# how good are these Hybrid Speakers?



## silverdiesel2574 (Feb 22, 2008)

I see so many people on hear with hybrids but I've never heard them. Are they that much better than other brands. What type of x-overs do they come with. Whats the cost of a hybrid setup.


----------



## GenPac (Oct 29, 2007)

The only authorized US 'net retailer for HAT drivers is http://www.lmfaudio.com/

information about the HAT drivers is available here
http://www.hybrid-audio.com/index.htm

I'm sure you can get the drivers at a reduced cost if you contact the right people  

I'm just posting resources, 'till owners can post their thoughts.


----------



## BigRed (Aug 12, 2007)

I love them. I have the 3 way in my truck. PM me if you would like and you can swing by and have a listen. I think that would be the best test for you


----------



## doitor (Aug 16, 2007)

Oh, oh. Another F250 owner.  
Totally agree with BigRed.
Meet him, listen to his Red Ranger.


----------



## circa40 (Jan 20, 2008)

I may be dead wrong but I don't believe that legatia series speakers comes with passives.


----------



## Thumper26 (Sep 23, 2005)

i believe they do have component sets that include crossovers...


----------



## doitor (Aug 16, 2007)

And to answer your other questions, there are 3 speaker lines.
The Clarus, Legatia and Sebra.
Clarus is the "entry" line and will be released in a couple of days. There are 2 sets of components, one with a 5 1/4 and the other with a 6 1/2 inch midrange/midbass drivers. They do come with a passive x-over.
The Legatia line is the "middle" line. It includes the L1 tweeter, L3,L4 and L6 midrange drivers and the L8 midbass/sub driver. They don't come with x-overs but if you need some, Scott will help you out.
The Sebra line will be the "top" line and it's still under development.


----------



## 89grand (Nov 23, 2006)

I find it hard to believe they are good enough to justify the high price...I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

Install and tuning are much more important that what brand of speaker you run.


----------



## monkeyboy (Jun 12, 2007)

You mean the speakers in Big Red aren't the best?  

They do sound damn good though


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

All I can say is I'm very happy with my speaker choices. The difference was night & day between the L3 & tg9 midranges. And the tg9's were installed to specific mfg's instructions, like the L3's were: meaning that both were installed "correctly" and the L3 is the victor. 

The L1's perform very nice as well. I didn't have to do a bit of eq'ing this last go-round to get rid of sibilance which is a huge pet peeve of mine. No eq'ing for sibilance makes me .

As for the price... well, that varies. I got the L1's used for $80 shipped and the L3's used for $100 shipped. Best $ I've spent on car audio yet (except for the h701 I got cheap). 

Doiter... I noticed on the site earlier that there's going to be a L1 "Pro". Looks pretty cool.


----------



## doitor (Aug 16, 2007)

bikinpunk said:


> Doiter... I noticed on the site earlier that there's going to be a L1 "Pro". Looks pretty cool.


Yes.
That thinks is really nice.
It's intended to have a lower fs so that you can x-over it lower.
For example L81pro-2 two way.
Take the smaller midrange out of the picture for those that can't integrate it.
Can't wait to hear it.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

doitor said:


> Yes.
> That thinks is really nice.
> It's intended to have a lower fs so that you can x-over it lower.
> For example L81pro-2 two way.
> ...


I caught that. Seems like it might not be worth it for a 3-way in that case.

Still, it _looks_ cool. The push terminals... I think that's a neat addition.


----------



## doitor (Aug 16, 2007)

bikinpunk said:


> I caught that. Seems like it might not be worth it for a 3-way in that case.
> 
> Still, it _looks_ cool. The push terminals... I think that's a neat addition.


Yes.
In a 3-way might be a bit to much, but would allow more x-over combinations.
Push terminals are much better.
It's supposed to start shipping in 2-3 weeks.


----------



## CMR22 (Feb 10, 2007)

doitor said:


> Yes.
> That thinks is really nice.
> It's intended to have a lower fs so that you can x-over it lower.
> For example L81pro-2 two way.
> ...


So the L8 would pair up nicely with a set of horns? I never looked into how high the L8 would play and just assumed it was a true midbass.


----------



## ///Audience (Jan 31, 2007)

if you want unbiased responses to the drivers, use the search button and find the first locked thread in the history of DIYMA...


----------



## Genxx (Mar 18, 2007)

No matter what has happened in the past, HAT and the Legatia speakers have proven themselves to be very capable drivers and great company period.

Its rare that you can just up email or call the Company head like you can at HAT.

Are they expensive, well no more so then some Dyn, Scan, Seas ect.

So far from everything I have seen the user's or customers are very happy with their purchases of HAT. Me included.


----------



## doitor (Aug 16, 2007)

CMR22 said:


> So the L8 would pair up nicely with a set of horns? I never looked into how high the L8 would play and just assumed it was a true midbass.


The frequency response is from 40 Hz up to 2000 Hz.
I've never played them that high and I've never played with horns.
If you need more info contact Scott.
pm me if you want his contact info.


----------



## DonutHands (Jan 27, 2006)

they dont seem to be much better than other speakers. but the people that choose to use them do a hell of a lot of work on the install which is most likely the major contributer to how well they sound.


----------



## bobditts (Jul 19, 2006)

internecine said:


> they dont seem to be much better than other speakers. but the people that choose to use them do a hell of a lot of work on the install which is most likely the major contributer to how well they sound.


There is a member on here who is local to me who is using the 3 way legitas. He has done very little on the install and continues to win USACI comps. His car sounds phenominal. Also one of the VERY few hatchbacks running IB.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

IMO the 8s are a bit on the lower side of efficiency to want to mate with horns.


----------



## npdang (Jul 29, 2005)

thehatedguy said:


> IMO the 8s are a bit on the lower side of efficiency to want to mate with horns.


What did you think of the rest of the lineup?


----------



## Fixtion (Aug 25, 2006)

perhaps we should send npdang some hybrid audio drivers to audition and put through the test.

*-fixtion*


----------



## haibane (Sep 29, 2005)

Love my tweeters, I will let you know about future drivers if I chose to go that route


----------



## OldOneEye (Jun 16, 2005)

Genxx said:


> No matter what has happened in the past, HAT and the Legatia speakers have proven themselves to be very capable drivers and great company period.
> 
> Its rare that you can just up email or call the Company head like you can at HAT.
> 
> ...


No offense, but being able to reach Scott B. has little impact on how something sounds (good or bad). 

Happiness, pretty much the same thing.

Now, winning lots of trophies... that sort of tells me that if I want to win too, maybe there is something I should be looking at there.

Juan


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

Fixtion said:


> perhaps we should send npdang some hybrid audio drivers to audition and put through the test.
> 
> *-fixtion*


He tested the L3's and controversy insued. Do a search in the Review section and you'll see what I mean.

I actually offered up the L1's a while back but he didn't seem to want them and someone actually said they didn't compare to the others that were tested, implying that there was no need because the L1's couldn't hang. At least, that's how I took it. 

I don't have any personal stakes in the speakers. They are the best speakers I've chosen so far and I'm happy with my setup. That's good enough for me.


----------



## GlasSman (Nov 14, 2006)

Fixtion said:


> perhaps we should send npdang some hybrid audio drivers to audition and put through the test.
> 
> *-fixtion*



This should happen ASAP since there are so many people getting great results with those drivers.


----------



## rcurley55 (Jul 6, 2005)

yes, the L3 test was very controversial. As always, get out and listen. 

They are boutique speakers imo, but they do come with a lot of service which says something. They have also been very successful in competition - now of course that doesn't mean they will sound good in your car - but they do have some great potential.

I think they offer a different approach and if your car lends well to that model, then they could be a good fit. I was happy with the L3's that I had and felt they were pretty capable speakers.

If I had the right car, I wouldn't hesitate to use them, but there's a lot of drivers that I would consider as well. I do kinda lust over the L1, L4, L8 combo


----------



## 89grand (Nov 23, 2006)

Well many years ago, most of the competitors were running Alpine, MB Quarts, Audio Control, JL Audio and PPI. I bought all the same gear, I was running the exact same ****, but it didn't sound all that great, certainly not competition worthy. I was a lot younger then and have since learned a lot more.

It wasn't so much that the competitors were running that particular equipment, it was the fact that their install and tuning kicked total ass on mine.


----------



## Genxx (Mar 18, 2007)

OldOneEye said:


> No offense, but being able to reach Scott B. has little impact on how something sounds (good or bad).
> 
> Happiness, pretty much the same thing.
> 
> ...



True, but atleaest if you are having problems with the sound you can call someone for some advice about their driver.

If you get them and think they suck ass then you can call you let them know.

It falls more into the realm of piece of mind at the end of the day for me, then sound though.


----------



## 89grand (Nov 23, 2006)

BEELZEBUB said:


> very nice speakers... the hybrids are some of the best drivers made in the us. they have excellent customer support aswell....


How exactly did you determine that they are some of the best drivers made in the U.S.? 

If you've heard systems with them and like the sound, more than likely you were mainly listening to a great install, great tuning and pretty good speakers.


----------



## Hillbilly SQ (Jan 26, 2007)

hybrid drivers aren't for everyone. i fealt they sounded a little bland but that's just me. their reputation in the sq lanes speaks for itself. i wouldn't run them in a daily install (don't shoot me for my opinions) but i'd sure give them consideration if i competed in sq. i'd probably run nextels over legatia anyway due to personal preference. 

if anyone wants to tell me i'm an idiot for not liking the way hybrids sound please take it to pm. no one wants this thread to be cluttered by subjective politics. yes i know i just contradicted myself.


----------



## 89grand (Nov 23, 2006)

Hillbilly SQ said:


> hybrid drivers aren't for everyone. i fealt they sounded a little bland but that's just me. their reputation in the sq lanes speaks for itself. i wouldn't run them in a daily install (don't shoot me for my opinions) but i'd sure give them consideration if i competed in sq. i'd probably run nextels over legatia anyway due to personal preference.
> 
> if anyone wants to tell me i'm an idiot for not liking the way hybrids sound please take it to pm. no one wants this thread to be cluttered by subjective politics. yes i know i just contradicted myself.


You're an idiot.

I've heard they were so good, you can just throw them on the floor somewhere and they still sound great.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

Hillbilly SQ said:


> hybrid drivers aren't for everyone. i fealt they sounded a little bland but that's just me. their reputation in the sq lanes speaks for itself. i wouldn't run them in a daily install *(don't shoot me for my opinions)* but i'd sure give them consideration if i competed in sq. i'd probably run nextels over legatia anyway due to personal preference.
> 
> *if anyone wants to tell me i'm an idiot for not liking the way hybrids sound *please take it to pm. no one wants this thread to be cluttered by subjective politics. yes i know i just contradicted myself.


No offense, man, but how come everytime you make a post about something you say it as though you _want_ someone to disagree with you?

Just look at the bold portions and you'll see what I'm talking about. 

If that's your opinion, that's fine. I don't think many (see: 0.01% of the forum) people here are going to jump down your throat for liking what you like. In fact your post was pretty good until you threw that last paragraph in there. 

I'm not picking on you. Just thought I'd mention it since I've noticed a few of your other posts seem to be that way.


----------



## 89grand (Nov 23, 2006)

BEELZEBUB said:


> example: i got a legadia 8 and threw it in a book shelf speaker box for a boston acoustic. plugged the wire straight into a dennon reciever and pushed play on the dvd player. no eq no nothing special. those legadia 8"s sounded a 1000 times better than the stock speakers that came with the box


Well OK. I'm not trying to say they aren't good, I've never heard them. I'm just really skeptical about claims of some gear being so much better than other decent gear, but that doesn't necessarily mean it isn't true.


----------



## CMR22 (Feb 10, 2007)

89grand said:


> Well OK. I'm not trying to say they aren't good, I've never heard them. I'm just really skeptical about claims of some gear being so much better than other decent gear, but that doesn't necessarily mean it isn't true.


You're arguing with someone who will be banned shortly.


----------



## CMR22 (Feb 10, 2007)

bikinpunk said:


> No offense, man, but how come everytime you make a post about something you say it as though you _want_ someone to disagree with you?


Because the Legatia/certain competitor soap opera will not go away quietly.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

The L8s are speced at 2.83 volts and are 4 ohm drivers. To get a more fair comparison of other drivers, subtract 3 dB from that rating to get you a 4 ohm 1 watt/meter rating. So that gets you down into the 84 dB range if you want to use that to compare apples to apples. Andy while it might be a nice driver, you are about 20 dB down (or more) from what most car horns are speced at. And that to me, is a long way away.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

CMR22 said:


> Because the Legatia/certain competitor soap opera will not go away quietly.


It's not always about HAT or any one topic; it varies from topic to topic. I'd do a search and show you but it's not worth it. I think Shimano knows what I'm talking about.


----------



## silverdiesel2574 (Feb 22, 2008)

WOW, I just asked a simply question no need for anyone to get pissy.


----------



## 89grand (Nov 23, 2006)

silverdiesel2574 said:


> WOW, I just asked a simply question no need for anyone to get pissy.


Ahhhh...I see you've just joined. 

That's why. Don't ask about Zuki amps either.


----------



## 89grand (Nov 23, 2006)

BEELZEBUB said:


> THIS IS WHAT I THINK ABOUT THIS THREAD AND THIS LAME ASS FORUM....


Ahhh...come one man, that almost made me


----------



## 89grand (Nov 23, 2006)

twin post.


----------



## Scott Buwalda (Apr 7, 2006)

Common guys...it's car audio, not life or death. You guys need to get off the keyboards and get back into your cars! Or sexually harass your wives, or something. Sheesh, chill out. 

I am going to try and respond to the various responses without this becoming a commercial post...so no prices, no contact information, nothing... 

The Clarus component systems, now shipping, include everything---speakers, grilles, crossovers, connection wiring, hardware, etc. They are in the same price range (actually in many cases a bit cheaper) as the JL Audio XR and C5 series, Hertz HSK, DLS UR6, etc. I wouldn't necessarily call that a boutique price range.

The Legatia L1 Pro tweeter (http://www.hybrid-audio.com/news.htm - top of page) will ship in about two weeks, maybe three. It's price is a minimum of two and a half times lower than other tweeters in the same category (ScanSpeak Rev., Focal Be, etc.). 

The Legatia L8 has usable frequency response to about 2,500 Hz without cone break-up. I see opportunities for a dedicated two-way kit with the L1 Pro, *if* you wanted to go that route. Larry Chijner, a highly respected former competitor and world champion is currently using the L8 in a two-way in his Passat, and he tells me it *blows* his old 8" Dyn. midbass set away (the Dyn set he used for years in his Cadillac). Call or e-mail Larry if you don't believe me...he has nothing to gain by saying what he said.

The Legatia L1 has been in 17 national- and world-championship vehicles last year alone. It can "hang" if the user knows how to use it. The only time a Legatia L1 has come back as "defective" (three times now with 250 sets on the streets) was when some $%^$%#@ was crossing it over at 2.5 KHz. 

[soapbox]

There's no tweeter in this world that should be crossed over lower than 4,000 Hz. Tweeters play treble, midrange play midrange, and midbass play midbass. A higher crossover on the midrange focusses the fundamental imaging cues into one set of speakers, the midrange. By crossing a tweeter over that low, you divide the imaging cues between the mid and the tweeter (aka female vocals and upper-frequency instruments will now be divided, with phase distortion, at the crossover frequency---tweeters playing one quarter the vocal spectrum and the mids playing the other three quarters---NOT GOOD). If you separate the tweeter more than ¼ wavelength distance at the crosspoint from the mid (a few cm at 2,000 Hz), there will be significant phase distortion. No, keep the imaging cues (250 Hz – 5,000 Hz) in the midranges, and the staging cues (5,000 Hz and above) in the tweeters. The manual I am writing for the Clarus speakers will go into this in detail. IMHO, most speaker manufacturers have been making a BIG mistake using tweeters to 2,000 - 3,000 Hz. Tweeters do not have a suspension (and when they do, they are nothing more than a small rolled surround), and cannot effectively reproduce those tones without significant intermodulation distortion and phase distortion at the crossover. Tweeters being played within a suitable range are much less susceptible to mechanical deformation. I *hate* the sound of tweeters trying to reproduce 2,000 Hz...even my big MDT-33's struggle terribly, and the motor of that tweeter is the size of a 6.5" midbass. 2,000 Hz out of a tweeter? I'd rather listen to garbage can lids clanging. 

[/soapbox]

I have had some real talented installers and competitors tell me they love the L1 tweeters---Todd Crowder swears by it, so does John Sketoe, as does Hajji Grape, as does... If you know how to use it (high Fs tweeter with wide-bandiwdth midrange), it'll do the job better, have better polar response, than any large diameter, heavy dome tweeter. The secret is in the midrange, _not_ the tweeter.

I'd love another review here in DIY. Let's do the L4 and listen to them in a car. Or better yet, I get BigRed out, who's a talented but only an enthusiast installer, with no vast experience in tuning (no offense big dog), and you guys listen for yourselves. He's in So. Cal.

Scott


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

Scott, I don't know if you have noticed, but most people around here try to run their tweeters as low as possible...in the 2k range. I agree with you, bad bad idea.

Typical install and advice about where to cross tweeters at:

www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/showthread.php?t=32634


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

Scott Buwalda said:


> Tweeters play treble, midrange play midrange, and midbass play midbass. A higher crossover on the midrange focusses the fundamental imaging cues into one set of speakers, the midrange. By crossing a tweeter over that low, you divide the imaging cues between the mid and the tweeter. If you separate the tweeter more than ¼ wavelength distance at the crosspoint from the mid (a few cm at 2,000 Hz), there will be significant phase distortion. No, keep the imaging cues (250 Hz – 5,000 Hz) in the midranges, and the staging cues (5,000 Hz and above) in the tweeters.
> 
> I have had some real talented installers and competitors tell me they love the L1 tweeters---Todd Crowder swears by it, so does John Sketoe, as does Hajji Grape, as does... If you know how to use it (high Fs tweeter with wide-bandiwdth midrange), it'll do the job better, have better polar response, than any large diameter, heavy dome tweeter. *The secret is in the midrange, not the tweeter.*
> 
> ...


I agree completely. I'm not an audio technician so I've never had the arsenal of words to back up why I'm so adamant about not cutting the vocals @ 3khz like many people do. My default answer for going with a mid playing such a broad range is that fact alone. So, thanks for giving me some sort of "official" answer I can point to rather than simply having to ask someone to take my word for it.



Scott Buwalda said:


> I have had some real talented installers and competitors tell me they love the L1 tweeters---
> 
> Scott



I'm not a talented installer, lol. However, I've said it more than 3 times: I really like the L1. I've not tried many others but I don't have any desire to keep looking, either.


----------



## Hillbilly SQ (Jan 26, 2007)

thehatedguy said:


> Scott, I don't know if you have noticed, but most people around here try to run their tweeters as low as possible...in the 2k range. I agree with you, bad bad idea.
> 
> Typical install and advice about where to cross tweeters at:
> 
> www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/showthread.php?t=32634


that's where me, you, scott, bikini, and a select few others agree totally. my morels are crossed at 4khz 12db slope in a 2-way with no ill effects. it's all about bringing things together at the crossover point. everything sounds pointsource. very few raw home drivers that i've run have been able to even be crossed as high as 2khz 12db with the drivers side mid up to 75* off axis. sad when you think about it. i've pretty much forgotten about what me being a jerk caused between one hybrid user. i just require a little more edge in how my stuff sounds...something that can drown out loud tires and an exhaust that occasionally drones


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

Hillbilly SQ said:


> i just require a little more edge in how my stuff sounds...something that can drown out loud tires and an exhaust that occasionally drones


Honestly, man, you may be really surprised at the Hybrids. As often as you switch stuff out, you might want to give 'em a try. I think you'd be pleasantly surprised at how good they are overall.

You and I are alike in that we listen loud. I can crank my setup and not have any worries with the L3/L1. In other words, if I like it, you know it's passed the "hella loud" test.


----------



## Scott Buwalda (Apr 7, 2006)

Jason:

There's a lot of educatin' that needs to be done, that's for sure. I 'blame' MB Quart from 10 years ago when they started crossing the Q-series tweeters over at 2,200 Hz at 12 dB/octave.

Bikinpunk: 

The magic's in the midrange!  

Scott


----------



## drake78 (May 27, 2007)

Scott, thanks for the logical explanation of why tweets should not be played so low. I always thought the same. At the same time this forum's majority think differently. I gotta give you your due respect. Your are a leading force in sound in automobile enviornment. I think that factors and variables play much a higher role than actual test measurements of drivers. If I was building a car audio system. I would'nt mind using speakers that's sounds kick ass in the car. Wich don't sound as good in the home enviornment.


----------



## npdang (Jul 29, 2005)

Well, in that case the guy has a 2 way setup with mids in stock locations in the doors, and a tweeter in the upper portion of his door. Imho, the proper thing to do is to cross as LOW as possible to avoid the nasty upper end response coming out of the door on his mids, and to raise the stage. Crossing the tweets at 4khz in that instance (which is more typical than running a 3-way setup or kicks) would probably not be the best thing as your stage will drop bigtime and the power response at 4khz would be god aweful for a 7" driver in the door.

Just my opinion, but I would disagree with most of the above. I typically consider phase distortion the least important factor in system design, although I do find phase linear filters to be very useful. In the car, even a setup with no eq and minimum phase 6db slopes will still have a measured phase response that's all over the place. Take for example a home speaker with 4th order filters at 2khz, and compare the imaging to that of a 3-way setup with no crossover in the midrange and see which will image better... and then you kind of understand my point. So why sacrifice non-linear distortion performance and tonality in order to reduce crossover phase distortion? 

I'd also disagree about tweeters not being able to handle low xover points. There are many successful examples, such as Linkwitz's Orions utilizing Seas Milleniums ... and many measurements that support tweeters being able to handle xover points below 2khz. It's all about priorities. A single driver playing 250hz-5khz is arguably going to have higher IMD, while a tweeter playing 2khz-5khz will typically have a faster time response and significantly wider power response. A smaller midrange in the car can allow for much better positioning, ease of use, etc. that are critical don't get me wrong, but to say that no tweeter should be crossed below 4khz or that it can't be done successfully I feel is a bit strong. 

I'd be interested in seeing John Krutke test some Hybrid drivers, but in all honesty I don't have much use for a subjective test which most likely includes alot of extraneous factors such as room, setup, and tuning with the exception being someone whose tastes, experience, and listening preferences I already have a good idea of. I think 89Grand summed it up nicely when he said he had bought all the same equipment as many of these competitors, but his car sure as hell didn't sound anything like theirs.


----------



## npdang (Jul 29, 2005)

This is Linkwitz's opinion on the priorities in sound reproduction. Although he might consider changing some of those priorities for a car, I don't think phase distortion would be up there.

1 - Non-linear amplitude response
Generation of intermodulation products & harmonics
Gain compression / clipping / saturation

2 - Room modes
Low frequency resonances
Mid frequency reverberation
High frequency reflections
Uneven sound absorption

3 - Mechanical resonances
Slowly decaying transients

4 - Frequency response
Peaks / valleys / dips
Low / high frequency roll-off
Spectral balance

5 - Phase response
Waveform fidelity
Step response
Absolute polarity

And here's a good read on phase distortion, again from the man Linkwitz.

http://www.linkwitzlab.com/phs-dist.htm


----------



## drake78 (May 27, 2007)

I enjoy seeing two clashing points of view. Only if both sides makes sense to me.  Both sides have valid explanations. Personally I am more biased towards using the drivers in there intended FS. At the same time I don't think anything is set in stone. That mids should be used in the midrange FS and tweets should be in high FS. Either points of views ultimately have there own comprimises. Then there's the unexplainable factors revolving around everything and everywhere.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

drake78 said:


> I enjoy seeing two clashing points of view. Only if both sides makes sense to me.  Both sides have valid explanations. Personally I am more biased towards using the drivers in there intended FS. That mids should be used in the midrange FS and tweets should be in high FS. Either points of views ultimately have there own comprimises.


It's like listening to my professors argue over aircraft stability, lol.

You know both are making good points. You just have no idea wtf they're saying.


----------



## thylantyr (Jan 21, 2008)

Scott Buwalda said:


> Jason:
> 
> There's a lot of educatin' that needs to be done, that's for sure. I 'blame' MB Quart from 10 years ago when they started crossing the Q-series tweeters over at 2,200 Hz at 12 dB/octave.
> 
> ...



I guess we don't need to buy these;



> The Legatia™ Pro Series builds on the success of the original Legatia™ series. The Pro Series starts with an incredible new tweeter we anticipate launching on or about March 15, 2008. The Legatia L1 Pro Series tweeter boasts a larger diaphragm and lower resonance frequency for use in large midbass two-way systems, and incorporation with other manufacturer's products that do not offer a wide-bandwidth midrange design. The L1 Pro tweeter sets the benchmark for tuned-chamber car audio tweeters.



No need for these because ?



> The magic's in the midrange!


----------



## thylantyr (Jan 21, 2008)

Scott has a point though. The market lacks quality tweeters in a small
package for car audio to allow uber results crossed over low.

If you move into home audio, the doors are wider open and you can
take your tweeter under 2khz now with no problems.

The other issue that nobody ever seems to addrsess is the crossover slope.
Saying that a tweeter sounds bad at 2khz is an imcomplete statement.

What slope @ 2khz didn't work for you ? 1st order? 2nd order?
no surprise there. 

Instead of focusing on engineering, to make a better tweeter, to make
a better digital crossover for car audio with much much higher slopes,
the marketing people shift the focus from tweeter to midrange to mask
the root cause of this problem.

Now lets tell the cattle that you only need a good midrange and just operate
your tweeter at 4khz because any tweeter can do 4khz easy.

