# Is off-axis better for front stage? - Hybrid Audio



## WhitneyLand (Aug 19, 2012)

If you have a choice is it better to have speakers on axis or off axis?

I'm building custom speaker pods with Hybrid Audio 3.5" drivers, so they can be setup with a lot of flexibility.

On one hand I've heard people say some car speakers sound better off axis, which is a counter intuitive to me.

On the other hand, on HAT's site they show the frequency response being flat for on-axis, and worse off-axis.

On the final hand I saw a picture of a car the owner built and it didn't appear they were on axis.

Thoughts?


----------



## Genxx (Mar 18, 2007)

DP FMW


----------



## Genxx (Mar 18, 2007)

From Scotts own write-up.

They are aimed at a common point on the opposite window moulding. The rest is handled with electronics. It is a "one-seat" car because of pathlength differences being extreme using the OEM seating locations. The goal was to show a Legatia L3SE 3" midrange at 30-degrees off axis can play flat to 20,000 Hz with minor, very minor EQ work at 20,000 Hz.

I did on-axis with HAT in my truck at one point and had decent luck doing it. It took a ton of processing though, now I have rebuilt the pods however with a different brand and I am much happier off-axis. I never got my truck to the way I wanted doing on-axis with any brand. It was not any one brand of speakers that had the issues it was the way they were installed.

The thing you have to keep in kind is every build and vehicle is different. What worked in one may not work in another. So just becuase x did it does not mean it will work in another install. Unless you have the same vehicle, equipment, tuner ect.

I am sure Scott could repeat it but can someone else possibly.


----------



## WhitneyLand (Aug 19, 2012)

thanks Genxx.

When I hear "the goal was to show off axis could play flat...", did that mean they purposely made it worse to show they could meet the challenge? Or did they mean that was the best positioning to start with and they fine tuned with EQ?

It sounds like in your cars off-axis has worked better. I believe you, but I don't understand it.

If HAT's drivers were designed to work off axis, why would the put out specs to show they only play flat on axis?





Genxx said:


> From Scotts own write-up.
> 
> They are aimed at a common point on the opposite window moulding. The rest is handled with electronics. It is a "one-seat" car because of pathlength differences being extreme using the OEM seating locations. The goal was to show a Legatia L3SE 3" midrange at 30-degrees off axis can play flat to 20,000 Hz with minor, very minor EQ work at 20,000 Hz.
> 
> ...


----------



## Scott Buwalda (Apr 7, 2006)

Brian is right, it depends on many factors. You'll need to try it. The pods in the company G35 are not entirely "on axis." Plus frequency repsonse graphs in an anechoic chamber are of limited use when the speaker is actually put in the car - a good starting point only.


----------



## THEDUKE (Aug 25, 2008)

Scott,
Of topic, but still related to the G35 vehicle. I had a chance to listen to it at CES this year and one of the demo tracks was a man walking across a stage from right to left and then back. He stops in the middle on the way back and talks into the microphone. What is that track? I cannot find it anywhere.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

Probably from a EMMA judging CD if it's the track I am thinking of.


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

Yes, it's from the EMMA judging CD.


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

Someone really needs to add something to this discussion of on and off axis. OK...I'll do it. 

There's no mystery here and the differences between on and off axis placement are simple.

1. Sound is reflected from a bunch of surfaces in the car. We hear those reflections MOSTLY as changes in frequency response to the direect sound. They also contribute significant crosstalk (left ear hears right information and right ear hears left information). That crosstalk reduces the system's ability to sound "larger than the car".

2. The difference between on and off-axis sound from your speakers is very simply defined by the diameter of the cone. Frequencies that have wavelengths that are long compared to the diameter of the cone are radiated everywhere--to the front, the side and the back. Frequencies that are short relative to the diameter are radiated frontward. 

2b. the high frequency response of almost all speakers has a peak. This is caused by cone distortion-a small part of the cone moves differently than the rest of the cone. That peak is "played" by a smaller part of the diaphragm, so it has a different dispersion than the rest of the cone. If you look at the off axis response of such a speaker, you'll see that the peak is not attenuated at the same rate as the rest of the high frequency response. This can be a HUGE problem and it's one of the criteria for choosing a crossover point.

3. If you mount a speaker on axis, the high frequencies will arrive at your ears direcetly and the lower frequencies will too, but they will ALSO arrive at your ears after being reflected off ADJACENT boundaries. The high frequencies will also be reflected by boundaries near your ears (side glass) but NOT from adjacent boundaries (because they are radiated FORWARD). 

4. Reflections are attenuated because of the increase in pathlength (6dB for every doubling of distance). They are also modified by the material. Carpet doesn't reflect super high frequencies but glass does, for example.

5. So...a tweeter mounted off axis will direct more high frequencies into the reflecting surfaces and less into the direct sound. The same thing happens with a midrange (or a wide-bander). 

6. When you equalize, you can't equalize the reflection differently than the direct sound from the speaker. That doesn't matter if your head is completely stationary because for every point in space, we hear the sum of the direct and reflected sound. When we move our head, we hear a different combiination. It's helpful to have the direct and reflected sound as similar as possible to be effectively equalized. This isn't possible in a car, so no matter how we mount speakers we'll still be confronted with this problem. 

6. The problem is the worst when the off-axis response has a big hole and the on-axis response has a peak. This is common with 6-1/2" conponent systems where the woofer doesn't quite reach the tweeter. Sometimes, crossover designers who are focused on the on-axis response and ignore the directivity (off axis response) build a high-Q crossover to boost the response at the crossover. This makes this problem worse and can make the car sound bad when you listen despite a good curve.

All of this is why I suggest mounting tweeters on axis, using a small mid between a 6 and a tweeter, and keeping speakers away from the junction of the dash, side window and windshield. 

Widebanders should ALWAYS be mounted on-axis if no tweeter will be used.


----------



## quietfly (Mar 23, 2011)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> Someone really needs to add something to this discussion of on and off axis. OK...I'll do it.
> 
> There's no mystery here and the differences between on and off axis placement are simple.
> 
> ...


Sounds a lot like a conversation i had with a very smart man yesterday...... :laugh:


----------



## quietfly (Mar 23, 2011)

So here lies my question of the hour.......
This is my interior:









This is where i propose placing speakers:









The forward most spots in the dash are 3.5 wide banders the sail panels are tweeters and the door spots are 6.5s. 

I would like to run 3way active, with a MS8 doing the traffic cop duties. Will the 3.5s being SO far forward and off axis present a problem? I have not totally decided on xover points but off the top of my head i figured 
6.5 from 90 to 1k
3.5 from 1k to 4.5k
tweets from 4.5k up

all at @24db slopes. 
obviously i'll need to listen and see how it sounds and adjust from there. 

Any advice, tips, tricks?

thanks!


----------



## oilman (Feb 21, 2012)

Subscribed


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

Oh man...leave the dash locations empty and put the little mids in front of the door handle! Oh, wait, this suggestion violates the covenant....carry on.


----------



## lysiakd (Sep 6, 2012)

yup jose


----------



## avanti1960 (Sep 24, 2011)

my setup is just as andy suggested- widebands in the upper front door, (off axis, however) tweeters in the sails on axis, more or less. the wides and tweets really should be as close as possible. 
i have the wides crossed at 800K, tweets at 8K. it sounds outstanding- image, etc. i bet having the widebands on axis would sound better but that involves more fabrication than i had time for.


----------



## adrenalinejunkie (Oct 17, 2010)

In for more info.


----------



## quietfly (Mar 23, 2011)

avanti1960 said:


> my setup is just as andy suggested- widebands in the upper front door, (off axis, however) tweeters in the sails on axis, more or less. the wides and tweets really should be as close as possible.
> i have the wides crossed at 800K, tweets at 8K. it sounds outstanding- image, etc. i bet having the widebands on axis would sound better but that involves more fabrication than i had time for.


pics?


----------



## quietfly (Mar 23, 2011)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> Oh man...leave the dash locations empty and put the little mids in front of the door handle! Oh, wait, this suggestion violates the covenant....carry on.



Great not you have me thinking about that...... although it might be outside of the scope of my fabrication abilities... 
plus My fiancee has said anything i do must look "like it came that way"...

ugh......


----------



## avanti1960 (Sep 24, 2011)

quietfly said:


> pics?


http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum...coustics-ists-1-textile-dome-tweeter-kit.html


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

quietfly said:


> Great not you have me thinking about that...... although it might be outside of the scope of my fabrication abilities...
> plus My fiancee has said anything i do must look "like it came that way"...
> 
> ugh......


No, This is GREAT news! Is that black piece of plastic just plastic or is it covered in some vinyl? If it's a hard piece of plastic, this isn't so difficult. The hardest part will be cutting a nice hole. A rotary tool (dremel) with a carbide burr a collection of small files and LOTS of patience.

Here's the procedure I'd use.

1. Choose a shape for the grille that fits the look of the car and the door panel. Should be nearly as big as the speaker's cone, but just get close. The appearance is more important. 

2. With some blue masking tape, stick pieces around the shape to "draw" the outline. 

3. drill a 1/4" hole in the plastic about 1/4" inside the outline you've made with the tape. 

4. Working slowly and carefully with the dremel underneath the panel and the bit sticking up so you can see it from the top, cut the shape carefully, staying about 1/8" inside the line. 

5. Finish the shape CAREFULLY with a file (or several). You'll need a coarse one, a fine one and a round one, if the inside corners of your shape are round. 

6. OK, now that the hole is cut, you have to make a grille. Since the rest of the grilles in the car are probably plastic, but they look like metal mesh, find some similar material with holes about the same size. Check out McMaster Carr or any of the installation supply websites. Try to find plastic, if possible.

7. Now you have to make a small mold. Cut a piece of MDF the same size and shape as the hole and make it the thickness of your grille material plus 1/16 to 1/8" smaller on all sides. Round over the hard corners a little bit with a file or a router. the thickness of the MDF should be the thickness of the plastic where you'll put the grille plus the thickness of the plastic grille material, plus about 1/8". Just get close. Better a little too thick than not thick enough.

8. Cut a hole in another piece of MDF the same size as the hole in the door panel plastic. Make the whole piece of MDF about 12" x 12" so it will be easy to work with. Make a second one. 

9. OK, now the fun part. Sandwich the plastic grille material between the two 12" x 12" piece s of MDF and be sure the grille shaped holes line up perfectly. Screw or clamp the pieces together. Clamp the whole thing to a workbench.

10. With a paint stripper heat gun held about a foot away from the whole assembly, SLOWLY heat the plastic in the hole until it's shiny and begins to sag. Don't heat it too much because that will ruin it. Heat the edges more than the middle. We want to deform the edges but not the center. 

11. Once the plastic is sagging, stop heating and press the grille shaped piece of MDF into the hole and press down gently and slowly until it stops. Leave it there for a few minutes while the plastic cools. 

12. Do not try to pry the "plug" that you pressed into the hole! Unclamp the assembly from your workbench. Unscrew the two 12" x 12" pieces of wood. Pressing gently from the front of the plastic grille, remove the grille and the plug from the hole. Trim the plastic so that you have a small horizontal "landing" that will serve as a glue surface when you insert the grille into the door panel from the back.

13. Paint the grille to match and glue it in with CA (super glue) or epoxy.

Mount the speaker from behind the panel. To do this you can cut a piece of 1/8" thick MDF (hard to find) or plywood or plasti to fit behind the grille (Use a shape that's larger than the grille and easy to glue in place. Cut a hole for the speaker and install a couple of machine screws from the front (the threads should stick out the back). Install a nut to hold the screws in place. Glue these in place. Mount the speaker over the hole and secure it with a couple of additional nuts. IF there's a gap, fill it with some of that clay-like weather stripping from home depot.

There, simple. Would take me all weekend to do two speakers and I've done this a bunch of times. Make a practice piece first. Practice cutting a piece of ABS and make a practice mold using simple rectangle with rounded corners until you get the hang of it. 

Oh, and before you do this, make sure the speaker will fit behind the panel. 

8.


----------



## Bluenote (Aug 29, 2008)

Andy would a pair of widebanders = L3se's work in the sail panels to handle mid and high freq's? It's an idea I've ben contemplating for a two way front stage with a dedicated Midbass and tweeter for center ( the tweeter would compensate for high freq info summed from L/R front channels.)


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

I don't advocate for "widebanders" unless you simply can't afford a pair of tweeters. If you build some itsy-bitsy enclosure for your windbanders in the sail panels, the low frequency extension will be reduced, so you'll just have a high Q tweeter that only makes high frequencies on axis. Yuck. Use a widebander as a midrange and a tweeter as a tweeter.


----------



## Bluenote (Aug 29, 2008)

^ Andy thanks for the suggestion.


----------



## t3sn4f2 (Jan 3, 2007)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> No, This is GREAT news! Is that black piece of plastic just plastic or is it covered in some vinyl? If it's a hard piece of plastic, this isn't so difficult. The hardest part will be cutting a nice hole. A rotary tool (dremel) with a carbide burr a collection of small files and LOTS of patience.
> 
> Here's the procedure I'd use.
> 
> ...


Andy, how well do you think an enclosed 2" dome mid like the Dayton RS52 would work for this application. Recommended highpass for it is 500Hz up for low distortion and high power handling. 

Or is the couple hundred Hz that a 3.5" cone mid adds to the low end crucial here?


----------



## bassfromspace (Jun 28, 2016)

t3sn4f2 said:


> Andy, how well do you think an enclosed 2" dome mid like the Dayton RS52 would work for this application. Recommended highpass for it is 500Hz up for low distortion and high power handling.
> 
> Or is the couple hundred Hz that a 3.5" cone mid adds to the low end crucial here?


Great questions!


----------



## GlasSman (Nov 14, 2006)

Andy nice tip on the grills.


----------



## GlasSman (Nov 14, 2006)

quietfly said:


> Great not you have me thinking about that...... although it might be outside of the scope of my fabrication abilities...
> plus My fiancee has said anything i do must look "like it came that way"...
> 
> ugh......


I understand you are limited to speaker locations but your suggestions will end up a holy mess.

Midbass location is the only one I would use and it should be crossed over much lower....try 150-200 range....I keep it below 200 to prevent any jumping on low male vocals.

Midrange will have a lower high pass which will give it a wider band and carry more of the freq spectrum.

That should steer you in a better less mis-guided direction .....now someone like Andy can fix/repair my suggestions. 

I didn't suggest different locations like A-Pillars since that sounds like it's beyond the scope of your fabrication skills.


----------



## narvarr (Jan 20, 2009)

t3sn4f2 said:


> Andy, how well do you think an enclosed 2" dome mid like the Dayton RS52 would work for this application. Recommended highpass for it is 500Hz up for low distortion and high power handling.
> 
> Or is the couple hundred Hz that a 3.5" cone mid adds to the low end crucial here?


IMO, use crossover points that work for your drivers. If your going with the L3SE's, 200hz is a good start. I think Scott has them crossed over at 160hz in the G35. I am running peerless 2.5" mids in my sails and while they play just fine down to 200hz, they don't carry enough weight to have tonal accuracy that low. They sound thin in that range and adding too much EQ makes them distort. I found running them at 800hz up to 4k or so to sound better. My L6's are crossed at [email protected] and they blend in very well without any shifting between the midbass and mid. Just my $0.02.

Sent from my SAMSUNG GALAXY NOTE using Tapatalk 2


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

t3sn4f2 said:


> Andy, how well do you think an enclosed 2" dome mid like the Dayton RS52 would work for this application. Recommended highpass for it is 500Hz up for low distortion and high power handling.
> 
> Or is the couple hundred Hz that a 3.5" cone mid adds to the low end crucial here?


 
I don't think there's any big advantage to using either domes or cones. I've suggested to Quietfly that he cross the midbass and midrange at about 1k to keep lower frequencies away from the windshield. I find that the little mid in a 3-way is best used to prevent one from having to use the midbass in a region where dispersion is narrow.'

In this case, the placement of that little midrange isn't ideal (near the glass). I think he'll be much happier if he minimizes the range of frequencies they play rather than using them for all they're worth (as everyone likes to suggest for those things.


----------



## quietfly (Mar 23, 2011)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> No, This is GREAT news! Is that black piece of plastic just plastic or is it covered in some vinyl? If it's a hard piece of plastic, this isn't so difficult. The hardest part will be cutting a nice hole. A rotary tool (dremel) with a carbide burr a collection of small files and LOTS of patience.
> 
> Here's the procedure I'd use.
> 
> ...



You sir are a *TROUBLE MAKER.*.. LOL :laugh: SO yes I've been doing some "Retail Lobbying" with the Mrs. and it looks like these "minor door modifications will be approved".

your walk through was very instrumental in my deciding to attempt this!

So when it all goes wrong, i can blame you!!!!!

but seriously, Thanks for the very detailed instruction on the method, i will be totally using this as my guide....


----------



## quietfly (Mar 23, 2011)

GlasSman said:


> I understand you are limited to speaker locations but your suggestions will end up a holy mess.
> 
> Midbass location is the only one I would use and it should be crossed over much lower....try 150-200 range....I keep it below 200 to prevent any jumping on low male vocals.
> 
> ...



I was using the 1k number at the suggestion of Andy, for reasons he's stated above, however in the end the ultimate decision will be made by fiddling until it sounds right. 

As for locations available that's a tough one. A pillars would be nice accept in my car they have curtain airbags underneath them, and maintaining a "stock" appearance is paramount to the misses.....

I appreciate everyone's advice as it's always helpful to have the benefit of those who have done it before you to help guide the way.


----------



## win1 (Sep 27, 2008)

subscriber


----------



## Lorin (May 5, 2011)

Oddly enough, my crossover points on my 3-inch mids that (so far) sound the best is around 700-7000 hz. They are at about 30% on axis, instead pointing toward a spot just behind the rear view mirror on the headliner. I started around 300-3500 hz and was getting some semblance \ harshness that went away as I moved the x-over up. I do have a 6.5 inch center that plays from 100 up to 20 khz, so that certainly helps keep the vocals up on the dash (via an ms-8). As said by many posts throughout, keep playing with different crossover points. Especially easy, informative, and rewarding with the MS-8.


