# Piomeer p99rs TA and sound stage questions!



## matyj (Dec 1, 2012)

(big appologies for the typo in the heading) 

Hello all, ok, pioneer p99rs owner here, brand new, running focal utopia 4way active. Mid/tweeter in pods above dash, mounted vertical, off axis, left aimed and centre of right seat and vice versa. (Admitedly not a calibrated install) 

Auto TA is great, takes into acount a lot of reflections that I cant with just measuring the distance. Question is, auto TA gives a nice wide sound stage with focus, but too little focus, it tends to pull left if im seated right and vice versa (have ta'd both seats at front) 

From here, when I modify the mids/highs to pull the field more central/slightly more in front of my face, I feel like the sound field is right in front of me, but a lot narrower, I feel like i lose a sense of space and width. (Mids are crossed at 250hz hp, midbass are crossed 200hz lp 12db slope to catch the gap) - (I found the 250hz sitting on the dash gave me fantastic direction control with all vocals and lead sounds sitting here)

Does anyone have any advice to keep a nice wide sound field but with more focus? Is it the angle of my pods? should I have them facing more directly to the facing seat, ie, the right pod firing into the right seat and vice versa! 

Help!!


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

To get the focus you have to balance L/R frequency response with the 31 band eq. Download the pink noise for all frequencies and use a mic / rta to measure left only vs right only response and use the eq to balance.


----------



## Hanatsu (Nov 9, 2010)

Auto T/A, auto EQ sucks imo.

Otherwise what sqnut said ^^ Set L-R EQ. Especially important from 1,6kHz and up.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Agreed on Auto anything being less than ideal. Refrained from saying that cause he seems happy with the results for now. When starting out, the lesser variables you have to manage the better. If he sticks with it over time he will be an OCD tweaker like some of us are


----------



## Wesayso (Jul 20, 2010)

sqnut said:


> Agreed on Auto anything being less than ideal. Refrained from saying that cause he seems happy with the results for now. When starting out, the lesser variables you have to manage the better. If he sticks with it over time he will be an OCD tweaker like some of us are


I know that feeling .


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

The P99 is putting the stage in the center of the car, not in front of you. If you were off center at a concert you wouldn't expect the band to shift in front of you, would you? Same thing here. That's not to say you're wrong or that you can't set it up to your preference. Just that the P99 will always align to the center of the car.


----------



## MB2008LTZ (Oct 13, 2012)

Wonder what would happen if you hung the mic in the center of the front seats at ear height and did auto eq/ta set up?


----------



## matyj (Dec 1, 2012)

so ive done a very basic thing! for now it seems to have yielded the best results. Did the L/R eq through all 31bands but balanced by ear! since im listening to it i guess the result is better for me, and it sounds great!! I will do a software tune a little later on, but for now this is fine! (however there can be a little bit of harshness through the higher frequencies which i can drop with volume)

BUT! Im not liking the fact that im using a sandpaper approach by eqing my sound, ive always believed eqing was a very last resort. I feel i should leave eq flat and use time align instead? may play around with this tomorrow. I'll play through the 31 again and centre each frequency with ta instead of eq and see what i get! 

ps
did this for my seat, passenger seat and sat where the hand brake is to give the best balance for both seats, (2 hours later) massive amounts of adjusting for left and right, but only 4 bands around the 200 to 500hz mark needed a slight tug up or down to get centred for the hand brake position


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

matyj said:


> so ive done a very basic thing! for now this is fine! (however there can be a little bit of harshness through the higher frequencies which i can drop with volume)


Balancing for L/R is the first step. Once you've done this you need to level match (does not mean flat) across the 31 frequencies to get the tonality right. If you've got harshness in vocals cut a bit in the 2-4khz and in the 6-8khz range if you have sibilance. 



matyj said:


> BUT! Im not liking the fact that im using a sandpaper approach by eqing my sound, ive always believed eqing was a very last resort. I feel i should leave eq flat and use time align instead? may play around with this tomorrow. I'll play through the 31 again and centre each frequency with ta instead of eq and see what i get!


What you like and what you need to do, can be two different things. Car audio forums are full of myths. Anyone who tells you that you don't need an eq in a car, does not know much about car audio and will not have "great" sound in the car. There is a reason why that hu gives you an excellent equaliser, TA and options for Xover points and slopes. The reason is, you need to use ALL these tuning tools *together,* to find the setting that works best for your environment and driver placements. If you're not using everything , you're missing out on what that unit can deliver. It's not about either or. Think everything, together. 

Please, if you want to use the p99 to its fullest potential you have to forget about 'flat' anything. Always think cut before boost.



matyj said:


> did this for my seat, passenger seat and sat where the hand brake is to give the best balance for both seats, (2 hours later) massive amounts of adjusting for left and right, but only 4 bands around the 200 to 500hz mark needed a slight tug up or down to get centred for the hand brake position


You do the tuning from the drivers seat, I've never tuned sitting on the hand brake . But I guess if you're going for a 2 seat setup then anything is game. Hang in there it will get better over time.


----------



## co_leonard (Aug 14, 2009)

sqnut said:


> I've never tuned sitting on the hand brake :


I have. Ouch.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

co_leonard said:


> I have. Ouch.


lol this hobby makes us do crazy stuff. At one point, I was very hooked on the whole dispersion thing. I wanted to 'see' the sound waves from the speakers to my ears, possibly see the reflections. I spoke to a friend who runs an event management company and borrowed a smoke machine. Filled the car interiors with smoke, jumped in and shut the door.

As I sat there pondering my stupidity, the phone rang. It was the wife, in a state of panic, "Arun, there's a fire inside the car". :laugh:


----------



## Hanatsu (Nov 9, 2010)

matyj said:


> BUT! Im not liking the fact that im using a sandpaper approach by eqing my sound, ive always believed eqing was a very last resort but not anymore because IT IS REQUIRED inside car. I feel i should eq until it sounds good and also use time alignment!!


Fixed xD


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

To : OP, any progress?


----------



## matyj (Dec 1, 2012)

havent gotten around to playing with TA again as the eq "TA" still sounds pretty loverly! however, i went through and i do have a couple of drastic reductions :S ive got one freq. at -9db and another at +4, and a few around -5/+2.5 to 3.5 er, this feels a little extreme :S i remember turning my home theatre system and was told anything above or below +/- 1, 1.5 is getting extreme? On a positive note i managed to keep most the changes as a deduction, so no boosting frequencies, and the freq. on average that i did boost only sit at around +1 to 1.5. 

comments?


----------



## matyj (Dec 1, 2012)

and on a random side note; anyone been fortunate enough to have heard a few good 3/4way setups and do a side by side comparison with the utopias? I didnt, I was very very veeeery lucky and won a bidding war on ebay that got me these utopias and the 21wx for about 75% cheaper than rrp. Ive never heard speakers this detailed before, which is great! but im running a full surround dynaudio system at home for my "theatre" and these utopias have now made them sound muddy :I time to sell the dyn's n move on to something else maybe?


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

matyj said:


> havent gotten around to playing with TA again as the eq "TA" still sounds pretty loverly! however, i went through and i do have a couple of drastic reductions :S ive got one freq. at -9db and another at +4, and a few around -5/+2.5 to 3.5 er, this feels a little extreme :S i remember turning my home theatre system and was told anything above or below +/- 1, 1.5 is getting extreme? On a positive note i managed to keep most the changes as a deduction, so no boosting frequencies, and the freq. on average that i did boost only sit at around +1 to 1.5.
> 
> comments?


Absolutely normal in a car. It'll be even less EQ once you use your T/A.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

matyj said:


> havent gotten around to playing with TA again as the eq "TA" still sounds pretty loverly! however, i went through and i do have a couple of drastic reductions :S ive got one freq. at -9db and another at +4, and a few around -5/+2.5 to 3.5 er, this feels a little extreme :S i remember turning my home theatre system and was told anything above or below +/- 1, 1.5 is getting extreme? On a positive note i managed to keep most the changes as a deduction, so no boosting frequencies, and the freq. on average that i did boost only sit at around +1 to 1.5.
> 
> comments?


As long as you have done the FR measurement for left and right side and if that tells you you have a peak somewhere of 8-9db (could be due to the driver placement / the cars environment or the driver itself) then its fine. A car is a crappy environment and you will have these peaks and dips. If you're cutting a frequency on side by 9 db and then boosting the other side by by 7 db then you may need to re look at things. It has to sound right, keep that in mind. As a start don't do the L/R by ear alone. I tune largely by ear but I will go back from time to time and measure everything just to make sure my ears aren't playing tricks on me. Nutshell: you're doing ok.



matyj said:


> and on a random side note; anyone been fortunate enough to have heard a few good 3/4way setups and do a side by side comparison with the utopias? I didnt, I was very very veeeery lucky and won a bidding war on ebay that got me these utopias and the 21wx for about 75% cheaper than rrp. Ive never heard speakers this detailed before, which is great! but im running a full surround dynaudio system at home for my "theatre" and these utopias have now made them sound muddy :I time to sell the dyn's n move on to something else maybe?


