# Help!! My soundstage ate my windshield!



## FoxPro5

I guess I always thought tuning involved farting around with the slope, phase, T/A, cross-overs. You know, the "norma" stuff. This is until I discovered a little trick an elf told me about. 

To preface what happened, I must say that all I did was burn a CD that contained 0db tones that matched each one of the 31 bands on my EQ. Then I sat in my car for about 10 minutes and played each tone starting low and going up high. I kept my head perfectly still in the position I would normally drive down the road in. 

Then I played each tone and adjusted the R and L EQ (graphic) and just played with cutting the R and then boosting the L and vice versa until I felt the sound was centered. Some bands needed up to +/- 3db and others needed no adjustment at all from what I could hear. And some bands I couldn't honestly resolve.

When I was done, I looked at my EQ and it was a MESS! LOL. Flipping back and forth between L and R yielded no pattern or symmetry at all. I thought, no possible way is this going to sound good. So I put in my Audiophile Female Vocal CD and cranked it up. 

WELL SLAP MY ASS AND CALL ME CHARLIE!! If Rebecca Pidgeon was 3 feet away from me she was a mile! It honestly felt like I had moved back in my seat, but my head had stayed in the same place the whole time. I estimate my stage moved 3" up and about 1 foot away...practially eliminating the windshield all together. I _thought_ my stage was good before, but I damn near greased my shorts.

And the focus! Oh the focus...like I've never heard. Like scary real! Apparently sound recordings are done in actuall rooms, because it sounds like the singer is contained in a space, rather than just singing into a microphone. :blush: 

Nowthen. Can someone please tell me what happened here!!  Did I just smooth out the overall FR of the system? It's hard to believe that something so simple like this could have this effect. Not to mention how crazy my EQ looks now. Or is it all in my head? [please answer no!] Again, I didn't touch a thing other than the EQ.


----------



## Kuztimrodder

I cant tell you wtf happened but you got me very interested to know now. So what does your frontstage consist of and the locations? Is there a tutorial on this? Where can i get a CD like that? I've never done test tones and such so it's all new but man, with results like that, I WANNA! 

DUDE!! I was becoming bored with my system and you just got me pumped up again...thank you sir


----------



## alphakenny1

hook me up with that cd john . where did you learn that trick? my stage is very shallow right now but everything else is nice.


----------



## azngotskills

So...the EQ adjustments where made only AFTER TA and xovers where utilized to the fullest to reproduce your stage? Thus, increasing the stage height and depth, using only the EQ?


----------



## ErinH

hmmmmm.

RTA for each side?


----------



## Whiterabbit

I cant remmeber whether that was audionutz or npdang or kevin7909, But after an alternate folk suggested the whole "boost or cut a band till that band centers", I believe it was npdang who said you had to boost one side and cut the other by equal increments in order to maintain tonality.

I had problems with tonality in my car after doing this. I also had some resonance issues that prevented me from EQ-shifting some of the bands. did you experience either of these two problems? For example, did you have some bands that were hazy, while others were pinpoint?


----------



## sqkev

it's only the beginning  

BTW, save the settings that you have right now, even make notes of the polarity for each speaker. You never know when you'll need this base setting again.


----------



## alphakenny1

also yea mark brings a good point, did you set your eq flat? did you have crossovers already set? etc....


----------



## FoxPro5

Kuztimrodder said:


> I cant tell you wtf happened but you got me very interested to know now. So what does your frontstage consist of and the locations? Is there a tutorial on this? Where can i get a CD like that? I've never done test tones and such so it's all new but man, with results like that, I WANNA!
> 
> DUDE!! I was becoming bored with my system and you just got me pumped up again...thank you sir


Rainbow Profi Kickbass. Doors. 80-250hz
Lotus 4's. Kicks (still not done) about 30* off axis. 3.15-2.5k
RT27f's. A pillar crossfiring exactly at each other. 3.15k and up

I learned this from Marv and he learned it from Cmusic on ECA IIRC.

I made the CD, but you can DL it here: http://www.box.net/shared/xsbbpejpkz

You know what, that's exactly how I felt! What have I created?!?


----------



## FoxPro5

alphakenny1 said:


> hook me up with that cd john . where did you learn that trick? my stage is very shallow right now but everything else is nice.


Oh you have no idea.  

I have an RTA, but I need to get off my lazy butt to get it going. It should answer my questions. The real reason for my post was to share some tuning experience from a n00b and also to see what the experts have to say about this odd phenomenon. Well, odd to me anyway.


----------



## Whiterabbit

can you try this with bandwidth limited pink noise? Id be curious to know the effects versus a straight tone.


----------



## FoxPro5

azngotskills said:


> So...the EQ adjustments where made only AFTER TA and xovers where utilized to the fullest to reproduce your stage? Thus, increasing the stage height and depth, using only the EQ?


