# Time Alignment- Myth versus Fact



## XSIV SPL

So, there has been heated debate here recently about how to achieve proper time alignment, and by which methods.

I would like for this thread to focus upon specific methods (and types of media utilized) that our members are using for time alignment.

I am NOT looking for left-to-right... Though this is also welcome in small portions.

I am mainly looking for how folks here are achieving time alignment within a single channel in multi-active systems (for example: a fully active system with separates playing into 3 or more active channels to comprise a single left or right front channel)... How do you folks time-align within a single multi-active channel?

Also, I aim to definitively demonstrate that this level of time alignment CANNOT be achieved through the utilization broad-band pink noise alone.

How are YOU folks aligning multiple active ranges comprising the makeup of a single channel (left or right), and what methods are you using?


----------



## Jscoyne2

XSIV SPL said:


> So, there has been heated debate here recently about how to achieve proper time alignment, and by which methods.
> 
> I would like for this thread to focus upon specific methods (and types of media utilized) that our members are using for time alignment.
> 
> I am NOT looking for left-to-right... Though this is also welcome in small portions.
> 
> I am mainly looking for how folks here are achieving time alignment within a single channel in multi-active systems (for example: a fully active system with separates playing into 3 or more active channels to comprise a single left or right front channel)... How do you folks time-align within a single multi-active channel?
> 
> Also, I aim to definitively demonstrate that this level of time alignment CANNOT be achieved through the utilization broad-band pink noise alone.
> 
> How are YOU folks aligning multiple active ranges comprising the makeup of a single channel (left or right), and what methods are you using?


Ive never had an RTA to tell any difference in FR but ive always used a tape measure for the t/a and balancing my L/R with Test tones, although ive hurt tweeters doing that so its better to use freq specific pink noise. Thats given me a solid stage but ive had wandering in songs and such, though i believe thats from IID difference.


----------



## SkizeR

I just don't understand why time alignment is so difficult for some. After eq, no matter which method I use, I end up with the same values. Every damn time.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## sqnut

SkizeR said:


> no matter which method I use, I end up with the same values. Every damn time.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


^^^This.


----------



## XSIV SPL

Let me make this clear-

I am looking for, specifically, how my fellow forum members address time alignment within a single channel comprised of multi-active channels (left or right, your choice) presenting a single left or right source. I am NOT looking for center.

Due to different distances of location from tweet, mid and midbass to the listener's ear, on each side, this is the first time correction which should be addressed, otherwise, the entire stage is mis-aligned. And this alignment cannot be achieved with pink noise alone.

I am looking for someone to factually present to me that this line of thinking is not correct, and that one needs no more than broad band pink noise to do everything they desire in tuning an audio system.

Got it?


----------



## XSIV SPL

SkizeR said:


> I just don't understand why time alignment is so difficult for some. After eq, no matter which method I use, I end up with the same values. Every damn time.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


Nick, read it again... You're missing my point...


----------



## sqnut

XSIV SPL said:


> So, there has been heated debate here recently about how to achieve proper time alignment, and by which methods.
> 
> I would like for this thread to focus upon specific methods (and types of media utilized) that our members are using for time alignment.
> 
> I am NOT looking for left-to-right... Though this is also welcome in small portions.
> 
> I am mainly looking for how folks here are achieving time alignment within a single channel in multi-active systems (for example: a fully active system with separates playing into 3 or more active channels to comprise a single left or right front channel)... How do you folks time-align within a single multi-active channel?
> 
> Also, I aim to definitively demonstrate that this level of time alignment CANNOT be achieved through the utilization broad-band pink noise alone.
> 
> How are YOU folks aligning multiple active ranges comprising the makeup of a single channel (left or right), and what methods are you using?


I'll share what I know, see if it works for you. I'm tied up during the day today so it probably won't be till late tonight. Some terms that you have used are a little confusing so I'm just going to ask:

1. Is it a fully active setup? One amp channel to each speaker and each channel independently controlled for time and response? Not sure what a multi active system is.

2. 2 way or 3 way?

3. DSP being used

4. Placement of drivers, pics if you have them.


----------



## XSIV SPL

sqnut said:


> ^^^This.


This what? No offense intended, but you just endorsed a vague and meaningless stance. Go back and read this again more carefully, then give me a reply from your own thinking.


