# Time alignment - How many have it?



## fcarpio (Apr 29, 2008)

Just curious to see what is the ratio of people who have time alignment vs. the people who do not have it. I personally do not have time alignment in my system design yet, but I am debating whether I should make the extra investment to have it or not. If I decide to get time alignment I would be giving up a DQL-8 and a DXS for a PXA-H701 and a LOC.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

IMO, t/a is probably the most important thing to have. Others might argue, but it seems to be the best benefit overall. Once you get phase (which can be done manually) right and t/a, you've solved a majority of problems.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

I recently took it out (basically, I'm between setups right now...). And let me tell you this: I hate not having it anymore. I've noticed an even bigger difference after having it for so long and getting rid of it than I did after I first introduced it into the system.


----------



## Greg_Canada (May 15, 2007)

I've got it, it's quite useful. (deh-p880prs)


----------



## doitor (Aug 16, 2007)

Yes.
It would be *almost* imposible to have a good sounding car without it.

Jorge.


----------



## bobduch (Jul 22, 2005)

Ran a Dyn 360 set passive. Went active only so I could have T/A. Huge improvement.


----------



## BlackSapphire (Apr 16, 2008)

What's the best way to add TA to a system like mine (factory HU, LC6i, active front, 12w6v2, JL450/4, JL500/1.

Which add on crossover/TA box is generally regarded as 'worth it'. Nice and flexible without costing 8k dollars (gross exaggeration). I don't want to go the aftermarket HU route again quite yet.

EDIT: I'm on board now. Pretty much the PXE-650, 3Sixty.2, MS-8....


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

doitor said:


> Yes.
> It would be *almost* imposible to have a good sounding car without it.
> 
> Jorge.



Have you ever had a chance to listen to any of the REALLY good cars before T/Awas widely available?


----------



## Fast1one (Apr 6, 2007)

I have no T/A currently and don't miss it at all...I may add it later as icing on the cake...

I will tell you this, if you want imaging at the CENTER of the car, T/A can be indispensable in my experience...otherwise one can achieve center image in front of the driver with only individual L/R EQ and level matching....

Recently I have become increasingly interested in a two seater car because of the challenge. I don't think I could achieve it as effectively with T/A


----------



## jrwalte (Mar 27, 2008)

I don't think any SQ system should be without TA and a decent EQ (7 band +). I get both of mine from the 800PRS.

I finally resolved all the audio issues I was having with my install and I look forward to finally seeing what this HU can do.


----------



## Hillbilly SQ (Jan 26, 2007)

before i knew how to make proper use of t/a i'd fight with eq and crossover points daily. just never sounded right. once i learned how to use it properly all was golden. it's the first thing i adjust and usually leads to very little eq work afterwards.


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

It CAN be done without TA. The IASCA winners from back in the day all sounded wonderful, had razor sharp imaging, and didn't have TA. No one does it now because they don't have to.


----------



## michaelsil1 (May 24, 2007)

I use it. I wish I could figure out how to use the impulse response in the MLS Software to perfect the alignment.


----------



## dejo (Jan 3, 2006)

I have it on my 9815 that is in right now, but am getting ready to use the w505 and am considering the h701. would love to have it but am also considering the imprit kit for it. I had the h650 and it did wonders but just no output volume or it would clip the inputs.


----------



## XC-C30 (Jul 24, 2007)

I think SQ us much more fun without TA..... Just makes it more fulfilling if you can achieve it without it. I'm a great fan of pure passive. If they can get to achieve a nice sounding car without all yhe help of technology, now THAT's something to be proud of. Yes I know, it's way harder to get it where you want, but that's the challenge... 

I do have to admit TA is easier and I'll be using it too, when going active, but at some point I'll probably go and try without it..... If I broadened my knowleadge on pure paasive, I might make an attempt on that some day even.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

XC-C30 said:


> I think SQ us much more fun without TA..... Just makes it more fulfilling if you can achieve it without it. I'm a great fan of pure passive. If they can get to achieve a nice sounding car without all yhe help of technology, now THAT's something to be proud of. Yes I know, it's way harder to get it where you want, but that's the challenge...
> 
> I do have to admit TA is easier and I'll be using it too, when going active, but at some point I'll probably go and try without it..... If I broadened my knowleadge on pure paasive, I might make an attempt on that some day even.


Is that what you're in this for though? A challenge? Maybe I'm in the minority in just wanting the best sound I can get while trying not to break the bank.


----------



## michaelsil1 (May 24, 2007)

MarkZ said:


> Is that what you're in this for though? *A challenge? * Maybe I'm in the minority in just wanting the best sound I can get while trying not to break the bank.




There are enough challenges without adding any more!


----------



## XC-C30 (Jul 24, 2007)

MarkZ said:


> Is that what you're in this for though? A challenge? Maybe I'm in the minority in just wanting the best sound I can get while trying not to break the bank.


I want great sound, but yes, I do want the challengd of building a great sounding system with basic tools, too. It's "easy" to get a nice system when you have TA and EQ and all that. But achieving great sound (and retaining it) without all of those tools is much harder. The fulfillment after accomplishing such ,is in my opnion, MUCH bigger, because it takes much more effort to achieve.


----------



## Candisa (Sep 15, 2007)

I use to have TA, I use to have 2-ways + sub, I use to have 2x20 parametric EQ bands...

Now I have to get a 3-ways + sub setup right without TA and only 2x13 graphic EQ bands...

Will it be harder? Hell yeah... Will I be more fullfilled when it finally sounds right? You betcha!

greetz,
Isabelle


----------



## lead (May 25, 2008)

T/A is very useful for most ma enthusiasts and especially for beginners. It is not a necessity though. I know few excellent pure passive competitors and with proper skill it sounds as good or better than a t/a'ed systems. It requires much more work and adjustments to get right though.


----------



## snaimpally (Mar 5, 2008)

I have only recently started experimenting with the t/a features of my 3sixty.2 (I am currently using the car's stock HU) and it is amazing what kind of imaging you can get. If you delay both channels you can even widen the soundstage to where the sound seems to be coming from a stage wider than the car itself! Unbeleivable. I will NEVER go back to not having time alignment. Once you experience it, it is a must have feature as far as I am concerned.


----------



## snaimpally (Mar 5, 2008)

XC-C30 said:


> I think SQ us much more fun without TA..... Just makes it more fulfilling if you can achieve it without it. I'm a great fan of pure passive. If they can get to achieve a nice sounding car without all yhe help of technology, now THAT's something to be proud of. Yes I know, it's way harder to get it where you want, but that's the challenge...
> 
> I do have to admit TA is easier and I'll be using it too, when going active, but at some point I'll probably go and try without it..... If I broadened my knowleadge on pure paasive, I might make an attempt on that some day even.


Passive crossovers are technology too, and most headunits have technology so I'm not sure why time alignment technology is an inferior technology. Time alignment makes it a lot easier to tune. If your ultimate goal is the same, does it really matter whether you take the stairs or the elevator to get there?


----------



## XC-C30 (Jul 24, 2007)

with technology I mean digital technology. yes passive x-overs are technology in a certain way, but so were lightbulbs and steam-driven engines once.....

edit: and as said in this topic a few times already: the challenge of going passive is just much more fulfilling. digitalising everything is taking the easy route


----------



## andthelam (Aug 9, 2006)

With my tweets in the kicks, it was impossible to get the right pinpoint soundstage w/o T/A. It also seemed to have raised the soundstage and also added depth. 

C'mon now, what man in his right mind doesn't like a little T/A??


----------



## XC-C30 (Jul 24, 2007)

I wouldn't know.... I'm a woman


----------



## bobditts (Jul 19, 2006)

are you asking if we have the capability and actually use it, or just if we have it?


----------



## machinehead (Nov 6, 2005)

Without TA, most stock locations and dash setups wouldn't be possible. The average enthusiast doesnt have to fabricate and chop things up anymore.

Even those old skool setups that sounded amazing could sound even better with TA.

The major drawback to TA is that the passenger gets a pretty ****ty soundstage. I used to kinda hate ta because of this, but i really can't remember the last time i had someone sit in my car that complimented me on my focused center image and stage width


----------



## proud_indian (May 27, 2008)

Does this TA thing have to come with the head unit, or can it be purchased as an add on?


----------



## Oliver (Jun 25, 2007)

proud_indian said:


> Does this TA thing have to come with the head unit, or can it be purchased as an add on?


Head units have TA, ie Pioneer prs 800,880...Alpine CDA 9815, etc..,


----------



## Candisa (Sep 15, 2007)

Time Alignment is a handy tool, but not necessary in a car.

To let the sub blend into the midbasswoofers, the midbasswoofers into the mids and the mids into the tweeters, the most important thing is that the frequency's around each crossover point get to the ear at the same time... 
Yes, you can achieve that by delaying the whole passband of the nearest drivers, but you can also achieve that by getting the acoustical phases around the crossover points equal. 
By experimenting with crossoverpoints and slopes (everybody knows phase of a driver turns while going further or back on the frequency spectrum and everybody knows that different slopes give a different phase shift around the crossover point), you can achieve great blending.

It get's harder when you have 2 or more sets of units playing (partly) the same passband, wich is the case when you compare left versus right (left + center on the left, right + center on the right, so the center is played by 2 sets of drivers at a different distance from the listening position). 
When you build a car that only has to sound right at the drivers seat, you can indeed use time alignment to pull the center to the middle and widen up the stage... BUT it's a car, you are not sitting at 1 inch of the left set and a quarter mile from the right set like you do on big festivals. In the worst case, the path length difference between left and right is one and a half meter (wich is even quite a lot for a dash install!), that's less than 2 milliseconds difference! 
Clues like difference in tonality between left and right (difference in reflections and absorbtion between left and right, small difference in frequency response of the drivers themselves...) wich can be adjusted with a good old equalizer that can be set left and right seperate, and difference in loudness wich can be adjusted by a small turn on the balance are MUCH more important to the staging than not even 2 milliseconds of delay!

Will time alignment improve systems that already sound fantastic without it? Probably a very very little bit (there is that <2ms in delay that can be corrected), but will you notice much of that? Enough to buy a more expensive headunit or replace a good old analog set of equalizers and crossovers with a dsp? Not really...

Also note that signal delay does affect the signal, maybe a very very little bit, but it affects it... Maybe the staging of that oldskool competition car without TA would improve a little bit by adding TA, but maybe the sound of it would be affected a little bit in a not so good way... It's called sound *quality*... Staging is important, but the quality of the sound itself is the most important thing to me...

greetz,
Isabelle


----------



## fcarpio (Apr 29, 2008)

MarkZ said:


> Is that what you're in this for though? A challenge? Maybe I'm in the minority in just wanting the best sound I can get while trying not to break the bank.


Hehehe, agree. No time for this kind of challenges, I got way to many other challenges to deal with right now. I am in just for the high end listening pleasure and gettng there in the easiest way.


----------



## fcarpio (Apr 29, 2008)

XC-C30 said:


> with technology I mean digital technology. yes passive x-overs are technology in a certain way, but so were lightbulbs and steam-driven engines once.....
> 
> edit: and as said in this topic a few times already: the challenge of going passive is just much more fulfilling. digitalising everything is taking the easy route


The easy route works for me.


----------



## XC-C30 (Jul 24, 2007)

That's your perfectly good right.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

Candisa said:


> Time Alignment is a handy tool, but not necessary in a car.
> 
> To let the sub blend into the midbasswoofers, the midbasswoofers into the mids and the mids into the tweeters, the most important thing is that the frequency's around each crossover point get to the ear at the same time...
> Yes, you can achieve that by delaying the whole passband of the nearest drivers, but you can also achieve that by getting the acoustical phases around the crossover points equal.


Not entirely. At least, not when the speakers are at different lengths from the listener.

<snip>


> Clues like difference in tonality between left and right (difference in reflections and absorbtion between left and right, small difference in frequency response of the drivers themselves...) wich can be adjusted with a good old equalizer that can be set left and right seperate, and difference in loudness wich can be adjusted by a small turn on the balance are MUCH more important to the staging than not even 2 milliseconds of delay!


Of course, phase coherence, delay, and tonality are not mutually exclusive though...


----------



## Abmolech (Nov 2, 2006)

Delta versus sigma (parallel)?

Time alignment is great for:
array steering
Zero plane driver alignment

Monophonic has no problem getting a perfect centre image from all seats.

It is interesting how the "test" of a stereophonic two channel system is how well it can emulate a monophonic centre.

Stereophonic image using time alignment?
Draw your drivers on a plan view, then ask yourself how time alignment can "fix" a phase relationship problem. Your speakers are on the wrong vector or phase to recreate two channel stereophonic. IE you do not have the correct azimuth.

You are incorrect in ASSUMING stereophonic is about path-lengths, if it was, how is you CANNOT get a stereophonic image on headphones or ear-buds? 

Are the path-lengths incorrect?
Are the path-lengths not equal enough?

Point
You need an equilateral triangle phase relationship to recreate a two channel stereophonic image.

Fiddling around with equal path-lengths in a car is still not going to solve the problem. (It may help, but it is not the answer)If it was, then sigma time alignment would create a stereophonic image.

Use time alignment for delta correction, and possibly array steering if you are lucky enough to use them.


----------



## BigRed (Aug 12, 2007)

Will time alignment improve systems that already sound fantastic without it? Probably a very very little bit (there is that <2ms in delay that can be corrected), but will you notice much of that? Enough to buy a more expensive headunit or replace a good old analog set of equalizers and crossovers with a dsp? Not really...



greetz,
Isabelle[/QUOTE]

I VERY much notice a 2ms delay


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

BigRed said:


> I VERY much notice a 2ms delay


x2.

I can tell a large difference in 0.20ms delay. You can literally hear the sound shift when tinkering with things. I start off wide, with a few ms going from *say* 0 to 5ms, then narrow it down to 2-5, then 2-3, then 2-2.5, etc, etc. You can tell a difference in minute changes, though I can't hear a change from *say* 2.5 to 2.55.


----------



## XC-C30 (Jul 24, 2007)

x2

LOVE these last 2 responses and thank you for it, cause I can't get through to her in terms of the fact there's differences in "smooth group delay"..... What may seem smoothe to 1 person because he can't hear the difference in delay, may be verrywel not at all to any other, since that person may have better hearing.

I do however will try and do without one day. But for now, I'll be using it too.


----------



## machinehead (Nov 6, 2005)

wuts delta correction and array steering


----------



## BMWturbo (Apr 11, 2008)

I can hear 0.1ms difference. What sort of figures are you using? In my system I have :-

LH :- 2.3ms RH :- 1.1ms
LM :- 0.0ms RM :- 1.0ms
Sub :- 1.0ms

These settings measured within 0.07ms of 'perfect'( I only have 0.1ms gradations) when I did Impulse measurements with the mic locations central between ears in listening position.
I should also mention we are RH Drive over here too


----------



## 04silverz (May 28, 2008)

i use the time alignment that is built into my eclise cd5000
i like it, easy to use and very noticeable difference


----------



## BigRed (Aug 12, 2007)

I think what alot of people miss is that time alignment AND amplitude adjustment can really make a difference. If your left side speakers are 1/3 closer, to really get a balanced left and right, my experience has been you have to adjust the left side down. if you rta individual sides, you will clearly see what I am talking about.


----------



## jrwalte (Mar 27, 2008)

BigRed said:


> I think what alot of people miss is that time alignment AND amplitude adjustment can really make a difference. If your left side speakers are 1/3 closer, to really get a balanced left and right, my experience has been you have to adjust the left side down. if you rta individual sides, you will clearly see what I am talking about.


