# Pros and Cons of windshield reflection?



## bugsplat (Nov 7, 2014)

So what the deal with this? From personal experience the sound is slowed due to the extra distance the waves travel up the dash and reflecting off the windshield before hitting the listener. Something else I noticed is the upper range is amplified while the lower range is reduced. Nothing a DSP can't fix though. I've looked at some winning rigs and some are reflected off the windshield and some avoid it. Best I can tell is its either all or nothing. Half reflection is to be avoid.

So what are the other "gotchas"? Temp? Sun/rain? Why do some pros avoid it while others incorporate it into their system. What the logic either way?


----------



## Hillbilly SQ (Jan 26, 2007)

I think the idea is to make the glass be the first reflection. Also, I think when the speaker is below beaming you hear sound from the cone itself and above beaming the sound you're hearing is the reflection. I could be completely wrong. I have 2.5" midranges in my dash firing up at the glass only playing from 1000-4500. They're crossed nearly an octave below beaming with a 24db slope. Tweeters are playing on axis from 5k and up. This is giving the best results so far.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

i cant picture there being any pros to this.. yeah you might be able to fix the response a bit with eq, but the reflections would smear the image i would assume. never tried this location in a tuned install though


----------



## Hillbilly SQ (Jan 26, 2007)

SkizeR said:


> i cant picture there being any pros to this.. yeah you might be able to fix the response a bit with eq, but the reflections would smear the image i would assume. never tried this location in a tuned install though


ASSumption is the mother of all screw-ups. Not trying will doom you to failure. Old sayings are still relevantThe tightest imaging I've ever heard had the midranges in the dash firing up at the glass. And yes, I've been around the block a time or two in some of the best daily driver sq cars in the country


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

bugsplat said:


> From personal experience the sound is slowed due to the extra distance the waves travel up the dash and reflecting off the windshield before hitting the listener.


 what do you mean sound is slowed? Sound doesn't slow down due to reflection...


----------



## gijoe (Mar 25, 2008)

I'll take a stab at this. 

Late reflections aren't too big of a problem, generally they are significantly attenuated and if anything add a bit of ambiance. Very early reflections are too bad either, but I think this is frequency dependent. It's the early reflections that cause the most trouble since they arrive late enough after the direct sound to skew the response, and their amplitude is still high compared to the direct sound.

Windshield angle, and distance to the speaker will play very big roles in determining whether the reflection is early, or very early, acceptable, or unacceptable.


----------



## Orion525iT (Mar 6, 2011)

All in car reflections are early reflections. The best you can hope for is a low over and close distance from primary source so that the initial impulse combine with the early reflection. That way you get 1/2 space, 1/4 space, ect loading. If either criteria fails, you will get combing of some type. 

Your next best option for higher frequencies is to use a wave guide that takes the windshield out of the equation.

Can't say it would never work, but in most cases...


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

The effect of early reflections don't cause any significant issue related to timing. The brain takes all location cues from the direct sound and ignores the early reflections. This is why reflections have little to no effect on clarity of imaging. The effects of early reflections are heard in the response domain. Reflections make the incident sound seem louder. So frequencies above ~500 that are prone to reflections are perceived louder, it's one reason we have a downward sloping curve in a car. 

Play a 300 hz and 1khz pink noise track both at the same amplitude, the 1 khz will sound much louder. Early reflections make perceived loudness > measured loudness above 500. Something easily cured with an eq. We worry too much about early reflections and attribute a lot of tuning or install issues to reflections.

In a car there are no late reflections.


----------



## cajunner (Apr 13, 2007)

going back to Lycan's approach the virtual driver created by the reflection is aimable, the place it is utilized most handily is the vertical expansion of the stage using a horizontal (read: easy) mounting location, and the slight horn loading effect of having the sound radiate to some degree encumbered by dash's baffle/plane in a constrained space.


the windshield rake is important, sometimes you don't want that bang-a-da bang from a long dash and low windshield, since it creates several virtual drivers that compete, AKA dilute the image possible.

with the right install parameters the dash-fired highs can create sumptuous sound, and hardly a DSP is required since the two-pronged manalishi of higher amplitude only sounds is constrained by the midrange which does dive deep into the distance portion, or surround sweepstakes where time-dependency lives, creating a symbiotic relationship that a full-range OEM oval cone can also be adept at, given the windshield bounce is throwing polars that only slightly smear the time-dependency and give most music a fair shake at it, a plus is you are able to throw an image up against the primary viewing target, without it being constricted by various crossover slope/level match issues.

A nice full range driver in the dash with good build quality is mostly throwing 88 db sensitivity and across the range up into the cymbal splash, and with the omni-fire of dash location giving us a homogenized upper end, we don't have the same issues that plague the 2500 hz tweeter insertion, by the by.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

No but you have a lot more other problems to worry about than that.

What wideband is 88dB and can fit up high on the dash like that?

Jeff's original post was about dash board domes and comb filtering.


----------



## cajunner (Apr 13, 2007)

many 4" cone drivers have 88 db sensitivity in the dash, or at least their manufacturer-provided specifications say that they do.

what problems? I know a dash mat doesn't solve all ills but it can contribute to keeping those reflections down to a mild roar.

I've enjoyed the occasional dash mounted midrange, perhaps a little too much for this decidedly pickier crowd, I don't see as many problems in the approach as others might, just like with kick panel mounted midranges and their penchant for needing more on-axis build molds. 


it's all a compromise and I've seen (heard) bad dash sound and good dash sound, not sure what you're tickling?

I'm pretty sure the virtual driver Jeff alluded to was not limited by dome tweeters?


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

When you put a driver near the windshield you get a reflection.

That reflection will set an upper limit on how high the driver will play. Here's the formula:

speed of sound / distance / 4

For instance, if you have a 3" woofer in a midrange pod and it's located six inches forward of the windshield, the upper limit on your midrange pod will be 563hz. (13,500inches per second / 6" / 4)

Now, a lot of people are going to say "I've heard midrange pods that sounded just find. How can you say that the upper limit is 563hz?"


Here's the thing :
*The further away from the windshield you are, the less the reflections are going to matter, because the reflections will be attenuated by distance and the reflections will be scattered.*

But do a gated measurement of the midrange pod, and you'll see the effect - the response is a complete disaster.


IMHO, there are only two ways to fix this problem:
1) Put the driver so close to the windshield that you "push" the limiting frequency up
2) Use a waveguide so that the high frequencies are directed AWAY from the windshield


BTW, DSP can't fix this. DSP doesn't chage directivity, or alter the laws of physics.


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

Orion525iT said:


> All in car reflections are early reflections. The best you can hope for is a low over and close distance from primary source so that the initial impulse combine with the early reflection. That way you get 1/2 space, 1/4 space, ect loading. If either criteria fails, you will get combing of some type.
> 
> Your next best option for higher frequencies is to use a wave guide that takes the windshield out of the equation.
> 
> Can't say it would never work, but in most cases...


^^ correct


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Comb filtering is a ***** , it really sucks when you go to time align and all it does is make a Doppler sound when trying and never gets pinpoint . A dash mat is your friend , and adding a small flap like Gary's car to just help give the sound a nudge in the right direction is worth while , especially at power responce of any given driver


----------



## bugsplat (Nov 7, 2014)

Love all the input! Learning a whole lot. I have some Auditable Physics that I'm unhappy with in the doors on axis. The thought of mounting in the far corners of the dash firing up into the windshield crossed my mind but wanted some insight first.


----------



## ssclassa60 (Jan 28, 2013)

Thg has weighed in on this but I'm trying a pretty wideband speaker (neo8) sideways on my dash. Will be testing this within the next two weeks. I might also try to shield the glass with a small felt lined baffle. I will first try it without the SEMIT and run it 800hz-20k


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

ssclassa60 said:


> Thg has weighed in on this but I'm trying a pretty wideband speaker (neo8) sideways on my dash. Will be testing this within the next two weeks. I might also try to shield the glass with a small felt lined baffle. I will first try it without the SEMIT and run it 800hz-20k


Not to be bearer of bad news . And I sincerely hope I'm wrong for your install, but I had a set of those neo8s I did a dash mount in my van a while back with them, I hated them firing into glass, maybe won't be bad for you. But yeah it was gay actually, I pointed them right at me and they sounded amazing . They're kinda wierd because they are unusually good with phase coheriance , but that kinda makes them bad for reflection or horn loading or whatever . 


Anyway sorry to sound negative , I would try them tho and take a listen before you cut you dash , . But I didn't read all of this post I just saw pic . But ... It will sound really good tho , that setup is kinda cool.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

"it was gay actually".. im not even sure how to take that in terms of how something sounds


----------



## dallasneon (Nov 3, 2005)

SkizeR said:


> "it was gay actually".. im not even sure how to take that in terms of how something sounds


Lol

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

oabeieo said:


> They're kinda wierd because they are unusually good with phase coheriance , but that kinda makes them bad for reflection or horn loading or whatever .


I am confused about what you're trying to say here....Speakers don't have good or bad phase coherence. Coherence comes from how you set them up. Also are you saying some speakers handle reflections better than others?


----------



## Hillbilly SQ (Jan 26, 2007)

Patrick Bateman said:


> When you put a driver near the windshield you get a reflection.
> 
> That reflection will set an upper limit on how high the driver will play. Here's the formula:
> 
> ...


How far up the range will having a midrange loading directly off the glass and pillar be pushed? This is how my 2.5" midranges are firing. In my stock dash locations the Doppler at around 8khz has always been a problem that no amount of eq dumping will fix. I'm even thinking about moving my corner loaded and on axis tweeters to the sails to see if that fixes the problem. Same thing with my door locations somewhere below 100hz. Luckily I can somewhat fix the midbass problem by pushing the crossover points up with shockingly good results.

To touch on your bolded part, it's a good thing my seat rails are really long from the factory. Scooted up so my short legs can reach the pedals everything goes to hell. I just deal with it and do all my real listening with the seat back and engine off.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

I can't get the right pictures to post I'm going to bed


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Patrick Bateman said:


> When you put a driver near the windshield you get a reflection.
> 
> That reflection will set an upper limit on how high the driver will play. Here's the formula:
> 
> ...


Based on the average distance that we sit from the speakers, the attenuation at 2khz would be ~ 0.02 db and at 10 khz it would be about 0.25 db. Below 1 khz the effect of the attenuation is probably not even audible. You can use the graph below to figure it out. The tail off in response is being addressed when you're addressing L/R and overall response. 










If the reflections are attenuated, so is the incident sound and we're back to square one. With normal drivers placed so that each driver has a clear line to your ears (since the drivers are largely omni directional, the angle can be anything and pretty much all locations are covered). With a setup like this, probably 8-10% of what you're hearing is direct sound, and the rest is all early reflections. In a proper room the direct sound is about 20-25%, early reflections and late reflections each are about 40%. You can't replicate this in a car.

Imho, in a car you are not going to get away from early reflections, and any effort to do this with install or driver based applications is kinda futile, but a nics thick dash mat certainly helps. Unless you're controlling directivity using horns, worrying about reflections is kinda pointless. Here too, since the horns are big, folks install them under dash and now 100% of what you're hearing is reflected sound. Just ignore early reflection and the only audible effect is to make 500+ seem louder, so just use the eq. If you feel something is messed up due to reflections, it's 100% down to tuning or faulty install. 

I've tuned cars that had sleek pods aka Gary's car and another that was pretty much a mini bookshelf mounted on the dash, running a Scan 12 M and 3004. Imho, the car with a Gary like setup came up with better depth, because the drivers were physically further from my ears and I have always loved corners of dash work. Tonally both setups came out sounding great.

Getting 500hz and up with dash level speakers is better for stage height and stage coherence, than running the mids and tweets near your feet. With the mids and tweets down low, you will still get great tonality but imaging will be poorer, again imho and ymmv.

However at no point in while tuning any car did I ever feel, that the reflections or driver placement created issues that couldn't be resolved with timing and/or response. Every single time I struggled with something, was because I was being dumb and picking the wrong thing to tweak. 

TLFR: Don't wory about reflections just focus on the tune.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

sqnut said:


> I am confused about what you're trying to say here....Speakers don't have good or bad phase coherence. Coherence comes from how you set them up. Also are you saying some speakers handle reflections better than others?


Read what g&b says about it , they make it make sense i know I will try and someone will flame me for not describe it right. 

Bohlender Graebener Neo8 Planar Transducer


Have at it , read away they even say it


----------



## ssclassa60 (Jan 28, 2013)

oabeieo said:


> Not to be bearer of bad news . And I sincerely hope I'm wrong for your install, but I had a set of those neo8s I did a dash mount in my van a while back with them, I hated them firing into glass, maybe won't be bad for you. But yeah it was gay actually, I pointed them right at me and they sounded amazing . They're kinda wierd because they are unusually good with phase coheriance , but that kinda makes them bad for reflection or horn loading or whatever .
> 
> 
> Anyway sorry to sound negative , I would try them tho and take a listen before you cut you dash , . But I didn't read all of this post I just saw pic . But ... It will sound really good tho , that setup is kinda cool.



Yes, I am a bit concerned too based on other user feedback on Neo8s. I will give it a try anyway. The packaging is too convenient not too...
I have L3's, L1s, and old Neo 4t's as backup. Thanks for the input


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

If I could figure out how to post the proper pics from my iPad, I can show an example of reflections DIRECTLY measured during the installation........allowing informed decision making regarding tweeter faceplate orientation (the faceplate had little "waveguides" on them) so depending on which way you turned the tweeters in the mounts you would alter the amount of direct energy reflecting off the side glass and windshield. (The tweeters were in dash pods top of dash, on axis, Jeep Wrangler) 

There is an easy super fast way to measure this, so that when its time to tune you won't be trying to EQ out something that should have been fixed in the physical/acoustics domain in the first place. 

I'll have to wait till I get to work....


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

oabeieo said:


> Read what g&b says about it , they make it make sense i know I will try and someone will flame me for not describe it right.
> 
> Bohlender Graebener Neo8 Planar Transducer
> 
> ...


You do know that phase coherence is a term used for two drivers playing the same frequency? In car you dial in phase coherence using timing and response. Drivers with a lower distortion profile don't magically become more phase coherent in your car.....


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

ssclassa60 said:


> Yes, I am a bit concerned too based on other user feedback on Neo8s. I will give it a try anyway. The packaging is too convenient not too...
> I have L3's, L1s, and old Neo 4t's as backup. Thanks for the input


No worries , yeah without addiquate rear chamber the neo8 is basicly a tweeter , and firing into glass like I said wasn't very fun for me best of luck they really are nice speakers they sound very very good on axis


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

sqnut said:


> You do know that phase coherence is a term used for two drivers playing the same frequency? In car you dial in phase coherence using timing and response. Drivers with a lower distortion profile don't magically become more phase coherent in your car.....


Yeah but with a flat diaphragm radiation patterns are very different than a speaker over you can time align them up in the high mid range it works great, 
But down in their lower range they act diffrent because there's very little energy loss from uneven distances like there would be a lot more energy loss from your furthest cone speaker. All I'm saying is they act a little different and behave much differently than a cone driver


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

OK, here we go.......


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

and here is the same exact EVERYTHING, just with the tweeter waveguides oriented side to side instead of up-down


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

listening test confirmed that the orientation that resulted in a better "coherence" measurement was indeed better. Mainly in the anchoring in of the center image. like, how do I say this.....better defined?


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Niick said:


> listening test confirmed that the orientation that resulted in a better "coherence" measurement was indeed better. Mainly in the anchoring in of the center image. like, how do I say this.....better defined?


I love you !!!


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

oh yes, i should just make clear that this is a SINGLE tweeter being measured

It was a Focal KRX2 tweeter


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

Frequency response measurements alone would have told me NOTHING about how allowing more energy from the tweeter to reflect off the glass changed the sound. Of course, listening tests would, but in my world. Time is money. I can tell you which orientation is gonna be better very quickly.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

Coherence is a very useful measurement. I also use it to help me decid on crossover freq. because sometimes, you'll have a scenario where a midbass (like in a 2way) might play up pretty high according to the FR measurement, but the coherence drops like a rock past 4K (just an example), so I'll place a cursor there, and that helps me narrow down pornetial crossover freq/slope selections


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Niick said:


> Coherence is a very useful measurement. I also use it to help me decid on crossover freq. because sometimes, you'll have a scenario where a midbass (like in a 2way) might play up pretty high according to the FR measurement, but the coherence drops like a rock past 4K (just an example), so I'll place a cursor there, and that helps me narrow down pornetial crossover freq/slope selections


So wouldn't you agree that a flat planar driver that doesn't attenuate energy over distance as much as a cone is going to have much better coheriance because amplitudes will be more equal.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

oabeieo said:


> So wouldn't you agree that a flat planar driver that doesn't attenuate energy over distance as much as a cone is going to have much better coheriance because amplitudes will be more equal.


Ummmm.........no.......uh......I don't know about that one, I wasn't under the impression that energy attenuated differently with distance depending on the source of the sound. 

It would seem to me, that once the sound is propogated into the transmitting medium, that it's rate of attenuation as distance increased would be a constant, regardless of whether that source of sound was a cone, or a flat planar transducer.........

Of course I could be wrong here.......

Acoustic energy attenuation with distance is a real thing that people deal with in BIG venues, but in a car.....I don't think there's enough distance for that to play a part.

The coherence reading I'm showing can be thought of as a data point-by-data point signal to noise ratio. 

Would love to get into this deeper, installing remote start in 4Runner......ill have to come back to this later, but I love the discussion


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Niick said:


> Ummmm.........no.......uh......I don't know about that one, I wasn't under the impression that energy attenuated differently with distance depending on the source of the sound.
> 
> It would seem to me, that once the sound is propogated into the transmitting medium, that it's rate of attenuation as distance increased would be a constant, regardless of whether that source of sound was a cone, or a flat planar transducer.........
> 
> ...



But you know we deal with things on minute level, however there are instances where you have to turn the left speakers down to get your car to image properly, 
And yeah different kinds of speakers have different radiation patterns and different energy Responce is as well, like in array will not attenuate volume over distance as much as a single driver and a flat panel speaker will not attenuate volume over distance as much as a single Cone driver of it size , i've read up on it quite a bit I would definitely say check it out it's pretty interesting and really good reading


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

So I guess the point I was making sorry was if you have sets of speakers and they have behavioral qualities that I don't lose energy as much as other drivers you install those in a car and you need to delay the left side to get a good image you run your delays and noticed it's right biased because there's no energy loss and there's no need to volume down the left side so at the frequencies where level gives you spatial cues it's making it a different type of tune any conventional driver doesn't mean it can't be tuned it just makes it different


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

How are you measuring phase coherence with only one speaker playing? Not sure I'm clear on what you're measuring.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

How many of you guys read Jeff's original post about dash board domes and comb filtering?


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

oabeieo said:


> But you know we deal with things on minute level, however there are instances where you have to turn the left speakers down to get your car to image properly,
> And yeah different kinds of speakers have different radiation patterns and different energy Responce is as well, like in array will not attenuate volume over distance as much as a single driver and a flat panel speaker will not attenuate volume over distance as much as a single Cone driver of it size , i've read up on it quite a bit I would definitely say check it out it's pretty interesting and really good reading





oabeieo said:


> So I guess the point I was making sorry was if you have sets of speakers and they have behavioral qualities that I don't lose energy as much as other drivers you install those in a car and you need to delay the left side to get a good image you run your delays and noticed it's right biased because there's no energy loss and there's no need to volume down the left side so at the frequencies where level gives you spatial cues it's making it a different type of tune any conventional driver doesn't mean it can't be tuned it just makes it different


Wow, it takes real talent to think of and write stuff like that. Of course, it's totally phase incoherent


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

Elite Car Audio : Car Audio Forum - Dashboard Domes & Reflection Combs

Only the first 5 pages and last page....

Maybe Jeff will reread this old post and feel in the blanks?


----------



## tonny (Dec 4, 2010)

In my experience mid firing in to the windshield can give you a very good staging and also a deep and far stage which is high up on the reflection point on the windscreen, but on axis always wins it in the tonality part! and off course also can stage very well!


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

sqnut said:


> How are you measuring phase coherence with only one speaker jplaying? Not sure I'm clear on what you're measuring.


Its not "phase" coherence.

It's simply called "coherence"

Meyer Sound SIM

Rational Acoustics SMAART

AFMG EASERA

AFMG SysTune

All these measurement systems and more can measure coherence.

From the SysTune manual:

"........The coherency function is a well-defined entity in system theory, for the mathematical expression we refer you to standard text books. Essentially, it measures the correlation between signal and reference, output and input, respectively, of the system under test. This results in a frequency-dependent function with values between 100% and 0%, which represents the level of linearity and constancy of the measured system. There are some fundamental properties worth mentioning with respect to the software implementation........First, its evaluation relies on the set of available FFT blocks. Coherency is always 100% if there is only a single FFT block included with the measurement, which is 1 average. In SysTune for this situation, you may only see values different from 100% if the reference signal is not defined for a particular frequency. For these frequencies the coherency will be 0%.
 Second, coherency accumulates variation and occurrences of nonlinearity over time. That means, the more averages you include in the measurement the lower will be the coherency, as every additional second of measuring time will always pick up a little bit of noise.
 In practice, a coherency value of 100% or close to that will be difficult to achieve. For a small number of averages, normally a coherency of 50% is a good value, for a large number of averages about 25% will usually be sufficient.
 Because coherence is a good measure for the validity of the data acquired, it obviously makes sense to use it as a processing filter for capturing valid data only. This function was implemented as part of the patent-pending SSA filter explained in chapter 5.5 and it is named the coherence filter........."

There are LOTS of acoustic analysis techniques out there that 99% of the car audio world doesn't realize simply because they don't take the time to learn.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

Although, when two overlapping drivers sharing a crossover don't have good "phase coherence" it can and will lower the coherence reading  

(At that freq. range of crossover)


----------



## Niebur3 (Jul 11, 2008)

thehatedguy said:


> Elite Car Audio : Car Audio Forum - Dashboard Domes & Reflection Combs
> 
> Only the first 5 pages and last page....
> 
> Maybe Jeff will reread this old post and feel in the blanks?


^^^This. People needs to read more of what Jeff has written. Very brilliant!!!


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

thehatedguy said:


> Elite Car Audio : Car Audio Forum - Dashboard Domes & Reflection Combs
> 
> Only the first 5 pages and last page....
> 
> Maybe Jeff will reread this old post and feel in the blanks?




I read it , it really says a lot , cleared a few things up for me at least

I miss werewolf's clinics . Eca was the ****, everyone was on ... Good times


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Niick said:


> Although, when two overlapping drivers sharing a crossover don't have good "phase coherence" it can and will lower the coherence reading
> 
> (At that freq. range of crossover)


True, I like to add phase , so in speaking of coherent while delayed left . Because delaying a audio signal will only line up part of the bandwidth , once frequencies become too long , well ... Yeah . 


I should be saying comb filtering more 

Maybe we make a new word


----------



## ssclassa60 (Jan 28, 2013)

Comb filtering was how thg described it...
I will be experimenting snd posting. Wish I had an rta to help quantify my subjective results


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GJQKjcBC96c


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

When measured like this the tweet is modding as two speakers placed next to each other on the horizontal axis, and what you're measuring are probably lobbing artifacts from two drivers playing the same frequency and aligned horizontally. 










When you place and measure it like this that same tweet is now modding as two drives aligned vertically and no lobbing artifacts. 










....just guessing here .


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

Sqnut, are you talking about the measurements I posted ?


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Yes.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

Ok, hang on, I'm getting ready for work......no, not lobing, remember, each measurement shows a single tweeter......ill try to type up what I believe was going on there.....


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

Basically it's like this, see those little half circle things (on the outer edge of tweeter), they cast and acoustic "shadow" on the energy radiating to the sides (if that's how you have it oriented) or top and bottom (if that's how you have it oriented). 

I believe turning them the way I did might have reduced the amount of energy contacting the windshield and side glass (which, because of the tweeters positioning was very close to both) which therefore reduced the amount of reflected out of phase energy (there's that comb filtering somebody mentioned) that was summing with the direct energy at the listening position. 

Whatever the reason, when you have the ability to measure, in real time, reflections and how those reflections affect what you hear, (also remember, with measurement systems like the this, music works as an excitation signal, not just pink noise), a whole new world opens up.... 

I really think more people in the car audio industry (and DIYers alike) should try measurement systems like this.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

I know it's only one driver, depending on the alignment of the wave guide, it makes the driver behave like two drivers either next to each horizontally or one of top of the other vertically.

