# 'Pro Audio' setup for SQ



## Allan74 (Jun 17, 2010)

I am still toying with the idea for another vehicle of mine, after it was stuck into my head by another member here..... a PRO AUDIO type of setup in the car (horns & 10" Midbass).....

*Here's one thing that I am literally dying to know:*
How in hell did one of the most revolutionary and decorated cars in competition history run only a 6 driver setup and get away with running 12" midbass in the rear and nothing but horns in the front under the dash ?....with primitave, or nothing really but EQ and no real active/corrective processing otherwise ?

If pulled out of retirement, how would the _Grand National_ do today ?


----------



## cubdenno (Nov 10, 2007)

Do it. Several members are doing it already. I have purchased B&C 8" drivers that I am putting in at some point and am looking at some of the Pyle Pro Audio which I have been told are made by Eminence. Plus the price is very right. Even to just try.


----------



## stereojnky (Mar 17, 2008)

I believe Patrick Bateman has covered this in depth. 

The thread was titled something like "grand national in a box" maybe. 

Yeah, this one. http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum...ed/69727-project-gnib-grand-national-box.html


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

Allan74 said:


> *Here's one thing that I am literally dying to know:*
> How in hell did one of the most revolutionary and decorated cars in competition history run only a 6 driver setup and get away with running 12" midbass in the rear and nothing but horns in the front under the dash ?....with primitave, or nothing really but EQ and no real active/corrective processing otherwise ?


Two things going on:
*sub 250hz most humans can't localize the source
*competitions are not a reliable venue for comparisons. ( I think they are great for meeting fellow hobbyists). 

You asked, so don't shoot.


----------



## Allan74 (Jun 17, 2010)

stereojnky said:


> I believe Patrick Bateman has covered this in depth.
> 
> The thread was titled something like "grand national in a box" maybe.
> 
> Yeah, this one. http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum...ed/69727-project-gnib-grand-national-box.html


Before my time...but I will definately give it a read, as I am STILL facinated by this car. Projects like that one is what we, 'back in the day', read about in magazines......long before the interweb 



cvjoint said:


> Two things going on:
> *sub 250hz most humans can't localize the source
> *competitions are not a reliable venue for comparisons. ( I think they are great for meeting fellow hobbyists).
> 
> You asked, so don't shoot.


No shooting...I appreciate the info 

It still amazes me though. What was able to be accomplished with NO TIME DELAY, NO BITONE, NO MS-8.....nothing but a few odd drivers and a trunk full of good old Alpine 3545 2 channel Class A monsters.

Although I never owned a 3545, my Uncle did and I got to experience it's awesomeness driving (4) JL 12's in his low rider, done as a 4th order bandpass in the box of the truck under a toneau cover, with an accordian-style boot surrounding a hole from truck box to cab to feed the big square port through into the cab.

Single cab shortbox '83 Chevy lowrider. Pair of MB Quart 8's as midbass behind the seat in wedges on either side of the port from the sub box in the truck-box, 4x6 plates in the dash with MB Quart 4" + 1" Tweeters.....and nothing in the doors.....so again, midbass behind your head.

The 3545 powered the (4) 12"s and a 3554 4 channel to power the plates in the dash and midbass behind the seat. The only processing was done via AudioControl gear. A 4XS, Epicenter and EQL. Alpine CD head unit as well.

Great Sounding system at the time back in 91/92. Not crazy loud, but very satisfying.

Rear midbass seemed to be a 'fad' at the time I guess......and everyone seemed to be jumping on the bandwagon in 1 way or another.


----------



## 89grand (Nov 23, 2006)

I had the pleasure of hearing the Grand National once. It was like no other car I've ever heard. The dynamics were insane, and it wasn't even close to running balls out. That car is a legend for a reason.


----------



## rawdawg (Apr 27, 2007)

I'd hardly call the GN's signal processing suite primitive. The GN had Pro Audio level equalizers, crossovers, noise gates, custom filtering, etc... Time alignment was mainly accomplished acoustically through minimized path lengths afforded by the Waveguides and the Midbass placement.

The GN's system certainly left an impression on me all those years ago. Enough that a decade and some later, I had Speakerworks install my very first system.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

Those Rane EQs could do some delay.

Eric Holdaway has also said if he had to do it over again, he would have put the midbasses in the front floor boards rather than in the rear.

RC is also very open that he thought he Caddy was a better sounding car than the GN. The Caddy had a full on surround system in it.


----------



## 89grand (Nov 23, 2006)

I never heard the Caddy, but I find it a little hard to believe he really thought it was better, even if he states otherwise. For starters, why did he retire it and compete with the GN instead, and number two, he bought the GN from Speaker works for some reason.