Thats the other thing about this hobby, the constant desire to upgrade.


----------



## co_leonard (Aug 14, 2009)

I've used the Focal Utopia Be kit no.7 in my car in both active and passive modes. Yes they're very detailed. The jewel of the bunch is, IMHO, the tweeter. 

The midbass can be problematic depending on the install. Door deadening and damping must be just right. In my experience, Focal 6w3 midbass doesn't like doors that are overkill--deadened. They tend to "boom" somewhere around 125Hz. 

Please post a picture of your install. I'm curious to see it.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

matyj said:


> havent gotten around to playing with TA again as the eq "TA" still sounds pretty loverly! however, i went through and i do have a couple of drastic reductions :S ive got one freq. at -9db and another at +4, and a few around -5/+2.5 to 3.5 er, this feels a little extreme :S i remember turning my home theatre system and was told anything above or below +/- 1, 1.5 is getting extreme? On a positive note i managed to keep most the changes as a deduction, so no boosting frequencies, and the freq. on average that i did boost only sit at around +1 to 1.5.
> 
> comments?


The 9db cut has been rattling around in my head for a bit. It seems a bit severe on second thought. Is this based on measured response or by what sounds right? What frequency is this at? In a typical car install you would cut a fair bit around 80hz to prevent boomy sound, or it could be the issue that co_leonard is talking about. Sometimes the speaker itself will have a peak in the response. Eg the SR mids I run, have a big peak around 650hz, so that is cut a fair bit. Point is if the 9db peak is caused by something other than the speaker itself, it may help if you tweak the install a bit to reduce this. 

Just make sure you do the L/R eq based on measured response as well as how it sounds. Cheers.


----------



## co_leonard (Aug 14, 2009)

sqnut said:


> Just make sure you do the L/R eq based on measured response as well as how it sounds. Cheers.


This is for me the most important building block of tuning with the P99. Its got independent 31-band left and right EQ. If your handy with an RTA or know a shop (or a friend) who can tune it for you, by all means make use of the P99's awesome EQ capabilities. 

The idea here is to tune it so that from the driver's seat, all speakers on the LEFT OF THE CAR to sound exactly like all speakers on the RIGHT OF THE CAR.

Once you've got this down, everything else follows smoothly. At least it does in my experience.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Once you have L / R response more or less balanced, a neat trick is to listen to all the speakers on one side eg Left woofer/mid and tweet and try to get this tonally accurate next do the same with the right side speakers and then play both sides.

While you're doing this if you correct some frequency on the left, you may have to make the opposite correction for the other side. This is also a good way to check if your sub, mid bass and tweeter are in phase. Eg if the sub and mid bass is in phase you will feel as if the sub frequencies are playing from the midbass.


----------



## Hanatsu (Nov 9, 2010)

Dunno if anyone told the OP. Be careful boosting when you EQ. Take care of peaks, don't bother that much with dips. Often they are caused by modes/cancellations and such. Those can't be fixed with EQ. Dips are less audible than peaks ^^

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy 3 via Tapatalk.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Let's say there is a 6-7db difference between L/R response at a given frequency. You can correct it several ways. The most obvious being 0/-6, but +1/-5, +2/-4, -1/-7 etc etc technically will give the same correction. Each will sound different though. Sometimes when correction for a big difference it just sounds better if the balance is done by correcting both sides. But this will be an exception rather than the norm, yes.

The guy is starting off lets not overload him right now. + 1-2db boost on one side while correcting for a drastic difference sometimes helps with maintaining overall tonality. Thanks for bringing that up though.


----------



## co_leonard (Aug 14, 2009)

sqnut said:


> The guy is starting off lets not overload him right now. + 1-2db boost on one side while correcting for a drastic difference sometimes helps with maintaining overall tonality. Thanks for bringing that up though.


I remember when I was just starting with my P99 back in 2010... The steep learning curve was a PITA! Haha.. 

Regarding EQ, there's lots of ways to skin a cat. Let's say my left tweeter's RTA plot is mostly flat but shows a -3dB dip that spans a wide range from 4kHz to 10kHz. I could use the EQ to boost those frequencies.

But instead I simply increase the left tweeter level +3dB in the P99's XO setting, then use the EQ to lower the other frequencies to achieve a smooth RTA reading.

After trying both ways, I find the second way sounds better. Why? No idea. But it's what my ears tell me sounds better.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

co_leonard said:


> After trying both ways, I find the second way sounds better. Why? No idea. But it's what my ears tell me sounds better.


No documented proof? jk


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

co_leonard said:


> After trying both ways, I find the second way sounds better. Why? No idea. But it's what my ears tell me sounds better.


Simple, it's louder. Not at all frequencies but at some and that difference is what you're hearing.


----------



## avanti1960 (Sep 24, 2011)

I just posted this in my P99 discoveries thread but it bears repeating here to help the OP. I stumbled on the perfect most simple way to adjust T/A. Here goes and good luck-
------------------------------ 
Major Update 1/22/2013

After having my P99 for nearly a year I believe I have it completely tuned and time aligned. Had I known then what I know now it would have not taken so long but you live and earn and owning the DEX has been a learning experience.

By FAR the biggest time alignment technique happened over this past week-end and I stumbled on it by accident- but the results are probably as close to razor sharp perfect as I can get them. Here goes-

Assuming you have already-
*Drivers level matched. (I did mine as individual pairs, by ear, for every driver to center the stage. Note- NO time alignment should be applied during level matching).
*L/R EQ completed. I did this by RTA and pink noise- however it was not completely effective (more in a minute). I could not use tone bursts because these tended to bounce around way to much and some simply could not be centered, for whatever reason. I say the RTA was not completely effective because it did not reveal the most obvious issue which is off-axis tweeter high end response. It may have been my averaging technique. I used the typical 6-position averaging each for the left and right RTA plots. However I believe that it is worth experimenting to try and bias the averaging to the side you are measuring. In other words, don't sweep the microphone across the entire stage for individual L/R measurements. The off-axis response probably negates an accurate measurement. In the future I may try a 6-position average but keep the mic positioned left or right depending on the side being measured- and use smaller positional increments.

OK so now you have your stage balanced and centered as good as you can without turning on any time delay. At this point it I did enter in the as-measured to the ear distances for each driver. The stage is now somewhat blurry and definitely needs help.
I would argue that to adjust time increments should only be done to the driver's side for (3) reasons-
1) passenger side drivers are more on-axis and have a direct path to the ear.
2) passenger side drivers are farther away (percentage wise) and therefore small adjustments are more difficult to perceive. Likewise driver's side drivers are closer to the ears and are more sensitive to adjustment and measurement error.
3) driver's side drivers are more subjected to local reflections- steering wheel, dash, legs, seats, console and therefore are more sensitive to delay adjustments AND less likely to be "correct" simply by measurement.

SO, measurements entered for all drivers. NOW- here is the "BREAKTHROUGH" that really iced my stage accuracy. I isolated the drivers and began to adjust the driver's side distances in order to center the stage for each L/R pair of drivers (mid/tweet, midbass, rear doors). I did my best but the stage was still blurry.
Just for kicks I played the track on my test CD (Sheffield Labs "My Disk") where the narrator says "MY VOICE IS IN PHASE / MY VOICE IS OUT OF PHASE" I put it on repeat and noticed that the voice "IN PHASE" was blurry and all over the place while the "OUT OF PHASE" voice was more centered but not perfect. Since I know my drivers are all polarity matched, the wandering stage during the "MY VOICE IS IN PHASE" track on the test disk MUST BE A RESULT OF TIME ALIGNMENT ALTERING ACOUSTIC PHASE.

So I adjusted the distances on each set of left drivers one by one until the "IN PHASE" voice on the disk was perfectly centered (in acoustic phase). I did this carefully.

And holy cow, after I brought all the drivers up and listened to some music- it was so razor sharp it was stunning. I could not believe I had been missing this for almost a year and that it was so simple to correct.
Voices and instruments are now literally floating on my windshield as if playing from a cloud stage.

Please use this discovery if you are still having a wandering stage or other time alignment issues!


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

I normally always do the TA before I touch the eq.


----------



## co_leonard (Aug 14, 2009)

sqnut said:


> No documented proof? jk


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

co_leonard said:


>


Yeah sure, I get that response from my 11 yr girl sometimes.


----------



## avanti1960 (Sep 24, 2011)

sqnut said:


> I normally always do the TA before I touch the eq.


disagree. EQ effects acoustic phase. T/A should be the last thing you do.


----------



## co_leonard (Aug 14, 2009)

avanti1960 said:


> disagree. EQ effects acoustic phase. T/A should be the last thing you do.


I was told TA also affects phase. My source could be wrong, though.