With the horziontal alignment the two drivers (two halves of the tweeter)are playing the same pass band and this is causing lobbing like combing which is what you're measuring.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

Also, I should mention that if you own an iPad, there is a measurement system from Studio Six Digital called simply "transfer function". This measures coherence, magnitude, and phase in real time just like Smaart7. In fact, it was originall supposed to be part of the Smaart for iOS package, but they couldn't get the software to port to iOS the way they could the single channel module, so this is why it isn't branded "Smaart" or "Rational Acoustics". But it is VERY similar to Smaart7's transfer function.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

Well, ok, not sure I'm totally picking up what you're putting down....but, again, WHATEVER THE REASON.......it's good to be able to measure these things.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

If I didn't have the data to back up my findings, the tweeter would have ended up the other way, as the other way puts the writing "Focal" right-side-up.

And after all, as we all know, with custom installation, it's all about how it looks!! LOL


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

Ok, thinking about what you're saying, yes, two drivers side by side controls the directivity in one direction or another, depending on how they're oriented, up/down or side/side, so yeah, sure, I'll go with that


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

Although I don't think those little waveguides causes the tweeter to really behave like two separate tweeters, or does it.....? Looks like an experiment is in order.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Niick said:


> Although I don't think those little waveguides causes the tweeter to really behave like two separate tweeters, or does it.....? Looks like an experiment is in order.


Do it ! 


I think it's a phase plug to help off axis responce up high. 

There's something tho that happens to the impact sound when all your hearing is reflections that windshield loading takes away.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

Look at the KEF phase plug from the 60s and the one Nexo is doing on their floor monitors. PB has posted pictures of them. Might be similar.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

thehatedguy said:


> Look at the KEF phase plug from the 60s and the one Nexo is doing on their floor monitors. PB has posted pictures of them. Might be similar.


i like KEF, I run a pair of Q6's at home. Nothing high end by any means, but I like the way the tweeter is mounted inside the woofer. I also had a pair of KEF car speakers from the same era built the same way. 

I still have the passive networks from them

Now see, that picture came out ok, upside down, but not TOO tiny.....what the hell!?


----------



## benny z (Mar 17, 2008)

Mine are as close to the windshield as possible.





















I took fourth in amateur at finals this year by one point in my first year ever competing IASCA. I also took first in the 2016 TKE event the same weekend.

My image is pretty pinpoint focused.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

benny z said:


> I took fourth in amateur at finals this year by one point in my first year ever competing IASCA. I also took first in the 2016 TKE event the same weekend.
> 
> My image is pretty pinpoint focused.


Yep, corners of dash are great locations. If anyone feels that reflections are the reason that something sounds 'off', well 99% it's a tuning issue and 1% is faulty install.


----------



## benny z (Mar 17, 2008)

For sure. My first real sq experience in a car was in the '90s and was a van with dash speakers. 

In reading through this thread I saw someone mention it's good for getting a solid image, but that tonality usually suffers. I scored very high in tonality for both events. I've got the IASCA judges reference headphones and my car matches the headphones darn near perfect to my ears.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

If the driver is coupled up VERY close to the windshield, sure.

In the case of the measurements I posted, this was NOT the case.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

VERY, VERY rarely is it a safe bet to say that ANYTHING is for sure in ALL scenarios. 

Which is why the ability to quantitatively measure these things is so important. This way, the guess work is eliminated. Opinions are out the door.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

benny z said:


> Mine are as close to the windshield as possible.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


In this scenario, if measurements were taken of the kind i posted previously, the coherence reading would be very high (good) thru the drivers passband. However, IF that driver was spaced some distance from that windshield, and allowed to play so that a good portion of its off axis energy was hitting and reflecting off the windshield and arriving at the listening position some small (yet measurable) amount of time later, THEN the coherence reading (and sound quality) would likely suffer.

BennyZ has assured, by installing his speakers in this manner, good coherence. His direct and reflected energy are more "one and the same" in timing and dispersion. 

Not all installations that I Tune have such advantages. Sometimes, there are choices to be made, and to be assured that I'm making them wisely, that our clients are truly getting the results they paid for, I rely on science and experience.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Niick said:


> However, IF that driver was spaced some distance from that windshield, and allowed to play so that a good portion of its off axis energy was hitting and reflecting off the windshield and arriving at the listening position some small (yet measurable) amount of time later, THEN the coherence reading (and sound quality) would likely suffer.


Nick,

First of all, I don't think your coherence reading has anything to do with reflections. I think it's purely down to different dispersion/cancellations and hence response pattern from the driver, based on different alignments of whatever that thing on tweet is. 

Secondly I'm still not sure what exactly you are measuring. Coherence seems to be an inappropriate term for it, because by definition coherence means unified whole, hence more than one part. Ok, I won't be facetious. Look, in a car no matter what you do, you're not mitigating the reflections by more than 5%. There is no way that your coherence reading is going to go from 0 to 98 on account of better managing reflections. Is it essentially a reading of combing? I'm not sure we can have a small enough gate to measure direct and reflected energy independently, at best we can only measure it's effect on the response.

The rest of the post is geared towards everyone who has or will try to 'manage' reflections by angling, placing, because they think it's very important to do so. 

In this hobby we spend so much time fretting over reflections and combing and the how they ruin phase coherence and how the time delay between the direct and reflect energy messes up sound quality, etc etc. Consider these two facts and then ask yourself how important reflections are in a car.

1. FACT: Your ear and brain DO NOT hear the direct and reflected sound as two different sounds. It makes no difference if the reflection is 0.001 m/s to about 25ms. Where the brain starts hearing two different sounds, and here too the audible effect is to give the original sound a reverb like effect. The audible effect of early reflections is to make the direct sound seem louder above ~500 hz (easily cured with an eq), late reflections dial in the boundaries of the room (we don't get any of these in a car) and crosstalk from reflections defines your physical boundaries. The big chunk of these frequencies can't be mitigated but some HF content can be absorbed with stuff like a thick dash mat, it definitely makes an audible difference. But beyond this reflections mean very little in a car.

2. Even in a room with a normal 2 ch set up 80% of the sound you're hearing is reflected energy (early and late). Measure your ear level response in a room, and you will see a ton of combing due to room reflections. But we don't fret over reflections in a room do we? We never say 'oh, the reflections in the room are really messing up the tonality and imaging, or whatever'. The 2ch still sounds great. There's absolutely no reason why it should sound any different in your car, other than your tune. 

I can tell you from experience that you can dial in an equally coherent and tonally accurate setup, regardless of whether the mid/tweet is at the front edge, halfway to the windshield, or at the corners of your dash. The only difference between the three placements seems to be in depth of the stage. If the drivers are mounted near the front edge you can dial in great tonality and you'll have good width and height, but practically get no perception of depth. 

TLDR: Imho, the effect of reflections on the quality of what you're hearing is minimal and with correct timing and response you can get your car to sound like your 2ch at home. The time spent worrying about and trying to mitigate reflections in a car can be better utilized towards tuning the sound. Get a dashmat, it makes a difference. YMMV.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

sqnut said:


> Nick,
> 
> First of all, I don't think your coherence reading has anything to do with reflections. I think it's purely down to different dispersion/cancellations and hence response pattern from the driver, based on different alignments of the whatever that thing on tweet is.
> 
> ...


FACT: you are wrong sir. I can make a video and prove to you that you are wrong. It's extremely simple to measure how reflected energy affects the coherence reading. And, by they way, just because you don't like the word how it is used, doesn't mean it's used incorrectly........

"The coherency function is a well-defined entity in system theory, for the mathematical expression we refer you to standard text books. Essentially, it measures the correlation between signal and reference, output and input, respectively, of the system under test. "

MEASURES THE CORRELATION BETWEEN SIGNAL AND REFERENCE!!!!

What is there to not understand!?

Just because you don't understand how these types of measurement systems work, or what they're capable of measuring, doesn't mean that I don't.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

Answer me this, does placing the speakers in more optimum positions affect the sound. According to what you're saying, there would never be any reason to try and optimize speaker location within a car. Because according to you, no matter where or how you place the speakers, it's all gonna be the same, there is no measurable difference.

What I am saying, is that the subjective experience of better sound thru speaker placement decisions CAN also be quantified objectively.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

Oh, and by the way, the reading didn't go from 0-98.....look more closely at the graph.....it went from a consistent 85-90ish % to a solid 99-100%.

The difference in the sound was subtle, but audible. It was mostly image quality.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Niick said:


> FACT: you are wrong sir. I can make a video and prove to you that you are wrong. It's extremely simple to measure how reflected energy affects the coherence reading. And, by they way, just because you don't like the word how it is used, doesn't mean it's used incorrectly........


FACT: You need to read and understand before you react. I'm saying you can't measure directed and reflected energy separately in car. Let's say the nearest reflective object to the speaker is 1", now you need a gate 0.001 ms, how are you going to achieve that? Wait, that's probably beyond the threshold of audibility, so lets just stick to an audible gate. How are you going to gate measurements to 0.01m/s in a car? At best you are measuring the effect of the reflections. 



Niick said:


> "The coherency function is a well-defined entity in system theory, for the mathematical expression we refer you to standard text books. Essentially, it measures the correlation between signal and reference, output and input, respectively, of the system under test. "


....and does what does that sound like?



Niick said:


> Just because you don't understand how these types of measurement systems work, or what they're capable of measuring, doesn't mean that I don't.


How good is your understanding of what you're measuring and how it sounds, if you can't explain it in simple terms? All I'm asking for is a simple explanation of what exactly you're measuring and how its achieved.



Niick said:


> Answer me this, does placing the speakers in more optimum positions affect the sound. According to what you're saying, there would never be any reason to try and optimize speaker location within a car. Because according to you, no matter where or how you place the speakers, it's all gonna be the same, there is no measurable difference.


Again, read, understand then respond. I am not saying it doesn't matter where you place the drivers. Where you place the drivers has a direct bearing on width, depth and height of your stage. But very little effect on tonality. Re-read my post.



Niick said:


> What I am saying, is that the subjective experience of better sound thru speaker placement decisions CAN also be quantified objectively.


What I'm saying is that just because your dsp gives you 1,000 different options, do you really need to try, measure / listen to all before deciding which one works best? It's much simpler to stick to, Is it relevant? Is it audible? If it isn't and you can't correct it with timing, response or placement, is it really worth chasing?


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Niick said:


> Oh, and by the way, the reading didn't go from 0-98.....look more closely at the graph.....it went from a consistent 85-90ish % to a solid 99-100%.
> 
> The difference in the sound was subtle, but audible. It was mostly image quality.


You got imaging cues from listening to one driver???


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

After werewolf speaks on the topic , it's over IMO . That explained everything


----------



## benny z (Mar 17, 2008)

my thought process for my build was based more on what sqnut is trying to convey - that sure there may be measurable differences in direct v/s reflected sound - but in the end our vehicles are a hostile environment with reflective surfaces all round no matter what you do... so use them to your advantage. when we are talking measurements v/s perceived sound...at some point you have to trust your ears.

i experimented with different positions before cutting blindly into the dash. it's what worked best for a far off listening position. i've done pillars on axis before and what i have now (reflected sound) is so much better in my most honest opinion. i did see a comment about speaker positioning affecting mostly width, depth, and height. i concur with that. however i wouldn't go so far as to say it doesn't affect tonality; the axis plays a large part in tonality in my experience. ...not saying the end result after dsp can't be the same.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

sqnut said:


> You got imaging cues from listening to one driver???


Not one driver, from listening to the drivers SET UP horizontally or SET UP vertically!! God damn dude!


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

But you measured only one driver.....atleast that's what you said. So how does the measurement of one driver correlate with the subjective analysis of listenting to 4-6 drivers?


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

benny z said:


> my thought process for my build was based more on what sqnut is trying to convey - that sure there may be measurable differences in direct v/s reflected sound - but in the end our vehicles are a hostile environment with reflective surfaces all round no matter what you do... so use them to your advantage. when we are talking measurements v/s perceived sound...at some point you have to trust your ears.
> 
> i experimented with different positions before cutting blindly into the dash. it's what worked best for a far off listening position. i've done pillars on axis before and what i have now (reflected sound) is so much better in my most honest opinion. i did see a comment about speaker positioning affecting mostly width, depth, and height. i concur with that. however i wouldn't go so far as to say it doesn't affect tonality; the axis plays a large part in tonality in my experience. ...not saying the end result after dsp can't be the same.


One time I was measuring speakers in my living room and noticed that the reflection off the wall had nearly the same response as the speaker itself.

This got me thinking about doing a speaker where the perceived location is the REFLECTION, not the speaker itself.

You'd need a really directional speaker tho.

If anyone wants to see this for themselves, just set your measurement gate right BEFORE the first reflection, but AFTER the initial wavefront.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

sqnut said:


> But you measured only one driver.....atleast that's what you said. So how does the measurement of one driver correlate with the subjective analysis of listenting to 4-6 drivers?


Why do you measure just one driver at a time? Why do you measure just one channel at a time? how do those measurements correlate with the subjective experience of playing all drivers/channels at once? 

Same question.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

In all fairness, I thought you were talking about one driver too.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Patrick Bateman said:


> One time I was measuring speakers in my living room and noticed that the reflection off the wall had nearly the same response as the speaker itself.
> 
> This got me thinking about doing a speaker where the perceived location is the REFLECTION, not the speaker itself.
> 
> ...




That's awesome ! You must have had speakers with a awesome off axis responce , do you remember what they were ?


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

Of course you have to trust your ears, what I try to convey to people, is that in TIME SENSITIVE SITUATIONS, for example, when SOMEONE ELSE'S vehicle is in your bay and you are being paid to do a job.......NOT NECESSARILY WHEN YOU HAVE INFINITE AMOUNT OF TIME TO TINKER..........there ARE more acoustic analysis techniques than MOST people in car audio realize......it goes far far far beyond the lowly RTA.....these tools CAN help us make INFORMED decisions regarding system installation and tuning.

If time is of no concern, and it's your car, and you can tinker and listen and tune and listen and tinker and..........well ok, different scenario.....


----------



## benny z (Mar 17, 2008)

Patrick Bateman said:


> One time I was measuring speakers in my living room and noticed that the reflection off the wall had nearly the same response as the speaker itself.
> 
> This got me thinking about doing a speaker where the perceived location is the REFLECTION, not the speaker itself.
> 
> You'd need a really directional speaker tho.


heh, i like the way you think. my home theater rear surround speakers are ceiling-mounted and aim at 30* down at the side walls of the room to splash the sound off the walls. it creates a truly immersive surround experience.

there are several home speaker manufacturers who utilize rear/side firing drivers in a similar concept.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

sqnut said:


> Nick,
> First of all, I don't think your coherence reading has anything to do with reflections.....


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aYsRkisFpU0


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

oabeieo said:


> That's awesome ! You must have had speakers with a awesome off axis responce , do you remember what they were ?


Exactly. I was measuring some DIY SAW lenses.

Basically I set the gate wrong (accidentally) and was surprised to see how faithful the reflection was to the original source. I'd always assumed that the reflection would be distorted or comb filtered, but it wasn't. It was basically the same as the original, except the highs were rolled off. But not much.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

Close up of measurements from video, purple is with reflective surface.............


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

And the light blue is the baseline measurement (no reflective surface)


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

Now, does it appear as though reflections can cause a change in the coherence measurement?


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

benny z said:


> heh, i like the way you think. my home theater rear surround speakers are ceiling-mounted and aim at 30* down at the side walls of the room to splash the sound off the walls. it creates a truly immersive surround experience.
> 
> there are several home speaker manufacturers who utilize rear/side firing drivers in a similar concept.











I was wandering around CES one year and stumbled into the Gradient showroom. These speakers really blew me away. They're designed so that the first reflection happens much closer to the listener. The idea is that if the first reflection is close to the speakers, it screws up the imaging. (Because it's close to the initial event.) By moving the first reflection out further into the room, you get a perception of "air" instead of smeared image.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Niick said:


> Close up of measurements from video, purple is with reflective surface.............





Niick said:


> And the light blue is the baseline measurement (no reflective surface)





Niick said:


> Now, does it appear as though reflections can cause a change in the coherence measurement?


You're basically measuring combing i.e. effect of reflections. We already know reflections cause combing, you want to call it coherence, :shrug:


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

sqnut said:


> You're basically measuring combing i.e. effect of reflections. We already know reflections cause combing.


the point of the experiment was not to show that reflections cause combing, which in this case was super obvious. The point was to show that you're statement:



sqnut said:


> Nick,
> 
> First of all, I don't think your coherence reading has anything to do with reflections.


was wrong. The coherence mesurement can be used in a myriad of ways. I was merely proving the point that reflections DO affect the reading. That's all.


----------



## cajunner (Apr 13, 2007)

what we need is consensus.

is the coherence measurement data suitable for expressing the value of reflection?

I don't know, but it appears to be a tool that nobody uses much unless they do use it and keep it to themselves.


I think we should applaud Niick's attempts at using coherence measurements, even if it's the same measurements of combing, since we don't really have much in the way of measuring combing in a gradient scale, such as when moving a twiddler incrementally away from the windshield and further into the car along the dash top, so that we can see how some dash mounted drivers work well and yet all the people vehemently expressing opinions that dash mounting is the devil, are using comb filtering as their proof.


If coherence, AKA comb filtering, could be denoted in terms that make sense, like say:

a 4" nominal cone driver, should not be used any further than 2" from the windshield if playing above 2.8Khz


a 3" dome driver can play up to 3Khz if it is placed at least 1.7" from the windshield


why am I suddenly overrun with deja vu?


didn't we already make some of these guideline stats, several years back in another thread?

anyways, I think practical advice should be given as to what the coherence means, in terms of where comb filtering is actually creating audio disturbances. To me, it would be around the same frequencies that beaming occurs, but we're talking about a reflection.


I read lycan's explanation in the reanimated 5 pages of wayback machine, and came away with no hugely successful gradient that I can use to make some of those assertions.


It seems that some of those recommendations based on the science, are being disproved as many people are putting mids and tweeters into A-pillars and winning comps or at least, getting great sound.


Is the difference just the ubiquity of DSP units in play, nowadays?

I think the dash/windshield area is the most suitable natural arrangement for drivers to contribute directly for good sound, based solely on the idea that the place one looks through, at ear height visually and aurally, is best for recreating a sound stage, and in turn, an auditory scene.

On that note, any evidence that proves one mounting system is better than another, even if based on car-specific parameters such as windshield angle/rake, length of dash, or size of stock dash holes, will help and if coherence measurements can do this, then I think Niick's on to something here.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

Thanks cajunner.

To be precise, coherence isn't necessarily an A.K.A. for comb filtering. Many things affect the coherence reading. Not just combing. In my upcoming tuning video, I'll show how coherence can be used to HELP select crossover points when dealing with fully active systems. 

Also, the term coherence isn't just something that I made up, for in depth detail I refer you to wikipedia's definition:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coherence_(signal_processing)

Click on: Coherence(signal processing)


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Why are reflections and combing such a big deal in the car while nobody talks about it in a room? If you can have great sound in a room despite hearing 80% reflected energy and tons of combing, then you really don't need to think too much about them in the car either. Get your tune right and the car will sound like the 2 ch in your room. Period.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Niick said:


> Of course you have to trust your ears, what I try to convey to people, is that in TIME SENSITIVE SITUATIONS, for example, when SOMEONE ELSE'S vehicle is in your bay and you are being paid to do a job.......NOT NECESSARILY WHEN YOU HAVE INFINITE AMOUNT OF TIME TO TINKER..........there ARE more acoustic analysis techniques than MOST people in car audio realize......it goes far far far beyond the lowly RTA.....these tools CAN help us make INFORMED decisions regarding system installation and tuning.
> 
> If time is of no concern, and it's your car, and you can tinker and listen and tune and listen and tinker and..........well ok, different scenario.....


So true , there so so soooooo many systems out there that I was happy with when it left , than learned somethin X processor can do or a new technique and knowing that job is out there not to its best . I'm constantly trying new stuff , and having precise measurements equipment is really nice and take so much of the guessing out.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Niick said:


> Thanks cajunner.
> 
> To be precise, coherence isn't necessarily an A.K.A. for comb filtering. Many things affect the coherence reading. Not just combing. In my upcoming tuning video, I'll show how coherence can be used to HELP select crossover points when dealing with fully active systems.
> 
> ...


Sorry haven't posted up, I'm with you tho. I get what your saying . It really sucks when we stumble on each others words and miss the jist of it. Anyway , if someone says to me cohearance I know what they mean , same goes for comb-filter. If someone says smooth rta responce I know they mean spectrical balance and so on and so fourth . Anyway , hey did you read that eca post Winslow posted? Dood. If not , it's worth a peek . I used to belong to eca and that guy would have these clinics from time to time and dam that Dood was a dam genius , I wish I knew who he was , and I wish he was on here


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

sqnut said:


> Why are reflections and combing such a big deal in the car while nobody talks about it in a room? If you can have great sound in a room despite hearing 80% reflected energy and tons of combing, then you really don't need to think too much about them in the car either. Get your tune right and the car will sound like the 2 ch in your room. Period.


Why do people go to such great lengths to put their drivers in optimum positions in a car if you "really do need to think about it" ?

And people DO talk about it in a room actually. I don't know what kind of people you've been talking to, but room treatment is a HUGE subject amongst 2 ch audiophiles.


----------



## SPLEclipse (Aug 17, 2012)

How are you measuring IR with pink noise?


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

SPLEclipse said:


> How are you measuring IR with pink noise?


Very good question. That's the beauty of so called "source independent measurement systems", With systems like this, you can also use music as your excitation signal, so long as it excites the freq. range of interest. That IR is real time too. If I move the speaker, the mic, or add delay, the IR will move across the screen accordingly. I'll show more in upcoming videos


----------



## cajunner (Apr 13, 2007)

yeah, I think the "tuning" that sqnut loves, is the same thing as crossover voicing that 2 channel equipment makers obsess over.

it's just using different media, it's equalization and fundamental circuit modifications that change the response.

the idea that comb filtering isn't a thing for say, 3-way monitors, is not how I've seen it approached.

that's why one speaker may have a cast EOS plate for highs with mid and tweeter specific positions, other stuff...

so why with a known response pattern such as a dash, we can't use the computer to simplify the process so that we can first derive optimum results from our DSP input, and using tools such as the "coherence" or transfer function modes already available, make the mapping of the dash locations an easy process?


seems like with just a little more application, sort of how some companies use software to chart/predict horn high order modes, we can duplicate that to produce a dashboard/mat/angle/distance model that never fails?


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Niick said:


> And people DO talk about it in a room actually. I don't know what kind of people you've been talking to, but room treatment is a HUGE subject amongst 2 ch audiophiles.


Of course there are people who will spend tens of thousands on room treatments, but a decent 2 ch in 'normal' room still sounds fantastic and people do not go "umm the early reflections are killing the imaging, tonality, staging, whatever".


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

sqnut said:


> Of course there are people who will spend tens of thousands on room treatments, but a decent 2 ch in 'normal' room still sounds fantastic and people do not go "umm the early reflections are killing the imaging, tonality, staging, whatever".


The people that put as much effort, time, thought, energy, money, as those of us here do in car systems, that's actually exactly the kind of stuff you hear them say. They're fanatical about every last detail just the same way as car audio sq guys are. 

According to what you're saying, an absolutely phenomenal, world class 2ch audio system is easy to achieve in a room with little to no attention paid to acoustics of the room itself. 

This is absolutely false. People certainly do put huge amounts of time and effort into treating room acoustics for 2ch listening.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

cajunner said:


> yeah, I think the "tuning" that sqnut loves, is the same thing as crossover voicing that 2 channel equipment makers obsess over.
> 
> it's just using different media, it's equalization and fundamental circuit modifications that change the response.
> 
> ...


Sure the speaker manufacturers will obsess over driver/crossover/cabinet design and part of that is kind of like the active tuning we do in a car (correct placement of drivers is also part of tuning). 

But I was talking more about a room to room analogy. If with a 2 ch in our living room we are hearing 80% reflected sound and we don't fret over reflections (cause it sounds so damn good), why do we go nuts thinking about and trying to mitigate them in the car? Heck in a car we blame everything from imaging/tonality/smearing etc etc on reflections when these are all just basic tuning issues. THAT is the point I'm trying to make.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

sqnut said:


> Sure the speaker manufacturers will obsess over driver/crossover/cabinet design and part of that is kind of like the active tuning we do in a car (correct placement of drivers is also part of tuning).
> 
> But I was talking more about a room to room analogy. If with a 2 ch in our living room we are hearing 80% reflected sound and we don't fret over reflections (cause it sounds so damn good), why do we go nuts thinking about and trying to mitigate them in the car? Heck in a car we blame everything from imaging/tonality/smearing etc etc on reflections when these are all just basic tuning issues. THAT is the point I'm trying to make.


