# Subwoofer Crossover Frequency - Is a bit of localization really that bad?



## nrubenstein (Sep 4, 2008)

So, when I started falling down the hideous slippery slope that is car audio, I listened to the prevailing advice that was to cross the sub at 80Hz or lower. Because localization of the sub is a hideous thing and must be avoided at all costs.

Recently, though, I started experimenting with crossing the sub in the 125-150Hz range and I am so much happier with my systems, it's just not funny. Honestly, even at 80Hz, I could tell the sub was coming from the back, so running it higher doesn't really change that. What I have now, though, are front components that aren't nearly as stressed, a much smoother transition, and a more full sound.

Absolutely, if I were willing to hack up the cars in the ways necessary to install 8"+ mid basses, I'd love to run the sub lower. It would be *nice* if I couldn't localize the sub at all, but not at the cost of compromising everything else.

Am I alone in this boat? No question, it's a compromise, I just think that it's a better compromise for a lot of systems.


----------



## Lorin (May 5, 2011)

If you are happier from it, than run with it. That said, after recently shoe-horning some 8's into my doors I am very happy. Localization (or lack of) is a thing of the past, and I need not worry any more about running my 8's too low.


----------



## azngotskills (Feb 24, 2006)

just a question...have you switched the phase/polarity of the subwoofer? Where is the sound coming from now?


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

Glad to see more people on a *DIY* site experimenting. That should be the very essence of DIY, IMO.

Localization is an issue that can be fixed, (practically) independent of crossover point. I've written about this a bit in the past... my suggestions are to play with the subwoofer/woofer crossover point a bit more, and to make sure that you don't have excessive rattles coming from the back. azngotskills suggestion to mess with polarity is a good start too, and should be easy to try. You want the sub to blend with the woofer, and there are a variety of adjustments you can make to try to get that to happen.


----------



## nrubenstein (Sep 4, 2008)

Lorin said:


> If you are happier from it, than run with it. That said, after recently shoe-horning some 8's into my doors I am very happy. Localization (or lack of) is a thing of the past, and I need not worry any more about running my 8's too low.


There's no question that getting some real midbass up front would be better. It's just not a practical option - I'm not motivated enough to make custom door panels and/or redesign the window mechanism.


----------



## nrubenstein (Sep 4, 2008)

As for localization, I don't really think much is going to help the fact that I feel my back vibrating through the seat. One car has a slight rear deck rattle if the volume is too high (the standard fix is to shove a few tennis balls in, but I haven't been motivated to take it apart), and the other car has no rattles at all until hitting the kinds of volumes that you get with a 12" SA-12 sealed to the ski pass and ported through the rear deck. The IDQ12v3 in a small sealed box in the E46 is definitely cleaner, but doesn't have the, uh, delivery.

I have not messed with the phase of the sub - my understanding is that the MS-8 hates that.


----------



## Oliver (Jun 25, 2007)

It's all tradeoffs

are u happy ?

done deal

Think in octaves, ie.., 40 hZ - 80 hZ - 160 hZ - 320 hZ ...

The metal or enclosure or plastic vibrates as a sub plays.

In order for you to localize a subwoofer that only emitted low frequencies your head would need to be about 40' wide. (wink) !


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

nrubenstein said:


> As for localization, I don't really think much is going to help the fact that I feel my back vibrating through the seat.


Maybe. But tactile auditory steering is a relatively unimportant cue. I promise your problem is acoustic.

Let me put it a different way... If you were able to mount the subwoofer in your dashboard, do you think it would rattle your seat any less?


----------



## Bayboy (Dec 29, 2010)

Normally when I can localize subs is because they are not forming a seamless transition with the front stage and/or the front stage isn't strong enough regardless of crossover point. Simply turning the sub down can help a lot, but getting your front stage to present strong fundamentals makes a big difference. Lowering the sub's crossover point helps to take away impact, but again, only if your front stage can not match it. Basically everything is limited by the fronts!


----------



## Randyman... (Oct 7, 2012)

I'd gladly take a bit of localization from the subs if it means fat/strong midbass! I despise "thin" sounding playback systems ("thin" systems that still have ample sub-bass).

I often ran my W12GTi's up to 99Hz because my midbass response in that area was pretty weak. Made tighter-tuned kick-drums and lower-tuned snares "pop" nicely. But I'm progressing to 9" Morel Elates in properly treated/sealed doors VERY soon - the subs will likely roll back to 60-70Hz...


----------



## Spyke (Apr 20, 2012)

[email protected] here. I was thinking about this recently actually. I actually noticed the sub more back when I was trying to cross low(80 or below). My halfassed determination was that since the front 5.25's couldn't play 80hz, so there was a gap which was actually making the sub *more* localizable. And yeah, that midbass punch sure is sweet coming from a 12". 

Btw, I have an e36 and I pulled the rear speakers and enclosures in order to vent the bass into the cabin. Bmr's have very sound proofed truncks but i'm sure you already knew that. Anyway, it was a night and day difference(done about 3 years ago) The most noticeable was the upper bass improvement.


----------



## fischman (Jan 3, 2007)

Personal experience has proved level matching and removing rattles as the primary ways to minimize localization. I've even found a bit of overlap in the 80hz to 125hz range seems to help blend. If there is a sudden peak of loudness due to poor level matching between mids and sub it is far easier to tell that the direction the sound is coming from has shifted. 

Focus on taking your mids as low as they can go with out stressing, then match the level of your sub to them. I like a little overlap and using some EQ to balance it out myself. I also agree with playing with phase of all of your drivers to find the best combination to blend.


----------



## ZAKOH (Nov 26, 2010)

Randyman... said:


> I'd gladly take a bit of localization from the subs if it means fat/strong midbass! I despise "thin" sounding playback systems ("thin" systems that still have ample sub-bass).


Fat/strong midbass can get tiring/fatiguing though. This becomes apparent with some misbehaving records where for example the kick drum sound is so strong, you have to turn down subwoofer level. I am finding that with LP at 60-70Hz this is less of an issue, while midbass is not always "thick" and loud, there is also less need to keep adjusting the subwoofer volume level for different album.


