# Who uses ZERO Eq???



## sonicnirvana (Jan 6, 2008)

After recently spending many hours(weeks?) tuning my system, I have come to the happy realization that it is possible to get great sound without any EQ. I spent many, many hours with installation quality, driver location, XO settings, level settings and time alignment. The end result has left me with a clarity and depth I have never realized before and the feeling that there is little need for EQ, if any. So what are your thoughts?


----------



## npdang (Jul 29, 2005)

It's not a matter of how much EQ you use, but are you using it correctly and for the right purpose. In some situations it may not be appropriate to use EQ, while in others you are simply not realizing the full potential of your setup without it.


----------



## tcguy85 (Oct 29, 2007)

i use it. no install will be perfect enough in a car not to need an EQ. you will always need to correct something somewhere.


----------



## coke (May 6, 2008)

I always try to get everything to it's fullest potential. After that i try to better it with an EQ, but if a lot of care was taken with install, level matching, time alignment, etc... little EQ is needed.

My last system used alpine spx-177r components with no eq and it sounded really good.


----------



## OgreDave (Jul 13, 2005)

tcguy85 said:


> i use it. no install will be perfect enough in a car not to need an EQ. you will always need to correct something somewhere.


x2 x2 4char requirement ugha does the quote not count?!?!


----------



## FoxPro5 (Feb 14, 2006)

It has nothing to do with purity. It's just a tool, like T/A. Depends on how you use it, like npdang said.

I have no idea how you can truly _equalize _the left and right sides of your car in the band to band intensity domain without it. If someone knows, please fill a brother in.


----------



## mikey7182 (Jan 16, 2008)

I think EQ use is often misunderstood. Like several other comments above, using an EQ is all about whether or not it's appropriate. I typically don't stray too far from flat, and don't use my eq as a "bass boost" or anything like others do; that's what gains are for.  But in some cases, slight EQing is necessary to overcome acoustic imbalances in the car environment. TA, phase, level matching, etc all come into play. After all that, I EQ a little if necessary, but I rarely do it first. For me it is a final adjustment after everything else is adjusted.


----------



## Mr Marv (Aug 19, 2005)

mikey7182 said:


> For me it is a final adjustment after everything else is adjusted.


 x2


----------



## br85 (May 2, 2008)

I use it a little to overcome my car's acoustic problems. It's a band-aid, but it helps.

I use it a LOT to overcome bad mastering and engineering. Hey, I listen to a lot of different music. Even some of the "pro" recordings I have are WAY too heavy/light on in certain bands. These NEED to be brought under control with an eq to properly enjoy.

Anyone ever used an RTA on a bunch of different recordings?


----------



## CAMSHAFT (Apr 7, 2006)

Mr Marv said:


> x2


X3 We use the least amount of Parametric bands as possible.


----------



## Fellippe (Sep 15, 2006)

tcguy85 said:


> i use it. no install will be perfect enough in a car not to need an EQ. you will always need to correct something somewhere.


EQ is always useful in a car. I don't have an EQ in my car because I never got around to putting one in, but with the challenges of the interior, I doubt there'll ever be a perfect car.

Good sound can be had without. Just a question of your desire for perfection.

In a home, should be avoided. EQ your room, furnishings, etc. not the electronics


----------



## Silvercar (Apr 21, 2008)

I tune my system using different slopes phase gains etc.

I use the EQ to get a stable centre image using the +/- 
rule. 

Since I have used this method I am enjoying my system so much more.


----------



## mvw2 (Oct 2, 2005)

There's a certain _comfort_ in not using an EQ. You essentially accept the sound of the product, for better or worse. It's like running a HU with zero features. If the features aren't there, you more readily accept the outcome.

However, in my use, I find EQing to be a necessity. The amount however will depend on the install and drivers used. You use driver with a flat frequency response and run them pretty much on-axis so you don't have any roll off issues, you can get away with very little EQing. You run them in stock locations very much off-axis, you might find yourself using a bit, more so using seperate EQ settings for the left and right sides. Is this bad? No.


----------



## rdv (May 14, 2007)

i use an eq for fine tuning, i dont think i could have gotten the sound i have now without it, even if i went active. i probably used around 15 out of the 30 bands on the eq.


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

It's the final step and adustmants really end up being rather small. I'm using 3 of my 5 filters, no more than 3dB of cut, and I believe in cut-only.

Many people go overboard on a per band basis, they will pull back till they REALLY hear it when in reality only a small adjustment is needed.


----------



## BlackSapphire (Apr 16, 2008)

You guys that EQ (Chad for example), are you totally going off of what your ear tells you or are you using an RTA or similar?


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

BlackSapphire said:


> You guys that EQ (Chad for example), are you totally going off of what your ear tells you or are you using an RTA or similar?


Start by ear and if there is something I can't nail down I use the spectrograph function in PCland to find odd hot spots, this includes doing things like checking for L-R discrepancies in FR, finding out WHY these discrepancies exist, banging around the car to look for resonances, etc.


----------



## rdv (May 14, 2007)

I've never had access to an rta, so i got used to tuning with the tones from the iasca set up and test cd and an spl meter. now i dont have an spl meter either so i am tuning by ear. i think i know which knobs to turn based on what i am hearing but i still rely on the tones every now and then to make sure i am adjusting the right frequency. the iasca test tones sound like pink noise so they arent too hard on the ears.


----------



## Scott Buwalda (Apr 7, 2006)

My opinion is that you *can* build a car audio system that approaches mechanical "perfection." This would take thousands of hours of testing, trial and error, fabrication and re-fabrication, and etc. You could also design the speakers to work within your acoustic space. I am convinced it can be done. Mechanics is acheiveable. But at what cost? Mechanical perfection could conceivably cost thousands upon thousands of dollars, test equipment, experts in their respectiuve fields, a speaker manufcaturer willing to one-off a hundred iterations of each driver in your car. My idea is to get the car as close to mechanical perfection as you can, and then dial in the last 1% or so with electronics.

Scott


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

Imo you should use zero EQ if you don't have the means to do it properly. I'm amazed when people claim they can do it by ear. Any decent install will need proper gear to get it analyzed. With that being said I've never used EQ before purchasing a test setup. I've tried screwing with it and I just felt stupid. 

Given that you do have a test setup you should use it and it will do wonders. There is no way you can get a mechanical install to be flat even with a lenient +-2db parameter. If that were the case home audio would never ever need EQing.


----------



## chefhow (Apr 29, 2007)

No EQ for me with the exception of the bass, mid and treble in my factory HU. Not because I am a purist, just havent found the plug to use mine yet...