----------



## XSIV SPL

sqnut said:


> I'll share what I know, see if it works for you. I'm tied up during the day today so it probably won't be till late tonight. Some terms that you have used are a little confusing so I'm just going to ask:
> 
> 1. Is it a fully active setup? One amp channel to each speaker and each channel independently controlled for time and response? Not sure what a multi active system is.
> 
> 2. 2 way or 3 way?
> 
> 3. DSP being used
> 
> 4. Placement of drivers, pics if you have them.


Yes, fully active...

4 way

Every speaker has its own amp channel

Every amp channel has its own DSP output, so yes, TCR is in play for every speaker, every channel... Tell me how you can time correct all this with pink noise and you will win the magic unicorn trophy...


----------



## XSIV SPL

I've seen nothing here which indicates that anyone has actually read the original post in detail as of yet.


----------



## sqnut

XSIV SPL said:


> This what? No offense intended, but you just endorsed a vague and meaningless stance.


Relax, the point being made is that there is one timing setting on your dsp where timing for all drivers is optimized........based on what you're hearing. No matter how many times one gets frustrated and decides to start from scratch, this is one setting that you will ALWAYS come back to. But one has to get there first to understand it and it was not meant as a put down at all, just an acknowledgement from one tuner to another. I need to get back to work .


----------



## XSIV SPL

sqnut said:


> Relax, the point being made is that there is one timing setting on your dsp where timing setting for all drivers is optimized........based on what you're hearing. No matter how many times one gets frustrated and decides to start from scratch, this is one setting that you will ALWAYS come back to. But one has to get there first to understand it and it was not meant as a put down at all. I need to get back to work .


This is total psycho-babble... There's not a single word in your reply which is either useful or relevant to this topic in even the smallest degree...

If you are not willing to fully read and understand the question being asked, please withold your urge to reply as well..


----------



## sqnut

You can't learn if you're arrogant and you certainly won't beat a big red tuned car  bye


----------



## XSIV SPL

sqnut said:


> You can't learn if you're arrogant and you certainly won't beat a big red tuned car  bye


I get it... Because you don't pay attention to the topic and post a bunch of nonsensical crap, you'd now like to attempt to insult me... Priceless...

FYI- Big Red and I know each other and get along... I'm sure he'll confirm with you that his tunes and mine sometimes trade places... Nice try...

FOLKS! Please read the original post in its entirety and respond constructively!

Don't be another sqnut...


----------



## Raimonds

Hello,

This should help you:
http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum...ain-analysis-measurement-software-review.html

This may be interesting also:
http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum...l1-advanced-dsp-eq-phase-correction-unit.html

BR,
Raimonds


----------



## XSIV SPL

Raimonds said:


> Hello,
> 
> This should help you:
> http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum...ain-analysis-measurement-software-review.html
> 
> This may be interesting also:
> http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum...l1-advanced-dsp-eq-phase-correction-unit.html
> 
> BR,
> Raimonds


Sorry, no... 

Your dismissive "this should help you" only demonstrates that you as well as many others do not fully read or understand a topic before throwing your own agenda into it...


----------



## XSIV SPL

I'm still looking for a first and honest real reply to my original post...

Anyone?

sqnut and raimonds... Get lost...

I didn't think this was such a tough scenario, but apparently nobody gets it...


----------



## Jscoyne2

XSIV SPL said:


> I'm still looking for a first and honest real reply to my original post...
> 
> Anyone?
> 
> sqnut is already trying to assassinate me... LOL


I think what they were getting at is that there is a proper way of measuring and setting T/A by measurement tools/software. Those links lead to such information and how to's.

So any other "How are YOU folks aligning multiple active ranges comprising the makeup of a single channel (left or right), and *what methods are you using*" isnt needed.

They answered your question indirectly true. I think your habit of being intellectually defensive is blinding you to the fact that your peers are just being lazy and you have to learn to read between the lines.

The true measure of intelligence is knowing what you dont know.


----------



## XSIV SPL

Jscoyne2 said:


> I think what they were getting at is that there is a proper way of measuring and setting T/A by measurement tools/software. Those links lead to such information and how to's.
> 
> So any other "How are YOU folks aligning multiple active ranges comprising the makeup of a single channel (left or right), and *what methods are you using*" isnt needed.
> 
> They answered your question indirectly true. I think your habit of being intellectually defensive is blinding you to the fact that your peers are just being lazy and you have to learn to read between the lines.
> 
> The true measure of intelligence is knowing what you dont know.


Thank you, Sensei... Geesh

I received NOT A SINGLE direct reply to my question, yours included...