----------



## glastron (Jan 18, 2009)

I've got my 13w6 at 125 and my mids playing down to 80 and with a fair bit of tweaking the time alignment I can barely tell that the sub is in the back. I never thought it would work until it did lol


----------



## Spyke (Apr 20, 2012)

ZAKOH said:


> Fat/strong midbass can get tiring/fatiguing though. This becomes apparent with some misbehaving records where for example the kick drum sound is so strong, you have to turn down subwoofer level. I am finding that with LP at 60-70Hz this is less of an issue, while midbass is not always "thick" and loud, there is also less need to keep adjusting the subwoofer volume level for different album.


There's a lot of factors when considering xo freq. Sub position is *not* one of them. The xo between 8" mids and a sub is going to be different than between 5" mids and a sub. But both can sound equally good and be equally up front. You *need* to consider what* your *particular midbass drivers are capable of. 6.5's can not be crossed at 60hz and I don't care what kind, power handling, xmax, or anything else. They *will not* produce 60hz with the authority that a good sub will. As far as having to adjust you sub level. This tells me that the levels are prob off a little. 

Some people like to cross the sub low and then use the sub level as a bass boost. I know, I used to do it. What i've decided is that a high xo point can only be used if you are willing to eq the sub. In other words. You could cross the sub at 200hz and still have the level matched to the front stage. Problem is, that a sub is more efficient the higher it is crossed and therefore needs to be turned down much more in order to mesh with the 6.5's. That's why you *need* to boost the lowest freq in order for a high xo point to work. This isn't all directed at you, I just got carried away.


----------



## Wesayso (Jul 20, 2010)

Spyke said:


> 6.5's can not be crossed at 60hz and I don't care what kind, power handling, xmax, or anything else. They *will not* produce 60hz with the authority that a good sub will. As far as having to adjust you sub level. This tells me that the levels are prob off a little.


But 6.5" do not have to be loud to help keep the sound comming from the front. If they blend well enough it should work.
Rattles are the biggest issue. I have an upfront sub (so it always sounds like comming from the front) but when I had rattles and resonances it sounded like it was in the dash, not in front of the dash as it actually was. Once I isolated the sub box from the car i got way more depth in my drum sounds.
I cannot hear where my sub ends and the 6.5" in the door begin. I used to have the sub playing up to 80 Hz, 125 Hz even and liked it because of the big slams on drums. But after fixing resonance and rattles i prefer it playing to 60 Hz/12 db and the 6.5's down to 80 Hz/12 db. End result is a life drum sound, but a bit less kick in the chest. While that kick was fun it got a bit tyring after a few days.
I spend quite some time on time alignment to get that seamless sound.

So for SQ, I would say localization is a bad thing. For pure fun while listening to music it doesn't have to be. It's a different goal I guess. But a bit of both (the fun part and the good stage) has my preference and that means getting rid of all rattles and resonances that you can.
By the way, I feel my seat back moving too, no sub from behind though...

Edit: Think of it this way... your MS8 cannot time align and EQ your sub alone if there are rattles and resonances. Get rid of those and it can do the job it was designed to do. I bet you don't even have to loose impact. The only reason I have my sub set lower than before is not beeing able to stop the resonances it produces at higher crossover settings. There are a lot of things that can resonate or rattle in a dash, I think you should have way more luck getting the trunk to stop rattling or vibrating. Even a bit of stuffing material (fibreglass) in my sealed box helped with that.


----------



## Hanatsu (Nov 9, 2010)

Not sure anyone has mentioned it. The real crossover may not be the set frequency, it's dependant on the level and crossover slope as well. The real crossover point will occur where the midbass drivers and subs meet, if sub level is too high, the crossover point will be higher. Used crossovers around 100Hz/12-24dB without issues. Be aware that staging will be affected at some point if you go too high.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy 3 via Tapatalk.


----------



## Spyke (Apr 20, 2012)

The main point is this. You can not cross high and crank the sub up. If your sub is 12db higher at 125hz than your mids it's gonna sound bad regardless of anything. I think that's why you hear so many people complaining about localization with a high xo. Xo freq has nothing to do with localization, it's *how* it's applied. Bottom line, If you cross high your gonna have to match levels and boost below 50hz.(in general)


----------



## avanti1960 (Sep 24, 2011)

as others have said- if you are happy then go with it. however- do you know if you are satisfied? what have you compared it to? 
i have also gone down the road of asking subs to compensate for lacking midbass (which is really a crutch and a compromise). i was never satisfied with the sound quality and did not even get a chance to evaluate localization issues. for me i could never dial in a decent crossover or slope for any subwoofer i had- sealed or ported, 8", 10" or 12". the sound was constantly smeared with a wash of bass and was a detriment to clarity to the point where i would rather live with thinner mid-bass. it also seemed to adversely affect low end output and vice versa. 

one of these days i would like build a proper pair of seperately enclosed 8" drivers and place them in the rear cargo area, opposite corners. I envision them playing 63 to 150 Hz or so- the tight impact range well suited to the diameter of the driver.
i imagine this would sound so awesome and "correct" like a great home system, that localization could be overlooked. although a little bit of T/A may make it a bomb of a system.


----------



## Brian Steele (Jun 1, 2007)

Hanatsu said:


> Not sure anyone has mentioned it. The real crossover may not be the set frequency, it's dependant on the level and crossover slope as well. The real crossover point will occur where the midbass drivers and subs meet, if sub level is too high, the crossover point will be higher. Used crossovers around 100Hz/12-24dB without issues. Be aware that staging will be affected at some point if you go too high.
> 
> Sent from my Samsung Galaxy 3 via Tapatalk.


Good point. Don't forget that most subwoofer amps have their own built-in LP filter as well, so your subwoofer sees is going to be affected by both the filtering at the deck or processor and the subwoofer amp's filter.

Right now I'm using staggered filters on both my mains and the subs. It keeps the distortion down.