----------



## Sassmastersq (Jan 12, 2007)

I've done it with and without before, never more than 2 db cut (almost never boost) I find that taking a couple of db of midbass out of my drivers side helps my imaging and frequency steering issues.


----------



## Hillbilly SQ (Jan 26, 2007)

close as possible with t/a and crossover then finetune with eq. i've always done it by ear. how would electronics know what i like to hear? my ears are sensitive to peaks and dips in the sound and i eq accordingly. they're also sensitive to poor time alignment. if something's pulling wrong i know it in a hurry.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

Hillbilly SQ said:


> close as possible with t/a and crossover then finetune with eq. i've always done it by ear. how would electronics know what i like to hear? my ears are sensitive to peaks and dips in the sound and i eq accordingly. they're also sensitive to poor time alignment. if something's pulling wrong i know it in a hurry.


I agree with you as far as frequency shaping to your licking such as boosting midbass to overcome noise or for pure preference. 

Now you may sit in a car and say it's a disaster and you may be right but do you know how to fix it? If I start with a purely flat setup and Eq. down 5 db at 500hz would you be able to pinpoint that in a blindfold test?


----------



## Scott Buwalda (Apr 7, 2006)

cvjoint said:


> If I start with a purely flat setup and Eq. down 5 db at 500hz would you be able to pinpoint that in a blindfold test?


Yes. With years of practice tuning cars...yes.

I can whistle a 1 KHz tone, and then advance at 1/3 octaves to 2 KHz. It's a stupid human trick, but it helps me to pin point frequencies. Lower than I can whistle, but still in the vocal spectrum means less than 1 KHz, and likely greater than 150-200 Hz. Most musicians have the ability to hear in octaves. 

I was recently listening to John Sketoe's Grand National---first the drivers side, then the passenger side. I loved the drivers side. As I sat in the passenger side, my only comment was that 1,000 Hz was louder on the drivers (far) side than on the passenger (near) side. Mind you, I was not involved at all with the tuning of this vehicle, nor did we discuss his tune. John shook his head and said "1,000 Hz is the only frequency that is boosted higher on the left channel than the right, and it's up 1 dB." 5 dB at 500 Hz would be an easy task for an experienced listener. 

Scott


----------



## sonicnirvana (Jan 6, 2008)

Scott Buwalda said:


> "1,000 Hz is the only frequency that is boosted higher on the left channel than the right, and it's up 1 dB." 5 dB at 500 Hz would be an easy task for an experienced listener.
> Scott


Dang dawg, how would you go about doing that? Test tones, pink noise? Or just a familiar tune?


----------



## Scott Buwalda (Apr 7, 2006)

Maybe a little bit of luck for a 1 dB deviation. :blush: But 3 dB should be readily discernable with a "tuned" ear.

Scott


----------



## Hillbilly SQ (Jan 26, 2007)

mr. buwalda-i'm with you on that. i was in band all through my second half of grade school and my director all through my hs years said i was the only one that he's seen tune the timpani without any reference notes. he'd say "i know what you did and i'm gonna test your ears". 9 times out of 10 all 4 notes would be dead on with the electronic tuning device. he never had to worry about notes being off when i had to change notes mid-song. i had the chromatic scales etched in my brain

with tuning a system, it might take me a couple stabs with the eq at a certain annoyance but i can usually nail a naunce dead in its tracks. it's almost always a nasty harmonic that annoys me too.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

Hillbilly SQ said:


> 9 times out of 10 all 4 notes would be dead on with the electronic tuning device.


So you guys tested it 10 times?...


----------



## Hillbilly SQ (Jan 26, 2007)

bikinpunk said:


> So you guys tested it 10 times?...


we had band daily. i could go in after sleeping all night and going throughout my day and nail the pitches on the head. doesn't sound too difficult


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

So you only did it 10 times total, or 10 times a day?

Did you get it right 9 times EVERY 10 tries, or did you get maybe 8 right one day, then 10 right the other? Was it an average of 9 over a span?...

BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA


----------



## Scott Buwalda (Apr 7, 2006)

There was a pich test that was referenced in a thread on ECA last Summer. That was a good reference of evaluating your ability to hear subtle pitch differences...found it...here it is: http://www.elitecaraudio.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=142728

Scott


----------



## Thumper26 (Sep 23, 2005)

woot!


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

lolzers you guys are ridiculous. I'm still a bit skeptical but you definitely have the stupendous backgrounds to make your claim.


----------



## BlackSapphire (Apr 16, 2008)

Thumper26 said:


> woot!


I just tried that - got 80.6%. I'm tired though.


----------



## typericey (May 13, 2006)

In home audio, i don't.

In car audio, i do.


----------



## Hillbilly SQ (Jan 26, 2007)

cvjoint said:


> lolzers you guys are ridiculous. I'm still a bit skeptical but you definitely have the stupendous backgrounds to make your claim.


if you have to ask you'll never knowgoing by feel is how i roll.


----------



## sonicnirvana (Jan 6, 2008)

cvjoint said:


> lolzers you guys are ridiculous. I'm still a bit skeptical but you definitely have the stupendous backgrounds to make your claim.


No, people like this really do exist. I am not one, but I played in a band for over 20 years and knew a guy that had perfect pitch. You could play any note and not only could he tell you what note it was, he could say which octave , like "A at 44o Hz". I got to the point where I had pretty good relative pitch, in other words if you played two notes I could tell you the interval between them, but perfect pitch is one of those idiot savant things. I think you either have it or you don't (cuz I tried).


----------



## Thumper26 (Sep 23, 2005)

BlackSapphire said:


> I just tried that - got 80.6%. I'm tired though.


well i listened to it at very low volumes b/c my son was asleep in his crib by the desk.


----------



## michaelsil1 (May 24, 2007)

I don't have the ability to pinpoint what frequencies are what with just my ears.

I use PC Based Measurement software and EQ as little as possible.


----------



## FoxPro5 (Feb 14, 2006)

I took that test and failed miserably. But, like anything else, I bet if I did train and practice I could do well.

Oh and...

Minneapolis to Atlanta: 1,128 mi @ $3.60/gallon....


----------



## BobG (Dec 8, 2006)

Flat EQ Club member here. The only thing I'll do is sometimes boost the very bottom octave based on the noise levels and who's judging. Usually a narrow Q boost at 20Hz for those situations and that's it. Otherwise flat.


----------



## ViperVin (Mar 15, 2008)

No EQing here, not enough control on my deck


----------



## Scott Buwalda (Apr 7, 2006)

FoxPro5 said:


> Minneapolis to Atlanta: 1,128 mi @ $3.60/gallon....


