# Stage width.



## turbo5upra (Oct 3, 2008)

Can an even stage width be attained in a normal car? I have good height also great width to the right. But the left side is cut off.

I have never heard a car with equal widths and was curious if you can get it just so close or if you can get them match.

I know i'm limited at this point by running the mid up to 5200 but will dropping a midrange more on axis playing 500ish up in the kick be a night and day change in width?


----------



## BowDown (Sep 24, 2009)

Yes.


----------



## turbo5upra (Oct 3, 2008)

Please explain how, since neither of us have ever heard it.



BowDown said:


> Yes.


----------



## BowDown (Sep 24, 2009)

Mouse in your pocket?

Try a pair of small bookshelf speakers in your car with the left more on axis like the right. Throw equal angled install theories out the window.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

BowDown said:


> Try a pair of small bookshelf speakers in your car with the left more on axis like the right.


care to elaborate?
width carries ambiance... or vice versa. So, how do the non-matching polars guarantee 'width'? One side having a nice FR while the other having a diminishing top end would therefore have bias. Especially so due to the ILD rule and the fact that the top end is in the domain that ILD covers.
In the case above, I'm more inclined to believe that you're doing the opposite of what would be the better option between having one side on and the other side off axis, as your better FR is also higher in overall volume due to it's vicinity to you as opposed to the right side, further drivers, which are still suffering from poor off-axis response on the top end. Of course, you didn't say just how far off-axis, but I'm going to assume something like 40+ degrees, as is the case in most car audio installs.

So, I'm curious to know what you're trying to say with the above quoted.




turbo5upra said:


> Can an even stage width be attained in a normal car? I have good height also great width to the right. But the left side is cut off.
> 
> I have never heard a car with equal widths and was curious if you can get it just so close or if you can get them match.
> 
> I know i'm limited at this point by running the mid up to 5200 but will dropping a midrange more on axis playing 500ish up in the kick be a night and day change in width?


Frankly, this is what tuning a system is all about.

What cars have you heard? Did they use the basics such as time alignment and level matching? That's really the only way to begin to achieve an even stage. This is also why your acoustic center is typically at the center of the car. The center is defined as being in the middle of two points. Acoustic center should therefore be between the left and rightmost audio, right? So, then couple that with the fact that in nearly every case, a system's width is rarely outside the speakers' location. For example, if you have pillar mounted tweeters, your stage is likely limited to the pillar. Kicks are same story as are (enter X here). I know some will argue otherwise, but I've yet to hear an example that does so extraordinarily therefore I'll stick with this as an example. 
Alright, so the furthest points of your stage are limited by your drivers. Your center will be the location midway between the two sides. Which, almost always happens to be the center of the car. 

With all that said, your width then should extend to approximately where the drivers are located on either side and getting the center to be between those two points. 
You achieve this by using time alignment and level matching. 

There are tricks you can do to give the impression of more stage width, but primarily, it's a function of install (driver location), ILD (level matching), and ITD (time alignment).
Start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_localization
Most importantly, read this section:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_localization#ITD_and_ILD

Does that help?


----------



## ncv6coupe (Oct 25, 2009)

Utilize some side or rear speakers on the driver side>


----------



## turbo5upra (Oct 3, 2008)

The 6.5 is in the door, i'm rather large and my knee blocks it, which isn't good since it goes to 5200. tweeters are in the kicks pointing across the car.

all of the cars have had time correction and level matching l=r no eq'ing to balance them l/r

might have to try the tweeter in the sail panel again and see what that gets me.


----------



## BowDown (Sep 24, 2009)

Well no crap having the right speaker more on axis helps you level out the closer speaker being off axis... but it doesn't help the cutoff point of the speaker. What I was saying is if you were to experiment bringing the left speaker more on axis and then cut the level on the left channel if you would be able to get over the left cutoff without ruining the center stage.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

BowDown said:


> Well no crap having the right speaker more on axis helps you level out the closer speaker being off axis


no crap, eh? 



BowDown said:


> but it doesn't help the cutoff point of the speaker.


which cutoff to which speaker? the mid or the tweeter? high or low? 

having the right speaker more on axis certainly does help the cutoff point. that's the whole premise of on-axis firing. 





BowDown said:


> What I was saying is if you were to experiment bringing the left speaker more on axis and then cut the level on the left channel if you would be able to get over the left cutoff without ruining the center stage.


again, it depends on which speaker: tweeter or mid.

This is all basic stuff, so I must not be understanding what you're trying to get across here. No need for the smartass reply. I just asked for clarification of what you meant since it didn't make sense as is. A bookshelf speaker has drivers that cover the broad spectrum. he's splitting them up here so we need clarication on what drivers you're talking about. I assumed tweeters.


----------



## ncv6coupe (Oct 25, 2009)

he means his left stage is 2 inches inside his left pillar and he wants it by his rearview mirror


----------



## turbo5upra (Oct 3, 2008)

I have great center staging.... image is on the center of my dash just above it...... just the left side seems to end about the left side of the steering wheel.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

^ if that's the case, then there's something wrong. 
Truthfully, if you have the center in the actual center of your soundstage, then the sides should be equidistant.
So, if your center is centered on your dash, but your furthest left is in front of you, then your furthest right acoustics would be in front of the passenger. It's not in you case, but do you see what I'm saying here?

You mentioned your tweeters are in your kicks. That to me sounds like it's your problem, especially if your leg blocks them. 
What happens when you turn off your tweeters and listen only to the mids? Does the soundstage fall apart? Does the center stay centered? Do you still have the left stage stopping at the steering wheel? 
What about when you play only your tweeters?

I say give that a go, take notes on what happens and see if that helps you figure out your problem.
I agree, the problem is most likely due to your tweeter being in the kicks, but the easiest way to start troubleshooting is to listen to a pair of drivers at a time.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

Guys, think of it like this. If the right speaker is very lateral to you, so that it mostly has a clear path to your right ear but not to your left ear, then your brain will correctly interpret this to be lateral. The trick is to get the left speaker to do the same thing. But when your left speaker is in front of you (as most are), and not lateral to you, then it has a direct path to your left ear AND to your right ear. Basically, we're talking about acoustical crosstalk.

^^^ is the same thing as bikinpunk was talking about with ILDs.

BTW, I like nvc6coupe's advice. I do this very thing myself. Pull the left stage more lateral with a rear door speaker. This obviously won't work for all vehicles.


----------



## lycan (Dec 20, 2009)

MarkZ said:


> Guys, think of it like this. If the right speaker is very lateral to you, so that it mostly has a clear path to your right ear but not to your left ear, then your brain will correctly interpret this to be lateral. The trick is to get the left speaker to do the same thing. But when your left speaker is in front of you (as most are), and not lateral to you, then it has a direct path to your left ear AND to your right ear. Basically, we're talking about acoustical crosstalk.


not really ...

in the frequency range where ITD's rule, which includes the midbass, midrange and into the lower treble ... stereo reproduction _expects_ that _both_ speakers are heard equally by _both_ ears. The human head simply can't provide any shadowing in the midbass, or midrange ... and stereo reproduction doesn't expect it to. Quite the contrary ... stereo reproduction _requires_ both speakers to be heard by both ears equally (in the ITD region).

Not until the treble, does head shadowing play a role in attenuating the left driver to the right ear (and vice versa). So the term "crosstalk" ... as "negative" thing to be avoided, fixed or balanced ... doesn't even apply, until we get into the treble.

But if your comments are only intended for tweeters, then i agree 

Angling the speakers inward (midbass or midrange) ... both of them ... is simply a way to exploit off-axis attenuation to help solve side-bias, for _both_ front seat listeners at the same time ... something a balance knob can't do. Sure, it's "crude", but often pretty effective if a two-seat car is important to you.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

lycan said:


> not really ...
> 
> in the frequency range where ITD's rule, which includes the midbass, midrange and into the lower treble ... stereo reproduction _expects_ that _both_ speakers are heard equally by _both_ ears. The human head simply can't provide any shadowing in the midbass, or midrange ... and stereo reproduction doesn't expect it to. Quite the contrary ... stereo reproduction _requires_ both speakers to be heard by both ears equally (in the ITD region).
> 
> ...


Haha they were. I was expanding on bikinpunk's ILD description.

But the same general framework applies to ITDs too. Differences in arrival times will depend on lat angle. But, to try to transform the angle with delay becomes a little bit of a project coming from a single source, which again is why I like nvc6coupe's suggestion.

BAck to ILDs... the lateral-ness of the right side is significantly impacted by the reflection off the driver's side glass. One might expect that the right speaker would appear more lateral with the windows down than with them up, no? This is another (maybe even dominant) asymmetry that occurs when we sit on the left side of the vehicle.


----------



## ncv6coupe (Oct 25, 2009)

if i may add that out of phase sounds give rediculous width, almost unreal sounds in the car, getting that to focus on the mirror-dash-mirror is where side speakers have great success and u need hella processing to do it "right" hello ms-8. lycan uses the terms vectors, i understand this from experimenting with tons of speaker locations in my old home theather a long time ago, im trying to get this in my car and be stable, im VERY close without the beloved ms-8. i may soon get one though.


----------



## lycan (Dec 20, 2009)

MarkZ said:


> Haha they were. I was expanding on bikinpunk's ILD description.
> 
> But the same general framework applies to ITDs too. Differences in arrival times will depend on lat angle. But, to try to transform the angle with delay becomes a little bit of a project coming from a single source, which again is why I like nvc6coupe's suggestion.
> 
> BAck to ILDs... the lateral-ness of the right side is significantly impacted by the reflection off the driver's side glass. One might expect that the right speaker would appear more lateral with the windows down than with them up, no? This is another (maybe even dominant) asymmetry that occurs when we sit on the left side of the vehicle.


it's cool 

What many fail to realize about stereo reproduction in the ITD range is this : in the recording or mixing stage, phantom ITDs (corresponding to phantom source locations) are created by adjusting relative _amplitudes_ between the speakers  But the entire process expects both speakers to be heard equally by both ears ... the term "crosstalk" doesn't even apply.

But we can also "manipulate" this same principle to our advantage in the reproduction stage. If you sit equidistant between two speakers, and reduce the amplitude of the left one ... the stage pulls right. This has nothing to do with crosstalk (in ITD range), it simply influences the vector sum of the two sources such that the resultant phase (aka, ITD) now "points" right. Again ... _both_ ears are hearing _both_ speakers equally well, but through "balance control" manipulation we've "moved" the stage.

Well, the same technique works in reverse ... if we sit off center, to the left (say), ideally we'd like to attenuate the left side speaker to pull the stage right (towards the center). But what about the other passenger? We'd like to attenuate his close speaker also ... at the _same time_. That's what angling the speakers (midbass, midrange) does, to a crude approximation 

EDIT : the reason i've called "angling" a "crude" technique is because a speaker doesn't "beam" ... or attenuate its off-axis response ... over its whole bandwidth  Far from it, in fact.