Who's going nuts over it? I for one was simply trying to show that there are ways of easily quantifying these things we always hear talked about. Reflections being one of them. Just because I'm able to measure it doesn't mean I obsess or go nuts over it.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Niick said:


> Who's going nuts over it? I for one was simply trying to show that there are ways of easily quantifying these things we always hear talked about. Reflections being one of them. Just because I'm able to measure it doesn't mean I obsess or go nuts over it.


Again, I'd mentioned this in one of my posts but I guess you missed it. My remarks are for the hobbyist who spends long hours thinking about about and executing how best they can angle, position, place drivers to mitigate early reflections, because that's what they read on diyma, and that's what they believe is the root cause of all issues they are hearing. 

You are absolutely correct in saying, that while the effects of reflections are just one of the things that can be measured, reflections themselves are only a very small part of the puzzle. In general getting drivers further away from you, and the mids and tweets up high and as far forward as possible are fail safe locations, corners of dash are great locations. I think we can both agree on this

One last observation on a comment you made earlier.



Niick said:


> What I am saying, is that the subjective experience of better sound thru speaker placement decisions CAN also be quantified objectively.


I would say up to a point yes, but beyond that no. Measurements are essential to get into the ballpark of timing, L/R balance and overall curve, in the shortest possible time. But this is about halfway to where you can actually take the sound in the car. To this point there is a very high degree of correlation between what you hear and how it measures.

Beyond this you have one of two options. You can start measuring everything that you can and correct for it, or you can train the ears a bit and use the timing and response to tweak in small step to get it sounding more like your ref setup. Now we're tweaking at, or close to the finest resolution on the dsp. 

Now let's measure the setup and take a listen, and lets say the sound is a touch too honky and something pulls right in the mid range. So we make 0.2 db cuts at 500 and 600 and a 0.3db cut at 800, and to chase down that smearing frequency we use the 1/3 oct PN tracks. To our surprise we discover that despite being closely matched on the measurement, 1.25 pulls a bit to the right. So you cut 1.25 on the right by 0.2db. Now when we listen, there's a huge improvement in the sound. Now measure again does the huge audible change reflect in the readings?

Beyond a point we are measuring and looking at readings at say ~1 db resolution, but we are hearing differences at a resolution of 0.1 db. Where is the correlation?


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

sqnut said:


> Sure the speaker manufacturers will obsess over driver/crossover/cabinet design and part of that is kind of like the active tuning we do in a car (correct placement of drivers is also part of tuning).
> 
> But I was talking more about a room to room analogy. If with a 2 ch in our living room we are hearing 80% reflected sound and we don't fret over reflections (cause it sounds so damn good), why do we go nuts thinking about and trying to mitigate them in the car? Heck in a car we blame everything from imaging/tonality/smearing etc etc on reflections when these are all just basic tuning issues. THAT is the point I'm trying to make.


No, the speaker diy builder , not the manufacturer


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

sqnut said:


> Again, I'd mentioned this in one of my posts but I guess you missed it. My remarks are for the hobbyist who spends long hours thinking about about and executing how best they can angle, position, place drivers to mitigate early reflections, because that's what they read on diyma, and that's what they believe is the root cause of all issues they are hearing.
> 
> You are absolutely correct in saying, that while the effects of reflections are just one of the things that can be measured, reflections themselves are only a very small part of the puzzle. In general getting drivers further away from you, and the mids and tweets up high and as far forward as possible are fail safe locations, corners of dash are great locations. I think we can both agree on this
> 
> ...


That's where the equipment you use, and you knowledge of how it works, comes into play. My equipment, for example, as far as amplitude resolution is concerned, can measure MUCH finer than .1 dB. 

But, it is way before this point that if you are seriously trying to tune something to a resolution of >1dB, you better have some REALLY, REALLY good microphones. And no, I'm sorry, but a mic with a 45deg (or 90deg. or 0deg.) .cal file isn't going to cut it. Not for me. If I can't trust the data, I'm not going to worry about trying to aquire it. 

There is a point where you have to understand that ALL microphone placement in any scenario-car, home, or otherwise, is flawed. I personally think that trying to tune, even with a system like mine, to a resolution of 1dB is, well........I'm just not convinced that it's worth it. Because just the tiniest change in mic position and you'll get a very different response. This is where Spatial averaging, and multi mic arrays come into play. This HELPS to reduce the position dependent effects, but doesn't completely eliminate them. 


Which brings me to my next point, for so long, in car audio, when people think about tuning a car via. Measurements, their mind automatically goes to thoughts of freq. domain and EQ adjustments. Because, for all these years, 99% of car audio shops I've ever seen anyways, use an RTA. Usually an Audio Control RTA.

But, when it comes to tuning a system, for ME at least, the freq. domain EQ adjustment is just ONE PART of a larger whole. The time domain is a HUGE part of it too. And unfortunately for me, there is literally NO ONE who I can turn to for help. (Other than the occasions email correspondence with somebody halfway around the world or across the nation) I have no choice but to learn all of this myself thru trial and error, research and experimentation. 

I just hope that for someone who is truly as interested in acoustics and measurement as I am, they might see by reading these posts that there are people like them. That not everyone is of the opinion that "measurements only get you so far" , while I do share this outlook in principle, I believe that the distance PROPER, VALID data acquisition and analysis can take you is VERY FAR indeed.

Edit: thinking about it, I'm not actually sure how fine of dB resolution I can actually measure the difference of, but it is definitely very small. Easily .1dB. I'll look when I get to work. I know my system runs at 32bit, using the interface I most often use. I have other interfaces that can only do 16 bit, and another that can run at 24. I am NOT saying that 32bit is NECESSARY for measurements. I'm NOT saying that at all. 16 bit works quite well.


----------



## benny z (Mar 17, 2008)

niick, can you list out the equipment/software you use for your measurements?

i'm curious to see what the measurements are for the same tweeter sitting in the corners of the dash facing up into the glass.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

benny z said:


> niick, can you list out the equipment/software you use for your measurements?
> 
> i'm curious to see what the measurements are for the same tweeter sitting in the corners of the dash facing up into the glass.


So, let's start with the probes.....er, uh......microphones I mean. (Microphones are actually just acoustic probes, the same way as a probe on a multimeter measures electrical energy at ONE SINGLE POINT in a circuit, a microphone measures acoustic energy at ONE SINGLE POINT IN SPACE.

Anyways, I think it helps to think of things as what they truly are.......

So the microphones....I use Dayton EMM6's (x3) from CrossSpectrum Labs in an array.

These mics feed a TASCAM US-1800 16channel interface. 8mic channels, 6 line inputs, a single stereo digital input. 

This is connected to a Dell laptop w/6 gigs RAM running SysTune Pro from AFMG.

Now, I should mention that measurement systems like SysTune work by comparing (mathematically dividing to be precise) the measure channel by the reference channel. 

The measure channel is the mic input, the reference channel is the same signal being sent to the system under test, y-adapter fed back into another channel of your interface. This way, the frequency response of the interface itself is completely cancelled out. It's only the difference between those two inputs that gets thru as data. This is why you can use music as your excitation signal and get the same stable trace as using log sweeps or pink noise. 

Measurement systems like this have the ability to completely put to rest the "by ear or analyzer debate" because you can do BOTH, simultaneously.

I'm also currently running EASERA Pro, which is software from AFMG, the makers of SysTune. I'm on a 30day trial, the software is about $1800. I'm seriously contemplating purchase. Data aquired thru SysTune can be imported into EASERA for further in depth analysis. I've had it one day and am blown away.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Niick said:


> That's where the equipment you use, and you knowledge of how it works, comes into play. My equipment, for example, as far as amplitude resolution is concerned, can measure MUCH finer than .1 dB.
> 
> But, it is way before this point that if you are seriously trying to tune something to a resolution of >1dB, you better have some REALLY, REALLY good microphones. And no, I'm sorry, but a mic with a 45deg (or 90deg. or 0deg.) .cal file isn't going to cut it. Not for me. If I can't trust the data, I'm not going to worry about trying to aquire it.
> 
> ...


So basically the average hobbyist can't measure below ~ 1db resolution and even if you can with your equipment (would love to know the resolution on your equipment) as you pointed out there is little to no repeatably at 0.1db, just on account of measurements alone. Thank you. Your ears though give you 100% repeat ability. If your tweaking was right last night, your ears will tell you the same even the next morning, else you'll have a 'WTF was I doing' moment.


----------



## benny z (Mar 17, 2008)

sqnut said:


> ...else you'll have a 'WTF was I doing' moment.


lol!

can't tell you how many of those i've had. i tend to tune in ~20 min increments otherwise i lose my reference and everything goes to hell.

also, beer helps. :laugh:


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

Features - SysTune - Live Sound Measurements In Real Time

Info on the SysTune....that software/hardware has been around for a long long time. I remember Richard Clark mentioning the (then) Bell Labs Systune in the mid 90s in an article about time alignment. It was his second choice after his TEF system.

SMAART is a cool system too. 

But I can't afford license for either .


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

sqnut said:


> So basically the average hobbyist can't measure below ~ 1db resolution and even if you can with your equipment (would love to know the resolution on your equipment) as you pointed out there is little to no repeatably at 0.1db, just on account of measurements alone. Thank you. Your ears though give you 100% repeat ability. If your tweaking was right last night, your ears will tell you the same even the next morning, else you'll have a 'WTF was I doing' moment.


Wait a minute now......REAPEATABILITY......what!!
And whatever the resolution, it's my measuring equipment that can detect finer dB differences, not my ears!


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Niick said:


> Wait a minute now......REAPEATABILITY......what!!
> And whatever the resolution, it's my measuring equipment that can detect finer dB differences, not my ears!


Good for you, take a deep breath, lighten up and smile.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

sqnut said:


> Good for you, take a deep breath, lighten up and smile.


Oh I'm light as feather. Not just good for me, good for anybody using REW too. Even free programs have the ability to measure finer dB resolutions. 

And on the repeatability note, as far as everyone who I've ever talked to, read from, etc.- analyzes aren't subject to changing their opinion on the sound depending upon how much you....oh I don't know, how much noise you've been exposed to that day, how much you might have had to drink the night before, what kind of mood you're in.......

I just wouldn't want somebody who's new at this to read this thread and think that repeatability was the weak point of an analysis system. If an analysis system has any strong points at all, repeatability is it.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

I've used smaart. I've not used systune. I've also used klippel/omnimic/holm/rew/arta/etc. For the most part, if it's available within reasonable means, I've used it. Each has it's benefits and shortcomings whether with technology or usability (GUI, namely).

I will say this... 

I wish there were enough credible 'data' to determine if the benefit of programs like systune/smaart/etc (the very costly programs) as well as multi-mic interfaces provide not just a better result (if at all) but a notable improvement in the sound vs someone with more of a trained-ear experience and a reasonable amount of time. Say... half a day's worth of time total on the dsp interface/tuning with someone who is skilled in each aspect. 

Realistically, someone who is good with both the hardware/software aspect as well as a good ear would be best... but it seems this thread is dividing a line between high-powered measurement gear (niick) vs those without (sqnut). I personally, basically, would like to hear the result borne from both methods because there seems to be less overlap between these two _in this particular thread_. Whereas I fall back on a mix between omnimic/REW and seat time. Personally, I spend probably 70-80% of my time tuning my own car on levels and time alignment by ear. Unreasonable to some (including my former self who has written tutorials on loopback measurements and obtaining measured time delay here), I know. But ultimately time alignment in a car environment is as much about altering the combing affects as it also is about aligning wavefronts... and there's a small window where you have some give and take between these two.

Thanks to the common use of programs such as REW I have found more and more evidence of the ease of obtaining a good tonally balanced system based on the sheer number of audio systems I've demoed the past few years. HOWEVER, I find very, _very_ few cars have a nice coherence to them, where it seems more often than not the stage doesn't appear dynamic (shrink/grow with the recording) as it should. An extreme example is a tonally balanced system with no center and diffuse placement on the stage. 
What this boils down to, subjectively, is ultimately the large majority of cars I hear (even at finals year after year) have good tonality but no real sense of sound stage. It's to the point where it's just kind of frustrating to me. So, IMHO, this is something that really needs to be dove in to more: what is it that someone can do to really hear the effects of time alignment and improve on it; measurement, subjective evaluation... just more time with good ol' pink noise and your DSP (my opinion falls more here). I personally believe this trend of what I hear in cars has little to do with mitigating "early" (whatever that means to car audio guys because in the regular audio world that's beyond the HAAS value of ~30-40ms and nothing in the car is below this... but I digress) reflections. I think it simply comes down to those few milliseconds of time... getting your speakers lined up electronically (where you can't do so mechanically with placement) along with understand power response (the averaged response of a speaker and it's influence by crossover design). My personal experience with build after build has also shown me the importance of aiming NOT FROM A TONAL standpoint but from a staging standpoint. How aiming a speaker in one direction vs another can alter the size and shape of the stage. I can make my stage seem somewhat wide with a skew to it or very symmetrical and wide/deep by simply changing the aiming. Obviously the tonality is impacted to some degree but this is considerably less important to me than getting the soundstage to behave how I want it to. I feel like this is overlooked or misunderstood when people say placement and aiming is something that is not to be trivialized.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

ErinH said:


> I've used smaart. I've not used systune. I've also used klippel/omnimic/holm/rew/arta/etc. For the most part, if it's available within reasonable means, I've used it. Each has it's benefits and shortcomings whether with technology or usability (GUI, namely).
> 
> I will say this...
> 
> ...


Those first few milliseconds of time you're talking about, this is something that I'm extremely interested in. I still feel that the step response measurement shows promise here. I'm currently working on a way to make real time step response measurements. I'm sure you'll know what I'm talking about. 

As far as how much of my process is done by ear, what I have found, is that the tweeter level relative to the mid/midbass, the last +/- 0.5dB can make a big difference. So I do this by ear always. 

I personally know a forum member who I won't name that has recently attended a competition where he scored very well indeed. He told me:

"I don't tell many people this, but this system was tuned almost entirely by analyzer..."


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

the step response will go a long way toward showing you the coherence between drivers. which is what I meant when I said this:


> I think it simply comes down to those few milliseconds of time... getting your speakers lined up electronically (where you can't do so mechanically with placement) along with understand power response (the averaged response of a speaker and it's influence by crossover design).






Niick said:


> I personally know a forum member who I won't name that has recently attended a competition where he scored very well indeed. He told me:
> 
> "I don't tell many people this, but this system was tuned almost entirely by analyzer..."


I know both. I know people who use little to no measurement system and I know others who pretty much rely solely on it. The ones who have a good ear are the ones who will do well no matter how they tune. The ones who use measurement systems still need a good ear to determine if something is right or wrong and this is all part of the process for correlating 'what you see vs what you hear'. I'm at a comfy point where I feel good with this but it took me quite a while. I also know a lot of people who do well but rely a lot on others for input... and they trust those others' hearing... so again it falls back on a "does this sound OK" as opposed to a pure "if it measures X it sounds great". I'd wager the person you're talking about didn't just set his system up and not listen to it or have someone provide subjective feedback. The ear test still wins out... and again, I run a website based on measuring speakers. So I'm not a "golden ear" fellow or someone who doesn't put stock in _correct_ measurements by any means. 

I set time by ear because I can use pink noise and work that range of combing and determine the best fit for that pretty readily by ear. There is overlap in this critical area where someone with an ear for phase will pick up on things being a bit 'off' whereas someone without a lot of listening experience may not get this. I myself may not be able to tell exactly what is wrong but I find it's easier for me to pinpoint issues in time/phase than to tell you "oh, you need to bring 1.2khz down 0.25dB". I'm just more sensitive to timing issues than tonality issues and I find tonality is more subjective while timing/phase is more objective.


----------



## ssclassa60 (Jan 28, 2013)

Update - I temporarily placed my neo8s (800-8k) and SEMITS (8k+) shoved in the corners of my dash on a SS Picasso (25x4 active). The midbass and subs are stock BMW M audio powered by another Picasso. I'm all analog so I played with phase only so far and staging improved out of phase on both. Quick measurements show +/- 6db out to 20k. EQ is still flat (PG 230) but it sounds pretty good imo. No phasiness, no peak at 12k. With more tune I think its a keeper 
Please note, my ears are 90+deg off axis, so I might be only hearing the early reflection? Image is stable, but a bit narrow


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

benny z said:


> niick, can you list out the equipment/software you use for your measurements?
> 
> i'm curious to see what the measurements are for the same tweeter sitting in the corners of the dash facing up into the glass.


BennyZ, here are the measurements from that HAT tweeter:
these are all unwindowed, smoothed to 1/6 octave


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

and here I've windowed out that first floor reflection:


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

The on axis IR of these HAT tweeters have the most....."picture perfect, textbook" impulse response ive yet seen from a tweeter.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

ErinH said:


> the step response will go a long way toward showing you the coherence between drivers. which is what I meant when I said this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


i like it! i like where your head's at


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

I agree with Erin that doing timing by ear is critical. No matter what you do with the eq, the difference between tonally accurate and tonally accurate _and_ dynamic is the +/- 0.02 ms tweak between your mids and tweets as an example. 90% of setups that sound good tonally but flat, have timing issues.


----------



## bugsplat (Nov 7, 2014)

So why the thought of putting wideband 3"in the dash? Simple answer, distance. I'm running into DRASTIC differences between the drive and passenger side. What sound amazing to the driver sounds "funny" even to the most novice listener (my wife). I want to push the drivers as far forward and away as possible. No room for kicks in a sports car so that out. In th doors by the ankles just sound terrible unless the volume is high. My goal is to even out the delay and eq for both seats. I understand one will sound better but what I don't want is bliss from one and screaming echo from the other end.


----------



## benny z (Mar 17, 2008)

bugsplat said:


> So why the thought of putting wideband 3"in the dash? Simple answer, distance. I'm running into DRASTIC differences between the drive and passenger side. What sound amazing to the driver sounds "funny" even to the most novice listener (my wife). I want to push the drivers as far forward and away as possible. No room for kicks in a sports car so that out. In th doors by the ankles just sound terrible unless the volume is high. My goal is to even out the delay and eq for both seats. I understand one will sound better but what I don't want is bliss from one and screaming echo from the other end.



It won't be "screaming echo" from the other. My car is tuned for the driver's seat. The passenger primarily hears just their side. It isn't a proper stereo image for them, but who cares. You can get it spectacular for the driver with a one seat tune; you won't get it spectacular for either seat trying to do a 2-seat tune, especially with dash speakers. Imo and ime.


----------



## jtaudioacc (Apr 6, 2010)

ErinH said:


> I've used smaart. I've not used systune. I've also used klippel/omnimic/holm/rew/arta/etc. For the most part, if it's available within reasonable means, I've used it. Each has it's benefits and shortcomings whether with technology or usability (GUI, namely).
> 
> I will say this...
> 
> ...



as sqnut vs Niick soundoff!! woo hoo!


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

That will never happen without a center channel.



benny z said:


> you won't get it spectacular for either seat trying to do a 2-seat tune, especially with dash speakers. Imo and ime.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

ssclassa60 said:


> Update - I temporarily placed my neo8s (800-8k) and SEMITS (8k+) shoved in the corners of my dash on a SS Picasso (25x4 active). The midbass and subs are stock BMW M audio powered by another Picasso. I'm all analog so I played with phase only so far and staging improved out of phase on both. Quick measurements show +/- 6db out to 20k. EQ is still flat (PG 230) but it sounds pretty good imo. No phasiness, no peak at 12k. With more tune I think its a keeper
> Please note, my ears are 90+deg off axis, so I might be only hearing the early reflection? Image is stable, but a bit narrow


That's fantastic , do you kinda see what I mean by listening to them, in the 500-1.6k range they behave very diffrent than a cone.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

jtaudioacc said:


> as sqnut vs Niick soundoff!! woo hoo!


Want some :lurk:?


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

thehatedguy said:


> Features - SysTune - Live Sound Measurements In Real Time
> 
> Info on the SysTune....that software/hardware has been around for a long long time. I remember Richard Clark mentioning the (then) Bell Labs Systune in the mid 90s in an article about time alignment. It was his second choice after his TEF system.
> 
> ...


I can't remember what the specific reason was, but back in the nineties, there was only one system that could measure phase: TEF

There were two people known to use it: Richard Clark and Tom Danley

Danley worked for NASA at the time, and NASA got the good stuff. Richard Clark was just plain ol' wealthy.

But here in 2015 there's lots of software that can measure phase. I like HolmImpulse.

Note that you have to use the correct kind of signal.

Here's a couple quotes from the interwebs :

_"Danley freely admits that from time to time his fondness for low frequencies has resulted in his scaring the wits out of those around him and himself. One of the early users of the TEF-10, he once demonstrated acoustic levitation in the Charlton Heston-narrated documentary The Mystery of the Sphinx.

Later, in the mid-90s, he was asked back to Egypt to measure the acoustics of the Great Pyramid with a TEF-12+, an experience he covered in detail for a Live Sound International cover feature in July 2000."_









Clark explains why he uses TEF


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

Patrick Bateman said:


> I can't remember what the specific reason was, but back in the nineties, there was only one system that could measure phase: TEF
> 
> There were two people known to use it: Richard Clark and Tom Danley
> 
> ...


the piece of software that I use, SysTune (Pro) first released in 2007 I believe. The company, AFMG, has been making other peices of acoustic analysis and prediction software since considerably earlier than that.

Now days, systems like SysTune and Smaart can measure phase with WHATEVER signal you want, including music, so long as it excites the freq. range of interest. 

I'm working on a way to incorporate measurements and listening SIMULTANEOUSLY (since music can be used as excitation) which will put an end to this silly "ear vs. analyzer" debate.

Edit: funny how I've gotten comments regarding my use of "pro-sound stuff" like.....yeah, but THIS is car audio, that stuff doesn't work in cars......."

Or...."that pro-sound stuff is less effective in a car....."


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

Here we go.......Dec. 5 2007....

AFMG Network :: View topic - EASERA SysTune has been released!


----------



## cajunner (Apr 13, 2007)

ErinH said:


> I've used smaart. I've not used systune. I've also used klippel/omnimic/holm/rew/arta/etc. For the most part, if it's available within reasonable means, I've used it. Each has it's benefits and shortcomings whether with technology or usability (GUI, namely).
> 
> I will say this...
> 
> ...


interesting that you'd just go wide and big picture it, this juncture in your audio hobby arc puts you in the skeptics camp, whether or not it's clear which camp is not the skeptics, haha...

and I am glad to see you question fundamentally, how much the hardware has put you both in possession of analysis details, and how those details aren't quite as important as this hobby portends.

maybe the ability to resolve detail, is a lot like learning a discipline.

some people are naturally adept and to them, tuning is a perfunctory affair, low in dramatics and a lot of WYSIWYG, results.


some may not be able to correlate what they hear with what they see on a screen, or as they push a slider, much the same way that a person might have trouble telling the same story twice. Not so much a voluntary choice is made as it is simply wiggled, and hope for the best...

I believe that for some people the perfect pitch just happens, and as those of us who do not approach this finest resolving of detail with any semblance of grace, or correctness, can attest, it is hard to imagine the ease with which someone who didn't have to earn it, is able to distinguish.


so, as we divide the sqnut from the Niick's of the world, so must we also divide the gary summers from the Jon Whitledge, and the Richard Clark from the Bob Carver.


wait, that isn't entirely true, is it...





the point I'm making is that I too wonder at the veracity of some of the claims of audio pioneers and how much of what we do today, will seem like Atari Pong in the coming years.


I for one, do not welcome the advancement of technology for a select few to use at their discretion, while the rest of the population wallow in big box store muck, oblivious to the finery just an online click away...


release the Kraken!

er...

open source?

Anonymous?

who, what?


----------



## The real Subzero (Apr 13, 2010)

bugsplat said:


> So what the deal with this? From personal experience the sound is slowed due to the extra distance the waves travel up the dash and reflecting off the windshield before hitting the listener. Something else I noticed is the upper range is amplified while the lower range is reduced. Nothing a DSP can't fix though. I've looked at some winning rigs and some are reflected off the windshield and some avoid it. Best I can tell is its either all or nothing. Half reflection is to be avoid.
> 
> So what are the other "gotchas"? Temp? Sun/rain? Why do some pros avoid it while others incorporate it into their system. What the logic either way?