Am I being intellectually defensive, whatever that means? Nah

Are you helping at all? Nah

You folks always deflect when the question goes over your head and you can't comfortably discuss it, and choose to insult the guy asking you to think instead...

I figured this thread would challenge too many and reward too few... But that's why I threw it out there.... Everyone failed...

Have a nice day!


----------



## Onyx1136

XSIV SPL said:


> I'm still looking for a first and honest real reply to my original post...
> 
> Anyone?
> 
> sqnut and raimonds... Get lost...
> 
> I didn't think this was such a tough scenario, but apparently nobody gets it...


They just don't understand what you're asking. Neither do I, frankly. I've reread the OP a dozen times, and I still can't figure out what exactly what is being asked. 

It's obvious you know what you're getting at, but it doesn't seem like you're doing a great job of communicating the question. Perhaps rephrase the question so we can understand it better, and provide a better answer for you.


----------



## SkizeR

I understand what your asking, i think everyone else does to. It just seems like a silly topic. There's tons of threads already regarding time alignment and it's just getting old. I have used every method of ta that I've heard of just to try. And like I said, after eq, I always end up with the same values. There is only one optimal setting like sqnut daod. If you don't believe so, explain how. And yes chet, you are certainly being defensive 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Vx220

XSIV SPL said:


> Am I being intellectually defensive, whatever that means? Nah
> 
> Have a nice day!


If you don't know what "intellectually defensive" means, how can you say you're not?


I don't think you were defensive, pretty aggressive and on the offence!

Just have a little relax, and we could have a decent discussion (admittedly above my head, but I'm eager to learn) which is what we're here for...


----------



## High Resolution Audio

I think that I understand what you are asking.

How does one time align left tweeter, left mid-range, left woofer, and left sub-woofer positioned at different distances so that all those frequencies end up in perfect phase when they reach your left ear. 

As opposed to normal L/R time alignment which takes into account different distances from left ear to left tweeter and right ear to right tweeter, and so on.

I do not know how to figure that out myself, but I do understand your frustration with the answers you have come across here.

I would like to know myself, because I'm setting up a center seat and my L/R time alignment will be perfect with no processing, because all the left side /right side speakers will be the exact same ( but varying ) distances from my ears. 

However, I'm sure the mid-range has to delayed ever so slightly from the tweeters, and even more so with the mid-bass, and a little more with the sub woofer. I'm curious to know as well. Hopefully someone knows how to do such a thing, and can explain it to us.


----------



## High Resolution Audio

Subbed


----------



## strohw

I don't understand why you approached this topic in the way you did. In the other thread you already stated you don't believe rta based, simple measurements or pink noise based methods work. Even a little bit of knowledge of this forum would give enough insight to know that those 3 items compose the vast majority. Though you do keep saying broad band pink noise when most people use band limited correlated pink noise.

Anyway, instead of making a post asking how people do something(when you already know) how about you just do you demonstration. The thread OP should have been - I know a lot of people do T/A this way but I believe this method offers better results and here is why.


----------



## gijoe

How do I do time alignment for all of the drivers on one channel? The same way I do it for left and right, I use a tape measure. Time alignment is adding delay to the nearest speakers, whether that's left or right, or mid and tweet, it doesn't matter. Measure the distance from the driver to the listening position and plug in the numbers. 

I understand your frustration, but the responses seem reasonable based on how you asked the question. Time alignment isn't magical, it's adding delay. If the left tweeter is 30 inches away, and the left midrange is 27 inches away, the difference is 3 inches to the listening position. It really is that simple. You can use impulse response measurements to try to get an even finer level of precision, but I personally don't think it's that much better. I've said it recently in other posts, but simply moving your head an inch or two to one side will make all of that precision meaningless. Even a small bump in the road will move your head enough to ruin your "perfect" time alignment. I'm not suggestion we half ass things because they don't matter, I'm simply saying that even if you get it absolutely perfect you must be sitting in a parked car, with your head in the exact spot that the measurements were taken at. Even when I'm doing critical listening in my car, I'm not keeping perfectly still.

Measuring the distances with a tape measure, and plugging in the values will get you as near as makes no difference, with the possible exception of the subwoofer, which can be adjust very successfully by ear.


----------



## jb4674

The OP probably wants a scientific explanation.......

Here's an answer for you.... Close your eyes and use your ears. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## therapture

I assume we are trying to talk about TA'ing a single side...comprised of at least 3 independent drivers, that are not point sources.