Do you really need to 'fade' the side closest to you, though? Isn't that what the TA is for? I'm asking - not making a point


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

jrwalte said:


> Do you really need to 'fade' the side closest to you, though? Isn't that what the TA is for? I'm asking - not making a point


No, TA only handles the timing issue. By virtue of being closer to one speaker than the other, the amplitude is often louder on one side than the other, so an amplitude correction is also in order to counteract it. Of course, it's usually a little more complicated than that, because different positions in the car usually mean different frequency responses -- and so full-blown EQing of each speaker independently may even be warranted. And yes, amplitude (and FR) can have a huge impact on localization. 

But I think for most systems, a simple independent L-R gain adjustment for each speaker is a good approximation. Individual EQing each driver is a bit of a pain in the ass and requires a great deal of processing.


----------



## MIAaron (May 10, 2005)

I was too slow. It would be appreciated if a mod would delete this post.


----------



## supersaag (Feb 14, 2008)

T/A now is like Traction control. We lived without it and had great results. Its just a way of making things "easier" but not necessarily "easy". What I mean by that is just imagine a 900HP Formula 1 Car without traction control. Its not impossible to drive but it just works well. Same with T/A, it can be a replacement for heavy EQing making things easier BUT it still requires a good ear and some healthy processing.

Is T/A needed? Not really
Does it help? Hell yea.
Is traction control needed? Not really
Does it help? Yes maam


----------



## kskywr (Oct 2, 2006)

T/A is great but I feel it should be used as a finishing touch after proper installation, ie, aiming, location of speakers, etc. I guess it also depends on personal preference. If you don't like your drivers in the kicks, then T/A could be your only way to get a proper stage.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

kskywr said:


> T/A is great but I feel it should be used as a finishing touch after proper installation, ie, aiming, location of speakers, etc. I guess it also depends on personal preference. If you don't like your drivers in the kicks, then T/A could be your only way to get a proper stage.


I don't know that I'd necessarily use it as such an afterthought. It should be part of the design process. Whether or not a person is willing to add the processing necessary to do TA should be a factor in the plan.


----------



## Ge0 (Jul 23, 2007)

doitor said:


> Yes.
> It would be *almost* imposible to have a good sounding car without it.
> 
> Jorge.


Enough said...

Ge0


----------



## BlueSQ (Mar 22, 2007)

machinehead said:


> I used to kinda hate ta because of this, but i really can't remember the last time i had someone sit in my car that complimented me on my focused center image and stage width


HAH!!! Good one

I'd like to know how to build a system that has a clear focused image and great tone for both front passengers...but I dont. So I have TA. When I learn how, I'll probably stop using it.


----------



## pontiacbird (Dec 29, 2006)

Fiction said:


> HAH!!! Good one
> 
> I'd like to know how to build a system that has a clear focused image and great tone for both front passengers...but I dont. So I have TA. When I learn how, I'll probably stop using it.


when you can equalize the PLD's between the driver and the passenger, then you will have a clear and focused sound stage for both driver and passenger....until then, it will never happen


----------



## stryke23x (Jun 22, 2007)

I approached my car install literally the same as any other installation. You first determine what space, budget, power, etc you have to work with. You pick the most optimum locations possible. In my truck I determined my goal was for the best sound from the drivers seat because, well, it's my truck and I want it to sound good to me when I'm driving.  I planned to use the DBX driverack260 as my processor because it does everything I need, is very powerful, and I know it quite well. I built tweeter pods in each door so that the tweeters were roughly each aiming on axis to my head position. The 6.5" drivers went in the stock door locations for now because I didn't feel like tearing apart the rest of the doors and doing more fabrication. The subwoofer is in the back.

To start out to tune everything, the first thing I would do is time alignment. Microphone at the center of head position. Doing an impulse response lets you really fine tune this in compared to just measuring distances. Once that is done you can match levels as best as possible. Use the stereo EQ at the input of the driverack to EQ for general trends in cabin gain. Use the EQ on the output of each individual channel to match left tweeter/right tweeter response as close as possible and left mid/right mid. You get different reflections from the drivers side tweeter than you do from the passenger side, and although it would take a million bands of EQ to get it perfect, you can EQ to match the two sides quite well. 

What you end up with is everything time aligned, level matched, and left/right EQ'd to match as good as possible. No different than the installation we did for this studio here: http://www.aespeakers.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=701 Mark Seaton did the system optimization. He had to account for differences between the left and right channel as the left is against a wall and the right is not. 

John


----------



## fonque (May 30, 2008)

The head unit I just purchased has time alignment, but I have not had a chance to install it yet. I am hoping to hear an improvement in imaging at least.


----------



## stryke23x (Jun 22, 2007)

fonque said:


> The head unit I just purchased has time alignment, but I have not had a chance to install it yet. I am hoping to hear an improvement in imaging at least.


You should definitely have an improvement. As you are closer to the drivers side components, things appear to be coming much more from that side. I can move the center image directly in front of me, in the center of the vehicle, and even to the far side of the vehicle with only time alignment and not adjusting the levels. It is however, easy to adjust the levels too, so you should reduce the closer side level slightly. How much also depends on the difference in path length between the two sides and your ears.

John


----------



## fonque (May 30, 2008)

my car has bizarre acoustics. It always sounds louder from the passenger side. The drivers side speaker in the stock location plays toward the back of my ankle while the passenger side has an unobstructed path to my head.

btw, time alignment, even with my crappy blaupunkt coaxials showed an improvement. It now sounds like the music is centered on the floor under the center console. weird.

But this i attribute again, to the factory speaker location and the bottom front edge of each door, firing across your feet.


----------



## grampi (Jun 29, 2007)

T/A is the single most important function to have if SQ and staging is even remotely important to you.


----------



## grampi (Jun 29, 2007)

Also, disregard the instructions for dialing in the amount of delay. Choose the speaker you want to delay and do it by ear. My system sounds much better doing it this way and I can get the imaging just where I want it.


----------



## Aaron Clinton (Oct 17, 2006)

*I have it in both cars, but not set up in the daily driver yet.*


----------



## SQ Ford (May 31, 2008)

nope i no got it.. Still think it robs you


----------



## MajorChipHazard (Feb 10, 2008)

Been through loads of discussions concerning TA,I do prefer trying to build the car properly,ie proper speaker positioning,path lengths etc.However,I was taught that TA should be used as a tool,too much of a good thing is never good for you,likewise with TA and your system.I have used it,the results in certain cases were good but not great.Then again being a noob to it,I would still like to learn how to use it properly,and if I get i right I would use it.


----------



## Nitin (May 28, 2008)

grampi said:


> T/A is the single most important function to have if SQ and staging is even remotely important to you.


oh - i think that you are incorrect - because how did the guys who had their staging right before T/A became available do it then 

T/A is a useful tool but many people will use it as a shortcut nowadays instead of thinking about proper speaker placement - if you do have proper speaker placement you can use the T/A to tweak and fine tune if you want to 

so it can have its uses but many people just place too much reliance on it - just saying that if you care about staging and imaging that the only way to get it right is T/A is basically the lazy mans way out IMHO

BTW you can get decent staging and imaging without T/A - i manage it just fine  - it might not be perfect but its more acceptable than the guys who mess it up by not knowing what they are doing with the T/A


----------



## jrwalte (Mar 27, 2008)

Nitin said:


> ...T/A is basically the lazy mans way out IMHO


I'd say it's more advancement in technology that just makes it easier to achieve a desired goal. Doesn't make people lazy for not worrying as much about matching best driver combos and placements


----------



## Nitin (May 28, 2008)

oh trust me - i dont mean it in a negative sense - im the laziest sod i know - so a lazy method is a good thing to me  - but why i say its the lazy way out is that people no longer think about having speakers placed at optimal places thus reducing the need for electronic adjustment only to instances where it is absolutely essential due to their being no physical method to place speakers properly - also ...... if you have a well designed T/A processor that will do everything you need it to in the increments that make sense then its fine - but just having T/A on a head unit in increments that are too large doesnt help by much so it gives a false sense of belief that it will fix all your problems when in actual fact you may be substituting one problem for another 

either way it isnt a fact that if you dont have T/A you dont have any means to get some semi decent staging and imaging as is implied by some people on here - yes its a choice and amongst the alternatives - but by no means the only method - as with anything done well it can sort out many issues and improve the experience - but done incorrectly it can actually make the whole musical listening experience suck beyond belief


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

Nitin said:


> oh trust me - i dont mean it in a negative sense - im the laziest sod i know - so a lazy method is a good thing to me  - but why i say its the lazy way out is that people no longer think about having speakers placed at optimal places thus reducing the need for electronic adjustment only to instances where it is absolutely essential due to their being no physical method to place speakers properly


I think "placing speakers properly" is very difficult. If you really wanted to "place them properly", you'd probably remove your dash altogether. 

Lots of us have other concerns in the car as well -- ergonomics, aesthetics, stealth, etc. Time alignment can be very valuable when your speaker placement is limited by other factors.

I mean, come on, I bet you don't churn your own butter too, even though it might come out better if you did it yourself rather than having to rely on modern technological advances like the supermarket.


----------



## BigRed (Aug 12, 2007)

the question was asked how did the oldtimers do it before time alignment, and the answer is phasing of drivers and amplitude between left and right 

in my opinion, time alignment is much more versatile and can be more accurate then doing the above by itself.


----------



## michaelsil1 (May 24, 2007)

MarkZ said:


> I think "placing speakers properly" is very difficult. If you really wanted to "place them properly", you'd probably remove your dash altogether.
> 
> Lots of us have other concerns in the car as well -- ergonomics, aesthetics, stealth, etc. Time alignment can be very valuable when your speaker placement is limited by other factors.
> 
> I mean, come on, I bet you don't churn your own butter too, even though it might come out better if you did it yourself rather than having to rely on modern technological advances like the supermarket.


I churn my own butter it tastes better.  JK

I liked what you said about speaker placement it wasn't easy getting some of the gear in that I wanted to run and Time Alignment has been essential in my system.


----------



## Nitin (May 28, 2008)

> the question was asked how did the oldtimers do it before time alignment,


it was a rhetorical question - but nevertheless thanks for the reply 

as ive said though ive seen people who dont have a clue about time alignment using it though 

for example here in South Africa we have right hand drive cars - and i listened to a system where the guys used time alignment to shift his centre to around a foot past centre from the drivers side - so it was like around a ffot in toward left of centre - so i asked the guy why he did that and he replied that he was trying to widen the soundstage ie get it around a foot fast his a-pillar on the other side ...... if only it were that easy 

but yeah time alignment if used correctly can be a great tool but sadly more often than not its more a case of time misalignment in too many instances thus i still have yet to be convinced of its uses for daily usage ie listening whilst driving cos IMHO when you are driving you should be concentrating on the road in front of you and not which guy was playing a guitar where or whether th edrummer was a few inches behind the vocalist 

maybe in critical listening when the car is stationary ...... or for soundoff competitive reasons id be tempted to play with it but hey for now my system images satisfactorily for me for my usage so im going to leave well enough alone


----------



## J0ne (Aug 7, 2007)

I am trying to imagine a system that was totally screwed up due to TA...any examples? besides the obvious "the guy didnt know what he was doing"

I dont see where it could take away from the SQ of a system?


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

If you really screw up the TA in a system the phase will be all kinds of screwed up.


----------



## michaelsil1 (May 24, 2007)

quality_sound said:


> If you really screw up the TA in a system the phase will be all kinds of screwed up.


Truer words couldn't have been spoken.


----------



## stryke23x (Jun 22, 2007)

A typical stereo recording is made with a few assumptions. One, that the speakers will be able to somewhat accurately reproduce what is being recorded. Two, that the listener will be positioned equally between the left and right channel. To achieve the first one we buy good drivers, spend time EQing the response, try to get rid of reflections, etc. For the second one in a home environment we typically place the speakers so we listen in the middle. In a car we don't have that luxury unless you move your seat to the middle. Proper placement of speakers can help minimize the difference in path length from one side to the other. However, no matter how good your placement is, there is always going to be that difference in distance. The only way to overcome that is with time alignment and level matching. You adjust the level and delay so your ears and mind think the closer speakers are really farther away. Other than physically moving the speakers or the listener there is no way to overcome this obstacle.

Now, how important is that? For ideal sound it is quite important. I don't think it is more important than matching the response of the left to that of the right, EQing both sides, reducing distortion in the drivers, etc etc. It's one part of a system that is quite important to pull everything together. The best placement in a car still can't overcome the time difference. How great you eq and tune everything also can't. It's similar to building a fast car. You need to build the engine, exhaust, intake, wheels, tires, etc all for it to function properly. No amount of HP will make up for having crappy tires. You need all the pieces to the puzzle for all the aspects to really mesh together.

John


----------



## slvrtsunami (Apr 18, 2008)

I will have the capability in my setup, so yes. I also remember a time when T/A was not an option, you did with what you had (those days were fun).


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

pontiacbird said:


> when you can equalize the PLD's between the driver and the passenger, then you will have a clear and focused sound stage for both driver and passenger....until then, it will never happen


There is another way--it's called a center channel, but for it to work properly, it can't be a L+R center. That's where matrix processing really comes in handy. Mono info should go to the center, but not to the sides. Left and Right information should go to the L and R main speakers, but not to the center. Dolby PL2 does this as does Logic7. I'm not sure about SRS...I'll have to check.


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

SRS Circle Surround will work too, although it appears to include some bass boost...ugh.


----------



## br85 (May 2, 2008)

Abmolech said:


> Delta versus sigma (parallel)?
> 
> Time alignment is great for:
> array steering
> ...


Parallel T/A across multiple drivers per channel: always good. Series T/A is *only* good to get a better (not stereo, but better than most people have) image at one seating position. Will not help with actual stage width one bit.

*To get a decent two-seat sound*, you'll need to forget about L/R T/A. Assuming you have tons of processing (i.e. 7-8 channels of T/A, L/R independant eqs etc). After getting your crossover points (and to some extent, slopes) right,

1. Do your impulses from the center console area (average head height) to get midbass/mid/tweeter delay right. One side at a time, but the pairs should all be the same (i.e. left and right tweeter should have exactly the same delay on them). Check the phase by playing sine waves at crossover frequencies AFTER parallel T/A is done.

2. Example (still with mic at head height above center console):

Left midbass and left mid (crossed at 200hz, for example): Play 200hz sine with mid in positive and negative polarity. Use which ever gives a higher SPL reading.

Left mid and left tweeter (crossed at 3khz, for example): Play 3khz sine with tweeter in positive and negative polarity. Use which ever gives a higher SPL reading (mind you, this doesn't matter quite as much)

Right midbass and right mid: same again.
Right mid and right tweeter: same again

3. Once again with mic in the same position, compare L/R RTA results. The only things that should really create differences in response are if driver installations are not perfectly symmetrical on both sides of the car, and the hump in the dash on the driver's side along with the steering wheel. Take the passenger's side RTA reading and try to get the driver's side to match. Should only take some minute tweaking. 

4. Now you're free to set up the sub/midbass/mid/tweeter levels and eq just as you normally would (for the tonality you're after). Helps to change seats regularly while you're doing this. With a mono source, both seats should get almost exactly the same listening experience. 2 channel obviously not quite given that a panned left signal will still sound louder on the left.