----------



## Brian Steele (Jun 1, 2007)

Spyke said:


> 6.5's can not be crossed at 60hz and I don't care what kind, power handling, xmax, or anything else. They *will not* produce 60hz with the authority that a good sub will.


Agreed. I have mine filtered with staggered filters, at 80 Hz 12dB/octave, and again at 40 Hz 12dB/octave. And these are pretty capable drivers. 

Another thing that should be mentioned too is that quite a few subwoofer drivers tend to have rising distortion above 80 Hz or so. And a badly-built (e.g. unbraced) subwoofer box will make that distortion characteristic even worse. 

A free tool like HolmImpulse can be used to measure the distortion characteristics of your car audio system.


----------



## Spyke (Apr 20, 2012)

avanti1960 said:


> i have also gone down the road of asking subs to compensate for lacking midbass (which is really a crutch and a compromise). i was never satisfied with the sound quality and did not even get a chance to evaluate localization issues. for me i could never dial in a decent crossover or slope for any subwoofer i had- sealed or ported, 8", 10" or 12". *the sound was constantly smeared with a wash of bass and was a detriment to clarity to the point where i would rather live with thinner mid-bass. * it also seemed to adversely affect low end output and vice versa.


Here's my point again. It's *not* a black and white issue. If there is too much bass around 80-150, *you have the sub level too high.*. You *need* to turn it down and compensate for the resulting missing lowend by means of eq.


----------



## Bayboy (Dec 29, 2010)

After reading a few threads suggesting to use a higher crossover frequency between mid woofers and subs I set off to give it a try and came up with surprising results. Like some stated, running the mids below 80-100hz was really of no advantage (at least to me). No matter what drivers I tried (high & low Qts & Fs), there just wasn't enough clean output from them IB in the doors although some of the best performing down low was surprisingly the Jamo clearance drivers Zaph tested. 


With me, there's a fine line between getting enough output from the fronts to have the sub disappear vs not having enough and trying to make up with the sub. What's even funnier is the best result I've had is in my work truck with a set of 5.25" comps and a single 10". Only problem with that one is the comps are not rated to handle much power (45 rms). Makes me think that using bigger mid woofer isn't exactly the absolute answer and perhaps there's another factor that's important. 


With that being said, how many have used a pro audio midwoofer crossed fairly high (100-120hz) and what were the results?


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

I'm not using pro drivers but my mids are high-passed at 120Hz / 6dB with the sub at 80Hz / 12dB. It works great and tames the MASSIVE bump in that area I have.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

ZAKOH said:


> Fat/strong midbass can get tiring/fatiguing though. This becomes apparent with some misbehaving records where for example the kick drum sound is so strong, you have to turn down subwoofer level. I am finding that with LP at 60-70Hz this is less of an issue, while midbass is not always "thick" and loud, there is also less need to keep adjusting the subwoofer volume level for different album.


This is why remote bass knobs that control level of boost are very useful.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

avanti1960 said:


> as others have said- if you are happy then go with it. however- do you know if you are satisfied? what have you compared it to?
> i have also gone down the road of asking subs to compensate for lacking midbass (which is really a crutch and a compromise). i was never satisfied with the sound quality and did not even get a chance to evaluate localization issues. for me i could never dial in a decent crossover or slope for any subwoofer i had- sealed or ported, 8", 10" or 12". the sound was constantly smeared with a wash of bass and was a detriment to clarity to the point where i would rather live with thinner mid-bass. it also seemed to adversely affect low end output and vice versa.
> 
> one of these days i would like build a proper pair of seperately enclosed 8" drivers and place them in the rear cargo area, opposite corners. I envision them playing 63 to 150 Hz or so- the tight impact range well suited to the diameter of the driver.
> i imagine this would sound so awesome and "correct" like a great home system, that localization could be overlooked. although a little bit of T/A may make it a bomb of a system.


 I've never heard of a 12" driver unable to reproduce 150Hz. It's done all the time in home audio.


----------



## Bayboy (Dec 29, 2010)

That makes sense. The Ranger is so easy to tune it's ridiculous compared to the S10 Blazer 4 door. Now that's been an ongoing project.


----------



## The Baron Groog (Mar 15, 2010)

nrubenstein said:


> As for localization, I don't really think much is going to help the fact that I feel my back vibrating through the seat.


My sub is in the front passenger foot well and my seat back still vibrates...never fathomed why anyone would think it wouldn't.

Fwit mine is crossed @ 50, mids at 100 I forget the slopes, blend seamlessly


----------



## Spyke (Apr 20, 2012)

MarkZ said:


> This is why remote bass knobs that control level of boost are very useful.


Agreed. He shouldn't be adjusting the overall level for different songs. Well, shouldn't have to anyway.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

cajunner said:


> A big SUV with the sub out back, is going to rumble but that transfer function is now quite low, and anything you do to get some midbass out of that sub is going to have harmonics tell where it is located.


Harmonics?


----------



## Bayboy (Dec 29, 2010)

Spyke said:


> Agreed. He shouldn't be adjusting the overall level for different songs. Well, shouldn't have to anyway.




Are you alluding to bass boost (specific frequency) remotes are better than bass level remotes?


----------



## Spyke (Apr 20, 2012)

Bayboy said:


> Are you alluding to bass boost (specific frequency) remotes are better than bass level remotes?


Yes indeed. Why would you need to adjust the overall level of a driver if the levels are correct to start with? I don't turn my tweeter level up if I need a little boost at 12k do I? There's nothing wrong with using eq, but when you call it bass boost everyone has a conniption fit.


----------



## Bayboy (Dec 29, 2010)

Gotcha.... just wanted some clarification on that as there's quite a bit of amps that actually control level rather than actual frequency cut/boost. But yes that is true. I make more adjustments to EQ than level. It also depends on material listened to. Still, even on the 80prs it is a hassle at times. 

I would imagine if you had one that controlled level only and you wanted to be anal about an appropriate adjustment, you could always add a separate bass processor that does that. I honestly don't remember too many amps that utilize frequency boost on the remote. Now I'm going to have to do a search.


