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> Mine too.


Love your posts Andy, have been following your work for years! I have great respect for your company too.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

Could always call the man who rebuilt the Legend after it was bought this last time...

I'm hoping to get down to 450 on my horns


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

thehatedguy said:


> Could always call the man who rebuilt the Legend after it was bought this last time...
> 
> I'm hoping to get down to 450 on my horns


I checked out some of the posts you've made on here, and you are clearly someone who knows a thing or two about tuning horns in a car. I'll definitely be hitting you up when I'm at that stage.

Right now the new waveguide mold is slathered in bondo and I'm waiting for them to dry...


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

You know me on the other forums as winslow.


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

I'd be careful about trying to build a replica of a certain grand National. I think there were more good stories than good additions to holdaway's original installation.


----------



## tard (Jul 13, 2006)

Mr Marv said:


> "trust your mic"?  Unless that mic is stuck in your ear and wired to your brain it CANNOT tell you what sounds good TO YOU. I prefer to trust MY EARS because they are what tell ME what sounds good TO ME.
> 
> BTW, 12 years doing the same thing can't always be used as a "credential" IMO. I know people who have been doing the same thing for more years than that yet they still can't get it right because they think they already know it all and won't open their minds..........



....... i'll be a witness for a brother on that!


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

FrankstonCarAudio said:


> I wouldn't be holding my breath if I were you..
> I visited another site today where this dude is dropping names and sprouting forth with lots of theories, but no pics of his progress to be found there either..


Uploaded twelve pics of my new setup here:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=117537&perpage=25&pagenumber=5

Over on audiogroupforum there's a twenty-six page thread about the former system:
http://www.audiogroupforum.com/csforum/showthread.php?t=62789



FrankstonCarAudio said:


> lots of posts by himself with very little feedback from other users..


On my thread over on diyaudio I've received commentary from the following people:
*Earl Geddes*, the world's foremost expert on waveguides, with a resume in audio that stretches over decades:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1495887#post1495887

*Tom Danley*, inventor(!) of the Unity Horn, which is what I'm cloning. What an honor to have the actual inventor post his opinion!
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1535941#post1535941

*Mark Seaton*, a coworker of Danley's at Sound Physics Lab, has thrown a few hints my way that were invaluable.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1542575#post1542575

In addition to the pros, there are comments from owners of "real" unity horns, which are exceptionally rare.



FrankstonCarAudio said:


> I think his "elevated view" of himself, has turned away others as well..
> What's the old saying?.. "a picture equals a thousand words"... this guy just goes the thousand words...
> 
> Mark


Actions speak louder than words, right? I'm out here recruiting the advice of the world's foremost experts, while everybody else is arguing about what amplifiers sound best and who sells the best cables. I'm devoting my free time to take soundstaging in the car to the next level. If you don't like my words, I can live with that, but take a look at what I've spent the last ten years doing, then judge me on that.

There is so much bad advice given on car audio forums, it's not even funny. When I documented my Unity waveguides in 2006 on audiogroupforum, I didn't get one word of feedback from anyone who'd worked with the real Unity horn, or worked with waveguides. When I posted the new one on Diyaudio, I received feedback from the two most influential people IN THE WORLD on this subject by the fifth page!

Anyone interested in taking their soundstaging to the next level could learn a lot from Geddes, Danley, and Seaton.


----------



## rockondon (Jan 18, 2008)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Word.!


----------



## FrankstonCarAudio (Feb 2, 2008)

Patrick Bateman said:


> Uploaded twelve pics of my new setup here:
> http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=117537&perpage=25&pagenumber=5
> 
> Over on audiogroupforum there's a twenty-six page thread about the former system:
> ...


yada yada yada..... more name drop .... yada yada yada..... YAWN......

You don't take criticism well, do you?

Frankly, I don't see you as the "Great God of Soundstage", and there is no need to prove yourself to me, unless you really think you need to. 