Sounds like a cool plan :blush:


----------



## tard (Jul 13, 2006)

drake78 said:


> ....I think that factors and variables play much a higher role than actual test measurements of drivers. If I was building a car audio system. I would'nt mind using speakers that's sounds kick ass in the car.....



exactly! specs and measurements have their place and all, but my analogy of paper evals is just like someone placing their bets on someone in the UFC because that person has a "black belt" and the other is just a "pit fighter". in the real world, it's what walks the walk and F all the talk.


i have a set of the L8's on the way. when i get time, i will be doing subjective listening tests of them vs dyn MW 170's. 

it's like food. first your eyes tempt you. then you go try it. but when it comes down to it, doesn't matter how good it looks if it tastes like crap. or how bad it looks if it's the best thing you've ever tasted.


----------



## drake78 (May 27, 2007)

tard said:


> exactly! specs and measurements have their place and all, but my analogy of paper evals is just like someone placing their bets on someone in the UFC because that person has a "black belt" and the other is just a "pit fighter". in the real world, it's what walks the walk and F all the talk.
> 
> 
> i have a set of the L8's on the way. when i get time, i will be doing subjective listening tests of them vs dyn MW 170's.
> ...



I personally never heard HAT speakers yet. Since they have great success in the car environment. I have a hunch they where specifically designed/engineered to deal with these harsh conditions.


----------



## npdang (Jul 29, 2005)

You guys have it all wrong. It's not about specs versus personal experience. Never is, and never was.

What it is about is having a controlled comparison between speakers, so that we're comparing (as much as possible) the SPEAKER ONLY, and not the room, setup, and tuning.


----------



## tard (Jul 13, 2006)

drake78 said:


> I personally never heard HAT speakers yet. Since they have great success in the car environment. I have a hunch they where specifically designed/engineered to deal with these harsh conditions.


in talking with scott, exactly so. 

my initial curiosity is with the L8's, said to have been engineered to plug and play, drop right into doors or kicks, and work great. without having to jump through hoops trying to produce and environment that will appease them.


----------



## drake78 (May 27, 2007)

"Different strokes for different folks". At the end of the day it's still about personal preferences and beliefs.


----------



## npdang (Jul 29, 2005)

With the exception of hlcd's, I honestly haven't seen any speaker that could claim to account for the car listening environment. They're all point source drivers with roughly the same dispersion pattern. Let's not get carried away.


----------



## backwoods (Feb 22, 2006)

As far as the orions, the one aspect I really didn't care for was the tweeter playing so low, it sounded unnatural especially with strong female vocals.

I'm yet to use a tweet that sounded right below 3k and I've used a few.


----------



## tard (Jul 13, 2006)

npdang said:


> You guys have it all wrong. It's not about specs versus personal experience. Never is, and never was.
> 
> What it is about is having a controlled comparison between speakers, so that we're comparing (as much as possible) the SPEAKER ONLY, and not the room, setup, and tuning.




i can agree with that. but comparing speaker vs speaker in a dynamic application with music. what it is supposed to be reproducing, as real as possible. 

i have no probs about peoples different subjective tastes, either.

but does the sax sound like your standing in front of the player and can about feel the wind out of the horn blowing in your face it's so real? those are the types of comparisons that matter to me.

add-

but application info is also usefull. like driver A sucks in a door but works awesome in sealed kick, where as driver B kicks butt IB but sucks once it's in a small sealed space.


----------



## drake78 (May 27, 2007)

I don't think it's about converting the non-believers. Better yet, to just do your best to let others know where you are coming from. Leave the final decision up to other person. I know I am getting off topic now.


----------



## npdang (Jul 29, 2005)

backwoods said:


> As far as the orions, the one aspect I really didn't care for was the tweeter playing so low, it sounded unnatural especially with strong female vocals.
> 
> I'm yet to use a tweet that sounded right below 3k and I've used a few.


It's possible that there might be another explanation? I've never experienced it myself. In the home I prefer a 3-way setup, but if I were forced to use a 2-way I would hesitate to use a 7" driver at 3khz.


----------



## drake78 (May 27, 2007)

npdang said:


> You guys have it all wrong. It's not about specs versus personal experience. Never is, and never was.
> 
> What it is about is having a controlled comparison between speakers, so that we're comparing (as much as possible) the SPEAKER ONLY, and not the room, setup, and tuning.



Simple, this is how I see it. You guys both have your advantages in your own specified arenas. Scott is more car audio focused and your more home audio focused.


----------



## AzGrower (May 30, 2005)

89grand said:


> I was a lot younger then and have since learned a lot more.


I dont know if agree seeing as how you drive a Dodge


----------



## npdang (Jul 29, 2005)

tard said:


> i can agree with that. but comparing speaker vs speaker in a dynamic application with music. what it is supposed to be reproducing, as real as possible.
> 
> i have no probs about peoples different subjective tastes, either.
> 
> ...


Yep me either. Personal preference. As I've said before, there are usually 2 schools of thought on this. Those that want a one to one reproduction accuracy, true to the recording, and those that want things to sound however they want it to sound.

If you want to create an accurate reproduction chain (1:1), you have to use measurements to achieve this, as there's no other way to "reference" the original recording without listening to it first, which entails that you already have the perfect reproduction.


----------



## npdang (Jul 29, 2005)

drake78 said:


> Simple, this is how I see it. You guys both have your advantages in your own specified arenas. Scott is more car audio focused and your more home audio focused.


I'm not certain how you are drawing many of your conclusions. I rarely, if ever post on any home audio forums nor do I spend the bulk of my time on any home audio projects


----------



## AzGrower (May 30, 2005)

npdang said:


> as there's no other way to "reference" the original recording without listening to it first, which entails that you already have the perfect reproduction.


ah...the good ole' "chicken and the egg"


----------



## drake78 (May 27, 2007)

npdang said:


> I'm not certain how you are drawing many of your conclusions. I rarely, if ever post on any home audio forums nor do I spend the bulk of my time on any home audio projects


IIRC, you like home audio better than car audio. You don't favor the in car sound. Wich is where I came up with this conclusion. I would think Scott spends more focus on car audio.


----------



## npdang (Jul 29, 2005)

I do enjoy the sound of a large, spacious, well treated listening room over that of a car, yes. But I spend almost 99% of my audio time on car audio trying to achieve the home audio sound in a car


----------



## drake78 (May 27, 2007)

npdang said:


> I do enjoy the sound of a large, spacious, well treated listening room over that of a car, yes. But I spend almost 99% of my audio time on car audio trying to achieve the home audio sound in a car


I think conventional thinking was wrong in this case.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

If I remember correctly it is better to cross around 2-2.5khz, at least that's the advice I got from the master minds when I was playing with my setup. The ear has a harder time noticing a shift around those frequencies. 

My personal preference is to cross high as well. This has a lot to do with the output level I demand, and that I hate distortion of all kinds.

The only adaptations to car audio that I have seen in car drivers are a change from 8 to 4 ohm coils, and a higher QTS. I personally prefer 8 ohm coils for abundant, reliable power while bridged. The QTS does wonders however, and I think that is primary reason people love Hybrid and ID.


----------



## Neil (Dec 9, 2005)

Blanket statements like "tweeters shouldn't be crossed below XXX Hz" are completely pointless and of no validity in a vehicle. Even moreso than in the house, performance of a speaker is application specific.

When you're doing a 2 way system, you're pretty limited in what your options are. And, thus, a tweeter crossed in the 2-3 kHz range is completely normal and...dare I say, preferable depending on the location and use of all drivers. It is a matter of what options are available to you and most suitable...not a matter of following some non-specific blanket rules.

As far as Hybrid speakers are concerned, when I understand what is quantifiably different about them than many others below their price point, I will consider purchasing them. Maybe I'll find them more pleasing to listen to than others (although I encourage anyone to point out what the potential causes for this would be), but that's not necessarily what I'm focused on.


----------



## Abmolech (Nov 2, 2006)

I am sure there is a reason why people try to cross their tweeters over at a low frequency.

Have a look at the large signal analysis of a "typical" mid range. Inter modulation, off axis response, and the surround closed termination breakup nodes are all very good reasons.

I see no reason the hybrid drivers should not provide adequate service, but there is little empirical evidence to persuade me that more advanced designs would not exceed them.

SQ competitions have little relevance to sound reproduction in a moving vehicle.


----------



## Oliver (Jun 25, 2007)

Abmolech said:


> SQ competitions have little relevance to sound reproduction in a moving vehicle.


You said a mouthful


----------



## jj_diamond (Oct 3, 2007)

Abmolech said:


> I am sure there is a reason why people try to cross their tweeters over at a low frequency.
> 
> Have a look at the large signal analysis of a "typical" mid range. Inter modulation, off axis response, and the surround closed termination breakup nodes are all very good reasons.
> 
> ...


a bit OT here, but kinda like this comercial that cracks me up....


----------



## Hillbilly SQ (Jan 26, 2007)

after skimming through all the replies, you just can't argue with what works. there's more than one way to skin a cat and i've never thought a tweeter sounded right crossed into the female vocal area. i hate siblance and i hate a floating soundstage. would rather it stay put by my knees vs the alternative but somehow with tweets crossed at 4khz 12db slope my stage is at chest level with tweets in stock gm fullsize location. going back to a true 6.5" mid has also helped a bunch. you can let the cone do more work up top and it just sounds more natural in my honest opinion.

to bikinI, the L6 mids do look great but the price is just too high for the founder of "Team Cheap Bastard SQ"


----------



## jj_diamond (Oct 3, 2007)

bubba, i agree with you on the price factor. i just can't see myself spending that much on drivers when i like how my current drivers sound. seems redundant.  

i was looking into going the L6/L1 route but the specs and price don't sell me on it.


----------



## Hillbilly SQ (Jan 26, 2007)

jj_diamond said:


> bubba, i agree with you on the price factor. i just can't see myself spending that much on drivers when i like how my current drivers sound. seems redundant.
> 
> i was looking into going the L6/L1 route but the specs and price don't sell me on it.


i'd be afraid of blowing the tweeter since i'd cross it at 4khz 12db slope. it's only a .5" driver afterall. now if the mids can play uber high without beaming...but physics won't let them


----------



## Scott Buwalda (Apr 7, 2006)

This is a fantastic discussion; one that I am glad to be a part of. 

Before I continue, I have virtually no home audio experience. Studio, yes (I am a studio musician), and 22 years worth in the car audio environment, but not so much with home audio, other than purchasing a pair of satellites and connecting my 12” powered subwoofer to my 1990 Phillips 4X oversampling CD changer, and 1994 125 watts X 4 amplifier. But that’s OK, because this is “diymobileaudio.com.” So what I am about to say has virtually no application to home audio. I’ll explain why as I proceed.

NP Dang says:



> Well, in that case the guy has a 2 way setup with mids in stock locations in the doors, and a tweeter in the upper portion of his door. Imho, the proper thing to do is to cross as LOW as possible to avoid the nasty upper end response coming out of the door on his mids, and to raise the stage.


The first part of this pair of sentences may be right for the majority of 7" midbasses, but the last part is not, in my opinion. First, the part that you’re probably right about: most 7” midbass don’t do so well out to 4,000 Hz. The Hybrid Audio Technologies Legatia L6 does, as does a select few other midbass, but most do not. Why? Because of cone distortion, edge modes, and cone break-up. This is usually related to cone material, and whether or not the cone allows for a smooth low pass filter, or a jagged one which results in considerable cone break-up (no midbass is pleasant to listen to in its cone break-up mode). Exacerbating the situation is that the midbass is 60+ degrees off axis, and the beaming effect at high frequencies. But there’s a trade-of. The second part of the above sentence is wrong, IMHO, because of the following:



> Crossing the tweets at 4khz in that instance (which is more typical than running a 3-way setup or kicks) would probably not be the best thing as your stage will drop big time and the power response at 4khz would be god awful for a 7" driver in the door.


This I will unfortunately disagree with 100%. The brain cannot localize sounds in the vertical plane nearly as well as in the horizontal plane due to head shadowing and HRTF. So this is a non-argument. Why do most properly set-up kick panel cars, with speakers mounted at your ankles, stage at dashboard level? It’s because of head shadowing and precedence effect. Thank God our ears are at the sides of our heads, instead of top to bottom, because if they were top to bottom, stacked vertically, the vertical boundary would no longer be bound by head shadowing (but the horizontal boundary would). So this is not a good argument for crossing tweeters lower, and then placing them higher in the door or dashboard to raise stage height.

By putting tweeters high in the door, dash, or a-pillars and playing them into the midrange frequencies does do one thing though (besides the obvious phase shift at the crosspoint and phase distortion), it splits the vocal spectrum between four speakers, instead of two. With tweeters playing to 2,000 Hz, you will now split the imaging cues between four drivers…about ¾ of the tones will emanate from the midrange down in the door, and ¼ from the tweeter up high. In this instance, there will be no defined center image in the vehicle. Why? Because imaging cues are critical to 6,000 Hz or so, as defined by the size and shape of your head and torso…once again, the head shadowing phenomenon. No, what you will have is your male vocals coming from the center of the car (or wherever your center image happens to go, based upon time and amplitude considerations), and your female vocals will be to the far sides of the doors, dash, or a-pillar, wherever you have mounted the tweeters. This is because ITD helps to solidify the lower and middle midrange frequencies, up to around 2,000 where ITD is most notable. Assumng these frequencies are in phase, ITD will "fool" your brain into thinking they are dash height and are centered. But above 2,000 Hz, ITD is a non-issue, and IID and HRTF takes over, so time is not on your side with respect to tweeters mounted up high. Since IID and HRTF is dominant at your proposed crososver frequency of 2,000 Hz, you will have three or more center-images. This doesn’t include instruments as well. Guitars will be centered, bell trees, triangles, and high-hats will be on the doors. The fundamental tones of drums, particularly a snare drum, will be centered, and its ambience effect will be at the doors. 

I have tuned hundreds of car with tweeters mounted up high, and midbass or midrange down low. I can usually tell within 1/3 octave of where the tweeter’s crossover point is because if the tweeter crossover is improperly set, and is too low, I will hear three or more center images.

In summary, there’s a trade-off here. My belief is that you find a 7” midbass that can play to 4,000 Hz without cone break-up, and make this entire discussion a non-issue. But if you want to use a midbass that cannot play to 4,000 Hz, then the tweeter *must* be mounted right next to the midbass. No question about it. There’s not a computer program that tells me this, Klippel is of little use…it’s is pure, unadulterated experience tuning hundreds of cars, both for competition and daily listening. Back to NP Dan’g comments:



> I typically consider phase distortion the least important factor in system design, although I do find phase linear filters to be very useful.


I agree. I didn’t realize this was going to be a major factor in this discussion. But it is at least as important as other factors, such as phase response and absolute polarity. They are all inter-related in a very big way, and they are worth discussing.



> Take for example a home speaker with 4th order filters at 2khz, and compare the imaging to that of a 3-way setup with no crossover in the midrange and see which will image better... and then you kind of understand my point. So why sacrifice non-linear distortion performance and tonality in order to reduce crossover phase distortion?


I won’t argue with this…why? Because you’re no longer in a near-field environment, you are no longer at 60 or 75 degrees off axis (but rather 0 degrees on axis), beaming is no longer a consideration (because you’re on axis with the speakers), power compression with respect to tweeters playing low frequencies in a large room is MUCH different than it is in a car, and etc. I could write three pages how Dang’s point of view on home audio is right, because he is right, but only because of the room, the listening environment, the phase, the axis of listening, and etc. The above has no application in a car audio environment, if nothing more from the perspective that power compression of a tweeter in the far-field sense is not a concern, and you’re listening to the speakers at a theoretical 0 degrees of phase



> I'd also disagree about tweeters not being able to handle low xover points. There are many successful examples, such as Linkwitz's Orions utilizing Seas Milleniums ... and many measurements that support tweeters being able to handle xover points below 2khz. It's all about priorities.


Once again, not to be contrary, but you are describing a far-field system with lower power compression and lower air impedance in the home environment. And I never said that tweeters are not “able” to handle the low crossover point. They can in fact “handle it”, otherwise people would be blowing stuff up. But just because the tweeters can handle it doesn’t necessarily mean it sounds good in a car environment. Most subwoofers can play a 500 Hz tone, but that doesn’t mean that it sounds good at 500 Hz.



> A single driver playing 250hz-5khz is arguably going to have higher IMD, while a tweeter playing 2khz-5khz will typically have a faster time response and significantly wider power response.


In a car? I doubt it. IMD for a midrange at 4,000 Hz is a non-issue. It is an issue at 2,000 Hz with a tweeter though, especially onhe placed up high in the car with no acoustic damping, because of lack of suspension to provide restorative force, and the lack of damping at those frequencies to reduce IMD. In the Linkwitz information you presented, generation of intermodulation products & harmonics is in the list, as is phase response and absolute polarity.

And in your argument, you mention impulse response. Unfortunately, impulse response works in my favor, not yours. By having all of the vocal information being emitted from one device, the midrange, the impulse response is unity. The moment you cross the tweeters into the vocal spectrum, the impulse response of the tweeter no longer has the vocal information in unity; the tweeter will emit those tones to your ears 2-5 ms before the midrange does, even further exacerbating the situation. No to mention the phenomenon know as zero delay plane, which will undoubtedly occur with the tweeter being mounted so much closer to you. So not only is there going to be a phase shift at the low crossover point, you’re going to have phase distortion, a misalignment of the zero delay plane, tweeter power compression, tweeter intermodulation distortion, and a split sound stage with three or more center images.



> A smaller midrange in the car can allow for much better positioning, ease of use, etc. that are critical don't get me wrong, but to say that no tweeter should be crossed below 4khz or that it can't be done successfully I feel is a bit strong.


Perhaps a bit strong. I am not usually one for blanket statements. Ok, I will revise: “95% of the time, the tweeter should not be crossed over lower than 4,000 Hz in a car environment. When it is crossed over lower than 4,000 Hz, the tweeter must be located within a distance of 1/4 wavelength at the crossover point from the midrange, and even still this is not an ideal situation considering phase shift at the low crossover point, phase distortion, tweeter power compression and air impedance shift, poor modal response, poor polar response, tweeter intermodulation distortion, and making the tweeter considerably more susceptible to mechnical deformation.”

Thylantyr wrote:



> I guess we don't need to buy these


I will be the first to admit that the L1 Pro is a product of the industry and “how things are done” currently. People expect nowadays to cross their tweeters over at 1,800 Hz. For every person that knows how to set up a tweeter system, there are ten that don’t, so a larger format tweeter with a lower Fs and higher power handling is nothing more than producing a product that is wanted and needed. It fills a void in my product line. Fortunately, the larger dome tweeter does afford more flexibility for tuning, and it has the same tonal character as the L1. But that doesn’t mean I’ll be crossing them over at 2,000 Hz in a car environment…at least not unless the midbass is *right* next to it and there was at least some bit of on-axis approach to mounting.



> Scott has a point though. The market lacks quality tweeters in a small package for car audio to allow uber results crossed over low. If you move into home audio, the doors are wider open and you can take your tweeter under 2khz now with no problems.


This guy gets it, for the reasons described above.

Backwoods wrote:



> I'm yet to use a tweet that sounded right below 3k and I've used a few.


Me too.

Drake78 wrote:



> I don't think it's about converting the non-believers. Better yet, to just do your best to let others know where you are coming from. Leave the final decision up to other person. I know I am getting off topic now.


I couldn’t agree more. I wrote one and a half pages above on the serious negative effects of crossing a tweeter over too low in a car, but at the end of the day, the decision is based upon your own two ears, listening in a car. Not on a sound board, not in a living room, not on the computer screen evaluating parameters and test data, but in the car with the sensitive testing instruments and database of sounds known as your ears and your brain.

Cvjoint wrote:



> If I remember correctly it is better to cross around 2-2.5khz, at least that's the advice I got from the master minds when I was playing with my setup. The ear has a harder time noticing a shift around those frequencies.


The first part of your statement is your own personal philosophy, and seeking advice of those that you trust. But sadly, the second part is dead wrong. Since the vocal spectrum between 2,000 and 6,000 Hz is dominated by IID, HRTF, and precedence effect, the ear readily hears these differences, phase shift, IMD, and etc. Even if the ears couldn’t evaluate these things, you’d still hear multiple center images if the tweeters were separated from the midranges at those frequencies. 

O.K. guys, I have used up my bulletin board surfing quota for the day. I’ll try and check back to see what everyone is saying. But before I leave, I’d like to underscore one thing. I am not always right, and I learn something each day. But I am pretty adamant about this subject, because I have tested my theorems in hundreds of cars (yes, physically sitting in cars, tuning, in the near-field environment). Everything I have said above has no application to home audio, for the reasons discussed. As for the remainder of the arguments, I am all ears. But I would like to suggest something. I have a team of guys combing the country hitting shows. If you want to hear first-hand what I am talking about, we can do a bench-scale experiment with high crossover points and low crossover points, in a car. The way to learn is to hear for yourself. I would be honored to be given the chance to do a “before and after” evaluation with whomever might be interested, to show the real-world effects of a high tweeter cross-point and a low one. I have 20 cars at my disposal, all around the country. We can sit, listen, and evaluate without conjecture, philosophizing, or theorizing. You let your ears decide. 

Oh, and before I forget, none of the above was meant to bolster Hybrid Audio Technologies products or attributes. There are a few brands out there that make good mids for use in wide-bandwidth. No, I wrote the above because I find this to be one of maybe four of five main issues with car audio today. Many people don't seem to really grasp zero delay plane, tweeter power compression and IMD, vocal cues as they interelate with IID and HRTF and split sound-stages, tweeter verses midbass impulse response, application of on-axis far field information to car audio, and etc. It has been the subject of literally hundreds of hours of research for me. How many of you sit for hours at a time just listening to tweeters in a car, playing with crossovers and evaluating? Yep, that’s me, I’m a car audio dork, and of all the things I have researched, I have researched this subject the most.

Scott


----------



## Fixtion (Aug 25, 2006)

*^*

one day i'll read that post. heh.

can you edit that to be more concise?

i'm sure it's full of valid opinions and points.

*-fixtion*


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

Excellent post Scott, and deadl on IMO.


----------



## jj_diamond (Oct 3, 2007)

x2 

specially the part about the vocal spectrum with a 2way.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

I think I'm gonna have to break out the dictionary for acronyms.


----------



## BigRed (Aug 12, 2007)

Wow!! I did'nt look at this thread for a couple of days and it sure has grown. 

As Scott said, those in southern california that want to hear the legatia speakers, I will be available for that, just pm me. I think the ears are a much better tool than any controlled environment testing. Just my opinion.

Scott is right.....I'm not the best tuner for sure. I will set all my frequencies to flat, and have no gaps in crossover point, and I think most would be pleasantly surprised at how good the legatia set sounds. YES, I have optimized speaker locations etc....no need to get into a big debate about that. I find it funny that when a speaker sounds good its because of good tuning, and when it sounds bad, its the horrible speaker characteristics that are supported by a controlled environment testing. In my logic, choose a side, but it can't be both.


So I do open myself up to anybody that wants to listen, Drake, NPdang, etc...

I just ask that you bring your ears, and not your laptops


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

Scott Buwalda said:


> The first part of your statement is your own personal philosophy, and seeking advice of those that you trust. But sadly, the second part is dead wrong. Since the vocal spectrum between 2,000 and 6,000 Hz is dominated by IID, HRTF, and precedence effect, the ear readily hears these differences, phase shift, IMD, and etc. Even if the ears couldn’t evaluate these things, you’d still hear multiple center images if the tweeters were separated from the midranges at those frequencies.
> 
> 
> Scott


Well this is part of the discussion on one of my threads from Abmolech:

"Next confusion frequency is 1.5 to 3 kHz bandwidth.
This is where our auditory system has difficulty swapping from time to intensity for location. Crossovers are often in this range, however they can be unforgiving. Still they are better than the dreaded surround step frequency. (About 2 kHz for a number of mid range drivers)"

I would also like to see an example of mounting a tweeter close to a mid distance calculation. For example, I have my "tweeter" about 3 inches away from my mid with a xover frequency of 1000hz 24db slope. Is that close enough? How do you calculate a quarter of wavelength?


----------



## Scott Buwalda (Apr 7, 2006)

cvjoint said:


> I would also like to see an example of mounting a tweeter close to a mid distance calculation. For example, I have my "tweeter" about 3 inches away from my mid with a xover frequency of 1000hz 24db slope. Is that close enough? How do you calculate a quarter of wavelength?


344 divided by frequency. So 344 divided by 1000 = about 0.334 m, or 33.4 cm. 1/4 wavelength at 1000 Hz = about 8.35 cm, or 83.5 mm. Looks like you're OK in the theoretical sense.

Just out of curisity, a tweeter being crossed at 1,000 Hz? What is the tweeter's Fs? 300 Hz?

Scott


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

That is basic physics.

Speed of sound/frequency gives you wavelengths.

Speed of sound is 1127 feet per second.




cvjoint said:


> How do you calculate a quarter of wavelength?


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

It was laziness on my part. But hey even Scott got it wrong the first time around  

8.35cm > 3 inches! I designed my kick damn good!

The "tweeter" I use is the Neo 8 PDR FS is around 350hz for the PDR version, or 200hz for the standard. It's more like a midrange planar design


----------



## Scott Buwalda (Apr 7, 2006)

cvjoint said:


> It was laziness on my part. But hey even Scott got it wrong the first time around


Yeah, I had to go back because it didn't sound right, and of coure, it wasn't. That's what I get trying to eat shrimp with lobster sauce while doing math. The two don't jive.  

Scott


----------



## thylantyr (Jan 21, 2008)

Fixtion said:


> *^*
> 
> one day i'll read that post. heh.
> 
> ...


My summary:  
Because the common vehicle makes it difficult to design
a really good sound system and the car audio market hasn't 
really offered uber tweeters to help design better
sound systems, plus car audio is behind in offering 
better signal processing, people need to use these obscure
methods just to get some decent sound in their vehicle,
methods that never would be used in home audio because
the restriction are far less. If you want to get into serious
sound, move from car to home audio and the world and
the doors just open up for you. Car audio is cool and I spent 
about 10 years doing it, but it's just too restrictive
to do the crazier installs that are much easier to do in home audio. 
Looking back, I probably shouldn't have spent so much time with 
car audio. It's fun, but there is better.