----------



## Hanatsu (Nov 9, 2010)

Time and phase are related, by changing T/A you do affect relative phase. When you T/A you delay all reproduced sound by an equal amount, this only matters when we involve at least two sound sources. It's the relation to each other that matters. To calculate the phase angle you need to know the time delay and the specific frequency. I no expert at this but the "phase" concept is often misinterpreted and there's a lot of misinformation, especially regarding polarity/phase inversion. 

Here's a good article to read;

Phase, Time and Distortion in Loudspeakers

Phase/time delay calculator:

Phase angle calculation from time delay and frequency calculate phase lag difference time of arrival ITD phi phase shift - sengpielaudio


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

avanti1960 said:


> disagree. EQ effects acoustic phase. T/A should be the last thing you do.





co_leonard said:


> I was told TA also affects phase. My source could be wrong, though.


Look at it this way. Assume you were listening in a 6'x5'x3' room made of glass. One speaker right next to you and another 5' away. Ability to move the speakers around and an eq are your tools. What would you do first? I'd get the drivers to sound like they were equidistant before I played with the eq. 

TA does affect phase thats why you should first get your drivers in phase before trying to correct the response. Equalizing at a frequency when the drivers are out of phase can negate your eq efforts once you bring the drivers in phase.

I just look at getting the drivers in mechanical phase, correcting FR via the eq and then going back and tweaking the TA a bit to get the drivers acoustic phase. As long as you move in a straight line it doesn't matter where you start, you will go around the world. Tuning means using all tools together. You will constantly go back and forth between each in any case.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

No further discussions??


----------



## avanti1960 (Sep 24, 2011)

sqnut said:


> Look at it this way. Assume you were listening in a 6'x5'x3' room made of glass. One speaker right next to you and another 5' away. Ability to move the speakers around and an eq are your tools. What would you do first? I'd get the drivers to sound like they were equidistant before I played with the eq.
> 
> TA does affect phase thats why you should first get your drivers in phase before trying to correct the response. Equalizing at a frequency when the drivers are out of phase can negate your eq efforts once you bring the drivers in phase.
> 
> I just look at getting the drivers in mechanical phase, correcting FR via the eq and then going back and tweaking the TA a bit to get the drivers acoustic phase. As long as you move in a straight line it doesn't matter where you start, you will go around the world. Tuning means using all tools together. You will constantly go back and forth between each in any case.


I agree that slight back and forth EQ and T/A are often needed but it works better for me to center the driver levels and adjust EQ before time alignment.
The biggest reason for this is Left / Right EQ balance. 
If you don't balance the Left / Right EQ before time alignment, you will be trying to center frequencies that need to be EQ level adjusted.
Imagine that your right midrange driver is playing very hot to your ears in the 3Khz upper vocal region because it is more on axis than the left driver. 
If you do not cut this level with right side EQ, you will be fighting against this when you try to time align for image center.


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

TA should be used to fix the distance differences. If you're using TA as an EQ function you're going to be adjusting forever. Set it for the distance differences then EQ. There will still be some frequencies that pull to one side after TA. This is normal. In my car, 200Hz sits on the driver's side door no matter what I do with TA or EQ.


----------



## Wesayso (Jul 20, 2010)

avanti1960 said:


> I agree that slight back and forth EQ and T/A are often needed but it works better for me to center the driver levels and adjust EQ before time alignment.
> The biggest reason for this is Left / Right EQ balance.
> If you don't balance the Left / Right EQ before time alignment, you will be trying to center frequencies that need to be EQ level adjusted.
> Imagine that your right midrange driver is playing very hot to your ears in the 3Khz upper vocal region because it is more on axis than the left driver.
> If you do not cut this level with right side EQ, you will be fighting against this when you try to time align for image center.


Did you use TA to correct the distance between your woofer and mid and tweeter as well? For all speakers on one side? Then the other side? And to the sub?
To me I find it important to time align the speakers on one side before I try any centering. If you adjust left and right mid and then left and right woofer or vice versa you might mess up the phase at the crossover between the mid and woofer. You don't want to fix that with EQ.


I'd also use TA first, together with crossover settings and then move on to EQ. Before TA adjust the levels of each speaker and maybe clear out some problem aerea's with EQ. But you usually end up going back and forth a few times anyway. Crossover settings is also a nice way to compensate for left/right speaker angle differences. They (the slopes and points) don't have to be the same at both sides. As long as both sides sound the same.


----------



## Hanatsu (Nov 9, 2010)

It depends, but if I'm tuning by ear I'd do T/A first, for reasons already been mentioned. I normally do things like this nowadays (just because I got individual EQ for each channel);

1. Check polarity

2. Set a "safe" tweeter HPF, all other crossovers to fullrange.

3. Measure each driver and EQ them with all other drivers off. (With the P99, skip this step.)

4. Run subs and mids fullrange, set phase and T/A. One side at a time.Observe FR at crossover points.

5. Set and optimize crossovers and levels.

6. L-R EQ (since you "only" got 2ch EQ do this step as a final action).

There are several ways to do it. I find this to be the easiest way to do it.


Sent from my Samsung Galaxy 3 via Tapatalk.


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

Wesayso said:


> Did you use TA to correct the distance between your woofer and mid and tweeter as well? For all speakers on one side? Then the other side? And to the sub?
> To me I find it important to time align the speakers on one side before I try any centering. If you adjust left and right mid and then left and right woofer or vice versa you might mess up the phase at the crossover between the mid and woofer. You don't want to fix that with EQ.
> 
> 
> I'd also use TA first, together with crossover settings and then move on to EQ. Before TA adjust the levels of each speaker and maybe clear out some problem aerea's with EQ. But you usually end up going back and forth a few times anyway. Crossover settings is also a nice way to compensate for left/right speaker angle differences. They (the slopes and points) don't have to be the same at both sides. As long as both sides sound the same.



You're adjusting the distances to the listening position, not necessarily relative between drivers. Once you align them all to the listening position your'e done with TA. Anything else you need to do will be level/EQ adjustments. Once the freq responses on each side match, anything that wasn't centered before, barring anything caused by phase issues in the car, will be now.


----------



## Wesayso (Jul 20, 2010)

quality_sound said:


> You're adjusting the distances to the listening position, not necessarily relative between drivers. Once you align them all to the listening position your'e done with TA. Anything else you need to do will be level/EQ adjustments. Once the freq responses on each side match, anything that wasn't centered before, barring anything caused by phase issues in the car, will be now.


I agree, that's why I would TA between the woofer/mid/tweeter on each side first to get them correct. If you align left and right mid, and after that left and right woofer you still haven't aligned the woofer to the mid and you're missing out. You can play the mids by themselves and correct TA to determine where the center should be and adjust the woofer and tweeter to that mid. When it all comes together you WILL notice that .

TA "between" left and right side is like moving the speaker in a home. It isn't actually moving but more or less delayed.

Ta between woofer and mid or mid and tweeter is to correct for the mounting options in the car. The tweeter and/or mid might be closer if it's on the a-pillar and the woofer in the kicks.
And when I say "between" don't take it literally. Of coarse it is to compensate for the unequal distance between the speaker(s) and your ear(s). All I was pointing out is to not forget the unequal distances of the seperate components on each side.

The way I read avanti1960's story he first set TA by measuring and after that he adjusted driver side only to time align left/right pairs of likewise drivers. I wouldn't do it that way. Id first make sure phase is as good as can be on the passenger side between the tweeter/mid/woofer. The slopes in the crossover can change the phase at the crossover frequencies. Therefore the actual measured distance doesn't have to be the ideal TA alignment. Making sure it is aligned on each side is my suggestion. You'll never have an ideal phase responce in the car but get it close and the boundaries seem to dissapear.
After my suggested round of TA I would also suggest doing left/right EQ once again.


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

You're not understanding what I'm saying. If you're measuring the distance from the drivers to the listening position and setting your TA that what, there's no NEED to align the drivers on each side since they'll be aligned at the listening position. 

Having tried it by measuring and by ear, I prefer the measurement method. Then again, running the front stage passive has the image absolutely locked in. Even better than the other methods. It's weird and I have NO idea why it's better, but it is.


----------



## Wesayso (Jul 20, 2010)

quality_sound said:


> You're not understanding what I'm saying. If you're measuring the distance from the drivers to the listening position and setting your TA that what, there's no NEED to align the drivers on each side since they'll be aligned at the listening position.
> 
> Having tried it by measuring and by ear, I prefer the measurement method. Then again, running the front stage passive has the image absolutely locked in. Even better than the other methods. It's weird and I have NO idea why it's better, but it is.


I read what you are saying, I just don't agree with it. After spending quite some time exploring all kinds of methods I prefer my own way of doing it. And it ain't measuring distance (exept for a base start). But then again, I also use different slopes left and right. I do measure though, at the crossover frequency in dB's .

Never had big problems with locking the image though using either method. But this way I need less EQ to fix things.

Maybe those passives are designed to do more than crossover alone? I have passive "helpers" on my tweeter due to the lack of processing in my head unit.


----------



## co_leonard (Aug 14, 2009)

quality_sound said:


> If you're measuring the distance from the drivers to the listening position and setting your TA that what, there's no NEED to align the drivers on each side since they'll be aligned at the listening position.