I agree, it is a bit excessive. But everytime I go to complain about it, I realize it's the cheapest chemical by the gallon you can buy. Heck, even milk (good milk) is about $3.60 a gallon, and they don't need to dig 12,000 foot wells, refine it, and transport it cross country. It could be a lot worse. It could be the UK. 

Scott


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

sonicnirvana said:


> No, people like this really do exist. I am not one, but I played in a band for over 20 years and knew a guy that had perfect pitch. You could play any note and not only could he tell you what note it was, he could say which octave , like "A at 44o Hz". I got to the point where I had pretty good relative pitch, in other words if you played two notes I could tell you the interval between them, but perfect pitch is one of those idiot savant things. I think you either have it or you don't (cuz I tried).


So far my ears have only been good for one thing, and that is level matching by ear. Even with a 5 way when I got the MLS the gains and levels were dead on. The nasty area from 1khz to 5khz was about 3 db lower than the rest but I attribute that to my taste more so than inability to level match. TA and staging I do ok on but wouldn't trust myself. EQ I stay away from unless I'm holding the ECM8000 in my hands. 

I'm sure the perfect pitch scenario is real but it would take a gifted individual for sure. Before EQ my midrange frequencies were +-8db which is a nightmare. I wouldn't expect to have the FR test pop up in my visual memory. It would take a Neo in the world of car audio to view frequency, level, and Q in numbers, matrix style.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

Scott Buwalda said:


> I agree, it is a bit excessive. But everytime I go to complain about it, I realize it's the cheapest chemical by the gallon you can buy. Heck, even milk (good milk) is about $3.60 a gallon, and they don't need to dig 12,000 foot wells, refine it, and transport it cross country. It could be a lot worse. It could be the UK.
> 
> Scott


BTW UK pays less for gas than we do. They just have a very high tax on it. It comes back to the people in one shape or form.


----------



## jayhawkblk (May 29, 2007)

This is interesting topic. In one car dont use eq becasue I dont have it. The other car I use very little I try my best to do it by ear becasue I know how I like it to sound and that is what most important. I am not a super tweaker so I trust my ears they seem to do alright. I bet if i had an RTA an may use it to verify what I thought I heard. Is there a computer base RTA I can use? Dont want to spend the money on the Audio Control one.


----------



## Oliver (Jun 25, 2007)

HomeAboutMedical School NotesTest your musical skills in 6 minutes! 

While working at the music and neuroimaging lab at Beth Israel/Harvard Medical School in Boston, I developed a quick online way to screen for the tonedeafness. It actually turned out to be a pretty good test to check for overall pitch perception ability. The test is purposefully made very hard, so excellent musicians rarely score above 80% correct. Give it a try! 
In our research, we were looking for neuro-anatomical correlates of tonedeafness (called "congenital amusia" in the scientific literature. We gave several dozen subjects a high-resolution MRI scan and used a statistical package to analyze the images. This technique, called VBM (voxel-based morphometry), has been used to study the changes in the brain caused by Alzheimer disease and many other neurological conditions. The test you are about to take was used as a screening test to roughly characterize patient’s pitch discrimination and musical memory abilities. Even though musical memory is strongly tested here, we have found that people who are tonedeaf tend to have normal musical memories.

About me:
I am currently a medical student at UMass. I have a musical background, having composed several electronic music albums under my own name. I formerly worked in Berlin, Germany, for Native Instruments, and was involved with the Reaktor and Absynth instruments. On the medical side of things, I am interested in using radiological technologies, such as anatomical and functional MRI, to investigate musical perception. 

Flash 8 or 9 is necessary to take the tonedeaf test. It may take a few moments to load, please be patient.



After completing the test, your score will be automatically and anonymously submitted.

I've taken the test, now what? 

1) Test your pitch perception abilities in 3 minutes with our new test. This test will measure exactly how well you can differentiate two tones which are very close in frequency.

2) If you liked the sounds in this test you may be interested to visit my myspace page and listen to some of my music.

83.3% Correct 



How well can you distinguish subtle differences in rhythm? 

Jan 2007 News: Statistics added on over 7,000 subjects! Compare your performance to others...

This is the hardest test I've made so far... 

This test will play a series of two rhythmical phrases (otherwise known as a "drum beat") and ask you if they are the same or different. Unlike the similar tonedeaf test, however, the differences between the phrases are only rhythmical. 

Recent research has emerged suggesting that rhythm perception and pitch perception deficits may be linked. Since it has long been known that people with poor rhythm perception abilities are often poor dancers, I though it would be interesting to make a test that would give an objective measure of rhythm perception. 

This test was developed by myself in collaboration with the music and neuroimaging laboratory of beth israel deaconess/harvard medical school. 

You will need Flash 8 or 9 for this test. Please be patient, as it takes a few minutes to load.



Please feel free to leave a comment about this test. 

Thanks in advance for the feedback!


80.0% Correct


----------



## michaelsil1 (May 24, 2007)

a$$hole said:


> HomeAboutMedical School NotesTest your musical skills in 6 minutes!
> 
> While working at the music and neuroimaging lab at Beth Israel/Harvard Medical School in Boston, I developed a quick online way to screen for the tonedeafness. It actually turned out to be a pretty good test to check for overall pitch perception ability. The test is purposefully made very hard, so excellent musicians rarely score above 80% correct. Give it a try!
> In our research, we were looking for neuro-anatomical correlates of tonedeafness (called "congenital amusia" in the scientific literature. We gave several dozen subjects a high-resolution MRI scan and used a statistical package to analyze the images. This technique, called VBM (voxel-based morphometry), has been used to study the changes in the brain caused by Alzheimer disease and many other neurological conditions. The test you are about to take was used as a screening test to roughly characterize patient’s pitch discrimination and musical memory abilities. Even though musical memory is strongly tested here, we have found that people who are tonedeaf tend to have normal musical memories.
> ...


Where's the link?


----------



## Candisa (Sep 15, 2007)

I use EQ, but first of all, I try to get the response as flat as possible by experimenting with positioning, angling and x-over points.

When it's as good as it gets without eq, I look for the biggest peaks and dips, and equalize them in a way they aren't much bigger than the smaller peaks and dips.

Also, I equalize left and right seperate to get the center more focused. (I don't use time-alignment).

I don't pull the response entirely flat, I like it when a system has some character, as long as it isn't too bumpy...

greetz,
Isabelle


----------



## Oliver (Jun 25, 2007)

michaelsil1 said:


> Where's the link?


Scott , posted the link a few pages back.