----------



## turbo5upra (Oct 3, 2008)

my leg does not block the tweeter all that much... I place my leg in such a fashion that it has a pretty clear shot.

I considered running a rear "mid" since they are just about equal distance from my ear as the door..... I guess I could just run some wire up to the radio harness since the factory speakers are still in place and run them with the mid's up front for a trial. 

Scott from hybrid said the same thing. try just the mids, just the tweeters and then see how just the left tweet/mid sound,.... 

I have a test tomorrow and its raining or I would dive deep into this. fornow I will go try those.


----------



## turbo5upra (Oct 3, 2008)

so... I took a break and went outside......

here is what I came up with.

mid's need to be out of phase. level matched -4db on the headunit on the driver's

I then moved on to the tweeters. they need to be out of phase of themselves. -3db on the pass. 0 on the driverside to make the =

So then I put it all together,... found the singer was right in my face. I then swapped both mids phase and they move out to the windshield.

this is how it sits. 

headunit settings:


Left -3db 12.1" of delay 100hz @ 12db.
Right 0db 0.0 Same



passive settings:

Left mid out of phase tweeter: flat in phase

Right mid in phase -3db out of phase



This has given me a bit wider stage, the left sounds a few inches outside the door. the right is nice and wide.

anyone ever get the left way outside the door?


----------



## Oliver (Jun 25, 2007)

> _10 pts. – Perfect_
> 8-9 pts. – Exceptional
> 6-7 pts. – Very Good
> 4-5 pts. – Good
> ...


still trying :blush:


----------



## tintbox (Oct 25, 2008)

Oliver said:


> still trying :blush:


Well put and I'm still trying as well.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

^ aren't we all.


----------



## turbo5upra (Oct 3, 2008)

Well I just got it!!!!!! I ran a couple wires from the passive x-over midbass output.....

I plugged them into the factory harness for the rear speakers and bam!

It muddles up the center stage a bit but the AMBIENCE is great! it slightly pulls my ear back but its closer to my head than the front midbass.

So heres my thoughts,.......

200x2 to the front stage passive.

100x2 to the rear stock speakers with the bandpass filter off my headunit 100 to somewhere in the area of 5200 backed off by a few db.

Then a mono amp for the sub.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

Where is the rear speaker located with respect to the driver's seat?


----------



## Mic10is (Aug 20, 2007)

As Erin mentioned, Stage width and imaging within that stage should correlate with each other. This is a Category that in many instances is not judged correctly IMO.
I have heard many many systems where the Left Stage boundary was at or inside the pillar and the right stage boundary was at or outside the physical boundaries of the vehicle.
Therefore the acoustic center should be slightly right of the physical center of the vehicle/dash.

BUt the rules read that center should be judged as being between the physical boundaries of the vehicle, but this is often not the case in many systems.


----------



## ncv6coupe (Oct 25, 2009)

glad you figured yours out, the center image is elusive but my problem is more when i crank my volume up something changes in my car, i dont know how to describe it in words, i got something new im cooking up that should solve my problem but i hope i luck out when i get it in the car this weekend.


----------



## turbo5upra (Oct 3, 2008)

Mark... right behind the b pillar.... the left is closer than my front midbass by about 6"










I wired it up correctly and something I did not expect but it makes sense:

I pulled more from the rear left than the right thinking the left was closer.

So I was driving home and I had even better width from the right side, left side seemed to becoming from 2 spots with a dead spot right in the middle.

It was wider on the left side but it seemed I had a gap.

So I decided to try pulling more from the right to try and even it up.

It seemed to work great. the left side is almost equally wide as the right. I will do more tweeking tomorrow and see where it gets me.


----------



## Oliver (Jun 25, 2007)

turbo5upra said:


> Well I just got it!!!!!! I ran a couple wires from the passive x-over midbass output.....
> 
> I plugged them into the factory harness for the rear speakers and bam!
> 
> ...




I am glad you tried this !


----------



## turbo5upra (Oct 3, 2008)

So I spent some time today on my way to and from class tweeking.

I can up with 200 12 db-630 24db for the rear fill...... 

I then pulled the dash plug for the rear speakers. 

It adds height to the stage. it adds a bit of width. most of all it adds ambiance 

I still want to tweek a bunch more to make sure this is the direction I really want to go.

Center stage still needs a bit of work but its getting better. funny thing is the rear right makes the biggest change to the center when doing time correction.

The one question I still have is: Can you get the width = in a car? like sitting in the "sweet spot" in my home theater?


----------



## Oliver (Jun 25, 2007)

Not sure if you can get the width , but you are on the right path for a fuller sound from the system.


----------



## ncv6coupe (Oct 25, 2009)

turbo5upra said:


> So I spent some time today on my way to and from class tweeking.
> 
> I can up with 200 12 db-630 24db for the rear fill......
> 
> ...


most of my know how comes from doing things in the house, in the car i think the earliest high frequency reflections are really a big pita in my quest for loud great sound, if you tweak before me and figure this out do share, im so plastered with work i rarely get to play with the car during the week. interior treatments seems to get very important, damn my leather seats, Im just talking out loud so i may not know what im talking about though so feel free to ignore, lol


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Stage width, height and pinpoint imaging are derived from a combination of dsp, speaker placement and managing the acoustic environment in your car. These things have to work together, much like the pieces of a jigsaw falling into place.

*1. Speaker Placement:* Mids in the doors throw up issues of PLD, and beaming due to on axis / off axis placement. Mids mounted higher on your door will have greater PLD than when mounted low down low on the doors. Mids located at the the bottom of the door and all the way forward will give you better depth perception. To manage PLD you need time alignment. To manage beaming you need independent L/R eq control. Mids in kicks have lower PLD than the doors and have lesser issues of axis, but normally result in a slightly narrower stage width.

Your brain perceives height cues from frequencies around 1.25-2khz up. Which is why you should mount your tweets at dash level or higher. Having these frequencies play from a higher physical level helps with stage height. Again assuming you have TA to manage arrival times. The frequencies played by the tweets are more prone to L/R intensity issues rather than phase issues. hence the angles at which you mount your tweets also helps in managing the intensity levels.

*2. Equaliser:* The best eq you can get is via a processor where you can set each driver independently. The next best option is having 12-15 bands that you can set for L/R like on the p-880. You're using the eq to do two things. To balance frequencies for L/R and then to level match across the frequency range. 

In a car some frequencies are louder from the left and some from the right. Eg, the 100-300 range is typically louder from the left. 315hz is about 5db's louder from the left in my car. However 160hz is louder from the right. 500-800hz are more or less even then 1.25-3khz is louder from the on axis side (the beaming range) Typically a 6.5" driver would beam around 2khz but this affects 1.25 and 3khz as well. this goes on all the way to 20khz and beyond. Correcting for L/R will centre your image. 

Level matching is about how you set your frequency ranges relative to each other and within a given range (mid bass, midrange, upper mids highs etc). Frequencies above 800hz are more prone to reflections so this is something else you have to factor in while level matching.

*3. Time Alignment:* Most people use TA to get the same arrival time from speakers at varying distances. While this is fine and works to get the 'frontal presentation', for some folks 'same arrival time', is just a starting point. You can then play with the delay between sub/mids and mids tweets to raise your stage height. 

*4. Reflections:* This is the biggest PITA in a car. You could have great stage height, width depth etc but if you don't manage the reflections you will have issues in your imaging. A simple exercise, cover your dash with a thick beach towel and roll down your front windows and then listen.....notice a difference? Dash mats, foam/ carpeting at strategic locations and angling your tweets so that you minimise early reflections helps a ton. Reflections also tell your ears that there is a physical boundary, thereby limiting your width. 

*5. Xover points and slopes :* I cross my sub and mids at 50hz. Your ears cannot locate the source of sound below appx 70hz. So cutting the sub at 50hz on 36db slope helps. Your typical 6.5" door mounted mids though are struggling a bit in IB at 50hz. At my eq eq I pinch down slightly at 50hz and then bring up 80-100hz a bit. At the other end I cross my mids and tweets at 5khz. I run the RR tweets which are amazing 4khz upwards but struggle below that. Another reason for the high xover frequency is cause I'm a firm believer in getting a bulk of the vocal range from 2 drivers instead of 4. 

There are also issues of IAC which Erin, Mic and Lycan have touched upon. Tuning is about managing all these issues together. That is what will give you your depth, width, height and imaging. With sound everything is connected thats another thing to remember. Also there are no free lunches. You will invariably gain something at the cost of something else......


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

Good post, but I have a couple comments below...



sqnut said:


> Stage width, height and pinpoint imaging are derived from a combination of dsp, speaker placement and managing the acoustic environment in your car. These things have to work together, much like the pieces of a jigsaw falling into place.
> 
> *1. Speaker Placement:* Mids in the doors throw up issues of PLD, and beaming due to on axis / off axis placement. Mids mounted higher on your door will have greater PLD than when mounted low down low on the doors. Mids located at the the bottom of the door and all the way forward will give you better depth perception. To manage PLD you need time alignment. To manage beaming you need independent L/R eq control. Mids in kicks have lower PLD than the doors and have lesser issues of axis, but normally result in a slightly narrower stage width.


PLDs are easy to correct for. Azimuthal angle isn't quite so easy. A midrange in the driver's side kick panel is positioned where a "center channel" would be.  I think the best way to widen the stage is by positioning your midrange and tweeters as lateral as possible. I had this setup in my last car with some major modifications to the door (mid was actually positioned near the armrest  The ECA assholes made fun of me for it. :laugh.



> *5. Xover points and slopes :* I cross my sub and mids at 50hz. Your ears cannot locate the source of sound below appx 70hz. So cutting the sub at 50hz on 36db slope helps.


I don't think this is entirely true. The brain is limited in its localization capabilities, even at much higher frequencies, mostly because we only have two ear holes instead of three.  There becomes an issue with front/rear ambiguity extending to hundreds of Hertz. So, technically, you could stick your midrange in the back and maybe perceive it coming from in front of you IF you didn't have to deal with reflections (which, as you pointed out earlier, provide a huge localization cue).

Know how the brain solves this front/rear ambiguity? Head movement. Our brains are so good at localization that it can use 2nd order cues like integration over space + proprioceptive information to solve some of these issues.

So, whatever you do, don't turn your head and front/rear localization shouldn't be as big of an issue.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

^ the only thing I'll argue is the idea that you can't localize a subwoofer with a higher crossover frequency. 
I can set my crossover to 100hz/24dB and still hear vocals from the subwoofers. 
Sure, it may blend well with midbass, and the bass not be localizable, but what does that matter when you've got someone singing from behind you? Something like that is hard to correct for. 

Just sayin'.


----------



## benny z (Mar 17, 2008)

good trio of posts.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

MarkZ said:


> I had this setup in my last car with some major modifications to the door (mid was actually positioned near the armrest  The ECA assholes made fun of me for it. :laugh.