I.E. - a 3 way front of a 6.5", 3", and tweeter that are in different locations, needing to be time aligned to each other. L-R is fairly easy even for a noob like me, but getting a single side to be coherent to each other seems to be a bit more difficult for me. In my own simple 2 way front, I seem to always arrive at values that are slightly out of sync with what pure distances would indicate.


Even with a wideband playing from 1500+ and my woofers handling 100-1500, I find it somewhat difficult to use pink noise to dial in the TA between each pair of drivers on a single side.


----------



## chefhow

It's pretty simple from my perspective. I turn off all driver except the one I'm working on, set xover to 1600hz and play a mono voice on repeat. Work TA in the direction I need until it's centered, change and repeat with opposite driver. Once it's centered I put both on to be sure it's cohesive, if not fix. I do this for all driver and all pairs until they are done they play the full setup. Should be where it needs to be, if not I tweak. 
Hope this helps you out.


----------



## rton20s

Come on guys. Who is taking this bad boy home?!


----------



## Raimonds

The use of a tape measure is causing errors like this - LF are delayed by 5 ms
















It is from competition car with pretty good install.
I would like to call that blind tuning.

A timing of ordinary car looks like this.


















Details you will find in topic:
http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum...ain-analysis-measurement-software-review.html

Good luck,

Raimonds


----------



## 14642

I don't do one-seat cars very often anymore, so I rarely do much with delays. For a one seat car, I find that there are several ways that work. The fastest and simplest way is the tape measure. Measuring impulses works too, but determining the initial arrival for signals without high frequency content isn't so straightforward. The third way is to EQ the specific drivers to precisely match a target response that corresponds to the chosen crossover filter and then delay the nearest speaker in the pair until the measured sum as closely matches the target sum as possible. A gated measurement makes this pretty easy with mid/tweeter crossovers but not so easy for lower crossover points. 

Of course, all of this is completely out the window at high frequencies as soon as you move your head. At lower frequencies, small head movements don't make so much difference. 

When crossovers are correctly implemented, I can't hear the difference between an "uncorrected" phase response in which the various group delay steps caused by the filters for the various bands remain and one in which those steps have been eliminated. 

I think some of this confusion arises from the difference between the way home speakers are designed and tuned and the way we are forced to design and tune speaker system installed in cars. For home speakers, the response of the speaker is corrected without regard for room reflections by using either gated measurements or an anechoic chamber. In cars, we can't do it that way. We are forced to tune the room and the speakers at the same time. Fortunately, this works OK because the room is super small and we don't hear the reflections as additional events.


----------



## rton20s

Silence from the OP. Does that mean Andy gets the trophy?


----------



## adrianp89

Leaving a pointless reply because the OP is a d*ck.


----------



## gijoe

the727kid said:


> Leaving a pointless reply because the OP is a d*ck.


With posts like that, you come across as a bigger one. 

There's got to be a rule against posts like this. Can we keep this site from turning into a joke?


----------



## Onyx1136

gijoe said:


> With posts like that, you come across as a bigger one.
> 
> There's got to be a rule against posts like this. Can we keep this site from turning into a joke?


Far too little, far too late.


----------



## cobb2819

Back on topic...


----------



## SkizeR

gijoe said:


> With posts like that, you come across as a bigger one.
> 
> There's got to be a rule against posts like this. Can we keep this site from turning into a joke?


We're way past that lol

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## adrianp89

gijoe said:


> the727kid said:
> 
> 
> 
> Leaving a pointless reply because the OP is a d*ck.
> 
> 
> 
> With posts like that, you come across as a bigger one.
> 
> There's got to be a rule against posts like this. Can we keep this site from turning into a joke?
Click to expand...

Only when it's called for. The OP shot down every single response, this thread was joke after page 1.


----------



## XSIV SPL

the727kid said:


> Leaving a pointless reply because the OP is a d*ck.


Thank you...

I'm still watching...


----------



## Jepalan

1) Split your source so you can feed your system and one channel of an o-scope at the same time.

2) Play a test tone consisting of a sine wave (freq centered in the farthest driver's passband) that is pulsed on and off every 200mS or so.

3) Place a mic at listening position and connect it to the second channel of the o-scope

4) Trigger scope on the source channel. Use delta markers to measure the delay between the source signal pulses and the mic'd signal pulses.

5) Switch to a test signal of a pulsed sine wave with freq centered in one of the other (closer) driver's pass band.

6) with delta markers still set at the delay originally measured on farthest driver, adjust DSP for the current driver until it's delay matches as exactly as possible.