----------



## illnastyimpreza (Oct 25, 2006)

I have it, but don't use it, due to having a 3 way CDT eurosport with upstage and the hex5000 system coordinator (biggest passive xover EVER) 

BUT I am kind of tired of the CDT settup. And since I already blew the 6.5''s in the doors, I might replace them with the Dayton RS180's I have laying around...

so now I'm on the fence between my current 4 way settup....or 2 way with TA...

whata u guys think ??


----------



## sqshoestring (Jun 19, 2007)

I just put a pioneer 880 in. The other day I turned the T/A off and its still off, but not had that much time to fiddle with it yet. Also need to fix some other issues with system so not sure I will use it or not, right now it gives more imaging but it kills midbass too. I only did the auto setup and distance looked good, need to mess with it more but I feel that getting the basics right are more important. My EQ is far from level and the auto EQ did not work for me for whatever reason. Sound is not right so amp and driver swapping are needed, it was obvious before the HU was put in. Before that (last year) I had different front comps that had better imaging, and even with the big EQ in there now I can't get it back so I'm not happy about it yet. Back then I swapped the comps and high side amp at same time and lost something. Changed crossover too but that is gone now and still something is not quite right and T/A or EQ is not fixing it. I think amp more than comps, just that it is rare an amp would do this.


----------



## Boo (Sep 21, 2008)

4-way looks better.

am using 2-way wif screwed up T.A. settings.
Seems always lying flat on my right A-pillar..


----------



## FadeA8 (May 5, 2009)

Looking to add time correction to my system - I've looked at the usual suspects: PXE-650, 3Sixty.2, MS-8....anything out the that does just T/A? A have after market HU without T/A also have AC DQXS.


----------



## 78wheels (May 5, 2009)

I've messed with it a bit with my Kenwood KDC-X993, but I can't seem to get much improvement in imaging with it. Is there any kind of FAQ or article out there where a newb such as myself could learn more about it without having to clog up the forum with a million questions?


----------



## TREETOP (Feb 11, 2009)

I'm kinda old school, I have time alignment capabilities but I don't use it.
I'm currently using an 800PRS, my only experience so far with its time alignment is the automatic setting feature, which dropped my soundstage from the dash to knee level and lost a lot of midbass. I haven't played with it much since except to turn it off, the auto EQ didn't do me any favors either.

My current system isn't super welcoming to the 800PRS's T/A abilities though, I've got 3-way front in the doors, 2-way rear fill, and sub. I'm using a PPI FRX-456 instead of the 800PRS's crossovers for front/rear, and currently using the 800PRS's sub output to the subs. The head unit is in standard mode.

So I guess the reason I haven't had favorable results with it yet could be that I'm only using L/R front and L/R rear outputs from the head unit and doing my crossovers external, for example all 3 speakers in each door get aligned simultaneously when the time alignment is used.


----------



## Fiercetimbo17 (May 17, 2007)

I dont use it hardly at all either. After playing with crossovers settings and sloped, then tuning via RTA my stage is pretty spot on with the use of TA


----------



## jsun_g (Jun 12, 2008)

I have time alignment as of the past year, and won't go back to not having it. That said, I don't think it should be used to promote laziness. It's still important to strive for as equidistant path lengths between left/right (i.e. kickpanels) which bodes well for both driver and passenger right off the bat without T/A. If you use stock door locations and have a huge pathlength difference, you can make it sound great for the driver, but the passenger gets screwed. I find the T/A really useful between front midbass and sub in trunk, where T/A and phase experimentation can ensure a smooth subbass-midbass transition.

Back to the laziness subject, it's nice to have T/A, xover, EQ adjustments at your fingertips instead of ducking into the trunk numerous times to turn knobs, but it's no excuse to use these things to "fix" a bad install (improperly matched woofer/box, inadequate door damping, bad speaker placement, etc). It's still worth it IMHO to do your due diligence and experimentation to get the best sound possible by working with your car's acoustics, speaker locations/sizes, etc., and saving the "processing" stuff for clean-up in the end.


----------



## tspence73 (Oct 14, 2008)

Me no have T/A.  Very sad. But I'm working on it, there is this one chick......oh, you mean time alignment? Nope. Maybe one day when I get a sound processor. I'm really waiting on the MS-8 from JBL.


----------



## adaycj (Oct 25, 2008)

I have it in my Clarion HU. I hear two sides to the TA thing. Make a great system first, and then use TA to finish the job. Or use TA to make a mediocre system sound a little better.

I use stock speaker locations, so I guess I fall in the second category. I have done almost nothing to correct path length issues. Other than a potential update to my sail panels in my future I will not correct path length. The Clarion allows "on the fly" toggling of TA so I can easily hear the difference. I would call the difference substantial in my case. I must admit I am much happier with this project than ones that I have done in the past that did not have TA.

In some respects I think TA may play a more important roll in my system than in a better system. Competition aside, my system needs TA more since the sound takes an often more convoluted path to my ears. I also think that I have to spend more time with tuning since my path length is not easily measured. 

I've done several rounds of ABA tuning with several subjects in the Driver's seat. The imaging and apparent balance could have never been achieved without TA unless I significantly hacked up my car. And with my glass and woodworking skills it would be a hack.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

adaycj said:


> I have it in my Clarion HU. I hear two sides to the TA thing. Make a great system first, and then use TA to finish the job. Or use TA to make a mediocre system sound a little better.
> 
> I use stock speaker locations, so I guess I fall in the second category. I have done almost nothing to correct path length issues. Other than a potential update to my sail panels in my future I will not correct path length. The Clarion allows "on the fly" toggling of TA so I can easily hear the difference. I would call the difference substantial in my case. I must admit I am much happier with this project than ones that I have done in the past that did not have TA.


Don't worry about the pathlengths thing if you've got TA. It's only important if you care about the passenger. Join the "F the passenger" bandwagon.


----------



## VP Electricity (Apr 11, 2009)

On the wife's car, jut added it to the sub only (installed DC 4-channel running 1 10", front 6.5 and tweeters). 

In my car, will have it for sub, midbass, and mid/tweets. Mids and tweets are equidistant from my ears so no need for independent delay for those. Will still have active xover but no dedicated time channels (running DSP 6).


----------



## pieces (Dec 29, 2005)

The fastest way to a reasonable sounding system IMO.
I don't think I would ever go without it again.


----------



## bigchief2472000 (May 6, 2009)

my hu has it but i never messed with it.


----------



## tbonez3858 (Jun 17, 2008)

I tried it on my HU and my Processor and dont like it at all...Im sure I am "crazy" but the sound seems dead center when I have it off and when its on I get a weird faint echo. Ive measured DEAD ON the distance from my ears to the speakers and used those settings so I know my settings arent incorrect.


----------



## williambrea (May 7, 2009)

I will soon once I get the pxa-h100


----------



## ECM (Dec 23, 2007)

Time alignment may be the lazy way to fix issues, but it won't work always.

Think of it this way, no amount of EQ will make a Pyle speaker sound like Focal; you just cannot make them sound the same. T/A will not turn an average speaker install into a competition level install. Even if you have the ability to delay each speaker, it won't matter one bit. 

It seems to me that T/A, much like EQ, is to be used when all other means of making your system sound good are exhausted. I'd rather have a properly installed and tuned system with minimal processing than an average install with maximum processing. 

All those D/A and A/D conversions won't help SQ either.

It seems counterintuitive to me to use T/A right off the bat instead of focusing on a proper install.

Gerardo


----------



## michaelsil1 (May 24, 2007)

ECM said:


> Think of it this way, no amount of EQ will make a Pyle speaker sound like Focal; you just cannot make them sound the same.
> Gerardo


Improper Time Alignment will make a Focal Driver Sound like :furious:


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

ECM said:


> Time alignment may be the lazy way to fix issues, but it won't work always.
> 
> Think of it this way, no amount of EQ will make a Pyle speaker sound like Focal; you just cannot make them sound the same. T/A will not turn an average speaker install into a competition level install. Even if you have the ability to delay each speaker, it won't matter one bit.
> 
> ...


I'd actually prefer the maximal processing route. 

Really, you make some good points. There are a lot of...physical things to do with the install before you get down to the signal processing stage. But I'd argue that TA right off the bat is the BEST time to use it! In fact, it's the very first thing I do. There's no point in phucking with the freq response of the system BEFORE the timing, because the time domain stuff will influence the freq response but the freq response won't influence the time domain stuff (much). So, TA first, and THEN fine tune crossover points and phase adjustment together. But TA...always step one.

And, you can usually do it without multiple d/a a/d conversions. Especially with all the hu's out there these days that support it.


----------



## Get_Zwole (Nov 15, 2008)

yup got it and love it


----------



## ECM (Dec 23, 2007)

MarkZ said:


> I'd actually prefer the maximal processing route.
> 
> Really, you make some good points. There are a lot of...physical things to do with the install before you get down to the signal processing stage. But I'd argue that TA right off the bat is the BEST time to use it! In fact, it's the very first thing I do. There's no point in phucking with the freq response of the system BEFORE the timing, because the time domain stuff will influence the freq response but the freq response won't influence the time domain stuff (much). So, TA first, and THEN fine tune crossover points and phase adjustment together. But TA...always step one.
> 
> And, you can usually do it without multiple d/a a/d conversions. Especially with all the hu's out there these days that support it.


Hey Mark, I find it real interesting that you use T/A from the get go. Definitely a different view on the issue of timing and how it affects the install from a signal processing stand point. If we think about it, what we do is really very similar in that the phase relationships of the drivers are first priority, except that you use T/A and I use install. I guess you can say I use "analog" time alignment.

Gerardo


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

ECM said:


> Hey Mark, I find it real interesting that you use T/A from the get go. Definitely a different view on the issue of timing and how it affects the install from a signal processing stand point. If we think about it, what we do is really very similar in that the phase relationships of the drivers are first priority, except that you use T/A and I use install. I guess you can say I use "analog" time alignment.
> 
> Gerardo


Yeah, but not everyone's install allows them to equalize pathlengths. And even those who have speaker locations that allow them to equalize pathlengths will usually not get it perfectly precise. So TA can then be used immediately to make up for the difference.

If it is already pretty precise without TA, then that saves you from having to buy a TA processor. Not all cars are created equal though.


----------



## boltupright (Feb 14, 2007)

I'm going to try to get the pathlengths close to equal by moving the right front speakers away from the right corner of the dash area, about 1.5 ft closer to the driver's side, pointing at the driver...then move the left front speakers about .5 feet from the driver's side window, pointing at that window...so the sound will travel to the window, reflect off of it, and then to the driver. I think if the sound has to go about .5 feet before it hits the window, it will seem like it's coming from about .5 feet outside of the window, thereby widening the stage? I know it will look crazy, but should put me close to center stage? I drive with my seat back a bit so my head will be about 2.5 feet from where the sound will reflect off the side window, so I'm hoping the left channel will sound like it's coming about 3 feet away from me. Once that's done I can use the TA in the clarion deck to fine tune the TA,...unless I need something more precise than the clarion. I'm thinking I could put something extended out from the left speakers so I only get the reflected sound from the window and not both direct from the speakers plus the reflected sound. I might lose a bit of quality with reflected sound but I'm hoping the impact of being center stage will more than make up for it.


----------



## emperorjj1 (Sep 10, 2008)

i have it X3 but have never used it


----------



## j-man (Jan 5, 2009)

I just figured out how to use it on my Eclipse  I had used it on my Alpines in the past but all you had to do on those was enter the distance and you were done. When I got this unit, it has it measured in M.S. so I wasn't sure how to set it up. Found the formula online (didn't come with a manual) and just set it up a couple of days ago and it made a huge difference. I swear it sounds as if all speakers, subs included, are sitting on my dash. 

Just my .02c 

Jman


----------



## emperorjj1 (Sep 10, 2008)

did you use TA on the subs?


----------



## j-man (Jan 5, 2009)

Yes

The formula for the Eclipse is to measure all speakers and find the one that is the farthest away from the listening position (in CM), then add the distance of the speaker you are setting to the farthest one, divide that total by 34 and that gives you your M.S. I did that for each tweet, mid, and sub (running active of course), and BAM! There it was 

Jman


----------



## emperorjj1 (Sep 10, 2008)

oh ****...bc i was going to start messing with T/A on mine but i didnt think about throwing subs in the mix


----------



## Z3Sooner (Aug 2, 2008)

I have an Eclipse CD7100 and I'm using the T/A for my sub as well. It makes a huge difference in staging, especially with instrument definition.


----------



## mad89 (May 25, 2009)

I use TA a fair bit in my stereo. Alpine CDA-9835.

Set it up by getting rough measurements first, then did the rest by ear. Its all in MS with Alpine, as far as im aware.


----------



## AAAAAAA (Oct 5, 2007)

I don't get those who say tonality first and maybe consider staging, MAYBE later. It seems to me that just having the instruments feel like they are in one place has the same focusing affect of putting on glasses if you have bad eye site.


----------



## michaelsil1 (May 24, 2007)

AAAAAAA said:


> I don't get those who say tonality first and maybe consider staging, MAYBE later. It seems to me that just having the instruments feel like they are in one place has the same focusing affect of putting on glasses if you have bad eye site.


When you line up the instruments the tonality changes. Tuning is the whole enchilada: Tonality, T/A, Staging, Compression, Depth, Width and whatever else I left out.


----------



## bfb1963 (Aug 28, 2006)

Using it since 1999. First on my Alpine HU, now on my Zapco DC References. Either 2 or 3 way. Can't imagine not having it.

Biggest problem is with transmission of thump via the car's frame, since that travels faster than sound. That's what I think limits T/A the most, and it is very vehicular specific. A sub in back of a big car is a lot more difficult to get right because no amount of delaying the front stage will allow a simultaneous experience of sound and thump. Smaller cars are easier to set up, but even the midbass kick will never be homogenous from one side to the other. Reflections make this even more difficult. Tuning and install comes into play because you just have to make compromises in a car environment. That is what makes an up front sub such a good idea. 

I have a Corvette coupe. Very small cabin, subs breathing down my neck, and a fiberglass frame that is more forgiving.

Don't use it as much when I run 5.1. 

My DC Refs have about 5 saved setups with the touch of a button (full control including T/A and 10 band paragaphic) so I can switch between stereo for me, stereo if someone's in my ride, same for when I run 5.1. Couldn't be happier


----------



## Sassmastersq (Jan 12, 2007)

No TA here... and it sounds great, good center image, great height, and ultra sexiiness... must be the installer.


----------



## gabby (Feb 9, 2009)

i also have it but u can live without it if u want to run a midium range system


----------



## Rudy (May 1, 2008)

got iva-w202e pxa-h701 combo in my daily car, this combo give me an advantage in my learning process & tuning, instantly comparing result between setting on the go, this car have worst pld stock speaker placement, a-pillar & kick panel. t/a gave me best result running active 3-way front for one seat after failed with speaker aiming, crossover, phase & eq. 

in my other car running passive 2-way without t/a, good center image & depth from both seats  after so many trial and error speaker placement/aiming & hours of listening, once founded the sweet spot it stay till now & pld only 12cm, that's the advantage having huge & wide van with empty space under dash


----------



## Blown 89 (Apr 6, 2009)

I have it on my 7200mkii but I'm not sure I hear a huge difference like a lot of people seem to say it brings


----------



## Sassmastersq (Jan 12, 2007)

proper installation makes time alignment not nearly as necessary as those who don't want to do proper speaker placement and aiming think it is.

be lazy, use TA, get mediocre results, do a proper install, you won't need it to get the same results, but if you do use it, it will help somewhat.