----------



## Bluenote (Aug 29, 2008)

Lorin said:


> Oddly enough, my crossover points on my 3-inch mids that (so far) sound the best is around 700-7000 hz. They are at about 30% on axis, instead pointing toward a spot just behind the rear view mirror on the headliner. I started around 300-3500 hz and was getting some semblance \ harshness that went away as I moved the x-over up. I do have a 6.5 inch center that plays from 100 up to 20 khz, so that certainly helps keep the vocals up on the dash (via an ms-8). As said by many posts throughout, keep playing with different crossover points. Especially easy, informative, and rewarding with the MS-8.


Lorin, sounds nice. BTW, what what are the locations and type of mids that you are running?


----------



## Hanatsu (Nov 9, 2010)

I tried a few different locations when I installed midranges and tweets in my last build.

My midranges which essentially is fullrange speakers are placed 30deg offaxis, the rolloff starts at 9kHz so the crossover I'm using are not affected much by this. It actually sound better slightly offaxis down in the kicks where I have them.

Tweeters on the other hand are placed onaxis in sail panels. Way better than any other location or mounting angle I tried. I tried minimizing diffraction issues and reflections from windows as far as possible, windshield reflections are worst imo, since it affect stage width much more than side windows does. Onaxis or slightly angled towards the roof worked best for me.


----------



## Lorin (May 5, 2011)

My mids are H-audio Trinity's. Their 3 inch "wide-bander." I have them at the base of the A-pillar and the tweeters (digital design) are in the far corners of the dash, just behind the mids. Been happy so far with these speakers, as they get plenty loud and clear using an old-school ADS amp to power them.


----------



## Bluenote (Aug 29, 2008)

Lorin said:


> My mids are H-audio Trinity's. Their 3 inch "wide-bander." I have them at the base of the A-pillar and the tweeters (digital design) are in the far corners of the dash, just behind the mids. Been happy so far with these speakers, as they get plenty loud and clear using an old-school ADS amp to power them.


Wow...thanks! If you've read the entire thread I asked about widebanders in sails...looking at the L3se or an Audible Physics driver with 8's for Midbass. Im gonna have to explore the idea some more.


----------



## Hanatsu (Nov 9, 2010)

Check out Fountek FR88Ex as well. 3" fullrange, with steep slope on HP they can be run 160-20000Hz on axis. Performance vs cost-wise they're one of the class leading speakers without doubt.

Wouldn't use any fullrange 3" (or bigger for that matter) above 10kHz though, dispersion sucks at those frequencies. I'd use a small neo tweeter crossed real high, otherwise the high end might change if you just move your head a bit.


----------



## Sound Suggestions (Dec 5, 2010)

I love my L3se's, still shake my head in disbelief everyday on how good these little speaker sound! Male and female vocals sound so full and natural, I currently use them as widebanders 180ish and up up up, I've had them on axis in pods in a f150 and now the are installed off axis in a BMW 323i (at knee level)

They sound great either way, but I feel that installed off axis limits their high end sparkle a little (now will most likely install my L1pro 10/12khz up just to create a bit of air)

These speakers sound so good that these are probably the last midrange speaker that I will ever purchase.

Now if I can only get the L6se's to fit under the seats!....


Sent from my iPhone using DIYMA


----------



## Lorin (May 5, 2011)

I follow the sage advice I received early on concerning the "widebanders." a system never suffered by the use of a tweeter. that said, I do have tweeters (happily so) running from 7500 hz up. widebanders work well, but they dont (for me) cover the complete range of frequencies.


----------



## Bluenote (Aug 29, 2008)

Clearly the L3se's, FR88's and Trinities have made their mark! I'm glad you guys posted your appreciable thoughts on all 3 drivers and to keep it within the context of this thread...they're On and Off axis impressions. I couldn't ask for more Thanks!


----------



## Thrill_House (Nov 20, 2008)

I just like to mention that another excellent 3inch widebander would be the DLS Scandinavia 3c, I currently run them in my civic off axis in the a pillars and they are by far and away the best speaker I have used in this car to date. They are open and airy sound if just a touch dry but very accurate. You can run them in sealed pods or open back, which is the way I run them, and they sound great both ways. I think they are every bit as good as the L3SE and they are also super compact much like the L3 which gives you a lot of options when mounting them.


----------



## Bluenote (Aug 29, 2008)

^ Good one! Didn't know DLS made a 3" driver like that.


----------



## eddieg (Dec 20, 2009)

I had many HAT setups and I've tried many tuning setups - all my installs are kick panel installs but I also happened to have heard them on a-pillars many times. 

I was shocked when I replaced my L4 with a L4SE - I was sure that the difference would be not noticable - how wrong was I! 

I simply took out the L4, put in the L4SE -> same tuning, same gain same everything! 

And the L4SE is by far more detailed along each and every octave, it is cleaner, more detailed - simply superior. 

Then when I upgraded my wife's 96 corolla to a Renault Megane 2008 I decided to go tweeterless on A-pillars using the L3SE which initially was cut by a capacitor at 800Hz that I did not like (the a-pillar was actually kicking from bass) on a simple Bennic capacitor -> I moved the xover point to 1K using a Solen 400VDC capacitor and the L3SE is simply sublime. 

The reason I did this is that the renault has the midbass on doors just at the door handle level so they are almost running as point source -> the C5 are cut at 2Khz which is double the wave length at xover point for the L3SE's.

They are quite off axis on the a-pillars aimed to the middle of the dash board - what that I did notice that indeed, when you are running a mid-tweeter it is better to use the on-axis, otherwise, it would be a good idea to add a tweeter, though they play really well without any. 

At the corolla I had HAT imagine at door and kicks with custom built crossover - they were really nice, the midbasses are actually awsome but I replaced the Imagine tweeters with the original L1 which are 8 ohms -> 

I then found out something interesting - I added an L-PAD array 8ohm so I could balance the set but as well I bandpassed the whole set and cut it at 16Khz on slope 6 and it actually made the L1's much more pleasent to the ear. 

At my car I am using the L1R2 which simply staggering set of tweeters and as well I cut them of at slope 6 at 20Khz it somehow smoothen the way HAT tweeters behave -> if you try that trick on Morel tweeters for example, they end up sounding dead, airless. 

Now here is another thing - I am thinking of buying L3Pro's because the fact that they are dome midranges means they need no volume - means that there is no buffle consideration at any location -> this would probably be required at my next install which I was for to be simple as possible.

This is one of the two great things about dome mids - 

Volume not required.
good off axis response

The bad thing is - smaller frequency range compare to a cone in most cases.


----------



## Hanatsu (Nov 9, 2010)

DLS scandinavia 3 is a nice midrange indeed, never heard the new version but old one was great. Not very cheap though, my founteks cost 1/5 of the scandinavias with similar performance. Doesn't sound the same but overall performance is about the same I'd say, both are low distortion drivers in the usable range.


----------



## Hanatsu (Nov 9, 2010)

eddieg said:


> I had many HAT setups and I've tried many tuning setups - all my installs are kick panel installs but I also happened to have heard them on a-pillars many times.
> 
> I was shocked when I replaced my L4 with a L4SE - I was sure that the difference would be not noticable - how wrong was I!
> 
> ...


Top bad those speakers ain't available here. Would love to try them out.


----------



## GavGT (Sep 5, 2011)

Hanatsu said:


> Top bad those speakers ain't available here. Would love to try them out.


I use the Imagine midbass and L3se in a 2 way tweeterles install. The mids are on axis in lead lined sail panel pods and they do very well. We rta'd them and they were pretty much flat to about 16k before starting to roll off. 

Why not contact the UK distributor and see if they will be able to supply you?


----------



## eddieg (Dec 20, 2009)

If you guys refer to swapping the L3SE with L3pro runing tweeterless you can forget about it. 

The L3Pro is not going above the 13Khz unlike the L3SE which goes all the way up to 18Khz 

The fact that you have a rolloff at 16Khz is not such a big issue as most recordings tend to fade after that point at the spectrum any ways so you would hardly notice any difference unless you seat in front of the DSP and tune it on the fly. 

The main advanteges for the L3pro should be that it would play a more narrow band better then any other HAT midrange and at the same time - no need to consider volume because it uses the rear chamber as enclosure. 

And they look damn sexy  (but the L3SE are even more).

Tip -

If you like the tweeterless setups, try to do add a tweeter but cut it off at 16Khz slope 6


----------



## GavGT (Sep 5, 2011)

eddieg said:


> If you guys refer to swapping the L3SE with L3pro runing tweeterless you can forget about it.
> 
> The L3Pro is not going above the 13Khz unlike the L3SE which goes all the way up to 18Khz
> 
> ...


TBH i like how they sound, but i do EMMA competitions in the UK and the judges prefer alot more "sparkle" than can easily be tuned in without making it sound too processed. Also the drivers side is a little too close to the side glass so need to point more inwards when i come to do my next install. I've actually got some tweeters to go in, Hertz ribbon super tweeters. They have a passive crossover which cuts them @ 10k 18db. I'm going to run them off the same channels as the mids and mount them close so i can get away with not having seperate t/a and see how i go. If i cant get them to blend either with the passives or making my own then i will consider going active instead.


----------



## eddieg (Dec 20, 2009)

And this is exactly why I don't participate in such events.

If they like more sparkle in their soda, good for them, not for me.

If you are refering to the Hertz Mille ribbons -> they are very large of size take that in mind, they are great sounding, lots and lots of air but they are intended to be midranges from the first place and not tweeters. 

I've heard them in two setups which I really liked - one of them was very warm and the other was exactly the other way around, it only proved to me that the sound nature of a system is mostly dependent on the tuning.


----------



## GavGT (Sep 5, 2011)

they are actually the cheaper hertz high energy ribbons. They are quite small and will only play as low as 6k if needed. They only cost me 20 quid 2nd hand so no risk involved really, I'm not usually one to jump through hoops to please anyone else. I've heard fellow team members cars and I'm able to tell there's something missing. I like the fact that competing helps to push my system further.


----------



## eddieg (Dec 20, 2009)

OOh I didn't know that Hertz had entry level ribbons! 

Thank you for that, I will look that up, could be a good solution for me at another family owned car.

Well - at least where I am EMMA tried to raise two events and at that time there was just not enough serious people to compete not to mention keeping up the install standards - so it failed.

Today it is even worse, there are enough serious people with some real serious systems but the market is simply dead and the audio society is not very communicative arround here as it used to be - so it would fail, again.

So for me, in order to push my audio system further, I simply hook up and join with some friends and ask of them for opinions and personal judgement, I take it in consideration with my own personal taste and I decide if it is a do or a don't. 

Sometimes I like it, sometimes I don't -> good to have for memory stores in your DSP


----------



## GavGT (Sep 5, 2011)

I'm not sure if they are part of the current line-up or not, but the model number is HT20R. I should have them fitted in the next week or so so i'll let you know if they are junk or not before you go sourcing a set lol.


----------



## eddieg (Dec 20, 2009)

I searched for them at Hertz web site but it seems they are no longer producing ribbons. 

Nevertheless an interesting choice of a speaker. they shaped to look link normal dome tweeters - it seems not available any more.


----------



## GavGT (Sep 5, 2011)

eddieg said:


> I searched for them at Hertz web site but it seems they are no longer producing ribbons.
> 
> Nevertheless an interesting choice of a speaker. they shaped to look link normal dome tweeters - it seems not available any more.


I think i spotted a few sets recently on UK ebay, so if they work for me and you want to source a set it shouldn't be too difficult as long as postage is a possibility.


----------



## eddieg (Dec 20, 2009)

Thanks - it is not yet a relevant time for me.

As well I have some connections with the local dealer so I guess it is also a good address to strart from. 

Just doing my homework


----------



## subwoofery (Nov 9, 2008)

eddieg said:


> I searched for them at Hertz web site but it seems they are no longer producing ribbons.
> 
> Nevertheless an interesting choice of a speaker. they shaped to look link normal dome tweeters - it seems not available any more.


http://www.hertzaudiovideo.com/Doc/pdf_ht20r.pdf 

Kelvin


----------



## eddieg (Dec 20, 2009)

Thanks again, though this one is a tweeter and not a midrange. 

Well it had got me thinking between a dome midrange to a ribbon midrange - could be interesting.

When the time will come, madisound, parts-express beware :laugh:


----------



## Hanatsu (Nov 9, 2010)

GavGT said:


> I use the Imagine midbass and L3se in a 2 way tweeterles install. The mids are on axis in lead lined sail panel pods and they do very well. We rta'd them and they were pretty much flat to about 16k before starting to roll off.
> 
> Why not contact the UK distributor and see if they will be able to supply you?


Can you recommend any good place which ships to foreign countries? Didn't see you were from UK on tapatalk


----------



## GavGT (Sep 5, 2011)

I believe most good retailers should be able to organise it, best thing would be to throw these guys an email and they will point you in the right direction.

Matrix Audio - Welcome - DC Audio DLS Car Audio, Hybrid Audio Tecnologies (HAT) and Sundown Audio UK Distributors


----------



## robtr8 (Dec 6, 2011)

I've been wrestling with my L3SE's for a couple weeks now. Had them installed in the S70 dash where the existing we're, pointed up to the sky. Incredible center front stage, voices and instruments I had not heard before. "Natural" instruments sounded fantastic. I could even understand Nelly! But, when I played something in the rock category with electric guitars, Oy!, such a noise. Thought about taking them out and trying some MT-23's just to see. Then I ran across this thread. I put the HAT's in some temp PVC 3" cap pods I had (when I was playing with some AR3K's for the boat) and pointed them 100% on axis and re-did the Auto EQ-TA. Lost the great center front staging but also lost the glaring guitars. Thinking out of the box, and ignoring convention, I pointed the drivers side straight back up to the sky, lets say 10% off axis and the victims side pointed right at me, 100% on axis. Re-did the AEQ-TA. Center front staging came back in spades and the guitars we're well behaved. So what's up with that?

Due to the 80PRS's limitations, the L3SE's are crossed at 1.25K, 6db. The L6SE Carbon's at 100, 6db and 1.25k, 6db. The Vanadium at 30 choked at the PDX and 100, 12db.


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

sum of on axis response, off axis response and reflections from the windshield and dashboard, which is very different at high frequencies in the two positions you tried.


----------



## pocket5s (Jan 6, 2012)

robtr8 said:


> I've been wrestling with my L3SE's for a couple weeks now. Had them installed in the S70 dash where the existing we're, pointed up to the sky. Incredible center front stage, voices and instruments I had not heard before. "Natural" instruments sounded fantastic. I could even understand Nelly! But, when I played something in the rock category with electric guitars, Oy!, such a noise. Thought about taking them out and trying some MT-23's just to see. Then I ran across this thread. I put the HAT's in some temp PVC 3" cap pods I had (when I was playing with some AR3K's for the boat) and pointed them 100% on axis and re-did the Auto EQ-TA. Lost the great center front staging but also lost the glaring guitars. Thinking out of the box, and ignoring convention, I pointed the drivers side straight back up to the sky, lets say 10% off axis and the victims side pointed right at me, 100% on axis. Re-did the AEQ-TA. Center front staging came back in spades and the guitars we're well behaved. So what's up with that?
> 
> Due to the 80PRS's limitations, the L3SE's are crossed at 1.25K, 6db. The L6SE Carbon's at 100, 6db and 1.25k, 6db. The Vanadium at 30 choked at the PDX and 100, 12db.


You are definitely leaving a good 2+ octaves of capability with that 1.25 crossover. Out of curiosity, can you go a little higher than 100hz ? As a test you could put the l3se on that 100 (if it will let you run 100 on up) at mild volume and see how it sounds. Really you'd want to go to a good 150-200hz and a steeper slope, but if you try it and it sounds better then you know you need more crossover capability.


----------



## robtr8 (Dec 6, 2011)

So there was a gain, in certain annoying frequency ranges, by having the drivers symmetrically installed, which aren't summed the same by installing them asymmetrically?

There is no doubt I'm leaving a lot of the L3SE's capabilities on the table. I wasn't aware of the 80's limitations before I bought it. I would shoot the salesman for being ill-informed but, he is me. So their you are. At this point though, I'm waiting for two phantom products, the 7" iPad and the PS8 before I ditch the 80PRS.


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

pocket5s said:


> You are definitely leaving a good 2+ octaves of capability with that 1.25 crossover. Out of curiosity, can you go a little higher than 100hz ? As a test you could put the l3se on that 100 (if it will let you run 100 on up) at mild volume and see how it sounds. Really you'd want to go to a good 150-200hz and a steeper slope, but if you try it and it sounds better then you know you need more crossover capability.


Not necessarily. It isn't always the best practice to use a driver to play the lowest frequencies possible. That's best determined by taking dispersion and reflective surfaces into account, which the OP has done in his experiments.


----------



## GavGT (Sep 5, 2011)

i found trying to play the 3se low hurt its uppermost capability a little. Not a problem if tweeters are to be used though. I would point them both back up towards the screen and use the eq to tame the resulting harsh sound or use some clear security film on the inside of the windscreen. Alot of European competition cars do it.


----------



## n_olympios (Oct 23, 2008)

Still, having the crossover at or near 1KHz with the units far apart isn't good. In fact, even if they're close together you can get it wrong. 

Great discussion btw.


----------



## jamiebosco (Dec 10, 2011)

A mate over here in Aus is in the same situation with the 1.25khz HPF limit with his Pioneer P88RS,here's what he's going to try



> "it's possible with the P88 running in 'standard' mode instead of 'network' mode which basically deletes the active crossover section on the deck and replaces it with standard by-passable HPFs for the front and rear channels with a LPF for sub (allowing full range into the amp - or band passing using a combination of deck HPF and amp LPF). Most of everything else remains intact: • time alignment on all channels, • independent L&R EQ etc"


----------



## aztec45 (Jul 23, 2007)

I almost have the same setup as Scott had, I have my l3se in my a pillars, but they are not fully on axis, but they do sound nice, They do play deep, but I have them cross at 315 hz,


----------



## avanti1960 (Sep 24, 2011)

Attached is my L3SE success story-

Midbass lower front door- 80 to 800Hz (36db/ 12db)
L3SE upper front door- 800 to roll-off, 18db
Tweeters adjacent to L3SE, on-axis, 8K to roll-off, 18db
time alignment, L3 and tweeter on the same channel
very little EQ required-
sounds fantastic


----------



## GavGT (Sep 5, 2011)

yours is similar to how my next build will be. Se's in the sails though and tweeters in the a pillars on axis. In fact i just got in from wiring in the hertz ribbons. They sound really smooth and almost like they aren't doing much at all with their 10k 18db passive unit. Definately sounds more airey though and they aren't on axis yet, just have them in my dash.