----------



## npdang (Jul 29, 2005)

Scott Buwalda said:


> This I will unfortunately disagree with 100%. The brain cannot localize sounds in the vertical plane nearly as well as in the horizontal plane due to head shadowing and HRTF. So this is a non-argument. Why do most properly set-up kick panel cars, with speakers mounted at your ankles, stage at dashboard level? It’s because of head shadowing and precedence effect. Thank God our ears are at the sides of our heads, instead of top to bottom, because if they were top to bottom, stacked vertically, the vertical boundary would no longer be bound by head shadowing (but the horizontal boundary would). So this is not a good argument for crossing tweeters lower, and then placing them higher in the door or dashboard to raise stage height.


I think you misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm not talking about vertical imaging cues. I'm talking about tonally, ratios of direct to reflected sound, and of diffraction and obstruction. 

Kickpanels are also of a completely different nature than door mounted speakers. They tend to be more localized on axis, aimed upward toward the listening position, and comparatively unobstructed. 

It's been my experience that crossing the tweeter lower in those instances always raises the staging and ambience, whereas crossing the mid/bass higher improves imaging focus.



Scott Buwalda said:


> By putting tweeters high in the door, dash, or a-pillars and playing them into the midrange frequencies does do one thing though (besides the obvious phase shift at the crosspoint and phase distortion), it splits the vocal spectrum between four speakers, instead of two. With tweeters playing to 2,000 Hz, you will now split the imaging cues between four drivers…about ¾ of the tones will emanate from the midrange down in the door, and ¼ from the tweeter up high. In this instance, there will be no defined center image in the vehicle. Why? Because imaging cues are critical to 6,000 Hz or so, as defined by the size and shape of your head and torso…once again, the head shadowing phenomenon. No, what you will have is your male vocals coming from the center of the car (or wherever your center image happens to go, based upon time and amplitude considerations), and your female vocals will be to the far sides of the doors, dash, or a-pillar, wherever you have mounted the tweeters. This is because ITD helps to solidify the lower and middle midrange frequencies, up to around 2,000 where ITD is most notable. Assumng these frequencies are in phase, ITD will "fool" your brain into thinking they are dash height and are centered. But above 2,000 Hz, ITD is a non-issue, and IID and HRTF takes over, so time is not on your side with respect to tweeters mounted up high. Since IID and HRTF is dominant at your proposed crososver frequency of 2,000 Hz, you will have three or more center-images. This doesn’t include instruments as well. Guitars will be centered, bell trees, triangles, and high-hats will be on the doors. The fundamental tones of drums, particularly a snare drum, will be centered, and its ambience effect will be at the doors.


No argument here. Again, my concerns are tonal in nature and not related to imaging. However, I think the detrimental effects are exaggerated a bit. My roommate at the time scored almost perfect imaging in IASCA using stock door locations in the same configuration (tweeters up high on the door, midbass low in the door, xover at 2khz). Many others I know would have what I would call acceptable results using the same arrangement.



Scott Buwalda said:


> I have tuned hundreds of car with tweeters mounted up high, and midbass or midrange down low. I can usually tell within 1/3 octave of where the tweeter’s crossover point is because if the tweeter crossover is improperly set, and is too low, I will hear three or more center images.
> 
> In summary, there’s a trade-off here. My belief is that you find a 7” midbass that can play to 4,000 Hz without cone break-up, and make this entire discussion a non-issue. But if you want to use a midbass that cannot play to 4,000 Hz, then the tweeter *must* be mounted right next to the midbass. No question about it. There’s not a computer program that tells me this, Klippel is of little use…it’s is pure, unadulterated experience tuning hundreds of cars, both for competition and daily listening. Back to NP Dan’g comments:


I would have to disagree, as I have quite a bit of experience with utilizing stock locations. Even without cone break-up, you have bad diffraction and obstruction in your typical door that causes significant issues in the upper end response of any driver. I don't understand the reference to Klippel, which is only concerned with measuring driver linearity... why should it be expected to model room and baffle effects? 



Scott Buwalda said:


> I won’t argue with this…why? Because you’re no longer in a near-field environment, you are no longer at 60 or 75 degrees off axis (but rather 0 degrees on axis), beaming is no longer a consideration (because you’re on axis with the speakers), power compression with respect to tweeters playing low frequencies in a large room is MUCH different than it is in a car, and etc. I could write three pages how Dang’s point of view on home audio is right, because he is right, but only because of the room, the listening environment, the phase, the axis of listening, and etc. The above has no application in a car audio environment, if nothing more from the perspective that power compression of a tweeter in the far-field sense is not a concern, and you’re listening to the speakers at a theoretical 0 degrees of phase


You're actually not in the nearfield. You're in the farfield. If you were in the nearfield the driver's response would swamp out any room or baffle effects, which it clearly doesn't.

I still think power response is a critical issue tonally, as it has a direct impact on direct to reflected sound ratios regardless of whether the driver is mounted on-axis, or off, or the room is small, or large.

My point was just to illustrate that crossover phase distortion doesn't affect imaging to any significant degree in the car, when compared to the effect of the listening environment.

Another example would be a significant rise at 800hz. Would you rather listen to that peak, or would you rather equalize it out and suffer from a bit of phase distortion? I think most people would say that it sounds alot better equalized.



Scott Buwalda said:


> Once again, not to be contrary, but you are describing a far-field system with lower power compression and lower air impedance in the home environment. And I never said that tweeters are not “able” to handle the low crossover point. They can in fact “handle it”, otherwise people would be blowing stuff up. But just because the tweeters can handle it doesn’t necessarily mean it sounds good in a car environment. Most subwoofers can play a 500 Hz tone, but that doesn’t mean that it sounds good at 500 Hz.


Let me be more clear then. Not only can they handle it, they can usually do it better in terms of non-linear distortion, power response, and stored energy. It's well known that once the 1/4 wavelength approaches the diameter of the driver, it begins to beam. Not to mention drivers without cone breakup are simply smearing that energy in the cone and surround over a wider frequency range, rather than concentrated at one point. There's no free lunch.



Scott Buwalda said:


> And in your argument, you mention impulse response. Unfortunately, impulse response works in my favor, not yours. By having all of the vocal information being emitted from one device, the midrange, the impulse response is unity. The moment you cross the tweeters into the vocal spectrum, the impulse response of the tweeter no longer has the vocal information in unity; the tweeter will emit those tones to your ears 2-5 ms before the midrange does, even further exacerbating the situation. No to mention the phenomenon know as zero delay plane, which will undoubtedly occur with the tweeter being mounted so much closer to you. So not only is there going to be a phase shift at the low crossover point, you’re going to have phase distortion, a misalignment of the zero delay plane, tweeter power compression, tweeter intermodulation distortion, and a split sound stage with three or more center images.


That's one aspect of it, I agree. Is it audible? Not to my ears. Like I said, I can't hear the delay or crossover distortion. I can however, most easily hear diffraction, excessive energy storage, high non-linear distortion, and beaming. My point is just that you're looking at compromises no matter what you do. A smaller 3" driver will usually suffer from comparatively poor efficiency, compression, and higher non-linear distortion. A large driver will have issues with energy storage, beaming, and mounting. You just have to pick and choose what works best for you.

Let me be clear that I'm not questioning your experience in these matters. You seem very knowledgeable with respect to imaging and staging, but I get the impression that maybe you don't have an appreciation for all the trade-offs involved in different approaches to system design.


----------



## npdang (Jul 29, 2005)

cvjoint said:


> Well this is part of the discussion on one of my threads from Abmolech:
> 
> "Next confusion frequency is 1.5 to 3 kHz bandwidth.
> This is where our auditory system has difficulty swapping from time to intensity for location. Crossovers are often in this range, however they can be unforgiving. Still they are better than the dreaded surround step frequency. (About 2 kHz for a number of mid range drivers)"
> ...


Use a stiff cone driver, and you will see the surround edge resonance (as Seas terms it) is gone.


----------



## drake78 (May 27, 2007)

BigRed said:


> those in southern california that want to hear the legatia speakers, I will be available for that, just pm me. QUOTE]
> 
> Thank you for your generousity.


----------



## Abmolech (Nov 2, 2006)

I am going to have to question this "only" amplitude based location at 2000 Hz.
As I was quoted, there is the "zone of confusion" in the 1.5 to 3 KHz region where the brain switches from time based to amplitude based locational cues. It often is a very good choice for a crossover region because of these factors.

I suggest your experience in a car has far more to do with reflections rather than direct sound. 

The vector position at 4 KHz plus is a large factor in locational discernment. Directly in front (reflections aside) we have a great deal of difficultly discovering it location, and perpendicular to this (shoulder) we have extreme accuracy.

Point
Vector placement is the dominant imaging cue for stereophonic reproduction. Nearfield, and far field listening is ambiance based staging.

To preclude a discussion on better crossover frequency set points without vector based information in a car, is close to worthless.

I suggest if you used a much better vector based reproduction method (single monophonic centre), then we would not be having a discussion on the merits of a 4 KHz crossover region for a tweeter.

The fact that the vast majority of people choice around 2 KHz crossover region in a car, until they are "educated" into crossing over in the 4 KHz region should give us pause for thought. IE most people who "trust their ears" instinctively choose 2 KHz, because they hear the distortion.


----------



## Abmolech (Nov 2, 2006)

> Use a stiff cone driver, and you will see the surround edge resonance (as Seas terms it) is gone.


I wish.
They have simply moved it to another frequency, or if the cone material is "naturally dampened", then is spread across a broader frequency bandwidth, with the resultant loss in accuracy.

The surround has its own resonant frequency, and when this is excited it forms a closed termination frequency response, known as surround step response. This is often around 2 .5 - 3 .5 KHz region in most mid ranges. I suggest it is the primary cause for people choosing a low crossover region.
It may not be highly audible at low SPL, but in a moving vehicle it becomes a predominant feature.


----------



## speakerboy (Oct 2, 2007)

While a lot of this stuff is embarrassingly over my head, I still enjoy reading it, as I'm at least hoping to learn by osmosis. Thank you all for keeping this discussion civilized.


----------



## Scott Buwalda (Apr 7, 2006)

npdang said:


> Kickpanels are also of a completely different nature than door mounted speakers. They tend to be more localized on axis, aimed upward toward the listening position, and comparatively unobstructed.


Not true in nearly any case. Kick panels, because of their location, will be obstructed the majority of the time. Plus, placing kick panels "on axis" greatly increases near-side bias and does not allow one to "take advantage" of the beaming of the speakers (beaming can actually be a good thing in a car if used properly). What does come to mind is the importance of zero delay plane though. You didn't mention that at all in your response. Your zero delay plane is way off. How do you account for it? How about impulse response?



> No argument here. Again, my concerns are tonal in nature and not related to imaging. However, I think the detrimental effects are exaggerated a bit. My roommate at the time scored almost perfect imaging in IASCA using stock door locations in the same configuration (tweeters up high on the door, midbass low in the door, xover at 2khz). Many others I know would have what I would call acceptable results using the same arrangement.


Actually, in my original post, I referenced tonal concerns as well, such as the effect of power compression, leading to IMD, on a small-diameter diaphragm which has virtually no restorative ability. Plus, imaging, staging, and tonality are all interelated.



> I would have to disagree, as I have quite a bit of experience with utilizing stock locations. Even without cone break-up, you have bad diffraction and obstruction in your typical door that causes significant issues in the upper end response of any driver.


Difraction from what? Maybe the inner door skin and/or OEM grilles, if the speaker is recessed, but what else? You are grasping at straws. There's as much, if not more difraction in a kick panel set-up in the majority of cars I have worked with than there are with doors.



> You're actually not in the nearfield. You're in the farfield. If you were in the nearfield the driver's response would swamp out any room or baffle effects, which it clearly doesn't.


I think you just agreed with me?????



> I still think power response is a critical issue tonally, as it has a direct impact on direct to reflected sound ratios regardless of whether the driver is mounted on-axis, or off, or the room is small, or large.


You just proved my post. Which diaphragm type suffers the least from power compression and IMD at 2,000 Hz, the one with restorative force (spider and surround), or the one that doesn't?



> Another example would be a significant rise at 800hz. Would you rather listen to that peak, or would you rather equalize it out and suffer from a bit of phase distortion? I think most people would say that it sounds alot better equalized.


If there's a significant rise at 800 Hz, you're saying you'd correct this likely mechanical issue with electronics? That's half your problem then, and a bad mindset to be in. If there's a significant rise at 800 Hz, then fix the install, or find better speakers; both are mechanical phenomenon. The last thing you should consider doing is using broad-scale equalization to fix it.



> Let me be clear that I'm not questioning your experience in these matters. You seem very knowledgeable with respect to imaging and staging, but I get the impression that maybe you don't have an appreciation for all the trade-offs involved in different approaches to system design.


Since there's no smiley, I have to assume you're serious??????

There's exceptions and trade-offs in every great system---how do you think that we won seventeen championships in seven different countries last year? And please don't say that competing is not a viable instrument for evaluation of car audio systems. All systems have the same level of mechanical and electrical "prowess" and all of my competing manufacturers approach it with the same intensity and ferver that Hybrid Audio Technologies does. If the intent was to mock competing, mock all manufcaturers that are involved with it (and the list is long). 

Insulting me at the end of your great discussion just blew your credibility away for me. I could easily say that you don't have nearly enough field competence to even be having this discussion with me, but I give you the benefit of the doubt.

The reality is that you can't admit you might be wrong. You'd probably argue with me that the sun was yellow (or is it orange?) LOL

It's the weekend in an hour and 20 minutes. I will be doing something other than typing on a keyboard.

Scott


----------



## thylantyr (Jan 21, 2008)

Displaying your SQ trophies might not help your case. Many people don't beleive that an SQ contest can exist,
it's really just grass created by marketeers to feed the cattle so when the slaugher comes, they make money  















Yummy


----------



## durwood (Mar 7, 2007)

Now if only people would listen to mono, then we would know what the true tonality sounds like, and a speakers true colors will shine through good or bad.

Too bad a car ruins everything in regards to staging and imaging because the vector requirements are all jacked up. Therefore, I use cheaper speakers, because dealing with the space has now become my # priority, not spending uber dollars on equipment.

Dealing with Space > $$$ speakers.


----------



## speakerboy (Oct 2, 2007)

Yes!! I jinxed the thread and killed it!


----------



## t3sn4f2 (Jan 3, 2007)

thylantyr said:


> Yummy


 See now that's some nasty $hit right there. Cook your meat to medium you baby teeth girly men 

Just had to lighten things up really quick


----------



## npdang (Jul 29, 2005)

Scott Buwalda said:


> Actually, in my original post, I referenced tonal concerns as well, such as the effect of power compression, leading to IMD, on a small-diameter diaphragm which has virtually no restorative ability. Plus, imaging, staging, and tonality are all interelated.


I don't understand what you're saying. It doesn't seem to be in answer to my comments. We're not on the same page.



Scott Buwalda said:


> Difraction from what? Maybe the inner door skin and/or OEM grilles, if the speaker is recessed, but what else? You are grasping at straws. There's as much, if not more difraction in a kick panel set-up in the majority of cars I have worked with than there are with doors.


Not going to argue this one. If you can't see that there's a huge difference in the upper end response between a kickpanel and a door installed mid, then there's nothing for us to agree on.



Scott Buwalda said:


> I think you just agreed with me?????


I didn't. A car is not nearfield listening. It's listening in a small, horrid room. 



Scott Buwalda said:


> You just proved my post. Which diaphragm type suffers the least from power compression and IMD at 2,000 Hz, the one with restorative force (spider and surround), or the one that doesn't?


Again, not on the same page, but to answer your question a tweeter with a sensitivity of 92dbwm or greater, compared to a 3" driver in the low 80's... hmm tweeter sees maybe 10 watts compared to a 3" driver with nearly 100 watt to reach the same output... which is going to have lower compression? 

IMD? Not going to go there, as I already know you don't place any value in measurements.



Scott Buwalda said:


> If there's a significant rise at 800 Hz, you're saying you'd correct this likely mechanical issue with electronics? That's half your problem then, and a bad mindset to be in. If there's a significant rise at 800 Hz, then fix the install, or find better speakers; both are mechanical phenomenon. The last thing you should consider doing is using broad-scale equalization to fix it.


Dodging the question. Which is more important, phase distortion or flat response? In the car, there's not always a practical, or cost effective "mechanical" solution to a room or baffle effect. I'll re-iterate again, it's all about compromise.



Scott Buwalda said:


> Since there's no smiley, I have to assume you're serious??????
> 
> Insulting me at the end of your great discussion just blew your credibility away for me. I could easily say that you don't have nearly enough field competence to even be having this discussion with me, but I give you the benefit of the doubt.


I don't see any insult? I could've swore I just paid you a very high compliment. All I am saying is given your self admitted strong comments that there is only 1 way correct way to do something gives the "impression" that you are not considering the trade-offs involved in OTHER ways of doing things. 

It appears you make the assumption that because I don't compete, that I lack "field experience". Not much I can say about that line of reasoning, because I don't compete.



Scott Buwalda said:


> There's exceptions and trade-offs in every great system---how do you think that we won seventeen championships in seven different countries last year? And please don't say that competing is not a viable instrument for evaluation of car audio systems. All systems have the same level of mechanical and electrical "prowess" and all of my competing manufacturers approach it with the same intensity and ferver that Hybrid Audio Technologies does. If the intent was to mock competing, mock all manufcaturers that are involved with it (and the list is long).


You completely went off on a tangent I don't understand.



Scott Buwalda said:


> The reality is that you can't admit you might be wrong. You'd probably argue with me that the sun was yellow (or is it orange?) LOL


More than ready to admit when I'm wrong. The problem is we can never have a proper discussion because it seems we're never on the same page. And you seem to get very insulted when people question what you say, the same as it tickles me when I see people agreeing with you wholeheartedly when they admittedly don't even understand what you're saying. You will see that I always bring reasons why I don't agree with you, it's not like I do it just to be disagreeable, but because you said something that doesn't jive with what I know/experience.


----------



## Abmolech (Nov 2, 2006)

> Difraction from what? Maybe the inner door skin and/or OEM grilles, if the speaker is recessed, but what else? You are grasping at straws. There's as much, if not more difraction in a kick panel set-up in the majority of cars I have worked with than there are with doors.


Oh dear.
I think you are missing his obvious point, acoustic loading variance due to baffle step response.



> Originally Posted by Scott Buwalda
> If there's a significant rise at 800 Hz, you're saying you'd correct this likely mechanical issue with electronics? That's half your problem then, and a bad mindset to be in. If there's a significant rise at 800 Hz, then fix the install, or find better speakers; both are mechanical phenomenon. The last thing you should consider doing is using broad-scale equalization to fix it.


There are significant number of electrical baffle step correction circuits, and DSP programs available for home audio. It appears to be a useful compromise when baffle design constraints cannot be met.

Point
Electronic solutions have long and proven history of providing adequate redress to baffle step response.
I believe you should research waveguides and steradians.

I will continue to mock all "evaluations'" from SQ competitions, used for criteria outside of competing in SQ competitions.

Best comment yet. 



> durwood
> Now if only people would listen to mono, then we would know what the true tonality sounds like, and a speakers true colors will shine through good or bad.
> 
> Too bad a car ruins everything in regards to staging and imaging because the vector requirements are all jacked up. Therefore, I use cheaper speakers, because dealing with the space has now become my # priority, not spending uber dollars on equipment.
> ...




thylantyr..

Best way to get concentrated vegetables.


----------



## mmiller (Mar 7, 2008)

I love my Hybrid speakers, and would not use anything else!

For those that are interested, my truck will be finished in a couple of months I would be glad to demo it to anyone in that lives in Southern Ontario!


Just shoot me a PM!


----------



## doitor (Aug 16, 2007)

Anyone in the South of Texas, North of Mexico area just pm me for a listen.


----------



## Genxx (Mar 18, 2007)

Why does everyone get so upset when someone says SQ COMP or trophies?

The comp guys are trying achieve the same thing as most of the you. They are trying to get the best sound possible. 

So they spend more time on install, equipment choices ect. but is this not what gets preached by most on here, even npdang himself. So why because they have spent more time on all the right stuff is it a bad thing because they compete for the fun of it.

It would be fine if they did all the right things but did not compete. People would be giving a thumbs up or nice pat on the back.

A lot of the guys winning comps now are DIYer's. Doitor, Fooseman, Brooks, Matt R. ect. Hell even the White Dyn Van everyone ooohs at. A lot of the guys that are well known names started out as DIYer's, Gary Biggs, Chris Pate, Scott B. ect. they have just honed they skills and abilities over many years of trial and error. NOw they are professionals in the industry whether it be installs, tuning, Company owner ect.

Just because they do not use home audio labeled speakers in their cars does not make anyone not a DIYer. Does it???

On top of that these guys will open their vehicle for you to listen to, tell you all about their install ect. They have normal jobs just like 99% of the car audio crowd. They have just taken their hobby a little further.

My car will be finished in about a month and I will open to anyone that wants a listen in the GA or Southern Area. 

I don't mind having people listen to my car as many comp guys now day don't every time someone listens to it they may pick something out I can make better or improve on.

*To achieve what most people here are trying to achieve the best sound they can get for the money they have to spend.*

Some people can afford x speaker others can afford x speaker but we are working for the same thing. Last time I checked just because you have less or more money to spend does not decide if you are a DIYer or not.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

Werd.



Genxx said:


> Why does everyone get so upset when someone says SQ COMP or trophies?
> 
> The comp guys are trying achieve the same thing as most of the you. They are trying to get the best sound possible.
> 
> ...


----------



## mmiller (Mar 7, 2008)

thehatedguy said:


> Werd.



x3!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Hillbilly SQ (Jan 26, 2007)

all good points from skimming. i'll read in depth when i get home in the morn and give my input.


----------



## AudioBob (May 21, 2007)

This has been a pretty spirited debate thus far. I can see both sides and merits of the arguments. I have been involved with high-end car audio since the mid to late 80's and have designed and built several winning systems in IASCA competitions.

I can say that without a doubt, I just love to listen to a good quality system whether it is in the car or in the home. I am discerning about getting a particular sound and that is it. I know it when I hear it. All the measuring and tweaking with both proven scientific methods as well as seat of the pants listening are equally important for me. The tried and true use of an RTA or tone generator to get a system in the "ball park" and then tuning out the rest by ear and trial and error always seems to work for me. 

I do agree with Scott that the midrange reproduction is the key and is what separates a good system from a great system. Tweeters are the icing on the cake and they sure can ruin it if they are not in proportion with the rest of the system. Nearly every car that I ever really felt sounded fabulous had a well integrated 3" or 4" mid. A good mid will deliver just the right amount of punch to the music as well as create a stable and believable soundstage.

The second thing that I think is of upmost importance is getting the midbass to seamlessly transition with the subbass so that the image does not drag to the rear where most installations have their subwoofers located. I like to at least get a couple of eight inch woofers up front somewhere to deliver the impact of a kick drum.

Hybrid seems to be developing a very loyal following of discerning and fanatical car audio guys. I hope to hear some of his stuff in the near future because I admire his passion for car audio.


----------



## Dangerranger (Apr 12, 2006)

Scott Buwalda said:


> You just proved my post. Which diaphragm type suffers the least from power compression and IMD at 2,000 Hz, the one with restorative force (spider and surround), or the one that doesn't?


One could argue about the fact that you won finals with DLS domes, which have no restorative force aside from a surround, which many tweeters also have. While I haven't seen a full objective test on those specific domes, I've seen enough of Morel (who manufactured DLS domes until they outsourced to Asian manufacturing), Dynaudio, and many other soft dome midranges and all have had rather mediocre performance across the board with the ONLY exception being the ATC domes, which are in a league of their own being that they do have a full suspension as well as an underhung motor and dual copper rings, as well as a waveguide.

Or even that your tuning for that car, like any other vehicle you've competed with I'm sure, was completely different than what you would use on the road at 60mph. For example, in your Mobile Entertainment article you'd mentioned that you crossed your midbass around 40hz if I recall? Regardless, competitors essentially tailor their system for the reference material used for judging, which surely isn't the configuration that most use on a daily basis when required to listen at higher levels. You've just narrowed down to the small handful of competitors that are experienced enough to do it essentially by ear. The only way to eliminate that variable would be to make sure the reference material wasn't available to competitors and embrace a "run what you brung" type of method.

I'm not that patient to nit-pick 6 pages of posts on either side of the argument. What I'm basically saying is just how little a factor the individual driver performance can be in the horrid car environment, and that optimizing system design based upon what will work best in the specific application is far more critical. It also points out that skill and installation, and especially tuning experience account for the largest portion of what it takes to win competitions, because I'm sure there were competitors that didn't score as highly using drivers that were superior from an objective standpoint, yet they just didn't have the skill to optimize them.

I also personally don't feel any of the competition bodies truly offer a system that allows a person to optimize their system from a purist SQ standpoint. That's not dinging or taking credibility away from any competitors, I just feel that if they want a SQ competition, they need to focus solely on SQ reproduction and tailor their methods of evaluation around that, because it is entirely possible for a competitor with a truly superb SQ system to be dinged based upon factors irrelevant to accurate sound reproduction. SPL competitors can show up, have nests of wires all over the place and a box with glue hanging out of the seams, all thrown into a vehicle that looks like a pile of dogshit and walk away with a trophy. If you want to evaluate SQ and only SQ then it needs to be the exact same way, otherwise I really don't consider it to be a credible reference.


----------



## thylantyr (Jan 21, 2008)

Progress is being made slowly over time. In the early 80's the key to success
that determined which sound system sounded better to the cattle was the
system that had better bass. Who cares about midbass, midrange and 
tweeters.  

Fast forward. 

People still focus on woofers, some chatter about midbass now, and the 'high
end' folks are now focusing on the midrange drivers. Progress in the car audio
industry, it only took them over 20 years to move from woofer to midrange.
I wonder how long it takes to before tweeters get love?  

Supply and demand ?

1. People demanded uber woofers from day one. The industry responded,
the modern woofer is elite compare to 80's product.