----------



## Z3Sooner (Aug 2, 2008)

I don't mean this sarcastically, but I would love for someone to enlighten me on something. Time alignment is about adding delay to speakers that are closer to you than the others. Well, in a car that is either left hand driver or right hand driver, the speakers are going to be different distances from the driver. So, how does a "proper" install change that? Yes, I understand the concept of minimizing path length differences, that's one of the reasons I moved the tweets in my Z3 from below the sail panels down next to the mids in the kick panels. My PLDs are quite small, but even so, a little time alignment makes it even better.

Now, the big area where placement and angling helps is with volume leveling, but I consider that different than time alignment (even though on my head unit they are part of the same function.).

One area where time alignment is very helpful is if you are not doing a single seat install. My Wife is an audio nut as well and she rides in the car quite often. Making sure she has good sound definitely makes it easier to justify the required cash flow for my little hobby. So, I have basically done the install as a 2 seat install. Each tweeter is aimed at the head of the opposite listener. That places the near tweeter off axis to the near listener and levels the apparent volume. I then use time alignment to adjust the soundstage for me when I'm the only one in the car.

I'm also curious about the comment regarding not getting proper staging with tweeters in the kicks. I have HAT L61-2Pros in the kicks and I get excellent staging, even before adding TA. The staging in my Z3 sits right at dash level and has excellent depth and width. Now, when I tried a kick install with my Rainbow Cal 25 tweeters the staging was pretty good, but the ends of the stage tended to fall to the footwells. I don't have that issue at all with the HAT L1-Pros.


----------



## Sassmastersq (Jan 12, 2007)

Often, aiming and positioning drivers to take advantage of the difference between on-axis and off-axis response can give you more than what you can get by using a driver on-axis and then time aligning it away (this is what I've done before, and it works really well). good off-axis response is far less desireable if you are trying to install for both seats than good on-axis responce with a controlled off-axis rolloff, since one passenger will be off-axis, probly to the driver closest to them, which when the right driver is used, can be an advantage over a driver that has excellent off-axis resposne.

Path lengths are not as critical as people think, much of what time alignment does can also be done with seperate left-right EQing as well as making sure that, even though the drivers are different distances away from passenger and driver side, if you install them so that the drivers on each side are approximately the same distance from your ear on that side, time alignment is much less necessary.

however, if you just want to slap drivers in where everyone else does without putting any thought and planning into your own install, just copying everyone else, then you will need time alignment to compensate for your lack of intelligence, foresight and planning


----------



## pionkej (Feb 29, 2008)

TA is great for those of us without the ability/desire to build kicks. I would love to build kicks in my 300zx, but I'm not going to do it. There isn't enough room or time spent driving that car to justify it.

For those who also say it doesn't make that much of a difference, then consider yourself lucky that you either can't hear the difference, or your speakers are that close to equal PLDs. If you have a capable HU but don't think it works that well, try going the opposite direction on the TA (closest=furthest) and see if your sound doesn't go to SH#T.


----------



## Z3Sooner (Aug 2, 2008)

Sassmastersq said:


> Often, aiming and positioning drivers to take advantage of the difference between on-axis and off-axis response can give you more than what you can get by using a driver on-axis and then time aligning it away (this is what I've done before, and it works really well). good off-axis response is far less desireable if you are trying to install for both seats than good on-axis responce with a controlled off-axis rolloff, since one passenger will be off-axis, probly to the driver closest to them, which when the right driver is used, can be an advantage over a driver that has excellent off-axis resposne.
> 
> Path lengths are not as critical as people think, much of what time alignment does can also be done with seperate left-right EQing as well as making sure that, even though the drivers are different distances away from passenger and driver side, if you install them so that the drivers on each side are approximately the same distance from your ear on that side, time alignment is much less necessary.
> 
> however, if you just want to slap drivers in where everyone else does without putting any thought and planning into your own install, just copying everyone else, then you will need time alignment to compensate for your lack of intelligence, foresight and planning


I think we just said basically the same thing, just in different ways. However, I would disagree that PLDs aren't that important. Obviously, you can't get zero PLDs, but if you don't address PLDs, especially between drivers on the same side, then you have just set your ceiling for proper staging and TA will only take you so far. If you start with proper driver location and aiming you can still improve staging with a little TA.

Even with a properly set up car, I can hear the difference when adding time alignment, especially for midrange speakers.


----------



## abhinav.gupta88 (May 30, 2009)

I have an Eclipse CD7200 which has Time Alignment.
Will search for some good components and go active to benefit from TA


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

Sassmastersq said:


> Often, aiming and positioning drivers to take advantage of the difference between on-axis and off-axis response can give you more than what you can get by using a driver on-axis and then time aligning it away (this is what I've done before, and it works really well). good off-axis response is far less desireable if you are trying to install for both seats than good on-axis responce with a controlled off-axis rolloff, since one passenger will be off-axis, probly to the driver closest to them, which when the right driver is used, can be an advantage over a driver that has excellent off-axis resposne.


It always comes back to the two-seat issue.

For one-seat installations, the right processing can take care of most of what you're talking about. TA for pathlength differences, and phase/crossover/eq for on- vs. off-axis issues.

The only thing you can't really fix are reflection issues. But it's not clear that minimizing PLDs is necessarily going to be advantageous there anyway.



> Path lengths are not as critical as people think, much of what time alignment does can also be done with seperate left-right EQing as well as making sure that, even though the drivers are different distances away from passenger and driver side, if you install them so that the drivers on each side are approximately the same distance from your ear on that side, time alignment is much less necessary.


Eh? EQing isn't going to do the same thing for you. It won't change arrival times. It may even things out if phase shifts are damning you to hell (that TA might otherwise be able to tame). But, yes, you can sometimes combat the precedence effect somewhat with intensity. But that's not always a desirable way of going about it, IMO.



> however, if you just want to slap drivers in where everyone else does without putting any thought and planning into your own install, just copying everyone else, then you will need time alignment to compensate for your lack of intelligence, foresight and planning


Plblblbtt 

It's a car for god's sake. Sometimes it dictates to YOU where the drivers are going, not the other way around. Choices can often be limited. Processing can help tremendously. It has nothing to do with lack of intelligence and foresight.


----------



## Sassmastersq (Jan 12, 2007)

MarkZ said:


> It's a car for god's sake. Sometimes it dictates to YOU where the drivers are going, not the other way around. Choices can often be limited. Processing can help tremendously. It has nothing to do with lack of intelligence and foresight.


your own willingness to do what it takes to find otimal placements limits you and dicatates your positions... Take a look at what was done to phil petracca's car... possibly the best car audio system ever, and from both seats to boot, the only time alignment used in that car was to align the drivers on each side... there have been spectacular cars built before time alignment was widely available.

I know that it makes it easier, but easier isn't necessarily better. the same results can be had through install, not just including the drivers, but moving seats etc.

Check out some of abmolech's old posts and open your mind to something different than what everyone else is doing.


----------



## Sassmastersq (Jan 12, 2007)

ant said:


> This information is not correct.
> 
> simply moving a driver on or off axis cannot change the rules of acoustic theory w.r.t. Inter-aural Time Delay.
> 
> ...


really? I've done some pretty wicked left/right EQing, keeping tonality in mind, and when I was done I was told by the IASCA judge (a world finals judge) and the head judge trainer for IASCA that I had the best tonality at the show, and as he was telling me that his head was shaking because the left and right sides sounded completely different.


----------



## madstereoman (Mar 25, 2009)

I am debating it right now to help compensate for dash mounted tweets that are a long way from the door mounted mid. (don't want to modify door). It would be an easy add-on, and much easier to tweak than a passive system. If I had more time to spend on the system, I would enjoy the passive approach, but I just don't.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

Sassmastersq said:


> your own willingness to do what it takes to find otimal placements limits you and dicatates your positions...


I think it's a little more complicated than that. Your own willingness to hack the doors or create intrusive mods where your feet are supposed to go is often the limitation. Like I said, it's a frickin' car. 




> Take a look at what was done to phil petracca's car... possibly the best car audio system ever, and from both seats to boot, the only time alignment used in that car was to align the drivers on each side... there have been spectacular cars built before time alignment was widely available.


I don't know who that is.



> I know that it makes it easier, but easier isn't necessarily better. the same results can be had through install, not just including the drivers, but moving seats etc.
> 
> Check out some of abmolech's old posts and open your mind to something different than what everyone else is doing.


That's probably the first time I've been accused of _that_ in here...


----------



## VP Electricity (Apr 11, 2009)

Sassmastersq said:


> however, if you just want to slap drivers in where everyone else does without putting any thought and planning into your own install, just copying everyone else, _then you will need time alignment to compensate for your lack of intelligence, foresight and planning_


How about your lack of non-jerkiness? I though Canadians were polite... sure you're not American?



Sassmastersq said:


> ...your own willingness to do what it takes to find optimal placements limits you and dicatates your positions...


How are my intelligence, foresight, or ability to plan related to my willingness to eff up my car? If I choose to keep my vehicle _relatively_ stock in appearance, functionality, and usability, that does not make me a stupid, shortsighted reactionary - as you say it does. 

I don't care how your car sounded or what trophies you've won - based on your demonstrated poor skills with logic and reason, as well as your social retardation, if you told me the sun was shining, I'd look outside.


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

Phil's car did sound pretty good. The best ever? Hmmm...I don't think so. Also, the car can't be driven, it doesn't have the original dashboard and the seats are 40 feet from the pedals. 

This whole hobby is a matter of making a bunch of trade-offs. Will crappy frequency response from left and right that sums to provide a stable-sounding phantom center image work? Well, if a stable center is more important than what happens on the right and the left, then sure. All of this aiming of tweeters across the dash, counting on some unquanitified and unqualified "poor off-axis response" is just poor man's EQ by trial and error. 

The fact is, that when you're closer to one speaker than the other, the closer one sounds louder and the sound arrives sooner. For one seat, you can fix both of those issues with simple tools--time alignment and level control. For two seats, some other method is required. One is to equalize the pathlengths for both listening positions. The other is to install a center channel and some processing that eliminates the need for perfect stereo to create a phantom center. 

There's no need to be insulting or to suggest that a method you don't like is a bad one. Furthermore, there's litle credibility in citing an IASCA judge's evaluation as a statement of fact about the quality of the system's performance or the quality of the methods used to provide that performance. 

The last time I competed, I had a judge tell me, "I've never heard a system reproduce the ambience that's included in that recording as naturally and effortlessly as this one. That's amazing. The resolution is astounding. "

I said "Thanks", but didn't have the heart to tell him (after the judging was over) that none of the ambience he heard was actually on the disc--the spatial processing algorithm I use created all of it. 

Ain't nuthin' wrong with time alignment, just like there ain't nuthin' wrong with drinking a PBR if that's what's in the fridge. Ain't nuthin' wrong with competing in IASCA either, but winning isn't explicit proof of the validity of your methods. Hell, some of the worst cars I've ever heard have belonged to champs.


----------



## VP Electricity (Apr 11, 2009)

Hey, now, PBR won a blue ribbon, man.


----------



## michaelsil1 (May 24, 2007)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> Ain't nuthin' wrong with time alignment, just like there *ain't nuthin' wrong with drinking a PBR if that's what's in the fridge*. Ain't nuthin' wrong with competing in IASCA either, but winning doesn't mean much. Hell, some of the worst cars I've ever heard have belonged to champs.


Unless you're an Alcoholic. 


I really like: some of the worst cars have belonged to champs; priceless.

I do like to compete, but I'm not going to tune just for the IASCA Disk.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

VP Electricity said:


> Hey, now, PBR won a blue ribbon, man.


LMAO.


----------



## Ge0 (Jul 23, 2007)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> Ain't nuthin' wrong with time alignment, just like there ain't nuthin' wrong with drinking a PBR if that's what's in the fridge. Ain't nuthin' wrong with competing in IASCA either, but winning isn't explicit proof of the validity of your methods. Hell, some of the worst cars I've ever heard have belonged to champs.


I officially bow before you. Great statement!!! This is similar to my experience. Not to discredit those who have the time and resources to compete. I respect them all. Just realize, this is not the end-all-be-all of sonic perfection.

Ge0


----------



## tmieczkowski (Jan 5, 2009)

alpine setup right now, h701 yada yada. pioneer odr back in the day (yes i had THE prototype p70....handwriten sticker on the bottom. blue ink, Japanese lettering!)

wow, i miss my odr


----------



## sublime_ac (Jun 30, 2009)

I wouldn't run any digital sound processing.. The CD's are bad enough with their compression and artificial bits / bytes... It sure would be nice to obtain music at 256K or even 512K sampling rate and burn it to blu-ray discs... I rarely even use EQ / bass / treble on systems I have installed...


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

sublime_ac said:


> I wouldn't run any digital sound processing.. The CD's are bad enough with their compression and artificial bits / bytes... It sure would be nice to obtain music at 256K or even 512K sampling rate and burn it to blu-ray discs... I rarely even use EQ / bass / treble on systems I have installed...


The source is digital so you're not losing anything by using DSP before it's converted to analog. Now, if you were listening to vinyl, then I could see the argument against DSP. That's kinda tough to do in the car though.


----------



## sublime_ac (Jun 30, 2009)

MarkZ said:


> The source is digital so you're not losing anything by using DSP before it's converted to analog. Now, if you were listening to vinyl, then I could see the argument against DSP. That's kinda tough to do in the car though.


Maybe I need to check out some of the new DSP's.. It's not that I am afraid of losing anything, it's the artificial sound that I hear when listening to processed music. I really haven't heard one I liked, but it has been two or three years since I have bothered to listen to one. A friend of mine just did a full blown system in his truck and has all the latest Alpine gadgets in it.. I will go over there this afternoon and check it out.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

sublime_ac said:


> Maybe I need to check out some of the new DSP's.. It's not that I am afraid of losing anything, it's the artificial sound that I hear when listening to processed music. I really haven't heard one I liked, but it has been two or three years since I have bothered to listen to one. A friend of mine just did a full blown system in his truck and has all the latest Alpine gadgets in it.. I will go over there this afternoon and check it out.


Some DSP aims to do some fancy things. Just plain crossover work though shouldn't yield any artifacts. Delay won't either.


----------



## xaman74 (Nov 6, 2005)

I dont use a T/A...but i listen a few car in competitions with T/A and sound amazing!

My car compete 2 times in IASCA -rookie- and won 2 2nd places vs cars with T/A. 
I think T/A is a very usful tool but you can have decent results with a correct placement, fase and EQ on the speakers.
Here in Mexico 99% of the competitors -in all categories- use a T/A ...


----------



## michaelsil1 (May 24, 2007)

MarkZ said:


> The source is digital so you're not losing anything by using DSP before it's converted to analog. Now, if you were listening to vinyl, then I could see the argument against DSP. That's kinda tough to do in the car though.


It was a big thing to have a turntable in your car in the 70's.


----------



## sublime_ac (Jun 30, 2009)

xaman74 said:


> I dont use a T/A...but i listen a few car in competitions with T/A and sound amazing!
> 
> My car compete 2 times in IASCA -rookie- and won 2 2nd places vs cars with T/A.
> I think T/A is a very usful tool but you can have decent results with a correct placement, fase and EQ on the speakers.
> Here in Mexico 99% of the competitors -in all categories- use a T/A ...


Yeah time alignment seems to take some of the harder work out of balancing a system... That was the difference between a good install and a great install back in the day.. Now I guess everybody will be able to have a great install.\


----------



## chozar (Feb 14, 2008)

I use T/A but to be honest, without proper speaker placement it can only go so far.