----------



## robtr8 (Dec 6, 2011)

Port L3SE









Starboard L3SE

Since these pictures I've been playing around a bit. Having the port driver straight up and the starboard one pointed horizontal and straight back seems to work well.


----------



## Scott Buwalda (Apr 7, 2006)

Are those sealed pods? ^


----------



## subwoofery (Nov 9, 2008)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> Someone really needs to add something to this discussion of on and off axis. OK...I'll do it.
> 
> There's no mystery here and the differences between on and off axis placement are simple.
> 
> ...


Remember an old post ; I thought I understood it when you posted it - I guess not :blush: 


Andy Wehmeyer said:


> All of this tweeer aiming is cracking me up. All of the sound from your tweeter below about 10kHz, unless you have a big waveguide, is radiated in all directions. Above 10kHz, the dispersion narrows gradually. That means that you can't "avoid" reflections from the glass by pointing tweeters toward the middle. You can diminish the level of the reflections by movin the tweeter away from them. You can also minimize the effect of destructive interference by mounting the tweeter IN one of the surfaces. This is why I suggest the ssail panel. It's farther away from the windshield. It's in the door so the door and door glass become the baffle, sort of. It helps to make the stage as wide as possible. And...it's easy.


So you're suggesting to mount the tweeter in one surface but aimed @ you? Meaning on-axis or at least within 15° from on-axis? 

Kelvin


----------



## GavGT (Sep 5, 2011)

The reflections thing is very interesting for me, as i can't decide wether to put my L3se's in the sails 30 degrees off axis, and tweeters in the a-pillar on axis real close to them OR tweeters in sails on axis and mids in a-pillar 30 degrees off axis. 

Any thoughts on which reflections will be the necessary evil in this respect and which to avoid completely?

Gav


----------



## Justin Zazzi (May 28, 2012)

subwoofery said:


> Remember an old post ; I thought I understood it when you posted it - I guess not :blush:
> 
> So you're suggesting to mount the tweeter in one surface but aimed @ you? Meaning on-axis or at least within 15° from on-axis?


I'll try this because I'm thinking about the same problem in my car. I don't mean to put words in Andy's mouth, this is what I understand:

Andy's first quote in your post talks about on-axis vs off-axis response and particularly how this relates to reflections and what you can do about it. Andy's second (and older) quote reinforces the first. It explains how mounting a tweeter in the sail panel can accomplish many goals at the same time. If you flush mount the tweeter into the sail panel, it will have less reflections off the adjacent window glass.




GavGT said:


> The reflections thing is very interesting for me, as i can't decide wether to put my L3se's in the sails 30 degrees off axis, and tweeters in the a-pillar on axis real close to them OR tweeters in sails on axis and mids in a-pillar 30 degrees off axis.
> 
> Any thoughts on which reflections will be the necessary evil in this respect and which to avoid completely?


For your application (and for my own car) I would choose a place for the L3SEs with the hope that because they are responsible for more bandwidth than the tweeters (especially in the midrange frequencies which play a huge role in image and staging), they should get the better location for minimizing destructive interference (reflections). In my car I believe it will be the sail panel, plus I have an airbag in the a-pillar and I will not have any tweeters. Your car will be different.


----------



## Justin Zazzi (May 28, 2012)

Also, I love this thread.


----------



## robtr8 (Dec 6, 2011)

Scott Buwalda said:


> Are those sealed pods? ^


Uh-oh, what did I do wrong now? Yes, sealed, but remember also temporary.


----------



## subwoofery (Nov 9, 2008)

robtr8 said:


> Uh-oh, what did I do wrong now? Yes, sealed, but remember also temporary.


Scott always suggest to use his (HAT) drivers infinite baffled - as explained in the manual... 

Kelvin


----------



## quietfly (Mar 23, 2011)

robtr8 said:


> Uh-oh, what did I do wrong now? Yes, sealed, but remember also temporary.



yeah , he warns against using them sealed. so actaully your results might be somewhat different if you mounted them IB "ish" up front there. although i'm not sure how you could temp mount them IB in those spots....


----------



## robtr8 (Dec 6, 2011)

I have moved them around and re-EQ/TA'd the car so much I've taken to driving around with the MIC stuck to the headrest. Shooting across the dash at each other eliminated the glaring guitars but also killed the voices. I finally have settled on the drivers angled parallel to the windshield and aimed at the rear view mirror. Now I need to figure out how to keep them pointed that way but get them back into the dash, IB like.


----------



## t3sn4f2 (Jan 3, 2007)

robtr8 said:


> I have moved them around and re-EQ/TA'd the car so much I've taken to driving around with the MIC stuck to the headrest. Shooting across the dash at each other eliminated the glaring guitars but also killed the voices. I finally have settled on the drivers angled parallel to the windshield and aimed at the rear view mirror. Now I need to figure out how to keep them pointed that way but get them back into the dash, IB like.


Fiberglass an angled baffle that fits in that hole, like the stock speaker grill would. Just mounted in a more solid fashion.


----------



## robtr8 (Dec 6, 2011)

GavGT said:


> i found trying to play the 3se low hurt its uppermost capability a little. Not a problem if tweeters are to be used though. I would point them both back up towards the screen and use the eq to tame the resulting harsh sound or use some clear security film on the inside of the windscreen. Alot of European competition cars do it.




















This allowed the best imagining. Pulled the 3.15kHZ and 5kHZ down to tame the shrill guitars. Will probably reduce the height of the baffles by half and put some grills on them.


----------



## pocket5s (Jan 6, 2012)

I've tried several options in my truck and that config has sounded the best so far for me as we'll.


----------



## Darth SQ (Sep 17, 2010)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> Someone really needs to add something to this discussion of on and off axis. OK...I'll do it.
> 
> There's no mystery here and the differences between on and off axis placement are simple.
> 
> ...


If I understand you correctly in a 3-way system, the small mid should be mounted on axis as well and if possible, in close proximity to the tweeter?
And taking into consideration the junction point, say halfway up the a-pillar?
FTR, my mid is 2.5".


Bret
PPI-ART COLLECTOR


----------



## robtr8 (Dec 6, 2011)

I just re-read Andy's "Rules" and realized that this installation is 100% "wrong". Oh well. I think it's a clear case of never say never and always.


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

avanti1960 said:


> Attached is my L3SE success story-
> 
> Midbass lower front door- 80 to 800Hz (36db/ 12db)
> L3SE upper front door- 800 to roll-off, 18db
> ...


This.


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

PPI-ART COLLECTOR said:


> If I understand you correctly in a 3-way system, the small mid should be mounted on axis as well and if possible, in close proximity to the tweeter?
> And taking into consideration the junction point, say halfway up the a-pillar?
> FTR, my mid is 2.5".
> 
> ...


This is the whole point of the 3-way. If you cross over the woofer and the mid anywhere below 1k or so, aiming doesn't matter becuase the dispersion is wide. Then, just aim the tweeter. 

Aiming ONLY MATTERS when you're using speakers at frequencies HIGHER than you should. For a 5" that's about 3k, for a 6" that's about 2k, for a 4" that's about 4 or 5k. 

This should be really easy if you use a little mid AND and tweeter. Cross the tweeter for safety and aim it a little. Fiddle with the mid/woofer crossover a little bit, but keep it kinda high to keep low frequencies (below 5ooHz) away from the glass. Simple. Done.


----------



## subwoofery (Nov 9, 2008)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> This is the whole point of the 3-way. If you cross over the woofer and the mid anywhere below 1k or so, aiming doesn't matter becuase the dispersion is wide. Then, just aim the tweeter.
> 
> Aiming ONLY MATTERS when you're using speakers at frequencies HIGHER than you should. For a 5" that's about 3k, for a 6" that's about 2k, for a 4" that's about 4 or 5k.
> 
> This should be really easy if you use a little mid AND and tweeter. Cross the tweeter for safety and aim it a little. Fiddle with the mid/woofer crossover a little bit, but keep it kinda high to keep low frequencies (below 5ooHz) away from the glass. Simple. Done.


Having the midbass in doors usually creates a phase problem (destructive interference) around 400Hz-600Hz due to the center console. People try to avoid crossing a midbass higher than 300Hz for that reason. 
Knowing this, would you still cross a midrange/midbass higher than 500Hz when the midrange is installed up high? 

Thanks, 
Kelvin


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

subwoofery said:


> Having the midbass in doors usually creates a phase problem (destructive interference) around 400Hz-600Hz due to the center console. People try to avoid crossing a midbass higher than 300Hz for that reason.
> Knowing this, would you still cross a midrange/midbass higher than 500Hz when the midrange is installed up high?
> 
> Thanks,
> Kelvin


I always do and have never had this problem.


----------



## Spyke (Apr 20, 2012)

sub'd


----------



## subwoofery (Nov 9, 2008)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> I always do and have never had this problem.


Looks like you just helped me choose a mid  Thanks!!!!!

Kelvin


----------



## audijay (Mar 18, 2014)

Even after reading this thread I'm confused, my car will be getting 3 HAT l3se's across the dashboard, 1 center, and the other 2 in the corners near the bottom of the apillar and windshield, all 3 point straight up in the windshield, I was told I could run with no tweeters and EQ this out but I am still worried

To rely on EQ to bump up the highs or to have tweeters, I dont want to add tweeters but I may have to, but then I have to change my whole amplifier set up...ugh

sorry to bump such an old thread


----------



## luisc202 (Oct 29, 2013)

Good thread here as I want to put some Hertz Mille 3 ways in my new Accord as well. I just ordered some extra pillars just in case I mess up the originals..lol


----------



## mrpeabody (May 26, 2010)

audijay said:


> Even after reading this thread I'm confused, my car will be getting 3 HAT l3se's across the dashboard, 1 center, and the other 2 in the corners near the bottom of the apillar and windshield, all 3 point straight up in the windshield, I was told I could run with no tweeters and EQ this out but I am still worried
> 
> To rely on EQ to bump up the highs or to have tweeters, I dont want to add tweeters but I may have to, but then I have to change my whole amplifier set up...ugh
> 
> sorry to bump such an old thread


I think your main issues will be windshield reflections and the off-axis response from the 3's in the top end.


----------



## eddieg (Dec 20, 2009)

Midranges usually from my experience are best sounding either direct on axis or at crosstalk via the windows.

But you are going to use L3SE's as mid-tweeters and I have some experience with that and these drivers.

My recommendation - FULL ON AXIS 

It is true that most tweeters would sound even better when they are off axis and some sound best at a "crossfire" setup directing each other but when the L3SE's are operating both as mid and as tweeter, the more you will direct them as off axis, the more detail of their upper end would be lost. 

Either install them with a slight diversion from the axis - no more than 30 degrees or dead-on as on axis 

And give them POWER, lots of it in case you intend to have them covering 8 octaves.


After reading Andy's material it also makes more sence than ever!


----------



## robtr8 (Dec 6, 2011)

I would build temporary pods and experiment with various firing angles. I found that straight up with zero direct radiation worked the best for me.

You do need some processing power to get this setup to behave. EQ and crossover adjustability are needed.


----------



## casey (Dec 4, 2006)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> This is the whole point of the 3-way. If you cross over the woofer and the mid anywhere below 1k or so, aiming doesn't matter becuase the dispersion is wide. Then, just aim the tweeter.
> 
> Aiming ONLY MATTERS when you're using speakers at frequencies HIGHER than you should. For a 5" that's about 3k, for a 6" that's about 2k, for a 4" that's about 4 or 5k.
> 
> This should be really easy if you use a little mid AND and tweeter. Cross the tweeter for safety and aim it a little. Fiddle with the mid/woofer crossover a little bit, but keep it kinda high to keep low frequencies (below 5ooHz) away from the glass. Simple. Done.



Just checking to see I am understanding correctly. Youre recommending the crossover from mid bass to mid range be above 500?

I will have my tweeter and midrange (scan 2004 3/4" with scan 12m) mounted right beside each other pretty much on axis in pillar.

Anarchy 6.5" will be in the door off axis(and may switch to your offering once its released)


----------



## audijay (Mar 18, 2014)

eddieg said:


> Midranges usually from my experience are best sounding either direct on axis or at crosstalk via the windows.
> 
> But you are going to use L3SE's as mid-tweeters and I have some experience with that and these drivers.
> 
> ...



I can't do full on axis in my car, there are tweeters in the sails, so maybe I just have to mount the 3 in the dash straight up and 2 tweeters in the sails, then eq and tune the best I can


----------



## audijay (Mar 18, 2014)

So I guess my plan is to:

Sub: 1 13w7 ported at 28-30hz: 80hz
midbass: 2 zr800s:80-250hz (in factory 8in front door location)
midrange: 3 HAT l3se: 250hz-rolloff? (facing up on dash at windshield)
Tweeter: HAT L1v2 or L1 pro, I don't have these yet: hz??? (facing direct at each other in the sails)


----------



## BlackHHR (May 12, 2013)

If you have a pair speakers that you intend to use try a little experiment with them . I wired mine in place of my computer speakers . Wrapped them in hand towels to absorb the back wave , got the music started and began to listen to them at different angles .
My conclusion is the same as the majority of the posters here . Off axis is NOT the way to go . I started off axis moving them out to on axis . At some point close to on axis they woke up . I have made many mistakes doing what I thought was a great idea that simply did not work . I chased my tail for many years and had given up on car audio . It was suggested to me to listen to what the speaker wants , by the above experiment you will find it .


----------



## BlackHHR (May 12, 2013)

audijay said:


> So I guess my plan is to:
> 
> Sub: 1 13w7 ported at 28-30hz: 80hz
> midbass: 2 zr800s:80-250hz (in factory 8in front door location)
> ...


I have a pair of L1V2 tweeters that will be for sale very soon . Shoot me a pm ..


----------



## audijay (Mar 18, 2014)

Pm sent


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## BlackHHR (May 12, 2013)

pm answered .....


----------



## robtr8 (Dec 6, 2011)

BlackHHR said:


> If you have a pair speakers that you intend to use try a little experiment with them . I wired mine in place of my computer speakers . Wrapped them in hand towels to absorb the back wave , got the music started and began to listen to them at different angles .
> My conclusion is the same as the majority of the posters here . Off axis is NOT the way to go . I started off axis moving them out to on axis . At some point close to on axis they woke up . I have made many mistakes doing what I thought was a great idea that simply did not work . I chased my tail for many years and had given up on car audio . It was suggested to me to listen to what the speaker wants , by the above experiment you will find it .


Question: How is you're computer desk not like a car. Answer: No windscreen. 

Apples and orangutans.


----------



## BlackHHR (May 12, 2013)

robtr8 said:


> Question: How is you're computer desk not like a car. Answer: No windscreen.
> 
> Apples and orangutans.


Experimenting with the on axis -off axis behavior of a speaker can be done outside of the auto motive environment . Reflection and absorption will effect the freq response of the driver and that is another problem all together . Removing the towels and placing the driver into a baffle will also effect the response . The phase plug in the L3se is where the high freqs resonate from , that is why they wake up when on axis . 
That is what I found in my experiment as to why on axis . 
I am not a dumb azz . 
peace


----------



## Hanatsu (Nov 9, 2010)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> Aiming ONLY MATTERS when you're using speakers at frequencies HIGHER than you should.


This concludes this thread. 

On-axis is only required if you use drivers in the beaming range, if you want some HF output. Tweeters, for example always benefit from on-axis mounting, or close to it.


----------



## eddieg (Dec 20, 2009)

I used RAM mounts in my car and built my mid-tweeters (widebanders) in pods and i can aim them however I want to. 

Try to look up for my build log (which I still need to update more) on a 2006 toyota avensis. 

Currently I am using ES-02's by CDT but I also have the L3SE's just waiting for spheres and I am going to test them again as wide banders. 

As for HAT tweeters I strongly recommend the L1-R2 for which I've been pairing with L4SE's in the kick panels for the last four years before I moved to a different setup - they were outstanding tweeters! 

I also recommend to attempt a bandpass filter on your tweeters and try blocking them at 18Khz or 20Khz - it reduces all the possible harshness in them.


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

If you're aiming widebanders off axis, you're simply equalizing the high frequencies by placing them in the direct sound or the reflected sound. Below the frequency where the dispersion narrows, there's almost no difference in on-axis response and off-axis response. 

Now here's a little note about those phase plugs that are purported to do all kinds of stuff they don't actually do:

In speakers with dust caps, the dustcap moves differently than the rest of the cone. At really high frequencies, the dustcap becomes "disconnected" and vibrates differently than the rest of the cone and that causes the peak in the response at high frequencies that you see in many frequency response curves. For speakers intended to be used in multi-way systems, the crossover should be chosen to eliminate the peak from the band in which the speaker should be used. 

Remember, though, that the dustcap contributes to cone area and therefore to sensitivity. At frequencies below this peak, the dustcap behavior is no problem. 

If you're going to make a widebander, that peak is a problem. The dustcap is a smaller radiator than the rest of the cone, so it has a wider dispersion (like a tweeter). That's why that peak isn't attenuated at the same rate off axis. This quality is what makes dual cone speakers work. You add some mass to the dustcap and define the diameter of the second smaller radiator to blend it with the output of the larger cone. It's a poor man's tweeter with one sonic benefit--it's driven by the same voice coil, so there's no offset. It's pretty close to a point source. 

OK, so if we're going to make a wide-bander and we don't want to use a dual cone, we can eliminate much of the the peak by eliminating the dustcap. This will sacrifice some midband sensitivity by reducing cone area. It also creates a little cavity in the center of the speaker, which will have it's own Helmholtz resonance. So, when the speaker plays, air will move across the cavity (like blowing across the mouth of a coke bottle) and it will screw up the response. The fix? Plug the hole. 