I couldn't get the page with the screen shot to show


----------



## ZoNtO (Sep 20, 2005)

Couldn't find link so I zoomed in on a pic and deciphered it:

http://www.jakemandell.com/tonedeaf/

I got a 75% even with basketball game blaring in the background... (I am so tired of living with roommates)

well freak, I got .4125 hz on the pitch test, but the f'ers unplugged the speakers with like 3 more tests left.... Dang those things are addicting


----------



## BobG (Dec 8, 2006)

Scored an 80%


----------



## Oliver (Jun 25, 2007)

http://www.jakemandell.com/tonedeaf/

Pitch & rhythm


----------



## soundq1 (May 18, 2008)

I found it very hard to get it the way I liked without some eq. Cars are tough. Reflections etc etc.

Larry Chijner


----------



## Hernan (Jul 9, 2006)

I can dial a setup working good with XO points and gains. The Eq is a great tool anyway. In fact, every recording ask for diferents response curves. 
For me...


----------



## michaelsil1 (May 24, 2007)

I have one cut (1/2db) @ 6.15 kHz couldn't get around it; oh well so much for zero EQ.


----------



## Oliver (Jun 25, 2007)

a$$hole said:


> How well can you distinguish subtle differences in rhythm?
> 
> 
> This is the hardest test I've made so far...
> ...


The second test is hard for people who do not like dancing, a lower score is indicative of why you may not like to dance.


----------



## VietPho (May 27, 2008)

a$$hole said:


> http://www.jakemandell.com/tonedeaf/
> 
> Pitch & rhythm


Oh god. Be careful of those Google ads!

I was tricked 



Anyhow, I took the test and got: 83.3% Correct


----------



## kizz (Jun 22, 2009)

last week I listened to Niebur3's daily driver. he has no eq on his deck and I thought it sounded pretty dang good. decent sound without spending thousands of dollars can be achieved. speaker placement and proper installation plays a big role imo.


----------



## jel847 (Nov 8, 2007)

5/7/2008-5/27/2008
???????????????????


----------



## lil goat (Oct 16, 2009)

Kind of funny to me that no one mentioned that eq means equalizer, I have a background of being a sound guy in a couple of bands, and also built some huge systems for Churchs (over $250,000). I grew up listening to good sound, Dad had all McIntosh stuff. An equalizer is not a tone control. With live music it is to make the band sound the same in different rooms, or equalize out the room. Much easier with an RTA, or at least some tones and a db meter. The same holds true for a car, ideally it is to establish a flat base line, then adjust for personal taste with tone controls. You can most certainly set a car up to have a flat response without any eq, be either a lot of luck, or work. An eq should be used to get a level playing field. I got my car pretty close using the controls on my active xover with the RTA, I am looking at adding an eq to get it even better, once I set it up with the eq, I most likely will never touch it again. I would ideally get an electronic set up I could easily change, 1 person, 2 people, top up, top down. I doubt that will ever be in the budget, so most likely single eq and adjust the controls on the HD for taste, and to fix poor production. ( I have done that too, don't get me started ) I will use an eq, but I will set it up with an RTA and then lock it down. HD is for tweaking.


----------



## WOOFERNTWEETER (Aug 16, 2010)

sonicnirvana said:


> After recently spending many hours(weeks?) tuning my system, I have come to the happy realization that it is possible to get great sound without any EQ. I spent many, many hours with installation quality, driver location, XO settings, level settings and time alignment. The end result has left me with a clarity and depth I have never realized before and the feeling that there is little need for EQ, if any. So what are your thoughts?


use as little as possible!!!!!! driver placement is paramount


----------



## The Baron Groog (Mar 15, 2010)

Scott Buwalda said:


> I agree, it is a bit excessive. But everytime I go to complain about it, I realize it's the cheapest chemical by the gallon you can buy. Heck, even milk (good milk) is about $3.60 a gallon, and they don't need to dig 12,000 foot wells, refine it, and transport it cross country. It could be a lot worse. It could be the UK.
> 
> Scott


lol-over £1.30 a litre in most places now so about £6.50 a gallon! But you're also right that in reality it's pretty cheap when compared to milk @ £1.50 a litre-but I imagine most of the extra 20p the milk costs per litre is transport costs


----------



## jam0o0 (Nov 30, 2010)

83.8% on the tone def test. which is funny cause my family thinks i'm tone def. but i think i was guessing about 70% of the time. 

56% on the rhythm test. - i hate dancing.


----------



## Navyguy2012 (Apr 20, 2011)

OK, I know this thread started a LONG time ago, but I've been trying to find some info on installing a Kenwood KGC 4042A to a Pioneer DEH-P7200HD. Which output from the HU should I use since it has three outputs (f, r and sub), since the EQ only has one input (but three outputs, f, r and sub). The main goal was to be able to control the subs with the EQ sub function, but being able to tweek the fronts would be nice as well (no "rear" speakers, just component fronts and subs).


----------



## ryomanx (Feb 18, 2011)

old thread revival!! 
91.7

anybody else in the 90's?


----------



## Commissionmip (Jan 27, 2011)

Everything in my setup profile and I use NO Eq. Everything is flat.-


----------



## The Baron Groog (Mar 15, 2010)

Navyguy2012 said:


> OK, I know this thread started a LONG time ago, but I've been trying to find some info on installing a Kenwood KGC 4042A to a Pioneer DEH-P7200HD. Which output from the HU should I use since it has three outputs (f, r and sub), since the EQ only has one input (but three outputs, f, r and sub). The main goal was to be able to control the subs with the EQ sub function, but being able to tweek the fronts would be nice as well (no "rear" speakers, just component fronts and subs).


Hook up your EQ to the front outs of the pioneer


----------



## Cablguy184 (Oct 7, 2010)

My Sound Quality vehicle has a equalizer but it is set for a flat response (Linear Power PA2) ... 






cablguy184 said:


> Everyone, If you can, please go and vote for me on SMD System of the Month !!!
> Please ........... thank you for your time, Randal ...
> 
> SMD FORUMS - SYSTEM OF THE MONTH Sponsored by MECHMAN Alternator! Win a High Output Alternator! - SMD Forum


----------



## Navyguy2012 (Apr 20, 2011)

Thanks. And that will be full range, including the low frequencies for the subs?



The Baron Groog said:


> Hook up your EQ to the front outs of the pioneer


----------



## bloobb (Apr 14, 2011)

if you need a rta and have an iphone, check appstore for audiotools. 
jl audio app also has the same rta with many fewer features.

it's very accurate off the mic on my iphone 4 (it has options for headphone mic and comp mic also). it showed me holes i didnt realize i had, and after proper system adjustment, sound is sexy


----------



## trumpet (Nov 14, 2010)

I did the "tonedeaf" test and got 69.4%. I went back through with the answer key and I swear some of the ones I got wrong still sounded like I had given the correct answer. I had played trumpet for 10 years starting at age 10, doing music camp and the whole bit, and I think I am excellent with pitches and rhythms. I'm surprised by my score because I thought I had gotten ~90% correct.