7) repeat 5) & 6) for remaining drivers.

Disclaimer: I have never tried this - I just made it up. No idea if it would work, or what it would sound like - but it *should* work.


----------



## cobb2819

Jepalan said:


> Disclaimer: I have never tried this - I just made it up. No idea if it would work, or what it would sound like.


Glorious!!!


----------



## Jepalan

XSIV SPL said:


> <snip>
> Also, I aim to definitively demonstrate that this level of time alignment CANNOT be achieved through the utilization broad-band pink noise alone.
> <snip>


waiting patiently.... :beatnik:


----------



## rton20s

Jepalan said:


> waiting patiently.... :beatnik:


----------



## strohw




----------



## Kyle5521

I thoroughly enjoyed this! 
Might wanna stickie this as "how not to"


----------



## XSIV SPL

Lots of good input here, but nobody seems to be accomplishing single channel TA using broad band pink noise, which was my point of contention to begin with. This is enough to satisfy what I was looking for. Thank you to all who have contributed.


----------



## SkizeR

im still not sure what the point of this thread was..


----------



## XSIV SPL

SkizeR said:


> im still not sure what the point of this thread was..


It's all good, I could tell you weren't getting it from the start...


----------



## SkizeR

XSIV SPL said:


> It's all good, I could tell you weren't getting it from the start...


like the title says that you are about to show some members whats what, then you asked a question and completely shut everyone down (even when hanatsu posted some pretty irrefutable stuff in the other thread). im just not seeing what your end game is.


----------



## Onyx1136

The question was pointless in the first place. If T/A is done correctly from the start, there should be no need to go back and time align all 3 drivers on the same side against each other. All the drivers should be time aligned against the farthest driver in the system, typically the right midbass, not the left midbass time aligned against the left mid and so on. Holm Impulse makes this process almost mistake proof. I think someone might have posted up a review of the program recently?


----------



## SkizeR

it seems like this thread was made to look down on and call out members who dont do their TA the same way.. jus' sayin


----------



## XSIV SPL

SkizeR said:


> like the title says that you are about to show some members whats what, then you asked a question and completely shut everyone down (even when hanatsu posted some pretty irrefutable stuff in the other thread). im just not seeing what your end game is.


Well, yes, I had an agenda... and it panned out exactly as expected...


----------



## SkizeR

soooo.. you gunna actually talk about the myth vs fact or nah?


----------



## XSIV SPL

SkizeR said:


> soooo.. you gunna actually talk about the myth vs fact or nah?


We already have...


----------



## danssoslow

XSIV SPL said:


> I guess I've stirred up something here... Glad to see it's benefitting a few folks


This is from the burst click ta thread. It appears to me that XSIV SPL believes he has brought something to light here at DIYMA, and is willing to use someone else's work to win a half assed conjured debate.

I think most here never caught on because he doesn't absolutely understand any single method of adjusting ta, and therefore couldn't gather his thoughts in his first post to setup the debate properly.

In the end, it appears he stumbled upon a method he had not read here previously, and thought he was going to drop some knowledge on this place.


----------



## strohw




----------



## hot9dog

1. Put ice in blender
2. Put large amounts of tequila in blender
3. Chopped oranges and limes in blender
4. Generic crappy ass Margarita mix in blender
5. Have blender chop all the stuff up
6. Pour contents into tall glass
7. Catch blender on fire
8. Sit back and watch plastic and copper wire melt into one beautiful piece of art.

Ohhhhhhhh **** I forgot about the time alignment thingamajiggy. ... lol.


----------



## gjmallory

why I love this forum... People that actually know their s*** give patient and well thought out responses. It makes Hotheaded Know-nothings just end up looking stupid. LOL!


----------



## BigAl205

On thing that I've tried is giving the tweeter and midrange a slight overlap on the crossover...for instance, a high-pass on the midrange of 5500hz and a low pass on the tweeter at 4500. I then reversed the polarity on the mid, played a 5khz tone, and started adding delay to the nearest driver until it cancelled out the other. Once done, I put the polarity back into alignment. I then did a similar technique between the mid and woofer.


----------



## danssoslow

hot9dog said:


> 1. Put ice in blender
> 2. Put large amounts of tequila in blender
> 3. Chopped oranges and limes in blender
> 4. Generic crappy ass Margarita mix in blender
> 5. Have blender chop all the stuff up
> 6. Pour contents into tall glass
> 7. Catch blender on fire
> 8. Sit back and watch plastic and copper wire melt into one beautiful piece of art.
> 
> Ohhhhhhhh **** I forgot about the time alignment thingamajiggy. ... lol.