For this to work and to provide the best compromise between maintaining midband sensitivity and eliminating the cavity, the voice coil should be small to maintain cone area. The shape of that plug isn't so mysterious. It's conical so that it doesn't provide single additional reflecting surface. Instead, it provides an infinite number of super tiny reflecting surfaces--which is basically the same as none. If the "phase plug" is just a cone shaped dustcap, then it's just a cone shaped dustcap. It has a SLIGHTLY different dispersion characteristic but basically it's just a dustcap. It'll provide a peak with a different shape, but there will still be a peak.

That's it. No mystery. 

From this thread, you have almost all the information you need to look at a speaker and determine its proper use in terms of placement. The only other things to consider are the size enclosure that's required to extend the frequency response down to the next speaker. If you're putting speakers in little enclosures so you can hang them from your pillars, then you're limiting the low frequency response and probably creating a peak in their response, just like a sub in a box that's to small. Thiele and small parameters and a simple box modeling program will help you figure that out.

The last piece of information you need is about distortion. Crossing your little midranges over as low as possible might seem smart--keep all the voices in one speaker. In reality, that's not very important. Maintaining low distortion is important. Speakers are distortion machines at resonance. At really low frequencies, we don't hear distortion very well. We have to use subs at resonance. No big deal. Your 6" midrange/midbass makes VERY little distortion between...say...150Hz and wherever that dustcap problem starts. Your little mid makes a bunch of distortion at Fs (which turns into Fc in the tiny box on your a-pillar). So, cross the 6" speaker over at 400-1kHz, use the little mid to bridge the gap (caused by the dispersion characteristics of the mid-woofer) between it and the tweeter and aim the tweeter. Neither mid-woofer nor small mid requires aiming--SO LONG AS YOU USE A TWEETER. Aim the tweeter a little and you're done.

Now, place all of that in the doors and you'll minimize reflections from the windshield, maximize the width of the stage and voila...the best of all worlds. Use delay to fix the arrival times of the speakers and you have a great 1-seat car. Add a center channel that can play effectively to 200 Hz and use a processor with center steering (Dolby PL2, Logic7 or DTS) and you have a 2-seat car.

Now, I'm going to go design some crossovers for some really cool speakers with dustcaps designed to be used in the system I've just described...


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

Technically those "phase plugs" on speakers are not really phase plugs at all.


----------



## bigbubba (Mar 23, 2011)

Very useful information. Wish I'd stumbled across this a week ago.


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

thehatedguy said:


> Technically those "phase plugs" on speakers are not really phase plugs at all.


They're just plugs.

Here's an explanation of phase plugs. A pretty cool site, BTW.

http://www.centauriaudio.com.au/diy/plugs.html


----------



## TitanCCBT3 (Jul 15, 2012)

audijay said:


> I can't do full on axis in my car, there are tweeters in the sails, so maybe I just have to mount the 3 in the dash straight up and 2 tweeters in the sails, then eq and tune the best I can




Check out DeanE10 's build log on his 2002 dodge ram, I ran a similar setup without the center channel but found upper sparkle was lacking until I gave the L3se plenty of power.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

Yeah, pointy dust caps, pole piece extensions...yeah. Phase plugs, no.


----------



## t3sn4f2 (Jan 3, 2007)

Should help with power compression as well I imagine. Pole vents out the front where it can get cool air instead of recycling it from the small thermally insulated mid enclosure. Also acts as a heat sink open to that same cool air.


----------



## eddieg (Dec 20, 2009)

Thank you Andy, 

Just got me thinking of a center channel  

Must... resist... wife will... KILL ME!!!! :mean:


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

But you can never have a really sealed enclosure because of the air leakage around it...and sometimes you can hear that, and it is annoying as hell.



t3sn4f2 said:


> Should help with power compression as well I imagine. Pole vents out the front where it can get cool air instead of recycling it from the small thermally insulated mid enclosure. Also acts as a heat sink open to that same cool air.


----------



## t3sn4f2 (Jan 3, 2007)

thehatedguy said:


> But you can never have a really sealed enclosure because of the air leakage around it...and sometimes you can hear that, and it is annoying as hell.


Yeah, but not enough to thermally vent it to any effective degree. It so we'd only crack a window in our cars when we get into them on a scorching hot day.


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

Yeah, I'd bet that the effects on power compression are minimal. The polepiece is attached to the bottom plate, which is a lot more metal than the little plug. The top plate does most of the heat sinking anyway unless the former is aluminum. 

Whatever.


----------



## 30something (Jan 9, 2009)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> Now, place all of that in the doors and you'll minimize reflections from the windshield, maximize the width of the stage and voila...the best of all worlds. Use delay to fix the arrival times of the speakers and you have a great 1-seat car. Add a center channel that can play effectively to 200 Hz and use a processor with center steering (Dolby PL2, Logic7 or DTS) and you have a 2-seat car.


Anything wrong with the mid and mid-bass sharing the same "free-air" space?


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

30something said:


> Anything wrong with the mid and mid-bass sharing the same "free-air" space?


From an engineering perspective, yes. If it was a home speaker, no engineer worth his salt would do this. From a practical standpoint in a car, no big deal. The door is HUGE compared to the Vas of most car audio drivers and it's really lossy too.


----------



## rlee777 (Apr 28, 2009)

I learned my lesson with the difference between drivers made for the car and those for speaker builders:

Dayton RS-180 (mounted low in the doors)
Vifa NE19VTS-04 tweeters (sail panels in PVC pods)

Running active crossed at 2Khz. Tweeters crossfired to opposite side windows. Could never get the VIFAs to sound right even though they theoretically have decent off-axis response. After reading Andy's breakdown of on-axis vs off-axis, I did an experiment and aimed the tweeters directly on-axis to the driver seat. Had to turn down the tweeter slightly -- NOW I hear how sweet and clear the Vifas can be. Simply put, I have been dealing with tweeters that are designed to be used on-axis, unlike most car audio tweeters that sound best off-axis. Of course this makes it a one-seat sweetspot, but the smooth integration between drivers, the open transparent response of the tweeters and the nice staging is wonderful. Heck with the passenger...


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

rlee777 said:


> I learned my lesson with the difference between drivers made for the car and those for speaker builders:
> 
> Dayton RS-180 (mounted low in the doors)
> Vifa NE19VTS-04 tweeters (sail panels in PVC pods)
> ...


What car audio tweeters are designed to be used off axis? The 660GTi is designed to be flat at 35 degrees when used with the waveguide, but that's crossover design, not tweeter design. I'd like to know who is purporting to design for off-axis and to check out what they are doing. 

I don't think this is a claim that holds much water unless they are using some pattern control or tuning crossovers for off-axis response.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

Focal. It has been stated on here once or twice by Nick Wingate.

I think they are saying that because the tweeters probably have a rising response on axis.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

But you already had made a reply to Nick about that back in November.


----------



## Darth SQ (Sep 17, 2010)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> If you're aiming widebanders off axis, you're simply equalizing the high frequencies by placing them in the direct sound or the reflected sound. Below the frequency where the dispersion narrows, there's almost no difference in on-axis response and off-axis response.
> 
> Now here's a little note about those phase plugs that are purported to do all kinds of stuff they don't actually do:
> 
> ...


Sigworthy. 


Bret
PPI-ART COLLECTOR


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

Lots of great information in this thread and it helps me to not feel so crazy with my abnormal crossover points. 

9s in the doors 70-600hz, 3.5s in the kicks 600-2,700hz and tweeters 2,700hz and up. I've been criticized for not having the mids cover a wider range, playing the 9s so high and the potential tweeter damage with a 2.7khz HP which is BS. 

Doing the math in this thread, my 2700hz LP on the mids (75mm cone diameter) barely keeps them under a "2" so maybe it's not so crazy. 

Now I just have to Velcro the mids and tweeters to the upper door panel for a while and see how it sounds. 

Thanks to everyone for all of the information.


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

BuickGN said:


> Lots of great information in this thread and it helps me to not feel so crazy with my abnormal crossover points.
> 
> 9s in the doors 70-600hz, 3.5s in the kicks 600-2,700hz and tweeters 2,700hz and up. I've been criticized for not having the mids cover a wider range, playing the 9s so high and the potential tweeter damage with a 2.7khz HP which is BS.
> 
> ...


You're doing it right. Tell those "criticizers" to pound sand.


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

thehatedguy said:


> Focal. It has been stated on here once or twice by Nick Wingate.
> 
> I think they are saying that because the tweeters probably have a rising response on axis.


Oh. Fine. If he's talking about the ones with the lobes on the faceplate, then yes. That's a pattern control device and has been around for MANY years. Here they are on a 30 or so year old pair of JBL Studio monitors. 

https://www.google.com/search?q=twe...Fhtml%2Fprofiles%2Fjbl%2F4430-35.htm;1200;786








Does this mean that they're better off axis than on axis? Hmmm...I'm pretty sure it means they suck less off axis than a tweeter without them sucks off axis. So...a 1" cone is good 60 degrees off axis to about 8k and good to about 30 degrees off axis to 12k. Domes are a little worse than cones, depending on the height of the dome compared to the circumference, but the Focal tweeters are convex. Those behave more like a flat piston, so they're a tiny bit better than a cone. 

With those lobes, it all depends on how they are positioned. Could be great off axis or could suck. If the lobes are oriented horizontally, then they are there to reduce or eliminate the lobes that form far off axis in the horizontal plane, but they do nothing in the vertical plane. So, turn them 90 degrees and oops...


----------



## n_olympios (Oct 23, 2008)

Let's not forget about the inverted dome Focal tweeters have and what effect that has on response, be it on or off axis.


----------



## captainobvious (Mar 11, 2006)

"inverted dome" sounds silly. Wouldn't that be a "cone" 


Awesome info from Andy (and others) here. The most important things I take from this thread are these concepts (as I understand them that is):

*1. Choose your mounting locations wisely. *
· If you want more width, mount your drivers wider in the vehicle with relation to your listening position. If you want more depth, mount them farther forward. 
· Pay attention to nearby hard surfaces whose reflections can cause comb filtering in the response of those drivers. This is not able to be EQ’d.

*2. Crossover points are of paramount importance. *
· Not only for driver protection, but even more importantly- for even power response. When you play a driver into its beaming range, as you increase frequency, the off axis response becomes more rolled off. For example, say you choose to use a particular 3” midrange which begins beaming at around 3K. You set a crossover point at 6K between the mid and your tweeter. As the frequencies the midrange plays increase beyond 3Khz, the response dispersion pattern of that driver becomes narrower and narrower. This becomes a problem in the car environment because there are many reflective surfaces. When you aim your speakers and play them into beaming range, the off-axis response varies greatly from the on-axis meaning your _*direct* _sound will be significantly different in response from your_ *reflected*_ sound.


*3. Reflections for ambiance and space are a waste of time in the confines of a small vehicle.*


----------



## MetricMuscle (Sep 16, 2013)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> Now, place all of that in the doors and you'll minimize reflections from the windshield, maximize the width of the stage and voila...the best of all worlds. Use delay to fix the arrival times of the speakers and you have a great 1-seat car. Add a center channel that can play effectively to 200 Hz and use a processor with center steering (Dolby PL2, Logic7 or DTS) and you have a 2-seat car.


So,

- The best we can do to minimize reflections from the windshield is to mount everything in the doors and aim the tweeters On-Axis.

- Is the windshield the biggest and worst source of reflections?

*Do I only need to use a center channel if I want a 2-seat car? 
Not necessary for a 1-seat car?*

I read in another thread someone mentioned you suggested mounting a center channel in the dash facing upwards into the windshield. Can you expound on this as doing so would contradict previous methods or is there just not any other way to go about it? 

I could actually mount a mid and tweeter in the top of my center console stack facing rearwards but it would be easier in the dash facing upwards.

I greatly appreciate your wise input, it just takes me awhile sometimes to fully digest it all and relate it to my install.


----------



## Hanatsu (Nov 9, 2010)

The windshield is a major source of crosstalk. Tweeters (almost) always needs to be aimed. In the area where they got full power response, you'll have reflections from the windshield anyway.

Center channel is only required in multimedia setups and 2-seat cars. It won't be needed in a 1-seater really. 

Sail panels and door locations mounted away from windshield will cause the least crosstalk from the front, but you will still have lots of reflections from the side windows, which basically reduces the driver side width extension. Whatever you do there are drawbacks. For midrange imaging I think 3" widebanders in sail panels is generally the best compromise. Cross them below 4kHz to a tweeter mounted in pillars on-axis.


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

Widebanders, schneibanders.


----------



## quietfly (Mar 23, 2011)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> Widebanders, schneibanders.


Someone has had enough of the passing fad...... :laugh:


----------



## teldzc1 (Oct 9, 2009)

Very interesting information. I was avoiding 3 way as the cost of doing pillars was too high for me. However, a door mount might be a lot easier.


----------



## Hanatsu (Nov 9, 2010)

Basically all 3" midranges can be referred to as "wideband" ;P


----------



## quietfly (Mar 23, 2011)

Hanatsu said:


> Basically all 3" midranges can be referred to as "wideband" ;P


true enough... although personally i still think using them in a range before they beam is best. i run my 4's to about 2600, and let my tweeters pick up from there.


----------



## Hanatsu (Nov 9, 2010)

quietfly said:


> true enough... although personally i still think using them in a range before they beam is best. i run my 4's to about 2600, and let my tweeters pick up from there.


I agree... 3" can be used to about 4kHz.


----------



## MetricMuscle (Sep 16, 2013)

Hanatsu said:


> Basically all 3" midranges can be referred to as "wideband" ;P


This is what I'm starting to think as well. Not all can cover up to 20KHz or even claim to. I think the small size can just naturally extend over a wide range and so for marketing purposes, why not include it in with the fullrangers. 
The Scan 10F is listed as a 4" mid on Madisound but has a FR just like that of a fullrange. I'm not sure I have even seen a 3" woofer that was listed as a mid lately. Even the updated Aura style Dayton ND91 from Parts Express is listed as a fullrange but clearly does nothing to the cone to improve the top end frequencies like a specially shaped dust cap etc.












quietfly said:


> true enough... although personally i still think using them in a range before they beam is best. i run my 4's to about 2600, and let my tweeters pick up from there.


It has always been my intention to use a driver well with in it's comfort zone, the main thing I like about a 3-way over a 2-way.

What mids are you fond of Andy?
What mids in the 3" department do you like?
I need the frame to be no wider than about 3.5" max.


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

^^I'm about to be really fond of some Audiofrog midranges. I'm really excited to finally see some off tool samples in a couple of weeks. 

To be perfectly honest, I haven't used many of these raw drivers you guys are using. My last car was built using a whole bunch of Harman OEM speakers. The 3" speakers I was using for mids weren't great drivers, but I used them from 900HZ to 4kHz, so it didn't really matter. They were plenty flat in that range. The little mid is really helpful but you really only need it to bridge the gap between the 6" (or larger) midbass and the tweeter.


----------



## MetricMuscle (Sep 16, 2013)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> ^^I'm about to be really fond of some Audiofrog midranges. I'm really excited to finally see some off tool samples in a couple of weeks.
> 
> To be perfectly honest, I haven't used many of these raw drivers you guys are using. My last car was built using a whole bunch of Harman OEM speakers. The 3" speakers I was using for mids weren't great drivers, but I used them from 900HZ to 4kHz, so it didn't really matter. They were plenty flat in that range. The little mid is really helpful but you really only need it to bridge the gap between the 6" (or larger) midbass and the tweeter.


How big them AudioFrog midranges gonna be?


----------



## Hanatsu (Nov 9, 2010)

MetricMuscle said:


> How big them AudioFrog midranges gonna be?


30" drivers for the directivity control. We wanna avoid reflections right? 

Tapaaatalk!!


----------



## WinWiz (Sep 25, 2013)

In my old car I more or less randomly mounted dyn. Tweets but the stage was excellent, wider than my car. Mounting the SB 29's in my new car I tried to get them on axis but the staging isn't as wide or refined, so I will try to position them more off axis like in my old car.

Sent from my GT-I8190 using Tapatalk


----------



## UNFORGIVEN (Sep 25, 2010)

I'm torn between 

1) Hertz ML280 Tweeters + HAT L3SE
2) Hertz ML280 Tweeters + ML 700


----------



## WinWiz (Sep 25, 2013)

UNFORGIVEN said:


> I'm torn between
> 
> 1) Hertz ML280 Tweeters + HAT L3SE
> 2) Hertz ML280 Tweeters + ML 700


Anyone measured the Hertz ML280 tweeters?
Because I just googled and all I could find was PR material claiming:
Extremely high output is combined with Hi-End sound quality, and a lot of fancy buzz words. But without independent measurements I'm a little sceptical...


----------



## Woosey (Feb 2, 2011)

MetricMuscle said:


> This is what I'm starting to think as well. Not all can cover up to 20KHz or even claim to. I think the small size can just naturally extend over a wide range and so for marketing purposes, why not include it in with the fullrangers.
> The Scan 10F is listed as a 4" mid on Madisound but has a FR just like that of a fullrange. I'm not sure I have even seen a 3" woofer that was listed as a mid lately. *Even the updated Aura style Dayton ND91 from Parts Express is listed as a fullrange but clearly does nothing to the cone to improve the top end frequencies like a specially shaped dust cap etc.*
> 
> 
> ...


Some Peerless "widebanders/fullranges" have an aluminum dustcap directly glued to the coil-former which helps in the high end of the response.. 


www.tymphany.com/files/PLS-P830985 Rev1_0.pdf

With this ^ driver the 30* off-axis response is even better ( more linear ) than on-axis


----------



## Woosey (Feb 2, 2011)

WinWiz said:


> Anyone measured the Hertz ML280 tweeters?
> Because I just googled and all I could find was PR material claiming:
> Extremely high output is combined with Hi-End sound quality, and a lot of fancy buzz words. But without independent measurements I'm a little sceptical...


Not measured myself but info from the website.. 

http://www.hertzaudiovideo.com/Doc/Hertz_Mille_TechSheet_ML_280.pdf

Not something I personally would use..


----------



## WinWiz (Sep 25, 2013)

That is not independent in any way.

Sent from my GT-I8190 using Tapatalk


----------



## Woosey (Feb 2, 2011)

WinWiz said:


> That is not independent in any way.
> 
> Sent from my GT-I8190 using Tapatalk


I know, just asked my rep if he can make and send me a near field response measurement...