If I had a system that was literally only half as good as the GN, I'd be in heaven because it was that good

Don't get me wrong, I never heard the Caddy, and I'm sure it sounded great, but it would take a monumental system to out do the GN.

Granted, I didn't spend all that much time in the GN, but I never got the feeling that any of the speakers were in the rear. It had the biggest sound, for lack of a better description, than I've ever heard in a car. It was not just completely tonally accurate and loud, it sounded way bigger than a car should be able to.


----------



## Mic10is (Aug 20, 2007)

This discussion comes alot over the years especially with veteran competitors etc...
General consensus has been that alot of those vehicle would not really do that well now a days.
Very few had very accurate and focused imaging, staging was OK in reference to height width etc...It simply wasnt something that was scored as detailed as it is now and there was much less importance put upon it.
what many of the old skool cars did very well which many lack today is they were VERY dynamics and got loud full range.
Tonal accuracy between then and now is probably a toss up.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

The Caddy was the only car to beat the GN at Perry. He competed them both one year and the Caddy won with the GN taking 2nd.

My guess is the DN would hand the Caddy it's ass in volume and dynamics. Not to mention the Caddy's install was not as nice as the GN.


----------



## 89grand (Nov 23, 2006)

Mic10is said:


> This discussion comes alot over the years especially with veteran competitors etc...
> General consensus has been that alot of those vehicle would not really do that well now a days.
> Very few had very accurate and focused imaging, staging was OK in reference to height width etc...It simply wasnt something that was scored as detailed as it is now and there was much less importance put upon it.
> what many of the old skool cars did very well which many lack today is they were VERY dynamics and got loud full range.
> Tonal accuracy between then and now is probably a toss up.


You're probably right. I'd take an old school GN style system any day for my own use. It's way more fun, even if the imaging is not 100% as good. Everything else is more fun to listen to.


----------



## bassfromspace (Jun 28, 2016)

I also see "fun factor" as a big difference between today's cars and the cars of yesteryear. Many cars today are technically accurate, but sound like ****.


----------



## TXwrxWagon (Sep 26, 2008)

every single component in the GN was "expert-level" tweaked. From the power supplies in the Alpine 3545's, to the Rane 31's & the time align/delay capable Crossover. All the speakers were unique/ 1-off drivers as well.

Heck the car's audio system ran on a voltage system that pretty much required RC to retire as NACA-CAN instituted the 12-14.4v rule right about that time. Back then there was barely amatuer & pro. it was literally show up, how many watts... you get in this lane. Nothing could touch it. 

To this day, what 20+ years later I still use it as a reference in my mind.

I think if people want to talk about "attainable" performance from the past that may or may not compete today need to look @ people like but not limited to:

Todd Matsuraba, Harry Kumara, Steve Brown, Gary Biggs & Mark Eldridge who have redefined competition as we know it.

The GN is & was amazing, but so is an Enzo & a Bugatti Veyron.

Rob


----------



## lycan (Dec 20, 2009)

cvjoint said:


> Two things going on:
> *sub 250hz most humans can't localize the source
> *competitions are not a reliable venue for comparisons. ( I think they are great for meeting fellow hobbyists).
> 
> You asked, so don't shoot.


For frequencies in the ITD range of human hearing (which includes 250Hz, as well as 500Hz), localization is possible ... but only to the extent that a source can be identified with a "cone of confusion". 

This means that you tell left/right pretty well for 250Hz, or 500Hz ... but you can't tell up/down, and (more significantly for this thread) you can't tell *front/back*.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

lycan said:


> For frequencies in the ITD range of human hearing (which includes 250Hz, as well as 500Hz), localization is possible ... but only to the extent that a source can be identified with a "cone of confusion".
> 
> This means that you tell left/right pretty well for 250Hz, or 500Hz ... but you can't tell up/down, and (more significantly for this thread) you can't tell *front/back*.


I thought 250hz was the threshold more or less. How far down under 250hz can we distinguish left from right?


----------



## CraigMBA (Nov 19, 2010)

thehatedguy said:


> The Caddy was the only car to beat the GN at Perry. He competed them both one year and the Caddy won with the GN taking 2nd.
> 
> My guess is the DN would hand the Caddy it's ass in volume and dynamics. Not to mention the Caddy's install was not as nice as the GN.


It's worth pointing out that only happened after RC bought the GN from Speakerworks and made "changes". Some of the stuff RC claimed he did was sheer nonsense (for example, the huge horn drivers that Richard holding that was published were total ******** and NEVER installed, same for the 5" dash mid bass on the gate) and some of the changes made it worse (the addition of smaller Kenwood amplifiers because somebody paid RC to use them). There is an epic thread over on carsound about a decade ago where Eric hands RC his ass for outright lying about it. RC never did live that one down, and soon after disappeared.