Mark


----------



## Soundsaround (Apr 22, 2006)

Yikes!
I really don't think an argument is warranted here.
Both you guys contribute quality, unique info to the board.
You don't discredit npdang, werewolf and abmolech because they often rather focus on theory do you(well, maybe abmolech but that's a whole other story, lol )? 
Master both the theory and the practical application and your really kickin' some butt.


----------



## candaddy (May 21, 2008)

What I think is funny, is how these two live on opposite ends of the planet! Literally, you can't get more opposed than that. Honestly if you guys want to argue, just do it in PM or something because it brings down the level of the whole forum and then people like me waste time combing through all this bull $__t just trying to get to the heart of the matter within the thread. 

I also want to say that if somebody makes a big long post and only does nothing more than re-list all of the information already contributed in a simple and understandable format, good! I like organization... Makes me happy.


----------



## FrankstonCarAudio (Feb 2, 2008)

Soundsaround said:


> Yikes!
> I really don't think an argument is warranted here.
> Both you guys contribute quality, unique info to the board.
> You don't discredit npdang, werewolf and abmolech because they often rather focus on theory do you(well, maybe abmolech but that's a whole other story, lol )?
> ...


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

FrankstonCarAudio said:


> Soundsaround said:
> 
> 
> > Yikes!
> ...


----------



## FrankstonCarAudio (Feb 2, 2008)

Patrick Bateman said:


> It's all good, probably drummed up some hits on my thread over at diyaudio. Nice fiberglass work in your car BTW. I'll admit your response got me off my a-s-s and got me to post some pix finally.


Glad I could "drum up some business"..
You DO need to publish more pics... words don't always get the point across!

and thanks for the props on my car.. that is also a work in progress 

There we go guys, another "International Incident" avoided.. 

Mark


----------



## Mr Marv (Aug 19, 2005)

To the OP, again I wish to apologize to you for taking this off track but I felt I should clear a few things up for those that could actually benefit from some of the info here.

The first thing I want to mention is that although I would happily do so if warranted I CANNOT take CREDIT for the tips in the tutorial since I learned them from Chuck Music however I DO stand behind them FOR THEIR INTENDED PURPOSE. For what it is worth I now use an RTA with additional tips from Keith Turner (sorry for the "name drop" but I gotta give credit where credit is due) and others along with the tips from Chuck however since it appears I may not have been clear as to the INTENDED PURPOSE OF THAT PARTICULAR TUTORIAL I will try to explain further...

*"A "SIMPLE" way to tune courtesy of Cmusic" is the thread title for a SPECIFIC reason. That reason is because it was INTENDED FOR people WITHOUT THE LUXURY OF an RTA NOR THE DESIRE TO PURCHASE ONE so they could have a VERY EFFECTIVE way to tune WITHOUT ONE.*

BTW, no disrespect to anyone's reading comprehension skills is meant in the way I posted that rather it was the only way I could think of to make sure it was as clear as possible. If it works for you that's cool but if you seek "more" don't ever feel like you "wasted" your time doing this rather look at it as a stepping stone towards YOUR ultimate goal.

A few points to ponder before I embark on things a bit more important...

I cannot hear what you can hear and you cannot hear what I can hear so our results may differ.

"Accurate" does not necessarily mean it is "pleasing to *your* ears" 

If "accurate" is your objective the ONLY way you could POSSIBLY know what is "accurate" is to be in the studio (or other venue) when the recording is made.

A machine can "hear" everything your ears can hear however your ears CANNOT hear everything a machine can hear so let YOUR ears be the FINAL determining factor of what YOU like to hear.

DON'T EVER let ANYONE else tell YOU what YOU like/don't like to hear.


----------



## Oliver (Jun 25, 2007)

Soundsaround said:


> Yikes!
> I really don't think an argument is warranted here.
> Both you guys contribute quality, unique info to the board.
> You don't discredit npdang, werewolf and abmolech because they often rather focus on theory do you(well, maybe abmolech but that's a whole other story, lol )?
> Master both the theory and the practical application and your really kickin' some butt.