For me the con was a narrow stage. The pro was the immense clarity and focus.


----------



## benny z (Mar 17, 2008)

The ability to tune by ear...or "perfect pitch"...is a...gift? Or the effect of ear training?

I began the Suzuki method of violin training at age 5. Suzuki is a method which trains the ear. The concept is just as a child learns to speak, they learn music. You literally eat, sleep, and breath music. I remember being so sick of listening to the same songs over and over again, as I lay in bed falling asleep. But ya know what? It worked. I excelled in the program and ended up with a viola scholarship to Belmont Univeristy in Nashville where I continued to perform and also delve into studio engineering. 

Some people need sheet music to play a song. I can generally listen to the song and replay it by ear. 

Similar concept here IMO, where some folks need measurements to tell them how to tune, and some folks have a knack for tuning by ear.

Interesting to me, as I can only assume that with ear training, making the move to ear tuning - or a lesser dependency on measurements - can come with time and practice.


----------



## gregerst22 (Dec 18, 2012)

bugsplat said:


> So what the deal with this? From personal experience the sound is slowed due to the extra distance the waves travel up the dash and reflecting off the windshield before hitting the listener. Something else I noticed is the upper range is amplified while the lower range is reduced. Nothing a DSP can't fix though. I've looked at some winning rigs and some are reflected off the windshield and some avoid it. Best I can tell is its either all or nothing. Half reflection is to be avoid.
> 
> So what are the other "gotchas"? Temp? Sun/rain? Why do some pros avoid it while others incorporate it into their system. What the logic either way?





The real Subzero said:


> For me the con was a narrow stage. The pro was the immense clarity and focus.


I agree. Stage is narrower but clarity and detail is up a notch vs the pillar or door installs that I've done using the same speakers. Getting a smooth fr out of the drivers side speaker, even if measuring inches away from the drivers door glass, is much easier because the speaker is essentially inline with the left ear / head as opposed to being angled away from it.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Equal path lengths sound better than signal delay at least in midrange and lows. 
If you can't or won't do equal path lengths than signal delay is the single most critical tool to use. Than there is frequency responce, I think a lot of diffrent flattish responses sound "good" if I go listen to someone's system , I think a system needs to have ALL the peaks tamed to sound good. After the peaks tamed than some fine tuning is a added bonus and eventually you get to the point you know your dialed in. You can hear it in the balance of the system and its harmonics. proper gain structure is very important, placement and install , and the selection of the gear plays its role and than the car it self plays a role. I think systems can sound similar but I don't think they can sound the same. Too many diffrent things to contribute to the overall sound. Anyway .


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

I look at optimizing a sound system as a 2 part process. The scientific (MUCH larger part) and the artistic (smaller but more time consuming part). 

Here in car audio we use the word "tune" to describe the entire process. 

I prefer the term "sound system optimization" because.......as the sound system measurement pioneer Bob Mcarthy (of Meyer Sound fame) explains it, there is tuning, and there is toning.

Tuning is a purely scientific endeavor. Success CAN be measured.

Toning the sound system is an artistic endeavor.....success can't be measured.

Now, people like sqnut share this outlook it seems, in principal, but to them, the scientific evaluation part ends much earlier than it does for me. That's all.

And I think, I don't know this part for sure, but I think that they assume this takes me hours and hours, like 8-10 hours to do. This was the case early on. My latest system optimization, which has been heard by MANY and compared to other SERIOSLY AWESOME cars they've heard, took me 1hour and 20 minutes. 

1hour and 20 minutes.

This system is at a level that COULD maybe be improved with tweaking by ear, but it's certainly far beyond the owners expectations, and his expectations are quite high indeed. 

If we were talking about anything other than speakers.........everyone here would be completely content with a scientific evaluation method to determine waveform reproduction quality.

But with speakers, OH NO, now all of a sudden everyone thinks there "Mozart" or at the very least a more talented mix/mastering engineer than those who made the music they're listening to. 

What happened. Why is the scientific evaluation of electronics ok, but acoustics not.

I personally believe that there is a HUGE disconnect between car audio and the rest of the audio world when it comes to audio technology in general.

This disconnect includes acoustic analysis and evaluation. To see people still using 1/3 RTA in system evaluation of any kind says it all. 

I believe this is purely a holdover from the early days of car audio, when sound competitions were a larger part of the industry as a whole. I believe it's gonna take technology and science to move the industry forward in a positive direction. Not "golden ears". 

For some reason, as evidenced by the fact that even some of the "highest end" shops in the country still use 1/3 octave RTA, it's clear that technology and science have left the scene when it comes to the install bay as a whole. Left the scene a long time ago.

I'm trying to bring it back into the mix. I believe our customers deserve it.

I also believe that the car audio world takes cues from other fields of audio ALL THE TIME. Look at parametric EQ........delay.......I wish we would take MORE cues....like, let's totally do away with the lowly RCA and move to miniXLR.......lets go all balanced.....

.......unbalanced, save that for big box consumer home crap.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

benny z said:


> The ability to tune by ear...or "perfect pitch"...is a...gift? Or the effect of ear training?
> 
> I began the Suzuki method of violin training at age 5...........
> 
> Interesting to me, as I can only assume that with ear training, making the move to ear tuning - or a lesser dependency on measurements - can come with time and practice.


 Benny!! Thank you for your post. I GET IT!!! 

I seriously just had one of those "light bulb" moments!!

After reading your post, I was thinking, "EXACTLY!! you prove my point!!, why is a lesser "DEPENDENCY" (key word being DEPENDENCY) on measurements.....

WHY IS THAT THE GOAL?? 

Why isn't a deeper understanding of the physics behind it all, and a greater predictability and repeatability THE GOAL?? 

Then it dawned on me.........you come from from an artistic background.

I come from a scientific background. I too went to school, but to study electronics and telecommunications. I earned a little 'ol 2 year AAS

When I was in high school, my friends played music in local bands, I ran sound for 'em at local gigs.

See where I'm going here. I suppose, that as a musician, for example tuning a guitar, experienced guitar players can tune by ear.

Me, I don't tune guitars, because I don't play guitars. LOL

I'm a scientist, not a musician. But I am an artist. You should see some of the artwork I do. 

So again, I think maybe this could be the reason why some people look down on scientific understanding of sound systems as a "reliance to be done away with!"


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Niick said:


> This disconnect includes acoustic analysis and evaluation. To see people still using 1/3 RTA in system evaluation of any kind says it all.
> 
> I believe this is purely a holdover from the early days of car audio, when sound competitions were a larger part of the industry as a whole. I believe it's gonna take technology and science to move the industry forward in a positive direction. Not "golden ears".
> 
> For some reason, as evidenced by the fact that even some of the "highest end" shops in the country still use 1/3 octave RTA, it's clear that technology and science have left the scene when it comes to the install bay as a whole. Left the scene a long time ago.


1/3 works because at the end of the day you can only correct at 1/3.


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

Niick said:


> funny how I've gotten comments regarding my use of "pro-sound stuff" like.....yeah, but THIS is car audio, that stuff doesn't work in cars......."
> 
> Or...."that pro-sound stuff is less effective in a car....."


That's true. It's difficult, sometimes impossible to get a good measurement in a car.

For instance, if you're trying to measure 500hz, that's twenty seven inches long. Due to that length, *if you want to capture five waves cleanly, you need to eliminate reflections within approximately twelve feet of the mic and the speaker.*

Obviously, that is flat out impossible.


I'd love to get a round table of some of the experts and see how they deal with this.

Part of the reason I'm such a nut about getting the midrange and tweeter close together is that it means that I can get a clean measurement at the xover frequency. (IE, if your crossover is at 2000hz, and you want to get five waves measured cleanly, you only need to eliminate reflections within the first 2.4 feet.)


Just off the top of my head, here's some of the things I've seen the pros do:

1) Jon Whitledge bought a vehicle that's about three times as big as what most people use. The larger size eliminates early reflections, by design. Then he added hundreds of pounds of absorption.
2) Gary Summers has a real interesting car. Although I've seen his microphone array, I get the impression that he does a lot of tuning by ear. His is an interesting case, because he's literally won Oscars for being able to listen to an event, record it, then manipulate the sound of that event to make it sound more "real" than the real thing. For instance, the sound of a recorded gunshot sounds like a firecracker. In a movie, it sounds completely different. Translating from the real world into the recorded world is a big part of what Gary does. I'm too lazy to look up his youtube videos, but here's someone he worked with that describes the process : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0WJ-8B6aUM
Whenever a magazine reviewer claims to have 'golden ears,' I always take that with a grain of salt. But this is a job where you're literally getting paid to listen to sounds, and make a subjective evaluation of whether they sound correct, day in and day out, for decades. That's a LOT of experience listening subjectively. And the crazy part about it is that he didn't just make the subjective decision - in many (most?) cases he also recorded the original event.
3) Mark Eldridge has gone to extremes to try and make the car 'disappear.' One vehicle had an absorptive roof, and another had a dash that was completely redesigned.

TLDR: you really can't get a "reliable" measurement in a car, particularly in the most important octaves, the midrange. At high frequency you can get a good measurement, just set the gate properly. And at low frequency, the waves are so long they don't even form, it's just a change in pressure. But in the midrange, yeah, that's a tough one. An art and a science.


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

I found a better video of Gary describing the process. Here he is talking about Jurassic Park, which he later won an Oscar for : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2Gg_RUwe3A


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

sqnut said:


> 1/3 works because at the end of the day you can only correct at 1/3.


what!? that simply isn't true


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

Patrick Bateman said:


> That's true. It's difficult, sometimes impossible to get a good measurement in a car.
> 
> For instance, if you're trying to measure 500hz, that's twenty seven inches long. Due to that length, *if you want to capture five waves cleanly, you need to eliminate reflections within approximately twelve feet of the mic and the speaker.*
> 
> ...


i get good measurements in a car on an almost daily basis.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

In a private conversation, one of the guys from rational acoustics told me about the process used by engineers to make the best of the decidedly somewhat crappy components that make up a new Lincoln OEM sound system. They use Smaart7. Transfer function. NOT 1/3 octave RTA.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

For the record, I too make recordings of live instruments on a semi-regular basis

I do this so I can accurately as possible remember what the live event sounded like. So that at the end of a tuning, I can accurately judge wether or not things need to be tweaked by ear.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Niick said:


> what!? that simply isn't true


Unfortunately for most of us that's what the eq is on our dsp's are.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

Technically both of Mark's vehicles have had extensive dash work...both the 4 Runner and the NASCAR had/have custom dashes. The 4 Runner was dead dead dead inside...some said it was too dead.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

sqnut said:


> Unfortunately for most of us that's what the eq is on our dsp's are.


Maybe if all the shop sells is Audison. The Bit processors are the ONLY ones I come into regular contact with that are solely 1/3 graphic. And for the life of me, in this day and age, I can't figure out why. And I've asked. I've asked guys from Audison directly. The answer I got, was that, as evidenced by the multichannel bit amplifiers and their parametric built in DSP's, that the upcoming replacement for the bit one will NOT be graphic. That's coming to an end too. So once the bit products aren't graphic anymore, what is left?


----------



## claydo (Oct 1, 2012)

Guys really, there's no need for their to be one or the other. For years there has been folks measuring, and tuning by ear. I'm sure it will continue that way.........up to this point, and in my experience, the cars finalized by ear are always the best (granted that some folks excel at this aspect, call it "golden ears" or what you will).....the folks who go straight measuring only, either by choice, or just can't hear it, usually have lackluster results. Obviously tech is advancing, and maybe one day a system will be measurable to a final tune, with what's widely available now, not yet. Maybe the tech yer working with nick, will nail it, but no need to down the proven methods, when in talented hands, can work wonders.......


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Niick said:


> Maybe if all the shop sells is Audison. The Bit processors are the ONLY ones I come into regular contact with that are solely 1/3 graphic. And for the life of me, in this day and age, I can't figure out why. And I've asked. I've asked guys from Audison directly. The answer I got, was that, as evidenced by the multichannel bit amplifiers and their parametric built in DSP's, that the upcoming replacement for the bit one will NOT be graphic. That's coming to an end too. So once the bit products aren't graphic anymore, what is left?


Just because some processors let you slide the central frequency, doesn't mean you've suddenly got a 1/6 oct eq


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

Niick said:


> For the record, I too make recordings of live instruments on a semi-regular basis
> 
> I do this so I can accurately as possible remember what the live event sounded like. So that at the end of a tuning, I can accurately judge wether or not things need to be tweaked by ear.


you're assuming the mic is capturing exactly what your ear hears. which unfortunately is an entirely more complex situation than simply recording a sound.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

This new look and feel of DIY is unusual it's going to take some getting used to I don't know if it's a new webpage him on or if it's a new redesigned webpage but I'm gonna be stumbling on this now I'm sort of not liking it at the moment


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

oabeieo said:


> This new look and feel of DIY is unusual it's going to take some getting used to I don't know if it's a new webpage him on or if it's a new redesigned webpage but I'm gonna be stumbling on this now I'm sort of not liking it at the moment


ummm.... okay?


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

claydo said:


> Guys really, there's no need for their to be one or the other. For years there has been folks measuring, and tuning by ear. I'm sure it will continue that way.........up to this point, and in my experience, the cars finalized by ear are always the best (granted that some folks excel at this aspect, call it "golden ears" or what you will).....the folks who go straight measuring only, either by choice, or just can't hear it, usually have lackluster results. Obviously tech is advancing, and maybe one day a system will be measurable to a final tune, with what's widely available now, not yet. Maybe the tech yer working with nick, will nail it, but no need to down the proven methods, when in talented hands, can work wonders.......


I agree , I would also add I do think there's some that tune by ear because there final measurement dosent sound good due to speakers not being able to reproduce the demand. Weather by physical or acoustical limitations thus forcing the operator to manipulate some things to make sound good. 


If a system can faithfully reproduce the demanded signal faithfully and with fidelity and the acoustical environment tonaly allows it to work in your advantage that makes for a better overall sound and a system that actually sounds good when played with a flat responce


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

sqnut said:


> Just because some processors let you slide the central frequency, doesn't mean you've suddenly got a 1/6 oct eq


I don't want to be limited to to the fixed center freq. determined by the RTA. IF all necessary complimetary freq. adjustments needed happened to fall exactly on those centers, then cool, but the reality is, they don't.

Seriuosly, there is a reason why the 1/3 octave Graphic/RTA combo hasn't been seen in the rest of the audio world in decades.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

ErinH said:


> you're assuming the mic is capturing exactly what your ear hears. which unfortunately is an entirely more complex situation than simply recording a sound.


no I'm not. I'm not assuming that.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

Niick said:


> ErinH said:
> 
> 
> > you're assuming the mic is capturing exactly what your ear hears. which unfortunately is an entirely more complex situation than simply recording a sound.
> ...


My point is there are various factors of recording a sound that dictates how it will come out. It's not GUARANTEED that what you record will sound the same as what you hear even with the best of playback systems. I'm talking only in the recording sense.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

I realize that's it an impossible thing for me to state what I PERCIEVE to be reality, that car audio techs IN GENERAL are holding on to late 1980's technology and methods....it's impossible for me to say this without sounding like I'm putting someone down.

I assure you, that's not my intention.

But neither is it my intention to support that methodology and pretend that better, newer, faster, more complete and more precise methods don't exist. 

I work with an MECP master certified tech who has been in the industry just as long as me (1999) and before I started working with him, he had NO IDEA that these kinds of technologies and methods existed. 

Since then together we have kinda been on this journey together, and neither I nor him look back and think, "ya know, all we ever really needed was an Audio Control SA305x all this time" 

No, not remotely, both him and I think....."how did we ever live live without these systems?"

Also, systems like SysTune are far more valuable than just system optimization, as a troubleshooting and installation measurement/decision making tool (for example finding the optimum volume setting on an OEM source unit, which to be done right, need spectrum analysis, not waveform analysis) they are second to none. 

REW too. I'm soon gonna mak a video showing exactly how to build and use the impedance jig for REW. For me, the ability to take impedance sweeps is REW's greatest function. I use it ALL THE TIME.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

ErinH said:


> My point is there are various factors of recording a sound that dictates how it will come out. It's not GUARANTEED that what you record will sound the same as what you hear even with the best of playback systems. I'm talking only in the recording sense.


no it's not, you're right, but I'm PRESENT, I'm there, listening to the live instruments. Im just kinda "recording them on the side" ya know. For my own experience and experimenting. 

It is the PROCESS ITSELF that brings to light all kinds of new understandings for me. 

I'm not so gifted as to be able to know all there is to know already everything about how recordings are made, and why they sound the way they do. 

So I learn. I actually record. I DO NOT, I REPEAT, I DO NOT think that my recordings are "flawless captures of the real thing". 

This isn't possible. 

But thru the process, and thru the experience, and thru the research of HOW to make my recordings sound as real as possible, I will inevitably learn things/concepts/skills that can also help me in system optimization. 

That's the reason I do it. So the customer will have a better product by coming to our shop than by going elsewhere.

Its a bonus that I absolutely LOVE audio, music, recording, and reproduction.


----------



## benny z (Mar 17, 2008)

My 9-yr old amps allow me to choose 10 eq points per channel - whatever I want them to be - and adjust the Q of each one independently. They are very capable on their own, until you throw ~300-20k hz signal down one channel, with drivers on the dash battling comb filtering. Now I find them...a bit limiting. To further fine tune I have a source unit with independent L/R 31-band eq capabilities. Using it along with the amp's parametric has been the easiest way for me to make my dash speakers work.

Give me a processor with 20-30 points of selectable parametric eq per channel and we should be good to go with OEM source integration.


----------



## jtaudioacc (Apr 6, 2010)

claydo said:


> Guys really, there's no need for their to be one or the other. For years there has been folks measuring, and tuning by ear. I'm sure it will continue that way.........up to this point, and in my experience, the cars finalized by ear are always the best (granted that some folks excel at this aspect, call it "golden ears" or what you will).....the folks who go straight measuring only, either by choice, or just can't hear it, usually have lackluster results. Obviously tech is advancing, and maybe one day a system will be measurable to a final tune, with what's widely available now, not yet. Maybe the tech yer working with nick, will nail it, but no need to down the proven methods, when in talented hands, can work wonders.......


i believe this as well.


----------



## jtaudioacc (Apr 6, 2010)

so anyway, when is the Niick vs sqnut sq comp going to take place? lol


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

claydo said:


> Guys really, there's no need for their to be one or the other. For years there has been folks measuring, and tuning by ear. I'm sure it will continue that way.........up to this point, and in my experience, the cars finalized by ear are always the best (granted that some folks excel at this aspect, call it "golden ears" or what you will).....the folks who go straight measuring only, either by choice, or just can't hear it, usually have lackluster results. Obviously tech is advancing, and maybe one day a system will be measurable to a final tune, with what's widely available now, not yet. Maybe the tech yer working with nick, will nail it, but no need to down the proven methods, when in talented hands, can work wonders.......


as I've said before,since measurement systems like SysTune allow music to be used as the excitation signal, the whole "analyzer or ear" debate will soon no longer exist, at least to me. Because I'll use analyzer and ear SIMULTANEOUSLY. 

As I'm sure everyone can imagine, there are many logistical hurtles to this. And I'm sure a lot of people will come up with plenty of reasons why it won't work and why there is no need to try and come up with new methods, because the old established ways are "good enough"

If I listened to all the nay-Sayers in life.......well.......unimaginable.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

jtaudioacc said:


> so anyway, when is the Niick vs sqnut sq comp going to take place? lol


During my next trip to India.  Or the next time sqnut is in the states, perhaps. 

Seriously, I really would love to see India.


----------



## benny z (Mar 17, 2008)

I'm not saying I don't use measurements btw, I fall into the more common category of setting phase by ear, then measuring with L/R pink noise/RTA, and finishing up by ear.


----------



## claydo (Oct 1, 2012)

Niick said:


> the whole "analyzer or ear" debate will soon no longer exist


Only when the measuring equipment turns out consistently better cars than the ear tuning method, also a concise easy to understand process, with widespread availability.....oh, and an attainable price. Like I said, with what's widely available today....nope. Higher tech than what's commonly used right now has been around for years.....Richard Clarks system mentioned earlier, and many others, now, how much of that has stuck? How much of that dominates the lanes? How much of that is widely available to the common enthusiasts? ............exactly.......none, nada, zip.......meanwhile folks are tuning amazing vehicles using those archaic rta systems, their ears, and their knowledge.

:edit: now, for the record I'm not condemning new technology, I hope it's successful. Do I hope that everyone can easily access the ability to tune their ride to the fullest......uh....not really.....lol. I kinda hope it continues to be a long slow learning process that some folks never get.....and so should you mr instal and tune for a living, lmao.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

benny z said:


> I'm not saying I don't use measurements btw, I fall into the more common category of setting phase by ear, then measuring with L/R pink noise/RTA, and finishing up by ear.


For sure. 

But, Take for example my coworker. Before we started working together he was strongly of the opinion that "measurements only take you so far..." 

He had also only been exposed to 1/3 octave RTA. 

He also had always been told that 1/3 octave was as fine as human hearing could discern. 

Now, while he and I both STILL DO BELIEVE that measurements can only take you so far.....NOW we KNOW that the distance that measurements have the POTENTIAL to take you is MUCH farther than previously thought. MUCH farther than most people know.

I'm simply trying to tell people, that before they discount just how far measurements can actually take us, make sure they're actually experiencing what REAL, MODERN acoustic analysis tool and techniques have to offer.

If, after that, for whatever reason, they still think it's a wate of time, well ok.

At treat the gave it a chance.

The learning curve IS steep, and it DOES take huge amounts of time and effort to get good at more complex systems. 

For some, like me,, it is so worth it it is beyond words. I couldn't adequately describe how worth it the journey has been for me. It's changed the trajectory of my entire career, therefore my entire life.


----------



## Focused4door (Aug 15, 2015)

benny z said:


> The ability to tune by ear...or "perfect pitch"...is a...gift? Or the effect of ear training?
> 
> I began the Suzuki method of violin training at age 5. Suzuki is a method which trains the ear. The concept is just as a child learns to speak, they learn music. You literally eat, sleep, and breath music. I remember being so sick of listening to the same songs over and over again, as I lay in bed falling asleep. But ya know what? It worked. I excelled in the program and ended up with a viola scholarship to Belmont Univeristy in Nashville where I continued to perform and also delve into studio engineering.
> 
> ...


I forget the details of the training, but Harman would teach people to be "trained listeners" to evaluate loudspeaker designs. They have/had a really cool automated setup that would quickly swap speakers for a blind (double blind?) listening test. I don't have a naturally good ear, but have been taught through the years. When I first learned to play guitar, I think it took me at least 6 months to be able to tune without an electronic tuner. I don't play guitar anymore, but I can still tell when one is out of tune by ear, even slightly. 





Niick said:


> I look at optimizing a sound system as a 2 part process. The scientific (MUCH larger part) and the artistic (smaller but more time consuming part).
> 
> Here in car audio we use the word "tune" to describe the entire process.
> 
> ...


Lots of recordings are absolutely horrible so many people can do better.

The unfortunate reality is that many shop owners see new equipment as an unnecessary expense, and not a potential return on investment. If the are not losing jobs what is the motivation to replace the equipment they already have? 

I am all for balanced mini XLR, but I suspect we will see fully digital long before that happens.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

Focused4door said:


> I forget the details of the training, but Harman would teach people to be "trained listeners" to evaluate loudspeaker designs. They have/had a really cool automated setup that would quickly swap speakers for a blind (double blind?) listening test. I don't have a naturally good ear, but have been taught through the years. When I first learned to play guitar, I think it took me at least 6 months to be able to tune without an electronic tuner. I don't play guitar anymore, but I can still tell when one is out of tune by ear, even slightly.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And for those shop owners, that's their choice. My equipment is owned by me, not my employer. The cost of my tuning equipment pales in comparison to what I've paid "the tool guy" over the years. 

I specialize in system tuning the way SO MANY installers have chosen to invest time, money, effort into fabrication. 

And it seems the truly good fabricators stay up with current materials, methods, trends..........so why can't I. 