2. Uber tweeters were never in demand, the industry will not respond, and
people in car audio are just cherry picking car audio tweeters from the junk
pile the industry is offering. If you scrounge well, maybe a few are decent,
but nothing uber. The best junk is perceived as 'high end' by default. If you
never tasted Filet Mignon, then you don't realize that rotten zebra is actually
bad tasting. You can use drivers used in home audio but those tweeters are
larger and place more burden on installation. Boo hoo.

Modern car audio tweeter analogy.


----------



## tard (Jul 13, 2006)

car audio tailoring to the masses that is.

just cause the majority wants 100kw to their subs and 100kw to a bunch of 10" metal dome tweeters, with no mids, and the treble and bass boosted 200%, doesn't mean there hasn't been the small niche market for those who care about sound.

for example, dyn has had the car md 330's out for years.

if you ask me, all speakers fit the analogy you have above. less than 2% efficient seems a lot more prehistoric than flea market junks lack of sound purity.



anyone think this thread might reach the zuki record? what if i was to cut a legatia in half and threaten to reveal pics of it's innerds?


----------



## npdang (Jul 29, 2005)

Genxx said:


> Why does everyone get so upset when someone says SQ COMP or trophies?


For the same reason I think anyone would be upset when someone can't answer a question, but wants to rub their credentials in your face?


----------



## Abmolech (Nov 2, 2006)

> Originally Posted by Genxx
> Why does everyone get so upset when someone says SQ COMP or trophies?


Because they have little relevance to a moving vehicle.

I am NOT knocking the hobby of SQ competitions, the same as I don't mock the SPL competitions. Just don't expect me to use either criteria for my moving vehicle.

Both hobbies require huge amounts of time and skill, but I am simply not overly interested in either of them.


----------



## AudioBob (May 21, 2007)

I agree that SQ competitions should not be the sole judge of does a system sound great or not. However, I have never heard a poor sounding vehicle win a competition. I have had the pleasure of sitting in some of the best sounding cars in the country at regional and national competitions. The competitions is what drove the industry to one-up each other and we all benefit from the innovations in car audio technology today.

Back in the early 90's I was using two equalizers in my car. One was set up purely for competition and the other was in my dash for daily listening adjustments. I could not listen to music on the road the way that it was set up for competition. It wasn't that it sounded bad, it just did not have the dynamics to overcome the issues associated with a moving car. I had an IASCA judge question me on the use of two eq's because he had never seen it before. I showed him real quick how it worked and he thought it was a great idea. 

In 1987 I had my amps sunk in my trunk under a plexiglass cover and Radio Shack fans pulling air across the heat sinks. The judges had never seen anything like it as well. I was even a guinea pig for the original dynamat and found that it worked great as everyone else was skeptical. Today, any enthusiast would never install stereo equipment in a car without a good dose of sound deadening material.

I can tell you a couple of things that have changed greatly: 500 watts to sub woofers used to be a ton of power, now it is looked at as "You are only running 500 watts to your sub???". Now most people are running oodles of power to midbass/midrange speakers. 

To say that competition is irrelevant is not accurate. Go to a regional competition and take a listen to the top placing cars.


----------



## Genxx (Mar 18, 2007)

See here we go again. People act as if the comp guys don't drive their cars around at 60mph. Most of the Comp cars no days even the really good ones are daily drivers. They don't build them and trailer them any more, the sport is to small for that now. There are still some out there that do.

I can tell you this. When I competed both the vehicles I used at different times would get loud as hell and sound damn good doing it. I only had to make 1 adjustment to go to a comp.

1. Turn the sub down

Npdang-Both sides here always through this or that credential around.

I have no credentials. I am no World Champion, no big name, speaker tester, speaker desginer, Custom installer. Just some guy at home buying, changing, installing and trying to learn all I can.

I think people really need to get passed its a comp car. GO sit in one then have them get out on the highway or drive around and see if it still sounds good.

I can tell you this. If my vehicle does not sound good driving around on daily basis, I could car less if it won anothing.


----------



## Genxx (Mar 18, 2007)

npdang said:


> For the same reason I think anyone would be upset when someone can't answer a question, but wants to rub their credentials in your face?


I am not going to give the response I would like to about this or it opens up a big can of worms. I would prefer to keep this a civil discussion.

We all know that you can have all the credentials you want but does it matter in to end to user or final outcome.

Install, tuning ect and your final outcome or lack there of are the end factors.

SQ Comp guys throughout their accomplishments to show they have been able to achieve the install, tuning ect. part of it. 

Then people always say you cannot use that as good credentials how does the car sound in the real environment. Isn't the car moving or not moving still the car environment.


----------



## Hillbilly SQ (Jan 26, 2007)

i could open up a REALLY big can of worms about time alignment but due to the fact that i use it just like most everyone else i won't. basically, todd crowder asked me "why the hell are you using time alignment in a single cab truck"? after he said that i thought of a writeup biggs did on proper aiming. ok i'll stop there.

one thing i've noticed about the sq systems i've built with very little money is if it's a little too "forward" sounding while sitting still it should be just about right on the interstate. right now my mids, tweets, and sub are blending seamlessly and mids are kicking like a mule. top that with ZERO SIBLANCE and we have a winnar!

not to rub it in but my doors are made for large format tweets


----------



## foosman (Oct 14, 2007)

Just as another aside, I installed the Legatia L841 3 way set, have been to two shows with them, one a big regional show, and have won 1st place everywhere I used them. Doitor and I just came back from South Padre Island with 2 World Finals Invitations because of these speakers. There is absolutely none better for the money IMHO. If anyone in the DFW area needs to have a listen them they can PM me and we can get together for a demo.


----------



## Abmolech (Nov 2, 2006)

SQ competitions relevant to a moving vehicle?
Do they rate 
tire noise inside the cabin?
Windage inside the cabin?
Motor noise inside the cabin?

Since these three are the MAIN contributors to the noise floor of a moving vehicle... let us calculate if a 6 1/2" (or below) driver can create enough SPL and stay within the xmax..
Yeah most of you know they cant do it. But yet 6 1/2 " mid bass setups constantly win SQ competitions.

The lack of use of large signal analysis for driver testing is symptomatic that SQ competitions don't expect to use large movements for their drivers. (IE people place little relevance on them, and this thread with the lack of data is a manifestation of that ideal)

The fact that SQ competitions are biased towards stereophonic replay (well most cars are panned monophonic ) is just another "little" use for a moving vehicle.

POINT
SQ competitions have little to do with a moving vehicle.

Since the VAST majority of us, will never require an SQ competition vehicle (Or for that matter an SPL vehicle), what we want to know is how well these drivers will do in a moving vehicle.

Give us the large signal analysis and we can make our own minds up.
Thanks.


----------



## Hillbilly SQ (Jan 26, 2007)

Abmolech said:


> SQ competitions relevant to a moving vehicle?
> Do they rate
> tire noise inside the cabin?
> Windage inside the cabin?
> ...


i'm running 6.5" mids in my doors and they keep up with loud tires and wind noise. they cut right through it at 75mph. at that speed the magnaflow exhaust starts to drone also so i have 3 things fighting against me. i'm also crossed at 80hz 12db. are you just referring to the nuts that cross their 6.5's at 50hz and below?


----------



## Abmolech (Nov 2, 2006)

6.5 "

4 Pi steradians loading. (Unlikely unless you build a proper baffle, but we will forgo that)

Say 10 mm of xmax (again unlikely most are 6-7 mm)
106.75 dB at 100 Hz.
102.87 dB at 80 Hz
97.88 dB at 60 Hz.

Most moving vehicles are going to be at least 80 dB at 125 Hz, BMW BRAGS about having a 70 dB noise floor. (Double glazed windows, and since windows become our main limiter you unlikely to better this. IE steel 1/16 attenuates 125 Hz wave by 12 dB, and glass 22 dB at 125 Hz. If you use a barrier (blocker) and increase the attenuation of steel to surpassing that of glass (10 dB) you cannot gain more noise reduction until you attend to the glass. )

Crown recommend a minimum of 20 dB over the crowd noise, so we need 80 plus 20 and then we need to allow for crest factor of music. Then we require an equal loudness curve.

Unless your using modern music and recordings, your driver is now exceeding its xmax. Don't get me wrong, I am sure your 6.5" gets loud, but not without very large amounts of distortion. It is fine for SQ competitions and driveway listening, just don't expect it to compete with 8" drivers for mid bass in a moving vehicle.


----------



## durwood (Mar 7, 2007)

"I want to be able to accurately reproduce a live drum set."

http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/showthread.php?t=26481&highlight=drum

Calculate if your single midbass can reach the level you want for a drum.

http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/showthread.php?t=9094
http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/showthread.php?t=26293

If it can't you need to re-think how to achieve it in a moving vehicle, not one sitting still in a quiet environment where the noise floor is low (read competition). Now let's say you increase the output of your midbass to overcome noisefloor, what about the rest of your system, midrange, tweeter, etc...don't forget about them too.

BTW, I am a SQ competitor because I like gathering will people with common interests, but trophies are nothing more than bragging rights for boosting ones ego, or crushing it at the same time when you don't get one.


----------



## newtitan (Mar 7, 2005)

WHY do these drivers ALWAYS have the biggest threads in the world???


just buy a set and try them out for yourselves, ive never compteted (hell I dont have the cosmetic skill to do so), but it sure suprises me that these sets keep kicking major behind on the competition circuit

the mids are nice (especially the 6" driver) but I dont understand why and how they are out performing drivers that Id certainly prefer over them 

the 3" and 4" are excellent, but umm i still think the scan 12M, focal be 3" drivers best them in most capapcities in a CAR (but these both are FAR MORE EXPENSIVE so I guess price per performance the legatias are probably the best on the market) the 4" is far superior to the 3" to my ears

and in certain points of reference (not ALL facets) the very cheap tg9 outperforms the legatia 3" flat (ie no eq) but some prefer warm (legatia) over the style of the tg9's id imagine


but all the back and forth boggles my mind when folks wont JUST TRY THEM FOR YOUR OWN EARS and post your OWN opinions 

now that would be an AWESOME thread, hell lets put of some cash us say 10 bucks each (for those interested), buy some l3's and some l4's and pass em around the forum, have everyone posts some opinions and leave it at that, say 1 week and pass them on, you break em you pay for a new set

sound good??

thats what diyma was supposed to be about, not just bicker about electronic penis envy 


but I will say i SURE want to try that l8, im waiting on sale lol


----------



## durwood (Mar 7, 2007)

newtitan said:


> just buy a set and try them out for yourselves


been thre done that. Check.



> now that would be an AWESOME thread, hell lets put of some cash us say 10 bucks each (for those interested), buy some l3's and some l4's and pass em around the forum, have everyone posts some opinions and leave it at that, say 1 week and pass them on, you break em you pay for a new set


I'm all for that idea. I sold my L3's but if Scott or anyone else wants to donate an L3 perhaps, I'll glady start up a 3" midrange audition pass around. We can follow the same rules npdang set in stone for the other ones, I'll just require a deposit since the forum has grown in size and it's not as close of a family anymore if you know what I mean. I'll even include a test box, except you guys would have to comeup with a way to test IB situation (or a very large box for a small driver)


----------



## newtitan (Mar 7, 2005)

durwood said:


> *since the forum has grown in size and it's not as close of a family anymore if you know what I mean. [*/quote]
> 
> hell if that isnt the truth man,


----------



## tard (Jul 13, 2006)

newtitan said:


> .....just buy a set and try them out for yourselves...
> 
> 
> but all the back and forth boggles my mind when folks wont JUST TRY THEM FOR YOUR OWN EARS and post your OWN opinions
> ...



i'm in that boat. i was super close to digging into rev 8's, but being that the L8 was specifically designed for our application, i decided i'd give them a rip.

i don't have any other 8's left in my personal stash, but i will be doing a head 2 head comparison against my old dyn mw 170's that my cousin recently bought off me.

btw, my L8's showed up yesterday. it won't be for a couple weeks we get to do the test. +/- our schedules permitting.


----------



## npdang (Jul 29, 2005)

Genxx said:


> I am not going to give the response I would like to about this or it opens up a big can of worms. I would prefer to keep this a civil discussion.
> 
> We all know that you can have all the credentials you want but does it matter in to end to user or final outcome.
> 
> ...


It doesn't matter if you're a sq competitor, a doctorate, an engineer, etc. No one likes it when you bring credentials into a thread as a substitute for reasoning. I'm not saying it applies to this thread, only in response to your post. You seemed genuinely surprised that people would have this reaction. There are tons of competition threads in this forum, none of which have elicited any negative reactions. It's only the threads where people have come in and used their "trophies" or "industry experience" as the be all, end all reasoning behind something.


----------



## FoxPro5 (Feb 14, 2006)

npdang said:


> It doesn't matter if you're a sq competitor, a doctorate, an engineer, etc. No one likes it when you bring credentials into a thread as a substitute for reasoning.


X2. I personally cannot stand that.

I think it would be interesting for Scott to post how much his sales have increased in the past 6mo - 1yr. It seems to me that trophies are great for selling speakers.

I also think it would be cool to know exactly how many winning HAT cars have been tuned and or worked on by Scott himself. Because well all know, it's not JUST about the speakers.

So far I've liked my Legatia speakers, even though the L3 was kind of boring sounding for my personal tastes. Haven't installed the L1's yet, but they look solid. I would definitely buy more drivers from HAT because Scott himself was so pleasant to deal with. 

At the end of the day, I'm not siding with anyone...I'm going to use my ears to decide what's right.


----------



## Genxx (Mar 18, 2007)

npdang-This is the same thing as me questioning you ability to properly conduct a test with a klippel. Then having you list your credentials then saying I do not agree or think you credentials are on par. However, I don't need to because I trust that you know what you are doing.

Same as I trust guys like Jeff Smith, Scott, Dave Brooks, Chris Pate, Chris Kill, Mat R., Gary Biggs and many other folks that have a ton of experience. Some of these guys have super technical ability, some do not. Does not mean that they do not have the tools to build one hell of a great sounding car and now what it takes to do so. 

What are their credentials? Everything from installer, Company Rep to Company owner.

Is this not what has happens when a driver is tested. Then someone says well it did not perform the way the test came out. First thing questioned is credentials to write such a review-"what other drivers did you compare them against and what is your knowledge base?"---Most popular question around besides "what sub should I run?". Last one is joke.LOL

I think alot of people are saying go hear them vs. making a judgement based solely on test results.

I myself like test results as a basis or starting point.

These obviously are good sounding driver's no matter what a test result says. That can be seen in the comp seen where they have to compete against all the other brands. Like Seas, Scan, DLS ect.

However, since we cannot use the comp seen as a judgment tool around here. Then you have to go hear them in a well installed, tuned properly vehicle or look at a test result to make all your decisions.

OR

We can all keep this discussion going which no one will ever be in full agreement on. Same as almost every other speaker.

Yes and I got it, *we are nerver going to agree that the SQ comp guys might actually know a few things or give them some credit for what they have accomplished or how they built their credentials to comment on something they fell strongly about.*


So go listen to the HAT speakers and make your own judgment. Nothing else really left to discuss at this point until someone goes and take a listen to any of the many open HAT cars for people to listen to. Hell, I will even take you for a spin on the highway so you can listen to them in a moving car, when I get my install completed.

No I am not a HAT Team Member or get any kind of discount or kick back for any speakers. Before someone decides to go there, which is usually the next questioned asked.

Just thought I would answer the above ^^^ ?? so someone does not have to waste time typing and posting it.


----------



## Hillbilly SQ (Jan 26, 2007)

FoxPro5 said:


> I think it would be interesting for Scott to post how much his sales have increased in the past 6mo - 1yr. It seems to me that trophies are great for selling speakers.
> 
> I also think it would be cool to know exactly how many winning HAT cars have been tuned and or worked on by Scott himself. Because well all know, it's not JUST about the speakers.
> 
> ...


ditto! i remember reading on eca where a certain member and competitor from bama talked about all the hat users from there and surrounding states getting together to work on their installs and tuning at scotts house. iirc he even mentioned a dog jumping in one of the cars and messing something up 

as for the sales let's face it, trophies are good marketing. a lot of people buy based on that and that's fine. i along with a lot of other diyma members prefer to dig through some of the least likely candidates and find that diamond in the rough. it's all part of the fun. 

my ears have questioned the integrity of some of the members of another car audio forum. boner of the week/month/year? WHO CARES! i don't like warm sounding speakers and sq is subjective! i also don't like a speaker to sound sterile ie one that looks great on paper like the seas neo aluminum. by far the worst tweeter i've used to date and andy tried to warn me but i had to use my own ears to satisfy my curiosity:blush: 

i'm getting ot but had to get my point across.


----------



## Abmolech (Nov 2, 2006)

If you honestly believe putting various drivers in a car is a suitable test, then there isn't much point in going further.
It is basic premise to reduce as many variables as possible when comparing. At least a proper large signal analysis has this inbuilt.

If your going to do a listening test, at least use an enclosure to match the system "Q", and dig a hole and use the ground as an infinite baffle. Match all SPL.
Then do an ABX test.

I MIGHT pay some attention to this last method, but for some of the cable, power amplifier and head deck listening people, I would surely ignore.

Perhaps we could ask an important question.
If you consider distortion important, what is it that large signal analysis cant tell you?
And why do speaker manufactures not use them. (small signal only if you lucky)


----------



## thylantyr (Jan 21, 2008)




----------



## 60ndown (Feb 8, 2007)

i say we all meet in a car park, fight each other, and whoever wins has the best speakers.

(and is smartest)


----------



## Hillbilly SQ (Jan 26, 2007)

thylantyr said:


>


i could really go for some fried tame bunny right about now too bad when you raise them you get attached to the damn things :blush:


----------



## Fixtion (Aug 25, 2006)

i feel sorry for the *OP*.

*-fixtion*


----------



## Rudeboy (Oct 16, 2005)

I really don't think there is anything in this field that can't be quantified. We can model performance. When something defies the accepted model for "good", either something is wrong with the testing, the model needs to be changed or the anomalous behavior is somehow pleasing, in which case that too can be quantified. 

People are put off when the explanation comes down to claims of superior perception. It doesn't matter if the people using the products can explain the science behind their choices or are producing superior results because of extensive experience - the final results can be quantified. I think that's all anybody arguing as far as credentials go.


----------



## MYSTICAL NEPHYLUM (Mar 8, 2008)

I'M A RACIST FROM HELL BUT I LOVE MY LEGADIA 8'S... GET OFF SCOTT'S BACK!!!!


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

You are fighting the good fight, and are 100%. And you hit the nail on the head with the credential thing too. Some people don't like to be questioned when they feel challenged.



Genxx said:


> npdang-This is the same thing as me questioning you ability to properly conduct a test with a klippel. Then having you list your credentials then saying I do not agree or think you credentials are on par. However, I don't need to because I trust that you know what you are doing.
> 
> Same as I trust guys like Jeff Smith, Scott, Dave Brooks, Chris Pate, Chris Kill, Mat R., Gary Biggs and many other folks that have a ton of experience. Some of these guys have super technical ability, some do not. Does not mean that they do not have the tools to build one hell of a great sounding car and now what it takes to do so.
> 
> ...


----------



## crazyder (Mar 3, 2007)

Genxx said:


> npdang-This is the same thing as me questioning you ability to properly conduct a test with a klippel. Then having you list your credentials then saying I do not agree or think you credentials are on par. However, I don't need to because I trust that you know what you are doing.
> 
> Same as I trust guys like Jeff Smith, Scott, Dave Brooks, Chris Pate, Chris Kill, Mat R., Gary Biggs and many other folks that have a ton of experience. Some of these guys have super technical ability, some do not. Does not mean that they do not have the tools to build one hell of a great sounding car and now what it takes to do so.
> 
> ...


Dang posted the results of his test with a less then favorable results in some minds. He was then questioned about the results and qualifications, with implied intent that he could be doing it because he was competition. So what you are saying has already happened and it was the "team" members that brought it up and used the fact that they compete and they win as initial qualification that he was wrong...so your whole argument is exactly the reason there is an argument instead of letting people make their own decisions people started throwing around qualifications.

Dang has always said it pretty simple these are the results but listen for yourself, test for yourself...so he is one of those guys that is saying go and listen, exactly what you are saying!



> I myself like test results as a basis or starting point.
> 
> These obviously are good sounding driver's no matter what a test result says. That can be seen in the comp seen where they have to compete against all the other brands. Like Seas, Scan, DLS ect.
> 
> ...


Personally I got to agree with you here I think SQ competitions are overlooked and amateur people like me can learn a lot from how competition vehicles are set up and how we can benefit in our DIY systems and use your knowledge...but the wording that comes out everytime is put in a way that says *I know more than you and I am better than you because look at what I won* and that really rubs off the wrong way.

I think you both are right, find test results, go have a listen, maybe you hear something you like, compare it with others, look at more test results, go see a competition, have a listen, ask questions, try to learn, and then make your own decision to what you like.


----------



## Neil (Dec 9, 2005)

Genxx said:


> Yes and I got it, *we are nerver going to agree that the SQ comp guys might actually know a few things or give them some credit for what they have accomplished or how they built their credentials to comment on something they fell strongly about.*


First of all, attributing anything to SQ comp guys is pointless. I will attribute credit and accomplishments to those who have earned it, either by demonstrating knowledge through theory or through practice. Lots of people go to SQ competitions...and lots of people don't have a damned clue about what they're hearing.

Is an SQ competition about who sounds better or about who is the closest to accurately reproducing the source recording? Alternatively, do you believe these to be the same thing?


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

With all due respects to Scott, I think the man has earned the respect. I don't think you win 20 championships with a 2 year old company (and how many before that when he was using other speakers?) if you didn't know what the hell you were talking about. If there has been anyone posting on this thread who has the history of backing up the talk with walk, it clearly has been him. You have guys posting who you've never seen anything they've done and you don't even really know who they are giving advise...how do you know to trust them?

I think you are pretty much insulting someone who has clearly demonstrated who has a long history of knowing what he is doing.

Why not question everyone's knowledge? What has npdang done to garner such accolades? What about abmolech, thylanter, and everyone else? Atleast with Scott, I have some subjective and objective data to support his claims that he knows about sound reproduction in the car.



DevilDriver said:


> First of all, attributing anything to SQ comp guys is pointless. I will attribute credit and accomplishments to those who have earned it, either by demonstrating knowledge through theory or through practice. Lots of people go to SQ competitions...and lots of people don't have a damned clue about what they're hearing.
> 
> Is an SQ competition about who sounds better or about who is the closest to accurately reproducing the source recording? Alternatively, do you believe these to be the same thing?


----------



## t3sn4f2 (Jan 3, 2007)

thehatedguy said:


> With all due respects to Scott, I think the man has earned the respect. I don't think you win 20 championships with a 2 year old company (and how many before that when he was using other speakers?) if you didn't know what the hell you were talking about. If there has been anyone posting on this thread who has the history of backing up the talk with walk, it clearly has been him. You have guys posting who you've never seen anything they've done and you don't even really know who they are giving advise...how do you know to trust them?
> 
> I think you are pretty much insulting someone who has clearly demonstrated who has a long history of knowing what he is doing.
> 
> *Why not question everyone's knowledge?* What has npdang done to garner such accolades? What about abmolech, thylanter, and everyone else? Atleast with Scott, I have some subjective and objective data to support his claims that he knows about sound reproduction in the car.


Because one side is like astronomy and the other side is like astrology.


----------



## Neil (Dec 9, 2005)

thehatedguy said:


> With all due respects to Scott, I think the man has earned the respect. I don't think you win 20 championships with a 2 year old company (and how many before that when he was using other speakers?) if you didn't know what the hell you were talking about. If there has been anyone posting on this thread who has the history of backing up the talk with walk, it clearly has been him. You have guys posting who you've never seen anything they've done and you don't even really know who they are giving advise...how do you know to trust them?
> 
> I think you are pretty much insulting someone who has clearly demonstrated who has a long history of knowing what he is doing.
> 
> Why not question everyone's knowledge? What has npdang done to garner such accolades? What about abmolech, thylanter, and everyone else? Atleast with Scott, I have some subjective and objective data to support his claims that he knows about sound reproduction in the car.


I'm not questioning Scott at all. I am questioning the use of the term "SQ competitor" or "SQ champion" as supporting evidence that anyone has a clue of how to identify what makes one speaker good and another one poor.

I regularly question everyone's knowledge here (including my own). Sometimes verbally, sometimes not. To do otherwise would be nothing short of ignorance.

Again, I ask...


DevilDriver said:


> Is an SQ competition about who sounds better or about who is the closest to accurately reproducing the source recording? Alternatively, do you believe these to be the same thing?


----------



## Genxx (Mar 18, 2007)

DevilDriver said:


> First of all, attributing anything to SQ comp guys is pointless. I will attribute credit and accomplishments to those who have earned it, either by demonstrating knowledge through theory or through practice. Lots of people go to SQ competitions...and lots of people don't have a damned clue about what they're hearing.


I do agree their are a lot people that have no clue about what they are hearing. I will say I do not 100% either. Does that make them less of a car audio nut or at least have some good knowledge? 

Ok, so since some guy can build a car that reproduces a source recording accurately but cannot get in-depth about all the math, theory, explanations he is of little use. Maybe I am misunderstanding your point on this.

I no guys that understand how to build amazing cars that can get close to accomplishing the above but could not speak in-depth about T/S, Klippel ect. So once again looks like these guys just need to never have a conversation with you, because you are better than them.



DevilDriver said:


> Is an SQ competition about who sounds better or about who is the closest to accurately reproducing the source recording? Alternatively, do you believe these to be the same thing?


To me an SQ comp is about accurate musical reproduction. However, we all no that most people would rather it sound good.

No they are not necessarily the same thing. You can have a vehicle that sounds good but is not reproducing the source recording 100%.

A good sounding car is much easier to put together than the other. I can build a car that sounds good and tune it. The other I can try and build it through trial and error but I cannot tune it properly to accomplish this goal yet. However, I am learning to try and accomplish the later or at least get decent at it.

Some of what you have stated sounds a little on the elitist side. I don't care if a person can do all of the above but I give them credit for trying. 