That's it in a nutshell 

Now that you understand RC's car, etc.., "Good luck in the Lanes"


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

Mr Marv said:


> To the OP, again I wish to apologize to you for taking this off track but I felt I should clear a few things up for those that could actually benefit from some of the info here.
> 
> The first thing I want to mention is that although I would happily do so if warranted I CANNOT take CREDIT for the tips in the tutorial since I learned them from Chuck Music however I DO stand behind them FOR THEIR INTENDED PURPOSE. For what it is worth I now use an RTA with additional tips from Keith Turner (sorry for the "name drop" but I gotta give credit where credit is due) and others along with the tips from Chuck however since it appears I may not have been clear as to the INTENDED PURPOSE OF THAT PARTICULAR TUTORIAL I will try to explain further...
> 
> ...


I make nice with Mark, everything is fine, then you just had to start back up didn't you?

For everyone on the board who appreciates my posts, this dude is exhbit A for why I don't post here. A couple of years ago I would faithfully post pictures and reviews of every driver I came across, then got sick of wasting my time with nonsense like the post above.

Here's one of my reviews from back in the day, if anyone remembers me:
http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6058



Mr Marv said:


> If it works for you that's cool but if you seek "more" don't ever feel like you "wasted" your time doing this rather look at it as a stepping stone towards YOUR ultimate goal.
> 
> A few points to ponder before I embark on things a bit more important...
> 
> ...


You're being sarcastic right? If your argument was true, then loudspeaker designers would not be concerned with frequency response, impulse response, power response, etc. Please tell me you're post was made as a joke.



Mr Marv said:


> A machine can "hear" everything your ears can hear however your ears CANNOT hear everything a machine can hear so let YOUR ears be the FINAL determining factor of what YOU like to hear.


I agree with that statement, which is why I advised everyone to spend $200 on a mic and a preamp, but let their ears be the final judge. To be honest $200 is a bit on the high side. I just purchased a second preamp off of Ebay for $35. It retails for $150, but there are always deals to be found. If you're willing to dig around you could put together a measurement setup for under $100.



Mr Marv said:


> DON'T EVER let ANYONE else tell YOU what YOU like/don't like to hear.


----------



## Mr Marv (Aug 19, 2005)

Patrick Bateman said:


> I make nice with Mark, everything is fine, then you just had to start back up didn't you?
> 
> *Not sure why you think I am "starting back up" but I can assure you I am not going to argue with you. The ONLY reason I posted again was in response to all the calls and emails I received regarding comments made in this thread concerning the tuning tips*
> 
> ...


In any case I'll agree that a mic will take you to the "next level" (there are several tutorials here and elsewhere for people looking for the "next level" of tuning) but I will still stand behind those tips for their "intended purpose" which is to benefit those without the luxury of nor desire to get an RTA.


----------



## Rudeboy (Oct 16, 2005)

Mr. Marv = troublemaker


----------



## Mr Marv (Aug 19, 2005)

Rudeboy said:


> Mr. Marv = troublemaker


----------



## Soundsaround (Apr 22, 2006)

Patrick Bateman said:


> For everyone on the board who appreciates my posts, this dude is exhbit A for why I don't post here.


I'll be exhibit B for why you _*do*_ post here.
Just don't ask me to swear in, you'll get a Marlon Brando on that one


----------



## Keith Turner (May 28, 2007)

This is some FUNNY STUFF.


----------



## Ge0 (Jul 23, 2007)

FrankstonCarAudio said:


> Thanks Ge0,
> 
> I have been referring to your thread , but couldn't remember where it was!
> Werewolf also had one (and IIRC he chimed in a few times on yours?)
> ...


Werewolfs big thread was over on ECA. He may have also created one here. I can't remember...

Ge0


----------



## Ge0 (Jul 23, 2007)

I do not intend to discredit others contributions to the car audio experience. If you know me, you'll know that I hold nothing but respect for you.

However, I side with Patrick on this one. If you have an extremely good, well trained, ear you might be able to come close when tuning by ear alone. However, after many years of trying I have been unable to gain satisfactory results through ear alone. Something always ended up sounding funky.