I have my mids mounted up high on the door, near the arm rest and I hate them there :blush:




MarkZ said:


> I don't think this is entirely true. The brain is limited in its localization capabilities, even at much higher frequencies, So, whatever you do, don't turn your head and front/rear localization shouldn't be as big of an issue.


Your ears and brain cant locate source bellow 70, they also suck at it in the 2-4khz range. Try locating a cricket from its chirping. When you're doing the test tones to balance for L/R, 1.25-3khz are a *****. Set then to where you think they are valanced then turn your head slightly wham-mo, suddenly its not centred. IAC, reflections etc. Typically these are frequencies whose wavelengths roughly correspond to the distance between your ears. We all know about the head in a vice position


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

^ maybe, but is that a brick wall @ 70hz? what's the crossover?.... 


as far as test tones... do you listen to test tones? I learned a long time ago not to eq by test tones. it's a nightmare. once you move your head even an inch, it's a bust.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

I'm also not a big fan of centre channels, rears, ambiance fill in drivers etc. The more drivers you run the more issues you will have with phase and cancellations, reflection et-al.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

Don't move your head and the vocals won't be coming from behind you. 

Seriously though, I know what you're saying. In my playing around, I've found that if you can blend the transition between the rear (sub) and the front speakers, you can mitigate some of those issues. When I added a center channel, I was able to pull this off even better. Consider shallower slopes and some overlap maybe? I have no experimental evidence for this, but I suspect that higher freq directional cues coming from midrange speakers can bind with the lower frequencies if the spkr is also reproducing this, which can help draw things forward.


----------



## sqshoestring (Jun 19, 2007)

Great post. I used to run 6x9 rears way back, sure long as you kept your head forward it sounded good and they pumped the midbass out. Turn your head, yep, you got rears!

Some of the better cars I had dome tweets right in front of my chest, very wide stage that way. Down in the door often sounds better I think less reflections, but higher tweeters are higher hmmm.

I like to run rears, for this exact reason to pull the left back. So many people on here hate rears.

Also run my subs at 50, they play to 60 at least. Often run 12-18db slope though. For a while in this car I ran 24db, before that I had another xover that could run 40Hz that was better yet. Given the IB subs I had then overran the xover more and still played to 60. The reason I want larger midbass in my doors next but can't seem to get on that project. Also want to run 4" comps low as I can even with front midbass, so they play the largest range from one set of drivers.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

bikinpunk said:


> ^ maybe, but is that a brick wall @ 70hz? what's the crossover?....


70hz is an approximate. I have my sub / mid crossed at 50hz.




bikinpunk said:


> as far as test tones... do you listen to test tones? I learned a long time ago not to eq by test tones. it's a nightmare. once you move your head even an inch, it's a bust.


Test tones like 'same arrival time' are just a starting point. When I started out I'd be doing the tones once a day. Largely because I didn't have a clue as what I was doing. Now I'll go back to the tones maybe once in 6-8 months when I have royally screwed things up and nothing sounds right :blush:.

For me the biggest problem in this hobby, is to accept and learn to live with the limitations. I will dial in really nice sound and then nit pick on whats wrong and tweak on and its all down hill after that. the damn mind is constantly pushing me......


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

^ and to go along with accepting limitations, it's realizing tradeoffs. Getting objects to be exactly where they should be may cost you some width, or something to that effect.


----------



## Triggz (Aug 11, 2010)

I used to have great width with the tweeters in the stock sail panel location at 90 degrees off axis so the tweeters are facing each other with the doors closed and the _windows up_. It was not worth listening to music with the windows down so learn to use reflections to your advantage. Now that the tweeters are on the dash reflecting off the glass there is so much depth and height but hardly any width. After listening to width and depth in isolated conditions, I choose the wide sound stage over a deep sound stage but having both is a killer combination. When I have a chance, tweeters will be aimed at every direction till it sounds right, you should do the same.


----------



## sqshoestring (Jun 19, 2007)

I been there trying to make it perfect, nit picking, etc, I gave up. I would get in another car with a better stock or mild system and say this sounds ok on all songs, not great on some and not good on others or poor sources....and then limiting my music. So now I go for width and response down to 20 (just because low bass is fun). Keep it adjustable and simple, but with my 15s that get so low I really need midbass just not figured out what yet, but something 8" or more. I'll put the 4" comps back in they were in there before and sounded nice, then I'll have a better point to try to fine tune I think...hope lol.


----------



## ncv6coupe (Oct 25, 2009)

good stuff in here. one issue that comes up also is having enough processor and amp channels to tune every single speaker independently or learn how to build audiophile passive crossovers with strategic notch filtering. i really need a mic setup and learn how to do impulse measurements.


----------



## tintbox (Oct 25, 2008)

Really good info gentlemen. Thank you.


----------



## turbo5upra (Oct 3, 2008)

I gotta say.... something made the car wake up, I think it might be the phase changes up front..... I gotta keep playing and maybe this weekend I will have time to finish up the sub box.


----------



## benny z (Mar 17, 2008)

ncv6coupe said:


> good stuff in here. one issue that comes up also is having enough processor and amp channels to tune every single speaker independently...


zapco dc reference amps. seriously a godsend IMHO. want to switch phase? hit the button. different crossover points/slopes for left/right side? make it so. you get the idea.


----------



## turbo5upra (Oct 3, 2008)

I wanted to go zapco.... but If I try for the "stock class" then I can't have a amp with dsp.


----------



## benny z (Mar 17, 2008)

ah, yeah...

at that point you just have to decide who you're trying to please. yourself, or the judges.

i can understand wanting to compete, but if classing rules out the tools i use, then bump me. i can still hang. 

do your thang, man!


----------



## turbo5upra (Oct 3, 2008)

I think I can get what I need to but I have to swap to the 800prs.... seems as though alpine is falling on its face with quality.


----------



## benny z (Mar 17, 2008)

no doubt you can do it.

people were doing it without advanced dsp for decades before us! 

agree on the alpine remark.


----------



## sqshoestring (Jun 19, 2007)

So far I'm going to run the mid/tweeters passive and like they are now keep them the same distance from ear. Not sure if I should keep the tweets next to mids or higher, will try both and see, last time I had them in the same plate. Then I'll run the MB off the sub outs, with an alpine xover I have that goes down to 30 and has a nice parametric in it. I have an amp with variable phase if I really need it for the subs, but not sure 50Hz and down really needs that much processing hard to say. In fact I have two of the alpine xovers, so I can run a parametric on MB and sub each, if I need to. Honestly the 16 band in the HU does not work as well on the subs as the PEQ does, I miss it.

Can tell you I changed the front comps and amp, and the stage was never as good again. Now changed amp a couple times with minimal differences. Driver location has always been the same. Also went from an old alpine HU to the 880PRS, lets hope that is not a stage quality problem. I hate it when I change too much stuff at once.

My DSP has been shut off for half a year, it kills my weak midbass no matter how I set it.


----------



## turbo5upra (Oct 3, 2008)

What do you guys think.... I have the nifty alpine spx-17pro tweeters on the way..... how do you think they will compare to the hybrid clarus?


----------



## turbo5upra (Oct 3, 2008)

I will say this... after knocking down the left side to -2... all I needed was 8" of delay on the left to get it centered.


----------



## cobra93 (Dec 22, 2009)

Good to hear front stage is coming along nicely.


----------



## ncv6coupe (Oct 25, 2009)

how funny is this, i've never went through the ms-8 thread but just decided to read the last page because I saw Andy W. had posted something and he is a knowledge pit literally, here's what he had to say. 

"Logic 7 steers out of phase informtion to the rear. For real recordings made in real spaces, this works great. For studio recordings made using all sorts of digital effects, all kinds of stuff can happen. The guy doing the mix may decide to put sounds out of phase to enhance the width, make things sound strange, you name it. For tracks converted to MP3 without using high bit rates or encoding in joint stereo, phase information isn't well preserved between left and right. That can cause some strange steering too. Logic 7 isn't malfunctioning, it's doing exactly what it was designed to do. On some recordings, you may not like what it does for the rear speakers. In those cases, turn it off. If you have a center channel, then fade more toward the front."


----------



## Chaos (Oct 27, 2005)

<--- Subscribed.


My stock tweeter locations are in the sail panels, and I could never get satisfying results using that spot. The stage was always truncated on the left side, like sitting in a concert hall far off to that side. 

Dropped the tweeters to the door, just above the mid and as far forward as possible (driver side out of phase) and viola, a much more symmetrical stage. Granted, the height suffered a little, and the depth doesn't extend as far out in front of me as it did with tweeters mounted higher, but the image no longer drifts like it did from song to song, and the response isn't nearly as 'peaky' this way.

I suspect that reflections were the primary culprit before. Although the arrangement I have now isn't optimum, I prefer the sound produced with this configuration. Lacking the processing to fine-tune things any better than that, it is a tolerable compromise.


----------



## benny z (Mar 17, 2008)

odd - in my experience, sail panel tweeters can create the widest stage image, as they are generally the widest possible location in the car.


----------



## turbo5upra (Oct 3, 2008)

I guess my trial today will be extend the wires for the tweeter and move them around.... I did this with double sided tape before I picked the kicks and thought it was the best place.


----------



## Chaos (Oct 27, 2005)

benny z said:


> odd - in my experience, sail panel tweeters can create the widest stage image, as they are generally the widest possible location in the car.


I've heard the same thing, but for me the width wasn't really affected very much either way. Like I said, height and depth were noticeably different, but width stayed pretty constant. 

It was the consistency of the 'center' of the stage that changed and the relative boundaries perceived on either side. Now it sounds like I am sitting just left of center, with the right side limited to just inside the passenger side door and the left side a couple of inches outside of the vehicle.


----------



## Chaos (Oct 27, 2005)

turbo5upra said:


> I guess my trial today will be extend the wires for the tweeter and move them around.... I did this with double sided tape before I picked the kicks and thought it was the best place.



That's exactly what I did. I'm curious of what you will hear.


----------



## turbo5upra (Oct 3, 2008)

So I moved the tweeter around and it moved the stage up but not out.

I think My limiting factor is that the mid goes up to 5200.


----------



## Oliver (Jun 25, 2007)

turbo5upra said:


> So I moved the tweeter around and it moved the stage up but not out.
> 
> I think My limiting factor is that the mid goes up to 5200.


Kick panels = wide and farthest distance forward for similar path lengths


----------



## turbo5upra (Oct 3, 2008)

since 70% of my driving is done with the windows down..... how about a mid and tweeter in the side view mirrors? lol


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

Oliver said:


> Kick panels = wide and farthest distance forward for similar path lengths




Kick panels = narrow, not wide.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Oliver said:


> Kick panels = wide and farthest distance forward for similar path lengths


Kicks will increase depth, yes. But width will normally be reduced a touch.


----------



## Mic10is (Aug 20, 2007)

sqnut said:


> Kicks will increase depth, yes. But width will normally be reduced a touch.