This reminds me of a great apartment/renter story.


----------



## hot9dog

So now that my wife's new blender looks like a smoldering Jabba the Hut.....
Typically I use a the tape measure technique, input those values into my DSP and this is my baseline. I then run pulse tones thru groups of speakers, first I defeat all drivers except for the tweeters. ..compare perceived time arrival to my ears, make SMALL adjustments to my DSP. Then I move onto my mids, defeating all other channels and repeating the process with pulse tones.... working my way thru all channels. After this process i make note of my new settings for time alignment, compare them with the original settings from tape measure and then create an average of these 2 numbers. .. this is what I finally input into my DSP. This is not an exact science, but after initial EQ setting I use these steps. This gives me a strong baseline image.


----------



## High Resolution Audio

BigAl205 said:


> On thing that I've tried is giving the tweeter and midrange a slight overlap on the crossover...for instance, a high-pass on the midrange of 5500hz and a low pass on the tweeter at 4500. I then reversed the polarity on the mid, played a 5khz tone, and started adding delay to the nearest driver until it cancelled out the other. Once done, I put the polarity back into alignment. I then did a similar technique between the mid and woofer.


Thats a great idea, right there. Never thought of that. That one is Gold.


----------



## fcarpio

Here is something I posted a while back, hope it helps:

http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum...5069-better-technique-ear-time-alignment.html


----------



## sicride

Look, I'm getting tired of sitting back and watching this. Time for me to take home the trophy!

The correct way to time align all drivers on the left side of the vehicle to one another and independent from right side speakers is.... The way XSIV SPL would do it. After all he is the man, the myth, the legend, and the truth.

Disclaimer: please do not take me seriously or you will look stupid.

Really though, I think we can find your thread on click alignment and several have agreed that it works. I believe I read that it even helped a couple people achieve proper time alignment and have the same final inputs as other techniques they had previously tried. The point is there is no one way. Yours is great, thank you for sharing. But you are making a fool out of yourself here.


----------



## fcarpio

sicride said:


> Look, I'm getting tired of sitting back and watching this. Time for me to take home the trophy!
> 
> The correct way to time align all drivers on the left side of the vehicle to one another and independent from right side speakers is.... The way XSIV SPL would do it. After all he is the man, the myth, the legend, and the truth.
> 
> Disclaimer: please do not take me seriously or you will look stupid.
> 
> Really though, I think we can find your thread on click alignment and several have agreed that it works. I believe I read that it even helped a couple people achieve proper time alignment and have the same final inputs as other techniques they had previously tried. The point is there is no one way. Yours is great, thank you for sharing. But you are making a fool out of yourself here.


Now say something smart, drum roll...


----------



## XSIV SPL

See? It works.

Posting a topic inspires conversation.

I'm ok with where it's gone.


----------



## hot9dog

XSIV SPL said:


> See? It works.
> 
> Posting a topic inspires conversation.
> 
> I'm ok with where it's gone.


I'm glad your ok with how this has turned, but my wife on the other hand now expects a new blender this weekend. Lol


----------



## XSIV SPL

sicride said:


> Look, I'm getting tired of sitting back and watching this. Time for me to take home the trophy!
> 
> The correct way to time align all drivers on the left side of the vehicle to one another and independent from right side speakers is.... The way XSIV SPL would do it. After all he is the man, the myth, the legend, and the truth.
> 
> Disclaimer: please do not take me seriously or you will look stupid.
> 
> Really though, I think we can find your thread on click alignment and several have agreed that it works. I believe I read that it even helped a couple people achieve proper time alignment and have the same final inputs as other techniques they had previously tried. The point is there is no one way. Yours is great, thank you for sharing. But you are making a fool out of yourself here.


I appreciate your input, sicride...

Yes, this thread started with an agenda, but an undisputable one at that.

There are a vast many tools in most folks' audio tuning toolbox, and most of us use them as needed/where needed... I don't understand why you picked me specifically to bag on... You've offered no alternative methods nor any intelligible arguments for or against my methods.

There are lots of folks here who would have you try this-or-that, and are honestly a bit off-target. At least I possess some measure of quantifiable results which you can verify for yourself.

Some things work, and some things don't... That's the point here...

If all you have is a hammer, I suppose everything looks like a nail...