There's more to installation than fabrication.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

claydo said:


> Only when the measuring equipment turns out consistently better cars than the ear tuning method, also a concise easy to understand process, with widespread availability.....oh, and an attainable price. Like I said, with what's widely available today....nope. Higher tech than what's commonly used right now has been around for years.....Richard Clarks system mentioned earlier, and many others, now, how much of that has stuck? How much of that dominates the lanes? How much of that is widely available to the common enthusiasts? ............exactly.......none, nada, zip.......meanwhile folks are tuning amazing vehicles using those archaic rta systems, their ears, and their knowledge.
> 
> :edit: now, for the record I'm not condemning new technology, I hope it's successful. Do I hope that everyone can easily access the ability to tune their ride to the fullest......uh....not really.....lol. I kinda hope it continues to be a long slow learning process that some folks never get.....and so should you mr instal and tune for a living, lmao.


maybe that didn't come out right, what I meant was, FOR ME, it will be "ear AND analyzer" instead of the "ear OR analyzer" debate.

I mean. It already is. I already use BOTH to get to the final product.

I'm simply saying I'm working on a way to use both SIMULTANEOUSLY, facilitated by the fact that music works as an excitation signal. You get the same stable data with music that you get with log sweeps or pink noise, so long as the music is full range.


----------



## bugsplat (Nov 7, 2014)

Personally I have to tune by ear. Been in music all my life, tuned instruments by ear. Tried rta and hated the outcome. Everyone is different. People's ears are different. What sound heavenly to me may sound lacking lows to another. 

Anyway while all the debating was going on I moved my 3" to the dash. Can't tell you how it sounds as it started to rain and my amps aren't fully setup. I've run a dual 2" center channel off the windshield once in the past and was blown away at the results. Stage came way up and clarity off the glass was outstanding. No reason to suspect it would change but that the fun in this hobby. Try something new.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

bugsplat said:


> ...........No reason to suspect it would change but that the fun in this hobby. Try something new.


.  That's awesome! 

It's YOUR car, YOUR system, do whatever YOU want! 
Don't ever let anyone tell you something (within reason) isn't going to work, that there's no point in trying.

Find out for yourself. You seem to do that, and that's awesome.

It's the journey, not the destination.

I already KNOW tuning by ear can work. Of course it can. 

That's all I ever previously did.

I've chosen to pursue a new challenge, a new journey. 

MANY say it can't/shouldn't be done. FEW say it can. 

Peace and thanks for the counter perspectives to all.

I'm out on this one!


----------



## susedan (Aug 11, 2015)

sqnut said:


> Just because some processors let you slide the central frequency, doesn't mean you've suddenly got a 1/6 oct eq



Actually, with the flexibility of today's processors, those of us with active setups could configure parametric as 1/6 octave or even finer depending on the driver frequency range.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

susedan said:


> Actually, with the flexibility of today's processors, those of us with active setups could configure parametric as 1/6 octave or even finer depending on the driver frequency range.


That's a good point, the process I use, when I'm tuning a system, If it's a 360.3 or a Helix or any other processor that gives you parametric control over each of the 30 or so filters........I'll often dedicate most, if not all of the filters for that driver's channel TO that driver, so yeah, I suppose since the driver only covers the upper, let's say, 1/3 of the spectrum (logarithmically scaled, of course!)......then yeah.....there ya go.....certainly finer than 1/3 octave......


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

susedan said:


> Actually, with the flexibility of today's processors, those of us with active setups could configure parametric as 1/6 octave or even finer depending on the driver frequency range.





Niick said:


> That's a good point, the process I use, when I'm tuning a system, If it's a 360.3 or a Helix or any other processor that gives you parametric control over each of the 30 or so filters........I'll often dedicate most, if not all of the filters for that driver's channel TO that driver, so yeah, I suppose since the driver only covers the upper, let's say, 1/3 of the spectrum (logarithmically scaled, of course!)......then yeah.....there ya go.....certainly finer than 1/3 octave......


So you use all eq bands for a channel for the pass band of the driver? No love for eq the stop band to better manage phase and response issues in the xover region? You may set up a 1/6 oct in each pass band but does your narrowest Q allow you to prevent overlap? Hmmm 1/3 oct per channel is good enough to dial in your ref sound.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

*[edit]*It's been an interesting thread, with two contrasting views and a lot of passion from both sides. Niick, dude I respect your passion for what you believe in, but even at the end we remain chalk and cheese. We're just totally different in our approach. 










Things are not written in stone and you can learn the skills associated with the other side. It's just that what comes instinctively is easier to learn. Erin spending 70-80% of his time tuning by ear is proof of that, I've always known him as a measure it all guy like you, and for him to come out and admit he see's value in and is using a different way well my respect for him just went up a couple of notches. 

Sometimes though, people like me find mastering a skill on the other side really tough. I went thorough about 9-10 months of setting things by measuring, but I was always klutzy at best at measuring and even then it never sounded completely right, at best it provided a baseline. I also agree with Patrick that a car is a horrible place to measure.

Let's look at the big picture for a bit and ask ourselves what is the objective of this hobby? My simple answer is, to get your car as close as you can to your reference sound. Decent open back headphones, or your simple 2ch at home is a good enough reference. Now since 'tune of a song' is on the other side, things work slightly differently here. While with most things on the left, figure out the bit, get them right individually then add them up and you get the whole. However with sound unless we are intuitive with the whole, for a start we'll never be able to get the bits just right. Get intimate with your ref sound cause this is what you want to reproduce in your car. 

Close on the heels is the ability to tell a difference between right and wrong. We've had a few posts by people who play an instrument and they are intuitive with picking the difference between right and wrong. It's a skill that can be learned. Play the same track on your ref setup then listen to it in the car, if you're really hearing the differences they will jump out at you, and there will be tons of them. If the two sound fairly similar then we are not hearing the difference and need to get more intuitive with the ref sound. If we aren't hearing the difference how can we correct them? In the car our ears are the mic/probe and can hear differences at +/- 0.1 db and 0.01 m/s, we just need to train and push them to start hearing the difference and to build reliability and repeatability. Initially we will hear the bigger differences and as we start correcting and the sound starts to improve, smaller and smaller differences that were earlier masked out, will start to stand out. On and on....keep going.

With a raw, untreated car (xovers set, no TA/eq), we need to get the timing right both for L/R for each set of drivers and across the set and we need to balance L/R response. One can measure and achieve this and that is one way. Remember just cause your RTA tells you L/R is balanced at +/-1 db or so, your ears will be telling you if they are balanced at 0.5 db or whatever the resolution level you currently are at. This is just one way in which you may still need to adjust measured right to get to sound right. Otoh, it's equally easy to set all this just using mono full range PN tracks, 1/3 oct PN and some colored tape. I've spoken about it a bit in the sound stage thread. With a bit of practice (which one will also need for measuring), this can net you equal if not better results than measuring, and hence a better baseline. But even here you'll still need to keep tweaking as you go along.

Next we need to dial in the overall curve for correct tonal balance and it is here that I think measurements are the most useful. It's the fastest way to do it, of course the basic house curve you're going for has to land you in the right ballpark. So now what? Once the curve is dialed in are we done? A quick back and forth between your ref sound and the car should tell you heck no. This point is the end of the road for measurements and real progress from here on is only by ear. As a start we need to get intuitive with the eq and your timing, what does a 0.2 db cut do at 500 or what does increasing a 0.2 m/s delay on the left tweet do to the imaging and tonality? We need to pick individual issues and figure out what we need to tweak and by how much. It always helps here to move in small steps. Hearing a difference means little if we can't figure out how to correct it. This is where something like the Harmon tool comes in handy.

Harman How to Listen 

The idea with the Harmon tool is to be able to pick the frequency that's been cut/boosted from it's full range of 24 bands in operation. If you can pick the frequency that the program is cutting / boosting, with 70% accuracy and be within +/- 1/3 oct the other times, you'll be well on your way to correcting things that don't sound right. 

With each tweak your mic (ears) should be telling you better or worse. This is tuning by ear and it certainly can't be done in 1 hour 20 mts. It's a slow process but it takes you much further than by measurement alone. Each tweak should take you closer to the whole you seek and you will make hundreds if not thousands of tweaks, from your baseline, on both the response and timing. This will get you to a ballpark where the car sounds more like a 2 ch, than a car stereo. Getting to this point is 80% by ear.

My passion is driven by getting this whole tune by ear side some acceptance and acknowledgement. To that effect I really appreciate the posts made by people who believe in this. There is a whole world waiting for you once you're done measuring. Unlike Niick I firmly believe that measuring is small part of the whole and learning to tune by ear is the much bigger part. 

Last but not least for jt who wants a Niick vs sqnut showdown, probably not going to happen, but I'll say that if I was stateside I would be one of those avid competitors who drove 4-6 hours one way for events, that's for sure.*[edit]*


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

sqnut said:


> So you use all eq bands for a channel for the pass band of the driver? No love for eq the stop band to better manage phase and response issues in the xover region? You may set up a 1/6 oct in each pass band but does your narrowest Q allow you to prevent overlap? Hmmm 1/3 oct per channel is good enough to dial in your ref sound.


I didn't say the PASS BAND. I only said THAT DRIVER. including a huge (more than enough) portion of the stop band of a tweeter that is crossed over at 6k for example, STILL DOESNT Take me all the way down to 20 Hz genius!!! So IM still at a finer resolution than 1\3.

Also, since when is "good enough"......good enough??


----------



## therapture (Jan 31, 2013)

sqnut said:


> Yep, corners of dash are great locations. If anyone feels that reflections are the reason that something sounds 'off', well 99% it's a tuning issue and 1% is faulty install.


I'll have to take a little side here. I too, have dash mounted 2" widebanders in the far corners, _very close_ to the windshield. What I was taught/learned/schooled (much of it thanks to sqnut) was exactly that - *tuning*. I still have been refining minor things (by ear) over the last 3 months. I have improved focus and stage height with very minor changes to EQ/levels as well as small TA changes.

It's the best it has ever been and I have not used a mic in months. However, I do need to get some fresh measurements to see if what I hear is what I think I hear.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

For me, the reason I started measuring was to gain a deeper understanding of the physics involved. I'm talkin, a REAL, TANGIBLE, HANDS ON kind of understanding. 

And I didn't start with SysTune, I've ended up there....so far...

There is (for me at least) a huge difference between theoretical knowledge and hands on working knowledge. I first really learned this while formerly studying electronics.

The way I look at it,the more senses I can involve n the process, the better my understanding will become, and the better my potential to optimize systems will be. 

And it goes way beyond system tuning, as a result of all the measuring, I now understand concepts that I had a loose grip on before. Concepts like group delay, phase, impedance/phase (electrical), step response, what is meant when I read in magazines descriptions of a loudspeaker having good (or bad) time domain behavior. Stuff LIKE that.

Never really understood that before. 

Waterfall plots.....never really understood those before, AS AN EXAMPLE

So for me, measurements are the key to me understanding and properly using these concepts. Acoustic analysis is an area where I'm expanding all the time. Not contracting.

For me the goal isn't to eventually do away with measurements, the goal is to incorporate as manY different perspectives (measurements) and senses (ear/analyzer) as possible into one cohesive, smooth-workflow, whole. 

Where that journey has taken me so far has been enexpectedly amazing.

Edit: And again, remember, I'm not tuning my own system here for my own pleasure, which means, my perspective is different than someone who is tuning and refining their system tiny increments at a time over many weeks or months, TOTALLY DIFFERENT SCENARIO. I can't stress that enough. I have MAYBE, MAYBE 1 day (10hrs) at the ABSOLUTE MOST on some, SOME jobs.......IF IM LUCKY.

If I'm lucky I have a whole day to dedicate to tuning. And I do get lucky every now and then. That's when I learn the most  those luck days! Thank god for those lucky days!


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Niick said:


> Edit: And again, remember, I'm not tuning my own system here for my own pleasure, which means, my perspective is different than someone who is tuning and refining their system tiny increments at a time over many weeks or months, TOTALLY DIFFERENT SCENARIO. I can't stress that enough. I have MAYBE, MAYBE 1 day (10hrs) at the ABSOLUTE MOST on some, SOME jobs.......IF IM LUCKY.
> 
> If I'm lucky I have a whole day to dedicate to tuning. And I do get lucky every now and then. That's when I learn the most  those luck days! Thank god for those lucky days!


There's only one way to settle this. Let's start with two identical cars, install and equipment. We are both given a day (10 hours) to tune it and at the EOD a judge from MECA evaluates the cars, I would be totally up for this challenge. I'd probably devote 30-45 mts to measuring and then devote the balance time to tuning by ear. A twenty min tuning session followed by a 10 minute break, would theoretically give me about 7-8 tuning sessions. I feel good about my chances.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

sqnut said:


> There's only one way to settle this. Let's start with two identical cars, install and equipment. We are both given a day (10 hours) to tune it and at the EOD a judge from MECA evaluates the cars, I would be totally up for this challenge. I'd probably devote 30-45 mts to measuring and then devote the balance time to tuning by ear. A twenty min tuning session followed by a 10 minute break, would theoretically give me about 7-8 tuning sessions. I feel good about my chances.


No problem. But wait....there is a problem with your proposal.....A SINGLE judge.....well....that doesn't settle anything....


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

Oh, and it would have to be a DSP that neither one of us had ever used before, and no prior knowledge of speaker type or size. They're hidden under grilles....


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Niick said:


> No problem. But wait....there is a problem with your proposal.....A SINGLE judge.....well....that doesn't settle anything....


No issues with 2-3 judges.



Niick said:


> Oh, and it would have to be a DSP that neither one of us had ever used before, and no prior knowledge of speaker type or size. They're hidden under grilles....


I've never used the Helix DSP pro so I'll take that. I really don't need to know what speakers are installed, I think one can pretty quickly discover what the drivers can and can't do.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

After eight pages, I'm curious what the OP thinks about reflections and if his question was satisfactorily addressed.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

?????.....oh, and we'd have to have totally random wiring polarities of all the drivers, very often I tune other people's installs, and this is not uncommon.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

sqnut said:


> There's only one way to settle this. Let's start with two identical cars, install and equipment. We are both given a day (10 hours) to tune it and at the EOD a judge from MECA evaluates the cars, I would be totally up for this challenge. I'd probably devote 30-45 mts to measuring and then devote the balance time to tuning by ear. A twenty min tuning session followed by a 10 minute break, would theoretically give me about 7-8 tuning sessions. I feel good about my chances.


My last complete, from scratch tune (listened to by many, including the owner of our company, who compared it to a vehicle he heard a CES) took me 1 hour and 20 mins. 

That includes "by ear" adjustment of specific things, as per my current method. 

So please, don't interpret my previous post to mean that 10 hours is NECESSARY for me, what I meant was, that compared to many weeks or months, 10 hours is the blink of an eye.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Niick said:


> ?????.....oh, and we'd have to have totally random wiring polarities of all the drivers, very often I tune other people's installs, and this is not uncommon.


You're starting to miss the point. This is not a trouble shooting contest, it's purely about tuning. Let's just start with a setup that is installed and wired correctly, so that we can spend the max time tuning. Leave what you and I do on a daily basis, out of this. It's purely about testing the end results from one method vs the other. It's not about you and me, it's purely about one method vs the other, given that we're both decent at what we do. 

I've agreed to do it w/o knowing what drivers are in play and using a dsp I'm not familiar with, how much more of the field do you want to level? Even if you tilt it towards you you're not guaranteed a win. That's how much of a difference there is between the methodologies


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

sqnut said:


> You're starting to miss the point. This is not a trouble shooting contest, it's a purely about tuning. Let's just start with a setup that is installed and wired correctly, so that we can spend the max time tuning. Leave what you and I do on a daily basis out of this. It's purely about testing the end results from one method vs the other. It's not about you and me, it's purely about one method vs the other, given that we're both decent at what we do.
> 
> I've agreed to do it w/o knowing what drivers are in play and using a dsp I'm not familiar with, how much more of the field do you want to level? Even if you tilt it towards you you're not guaranteed a win. That's how much of a difference there is between the methodologies


ok, so maybe that last one was too far, BUT, I don't think I am missing the point. I tried to stress that my methods are borne of my situation, which is....this is my JOB, my WORK, and at work, these are the things I encounter. It just so happens that my job is also my passion. Well, my favorite part of my job anyway. Installing breathalyzer ISNT my passion! LOL

when someone comes to me and wants their system to sound better, THESE are literally the things I encounter. 

Since I use a system that works just as good with music as the excitation signal, and since I'm currently figuring out the logistics of a methodology that incorporates SIMULTNEOUS ear and analyzer.......once that's up and running, then which side of the debate will I fall on?


----------



## jtaudioacc (Apr 6, 2010)

yay! we're back to the contest!

no idea why it matters so much that you have a dsp you've never used, or speaker size.

that's just simple stuff you can figure out pretty fast anyway. a bit of time with any dsp software and anyone who tunes a lot will pick it up.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

jtaudioacc said:


> yay! we're back to the contest!
> 
> no idea why it matters so much that you have a dsp you've never used, or speaker size.
> 
> that's just simple stuff you can figure out pretty fast anyway. a bit of time with any dsp software and anyone who tunes a lot will pick it up.


You're right it doesn't matter, but if it gives Niick solace, I'm fine with it.


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

I think there are two competing interests here. Niick is a retail installer. IF you're going to make a living doing something, it's helpful to have a clear objective (a target) and a process for achieving that target in a predictable period of time. If you're a hobbyist and WANT tuning your system to last a lifetime, then there's no need for a process based objectivity. 

I find a couple of points that are always made in threads like this to me really amusing. The first is that somehow the machine is incapable of "hearing" the subtle nuances of audio and therefore is akin to one of those metal detectors on the beach--it just give you hints but also provides lots of false alarms. 

The second is that the performance of the system is best qualified by a contest judge. LOL


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Niick said:


> Since I use a system that works just as good with music as the excitation signal, and since I'm currently figuring out the logistics of a methodology that incorporates SIMULTNEOUS ear and analyzer.......once that's up and running, then which side of the debate will I fall on?


You'll still be on the measuring side cause you don't trust your ears enough to swim without the floaters.


----------



## cajunner (Apr 13, 2007)

I may be missing the importance of a contest where someone who uses tools to speed their process of getting to a tune, is pitted against the poor fellow who likes to do tuning as a cathartic measure, "better?" is a loaded word...


I took up the banner for Klippel measurements way back, when I realized here was a tool that was able to define what "better?" meant, in repeatable results.


If there are other methods of assaying the interior of a vehicle that brings a return such as proof that their subjective "ears on" EQ wandering has not been in vain, and that method is a test procedure that doesn't cost any more than the free version software suites already on the market, how could that be a negative?

maybe those people who rely heavily on their ears, don't want to be shown how they could improve their tuning skills, because it might expose a faulty reference.

that's what I'm getting here, the trust either side has in their ability to measure should be high, and trust in what they are hearing should be characteristically low in comparison to the machine, ol' John Henry is having trouble finding .1 db variations, isn't he?

sqnut seems to think he's able to outrun the fleet of robots Niick has at his disposal, and with 10 hours of time to see it through, will make a system that a judge will prefer over the relatively sparse tuning by ear Niick is allowed based on his job performance, or duty to get the car out, and the next in.

I would imagine both would deny it if pressed, when it is shown that what a judge prefers is so subjective that on any given Sunday, either could lose their proposition bets.

I would imagine that Niick's process, once hammered down into an efficiency model that wastes no miking redundancy and allows for testing on a finer scale using higher grade instruments and software, will turn out a palatable product within the first hour.


sqnut's decidedly different approach probably requires more time based on comments made thus far, but give each of them 10 cars, and give each of them 1 hour with each car, and I'd imagine Niick trounces sqnut with a fierceness.

I say this because I think that Niick's use of the measurement devices is akin to a template and there's no second guessing, "better?" is simply never asked.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

Thanks Andy....you get it.

Sqnut.....I realize that there is no possibility that you can comprehend why acoustic data acquisition and analysis (and prediction) software (and hardware)even exists. 

It seems, from your perspective, that even the worlds highest paid acousticians are "silly children in the kiddie pool of audio" 

I mean, after all, take a look at the guys from Meyer Sound, those fools! Bob Mcarthy.......
what a silly little child, right sqnut! 

All these years, guys like that......all they really had to do was trust their ears!! 

I don't get why they don't just throw away those silly SIM analyzes......I mean, they could have done a much better job of inventing....oh....take the Constellation Acoustic System for example.....think of how much better it could have been if those silly fools weren't wasting their time trying to understand the physics of sound.

What a waste of time! 

Geez sqnut, you sure do make some good points! 

I'm gonna strive to be just like you. 

Those other guys....those other professionals in the world of audio, who I used to read about, go to seminars put on by them.....WHAT WAS I THINKING!?

you're my new role model now! 

Can't wait to get rid of my floaties!!

Someday I'll be a big boy like you, and TRULY understand how audio works, TRULY have a future in this industry.  

Oh wait, maybe I was just kidding............


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

cajunner said:


> "better?" is simply never asked.


Which is precisely why it might never be so, and out of 11 points you made in your post 9 are wrong.:shrug:


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

jtaudioacc said:


> yay! we're back to the contest!
> 
> no idea why it matters so much that you have a dsp you've never used, or speaker size.
> 
> that's just simple stuff you can figure out pretty fast anyway. a bit of time with any dsp software and anyone who tunes a lot will pick it up.


It doesn't matter THAT much, I was just thinking of little details that could possibly give one theoretical contestant an advantage/disadvantage, being this THEORETICAL competition was a timed event.

And it didn't even take me that much thought either. 

"A bit of time with".........THIS IS A TIMED EVENT!! That's my point!! LOL


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

sqnut said:


> Which is precisely why it might never be so, and out of 11 points you made in your post 9 are wrong.:shrug:


Cajunner, I get what you're saying about the Klippell. Some sort of standardization....... metric for evaluation and quantification is needed. If we didn't have these things, the already prevalent "snake oil" in the audio world would run COMPLETELY ramped. 

We already have the ability to look with our eyes, feel with our hands, and understand with our brains what the look and feel.....of a loudspeaker driver for example......what we PERCIEVE with our eyes, and can simultaneously feel with our fingers......what this MIGHT LIKELY mean about the speaker.

Then we can listen to it and see if we were right.

Should our perception of a loudspeaker prior to listening stop there, because we are attached to some ideal that equates the use of perspective expanding tools like analysis systems with "kiddie pool floaties"??

That makes NO sense. 

Thanks for the vote of confidence cajunner, Andy, anyone else who gets it.

Let me emphatically state for the record that I have NOTHING against tuning solely (or mostly, or whatever...)by ear, especially if it's your own system, for your own listening pleasure.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

at one point this thread was interesting. but now it's gotten to the point of plain ridiculousness. everyone has their own methods. stating why they're plausible is fine. learning something from others' is awesome. but arguing as if there will someday be this 'showdown' to determine the best method is just a lot of silly chest thumping.

I'm out. Ya'll have fun with the measuring sticks.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> I think there are two competing interests here. Niick is a retail installer. IF you're going to make a living doing something, it's helpful to have a clear objective (a target) and a process for achieving that target in a predictable period of time. If you're a hobbyist and WANT tuning your system to last a lifetime, then there's no need for a process based objectivity.


It's only about the best tune you can best dial in 10 hours using the method most intuitive to one. It's about one method vs the other. It doesn't take a lifetime, but yeah 2-3 years at a hobbyist level (not competing) is par for the course. But I feel it takes you further than measuring. 



Andy Wehmeyer said:


> I find a couple of points that are always made in threads like this to me really amusing. The first is that somehow the machine is incapable of "hearing" the subtle nuances of audio and therefore is akin to one of those metal detectors on the beach--it just give you hints but also provides lots of false alarms.


At what repeatable resolution is the software measuring? So when the measurements tell me that L/R is balanced at 500hz at what resolution are they balanced? 



Andy Wehmeyer said:


> The second is that the performance of the system is best qualified by a contest judge. LOL


Yes it is. I know a speaker that measures good will sound good, but the car is a horrible place to measure. At the end of the day it's about how it sounds, trained ears work best.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

ErinH said:


> at one point this thread was interesting. but now it's gotten to the point of plain ridiculousness. everyone has their own methods. stating why they're plausible is fine. learning something from others' is awesome. but arguing as if there will someday be this 'showdown' to determine the best method is just a lot of silly chest thumping.
> 
> I'm out. Ya'll have fun with the measuring sticks.


party pooper . I would seriously be up for this challenge though. At least I explained my process, I don't think Niick has given a detailed process map he uses, so tough to learn anything.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

ErinH said:


> at one point this thread was interesting. but now it's gotten to the point of plain ridiculousness. everyone has their own methods. stating why they're plausible is fine. learning something from others' is awesome. but arguing as if there will someday be this 'showdown' to determine the best method is just a lot of silly chest thumping.
> 
> I'm out. Ya'll have fun with the measuring sticks.