----------



## Spyke (Apr 20, 2012)

Bayboy said:


> I would imagine if you had one that controlled level only and you wanted to be anal about an appropriate adjustment, you could always add a separate bass processor that does that. *I honestly don't remember too many amps that utilize frequency boost on the remote. Now I'm going to have to do a search.*


Hmm. I always though this was the other way around. I always looked at remote level control as being odd. I mean, 99% of hu's have a sub level control, why put one on the amp?


----------



## Bayboy (Dec 29, 2010)

Yes that is redundant. That's why I'm going to do a search for amps that actually adjust frequency instead of level on the remote. I've seen a few, but just curious.


----------



## Oliver (Jun 25, 2007)

Bayboy said:


> Gotcha.... just wanted some clarification on that as there's quite a bit of amps that actually control level rather than actual frequency cut/boost. But yes that is true. I make more adjustments to EQ than level. It also depends on material listened to. Still, even on the 80prs it is a hassle at times.
> 
> I would imagine if you had one that controlled level only and you wanted to be anal about an appropriate adjustment, you could always add a separate bass processor that does that. I honestly don't remember too many amps that utilize frequency boost on the remote. Now I'm going to have to do a search.


The remote sub level is controlling the gain,[ there's quite a bit of amps that actually control level ], where as some amps have a switch on em that will increase the output at a set level,[ drive the amplifier harder, distort the sound, but at a frequency where 10%-15% distortion is acceptable].


----------



## Spyke (Apr 20, 2012)

Oliver said:


> *The remote sub level is controlling the gain,*[ there's quite a bit of amps that actually control level ], where as some amps have a switch on em that will increase the output at a set level,[ drive the amplifier harder, distort the sound, but at a frequency where 10%-15% distortion is acceptable].


Idk...I would be surprised if the level control actually controlled the *gain*. I could see it being a level control for the output side but not as a sensitivity adjustment for the input side. I would think that the gain setting on the amp would be the overall limiting factor. In other words, If the gain is half way then the level control would not be able to exceed that. 100% on the knob would only be equal to half gain.


----------



## Oliver (Jun 25, 2007)

Musically speaking, I prefer to control the x-over and slope at the HU.

I never use the bass boost button on an amplifier [NO NO].

If I feel like listening to some Reggae, I increase the x-over to 125 hZ, this gives a "full body massage"


----------



## Bayboy (Dec 29, 2010)

Spyke said:


> Idk...I would be surprised if the level control actually controlled the *gain*. I could see it being a level control for the output side but not as a sensitivity adjustment for the input side. I would think that the gain setting on the amp would be the overall limiting factor. In other words, If the gain is half way then the level control would not be able to exceed that. 100% on the knob would only be equal to half gain.


That is exactly how I understood it to work. Basically a gain limiter. It would be easy for it to be abused if one didn't account for source material when setting the amplifier in a system that lacked a viable EQ.


----------



## Mixman (Aug 11, 2009)

Spyke said:


> Hmm. I always though this was the other way around. I always looked at remote level control as being odd. I mean, 99% of hu's have a sub level control, why put one on the amp?


Maybe because increasingly in car audio, more of us are using the factory unit and only adding a loc and a sub amp. My basic system in my car sounds good and I only needed to add a sub and an amp. I wouldn't buy an amp that didn't have a level control.


----------



## hottcakes (Jul 14, 2010)

i've recently jacked mine all up messing around and yields for-the-moment-decent results. 

31.5hz @18db LPF from the HU which also has 60hz cut at 10dbs with a Q of 5, to an external EQ for the subs with 60hz cut another 12db, and a boost to 125hz and 250hz a bit. 

i suck at this game...


----------



## Bayboy (Dec 29, 2010)

After a quick search I've found as I thought.... not too many actually have a remote adjustment that does an actual frequency boost. Those that did only boosted, but didn't seem to cut which is sort of asinine. The last amplifier I admired for it's adjustment although it didn't have a remote was an old Cadence (forget the series) that you could actually cut/boost. I sure there were a few others, but still rare. Why this didn't carry over to remotes I have no clue. Most are simply a level/gain control.


----------



## lucky (Sep 25, 2009)

azngotskills said:


> just a question...have you switched the phase/polarity of the subwoofer? Where is the sound coming from now?


This makes a pronounced difference in my setup. Keeping all settings the same, sub crossed at 63hz/24db, flipping the polarity from 180 to 0 puts the bass in my head.


----------



## Spyke (Apr 20, 2012)

lucky said:


> This makes a pronounced difference in my setup. Keeping all settings the same, sub crossed at 63hz/24db, flipping the polarity from 180 to 0 puts the bass in my head.


Usually, whatever is loudest at the xo freq is correct. Well, loudest and most coherent really.


----------



## Spyke (Apr 20, 2012)

hottcakes said:


> i've recently jacked mine all up messing around and yields for-the-moment-decent results.
> 
> 31.5hz @18db LPF from the HU which also has 60hz cut at 10dbs with a Q of 5, to an external EQ for the subs with 60hz cut another 12db, and a boost to 125hz and 250hz a bit.
> 
> i suck at this game...


Wow, that is jacked up. My suggestion would be to disconnect your cars battery and start over. [email protected] is insane unless you have 12" midbasses. It sounds like you were having problems with sub/mid integration and solved the problem by completely separating the two. Start a new thread if you need help.


----------



## Oliver (Jun 25, 2007)

Spyke said:


> Idk...I would be surprised if the level control actually controlled the *gain*. I could see it being a level control for the output side but not as a sensitivity adjustment for the input side. I would think that the gain setting on the amp would be the overall limiting factor. In other words, If the gain is half way then the level control would not be able to exceed that. 100% on the knob would only be equal to half gain.





Bayboy said:


> After a quick search I've found as I thought.... not too many actually have a remote adjustment that does an actual frequency boost. Those that did only boosted, but didn't seem to cut which is sort of asinine. The last amplifier I admired for it's adjustment although it didn't have a remote was an old Cadence (forget the series) that you could actually cut/boost. I sure there were a few others, but still rare. Why this didn't carry over to remotes I have no clue.* Most are simply a level/gain control*.