----------



## WinWiz (Sep 25, 2013)

Woosey said:


> I know, just asked my rep if he can make and send me a near field response measurement...


Your rep?
Im guessing this is short for representant? If Herz seriously believe their own claims are true, they would sent samples to different serious speaker review sites. But they dont. This makes me think Hertz is better at creating hype and fancy buzzwords than creating price competitive speakers. Never trust measurements from a speaker manufacturer. Often they lie or don't tell the full story about how the measurement was done.
I'm sorry if i'm sounding like a grumpy old man but this is my honest opinion.


----------



## Woosey (Feb 2, 2011)

WinWiz said:


> Your rep?
> Im guessing this is short for representant? If Herz seriously believe their own claims are true, they would sent samples to different serious speaker review sites. But they dont. This makes me think Hertz is better at creating hype and fancy buzzwords than creating price competitive speakers. Never trust measurements from a speaker manufacturer. Often they lie or don't tell the full story about how the measurement was done.
> I'm sorry if i'm sounding like a grumpy old man but this is my honest opinion.


I respect your opinion very much, but my guess is that they are pretty accurate to some kind of degree.. You must know as a European that manufacturers are not allowed by law to post specs that aren't true ( which also brings down their own name ) 

But maybe I'm wrong on this one... I'll wait if I get response and post if possible.. 


If you want specs which mean something, imo it's more reliable to search for smaller manufacturers who care and are emotionally connected to the product they are selling ( Like: Exact!, HAT, PHD, Micro precision, Audio Frog in the future  and such )

Next issue is how much of that response is left over if mounted in a vehicle?


Edit: *This makes me think Hertz is better at creating hype and fancy buzzwords than creating price competitive speakers*

Every shiny box with multicolored print and numbers are the same to me... ( $$ must be in the product, not the box it sits in )


----------



## WinWiz (Sep 25, 2013)

Woosey said:


> I respect your opinion very much, but my guess is that they are pretty accurate to some kind of degree.. You must know as a European that manufacturers are not allowed by law to post specs that aren't true ( which also brings down their own name )
> 
> But maybe I'm wrong on this one... I'll wait if I get response and post if possible..
> 
> ...


I don't think Eu laws can prevent Italian manufacturers from publishing misleading graphs and such. But regarding package you are definitely right. When I occasionally buy something like a new graphics card and its packed in a giant shiny box I can't help wondering how much did I actually pay for the package and shipping? Some people think a plain white or gray box with only black letters printed means its low quality, but I think is a sign of high value. Specially so if there is no room left for air in the box. If there is one thing the chinese excel at it stuffing a shipping container like tetris


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

Well Hertz's sensitivity specs are misleading. The stated specs are measured at a bump in the FR curve...not something meaningful.


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

For what it's worth, European laws don't even require things that claim to be made in the EU to actually be made in the EU. US law is much more strict. Basically, if you want to claim made in the EU, you just need to import the stuff, pay a fee, change the stickers and you're good to go.


----------



## captainobvious (Mar 11, 2006)

Woosey said:


> Some Peerless "widebanders/fullranges" have an aluminum dustcap directly glued to the coil-former which helps in the high end of the response..
> 
> 
> www.tymphany.com/files/PLS-P830985%20Rev1_0.pdf
> ...


Meh...that's debatable. 30 degress off axis is also 5db down at 10khz because it's beaming. Note how the 30 degree off axis plot still shows the giant peaks above 10K just like the on axis response.


----------



## Orion525iT (Mar 6, 2011)

Hanatsu said:


> Basically all 3" midranges can be referred to as "wideband" ;P


All 3" mids in production right now maybe. The trend has been to produce tiny speakers that extend lower than they rightfully should (in my opinion). The sacrifice, of course, is lower efficiency. The lower efficiency translates into higher power requirements and ultimately more power compression and loss of dynamics.

I have spent a good deal of time trying to find 3" mids, that are true mids, to mate to a smaller format tweeter. The 3" mids should allow for much greater flexibility in driver placement and can be crossed to a tweeter way before any beaming comes into play. I don't need output below 250hz, thats what midbass drivers are for! 

Alas, such mids are virtually nonexistent. There are some Faitals that fit the bill, but I have read that their distortion plots are less than great and I am not sure I trust Faital's published specs. So now I am stuck dreaming up small arrays, to get more efficiency, that will probably never work :worried:.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Woosey said:


> Some Peerless "widebanders/fullranges" have an aluminum dustcap directly glued to the coil-former which helps in the high end of the response..
> 
> 
> www.tymphany.com/files/PLS-P830985 Rev1_0.pdf
> ...





captainobvious said:


> Meh...that's debatable. 30 degress off axis is also 5db down at 10khz because it's beaming. Note how the 30 degree off axis plot still shows the giant peaks above 10K just like the on axis response.


I think the pass band for that 2.5" mid is ~200-5khz with a min of 24db/oct at both ends. How the driver behaves beyond this range is really moot if you put it on steep slopes. If you choose to run the driver beyond this range, then how it measures and sounds has no bearing on what it was designed to do.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

Faital's published specs and graphs on the hand full of products that I've seen tested are pretty consistent with the factory.

Plus there isn't any scientific correlation between measured distortion profiles and what we hear...


----------



## Orion525iT (Mar 6, 2011)

thehatedguy said:


> Faital's published specs and graphs on the hand full of products that I've seen tested are pretty consistent with the factory.


The only real data I have seen was at diyaudio. But it may be the case of one data measurement, under dubious conditions, taken as truth and then repeated 10x over because now somebody has read the same thing in ten places. 




thehatedguy said:


> Plus there isn't any scientific correlation between measured distortion profiles and what we hear...


Interesting, and am I sure this is a can of worms.


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

thehatedguy said:


> Plus there isn't any scientific correlation between measured distortion profiles and what we hear...


That's not actually true. Check AES reprints. Some of the Harman guys did a presentation regarding this very subject and the results of the tests were kind of surprising. Basically, transient distortion has to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 20%, but steady state distortion (like xero crossing) is audible at something like 1%.


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

AES E-Library » Measurements and Perception of Nonlinear Distortion—Comparing Numbers and Sound Quality


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

I would love to be able to read that paper, but not a member of AES and don't have $20 to buy it.


----------



## MetricMuscle (Sep 16, 2013)

Orion525iT said:


> I have spent a good deal of time trying to find 3" mids, that are true mids, to mate to a smaller format tweeter. *The 3" mids should allow for much greater flexibility in driver placement and can be crossed to a tweeter way before any beaming comes into play. I don't need output below 250hz, thats what midbass drivers are for! *


Exactly!
Once you come to grips with the realization you still need to use a mid-bass and tweeter, a 3" can be implemented in a much smarter way.

So, at what frequencies do the small dome dust caps help the top end?
The Audience A3 is just a cone like the Dayton above, no dust cap.
The Dayton only claims FR up to ~17KHz. It might test better and have better specs if it was just touted as a mid that is good for 300Hz to 5KHz.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

If you are doing midbasses, why not use a dome midrange?

I know some of them are pretty large for the cone/dome size.


----------



## MetricMuscle (Sep 16, 2013)

thehatedguy said:


> If you are doing midbasses, why not use a dome midrange?
> 
> I know some of them are pretty large for the cone/dome size.


That's an option but domes like an even higher crossover point, around 800Hz.
Crossing the mid-bass up higher makes it more directional and requires the two to be closer together, optimally but who knows, it might sound great once you tried it and experimented with the tune.


----------



## captainobvious (Mar 11, 2006)

thehatedguy said:


> If you are doing midbasses, why not use a dome midrange?
> 
> I know some of them are pretty large for the cone/dome size.



*I *am


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

But even an 8 isn't going to be beaming until 1700-1900 hertz, so no directionality even at 900.

The differences wavelength wise between a 6 or 8 crossed at 8-900 hertz to a dome is smaller than say a 1" tweeter crossed at 6 or 7k to a 3...if not smaller, pretty similar.


----------



## captainobvious (Mar 11, 2006)

Yeah, it's not a matter of beaming from the 8" where it meets with the dome (because the 8" is still below beaming at that point assuming proper crossover slope as well), it's a matter of the domes producing too much distortion at a lower crossover point you might find with a traditional cone driver of the same size. (Most) domes just don't have the suspension a cone driver has and they have limited xmax. You _may _get increased sensitivity or smoother response, but your tradeoff is more limited useability on the low end. Not a big deal if you have a midbass with a low distortion profile.
I'm thinking the only spot where this _could _be a potential problem is when you have midbass and dome mid separated by a large distance.


----------



## cajunner (Apr 13, 2007)

domes are subject to modes that cone drivers aren't and using them requires a 4-way system because you still need the higher frequencies, you need a mid bass that can do lower midrange, and you need electronic crossovers because of the complexity in a vehicle.

I look forward to Andy's new 1.5" dome being suitable, as there have been home audio variants that have been warmly received in the past, but they don't hold up to most of the newer demands of "non-Bose" qualities that published frequency response graphs and things like tests provide today's consumer.

Design Acoustics had their 1.5" day in the sun, Allison has their wide-bander highs, it's not un-heard of to attempt that elusive trade-off where detail and dome characteristics don't fight it out until detail suffers off-axis, or something...


----------



## Hanatsu (Nov 9, 2010)

thehatedguy said:


> Plus there isn't any scientific correlation between measured distortion profiles and what we hear...


I have a pretty good idea what correlates to what when it comes to speakers... my hearing is nothing special. Anyone could do it.


----------



## cajunner (Apr 13, 2007)

Hanatsu said:


> I have a pretty good idea what correlates to what when it comes to speakers... my hearing is nothing special. Anyone could do it.


sure, you're an expert and all, but can you pass a test on it?


that's how we judge validity in a scientific analysis.


can you proof your correlation, can you go better than 50/50, can you win the amp challenge?


it's all fun and games but the first time someone wants to take out the blind-fold, suddenly it's kinky and hinky, and all that jazz...


----------



## Hanatsu (Nov 9, 2010)

cajunner said:


> sure, you're an expert and all, but can you pass a test on it?
> 
> 
> that's how we judge validity in a scientific analysis.
> ...


Lol, I'm no expert. I'd most likely fail an amp test. Speakers are completely different. Done many speaker tests, those who measure good sounds good, pretty much so. Evaluating speakers is not rocket science. Different types of distortions definitely changes how a driver is perceived. Explained this in several of the driver tests I've posted. Unfortunately the general interest of this topic is pretty low.


----------



## strakele (Mar 2, 2009)

So I really want to believe the information here because it makes sense scientifically and it means that aiming speakers that aren't used into beaming frequencies doesn't matter, which definitely makes installation easier. 

But I just don't find it true in reality. If you take a speaker, (for example a 3 or 4 inch midrange) hold it in your hand, and play an 800Hz tone though it while rotating it around, it absolutely sounds different on axis vs off axis, even though that's more than 2 octaves below beaming. 

What gives?


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

You getting any of the back wave coming out of your hand?


----------



## Hanatsu (Nov 9, 2010)

Probably the comb pattern that "moves around".

Tapaaatalk!!


----------



## strakele (Mar 2, 2009)

Doesn't really matter how I hold it. And by that I mean how and where I hold it can change the sound slightly, but it still sounds different on and off axis regardless.

I'm sure it has to do with room effects and not necessarily the speaker itself, but since we're talking about using them in a car, room effects kinda have to be considered. So it doesn't seem to me that you can just say aiming doesn't matter below beaming if different aiming creates different combing effects.

Perhaps it's only true when playing sine waves in an anechoic chamber with the speaker on an infinite baffle, or no baffle?


----------



## captainobvious (Mar 11, 2006)

strakele said:


> What gives?





hanatsu said:


> Probably the comb pattern that "moves around".



You know, I thought about exactly this earlier today while reading this thread again. It would make sense that if the driver was in an anechoic chamber it would react as you would _expect _it to. However once you start adding in reflections, comb filtering would alter the frequency response. I'm not sure what else it would be.

Hopefully Andy can drop some wisdom in this area. I find it very interesting.


----------



## subwoofery (Nov 9, 2008)

captainobvious said:


> You know, I thought about exactly this earlier today while reading this thread again. It would make sense that if the driver was in an anechoic chamber it would react as you would _expect _it to. However once you start adding in reflections, comb filtering would alter the frequency response. I'm not sure what else it would be.
> 
> Hopefully Andy can drop some wisdom in this area. I find it very interesting.


I think that what Andy is trying to say is that even though the response does change when you aim a driver in the car but keep that driver in its pistonic range (below beaming), the polar response does not change - meaning even though the frequency response changes, you can still EQ it to your desire since the on and off-axis track themselves (almost) perfectly. 

That's what I understood when he states that aiming is not required unless you play well above beaming or when speaking about tweeters. 

Or maybe I'm just wrong  

Kelvin


----------



## Darth SQ (Sep 17, 2010)

subwoofery said:


> I think that what Andy is trying to say is that even though the response does change when you aim a driver in the car but keep that driver in its pistonic range (below beaming), the polar response does not change - meaning even though the frequency response changes, you can still EQ it to your desire since the on and off-axis track themselves (almost) perfectly.
> 
> That's what I understood when he states that aiming is not required unless you play well above beaming or when speaking about tweeters.
> 
> ...


I don't presume to speak for Andy but I have read that many times from him.
He'd say just eq it. 


Bret
PPI-ART COLLECTOR


----------



## cajunner (Apr 13, 2007)

a question is how many different drivers are necessary to produce this magical auditory scene that has no beaming from any of the drivers, and using only 12 db/octave slopes?

and juxtapose that, with the idea that just a 2-way (and no sub!) is considered plenty good by most of the audio profiles of the general public?


I personally don't believe the differences are there, when considering the effects of throwing in a 3rd driver, or two more drivers; it's not equivalent to 33% or 25% greater response, in terms of believable gains and net value in the system.

it's dependent on vehicle acoustics, but a simple 2-way using a 1" tweeter and 6.5" woofer, can cover the range well enough that improvements in response from separating the signal into smaller parts, is only worthwhile if it fixes specific acoustic problems stemming from the vehicle's unique environment. If that environment doesn't have optimal speaker locations, or the design is an issue, (deep footwells, high center console, long dash, etc.) then it will be a worthwhile undertaking, but just to eliminate beaming, or produce an acoustics theory or principle validity, not so much.

if a 6.5" woofer is going to beam by 1800 hz, and the tweeter doesn't come in until 3 Khz, is all hope lost?

of course not. Even if the tweeter is supposed to come in at 3 Khz, it still has a possible response of -12 db at 1.5 Khz, using very common 2nd order filters. What this means is even if the 6.5" is 10 db down at 2.2 Khz in the off-axis, (wow) and the tweeter is producing 2.2 Khz (optimal polar, or omni dispersion) at least 6 db from baseline, you add their respective outputs and the crossover region is only down perhaps, 4 db overall in this crucial "beaming range" of the 6.5" woofer.

which is not a bad thing, in the same region we are most sensitive as a function of our hearing geometry and the vehicle's reflective input.

so what am I trying to say?


it's not that big of a deal, and the gains aren't that "night and day" when you move into 3-way or more complex systems. 

Am I against it, of course not. I have no problem with anyone going 5-way or using discrete circuitry, in attempting to produce a sound field, that is accurate to their own ears.

the older I get, the simpler I want my system to become. It's like going from the designs of the 1970's with their dual horn tweeters, dual cone squawkers, big midranges and huge woofers in a box, to the JBL best-in-class designs, M2 and K2, or Everest.

or TAD's, or even Earl Geddes' creations, the Summa's or whatever.

2 ways, can do the trick, and beaming is not the villain it would appear to be.


----------



## Hanatsu (Nov 9, 2010)

I've never heard a 2-way front using OEM locations to sound as good as a 3-way with the midrange drivers mounted high. Most cars have mids mounted low which creates a midrange focus problem, most likely because of the center console messing things up.

Tapaaatalk!!


----------



## cajunner (Apr 13, 2007)

Hanatsu said:


> I've never heard a 2-way front using OEM locations to sound as good as a 3-way with the midrange drivers mounted high. Most cars have mids mounted low which creates a midrange focus problem, most likely because of the center console messing things up.
> 
> Tapaaatalk!!


and this illustrates my bias, as well as yours.


I come from a background of SUV, Truck, and large luxury cars, with no center consoles and a seated position that is able to put the listener on an unblocked path to high door mounted positions.

stick me in a sports car and put the speakers in my ankles, I'm gonna have issues.

my first car, a GM product of early eighties vintage, had atrocious 3.5" midranges for the dash front, and 4X10 for rear parcel shelf.

I fought this battle of positions, as an exercise my first time out. I saw the need for extra component drivers and the additional complexities they bring, back in the mid eighties. I remember how elated I was when Rockford had an answer, in their new 3.5" midrange that was made to work with a tweeter, it was great.

you might have an entirely different take on it, your history and listening bank of various designs might all deal with center consoles, or low door mounted speakers.

we can both be right, haha..


----------



## Woosey (Feb 2, 2011)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> For what it's worth, European laws don't even require things that claim to be made in the EU to actually be made in the EU. US law is much more strict. Basically, if you want to claim made in the EU, you just need to import the stuff, pay a fee, change the stickers and you're good to go.




2.4.4. Confusing marketing

The Directive prevents traders from providing false information on, inter alia:

(a) the main characteristic of the product (including method and date of manufacture, *geographical or commercial origin*);



Sorry for the ot comment, but I couldn't believe that...


----------



## Woosey (Feb 2, 2011)

WinWiz said:


> Your rep?
> Im guessing this is short for representant? If Herz seriously believe their own claims are true, they would sent samples to different serious speaker review sites. But they dont. This makes me think Hertz is better at creating hype and fancy buzzwords than creating price competitive speakers. Never trust measurements from a speaker manufacturer. Often they lie or don't tell the full story about how the measurement was done.
> I'm sorry if i'm sounding like a grumpy old man but this is my honest opinion.


I have found a article in car&hifi magazine with a measurement of the HT 28 tweeter from Hertz, and that measurement comes close to posted FR plot provided by Hertz.. just my $ 0.02


----------



## Hanatsu (Nov 9, 2010)

Looks pretty accurate. 

Scan-Speak tends to supply reliable FR plots as well.