You're right ErinH, it has gotten ridiculous, BUT, it's just one single thread........

and I think that all this "silly chest thumping" can sometimes bring to light things you didn't previously know, whether that's about a person or a method or whatever.

Like for example, I was being completely serious when I said that a post from BennyZ made me realize the difference between peoples inclinations. Those who come from a musical background tend to look at measurements as a "crutch to be done away with"

Where as those who come from a technical/scientific background see it in a completely different light.

They're both right. For their respective purposes/goals


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

And to be quite honest with ya, I'm surprised there haven't been more people complaining about this thread..........


----------



## cajunner (Apr 13, 2007)

sqnut said:


> Which is precisely why it might never be so, and out of 11 points you made in your post 9 are wrong.:shrug:


hey, how about some specifics?




you know, I see you drop into all of those noob threads as the voice of reason, with your (according to you) high-hone RTA flattening by graph methods and claiming it to be some kind of super authority, like you'd been instructed by MI:6 and well, it all comes across a little phoney?

How can you tell someone who likely doesn't know themselves what they mean by their subjective definitions, how to fix their sound over the internet by looking at a graph?


I empathize sometimes with your posts, as we all need to feel important sometimes and you are likely trying to be helpful while fiddling with someone else's tune without even hearing it first...


hey, remember that time I thought you should probably make your system have the FR response someone else's system has, and that you're trying to fix, that was a hoot, right?

I mean, who needs a control when you can just fly off some "minus .2 db here, plus 1.4 db there" and come away with some response of "hey man, that seems to have helped" from the noobs...


anyways, next time you want to pontificate on points made or not made, how about you not do your blanket negating in lieu of something concrete, eh...?


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

sqnut said:


> party pooper . I would seriously be up for this challenge though. At least I explained my process, I don't think Niick has given a detailed process map he uses, so tough to learn anything.


I'm planning on making a video soon of me tuning a system with my "floaties" on. I feel this would be way better than a 10 page post. 

Here is a breakdown, first, I TALK TO THE CLIENT, understand what it is that they're using the system for, do they have a home audio system? In other words...what's their reference for "good sound", 

With that in mind, I pull the vehicle into the shop, listen to the system, if it's in dire need of help, or if it's actually pretty good, they just want a little adjusting, then we go from there.......

Using a 3mic array, I take a spatial average (of each individual drive unit) with the array horizontal, then vertical. I then average these two orientations together (power average) to get a good idea of what is needed EQ wise.

At some point prior to this I will have run an impedance sweep of the tweeter, because I like to establish known parameters to work within. For this I use REW.

I then determine crossover points, slopes, and type. I tend to start from the tweeter down, using the Fs of the tweeter, the natural roll off of the mid/midbass, and the coherence readings to narrow down the possible range of crossover points. (I place cursors, then work within the cursors, like I said, I like to have established boundaries)

Once I've settled on a crossover scheme, I usually will try to get the acoustic slopes as matched as possible, if this means using 24 dB for the high pass, and 12db for the low, or vice-versa, so be it. 

Then, I create targets for each individual driver set, so like, tweeter target, midbass target, subwoofer target, then I EQ to match target on each individual driver. THIS INCLUDES the transition region and roll-off into the stop band.

(more to come, at work, got a car to work on...)

Edit: I'm leaving out a WHOLE LOTTA DETAIL here......like the spatial averaging thing, I don't SOLELY look at the power average of the 6 microphone positions, I also look at what's the same, and what's different about the individual traces, too. It helps to keep all this in mind as you go...........


----------



## cajunner (Apr 13, 2007)

Niick said:


> And to be quite honest with ya, I'm surprised there haven't been more people complaining about this thread..........


it's surprising how much inanity people will absorb before calling it quits and finding another thread to lounge around in.

so far, I see you have made a couple of important points, about measurements and what we have available, versus what is out there, waiting to be used, or useful to the car audio community.


the problem with immersion is cost in this instance, as I would like SysTune or whatever, but I'm not paying for it and neither is the lively home hobbyist either.

You might be able to justify the cost in your business productivity and by producing a tune worth rolling out the door using today's DSP menus and appointments, in a matter of an hour or two, can skip the day-long process using extra ears to help when fatigue sets in.


I figure, those microphones and software setups that you've got at the ready, they never get tired.


So in the instance of that long railroad and hammering ties, you've got to come original, sqnuts of the world have to give it to ya, if you gots it.

I say you gots it, do ya?


do ya gots it, man?




now about this coherence thing, is that all you've got for us, is there other ways of logging the RTA into a statistical mean besides averages and multi-mic techniques?

How about those nulls, can you show us some of that good gravy that SysTune produces, how it maps the area of a soccer ball space where your head is likely to be in the car, and the immediate surrounding?

I bet that would wow the onlookers, get that interior mapping done in such a way that you could point out where more install is needed, (angles, diffractive controls like stock grill interference) and that other stuff that comes with selecting a different path, (2-way or widebander, 3-way etc.)


----------



## therapture (Jan 31, 2013)

This thread is derailed - just a bit. 

Niick, I think you have become defensive and personal, even a bit "attack dog" mentality when you are questioned about your methods.

sqnut knows a fair amount. It seems you do as well. Why can't it just continue as to the merits and disadvantages of each method? No reason to start fighting, it only ruins the information and people start dropping like flies.

Most people do a fair amount of both styles of tuning. I measure...a lot...adjust...then when it is close, I go by ear for a few months. I listen to a ton of different music and it takes time to pick out problems, some of it is just crap music. Sometimes I find a repeating error and then I go to fix that, such as a L/R imbalance. Or maybe tiny TA adjustments to tighten up focus and center.

Then it needs to be measured again to see if the ear is correlating to the changes that are made, i.e., what they do/did, and can it be better. 

Sometimes I make a change, and revert back. It's how we learn.


----------



## therapture (Jan 31, 2013)

Niick said:


> And to be quite honest with ya, I'm surprised there haven't been more people complaining about this thread..........


Most won't complain, they just suddenly let it die and stop posting/reading it...


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

cajunner said:


> hey, how about some specifics?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think Andy has mentioned more than once that measurements can give you a good idea of how it sounds. You don't have to sit in the car. Maybe you missed it......



cajunner said:


> it's surprising how much inanity people will absorb before calling it quits and finding another thread to lounge around in.
> 
> so far, I see you have made a couple of important points, about measurements and what we have available, versus what is out there, waiting to be used, or useful to the car audio community.
> 
> ...


Whatever, dude.


----------



## lizardking (Nov 8, 2008)

Wasn't one of the greatest albums mixed by ear? Dark side of the Moon. Anyway, you're better off just listening to music rather than your system. Seems much more productive then chasing nuances...

I think some of you guys need to drive around with quality headphones rather than spending hours trying to achieve something you're never happy with. Grab your CD Player and your pack of CD's and have fun.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

lizardking said:


> Wasn't one of the greatest albums mixed by ear? Dark side of the Moon. Anyway, you're better off just listening to music rather than your system. Seems much more productive then chasing nuances...
> 
> I think some of you guys need to drive around with quality headphones rather than spending hours trying to achieve something you're never happy with. Grab your CD Player and your pack of CD's and have fun.


Haven't really tuned anything in a couple of years, haven't felt the need to.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

My last post in this thread. My take away from this thread are:

1. Those who don't get it, never will. 

2. The scientists who practice what they believe in, those who partially get it but are essentially left brained, and the pseudo scientists who just pontificate from the armchair, not having done the hard yards one way or the other, will all eventually close ranks when confronted with something that questions their beliefs.

3. Point 2 leads to pack dog mentality where personal comments and jibes are de rigueur. I choose not to go down that path.


----------



## therapture (Jan 31, 2013)

...and this thread was assaulted and is now DOA. I'm out as well.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

therapture said:


> This thread is derailed - just a bit.
> 
> Niick, I think you have become defensive and personal, even a bit "attack dog" mentality when you are questioned about your methods.
> 
> ...


Oh....oops...my apologies if I seem....."attackish" 

so, as far as trying to help with some potentially useful info.......in the beginning, when I posted the pics of the tweeter measurements.......that got TOTALLY picked apart by the "measurements are a crutch" camp........so...there ya go. It seems the only acceptable kind of "helpful info" is that which comes in the form of vague descriptions of sound perception, NOT hard data.


----------



## benny z (Mar 17, 2008)

Consider that the measurement devices cannot measure perceived listening position to stage, depth, and width. Ideal impulse and frequency response measurements may show ideal speaker placement to be in locations which limit perceived depth and width. 

Again I'm not saying measurements have no place. But I start with speaker positioning based on listening tests for best depth and width. From there I take measurements (RTA only as that's all I have available), and dial in the left/right freq match and a starting curve based on the readings.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> I think there are two competing interests here. Niick is a retail installer. IF you're going to make a living doing something, it's helpful to have a clear objective (a target) and a process for achieving that target in a predictable period of time. If you're a hobbyist and WANT tuning your system to last a lifetime, then there's no need for a process based objectivity.
> 
> I find a couple of points that are always made in threads like this to me really amusing. The first is that somehow the machine is incapable of "hearing" the subtle nuances of audio and therefore is akin to one of those metal detectors on the beach--it just give you hints but also provides lots of false alarms.
> 
> The second is that the performance of the system is best qualified by a contest judge. LOL


I agree there's more than one way to skin a cat , 

And often times whatever processes are used usually end up to the same settings anyway.


----------



## cajunner (Apr 13, 2007)

sqnut said:


> I think Andy has mentioned more than once that measurements can give you a good idea of how it sounds. You don't have to sit in the car. Maybe you missed it......
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever, dude.


no, you don't have to sit in the car. 

and I've said before, a lot of the time I agree with your "tuning" suggestions.

what you have done is take offense, and when asked to defend that, you fail to engage, instead relying on the old trick of dismissal as if by not countering, your argument of being offended remains solid.

well guess what?!

I could care less if you want to patent your "correction key filter" so everyone can pay you for the benefit of your tuning by cyber-superimposition, as that's where a lot of people run once they establish some sort of a gimmick ruse to fleece the gullible.

I'm not that guy. When the guy that used to do transfer function based enclosure tunings for everybody who would produce a graph, I thought "he's going to get tired of doing it for free" as it appeared to be a value-added gesture and commensurate with being exalted in the family forum scale of worth...

and I didn't care then either, when he started asking for money for services.

you see, you may have no ill gotten gains ahead of you, and you may be altruist as Jay Z, but in the back of my mind I'm watching you, every time you interject and attempt your template in a quick question and answer formulaic attempt.

but I don't even care!


so, whatever, whatever dude.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

benny z said:


> Consider that the measurement devices cannot measure perceived listening position to stage, depth, and width. Ideal impulse and frequency response measurements may show ideal speaker placement to be in locations which limit perceived depth and width.
> 
> Again I'm not saying measurements have no place. But I start with speaker positioning based on listening tests for best depth and width. From there I take measurements (RTA only as that's all I have available), and dial in the left/right freq match and a starting curve based on the readings.


so BennyZ, here's what I'm proposing:

That, thru exactly what hardware/software based methodology I'm not 100% certain of YET, we WILL (someday) be able to measure those acoustic parameters that RESULT in a certain perceived depth, width, etc. 

I have a new piece of software called EASERA, it is the foundation upon which SysTune grew. 

There's all kinds of modules for EASERA, TEF being one of them (someone mentioned Goldline's TEF earlier)

One of them that interests me is its ability to measure interaural cross correlation. (With the use of a H.A.T.S. or equivalent, of course)

So, when we make some kind of change to the audio system that results in a better or worse perceived depth/width- this is a physical phenomenon. It has implications of the ACOUSTIC type. 

So can this be measured. OF COURSE!! Why not? 

Is it commonly measured in car audio? No, but maybe some day it will be, so long as people like me don't listen to the nay-sayers


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

sqnut said:


> Haven't really tuned anything in a couple of years, haven't felt the need to.


Get some new gear! Switch it up! You will be surprised how diffrent just new speakers can tune, and sound. And get something good. 

That is my BEST advice to you!


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

cajunner said:


> hey, how about some specifics?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

lizardking said:


> Wasn't one of the greatest albums mixed by ear? Dark side of the Moon. Anyway, you're better off just listening to music rather than your system. Seems much more productive then chasing nuances...
> 
> I think some of you guys need to drive around with quality headphones rather than spending hours trying to achieve something you're never happy with. Grab your CD Player and your pack of CD's and have fun.


 ok..I'm not meaning to be an ******* here, but dude, this right here is the reason for a lot of the misunderstanding.

of course the ALBUM was mixed by ear......it's art.

I want to optimize a playback machine to RECREATE what those artist mixed. As accurately as possible. Without my own artistic interpretation of how I think it SHOULD sound "mixed" into the scenario.

Oh and by the way, I think it's safe to say that ALL albums are mixed by ear 

I personally do not tune systems with the belief that I a mix engineer making an artistic end product.

Mixing an album, and building a album-reproduction machine, are two TOTALLY different things.

edit: this is a big, easy to make, misunderstanding. It's not my hope to carry on a thread that many have so passionately stated their dislike of, but oh well.....

Come to think of it, looking back....., sqnut passionately states his beliefs in music reproduction, I passionately state mine, then there's others who passionately state their dislike............of those passionate statements!! LOL.  

Edit 2: oh, and of course....at this current point in time, loudspeaker systems are both an art AND a science. I find, it is the application of the science that IS the art.


----------



## benny z (Mar 17, 2008)

And then there's the poor OP who never did get the answer to his questions in one concise post. 

Pros and cons of windshield reflection...

Pros:
- allows you to place speakers in a position that gives a good listening position to stage and depth
- allows you to place speakers in a position that gives good height 
- creates a stable and precise image when tuned correctly
- image remains fairly consistent with regard to standard head movement/position while driving 
- driver/passenger doesn't block sound with their body...body movements don't affect tonality/image (much...at least not nearly as much as say kick panel locations)

Cons:
- comb filtering requires a highly capable processor and tuning skill
- width usually ends up inside the pillars
- generally does not provide any semblance of a stereo image from the passenger's seat


----------



## seafish (Aug 1, 2012)

Well if it helps at all, I would have EITHER of you guys help tune my system and the results would surely be superior to anything that I could do on my own!! LOL


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

cajunner said:


> no, you don't have to sit in the car.
> 
> and I've said before, a lot of the time I agree with your "tuning" suggestions.


Correct and you've said it earlier too. 1/1



cajunner said:


> what you have done is take offense, and when asked to defend that, you fail to engage, instead relying on the old trick of dismissal as if by not countering, your argument of being offended remains solid.


Do you really think I haven't engaged enough in this thread? Haven't I given a detailed step by step of the process I follow? Do I normally run away from explaining my position? If anything, I'm accused of being preachy at times but never that I don't share details. You've read enough threads where I've participated to know that. The refusal to repeat myself here is cause from a discussion, it quickly became an us vs them scenario as everyone rallied around Andy's post. There's no point going on in that scenario. See how your opinion interpreted my actions one way while the facts lay another way. Wrong, 1/2



cajunner said:


> well guess what?!
> 
> I could care less if you want to patent your "correction key filter" so everyone can pay you for the benefit of your tuning by cyber-superimposition, as that's where a lot of people run once they establish some sort of a gimmick ruse to fleece the gullible.
> 
> ...


So that's the real issue, you think I'm charging for my tuning tutorials? The dude from whom I learnt whatever little I know, used to compete and he and KP had a running battle for 1-2 over 4-5 years by margins like 0.5-1 points, so safe to assume the dude knows his stuff. Anyway he once told me that the price of learning is that once you understand it, you should help others understand. Of those that you help some will get it others won't, and that's fine. It get's you good karma, but it's probably something you would not understand. 

If I was charging for this, why on earth would I be doing it in public threads and share as openly as I do? After all I wouldn't want to lose potential customers because they read the thread, connected the dots and now would not want to be paid customers. If I was charging, I'd be doing it on PM.

Your opinion is so biased, that it has convinced you not only is it sacrosanct, but that it's correct. The possibility that the 'facts' and formed opinion are wrong, has been banished. You have lost the ability to say better or worse with any degree of accuracy. I feel sorry for you, I seriously do. C'mon man you have questioned my integrity, based on incorrect facts and a biased opinion. 

As a mature adult you should know that is wrong. All my threads are public, feel free to check with anyone I helped, if professional fee was exchanged. Frankly my dear, I couldn't give a Flying F#&^* about your experience with the guy who wanted payment for helping you, I'm not that guy and the least you can do is apologize. Frankly I feel sullied every time I have to interact with you, like I need to jump in the shower. Doesn't happen with anyone else on here. Like I said, I feel sorry for you and I see you as a lonely, broken and bitter, highly opinionated, highly negative, megalomaniac. See how easy and dangerous it is to form opinions?


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

oabeieo said:


> Get some new gear! Switch it up! You will be surprised how diffrent just new speakers can tune, and sound. And get something good.
> 
> That is my BEST advice to you!





oabeieo said:


>


Not that it's going to have ANY effect on you, but stop acting like you know about things when you actually don't, and if you really knew your S^$# you wouldn't need to suck up to people.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

sqnut said:


> Not that it's going to have ANY effect on you, but stop acting like you know about things when you actually don't, and if you really knew your S^$# you wouldn't need to suck up to people.


That's funny !


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

seafish said:


> Well if it helps at all, I would have EITHER of you guys help tune my system and the results would surely be superior to anything that I could do on my own!! LOL


Aww that's sweet, thanks. But you're a long drive away .


----------



## bugsplat (Nov 7, 2014)

Ok so the results? Great! Car is a 2006 Pontiac GTO. They produced as expected. Very clean, no echo, highs were amplified and lows were diminished just like the 2"er's had reflected in the past. I don't know why this is but when played with a flat EQ I had to lower >6000hz and increase <800hz . I am using a DSP (Minidsp c-dsp)and have a "unique" setup. I wont go into details but my drivers are located at different locations feet apart. Its considered a big no-no having different drivers producing different sound freq located so far apart. The only reason this setup works is because I can Time Align the hell out of it. I can get them to sound correct BUT its only correct for one seat (for those that can tell the diff). This is why I needed a DSP with different profiles. I can switch to the profile best for the seat I want to align. 99.999999% its just me but we all want to show-off every now and then  .

As for measurements its a personal opinion. I'm a wireless engineer and I use a lot of tools to setup equipment. I know the importance of it. It can see things that humans can't. That being said..... I don't like to use any tools to help me setup my cars audio. I have used tools in the past to perfectly setup my car and after it was done I didn't like the sound. Using my own ear I was able to get closer to my goal than the tool. Sound is all personal. Only you can tell you if it sounds good. Its like asking a computer to draw the perfect woman. She can look good but it may not be for you. Blond, Redhead, short, tall. We all have a different opinion of what "the perfect woman" is like. As good as a tool could be it can't be perfect. If it was, all musicians would be extinct and computers would make all our music and they would all be top of the charts. A good argument could be made for R&B and EDM but you get what I'm saying.


----------



## Niebur3 (Jul 11, 2008)

oabeieo said:


> That's funny !


But yet, SO TRUE, with a perfect example from another thread below. 



oabeieo said:


> "it will be bimming HF past it's usable range and mess with tweeter"


----------



## Niebur3 (Jul 11, 2008)

Sony thinks reflections are good.

Car Tweeters | Tweeter Speakers | XS-GS1 | Sony US


----------



## jtaudioacc (Apr 6, 2010)

Niebur3 said:


> Sony thinks reflections are good.
> 
> Car Tweeters | Tweeter Speakers | XS-GS1 | Sony US


obviously, that's the best sounding car on the planet.


----------



## cajunner (Apr 13, 2007)

sqnut said:


> Correct and you've said it earlier too. 1/1
> 
> 
> 
> ...


you really need to quit reading into what I'm saying like this.

or, get a little more reading comprehension capability under your belt.

When I say I don't care if you would have an end game where your reputation and online tuning process combine to make a for-profit business model, that's what I mean! I don't care!

Obviously, you either aren't able to control yourself and must attack me, using whatever twist of my words makes it possible, or you just are not the best reader, I don't know at this point because your comments are so, predictable and pathetically charged with some kind of self-loathing angst turned outward and taking many of the counterpoints of using measurements as a direct insult to your tuning beliefs.

If I had known that you were so fragile I wouldn't have engaged with you, preferring to escape your obviousness, your pretentious scatter shot as you are best encapsulated within your shell of mathematics, all plus/minus template and masquerading as art.

But now that you've attempted to slander me in the most venal, ridiculous formulaic, I have to just take the high road and leave your "filtered" posts for others to absorb or repel, as there's room for everyone I guess, and if you'll look at your post, the expressed vehemence, itself indicative of a neurotically charged sociopathic response mechanism, there's not much to be gained from my end tangled up with the likes of you. 

something about being beaten with experience here, seems to fit...


----------



## Niebur3 (Jul 11, 2008)

jtaudioacc said:


> obviously, that's the best sounding car on the planet.


And all you have to do is tape them to the dash....lol!


----------



## jtaudioacc (Apr 6, 2010)

Niebur3 said:


> And all you have to do is tape them to the dash....lol!


hmm, i couldn't tell. there might be some super sony isolation gasket being used.


----------



## Focused4door (Aug 15, 2015)

jtaudioacc said:


> obviously, that's the best sounding car on the planet.


To be fair, with that frequency response they probably don't sound bad.

Your dog may have a different opinion.


----------



## benny z (Mar 17, 2008)

Niebur3 said:


> And all you have to do is tape them to the dash....lol!



That would probably look better than the sound bar I've been experimenting with.


----------



## mitchyz250f (May 14, 2005)

Benny cool sound bar. Is that based on the sound bar that Patrick discussed in the '28 weeks later' thread? Tell me a little about it please?


----------



## benny z (Mar 17, 2008)

mitchyz250f said:


> Benny cool sound bar. Is that based on the sound bar that Patrick discussed in the '28 weeks later' thread? Tell me a little about it please?


not sure! haven't seen that...

this one is a concept based largely on the home "theater" soundbar concept. it plays left, center, right, and processed rear surround information. i have also modified my p99 to receive 5.1 over fm. :laugh:


----------



## seafish (Aug 1, 2012)

benny z said:


> That would probably look better than the sound bar I've been experimenting with.


That looks great… would it be possible to get pics of the sound bar with the cover off?? 

Or simply describe the size and location of the multiple drivers?


----------



## mitchyz250f (May 14, 2005)

How does it sound? How a bout some details.


----------



## ssclassa60 (Jan 28, 2013)

I'm doing something similar, also in a bmw








Sounds really good so far, all reflection. Just testing at this point


----------



## benny z (Mar 17, 2008)

lol! sorry guys, i have way too much fun on the internet. 

it's not a sound bar; it's simply a cover.

i run a simple 2-channel stereo system. the goal with this thing is to hide the exact location, size, angle, quantity, and type of speakers in the system.

the theory being that unless someone helps you get into a car blindfolded to begin a listening test, you aren't truly judging 100% with only your ears. what you see, regardless of how hard you try not to let it bias you, plays a part in what you hear.

this is attempt 1 at a cover piece. in all honesty it failed miserably.  in my opinion it is just too big. it looks like a freaking sound bar; thus my post. 

version 2 will be a slimmed down version of a similar concept.


----------



## benny z (Mar 17, 2008)

ssclassa60 said:


> I'm doing something similar, also in a bmw
> 
> 
> 
> ...


i've seen your posts and like what i see. 

can't wait to see the finished product.

i'll bet we have a very similar listening position to stage and overall depth. ...except my mid basses are in the kicks, not the doors.


----------



## ssclassa60 (Jan 28, 2013)

Oh right, you popped your windshield out to drill dash holes... E46?
Thanks, I'll be finishing up details over the winter and posting


----------



## benny z (Mar 17, 2008)

ssclassa60 said:


> Oh right, you popped your windshield out to drill dash holes... E46?


correct... and correct.

my last car was an e39. i put 8s in the doors and 3s in the pillars, with the tweeters behind the oem sail panel covers.


----------



## fcarpio (Apr 29, 2008)

SkizeR said:


> i cant picture there being any pros to this.. yeah you might be able to fix the response a bit with eq, but the reflections would smear the image i would assume. never tried this location in a tuned install though


It works well with tuning, I have tried it before and it wasn't bad at all. The major draw back for me was the soundstage width, specially on the driver's side. Many times I wished I had installed my tweeters in the a-pillars to get them a little further apart.


----------



## Orion525iT (Mar 6, 2011)

fcarpio said:


> It works well with tuning, I have tried it before and it wasn't bad at all. The major draw back for me was the soundstage width, specially on the driver's side. Many times I wished I had installed my tweeters in the a-pillars to get them a little further apart.