The sound of my system has improved by LEAPS AND BOUNDS since I picked up a cheap laptop based RTA solution and started to "see" what I could not distinguish by hearing alone in the past. This really opens up a new world and many possibilities. I'd like to add that once you get all your driver phasing correct, time alignment correct, and L/R frequency response EQUAL and correct, stage width and depth pretty much takes care of itself. You can play tricks with processed rear fill to improve, but, I won't go there in this thread.

Don't be a fool though. An RTA is useless unless you have the right equipment, take the time to learn how to use it properly, and understand how to interpret results. In the words of a well respected electronics designer I know "Be careful, you get what you measure". Just because you can see pretty pictures does not mean they are accurate...

Ge0


----------



## Ge0 (Jul 23, 2007)

A good friend of the forum wrote me this afternoon after reading my last post. He thanked me for my contribution (you're welcome) but also reminded me "there is more than one way to skin a cat".

Of course there is more than one way to do it. By no means is collecting data electronically, analyzing it, and making adjustments from there the "end all be all" of audio bliss in an automobile. I guess the method you should choose depends on how far you are willing to go and how much effort you are willing to put into it.

Don't let things like "well I don't know how to do that" get in your way. Hell, last year about this time I was as uneducated as most regarding how to properly tune a vehicle. I still have a long way to go but am getting there. I started with Chuck's tuning guide and made marked improvements from there. However, I could not nail down proper tonal balance and had problems with my sound stage wandering. I read a lot about what others have done (Winslow, Werewolf, NPDANG, Durwood, Marv, Audionutz, MVW2, Andy W, Abmolech, MattR, Milox, Foxpro5, Whiterabbit, Patrick, The guys at ID, Robert from Zapco, David and Richard Clark, Buwalda, and many others who I may have missed) and formulated a means to tune that suits me best based on input from every bit of information I could get my hands on. I hope to write my own version of a tuning tutorial some day, but for now I'm too busy fabricating stuff on my vehicle to do so. Maybe this fall...

There is no one way to do this (although IMO collecting and using quantitive data is best  ) . Do not let others force their ideas on you. Knowledge is power. Read and understand and things will come to you.

Now for a simple bit of help for our original poster. Solving your problem with depth cues requires either master installation tricky, electronic assistance, or perhaps a combination of both. It sounds like you may have the right tools to start the job. First and foremost get your speaker phasing in check and set your levels for as balanced as sound as is possible (speaker gains, not EQ yet). Set your time alignment if you are able. And finally, follow Foxpro5's comments on balancing tonal response between left and right. Things should become a whole lot better for you. But, most importantly, EXPERIMENT a little to see what certain changes do. Look up threads on the topic from any number of the yahoo's mentioned above. They give good sound advice. This won't happen instantly, it requires patience. If you have questions, just ask. We all spend countless hours on this forum to learn ourselves and to help out others.

Take care,

Ge0


----------



## candaddy (May 21, 2008)

Geo,

Those are the best two threads in this entire diatribe of banter that I've read so far. That isn't to say there wasn't good info in this thread, just that your post more than summarized it and I really appreciate it.


----------



## Ge0 (Jul 23, 2007)

Thanks.

Although I believe I was not alone in my thoughts. I just decided to make the statement public.

Carry on!!!

Ge0


----------



## Oliver (Jun 25, 2007)

When there wasn't a Sun in the Sky ... 

Quote>
Posted by Mark Eldridge on carsound;

The real skivvy is that you want to minimize the differences, for a lot of reasons. Especially in the mid-bass through the midrange regions, the difference between left and right pathlengths is CRITICAL! In fact, between 100 and 400 Hz, the angle of the speaker won't even matter, as imaging cues are almost 100% determined by path length, not by intensity differences. Above 2000 Hz, imaging cues can be controlled by speaker angle and other intensity controlling techniques. Path lengths above 2000 Hz are not critical. 