This is based on what?
putting speakers on the dash especially attached to the apillars decreases width even more
Almost every kick panel install I have ever done, especially those that compete, have had width at or slightly outside the pillars on most music.
Dash installs, not so much.
Door installs yes, but they have other issues as well.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Mic10is said:


> This is based on what?
> putting speakers on the dash especially attached to the apillars decreases width even more
> Almost every kick panel install I have ever done, especially those that compete, have had width at or slightly outside the pillars on most music.
> Dash installs, not so much.
> Door installs yes, but they have other issues as well.


I was comparing mids in doors vs mids in kicks. I am not talking about special custom jobs that you competitors would undertake. Just what an average Joe like me would do. Mids in doors would give a better width than mids in the typical qform kicks.

++ to the fact that a mid range and tweet on the pillars would keep the stage width between the pillars.

Door installs have issues of PLD on axis / off axis (beaming) etc but a lot of this can be overcome with the right level of DSP. Even with door mounts, mid mounted lower on the door and all the way forward have lower PLD and give a better depth perception than those mounted up high on the door like I have in my car. 

If I am wrong on any of the above, I am open to correction.


----------



## rawdawg (Apr 27, 2007)

turbo5upra said:


> since 70% of my driving is done with the windows down..... how about a mid and tweeter in the side view mirrors? lol


At the DUB show in San Diego a while back, Pioneer had a car(300?) with a 3/Tweet combo in the side mirrors. Midbasses were at the front corners of the side windows and pointed outwards. I didn't get to sit in it though....


----------



## benny z (Mar 17, 2008)

MarkZ said:


> Kick panels = narrow, not wide.


look at the perspective here.

my kicks are physically wider and further forward in the cabin than the a pillars. may not be as obvious from a 2D-view picture, but i'm not sure how you'd get speakers any wider in the car.


----------



## ncv6coupe (Oct 25, 2009)

Bennyz lycan taught me something that even though it looks like it makes no sense is clear as day since we listen in (stereo). You don't physically need a speaker someplace to place that speakers sound there. How you go about doing it is the thing,
Ps. sheetmetal may need to be sacrificed and that's only to get good bass response out of said speaker(s)


----------



## BowDown (Sep 24, 2009)




----------



## ncv6coupe (Oct 25, 2009)

bowdown, that made me laugh soo hard!!, that phase plug looks like a .80 caliber round went through his fenderwell and got stopped by the voice coil.


----------



## Mic10is (Aug 20, 2007)

sqnut said:


> I was comparing mids in doors vs mids in kicks. I am not talking about special custom jobs that you competitors would undertake. Just what an average Joe like me would do. Mids in doors would give a better width than mids in the typical qform kicks.
> 
> ++ to the fact that a mid range and tweet on the pillars would keep the stage width between the pillars.
> 
> ...


I cant argue with that explanation. I just dont like generalizations that people post , it confuses too many people, especially newbs.
Next thing you know, so and so says I want to compete and I am going to use door locations bc someone on this forum said it gives better width than Kick panels....


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

Mic10is said:


> This is based on what?
> putting speakers on the dash especially attached to the apillars decreases width even more
> Almost every kick panel install I have ever done, especially those that compete, have had width at or slightly outside the pillars on most music.
> Dash installs, not so much.
> Door installs yes, but they have other issues as well.


It's based on the fact that the left speaker's azimuthal angle is less wide than in most other types of installs. It's really hard to fix azimuthal angle, unless you can make the reflections off the side glass somehow work to your advantage.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

benny z said:


> look at the perspective here.
> 
> my kicks are physically wider and further forward in the cabin than the a pillars. may not be as obvious from a 2D-view picture, but i'm not sure how you'd get speakers any wider in the car.


I'm looking at the picture. They're not wider. They're narrower.  (not by much though... on the left, the difference is often bigger -- geometry).


----------



## ncv6coupe (Oct 25, 2009)

Well you can use the relections off the window if you insist on using only 2 speakers up front but move that head and bye bye width and depth illusion, hello left door mid.


----------



## benny z (Mar 17, 2008)

MarkZ said:


> I'm looking at the picture. They're not wider. They're narrower.  (not by much though... on the left, the difference is often bigger -- geometry).


the picture makes it look that way, but i assure you they are wider than the pillars. the pillars contour in to the dash - the kicks keep going straight towards the firewall. i'll see if i can snap a picture at a better angle...


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

benny z said:


> the picture makes it look that way, but i assure you they are wider than the pillars. the pillars contour in to the dash - the kicks keep going straight towards the firewall. i'll see if i can snap a picture at a better angle...


I assure you they're not. _It's physically impossible._ We call this trigonometry. 

Remember how we're defining "wide" here -- the angle of the speaker wrt the head.

Here, look at this pic (this is for something else, but you'll get the idea):










The angle we're talking about is the angle of the "right speaker" line wrt straight ahead.


----------



## benny z (Mar 17, 2008)

ah - i get what you are saying.

i was speaking physical boundaries of the vehicle, not necessary width to the head.


----------



## Triggz (Aug 11, 2010)

Looking at what everyone has posted, stage width varies from application to application due to too many variables such as placement, on or off axis, passive or active, dsp or not, reflections, phase, etc. so there is no correct "formula" of setting up width.

Think about this...Is width subjective? The stage width that satisfies you may not satisfy someone else. 



Mic10is said:


> This is based on what?
> putting speakers on the dash especially attached to the apillars decreases width even more
> Almost every kick panel install I have ever done, especially those that compete, have had width at or slightly outside the pillars on most music.
> Dash installs, not so much.
> Door installs yes, but they have other issues as well.


----------



## Oliver (Jun 25, 2007)

Triggz said:


> Think about this...*Width is subjective*. The stage width that satisfies you may not satisfy someone else.


**********

It is something that can be achieved, just like bass upfront [ basically, how far are you willing to go ! ]


----------



## Triggz (Aug 11, 2010)

"Width is subjective" 

Don't take that as a fact. I was just thinking out loud. Of course it is something that can be achieved. I'm curious to hear what people have to say about stage width in a subjective point of view.


----------



## turbo5upra (Oct 3, 2008)

Oliver without sick mod's to the car can you obtain 4' of width on either side of you?

I think i'm trying to find a unicorn.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Mic said something on the previous page which triggered this post.

This one is for the op. Stage width at the side view mirrors, is basically extreme width. It corresponds with one of the extreme end points on the bell cure. Just a bit beyond what you see in the picture. It's a point the competitors aim for, after they have covered the large middle portion. 

Can you even get it without filling in the middle? Frankly, I don't know. But for sure, if you don't have the middle filled in properly you'll never experience the true impact of a stage that wide. You're also not going to have the middle filled in without tons of dsp. The car is a hostile environment and you need dsp to tame it to reasonable levels, so that you can then fill in the middle well. That by itself will give amazing impact. I'd focus on getting that done first.


----------



## ncv6coupe (Oct 25, 2009)

I think this "tons of dsp" term needs to be put to bed. Get your speakers "ON" axis and all you need is time delay. 

De End


----------



## benny z (Mar 17, 2008)

ncv6coupe said:


> I think this "tons of dsp" term needs to be put to bed. Get your speakers "ON" axis and all you need is time delay.
> 
> De End


agree to disagree!


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

ncv6coupe said:


> I think this "tons of dsp" term needs to be put to bed. Get your speakers "ON" axis and all you need is time delay.
> 
> De End


Name 1 pure sq champion in the past 5 years who wasn't running a processor or wasn't using a ton of dsp from the hu.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

ncv6coupe said:


> I think this "tons of dsp" term needs to be put to bed. Get your speakers "ON" axis and all you need is time delay.
> 
> De End


You could do that. Or you could use an EQ/crossover to achieve the same thing. Either way. 

Also, if you're interested in having good sound in the passenger seat too, then there are lots of reasons not to do them on-axis...


----------



## sqshoestring (Jun 19, 2007)

I'm old school, I build for no DSP, get it close as reasonable, then try as little DSP/EQ as I can get away with. I'll go extra install to avoid it, mostly because EQs used to suck....and I like larger speakers lol. Some installs you can't of course.


----------



## benny z (Mar 17, 2008)

i'm with you there. try to get it as "right" as possible first, then use dsp to fine tune.


----------



## ncv6coupe (Oct 25, 2009)

sqnut said:


> Name 1 pure sq champion in the past 5 years who wasn't running a processor or wasn't using a ton of dsp from the hu.


Honestly, some competitors are not armed with the knowledge us diyma readers and competitors have! Tons of DSP is a dum term. lets run down why that irks me. 

Speaker too loud, put a resistor on it,
Frequency response sucks, Turn it more to you*on axis*
Dont have stage width, put another speaker on your side and play with "*DISTANCE* and amplitude level/volume
Don't have depth, well put that midrange in the kicks 
Tweeter sound harsh, turn it down and put a cap on it to smooth the "bottom end response out"




MarkZ said:


> You could do that. Or you could use an EQ/crossover to achieve the same thing. Either way.
> 
> Also, if you're interested in having good sound in the passenger seat too, then there are lots of reasons not to do them on-axis...


Well see markz, thats the kick ass part, somethings got to give and its the passenger seat, that really REALLY takes some dedication to passive speaker tuning and I gave up on that journey. I could have said EQ and Crossover but I figured the "ON" axis comment would stir the pot up better and it sure as hell did. All the info we need is on this forum and if you really want to understand why i said that everyone should take a look around in their favorite movie theatre early while the lights are still on.

The one thing thats really kicking my butt is my high volume playback, I think its high frequency reflections, dome tweeter energy storage mixed with distortion from the playback stress. I got some suggestions from my diyma peers that has me in limbo from being completely happy with my system. Its not blatant distortion but its audible enough during what I would consider critical listening. Most people might think my car will sound weird since I went for the "extreme sound" I will see what the judges have to say next year.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

benny z said:


> i'm with you there. try to get it as "right" as possible first, then use dsp to fine tune.


I think a car audio install shouldn't rely on serial events. I think everything should be taken into consideration during the initial planning process. You should know in advance what kinds of processing you'll have available to you. Things will turn out much better if you consider everything all at once instead of doing the install and then afterwards deciding what forms of processing you should use.



ncv6coupe said:


> Honestly, some competitors are not armed with the knowledge us diyma readers and competitors have! Tons of DSP is a dum term. lets run down why that irks me.
> 
> Speaker too loud, put a resistor on it,
> Frequency response sucks, Turn it more to you*on axis*
> ...


Haha half of these things can be considered "processing". 

There's absolutely no reason at all to limit oneself intentionally. We use tools to make life better. Lots of people make sacrifices, like putting ugly-ass kick panels in their cars and sticking their left leg out the window to accommodate them, when they don't have to.


----------



## ncv6coupe (Oct 25, 2009)

MarkZ said:


> Lots of people make sacrifices, like putting ugly-ass kick panels in their cars and sticking their left leg out the window to accommodate them, when they don't have to.