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

Woosey said:


> 2.4.4. Confusing marketing
> 
> The Directive prevents traders from providing false information on, inter alia:
> 
> ...


Well, check out the link. This is apparently enough of a problem that the EU is going to attempt to do something about it. 

"The label will allow a great level of flexibility. The general “Made in the EU” label can be used for all goods which underwent their last substantial transformation in a EU country. But European manufacturers will remain free to choose a relevant national label, such as 'Made in Germany' or 'Made in the UK', if they wish to do so."

"Substantial transformation" can be just about anything. Gluing a magnet cover on a speaker, applying a sticker, sliding a PCB into a heat sink and screwing on an end cap...

Made in the EU


I'm not suggesting that every company does this, nor am I suggesting that US companies don't also do it. In the US, there are requirements that a percentage of the product content must have origin inside the US. It's very strict.

I'm also not suggesting that the products that are made in Asia and sold by European brands aren't good products. Many are. Some are not. Same with US brands, but US law is much more strict in this regard.


----------



## captainobvious (Mar 11, 2006)

cajunner said:


> it's dependent on vehicle acoustics, but a simple 2-way using a 1" tweeter and 6.5" woofer, can cover the range well enough that improvements in response from separating the signal into smaller parts, is only worthwhile if it fixes *specific acoustic problems stemming from the vehicle's unique environment. *





cajunner said:


> so what am I trying to say?
> 
> it's not that big of a deal, and the gains aren't that "night and day" when you move into 3-way or more complex systems.
> 
> ...


I can see where you're coming from, and I'm sure a basic 2-way system is perfectly fine for most of the population. 
This is where I think the issue lies (bolded portion)_. _If we were talking about a pair of 2 way bookshelf speakers in the living room, then you're not dealing with the destructive environment you deal with in the car where reflections/cancellation/comb filtering, separation of drivers, etc are a real problem. If you run a 6.5" woofer and 1" tweeter, odds are they are quite separated in mounting locations. When you have a 6.5 playing well into beaming, the response of the reflected sound is going to be different from that of the direct sound. In addition, the higher you run it, you'll push closer to higher audible distortion/breakup.

Think about head position in the car- move a little this way or that way with a system playing well into beaming and you'll more times than not notice massive changes in frequency response. Try the same thing with a system crossed over before beaming and you have much more even response.


----------



## t3sn4f2 (Jan 3, 2007)

strakele said:


> Doesn't really matter how I hold it. And by that I mean how and where I hold it can change the sound slightly, but it still sounds different on and off axis regardless.
> 
> I'm sure it has to do with room effects and not necessarily the speaker itself, but since we're talking about using them in a car, room effects kinda have to be considered. So it doesn't seem to me that you can just say aiming doesn't matter below beaming if different aiming creates different combing effects.
> 
> Perhaps it's only true when playing sine waves in an anechoic chamber with the speaker on an infinite baffle, or no baffle?


I tried that once and noticed the same thing. I don't recall if it was at that frequency range or lower, but the reason it was happening was the filter slope wasn't steep enough and I was hearing the beaming in what was above the crossover point. Adding a 70dB/oct. filter in Foobar2000 put things right in line with what Andy mentions. 

You only need to filter out the highpass that aggressively though when experimenting with a single passband and not playing the crossed out band with the other driver. Once that one comes into play the filtered out passband of the mid will not contribute anything audible in the beaming range to the high playing tweeter.

Try it with a normal crossover point of say 12db or 24db. Only this time have an addition driver aimed on axis playing the high pass (a fullrange) at the same crossover point as the one you are experimenting with. Should not be any change in sound at any realistic off axis angle.

And as mentioned earlier the speaker should be enclosed so that the rear wave doesn't cause combs when that reduced extreme off axis out of phase source combines with the front.


----------



## MetricMuscle (Sep 16, 2013)

I was reluctant to change anything in my recently acquired car, the factory stereo sounds pretty good, 5.25" mid in a vented enclosure in each of the 4 doors, a small dome tweeter mounted on the sail panel aimed across the dash at the other tweeter and an 8" subwoofer on the rear deck. Bass and mid-bass were/are lacking and the sound changed if I moved my left knee which the 5.25" mid is aimed at. All of the components are also over 17 years old so.....

Aspects I wanted to improve upon-
- More bass and mid-bass
- Mid-range located higher up so not aimed directly at my left knee.

There must be some sort of processing from the factory because the image/stage is up above the dash. I really struggled with leaving it alone but it's shortcomings bothered me whenever I listened to it.

- Replace subwoofer.
- Add small mid to front up higher and not blocked by anything.

The 5.25" locations can now be used for a mid-bass since those frequencies aren't as effected being lower and Off-Axis. Also allows for the new small mid to be smaller so it can extend higher. I had planned to just use a wideband mid and no tweeter but the consensus here has been to still use a tweeter for the top octaves. It was even suggested that not using a tweeter can have a negative effect on the MS-8 auto tune since it will over EQ the response at the top even though I can't hear that high.


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

t3sn4f2 said:


> I tried that once and noticed the same thing. I don't recall if it was at that frequency range or lower, but the reason it was happening was the filter slope wasn't steep enough and I was hearing the beaming in what was above the crossover point. Adding a 70dB/oct. filter in Foobar2000 put things right in line with what Andy mentions.
> 
> You only need to filter out the highpass that aggressively though when experimenting with a single passband and not playing the crossed out band with the other driver. Once that one comes into play the filtered out passband of the mid will not contribute anything audible in the beaming range to the high playing tweeter.
> 
> ...


Precisely.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

I heard that.

That's why I am going super simple on this up coming system- Tannoy 8" dual concentrics (coaxes, whatever...lol), a single IB Dayton HF 15, and a single Zapco DC1000 4 channel with DSP. Might go active later on just to get rid of the passives, but the Tannoy passives are pretty good from what I understand...and once I get the ability to measure the speakers, I know of a couple different passive XO tricks that might could make them better. If not, if/when active I could.

Down the road I would might would like to add another smaller Zapco DC360 to power the highs with and put some rear fill in...I really believe in rear fill after having it with the MS-8.




cajunner said:


> the older I get, the simpler I want my system to become. It's like going from the designs of the 1970's with their dual horn tweeters, dual cone squawkers, big midranges and huge woofers in a box, to the JBL best-in-class designs, M2 and K2, or Everest.


----------



## strakele (Mar 2, 2009)

t3sn4f2 said:


> I tried that once and noticed the same thing. I don't recall if it was at that frequency range or lower, but the reason it was happening was the filter slope wasn't steep enough and I was hearing the beaming in what was above the crossover point. Adding a 70dB/oct. filter in Foobar2000 put things right in line with what Andy mentions.
> 
> You only need to filter out the highpass that aggressively though when experimenting with a single passband and not playing the crossed out band with the other driver. Once that one comes into play the filtered out passband of the mid will not contribute anything audible in the beaming range to the high playing tweeter.
> 
> ...



I wasn't playing music or anything, just single band tones, so crossovers points and slopes were irrelevant. 

I'll try it again while trying to absorb as much of the back wave as possible.


----------



## cajunner (Apr 13, 2007)

thehatedguy said:


> I heard that.
> 
> That's why I am going super simple on this up coming system- Tannoy 8" dual concentrics (coaxes, whatever...lol), a single IB Dayton HF 15, and a single Zapco DC1000 4 channel with DSP. Might go active later on just to get rid of the passives, but the Tannoy passives are pretty good from what I understand...and once I get the ability to measure the speakers, I know of a couple different passive XO tricks that might could make them better. If not, if/when active I could.
> 
> Down the road I would might would like to add another smaller Zapco DC360 to power the highs with and put some rear fill in...I really believe in rear fill after having it with the MS-8.


by going dual concentric in the 8" sizing, using what are mostly professional studio quality drivers, you beat the odds.

you don't need active crossovers, since the mounting locations are fixed between tweeter and midrange, and the passives have been optimized for this transition. You may very well step down in quality if you attempt to "fix" the combination by going active, since you're introducing another complicated deconstructive link in the good, clean usable signal...




I bet it sounds as good as most anything else out there with 3 times the drivers and 40 times the complexity in creating a believable stage and realistic playback levels.


----------



## cajunner (Apr 13, 2007)

t3sn4f2 said:


> I tried that once and noticed the same thing. I don't recall if it was at that frequency range or lower, but the reason it was happening was the filter slope wasn't steep enough and I was hearing the beaming in what was above the crossover point. Adding a 70dB/oct. filter in Foobar2000 put things right in line with what Andy mentions.
> 
> You only need to filter out the highpass that aggressively though when experimenting with a single passband and not playing the crossed out band with the other driver. Once that one comes into play the filtered out passband of the mid will not contribute anything audible in the beaming range to the high playing tweeter.
> 
> ...



this makes me wee brain hurt...


so let me see if this is right:

if you use 70 db/octave slopes, you can take an 8" driver and play anything below 1600 hz, and no matter how you hold it in an anechoic space, as long as it's the same distance from you, you shouldn't notice beaming.

is this what you're saying?


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

The thing is that I've gathered from reading Tom Danley's posts are that even though there are a lot of coaxes on the market, and you would think the acoustic centers are the same since the sound is coming from one source...but they often are not since the crossovers did not take into account the acoustic offset so they do not act as a real point source, but 2 drivers mounted together operating separately.

But yeah I agree, likely not to get any better with going active...just more power and more EQing available using the DC Reference amps.

Pretty excited about the whole thing...but will probably end up back with horns at some point.


----------



## subwoofery (Nov 9, 2008)

thehatedguy said:


> The thing is that I've gathered from reading Tom Danley's posts are that even though there are a lot of coaxes on the market, and you would think the acoustic centers are the same since the sound is coming from one source...but they often are not since the crossovers did not take into account the acoustic offset so they do not act as a real point source, but 2 drivers mounted together operating separately.
> 
> But yeah I agree, likely not to get any better with going active...just more power and more EQing available using the DC Reference amps.
> 
> Pretty excited about the whole thing...*but will probably end up back with horns at some point.*


I see this very often now. Like every 20 or so posts  

Kelvin


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

I know...just this car I have is so small- no room for horns and anything larger than 6" midbasses, and I like larger midbasses...can physically fit 10s in the front in the kicks, and was planning on some Eminence Beta 10CXs with some Celestion compression drivers, but got a great deal on the Tannoys. And everyone that I've talked to said the Tannoys were pretty incredible speakers, and one of the only ones doing the coax thing right (Danley says the B&Cs are also excellent in the cone to horn transition...and if the Tannoys have fallen through, I had a set of 8CX21s lined up).

That and I'm on a budget like I've never had before....tight. And to do the horns, I would need more than one 4 channel with processing, buy the drivers, buy the midbasses...and I just couldn't swing it this time around. The Tannoys are a little less sensitive than what I wanted (93dB), but the lower Fs helps since I can keep the XO point at least 2x above it so IB mounting wouldn't be a big deal.

Kelvin, could you model some subs for me?


----------



## t3sn4f2 (Jan 3, 2007)

cajunner said:


> this makes me wee brain hurt...
> 
> 
> so let me see if this is right:
> ...


I don't know about that exact example but it needs to be enclosed and at a frequency low enough that the enclosures/driver doesn't cause the sound to diffract. The plot Andy provided below gives you a good idea is what to expect.

What is that limit with music, while the sound is supported by the driver playing the higher range, and being evaluated with our ears instead of a signal analyzer? Dunno, I'll let Andy or someone else that has real world in car experience with that answer.


----------



## cajunner (Apr 13, 2007)

the graph shows severe narrowing between 1.2 and 2.5 Khz, but that's not very precise.

I'm saying anything above 1.6 Khz, should be hard to discern using an 8" driver set, based on formula and the plot pins this to a field of appx, 1.25 Khz of bandwidth to play between.

If you have a 1.5" tweeter, that can go down to 1.6 Khz without screeching then you can do a 2-way with a response that has little "hole in the middle" effects.


----------



## subwoofery (Nov 9, 2008)

thehatedguy said:


> I know...just this car I have is so small- no room for horns and anything larger than 6" midbasses, and I like larger midbasses...can physically fit 10s in the front in the kicks, and was planning on some Eminence Beta 10CXs with some Celestion compression drivers, but got a great deal on the Tannoys. And everyone that I've talked to said the Tannoys were pretty incredible speakers, and one of the only ones doing the coax thing right (Danley says the B&Cs are also excellent in the cone to horn transition...and if the Tannoys have fallen through, I had a set of 8CX21s lined up).
> 
> That and I'm on a budget like I've never had before....tight. And to do the horns, I would need more than one 4 channel with processing, buy the drivers, buy the midbasses...and I just couldn't swing it this time around. The Tannoys are a little less sensitive than what I wanted (93dB), but the lower Fs helps since I can keep the XO point at least 2x above it so IB mounting wouldn't be a big deal.
> 
> Kelvin, could you model some subs for me?


Sure swing me a PM about what you need  

Kelvin


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

The narrowing isn't a bad thing if your tweeter/mid has the same dispersion at that particular XO point.


----------



## cajunner (Apr 13, 2007)

thehatedguy said:


> The narrowing isn't a bad thing if your tweeter/mid has the same dispersion at that particular XO point.


an interesting point, I salute you!




indeed, using pattern control is a known technique in some circles.

In car audio it's a mysterious thing, probably because the reflective environment devolves the original decay modes and energy transfer at a different rate, which leads to putting a scapegoat on beaming and comb filtering, instead of the room itself.

it's easier to judge and condemn the speaker for it's bad habits, than to admit the room the speaker is placed in, is causing much of the dissonant notes.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

It's the opposite of what Andy is saying...sort of.

Andy wants to keep everything wide at 180 degrees...which is the pattern of a flat waveguide- the baffle.

But is the reason why JBL sold the waveguides with the GTi tweeters- they matched the dispersion of the mids.


----------



## cajunner (Apr 13, 2007)

thehatedguy said:


> It's the opposite of what Andy is saying...sort of.
> 
> Andy wants to keep everything wide at 180 degrees...which is the pattern of a flat waveguide- the baffle.
> 
> But is the reason why JBL sold the waveguides with the GTi tweeters- they matched the dispersion of the mids.


I'd like to try those waveguides, it just didn't make sense to me in any other installation parameter than using the dash to mount the waveguides and having the woofers in the doors.


I mean, it's like trying to install 2 speakers, instead of just a tweeter with 3/4" of depth to deal with.

And I have yet to see an install where the waveguides were prominently, and correctly utilized as they were designed.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

Those particular waveguides are pretty small and shallow...I had bought one last year or the year before through JBL Pro Parts. The only funky thing was the opening for the tweeter was not a round hole...I think it too was oval and the tweeter that was supposed to go in it had an oval "face."

You can get the LSR tweeters on eBay for a decent price...I don't know if the waveguides have popped up there or not. But they were pretty cheap straight from JBL. The tweeters were not very cheap through JBL...and they didn't want to sell me the actual drivers direct from them- had to go through an authorized Pro dealer for those.

The JBL Pro part number for the waveguide is 351744-001

http://www.jblproservice.com/pdf/LSR6300/LSR6328P.pdf


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

http://www.jblproservice.com/pdf/Control 60 Series/C67PT-WH.pdf

Has a waveguide to do a 6 coaxially...but you would need to do some modeling to find the effects of the waveguide/bandpass on the midrange.


----------



## cajunner (Apr 13, 2007)

interesting, the horn library includes JBL Pro parts, in that 6000 series monitor?

is the LSR waveguide similar to the GTi, enough to say they are the same profile?


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

Same one used there, car, and Revel home speakers AFAIK.


----------



## cajunner (Apr 13, 2007)

thehatedguy said:


> Same one used there, car, and Revel home speakers AFAIK.


more than I know, for sure.


what about the Revel home speakers, any good?


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

From what I gather they are badassed. Some of them are now using SB Acoustics cone drivers. The top of the line ones use custom drivers that are similar to the pro/studio stuff.


----------



## audijay (Mar 18, 2014)

So basically what I have learned from this thread is to try and test and try again, I have 3 l3se's that are going to be put in the dash facing straight up at the windshield, I was going to build special pods to aim but now Im just going to try this and eq them, yea no tweeters either


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

I don't think that is a good idea without tweeters.


----------



## robtr8 (Dec 6, 2011)

I would definitely take a minute and build the temporary pods. A lot depends on the car it's self. You can add tweeters later if you think they're needed. I'm pretty sure I'm going to add some AMT's to the S70, as soon as PE gets them back in stock.

About this center channel. I have yet to hear a PL setup that sounds better than good old stereo, for good old stereo music. Yes, I understand the two seat thing but it comes at the detriment to the one seat SQ. Screw the passenger.


----------



## audijay (Mar 18, 2014)

thehatedguy said:


> I don't think that is a good idea without tweeters.



Yea I was think the same thing, I asked HAT and they told me not to use tweeters and I should be ok with this setup, I would like to build a custom pod but the space is ultra tight


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## captainobvious (Mar 11, 2006)

audijay said:


> Yea I was think the same thing, I asked HAT and they told me not to use tweeters and I should be ok with this setup, I would like to build a custom pod but the space is ultra tight
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk





thehatedguy said:


> I don't think that is a good idea without tweeters.



Agreed. If there's one thing to take from this thread, it's to cross your drivers over before beaming and use tweeters. You will be rewarded with more consistent frequency response on and off-axis and will have a much easier time when you tune/EQ.


----------



## quietfly (Mar 23, 2011)

captainobvious said:


> Agreed. If there's one thing to take from this thread, it's to cross your drivers over before beaming and use tweeters. You will be rewarded with more consistent frequency response on and off-axis and will have a much easier time when you tune/EQ.


This....
although it is personal preference. i mean i know a lot of people who like Ketchup on Steak.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

But beaming isn't if bad IF you can match the tweeter's dispersion to the woofer's dispersion at the XO point.


----------



## captainobvious (Mar 11, 2006)

thehatedguy said:


> But beaming isn't if bad IF you can match the tweeter's dispersion to the woofer's dispersion at the XO point.


Isn't this only accomplished _mechanically_ with a wave guide though? 

I'm curious then, even with a wave guide, why is it preferable to match the dispersion in that beaming portion of the passband? Why is it better to have both drivers suffer from poor dispersion for that small range as opposed to just the woofer? 