As far as the path length differences between the mid-bass driver, midrange, adn tweeter on a single side, you'll probably never get them exactly the same. The real problems with path length differences here will be int eh frequency and phase response in the crossover range. Signal alignment can help some here, as long as the speakers aren't too far from each other. It's more acceptable to have a mid-bass amd midrange separated than to separate the mid and tweeter. The mid-bass frequency range can make a difference in the perceived stage depth,a dn the center image stability. But, the upper midrange and high frequencies are responsible for the stage height, width, and depth, as well as image focus. Keeping these frequency range drivers close together will be a lot easier to control all the variables than separating them. If you need additional stage height because the mid and tweeter are in the kick panel area, then add a second set of tweeters high and wide, and crossed over pretty high as well (somewhere between 8000 and 20000 Hz). This configuration is what has been used in most all fo the best sounding cars that use conventional drivers. And in most of the HLCD systems, the additional tweeters are used for the same reason. 

Anyway, locate the midrange drivers first, and work with them in their intended frequency range to achieve the best overall stage depth and center image. Don't worry too much about stage height or width yet.

Next, locat the mid-bass drivers so they blend well with the mids, have solid output, and do not detract from the center image. Doors will likely not be the best place for them. They can be mounted under the dash, in the floor, in the firewall towards the center of the car from the kick panel, or where ever else they work, adn can have a large enough enclosure.

The tweeters are the easiest. Mount them as close to the mids as possible, and make sure they give you the width and height you want, and help to focus the image performance. If you need the additional height, add the second set of tweeters.

Path lengths are a different animal. They're kind of like the impedance of a woofer. Industry wide, we call a speaker a "4 ohm" or "2 ohm" speaker, when in reality, it is only really that impedance at one or maybe two frequencies. That's the "nominal" impedance which means "in name only." The actual impedance varies widely accoring to frequency. A "4 ohm" speaker in a box may have impedances as high as 50 ohms at resonance, and as low as 3 ohms elsewhere.

Likewise, the sonic cues that affect what we percieve as staging and imaging are frequency dependent, and there is no one single number, technique, or what ever that can be used across the frequency board.


Michael Peterson posted:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Start with a Good pathlength difference between the speakers that play 150hz to 8k. This helps keep image placement stable. 

2. Use a good phase track to get the best overall mix of sound and imaging and staging for every speaker in the car. Again, do this by ear. 

3. Then match all the levels between each left and right channel by ear. 

4. Use the test track off the IASCA setup disc that has 30 different pink noise frequencies to smooth out the overall frequency response. By ear again, No RTA. 

5. Then play really well recorded steriophile music and tune for 3 years, 4 hours a day.... 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Buwalda:

That's a tough one Jaz. There's no miracle cure to get depth. I'd echo what Mike has said and add to it... 

1. Speakers as far forward as as far to the sides as possible to maximize pathlength differences. 

2. Seating position as far away from the speakers as possible. Be careful, this can be counter-production at a certain point in every vehicle I have heard, where the stage width begins to collapse the farther back you go. The backseat drivers we had here several years ago had great imagining, great position to sound stage, but had abysmal width. 

3. Carefully set and adjust ("equalize") the amplitude between the two channels to a central point in your car from two seats, or your head for one-seat judging. I try to acheive at least 3 dB concurency between channels, and will eventually go to 2 dB if it can be done with 4 dB or less of equalization from 0 dBF. 

4. Work in orders, or octaves. I have always found that adjusting a band in one octave might skew its adjacent octave bands. So for example, if you adjust at 200 Hz, pay attention to 400 Hz and 800 Hz as well, and to a lesser degree 100 Hz and 50 Hz. 

5. Adjust time domain character to account of impulse response of larger drivers. This is a big benefit for cars with subwoofers mounted behind the listener. Also account for some time domain manipulation with larger midbass. 

6. For two-seat cars, adjust time in speaker pairs, with respect to the distance of the speaker farthest away from you. So if the midrange is the farthest speaker away, adjust your midbass and subwoofers accordingly, not only for impulse, as noted above, but for position relative to your ears. Remember, time alignment above 1,000 Hz is rendered virtually useless. Tis is all amplitude by that point. 

...a few things to get you started 
end Quote>


----------