:thumbsdown::juggle2: I had no choice, i ran out of "PROCESSOR":laugh::laugh:


----------



## turbo5upra (Oct 3, 2008)

Ah... looks like i've reached pretty much my peek,.... I have a center stage, right side is outside the door.... and left is just outside the window. 

I guess if I had to describe it it looks like mark's drawing up top.


----------



## Hernan (Jul 9, 2006)

To make the stage wider than the front stage phisical placement, the only thing I have found is the use of "processed" rear fill.


----------



## sqshoestring (Jun 19, 2007)

MarkZ said:


> I think a car audio install shouldn't rely on serial events. I think everything should be taken into consideration during the initial planning process. You should know in advance what kinds of processing you'll have available to you. Things will turn out much better if you consider everything all at once instead of doing the install and then afterwards deciding what forms of processing you should use.


I tried it, I started with a 880PRS in this car but it can't fix it the way I want it. This car just hates bass, in the end I will have a pair of 15s and some kind of midbass to make enough for me, and I don't want it 'that' loud.


----------



## turbo5upra (Oct 3, 2008)

your trouble is the "pyles" 

what kind of car is it?


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

sqnut said:


> I'm also not a big fan of centre channels, rears, ambiance fill in drivers etc. The more drivers you run the more issues you will have with phase and cancellations, reflection et-al.










ncv6coupe said:


> I think this "tons of dsp" term needs to be put to bed. Get your speakers "ON" axis and all you need is time delay.
> 
> De End





ncv6coupe said:


> Honestly, some competitors are not armed with the knowledge us diyma readers and competitors have! Tons of DSP is a dum term. lets run down why that irks me.
> 
> Speaker too loud, put a resistor on it,
> Frequency response sucks, Turn it more to you*on axis*
> ...


I don't see how any of the above qualifies as dsp. Adding speakers is not dsp. Putting a resistor is a band aid not dsp. Angling speakers or putting them in kicks is placement not dsp.

DSP = Digital Signal Processing

1. TA : Can you set each driver independently? The ability to adjust in increments of 1ms is good, the ability to adjust in increments of 0.04ms is 'tons of dsp'.

2. Active Network : The ability to set an active network is dsp the ability to select a wide range of frequencies at 1st-6th order slopes is 'tons of dsp'.

3. EQ : A 5-7 band graphic eq is basic dsp, 5-7 band PEQ is decent, 16 frequencies independent L/R control is good dsp and 31 frequencies independent L/R for each driver is tons of dsp.

4. Ability to adjust gains for each driver independently is good dsp.

Running centre channel, rear ambiance drivers etc is NOT dsp.


----------



## benny z (Mar 17, 2008)

agree


----------



## ncv6coupe (Oct 25, 2009)

sqnut said:


> I don't see how any of the above qualifies as dsp. *Adding speakers is not dsp*. *Putting a resistor is a band aid not dsp*. *Angling speakers or putting them in kicks is placement not dsp*.
> 
> DSP = Digital Signal Processing
> 
> ...


SQNUT, lets go over this 1 more time, First of all I'm NOT a "GURU":crown:, I have so much dsp in my car you may vomit but I really don't need all of it except for the individual channel T/A. Who in there right mind adjust their delay over a foot at a time? A resistor is a band-aid? WTH, uumm I think you should pop the cover off that p-880, your eyes may explode when you see whats in there Notice the key term I've been coining is processing, Markz said processing, nobody said it was digital. Your speaker is a preset EQ, your enclosure is an EQ, your car's cabin is an EQ, reflections is an EQ, your real EQ is an EQ(but wait what is an eq, you betcha-capacitors and resistors), and last but not least *YOUR EARS IS AN EQ, THE MOST IMPORTANT PROCESSOR OF EM ALL*. You have some reading to do on small spaces and multiple sound sources. THEY ALL COMBINE! :icon_bs: THATS RIGHT I SAID IT, THEY ALL combine. If thats not the only advantage in car audio while listening to stereo then I don't know what else I can tell you to keep this thread from going to the pits. Oliver said it best, How far are you willing to go, I was cool with my system at reference level 95db, then some smart ass idea of mines said lets up the ante and push for REFERENCE LEVEL and thats when the sheetmetal started getting cut and it's too late to look back now. hmm I don't know what else to say about this!


----------



## ncv6coupe (Oct 25, 2009)

Of course I wasn't done, name one processor that has a Standing wave delete feature, I like lots of speakers in the car, no conventional 2 way in the doors will have the high spl balls with the wide sound that I want and go down to 50 like you have your crossover set.


----------



## ALL4SQ (Mar 28, 2009)

MarkZ said:


> I'm looking at the picture. They're not wider. They're narrower.  (not by much though... on the left, the difference is often bigger -- geometry).



I'm a two seat imaging person. So I always go for kick mounted midranges. 
In every car I've owned the kicks have offered more stage width.
I'm sure there are some exceptions, but most pillar mounted midrange installs I see have the mids hanging off the pillar blocking the divers view and narrowing the soundstage. I could also go out to my truck and use a tape measure to give width measurments for pillar,dash and kicks if needed?

Pictures: The pictures show midranges on the dash,pillar and kicks.


----------



## turbo5upra (Oct 3, 2008)

All... whats up with the bb looking things in the box in your build log?


----------



## ALL4SQ (Mar 28, 2009)

turbo5upra said:


> All... whats up with the bb looking things in the box in your build log?


Its Lead Shot:









I brush on a coat of Fiberglass Resin, Then layout the Lead shot. Next I pour a mixture of Concrete powder and Fiberglass resin over the Top. 
Makes for Heavy and Very Dead enclosure. 

I want to hear the Output from the sub not the Vibration transferred through the enclosure. 

I still need to work on adding text to the pictures. Sorry, I've been lazy lately.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

Who said anything about pillars?


----------



## ALL4SQ (Mar 28, 2009)

benny z said:


> look at the perspective here.
> 
> my kicks are physically wider and further forward in the cabin than the a pillars. may not be as obvious from a 2D-view picture, but i'm not sure how you'd get speakers any wider in the car.


Benny Z did. Go back to page 3 and see how you answered his post.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

If you want to judge your efforts against the MS-8, I have a full Logic 7 with the MS-8 in my car...about 40 minutes west of you down I-85.



ncv6coupe said:


> Of course I wasn't done, name one processor that has a Standing wave delete feature, I like lots of speakers in the car, no conventional 2 way in the doors will have the high spl balls with the wide sound that I want and go down to 50 like you have your crossover set.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

ALL4SQ said:


> Benny Z did. Go back to page 3 and see how you answered his post.


Ah, I hadn't realized he was comparing it to the a-pillars. I thought he was comparing it to the door grille right next to the kicks. Good find. So my comment doesn't make much sense then. :laugh: 

Anyway, should have an easier time getting better width out of the wider location (the doors) than either of the other two options.


----------



## ALL4SQ (Mar 28, 2009)

MarkZ said:


> Ah, I hadn't realized he was comparing it to the a-pillars. I thought he was comparing it to the door grille right next to the kicks. Good find. So my comment doesn't make much sense then. :laugh:
> 
> Anyway, should have an easier time getting better width out of the wider location (the doors) than either of the other two options.


 For a one seat vehicle doors would probably be fine. I've definitely heard some cars using the stock door speaker locations with a wide sound stage. Not so good for two seat imaging though. 

I personally like to use my armrest while sitting in the car, I really hate feeling the midbass vibrations through the armrest. 

From personal experience I've found that using smaller drivers and mounting them as far outboard in the kicks as possible seems give me a little more stage width.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

ALL4SQ said:


> For a one seat vehicle doors would probably be fine. I've definitely heard some cars using the stock door speaker locations with a wide sound stage. Not so good for two seat imaging though.
> 
> I personally like to use my armrest while sitting in the car, I really hate feeling the midbass vibrations through the armrest.
> 
> From personal experience I've found that using smaller drivers and mounting them as far outboard in the kicks as possible seems give me a little more stage width.


Weird. 

I won't say it's completely without explanation though. [cajunner's post about early and late reflections is worth reading, btw] Anyway, if your speaker positioning is such that you can take advantage of side reflections, then this presumably could improve ITDs. I think. I'm guessing. ILDs can improve as well, but then we're really talking tweeters, which may or may not be positioned in the kicks with your mids. And if they are, height is generally going to suffer.

However, if this is how width is being accomplished, then I would fully expect it to diminish when you roll the windows down. 

I think the biggest benefit for kick panel installs in a two-seat setup comes in terms of tonality and even-ness, which is what lycan mentioned before. If done correctly, it affords you the opportunity to run both speakers approximately equally off-axis for both passengers.

For one-seat setups, this is all pretty much irrelevant.


----------



## ALL4SQ (Mar 28, 2009)

For kicks I use an Under dash pad made of acoustic foam. Kicks can also benefit from the Carpeted area in the Foot well. Your going to get a more acoustically pleasing area around the speaker in the kicks compared to any other place I can think of in the passenger compartment of a vehicle.

In my car the transmission hump is large, this gives me carpet common to 3 sides of the area and foam on one side. So getting crazy reflections from the kicks similar to the pillars or dash really shouldn't be as bad. 

As for peoples legs. My seats go way back.


----------



## ncv6coupe (Oct 25, 2009)

thehatedguy said:


> If you want to judge your efforts against the MS-8, I have a full Logic 7 with the MS-8 in my car...about 40 minutes west of you down I-85.


Sounds like a plan, So you are finished with your install i presume? Oh and I hope that it doesn't seem like I'm slinging mud against the ms-8. I pick my battles wisely and that's not one that i want to start. The thing is the first mod I did when i was putting my stereo in was cut a 7 inch hole in my door panel, BIG mistake trying to eyeball the power window motor rail bolts but anyhow since that didn't work out and the panel is ruined, I just said whatever and decided to go commando on my install everywhere else: I got some new goodies I'm waiting on that should be the axe to my issues then I'll ride down and we can have a listening session, I also hope I can be fine tuned to make it to the NC meet later this month.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

ALL4SQ said:


> For kicks I use an Under dash pad made of acoustic foam. Kicks can also benefit from the Carpeted area in the Foot well. Your going to get a more acoustically pleasing area around the speaker in the kicks compared to any other place I can think of in the passenger compartment of a vehicle.
> 
> In my car the transmission hump is large, this gives me carpet common to 3 sides of the area and foam on one side. So getting crazy reflections from the kicks similar to the pillars or dash really shouldn't be as bad.
> 
> As for peoples legs. My seats go way back.


Heh, mine don't. I used kicks many years ago when I had an 87 Eldo with bench seats. 

They certainly have their benefits, but their drawbacks too. Width generally being one of them. Which is why I said "weird" before when you reported that the stage actually got wider when you moved the speakers to the kicks.


----------



## TJ Mobile Audio (May 6, 2009)

Excellent thread, I'll be reading and re-reading this over the next few weeks. I'm considering a re-design of the front stage in my Sentra...