In addition, it's still a sacrifice to even power response by mating the larger woofer with tweeter (vs including a small mid) because you'll still be stuck with that portion near the crossover where off axis response will be significantly different from on-axis, right?

This is interesting stuff 

Thanks


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

I don't think you HAVE to have tweeters. I almost always advise against wideband/fullrange setups BUT the reason is because most drivers just suck beyond beaming. The power response goes to garbage because of modal issues in the driver itself. The case where I would be OK with it, and am even doing it myself in a future build, is a driver that maintains composure above beaming. The problem, still, is the few which do a good job at damping the high frequency modal issues, achieving a fairly smooth response in all axes, still suffer from either an overly boosted top end on-axis or the attenuated off-axis response. The Scan 10f is pretty much a staple in wideband use as it strikes a good balance. Ironically, it's marketed as a midrange (not a full range). It's not perfect, and not a solution for full tweeter replacement, but it's a great compromise; probably the best there is. Outside of that, I really can't think of many drivers I'd recommend using without a tweeter for the reasons I mentioned.


----------



## cajunner (Apr 13, 2007)

bikinpunk said:


> I don't think you HAVE to have tweeters. I almost always advise against wideband/fullrange setups BUT the reason is because most drivers just suck beyond beaming. The power response goes to garbage because of modal issues in the driver itself. The case where I would be OK with it, and am even doing it myself in a future build, is a driver that maintains composure above beaming. The problem, still, is the few which do still suffer from either an overly boosted top end on-axis or the attenuated off-axis response. The Scan 10f is pretty much a staple in this regard as it strikes a good balance. Not perfect, and not a solution for full tweeter replacement, but it's a great compromise; probably the best there is.



you would put the Scan 10f ahead of the 12M, in terms of overall balance, or is it based on cost profiles as well?

for that matter, how hard can you push a 10f, and is it quite a bit stronger than Pioneer's TS-S101PRS's?

it would be nice to know if the Illusion Carbon is in the running here, or it's just a forum boner that will fade out if some measurements happen...


----------



## Hanatsu (Nov 9, 2010)

10f is certainly among the best drivers I've heard in the higher frequencies. Vifa TG9 is also quite good. Both are limited on the low end though.

Tapaaatalk!!


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

thehatedguy said:


> But beaming isn't if bad IF you can match the tweeter's dispersion to the woofer's dispersion at the XO point.


This depends a great deal on what kind of a room the speakers are in. Ideally the directivity index for a medium sized room is a gradually rising one without any big abrupt dips. Using a tweeter waveguide to minimize dispersion at low frequencies to match a woofer works so long as that directivity curve is smooth. Restricting the dispersion of the tweeter to match a woofer at high frequencies where the dispersion is VERY narrow is NOT a good idea. That creates a big hole in the power response and that NEVER sounds good.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

Like an 8 to a 1" dome without a waveguide...that would cause some problems,


----------



## cajunner (Apr 13, 2007)

thehatedguy said:


> Like an 8 to a 1" dome without a waveguide...that would cause some problems,


is the old school rigs that bad, or is the new sound funny, just that good?

maybe I'm just nostalgic but I've heard 8/1 combos and they weren't really missing much?

I remember commercial product, Boston Acoustics, etc. doing 1" and 10" match-ups, no waveguides... people liked them?

And you hardly see studio monitors from the likely suspects, without waveguides on the tweeters anymore...

How far down can you drill into an 8" cone's beaming range before meeting it with a waveguide is a bad idea?


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

thehatedguy said:


> Like an 8 to a 1" dome without a waveguide...that would cause some problems,


Yeah, that would cause problems. If you used a waveguide, you could match them at the x-over, but the DI would likely have a step in the curve. that would be better than a big peak, but still not great.


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

thehatedguy said:


> It's the opposite of what Andy is saying...sort of.
> 
> Andy wants to keep everything wide at 180 degrees...which is the pattern of a flat waveguide- the baffle.
> 
> But is the reason why JBL sold the waveguides with the GTi tweeters- they matched the dispersion of the mids.


Exactly, and the reason to do that was to use a 1" tweeter. The other way to do it is to use a tweeter that can play a bit lower and reduce the crossover frequency.


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

The longer this goes on the funnier I think it is. 

In all of my reading, I simply can't find a credible argument for not using a tweeter in a car. They're the smallest and often the cheapest driver in the system. The difference between a great one and an average one is often very small. They are the easiest to install. 

There is a HUGE difference between listening in a car and listening in the near field in either a big or a treated room. For a control monitor in a studio control room with the speakers on top of the console, the power response of the speaker isn't so important. The path from the speaker to the listener's ears is VERY short compared to the path to the room's boundaries. Sound is attenuated by 6dB for every doubling of distance and once the level is down by about 12dB, it doesn't contribute significantly to the sum. In addition, control rooms are often treated to eliminate modes at low frequencies and to disperse high frequencies. An 8" and 1" work fine in that application. 

When you're sitting in front of your computer with a pair of speakers on the desk in your office or in your home office, the path from the speakers to your ears is also MUCH shorter than the path from the speakers to the room boundaries to your ears. All of the same principles apply here. The only reflection that's of any consequenc is the first reflection from the desk surface or the monitor. Not such a huge deal. The reason that many computer speakers don't include a tweeter is because for those products, a tweeter is a pretty significant cost and so are the passive components necessary for the crossover. Computer speaker manufacturers try to make stuff as cheaply as they can. Amplifier power is low and the speakers have to be small. Since you're so close to them, they don't have to play loudly, so even a small speaker, couple with a ported enclosure is often OK for most listeners. 

A car is also near field listening, like the control room or the computer speakers. There are a few huge differences, though. One is ambient noise. We need more than three watts in a car. Insertion loss from the crossover isn't such a big problem when you have 50 or 100 watts. The second big difference is the speakers' proximity to reflecting surfaces. In a car, the reflections are a significant portion of what we hear. Our ability to treat the car to eliminate them is an exercise in futility because the plane in which our ears sit is surrounded by a seriously reflective surface--the glass. It can't be treated. It's no coincidence that our ears and our eyes are in the same horizontal plane. Our ears help our eyes figure out where objects that make sounds are located. In a car, we hear the power response of the speaker.

Any attempt to make a large single-cone driver operate over a wide bandwidth requires compromises in other areas. Eliminating the dustcap has a cost in efficiency. Making it play bass means the resonance has to be low. That requires a loose suspension and/or a heavier cone. That also has a cost in efficiency and will require a larger enclosure. The additional drawback is that the farther to cone moves, the higher the doppler distortion at high frequencies, because the moving cone is the baffle for the high frequencies. Since resonance IS distortion, driving a small speaker below resonance increases distortion in the output. 

So, a 3" that's designed to play from 100Hz to 20k is (when compared to a pair of speakers designed to cover the same bandwidth) an inefficient, high distortion driver with a power response that is seriously lacking in high frequencies. That's a driver well suited for a low cost application in a non-reflective near field application. It's an awesome midrange in a multi-way system that will be driven with more power. That's undoubtedly why some of these speakers are specified as a midrange. 

What confounds me the most about all of this is that BOSE has been emphatically maligned by audiophiles for years for this very reason. "No highs, no lows, must be Bose" for example. The reason for "Direct-Reflecting Loudspeakers" (which has been their pitch for years) is to put some high frequencies in the reflected sound. Then, they equalize the system to provide adequate power response for a big room. 

OE car audio systems from Bose used to be designed along this same principle, except they just blew off the direct reflecting idea and only used a midrange driver. It was a 4", similar to the ones in the 901 speakers. They were 1/2 ohm speakers so they extracted a lot of power from a tiny amp. Then, they just EQd the **** out of the system. It still sounded dull and the only highs came from the opposite side of the car because the EQ boosted the highs and the opposite side driver was pretty close to on-axis. To counter this effect, the speaker went in the bottom of the car so some of the direct sound from the opposite side of the car would be blocked by the legs of the passenger or the front part of the seat.

EVEN BOSE has given this up for car systems and is now using tweeters.

So, all I can take from the widebander thing is that the sound of a 20-year old BOSE system is the holy grail for car audio folks and that the objective for system builders who insist on eliminating the tweeter from the their car audio system is to erect as many self-imposed technical barriers as possible so that the exercise is constant experimentation with audio voodoo as gospel and rules. The real tragedy is that the entire professional industry has jumped this hurdle in car audio long ago and now it's being resurrected. Can you make a system that sounds good without a tweeter? Yes, but it would sound better with one. 

It reminds me of the cooking show where contestants have to concoct something edible from a basket of crap that simply doesn't go together. The winner is the one who makes something that doesn't completely suck despite the constraints that are imposed. It's fine for a cooking contest, but who would pay to eat at that restaurant?

I think the Monty Python sketch in the link below sums this up nicely.

Monty Python - Summarize Proust Competition Uncensored - YouTube


----------



## captainobvious (Mar 11, 2006)

captainobvious said:


> Isn't this only accomplished _mechanically_ with a wave guide though?
> 
> I'm curious then, even with a wave guide, why is it preferable to match the dispersion in that beaming portion of the passband? Why is it better to have both drivers suffer from poor dispersion for that small range as opposed to just the woofer?
> 
> ...





Andy Wehmeyer said:


> This depends a great deal on what kind of a room the speakers are in. Ideally the directivity index for a medium sized room is a gradually rising one without any big abrupt dips. Using a tweeter waveguide to minimize dispersion at low frequencies to match a woofer works so long as that directivity curve is smooth. Restricting the dispersion of the tweeter to match a woofer at high frequencies where the dispersion is VERY narrow is NOT a good idea. That creates a big hole in the power response and that NEVER sounds good.



Well there's my answer to that 

Thanks


----------



## captainobvious (Mar 11, 2006)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> The longer this goes on the funnier I think it is.
> 
> <snip>


Didn't want to quote the whole thing. This is a great post and lays out in a much easier to understand way just how important it is in the mobile environment to keep your drivers out of their beaming range and focus on even power response.


----------



## MetricMuscle (Sep 16, 2013)

Thanks for the great post, I greatly appreciate all of this information, Andy. I'm slowly accepting that the way to go about building an awesome car sound system is gonna be different than building one for the home or really anywhere else for that matter.

My initial experience with car stereo in the early 90's was sloppy and not very successful. Some things I later figured out why and corrected but got out of the sport before figuring out why some systems sounded lots better than mine.

Recently I've experimented and built more home stuff with the help of the internet and sites like diyaudio.com. Along the way I solved some of the mysteries as to why other car audio systems back in the day sounded so much better than what I had built. 

I really love the sound of a simple pair of fullrange drivers in the appropriate enclosure in my living room. It should have occurred to me how different the listening spaces are and now why some things won't work the same in both.

Thanks for remaining patient with us!


----------



## Darth SQ (Sep 17, 2010)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> I think the Monty Python sketch in the link below sums this up nicely.
> 
> Monty Python - Summarize Proust Competition Uncensored - YouTube


The girl with the biggest tits should always win. 
A fine English tradition. 


Bret
PPI-ART COLLECTOR


----------



## cajunner (Apr 13, 2007)

what took me by surprise, is how scaling in audio actually seems to work, or gives the appearance of working when it comes to reflection control, room correction, and various analogous designs moving from the ear canal as the listening room, (in-ear monitors) to inside cans (around the ear headphones using closed back cups) to the stylized environment of the car cubicle, then taking away the boundary loading and requisite early decay with nearfield monitors/computer desk audio, and then moving further out to the DSP correction of mid-field recording studios with some boundary control, moving still further out to the ends, of a line array arena system traversing hundreds of feet between listening field and the sound system.

you would think these are all separate, and acoustic principles would not apply from one to the next, that each set of auditory phenomena comes with unique solutions for problems, but it's not really the case.

if you spend time at head-fi.org, you get a sense of how building an in-ear monitor out of 4 separate balanced armature drivers, takes the same sort of logic that other playback schemes adhere to, and the corrective application of absorbing mats inside big cans, with little windows and neat perforative sequences, and how near the voice coil sounds different from the outer edges of the diaphragms, these things seem to travel on the same logical, laws, the corrections are more congruent than anything else.

Moving away from the enclosed environment of non-crosstalk to super crosstalk, headphone to car interior, you can use absorbing techniques, you can vary apertures and you can direct the psychoacoustics, and if you look at how the in-ear monitor uses the ear canal as a reflective listening space, with an Fs, and "room modes" it's all peculiarly the same, or near enough to remark on it.

Then when you have recording artists play The Gorge, or Red Rocks, who would guess that the reverb available would amount to anything in a recording, but even in that gigantic listening space, you have modifications of the source at the stage, and ambience that would seem, impossible for the amount of decay from distance...

anyways, I don't know if everyone can see the common thread that I've tried to illustrate, but to me it seems real enough...


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

Read How Music Works by David Byrne. He explains that in many cases music is written for the performance space and when it's performed in a dramatically different space, it sounds bad. 

It's a great book. For audio peeps, the first half is probably best.


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

PPI-ART COLLECTOR said:


> The girl with the biggest tits should always win.
> A fine English tradition.
> 
> 
> ...


In a metaphorical sort of way, this reminds me of car audio competitions...


----------



## cajunner (Apr 13, 2007)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> Read How Music Works by David Byrne. He explains that in many cases music is written for the performance space and when it's performed in a dramatically different space, it sounds bad.
> 
> It's a great book. For audio peeps, the first half is probably best.


awesome.

I have been subjected to the experimentation of one of my favorite bands, by watching their recording move from rooms in a rented house, to that of a classic recording studio, to the specialized approach at Allaire, (closed now? sad)*edit* not closed, haha.... then on to Levon Helm's barn build with an audience. You run out of options, then you record your concerts and cull from those for a Live album, haha..

each example was an exploration and musicians adapting to, and finding themselves adapted by their environments, is surely one of the "hidden features" in the audio pastime.


----------



## n_olympios (Oct 23, 2008)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> In a metaphorical sort of way, this reminds me of car audio competitions...


Ouch!


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

A study done by Harmon concluded that the sound we hear in a typical room is a mix of 12% direct sound, 44% early reflections and 44% late reflections. In a car you're probably looking at 12% direct and 85% early reflections. So you have a physically smaller space with the bulk of sound being early reflections. 

Location and timbre cues are taken from the direct sound, the only effect of early reflections is to make the direct sound seem louder. So frequencies that are prone to reflections ~400hz and up, at amplitude X would sound louder in a car than in a room. This is why flat response which works in a room does not work in a car. In a room measured flat and perceived flat are more or less the same thing. In a car measured flat is not perceived as flat partly due to the effect of early reflections.

Use the pink noise tracks and set 400 / 1 khz / 4khz to the same level say 80db. Now listen to the three one after the other. Do they sound at the same level? 4khz will sound loudest because there's more reflections at 4 and and the ear is most sensitive in this zone. So even though the three measure the same they don't sound equally loud. 

That is one major effect of early reflections in a car.


----------



## captainobvious (Mar 11, 2006)

sqnut said:


> A study done by Harmon concluded that the sound we hear in a typical room is a mix of 12% direct sound, 44% early reflections and 44% late reflections. In a car you're probably looking at 12% direct and 85% early reflections. So you have a physically smaller space with the bulk of sound being early reflections.
> 
> Location and timbre cues are taken from the direct sound, the only effect of early reflections is to make the direct sound seem louder. So frequencies that are prone to reflections ~400hz and up, at amplitude X would sound louder in a car than in a room. This is why flat response which works in a room does not work in a car. In a room measured flat and perceived flat are more or less the same thing. In a car measured flat is not perceived as flat partly due to the effect of early reflections.
> 
> ...



Sorry but this doesn't make sense to me. *Measured* flat response is flat response, whether that's in a car, an auditorium or a phone booth. Reflections and direct sound sum to provide the "measured" and/or perceived response in any of these environments. Measured *VS* perceived is a different story.
Seeing as how almost all home listening is done on axis with far fewer destructive reflective surfaces, I'd find it very hard to believe that the percentage of direct sound in the home and automotive environment are anywhere near that close. In addition, this mentions nothing of driver aiming either.

I was also under the impression that perceived loudness is not a function of the room/environment, rather that it is the way our ears interpret sound based on the geometry of our bodies/ear canals. Example- remove the room from the environment by using a pair of headphones. What we perceive as flat will certainly not measure that way.


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

The only thing I have to contribute is that my stage is always wider when I go off axis. Always. 

Sent from my Moto X using Tapatalk


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

That's interesting. I've found the opposite to be true for me. Other than maybe physical placement.


----------



## subwoofery (Nov 9, 2008)

bikinpunk said:


> That's interesting. I've found the opposite to be true for me. Other than maybe physical placement.


Haven't you gone off-axis with your current setup? I think you said it was something about 15-20° after doing some research about home audio and their 30° off-axis response... 

Kelvin


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

yea. but I assume Paul was talking more along the severe off-axis type setup. Within 30*, I typically don't really worry about, unless the crossover is high.


----------



## subwoofery (Nov 9, 2008)

Noted  

Wonder if the perceived increase in width is not due to having less early reflections from the side Windows when a tweeter is aiming across a vehicle (45°+)

Kelvin


----------



## captainobvious (Mar 11, 2006)

You physically place the drivers further to the outside of the vehicle when you aim off axis.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

Not by much...not much difference I wouldn't think.


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

bikinpunk said:


> yea. but I assume Paul was talking more along the severe off-axis type setup. Within 30*, I typically don't really worry about, unless the crossover is high.


Yep. I was talking about typical door and sail panel mounting. WAY off axis. Yes, you run into other issues but stage width is always better right out of the box for me that way. Nick Wingate listened toy Golf with my QSDs in the OEM locations and said, and I quote, "Your stage is wide as ****!"



Sent from my Moto X using Tapatalk


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

captainobvious said:


> You physically place the drivers further to the outside of the vehicle when you aim off axis.


Not enough to matter. I really think it's because of the ratio of reflections to direct sound. 

Sent from my Moto X using Tapatalk


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

But was it because they were off axis or because they were physically wide in the car?


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

I've tried them on axis and they were smoother tonally but the stage narrowed. 