Theory states that doing so would not have helped. What you want is your midbass and midrange to be as wide as possible. My experience has shown that results confirm theory.


----------



## Orion525iT (Mar 6, 2011)

ssclassa60 said:


> I'm doing something similar, also in a bmw
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't think this will work out well (see above).


----------



## ssclassa60 (Jan 28, 2013)

Orion525iT said:


> I don't think this will work out well (see above).



It sounds really good tonally and dynamically, admittedly narrow as noted above but it's really not that bad.

I have ideas to put another set of tweets in the factory sails...


----------



## ssclassa60 (Jan 28, 2013)

Orion525iT said:


> Theory states that doing so would not have helped. What you want is your midbass and midrange to be as wide as possible. My experience has shown that results confirm theory.



I disagree, adding secondary tweeters is known to widen staging. They should usually be attenuated and bandpassed. 
Also, my image is rock solid, from both front seats, a goal of my system as I am not using any dsp or TA (and am not competing). I've run various front stage setups in previous systems - standard comps and kickpanels, and my dash setup has the best staging, not smeared at all. Just needs a little width which extra tweeters should provide. I just want others to know that there might be advantages to this setup depending on the vehicle. I've heard alot of 'that won't work' from people when mentioning my plans. Goes to show it's best to experiment and find out for yourself. I'm happy I did


----------



## ssclassa60 (Jan 28, 2013)

Great article here, 9th paragraph talks about secondary tweeters
http://www.glasswolf.net/papers/sqtheory.html


----------



## benny z (Mar 17, 2008)

Width cues are primarily in the treble (hard panned cymbals, etc). I concur that adding tweeters to the sail panels is worth a try to increase width. Have considered it myself.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

SkizeR said:


> i cant picture there being any pros to this.. yeah you might be able to fix the response a bit with eq, but the reflections would smear the image i would assume. never tried this location in a tuned install though


The reason why reflections don't smear your image is because your brain takes all location cues from the direct sound. The smeared location cues from multiple reflections, are simply ignored by the brain while localizing source of sound.


----------



## SPLEclipse (Aug 17, 2012)

Orion525iT said:


> Theory states that doing so would not have helped. What you want is your midbass and midrange to be as wide as possible. My experience has shown that results confirm theory.


I agree completely. My pillars are set up very similar to Gary Summers with mids tucked back into the pillars as much as possible and tweeter further inboard and further back to the windshield (maybe 1-2" inside the pillars). Stage width is slightly outside the pillars.



ssclassa60 said:


> I disagree, adding secondary tweeters is known to widen staging. They should usually be attenuated and bandpassed.
> Also, my image is rock solid, from both front seats, a goal of my system as I am not using any dsp or TA (and am not competing). I've run various front stage setups in previous systems - standard comps and kickpanels, and my dash setup has the best staging, not smeared at all. Just needs a little width which extra tweeters should provide. I just want others to know that there might be advantages to this setup depending on the vehicle. I've heard alot of 'that won't work' from people when mentioning my plans. Goes to show it's best to experiment and find out for yourself. I'm happy I did


To me, tweets define the height of the stage, not the width. Buuutttt.....if your mids are further in it might decrease PLD between the two sides which can help with a solid and well-defined stage. I'm also inclined to believe that up-firing mids should produce a better matched FR between L and R as your head is on the same axis with both L and R speakers and both are producing relatively the same reflections. I haven't messed around with that enough to confirm that though.


----------



## ssclassa60 (Jan 28, 2013)

SPLEclipse said:


> I agree completely. My pillars are set up very similar to Gary Summers with mids tucked back into the pillars as much as possible and tweeter further inboard and further back to the windshield (maybe 1-2" inside the pillars). Stage width is slightly outside the pillars.



Interesting, I should flip my mids and tweets then? I'll give it a shot thanks


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

```

```



ssclassa60 said:


> Great article here, 9th paragraph talks about secondary tweeters
> GlassWolf's Pages


He's talking about using a second pair of tweets in the sails to counter bowing at the edges, that's different from width. Speakers mounted +/- 90 deg azimuth to your ears (to the sides and perpendicular to your ears) normally works good for width. Our ears are poor in locating source of sound when speakers are either side of our head. When the sound is from the front we are accurate to within 1 deg while locating. If the speakers are to the sides of our head, this accuracy falls to +/- 15 deg. Plus, in this install we can't see the speakers, so there's no visual link to width. In this situation our perception of width will always be wider that what it actually is.

We can tell front to back above ~70hz and left right ~200 and up. So width cues are from all your drivers and you need to get the timing and L/R response correct to get optimum staging. A bit OT but for those who balance L/R, sometimes it gets really tough to balance 60-200 using the eq alone. Some frequencies are stubborn and instead of going crazy on the eq, just use TA to move it L/R and then use the eq to fine tune. 

With the woofer and mids to the side, if we put the tweets in the corners of dash, we're putting the tweets in front of us, and further away. Now we're more accurate at locating, and the cross talk from the sides of the car is defining the actual width, one that you can physically see. So you're losing width but with the right roll off in your highs, you're gaining depth. This setup, woofer and mid to side tweets in front, is great for width with decent depth.

Conversely woofers to the side and mids and tweets up front will give you excellent depth, but pillar to pillar width. It depends on what you want. Of course, all this comes to naught if the stage and its extremes are not there in the recording.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

So, yesterday I tuned a vehicle(2014 Nissan Altima), which has a pair of JL c5 components (6 1/2") running active, before deciding on a tweeter location, I tested two different spots, one spot was the a pillar trim (like where factory tweeters would be), the other location was the the very left and right most point deep in the tip of the a pillar where the windshield glass meets the dash. Firing directly at the listeners, basically. The first location I described, the tweeters were firing across the car towards each other, putting the listener off axis.

Let me say, the second location sounded much better, being tucked far in the corner of the dash/windshield meeting point.

better imaging, wider imaging (obviously), the tweeter and midbass seemed more "cohesive" .....they worked more "as one"......(midbasses are in factory door locations)

Coherence measurements also confirmed this second location for the tweeter to be very much likely the better of the two. But I understand many people (on this forum) don't think that the coherence data has any validity, so I won't go into detail as to the differences there.......

Of course, this second location is gonna require custom fabrication of small pods, but hey, it's worth it.


----------



## benny z (Mar 17, 2008)

Who'd a thunk it?!


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

benny z said:


> Who'd a thunk it?!


Right! And I wonder......hmmmmm......if analysis data can be confirmed to definitively show a distinct, easy to understand difference between things we KNOW to be likely true......like the two tweeter locations I just described, then......see where I'm going here.......hmmmm.....maybe, just maybe, that same kind of data can help us with scenarios where we're not necessarily so certain of which choice is better.....I run into a lot of those from time to time too, ya know!


----------



## seafish (Aug 1, 2012)

Great to know that your measurements back it up… members here , including Patrick Bateman and Papasin have been praising tweeter location in the dash/pillar/windshield corner for awhile.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

Niick said:


> Right! And I wonder......hmmmmm......if analysis data can be confirmed to definitively show a distinct, easy to understand difference between things we KNOW to be likely true......like the two tweeter locations I just described, then......see where I'm going here.......hmmmm.....maybe, just maybe, that same kind of data can help us with scenarios where we're not necessarily so certain of which choice is better.....I run into a lot of those from time to time too, ya know!


yea... about that....

I did quite a bit of my own analysis on this subject because (long story short) I never found pillar mounted tweeters to work well for me. these few posts originally posted on CAJ in the link below cover my own subjective and objective findings on the placement of tweeters at the sails vs dash corners. though my install has already changed, I think it's a pretty good write up (self-bragging not intended) on the subject.

Posts lifted starting here:
Erin's 2006 Civic Sedan - Page 24





erinh said:


> the past couple weeks I've been playing with the tweeters and I finally decided to put something down on paper... so like most reasons for posting updates to a build log, it's time for a brain dump...
> 
> 
> One thing that has bothered me about my car for a long time is how the stage on the left starts closer to me and pushes away on the right. Hardest thing for me to tune *out*... I can't really do it because there's just some hard reflections off the side window. So, I decided I'd try some different things.
> ...





erinh said:


> Rather than rely solely on my ear, I measured the response of the Scan-Speak D3004/602000 tweeter in each of these with the RTA and compared the results between themselves *and also against the anechoic response of the D3004 to see if I could get an idea of what the car was doing vs what the tweeter itself does: this is my 'baseline'.*
> 
> *Test conditions:*
> I'm measuring with my body in the car and mic facing up, sweeping an average head area in REW. I'm also using a 24dB slope at 2500hz in the car to protect the tweeters. Also, in the car, I didn't adjust volume when I moved the tweeters between sails and corners. So the results show the actual SPL difference.
> ...





erinh said:


> Alright, so the data was collected and all that jazz. Now what? Next up was to listen and see if I could do some sort of comparison between the two locations (sail and dash corner) in subjective terms. It's important to note that I didn't use any EQ in my subjective analysis (nor did I in the measurements above). However, for the subjective, I did level matching and T/A adjustments to sync the tweeters up with the midranges; otherwise it wouldn't have been a fair comparison. I used the following tracks for my evaluation:
> 
> 
> 
> ...






Then Steve asked me a question...



captainobvious said:


> Erin-
> 
> Did you take any measurements in the corners at different angles besides on axis? I'm curious if that would make a significant difference.
> 
> I'm going to do some testing and measurements in Michelle's car to see how the tweeters fare in these different locations as well.





erinh said:


> I didn't. TBH, my past results (yeeaaaaaarrrrsssss back) told me that up-firing lost top end response. And I just went with that notion as it's logical (I mean, the top end does roll off as you go more off-axis). Additionally, my angling of the sail panels showed there was hardly any difference in regards to response. BUT, I do plan to test up-firing them anyway just to appease my own curiosity. Just got to find the time. Going on vacation next week... so this weekend is my only shot.





erinh said:


> I did today!
> 
> NO EQ on these measurements. And I didn't touch the volume so you can compare the up-firing vs on-axis SPL accurately.
> 
> ...






and my attempt to make people realize that their own analysis and testing is needed to determine what works best for them:



erinh said:


> *copy/paste from diyma, but it's fitting here*
> 
> 
> 
> ...









Of course, I did all that analysis and went and changed the install a few months after that for other reasons.


----------



## axipher (Oct 7, 2015)

I'm new to this, but it seems from my initial reading (mostly skimming while at work) that there is no clear winner but dash corner seems slightly ahead.

Lets say I have two identical sets of tweeters and I can install them in the sails and in the dash corners, each with their own active channel of TA and EQ. Would there be a huge benefit to running both sets of tweeters? If so, should one tweeter be louder then the other one on the same side?


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

seafish said:


> Great to know that your measurements back it up… members here , including Patrick Bateman and Papasin have been praising tweeter location in the dash/pillar/windshield corner for awhile.


Yeah, again, tweeter location is just one of MANY things....not the ONLY thing!! 

I'm proposing that tweeter location can be used as a control, in the scientific reasoning of whether or not this type of data can help/be useful. 

Ya know, how ya got variables and controls.......


Edit:
("this type of data" = coherence measurement )


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

axipher said:


> I'm new to this, but it seems from my initial reading (mostly skimming while at work) that there is no clear winner but dash corner seems slightly ahead.
> 
> Lets say I have two identical sets of tweeters and I can install them in the sails and in the dash corners, each with their own active channel of TA and EQ. Would there be a huge benefit to running both sets of tweeters? If so, should one tweeter be louder then the other one on the same side?


I probably wouldn't run a second tweeter........well maybe a "2.5 way" setup, where the smaller (higher freq. extending) tweeter was located in the dash corner.......no, located in the A pillar trim.....no, wait.......dash corner 

But identical tweeters........I don't know......probably not, but it would be worth a try


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

ErinH, Thank you for that wonderful link on the master thesis. 

I'm currently working with a piece of software that allows for direct measurements of IACC. 

I just need a H.A.T.S.


----------



## axipher (Oct 7, 2015)

Niick said:


> I probably wouldn't run a second tweeter........well maybe a "2.5 way" setup, where the smaller (higher freq. extending) tweeter was located in the dash corner.......no, located in the A pillar trim.....no, wait.......dash corner
> 
> But identical tweeters........I don't know......probably not, but it would be worth a try


I only ask because I have 2 sets of Morel Ultra Temp 602's, one set is installed now and still on the fence between the second set's woofer in the door, or as rear fill. I really hate that I found this site


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

My first thoughts regarding using a second identical tweeter per side would be:

Do you have a dedicated pair of additional DSP channels (and amplification channels) to feed signal to those tweeters from? 

If so, yeah, it would be certainly interesting in the very least to see how it works out.

But if not, I wouldn't just wire them in parallel off the same amp channel currently feeding your existing tweeters. 

Remember that whole "comb filtering" thing? 

This would induce it pretty severely I would imagine. 

But, if you could delay the timing of the nearer of the two tweeters (per side) to coincide with the farther ones.....well.....now we're talking. 

Of course, I've never actually tried this, specifically, so I'm just talking out my ass here!


----------



## axipher (Oct 7, 2015)

Niick said:


> My first thoughts regarding using a second identical tweeter per side would be:
> 
> Do you have a dedicated pair of additional DSP channels (and amplification channels) to feed signal to those tweeters from?
> 
> ...


Running a MiniDSP C 6x8 and I have plenty of extra amplifiers at home. Right now I'm using 5 of the 8 output channels of the DSP. So ideally if I set up the TA properly using REW or HOLMImpulse and reduce the level of the sail mounted tweeter to match the corner dash one, everything should be rainbows and kittens?

Anything special I should know for doing the TA on the corner dash tweeter compared to other "line-of-sight" speakers.

I'm still wrapping my head around electrical and acoustical phase, but since I'm running all active and using LR 24 dB/octave filters, what affect on the phase would that have?

I have empty corner dash locations right now form the factory tweeters, just need to run new wires up to them because the factory 18 AWG is too puny for my liking even though technically it's enough for the power the tweeter will be using.


----------



## benny z (Mar 17, 2008)

if you have the stuff to do it and are itching to play, try it.

i'm going to say it'll smear the image.

remember the theory of coaxial-mounted drivers?

time delay is basically useless in the tweeter range for coherency.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

I agree, a second pair of tweets would hurt rather than help.


----------



## axipher (Oct 7, 2015)

benny z said:


> if you have the stuff to do it and are itching to play, try it.
> 
> i'm going to say it'll smear the image.
> 
> ...


People love to dump stuff on me because I'm "the electronics guy". I may be new to audio theory, but I've been disassembling TV, VCR's, RC cars, old stereos and car amps for years replacing failed components and bringing them back to life.

But I can never bring myself to actually install any of those in a customers vehicle since they usually want their hard earned money to get them new stuff. So I have a lot of old amps sitting at home that I fixed that just get used in off road vehicles and boats where people just want to spend a few bucks to get something better than stock.

Might give it a try if I get some free time this weekend, mounting the tweeters is no problem, I just really don't feel like taking my dash apart when it's below freezing outside :/


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

sqnut said:


> The reason why reflections don't smear your image is because your brain takes all location cues from the direct sound. The smeared location cues from multiple reflections, are simply ignored by the brain while localizing source of sound.


then why do we even talk about and worry about reflections in the first place? ive seen contradicting things posted before from others who i can trust, so im sorry but i just cant believe this until i look more into it.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

SkizeR said:


> then why do we even talk about and worry about reflections in the first place? ive seen contradicting things posted before from others who i can trust, so im sorry but i just cant believe this until i look more into it.


Because we have all collectively been drinking too much of the reflections kool aid. But seriously, you're not going to get away from reflections in a car. The best way to find out is to try it right?


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

sqnut said:


> Because we have all collectively been drinking too much of the reflections kool aid. But seriously, you're not going to get away from reflections in a car. The best way to find out is to try it right?


so how come TA by measurement isnt 100% accurate? is that not due to reflections?


----------



## cajunner (Apr 13, 2007)

SkizeR said:


> then why do we even talk about and worry about reflections in the first place? ive seen contradicting things posted before from others who i can trust, so im sorry but i just cant believe this until i look more into it.


I wasn't going to say anything but since you opened the can of worms, what about lycan's use of a mirror to show where a primary reflection, or virtual driver, will beam?

we've probably all had issues with how a door driver opposite, reflects off the window glass and causes a huge peak at the ear, needing EQ to tame, but because it's "glare" and not the wavefront off the driver itself?

I think we experience more than the direct sound to create the auditory scene, and that sqnut squeezed that one off without further defining or proving the point.

I know we are supposed to accept the Haas principle and give less importance to the various image smearing from nearby reflective surfaces but I don't know if that principle is valid across the audio spectrum or perhaps, limited to the band of frequencies that correspond to HRTF or IID or something..

any reflection that is closer to the listener, would appear to be attenuated by distance and less relevant than what is right next to the drivers.

that seems important to me, and when I stuff a little wide-bander into a towel and slide it into the windshield/dash corners, I hear that reflection and I don't like it. However, if the particulars of the front stage allow for large, oval drivers that have some narrowing of the side energy, like a stock system for instance, there is a coherence that can come from using that primary reflection as an image enhancer. I think that the 4 driver Aura Whisper array could possibly be able to directly illuminate the reflection with subtle angles for each driver towards the glass, so that the result is of a controlled dispersion from a half-pi steradian, and you get the gain, plus the aiming gives you the focus, like a projector on a flashlight, and the line array gives you the sensitivity increase along with the extra output potential from more power input capability.

maybe that's the trick, instead of going dash pod, go in-dash so the Whisper arrays are using the dash plane as a diffraction-reducer, maybe stuff the small area behind the arrays with high density foam and/or a lens made from acrylic that doesn't cancel or comb the direct sound, sort of like diffusing the light that is cast into the corner with something that absorbs the waves.

just a thought.


----------



## cajunner (Apr 13, 2007)

I like the way Linkwitz uses light analogy to express auditory scene particulars.

since sound waves act like other waves, a lot can be explained visually using color plates on each surface near the driver.

if you want to know how much reflection matters, you can use say, blue on the windshield, red on the side glass, yellow on the dash board, and place a globe bulb in the spot where the driver will "beam" it's energy.

turn off all lights around, and observe how much red, yellow and blue light ends up on a white ball where the driver's head is.

I'm making this up as I go, but it sounds like it might be useful as an exercise.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

cajunner said:


> I like the way Linkwitz uses light analogy to express auditory scene particulars.
> 
> since sound waves act like other waves, a lot can be explained visually using color plates on each surface near the driver.
> 
> ...


yeah but not all lights or drivers radiate exactly the same. either way that would be pretty cool. also, some things absorb light better than others. i think its safe to say glass would reflect more than paint. so i think a better way would be colored, reflective film. kinda like the chrome vinyl you can get to wrap cars. actually, thats easy to apply and kinda cheap in small quantities.. hmmmm

like this..

http://www.ebay.com/itm/8-Colors-Ch...m1ea66ed147:m:mK7wXoSOevj7W1f5E5KGhPw&vxp=mtr


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

SkizeR said:


> so how come TA by measurement isnt 100% accurate? is that not due to reflections?


Huh......??? Accurate?? The "accuracy" of T/A comes down to the sample rate of the processor, does it not?


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

Niick said:


> Huh......??? Accurate?? The "accuracy" of T/A comes down to the sample rate of the processor, does it not?


im not talking about the resolution of the processor. im talking about the actual center image you should be getting after you properly time align the speakers. im saying if you put in the TA done by calculating distance for lets say just the left vs right mid playing at the same time, plug that value in, how come it wont be 100% accurate? like why will i have to adjust one side by up to .2 to get a center image? im thinking this is due to the cars effect on the sound (reflections). i feel like i didnt do a good job explaining what im thinking though, so let me know if you understand what im trying to say


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

There could be group delay in the crossover you are accounting for too.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

thehatedguy said:


> There could be group delay in the crossover you are accounting for too.


would this still be there if it was only the mid ranges playing and they were band passed the same? what if they were all passed? i should go try this out


----------



## I800C0LLECT (Jan 26, 2009)

Reflections in a near-field environment can help or hurt the installation. You can't just say reflections are inherently good or bad. It's vehicle, equipment, location, and install dependent. I'm not sure diffraction would be an issue if it weren't for reflections.

Near-field is why some installs are dependent on speakers beaming while others use crossover points that mitigate beaming.

The key in all of this....near-field environment.


----------



## benny z (Mar 17, 2008)

^ bingo


----------



## benny z (Mar 17, 2008)

cajunner said:


> I wasn't going to say anything but since you opened the can of worms, what about lycan's use of a mirror to show where a primary reflection, or virtual driver, will beam?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I did that too 










Tried a few different positions/angles. I wasn't listening for tonality, just what had the best depth/width. I knew I could fix whatever tonality issues there were. 

And so I did that. I drove around with them for a week or so like this and gave them a quick tune. Results were good enough for me to proceed with the install. 










You are close enough you should come hear my car and see what you think of the tune.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

But you are not near field in a car.

You are not far field either.


----------



## cajunner (Apr 13, 2007)

thehatedguy said:


> But you are not near field in a car.
> 
> You are not far field either.


yep..

near field monitors, computer stations, etc. all indicate seated proximity to the speakers but equidistant and on axis, certainly not the polar plot of the average Buick.

I guess we now have to make the distinction between the near field of a microphone situation, measuring the response within an inch of the cone's surface, and that of any listening situation where speakers are less than 6 feet away?


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

thehatedguy said:


> But you are not near field in a car.
> 
> You are not far field either.




You are on one side but not the other. 

Which is interesting when you consider how frequency resolution in measurements is affected by the proximity of measurement.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

I coined the term mid field .


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

Haha. 
Transfield.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

Reflections.........

here is a measurement i made just today of a 2014 Nissan Frontier with the factory rockford system......

coherence data:

TOP graph is LEFT

BOTTOM graph is RIGHT

notice the inconsistent amount of reflected to direct energy at the listening position

anyways, thought it was interesting, the tweeters fire up against the glass.
Different coherence reading for the left than for the right, and the difference is concentrated at the top end (tweeters)









and the ETC and IR:









these are for my own database im compiling of factory car sound systems


----------



## I800C0LLECT (Jan 26, 2009)

Well...call it whatever we want I guess but what's interesting is that "near field" is typically used to remove bias of a room.

In our cars, we aren't able to do that in any way. Matter of fact, the vehicle bias is probably more important than the speakers themselves imo...because that's the chaos we're trying to overcome.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

SkizeR said:


> so how come TA by measurement isnt 100% accurate? is that not due to reflections?


Between all the science in this hobby, we often forget to ask ourselves a simple question, 'how does that sound?' 'That' being the scientific treatise under discussion. So Lycan is spot in observing that each reflection is a sound source or mini speaker. If we could mark each reflection point with a dot, we would be surrounded by dots. Print out large sheets of this image and paste it on all the reflective surfaces between the speakers and your ears. 










Literally hundreds of thousands of speakers. How does it sound? Well peaky, diffused and skewed to the near pillar / door, due to precedence effect. Ok now lets TA to get matching arrival times. We obviously can't TA the virtual speakers, so let's just focus on the real speakers. Now how does it sound?

Damn, the sound is in front, and the mouth is a softball at the centre, under the rear view. Well turning the softball to a mouth is about doing L/R eq, but let's leave that aside for now. So the mouth is at the centre right? Centre of what? the 100,000 speakers? Umm no, centre of the real speakers. Why? Because the real speakers are what we are hearing first, everything else is delayed. All location cues are taken from the direct sound. 

Now it's up to us to decide if we want to go deep down the rabbit hole of the science in listening to 100,000 speakers and get lost along the way, or just accept that our ear and brain are sensitive enough to separate the reflected sound from the direct sound, when it comes to location cues. You're listening to 100,000 speakers, but with the TA done right you're only hearing 5-7 ( 2way+sub or 3 way + sub). 

Does that mean reflections have no effect on what we're hearing? Even with a stock interior, if we get the timing and response right, imaging will be spot on and sharp. However yes, if you spend tons of time and $$$ damping your interiors to absorb 5% of the HF reflections, it will sound cleaner and imaging will be slightly sharper. So you can get 90% of the way there without really worrying about reflections. If one has fuzzy imaging it is 100% down to response or timing issues not reflections, for 90% of the way. Frankly no hobbyist would worry about the last 10% other than the top competitors. 

Why do measurements only get you in the ballpark?