Yes, everything else was set...and has been set for a long time. I did have a center image, but it was not entirely focused and sort of diffuse sounding. Vocals were in the middle and good by my standards, but now I get a sense where their damn mouth is on their face!! Wear diapers.


----------



## alphakenny1

also any difference tonality wise? i might try this out tonight .


----------



## Fast Hot Rod

*HA!*



B-Squad said:


> I _thought_ my stage was good before, but I damn near greased my shorts.


That just made me laugh out loud... which is not easy to do.  

Thanks for the laugh!

Mark


----------



## sqkev

Correct me if I'm wrong, as I understand, what you did was: playing a single burned tone and adjusted your EQ so the sound from both speakers are leveled and sounds centered? and you move from one tone to another until you finish the whole spectrum?


----------



## Whiterabbit

play tone.if you have a 31 band dual mono EQ, play, say, 2000 Hz. Then adjust your sliders for both left and right side at 2000 till it sounds centered. if the tone is too far right, cut right and boost left simultaneously and equally. if you just cut right till its centered, your tonality changes.


----------



## FoxPro5

alphakenny1 said:


> also yea mark brings a good point, did you set your eq flat? did you have crossovers already set? etc....


Yes my EQ WAS completely flat. Now it looks like a city skyline with the L nothing like the R. 

I did save my settings. I have up to six, so I might have to write it all down. They might want to see it at WORLD FINALS!!!  Ok, maybe not. 

Phase wise, just my sub and tweeters are 180* from the rest of the system.

Keep in mind I did not do this step by step, but here's the thread: http://forum.elitecaraudio.com/showthread.php?threadid=98293

Yes Steve the pink noise is in the future.


----------



## Whiterabbit

let me know. ive never tried tones, but figured it would help the haze issue


----------



## FoxPro5

alphakenny1 said:


> also any difference tonality wise? i might try this out tonight .


Well, imagine if you literally removed the windshield and allowed all the reflection to go away. It's like my system just relaxed and said "aaaaah" tonality wise. There are some problems because I have more work to do, of course. For example on the Alice In Chains "Unplugged" disk, Layne sounds kind of dead on stage but the crowd is incredible. So I don't know. I'm learning. 

It's crazy when you listen to the tones and then move your head even the slightest bit you might not even hear anything in one ear. I don't understand this, thus why I ask. How the hell my brain can interpret it differently when it all comes from all the drivers is beyond me. 

I should put a disclaimer on this thread: RESULTS NOT TYPICAL.


----------



## FoxPro5

Whiterabbit said:


> play tone.if you have a 31 band dual mono EQ, play, say, 2000 Hz. Then adjust your sliders for both left and right side at 2000 till it sounds centered. if the tone is too far right, cut right and boost left simultaneously and equally. if you just cut right till its centered, your tonality changes.


Exactly. The important part, as was pointed out to me, is the cut and boost relationship.


----------



## alphakenny1

actually i've had that eca thread bookmarked for the longest time and have been really lazy to read, lol. 

well at least you got some good results from the look of it. representing Team Noob Lotus and Team Kickbass well  :blush:


----------



## FoxPro5

alphakenny1 said:


> actually i've had that eca thread bookmarked for the longest time and have been really lazy to read, lol.
> 
> well at least you got some good results from the look of it. representing Team Noob Lotus and Team Kickbass well  :blush:


I've had it too, but haven't had the AS2K disk until now which is very nice tool. 

One major limitation here is that I really have no clue what my music is supposed to sound like. I try to use the Audionutz disks because he points out what to listen for. Tonality wise, I'm hosed. I can't say for sure. I guess I go by what sounds good to me???


----------



## sqkev

Whiterabbit said:


> play tone.if you have a 31 band dual mono EQ, play, say, 2000 Hz. Then adjust your sliders for both left and right side at 2000 till it sounds centered. if the tone is too far right, cut right and boost left simultaneously and equally. if you just cut right till its centered, your tonality changes.


If this is exactly what Bsquad did, I'm afraid I see at least 2 flaws.

1. Without at least a SPL meter, you have no idea how high or low to adjust the tone. What if you have a null or a peak at that certain frequency? How will you know how to compensate for that? Not with your ears.
The final response curves will surely not be flat if you use your ears to adjust the whole way.

2. I'm with the pro-audio crowd saying no to boosting in EQ. A bit of dynamic EQ for the bottom end might get you by, since your ears probably cannot hear distortions from the lower frequencies. For the higher up octaves, you'd need amps that can swing the transient in music. Let's just say that you boost 3dB in a few spots, you need to at least double up the amp power.
There are some drivers that aren't friendly with any boost in EQ at all. 


I can see some benefits to this method though, as Bsquad described. The focus is better now and staging improved. Yeup, this is what symmetry frequency responses from both sides do. That doesn't mean the FR curves from both sides are flat across the spectrum though.