----------



## Hillbilly SQ

I think I do mine the same way Chef described. I guess he meant each individual pair of drivers then tweaking each pair to the other pairs for best phase FOR EACH SIDE LIKE THE OP WAS ASKING. He seemed to really like my truck when he heard it and that's how I did it so guess I was at least in the ballpark


----------



## XSIV SPL

danssoslow said:


> This is from the burst click ta thread. It appears to me that XSIV SPL believes he has brought something to light here at DIYMA, and is willing to use someone else's work to win a half assed conjured debate.
> 
> I think most here never caught on because he doesn't absolutely understand any single method of adjusting ta, and therefore couldn't gather his thoughts in his first post to setup the debate properly.
> 
> In the end, it appears he stumbled upon a method he had not read here previously, and thought he was going to drop some knowledge on this place.


FWIW, the burst click for TA thread came about as a result of having discussed that method in an earlier separate thread. I was actually surprised to learn that so few were using them. I'm pretty sure that more systems are benefitting from them now than before though, so talk all the sh*t you want. It's been worthwhile.


----------



## muzikmanwi

I'll have to try it.


----------



## durwood

One of my favorite topics. I could feel the OP frustration, I have also had this issue in past topics. The problem is the understanding of TA and how it is a limited tool in 3D space. Most people combine both vertical (ONLY all left drivers aligned to each other, or ONLY all RIGHT drivers aligned to each other) AND horizontal (L to R adjustment) together. He was only asking about about vertical time alignment, and more specifically, performing vertical time alignment using only pink noise wether using your ears or measurement equipment.

OP is at fault for not being clear enough with his question, you have to define "channel" because reading comprehension sometimes gets lost when you start discussing an active setup, that has mutliple "channels". In his case, he wanted to pick a set of channels called "Left channel" or "Right channel", but not "LEFT AND RIGHT CHANNELS" together.

Lets only pick one side say the Left Channel, his myth he wanted to debunk was you can time align all drivers on the left channel using pink noise ONLY.

1) It is shown that those that understand this have to use measurement software.
2) It is only valid for one point in space.

Therefore, myth debunked. 

To take it one step further, leaving pink noise out, it is a myth you can even time align at all.
It is easy to debunk because you have 2 mics (ears) at 2 different points in space. So while you might time align all left drivers to the left ear, what about all the left drivers to the right ear, otherwise known as crosstalk?

Those that use a tape measure or ear adjustments and comment, I always end up at the same value...you are adding horizontal time alignment in. You are maybe only 50% aligned at one point in space. it could be more, but I don't know how heavily our brains weigh crosstalk. I'd be interested in that discussion if someone can point me in that research direction. I don't always agree with what Andy says, but his response is the only one that draws out some of the issues at hand with what happens at specific frequency ranges in a specific small room size.


----------



## strohw

durwood said:


> To take it one step further, leaving pink noise out, it is a myth you can even time align at all.
> It is easy to debunk because you have 2 mics (ears) at 2 different points in space. So while you might time align all left drivers to the left ear, what about all the left drivers to the right ear


You basically implied that since something isn't 100% it can't be defined as such. Since you can not time align to the exact perfect point you can "not" time align - it is a myth. That's exactly the same as saying you can not drink all the water in your 20oz bottle because there are drops left on the inside. There is still water in the bottle, you did not drink it "all". Therefore you did not drink the bottle of water.


----------



## durwood

strohw said:


> You basically implied that since something isn't 100% it can't be defined as such. Since you can not time align to the exact perfect point you can "not" time align - it is a myth. That's exactly the same as saying you can not drink all the water in your 20oz bottle because there are drops left on the inside. There is still water in the bottle, you did not drink it "all". Therefore you did not drink the bottle of water.


Correct, if there is something left it is not all gone.  but this is semantics. We are not talking about drops of water though, you can choose to ignore it but that does not mean the problem goes away. Even car "alignments" have a tolerance, so does our hearing. You can take steps to minimize the effect though so you are only dealing with drops rather than oz.


----------



## strohw

durwood said:


> Correct, if there is something left it is not all gone.  but this is semantics. We are not talking about drops of water though, you can choose to ignore it but that does not mean the problem goes away. Even car "alignments" have a tolerance, so does our hearing. You can take steps to minimize the effect though so you are only dealing with drops rather than oz.


I wasn't trying to point out semantics or to imply ignoring small details. My point in a literal manner is you can time align and just because you can't do it perfectly doesn't mean you aren't doing it. So to say "it is a myth you can even time align at all." is off putting. So either you didn't mean it or you define the "steps" you mention in your last sentence as something different?