This is what I do. And not by measuring from a single point at the center of the headrest but to my ears. I find this helps lock in pinpoint imaging.


----------



## subwoofery (Nov 9, 2008)

I usually listen to my drivers first and decide where to set my crossover - then I set my levels. 
Next step and the logical one IMO/IME is to balance your L and R side by PAIR (TW&TW or MID&MID) I do this by ear 
T/A is what follows - delta and parallel 

^ should have a pretty nice soundstage and this should be where you save everything to make it your baseline... 
Last thing to do is work on tonality = EQ both sides @ the same time

When I first started, I did set T/A before balancing L/R with an EQ - but using T/A before EQ is just giving your more work coz after balancing, you have to go back to your T/A to do some fine adjustments and therefore need to check your levels again... 

Seems simpler now with my current method

Kelvin 

PS: if you do want to set your T/A before balancing L/R, I'd have to go with _quality_sound_ and set my T/A with a ruler


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

avanti1960 said:


> I agree that slight back and forth EQ and T/A are often needed but it works better for me to center the driver levels and adjust EQ before time alignment.
> The biggest reason for this is Left / Right EQ balance.
> If you don't balance the Left / Right EQ before time alignment, you will be trying to center frequencies that need to be EQ level adjusted.
> Imagine that your right midrange driver is playing very hot to your ears in the 3Khz upper vocal region because it is more on axis than the left driver.
> If you do not cut this level with right side EQ, you will be fighting against this when you try to time align for image center.


you use time alignment to get a frontal presentation by getting the drivers in phase. Centering the image is l/r eq. Do the TA then eq.


----------



## avanti1960 (Sep 24, 2011)

Wesayso said:


> Crossover settings is also a nice way to compensate for left/right speaker angle differences. They (the slopes and points) don't have to be the same at both sides. As long as both sides sound the same.


I read about this in some of your other posts but cannot understand how it helps. For example, a driver's door midbass will be so far off axis that you would want to cross to upper drivers as high as possible. 
I can't picture how crossing the passenger side upper drivers at a lower frequency or with a steeper slope would help balance left to right driver axis differences. 
Unless you frequency gap the right drivers maybe? 
Also, doesn't using different slopes introduce other issues that you need to manage?


----------



## Wesayso (Jul 20, 2010)

I have different slopes on my woofers, left is 6dB/oct and right is 12 dB/oct. Right side will be more on axis and as a result will play higher. Left side will be at the point of beaming and roll off by itself. End result: pretty much the same roll off on both sides.
Need to time-align them different to the tweeters though due to slope differences. Tweeters are at 6 dB/oct slopes on both sides and at the same frequency in my case.
measurements from ear to driver isn't enough to align tweeter and woofer. playing tones at crossover frequency is another way.


----------



## avanti1960 (Sep 24, 2011)

sqnut said:


> Look at it this way. Assume you were listening in a 6'x5'x3' room made of glass. One speaker right next to you and another 5' away. Ability to move the speakers around and an eq are your tools. What would you do first? I'd get the drivers to sound like they were equidistant before I played with the eq.
> 
> TA does affect phase thats why you should first get your drivers in phase before trying to correct the response. Equalizing at a frequency when the drivers are out of phase can negate your eq efforts once you bring the drivers in phase.
> 
> I just look at getting the drivers in mechanical phase, correcting FR via the eq and then going back and tweaking the TA a bit to get the drivers acoustic phase. As long as you move in a straight line it doesn't matter where you start, you will go around the world. Tuning means using all tools together. You will constantly go back and forth between each in any case.


By what method do you time align? 

If you EQ the left and right separately (with RTA) so each side is equal you would not yet introduce L/R phase issues. 
Then when you introduce left and right to each other (mr. left speaker, please meet mr. right speaker) you now have phase to deal with and not EQ or L/R balance issues, and you can start by entering T/A distances.


----------



## avanti1960 (Sep 24, 2011)

Wesayso said:


> I have different slopes on my woofers, left is 6dB/oct and right is 12 dB/oct. Right side will be more on axis and as a result will play higher. Left side will be at the point of beaming and roll off by itself. End result: pretty much the same roll off on both sides.
> Need to time-align them different to the tweeters though due to slope differences. Tweeters are at 6 dB/oct slopes on both sides and at the same frequency in my case.
> measurements from ear to driver isn't enough to align tweeter and woofer. playing tones at crossover frequency is another way.


thanks, this makes sense. i'll have to try it.


----------



## Wesayso (Jul 20, 2010)

avanti1960 said:


> thanks, this makes sense. i'll have to try it.


You're running a 3 way right? In my case it's a 6.5" woofer that's beaming up top. Smaller mids will play higher before beaming of coarse. Do you have the mids off axis?


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

avanti1960 said:


> By what method do you time align?
> 
> If you EQ the left and right separately (with RTA) so each side is equal you would not yet introduce L/R phase issues.
> Then when you introduce left and right to each other (mr. left speaker, please meet mr. right speaker) you now have phase to deal with and not EQ or L/R balance issues, and you can start by entering T/A distances.


I start by entering measured distances. Next I play 2 drivers at a time. Start with sub and far MB, next the L/R MB, Near MB sub for a check, far MB with far Mid/tweet (if you're running a 3/2way), next L/R mids, near MB with near mid/tweet and so on. Driver already TA'd stays fixed, play with the value of the other. 

I'm checking each pair for the point where they sound connected (play as one?), think two sources sounding as one from one point. Generally at this point I'm within +/- 0.1-0.2 m/s of measured distance. I will come back to TA while using the eq to set the overall tonal curve. After I have balanced for L/R.

Can you do it the other way? EQ first and then TA? I guess no reason you can't. Both ways will get you there. As creatures of habit we get caught up in our patterns specially when they work, doesn't mean there isn't another way. Look at it as TA before eq and TA after eq. As long as you use the tuning tools together, it doesn't really matter how or where you start. Both ways will work, but you will do everything multiple times. So the whole question of what you do first is kinda redundant. 

When you fine tweak the TA after L/R eq and while dialing in tonality and your overall curve, you will hear the difference in TA in much smaller steps than earlier. Now you're hearing the point where the two drivers are connected without either starting eclipse the other.


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

If you EQ first you'll end up using that to try and center the stage instead of ta.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Getting your drivers in phase isn't about placing your center. That's purely an eq function. Once you have L/R drivers in phase the imaging will be from front. On all tuning disks you will have tracks in phase and out of phase. The former will image up front while the out of phase will be at your drivers. 

Where you place your center (within the from front) is based on how you set L/R balance at the eq. 

TA / EQ / Xover slopes are all tuning tools that you back and forth between. How you start and from where is moot. That's what I feel once I got over my mindset thingy. But..... I'll still set TA first cause that's what I'm used to.


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

I understand that, but when all the drivers are in phase and time aligned the image will naturally be centered. Well, for the most part. There will still be some frequencies that won't be and that's where you'd use EQ to center them.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

The difference is you're looking at TA as a one time exercise. As the sound gets clearer and tonally better balanced, you can hear the effects of TA in smaller increments. So like everything else chances are you will tweak it more than once.


----------



## narvarr (Jan 20, 2009)

sqnut said:


> I start by entering measured distances. Next I play 2 drivers at a time. Start with sub and far MB, next the L/R MB, Near MB sub for a check, far MB with far Mid/tweet (if you're running a 3/2way), next L/R mids, near MB with near mid/tweet and so on. Driver already TA'd stays fixed, play with the value of the other.
> 
> I'm checking each pair for the point where they sound connected (play as one?), think two sources sounding as one from one point. Generally at this point I'm within +/- 0.1-0.2 m/s of measured distance. I will come back to TA while using the eq to set the overall tonal curve. After I have balanced for L/R.
> 
> ...


I agree with SQnut on this. It is about finding the way that works best for you. I have tried it just about every way mentioned in this thread. They all got me to the same point EVENTUALLY, but some methods took longer than others due to my abilities to understand what I was hearing. My method: level match the drivers, measure distance to rough in T/A, flatten the F/R of each side independently, Check T/A again then flatten overall F/R. From there I would do L/R EQ to center the frequencies. You may need to go back to T/A and make very slight adjustments or back to overall F/R to make a cut here and there but...

Sent from my SAMSUNG GALAXY NOTE using Tapatalk 2


----------



## MacLeod (Aug 16, 2009)

The way I've always done it, I took the filtered pink noise track on the IASCA Setup Disc and made each frequency a separate track and then each frequency has a left only track and right only track. Then I go thru each track and EQ til they all match. After that I then setup TA by turning off all but the mids and using the MECA Disc track 1. Then tweeters only and so on. After that I'll them fine tune the TA with all drivers playing and then chase down any problem frequencies. 

Sent from my HTC Thunderbolt using Tapatalk 2.