Since you asked me some qustions I have some for you. 

Do have any car audio gear in your car? Did you install it? How does it sound? Can it accurately reproduce the source recording? 

DevilDriver-You do have a lot of knowledge, you know the theory. I like alot of the info you put out, its good stuff and I learn something. However, can you build a car that can accurately reproduce the source recording yourself?


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

Listen, theory is great...there is a lot of theory on this board. There is a lack of application of the theory. One of the easier ways to get a level field of theory meeting application is at a competition. That is the only metric that I can think of as to where a large group of people can compare things across the country. Yeah, there is subjective factors going on in human judgment, but you will find the good cars will always be good cars not matter who is listening to them.

And Scott has a long (sorry Scott, but you know you are one of the last of the old timers in the lanes) history of applied knowledge. So happens that he's done well for himself.

And Scott has posted some very good and valid points that have failed to be answered or rebutted. 

If it were me, I would be listening to someone who I know who has a clue about good sound in a car vs. some guy who you don't even know his real name. I haven't seen Scott try to push a speaker down anyone's throat. Everything he has said can be applied to any brand of speaker, naturally Scott likes his better b/c they are his children.

Some people seem to be challenged or threatened by having someone of Scott's background and history here commenting on the board.


----------



## npdang (Jul 29, 2005)

Genxx said:


> npdang-This is the same thing as me questioning you ability to properly conduct a test with a klippel. Then having you list your credentials then saying I do not agree or think you credentials are on par. However, I don't need to because I trust that you know what you are doing.
> 
> Same as I trust guys like Jeff Smith, Scott, Dave Brooks, Chris Pate, Chris Kill, Mat R., Gary Biggs and many other folks that have a ton of experience. Some of these guys have super technical ability, some do not. Does not mean that they do not have the tools to build one hell of a great sounding car and now what it takes to do so.
> 
> ...


This seems to be a recurring problem  You guys are totally, totally missing the mark about what I'm saying. I have NEVER said that competitors don't deserve credit, or are not knowledgeable. Where do you guys get that from? In fact, with regards to Scott I said SPECIFICALLY that he was experienced and quite knowledgeable.

To you, I'm only saying, in general.... isn't it more constructive (and polite) to simply give an answer than to throw your credentials out there? 

Personally, (not talking about you), I'm just tired of people reading into things. There is the absolute worst reading comprehension I've ever seen in some of these threads, and people just making things up out of nowhere... often times very inflammatory things.


----------



## Abmolech (Nov 2, 2006)

> You have guys posting who you've never seen anything they've done and you don't even really know who they are giving advise...how do you know to trust them?


Two comments.
One
The use of physics can be useful. Sound reproduction is physics.
Two
If you follow the "leader" then we will have what we have always had.
30 years of car audio and we are still pandering to stereophonic. The use of array's and waveguides has passed us by.

Point
If your not the lead dog the views the same. 
SQ competitions APPEAR to be about status quo. It also appears they have passed their "hay day". I admire your sport, but don't confuse SQ competitions and accurate sound reproduction. Try comparing it to decent home audio setup and your not in the game.

I try to let my opinions stand or fall be their logic.

Heres one for you
What set of criteria do the hybrid drivers offer that cannot be found by a host of other drivers?
Better motor?
Advanced two way spider suspension?
The use of woven tinsel leads into the spiders to reduce tinsel slap?
The use of a highly rigid cone with low mass that has low geometry characteristics to allow it to reduce cone breakup modes? 
Better mounting technique for the mids? (IE magnet held rather than basket frame)
Better heat dissipation?
Higher heat tolerance?
Small magnet structure for easier install?
High sensitivity?

Or are they simply a set of drivers with no real advance?

Clue
Search the threads, there is nothing to distinguish this set of drivers. If you feel the after market backup and support is worth having, then these drivers may be an excellent choice.

The age old "theory versus practise" argument.
All I can say is without theory there would be NO music reproduction.
IE 
History has shown us that people who are willing to hypothesise, and dare to carry that out are the true "leaders" of change.

Those who dream by day are cognisant of many things which escape those who dream only by night. 
Edgar Allan Poe, "Eleonora"
US short story author, editor, & poet (1809 - 1849) 

After all, theory are ideas, awaiting to enacted.

You do have a genuine reason to fear the ideas, the world will never be the same.

Clue
Have the sound competitions brought innovation to music reproduction?
Nope. 

For some inexplicable reason they have not grasped the room (space) is the number one weak link, and are still forcing two channel reproduction to overcome this.
30 years of banging their heads against a brick wall. 
If thats "practical" then I want no bar of it.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

Clue
I can read all day on the internet and books. Then spout off what I have read.

Clue
Not ever showing anything you have built.

Clue
Not knowing a real name behind the screen

Clue
You talk a lot about theory but nothing ever has been put in practice.

Question
Why should I listen to YOU? I can/have read everything you have ever stated in a couple of books and internet forums. What makes you knowledgeable or trustworthy?


----------



## Neil (Dec 9, 2005)

Genxx said:


> I do agree their are a lot people that have no clue about what they are hearing. I will say I do not 100% either. Does that make them less of a car audio nut or at least have some good knowledge?


No, I never said either of those. Why are you drawing these conclusions?


Genxx said:


> Ok, so since some guy can build a car that reproduces a source recording accurately but cannot get in-depth about all the math, theory, explanations he is of little use. Maybe I am misunderstanding your point on this.


I'm saying he is incapable of objectively explaining or determining why one speaker is better than another.



Genxx said:


> I no guys that understand how to build amazing cars that can get close to accomplishing the above but could not speak in-depth about T/S, Klippel ect. So once again looks like these guys just need to never have a conversation with you, because you are better than them.


I'm not better than them in any respect, really. They are probably of more practical use to most people on this forum.



Genxx said:


> To me an SQ comp is about accurate musical reproduction. However, we all no that most people would rather it sound good.
> 
> No they are not necessarily the same thing. You can have a vehicle that sounds good but is not reproducing the source recording 100%.


So why are they judged with the ear? Would someone who thinks a vehicle sounds poor give a high score to a vehicle that is closer to the source? Or are scores given based completely on how the judge likes the sonic characteristics of the vehicle?



Genxx said:


> A good sounding car is much easier to put together than the other. I can build a car that sounds good and tune it. The other I can try and build it through trial and error but I cannot tune it properly to accomplish this goal yet. However, I am learning to try and accomplish the later or at least get decent at it.


Couldn't agree with you more. Overcoming room effects is something we will never be free of, unfortunately.



Genxx said:


> Some of what you have stated sounds a little on the elitist side. I don't care if a person can do all of the above but I give them credit for trying.
> 
> Since you asked me some qustions I have some for you.
> 
> Do have any car audio gear in your car? Did you install it? How does it sound? Can it accurately reproduce the source recording?


I don't intend to sound elitist. Does it sound elitist because I am challenging the premise of SQ competition? It seems very conceptually flawed.

Do I have anything in my car? Right now, no. Do I have things that I am working on for the vehicle? Yes, but my interest is extremely limited. But that has nothing to do with what I am trying to point out: winning SQ competitions does not mean you can objectively understand what the difference is between one speaker and another, much less tell someone what is good or bad about one. In keeping with that thought....



Genxx said:


> DevilDriver-You do have a lot of knowledge, you know the theory. I like alot of the info you put out, its good stuff and I learn something. However, can you build a car that can accurately reproduce the source recording yourself?


I know barely anything. Barely anything. However, one thing I am quite certain of is that neither I nor 99% of the members on here are capable of identifying why speaker A sounds better than speaker B at every level. There are people who have been in this industry for multiple decades who don't understand these concepts and I don't expect anyone here to either.

I think what I'm saying is being completely misunderstood.


----------



## npdang (Jul 29, 2005)

thehatedguy said:


> Clue
> I can read all day on the internet and books. Then spout off what I have read.
> 
> Clue
> ...


That's a good point, but I think too strong. There are many cases when we can reference experiments or papers that prove a point without having personal experience ourselves. And on the other hand, why should any person be above reproach regardless of their credentials? Especially when it comes to something as subjective as how we like our cars to sound?


----------



## thylantyr (Jan 21, 2008)

A few questions.

1. Does home audio have SQ contests? If so, link ?
2. How can SQ be measured ?
3. If there is no profit to be made, would these contests be held ?


SQ contest analogy; [In the spirit of Richard Clark]
Scott may be successful selling dinosaur repellent in a spray can and everyone who bought the product can testify 
that it indeed works, I have not seen any dinosaurs when I use the product.


----------



## MYSTICAL NEPHYLUM (Mar 8, 2008)

i questioned scott why he did not use neo magnets for depth constraints... he told me they cost too much and that he never listened to a driver with neos that sounded good.


----------



## Neil (Dec 9, 2005)

Scary when I agree with thy...lol.


----------



## Abmolech (Nov 2, 2006)

> Question
> Why should I listen to YOU? I can/have read everything you have ever stated in a couple of books and internet forums. What makes you knowledgeable or trustworthy?


I could espouse a similar rebuttal of why I should listen to you? Still I cannot be bothered with character assignation.

One could expect from your rhetoric, that YOU are precluded from the above statement. IE your statements are either not founded on any books, or possibly more appropriate, every thought you have is brand knew, and original?

I take it as a compliment that I can back what I say from well researched sources. Perhaps this is something you despise?

Clearly you do not, however I suspect you are bitter at having your colleagues resume questioned. Since this is the only "evidence" that has been offered of a "better" driver, and this is a forum, and probably a somewhat naive expectation.

The difference is plain.
I let my statements stand or fall by the backing of books etc.
You expect your statements to stand or fall by your resume.

You could resort to questioning basic physic principles, since I am left with merely questioning the use of your experience. 

Point
If your going to put your personal reputation on the line, then expect things to get personal.

You will be sorely disappointed if you hope I might offer some personal experience to back a concept that could/should be better backed by physics.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

What bugs me is that there is not equal questioning going on with the other "experts" who have posted in this threads credentials. Scott is clearly the most educated in applied knowledge on this thread, and is every bit as educated on the theory to apply the knowledge with, But he is questioned the most.

Thy, about point number 3. The promoter is lucky to break even when hosting an event if you are basing recovering your costs with competitor turn out. You will have to recoup your money elsewhere. But yet, there are still shows every year.

And regarding point number 1. Can you take your listening room to another venue and set it up there? And why whole systems are not directly judged, I do see a lot of reviewer opinion after large shows like RMAF as to which rooms were the best sounding rooms, how each faired, and how each sounded. So yeah, you could say by that very measure, home audio has competitions and is judged.


----------



## thylantyr (Jan 21, 2008)

> Why not question everyone's knowledge? What has npdang done to garner such accolades? What about abmolech, thylanter, and everyone else? Atleast with Scott, I have some subjective and objective data to support his claims that he knows about sound reproduction in the car.


You are trying to measure SQ with that statement. For fun, lets see if it
works. Scott has 20 trophies.

Lets say 'all of a sudden' I reveal to the world my identity and I have 100
trophies for my great audio accomplishments.

Will the cattle move to my grass now and ditch what Scott believes in ?
If the cattle did migrate, then I would say the cattle have issues and it's
not my fault or Scott's fault that this migration occurs.

If the cattle understand what they want from audio, they don't need anyone.
Scott didn't wake up one day and instantly knew what he wanted. He probably did hard work to find what he wanted. I did my work to find what
I wanted from audio.

Most of the cattle don't find what they want, they want to be told what they
want. They don't want to put in the years of hard labor to figure out what
it takes to make them happy.

Read this below.

vasyachkin is a character in home audio who offers non-standard answers
to audio. People frown, call him names, argue. 

His departing words recently.




> I finished college last spring, got a dual degree in Electrical and Computer Engineering but did not go to work.
> 
> For a year i was basically doing nothing. First i was living on my tax return money then on unemployment insurance benefits but all good things come to an end.
> 
> ...





*His recent controversial post in cyberspace.... *
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
How to Design speakers ( Part 1 )
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////



> A speaker system is not a musical instrument - it is a tool. This is not to say that building speakers is not art. Making knives can be an art too and yet a knife is a tool.
> Like any tool a speaker has to be designed for the application. If you’re drilling for oil in Alaska and using a cordless screwdriver to do it – you’re doing it wrong. Unfortunately this is how most people build their speakers.
> 
> But how can this be possible? People are smart!
> ...


/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////


Lets talk about his methodology. 

Vision 
Strategy 
Implementation by picking drivers. 

Lets say I do things out of order, is that bad? What if I just wanted to 
learn more about what the market has to offer. I buy sample drivers 
that are interesting. I don't mean that you need to buy all the Dayton RS 
line up, maybe just a few to get a taste. You get the idea. You scan the 
market for interesting products and you learn to understand the driver. 

Later you have a plan for a sound system. Since you did some 
preliminary work on driver auditions, you can immediately start 
making some concepts. 

You could do this; 

Understand product performane by sampling 
Vision 
Strategy 
Execution.

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////


How many people put in the hard work to;

1. Understand the products available ?
2. Know their audio vision ?
3. Strategy ?
4. Execution ?

Most people don't understand the products, they don't even have an
audio vision. Forget the rest.

Understand the products. Based on what products are available, you
need a vision on what you want. Day dream, visualize the install, what
do you want from the sound system ?

You don't need Scott, you don't need me, you don't need anyone to tell
you. You can do this all by yourself.

You can get data to help your question. You can ask about products, you
can ask about what others want from their sound system, perhaps you
found someone who shares a similar vision and you can analyze their execution to help you expedite your project.


----------



## Abmolech (Nov 2, 2006)

Scott could change tack, and offer reasons similar to my questions above. IE why is this driver better than its competitors.
I think the recent thread on a brand of power amplifiers might dissuade you from the notion of being picked on.
However the similarities are surprisingly close.
IE both products are expected to be taken on experience, rather than specifications.


----------



## thylantyr (Jan 21, 2008)

RMAF - Rock Mountain Audio Fest.

http://audiofest.net/2008/index.php



> Rocky Mountain Audio Fest's first show appeared in October, 2004.
> 
> Members of the Colorado Audio Society had for many years thought about a local audio show as an extension of the Society's goal of expanding public awareness of high end audio.
> 
> ...


+



> The Rocky Mountain Audio Fest will be held at two hotels: the Denver Marriott Tech Center Hotel and the Hyatt Regency Tech Center. Furniture will be removed from over 130 of the hotels' sleeping rooms and manufacturers will set up complete stereo systems for attendees to audition. *You are encouraged to go from room to room, have a seat and casually listen. In fact, feel free to bring your own discs or records to the show, as most exhibitors will be more than happy to play one or two songs of your favorite music.*
> 
> *A variety of equipment types will be demonstrated, ranging from affordable separates and systems to the ultra-expensive high end.* In addition to the hotel rooms, most of the hotels' larger seminar rooms located on the main floor and mezzanine levels will also contain exhibits. Be sure to check out our Exhibitor List pages for a complete listing of the companies to be represented at Rocky Mountain Audio Fest. 6 floors and over 130 rooms of exhibits at the Marriott and 10 seminar rooms at the Hyatt. You will not be able to see and hear it all in one day! We suggest you get a weekend pass.


This isn't a contest. It's like 'hanging out with the homies'. Can I bring
my S L A Y E R .... CD ??





> ..... Speaker ?????

















> .... I'm raking in the doh....... fools...........

















> .... People still buy class A amplifiers --- hehehehe ---

















> .... this sheit... sounds so ...... goooooooooood...........

















> ................ S C O R E !!!!!!!!!!!

















> .... check out my big horn bisshes..........


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

I wasn't aware of Scott promoting his drivers on this thread. If he has, I must have messed it in error, and that would be my fault.

But what are you talking about with the amp thread? The Zuki thread? I know the boards looked similar...I've had an idea about that many months ago. About not giving the specs? i didn't think the people who sought Zuki out on reputation would really care much about those specs...people know and trust him. It is a solid amp for a good price.

Yeah, a lot of the board has issues with Scott's product...how it measured, and according to Peter Euro's site (members here and there both...I've been reading the site so has Scott), how it's priced, marketed, etc. But you have to separate the two. This thread isn't about him pushing his product. You don't like his product...fine. But don't dismiss what he has to say b/c of it. 



Abmolech said:


> Scott could change tack, and offer reasons similar to my questions above. IE why is this driver better than its competitors.
> I think the recent thread on a brand of power amplifiers might dissuade you from the notion of being picked on.
> However the similarities are surprisingly close.
> IE both products are expected to be taken on experience, rather than specifications.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

Thy, the point is people go to these shows and report and with how/what they liked and why. Some even go as far as to rank the rooms they liked the best. How is that really fundamentally any different than a competition? You have people going around, listening, finding what they like and don't like, and reporting the rankings back to the public based on their listening conditions.

And yeah, if I was at a show you were at, you could bring the Slayer. I know my speakers would handle it b/c they would already have been broken in on Lamb of God, Black Dahlia Murder, Anthrax, and Sepultura.


----------



## Abmolech (Nov 2, 2006)

Scott used his evidence of SQ competitions to help persuade people. (Which he is entitled to do so)
At this point I question the usefulness of the "evidence".
(Note not the evidence itself)
I pointed out that the drivers did not appear to use advanced technology, and hoped that he would dispute this with some reasons why the driver is unique.

I am still waiting.

I rate Scott's opinion like any other listener. IE it has equal value and no more.

This board has "issues" with a number of products, some you have mentioned, others that spring to mind are various sound deadening products, a multitude of car audio drivers which can be purchased at a fraction of the cost in the "home audio section" etc.
Cable copper versus insulation is another.

I am sure I could think of more.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

I thought Scott had been explaining the science behind things pretty well and using the competition results to further validate in some fashion that he knows his way around a car. Now some people that would not matter...and some people it would matter b/c it might be some constant that they can compare other similar things to. But I don't think anyone is saying that competition results are the be-all-end-all means of judgment. Just another possible metric to allow for some rank and file to things they may be familiar with.


----------



## thylantyr (Jan 21, 2008)

> Yeah, a lot of the board has issues with Scott's product...how it measured, and according to Peter Euro's site (members here and there both...I've been reading the site so has Scott), how it's priced, marketed, etc. But you have to separate the two. This thread isn't about him pushing his product. You don't like his product...fine. But don't dismiss what he has to say b/c of it.


Peter started that forum with the idea that it's going to be an obscure hole in
cyber, a nice and quiet place to talk about audio with a few people. I thought
it was a good idea so I went there to hang out.

Considering that there are many audio forums, I have no idea why people
would even be interested in hearing what is said there. It's an aggressive
forum where you are allow to say what you want without worries. Even
Manville couldn't resist and posted there,   ... sheesh...


----------



## thylantyr (Jan 21, 2008)

If you compete in SQ contests then you have to design your system to
satisfy those requirements, to add to your closet of trophies.
Their requirements aren't the golden standard though, it can't be, 
because people are human.


----------



## Dangerranger (Apr 12, 2006)

thehatedguy said:


> Thy, the point is people go to these shows and report and with how/what they liked and why. Some even go as far as to rank the rooms they liked the best. How is that really fundamentally any different than a competition? You have people going around, listening, finding what they like and don't like, and reporting the rankings back to the public based on their listening conditions.
> 
> And yeah, if I was at a show you were at, you could bring the Slayer. I know my speakers would handle it b/c they would already have been broken in on Lamb of God, Black Dahlia Murder, Anthrax, and Sepultura.


Even people that went to car audio competitions can list off a huge number of cars that they really enjoyed listening to, and the list of those that they preferred is very wide. Many have endearing qualities that will make you fond of them, and very rarely do you get people to agree on which car sounded the best, etc. 

I tend to dismiss credentials when choosing _speaker quality_ mainly because of one reason. Let's say that I have a 2002 Mustang and I want to put a supercharger on my car. I'm digging information and in my quest I could look at the video on the Procharger website where Jim Summers was drag racing a stock mustang before and after the supercharger. He took a bone stock stang of those years to a 13.67 1/4 mile, and a Procharged stang in the low 12s. Jim is a seasoned drag racer, an average driver just flat out doesn't have that kind of driving skill, and while they make a good product, Jim was what made it appear to be so impressive rather than the product in and of itself. If someone of Jim's expertise and experience were to do the same for a competitor's product, the same or better results are easily achievable. Most successful competitors have endorsed and won with multiple product lineups, the real question is when you've got veterans like Biggs, Eldridge, Buwalda, Steve Head, Jeff Smith, what products CAN'T they win with?


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

Some people are going there after getting their car ragged on by Peter...and then sticking around and taking a look at Peter's own build. He has ragged on a lot nicer installs than what he's turned out in those door pods of his. And some of the cars he has ragged on I agree with him about.


----------



## npdang (Jul 29, 2005)

thehatedguy said:


> What bugs me is that there is not equal questioning going on with the other "experts" who have posted in this threads credentials. Scott is clearly the most educated in applied knowledge on this thread, and is every bit as educated on the theory to apply the knowledge with, But he is questioned the most.
> 
> Thy, about point number 3. The promoter is lucky to break even when hosting an event if you are basing recovering your costs with competitor turn out. You will have to recoup your money elsewhere. But yet, there are still shows every year.
> 
> And regarding point number 1. Can you take your listening room to another venue and set it up there? And why whole systems are not directly judged, I do see a lot of reviewer opinion after large shows like RMAF as to which rooms were the best sounding rooms, how each faired, and how each sounded. So yeah, you could say by that very measure, home audio has competitions and is judged.


I feel the opposite. You get people agreeing with Scott even though they admit they don't understand what he's saying. Besides myself, I don't see anyone else "questioning" Scott. I have alot of reasons why I disagree with him, because it doesn't jive with what I've done and heard, and I don't see why all the drama just because I have a different opinion on things. I think Scott elicits stronger opinions because he makes strong statements.


----------



## MYSTICAL NEPHYLUM (Mar 8, 2008)

how can we create a home stereo sound in a car?


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

See, I disagree. The only thing I would really follow are the install rules...basic safety and common sense, and most people do those things anyways.

But as far as sound...I have always built my car to make me happy. It just so happens that it did ok at shows too. I have never won a world championship, but a few people I know like Matt Roberts has won a world championship and built his truck the same way- it;s what he wanted, what he enjoys, and what he likes (though if he had room, he would probably put Ring Revelators in there after hearing a set). Just so happens that his truck sounds good to the judges and the general public. He had people from Pioneer Japan waiting in line to listen to it at IASCA Finals this year. Is the truck perfect? Matt would tell you it isn't.

There are a lot of misconceptions floating around here and the whole internet about competitions...usually perpetuated by people who have never competed or who have never been to a show. I know a read a few comments on Peter's forum that are flat out wrong. 


thylantyr said:


> If you compete in SQ contests then you have to design your system to
> satisfy those requirements, to add to your closet of trophies.
> Their requirements aren't the golden standard though, it can't be,
> because people are human.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

And people do the same with you. You have to know that there are people on this board who believe everything you say as gospel...and agree with everything you say even though they don't really understand it completely.




npdang said:


> I feel the opposite. You get people agreeing with Scott even though they admit they don't understand what he's saying. Besides myself, I don't see anyone else "questioning" Scott. I have alot of reasons why I disagree with him, because it doesn't jive with what I've done and heard, and I don't see why all the drama just because I have a different opinion on things. I think Scott elicits stronger opinions because he makes strong statements.


----------



## Abmolech (Nov 2, 2006)

I suggest you and the otherhatedguy, had a somewhat similar following.

Point?

There are sheep?

You may notice I am purposely vague, so people have to think for themselves. (A number of postings have confirmed this frustration with members)
I find it increasingly difficult to recommend any one brand.

It is not an unwise concept to follow a proven path, assuming thats where you want to go.


----------



## FoxPro5 (Feb 14, 2006)

thehatedguy said:


> Clue
> I can read all day on the internet and books. Then spout off what I have read.
> 
> Clue
> ...


Because he doesn't go around telling people how much more he knows then them and who his all his friends are. Is your screen name a joke, or do people really hate you?? Seriously man, then you have the nerve to accuse someone else of not knowing a real name behind the screen?? 

He doesn't just _talk _about theory, he actually gives physical and mathematical cause for his statements. He's the teacher with the all kinds of crazy **** all over the chalk board. A bit unorthodox, yes. But why don't you just sit and listen rather than make up your mind before hand that I won't work because you don't like his style. I believe they call this adaptive learning. 

Nothing has ever been put into practice??? You seriously didn't just say that, did you?? LOL, unbelievable....  Take a few more trips around that block you're always talking about. Then put your ego aside, sit down and read something for once. 

I have a huge amount of respect for Abmolech because he's a great liberator of the mind. His goal is to throw a wrench into your brain and cause it to jam up. He WANTS you to question everything he says because he knows that learning results from confusion. And, in doing so, there's no plausible reason to even state how my damn SQ cars he's sat in. Makes no difference in the grand scheme of things. 

What has he built? It's irrelevant. What he will break down, however, is the weak foundation you stand on by making your head spin. If you have no idea what he's saying, then you haven't read his post 5x times or more. I average 3 to 4 times before I even begin to comprehend. And the comprehension usually comes after I go through all the crap that I've learned along the way and start to dismantle it piece by piece. Nope, not everything fits, but most does if I'm truly honest with myself. 

This tread is really no different than a lot of the really long threads on DIYMA. It's just another example of when passions collide. When that happens, the potential for getting hurt is very great. I'm glad NP has chosen a laissez-faire style of moderation for this forum, because if you read enough of these posts, it usually ends in a group hug of some sorts.


----------



## Luke352 (Jul 24, 2006)

FoxPro5 said:


> Nothing has ever been put into practice??? You seriously didn't just say that, did you?? LOL, unbelievable....


I'll x2 that, if you do a bit of google seaching you'll find some oldish discriptions of his system and to say nothing has been put into practice is well and truly wrong, I think he has more then put into practice what he talks about. There are most likely people posting in this thread who have owned less drivers then what abmo's system has installed, it's a headroom and dynamics fan's wet dream...


----------



## Hillbilly SQ (Jan 26, 2007)

this guy looks like my dad only about 10 years older my old man is 54.