As to the EQ poll I have my head unit's equalizer settings on flat.


----------



## SUX 2BU (Oct 27, 2008)

Of all my more serious systems that my cars have had, and I've competed in IASCA with throughout the 90's, not one of my cars had an EQ. My best sounding car didn't have it either. My truck I have currently though has been interesting. It's an 81 GMC 1/2 ton so it's a regular cab. I built an old skool Alpine system in it complete with 1990-era 4-way electronic xover and 3401 parametric eq. I found that trying to tune it with the 3401 I could not improve the sound, but when I played with xover points instead I had much better improvements. I now have taken out the 3401 (RCA jacks were getting sketchy) and use the 3-band parametric eq and selectable bass/mid/treble settings in my 10 year old Pioneer deck. The truck is hard to get tuned well though. Lots of metal on the interior makes for boominess and the seating position and cab size doesn't make for an easy soundstage!


----------



## vecc205 (Nov 18, 2007)

I found messing with x-over points levels and getting as good as you can that way gets you pretty close and not many eq adjustments are needed after that. In fact I found when I tried using an RTA or mls based system to smooth out what the graph was showing me it ended up making things worse. In fact it seemed hard for me to tell how my ears would interpret whats on the graph. For example move the mic around and the response changes. Do a spatial average, OK I tried that still didn't get great results. Ok now what curve should I go by? When I try doing this it seems I end up eqing something that didn't really need to be eq'd in the first place. I tried pink noise and warbled sine sweeps not getting satisfactory results though. Now I just use the RTA to help find problem areas if I hear them otherwise I tune with my ears and check with the RTA. I'm curious to see others responses on this maybe theres a better way I can measure or a method that works for someone else. I'm all ears and willing to give anything a try!

I also saw someone in this thread mention different EQ for different songs. I can see how that makes sense depending how the recording was made. A nearfield vs far-field type recording I guess.

Also I will throw this question out there too. If one were to use a set target curve when measuring frequency response would that same measured curve in a different vehicle sound the same?


----------



## rain27 (Jan 15, 2009)

It would be interesting to see pics of the cars that need no eq.


----------



## Gary S (Dec 11, 2007)

If you have great speakers, speaker placement, and install, an EQ is not necessary; top-quality speakers will have a flat response. There will be frequency deviations as measured by an RTA in the car, but those are a result of both direct and reflected sound. Your brain/ears "hear" differently than a machine, your brain separates the direct and reflected sound.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Mini Door | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Mini Door 2 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

These are Andys FR graphs. The first the is the frequency response of a typical mid bass in the door, measured 1" from the cone. The second is the same driver measured at your ear level. The difference in response would be similar across all drivers and install locations.

You're listening to music in an environment that is highly intrusive. One which craps up what the drivers put out. Mind you these graphs are only for one side. The ear level for the other side would be radically different from the one pictured above. 

To get anywhere close to sanity not only are you going to use the eq you will need an independent L/R one. 

Running it flat, perfect placement of drivers etc may not get you there. Of course great placement + dsp > Crappy placement + dsp.


----------



## michaelsil1 (May 24, 2007)

cajunner said:


> treating the 'room' only gets you so far, (gotta see through those windows) and doing a custom crossover with passive filter elements that are specific to the install requirements is time-consuming and very hit-or-miss, even if you know what you are doing, using computer sims and modeling, and if you go that far, you're still behind on all the things an active system does that works to your advantage in a car.
> 
> great install with good drivers in a crappy sounding vehicle means something's never going to be right, whether the dash traps a resonant frequency that combined with the footwell resonance means you'll never equalize it out, or the cabin is wider than it is long making bass a hard-fought battle, or just having to sit close to the windshield because of design, or the trunk cavity makes a bass trap that kills the midbass, it's always something when you find it, that can't be fixed with eq or changing driver positions.
> 
> ...


You make a great point!

Car Acoustics Suck!!

In a home you can treat the room in all kinds of ways in a car you have *Glass*.


----------



## Mike_Dee (Mar 26, 2011)

I use no EQ, and all settings are to flat.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

I'm sure there are cars that will have better acoustics due to less intrusive environment and better stock placements so that the numbers are better. But the environment will still intrude enough to merit using dsp. 

If you're running active you're using dsp. Playing around with the xover points and slopes to find the ones that work best in your car. Using dsp to do that is fine. While good placement can minimize PLD, using time alignment to correct even a 6-7" pld helps a lot. So I guess TA is ok too. 

What seems to be a holy cow though is the eq. But the eq is just another tool. You have to use all three together to find the best solution to the unique environment in your car. You're not using the eq to shape what was recorded. You're using it to correct whats being reproduced at your ears.


----------



## goodstuff (Jan 9, 2008)

I have no eq, right now.
I've tried to use it in the past, not sure i knew what I was doing.
I'm switching all my speakers, after that I will try again.


----------



## goodstuff (Jan 9, 2008)

edit: opps double ppoast


----------



## mike123d (May 17, 2011)

I don't personally use EQ, but I would highly recommend that if you are to use it then don't boost any frequencies. I find that in an ideal setup, boosting brings certain frequencies to stand out and play unnatural. If you work in the opposite such as lower a frequency a couple DB's, the sound can be perfected..


----------



## gus1111 (Apr 17, 2009)

Coming from high-end Home Audio I hated the word EQ or DSP or T/A so I tried for years and years not to use any processing! Two-three months ago, I realized that it is almost impossible to have near perfect tonality and imaging without any processing! So, I am looking into buying a P99rs to try and see if I can live with it. 95% of the people rave about it, so I hope it works out for me...


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

mike123d said:


> I don't personally use EQ, but I would highly recommend that if you are to use it then don't boost any frequencies. I find that in an ideal setup, boosting brings certain frequencies to stand out and play unnatural. If you work in the opposite such as lower a frequency a couple DB's, the sound can be perfected..


I personally use eq albeit very little but this is spot on.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

Here is a stock Hyundai door with stock fullrange paper cones vs. aftermarket coaxials:










Biggest difference? The car. Going from stock fullrange to Hi-Vi coax merely improved the top end. At this point you may say, well yeah, that's a door location with lots of reflections.