Still, it's water under the bridge but there are still factors you can use today to make your car better.

1. Use of an outrageously large mid bass driver in an appropriate enclosure with an outrageously large amount of power. The JBL mid bass were the heart of that system, but they were also the limiting factor on why the car wouldn't play louder. Remember, they had one of those surfboard amps strapped to each one of those mid bass. The subwoofer amps would cruise and the amp for the horns would do the same. The subwoofers were right on the ragged edge of failing, but that car would hit the SPL cap so anymore would of been pointless since you couldn't listen to it that loud anyway.

2. Phase is important. Time alignment is important. Amplitude between drivers is important. Hince, use of few drivers, and what were (at the time) mind blowingly complex equalizers.

3. Big power + high efficiency drivers = big dynamics. Why people still ignore this, I have no idea, particularly in the mid bass region.

4. Some of the stuff they did (the noise gate, for example) was unnecessary if they knew then what they know now (optimizing gain structure with a ‘scope). Some of it has been rendered sort of obsolete (AP membranes).

5. The use of a quality piece of measuring equipment, and having a knowledgeable guy tuning up your stuff. I have had the privilege of sitting in on Eric tuning several cars over the years using the (at the time) $50,000 B&K RTA and I will tell you this – if you were using an Audiocontrol, you were absolutely playing with a handicap. The resolution was so much better, and it was so much easier to make a change and see what you did….(technology has put this in the hands of DIY’s at a reasonable price these days). Eric is a fairly competent musician in his own right, and that really helps when you are trying to make small changes to get that last little bit out.

I consider Eric a close friend and, in turn, wouldn't consider my words speaking for him, but I suspect if you ask him he'll tell you so much.


----------



## lycan (Dec 20, 2009)

cvjoint said:


> I thought 250hz was the threshold more or less. How far down under 250hz can we distinguish left from right?


I think some tests have shown an ability for humans to L/R localize below 200Hz (but above 100Hz) ... but i don't remember the reference 

In any case, it's certainly by use of ITD's that we can localize down this low. _Outer ear_ shape, or even _head shape_, won't impact wavelengths this long ... only ITD between those holes on the sides of our heads.

So ... when we examine all those points in space that generate the same ITD's, we find the classic "cone of confusion" (a 2D slice of this cone creates a hyperbola ... we did the math in the "midbass arrays revisited" thread). The ear can't tell _where_ on the cone a source resides. *In many vehicles, for front seat listeners, the rear quarter panels will be on approximately the same cone-of-confusion as the front quarter panels*  (this is the basic answer to the OP's question).

Until you turn your head, of course ...


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

Carlton, it's winslow from Carsound...I was hoping you would find your way here eventually. Last time I saw Harry Kimura we talked about the SW and the RC versions of the GN...Harry had a lot of colorful things to say about RC's version...lol.

But I agree with everything you said about why that car worked and did what it did.

Hell I bought a set of JBL 2204s for my old Accord in hopes of putting them in...but never got it done having then a child on the way, and later selling the car for something a little more structurally sound after having little girl.

And I have talked to Eric Holdaway years back, and you are pretty much spot on from what I remember him saying.



CraigMBA said:


> It's worth pointing out that only happened after RC bought the GN from Speakerworks and made "changes". Some of the stuff RC claimed he did was sheer nonsense (for example, the huge horn drivers that Richard holding that was published were total ******** and NEVER installed, same for the 5" dash mid bass on the gate) and some of the changes made it worse (the addition of smaller Kenwood amplifiers because somebody paid RC to use them). There is an epic thread over on carsound about a decade ago where Eric hands RC his ass for outright lying about it. RC never did live that one down, and soon after disappeared.
> 
> Still, it's water under the bridge but there are still factors you can use today to make your car better.
> 
> ...


----------



## CraigMBA (Nov 19, 2010)

thehatedguy said:


> I was hoping you would find your way here eventually.


Thanks man. Nice to be here, looks like a nice place where you talk tech and also tell a guy to go pound sand if he’s off base. I think you’ll find me a little less abrasive than before (but just as direct).

Looks like I'm going to finally finish my install in January, built around a set of front mounted, infinite baffle JBL 2118s, and three state of the art Arc Audio 2500cxl’s I’ve been hoarding from 2001. Suffice to say when it comes to the subject, I'm walking the walk and talking the talk. If I could find a set of Electrovice OD-KDs I’d be all set.