I thought that passengers would be forced into a terrible audio experience too, but most of the time passengers are not interested in high fidelity, it sounds more than acceptable for everyone else.


----------



## Deton Nation (Jul 3, 2009)

TA makes the system as a whole sound so much better. It makes sense, because you are sitting right on top of a set of speakers with the others so.. far.. c ant reach... So TA brings it all into balance.
Mike


----------



## digital (Sep 12, 2008)

I just started using TA in my setup, and while battling with phase cancellation issues, I can say TA does make a difference, small difference. But then again, it's the small differences that make the system sound better.

Some people may say... 15-20 years ago TA was not here and nobody needed it. I guess you can same thing about cars, planes, electricity and plumbing. Necessity is the mother of invention


----------



## Foglght (Aug 2, 2007)

I use it. 

Used to do all the math/formulas to get it all based, then tune. Now I don't even bother. 

I have a CD with tracks from 20hz to 15khz. After I do the initial T/A (by ear) with each set of speakers, then I just use that CD to EQ tune my way to a centered image, while messing with lvls in-between. 

Takes forever, but when ur done, sounds great!


----------



## Deton Nation (Jul 3, 2009)

I tried hand measuring from head rest to speaker and inputting all the info.. And I thought it sounded better, but it sounded messed up. So I just went back to the auto time align. The auto align measurements werent exact and when I put in the correct measurements the sub was off in the music and things just seemed off.. Like me


----------



## SPAZ (Jan 7, 2009)

Is there anywhere online where i can find a walkthrough to properly configure time alignment for my vehicle?


----------



## Vigarisa (Dec 10, 2007)

I use it and it's the reason I don't go to many other head units.

I like the Alpine ones better, they are the easiest to set up IMO, though I use a Clarion HU


----------



## SPAZ (Jan 7, 2009)

ant said:


> @ Spaz
> 
> try here:http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/diy-mobile-audio/51115-proper-time-alignment.html


Thank you


----------



## Deton Nation (Jul 3, 2009)

Today I went and picked up a radioshack spl meter... Then I went through test tones on the right and left set of speakers plus sub. I have some weird looking equalization curves. Like 12.5 K at +4 on my left speaker and 8K at -2. It looks like I built some towers in the eq. BUt suprisingly it sounds significantly better than what the 880 hu was able to come up with.


----------



## Chaos (Oct 27, 2005)

TA is no different than anything else - if you take the time to do it right, then it can make a real difference under critical listening. Otherwise, it can be difficult to notice much effect.


----------



## LondonRS4 (Jul 16, 2009)

Seems essential to me. Phase and amplitude have to vary all the way from the HU through the processors, amps and crossovers. The HU outputs are usually pretty well lined up as are the amps, but don't expect the wires and crossovers to keep that well preserved. T/A would fix that, not to mention the real delays from sound propagation across the car.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

LondonRS4 said:


> Seems essential to me. Phase and amplitude have to vary all the way from the HU through the processors, amps and crossovers. The HU outputs are usually pretty well lined up as are the amps, but don't expect the wires and crossovers to keep that well preserved. T/A would fix that, not to mention the real delays from sound propagation across the car.


Wires aren't going to introduce any delay. Electricity moves at the speed of light. But yes, the speed of sound is very slow in comparison, so it begins to have an effect. Kinda sucks. If sound was, like, four or five times as fast as it is, then we probably wouldn't need TA at all. Stupid laws of physics.


----------



## lagonda (Jul 14, 2009)

Disregard this.


----------



## LondonRS4 (Jul 16, 2009)

MarkZ said:


> Wires aren't going to introduce any delay. Electricity moves at the speed of light. .


Wires do produce an equivalent delay though. The wire is lump element modeled as an LCR circuit and can introduce phase delays in conjunction with what they are connected to far larger than the propagation delay per se. Worse yet, these could be frequency dependent. T/A should in principle compensate for that. I've never actually measured this in an audio system, so I may be overstating the problem. But I deal a lot with MRI gradient amplifiers (glorified audio amps with 2000V, 650 Amps per channel, 0.01%THD, 250kHz bandwidth into 1 ohm or so) and we do have to take care to align the signal at the gradient coil because the inductance, resistance and capacitance in each channel is different.


----------



## VP Electricity (Apr 11, 2009)

MarkZ said:


> Electricity moves at the speed of light.


_
The Speed of electricity refers to the *relatively slow* movement of free electrons or ions through a conductor in the presence of an electric field, also known as drift velocity. It is often confused with the propagation speed of an electromagnetic wave. It is the electromagnetic wave that can carry information (data), not the movement of electrons.

Free electrons in a conductor vibrate randomly, but without the presence of an electric field there is no net velocity. When a DC voltage is applied the electrons will increase in speed proportional to the strength of the electric field. These speeds are on the order of millimeters per second. AC voltages cause no net movement; the electrons oscillate back and forth in response to the alternating electric field.[1]

In contrast, electromagnetic wave propagation is much faster, and depends on the dielectric constant of the material. In a vacuum the wave travels at the speed of light and almost that fast in air. *Propagation speed is affected by insulation, such that in an unshielded copper conductor it is about 96% of the speed of light, while in a typical coaxial cable it is about 66% of the speed of light.*
​_
Speed of electricity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ok, still ludicrous speed, but not C.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

LondonRS4 said:


> Wires do produce an equivalent delay though. The wire is lump element modeled as an LCR circuit and can introduce phase delays in conjunction with what they are connected to far larger than the propagation delay per se. Worse yet, these could be frequency dependent. T/A should in principle compensate for that. I've never actually measured this in an audio system, so I may be overstating the problem. But I deal a lot with MRI gradient amplifiers (glorified audio amps with 2000V, 650 Amps per channel, 0.01%THD, 250kHz bandwidth into 1 ohm or so) and we do have to take care to align the signal at the gradient coil because the inductance, resistance and capacitance in each channel is different.


Phase and delay are two different things and you generally correct for them in different ways.



VP Electricity said:


> Ok, still ludicrous speed, but not C.


Haha, close enough. I assume vacuum for everything because I don't know dielectric constants off the top of my head.


----------



## invinsible (May 4, 2009)

how does one align the rear coax in doors in a right hand drive car ? Is the reference point considered is the sub or front right mid for entering the delay? HU used here is Clarion DXZ785.


----------



## covmaster (Sep 1, 2009)

I'm somewhat of a "beginner".
I had TA on my Pioneer DEH-8600MP and used it.
Now I "upgraded" to a new Pioneer DEH-P7100BT (wanted bluetooth and my display on the old was having issues).
But now I don't have TA.. and my SQ seems to be quite lower than with my old unit.

Is there a way to achieve TA outside of the HU?


----------



## na_rsx (Sep 1, 2009)

my headunit has it, also it has a 3 way active crossover. i plan on running active and using both features. not bad for a $200 JVC unit. btw its the kd-ar8500


----------



## Fixtion (Aug 25, 2006)

covmaster said:


> I'm somewhat of a "beginner".
> I had TA on my Pioneer DEH-8600MP and used it.
> Now I "upgraded" to a new Pioneer DEH-P7100BT (wanted bluetooth and my display on the old was having issues).
> But now I don't have TA.. and my SQ seems to be quite lower than with my old unit.
> ...


yes, but at a cost.

there's the ppi dcx-730, which has high noise issues, and heats up to extreme temperatures.

then there's the audison bit.1, which there's reference material on them here on the boards. search all bit one, bit.1, bit 1.

i'm a zapco fan boy, so of course the zapco dsp6(processor) and drc-sl(controller), it can also be tuned via laptop. 

all units are excellent processors for t/a, eq, crossover, summing channels, and each has there strengths and weaknesses. 
as always, research and verify your own suspicions and curiosities.


----------



## galegorafa (Jul 22, 2009)

I dont live without T.A. anymore... Huge upgrade


----------



## titansfan (Jan 27, 2009)

covmaster said:


> I'm somewhat of a "beginner".
> I had TA on my Pioneer DEH-8600MP and used it.
> Now I "upgraded" to a new Pioneer DEH-P7100BT (wanted bluetooth and my display on the old was having issues).
> But now I don't have TA.. and my SQ seems to be quite lower than with my old unit.
> ...


Also add the Alpine PXA-H701 to the list. I've used this processor and it does wonders when it comes to setting crossover points and time alignment, not to mention the tweaking that can be done using the graphic equalizer or parametric equalizer.


----------



## titansfan (Jan 27, 2009)

galegorafa said:


> I dont live without T.A. anymore... Huge upgrade


x2. Once you've experimented with time alignment and centered your stage, non-time aligned systems sound strange. I can vouch for going active in your install also. I use to run front and rear speakers with no time alignment, and I thought it sounded good. With the knowledge I've gained from members on this forum, I went to an active front stage, ditched rear fill, and used time alignment...It made a "huge" difference in the overall sound quality and musical experience in my vehicle.


----------



## overtone (Sep 29, 2009)

I don't have time alignment, but I certainly wouldn't dismiss it as a crutch or a gimmick. I know very little about the car audio world, but I am an audio engineer so I hope I can speak with at least a little authority on the subject.

The multitude of reflective surfaces, along with the inevitably mismatched distances from speakers to ears are the main reasons that cars are generally regarded as being among the worst environments to listen to music in. We always check mixes on a clock radio speaker (in mono), cheap computer speakers, earbuds, and in the car, precisely because these represent some of the worst possible audio environments. They also represent some of the most likely places listeners will hear your mixes.

In the studio world, and especially in the live audio world, time alignment (delay) is not a crutch, but a basic necessity. Granted, in the studio this is achieved not through delay, but rather proper speaker placement, but in a live setting delay is indispensable. When you're all the way at the back of the amphitheater listening to the loudspeakers and watching the jumbotron, stop and think about how those two are in sync given the enormous discrepancies in the speeds of light and sound.

Now, using delay between the left and right to achieve a balanced listening position is not ideal, but it's far better than simply adjusting the balance. And if you have a certain frequency that's canceling itself out and creating a null, turning it up will only make it cancel more and make the null bigger. The best option is to place your speakers equidistant from your ears so the sound naturally arrives at the same time. Second best would be to employ delay. EQ and balance don't address this basic issue, they only attempt to patch up the symptoms.

Not to dismiss the art of creating good sound without bells and whistles, but to my way of thinking, having the sound arrive to your ears at the same time is not a luxury or a gimmick, but rather a necessity if you want a balanced soundstage.

What I don't understand about time alignment is, what about the passenger?? A regular old non-TA car stereo might still be the best compromise if you'll have passengers, though I haven't heard a stereo with time alignment so it's quite possible that I'm missing something.


----------



## Billk1002 (Aug 23, 2009)

I had read about it for quite a while. Tried it liked it never going back with out it.


----------



## rosenbaumtravis (Nov 8, 2008)

back to using a 3sixty.2 after having a bit one for two weeks. I love the time alignment features of both the bit one and 3sixty.2. This is the reason why i wanted one of these and not a standard audio control unit. By the way, my reason for going back to the 3sixty.2 is i could not figure out what was causing a turn on/off pop with the audison unit (probalbly defective).


----------



## Thixx (Oct 15, 2009)

My headunit has it and I haven't even messed with it yet. After reading these posts I think I'm going to have to play with it sometime, no sense in having something and not utilizing it.


----------



## covmaster (Sep 1, 2009)

I had the Pioneer DEH-P8600MP for years using TA and AutoEQ and didn't really know how much it was doing to improve the sound quality in my Jeep Cherokee.
Then I recently "upgraded" the Pioneer's DEH-P7100BT because of the iPod integration and bluetooth features. Those 2 features were wonderful - I mean, really really worked well and they ironed out all the kinks. But the sound quality was REALLY lacking. I tried to put up with it for over a month.
Last night I took it out of my Jeep and reinstalled my old 8600 and ran the AutoEQ and TA and.. WOW! It REALLY makes such a huge difference. My speakers sound so much brighter, and the stage sounds like it's right in front of my face. I'll never go back. Now my only option is to go forward with Pioneer's latest top of the line with the 800PRS or maybe Alpine's 9887 with Imprint. 
But I should note - over last Christmas I had the 9887 with Imprint in my Jeep, and while it sounded very crisp and well staged, I was NOT happy with how you cannot adjust the EQ at all after running Imprint. Also, you pay a lot for Imprint on top of the HU. AND.. I wasn't really happy with Alpine... the face looks too dated and didn't like the iPod integration. Overall just felt like a downgrade from Pioneer.


----------



## LEXcellent66 (Oct 16, 2009)

I had the ability in my previous vehicle and did not find it useful at all in my tiny eclipse. The shop I used did have some success with it in large vehicles like suburbans especially with huge door pods with 2 sets of 6.5's in each door etc...


----------



## rsavalia (Oct 27, 2009)

I try to use my time alignment as little as possible since I have my speakers in the kick panels, but it does work wonders! It's a great feature to have.


----------



## sqoverspl (Aug 17, 2009)

This thread was made a while ago and I remember seeing it and not voting because I knew nothing about it. Well I have t/a now and am running two way active as of one hour ago! This is so cool, level matching, xo points and slopes, t/a to move soundstage. You really dont know how cool it is till you try it. I wont be getting sleep tonight because this is a lot all at once.


----------



## huckorris (Sep 2, 2009)

I never really posted because I don't have it, but I want it .

I'll have it in the next 3 to 6 months.


----------



## razholio (Apr 15, 2008)

got it with my 880prs, used the auto-setup and.... WOW. huge difference. Just recently finished other tweaking projects and did a quick set of manual measurements and setup a custom T/A config. To my amazement, it's even better now.


----------



## SPARKled (Oct 5, 2009)

I have it. Ever since I decided to get my car stereo, TA was on the top of my wish list. Eventually got it with my Clarion DXZ785USB imported from USA.


----------



## psychon (Feb 26, 2009)

I find that its necessary (in my setup) to get imaging centered.


----------



## Mazda6i07 (Jul 1, 2009)

I just got my front stage all setup. And i must say time alignment is a must. Will make your system sound amazing if setup correctly. just my .02 cents


----------



## sergiojp (Nov 11, 2009)

i think the TA is essential to adjust the sound quality


----------



## RUSpect (May 2, 2009)

Ive heard a lot of pure-passive installs (w/o TA). Real installs sounds much better than with TA cars. But it depends on person who build this car. If he knows theory and has enough practice he will build nice system. IMO TA allows to get proper sound stage for 90% car audio maniacs because processor solves a lot of phase problem, but killed the sound (depends on processor's level).


----------



## FLYONWALL9 (Nov 8, 2009)

I've had one system with and no matter what I put it in
it is fantastic! I've had a few systems in other cars that
weren't or didn't have TA and I missed it, so much so I
would sell the car or work for weeks to install it. 

I've got one of the orig TA systems, or the one which 
others tried to duplicate and I simply cant wait to get
it in my current car.

To me nothing has sounded as good as a properly set
up Sony ES system. I wouldn't sell mine for anything.
Well, maybe..........


----------



## Smokedout08impala (Nov 11, 2009)

Great Choice "fcarpio" on the Alpine PXA H701. I just sold my Audiocontrol DQXS with the DDC controller and purchased a 701 and it is the greatest single investment ive ever made for my system.


----------



## jhmeg2 (Nov 6, 2009)

well, it will be the best investemnt once I install it. I got your amp rack pedestalls finished and painted. I also cut your plexi, and painted it. All thats left is the cut out for the sub, wrap the box, mount the amp rack and make the face insert for the box.