On the tweet the peak is taken as first arrival and delta t on x axis from origin to peak is negligible, and below your threshold limit. What about the mid and the woofer? Where is first arrival? What is delta t here between base and peak? So now we start applying algorithms like 12db down etc etc, but your hearing is WAY more sensitive than that. The typical untrained ear will hear timing differences of 0.03-0.04 m/s, you can train your ears pick differences accurately at 0.01 m/s. Measure to get in the ballpark and then fine tune by ear. Little to do with reflections.


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

SkizeR said:


> im not talking about the resolution of the processor. im talking about the actual center image you should be getting after you properly time align the speakers. im saying if you put in the TA done by calculating distance for lets say just the left vs right mid playing at the same time, plug that value in, how come it wont be 100% accurate? like why will i have to adjust one side by up to .2 to get a center image? im thinking this is due to the cars effect on the sound (reflections). i feel like i didnt do a good job explaining what im thinking though, so let me know if you understand what im trying to say


TA only provides the correct center image when the frequency response and level of the two channels is precisely matched. If you haven't properly EQed the car, then the error is probably level and EQ. A 6dB difference over half an octave somewhere will skew the image to a point between center and the louder speaker. 

Of course TA by tape measure is accurate. It's how we measure distance for every other application.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

SkizeR said:


> so how come TA by measurement isnt 100% accurate? is that not due to reflections?


Between all the science in this hobby, we often forget to ask ourselves a simple question, 'how does that sound?' 'That' being the scientific treatise under discussion. So Lycan is spot in observing that each reflection is a sound source or mini speaker. If we could mark each reflection point with a dot, we would be surrounded by dots. Print out large sheets of this image and paste it on all the reflective surfaces between the speakers and your ears. 










Literally hundreds of thousands of speakers. How does it sound? Well peaky, diffused and skewed to the near pillar / door, due to precedence effect. Ok now lets TA to get matching arrival times. We obviously can't TA the virtual speakers, so let's just focus on the real speakers. Now how does it sound?

Damn, the sound is in front, and the mouth is a softball at the centre, under the rear view. Well turning the softball to a mouth is about doing L/R eq, but let's leave that aside for now. So the mouth is at the centre right? Centre of what? the 100,000 speakers? Umm no, centre of the real speakers. Why? Because the real speakers are what we are hearing first, everything else is delayed. All location cues are taken from the direct sound. 

Now it's up to us to decide if we want to go deep down the rabbit hole of the science in listening to 100,000 speakers and get lost along the way, or just accept that our ear and brain are sensitive enough to separate the reflected sound from the direct sound, when it comes to location cues. You're listening to 100,000 speakers, but with the TA done right you're only hearing 5-7 ( 2way+sub or 3 way + sub). 

Does that mean reflections have no effect on what we're hearing? Even with a stock interior, if we get the timing and response right, imaging will be spot on and sharp. However yes, if you spend tons of time and $$$ damping your interiors to absorb 5% of the HF reflections, it will sound cleaner and imaging will be slightly sharper. So you can get 90% of the way there without really worrying about reflections. If one has fuzzy imaging it is 100% down to response or timing issues not reflections, for 90% of the way. Frankly no hobbyist would worry about the last 10% other than the top competitors. 

Why do measurements only get you in the ballpark?










On the tweet the peak is taken as first arrival and delta t on x axis from origin to peak is negligible, and below your threshold limit. What about the mid and the woofer? Where is first arrival? What is delta t here between base and peak? So now we start applying algorithms like 12db down etc etc, but your hearing is WAY more sensitive than that. The typical untrained ear will hear timing differences of 0.03-0.04 m/s, you can train your ears pick differences accurately at 0.01 m/s. Measure to get in the ballpark and then fine tune by ear. Little to do with reflections.

The real effect of reflections is in us perceiving the direct sound louder in the 500 hz+ range. Perceived Loudness > Measured loudness, something easily cured with an eq


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> TA only provides the correct center image when the frequency response and level of the two channels is precisely matched. If you haven't properly EQed the car, then the error is probably level and EQ. A 6dB difference over half an octave somewhere will skew the image to a point between center and the louder speaker.
> 
> Of course TA by tape measure is accurate. It's how we measure distance for every other application.


I eq before I time align so I don't think that's the issue. Maybe, but the biggest difference I had between the two sides was a dB or two and that was way down low. Up in the midrange area they were pretty much exactly the same

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

sqnut said:


> Between all the science in this hobby, we often forget to ask ourselves a simple question, 'how does that sound?' 'That' being the scientific treatise under discussion. So Lycan is spot in observing that each reflection is a sound source or mini speaker. If we could mark each reflection point with a dot, we would be surrounded by dots. Print out large sheets of this image and paste it on all the reflective surfaces between the speakers and your ears.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The peak is not the arrival. For speakers that include a lot of high frequency content, we use the peak because it's easy to identify and it's close enough. The display of an impulse response is like a scope. Here are two sine waves viewed individually on a scope. Obviously, picking the peak for a low frequency driver doesn't work.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> The peak is not the arrival. For speakers that include a lot of high frequency content, we use the peak because it's easy to identify and it's close enough. The display of an impulse response is like a scope. Here are two sine waves viewed individually on a scope. Obviously, picking the peak for a low frequency driver doesn't work.


That is precisely what I'm saying too with mid and woofer, the time difference between base and top of hump is well within our hearing resolution for the mouth to be skewed left or right of where we want it, or for us to hear the harmonics before the fundamental. So the first arrival is where the response starts rising. I'm just not sure we can see the rising point at the same resolution that we're hearing timing differences at, 0.03-0.04 m/s for most ears, 0.01 ms for trained ears like yours.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

SkizeR said:


> I eq before I time align so I don't think that's the issue. Maybe, *but the biggest difference I had between the two sides was a dB or two and that was way down low*. Up in the midrange area they were pretty much exactly the same
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


You're measuring and balancing at +/- 1 db, but if you're hearing more than a ~+/- 0.3 db difference at each 1/3 it will make the image fuzzy.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Imho, timing is something where you measure to get into the ball park and then use your ears to fine tune. Reflections do little other than tell you you're in a small space, but within that they have little to no effect that can't be cured with timing and response.


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

sqnut said:


> Imho, timing is something where you measure to get into the ball park and then use your ears to fine tune. Reflections do little other than tell you you're in a small space, but within that they have little to no _incurable_ effects on what you're hearing and seeing.


That's why it's called an opinion. When you cut a piece of MDF on a table saw to use in a subwoofer enclosure, is the tape measure there to get you in the ballpark? 

We use a tape measure (of sorts) to measure distance in EVERY OTHER INSTANCE. Why is it somehow not valid when we want to measure how far away a speaker is from a microphone?


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> That's why it's called an opinion. When you cut a piece of MDF on a table saw to use in a subwoofer enclosure, is the tape measure there to get you in the ballpark?


Resolution used to mark for cutting = resolution for measuring result of cutting.



Andy Wehmeyer said:


> We use a tape measure (of sorts) to measure distance in EVERY OTHER INSTANCE. Why is it somehow not valid when we want to measure how far away a speaker is from a microphone?


Resolution of timing on the IR is what? 0.5 m/s? I'm asking cause I'm not sure. Resolution while hearing result of TA correction ~0.01-0.03 ms. That's why.


----------



## I800C0LLECT (Jan 26, 2009)

You'll turn your head or move your body to get comfortable anyways. Tape measures are good enough for me.

I do notice differences in sound as you play with TA but it's nothing tantamount to omg!


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

I800C0LLECT said:


> You'll turn your head or move your body to get comfortable anyways. Tape measures are good enough for me.
> 
> I do notice differences in sound as you play with TA but it's nothing tantamount to omg!


You need to couple the small tweaks in timing with equally small tweaks in response to get to the OMG ballpark. Once there, a +/- 0.04 m/s difference is enough to take you from OMG to meh and back to OMG. I stand behind my points .


----------



## therapture (Jan 31, 2013)

cajunner said:


> we've probably all had issues with how a door driver opposite, reflects off the window glass and causes a huge peak at the ear, needing EQ to tame, but because it's "glare" and not the wavefront off the driver itself?


When I had sail panel mounted tweets - I had a terrible reflection off of the left window (right by my head) from the right tweeter firing across. You could hear and easily see the peak in the graph. It was very irritating and I eventually gave up trying to tune around it and went with dash mounted wide bands.

I prefer the dash install. I get a better center, less reflection from the sides and a higher stage.


----------



## gstokes (Apr 20, 2014)

sqnut said:


> what do you mean sound is slowed? Sound doesn't slow down due to reflection...


I think what he meant was "delayed" and not slowed..


----------



## I800C0LLECT (Jan 26, 2009)

sqnut said:


> I800C0LLECT said:
> 
> 
> > You'll turn your head or move your body to get comfortable anyways. Tape measures are good enough for me.
> ...



I'm not sure there's enough space across those increments that are adjusted approximately 1.58"
to effect the interaction of wavelengths overall. Maybe enough to remove or introduce areas of cancellation though. Maybe that's the "omg" you've experienced. It's hard to imagine that it would effect a large enough portion of the response to be so dramatic.

I guess it's just opinion and directly relates to that vehicle circumstance. It's all gray area because the chaos is different in every install. Neat to share ask those experiences though


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

I just use IR and ETC to set delays. This because I can do it so quickly. IR and ETC in real time is the shiznit!!  extremely easy, and fast. 

I suppose even if you didn't have the ability to measure IR in real time, it would still make more sense to do it with sweeps like REW. Then just enter difference in arrival times in ms in your processor. This way you don't have to convert anything. 

I like measuring the arrival time in the domain it exists in. Time. Not distance. The processor can effect time. To compensate for distance, I suppose. But it's still delay.

Like, the speed of sound. Well, what's the at temperature? Humidity? Altitude? Yeah, I know, doesn't make enough of a difference to matter, but still, why bother? 

If the HF region dominating the peak of the IR is what's bothering you, cause you are a perfectionist (like me, it bothers me), then Filter the IR. 

ETC. ETC is where it's at. 

I dont like to enter delay times as a distance. To me this requires too much conversion and thought. I like to keep it simple. If I need to delay a speaker, I want to enter the amount of delay I need in ms. Not enter a distance for the OPPOSITE speaker. That's dumb. That how pioneer MAKES you do it on some of their decks. But, at least they give you the ability to "time align". 

I'm rambling, sorry


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

therapture said:


> When I had sail panel mounted tweets - I had a terrible reflection off of the left window (right by my head) from the right tweeter firing across. You could hear and easily see the peak in the graph. It was very irritating and I eventually gave up trying to tune around it and went with dash mounted wide bands.
> 
> I prefer the dash install. I get a better center, less reflection from the sides and a higher stage.


I had the SR tweets in the sail for a while. I tried dialing them in for a year and then just gave up. I could never get the balance right and always had near side bias. Major eq work and some extra delay on the near tweet, helped some but one was always conscious of near side bias, it never disappeared like it should. Moved tweets to the dash and with less eq and a more natural delay, the tweet just blended into the sound, it disappeared .

IMO we can't get away from reflections in a car but the real world and audible cons of reflections, can be sorted out by changing placement, timing or response.


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

Niick said:


> I just use IR and ETC to set delays. This because I can do it so quickly. IR and ETC in real time is the shiznit!!  extremely easy, and fast.
> 
> I suppose even if you didn't have the ability to measure IR in real time, it would still make more sense to do it with sweeps like REW. Then just enter difference in arrival times in ms in your processor. This way you don't have to convert anything.
> 
> ...


Niick, The point is that the peak is not the first arrival.


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

https://bobmccarthy.wordpress.com/2...-of-subs-why-i-dont-use-the-impulse-response/


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> The peak is not the arrival. For speakers that include a lot of high frequency content, we use the peak because it's easy to identify and it's close enough. The display of an impulse response is like a scope. Here are two sine waves viewed individually on a scope. Obviously, picking the peak for a low frequency driver doesn't work.


Wow, great point. I generally let HolmImpulse sort things out, but this is a great example of where you need to do things manually.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> https://bobmccarthy.wordpress.com/2...-of-subs-why-i-dont-use-the-impulse-response/


I love that article, read it MANY times. I like his analogy of the train. I guess what I should have said was that I use IR and ETC to set LEFT/RIGHT delays.

Sub to midbass.....that's a WHOLE DIFFERENT STORY. I counted once for a customer, I had either 6 or 8 different methods of setting that. Usually it's a combination of things. Acoustic phase being one of them. FILTERED IR and ETC is also one of them. Then ya got SysTune's delay analysis.


----------



## bugsplat (Nov 7, 2014)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> The peak is not the arrival. For speakers that include a lot of high frequency content, we use the peak because it's easy to identify and it's close enough. The display of an impulse response is like a scope. Here are two sine waves viewed individually on a scope. Obviously, picking the peak for a low frequency driver doesn't work.


I think this is an excellent example of how different sound travels. When you get into the 300hz and lower you also have the feeling of the music. The vibrations of your car. To me that's VERY important. I like to feel my music. I'm not a bass head by any means but I like to feel the kick drum in my chest. That thump is not when the wave first hits me, its when I feel the pulse. For some sounds that can come as early as the beginning of the wave or at its peek. This is where personal experience and the physical makeup of your car plays a huge roll. Ever listen to a rolling baseline? You can feel the wave running from your toes to your back. Its the natural harmonics of the car and your body. I have not found exact measurements to work for this reason. It can never match the harmonics of your car or your body. My TA alignment is a process that is founded by my sub. From there I can align the other speakers but I don't want to be out of sync with that baseline. Makes me all warm and tingly just thinking about it . Too much science can muddy the water as to what actually sounds and FEELS best. Its up to the listener. I gave up on tools and just use the junk between my ears to set it to what I thing is better.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

bugsplat said:


> I think this is an excellent example of how different sound travels. When you get into the 300hz and lower you also have the feeling of the music. The vibrations of your car. To me that's VERY important. I like to feel my music. I'm not a bass head by any means but I like to feel the kick drum in my chest. That thump is not when the wave first hits me, its when I feel the pulse. For some sounds that can come as early as the beginning of the wave or at its peek. This is where personal experience and the physical makeup of your car plays a huge roll. Ever listen to a rolling baseline? You can feel the wave running from your toes to your back. Its the natural harmonics of the car and your body. I have not found exact measurements to work for this reason. It can never match the harmonics of your car or your body. My TA alignment is a process that is founded by my sub. From there I can align the other speakers but I don't want to be out of sync with that baseline. Makes me all warm and tingly just thinking about it . Too much science can muddy the water as to what actually sounds and FEELS best. Its up to the listener. I gave up on tools and just use the junk between my ears to set it to what I thing is better.


The " sound" or resonance you feel from your sub travels through the body of the car around 6000ft/sec and through air 1130ft/sec 

If you delay you sub too much the feel the bass will be out of sync with what you are hearing. -- nothing like hearing the kick drum than feeling it after the note is already been played .


----------



## bugsplat (Nov 7, 2014)

oabeieo said:


> The " sound" or resonance you feel from your sub travels through the body of the car around 6000ft/sec and through air 1130ft/sec
> 
> If you delay you sub too much the feel the bass will be out of sync with what you are hearing. -- nothing like hearing the kick drum than feeling it after the note is already been played .


Very true they all sync. Sub always stays at zero being the farthest and lowest freq. I bring the music to it.


----------



## axipher (Oct 7, 2015)

If I have the sails and dash corners available as install locations for a set of tweeters and 2-3" mid range drivers, which setup would yield better results.

a) Tweeters in dash corners aiming up at windshield and 2-3" mid-range in the sail on an angle towards the center of the car, not quite on-axis for the driver seat, 6.5" mid-bass in the bottom of the door

b) Tweeters and mid-ranges swapped locations so the mid-ranges are in the dash corner aiming up and the tweeters are in the sails pointing pretty much directly at the driver's head so they are on-axis



Thinking for crossovers:
- 12" SW: 20 - 65 Hz
- 6.5" MB: 65 - 300/800 Hz
- 2-3" MR: 300/800 - 5k Hz
- 1" TW: > 5k Hz

The 300/800 would be dependent on the drivers chosen and their response


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

axipher said:


> If I have the sails and dash corners available as install locations for a set of tweeters and 2-3" mid range drivers, which setup would yield better results.
> 
> a) Tweeters in dash corners aiming up at windshield and 2-3" mid-range in the sail on an angle towards the center of the car, not quite on-axis for the driver seat, 6.5" mid-bass in the bottom of the door
> 
> ...


only way to know for sure is to test each out


----------



## bugsplat (Nov 7, 2014)

Here is what I currently run. This is still a new DSP for me so I'm still fine tuning the TA and driver hz's ranges. The biggest thing is I have the widebanders (AP's) and the mids-woofers (silver flutes) in very different locations. AP's in the front and silver flutes in the rear behind the driver and pass. Getting them to align in the ear is tricky. they are balanced though and give that chest thump I want in the 100-300hx range. The back coax's are there for a little fill. Tried it without and I missed the round/complete feeling they gave me. I'm sure its just in my head. I cut off the +10khz range because I wanted the crisp AP's to play with the cleaner sound. The rears muddied up the highs when they played.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

SkizeR said:


> only way to know for sure is to test each out


You couldn't have said that 13 pages back??


----------



## axipher (Oct 7, 2015)

sqnut said:


> You couldn't have said that 13 pages back??


That would take the fun out of things. And I still have to decide on a mid-range and run new wires to the dash corners before I can try both ways.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

I did a install with a helix dsp and Apillars with mids n tweets , I used 22.5deg phase shift on one of the dash mids and it worked very good. Tonight I added a 30$ crossover that has a variable phase shift on the high pass side , I hooked it up to my dash mids just to experiment. Virtually all the issues I was having we're now gone. 
The comb-filtering I was having is much less and the compressed left side is gone now. I can actually hear the passanger side speakers separate from driver side ( separation) and the center is better. 

I would actually like to encourage those with dash speakers to try a small phase shift, somewhere between 0-180 on either left or right is a sweet spot. It really seemed to fix a problem eq and TA could not fix . 

There's still a ton of reflection and bad stuff from windshield, but it's a lot better than it was without it .


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

sqnut said:


> On the tweet the peak is taken as first arrival and delta t on x axis from origin to peak is negligible, and below your threshold limit. What about the mid and the woofer? Where is first arrival? What is delta t here between base and peak? So now we start applying algorithms like 12db down etc etc, but your hearing is WAY more sensitive than that. The typical untrained ear will hear timing differences of 0.03-0.04 m/s, you can train your ears pick differences accurately at 0.01 m/s. Measure to get in the ballpark and then fine tune by ear. Little to do with reflections.


Re-reading some old posts, I didn't catch this the first time. Sqnut, you should have probably mentioned that the pic u used in your post from Linkwitz's site is a pic of individual driver STEP RESPONSES, NOT IMPULSE RESPONSES. 

I've read that same page many, many times (it's awesome) 

I'm very intrigued by the step response measurement, ever since I figured out a way to do it real time. 

All this talk about the peak not being the initial arrival, and Andy's reference to Bob McArthy's article about why he doesn't use impulse response to set SUBWOOFER TO MAINS delays......that's all talk about IR's........NOT step response. 

Just thought I should clear that up.


----------



## therapture (Jan 31, 2013)

SkizeR said:


> i cant picture there being any pros to this.. yeah you might be able to fix the response a bit with eq, but the reflections would smear the image i would assume. never tried this location in a tuned install though




When I did away with my 1" tweets in the sail panels and converted to a 2" wide band in the dash...everything improved. With careful tuning (thanks sqnut!) I have a stronger center, less smearing, and the stage raised several inches.

Somme cars may be better suited of course. My dash drivers are very close to the glass and a direct reflection. Much better then the sails because of a rather large speedo pod that was horrible with left tweeter reflection.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

I agree and sqnut has ways been a advocate of tuning and sometimes I have overlooked what he was trying to convey 
Last few days I have a new found appreciation for the variable phase control 
With dash speakers. It does so much that TA just can't. Used together I think one can really pinpoint a good tune .


----------



## Frequentflyer (Mar 3, 2020)

I know this thread is old, but I wanted to add my experiences so far since it's went on 17 pages and then has pretty much died since 2015. That may mean something, but I'm sure there are still a few individuals out there that want to mount speakers in the dash and there aren't a whole lot of threads here on the subject. Debating whether it's the ideal solution is probably beating a dead horse by now and I knew going into it I may face problems when it came to tuning, but I figured, "what the hell?? I wanted to at least try sticking with OE speaker locations with minimal modification to the original components of the car with the option to do "crazier" things later on if I chose to do so. My caveats are that I'm new at this and no where near an expert, but if I can provide more info in here regarding vehicle type, driver location, equipment specs, measurements, tuning results, etc, I figure it may help someone down the road (link to my recent build thread in signature). Will this be how the car stays forever? I'm not sure. I'm way too early in the process to make that decision, but I am not terribly disappointed in the results yet.

Vehicle = 2017 Subaru WRX
3-way components = AF GB10, GB25, and GB60
Sub = GB10D2
Amps = Helix P Six (for front stage), Mosconi Pico 1 (for sub)
Crossover Settings (all LR - 24db slopes): <--60, 80-400, 400-4000, 4000 -->

I won't get too heavy with the pics because they're all in my built thread, but just a few to get the idea. I designed a mount/enclosure for the mids that is exactly .2 cu liter of volume for the GB25's that fit into the factory dash speaker location as well as tweeter mounts that I installed into holes I cut into the plastic. The mids are roughly 4-.4.5" from the windshield and the tweeters about 3-3.5". I also modified the factory grills and covered them in speaker cloth (we'll see how they stand the test of time and sun, but I religiously use a sun shade when the car is parked).














































Initial REW measurements with no EQ:










After "round one" of tuning (EQ and TA):










I've got more work to do, especially on the midbass and like I said, I'm new at DSP tuning. I hadn't put an aftermarket speaker into a car since 2004 and have never used a DSP before this, so it's been a steep learning curve. With my limited experience, I'd describe the stage as "deep" and at roughly "eye level", which I definitely like. It also seems to be a have a fairly centered image, but I think it can get better.

One thing I can say is that reversing the polarity on the GB25's got rid of some 4-5db dips at both ends of the crossover points and definitely better summing across the midrange. The dip in the left tweeter response was a fluke with REW that I need to fix. I pulled about 10db of EQ up there for some reason, but I haven't RTA'd since adjusting it yet.

More to come...


----------



## Frequentflyer (Mar 3, 2020)

I did a little more midrange and tweeter tuning tonight, but it was damn hot in the car so I packed it up early.


----------



## Frequentflyer (Mar 3, 2020)

Some more pics of the tweeters and midranges without EQ. I want to post these because so you can get an idea of what the response of the tweeters and midranges mounted about 3-4" away from the windshield look like without EQ.


----------



## dumdum (Feb 27, 2007)

sqnut said:


> The effect of early reflections don't cause any significant issue related to timing. The brain takes all location cues from the direct sound and ignores the early reflections. This is why reflections have little to no effect on clarity of imaging. The effects of early reflections are heard in the response domain. Reflections make the incident sound seem louder. So frequencies above ~500 that are prone to reflections are perceived louder, it's one reason we have a downward sloping curve in a car.
> 
> Play a 300 hz and 1khz pink noise track both at the same amplitude, the 1 khz will sound much louder. Early reflections make perceived loudness > measured loudness above 500. Something easily cured with an eq. We worry too much about early reflections and attribute a lot of tuning or install issues to reflections.
> 
> In a car there are no late reflections.


Old post, but I’d disagree with this 100%, the brain can’t calculate the difference between direct and reflected as it’s so close together, late reflections in a room the brain is able to work them out to some extent, early reflections are a fact of life in a car and the brain will hear all of them except the rear window I’d think in a long car

Reflections have a massive influence on imaging in a car, it’s very clear in most cars when you wind the windows down the soundstage shifts... if there are no reflections the brain uses why is that? That throws your statements out of the window straight away


----------



## Jonny Dangerously (Apr 27, 2020)

I had installed 2 tweeters on my review mirror backside before right and left. Sounding amazing


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

SkizeR said:


> "it was gay actually".. im not even sure how to take that in terms of how something sounds


I needed a good smile this morning… lol


----------



## Vx220 (Nov 30, 2015)

Is he back yet?


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Vx220 said:


> Is he back yet?


I don’t think so, idk , and I’m thinking about leaving permanently. If nicks gone , it’s just not the same place….


----------



## therapture (Jan 31, 2013)

In my F150 the image center stays the same windows up OR down. The response changes some, yes. I need more volume to get the same perceived level of output. 

The sub gets louder with windows down.


----------