You found exactly what I did Bayboy !

Ask Spyke about all of the amps he's using though


----------



## Spyke (Apr 20, 2012)

Bayboy said:


> After a quick search I've found as I thought.... not too many actually have a remote adjustment that does an actual frequency boost. Those that did only boosted, but didn't seem to cut which is sort of asinine. The last amplifier I admired for it's adjustment although it didn't have a remote was an old Cadence (forget the series) that you could actually cut/boost. I sure there were a few others, but still rare. Why this didn't carry over to remotes I have no clue. Most are simply a level/gain control.


Interesting, I must be behind the times. I know rockford still uses bass knobs. Maybe a lot of manufacturers were getting too many people cranking the bass boost and frying the amp or sub.


----------



## Spyke (Apr 20, 2012)

Oliver said:


> You found exactly what I did Bayboy !
> 
> *Ask Spyke about all of the amps he's using though *


What does that have to do with anything?


----------



## avanti1960 (Sep 24, 2011)

MarkZ said:


> I've never heard of a 12" driver unable to reproduce 150Hz. It's done all the time in home audio.


I meant the warm rich sound of midbass that a properly enclosed smaller driver (e.g. a home audio loudspeaker) can reproduce. 

Reproducing midbass in car doors is an ongoing struggle frought with compromises. 

my idea involved placing (2) enclosed 8" midbass woofers in the rear cargo area of my small SUV. The proper modeled, sized, rigid, sealed enclosure would avoid all the compromises of installing midbass drivers in car doors. 

the only issue would be localization- i would have to put them just behind the rear seats. so in my rear cargo area i would have left and right 8" midbass drivers and the 12" sub. 

my thoughts on crossovers would be 20-63, subwoofer, 63 to 150, 8" midbass, 150 and up, front door components. i would cut them at 150 to help minimze the localazitaion of the rear placement with respect to the front door component stage.


----------



## avanti1960 (Sep 24, 2011)

Spyke said:


> Here's my point again. It's *not* a black and white issue. If there is too much bass around 80-150, *you have the sub level too high.*. You *need* to turn it down and compensate for the resulting missing lowend by means of eq.


yes but sub level isn't a black and white issue either. when you cut the sub level to reduce the midbass content you also reduce the valuable sub-bass content of which most people like to keep at a higher level. so your compromise of compensating for lack of midbass now brings EQ, sound quality, localization as well as level adjusting issues to manage.


----------



## Bayboy (Dec 29, 2010)

That will always be an ongoing problem especially when you listen to widely variable sources/genres. Ask me how I know. 

It becomes apparent that the use of customizable EQ presets plus the use of remote bass gain is needed. To find an all in one solution would be next to impossible I imagine unless...... unless.... no one is ready to hear this are they??? :laugh: Look at a product like this where most will turn their nose up:

http://www.sonicelectronix.com/item_43750_Lanzar-OPTIX3B.html?gclid=CJH419K2n7QCFQf0nAodER0APA

Picture 7 of 9 for Lanzar OPTIX3B

Cons: boost frequency is preset at the unit itself

Pros: boost frequency is variable so if one was able to cut the exact frequency in the HU EQ that is most adjusted during the final tuning, then match that on the xover unit, essentially you would have cut/boost/sub level.

Sometimes we have to take our head out of the clouds for a bit to see other options.  

The closest thing I've seen on common amps that match this is Hawkins, but it presents a problem within itself as it also controls the subsonic filter and does not have level control IIRC. If they made it to where the SSF was separate and added level control you may have a winner.


----------



## Bayboy (Dec 29, 2010)

Personally I thought Airbass was sort of redundant except for not having to run the cable. It is still just a level adjuster.


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

I think installing larger midbasses was a game changer for me. I found that even if I overlap and have the subs playing to say 80hz and the midbass from 60hz there is less localization. Having a strong midbass definitely helps with localization. I was running just the subs last night and realized the car has all kinds of rattles at different sub frequencies. At one frequency there might be a rattle on the back. At another its the overhead console. At another its the drivers vent. This can't help with staging. The subs will even light up the drivers side door card.


----------



## Spyke (Apr 20, 2012)

avanti1960 said:


> yes but sub level isn't a black and white issue either. * when you cut the sub level to reduce the midbass content you also reduce the valuable sub-bass content of which most people like to keep at a higher level. * so your compromise of compensating for lack of midbass now brings EQ, sound quality, localization as well as level adjusting issues to manage.


Yes I agree, and that is entirely my point. That's why we need to compensate by using peq or the dreaded bass boost. Bass boost is just a 1 band peq, so whats the problem with it. I know it increases distortion but I like a little distortion in my bass anyway. Not audible obviously.


----------



## Spyke (Apr 20, 2012)

Bayboy said:


> After a quick search I've found as I thought.... not too many actually have a remote adjustment that does an actual frequency boost. Those that did only boosted, but didn't seem to cut which is sort of asinine. The last amplifier I admired for it's adjustment although it didn't have a remote was an old Cadence (forget the series) that you could actually cut/boost. I sure there were a few others, but still rare. Why this didn't carry over to remotes I have no clue. Most are simply a level/gain control.


Why is not having a remote bass cut asinine? I have never once thought about cutting the 40-50hz range.


----------



## Spyke (Apr 20, 2012)

BuickGN said:


> I think installing larger midbasses was a game changer for me. I found that even if I overlap and have the subs playing to say 80hz and the midbass from 60hz there is less localization. Having a strong midbass definitely helps with localization. I was running just the subs last night and realized the car has all kinds of rattles at different sub frequencies. At one frequency there might be a rattle on the back. At another its the overhead console. At another its the drivers vent. This can't help with staging. The subs will even light up the drivers side door card.


I've thought about that before. True, with the mids and highs turned off I discover a few rattles but I never notice them under normal conditions so I don't worry about them.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

avanti1960 said:


> yes but sub level isn't a black and white issue either. when you cut the sub level to reduce the midbass content you also reduce the valuable sub-bass content of which most people like to keep at a higher level. so your compromise of compensating for lack of midbass now brings EQ, sound quality, localization as well as level adjusting issues to manage.