----------



## Andy Slater (Oct 21, 2009)

It is ridiculous not to have TA


----------



## mfarlow (Nov 27, 2009)

I voted for using it.

Not all of us have the luxury of specific placement of drivers, or can afford expensive processing equipment. That doesn't mean we don't still want the best sound possible for our circumstances.

Point in case, my girlfriend recently purchased a car. I was given the task of installing a complete sound system on a limited budget without modification to the interior of the vehicle. So that left me with placing the speakers in the factory locations, and not being able to purchase an equalizer or other processing equipment. I chose a HU based on features and price, and it turned out to not have enough tuning options for me to get the sound to a suitable quality.

Mu vehicle has a HU with T/A and those adjustments would have easily helped with this situation. So now I'm going to switch out this HU for one with T/A and will more than likely have an acceptable level of SQ.


----------



## 2_Lude (Oct 5, 2009)

It is a must. Luckily my HU came with it. Made a huge difference in SQ.


----------



## Boogaloo (Jan 1, 2010)

Time who?


----------



## DynaudioNut (Jan 1, 2010)

Time alignment is a must have for any SQ system! I didn't think it would make that much of a difference...boy was I wrong. I can now hear things in songs I never new was there. On the flip side of the same coin, I can see how if someone screws up the alignment your system will sound horrible.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

proud_indian said:


> Does this TA thing have to come with the head unit, or can it be purchased as an add on?


You can do it both ways. HU that has TA or a processor that offers it like 360.2 or bit1 etc.


----------



## bamelanc (Sep 13, 2009)

IMO, the better your speakers are placed...the less you will have to use TA. Conversely, the worse placement you have, the more you'll have to TA. I think the more you TA...the more you can tell you're TA'd...if you follow. While TA will help any system, (it definitely helps mine as an 05 Tundra might be the worst audio environment of any vehicle...ever) I'm in agreement with many before me in the camp that there is no substitute for proper speaker placement.

I asked the audio shop I had my equipment installed at whether or not building kicks for my components was worth it. They stated that with TA I wouldn't need kicks. I disagree. (Now there is a cost benefit there. I would have paid a lot to get a little more, but as I've found out, that's what it's all about...pursuit of the car audio holy grail...at all costs) Even though I have TA right now, I am considering kicks for my components because I believe that it will improve the staging. How much...that remains to be seen. I believe that if it improves any...then it will be worth it.


----------



## Intel_One_USMC (Feb 3, 2009)

I have a few TA presets. The primary is when I'm in the driver seats. Sometimes on my break or lunch hour, I would sit in the passenger seat and recline the seats to lay down. Theres a TA prests for that as well. TA helps alot, since my listenting position changes, and the ability to recall different TA presets helps.


----------



## phuviano (Jan 12, 2010)

I won't buy a deck without time alignment. Auto time alignment, even better.


----------



## T3mpest (Dec 25, 2005)

bamelanc said:


> IMO, the better your speakers are placed...the less you will have to use TA. Conversely, the worse placement you have, the more you'll have to TA. I think the more you TA...the more you can tell you're TA'd...if you follow. While TA will help any system, (it definitely helps mine as an 05 Tundra might be the worst audio environment of any vehicle...ever) I'm in agreement with many before me in the camp that there is no substitute for proper speaker placement.
> 
> I asked the audio shop I had my equipment installed at whether or not building kicks for my components was worth it. They stated that with TA I wouldn't need kicks. I disagree. (Now there is a cost benefit there. I would have paid a lot to get a little more, but as I've found out, that's what it's all about...pursuit of the car audio holy grail...at all costs) Even though I have TA right now, I am considering kicks for my components because I believe that it will improve the staging. How much...that remains to be seen. I believe that if it improves any...then it will be worth it.


The only real price you pay by using time alignment is in the passenger seat. The more you electronically delay a speaker on one side to get things correct for one seat, you get that much worse for the passenger. That being said I still like to get the pathlengths as close as possible. My car uses horns and mids in the kicks. Without time alignment my car still has a solid center image. However, delaying my driver mid by .85ms relative to the right does make it a little better from the drivers seat. Basically whenever someone says time alignment makes a world of difference, they used crappy speaker locations.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

T3mpest said:


> Basically whenever someone says time alignment makes a world of difference, they used crappy speaker locations.


Tis the nature of the beast. (car audio)


----------



## mfarlow (Nov 27, 2009)

T3mpest said:


> Basically whenever someone says time alignment makes a world of difference, they used crappy speaker locations.


Not everyone has the luxury of custom speaker placement.


----------



## T3mpest (Dec 25, 2005)

mfarlow said:


> Not everyone has the luxury of custom speaker placement.



sad but true lol. I've done installs on other people cars who had stock locations high in the doors that they wanted to keep. T/A helped alot in those situations for the driver.


----------



## VP Electricity (Apr 11, 2009)

Everyone has the luxury of custom speaker placement _available_... but I don't do it to that degree and I don't try to offer it to others often. I get a lot of benefit from various uses of TA (not just all-out driver's seat only).


----------



## Hernan (Jul 9, 2006)

I have been using active systems for the last 5 years. 

With kickpanels installs with all three drivers very close to each other and some L&R EQ, the car images pretty well without T/A. 

Nowdays i'm using dash pods and I'm liking the setup, no more obtructions from my legs or the passanger. In this scenario T/A is a must and, of course a one seater.

One of the most important things to me is hearing the speakers dissapear.


----------



## chipss (Nov 13, 2009)

I think a little T/A is a good thing, as well as the befits of running active, adjustable x over points and phase of each driver, ability to Adjust amplitude of each driver, also independent left/right eq for sound staging.

Its not just t/a its many great things we have now days to do battle with a hostel car/truck environment,

And so yes please, ill take a little of each…..


----------



## Silvercar (Apr 21, 2008)

I have it.

But i don't use it. 

I could not get use to the altered sound that time alignment made.

In my system 2 way plus sub I level matched each frequency "independant EQ 31 band helps here" and I much prefered the sound this way than with time alignment. 

It sounds more natural, to me any way. Took me a few good hours to set it right but once done I was and I am still very happy.


----------



## Volenti (Feb 17, 2010)

My Bosses system uses time alignment (dual old school Alpine PRA-H400's, as is the majority of the system) though I only use the TA to align the speakers as pairs, not to do left-right alignment. I'm very happy with it's sound (wish my car sounded as good)


----------



## Candisa (Sep 15, 2007)

Volenti said:


> My Bosses system uses time alignment (dual old school Alpine PRA-H400's, as is the majority of the system) though I only use the TA to align the speakers as pairs, not to do left-right alignment. I'm very happy with it's sound (wish my car sounded as good)


That's the way we'll do it in Xenia's van and that's the only way to use TA for stage improvement on both front seats.
L-R TA is an easy way to pull the center in the middle, but it only works for 1 seat and ruins it completely for the rest. A (well-executed!) center-speaker is a much better solution that works for all seats.


----------



## roduk (Sep 19, 2008)

I run uni-q speakers in my kicks and an upfront sub, I have been using a bitone for the last 6 months, but I have always wanted to go fully active and passive. Ihave been through a few processors (all with MX406 hu) Alto mobile ucs pro, liked it this was in the install first. But I wanted to go passive, without any electronics so I put the original crossovers back in. This sounded morenatural but I had a problem integrating the sub and the stage was too low. Flipping the phase on the front end lifted the stage a bit, but I missed the bang centre image and control of the ucs pro. So then I got a bitone and I thought wow this thing is the nuts. Strong central Image with TA, so much control, it felt like it had found a permanent home. Then a friend of mine who competes professionally had no use for his Arc Audio dxe, so I snapped it up and just spent this weekend installing and tuning it. It has brought the system alive again, I was literally dancing in the car yesterday, I had never heard it soo good. I have a very good central image and the depth and width are much better than with the bitone. The dynamics although I didn't think they were lackingwith the bitone are back in spades, it just seems so natural.. I was putting in CDs which had sounded rubbish in the past yet with this eq sounded good!!??

So this week I'm not using TA and I'm not missing the bit one one bit


----------



## matt1212 (Jan 14, 2010)

So if one was to say have a Pioneer F90BT w/o time alignment with focal krx2s up front and krc coaxials in the rear with two subs in the trunk, what would be some recommended external processors with t/a and at least a 21 band eq be? I have heard the RF 3Sixty.2 mentioned but have also read theyre unreliable in a review on crutchfield, is this true?


----------



## Joakim Skovlund (Feb 18, 2009)

Gahh.. There's so many oppinions and "myths" about this..

To use TA "a little" is wrong! If you use it correct, there is no little or much!!

There is also much misunderstanding regarding what to achieve using TA. The whole meaning with it is to align the differences in distance (time differences) between ALL speakers in the car, (not just the left-right issue to get a centerimage).
Done right a correct aligned system will have the sound from each speaker "hitting" your ear at the same time/phase coherence.

Yes it's possible to get close using passive techniques, but hell what a job! A guy who has the skills to build a great passive system, will in my oppinion get even more from a correct TA'ed system! It's all about skills and a bit about luck.. 

Those who manage to tune the TA so it will sound crappy or "processed" has done something wrong, and would not be able to tune a passive system either! Yes - of course the overall installation has something to do with the final result, you can't do magic with digital technolgy.

I sense there is talk about using kickpanelmounted speakers for good staging, I've had those years ago, both with and without TA and it works nice, but you'll get a really low stagefloor! No offence, but I feel the use of kickpanels in fulltone is a bit 90's way of doin' it... It's a good way to get a fairly good stage without destroying the car's interior, but there is so many other ways to get there, eg. with some good dashboardmounted speakers. I prefer to have the stage up on the dashboard, and not down by my feet, or in kneeheight.

To spit on old theories regarding reflections and the way of thought; Think of the theories used in home hifi systems, to avoid early reflections as much as possible.. There you can play around with absorbers and even build the room specialdesigned for good sound.
What will you do in a car, when "everything" gives early reflections? My theory: Use them and control them! I use the front windshield as a sound mirror for my midranges, and TA via the reflected point in the windshield. 
The main problem you get with on-axis mounting eg. in the a-pillar or dashboard, is that you'll get a lot of reflections from the side windows, that gets a bigger issue to compensate for, than the ones you get from using the windshield as I've done in my car. In nearly all on axis cars I've heard or tuned, there will be peaked frequencies reflected from the left side window, coming from the right side speakers, sounding like the left side speaker plays that frequency, but it's actually coming from the right side speakers, and opposite case from the other side window. This will happen on different frequencies, depending on pathlengths of the car interior.

I can't see the problem many has about using the TA and other tools to get optimum performance in a car! The much talked about "less in the signal path" is so wrong placed coming to car audio. Of course there is not my meaning to hang a lot of **** between the HU and the amp, but one "klick" wrong on the TA, so the phase/time of the speakers are not aligned, does much more to the outcoming sound than what type of capacitor or opamp there is in the preamp!
To get a satisfying sound and soundstage in a car environment, you have to use "roomcorrection" tools to get what you want! At least what I want!


----------



## trigg007 (Feb 24, 2010)

Joakim Skovlund said:


> Gahh.. There's so many oppinions and "myths" about this..
> 
> To use TA "a little" is wrong! If you use it correct, there is no little or much!!
> 
> ...



X2... some of the best systems I've had, had the speakers in the dash firing towards the windshield which made for loads of fun with imaging and that was back when time correction wasn't readily available. For years all i've heard is thats a "NO NO" because of reflections & I think to myself, "hell, its a car, full of reflection points".


----------



## H.potter (May 1, 2010)

Have it FINALLY, use it, addicted hopelessly.
First off I am part of the crowd that likes super stealthy installs. Even the MB mechanic can not tell there is a 4way+center after market system hiding in the car till he opens the trunk, and even then he would only notice the trunk floor raised 2 inches.

I have 4 tunings that I can change with a push of a button using the Bit One DSP
#1 Driver is in the sweet spot, center channel off. (my favorite)
#2 Passenger is in the sweet spot, center channel off. (for the ladies) 
#3 All around best passenger and driver sound stage, center channel on.
#4 all dash mid ranges, and subwoofer off with flat response to demonstrate what the car sounded like factory. It still sounds better than factory with that L6 and L1 alone though. (fun tool anyway!)

I have people get in the car on setting #4, without fail they always say " ya it sounds better" Then I turn it to setting #2... the look on their faces is priceless.

This setup would have been a lot cheaper passive and sounded ok~.

Or more expensive passive after the time/effort and parts cutting the car apart and only sounding great from one perspective.

Sorry for the long first post, its why I tend to research and read more than speak.


----------



## emperorjj1 (Sep 10, 2008)

nice can u do the same for me?


----------



## ampaholic (May 9, 2010)

My last system was passive and it sounded good but it was soooooo much work to tune.

I am now putting together a frankensystem with some old school stuff and a new wowser HU with T/A.

I am really looking forward to fast, better, smarter.


----------



## H.potter (May 1, 2010)

emperorjj1 said:


> nice can u do the same for me?


 You are not too far from me now as I work in Los Alamos NM, unfortunately the car is in Oregon.

I would be happy to demo to anyone near Eugene OR.


----------



## fcarpio (Apr 29, 2008)

After a few nasty setbacks I am back on track. I ended up with the Alpine PXA and I will be configuring my time alignment this weekend. Any tips other than let the PXA do it with its microphone?

What is the "typical" delay I should be looking at. I know, I know, I know, there are no typical delays but what do you have? This is a three way active plus subs system.


----------



## stryke23x (Jun 22, 2007)

fcarpio said:


> What is the "typical" delay I should be looking at. I know, I know, I know, there are no typical delays but what do you have? This is a three way active plus subs system.


Measure the distance from all of the drivers to your ear. You'll have to delay all but he closest ones, typically the subwoofer. The speed of sound is 1116 ft per second at sea level. So if you have a 2ft longer path from the sub to your ear than the sub to your left tweeter, you have to delay appropriately. 

2ft/1116 = .00179 sec or about 1.8ms. A general basis is .9ms per foot or .075ms per inch.

The ideal way though is to measure it. Put the mic at the listening position. Take an impulse response from the farthest driver. Then go to the next farthest. Increase delay until the impulses appear at the same time. Go on to the next driver and do the same.

John


----------



## vidizzle (May 30, 2008)

can anyone tell me how to correctly set the TA on the 701..im not sure if im misinterpreting what the manual says..

and which is better to use L/R or L+R TA on the 701?


----------



## vidizzle (May 30, 2008)

can anyone tell me how to correctly set the TA on the 701..im not sure if im misinterpreting what the manual says..

and which is better to use L/R or L+R TA on the 701?


----------



## trigg007 (Feb 24, 2010)

after you understand the calculations *experiment*. For example, I've had systems where the sub was not the closest driver, but it sounded better with no T/A.


lol @ ampaholic...it may not be "fast, better, smarter", when you finish


----------



## stryke23x (Jun 22, 2007)

trigg007 said:


> after you understand the calculations *experiment*. For example, I've had systems where the sub was not the closest driver, but it sounded better with no T/A.


Well keep in mind that the physical delay is only one aspect of it. You also have to be able to adjust phase independently of time alignment. Ideally you want to set the time alignment with an impulse response. Then flip polarity on one driver and adjust the phase until you get the deepest notch at the xover point. That will be the point where they are 180degrees out of phase. Then when you flip the polarity back they will be in phase properly. Things like VC inductance greatly affect phase in the drivers.