----------



## FoxPro5

sqkev said:


> If this is exactly what Bsquad did, I'm afraid I see at least 2 flaws.
> 
> 1. Without at least a SPL meter, you have no idea how high or low to adjust the tone. What if you have a null or a peak at that certain frequency? How will you know how to compensate for that? Not with your ears.
> The final response curves will surely not be flat if you use your ears to adjust the whole way.
> 
> 2. I'm with the pro-audio crowd saying no to boosting in EQ. A bit of dynamic EQ for the bottom end might get you by, since your ears probably cannot hear distortions from the lower frequencies. For the higher up octaves, you'd need amps that can swing the transient in music. Let's just say that you boost 3dB in a few spots, you need to at least double up the amp power.
> There are some drivers that aren't friendly with any boost in EQ at all.
> 
> 
> I can see some benefits to this method though, as Bsquad described. The focus is better now and staging improved. Yeup, this is what symmetry frequency responses from both sides do. That doesn't mean the FR curves from both sides are flat across the spectrum though.


Good points. I know exactly what you mean. RTA tells all.

In a nutshell, what I felt I've accomplished is brought a little bit more order to chaos. It's probably still a clusterfuck, but it way better sounding clusterfuck. Tomorrow is another day and I'll probably not notice a bit of difference anymore.  

If I can take what I've got and really try to maximize it it's potential, I'm satisfied with that. No way have I fully explored the potential of the investment I've made in this damn hobby.


----------



## Whiterabbit

this method of EQ isnt designed to fix tonality. its designed to enhance focus. thats it. so we dont need an RTA or SPL meter to tell us relative volume levels. we dont care when using this method any more than we use an SPL meter to determine T/A values. if B-squad did this right, and his equipment did what we figure its supposed to do, his RTA will be just as screwed up as it was before he EQ'ed. In fact, it should look IDENTICAL!

never boosting? sorry. can't help you there.


----------



## sqkev

B-Squad said:


> Good points. I know exactly what you mean. RTA tells all.
> 
> In a nutshell, what I felt I've accomplished is brought a little bit more order to chaos. It's probably still a clusterfuck, but it way better sounding clusterfuck. Tomorrow is another day and I'll probably not notice a bit of difference anymore.
> 
> If I can take what I've got and really try to maximize it it's potential, I'm satisfied with that. No way have I fully explored the potential of the investment I've made in this damn hobby.


Don't you have access to RTA? get on it  

If you want it cheap and an improvement over what you have now, get a cheapie radioshack SPL meter, skim through the fletcher-munson curve a bit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fletcher-Munson_curves), graph out a few curves and get to work.


----------



## FoxPro5

Whiterabbit said:


> this method of EQ isnt designed to fix tonality. its designed to enhance focus. thats it. so we dont need an RTA or SPL meter to tell us relative volume levels. we dont care when using this method any more than we use an SPL meter to determine T/A values. if B-squad did this right, and his equipment did what we figure its supposed to do, his RTA will be just as screwed up as it was before he EQ'ed. In fact, it should look IDENTICAL!
> 
> never boosting? sorry. can't help you there.


That's a relief to hear. Well if it's a focusing technique, it works wonders. Again...like 10 minutes was all the longer it took. People need to try it for themselves and see if they have any luck. I know Marv has told me that as little as a 2db swing at one point made a huge difference in depth. ****, i'll take that!! 

As I said, when I was done my EQ looked completely jacked! I thought no way in hell this is going to sound good at all. Obviously this needs to be repeated a few times in order to have some reliability.

But thanks for the thoughts everyone. Hopefully everyone can learn something to take back to their car.


----------



## FoxPro5

sqkev said:


> Don't you have access to RTA? get on it
> 
> If you want it cheap and an improvement over what you have now, get a cheapie radioshack SPL meter, skim through the fletcher-munson curve a bit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fletcher-Munson_curves), graph out a few curves and get to work.


I have a MobliePre and Behringer 8000 mic sitting right next to me. :blush: I was waiting to finish off the kicks before I ran it. But since I'm constantly playing around, I thought I try some new tricks in the mean time.


----------



## sqkev

Whiterabbit said:


> this method of EQ isnt designed to fix tonality. its designed to enhance focus. thats it. so we dont need an RTA or SPL meter to tell us relative volume levels. we dont care when using this method any more than we use an SPL meter to determine T/A values. if B-squad did this right, and his equipment did what we figure its supposed to do, his RTA will be just as screwed up as it was before he EQ'ed. In fact, it should look IDENTICAL!
> 
> never boosting? sorry. can't help you there.


As far as I know (from reading what you guys are telling me in this thread), all it does is matching/creating a symmetry responses from both sides (note that i said "symmetry", not to be confused with even responses). You can easily do that with your RTA or with a computer based measurement setup. 