----------



## Pariah Zero

You know, I can't help but note the idea of perfect time alignment is impossible unless you have only two drivers, clamped to your ears - headphones. 

At the end of the day, you have to play the "close enough" game. 

Reasons: 

1. Waves reflect off everything. The only question is how much. They also refract (bend) around every obstruction. Every sound you've ever heard follows multiple paths to your ear. You can only time align one path per driver.

2. I don't know about anybody else, but I'm not in the habit of screwing my head down like they do for an MRI scan of the head. Hit a bump, bang your head to the music, look around at traffic... You can't get an exact time alignment if your ears aren't locked in place.

3. Others have said this but... For each signal, you have one signal, two ears. You can't time align one signal twice.

4. Human ears suck. They really do. We use their suckyness for every tv show, and every movie you've seen in a theatre. Bask in the glory of your inferior ears, mammal!!!

Once you accept you can only get 'close enough' There's more than one way to do it. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SkizeR

Pariah Zero said:


> You know, I can't help but note the idea of perfect time alignment is impossible unless you have only two drivers, clamped to your ears - headphones.
> 
> At the end of the day, you have to play the "close enough" game.
> 
> Reasons:
> 
> 1. Waves reflect off everything. The only question is how much. They also refract (bend) around every obstruction. Every sound you've ever heard follows multiple paths to your ear. You can only time align one path per driver.
> 
> 2. I don't know about anybody else, but I'm not in the habit of screwing my head down like they do for an MRI scan of the head. Hit a bump, bang your head to the music, look around at traffic... You can't get an exact time alignment if your ears aren't locked in place.
> 
> 3. Others have said this but... For each signal, you have one signal, two ears. You can't time align one signal twice.
> 
> 4. Human ears suck. They really do. We use their suckyness for every tv show, and every movie you've seen in a theatre. Bask in the glory of your inferior ears, mammal!!!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


not getting it 115% is better than not doing it at all..


----------



## DDfusion

My car stages better than my Shure 315s.


----------



## SkizeR

honestly, i dont think headphones really image. theyre just kinda.... there


----------



## Pariah Zero

> not getting it 115% is better than not doing it at all..


Oh, time alignment is awesome, don't get me wrong. XSIV SPL seems to be arguing that perfect time alignment can't be achieved... I'm saying "Yup. It's impossible to do it perfectly. But close enough works very well."

I just suck at the English thing... and it's my native language.



> honestly, i dont think headphones really image. theyre just kinda.... there


You're not wrong. It's not also not _quite_ an apples to apples comparison...

The difference: Virtually all commercial music is a _stereo_ recording. (yeah, I know, shocking...)

For imaging to work with headphones, you need a _binaural_ recording, which is a totally different beast. A good binaural recording gives you not only front imaging (as with stereo), but imaging in _every_ direction. When you wear headphones. Only when you wear headphones. 

(The link for binaural recordings above has some (not great) example recordings -- I get clear imaging from behind, left, right, and even above & to the right. A different (and better) example starts mono, then goes to binaural.

Binaural recordings tend to sound flat & lifeless through loudspeakers, which is why you don't see them often. (Binaural are also kind of pointless for car audio, as it's illegal to use headphones while driving in many states)


----------



## SkizeR

Pariah Zero said:


> You're not wrong. It's not also not _quite_ an apples to apples comparison...
> 
> The difference: Virtually all commercial music is a _stereo_ recording.
> 
> For imaging to work with headphones, you need a _binaural_ recording. A good binaural recording gives you not only front imaging (as with stereo), but imaging in _every_ direction.
> 
> Binaural recordings tend to sound like crap through loudspeakers, which is why you don't them often.


im wondering if this is how gaming headsets like astros work.


----------



## DDfusion

That's why you use binaural headphones to set the TA in the car!


----------



## Pariah Zero

There are a couple of "audio games" meant for headphone use on iOS (maybe Android). These games don't have graphics (a plot element is you can't see). They rely entirely on 3D imaging using binaural audio.

A couple of them:
* Papa Sangre
* The Nightjar


----------



## Pariah Zero

SkizeR said:


> im wondering if this is how gaming headsets like astros work.


I don't know about the astros in particular...

I do know some gaming headsets have a front & rear driver for each ear (angled inwards towards the eardrum). It maps (fairly) well to the front & rear driver of a 5.1 audio system.


----------



## OGJordan

Assholes like this make me really miss the original DIYMA days.


----------