John


----------



## fcarpio (Apr 29, 2008)

stryke23x said:


> Measure the distance from all of the drivers to your ear. You'll have to delay all but he closest ones, typically the subwoofer. The speed of sound is 1116 ft per second at sea level. So if you have a 2ft longer path from the sub to your ear than the sub to your left tweeter, you have to delay appropriately.
> 
> 2ft/1116 = .00179 sec or about 1.8ms. A general basis is .9ms per foot or .075ms per inch.
> 
> ...


I am confused. Why would I delay the farthest driver? Shouldn't I have to delay the nearest driver so the audio on the nearest driver "waits" for the audio signal of the farthest driver?

The impulse is fine, but not everyone has an RTA setup. I think I am going to have to stick to the measurements once I get it sorted out in my head. 

EDIT: Now that I think about it I may have something I could use as an RTA setup. Would a regular dynamic mic work? I have a Sure SM58 I could probably use.


----------



## Triggz (Aug 11, 2010)

I have T/A with the Eclipse CD7200 HU. Its an absolute must have imho. The sound is very out of phase in the passenger seat since the T/A is set up perfectly for the driver seat. My girlfriend hates my sound system because it "sounds like crap" (from the passenger seat) and I don't blame her. She doesn't complain about the bass because it makes her horny


----------



## fcarpio (Apr 29, 2008)

fcarpio said:


> I am confused. Why would I delay the farthest driver? Shouldn't I have to delay the nearest driver so the audio on the nearest driver "waits" for the audio signal of the farthest driver?
> 
> The impulse is fine, but not everyone has an RTA setup. I think I am going to have to stick to the measurements once I get it sorted out in my head.
> 
> EDIT: Now that I think about it I may have something I could use as an RTA setup. Would a regular dynamic mic work? I have a Sure SM58 I could probably use.


OK, I figured it out. I used 340.29 m/s as the speed of sound, then converted that to 34.029 cm/ms (I had a metric measuring tape). Then did the following:

(right speaker distance - left speaker distance)cm
------------------------------------------------
34.029 cm/ms

The distance unit (cm) cancels out and I get my delay in ms, precisely. I applied this delay to the left speaker (nearest) and voila! I did this in pairs for all the speakers and the sub was only the measured distance. 

Just make sure you use the correct units, otherwise this will not work. To give you an idea I got delays ranging from 1ms to 1.5ms for the speakers and just over 4ms for the subs. It sounds really good now. 

It worked quite well. I hope this helps.

EDIT: This method will make the signal of all the speakers arrive to the listener at the same time, it will not put the all the speakers at the same distance from the listener (better?). My method adjusts the delay for the left speaker relative to the right speaker in pairs. A more accurate method will be to adjust ALL speakers relative to a fixed distance (farthest speaker distance to listener?). I can figure out the delay formula "per speaker", but that will have to wait until next weekend.

EDIT 2: Duh! Just replace the "right speaker distance" in the formula above with the farthest speaker distance and calculate the delay for all the speakers individually, except the farthest (subs?) which will have a delay of 0ms.

So the new formula will look something like this:

(farthest speaker distance - speaker distance)cm
------------------------------------------------
34.029 cm/ms


----------



## fcarpio (Apr 29, 2008)

stryke23x said:


> Measure the distance from all of the drivers to your ear. You'll have to delay all but he closest ones, typically the subwoofer. The speed of sound is 1116 ft per second at sea level. So if you have a 2ft longer path from the sub to your ear than the sub to your left tweeter, you have to delay appropriately.
> 
> 2ft/1116 = .00179 sec or about 1.8ms. A general basis is .9ms per foot or .075ms per inch.
> 
> ...


OK, I get it but I think you meant the farthest. That is what threw me off.


----------



## fcarpio (Apr 29, 2008)

vidizzle said:


> can anyone tell me how to correctly set the TA on the 701..im not sure if im misinterpreting what the manual says..
> 
> and which is better to use L/R or L+R TA on the 701?


You have to use L+R, I don't think you can do L/R on the time alignment.


----------



## FLYONWALL9 (Nov 8, 2009)

geez, even though mine is one of the more complicated to set up you guys make me feel as dumb as I really am. I've always just set mine and friends up by ear, a chan at the time aside from treb and sub.


----------



## vidizzle (May 30, 2008)

i gave up on that manual an set it by ear just attenuating the speakers on the left side


----------



## Triggz (Aug 11, 2010)

vidizzle said:


> can anyone tell me how to correctly set the TA on the 701..i m not sure if im misinterpreting what the manual says..
> 
> and which is better to use L/R or L+R TA on the 701?


This is the formula from the Eclipse manual. It may help you get started but the best way is by ear. Using only a formula defeats the purpose of car audio which to me is hearing music the way you like. What I do is close my eyes and push the delay button until I am in the center of the concert. 

Refer to the following for the method of calculating the delay time.

A = (B-C) / 34

A: Delay time (ms)

B: Distance from the listening position to the furthest speaker (cm)

C: Distance from the listening position to the speaker to be adjusted (cm)

(Example) Listening position: Driver's seat (left)

B:200 (cm)

C:50 (cm)

Delay time= 200 (cm) - 50 (cm) / 34= Approx. 4.4 (ms)


----------



## Sworkhard (Jan 1, 2009)

I have time alignment on my Alpine CDA-9884 with the imprint box, and it makes a world of different in sound. It's a must have to get good audio IMO.


----------



## Corner-Carver (Sep 24, 2010)

Had it on my competition system back in the day (PRA-H400) and can't imagine ever buidling a system without it. EQ/crossover work will only take you so far.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Joakim Skovlund said:


> Gahh.. There's so many oppinions and "myths" about this..
> 
> To use TA "a little" is wrong! If you use it correct, there is no little or much!!
> 
> ...


Damed if I'm going to read 233 posts in this thread......but give this guy a medal. TA is about what you hear AND how everything else is set. It is not about what it measures or calculates. It will vary from car to car based on install, locations, dsp at hand, sub - setup+power, reflections, eq and xover settings and a host of other things. 

Tuning is about two things. Knowing how things work, therefore setting everyting right and about hearing right. A bit of a chicken and egg situation.

Good luck to those seeking a formula.


----------



## diebenkorn (Jan 3, 2009)

I just got a old Nak tape deck TD 400 (tape deck OMg) and wondering those who have tape decks in their car use TA and if it affects the sound negatively or even how TA cahnges the sound of CD's would be interesting to hear as well. I did the Patrick Bateman Phil Collins tweeters on the dash mod and really like what I am hearing and ended up turning off my TA (this is with a DEH 800). If I was going to go the non TA route as I am interested in learning more about car audio (and apparently sound like a glutton for punishment) is their some sort of tutorial or guidelines that someone could most graciously point me towards.


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

T/A works the same regardless of the source material.


----------



## sqshoestring (Jun 19, 2007)

I turned my TA off because my midbass are weak and it makes that worse. It can enhance the stage. But my tweeters/mids are also the same distance from ear so it may make less difference on highs. Also the battery got killed once and I didn't have time to set all that crap back up properly lol so I'm still waiting to get different drivers in my doors.


----------



## rscecil007 (Apr 30, 2009)

TA really helps in my situation, all stock locations up front. But I realize it would be better fixed from a mechanical/installation location standpoint so less TA would be needed.


----------



## 8675309 (Jan 8, 2007)

I agree 100%.

What most do not realize is that it is not just left and right TA but TA between the drivers as well.




bikinpunk said:


> IMO, t/a is probably the most important thing to have. Others might argue, but it seems to be the best benefit overall. Once you get phase (which can be done manually) right and t/a, you've solved a majority of problems.


----------



## Heath (May 3, 2009)

Running my second bit one


----------



## stryke23x (Jun 22, 2007)

It's also more than just time alignment as well. It's also about getting the phase coherent throughout the crossover point. The waves from both drivers can arrive at the same time, but if they are not in phase correctly it's not going to sound right.

John


----------



## ncv6coupe (Oct 25, 2009)

Yes it can be done passively but nearfield listening area really craps on the effort if solely talking passive. You need a good understanding of h.o.m to achieve that. I wish I did,


----------



## emperorjj1 (Sep 10, 2008)

if time alignment is used for the drivers seat measurements wouldn't it sound ****ed everywhere else in the car?


----------



## Volenti (Feb 17, 2010)

emperorjj1 said:


> if time alignment is used for the drivers seat measurements wouldn't it sound ****ed everywhere else in the car?


Yea TA when done just for the one seating position can sound pretty messed up from the other seat, depends on how much positional TA was done (the physical location of the drivers) before electronic TA is performed.


----------



## michaelsil1 (May 24, 2007)

emperorjj1 said:


> if time alignment is used for the drivers seat measurements wouldn't it sound ****ed everywhere else in the car?


Tonality is tonality, it will only sound bad if your tuning sucks.


----------



## FLYONWALL9 (Nov 8, 2009)

emperorjj1 said:


> if time alignment is used for the drivers seat measurements wouldn't it sound ****ed everywhere else in the car?



Just to add to the above....

Most processors have several memory locations. So, they can be set 
up for driver, pass, and center of the dash. When I have riders with me
I put it on center so both have a good sound stage.


----------



## azimuth_coordinator (Nov 9, 2010)

Move this post if need be.

Current setup.

1986 Toyota 4-Runner.
Pioneer FH P800BT Head
Alesis 1inch silk dome tweeters, 12 order X at 3500; running off of head unit front channel
PPI 450 4 channel AMP
A pair of 5.25 mid bass and 3\4 tweet plates X at 100. Plates have 12 order Xover at unknown freq
2 Dayton QT210-4 8 inch subs in a free air (Installed in the rear side panels; no boxes, heavily stuffed with poly fill)

The head unit is clean and the amp is a gem; so playback is fair.. (It needs some EQL and the subs are not enclosed and the tweeters are all off axis)

Question:
I would like to time align the subs and the rear plates to the front tweeters.

Any suggestions for products?
Thanx in advance..


----------



## kanadian-kaos (Sep 12, 2010)

Have it and love it. Nowadays I could not do without it.


----------



## deesz (Feb 1, 2010)

hate to side bar but people running t/a with rear speakers do you take in account for the reflection off the rear glass? thinking about running rear speakers to help fill the car and make it get some depth


----------



## nubz69 (Aug 27, 2005)

FYI Sony has a whole bunch of new head units with time alignment. I personally like the CDX-GT650UI and DSX-S300BT for their flexible crossovers and time alignment. 

Deesz the 650 I have in my car allows me to low pass my rear speakers which makes a huge improvement in soundstage, imaging and midbass.


----------



## stevenpr (Dec 19, 2010)

I don't have it yet, but can't wait to get a new HU to see what I can get out of it. I think with the right speaker placement and T/A I can get great SQ from my buget setup.


----------



## michaelsil1 (May 24, 2007)

I have everything and it still doesn't sound like a high end home system!


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

I don't have a 'high end' home setup, but yeah I do have a decent one. While the p-880 has good processing power, it's no where near an outboard processor. Plus I have 0 time and $$'s invested in managing reflections. Yet there are times when my car setup will run the home setup close. Of course, a lot of the time its not close and then it sounds crap compared to the home setup. But that's more to do with the fact that I'm chasing shadows while tweaking and not recogonising the limitations. So a processor would help for sure.

The one thing I learn't was that the scale of the stage in a home 2ch rig and in a small enclosed environment, are two different things. The car persents a nearfield environment and hence everything needs to be scaled down while maintaining the right proportions. You're probably not going to have a 15' wide and 10' deep stage in a car. 6'x3' probably means you're doing well. When the basic stage is smaller, everything on that stage has to be proportionately smaller than what you would have at home. 

Maintaining the proportions and tonality with a presence of space and ambience, is generally what gets me closest to the home setup. The p-880 gives me enough to get the dimensions right and helps some with the tonality/ambience. I just feel that adding a processor would improve the tonality/ambienec and hence better impact.

Yes I would still use TA even if my mids were installed to 'measure' a 4" PLD


----------



## gumbeelee (Jan 3, 2011)

all i can say about time alignment is i am currently changing out sytems right now and don't have my time alignment. i can't believe the difference in overall soungstage without time alignment. music doesn't even sound the same anymore. i am going back to my factory h/u and putting in the jbl-ms8. i can't wait to get it hooked up so i can hear music again the way it is suppose to sound. time alignment is the only way to go!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## rufast (Aug 7, 2010)

i have TA on my eclipse avn7000 with dcu105 processor. i just set the option of having the sound centered to the drivers seat though through one of the options the processor opens up on the head unit.

i have set up the automatic TA with mic. have to tune it better when i get time.


----------



## azvrt (Nov 11, 2010)

My Eclipse HU offers TA, but I haven't tried it.
I wonder whether it would make much of a difference in my small car, as the distance from front speakers to me doesn't differ that much from the distance of the rear speakers to me.
I might try it at some point though, but just for front/rear not for left/right as I often have a passenger.


----------



## dakine (Oct 17, 2006)

Unless you drive a Mclaren f1 and sit in the middle, I think TA is a must.


----------



## ZAKOH (Nov 26, 2010)

azvrt said:


> My Eclipse HU offers TA, but I haven't tried it.
> I wonder whether it would make much of a difference in my small car, as the distance from front speakers to me doesn't differ that much from the distance of the rear speakers to me.
> I might try it at some point though, but just for front/rear not for left/right as I often have a passenger.


You don't want to align the rear speakers with the front. Otherwise, there is a danger that the sound stage will shift back. If you do anything with them, delay the rear speakers even more. I have heard that 20ms delay is optimal.


----------



## ZAKOH (Nov 26, 2010)

Got TA on my head unit (kenwood kdc x994). It's a handy little tool. I delayed the speaker closest to driver by 0.85 ft, and the rear speakers by 20ft. The sound stage has shifted somewhat away from me along the dash, and the rear speakers have become useful "real fill" speakers. Definitely recommended.. It's also easy to turn off if there are passengers.


----------



## smgreen20 (Oct 13, 2006)

I used to have it, but in a FS ext cab truck, there's no need for rears. I'm not like others that want a center stage to them, but I want a center stage to the center of the dash. The only thing I would TA would be my tweets in the dash. 

I have 3 HUs at home that have TA, but I'm not interested in it now.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

smgreen20 said:


> I used to have it, but in a FS ext cab truck, there's no need for rears. I'm not like others that want a center stage to them, but I want a center stage to the center of the dash. The only thing I would TA would be my tweets in the dash.
> 
> I have 3 HUs at home that have TA, but I'm not interested in it now.


The frequencies that require ta are played by your mid bass / mid range not the tweets. TA the tweets helps in focusing the the sound the prime need for TA is in the 60-800hz (appx) range.


----------



## asota (Feb 7, 2011)

I don't have TA my 15 year old hu does not have dig out also i don't know of any that have da converters that sound as detailed as my hu. With alot of trial and error and a little analog phaze adjustment TA is not usually needed. It is a lot more work but if you get it right the detail and overall SQ is worth it .


----------



## smgreen20 (Oct 13, 2006)

No, TA is for the speaker/s that is closest to you, not a certain freq though that may be a small part of it, in my case my tweets. If it were a certain freq a simple EQing COULD do the trick.


----------



## samos69 (Mar 8, 2011)

I don't have it, but the more I read the more I want it!


----------



## dsauce16 (Feb 2, 2011)

got it but not 100% sure how to use it unfortunately...its used to delay sound from the closest speakers using the distance difference between the fatherest speaker and the speaker being adjusted correct??