----------



## avanti1960 (Sep 24, 2011)

sqnut said:


> I start by entering measured distances. Next I play 2 drivers at a time. Start with sub and far MB, next the L/R MB, Near MB sub for a check, far MB with far Mid/tweet (if you're running a 3/2way), next L/R mids, near MB with near mid/tweet and so on. Driver already TA'd stays fixed, play with the value of the other.
> 
> I'm checking each pair for the point where they sound connected (play as one?), think two sources sounding as one from one point. Generally at this point I'm within +/- 0.1-0.2 m/s of measured distance. I will come back to TA while using the eq to set the overall tonal curve. After I have balanced for L/R.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the reply. 

Sounds like you are doing this by ear. What source material do you use?


----------



## narvarr (Jan 20, 2009)

MacLeod said:


> The way I've always done it, I took the filtered pink noise track on the IASCA Setup Disc and made each frequency a separate track and then each frequency has a left only track and right only track. Then I go thru each track and EQ til they all match. After that I then setup TA by turning off all but the mids and using the MECA Disc track 1. Then tweeters only and so on. After that I'll them fine tune the TA with all drivers playing and then chase down any problem frequencies.
> 
> Sent from my HTC Thunderbolt using Tapatalk 2.


Mark E uses a similar method with the 1997 IASCA setup disc. I had the disc but had no Idea how to use the tracks till he explained it and demonstrated it in my truck. Take the band limited pink noise tracks and sweep through them rather quickly. If you have one of those tracks that sound louder than the rest, then some more cuts are needed in that range.

Sent from my SAMSUNG GALAXY NOTE using Tapatalk 2


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

MacLeod said:


> The way I've always done it, I took the filtered pink noise track on the IASCA Setup Disc and made each frequency a separate track and then each frequency has a left only track and right only track. Then I go thru each track and EQ til they all match. After that I then setup TA by turning off all but the mids and using the MECA Disc track 1. Then tweeters only and so on. After that I'll them fine tune the TA with all drivers playing and then chase down any problem frequencies.
> 
> Sent from my HTC Thunderbolt using Tapatalk 2.


Hi Aaron, hows life? Competing this year?


----------



## MacLeod (Aug 16, 2009)

narvarr said:


> Mark E uses a similar method with the 1997 IASCA setup disc. I had the disc but had no Idea how to use the tracks till he explained it and demonstrated it in my truck. Take the band limited pink noise tracks and sweep through them rather quickly. If you have one of those tracks that sound louder than the rest, then some more cuts are needed in that range.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG GALAXY NOTE using Tapatalk 2


I always thought it was the best way. The idea is to have both sides playing each frequency at the same volume relative to the listener so what better way than to be able to easily A/B each frequency (well at 1/3 octave increments) on each side. I couldnt find any tracks or CD's like that out there so thank God for Audacity and programs like that so I could make my own.

Its track 96 on the setup disc. Its the one with the narrator before each frequency telling you what each is. Pull it up on Audacity and its very easy to see where each frequency starts and stops so you can easily cut it up and make each one a separate track. 



sqnut said:


> Hi Aaron, hows life? Competing this year?


Whats up homie! Yes, finally getting back into competing now that Ive got a car worth putting a stereo in again.


----------



## avanti1960 (Sep 24, 2011)

Wesayso said:


> You're running a 3 way right? In my case it's a 6.5" woofer that's beaming up top. Smaller mids will play higher before beaming of coarse. Do you have the mids off axis?


yes, running three way but the 6.5 midbass drivers in the door play up to 1250 Hz (this srossover point allows the flattst response of the system). 

i tried using shallower slope on the driver's side to compensate for off axis and it seemed to help equalize L and R- although more tuning is needed. 

the midrange drivers are slightly off axis and I may try similar shallower slope if necessary.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Short of giving independent eq per driver, the p99 is a virtual processor. You can dial in some amazing sound. Sometimes we get too caught up with the technical bit on things that are wrong in a car. 

Sometimes it's easier to realize, yes there's a lot that's messed up and no you can't correct everything. But, at the end of the day everything that is going wrong, is linked to either arrival times or amplitude. Which is why the equaliser and time alignment are such great tools in the car. You're not going to get good sound without using both extensively. 

We had a nice discussion on what to use first and I'm wondering if we can extend this into how we actually tune. There will be different way to get to the same spot sure, but who knows we may actually come across something new to try. So what's your goal and your process to get there? Using the RTA to get your TA and L/R balanced is one part setting xovers/slopes and gains another. What happens next? How do you go about setting your overall response curve? How do you set the outline and then make the picture within?

It's nearly midnight and I can't sleep. Excuse the rambling.


----------



## co_leonard (Aug 14, 2009)

sqnut said:


> What happens next? How do you go about setting your overall response curve? How do you set the outline and then make the picture within?
> 
> It's nearly midnight and I can't sleep. Excuse the rambling.


In my experience, I find listening to well-recorded music on quality headphones and earphones a tremendous help in fine tuning after RTA. 

I have a few, such as the Bang & Olufsen Earphones, Westone 4R, Ultimate Ears Triple Fi 10, Beyerdynamic T5P. These are powered by a handful of respected portable and home USB DAC headphone amps. _Note: these have proper output stages. None of them (mis)use an opamp to directly drive the phones. And yes, I do opamp, tube and capacitor rolling. _

I listen intently to a wide range of music from artists and bands such as Tracy Chapman, Steely Dan, Antonio Forcione, Steve Vai, Trijntje Oosterhuis, Toto, The Rolling Stones, The Blue Man Group, The IASCA CD, Michael Ruff, JB Project, Vienna Teng, Jennifer Warnes, various Chesky CDs, various Telarc CDs, various Sheffield Labs CDs and many others. From various magazine articles, I was told these artists and their recording engineers take extra care to produce good-sounding albums. Also, my source material is either original CDs or high bitrate FLAC downloads only. No lossy or compressed formats for me. 

Then I take note of little details often buried in the mix as well as the overall sound. So over years of listening and in spite of the differences I hear between headphones, headphone amps and the components I enjoy "rolling," there is a BASIC tonal quality present in all my gear. For example, some headphones or headphone amps sound warm and emphasize midbass and midrange tones. Others are forward and emphasize deep bass as well as upper midrange tones. Then other seem bright and put greater emphasis on high frequencies. But on all gear, a snare drum sounds like a snare drum. A grand piano sounds like a grand piano. Acoustic guitar sounds like acoustic guitar. Donald Fagen of Steely Dan sounds like Donald Fagen. And that's the BASIC tonal quality I'm referring to. 

Tuning to achieve this BASIC tonal quality that I strive for in my car. And if I can help it, no more independent Left-Right EQ'ing this time. I hope I got that right during the RTA process. Now both channels are adjusted simultaneously on the EQ bands that need adjusting. 

Why so many headphones and headphone amps? Because I'm aware that each carries a distinct tonal character and I wouldn't want to end up prejudiced by just one and believing it to be correct (and all others wrong). Regarding choice of gear, they say "love your own." But sadly there are those who exaggerate it to mean "hate all others." So by having present several examples of good gear to listen to, I develop respect for the opinions of the engineers who built them. 

And why not a proper pair of home speakers? Because I feel room acoustics (and not the gear) influences what I hear to a degree that renders the final sound inconsistent with what the recording engineer or artist originally intended me to hear. At least with quality headgear, I rule out that singular but considerable variable. Or so I believe. Hehe.. But that's just me. 

So after tuning by ear, I can play any genre of music and it will sound good. Besides, many of the good headphones and headphone amps are still cheaper than many of the good home speakers and home amps.


----------



## Wy2quiet (Jun 29, 2010)

Oh my lord, I am not lost. There are so many different ways to do this tuning stuff that I am now going back over everything I have done.

When I owned my 80PRS, I actually liked the way it sounded (the Auto T/A with a few adjustments). 

Now that I have an almost infinite amount of tuning ability, I find it sounds worse. 

I have access for like 50+ bands of fully parametric EQ PER DRIVER, and delay in 0.01 millisecond increments, and also have a calibrated EMM-6 microphone (0.5db~ 20hz-20khz) and still can't get it all right.

P.S I also have some ATH-M50's and studio monitors with a Scarlett 2i2 headphone amp and DAC, but it always sounds way better than my car


----------



## Hanatsu (Nov 9, 2010)

Wy2quiet said:


> Now that I have an almost infinite amount of tuning ability, I find it sounds worse.


This is quite common actually. It can be tricky to get the tuning right with channel independent EQ, IME. Do you measure each driver independently as well?

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy 3 via Tapatalk.


----------



## narvarr (Jan 20, 2009)

Hanatsu said:


> This is quite common actually. It can be tricky to get the tuning right with channel independent EQ, IME. Do you measure each driver independently as well?
> 
> Sent from my Samsung Galaxy 3 via Tapatalk.


Being able to measure and EQ each channel independently should make level matching easier.

Sent from my SAMSUNG GALAXY NOTE using Tapatalk 2


----------



## co_leonard (Aug 14, 2009)

Wy2quiet said:


> Now that I have an almost infinite amount of tuning ability, I find it sounds worse.