----------



## ALL OR NOTHING (Mar 9, 2008)

i know scott pretty good and i absolutely don't appreciate the bashing here. scott has totally earned all the respect he deserves. kinda like a demi-god... don't question his knowlege


----------



## Daishi (Apr 18, 2006)

ALL OR NOTHING said:


> i know scott pretty good and i absolutely don't appreciate the bashing here. scott has totally earned all the respect he deserves. kinda like a demi-god... don't question his knowlege


Don't question his knowledge?  Questioning products and people is WHAT this forum is about. There is no bashing going on either. People are asking questions that's all. This forum is ABOUT the questions not about following blindly because someones "kinda like a demi-god". Hell, werewolf was even questioned on some stuff when he was here (not referring to the clusterfuck thread) and he handled the questions with tact and threw out even more information that's really made me look at things in a different light.

Personally I have no issue with what is being said in this thread by both sides. It's brought up some good questions, pointed out a ton of information to read up on for those that don't understand 100% and some people's personal opinions are clashing with others...so what?


----------



## ALL OR NOTHING (Mar 9, 2008)

Daishi said:


> Don't question his knowledge?  Questioning products and people is WHAT this forum is about. There is no bashing going on either. People are asking questions that's all. This forum is ABOUT the questions not about following blindly because someones "kinda like a demi-god". Hell, werewolf was even questioned on some stuff when he was here (not referring to the clusterfuck thread) and he handled the questions with tact and threw out even more information that's really made me look at things in a different light.
> 
> Personally I have no issue with what is being said in this thread by both sides. It's brought up some good questions, pointed out a ton of information to read up on for those that don't understand 100% and some people's personal opinions are clashing with others...so what?


dude, there is a forum dedicated to bashing hybrid audio and scott in general... they post pics of scott's cars that aren't finished and make fun of his ass. this thread is a straight cut-throat bash... nothing but hater's !!!


----------



## Genxx (Mar 18, 2007)

I just want to make this clear. I am not attacking anyone or saying anyone is being attacked. I just have questions like everyone else around here. Mine just may be different on this topic. I wanted to discuss them openly and see peoples points of views.

Some of the points of view I agree with some I don't. 

On DIYMA how many times to people actually agree on the same thing? 

This a good thing it allows people to ask questions and open civil disussions about their point of view or opinion.


----------



## Daishi (Apr 18, 2006)

again, you say that but WHAT does anyone here gain from doing what you're saying they're doing? Nobody here is a competitor of Scott's or his products. 

On the flipside it's obvious that you are a Scott Lover (nothing wrong with that), but I have a feeling you will simply continue to make posts such as "he shouldn't be questioned." If that's the case then you should probably look at another forum to participate in as that is the essence of this place...asking questions.

So far the "haters" have asked questions. If that makes one a hater then 99% of this board is just that.


----------



## Genxx (Mar 18, 2007)

Daishi said:


> again, you say that but WHAT does anyone here gain from doing what you're saying they're doing? Nobody here is a competitor of Scott's or his products.
> 
> On the flipside it's obvious that you are a Scott Lover (nothing wrong with that), but I have a feeling you will simply continue to make posts such as "he shouldn't be questioned." If that's the case then you should probably look at another forum to participate in as that is the essence of this place...asking questions.
> 
> So far the "haters" have asked questions. If that makes one a hater then 99% of this board is just that.


If this is directed at me I am confused. I have never said to not question anywhere. I asked about credentials and why does it offend when different people throughout their credentials that are SQ Comp related. When other credentials are ok to use.

I do not know Scott to form an opionion about him. The only thing I have in common with him is I have spent money on some his product but **** I own a ton of different products.

It would not matter what product we are talking about I would have asked the same question had the thread gone down the same road on credentials related to car audio comps.

If this is directed at ALL OR NOTHING then I can see some of your points. 

Well it was nice once again debating some points of view with everyone but I am off to the Harley ride. Yall have fun.


----------



## Daishi (Apr 18, 2006)

No, it was directed at ALL OR NOTHING...you just hit the submit button faster than me


----------



## Genxx (Mar 18, 2007)

Daishi said:


> No, it was directed at ALL OR NOTHING...you just hit the submit button faster than me


LOL. Damn fast typers.


----------



## ALL OR NOTHING (Mar 9, 2008)

Daishi said:


> again, you say that but WHAT does anyone here gain from doing what you're saying they're doing? Nobody here is a competitor of Scott's or his products.
> 
> On the flipside it's obvious that you are a Scott Lover (nothing wrong with that), but I have a feeling you will simply continue to make posts such as "he shouldn't be questioned." If that's the case then you should probably look at another forum to participate in as that is the essence of this place...asking questions.
> 
> So far the "haters" have asked questions. If that makes one a hater then 99% of this board is just that.


i wish i knew the name of that forum... it's peter euro or some ****. they have several threads and even a "sticky" thread bashing the hell out of scott. one of the main cats from that forum is "thylantyr" he comes to this site just to jump on scott. i think it's pretty sad, considering the fact that buddy hasn't been in the car audio seen in well over 10 years....

here's my .02... i know how to install and i don't consider myself to be a car audio guru. i also consider myself to be a pretty good tuner as well... thanx to me having a very good musical ear. yes, i'm a musician. play guitar, sing and bang on drums. i know what music is suppose to sound like. i've always had the best systems in my cars because i want settle for less. i've owned mb quart, focal, morel, rainbow, dynaudio, genesis, dls, helix, alpine, image dynamics, mtx, jl audio....... i've heard it all. i'm telling you now.... to me... i have the best system out there. when i first heard my system after i got through tuning it i just about burst into tears. i've never ever been fully satisfied with my systems. you guys know what the hell i'm talking about to.
damn.... i gotta get that new hu or that sub.... ohhhhh lotus is got a new comp coming out this june. i've never been fully happy with i got until now. scott's got his back in the corner and i'll put up one hell of a fight to save his ass. that man helped me build the ultimate system that i don't think anyother speaker company could've accomplished. i got the best of the best. don't believe me? come down to atlanta and i'll blow your mind away!!!


----------



## Rudeboy (Oct 16, 2005)

Genxx said:


> If this is directed at me I am confused. I have never said to not question anywhere. I asked about credentials and why does it offend when different people throughout their credentials that are SQ Comp related. When other credentials are ok to use.


What credentials are OK to use? Facts are good, explaining the science is good, but flashing credentials makes it personal. Egos don't belong in a discussion like this. If somebody is explaining the physics perfectly, how do credentials add anything at all? If they aren't, how does claiming debatable expertise make the contribution more worthwhile? Much more interesting to discuss and consider a person's arguments than the person him or herself. Some basic questions remain unaddressed and all of this fluff is just distracting from some important ideas - whether the are being presented by Scott Buwalda npdang or Abmolech. This shouldn't be like a school yard fight where everybody stands back and cheers for their favorite.


----------



## Daishi (Apr 18, 2006)

ALL OR NOTHING said:


> i wish i knew the name of that forum... it's peter euro or some ****. they have several threads and even a "sticky" thread bashing the hell out of scott. one of the main cats from that forum is "thylantyr" he comes to this site just to jump on scott. i think it's pretty sad, considering the fact that buddy hasn't been in the car audio seen in well over 10 years....
> 
> here's my .02... i know how to install and i don't consider myself to be a car audio guru. i also consider myself to be a pretty good tuner as well... thanx to me having a very good musical ear. yes, i'm a musician. play guitar, sing and bang on drums. i know what music is suppose to sound like. i've always had the best systems in my cars because i want settle for less. i've owned mb quart, focal, morel, rainbow, dynaudio, genesis, dls, helix, alpine, image dynamics, mtx, jl audio....... i've heard it all. i'm telling you now.... to me... i have the best system out there. when i first heard my system after i got through tuning it i just about burst into tears. i've never ever been fully satisfied with my systems. you guys know what the hell i'm talking about to.
> damn.... i gotta get that new hu or that sub.... ohhhhh lotus is got a new comp coming out this june. i've never been fully happy with i got until now. scott's got his back in the corner and i'll put up one hell of a fight to save his ass. that man helped me build the ultimate system that i don't think anyother speaker company could've accomplished. i got the best of the best. don't believe me? come down to atlanta and i'll blow your mind away!!!


So, you come here thinking this is Peter Euro's site and therefore go on a tirade that just proves my point about you. "i have the best and you guys are just bashing Scott blah blah blah." What does that have to do with the data on the drivers in question? Nobody here is bashing Scott, nobody here is bashing his equipment, just questioning the data on them.

This site is also about trying new things, like home audio drivers in the car environment, not about spending $45k on your stereo. I think you need to read the sticky at the top of this forum called "they DIYMA message"


----------



## 89grand (Nov 23, 2006)

ALL OR NOTHING said:


> i know scott pretty good and i absolutely don't appreciate the bashing here. scott has totally earned all the respect he deserves. kinda like a demi-god... don't question his knowlege


Oh good lord. I think I just threw up in my mouth a little bit.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

Yeah, my screen name is a joke. I thought it was pretty clear that it was a joke. I've said that it was a joke a few times. And I have more than once posted my name on threads. Funny Scott knew who I was. If you really wanted to know who I was, you could go and read a couple old posts. Maybe put the equipment that I've posted into consideration as well. I know you are on ECA, and I've posted about the same things there. I would have thought the large Linear Power collection and the HSS tube amp were a dead give away...but I guess it wasn't. And to give you another hint, you invited me to your forum when I was banned on ECA. But if that still doesn't clear things up, it's Winslow...Jason Winslow here.

I'm not the one with the ego that needs to be sit aside. You guys get your collective panties in a bunch when someone starts questioning your beliefs and core of information.

I feel that applied knowledge is every bit as important or more so than theoretical knowledge. You can talk about how this and that would be better than that or this, but when it comes time to actually make it work...in a car it is a different story.

It just baffles me why you can't give Scott the same accords you give everyone else.



FoxPro5 said:


> Because he doesn't go around telling people how much more he knows then them and who his all his friends are. Is your screen name a joke, or do people really hate you?? Seriously man, then you have the nerve to accuse someone else of not knowing a real name behind the screen??
> 
> He doesn't just _talk _about theory, he actually gives physical and mathematical cause for his statements. He's the teacher with the all kinds of crazy **** all over the chalk board. A bit unorthodox, yes. But why don't you just sit and listen rather than make up your mind before hand that I won't work because you don't like his style. I believe they call this adaptive learning.
> 
> ...


----------



## thylantyr (Jan 21, 2008)

ALL OR NOTHING said:


> dude, there is a forum dedicated to bashing hybrid audio and scott in general... they post pics of scott's cars that aren't finished and make fun of his ass. this thread is a straight cut-throat bash... nothing but hater's !!!


Do you have a link?


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

Pretty sure he is talking about Peter's forum.

Pretty cute with Peter saying theHATedguy.


----------



## thylantyr (Jan 21, 2008)

ALL OR NOTHING said:


> i wish i knew the name of that forum... it's peter euro or some ****. they have several threads and even a "sticky" thread bashing the hell out of scott. one of the main cats from that forum is "thylantyr" he comes to this site just to jump on scott. i think it's pretty sad, considering the fact that buddy hasn't been in the car audio seen in well over 10 years....
> 
> here's my .02... i know how to install and i don't consider myself to be a car audio guru. i also consider myself to be a pretty good tuner as well... thanx to me having a very good musical ear. yes, i'm a musician. play guitar, sing and bang on drums. i know what music is suppose to sound like. i've always had the best systems in my cars because i want settle for less. i've owned mb quart, focal, morel, rainbow, dynaudio, genesis, dls, helix, alpine, image dynamics, mtx, jl audio....... i've heard it all. i'm telling you now.... to me... i have the best system out there. when i first heard my system after i got through tuning it i just about burst into tears. i've never ever been fully satisfied with my systems. you guys know what the hell i'm talking about to.
> damn.... i gotta get that new hu or that sub.... ohhhhh lotus is got a new comp coming out this june. i've never been fully happy with i got until now. scott's got his back in the corner and i'll put up one hell of a fight to save his ass. that man helped me build the ultimate system that i don't think anyother speaker company could've accomplished. i got the best of the best. don't believe me? come down to atlanta and i'll blow your mind away!!!


You are the funny guy. You sent me a cool PM.



> hey buddy, what's that link to that petereuro forum? i'd like to check out that forum. there's too many crybabies on this site!


LOL @ crybabies

You are making claims and you never visited Peter's forum. 

There is no sticky for Scott, Scott can only wish that Peter's forum is dedicated to him. 

Go to the forum and look at it. Every topic is game to analysis, ie I just
spent a week trying to uncover the Zuki mystery... 

Regarding Scotts product, this is what I said.



> I'd have to audition the drivers to see what they can do, then
> I can talk about it


Regarding Scotts methodologies, I said what I said on this thread.
Show me how SQ can be measured and trophies aren't an SQ measurement.


----------



## FoxPro5 (Feb 14, 2006)

thehatedguy said:


> Yeah, my screen name is a joke. I thought it was pretty clear that it was a joke. I've said that it was a joke a few times. And I have more than once posted my name on threads. Funny Scott knew who I was. If you really wanted to know who I was, you could go and read a couple old posts. Maybe put the equipment that I've posted into consideration as well. I know you are on ECA, and I've posted about the same things there. I would have thought the large Linear Power collection and the HSS tube amp were a dead give away...but I guess it wasn't. And to give you another hint, you invited me to your forum when I was banned on ECA. But if that still doesn't clear things up, it's Winslow...Jason Winslow here.
> 
> I'm not the one with the ego that needs to be sit aside. You guys get your collective panties in a bunch when someone starts questioning your beliefs and core of information.
> 
> ...


Jason, I know who you are. My point has to do with you calling Abmolech out when you post under your hated moniker. I thought it was low.

Also, didn't you get banned on ECA for your ego? Telling someone else how you're better? No? Or at least you attitude in general.

I give a ton of credit to Scott. Good guy that knows his stuff. I value his contributions, but don't need to see the 20 trophies.


----------



## Rudeboy (Oct 16, 2005)

ALL OR NOTHING said:


> don't believe me? come down to atlanta and i'll blow your mind away!!!












Maybe you know our boy Dave?

Oops.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

Yeah, that was a double edge sword I know. But I felt as if people here already knew who I was.

No, that's not the reason why I got banned from ECA...neither one is true.




FoxPro5 said:


> Jason, I know who you are. My point has to do with you calling Abmolech out when you post under your hated moniker. I thought it was low.
> 
> Also, didn't you get banned on ECA for your ego? Telling someone else how you're better? No? Or at least you attitude in general.
> 
> I give a ton of credit to Scott. Good guy that knows his stuff. I value his contributions, but don't need to see the 20 trophies.


----------



## ///Audience (Jan 31, 2007)

This thread has officially turned from an intelligent conversation (one that was teaching me alot)... to an idiotic bashing of people who have no right to be bashing each other.

And WTF "All or nothing"???


----------



## t3sn4f2 (Jan 3, 2007)

Quick question? Is this $439 price on the L6, for the pair?

http://www.lmfaudio.com/product_info.php?cPath=36_51&products_id=111


----------



## 89grand (Nov 23, 2006)

t3sn4f2 said:


> Quick question? Is this $439 price on the L6 for the pair?
> 
> http://www.lmfaudio.com/product_info.php?cPath=36_51&products_id=111


Uhhh...if you put two in the cart, the price doubles, so apparently, that's EACH! Utterly absurd.

I bought all my drivers for less than $439 total.


----------



## t3sn4f2 (Jan 3, 2007)

89grand said:


> Uhhh...if you put two in the cart, the price doubles, so apparently, that's EACH! Utterly absurd.
> 
> I bought all my drivers for less than $439 total.


*Good Lord das alotta money!!* 

For the Hybrids that is, not your drivers


----------



## Rudeboy (Oct 16, 2005)

BassBaller5 said:


> And WTF "All or nothing"???


You remember our friend Dave the Mason, don't you? Hmm, Dave Mason, used to love traffic. We Just Disagree was pretty good too. Different guy though. This on lives in his mom's basement and posts nazi crap.


----------



## Scott Buwalda (Apr 7, 2006)

$439.99 a pair. OK, here comes my response. Next thread...


----------



## Scott Buwalda (Apr 7, 2006)

This thread is self-replicating. It was once a good technical discussion with no cynicism or contempt, but now my mouth is being filled with other people’s words. Has no one realized I haven’t posted in this thread in nearly 48 hours?

My suggestion is to go back and read MY POSTS. My last post on this thread was a very technical rebuttal, backed by technical, quantitative and qualitative reasoning that has never been responded to by NP Dang, my discussion “opponent.” No, the only posts by Dang were ones claiming I was throwing my credentials in his face instead of answering my questions for him. This leads me to the following three conclusions:

First, I posted my credentials in response to Dang, who was, in essence, questioning my credentials. If you guys would stop for a moment replicating this thread, you’d realize that Dang said that he thought I don’t know how to give and take, a largely question of credentials. If I misread that, I apologize. But I responded that I certainly must know how to give and take because I have won many championships and wining championships requires the highest level of give and take. It was not meant to throw credentials into the ring, like some have suggested (and three pages later it was just as if I had said those things), but to give proof in argument. This is an argument, a friendly one --- but an argument nonetheless, and anyone of you would have done the same thing in my shoes. You’re questioned of your credentials, so you answer the question with a discussion of your credentials. It was to show that I do know how to give and take. Go back and read my last post, not anyone else’s. I am being hung on a cross for something someone said back on page 12, and is now being referenced as if I had said it on page 18. Hilarious. You guys need to step away from your keyboards, and just read for the next hour.

Secondly, Dang mentions how I “threw” my credentials in his face instead of responding to his questions? What questions have I not responded to???? From my perspective, I have answered all of Dang’s, but he still owes me a long, lengthy discussion about zero delay plane, IMD of a tweeter verses a mid at 2,000 Hz, tonal character of the tweeter at 2,000 Hz, staging and imaging cues, spilt stages, split images, phase coherency of single point-source verses multiple point sources, etc. 

Thirdly, Dang knows he lost the debate. Why do you think he has not responded to not only my last post, which asked of him several questions, but also responded to my technical post with a two-sentence rebuttal. I am reminded of college debate class---you know you have won the debate when, after giving a long, technical discussion backed by sound reasoning, your opponent rebuts with a short rebuttal of largely personal form factor. This is what has happened here. Perhaps on paper, a (weak) case could be made for what Dang was referencing early on in this thread with respect to low tweeter crossover points, when it was still a good thread, but not in application. It doesn’t work in application, and to risk “throwing credentials”, I know it doesn’t work in application because I have tried it hundreds of times in real life. If there is anything I have studied ad nauseam in real life, it is tweeter crossovers and their effect in-car.

This discussion started out about Hybrid Audio Technologies speakers, but went off topic immediately after I responded the first time. The topic then went into a very nice, intuitive technical discussion about tweeters and crossovers. I loved it. I even told one of my closest associates that it was nice to stretch my brain. And now I can’t tell you what the thread is about. Is it about how competing is not a viable metric for judging sound quality? Or me “throwing” my credentials in Dang’s face? Or me pushing my product? Has anyone realized that in every case, it’s a negative on me, and not a negative on any else but me???? Has anyone realized that I stopped posting two days ago, and there are words being placed in my mouth, just as if I had said them????? No, when I left this thread, we were discussing tweeter crossovers. Now we’re talking about God-knows-what. This is car audio guys. Relax, have fun. Take a break and watch the race on TV, or better yet, go listen to your car stereo system.

At the rate this thread is going, just like a select few other threads on this board, I appear with sound reasoning, asking hard technical questions of procedure, posting intuitively precise discussions and application-specific knowledge, and in more than half the cases, it becomes a pissing match of personal proportion, that has gone so far from the original intent of the thread, the thread is rendered useless; a waste of bandwidth. I think I do an amicable job at keeping my discussions largely above the board. I am not perfect, not always right, and learn something every day. But I do keep my temper in check and avoid personalization, and taste my words before they come out on the keyboard; I might see a few of you in real life some day and I want to be sure that if we do meet, I don’t need to be ashamed of something I have said about one of you here on the internet. I am confident in the fact that I can say the words I type to anyone in real life. I don’t know you, and you don’t know me. Until you have spent a week in my shoes, and I spend a week in your shoes, there should be no personal attacks. I love debating. But I hate fighting. It’s useless and serves no purpose but to drag people (usually me, for no apparent reason) through the mud. 

Mine was the last technical post I can understand on this thread. I think Abmolech is posting something good and technically sound, but I just can’t understand it. I used to be a technical editor by day job (16 years), and mate, I can’t understand what you’re talking about. Not in technical terms, but rather in use of sentence structure, first person prose, use of poetry references, and etc. I’d love to respond to you if you can give me a bullet point list to respond to. Otherwise, and please don’t take offense, your writings seriously confuse me…

So honestly guys, this thread ends like half the other threads about Hybrid Audio Technologies not because I fuel the fire, nor do my associates and Team Hybrids members fuel the fire, but because select members of this board fuel it. Since Foosman100 posted way back when, with a nice offer to listen to his car in the DFW area (incidentally, a system that uses virtually all OEM locations, including DOOR SPEAKER LOCATIONS for mid and midbass), there has been no official Hybrid Audio Technologies presence here. And yet, the thread keeps replicating itself. 

I would LOVE, just once, to post something on this board that is meaningful, technical, and backed by sound reasoning, and not have this happen.

So, that’s about all I can say right now. I have said my technical “peace.” I will continue to post items that have only technical or discussion-promoting merit. If you guys wish to string this thread out, be my guest. I am much too busy in real life to respond to internet fighting. If anyone has further technical questions or discussion matters, I welcome them.


----------



## 89grand (Nov 23, 2006)

Scott Buwalda said:


> $439.99 a pair. OK, here comes by response. Next thread...


Way out of my considering still, but much better than $439 each.

That website is misleading.


----------



## t3sn4f2 (Jan 3, 2007)

Scott Buwalda said:


> $439.99 a pair. OK, here comes by response. Next thread...


Ahhhhh ok, thats not bad then, Scan Speak and Seas price range with a little extra for the weather treatment and some chrome bling.


----------



## Scott Buwalda (Apr 7, 2006)

89grand said:


> Way out of my considering still, but much better than $439 each.
> 
> That website is misleading.


Yes, I have sent a note to the administrator's of the LMF website. I see the confusion, and thanks for alerting me to it. Yeah, $980 for a pair of midbass is a little extreme... 

Scott


----------



## Mr Marv (Aug 19, 2005)

I have nothing of any real benefit to add to this thread however for anyone who is interested I'll mention that several cars/trucks with HAT speakers will be attending my BBQ/Meet this year and I'm sure the doors will be wide open for all who'd like to hear them.


----------



## ca90ss (Jul 2, 2005)

Scott Buwalda said:


> Thirdly, Dang knows he lost the debate.


I don't think there is a right or wrong in this debate. SQ is very subjective and while in your opinion what you're saying is the way that works best for you you have to realize that what Npdang is saying is what works best for him. If there was one right way to do something then everyone would be doing it and there would be no need for this discussion.


----------



## Scott Buwalda (Apr 7, 2006)

You're probably right. I was just judging it by the response. At the end of the day, it all comes down to your own ears. What was said, up until the thread went haywire, was a REAL good start for anyone dabbling with their own systems...

Scott



ca90ss said:


> I don't think there is a right or wrong in this debate. SQ is very subjective and while in your opinion what you're saying is the way that works best for you you have to realize that what Npdang is saying is what works best for him. If there was one right way to do something then everyone would be doing it and there would be no need for this discussion.


----------



## Rbsarve (Aug 26, 2005)

Why is this page 20 pages long when it only contains about 6 worthwile posts? Mainly done by our host and mr Buwalda. (page 8, 10 and 11 does have some interressting stuff in them)

I actually find myself agreeing and disagreeing with both of them. 

I guess I have to put forward my own credentials due to the discussions:
I have been doing installs for over 20 years now. 
I co-run the Swedish distributorship for several brands, including Seas.
We also do market our own versions of Tymphany sourced drivers.
I compete and judge in EMMA.
I have two engineering degrees (Batchelor of Science in mechanics and thermodynamics)

I will try to stay far away from the technical terms for this one:

If feel that part of Scott's original post was to advocate the use of a dedicated midrange driver and a fairly high up crossed in Tweet.

All my experiences say that this is the best approach in most cars.
The best car I've ever heard had such a setup. (All Genesis) and my current competetion car has a similar setup. However, the second and third best cars I've ever heard has 6,5" 2-way sets crossed over low. (SEAS and ScanSpeak repectivelly) but both these cars had massivly reconstructed dashes, which for a lot of people is not a viable option.

Npdang mentioned earlier that the car is a terrible place to try to get Hi-fi into. And the most terrible thing you can do in it is to put a bass speaker in the door.

Honestly, the door only got two things going for it: There is lots of unused space/air and it's relativly close to the listener.
The rest is just a nightmare of weak, movable stuctures that is unsealed and rattly. 

So where are my midbasses you ask? -In the doors.
I've spend loads of time and effort in getting them to play as they do, but I'm still far, far from satisfied. 
In the end car audio is much like engineering, it's about making choises between different drawbacks.

As for crossover frequencies, I'm adamant that crossing a tweeter at 2,5k is better then doing it at 4k, but doing it at 7k is even better!

At 4k our ears are really sensitive to phase issues, a lot of the vocal harmonics related to "presence" are centered around here. At 2,5 k our ears are at their most sensitive to sybliances (ape screams) so putting the crossover frequency here with a bit of dip in the passband-responce can really help. Using time delay and select slope and frequencies to create phase correct crossovers helps massivly too.


The TG9 vs Legatia was mentioned alredy on the first page of this thread, and that thing got very infected. I have experience in both drivers, and except for beeing roughly the same size they are just about as far apart as any drivers can be. 

The TG9 was designed by the Vifa team to be a good solution for inepensive designs. It is very much designed to a price. I discovered that it had loads of potential in car due to several factors: wide frequency range, pretty good output and a frequency responce well suited to OFF-axis mounting. 
What it was originally used for was to replace stock units in SAAB's. Thing was that we dicovered that with careful tuning the true potential of the driver came to life and it is currently the most used speaker in the competetion scene over here.