This is exactly right, and I think it's the biggest reason people shy away from high crossover points. As the other guys are saying, having control of bass is _different_ from having control of subwoofer level. As soon as people begin to recognize the difference, they'll have better success with high crossover points.

I always try to point out two features when people are considering high crossover points:

1) _Do not under any circumstances_ tune your subwoofer level to the desired amount of bass. I know this seems counterintuitive, but the goal of your first-pass tuning should be to have a smooth and seamless response between drivers, which means your primary goal should be to get the woofer and subwoofer to blend. Later, you can dial in the amount of low bass that you want, using EQ/bass boost/whatever.

2) The vast majority of large subwoofers are perfectly capable of reproducing high frequencies. e.g. My 15" sub plays flat and distortion-free up to about 350Hz, according to the Klippel. Provided you have the processing to deal with how your car ****s you in the ass at the lower part of the spectrum, your crossover point should be mostly dictated by the power response of your drivers and your need/desire for low frequency stereo. Front/rear ambiguity is fairly prominent at these frequencies, so if localization is a major issue, then I'd suggest that either motion parallax (localization from head movement) is a strong cue for you, or you didn't follow rule #1.


----------



## Bayboy (Dec 29, 2010)

Spyke said:


> Why is not having a remote bass cut asinine? I have never once thought about cutting the 40-50hz range.



There's a lot that could be said about that, but first I will start with the simplest of it all: Genre & the way the recording was engineered.

If you listen to much various music as I do, then you will see the need to sometimes cut in that same range you you mostly have trouble with. For me it is 50-60hz. Sometimes you need to put it back to flat, other times it needs a slight boost. Running an 80prs, I'm not too crazy about constantly adjusting the EQ as it is only the sub that needs adjusting, but because each channel does not have it's own EQ then that sort of presents a problem with how my midwoofers are playing (crossed @ 80hz 12db slope).

When I had a DQX I was constantly adjusting the 50 & 63hz band with the deepest cut on 63hz. Still the mids suffered a tad so it was always a compromise.

The best solution I could have used although expensive was having a separate EQ for each like the DQS or DQXS. The next best is having something like the Lanzar xover I linked earlier. I actually have the Optix-2B, but have yet to put it in. I have some other stuff to do first.


----------



## Hanatsu (Nov 9, 2010)

Bayboy said:


> That will always be an ongoing problem especially when you listen to widely variable sources/genres. Ask me how I know.


A well tuned system will reproduce different genres of music equally good.



> I think installing larger midbasses was a game changer for me. I found that even if I overlap and have the subs playing to say 80hz and the midbass from 60hz there is less localization. Having a strong midbass definitely helps with localization. I was running just the subs last night and realized the car has all kinds of rattles at different sub frequencies. At one frequency there might be a rattle on the back. At another its the overhead console. At another its the drivers vent. This can't help with staging. The subs will even light up the drivers side door card.


The bigger midbass driver you can fit the better it is, well at least in a 3-way front where we don't have to worry about the upper end. I'm happy with my 8" drivers crossed at 70Hz atm. Good staging and excursion is not limited even at high volumes. I think there's less vibrations/rattles with larger drivers and less excursion than high excursion smaller drivers, perhaps because of less moving mass. 



> Reproducing midbass in car doors is an ongoing struggle frought with compromises.


This is the most common way to do it. In many setups this is still the best alternative. I have no issue with midbass drivers in my doors, almost no vibrations and very good output. If you cross your driver higher than 200Hz there will be issues with staging if you put midbass drivers below the seats or behind you. If not vented kick/floor mounting is an option, I still think door installs is the best alternative.



> yes but sub level isn't a black and white issue either. when you cut the sub level to reduce the midbass content you also reduce the valuable sub-bass content of which most people like to keep at a higher level. *so your compromise of compensating for lack of midbass now brings EQ, sound quality, localization as well as level adjusting issues to manage.*


Imo, 20-80Hz shouldn't be more than 10dB above 160-200Hz+. 

I don't understand what you're getting at. EQ and level adjusting is bad for overall sound quality? EQ and level adjusting needs to be performed in any system. Run the subs as high as possible as long staging doesn't suffer.


----------



## Bayboy (Dec 29, 2010)

Hanatsu said:


> A well tuned system will reproduce different genres of music equally good.



Reproduction and how you like it is quite different. If a particular song is either too bass heavy or thin, I don't know of anyone that would not adjust. Let's keep this honest.


----------



## Hanatsu (Nov 9, 2010)

MarkZ said:


> Do not under any circumstances tune your subwoofer level to the desired amount of bass. I know this seems counterintuitive, but the goal of your first-pass tuning should be to have a smooth and seamless response between drivers, *which means your primary goal should be to get the woofer and subwoofer to blend*. Later, you can dial in the amount of low bass that you want, using EQ/bass boost/whatever.


Very true.


----------



## Bayboy (Dec 29, 2010)

Hanatsu said:


> Very true.



Just contradicted yourself???


----------



## Hanatsu (Nov 9, 2010)

Bayboy said:


> Reproduction and how you like it is quite different. *If a particular song is either too bass heavy or thin*, I don't know of anyone that would not adjust. Let's keep this honest.


Which practically covers the lowest two octaves...

Having the ability to lower/boost bass is of course a nice feature, but the rest of the reproduction range (the major part, 100-20000Hz) shouldn't have to be altered because of different music genres, which was my point.


----------



## Hanatsu (Nov 9, 2010)

Bayboy said:


> Just contradicted yourself???


I didn't?


----------



## Spyke (Apr 20, 2012)

Bayboy said:


> There's a lot that could be said about that, but first I will start with the simplest of it all: Genre & the way the recording was engineered.
> 
> If you listen to much various music as I do, then you will see the need to sometimes cut in that same range you you mostly have trouble with. For me it is 50-60hz. Sometimes you need to put it back to flat, other times it needs a slight boost. Running an 80prs, I'm not too crazy about constantly adjusting the EQ as it is only the sub that needs adjusting, but because each channel does not have it's own EQ then that sort of presents a problem with how my midwoofers are playing (crossed @ 80hz 12db slope).
> 
> ...