Perhaps you could ask a friend for help? Someone who knows the ins and outs of RTA tuning? Or someone who could identify a tonal peak and adjust the correct frequency, Q and amplitude?


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

When tuning a setup I will normally set xovers and gains first, before I do anything else. Let's assume a 2 way front for a minute. I'll go by the response curves of the drivers and where they are installed. Typically I like to keep that starting point ~3khz. With tweeters mounted on the dash I'll try crossing around 4-5khz due to the reflections. The sub/mid xover is in the 50-80hz range. I'll set gains on sub and mids at 0 and I'll cut the tweets a bit ~ -5 or -6. Again with tweets on the dash I might cut here a bit more. Also depends on if the dash and pillars are covered with the dash mat kind of stuff. 

I prefer steep slopes on all the drivers. Basically if I have good eq power, I would rather handle any response issues via the eq so its more specific and tailored to each problem. Rather than try and use a thick brush vide shallower slopes. If I only had a five band eq then yes I would play with the slopes more. Once this is set I will move on to working on the eq and TA and that is where I will spend the bulk of my time. Once I have the eq and TA dialed in to a base level I'll come back and play with the xovers a bit and see what works best.

My base TA settings will be measured distances, as that's within 4-5% of where you will wind up anyways. I will use an RTA or an spl meter to balance L/R via the eq. I'm using my eq for three things. First to balance for L/R response. Once this is done, I go back and check for balance and cut the peaks specially anything between 800-4khz. 

The second use of the eq is in setting each frequency so that I get the overall response curve that sounds right. I'm also using my eq shape each drivers response around the xover points. I find this very important in order to maintain a smooth response from one driver to the next. I look at xover points as the baton exchange in a relay. 

Hearing a track on your headphones gives you a good idea on how its supposed to sound. Then hearing the same track in your car gives you a good idea of whats right and wrong in the car. There is no single overall response curve that will work in all cars. A look at the Fletcher Munson charts which show yours ears sensitivity to different frequencies, is a good place to start.

A lot of the tuning can be measured and set. But this last bit of getting the right tonality and the response curve is best done by ear. For that You must have your ref sound engraved in your head and you have to learn what boosting and cutting each frequency does in the overall mix. If you're starting out this bit is going to take a while, just stick with it and it will start falling in place. 

Trying to explain things in a logical clear way is much tougher than I thought .


----------



## aj1735 (Feb 27, 2011)

Subscribed, I have a ton more things to re read about on this thread and try to do with my p99rs. I hope to just get to a point that I'm happy and don't want to keep tweaking. So far it's like a new toy that I can't stop playing with.  lol


----------



## co_leonard (Aug 14, 2009)

sqnut said:


> I prefer steep slopes on all the drivers.


Same here. I prefer 24dB slopes myself. I find it tends to keep THD low when playing loud.


----------



## MacLeod (Aug 16, 2009)

24db slope kinda guy myself. I've tried them all thinking I'm on to something but I always wind up with 24db.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note II using Tapatalk 2.


----------



## avanti1960 (Sep 24, 2011)

24 db slopes on everything until recently. My upper door midrange was sounding just a little thin and sharp. The lower door midbass is Low Passed at 1.25 Khz, the upper door midrange is High Passed at the same frequency. 
The upper "stage" semed to be cut off and thin, sepearted from the lower midbass speakers. 
The cure was to change the midbass LP crossover from 24db to 12db, allowing some of the warmer midbass sourced midrange frequencies to blend with the upper speakers. Mission accomplished.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Yep 24db on all drivers except the sub which is at 36db currently. Shallower slopes on the sub seems to kill the snap and that touch of reverb in the mid bass. 



avanti1960 said:


> 24 db slopes on everything until recently. My upper door midrange was sounding just a little thin and sharp. The lower door midbass is Low Passed at 1.25 Khz, the upper door midrange is High Passed at the same frequency.
> The upper "stage" semed to be cut off and thin, sepearted from the lower midbass speakers.
> The cure was to change the midbass LP crossover from 24db to 12db, allowing some of the warmer midbass sourced midrange frequencies to blend with the upper speakers. Mission accomplished.


Another way to handle that issue could be to cross the MB and midrange lower. Say around 500hz. Again it will depend on the response curve of the midrange, but most 3-4" midranges should have no problems running down to ~300-500hz.

If you feel the stage has split height, that is most likely a TA issue. You need to 'connect' the MB, midrange and tweets together. So e.g. while it is critical to get L/R mid bass in phase, it is equally important to get the mid bass and the midrange on each side in phase and so on.


----------



## Wy2quiet (Jun 29, 2010)

How many of you here are running your mids only up to the beaming freq??


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Cutting drivers below the beaming points makes sense if one has limited or no equalization. With a 31 band eq like on the p99 or if you're running a processor, beaming can be corrected by the eq. Try and get the entire vocal range ~300hz-4khz from one set of drivers. Basically try and get max possible octaves from one set of drivers. The MB in a 2 way and the mid range in a 3 way.


----------



## MacLeod (Aug 16, 2009)

That's what I always try to do but this time around I'm trying something a little different like running my tweets down to 2K. These Scans will do 2K no problem and I get a TON more dynamics with them carrying more of the frequency as compared to the mids which I usuly run up to 4K. Not sure if I can make it work or not but it sounds fairly decent right now and I'm gonna take it to Freezefest like that and get some judges in front of it. 

Like I said, normally I try to get one set playing as many octaves as possible but with the kids so much off axis and having the best set of tweeters in the world on axis and up high, I figure why not give it a try. 

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note II using Tapatalk 2.


----------



## co_leonard (Aug 14, 2009)

To sqnut and MacLeod: you are both using the same midbass and tweeters?

I've heard those in my friend's cars and they are excellent!


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Mac's been a bro and a mentor in more ways than one. The decent sound in my car has more to do with his patience, than any skill I possess. Since I'll never be as good at tuning, I figured that I should get the same speakers at least. Didn't bother with the amps cause we all know amps don't sound different .

The Polk SR's never got the love they deserved. The SR mid is excellent in the mid range and has tons of energy down low. They do great crossed at 50hz where I've always run them. The Scan tweets are great. Some people complain about the roll off in the 14-15khz+ range, I don't think that matters that much. They are airy, smooth and will play down to 2khz without getting harsh. 

The ability of a tweeter to play low without getting harsh, definitely adds to the sense of dynamism. To do that, I think one needs to keep them off the dash and have the dash and pillars matted up. Else one would lose imaging clarity due to all the reflections bouncing around.


----------



## Wesayso (Jul 20, 2010)

MacLeod said:


> That's what I always try to do but this time around I'm trying something a little different like running my tweets down to 2K. These Scans will do 2K no problem and I get a TON more dynamics with them carrying more of the frequency as compared to the mids which I usuly run up to 4K. Not sure if I can make it work or not but it sounds fairly decent right now and I'm gonna take it to Freezefest like that and get some judges in front of it.
> 
> Like I said, normally I try to get one set playing as many octaves as possible but with the kids so much off axis and having the best set of tweeters in the world on axis and up high, I figure why not give it a try.
> 
> Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note II using Tapatalk 2.


Have you tried to cross the tweeters and woofer with shallow slopes? I can't tell where the tweeter takes over from my woofer with the tweeters running with 6 dB/oct slopes. It gave me much more realism in voices. 
I have a bit of underlap in the crossover points but it works out very good. With a tweeter like the Scan Speak Illuminator that can play low it could work quite well. My woofers are at different slopes, the driver side at 6 dB and passenger side at 12 dB. After time alignment it sounds better to me than the 24 dB slopes I was running when I first started to run active.
I tried the shallow slopes after reading the Patrick Bateman thread _(This one, the real fun starts at the bottom of the first page)_ on it knowing it was supposed to work with 3 way fronts but if your woofers can play high it seems to work very well with a 2 way front as well. 
Before this change I always had some voices that gave me trouble, perhaps the ringing I was hearing? I gradually ended up at these crossovers after trying 12 dB slopes first and moving on to find the sweet spot.
Running the woofers without tweeters playing and vice versa for some drives to work made me choose the final crossover points. I think the key is to use Time alignment to align the tweeter and woofer for it to work well. By that I mean it will take more than measuring the distance from the speaker to the ears .


----------



## Wy2quiet (Jun 29, 2010)

I also don't see why I wouldn't run my XS28's down to 2.3khz or so and let them play up from there, where my mids seem to start breaking up. Can't I just as easily EQ out any harshness from the tweets? That is essentially what I have done. Mine are mounted half way up my pillars in pods.


----------



## co_leonard (Aug 14, 2009)

In my experience, there are times when shallow crossover slopes help. 

Like the other day I was tuning a friend's car. His P99 was hooked up to a 4ch amp powering a 2-way set and a mono amp powering a sub. On his a-pillars are a pair of wideband drivers. The RTA shows them down -6dB at 250Hz even if after being high-passed at 400Hz, -24dB/octave on the P99. 