The Legatia on the other hand was designed with very different goals in mind, and they are very well built drivers at a different price point.
They have just about the reversed frequency responce as the TG9's has,
the dip in the range making it sound very pleasing to the ears when on axis.
I found them a bit difficult to tweak to my likeing. It is always harder to bring something out then reduce something. But a very good choise for those not so keen to tweak.

Which is best? -The one that suits your need the best.


----------



## Rudeboy (Oct 16, 2005)

Scott Buwalda said:


> ... My suggestion is to go back and read MY POSTS. ...


I just went back and read your posts and npdang's and I'm sorry, but I don't see any evidence of what you are accusing him of. The entire credentials debate was with other posters and as far as I can see, primarily driven by thehatedguy. I'm not saying that this thread hasn't gotten out of hand, but let's be fair about it - of you, npdang and Abmolech, the only one I see talking about winning and losing debates is you. npdang may owe you an answer, but you were certainly selective in leaving Abmolech's very basic questions unanswered. 

I'm glad to see you posting here because of your extensive experience but there doesn't have to be a winner on every point. npdang, in particular, often commented that he didn't understand your point or didn't agree with it - not even close to a personal attack. I know you think you were being persecuted and ganged up on. I don't see it, but if there is any truth to the charges, that behavior certainly didn't come from npdang or Abmolech. I'd take a close look at thehatedguy if you want to accuse anybody of fanning the flames. 

What you are doing is very interesting. Many of us are fascinated to read your take on things. You may be more accustomed to a company forum on which every post is more or less directed to you. That certainly isn't the case here, so please don't take every heated exchange as an attack on you.


----------



## npdang (Jul 29, 2005)

Scott my friend, I am honestly baffled at how you are reading and interpreting my posts. Why do I always feel as if I have to apologize to you for everything I say? 

I never questioned your credentials or said that you threw them in my face. 

I actually gave much credit to your experience and knowledge.

I only addressed points that I have disagreed with you. Why would I talk about things that we are in agreement with? I also DID respond to your last post. To say I "lost" an argument is completely against the spirit of this board and sounds petty IMO. I thought we were discussing the merits of different approaches and tradeoffs, not "debating" who is right or wrong or who has more trophies in their closet.

Honestly, my only conclusion is that you either harbor some personal grudge against me, or you're not taking the time to sit back and read and try to understand the points I'm making. Many of your responses are just baffling to me as they don't seem (to me) to address what I'm saying.

If you look carefully at my responses, I think you'll find that we are simply not on the same page. I'm addressing topics of concern to me, while you continue to talk about things that I'm already in agreement with you regarding their validity, but not necessarily their importance.

Imho, if you want to know why these Hybrid threads blow up... it's because there are alot of people who aren't involved making alot of inflammatory comments... and because like I said, we seem to have a serious communication problem.


----------



## Scott Buwalda (Apr 7, 2006)

Rbsarve said:


> As for crossover frequencies, I'm adamant that crossing a tweeter at 2,5k is better then doing it at 4k, but doing it at 7k is even better!


Maybe there's hope for this thread.

I know I am taking only one small part of your post, but it is the part I agree with 110%. Sorry for being selfish. With HRTF being predominant to around 6,000 Hz, I always, always, always cross my tweeters at the 6.3 KHz mark, if not higher. In many of our competition cars, we bring it out to 8,000 Hz if the mid is mostly on-axis. The 4,000 Hz reference given earlier by me was meant for a "not to exceed" number. I couldn't agree with you more on the 7,000 Hz number. 

As an aside, a little bit of a funny inside joke within our Team Hybrids camp. The lowest crossover point on the team is 5,000 Hz and the highest is 8,000 Hz. One guy in particular on Team Hybrids has given a lot of sound demo's, and what feedback is given the majority of the time? "I love how your tweeters sound at 3,000 Hz and above." We all laugh, because in this gentleman's veicle, the L3's are playing to 8,000 Hz. I guess now the secret's out. 

Scott


----------



## jj_diamond (Oct 3, 2007)

thehatedguy said:


> Yeah, my screen name is a joke. I thought it was pretty clear that it was a joke. I've said that it was a joke a few times. And I have more than once posted my name on threads. Funny Scott knew who I was. If you really wanted to know who I was, you could go and read a couple old posts. Maybe put the equipment that I've posted into consideration as well. I know you are on ECA, and I've posted about the same things there. I would have thought the large Linear Power collection and the HSS tube amp were a dead give away...but I guess it wasn't. And to give you another hint, you invited me to your forum when I was banned on ECA. But if that still doesn't clear things up, it's Winslow...Jason Winslow here.
> 
> *I'm not the one with the ego that needs to be sit aside. You guys get your collective panties in a bunch when someone starts questioning your beliefs and core of information.*
> 
> ...


*BAM!!!!! **- *Emeril


----------



## Scott Buwalda (Apr 7, 2006)

npdang said:


> we seem to have a serious communication problem.


It appears we do. I did only skim the last eight pages, but it kept seeming like you were going back to two topics...the validity of car audio competition, and my mentioning my credentials. I don't have it in me to quote you each time, but that was the general thrust of my reading. Apologies if it wasn't. But as I mentioned before, we had a good thing going, and before you knew it, it was a useless thread. 

Scott


----------



## Rudeboy (Oct 16, 2005)

Scott Buwalda said:


> It appears we do. I did only skim the last eight pages, but it kept seeming like you were going back to two topics...the validity of car audio competition, and my mentioning my credentials. *I don't have it in me to quote you each time*, but that was the general thrust of my reading. Apologies if it wasn't. But as I mentioned before, we had a good thing going, and before you knew it, it was a useless thread.
> 
> Scott


I hope somebody will do it then. I honestly couldn't find what you are talking about.


----------



## Scott Buwalda (Apr 7, 2006)

OK, I think I have extracted the last few posts from Dang. They are:



> or the same reason I think anyone would be upset when someone can't answer a question, but wants to rub their credentials in your face?





> It doesn't matter if you're a sq competitor, a doctorate, an engineer, etc. No one likes it when you bring credentials into a thread as a substitute for reasoning. I'm not saying it applies to this thread, only in response to your post. You seemed genuinely surprised that people would have this reaction. There are tons of competition threads in this forum, none of which have elicited any negative reactions. It's only the threads where people have come in and used their "trophies" or "industry experience" as the be all, end all reasoning behind something.





> This seems to be a recurring problem You guys are totally, totally missing the mark about what I'm saying. I have NEVER said that competitors don't deserve credit, or are not knowledgeable. Where do you guys get that from? In fact, with regards to Scott I said SPECIFICALLY that he was experienced and quite knowledgeable.
> 
> To you, I'm only saying, in general.... isn't it more constructive (and polite) to simply give an answer than to throw your credentials out there?
> 
> Personally, (not talking about you), I'm just tired of people reading into things. There is the absolute worst reading comprehension I've ever seen in some of these threads, and people just making things up out of nowhere... often times very inflammatory things.





> That's a good point, but I think too strong. There are many cases when we can reference experiments or papers that prove a point without having personal experience ourselves. And on the other hand, why should any person be above reproach regardless of their credentials? Especially when it comes to something as subjective as how we like our cars to sound?





> I feel the opposite. You get people agreeing with Scott even though they admit they don't understand what he's saying. Besides myself, I don't see anyone else "questioning" Scott. I have alot of reasons why I disagree with him, because it doesn't jive with what I've done and heard, and I don't see why all the drama just because I have a different opinion on things. I think Scott elicits stronger opinions because he makes strong statements.


My conclusions:

1. The credentials statement WAS a very big deal.
2. I don't harbor a grudge. I just wish I am given an equal chance to be a member of this forum.
3. I guess I am guilty of "reading between the lines." I think everyone here is guilty.
4. This would be much easier in person. Much is lost in internet "communication" like non-verbal communication, sharing the experiences together, talking about them, and etc. Yes, we have a communication problem...it's one of the serious negatives of having discussions on bulletin boards.
5. Finally, you give me WAY too much credit regarding how people automagically agree wth me. I disagree. I feel like on this board, I have to back up every statement so as to not get nit-picked. There's a lot of smart people here and most of them can see immediately through B.S. You, on the other hand, illicit considerably more respect...you may not be aware of it, but it's true.

Can we start a campfire now and lay this to rest?

Scott


----------



## Rudeboy (Oct 16, 2005)

Scott Buwalda said:


> OK, I think I have extracted the last few posts from Dang. They are:
> ...


I don't remember any of those statements being directed at you.


----------



## thylantyr (Jan 21, 2008)

In home audio, there are many camps to choose from, the list is big.

The reason the list is big is because there is less restriction.

There are people in home audio that only want midranges in their sound
system for the tops and they augment these with tweeters crossed at 10khz.

I can show you a simple example if you want.

This doesn't make this method better, it's what certain people want.

Another audio camp wants their tweeters to operate down to 500hz, because
it's what they like.

If your 'Team Hybrids camp' moved into home audio, you'd find out that
your preference of audio playback might fit right into one of those *existing* audio camps.

There is really nothing to debate here. The person making their sound system
needs to figure out what they like.

People don't teach this process of discovery and people don't want to learn the process
of finding out what they like. They want to be told what to do based on some credentials,
ie... I'm going to buy a Wilson Audio loudspeaker because they are the best ever!


----------



## Rbsarve (Aug 26, 2005)

Scott Buwalda said:


> Maybe there's hope for this thread.
> 
> I know I am taking only one small part of your post, but it is the part I agree with 110%. Sorry for being selfish. With HRTF being predominant to around 6,000 Hz, I always, always, always cross my tweeters at the 6.3 KHz mark, if not higher.


No worries, but I think we need to highlight two things that is obvious, you need a driver that can effortlessly extend up to about 7 k, which pretty much kills 99% of all drivers out there to start with. And that you will benefit from having the drivers close to eachother even if that in some ways can be offset with proper DSP-based tuning.

Btw: I must agree I have a problem in following what Abmole wrote, but I was thinking I was due to my english not beeing up to the task. :blush:


----------



## npdang (Jul 29, 2005)

Scott Buwalda said:


> OK, I think I have extracted the last few posts from Dang. They are:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think you were reading between the lines on that one. I was speaking in a very general sense, just in reply to Genxx only. Had nothing to do with you and most certainly not directed toward you. I think also in the other thread where you took great offense at what I said. In fact, I was really just saying that I think you were pushing too hard and not showing the give and take to your approach, or considering any other approaches.

It's not a matter of respect Scott, I think people have a very healthy respect for what you've done, your experience, and your knowledge, myself included. I think it comes to the way you communicate in absolute terms, and your passion for what you talk about can rub some people the wrong way.

But I definitely agree... talking on the internet is a fine art and even with the best of intentions, seems like there's always a good chance for miscommunication.

I think for the future I'm just going to let these things go. None of it's important at the end of the day anyway. Let people say or think what they want.


----------



## Hillbilly SQ (Jan 26, 2007)

thylantyr said:


> There is really nothing to debate here. The person making their sound system
> needs to figure out what they like.


ding ding ding!

like i've said several times in the past week there's more than one way to skin a catfish and you just can't argue with WHAT WORKS. i don't like the way dyn speakers sound but others love them. my daily system would most likely come in last place at an sq comp but i designed it with stock locations and durability in mind. i'm straight up tonality.

why did i just say what i did? i don't know really. just taking one last whack at the dead horse in this thread


----------



## Scott Buwalda (Apr 7, 2006)

thylantyr said:


> If your 'Team Hybrids camp' moved into home audio, you'd find out that your preference of audio playback might fit right into one of those *existing* audio camps.


This is very true. I don't claim that we manufcatured the camp, I was only stating what we do as matter of course. As mentioned by me back in one of my earliest posts I am not a home audio expert.



> There is really nothing to debate here. The person making their sound system needs to figure out what they like.


This is also true.

Scott


----------



## thylantyr (Jan 21, 2008)

This thread exists because Scott wants to beat out the Zuki thread in
post count. To get another trophy................  




/jk


----------



## Melodic Acoustic (Oct 10, 2005)

Man, I can't believe I just read this entire thread.

OK my .02 on the matter for what its worth. I am also one of those people who like higher crossover points on the tweeters, but I have built some very nice sounding cars with tweeters crossed over pretty low. So the both ways can and has worked very well.

Now to my point, for you Military guys you will know the saying there is being Technical proficient and there is being Tactical proficient. Technical proficient is knowing the theory behind how something works, Tactical proficient is being able to use and imply the Technical knowledge in a real world situation. I have come across many people (in my case my soldiers) that could tell me how it was done in and out and how/why it worked that way, but as soon as I put them in a real world situation they just could not deliver. Kind of like “Book Smarts” and “Street Smarts”, if you have both and can employ them when truly needed, at that time and only at that time will you be truly complete in your search for ultimate knowledge.  And, at that time will I truly open up an ear and truly listen to what you have to say. 

I have known Scott for sometime now and have read on this board and tried many things Npdang has posted and I respect both of them for their knowledge and both are entitled to their own opinions. And both do make great points!! What Npdang does has it place in, it helps you in making a choice on the driver you select, like giving you the tools to make an educated guess on your choice and this is truly helpful and is need by some. What Scott has done is just take his choice put in a condition/situation and made it work and work well and along his journey gain the knowledge to make that educated guess. This is what most of us has and/or is doing. Technical and Tactical proficient.

Man I hope that make sense! Hope I did not push anyone bottoms.


----------



## Scott Buwalda (Apr 7, 2006)

NP, thanks for this, I truly appreciate it. It's REALLY hard to not have your heart on your sleeve when you read some of the inflammatory stuff that people post on the internet (not you, but others), that you KNOW they'd never say to you in person. You never really know if what is typed is meant as a light-hearted jab, or a full blown case of character assassination. I love light-hearted jabs, and can give them like the best of them. But there are things I read that I wouldn't expect out of arch enemies. Complete loss of civility...an extreme case of insecurity is all it is.

I will agree 110% with this:



npdang said:


> I think for the future I'm just going to let these things go. None of it's important at the end of the day anyway. Let people say or think what they want.


I said this back in my second post, I believe, and I said it in a PM just a few minutes ago to the original poster. At the end of the day, car audio is supposed to be fun...a stimulating hobby for both mind and body. When I read some of the stuff being said on public forums, I am shocked and saddened.

All's good in Buwalda Camp.

Scott


----------



## Scott Buwalda (Apr 7, 2006)

thylantyr said:


> This thread exists because Scott wants to beat out the Zuki thread in post count. To get another trophy................  /jk


LMAO

If we achieve it, can I brag about it on this forum? LOL

Scott

EDIT: I am going to take my own advice and be a hillbilly and watch the race. I'll be back tomorrow morning to read up some more.


----------



## Hillbilly SQ (Jan 26, 2007)

Scott Buwalda said:


> LMAO
> 
> If we achieve it, can I brag about it on this forum? LOL
> 
> Scott


this thread has a looooong way to go snookums the zuki thread progressed fast enough to make my head spin


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

I dunno, 23 pages is pretty good.


----------



## ALL OR NOTHING (Mar 9, 2008)

thylantyr said:


> Do you have a link?


sure do...

http://server6.kproxy.com/servlet/r...etereuro/viewtopic.php?t=392&mforum=petereuro


----------



## Daishi (Apr 18, 2006)

man, you guys need to turn off the "noob" settings for posts per page. I'm only on page 6 with this post.


----------



## drake78 (May 27, 2007)

Scott, congrads to your hard earn success. I think you efforts in the car audio industry speaks for it self. It's fair to say karma will be favored on your side. Yes, I think you already know that.


----------



## Abmolech (Nov 2, 2006)

Warning you may not like me to be less vague.... 

It is quite basic proposition.
You have too many variables to isolate the crossover set point as the prime problem.
An example is the use of “beaming” to centre the stage. Since beaming or off axis response, is a large factor of piston area, and a small variable of cone/dome geometry, I will simplify the equation.

Wavelength = the piston diameter
This is the LOWEST calculable effect of combining.

IE a 8” piston = 1690.5 Hz (using the speed of sound = 1127 feet per second)
It does not beam below this frequency. IF we therefore use an electronic band-pass at this frequency, and aim our driver in the vehicle, we could eliminate off axis response as the prime effect of amplitude variation for “centring of the stage”.

Point
We would still achieve amplitude variation because this effect is not primarily of the driver; it is non symmetrical baffle step response.

Second example is the use of stereophonic replay to isolate the crossover set point.

Stereophonic replay requires a correct vector (azimuth) and distance to create the illusion of the stage. For example, headphones fail the test because the vector and distance is incorrect, and the required acoustic crosstalk is not fulfilled.

Having the mid range and the tweeter at different vectors will produce the stage problems you describe and made acute by the listening distance. Zero point planes can be suitability mollified by time alignment.

Point
The use of crossover set points to cure these problems is false.

If we to use a monophonic centre. (IE zero point vector) The major distortions would be modulation and surround step response, which would be alleviated by the use of a low crossover set point.

You have not followed good scientific principles in your quest for a solution.
IE reduce or remove the variables.

I propose this post is less vague but far more astringent. It may be better to vague.:blush:


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

But your 1" tweeters will beam before 20k hertz. Do you suggest primarly a smaller tweeter, or adding a smaller super tweeter to the extreme top?


----------



## durwood (Mar 7, 2007)

thehatedguy said:


> But your 1" tweeters will beam before 20k hertz. Do you suggest primarly a smaller tweeter, or adding a smaller super tweeter to the extreme top?


Whatever works best for the install. 

Question is...will you hear above ~14khz?

A 0.75" tweeter will get you to ~18kHz before beaming/effect of comb filtering but it's going to have to cross it over higher typically due to power handling and excursion depending on output desired. Everything is a tradeoff. This why I suggest hiquphon tweeters have great upper end extension.

There is also planar/ribbon possiblities.


----------



## thylantyr (Jan 21, 2008)

This system design won 21 Trophies.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8m8fbnShPcw


----------



## Oliver (Jun 25, 2007)

thylantyr said:


> This system design won 21 Trophies.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8m8fbnShPcw


Little update, found here


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IYoxyKJhHM&NR=1

I believe this is done so your sounds will be sweeter [catsup ]


----------



## Genxx (Mar 18, 2007)

thylantyr said:


> This system design won 21 Trophies.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8m8fbnShPcw


No it did not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=touHzgwVMsk&feature=related

I see A$$HOLE already found the rebuttal.


----------



## Rudeboy (Oct 16, 2005)

Gotta love the one hand holds the camera, he other does everything else technique. It cracked me up that he didn't clean all of the ketchup out of the shot glass before he moved on to vinegar. Great stuff.


----------



## Oliver (Jun 25, 2007)

At The Federal Reserve, they swear by Hunt's Catsup


----------



## thylantyr (Jan 21, 2008)

Genxx said:


> No it did not.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=touHzgwVMsk&feature=related
> 
> I see A$$HOLE already found the rebuttal.


Poor guy can't get it to work  

He didn't use the audiophile penny and a good 
amplifier.


----------



## Genxx (Mar 18, 2007)

I am sure if he gets his polishing compound out and shines that penny up better it will sound like some damn fine home audio speakers.


----------



## OldOneEye (Jun 16, 2005)

thylantyr said:


> In home audio, there are many camps to choose from, the list is big.
> 
> The reason the list is big is because there is less restriction.


Restrictions by who? Heck, there isn't really any restriction in the car over how people listen to their music.... that doesn't change what is generally accepted as good. If some guy wants 4 6 X 9 speakers across the rear deck, there really isn't anything stopping him.

One of the things car audio seems to have going for it is many cars come with some sort of a system already that while it might sound bad, it's vanilla enough for the majority of people to think "that isn't so bad". A starting point really. Home Audio seems to let you draw way outside of the lines, even off the table if you want.



> If your 'Team Hybrids camp' moved into home audio, you'd find out that
> your preference of audio playback might fit right into one of those *existing* audio camps.
> 
> There is really nothing to debate here. The person making their sound system needs to figure out what they like.


20+ (or 7 I guess) pages into it, it seems five (or six debates are taking place). One involves why car speakers (and I guess HAT in particular) can't sound good using some high level discussion. Another about how award winning cars (with HAT speakers) sound good. Another about what methodology should be used to compare speakers. Another about what people like and dislike personally. Another about what _IS_ good sound and can it be quantified. And lastly about who we should listen to if we can't figure out the first couple debates on our own.

Having half a dozen discussions at the same time and then jumping between them seems to be why this has headed the way it has. 



> People don't teach this process of discovery and people don't want to learn the process
> of finding out what they like. They want to be told what to do based on some credentials,
> ie... I'm going to buy a Wilson Audio loudspeaker because they are the best ever!


So while we can't debate what sounds good to someone, we can probably debate what sounds good in general. I'm not going to have a debate with someone over if they think their Bose clock radio sounds good, or if its a good value. It sounds good to them so you can't win that one. But you can still have a discussion of why what they like isn't very good.

Juan


----------



## drake78 (May 27, 2007)

definite clearity, and conviction FTW
requires infinite amount of neutralizing
understanding root of the cause

hidden agendas for strickly personal gain
prejudice-distorts your thinking and preception
ignorant is bliss, but also a growth killer


----------



## thylantyr (Jan 21, 2008)

> Restrictions by who?


Not by who...................... The sound environment.  

A house is bigger than a car  .. that is the camp I'm 
debating in. A car is a restrictive environment and the
choices of installation are narrow. The products on the
market can hinder progress, ie tweeters choices, signal
processors, etc.



> seems five (or six debates are taking place). One
> involves why car speakers (and I guess HAT in particular) can't sound good using some high level discussion.


I'm not in that debate.



> Another about how award winning cars (with HAT speakers) sound good.


This would be interesting if I wanted to compete because
if you can model your sound system after designs that give
the judges a boner, then that is what you need to do. If
you don't compete, then model your sound system for the
sound you want. Why is this concept so difficult for people
to undestand ?  



> Another about what methodology should be used to compare speakers.


I'm not in that debate.



> Another about what people like and dislike personally.


I'm in that debate, because personal preference is
important. Steak or McDonalds.  




> Another about what _IS_ good sound and can it be quantified.


How do you measure SQ ? You can't. It's that simple.



> And lastly about who we should listen to if we can't figure out the first couple debates on our own.


When I started audio, I didn't have people to ask on what
to do, I had to figure it out all myself. Lucky, having prior
electronics experience expedited this process and I was 
able to make it work well and then I helped my friends who
didn't want to go through this whole process of discovery.

Who should people listen to ? In theory, nobody. One could
figure this stuff all out by themselves. Blame it on the
internet


----------



## Oliver (Jun 25, 2007)

It all comes down to, "Is the sound Pleasing" 

Everyone wants something great for nothing !


----------



## durwood (Mar 7, 2007)

Not only does the environment hinder us, but the way in which we use particular playback methods in the wrong environment. But that's a whole big can of worms that no one seems brave enough or curious enough to try except for a few.

I still stand behind my demoing a driver in mono, too many factors that the playback method and/or environment can affect if listening to two drivers at once. You want to know a drivers true colors, listen in mono. To remove room effects, you need anechoic listening conditions or mother nature (big open field).

space trumps all


----------



## backwoods (Feb 22, 2006)

This thread has what the zuki thread was missing!!!


An argument about mono v. stereo!

Just wasn't complete without it!

lol!

It seemed the true discussion in this thread was about tweeters being crossed over at different frequencies...

Ironically, I enjoy crossing my tweeters around 3k and underlapping with the midrange driver. 

So, does that put me dead center between the two camps?

I would go into more technical detail, but I'm starting to think it's to late for this thread. Sad, just like the Zuki thread, people get too emotional, and all the interesting discussions die away...


----------



## Fixtion (Aug 25, 2006)

this thread is going no where, and has completely gone off on a tangent from the op. it was vague to begin with, and has morphed into an off topic debate. can we lock this?

*-fixtion*


----------



## durwood (Mar 7, 2007)

talking about how to deal with space is > gizmos and gadgets that keep the marketing machine fueled strong, and empites peoples wallets.

The thread morphed into how to deal with space/environment/human hearing perception via the crossover point dicsussion.

Too bad on one wants to discuss environment, they only want to dicuss bling.


----------



## Fixtion (Aug 25, 2006)

durwood said:


> talking about how to deal with space is > gizmos and gadgets that keep the marketing machine fueled strong, and empites peoples wallets.
> 
> The thread morphed into how to deal with space/environment/human hearing perception via the crossover point dicsussion.
> 
> Too bad on one wants to discuss environment, they only want to dicuss bling.



exactly my point. no one's on the same page. lol. it's pointless. but meh.

*-fixtion*


----------



## durwood (Mar 7, 2007)

Fixtion said:


> exactly my point. no one's on the same page. lol. it's pointless. but meh.
> 
> *-fixtion*


at least there is some discussion of theory vs which speaker vs that speaker threads. Does it matter if we can't understand theory first? How do you define goals without knowing where to go?


Examples of: 

Dealing with space...barely any hits, only a few nibbles

http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/showthread.php?t=29011


Dealing with Space disguised as "bling"...more hits (but died shortly after)

http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/showthread.php?t=29411

Everyone like to discuss bling but no one wants to discuss optional theories.

It took close to 40 pages to discuss basic theory on ECA, but died after lack of equipment bling did not support it. LOL

I could probaly find mroe examples, but until people realize that space is greater than anything else, you get drama filled with opinions on particular equipment.


----------



## OldOneEye (Jun 16, 2005)

thylantyr said:


> This would be interesting if I wanted to compete because
> if you can model your sound system after designs that give
> the judges a boner, then that is what you need to do. If
> you don't compete, then model your sound system for the
> ...


Have you ever competed? Judged? Know any judges? Know how they pick the judges per event? I mean, baseball umpires are notorious for having their own strikes zones (boners if you will). Would you spend all day in the batting cage trying to master hitting the high fast ball, in the hopes you get a umpire who has a boner for calling anything below the waist a ball? I think your perception of how events are judged is off. 