Here is my car, pillar pods, only 5 degrees or so off axis, soft top too, so very few reflections. The speaker variety is a planar and a 3 inch cone with a 200hz HP, so vastly different in capabilities:










Planar and 4" pro audio cone:










A 7-8db dip for two octaves or so is clearly present 300hz-1,200hz. 

None of these cars sound good without lots and lots of EQ. Once I smooth things out the improvement is unmistakable. I find 20hz to 2,000hz to be very much in need of EQ. in a variety of cars and installations. You can get away without EQ. for a tweeter that's right on axis with the driver. Not much else is that easy.

With that said you have to have the proper tools and techniques to use them to figure out where and how much EQ. to put in. You may not want to EQ. at all if this is an impossibility. I venture to guess this is why most have a problem boosting vs. cutting. If you boost where you already have a peak it will be piercing to your years. Messin' up by creating dips is not as bothersome. Some processors, amplifiers, and speakers could also run out of headroom. With the P99 I have no problem boosting or cutting.


----------



## X-runner (Aug 7, 2010)

In home audio, Ive always frowned on EQ adjustments, but its hard to avoid inside the cabin of the car. 

My deck has always been flat lined, but then the MS-8 made its way into my system and now I just let it do its thing. Once it auto EQ's, I dont mess with the 31 band or the tone controls


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

There are several widely believed myths in car audio, that originate from the home 2ch side. Flat eq is one of them. The environments are totally different. What works in one may / will not work in the other. You don't need eq in a normal room but you do need it in a car.

What is common to both however, is the presentation of sound. Staging, imaging, tonality, detailing and focus. The whole effect and therefore the impact, has to be replicated. But there's a catch. Due to the difference in dimension between a room and the cabin of a car, the 14' W x 6' H x 8' D of the stage in the room needs to scaled down to say 6' W x 2' H x 3' D, to fit inside the car. You want to scale down the size without losing impact and detailing. The size of you stage in the car also means that it predominantly be a one seat setup. The stage just isn't big enough to accommodate a two seat setup. 

Width and height are easier to get in a car. Depth requires focused imaging and for me has been the toughest to get. Having your midbass on the doors, 4" below your window is not a great location for depth. Mic mentioned depth as space behind what you're hearing. I think that was a great description. You have to get the perception of this space to have depth. 

You use all the tuning tools you can get your hands on, to setup this stage. The more tools you have and finer the level of adjustments on each, the better your control on the sound. An equalizer helps bring balance to the sound. I think, good sound is about great balance, or the best that you can get.

Balance for L/R, balance across the lows / mids / highs and everything in between. If your upper mids and highs sound stretched and hollow, maybe something is too hot at the lower end. Balance is about hearing. I don't know if you can measure or calculate your way to good balance. You have to hear your way there. Good balance will generally give good impact. 

An eq is almost always about cutting even though it allows you to both cut and boost. Boosting does not automatically mean setting a frequency to +2/3db. Boosting can also mean relative to what's around it. On my hu 315 / 500 / 800 are set at -3R, -2L / 0,0 / -5,-4. The SR mid has a peak at 800. So while 500 is set dead flat, it is boosted compare to whats around it.

If you look at the graph the cvjoint posted, yes there is a dip between 300-1.25. Now you can either boost this range by 6-7 dbs or you can cut whats higher by 2-3 dbs and then raise the 300-1.25 range by 2-3 dbs. Better balance.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

sqnut said:


> If you look at the graph the cvjoint posted, yes there is a dip between 300-1.25. Now you can either boost this range by 6-7 dbs or you can cut whats higher by 2-3 dbs and then raise the 300-1.25 range by 2-3 dbs. Better balance.


Except that THD stays the same whether you boost or cut. If you cut, you need to raise the output level of the driver overall to bring it to the same SPL level. Either way distortion performance is THE SAME @ x db. You can mark this one as a busted myth as well.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

cvjoint said:


> Except that THD stays the same whether you boost or cut. If you cut, you need to raise the output level of the driver overall to bring it to the same SPL level. Either way distortion performance is THE SAME @ x db. You can mark this one as a busted myth as well.


Sure the thd would remain the same, but the two would sound vastly different. 

A dip over two octaves boosted for 6-7 db without touching the other eight and the same dip corrected by spreading its impact over 10 octaves, would be two very different sounds. At the end of the day its about what sounds better. Does it just address tonality and screw up the staging / imaging? Or does it bring more focus and better tonality albeit at the cost of a few db's? 

You're trading. Sound in a car is always about trade offs. At least that's the way it seems to me. 

You can't have true sq by keeping db's at par with 'running it flat'. You're going to trade the few db's for much better impact. That is another myth busted.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

sqnut said:


> Sure the thd would remain the same, but the two would sound vastly different.
> 
> A dip over two octaves boosted for 6-7 db without touching the other eight and the same dip corrected by spreading its impact over 10 octaves, would be two very different sounds. At the end of the day its about what sounds better. Does it just address tonality and screw up the staging / imaging? Or does it bring more focus and better tonality albeit at the cost of a few db's?
> 
> ...


Not sure I follow. What would make the two sound different, boosting vs. cutting? 

I do all tunning on the headunit. I fit a certain desired response curve @ x db. Whether you are boosting or cutting the frequency response is the same, the output is the same because we use gain settings, and the THD is the same because THD is fundamental - harmonics. 

The only way I see boosting vs. cutting matter is if you use the amplifiers to make minor gain adjustments and EQ. in the headunit. Say the headunit is low on overhead and you decide to boost. You lower levels in the amp and that gives it more headroom. If the head is the weakest link, overall you gave yourself less headroom. However, most people do minor gain adjustments in their headunit anyway. Boosting is complemented by cutting gains, and cutting is complemented by raising gains, it's all a wash if all done on one unit.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

cvjoint said:


> Not sure I follow. What would make the two sound different, boosting vs. cutting?
> 
> I do all tunning on the headunit. I fit a certain desired response curve @ x db. Whether you are boosting or cutting the frequency response is the same, the output is the same because we use gain settings, and the THD is the same because THD is fundamental - harmonics.


You're too focused on the numbers. Forget about those for a while. Listen to the sound and go by that. Assuming that you measured the FR graph at flat eq, try it both ways. Boost only the 300-1khz range and then leave that range at 0/0 and cut everything else a few db's. Are the sounds different?

I'm not saying either will be the perfect tune, but it will give you an idea on the difference in sounds.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

sqnut said:


> *You're too focused on the numbers. Forget about those for a while. Listen to the sound and go by that.* Assuming that you measured the FR graph at flat eq, try it both ways. Boost only the 300-1khz range and then leave that range at 0/0 and cut everything else a few db's. Are the sounds different?
> 
> I'm not saying either will be the perfect tune, but it will give you an idea on the difference in sounds.