In the truck, my stage width is about 6 feet, can anyone beat that? LOL


----------



## ALL4SQ (Mar 28, 2009)

MarkZ said:


> Heh, mine don't. I used kicks many years ago when I had an 87 Eldo with bench seats.
> 
> They certainly have their benefits, but their drawbacks too. Width generally being one of them. Which is why I said "weird" before when you reported that the stage actually got wider when you moved the speakers to the kicks.



Click on the link at the bottom of the page and see where my mids and tweets are. You will need to click on Site map at the bottom of the page.
Then the Kick panel link.

I really think many things in car audio come down to the stereo effect. The closer the path length difference gets to zero the better the stage height,width and depth get. Try sitting in the center of the vehicle sometime. No problems there. 

I also don't think you can completely overcome bad path length differences with Signal delay,shifted gains and separate L/R EQing. 

I honestly only have stage height problems with midbass frequencies about 80hz to 160hz. Thats why I run a ceneter mounted midbass driver up high in the dash.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

cajunner said:


> two seater cars are like one-size-fits-all.


^Agree. Two seats is a compromise over the levels you can hit for a single seat. I'm lucky that I can go the single seat route since I'm the sole occupant 90% of the time. I have 2 settings (L/R), the only issue left is the change required in the angle of tweets, more applicable in my setup where I run ring radiator tweets. 



cajunner said:


> car manufacturer stock locations are significant clues as to where the best spots are in creating a nice evenly proportioned stereo sound. of course, that's only applicable to manufacturers who cared about it, haha...


Most manufacturers who give decent locations do so by chance imo. In my Ford, the mids are placed high and forward on the doors. About 8" below the window. The mid on my side fires directly into the steering column which is about 7-8" from the speaker.



ALL4SQ said:


> I also don't think you can completely overcome bad path length differences with Signal delay,shifted gains and separate L/R EQing.
> 
> I honestly only have stage height problems with midbass frequencies about 80hz to 160hz. Thats why I run a ceneter mounted midbass driver up high in the dash.


Yes and a big time yes . It's really weird when 20-60hz notes image up higher than the 80-200 range. You can raise these a bit by thinning out the range while maintaining l/r balance but then you lose out a bit in impact over this range. Like with many things linked to sound it eventually comes down to what you settle for.


----------



## TJ Mobile Audio (May 6, 2009)

sqnut said:


> Most manufacturers who give decent locations do so by chance imo. In my Ford, the mids are placed high and forward on the doors. About 8" below the window. The mid on my side fires directly into the steering column which is about 7-8" from the speaker.


Agreed. Manufactures are more interested in cost savings than acoustics. They know most people are stone deaf when it comes to hi-fidelity reproduction, and they further know that probably 99.9% of customers don't make buying decisions based on the sound system.

Sqnut, do you have an older F-series truck? That's exactly how it was in my old-style '97 F-250, and that's how it is in my '89 F-150. Tragic location, but I decided to run with it rather than fabricating the heck out of it. After going 2-way active with bi-amped coaxials, adding enough T/A and EQ; it's mostly coherent now, lol. No easy way to kill the early reflections, though...


----------



## ALL4SQ (Mar 28, 2009)

cajunner said:


> I'd think that with that amount of customization... good Lord...
> 
> you're getting cancellation off of mid bass frequencies? wait, I'm going to have to go further into it, I just looked at those kicks...
> 
> ...


Thanks, your very Kind. I wish the car was finished. The painter is still having problems with painting the Amprack. Sounds like we got some silicone on it somehow. Hopefully it will be finished soon. 

No Tire rubbing. But it just goes in and out of the trailer anyways. The wheel well liners will look different when finished. The shop added a pair of 8's in the firewall area so the wheel well changed again. 

I didn't say anything about cancellation of midbass frequencies. I said stage height problems between 80hz and 160hz. The problem with many good two seat cars is they either tune out alot of midbass between 80hz and 160hz(male vocals sound like a female) or the stage height bounces up and down when a heavy midbass track is played. Having midbass drivers up high can overcome this. Its not without its problems, but everything is a trade off. I look at what I'm doing with my car as a bunch of band aids to try and fix problems that really bug me. 

The two big problems that bug me are two seat imaging and being able to tune for Tonal accuracy without giving up stage hight. 

I've done crazy Horns, I'm not going back. Very difficult to tune for all types of music. 

I think people that give up on building a two seat imaging car are just not up to the battle. Just because somethings difficult doesn't mean you quit. 

Thanks


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

TJ Mobile Audio said:


> Sqnut, do you have an older F-series truck? That's exactly how it was in my old-style '97 F-250, and that's how it is in my '89 F-150. Tragic location, but I decided to run with it rather than fabricating the heck out of it. After going 2-way active with bi-amped coaxials, adding enough T/A and EQ; it's mostly coherent now, lol. No easy way to kill the early reflections, though...


It's an '07 Ford Fiesta, 3 box sedan with the steering on the wrong side .


----------



## TJ Mobile Audio (May 6, 2009)

sqnut said:


> It's an '07 Ford Fiesta, 3 box sedan with the steering on the wrong side .


LOL, I take it they never learn...


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

ncv6coupe said:


> SQNUT, lets go over this 1 more time, First of all I'm NOT a "GURU":crown:,


That's fine cause neither am I.



ncv6coupe said:


> I have so much dsp in my car you may vomit but I really don't need all of it except for the individual channel T/A.


I disagree. In a car there's no such thing as too much dsp. At the end of the day its about the sound in the car. Assuming there is agreement on that and based on the fact that you compete:

1. Does your car sound similar to the top 2 finalists? If not, ask yourself why. Sure, different equipment, different placement and install etc, but that only a part of the picture. So what's the balance? Chances are it comes down to how they use the tuning features (dsp) at hand. The first lesson I was taught (and it took me close to 2 years to accept) was that you can't use tuning features based on forum lore, or what it measures, or how it calculates. You're using tuning features to achieve 'how it sounds'. Nothing in this hobby limits your evolution more than mindsets. 

2. A lot of the forum folklore is based on what applies in 2ch home audio. 

Place the speakers for min PLD so you have to use min dsp.
Using too much dsp affects sound quality
Run the eq flat.....
[/LIST]

These are some of the many hangovers from the 2ch side. 

3. In this hobby it's imperative to have a reference point. Your ears have to first hear and understand what you're shooting for, your mind has to understand what each tuning feature does and most importantly how things work together. My reference point is my home 2ch setup. How does Diana Krall sound on my 2ch vs my car? I'm close in my car and I'm convinced that if I add a processor to the sound chain in the car, I'll beat the stage. imaging, tonality and impact of my basic $10K home 2ch. Thats a big deal. 

4. Somewhere you mentioned 'why should i delay the drivers by 1 foot...', because when done correctly it raises your stage height. Again you can be limited by your mindset that tells you since PLD in kicks is min all you need is some TA and nothing else, or you can forget all that and just get all the tuning features working together to get you close to your ref point.

5. I really don't understand all the 'science' mystique thats tied into sound. All the maths, physics, calculus et al. I'd rather just go by how it sounds. See there are two types of people. Left brain dominant and right brain dominant. Typically the left brain guys like to build the 'whole' from the bits and bytes up and the right brained guys build down from the 'whole'. I guess I'm just too right brained.

6. Needless to say that all the calculations and formulas go out the window cause you don't hear at the same level everyday. 8 hours of sleep, fewer issues on the mind, more relaxed mind=better hearing. 4 hours of sleep, too much to drink the night before, tons of tension=crappy ears. Try getting a formula for that.


----------



## ncv6coupe (Oct 25, 2009)

ALL4SQ said:


> The two big problems that bug me are two seat imaging and being able to tune for Tonal accuracy without giving up stage hight.
> I've done crazy Horns, I'm not going back. Very difficult to tune for all types of music.
> I think people that give up on building a two seat imaging car are just not up to the battle. Just because somethings difficult doesn't mean you quit.


I am such a tuning noob that is exactly why i quit, I still have a different angled kick panel mold that I can shift back to but I swear man, like sqshoestring said earlier, my car just hates bass up front, *sigh* This doesn't leave me very confident on my future addition as now on more than one occasion I've been told this same exact statement, Word for Word from people in the know. 



sqnut said:


> At the end of the day its about the sound in the car. Assuming there is agreement on that and based on the fact that you compete:
> 
> 2. A lot of the forum folklore is based on what applies in 2ch home audio.
> 
> ...


Most Definately agree with you brother, I am a Car Audio Soundstage Tuning NOOB, never once stepped foot in a competition lane:blush:. I only have memories of how sick some good ole regular stereo stuff can sound and I literally have no "real" reference right now. I was exposed to high quality audio when I was a teenager and it's stuck with me ever since. I really did not want to take on any audio projects in the car other than regular fun systerms, that go BOOM like so. That number 5 comment is just money in the bank, I don't understand the science either, well I do sometimes but lots of things can only be understood when you have guys who are CENTRAL brained. This forum has about 6 of those guys, Its absolutely incredible that they still co-exist and share their "guruness" in such a watered down format. Anyhow I appreciate the chat with you, I have some more thinking to do as what I need to do now, I don't have big sponsorship dinero to keep trying stuff without first knowing what I should really be hearing. I still have a lot to learn, Back to the books. Cheers


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

ALL4SQ said:


> Click on the link at the bottom of the page and see where my mids and tweets are. You will need to click on Site map at the bottom of the page.
> Then the Kick panel link.
> 
> I really think many things in car audio come down to the stereo effect. The closer the path length difference gets to zero the better the stage height,width and depth get. Try sitting in the center of the vehicle sometime. No problems there.
> ...


Weird. (again) 

1) Why can't you overcome PLDs with delay and EQ?
2) How does the ear discern height from 80-160Hz?


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

ALL4SQ said:


> I think people that give up on building a two seat imaging car are just not up to the battle. Just because somethings difficult doesn't mean you quit.


Haha. For some people, the second seat _really_ doesn't matter because they never sit in it. For me, it never even entered my brain to accommodate the 2nd seat. I can't think of a reason why I would.


----------



## Oliver (Jun 25, 2007)

> *
> o Phase delays at low frequencies
> o group delays at high frequencies
> * Interaural level differences
> ...


anything here help?


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

Nothing there talks about _height_.  Height cues come primarily from 1) head movement, and 2) reflections from the ear, which only operate at very small wavelengths (high frequencies). Which is why I'm confused about all this talk about midbass stage height being different from high frequency stage height...


----------



## ncv6coupe (Oct 25, 2009)

Boy would it be great to have a Flat dash like most guys with trucks and All4SQ's dash rebuild. Instead my stage was once upon a time lost(unless i scooted forward in the chair) behind Honda's Grand Canyon instrument cluster rendition until I put that second high mid in there.


----------



## ALL4SQ (Mar 28, 2009)

MarkZ said:


> Weird. (again)


I know from all your great posts that I've read over the years that your a pretty smart dude. Maybe I'm not reading alot of these posts correctly that I see on here? I keep getting the Idea that if its not easy or basically point and click than people are not interested in doing it. In other words the younger generation tends to give up on something if it takes more work. 