Lets not forget that some people have no clue what sounds good. It might sound good to them (and if you go look around at some people's builds, you have to scratch your heads at time) but might sound like a wood spoon hitting a pot on the lows and nails scratching a chalkboard for highs, with the middle that makes Alicia Keys sound like Barry White with a sore throat. If you sat in a car like that, would you offer feedback, or would you think "that is the sound he wants, and that's what he accomplished so I'll stay out"? 

Much like judging wine, figure skating, diving, cigars, food, etc. there is a consensus about what is good and not so good. 



> How do you measure SQ ? You can't. It's that simple.


Nobody said they were measuring it (well, the RTA but that measures something else). They were JUDGING it, which is different. Like a fine wine or cigar, you can't put it on some machine and measure it (well, you can measure volume, and maybe density, maybe even color). You can judge it based on preestablished criteria. 

Juan


----------



## Abmolech (Nov 2, 2006)

> But your 1" tweeters will beam before 20k hertz. Do you suggest primarly a smaller tweeter, or adding a smaller super tweeter to the extreme top?


I suggest waveguides and array's (or though horns are an excellent option)
As durwood has alluded to, its about space. Apart from the lack of options for driver placement (especially if you limit yourself to stereo), space control is probably the number one issue for car audio reproduction.

It MAY be useful to use the beaming of the tweeter to reduce mid and late reflections. I suggest a waveguide would allow a lower cross over set-point, and help address some of the problematic reflections (space). I would use array's and consider steering also.

Does anyone want to refute my hypothesis that "aiming of drivers" in a car is non symmetric baffle based and not beaming?

It should be easy to try. This then SHOULD lead us into a better solution.

Waveguides. 
Horns 
Array's


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

I'm an proponent of horns and waveguides...use that beaming to your benefit.

It's just that a lot of people have serious misconceptions on how waveguides/horn work, how large they need to be, and how to build them.


----------



## thylantyr (Jan 21, 2008)

I've been to car stereo shows, but I never competed.
It only took one event for me to realize what a joke it is.

Do I need to keep coming back to these events to inducing vomitting? 

I guess so because over a span of a few years I would visit
these events, perhaps hoping to see something really cool,
but rarely did I see a sound system designed for sound
and not eye candy.


Can I be a judge? This would be fun? Lets go back in time.

I'm a judge at a 20 car event, all cars have Radio Shack
installs with 8 tracks, and I gave them all a score of zero
because they all sucked pretty bad.

..........But .......... we need a winner, now I have to give
out a trophy to the best crappy install of the day. Oh fun.


At the next event, someone wises up and mades a better
system using Pyramid speakers and a casette deck, here
we go again. 

Eventually audio skills improve, now we see someone 
enter the show with a piece of Zapco gear, a CD player,
maybe a pair of dedicated tweeters in the install, but
no midrange, only some crappy woofers. Naturally he has
to win, the Zapco install plus tweeters and no midrange
is a big improvement.  

Even though I hate the Zapco install also, a winner needs
to be crowned. This is fun    

The evolution of car audio contests continue. It gets more
organized, rules are created, people are now using name
brand equipment because they have an idea that it might
help them win. Just install this in any ole' fashion, who
cares.

Even Richard Clark said he installed 'stiffening capacitors'
in the old days of competition, not for function, but it would
give him an extra point or two on judging -- taking
advantage of the lack of technical skills.

It's ok to do SQ contests, it's ok to rack up trophies, it's
ok .................

What does it mean in the grand scheme of things?


----------



## thylantyr (Jan 21, 2008)

> ...pssst .... tell them that car audio is great for DIY training, but they need to complete their training and move into
> home audio .... horns, waveguides, line arrays, is the shiznit...........


----------



## Abmolech (Nov 2, 2006)

> ...pssst .... tell them that car audio is great for DIY training, but they need to complete their training and move into
> home audio .... horns, waveguides, line arrays, is the shiznit...........


I agree somewhat, using home audio gives us an appreciation of the listening space effect.

Yes home audio has surpassed car audio in terms of technology advancement ( viz horns, waveguides, line arrays), about the only area car audio can claim to hold its own is in sub bass.

Have a look at car audio cabinet design , and one quickly realises the poor state of affairs in car audio.

Still I desire music in my travels, and since I am constrained to spend a large percentage of my time following innate drivers with little or no goals in life, (accept maybe to achieve 15 minutes of fame, by being the biggest jerk on the road) music helps to pass this time.


----------



## backwoods (Feb 22, 2006)

thylantyr said:


> What does it mean in the grand scheme of things?


 

I spend a lot of time in home audio. I design & build HT systems for people, have built dozens of different towers and really been able to experience some very high end and impressive systems. I stay away from posting in many home stereo forums, because they are even worse in the speculation and lack of application then most car audio forums, and are much more susceptible to mixing up price and performance as to which one is the "bar" they are trying to achieve.

I've heard several car's at these "worthless" car audio competitions that I would put on par with many solid home designs. They are, in fact, flat out amazing so to make some of the comments you have made, is just ignorant, and not appreciated. 

There is two LARGE differences between car audio, and home audio and that is the price tag, and the enjoyment factor.

I get to enjoy my car all the time. I have to make an effort to get to listen to my home stereo. 

I don't have to worry about my kids messing with my car while I am at work, or worry about my dog eating through a set of wires and shorting out my gear.

Sure, I can spend 3k and build a set of home towers that any car would have a hard time coming close to, but the 3k is better spent in a place where I can get more use.

Plus, car audio is much more difficult and more challenging. Home audio is so simple, that the only things left to do is compare 10k cables on the chance that the perceived difference may bring some enjoyment back to it.


----------



## Abmolech (Nov 2, 2006)

> Plus, car audio is much more difficult and more challenging. Home audio is so simple, that the only things left to do is compare 10k cables on the chance that the perceived difference may bring some enjoyment back to it.


Clawed hand swipe, nice.


----------



## npdang (Jul 29, 2005)

I can't stand the sound of tweeters with limited top end dispersion. Hence, ribbons, diffusers, waveguides, and the like.


----------



## Rbsarve (Aug 26, 2005)

Abmolech said:


> Does anyone want to refute my hypothesis that "aiming of drivers" in a car is non symmetric baffle based and not beaming?


I would love to, if I had the faintest idea what you are talking about...
"non symmetric baffle based" ???



Abmolech said:


> It should be easy to try. This then SHOULD lead us into a better solution.
> Waveguides.
> Horns
> Array's


You are most welcome to try. I would be thrilled if you do get something working! 

Must say I have yet to figure out a good way to fit an array in a car that would yield proper imageing. But I have spent about two years working with various waveguide and HLCD setups.

The experiencies has lead me to strongly feel that HLCD are just the worst contraption on earth if you are intrerrested in harmonics. But I also realize that our hearing is individual, and that there are people who likes the sound from for an example Avantgarde speakers. I find them horrid.


----------



## JayBee (Oct 6, 2006)

npdang said:


> Personally, (not talking about you), I'm just tired of people reading into things. There is the absolute worst reading comprehension I've ever seen in some of these threads, and people just making things up out of nowhere... often times very inflammatory things.


What did you say about my mother...the woman was a saint!


----------



## thylantyr (Jan 21, 2008)

backwoods said:


> I spend a lot of time in home audio. I design & build HT systems for people, have built dozens of different towers and really been able to experience some very high end and impressive systems. I stay away from posting in many home stereo forums, because they are even worse in the speculation and lack of application then most car audio forums, and are much more susceptible to mixing up price and performance as to which one is the "bar" they are trying to achieve.
> 
> I've heard several car's at these "worthless" car audio competitions that I would put on par with many solid home designs. They are, in fact, flat out amazing so to make some of the comments you have made, is just ignorant, and not appreciated.
> 
> ...



My last car install sounded better than some of the best home audio systems
when I did auditions. I support car audio, but because the home is less restrictive, 
I can do better in home audio.  The question to ask is 'Can I ?' ?

There is really no money issue with DIY car audio and DIY home audio. In many cases,
home audio opens more doors to amplifiers and drivers that can't be installed a vehicle.


----------



## backwoods (Feb 22, 2006)

npdang said:


> I can't stand the sound of tweeters with limited top end dispersion. Hence, ribbons, diffusers, waveguides, and the like.


 
I'm still oddly fascinated with ribbons. They don't seem to measure well but yet, do add a sense of natural ambience and sparkle to it.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

I've never heard ribbons in the same sentence with limited top end before  I'm aware you have to listen close to on axis to get 20khz but still...that applies to almost all tweeters. 

I've also gathered that they measure well past 5khz  

I love mine!


----------



## Abmolech (Nov 2, 2006)

> I would love to, if I had the faintest idea what you are talking about...
> "non symmetric baffle based" ???


Surprisingly a baffle is not just the item you mount a driver to (although it can be), it is the device that separates the rear wave from the front. (IE there is an equal and opposite wave on either side of the cone)

There are various schools of thought with baffles.
Delay and mix (open baffle)
Delay diffuse and mix, (infinite baffle (sealed), transmission line, acoustic lever and bandpass etc )
Transfer to heat or complete separation (aperiodic)

Point
A baffle is a blocker. 

Normally the baffle is symmetrical, and a suitable large flat baffle completely separates the waves. This is the rating at which most sensitivity standards require. IE 4 Pi steradians.
This is the simplest form of a waveguide, a large flat baffle.

What would happen if we were to use a baffle area smaller than the wave expected?
It would diffract around the baffle edge. This is known as baffle step. IF the diffraction is the same on opposing sides of the baffle (left/right), this can be accounted for with a baffle step electronic circuit to provide even SPL at the listening position.(depending on how severe the corner is,IE a radius corner is much easier to compensate for)

What happens if we have the driver off to one side of the baffle?
We have a non symmetrical baffle step performance which cannot be fixed with an electronic circuit.
By rotating the driver out on an angle from a flat surface, you have created a non symmetric baffle. IE is does not load evenly.

This is the primary reason for amplitude variation by "aiming" the driver in a car. It is not (or very little) to do with driver beaming or off axis response.

In my opinion it is a very poor method.

But then again I say stereophonic sucks, especially in a car, so perhaps you should take what I say with a grain of salt.


----------



## Abmolech (Nov 2, 2006)

When one considers the mass of a ribbon versus of a tweeter cone/dome it is a no brainier who has the most mechanical impedance.
The transient response cannot be matched from a tweeter.


----------



## mulletboy2 (Aug 17, 2006)

npdang said:


> I can't stand the sound of tweeters with limited top end dispersion. Hence, ribbons, diffusers, waveguides, and the like.


I'm confused by this. Do you move your head around lots whilst driving?

Surely the frequency response variation caused by "limited top end dispersion" is irrelevant if your head is still, or just about still? If the tweeters are on axis at the listenning position, this is a moot point, no?


----------



## Abmolech (Nov 2, 2006)

It depends on the extent of the off axis response.
I see very few on-axis tweeters in a car. (two seat )

I use 3/8" tweeters which I rate as "very good", however I would still concede the LCY100K specifications are difficult to match. Just cant bypass the mechanical impedance.


----------



## mulletboy2 (Aug 17, 2006)

Abmolech said:


> It depends on the extent of the off axis response.
> I see very few on-axis tweeters in a car. (two seat )
> 
> I use 3/8" tweeters which I rate as "very good", however I would still concede the LCY100K specifications are difficult to match. Just cant bypass the mechanical impedance.


I'm not doubting specs, I just don't see how you can blanket say, regardless of size, impedence, overall response characteristics etc.. that you flat out "can't stand the sound of tweeters with limited top end dispersion" (which I'm taking to mean narrow dispersion, but perhaps that's where I'm confused?).

Nowhere was it stipulated that he hated them for 2 seat setups, which would have been more fathomable.

Not trying to start an argument - just understand where the OP is coming from and why anyone would blanket hate all tweeters with a narrow dispersion characteristic when they're fixed in place in the listenning position, give or take a few cm.


----------



## Rbsarve (Aug 26, 2005)

Abmolech said:


> What happens if we have the driver off to one side of the baffle?
> By rotating the driver out on an angle from a flat surface, you have created a non symmetric baffle. IE is does not load evenly.
> 
> This is the primary reason for amplitude variation by "aiming" the driver in a car. It is not (or very little) to do with driver beaming or off axis response.


Thanks for making it understandable even for me. :blush: 

I agree with you that the mix of baffle edge reflections in conjunction with other early reflections are main problem sources. One of the reason that kickpanel setups in many cases sounds more "laid back" then dash/a-pillar setups is just the fact that there are loads of absobant materals down low (mainly the carpet) while up high you hava a fairly hard dashboard plus the windows. 

However in many applications high mounted midranges yields better overall results anyway. As I said it's about compromizes. 

For after all, driving without music is not an option.


----------



## Dangerranger (Apr 12, 2006)

I think ribbons get their characteristics in the same manner that electrostatics do-the diaphragm is so light (lighter than the air it's pushing) that the air is capable of damping them. Put a voice coil, former, mechanical suspension and such on a cone the size and shape of an electrostatic panel and it'd likely sound horrible. Energy storage and distortion would be a nightmare.


----------



## Oliver (Jun 25, 2007)

I prefer the limits to be higher and lower so the actual selected range of frequencies falls in the middle [ usable passband ]. 

If something is coming to close to the limit or clipped off [ out-of-range ]it stifles the possible sound reproduction.

LCY's have nice characteristics


----------



## npdang (Jul 29, 2005)

mulletboy2 said:


> I'm confused by this. Do you move your head around lots whilst driving?
> 
> Surely the frequency response variation caused by "limited top end dispersion" is irrelevant if your head is still, or just about still? If the tweeters are on axis at the listenning position, this is a moot point, no?


It affects the ratio of direct to reflected sound.

I've played with alot of tweeters over the years, and I find that both in the home and car that that's the one trait that I tend to prefer (and notice) over anything else.

I honestly can't hear distortion/decay differences between a ribbon, or say a very good conventional tweeter. But I sure can tell that one has better top end dispersion than the other.


----------



## ALL OR NOTHING (Mar 9, 2008)

not very good... looking at the specs, this driver seems to be boomy with plenty of low end exstention, horrible efficiency, and a huge frame. i think it would be a perfect ib sub. i don't think it would work well for a 2-way horn system. it would take soo power much to get them to really jam. lets not forget that this driver isn't very efficient, and it being rated at 2 watt 87 efficiency, were really looking at 85 efficiency.... wouldn't last very long with that much power blasting through it. look at the idq8... it would scream and and sound killer, but it took a lot power to get them to sound right. at the end of the day of a comp, showing the speaker off, you had to replace it.

i'm not bashing the speaker.... i heard it. it's decent, but it's not worth the money or the cost for all the modifications


----------



## envisionelec (Dec 14, 2005)

Scott Buwalda said:


> This is a fantastic discussion; one that I am glad to be a part of.
> 
> And in your argument, you mention impulse response. Unfortunately, impulse response works in my favor, not yours. By having all of the vocal information being emitted from one device, the midrange, the impulse response is unity. The moment you cross the tweeters into the vocal spectrum, the impulse response of the tweeter no longer has the vocal information in unity; the tweeter will emit those tones to your ears 2-5 ms before the midrange does, even further exacerbating the situation. No to mention the phenomenon know as zero delay plane, which will undoubtedly occur with the tweeter being mounted so much closer to you. So not only is there going to be a phase shift at the low crossover point, you’re going to have phase distortion, a misalignment of the zero delay plane, tweeter power compression, tweeter intermodulation distortion, and a split sound stage with three or more center images.
> 
> Scott


For the record, I have NOT been following this thread, but came across it in a search for Hybrid Audio. 

Wow, and I mean wow a thousand times over again. Forgive me if someone has already said this, but your knowledge (and excellent attitude) are a significant resource for car audio. Compared to some of the knuckle-draggers that tout acoustics knowledge, you are an earthly supreme being. I hope I have the opportunity to meet you someday - and I don't pass that wish out often (or ever, really...).


----------



## mulletboy2 (Aug 17, 2006)

npdang said:


> It affects the ratio of direct to reflected sound.
> 
> I've played with alot of tweeters over the years, and I find that both in the home and car that that's the one trait that I tend to prefer (and notice) over anything else.
> 
> I honestly can't hear distortion/decay differences between a ribbon, or say a very good conventional tweeter. But I sure can tell that one has better top end dispersion than the other.


Sorry, I somehow missed this response - I don't want to appear ignorant and just not reply now that I've seen it 

I understand what you're saying now; well, nearly. You said you don't like tweets with limited top end dispersion, so you prefer a sound with more reflected to direct sound in a car (or did you mean the opposite)? Not questionning either, I'm just interested.

I'm still not 100% convinced it's as simple as this (different cars, tweeter locations, materials, aiming etc..) but you're certainly entitled to your own opinion and now I'm getting a feel for where you're coming from


----------



## npdang (Jul 29, 2005)

You're right on the money. I prefer a higher ratio of reflected, to direct sound in the car. It gives the perception of greater space, provided the reflections are spaced far enough in time from the original signal.

I've played with quite a few tweeters, and it's always been the one trait that I've noticed first and foremost.


----------



## durwood (Mar 7, 2007)

npdang said:


> I prefer a higher ratio of reflected, to direct sound in the car. It gives the perception of greater space, provided the reflections are spaced far enough in time from the original signal.
> 
> I've played with quite a few tweeters, and it's always been the one trait that I've noticed first and foremost.


Exactly. It's the only thing that determines how large the space. Funny how the environment is what gives us spacial cues, yet stereo forces false spacial cues on us. Deal with space, the rest is only trivial.

http://www.acoustics.hut.fi/research/cat/psychoac/papers/hameedaes116.pdf


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

npdang said:


> You're right on the money. I prefer a higher ratio of reflected, to direct sound in the car. It gives the perception of greater space, provided the reflections are spaced far enough in time from the original signal.
> 
> I've played with quite a few tweeters, and it's always been the one trait that I've noticed first and foremost.


How about exceptional horiz. dispersion and limited vertical dispersion on the same driver?


----------



## mulletboy2 (Aug 17, 2006)

Interresting stuff 

Would firing any old tweet directly at the windscreen not achieve the same thing (then it would purely be reflected sound you hear; nothing direct)? Or come to mention it, using rear speakers to make use of the Haffler effect. It's also interesting that you should be battling for more ambience in a car, when reflected waves are often considered the bane of most car audio fans' existance - there's certainly more reflected energy in a car than in a conventional listenning environment.

I hope this isn't taken as argumentative - I can just see several ways to skin this cat.

Thanks for the link to that paper, Durwood - I'll take a read later today.


----------



## durwood (Mar 7, 2007)

mulletboy2 said:


> Interresting stuff
> 
> Would firing any old tweet directly at the windscreen not achieve the same thing (then it would purely be reflected sound you hear; nothing direct)? Or come to mention it, using rear speakers to make use of the Haffler effect. It's also interesting that you should be battling for more ambience in a car, when reflected waves are often considered the bane of most car audio fans' existance - there's certainly more reflected energy in a car than in a conventional listenning environment.
> 
> ...


I should clarify about the perception of room size. It's not necessarily the direct to reflected ratio because that is perceived differently by different people as that paper showed, but the actual reverb tail is the dominating factor when determining room size. Therefore, the HAAS/Halfer effect is a good route to go to start with. Not all reflected sound is good. The goal would be to reduce the early reflections because they can give you false spacial cues (they combine with the direct sound and cloud your judgement of the original sound), but instead focus on late reflections since those will determine room size. This is my understanding of it. So how do you reduce early reflections? Waveguides.


----------



## mulletboy2 (Aug 17, 2006)

durwood said:


> I should clarify about the perception of room size. It's not necessarily the direct to reflected ratio because that is perceived differently by different people as that paper showed, but the actual reverb tail is the dominating factor when determining room size. Therefore, the HAAS/Halfer effect is a good route to go to start with. Not all reflected sound is good. The goal would be to reduce the early reflections because they can give you false spacial cues (they combine with the direct sound and cloud your judgement of the original sound), but instead focus on late reflections since those will determine room size. This is my understanding of it. So how do you reduce early reflections? Waveguides.


Fair point.. I knew that and was being dense (I think my response was clouded by early reflections of incomplete thoughts)  Thanks


----------



## Rbsarve (Aug 26, 2005)

durwood said:


> So how do you reduce early reflections? Waveguides.


A waveguide is nothing but an enourmous amount of early reflections.


----------



## Rbsarve (Aug 26, 2005)

durwood said:


> Exactly. It's the only thing that determines how large the space. Funny how the environment is what gives us spacial cues, yet stereo forces false spacial cues on us. Deal with space, the rest is only trivial.
> 
> http://www.acoustics.hut.fi/research/cat/psychoac/papers/hameedaes116.pdf



So you mean we should build bigger cars? 

The result of the (interresting) finnish study was that they couldn't say that the ratio of early reflections versus room reverberation level affected spacial clues. Or that it didn't. Pretty inconclusive.


----------



## Fixtion (Aug 25, 2006)

durwood said:


> I should clarify about the perception of room size. It's not necessarily the direct to reflected ratio because that is perceived differently by different people as that paper showed, but the actual reverb tail is the dominating factor when determining room size. Therefore, the HAAS/Halfer effect is a good route to go to start with. Not all reflected sound is good. The goal would be to reduce the early reflections because they can give you false spacial cues (they combine with the direct sound and cloud your judgement of the original sound), but instead focus on late reflections since those will determine room size. This is my understanding of it. So how do you reduce early reflections? Waveguides.


i agree 100%. through architectural studies i believe in context to speech intelligibility ideal reverb time is 2.5 m/s. if that reverb is increased you run the risk of lower intelligibility of those range of frequencies. speech intelligibility in a way can be interpolate into the acoustics of a car one can begin measuring areas of poor acoustical qualities. an easy demonstration of reverb time would be to clap loudly in your vehicle and listen for sound decay time. 

i like the idea of waveguides. are you referring to the loading of a driver in a waveguide? if so there's no room in mobile audo without major modifications to accommodate such a configuration. correct me if i'm wrong, but don't most waveguides range around 6" in diameter? that can be one heck of an install for a-pillar applications. heh.



*-fixtion*


----------



## durwood (Mar 7, 2007)

Fixtion said:


> i like the idea of waveguides. are you referring to the loading of a driver in a waveguide? if so there's no room in mobile audo without major modifications to accommodate such a configuration. correct me if i'm wrong, but don't most waveguides range around 6" in diameter? that can be one heck of an install for a-pillar applications. heh.



Well, the easy way would be to use the environment to your advantage...use the natural waveguides built in already. 

-Kickpanel (firewall/floor/underdash/sidewall)-(angled appropriately.)
-Dash to Windshield (angled appropriately)
-corner of dash (dash/windshield/a-pillar) (angled appropriately)
-a-pillar to windsheild (angled appropriately)

You probably won't have a "perfect" waveguide but I've had better luck avoiding reflections than using them to create false cues.


----------



## Rbsarve (Aug 26, 2005)

durwood said:


> You probably won't have a "perfect" waveguide but I've had better luck avoiding reflections than using them to create false cues.


With smaller diameter drivers I agree with you, however with a two way with an 8" in the kickpanels you can get surprisingly good results using predominantly reflected sound. Don't have any solid theory into why. Just stumbled upon it after a couple of days aiming exprimentations...:blush: 
Doesn't seem to work half as good with 6.5"ers..  

In my book, try to dampen out as much early reflections as possible, then add reflections behind the listener works wonders.


----------



## river251 (Aug 7, 2010)

GenPac said:


> I'm sure you can get the drivers at a reduced cost if you contact the right people


Who are the right people?


----------



## Oliver (Jun 25, 2007)

river251 said:


> *Who are the right people?*


People who can read months , days , years 

*03-18-2008 11:23 AM <<< *

Poll: How about a tools subforum??


----------



## river251 (Aug 7, 2010)

Oliver said:


> People who can read months , days , years
> 
> *03-18-2008 11:23 AM <<< *
> 
> Poll: How about a tools subforum??


Good answer, Olivier.


----------



## Oliver (Jun 25, 2007)

Thanks river251,

2 years was a long time ago 

If you want some try Scott Buwalda in the vendors forum


----------



## armen818 (Sep 18, 2009)

MY HEAD HURTS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


The only thing that matters is how it sounds to your ears.
Some people like the twets crossed low, some people like it crossed high.

Me, personally, with my limited experience, I like it when the mids and the twets are over lapping,

for example, 
Mids: 500-5500
Twets 5000- up

this is just an example.


----------



## Redcloud (Feb 5, 2009)

I had a chance to listen to the clarus set and for the money I wan't all that impressed.


----------



## river251 (Aug 7, 2010)

My problem is nowhere to hear things. I'm tempted by what I read, but prefer to listen.

I keep reading forums, mainly here, hoping for the post that will say just what I need to know about speakers in language that addresses my questions.

I'm thinking I might as well just buy some unquestioned, top-of-the-heap parts, Scan-speak tweeters, but don't know of a woofer with prominent tight bass yet. The higher end woofer/tweeter combos I've listened to tend to have weak bass. Or maybe accurate bass. I don't care much for the Alpine type Rs, no image, but the bass is really nice and forward. 

Thanks.... yeah, I didn't look at the date.

Jim


----------



## Oliver (Jun 25, 2007)

river251 said:


> My problem is nowhere to hear things. I'm tempted by what I read, but prefer to listen.
> 
> Jim


You could post on here about wanting to hear some hybrids and someone probably will meet you 1/2 way 

If you buy lunch it'll happen sooner than l8r 

These speakers are currently being used all over the world { based on winning championships in the UK, USA, etc.., }


----------



## river251 (Aug 7, 2010)

Oliver said:


> You could post on here about wanting to hear some hybrids and someone probably will meet you 1/2 way
> 
> If you buy lunch it'll happen sooner than l8r
> 
> These speakers are currently being used all over the world { based on winning championships in the UK, USA, etc.., }


Good idea. I guess I could also try to find out where the nearest dealer is....wonder if there are any in Albuquerque. I will check the website, thanks.

Jim


----------