Well assuming you were using a sealed sub, you were kind of doing a reverse bass boost. Since your sub was prob more efficient at 50-80 you were cutting that range to flatten your response. You could have also turned up 30-50 and gotten similar results. The point of bass boost, if used correctly, is to compensate for the subs rolloff. Honestly you would have prob been happier using a bass boost knob as opposed to constantly messing with your eq. Would have been easier anyway.


----------



## Bayboy (Dec 29, 2010)

Hanatsu said:


> Which practically covers the lowest two octaves...
> 
> Having the ability to lower/boost bass is of course a nice feature, but the rest of the reproduction range (the major part, 100-20000Hz) shouldn't have to be altered because of different music genres, which was my point.



I don't see where that was brought out about adjusting above 100hz. All that has been mentioned that I am aware of is cutting/boosting 60hz and below.


----------



## Bayboy (Dec 29, 2010)

Spyke said:


> Well assuming you were using a sealed sub, you were kind of doing a reverse bass boost. Since your sub was prob more efficient at 50-80 you were cutting that range to flatten your response. You could have also turned up 30-50 and gotten similar results. The point of bass boost, if used correctly, is to compensate for the subs rolloff. Honestly you would have prob been happier using a bass boost knob as opposed to constantly messing with your eq. Would have been easier anyway.




Using a RTA, the system was set, but a lot of later cuts were dependent upon what I was listening to and how I WANTED it to sound. In the blazer 60hz is the most offensive even when running a 12" sub that extended down into the mid 40. Rather than stress the amp by raising 31hz, it was much easier to cut 60hz as the music was already bass heavy as it was with plenty of output down at the lowest end. Stuff like DJ Debonnaire, Billy E, etc... I could put in stuff like Steely Dan and put 50-60 back to flat and play fine with good depth into low guitar strings.


----------



## Oliver (Jun 25, 2007)

BuickGN said:


> I think *installing larger midbasses* was a game changer for me. I found that even if I overlap and have the subs playing to say 80hz and the midbass from 60hz there is less localization. Having a strong midbass definitely helps with localization.


*In a nutshell *


----------



## Oliver (Jun 25, 2007)

Bayboy said:


> I could put in stuff like Steely Dan and put 50-60 back to flat and play fine with good depth into low guitar strings.


Pink Floyd, The Eagles, Steely Dan, etc..,

Really well recorded music with "Dynamics - highs and lows" sounds great !

Toto is very well recorded


----------



## Bayboy (Dec 29, 2010)

Oliver said:


> Pink Floyd, The Eagles, Steely Dan, etc..,
> 
> Really well recorded music with "Dynamics - highs and lows" sounds great !
> 
> Toto is very well recorded



Exactly! I rather not boost if I don't have to on music like that as there's several other genres that played well with the same settings. Then depending on some recordings, a slight boost around 50hz was needed in order to sound full. The way I have it set, only EQ adjustments were needed whether it was boosts/flat/cuts from 60hz and down. 120hz and up rarely gets touched unless to reduce or create shimmer.

That's what a EQ was for I thought...


----------



## Oliver (Jun 25, 2007)

I'm with you, Bayboy !

Thank GOD , no one has to be tortured by the crappy way you and I listen to music, with our tin ears...

Ha Ha Ha


----------



## Bayboy (Dec 29, 2010)

Well, just being open minded about it. I mean let's put something in perspective here. How many here are running an MS-8? What does it do? It uses many EQ's (amongst other things) per speaker to compensate for the environment right? In the end, what are you left with and what for?


----------



## Spyke (Apr 20, 2012)

Oliver said:


> I'm with you, Bayboy !
> 
> Thank GOD , no one has to be tortured by the crappy way you and I listen to music, with our tin ears...
> 
> Ha Ha Ha


Jeez, you want to get a room with him?


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

Oliver said:


> Pink Floyd, The Eagles, Steely Dan, etc..,
> 
> Really well recorded music with "Dynamics - highs and lows" sounds great !
> 
> Toto is very well recorded



What about stuff that's harder to get to sound good than those?

I remember back in the day when I sold **** I used to use the Eagles and Steely Dan to sell $199 Aiwa mini-systems. You could get practically anything to sound good with the right choice in music. There's other stuff (that's also well recorded...) that can really reveal some problems. I wouldn't play those. 

Since we're talking about bass in this thread, The Eagles and Steely Dan would _not_ be the benchmark for me. :/


----------



## Spyke (Apr 20, 2012)

Bayboy said:


> Well, just being open minded about it. I mean let's put something in perspective here. How many here are running an MS-8? What does it do? It uses many EQ's (amongst other things) per speaker to compensate for the environment right? In the end, what are you left with and what for?


Right. So it really doesn't make a difference whether we boost or cut. Look at it this way, If a sub is playing from 20-60. Does it really matter if we boost the 20-40 or cut 40-60? Nope, because the overall volume that will be the end result is going to negate any savings or loss from the cut or boost. Just a different way to achieve the same result.


----------



## Spyke (Apr 20, 2012)

MarkZ said:


> What about stuff that's harder to get to sound good than those?
> 
> I remember back in the day when I sold **** I used to use the Eagles and Steely Dan to sell $199 Aiwa mini-systems. You could get practically anything to sound good with the right choice in music. There's other stuff (that's also well recorded...) that can really reveal some problems. I wouldn't play those.
> 
> Since we're talking about bass in this thread, The Eagles and Steely Dan would _not_ be the benchmark for me. :/


I've always wondered about that. I mean, you could get a pair of travel speakers to sound awesome with a "sample" cd.