MarkZ said:


> 1) Why can't you overcome PLDs with delay and EQ?


1) Building a good imaging two seat system takes more than just throwing the speakers in at an angle somebody on the internet suggested. You also can't get good imaging in (two channel) two seat system by using processing. I think you already know this.  



MarkZ said:


> 2) How does the ear discern height from 80-160Hz?


2) I honestly dont know why this happens. Try going out to your car and put a gap in your crossover so your removing 80hz to 160hz. Then listen to the system. Stage height and imaging will improve. I believe its because these frequencies are pathlength dependent and don't react as well to signal delay as higher frequencies do. Knowing why things happen is not what i'm good at. Trial and error are what I have experience with. Well, mostly error.


----------



## ALL4SQ (Mar 28, 2009)

MarkZ said:


> Haha. For some people, the second seat _really_ doesn't matter because they never sit in it. For me, it never even entered my brain to accommodate the 2nd seat. I can't think of a reason why I would.


I use my car for Car Audio Competitions. A judge sits in the passengers seat and judges the car. 

The other thing is, I don't find a single seat system that challenging. Your a very knowledgeable guy. Why not take on the challenge?


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

ALL4SQ said:


> 1) Building a good imaging two seat system takes more than just throwing the speakers in at an angle somebody on the internet suggested. You also can't get good imaging in (two channel) two seat system by using processing. I think you already know this.


Yeah, for two-seat, I mostly agree. Although, introducing a smart center channel can mitigate some of these issues. For one-seat, PLD doesn't matter.



> 2) I honestly dont know why this happens. Try going out to your car and put a gap in your crossover so your removing 80hz to 160hz. Then listen to the system. Stage height and imaging will improve. I believe its because these frequencies are pathlength dependent and don't react as well to signal delay as higher frequencies do. Knowing why things happen is not what i'm good at. Trial and error are what I have experience with. Well, mostly error.


I've never had this observation for height. Height should be dominated by cues coming from the tweeter. So I'm very surprised that you're able to judge midbass height. My best guess is that there could be some sort of rattle or harmonic artifact producing very high frequencies allowing you to perceive depth from the low-frequency drivers.



> I use my car for Car Audio Competitions. A judge sits in the passengers seat and judges the car.
> 
> The other thing is, I don't find a single seat system that challenging. Your a very knowledgeable guy. Why not take on the challenge?


For the same reason I don't hike up a mountain just to say I've done it.  There's no end game. If it's not something I'd use, I'm not going to go to the trouble, expense, and hassle of doing it. Besides, too many compromises would have to be made to pull it off. So I'm content tuning for me. 

Besides... there are enough challenges in car audio without having to introduce extras...


----------



## ALL4SQ (Mar 28, 2009)

ncv6coupe said:


> I am such a tuning noob that is exactly why i quit, I still have a different angled kick panel mold that I can shift back to but I swear man, like sqshoestring said earlier, my car just hates bass up front, *sigh* This doesn't leave me very confident on my future addition as now on more than one occasion I've been told this same exact statement, Word for Word from people in the know.


 I really never understood why I couldn't get my horns to sound good with all types of music. I have also encountered this with some mids and tweets. Not willing to say brand names because people start sending me nasty e-mails. 
With horns I went as far as buying TAD 2" compression drivers and building large custom horns. Sounded wonder full with some music but was pain full with others. I could EQ the pain out but then it sounded dull. Just not very forgiving, Similar to some metal dome tweeters and some midranges that have cone breakup in there upper range. 

Someday I would like to play with horns again just to see if I gave up to easy. I hate being a quiter. :blush:


----------



## Duom (Nov 5, 2008)

ALL4SQ said:


> I honestly dont know why this happens. Try going out to your car and put a gap in your crossover so your removing 80hz to 160hz. Then listen to the system. Stage height and imaging will improve. I believe its because these frequencies are pathlength dependent and don't react as well to signal delay as higher frequencies do. Knowing why things happen is not what i'm good at. Trial and error are what I have experience with. Well, mostly error.


Could this be because you get standing waves in the cabin, perhaps between the door and the centerconsole or between left and right door?

I´m asking because i have some trouble in the low mid area of my car. Around 75Hz the sound pulls extreme left. It sounds as my left and right midbass would be out of phase. I have another phasing thing around 160Hz if i remember right, which seems to be a multiple of the 75Hz thing.


----------



## ncv6coupe (Oct 25, 2009)

ALL4SQ said:


> I really never understood why I couldn't get my horns to sound good with all types of music. I have also encountered this with some mids and tweets. Not willing to say brand names because people start sending me nasty e-mails.
> With horns I went as far as buying TAD 2" compression drivers and building large custom horns. Sounded wonder full with some music but was pain full with others. I could EQ the pain out but then it sounded dull. Just not very forgiving, Similar to some metal dome tweeters and some midranges that have cone breakup in there upper range.
> 
> Someday I would like to play with horns again just to see if I gave up to easy. I hate being a quiter. :blush:


No biggie you quit on horns, I quit on 2 seat, , You know the cycle will pull you back soon enough. My car right now is more optimized for driver seat but if I actually had to think about it, EVERYTHING is literally the same on both sides of the car so I still think I can tune for 2 seat if I really had to put more effort in equal time delay and eq levels. I had symmetrical kicks made up first when I was really focused on 2 seat setup but check my new conundrum I surely just dug myself in, I honestly hate horns(older pa type though) but I'm pretty clever with an EQ and a half hour so I bit the bullet and bought some and am now focusing on getting my pattern control in the upper mid-highs under control and reducing low treble distortion at high playback volume and I think I will have the best of both worlds with some minor notching of standout frequencies in my on axis scheme I got going on. I am trying for a set it and forget it type thing and in my view the mixing in and out of the difference signal is really where harsh can kick your ear-ses arse if you add to much back into the stereo mix. Where the hell have you been hiding all these months, I'm Really liking your post and I like your website. Hope I can hear your car sometime. One of the few 2 seat guys on here.


----------



## ncv6coupe (Oct 25, 2009)

Duom said:


> Could this be because you get standing waves in the cabin, perhaps between the door and the centerconsole or between left and right door?
> 
> I´m asking because i have some trouble in the low mid area of my car. Around 75Hz the sound pulls extreme left. It sounds as my left and right midbass would be out of phase. I have another phasing thing around 160Hz if i remember right, which seems to be a multiple of the 75Hz thing.


Holy 2 year lurking first post Batman, I think your thoughts are correct, without measuring it though physically with a tape measure Kind of hard to tell. Does the sound also dip down low or just pull left but stay up high on the dash?


----------



## ALL4SQ (Mar 28, 2009)

Made up some pictures and took some measurments for pathlength diffrence and width to try and make this easier to talk about.



















The pathlength diffrence for kick panels is 66.5" - 55.5" =10" 


















The Pathlength difference for Pillars is 56" - 43.5" = 12.5" 


















The pathlength diffrence for dash speakers is 62.5 - 51.5 = 11" 


















The pathlength diffrence for door speakers is 57" - 42" = 15" 
The differences are as follows:
Kicks 10" +0 
Dash 11" +1
Pillars 12.5 +2.5" 
Doors 15" +5" 
Please remember a 1" pathlength difference can have a big effect on two seat imaging. So kicks would work best. 



















How far apart the speakers are has an effect on soundstage width. 

Doors 54" -0" 
Kicks 49.5 -4.5" 
Pillars 48.5" -5.5" 
Dash 45" -9" 

Hopefully this makes since.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

Now we're talkin'! 

Your width measurements don't cut the mustard though. Here's why. The measurements that define width are azimuthal angle, not distance between them. Trigonometry obviously allows us to calculate what the angle is based on your width measurements and the distance to the head. But it should be fairly obvious qualitatively that the door positions provide greater azimuthal angle, and therefore more "width", than either of the other two positions. I can't tell from the pics whether or not the pillar or sails provides more width than the kicks, although it looks like the left sail does because it's a lot closer to you. The pillar, maybe not so much, especially since there's a pretty ballsy reflection coming off the glass, which is more medial than lateral. The pillars in this car suck. 

PS - why do we care about azimuthal angle? Because that's what the brain uses to compute lateral position. It does this through ITD and ILD, which depends on the angle of the speaker wrt the two ears.


----------



## ALL4SQ (Mar 28, 2009)

MarkZ said:


> Now we're talkin'!
> 
> Your width measurements don't cut the mustard though. Here's why. The measurements that define width are azimuthal angle, not distance between them. Trigonometry obviously allows us to calculate what the angle is based on your width measurements and the distance to the head. But it should be fairly obvious qualitatively that the door positions provide greater azimuthal angle, and therefore more "width", than either of the other two positions.
> 
> PS - why do we care about azimuthal angle? Because that's what the brain uses to compute lateral position. It does this through ITD and ILD, which depends on the angle of the speaker wrt the two ears.



Cool! I have never heard of azimuthal angle. Are you saying we take the width and pathlength dimensions together and get something out of them? 
Sorry my math back ground is limited, kinda like my spelling and grammar.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

ALL4SQ said:


> Cool! I have never heard of azimuthal angle. Are you saying we take the width and pathlength dimensions together and get something out of them?
> Sorry my math back ground is limited, kinda like my spelling and grammar.


Haha. Let me put it a different way. You would maximize "width" (kinda sorta) with headphones, even though the headphone speakers would be closer to each other than your a-pillar speakers. So, obviously distance isn't the only thing that determines width. Angle is what determines width. If your left speaker is to the left of another speaker, then it's wider. So, if you're sitting in your car and you look at your kick panel speaker in front of you, and you have to look LEFT to see your door speaker, then the door speaker is wider.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

btw, I'm not saying it necessarily results in a wider stage. But it can't hurt. 

Reflections are the ***** of it all. If we were listening out in a field somewhere and you wanted to widen your stage, a great start might be to physically place your speakers at wider locations. Even if that meant moving them closer so that you weren't physically making them any further apart.


----------



## ncv6coupe (Oct 25, 2009)

Mark the problem you start running into where you go really wide with speakers is when your main image starts getting too diffuse and "big", I fought with that a lot so thats the point where I start backing off the TA to bring it back in some and leave any other imaging for the EQ which I really need to work on. And can I ***** one more time how pesky that damn instrument cluster is, I just went outside and started moving around one of my mids some and boy oh boy dipole mounting makes things sound interesting. I couldn't get it to lock in but it was so open and non resonant on a small flat baffle


----------



## The Baron Groog (Mar 15, 2010)

cajunner said:


> gotta disagree, vehemently.
> 
> vehicle acoustics is most definitely a part of a manufacturer's design goals, and the stock locations trade off "stereo everywhere" for localization in a front stage.
> 
> ...