I thought we were busting myths here. You can't bust myths without science mate. Word of mouf is how myths come to be. Peace.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

cvjoint said:


> I thought we were busting myths here. You can't bust myths without science mate. Word of mouf is how myths come to be. Peace.


I will respond. May just take me sometime. I have a ton of ball in the air right now. Equally, this is something which is largely instinctive. I need some time time to put it together in my head to be able to explain it logically. But I will comeback before the weekend is out.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

All our senses are processed at our brain. Which in turn has two halves. Each half controls the opposite side of the body. Multiple studies suggest that about 80+% of folks are left brain and right hand dominant. Three interesting facts.

1. Most people are either left or right half dominant.

2. Each half of the brain uses different ways for analyzing the inputs from our senses. The left half is rational, constructs the whole from bit up and is logical in its analysis. The right half is intuitive, build down from the whole and has the ability to process raw data into information based on patterns and other subjective attributes.

3. The processing of each sense, sight, sound, taste etc is divided between the two halves. Hence to get a full appreciation of any given sense, you have to use both halves together. You just have to know which half is better at what.

Right Brain and Left Brain Characteristics

The problem on almost all forums is that members are either dominantly left or right brained. Neither half on its own will get you where you want to go. So yes measurements and proving what ever can be proved, is great. Better numbers will always sound better. But you can make average numbers sound good. 

The left brain will give you measured distances to each driver to set your TA. The right brain will tell you that the most important number is the PLD between the drivers. Stay in that bvall park but feel free to add 2-3 ms delay on all drivers from measured distance as that raises stage height. Too much delay on your sub and your mid bass is mud. TA is about getting the two halves of your stage to merge seamlessly into one whole. This is typically what your right brain would tell you. Listen to it.

You can't have a stage starting half way up your windscreen and vocals that are smeared from the rear view mirror to the dash top. The scale is out. That's what your left brain is telling you. Again listen to it.

Of course integral to all this is the acceptance that sound has an intuitive / subjective / right brained side. The vast majority of the 80+% would struggle with this concept. That is why most car audio forums remain one dimensional.


----------



## michaelsil1 (May 24, 2007)

In response to the above thread. We (Los Angeles DIYMA) were a little preplexed as to what was SQ so we started competing now everyone is on (almost) the same page.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

michaelsil1 said:


> In response to the above thread. We (Los Angeles DIYMA) were a little preplexed as to what was SQ so we started competing now everyone is on (almost) the same page.


So, what does that mean?

1. You're now using both halves equally? 

2. Once you have the equipment placed, angled and installed correctly and you're keeping every link within its physical limit, its 70% right brain and 30% left brain?


----------



## michaelsil1 (May 24, 2007)

It means that it's not one dimensional


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Thanks. It's a big relief that I'm not the only weirdo here.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

sqnut said:


> All our senses are processed at our brain. Which in turn has two halves. Each half controls the opposite side of the body. Multiple studies suggest that about 80+% of folks are left brain and right hand dominant. Three interesting facts.
> 
> 1. Most people are either left or right half dominant.
> 
> ...


Which side of the brain was most heavily used in arriving at the three "facts" above? If someone were to disagree with these "facts" and challenge them: would it be better to:

A: Break out in a fit of rage, curse and spit at the undersigner.

B: Repeat the underlying research keeping other variables fixed.

It's interesting information, most probably rooted in some heavy employment of the scientific method. Nonetheless, that does not prevent* misuse*. 

Let's start with this one:
*"You just have to know which half is better at what."*
The most compelling arguments to me are that either sound reproduction is a complete science or uses science in it's majority. If this is true you are in fact using the wrong side of the brain in your post or in car audio in general. We have devout learners that have put in decades of work into formalizing the ideas that seem to work. Audio reproduction is in "fact" a hard science. That means we formalized the major aspects of the field. 

Case in point, you claim *"Stay in that bvall park but feel free to add 2-3 ms delay on all drivers from measured distance as that raises stage height."*
I do agree this is mostly your right brain side at work. Disproving this with my left side of the brain will hopefully put a lot of these arguments to rest. 

Scientific method 101. From Wiki:
_ 1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step 2._

This is in fact where most car audio myths come to be I think. We have poor tools (ears) and little formal training. We are in fact bringing a knife to a gun fight in this hobby when we make theories. Hint: most of your questions have been answered already by professionals. Crack open a book.

_2. Form a conjecture: When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook._


*Adding 2-3ms of delay to all drivers will do nothing to your soundstage.* 

_ 3. Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow?_


To me it seems that adding delay unanimously will simply delay the signal. 


4. Test: Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2. This error is called affirming the consequent.[13]

Adding more delay, like seconds, to all speakers should be an easy modification that will allow testing. One way to add 5 seconds of delay to all speakers is to press play 5 seconds later on a track. Play track 1 on any CD. Play track 1 on the same CD again waiting 5 seconds before pressing play. Has the soundstage changed at all? Nope, soundstage has not changed. Using *deduction*, changing the delay to all speakers to finer counts like ms will lead to the same results. Is there any test like this that does not result in a delayed signal, but a changed soundstage? I think not. 

What happened when you formulated your theory here is that wishful thinking turned into a false belief on you behalf. Maybe you got a bj in the morning and you were feeling good so your right half of the brain lead you to all sorts of positive conclusions. Your hypothesis is however completely false. You can see for yourself if you use the left half and follow the steps above. Notice that you haven't actually came upon a "fact". You can't really support anything unless you go through the formal process. 

"Facts" are only facts until they are disproved. This was my next point. In science we generally don't have enough evidence to reject the null. A theory only stands as fact until a better one comes along. 


I do believe there is some room for using your creative side in car audio. There is minor room for subjectivity, like making choices between linear distortion, nonlinear distortion, and staging. However, you must conquer the mountain of knowledge that scientists collected first. Even then the majority of preferences between linear and nonlinear distortion for example may have been covered, I just may not know about it. Every black art eventually becomes hard science. We formalize the ideas that tend to work into theories that can be later disproved. 

If you really want to use your creative side I suggest being a musician. It may still help going through a school and learning what others have come to agree upon though time. Even then a lot has been formalized. There are lots of art schools too.

*"Of course integral to all this is the acceptance that sound has an intuitive / subjective / right brained side."*
Creating sounds yes, reproducing sounds not so much. Big difference.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

cvjoint said:


> Which side of the brain was most heavily used in arriving at the three "facts" above?


Both. Left for 1 and 3. Right for 2. 



cvjoint said:


> If someone were to disagree with these "facts" and challenge them: would it be better to:
> 
> A: Break out in a fit of rage, curse and spit at the undersigner.
> 
> ...