----------



## Bayboy (Dec 29, 2010)

Spyke said:


> Right. So it really doesn't make a difference whether we boost or cut. Look at it this way, If a sub is playing from 20-60. Does it really matter if we boost the 20-40 or cut 40-60? Nope, because the overall volume that will be the end result is going to negate any savings or loss from the cut or boost. Just a different way to achieve the same result.




Either way that rolls back to source material and being able to properly adjust whether it is too heavy or too thin that causes localization problems. I can play Bass 305 and almost leave the EQ flat and the door mids lead the pace while the system still has ample bass. Put on some Debonnaire, and 31hz has to come down because now overall recording level is low, but way too much extreme low end (lots of sub flutter). Put in some Billy E, then 60hz has to come down while leaving 31 alone as 31hz it is already strong, but the song has boomy 60hz peaks that will sound like crap if not compensated for. All in the same genre, but recorded different. Put in a different genre like Dzihan & Kamien, then there's another story that may need completely different adjustments 

This is all of course while leaving sub level alone which is what was brought out earlier, but isn't absolute. Again, there is no easy set rule as it is being made out to be since part of reference is the listener's ears. It's what's going to work for him. The most you can have is some sort of flexibility in the system because relying on just boost alone on one single frequency isn't guaranteed unless you try to set the one troublesome song as reference. That I don't suggest. Done that a few times and wasn't good. 

The question is, what is the solution that has been given to the localization problem? Having a strong front stage to begin with makes a big difference. Have stated that several times which later along those same lines having a larger midwoofer was mentioned by another. 

See the circles everyone keeps going and are saying pretty much the same thing?


----------



## Spyke (Apr 20, 2012)

Bayboy said:


> Either way that rolls back to source material and being able to properly adjust whether it is too heavy or too thin that causes localization problems. I can play Bass 305 and almost leave the EQ flat and the door mids lead the pace while the system still has ample bass. Put on some Debonnaire, and 31hz has to come down because now overall recording level is low, but way too much extreme low end (lots of sub flutter). Put in some Billy E, then 60hz has to come down while leaving 31 alone as 31hz it is already strong, but the song has boomy 60hz peaks that will sound like crap if not compensated for. All in the same genre, but recorded different. Put in a different genre like Dzihan & Kamien, then there's another story that may need completely different adjustments
> 
> This is all of course while leaving sub level alone which is what was brought out earlier, but isn't absolute. Again, there is no easy set rule as it is being made out to be since part of reference is the listener's ears. It's what's going to work for him. The most you can have is some sort of flexibility in the system because relying on just boost alone on one single frequency isn't guaranteed unless you try to set the one troublesome song as reference. That I don't suggest. Done that a few times and wasn't good.
> 
> ...


Yes the localization issue has been discussed and I thought solved. I still don't get why you need to keep f'ing with your sub eq every time you change tracks. I might turn my knob a bit either way but everything stays pretty much the same from track to track and genre to genre. If you are overwhelmed by different freq groups in different songs then that would lead me to believe that your sub level is still too high. Genre and recording levels shouldn't vary *that* much. Unless you are burning tracks off of youtube.


----------



## Bayboy (Dec 29, 2010)




----------



## Bayboy (Dec 29, 2010)

Seriously dude.... I mean like really?! LOL done with this.... wow!


----------



## Spyke (Apr 20, 2012)

Bayboy said:


>


Unless there's something that i'm missing here, I didn't think that most people had to change eq settings that much depending on what they were listening to. Don't get hostile, i'm just giving my opinion.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

I change it quite a bit, personally. Honestly, some stuff is just poorly recorded. I know I've used this example previously, but there's one band I like that release three albums, all pretty much the same idea. One of their albums needs to be knocked down like 6dB below 50Hz to be more similar to the other two. Some records are just _different_.


----------



## Bayboy (Dec 29, 2010)

Exactly! I have discs from different artists working out of the same studio, on the same record label, and almost every album is EQ'd differently. I have consecutive albums by some artists in different studios or producers and they will have different distinct signatures. Even have albums where not all recordings were EQ'd the same. Take DM Recordings (Bass 305, Bass Alliance, Bass Syndicate) and almost every album from different artists are very similar in response. No need to touch anything when playing a compilation. 

One could easily argue that you are "supposed" to try to recreate how it sounded in the studio or listen to how it was intended and there's several albums where I do that (Boston Bass Disc produced in 1992 is one). However, the luxury of having a EQ is to SUIT TO TASTE or overcome anomalies in the car as well as recording. 

There is no wrong in that else even self-tuning products like the MS-8 would not have a user adjustable 31 band EQ after it has done the doing work for you.


----------



## Spyke (Apr 20, 2012)

Fair enough. I do adjust here and there but it's usually just adjusting the B.B. a little. It just sounded like you were really doing a lot of eq'ing, seemed like a pita is all. When you said that you were either boosting 30 or cutting 60 it sounded like it might be a level issue. I guess not though. Didn't mean to ruffle your feathers. I didn't "think" that it sounded like I was coming down on you.

I do agree with you on the point of taste also. I do care about accurately reproducing a recording "to a point". I also have a preference as to how "I" want it to sound.


----------



## Bayboy (Dec 29, 2010)

It's cool.... no harm no foul. I do a fair amount of adjusting, but I'm also changing music in my truck often. The genres I listen to are fairly broad in recordings with some sounding like it might have been done in a back room studio (Prefuse 73, Flying Lotus, Waajeed, etc). Then I might play something like Dzihan & Kamien, or Jazzanova that can pretty much be a notch or two from flat. I may also queue up a few Reso tracks that vary as his genre is mainly Dubstep, but the tracks I particularly like are totally different from the Dubstep most know. 

Needless to say I probably have weird tastes in music that spans quite a bit of genres that can not playback on the same EQ settings without serious compromises (Bass, Electronica, Hip Hop, Jazz (including Nu Jazz), Rock, R&B, Glitch Hop, Electro, Ambient, Chilled Hop, Downtempo.... probably some more if I look but some span across more than one. I pretty much put compilations together depending on BPM and mood. It would be nice if the 80prs had more than 2 custom presets, but I might can get away with 2 on most and use some of the other presets.


----------