After level matching, time alignment and hours of methodical RTA and ear tuning, his system actually sounded quite good. Wide, deep soundstage, full midbass, neutral midrange and smooth highs. The only issue was stage HEIGHT being a bit low overall. 

There's a track on the 2012 EMMA SQ Judging CD (EMMA is the European equivalent of MECA) used to judge stage width and height. A tambourine, acoustic guitar and electric guitar move across the soundstage in that order, from far left to far right, while an electric bass plays a funk backbeat in the center. To score high on this track, the 3 instruments that move across the soundstage should begin and end far beyond the a-pillars while remaining at eye level all throughout. 

In my friend's car, tambourine was easy to get right. It's pretty much nose level as it slowly moves from the middle of the driver's side mirror to the outer tip of the passengers's side mirror. Acoustic guitar was at chin level. Electric guitar, sad to say, began on the far left at chin level then ended far right at knee level. EMMA rules say the stage height score is the height of the lowest-sounding instrument. So unfortunately, my friend's car would actually do poorly, even if it sounded tonally correct.

On to tuning. First, mute the sub and midbass and listen only to the widebands. All three instruments were eye level from far left to far right without any "rainbow" effect. The challenge now was to get the midbass to blend nicely so that it wouldn't pull the soundstage down. 

Without touching the crossover settings of the pillar drivers, I played around with midbass phase, lowpass frequency and slope. 

Initially, midbass lowpass was 250Hz, -24dB/octave, normal phase. Many hours of tuning later, the height of all three instruments remained eye-level with midbass lowpass set at 125Hz, -6dB/octave, reverse phase. Success, we achieved what we set out to achieve! 

So electrically (meaning on the P99), there was a significant underlap in the crossover region between the midbass and the widebands. But acoustically, it was right on the money. You could mute the midbass and all you'd hear was a thinning of the sound. Turn on the midbass and stage height remains high! 

And that's one of many instances where I've experienced shallow slopes working nicely.


----------



## subwoofery (Nov 9, 2008)

I find shallow slopes (6dB & 12dB) to clearly work for me if the 2 drivers are really close to each other - could never get the 2 to link up even with careful T/A and Xover point choosen. There's always a song that will show up a defficiency in my system by dipping a certain note down by my feet when 98% of the sound is up @ eye level... 
Clearly the reason subwoofer LP with shallow slopes never worked for me if the sub is way behind me 

Separate the drivers and I'll always recommend to try steep slopes first...

Kelvin


----------



## avanti1960 (Sep 24, 2011)

sqnut said:


> Yep 24db on all drivers except the sub which is at 36db currently. Shallower slopes on the sub seems to kill the snap and that touch of reverb in the mid bass.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


you might be right. at some point i need to T/A the right side drivers to each other using the 800Hz tone method. the measurement method does not dial it in as accurate as it could be.

with respect to crossover frequency i picked 1.25 hz because this is the only frequency where the midbass driver and midrange driver are flat without EQ. Below 1.25K and the midrange driver rolls off heavily. Above 1.25 and the midbass driver rolls off heavily.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

avanti1960 said:


> you might be right. at some point i need to T/A the right side drivers to each other using the 800Hz tone method. the measurement method does not dial it in as accurate as it could be.
> 
> with respect to crossover frequency i picked 1.25 hz because this is the only frequency where the midbass driver and midrange driver are flat without EQ. Below 1.25K and the midrange driver rolls off heavily. Above 1.25 and the midbass driver rolls off heavily.


I'm quite sure TA'ing the drivers on each side will resolve the split stage issue. Appreciate if you can share the results once you've done this. 

On the driver roll off, I'm wonder about the MB and mid range rolling off above and below 1.25khz. Is it just a dip above and below 1.25 or a steady roll off? The reason I'm stressing this is that you have good drivers and they should not exhibit this roll off. Another benefit of lower xovers would be to lift your stage height atleast the lower end.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

subwoofery said:


> I find shallow slopes (6dB & 12dB) to clearly work for me if the 2 drivers are really close to each other - could never get the 2 to link up even with careful T/A and Xover point choosen. There's always a song that will show up a defficiency in my system by dipping a certain note down by my feet when 98% of the sound is up @ eye level...
> Clearly the reason subwoofer LP with shallow slopes never worked for me if the sub is way behind me
> 
> Separate the drivers and I'll always recommend to try steep slopes first...
> ...


Agreed. Have tuned several setups with the mid and tweet on the pillars and the MB down low. Always wound up setting the mid to tweet xover on 12db slopes. Steeper slopes will cause phase issues between drivers. When they are close to each other this will be tough to correct even with TA. When the drivers are separated, once can resolve the phase issue with TA. That's my take.


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

A 24dB slope will bring it back into phase at the crossover point. It's a 360 degree shift.


----------



## narvarr (Jan 20, 2009)

avanti1960 said:


> with respect to crossover frequency i picked 1.25 hz because this is the only frequency where the midbass driver and midrange driver are flat without EQ. Below 1.25K and the midrange driver rolls off heavily. Above 1.25 and the midbass driver rolls off heavily.


One other thing you also have to keep in mind is how far off axis you are to the drivers. Your driver's side will roll off on the top end due to your seating position. Check the F/R for your mids and midbass and see where they start to roll off at you position.

Sent from my SAMSUNG GALAXY NOTE using Tapatalk 2


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

quality_sound said:


> A 24dB slope will bring it back into phase at the crossover point. It's a 360 degree shift.


At the xover point, yes. But the phase shift above and below the xover gets tough to correct even with TA. This is for drivers placed close together.


----------



## subwoofery (Nov 9, 2008)

quality_sound said:


> A 24dB slope will bring it back into phase at the crossover point. It's a 360 degree shift.


Using high order slopes can sometimes sound bad depending on the type of Xover... L-R, Bessel or Butterworth. 
I read a post (not too long ago) about ringing from the upper midrange when using a high order slope - never thought about it until I tried to play my midrange by itself and change the slope... OH MY, it sounds much better @ 12dB than @ 24dB - the ringing is there (Xover done with my CD7200mkII but have no way to know which type of Xover those are) 
The midrange and the horns combined sound great and I guess the horns do mask the upper range of my midrange quite a bit for me not to notice it...

Werewolf talks about the ringing with different type of Xovers other than Bessel: here (good thread)

Kelvin


----------



## co_leonard (Aug 14, 2009)

My experience with the Eclipse CD7200 is the same. Shallow slopes sound better.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

When you TA two drivers what are you listening for? For me its about getting the drivers to sound like one point source and the point where there is minimum stress / stretch in the sound. This for when I'm TA'ing two drivers on one side. When TA the sub with the mids, I want to hear the very low end from the MB without affecting MB clarity.


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

sqnut said:


> At the xover point, yes. But the phase shift above and below the xover gets tough to correct even with TA. This is for drivers placed close together.





subwoofery said:


> Using high order slopes can sometimes sound bad depending on the type of Xover... L-R, Bessel or Butterworth.
> I read a post (not too long ago) about ringing from the upper midrange when using a high order slope - never thought about it until I tried to play my midrange by itself and change the slope... OH MY, it sounds much better @ 12dB than @ 24dB - the ringing is there (Xover done with my CD7200mkII but have no way to know which type of Xover those are)
> The midrange and the horns combined sound great and I guess the horns do mask the upper range of my midrange quite a bit for me not to notice it...
> 
> ...


Oh you guys were talking total phase. I assumed you were looking strictly at the crossover phase.


----------



## MacLeod (Aug 16, 2009)

You guys may be on to something with these shallow slopes which I've always poo poo'd. On the drive into work this morning I tried the mid at 2K @ 12db but kept the tweets at 2K @ 24db and I'll be dammed if it didn't beef up the left and right stage a good bit. I'm skeered to drop the tweets (Scan Illuminators) to 12db cause they're already down as low as I want them and I'm worried about over driving them. 

Granted this was driving down the freeway listening to Disturbed but I'm anxious to see how it sounds with the MECA disc once I get some tuning time. 

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note II using Tapatalk 2.


----------



## avanti1960 (Sep 24, 2011)

sqnut said:


> I'm quite sure TA'ing the drivers on each side will resolve the split stage issue. Appreciate if you can share the results once you've done this.
> 
> On the driver roll off, I'm wonder about the MB and mid range rolling off above and below 1.25khz. Is it just a dip above and below 1.25 or a steady roll off? The reason I'm stressing this is that you have good drivers and they should not exhibit this roll off. Another benefit of lower xovers would be to lift your stage height atleast the lower end.


i will do this and let you know how it works- i'm not sure that i have a perfect method for getting the drivers on the passenger side in phase to one another- i planned to use an overlapping test tone - e.g. 800 hz with the crossovers shifted accordingly- and adjust the distance on one driver until it sounds like the tone is coming from one source- when i last did this i adjusted until the tone was at its loudest level. 

the driver roll off is a steady and significant slope bith above and below the 1.25Khz frequency as measured and averaged by RTA at the listening position. I will post these curves when I get back to my home computer. 
thanks for the dialogue.