----------



## emperorjj1 (Sep 10, 2008)

right


----------



## FLYONWALL9 (Nov 8, 2009)

dsauce16 said:


> got it but not 100% sure how to use it unfortunately...its used to delay sound from the closest speakers using the distance difference between the fatherest speaker and the speaker being adjusted correct??




I've had it for nearly 20 years, you will get a few different schools of thought how to set them up. IMHO, I like to set the near speakers first. To me doing it this way I am able to move those speakers on the stage up higher and farther towards center. This way to me it doesn't seem like the near speaker blows your head off. Then I bring in the far speaker which seems to move that stage back towards me. Now, I will set the car up with both center stage, left and right. So, it just depends on if I'm alone or now how its played. 

lastly, I think it is 100% up to the owner and the car what sounds best. That is unless someone is picking over the thing at a show, then just hope you don't get someone who's ears are tired. Bottom line, play around with it and see what you like. ))


----------



## dsauce16 (Feb 2, 2011)

thank you flyonwall for informing me. would be a shame for me to have it and not be using it correctly!


----------



## FLYONWALL9 (Nov 8, 2009)

dsauce16 said:


> thank you flyonwall for informing me. would be a shame for me to have it and not be using it correctly!


No worries.....

Keep in mind, what I discribe may or may not be 'correct' or by the book
its just what works best for me and what I like. I have all the 'math' for
setting it up proper per manufacture direction but didn't care for it. Just
sit in your car and start messing around with it, hell, you cant really mess
anything up; its all in the electronic domain.


----------



## dsauce16 (Feb 2, 2011)

will do.


----------



## Pataforce8 (Feb 21, 2011)

I haven't read the thread but here's my two cents:

I had time alignment on my eXcelon X-794, bought the deck just for it. Now I don't run it. I played for hours on end, did tons of measurements and maths, and I just don't like how it sounds. The sound is definitely more focused and clear, but I feel that some of the mid frequencies just disappear.

Maybe I'm just used to the echo, but I prefer a great equalizer to TA.


----------



## narcispy (Aug 23, 2010)

Have it on the Alpine CDA 9887, love it, sounds excellent when setup properly.


----------



## littlejuanito (Apr 29, 2010)

narcispy said:


> Have it on the Alpine CDA 9887, love it, sounds excellent when setup properly.


I gotta agree with you. After nearly a year of fiddling with my T/A, I FINALLY nailed the right speaker delays and now I know what everybody was talking about. My system now sounds clean, clear, centered and in phase. Also, if setup properly, you really do NOT need rear fill. 

I understand a lot of people's frustrations as I was one of them. You're system is definetively not gonna sound good at all if you dont get the alignment correctly. My next step is to tackle the EQ, which shouldn't be a problem now.


----------



## sjg5359 (Mar 29, 2011)

i have it but constantly tweeking it, seems like I can't find the sweet spot.


----------



## Cablguy184 (Oct 7, 2010)

Nope ... Not needed with my Sound Quality System ... Thanks ...


----------



## littlejuanito (Apr 29, 2010)

sjg5359 said:


> i have it but constantly tweeking it, seems like I can't find the sweet spot.


I feel your frustration. Keep at it. I will tell you this based on my experience. Having mid and tweeter together will help a lot. I also ended up finding that sweet spot while playing a regular song then finding the right side sweet spot first, then finding the left one after. Trust, you WILL know when you find it.


----------



## BlackCSVT (May 3, 2011)

I have it. I bought my second Pioneer 980BT because the first one was so good. I don't use the auto EQ feature, as it makes the sound kind of thin, but the auto TA only needs 1 or 2 tweaks to make it perfect.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Pataforce8 said:


> I haven't read the thread but here's my two cents:
> 
> I had time alignment on my eXcelon X-794, bought the deck just for it. Now I don't run it. I played for hours on end, did tons of measurements and maths, and I just don't like how it sounds. The sound is definitely more focused and clear, but I feel that some of the mid frequencies just disappear.
> 
> Maybe I'm just used to the echo, but I prefer a great equalizer to TA.


Umm......no. You use TA to adjust for same arrival from speakers at different distances. Get your drivers in phase. Measuring and setting will get you here. Next you tweak on this to manipulate the dimensions and placement of your stage. 

You use your eq to balance frequency response across the spectrum and to correct for L/R imbalance. Note Balance does not equal flat. 

Its not about one being better than the other, fact is you need both. What you're referring to as loss of mid range / echo, is actually 'smearing'. With TA and L/R control on your eq you will hear focused and still sound. You will hear 'light' and 'dark'. Areas on your stage where there is sound and those where there is none. Thats how the music was recorded, thats how you're supposed to hear it.


----------



## trumpet (Nov 14, 2010)

Pataforce8 said:


> Now I don't run it. I played for hours on end, did tons of measurements and maths, and I just don't like how it sounds. The sound is definitely more focused and clear, but I feel that some of the mid frequencies just disappear.
> 
> Maybe I'm just used to the echo, but I prefer a great equalizer to TA.


It shouldn't take more than 4(if using front mids and rear fill) measurements and a small amount of arithmetic to get the math figured out. If you dial it in correctly the midrange and lower frequencies should sound stronger and punchier/tighter, whichever adjectives you prefer. The sub bass should sound like it's coming from up front, or evenly throughout the cabin, but this may depend on your crossover settings as well. There should be 0 echo unless you want that, but that would be in my opinion a novelty that I couldn't tolerate.

I drive a small sedan and I set my time alignment for the driver listening position. The Front Left delay is the highest, the Front Right delay is a bit less, the Rear Left delay is roughly half of the FR, and the Right Rear is at 0 delay.


----------



## emperorjj1 (Sep 10, 2008)

how does it sound from the passenger seat thou?


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

emperorjj1 said:


> how does it sound from the passenger seat thou?


If the tuning is right, tonality will be decent. Much better than 99% of the normal setups. Imaging / staging will be much better on the passenger side. With the right tools you can dial in separately for excellent sound for either L or R seating. I'm also willing to bet that 99% of the folks who sit in the passenger seat wouldn't have a clue on imaging / staging, but yeah they probably will appreciate the better tonality.

Best for L&R is a misnomer / myth in a car. L&R in a car will always be a compromise for *both* sides.


----------



## sqshoestring (Jun 19, 2007)

My 880prs has settings that change for driver, front, all four seats. It really changes how it sounds.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Yeah I know what you mean. But that's still L or R. Ever tried tuning for L&R? That's snake oil.


----------



## jester (Jun 1, 2011)

Got it here (CD5444)


----------



## emperorjj1 (Sep 10, 2008)

sqnut said:


> If the tuning is right, tonality will be decent. Much better than 99% of the normal setups. Imaging / staging will be much better on the passenger side. With the right tools you can dial in separately for excellent sound for either L or R seating. I'm also willing to bet that 99% of the folks who sit in the passenger seat wouldn't have a clue on imaging / staging, but yeah they probably will appreciate the better tonality.
> 
> Best for L&R is a misnomer / myth in a car. L&R in a car will always be a compromise for *both* sides.


right right ive just never used it because a i really havent fully decided or tuned whatever you want to call it my x-over settings and eq. that in itself is a handful since i listen to so many different types of music. Also im worried for how bad it might sound for the pass. if it sounds great for me and good for the pass i can live with that but if the pass seat sounds like complete ass then its not worth it for me. I mean as it is now my car sounds good to me so


----------



## garysummers (Oct 25, 2010)

TA or Time alignment is used adjust the time arrival of each speaker driver in the system to arrive at the listeners ear at the same exact time. Obviously the farthest speaker would be time delay "0 ms". The other drivers are delayed with respect to the farthest speaker to make your brain think they are equal distance. If you are able to build a system in your car where all the speaker drivers output arrive at the listener's ear at the same exact time, then you don't need TA. We are talking a difference of a micro second, which can have a major affect at high frequencies where the wave lengths are very short. My guess is that in the majority of installs this is not possible. If you input the proper time delay values to your system and the other settings, crossovers, eq are set correctly you should notice the sound will be better. For those here who say they put TA on there system and it sounded worse did not do it correctly. TA set wrong will definitely make your sound worse.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Actually, TA is more useful for the lower frequencies. The 70-800 range (appx) is almost all about arrival times. Frequencies 2khz and higher are less sensitive to phase issues but more sensitive to axis response.


----------



## garysummers (Oct 25, 2010)

Can you give some scientific evidence to your theory. Based on real world physics of sound. If your tweeters are not arriving at the same time your mids are you will have comb filtering through the crossover region and your soundstage will not be correct, among other problems this will cause.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Frequencies from 50-250hz are sensitive to arrival times, frequencies 250-about 1khz are sensitive to both phase and frequency response and above like 1-2khz its mostly about FR. I had my numbers slightly wrong in the earlier post.


----------



## garysummers (Oct 25, 2010)

We need to hear some science to back up what you are saying! Why does the human ear respond to sound as you say it does? Why is the ear not sensitive to time arrival at higher frequencies as you say? If your tweeters are out of phase with your mids will you have good sound? If they are out of time with your mids will you have good sound? Its the physics of sound, that is where the answer lies!


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Garry,

Sorry for the delay in posting. Here you go.


----------



## garysummers (Oct 25, 2010)

Evaluation for low frequencies
For frequencies below 800 Hz, the dimensions of the head (ear distance 21.5 cm, corresponding to an interaural time delay of 625 µs), are smaller than the half wavelength of the sound waves. So the auditory system can determine phase delays between both ears without confusion. Interaural level differences are very low in this frequency range, especially below about 200 Hz, so a precise evaluation of the input direction is nearly impossible on the basis of level differences alone. As the frequency drops below 80 Hz it becomes difficult or impossible to use either time difference or level difference to determine a sound's lateral source, because the phase difference between the ears becomes too small for a directional evaluation.
[edit]Evaluation for high frequencies

For frequencies above 1600 Hz the dimensions of the head are greater than the length of the sound waves. An unambiguous determination of the input direction based on interaural phase alone is not possible at these frequencies. However, the interaural level differences become larger, and these level differences are evaluated by the auditory system. Also, group delays between the ears can be evaluated, and is more pronounced at higher frequencies; that is, if there is a sound onset, the delay of this onset between the ears can be used to determine the input direction of the corresponding sound source. This mechanism becomes especially important in reverberant environment. After a sound onset there is a short time frame where the direct sound reaches the ears, but not yet the reflected sound. The auditory system uses this short time frame for evaluating the sound source direction, and keeps this detected direction as long as reflections and reverberation prevent an unambiguous direction estimation.
The mechanisms described above cannot be used to differentiate between a sound source ahead of the hearer or behind the hearer; therefore additional cues have to be evaluated.

I think if you read it carefully it says the your ear is less sensitive to level and time differences at lower frequencies and more sensitive to level and time differences at higher frequencies (above 1600hz) due to the wavelength
with respect to the distance between your ears.
For the sake of discussion let us say you have your system tuned properly with respect to TA, Phase, and EQ . Now play some well recorded music material with a wide frequency range. Now adjust the left mid bass time delay by .05ms, either higher or lower it does not matter. How much of a difference due you hear? Now do the same exercise on the left tweeter. How much difference to the image do you hear. I think you will find we are far more sensitive to TA at higher frequencies.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Gary,

This is what I was refering to:


> For frequencies below 800 Hz, mainly interaural time differences are evaluated (phase delays), for frequencies above 1600 Hz mainly interaural level differences are evaluated. Between 800 Hz and 1600 Hz there is a transition zone, where both mechanisms play a role


Our ears have higher sensitivity to phase issues for lower frequencies and group delays for higher frequencies. The higher frequencies are more sensitive to amplitude difference between the original sound and the delayed sound. 

Ref your post:


> For the sake of discussion let us say you have your system tuned properly with respect to TA, Phase, and EQ . Now play some well recorded music material with a wide frequency range. Now adjust the left mid bass time delay by .05ms, either higher or lower it does not matter. How much of a difference due you hear?


BIG difference. If everything is properly set and you change the delay 'between' your mids by 0.05ms or 0.5" you should hear a difference and it will shift your image around a bit. That said I'm still particular about getting the tweets in phase too, but the axis on the tweets and L/R eq for the highs counts for more, imo.


----------



## DJ Welfare (May 18, 2011)

In on this crew with Kenwood X995


----------



## Cenovio (Oct 13, 2009)

After I had TA, I never was satisfied without it. x995 also.


----------



## Babs (Jul 6, 2007)

After finally getting a system going with MS-8, I'm personally convinced besides having active crossovers the auto time-alignment is THE biggest benefit of the processor. Or any for that matter. In my humble opinion it's the singular best "processing" you can do in a car and once crossover settings are dialed in it's the first thing to be tuned before messing with EQ.


----------



## Spyeleven (Oct 20, 2011)

I have it on my Alpine 9855r.
I think it's a very good option to have it.


----------



## ChrisB (Jul 3, 2008)

After experiencing the joys of a fully active, properly time aligned system with parametric equalization, I don't think I can ever go back.


----------



## stereoguy009 (Oct 15, 2011)

unless you have alot of time on your hands to properly place every speaker in your car its a must have. my car sounds much different without it, my image always stayed on the driver side of the car no matter what i did with the phase of my speakers.


----------



## waldojeffershead (Jun 6, 2010)

Proper time correction makes a huge difference in an SQ setup.

Worth every minute with the calculator. 

T/A also seems to eat up a little bit of gain


----------



## redbaronace (Sep 27, 2011)

Do Zapco DC reference amps offer time alignment via the software?


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

waldojeffershead said:


> Proper time correction makes a huge difference in an SQ setup.
> 
> Worth every minute with the calculator.
> 
> T/A also seems to eat up a little bit of gain


In reality it shouldn't when done properly. It should be the opposite.


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

****, I replied to a threadbump via poll.


----------



## thomasluke (Jun 10, 2011)

chad said:


> ****, I replied to a threadbump via poll.


Hahahaha:laugh:


----------



## waldojeffershead (Jun 6, 2010)

chad said:


> In reality it shouldn't when done properly. It should be the opposite.


The Alpine 7894 I was refering to, definitely required some gain attunation after enabling T/A.

The soundstage was wider and more focused, but I did have to boost my gain a little. In order for it to sound right to my taste.


Do you set time alignment to the driver seat or to the center of the passenger compartment?

I don't have T/A at the moment and my right ear kind of suffers more listening fatigue versus using alignment


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

I do driver's seat... My car is a one person commuter about 362 days a year.

when it's perfectly aligned drivers will sum properly and work to together, this should then allow you to reduce gains. When you did your alignment you may have knocked this relationship out and caused some nulling.


----------



## Mooresound (Jan 17, 2012)

I use T/A from my Kwood headunit. Once I dialed in the rough measurements my image sits right on the dash. made my three ways actually delver on the midbass I expected.


----------



## slinger1 (Jan 17, 2012)

i will be running my ms8 through the focal xovers for mids and tweets in all four doors...powered by a 4 ch. amp...then the subs off 1 channel...i have no center speaker as of now and cant get speaker wire into doors without drilling holes..(doors have plug type conectors instead of the wire "boots")...so i seperate the comps in the front doors atleast...will the ms8 still help using the focal crossovers? or am i just wasting time and $$ messing with this...


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

that's a better question for the epically long MS-8 thread.


----------



## fcarpio (Apr 29, 2008)

After several semi failed attempts to get the time alignment right I think I finally got it. Let me tell you, what a difference. I am loving my system more and more...


----------