What? Most of the later generation mass market Fords (not limited to US models) have sh!t locations. I had a 2004 Mondeo, 6x8's as standard, speakers mounted so high in the doors sounded awful, the rear door speaker was closer to my ear then any other driver! Same with the Fiesta and Focus.
VAG cars have the midbass by your ass, I've not seen your ass but I'm pretty sure that it won't have a pair of ears on it?

Manufacturers won't spend money on "stock" systems. Even their up-rated Bose/HK/B+O are sh!t when compared to the same money spent aftermarket. It's all branding and squeezing an extra few $ out of you while you're in the dealership.

The Audi S8 has the 14 speaker B+O system in there, a friend who worked for Pioneer auditioned it at a dealer and wasn't impressed. The rep saw him in the car, ran over and cranked it all to "11" before exclaiming "how awsome" it was. Ste let slip he worked for Pioneer and the rep naturally wanted to hear his car, his tone implying "your Jap crap won't beat this Euro Quality" Ste, who's quite reserved didn't want to embarrass the guy and kept declining, but the rep kept insisting until Ste relented; They went out to his car, DEH-P88RS PRS comps and a 10" sub, put the same CD in that Ste was listening to in the dealers and within 3sec the rep said "that Audi system's sh!t!"....So £9k on the Audio B+O system or less then £1.5k on aftermarket, the manufacturers can't even get it right when they want an extra £9k off you, let alone when they just have to give you the system with the car!


----------



## Notloudenuf (Sep 14, 2008)

Subscribed.


----------



## The Baron Groog (Mar 15, 2010)

cajunner said:


> and yet 30 out of 49 cars entered in a MECA *FINALS* event were bested by a stock Cadillac.
> 
> What I'm saying makes sense, 8 times out of 10.
> 
> ...


I read about the MECA debacle, seems bizarre to me. I'm in the UK and don't compete so am not overly familiar with any associations rules-however it seems strange that: either no points were awarded to anyone for installation OR they gave GM points for installation on a factory system OR GM got no points for install and everyone else did? I just don't see how you can compete in an unmodified car for those reasons alone.

Obviously I know none of the competitors or judges/MECA team and would not like to sling mud at them but it's like turning up at a custom car show in a stock motor and walking off with 1st place? Something's rotten in the state of Denmark...

Same friend in the Audi S8 senario reported about a colleagues attempt to sell the then brand new AVIC-HD3BT into Ford and whoever else they owned at the time Range Rover/Volvo/Aston Martin. He went down and did the demo, everyone was "wowed" and loved the product, then the bean counter at the back piped up with "how much can we save by losing X/Y/Z?" car manufacturers are interested in the bottom line, while the new Caddy may have a best in class system it will have been a primarilly cost based decision. Even Mercedes who love to be at the forefront of in car tech were about 5yrs off the pace when they anounced "voice controled sat nav" something I'd had in my £5k Peugeot 306 for years. While 98% of the population wouldn't know a sh!t system from a decent system they will not change-and I'm sure that the aforementioned Caddy system is a cost option.

All systems are a compromise of sorts, people just chose to install in factory locations because it is easier, while we represent the 1-2% of the population who will spend evening/weekends/$thousands on our hobby we don't all have 24/7 $thousands to spend on our systems so something has to give, whether that's not relocating drivers or sticking to 2way+sub over 3way+sub etc. All the work you could do to mount drivers "where they need to be" will not be appreciated when you sell your car on and that's something we all have to think about, along with practicality!

We can't position our seat centrally in the car so we use TA, angle drivers, reduce PLD but all are compromises compared to the central seating position. Unless the McClaren F1 is bought by the Chinese and mass produced we'll all have to suffer off centre seating and compromise our system for this situation, car manufacturers are much more willing to compromise then us, which is why an £80k Porsche Cayenne has the same tweeters as a budget VW, all new BMWs use the same speaker sizes, most later Fords and Mazdas have 6x8 drivers, the speakers from a MKIV Golf will drop straight into a Seat leon and so on.

Anyway, the imaging discussion was pretty interesting before we took it off topic....


----------



## derickveliz (May 15, 2009)

A must! 

Subscribed


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

So......how good is your stage width?


----------



## TJ Mobile Audio (May 6, 2009)

Question, does stage width contradict depth, and vice versa? I mean, isn't width generally achieved by putting the speakers physically out toward the sides, while depth is achieved by focusing on equidistant paths? Or am I completely wrong on that? It seems like you can't really have both unless you have a center seating position.


----------



## TJ Mobile Audio (May 6, 2009)

cajunner said:


> hard to see how you could be wrong on that.
> 
> unless you are able to fool your brain into thinking the speakers in front of you, are also at the width of you.


Unless width and depth are perceived more at different frequencies, then (for instance) you could have your mids wide and your tweeters deep. Not saying that would work, or that it wouldn't present other issues, just a hypothetical situation. I don't actually have any data for that.

Now, if width and depth are both good, but are in fact contradictory, how would one go about finding the "correct" balance of the two?


----------



## ncv6coupe (Oct 25, 2009)

cajunner said:


> hard to see how you could be wrong on that. *i slightly disagree with you and TJ here*
> 
> unless you are able to fool your brain into thinking the speakers in front of you, are also at the width of you.*this is really challenging*
> 
> manufacturers do this with the side reflection off the front door window glass, when you look at the way Bose does their 'stereo everywhere' placement strategy and apply that to the car, you begin to see virtual drivers in several places where there are no speakers. This is why you see people trying to beam their midrange drivers off the far side window glass so the bounce ends up in the opposite ear Like the beam was so accurately place-able, a laser could determine with laser accuracy how the reflection relates to the listener's head. .*head in a vice 101*Servo-controlled kick panels, motion sensor activated occupant height techniques, using the digital presets for delegation of sound patterns based on recorded media (imo, have not seen this one advertised much yet, as it would be a way to control the image when necessary, and having two sets of patterns would go far in giving depth to the orchestra or width to the acoustic performance that's vocal oriented, natch), time delay to create the wider acoustic space*you can time delay, but you still need that depth reference(def, not door mids only), what speaker is the furthest ones away from you and how capable are they??*, MECA's latest winner using controlled near-field absorption and delayed diffractive measures*everybody there at finals underestimated that damn mercedes, I'm soo mad I didn't go and listen to it with Gary*, certainly there are new methods for pattern control other than direction through waveguides, pop-up enclosures, and blanket sound control measures...*yes, acoustic science is now coming to the forefront of everyone's car audio installs as of late, you are familiar with this tradeoff game it seems we are all playing now, but as most would agree, if you ONLY want a one seat car, center seating position is a moot point, you need to become familiar with home theather phase interactions and put multiple speakers in the car to get width and depth and a wide sweet spot, relying on reflections is a recipe for disaster, this is through my trials, not the gospel*


^^^^comments bolded above


----------



## TJ Mobile Audio (May 6, 2009)

^ Rather than relying on artificial intelligence, it could be controlled by a remote control in your pocket... It would be difficult to implement that kind of logic electronically.

BTW, who wants to go to the effort of installing two sets of drivers? Is the trophy worth that much?


----------



## TJ Mobile Audio (May 6, 2009)

cajunner said:


> hide a pair of Whispers in your sail panels under mesh? How hard would that be?


Ah, _if_ I had sail panels...


----------



## ncv6coupe (Oct 25, 2009)

TJ Mobile Audio said:


> ^ Rather than relying on artificial intelligence, it could be controlled by a remote control in your pocket... It would be difficult to implement that kind of logic electronically.
> 
> BTW, who wants to go to the effort of installing two sets of drivers? *Is the trophy worth that much*?


Well when you drive 14+ hours round trip and spend a year installing your stereo at least 1 trophy would be nice.


----------



## TJ Mobile Audio (May 6, 2009)

ncv6coupe said:


> *Well when you drive 14+ hours round trip and spend a year installing your stereo* at least 1 trophy would be nice.


That would beg the same question... 

J/K, I get your point.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

The Baron Groog said:


> While 98% of the population wouldn't know a sh!t system from a decent system .................
> 
> All systems are a compromise of sorts, people just chose to install in factory locations because it is easier, while we represent the 1-2% of the population who will spend evening/weekends/$thousands on our hobby we don't all have 24/7 $thousands to spend on our systems so something has to give, whether that's not relocating drivers or sticking to 2way+sub over 3way+sub etc. All the work you could do to mount drivers "where they need to be" will not be appreciated when you sell your car on and that's something we all have to think about, along with practicality!
> 
> We can't position our seat centrally in the car so we use TA, angle drivers, reduce PLD but all are compromises compared to the central seating position. Unless the McClaren F1 is bought by the Chinese and mass produced we'll all have to suffer off centre seating and compromise our system for this situation,


Yes, in most parts, but with the hu you're running, you can dial in some amazing sound. All the limitations notwithstanding.

To me, the issue of off-centre presentation is a given when you get into this hobby. It's perception though can be reduced by learning to drive(at times ) and listen with your head slightly turned towards your centre stage. Critical listening is all with 'Head in the vice' syndrome. You can have good width and with the right recording, that width can extend a bit beyond your doors. Good height, that starts 2/3 way up your windshield, good tonality and impact. This is based on our hu's. 

Frequencies that we don't control and hence can't balance for L/R will pull lower and towards the side they are hotter from. They will pull some others along with them. Eg 140-180hz will always pull towards the our near side mid.

For me though, the biggest issue in a car are the reflections. Off the dash and the IAC off your nearside window. Cover your dash with a big towel and roll down your front windows........tweak a bit and you'll have a whole different sound level.


----------



## PaulD (Nov 16, 2006)

The Baron Groog said:


> I read about the MECA debacle, seems bizarre to me. I'm in the UK and don't compete so am not overly familiar with any associations rules-however it seems strange that: either no points were awarded to anyone for installation OR they gave GM points for installation on a factory system OR GM got no points for install and everyone else did? I just don't see how you can compete in an unmodified car for those reasons alone.
> 
> Obviously I know none of the competitors or judges/MECA team and would not like to sling mud at them but it's like turning up at a custom car show in a stock motor and walking off with 1st place? Something's rotten in the state of Denmark...


MECA SQ does not judge installation at all, that is a seperate category called install


----------



## SSSnake (Mar 8, 2007)

> Some won sound-off competitions by having the most direct sound possible by using pop-up enclosures that kept the nearest reflections physically separated.
> 
> Some won by using absorptive techniques, blanketing the interior and placing drivers where the reflections were absorbed more than reflected.
> 
> ...


I think that you will find Geddes employs primarily directivity control and thinks diffraction is the bane of quality audio.


----------



## ncv6coupe (Oct 25, 2009)

BD Cut your door panel up mount ur favorite widebander and start turning knobs and pressing buttons until your left stage is a lane and a half across the highway.


----------



## Wheres The Butta (Jun 6, 2009)

ncv6coupe said:


> BD Cut your door panel up mount ur favorite widebander and start turning knobs and pressing buttons until your left stage is a lane and a half across the highway.


lol.


----------