Neither. We can always agree to disagree . All I am saying is, if you use both halves of your brain to process incoming stimuli, overtime you will learn to identify which half to use more for most of them. This in turn can be used to enhance or mute the overall experience of said stimuli.


----------



## Vander (Jun 18, 2010)

cvjoint said:


> Imo you should use zero EQ if you don't have the means to do it properly. I'm amazed when people claim they can do it by ear. Any decent install will need proper gear to get it analyzed. With that being said I've never used EQ before purchasing a test setup. I've tried screwing with it and I just felt stupid.
> 
> Given that you do have a test setup you should use it and it will do wonders. There is no way you can get a mechanical install to be flat even with a lenient +-2db parameter. If that were the case home audio would never ever need EQing.


People SHOULD do it by ear...car audio is about what sounds good to YOU,if you are competing then thats another story.If you dont compete though then the game changes.There is no test equipment available that is able to tell me what sounds good to ME.


----------



## rain27 (Jan 15, 2009)

I'm not a professional tuner by any stretch, but in my experience using zero eq when using something like a coaxial set up provided good sound. 

More specifically, I liked the sound with no eq using the Boston SPZ's in coaxial mount with the passives. Removing the passives warranted some adjusting. Moving the tweeter from the mid required more and more eq the further away they were from each other.


----------



## rain27 (Jan 15, 2009)

I'm not a professional tuner by any stretch, but in my experience using zero eq when using something like a coaxial set up provided good sound. 

More specifically, I liked the sound with no eq using the Boston SPZ's in coaxial mount with the passives. Removing the passives warranted some adjusting. Moving the tweeter from the mid required more and more eq the further away they were from each other.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

Vander said:


> People SHOULD do it by ear...car audio is about what sounds good to YOU,if you are competing then thats another story.If you dont compete though then the game changes.There is no test equipment available that is able to tell me what sounds good to ME.


This reminds me of those battery testers at Autozone that simply says "Good Battery" or "Bad Battery". It's true that no such tool exists for audio tunning. It doesn't mean YOU can't use a measurement system to make the setup sound better for YOU. Even if YOU haven't figured out how this works it doesn't mean OTHERS haven't.


----------



## kkant (Feb 3, 2008)

Everyone in car audio uses an EQ, whether they like it or not. The car's interior is an extremely complex EQ.

Plus, the idea of "pure" and "natural" makes no sense in this context. There's nothing natural about shoving an orchestra though a 6" speaker. There might be some satisfaction in trying to solve the problem without electronic EQ, but if the goal is authentic fidelity then why limit your toolset.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

kkant said:


> Everyone in car audio uses an EQ, whether they like it or not. The car's interior is an extremely complex EQ.
> 
> Plus, the idea of "pure" and "natural" makes no sense in this context. There's nothing natural about shoving an orchestra though a 6" speaker. There might be some satisfaction in trying to solve the problem without electronic EQ, but if the goal is authentic fidelity then why limit your toolset.


What about shoving the orchestra through a 3" speaker? What then?


----------



## its_bacon12 (Aug 16, 2007)

kkant said:


> Everyone in car audio uses an EQ, whether they like it or not. The car's interior is an extremely complex EQ.
> 
> Plus, the idea of "pure" and "natural" makes no sense in this context. There's nothing natural about shoving an orchestra though a 6" speaker. There might be some satisfaction in trying to solve the problem without electronic EQ, but if the goal is authentic fidelity then why limit your toolset.


Completely agree. Too many obstacles in a car to rule out using EQ. In home audio, passive crossovers essentially equalize the signal between the amp and speaker. That's also the same thing those car crossovers with tweeter attenuation options do - broad EQ on the tweeter passband.


----------



## Gary S (Dec 11, 2007)

Let me ask you a question - if Eric Clapton hopped in the back seat of your car with his guitar and started sing a song, would you feel the need to hookup an equalizer and tweak the sound?!

If you need EQ, your system is not set up well.


----------



## michaelsil1 (May 24, 2007)

Gary S said:


> Let me ask you a question - if Eric Clapton hopped in the back seat of your car with his guitar and started sing a song, would you feel the need to hookup an equalizer and tweak the sound?!
> 
> If you need EQ, your system is not set up well.


Even Eric Clapton has to tune his Guitar!


----------



## goodstuff (Jan 9, 2008)

Gary S said:


> if Eric Clapton hopped in the back seat of your car with his guitar and started sing a song, would you feel the need to hookup an equalizer and tweak the sound?!


Yes, because vehicle acoustics suck regardless if it's clapton or tiny tim playing within them.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Gary S said:


> Let me ask you a question - if Eric Clapton hopped in the back seat of your car with his guitar and started sing a song, would you feel the need to hookup an equalizer and tweak the sound?!
> 
> If you need EQ, your system is not set up well.


Sorry, but that's just flat out wrong. In a car, you need to eq not for what's coming out the speakers, but that which is hitting your ears. You need to check out Andy's graphs for speaker level and ear level FR in a car. Placement goes a long way yes, but placement plus dsp goes much further. It's also a fact that most people don't know how to use an eq in a car.

I'd rather have Clapton standing on my dash than on the back seat.


----------



## Gary S (Dec 11, 2007)

An RTA does not hear the way we do - our brains can separate direct sound from reflections - the RTA cannot (and reflections close to the speakers can be controlled with damping /absorbing materials). This what most of you are missing - and why it seems you are never happy with your systems and need to constantly tweak to no avail. An EQ won't fix most basic problems - such as poor speaker placement.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Good sound in a car means you have to do two things. Minimize the effect of your environment then tweak for a flat response *based on your ears sensitivity.* An RTA is a big help for the first and your ears, the eq and the FM graphs are a big help for the latter.


----------



## Hiace200 (Apr 26, 2009)

Running active = using Eq

3 way front + sub = 4 band Eq

2 way front + sub = 3 band Eq

Changing xover point = changing speaker bandwidth

Speaker bandwidth = Q

Adjusting volume of speaker = cutting or boosting frequency


----------



## slipchuck (Dec 19, 2011)

back in the 80's when I got my first Blaupunkt system the guy told me that the sign of a really high end system is one that you don't have to EQ at all...Just install and the tones would be "flat" (in the good way, not the dull way)
But there wasn't any eq's with mics that could "tune" themselves, either 
I used to own one, but I was always adjusting it for every song and just got fed up with it and sold it. would like to give a newer self tuning one day, but I am not sure it would be worth the price.... could get better speakers for the back instead.

thanks

randy


----------