----------



## avanti1960 (Sep 24, 2011)

subwoofery said:


> I find shallow slopes (6dB & 12dB) to clearly work for me if the 2 drivers are really close to each other - could never get the 2 to link up even with careful T/A and Xover point choosen. There's always a song that will show up a defficiency in my system by dipping a certain note down by my feet when 98% of the sound is up @ eye level...
> Clearly the reason subwoofer LP with shallow slopes never worked for me if the sub is way behind me
> 
> Separate the drivers and I'll always recommend to try steep slopes first...
> ...


agreed. 24db accross the board seems to work best for me- upper midrange, lower midbass. tried a shallower slope on the midbass LP (12db) for a while but it shifted the image to the right and I did not want to go back and adjust T/A settings.


----------



## avanti1960 (Sep 24, 2011)

narvarr said:


> One other thing you also have to keep in mind is how far off axis you are to the drivers. Your driver's side will roll off on the top end due to your seating position. Check the F/R for your mids and midbass and see where they start to roll off at you position.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG GALAXY NOTE using Tapatalk 2


that's exactly what I did. thanks for the input.


----------



## avanti1960 (Sep 24, 2011)

subwoofery said:


> Using high order slopes can sometimes sound bad depending on the type of Xover... L-R, Bessel or Butterworth.
> I read a post (not too long ago) about ringing from the upper midrange when using a high order slope - never thought about it until I tried to play my midrange by itself and change the slope... OH MY, it sounds much better @ 12dB than @ 24dB - the ringing is there (Xover done with my CD7200mkII but have no way to know which type of Xover those are)
> The midrange and the horns combined sound great and I guess the horns do mask the upper range of my midrange quite a bit for me not to notice it...
> 
> ...


with respect to the type of crossover- e.g. butterworth, etc. are the issues associated with phase response linked to the layout of an analog circuit with different resistors and coils- and not a digital filter within a DSP?


----------



## Wesayso (Jul 20, 2010)

MacLeod said:


> You guys may be on to something with these shallow slopes which I've always poo poo'd. On the drive into work this morning I tried the mid at 2K @ 12db but kept the tweets at 2K @ 24db and I'll be dammed if it didn't beef up the left and right stage a good bit. I'm skeered to drop the tweets (Scan Illuminators) to 12db cause they're already down as low as I want them and I'm worried about over driving them.
> 
> Granted this was driving down the freeway listening to Disturbed but I'm anxious to see how it sounds with the MECA disc once I get some tuning time.
> 
> Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note II using Tapatalk 2.


Why not try them (the tweeters) at 3.15K/12 dB and with reversed polarity.
I listened to the tweeters only to determine what sounds nice/best from them without strain. Dou you have passive protection on the tweeter like an inline cap? Granted your tweeters can play much lower than mine. Lowest for me is 3.15/12 dB or 4k/6dB. I have a passive filter though with a resistor paralell (for fs peak) and cap in series.


----------



## MacLeod (Aug 16, 2009)

I tried both at 3.2K @ 12db at first and liked it better than my traditional 4K @ 24db but with the tweet down to 2K I get a lot more output and dynamics since they're up high and on axis compared to the mids. Plus imaging is better since it's easier to dial in the higher midrange frequencies with the tweets handling them instead of the mids with one 90 degrees off axis and one almost dead on.

This Sunday at Freezefest I'll see how they work. I could be imagining things. 

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note II using Tapatalk 2.


----------



## Wesayso (Jul 20, 2010)

If it works, it works... I have my woofers at different slopes to somewhat compensate the off axis/on axis positions... just play a little with them. Playing a set of speakers like only the tweeters or only the mids can be very revealing to what they actually contribute to the total sound.


----------



## avanti1960 (Sep 24, 2011)

sqnut said:


> I'm quite sure TA'ing the drivers on each side will resolve the split stage issue. Appreciate if you can share the results once you've done this.
> 
> On the driver roll off, I'm wonder about the MB and mid range rolling off above and below 1.25khz. Is it just a dip above and below 1.25 or a steady roll off? The reason I'm stressing this is that you have good drivers and they should not exhibit this roll off. Another benefit of lower xovers would be to lift your stage height atleast the lower end.


included is an RTA plot of my midbass and midrange drivers playing flat (except for some low HPF).
it seems obvious that the midrange (magenta curve) starts nose diving at ~ 
1.25 Khz and the midbass (cyan curve) does the same on the upper end at the same frequency.


----------



## matyj (Dec 1, 2012)

Hiya guys, i thought id put up some shots of my install, well the mid and tweets anyway, what do you think of the mount and angle? opinions!


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

avanti1960 said:


> included is an RTA plot of my midbass and midrange drivers playing flat (except for some low HPF).
> it seems obvious that the midrange (magenta curve) starts nose diving at ~
> 1.25 Khz and the midbass (cyan curve) does the same on the upper end at the same frequency.


Tks for posting the plots. Let's try this and see if this works.

Cross the MB and Mid at 630hz with the woofer on a 12db slope and the mid on 24db. The MB is playing louder than the mid in the 630-1.2khz range in any case. You're just letting the mid break in with its presence. 

With the MB cut at 630 on a 12db slope it would be 12db lower at 1.2khz. Or about 52db, which is around the MR level. Look at 630-1.25 as the transition range between the drivers. 

The MB roll off in the 1Kz+ range is more a factor of whats happening in the 2+khz range. Due to beaming, your nearer but more off axis MB is much lower in db's than your further but more on axis MB. When you do a summed reading, its dragging this entire range down. It would be great if you could RTA one driver at a time. Then when you compare L and R MB you'll see the difference. That needs to be corrected by eq. 

On a side note I'd cut the MB in the 200-315hz range and about 3-4db at 6khz. Just flattening out some peaks.


----------



## avanti1960 (Sep 24, 2011)

sqnut said:


> Tks for posting the plots. Let's try this and see if this works.
> 
> Cross the MB and Mid at 630hz with the woofer on a 12db slope and the mid on 24db. The MB is playing louder than the mid in the 630-1.2khz range in any case. You're just letting the mid break in with its presence.
> 
> ...


thanks, but the levels shown for woofer / midrange are not the levels I run with- they are shown for comparison only- and are one side of the individual drivers. I have adjusted levels since then for a more flatter response. And yes, I have cut the 200-315 range quite a bit! Thanks for the Imagines contributing too much bass!


----------



## co_leonard (Aug 14, 2009)

matyj said:


> Hiya guys, i thought id put up some shots of my install, well the mid and tweets anyway, what do you think of the mount and angle? opinions!


Very nice. I had that exact set years ago - Focal Be Kit No.7. Also made roughly the same enclosure. Over here, we call that the "snowman." I'll try and dig up some old pictures.


----------



## matyj (Dec 1, 2012)

so thought id share some settings and whats been going on with this dream system. So no cross-block, have gone active off the p99rs, after a looot of tweaking my preferred settings are, 
21wx low pass 80hz @ 30dbl, 
6.5 highpass 80hz @ 30dbl, low pass 250hz @ 30dbl, 
3" mid 250hz @30dbl to 4k @ 36dbl, 
tweet 4k and up 36dbl with a pass on the high end cause they play to 40khz.....

believe it or not the cliff like slopes in my car sound incredible. I played with leaving slight gapes between cross points and having shallower slopes, played with different speakers at different slops for phasing problems (of which there were very veeery few) toyed with crossover frequencies a lot and so far, this is by far the cleanest and the separation is superb! 

I am a musician by trade, and in fact was lucky enough to see Maceo Parker here in perth last night. made sure i sat myself directly above the mixing desk at the concert for the best image, got back in the car after the show, slapped on one of his albums and was preeeety impressed with the accuracy im getting with these settings. the 250 on the 6.5's dont pull the sound stage low with the tweet crossed at 4k, but the tiny jump to 5k and the image drops too much, pretty interesting. And the detail jump in the tweeter between 4 and 5k is dramatic! once youre above 5 the differences are minute same as below 4, but that seems to be the sweetspot for the berylliums, without the proper eq at 4k and lower the tweeter can sound harsh, but im off axis and with the eq reeling it back, man oh man the detail is uncanny. I did find the 3" mid to struggle a little bit with anything below 250hz, i may play around with them again around the 315hz mark, and put shallow slopes back on the 6.5 and this mid...maybe


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

avanti1960 said:


> thanks, but the levels shown for woofer / midrange are not the levels I run with- they are shown for comparison only- and are one side of the individual drivers. I have adjusted levels since then for a more flatter response. And yes, I have cut the 200-315 range quite a bit! Thanks for the Imagines contributing too much bass!


No prob. The concept behind my post remains the same. Dont think of xover points as absolutes. Transition points and xover points between two drivers are two different things. I would still cross the MB/mid in the 500-630hz range.

Most cars have a hump somewhere in the 100-400hz range. I think this is more environment specific than related to the FR of your Imagines.


----------