----------



## TREETOP (Feb 11, 2009)

CraigMBA said:


> If I could find a set of Electrovice OD-KDs I’d be all set.


I sold a set of blown ones here quite a while ago, I have at least one more in the garage plus 2 good ones in a pair of EV Interface 2 series 2 cabinets in the closet. How bad do you want them?


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

You don't that in the Mustang?

Hell, where is that old cranky Cajun Markey at? He's around here too- "the real old guy"


----------



## Allan74 (Jun 17, 2010)

CraigMBA said:


> Some of it has been rendered sort of obsolete (AP membranes).


For the GN installation, what was the benefit of going with an AP membrane dampening setup vs either a straight IB or boxed design ?

As I am not aware, What was the 'Science' behind Aperiodic Membranes ?

Did it allow the retrofitting of an otherwise non applicable subwoofer (say, a sealed box or ported box woofer) into an environment for which it was not Spec'd for (like an IB application) ?

I hope this does not dilute the 'conversation' as it is most lilely a very simple concept to alot of you.
Allan


----------



## CraigMBA (Nov 19, 2010)

TREETOP said:


> I sold a set of blown ones here quite a while ago, I have at least one more in the garage plus 2 good ones in a pair of EV Interface 2 series 2 cabinets in the closet. How bad do you want them?


There was a time......not so much anymore.

I'm going to use these:

http://www.scan-speak.dk/datasheet/pdf/d3004-660000.pdf

And do a two way crossed over at 1200hz at 24db/octave.



thehatedguy said:


> You don't that in the Mustang?


Kind of already did. Haven't built the grills yet. Cars still in half a million pieces since I did the rotisserie resto on it (formerly a million pieces) but it is painted and I did drive it to the body shop. Most of the way.:surprised:


----------



## CraigMBA (Nov 19, 2010)

Allan74 said:


> For the GN installation, what was the benefit of going with an AP membrane dampening setup vs either a straight IB or boxed design ?


The GN initally had a sealed box - in it's first show. It finished second. The car didn't have enough SPL and the box was massive. I was a sophmore in high school when this happened and I've only seen photographic evidence that it existed. The next show they made the box small enough to get the spare back in, redid the trunk, and that was pretty much it as it never lost again till Clark screwed with it.



> As I am not aware, What was the 'Science' behind Aperiodic Membranes ?


It works in a similar fashion to a transmission line, where you can change the actuall Q of the woofer. Woofer selection was aneroxic thin back then, if you wanted good ones. There were whole stores built around selling systems made up of Electrovoice or G&S woofers (same stuff rebranded). No marketing, no schools, no internet, and a lot of guys building a lot of neat stuff. Good times.



> Did it allow the retrofitting of an otherwise non applicable subwoofer (say, a sealed box or ported box woofer) into an environment for which it was not Spec'd for (like an IB application) ?


Exactly. They needed the membrane for control of the woofer. It's still not a bad idea, but most of the woofers selected these days don't need the help. It was space efficent, and it fixed the primary problem of getting the woofer under control. 



> I hope this does not dilute the 'conversation' as it is most lilely a very simple concept to alot of you.
> Allan


 So long as you aren't trolling, I'm happy to oblige what I know.

Just be aware that what Eric acomplished with the membrane, velodyne and Linear was doing with thier servo subwoofers, and today I think you can get pretty good results with a 12v conversion/application of a BFD. Lots of ways to skin a cat with a couple of trade offs.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

lycan said:


> I think some tests have shown an ability for humans to L/R localize below 200Hz (but above 100Hz) ... but i don't remember the reference
> 
> In any case, it's certainly by use of ITD's that we can localize down this low. _Outer ear_ shape, or even _head shape_, won't impact wavelengths this long ... only ITD between those holes on the sides of our heads.
> 
> ...


Midbass arrays revisited is a fantastic thread. Lost many study hours over it...thanks...:mean:

Basically, a mono subwoofer setup could use a 100hz LP filter and not forgo any imaging goodies. From that up to 320hz (roughly) one should do a stereo setup with trick filtering. 

If one were to get perfect transient response a large sealed/IB setup would be a requirement. I'm not sure what this would entail for aperiodic but I bet the group delay is not perfected.


----------



## The Real Old Guy (Jan 4, 2009)

Hey Guys,

Yeah I'm around. I lerk more than post like on Carsound. I have more fun reading all the techno babble than commenting. Posting back and forth about .001% differences in speakers and such is like finger nails draging over a blackboard to me. If half of these posters would grow a set and actually try to compete in IASCA or MECA or USACi we old farts would have fun showing them how to do it still. But alas..........

Markey Dietrich

6 time World Champion

Competed in the '90's the '00's and now the '10s


----------