Sent from my Moto X using Tapatalk


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

captainobvious said:


> Sorry but this doesn't make sense to me. *Measured* flat response is flat response, whether that's in a car, an auditorium or a phone booth. Reflections and direct sound sum to provide the "measured" and/or perceived response in any of these environments. Measured *VS* perceived is a different story.
> Seeing as how almost all home listening is done on axis with far fewer destructive reflective surfaces, I'd find it very hard to believe that the percentage of direct sound in the home and automotive environment are anywhere near that close. In addition, this mentions nothing of driver aiming either.


Early reflections make the direct sound louder. When early reflections are at ~40% of total sound energy they don't have much of a perceived impact, aka a normal room. Measured flat is perceived as flat. 

In a car, there are virtually no late reflections, lets say the direct sound is down to about 8% and axis doesn't matter when the speaker is omni directional. The bulk of the sound is early reflections. Now the early reflections are having an perceptible impact on the direct sound and what we are hearing. Now a measured flat is not perceived flat. The sound is thin and bright and the midrange / upper mids seem much more dominant.

Similarly a measured flat response in your shower or a phone booth where early reflections are greater, will not be perceived as flat. It will sound worse than the car.

The same measured flat response in the three different environments will give you three very different sounds (the car and shower will be closer to each other) To get a sound somewhat similar to what you're hearing in the room, you have to apply an equalization curve in your car and the shower/booth to correct for what you're hearing not what you're measuring.


----------



## cajunner (Apr 13, 2007)

sqnut said:


> Early reflections make the direct sound louder. When early reflections are at ~40% of total sound they don't have much of a perceived impact, aka a normal room. Measured flat is perceived as flat.
> 
> In a car, there are virtually no late reflections, lets say the direct sound is down to about 8% and axis doesn't matter when the speaker is omni directional. The bulk of the sound is early reflections. Now the early reflections are having an perceptible impact on the direct sound and what we are hearing. Now a measured flat is not perceived flat.
> 
> ...


are you just trying to describe gating, and going about it a different way?

I don't believe the "direct sound/early reflection" percentages mean anything when it comes to "perceived flat" being different from "measured flat"

as a general rule, since we don't have the definition of early and late reflection and what that ultimately means.

Everyone's car has modal issues that are either synchronous with energy storage modes, or interfere and have dissonant characteristics, depending on the frequency and amplitude.

What matters more inside a car is the ringing from the mid bass region, this is where we localize and it's also where the metal is resonant in panels, it's where door cards have their Fs, it's where footwell/center console main reflections are situated, lengthwise.

There's a host of issues that result from a car's unique characteristic environment, that don't need to be explained in an early reflection/direct sound template.

I say this, because it doesn't matter. I can get a great stereo image out of a car's interior, I can close my eyes and not have a clue where the drivers are located, such is the illusion. 

The idea that early reflection is collapsing our ability to re-create the stereo image is moot, because it isn't so.

I don't know what else you're going for, when you make that assertion unless it's just to illustrate the difference between a home audio environment and the vehicle, or that early reflections dominating the listening space is detrimental to the image formation?


----------



## Hanatsu (Nov 9, 2010)

IME, The smaller room - the more downward tilt from 20-20kHz you want . I.e more bass, less highs. The power response is what you hearing, (the direct + reflected sound).

Not talking huge amounts now...

Tapaaatalk!!


----------



## n_olympios (Oct 23, 2008)

sqnut said:


> Early reflections make the direct sound louder. When early reflections are at ~40% of total sound energy they don't have much of a perceived impact, aka a normal room. Measured flat is perceived as flat.
> 
> In a car, there are virtually no late reflections, lets say the direct sound is down to about 8% and axis doesn't matter when the speaker is omni directional. The bulk of the sound is early reflections. Now the early reflections are having an perceptible impact on the direct sound and what we are hearing. Now a measured flat is not perceived flat. The sound is thin and bright and the midrange / upper mids seem much more dominant.
> 
> ...


There has to be something wrong in the way you think measurements are taken; a microphone can only "measure" what sound comes into its capsule - it cannot differentiate between speaker and room. Thus, a measurement taken properly in the listening spot shows exactly what we hear/perceive, in that spot. If it's flat, it's flat. 

And I don't think you're talking about differences in each one's hearing ability. Or are you talking about measuring the driver itself on a test rig, equalising it so it plays flat, then transferring it into the room(/car/bathroom) and hoping it still sounds flat in there? 

I'm baffled. 

PS: I'm also not convinced about the arbitrary percentages given for direct vs reflected sound in a car. 12% or even 8% of direct sound seems way off to me, in such a nearfield environment.


----------



## Hanatsu (Nov 9, 2010)

I think he's talking about different FR curves sound different in different rooms. If you play pink noise and observe it on a RTA and you tune the response to measure flat it won't sound "flat" as it would in a large room. It's also true that there's a large amount of early reflections in a car and we basically hearing those "in the same instant" as the direct sound. I won't throw arbitrary numbers around but the ratio of direct/early/late reflections definietely have an impact on both staging and tonality.

Tapaaatalk!!


----------



## cajunner (Apr 13, 2007)

I think you could approximate this idea with the substitution of sound with light.

if you have light in a reflective space, you'll have glare.

glare is the equivalent of early/late reflection, and although the original amount of light being given off is fixed, in a small enclosed space with lots of reflecting surface the overall amount of light to someone's vision is much higher.

in a non-reflective environment the light would appear as a single point in space, and light fading to darkness around it.

so in that way, perhaps the amount of early reflection is subject to transmission loss in the way light is, and if there's a few extra bounces before an audible amount is no longer detected, the ability to differentiate between direct and reflected sound is obscured, and the stereo image isn't as easily produced.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Hanatsu said:


> I think he's talking about _same_ FR curves sound different in different rooms. If you play pink noise and observe it on a RTA and you tune the response to measure flat it won't sound "flat" as it would in a large room. It's also true that there's a large amount of early reflections in a car and we basically hearing those "in the same instant" as the direct sound. The ratio of direct/early/late reflections definietely have an impact on both staging and tonality.
> 
> Tapaaatalk!!


Thank you!! That is exactly what I have tried to say thrice, then again I tend to ramble.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

n_olympios said:


> If it's flat, it's flat.


So a measured flat response in a room, car and a shower will sound the same? I think not.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

cajunner said:


> I say this, because it doesn't matter. I can get a great stereo image out of a car's interior, I can close my eyes and not have a clue where the drivers are located, such is the illusion.


Early reflections have no impact on your imaging. Imaging is a factor of timing and L/R response. Imaging is nothing but localizing sounds. The brain only uses the direct sound for location cues.


----------



## captainobvious (Mar 11, 2006)

sqnut said:


> So a measured flat response in a room, car and a shower will sound the same? I think not.



YES. If you can hear it, you can measure it. Measured flat is measured flat. You're referring to _perceived_ response.


----------



## captainobvious (Mar 11, 2006)

sqnut said:


> Early reflections have no impact on your imaging. Imaging is a factor of timing and L/R response. Imaging is nothing but localizing sounds. The brain only uses the direct sound for location cues.



How? Direct and reflected sound are summed to become what you hear and interpret. Reflections should certainly have an impact on imaging because they have an effect on frequency response. Comb filtering?


----------



## Hanatsu (Nov 9, 2010)

The stage IS affected by reflections. Primarily focus.


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

Hanatsu said:


> The stage IS affected by reflections. Primarily focus.


Which is why I can't figure out why mine is more focused when the tweeters fire up into the windshield vs on axis on the dash. Maybe it's because I have them very close to the windshield and way off axis or maybe it's because I suck at tuning and can't take advantage of them being on axis.


----------



## cajunner (Apr 13, 2007)

sqnut said:


> Early reflections have no impact on your imaging. Imaging is a factor of timing and L/R response. Imaging is nothing but localizing sounds. The brain only uses the direct sound for location cues.


it's easy to confuse stage with image, I think early reflections are exactly what lycan proposed as virtual drivers, or image drivers.

if you have a single nearby reflective surface, and the distance is within a calculable mean, then the direct and reflected sound appear as one, but the size of the stage expands in the direction of the reflected sound.

aim your dash speakers to bounce off the windshield and hit you in the face, and the stage doesn't sound like it's coming from the dash.

it sounds like it's coming from the space between the dash and windshield at least, and usually as high as the windshield.

such is the stage, and image, or imaging is the placement of images in that stage, correct?

so if you have early reflections increasing the stage's apparent width, depth, or height, then it stands to reason that images within that stage will necessarily be increased in dimension as well?

doesn't that make sense?


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Guys, early reflections will have an impact on the dimensions / size of stage. Early reflections will also have an impact on tonality, which can be corrected with eq. But early reflections has no impact on imaging. If focus is an issue for you, then it's purely a tuning issue ta/eq. Focus has nothing to do with early reflections.

[Edit] Not sure what I was thinking. Reflections will make imaging a little fuzzier hence a focus issue.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

cajunner said:


> so if you have early reflections *decreasing* the stage's apparent width, depth, or height, then it stands to reason that images within that stage will necessarily be *decreased* in dimension as well?
> 
> doesn't that make sense?


There fixed it for you. Late reflections give you a sense of ambient space and mean that you are listening in a physically larger space, hence allowing you to have a larger stage. Early reflections kill that sense of space and highlight the fact that you are in a smaller reflective space. So your stage will obviously be smaller in all three dimensions.


----------



## cajunner (Apr 13, 2007)

I'm going to challenge this idea, sqnut.

there's a team of audio engineers working with a car that has 62 drivers in it, I think...


and they are image drivers that wrap completely around the occupant positions, and using some cool DSP they can make the car sound like any space to which they have mapped already.

I believe there is another car, a Mercedes? That one has it's own media, there are recordings that have been mastered for playback specifically within that acoustic space, they pulled the car into a studio...

How is this possible?


and, we're going about it the wrong way, if we want center stage to hover over the steering wheel, with the apparent stage left, extending exactly as far as stage right, which of course means that the stereo image is all the way out 3/4 of the car's width, outside of the driver's window...

they say that they can do this, and it's not an early reflection fix, it's a direct sound fix with DSP that acoustically removes the driver's side of the car, allowing the stage to present itself with you in the middle of it.

I understand you believe as the stage gets influenced by late reflections, it becomes bigger but the images on the stage, what happens to them, wouldn't they also enlarge to the breadth of the stage dimension?

We as consumers may not have the super-computers necessary to pull all of this off, but a car manufacturer can devote millions in R&D, towards better audio.

and when factory DSP systems like Logic 7 come on, aren't they working around the early reflection issue, don't they image well despite the reflective environment, and then they tune their pre-amp to suit?


----------



## subwoofery (Nov 9, 2008)

Audi WFS

Kelvin


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

captainobvious said:


> YES. If you can hear it, you can measure it.


No, you can't measure everything you hear. A mic does not work like your ear. 



captainobvious said:


> Measured flat is measured flat. You're referring to _perceived_ response.


Yes I am saying that a measured flat response will be perceived differently based on the room you are listening in. 



captainobvious said:


> How? Direct and reflected sound are summed to become what you hear and interpret. Reflections should certainly have an impact on imaging because they have an effect on frequency response. Comb filtering?


Yes comb filtering is the effect of reflections. We know that the brain combines reflected sound with the direct sound and hears it as one entity in one time space. In a car, the early reflections are carrying content ~400hz and up. Now when the brain sums the direct and reflected sound, the 400+ range in the direct sound is perceived louder. Now overlay your ears sensitivity and you begin to get the picture. 

Early reflections mess up your perceived response. As long as you have a min threshold level of direct sound and sufficient dsp, you should be able to dial in a good image. Will it be better in a room? Of course yes. In that sense you have a point.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

cajunner said:


> I understand you believe as the stage gets influenced by late reflections, it becomes bigger but the images on the stage, what happens to them, wouldn't they also enlarge to the breadth of the stage dimension?


If the stage becomes larger so would the objects on it, sure.


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

cajunner said:


> I'm going to challenge this idea, sqnut.
> 
> there's a team of audio engineers working with a car that has 62 drivers in it, I think...
> 
> ...


I've never thought of that. A stage with the driver center that extends an equal distance to the left as it does to the right would be awesome. Is that possible with a 2 or 3 way front end and processing alone? Now I want to play with abnormal extreme settings to see if it's even remotely possible with my equipment and from someone with the tuning skills of a 5 yr old. This sounds like what we should all be shooting for, right? Or maybe everyone besides myself does this already and I'm behind the curve. I'm just happy to finally have a somewhat decent stage and image that can impress the clueless lol.


----------



## strakele (Mar 2, 2009)

I think Mark's NASCAR can come pretty close to that (I haven't heard the one seat tune in a while), but he uses speaker arrays and some wild processing to do it.

As far as the Mercedes music, yes they produced a CD to go specifically with the high end audio system available in a couple of their top models, but I never saw any claims as to driver's side width extending as far as passenger side. Where did you see that cajunner?


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

cajunner said:


> if we want center stage to hover over the steering wheel, with the apparent stage left, extending exactly as far as stage right, which of course means that the stereo image is all the way out 3/4 of the car's width, outside of the driver's window...
> 
> they say that they can do this, and it's not an early reflection fix, it's a direct sound fix with DSP that acoustically removes the driver's side of the car, allowing the stage to present itself with you in the middle of it.


It's much easier to accept that you are in a smaller, highly reflective environment and make that a starting point. I'm ok with the vocalist at the rear view.


----------



## cajunner (Apr 13, 2007)

BuickGN said:


> I've never thought of that. A stage with the driver center that extends an equal distance to the left as it does to the right would be awesome. Is that possible with a 2 or 3 way front end and processing alone? Now I want to play with abnormal extreme settings to see if it's even remotely possible with my equipment and from someone with the tuning skills of a 5 yr old. This sounds like what we should all be shooting for, right? Or maybe everyone besides myself does this already and I'm behind the curve. I'm just happy to finally have a somewhat decent stage and image that can impress the clueless lol.


lol.

no, I think we should be happy to sit in the left side of the audience...



and it appears that the kind of derivative acoustic field that describes what I've read these engineers are doing, is not stuff that you'll find on a shelf, or comes in a box with a controller, or says "miniDSP processing inside" on the fine print...

and it's not that bad to sit in the audience off to either side. Center stage costs a heck of a lot more than the upcharge for the real thing at Ticketmass'ah.com, and to be able to create a sonic field that controls the room to the extent that it sounds real, or exactly like the sonic blueprint of a legendary music hall and not Yamaha's VLSIC version of it, you'd need a little more power than a 2 year old laptop gets you...

that's just the outer limits, I guess. I don't know if anyone is going to prefer the sound from a black box that costs $3K and allows you to sit in the middle of every performance, even when you're 65 degrees off-axis from your left side midrange driver, and everything in visual space is non-conforming to what you hear. Some people may claim it's the best thing ever, but all you really did was move over a few seats in the audience, haha..


----------



## corcraft (Nov 16, 2010)

Very good reading here. I have spent the better part of the day reading this thread and a couple other similiar ones which brings me to this thought and hopefully Andy as well as others will chime in....

With a conventional 6.5" 2 way with mid off axis in door and the tweeter up high in the sail or a pillar we are brought 2 problems. 1) xover point too low like most out of the box comp sets and creates locationing of tweeter or 2) xover point too high and we are left with beaming of mid.

The solution is add another mid to feel the gap which creates modifing and fabricationing as well as adds another 2 axis for processing which brings me to this question. 

Why don't we ever see a point source driver/ drivers in the door being a really good coax or perhaps even a dual cone with the tweeter or "super tweeter" in the sail panels with lets say an xover between 5-10k? Would this not combat both "problems" with little- no modifications and without creating more axis/ locations?


----------



## quietfly (Mar 23, 2011)

corcraft said:


> Very good reading here. I have spent the better part of the day reading this thread and a couple other similiar ones which brings me to this thought and hopefully Andy as well as others will chime in....
> 
> With a conventional 6.5" 2 way with mid off axis in door and the tweeter up high in the sail or a pillar we are brought 2 problems. 1) xover point too low like most out of the box comp sets and creates locationing of tweeter or 2) xover point too high and we are left with beaming of mid.
> 
> ...


KEF has excellent point source drivers but they are prohibitively expensive, and the really good drivers aren't available in the raw format, only in pre packaged speakers.


----------



## n_olympios (Oct 23, 2008)

They are also quite big and difficult to install in most A-pillars, let alone sail panels.


----------



## corcraft (Nov 16, 2010)

I was thinking dayton ps180 or coax like Id xs65


----------



## quietfly (Mar 23, 2011)

n_olympios said:


> They are also quite big and difficult to install in most A-pillars, let alone sail panels.


true, however besides a tweeter, what speaker truely fits in a sail pannel well. even the smaller format "full range speakers" aurora whisper's or Dayton ND 90's are to big for most sails....


----------



## quietfly (Mar 23, 2011)

AudioFrog will have a 1.5 and a 2.5 however i don't think the 2.5 would fit in sailpannels either...


----------



## corcraft (Nov 16, 2010)

n_olympios said:


> They are also quite big and difficult to install in most A-pillars, let alone sail panels.


Was saying point source int the door/ factory location and just a tweeter in the sails.... 

Point source in door to raise the xover freq of tweeter in the sail without beaming.


----------



## cajunner (Apr 13, 2007)

corcraft said:


> Was saying point source int the door/ factory location and just a tweeter in the sails....
> 
> Point source in door to raise the xover freq of tweeter in the sail without beaming.



it's the physical location that's causing the issue, the mid may be able to produce the highs and even go above normal diameter-centered beaming, but you're still playing into the knees.

you're blocking sound, it doesn't matter how omni you can get the low-mounted midrange.

but it's a great idea for people who have speaker locations in the doors that are above the knees.


----------



## BKLYNG (Aug 6, 2014)

Can you use the hat widebaners L3Se with the 80prs and if so how I have the hat imagines running active tweets in the sail panel midbass in bottom of door


----------



## MetricMuscle (Sep 16, 2013)

BKLYNG said:


> Can you use the hat widebanders, L3Se, with the 80prs and if so how? I have the hat imagines running active, tweets in the sail panel, midbass in bottom of door.


Put the L3Se in the upper front corner of the door, forward of the door handle most likely, just below the tweeter.

What kind of car, by the way?


----------



## jtrosky (Jul 19, 2019)

EDIT: Sorry - wrong thread!


----------