I'm just pointing out the flaws that I see in the said method, that's all.


----------



## legend94

are you telling me that you accomplished sound quality with a rockford amp


----------



## low

interesting thread thanks for sharing.


----------



## FoxPro5

legend94 said:


> are you telling me that you accomplished sound quality with a rockford amp


You missed my PM about NEVER mentioning that on this forum, didn't you!!   

















 

Actually, I have my Xetec on the fronts right now. So a German engineered, China made amp runs Norweigan speakers and an American engineered, China made amps runs German and Norwegian made speakers. Ever had leutfisk and sauerkraut on your cow mein? Mmmmm, that's good SQ.


----------



## legend94

B-Squad said:


> You missed my PM about NEVER mentioning that on this forum, didn't you!!


I couldn't let you spread your lies about getting "sq"  

very good thread, and i may have to try it when i get bored


----------



## t3sn4f2

So basiclly this means that at the very least we have to take measurements with a mic that has 2 mics, one for each ears position exactly where they will be most of the time in the car to be able to come anywhere near these results?


----------



## FoxPro5

legend94 said:


> I couldn't let you spread your lies about getting "sq"
> 
> very good thread, and i may have to try it when i get bored


Oh I'm totally making a some bumper stickers. Something like "Honk if you have SQ amps" or "Friends don't let friends have non-SQ amps" or "Christ is risen, and he's running T03's in the Jesus mobile".


----------



## FoxPro5

t3sn4f2 said:


> So basiclly this means that at the very least we have to take measurements with a mic that has 2 mics, one for each ears position exactly where they will be most of the time in the car to be able to come anywhere near these results?


Eldridge says multiple: http://www.carsound.com/columns/eldridge/

I personally cannot answer that, though.


----------



## unpredictableacts

Bsquad what kind of EQ are you using?


----------



## legend94

unpredictableacts said:


> Bsquad what kind of EQ are you using?


his ears


----------



## FoxPro5

unpredictableacts said:


> Bsquad what kind of EQ are you using?


Ok here's my entire system in detail just so there's no confusion:

Pioneer DEX-P9 - -digi out - -DEQ-P9
Xetec 8G-1000 - - 83wrms - - Seas Lotus RM100 - - Seas Lotus RT27f
RF 'boner of the week' 25TL Punch75 (x2) - - 200wrms - - Rainbow Profi Kickbass - - 600wrms - - Seas Lotus SW300 in a 1.25 cu'ft sealed Marv-o wonder.

The DEQ P9 has a 31 band L/R graphic EQ.


----------



## unpredictableacts

can the DEQ-p9 only be used with certian pioneer HU?

just not formiliar with the pioneer Set ups.


----------



## Mr Marv

B-Squad said:


> I guess I always thought tuning involved farting around with the slope, phase, T/A, cross-overs. You know, the "norma" stuff. This is until I discovered a little trick an elf told me about.
> 
> To preface what happened, I must say that all I did was burn a CD that contained 0db tones that matched each one of the 31 bands on my EQ. Then I sat in my car for about 10 minutes and played each tone starting low and going up high. I kept my head perfectly still in the position I would normally drive down the road in.
> 
> Then I played each tone and adjusted the R and L EQ (graphic) and just played with cutting the R and then boosting the L and vice versa until I felt the sound was centered. Some bands needed up to +/- 3db and others needed no adjustment at all from what I could hear. And some bands I couldn't honestly resolve.
> 
> When I was done, I looked at my EQ and it was a MESS! LOL. Flipping back and forth between L and R yielded no pattern or symmetry at all. I thought, no possible way is this going to sound good. So I put in my Audiophile Female Vocal CD and cranked it up.
> 
> WELL SLAP MY ASS AND CALL ME CHARLIE!! If Rebecca Pidgeon was 3 feet away from me she was a mile! It honestly felt like I had moved back in my seat, but my head had stayed in the same place the whole time. I estimate my stage moved 3" up and about 1 foot away...practially eliminating the windshield all together. I _thought_ my stage was good before, but I damn near greased my shorts.
> 
> And the focus! Oh the focus...like I've never heard. Like scary real! Apparently sound recordings are done in actuall rooms, because it sounds like the singer is contained in a space, rather than just singing into a microphone. :blush:
> 
> Nowthen. Can someone please tell me what happened here!!  Did I just smooth out the overall FR of the system? It's hard to believe that something so simple like this could have this effect. Not to mention how crazy my EQ looks now. Or is it all in my head? [please answer no!] Again, I didn't touch a thing other than the EQ.


Sweet! I bet you thought I was blowing smoke up your butt didn't you  .

BTW, I didn't read all of this thread yet so I'm not sure if it was mentioned that you want to do this step after eqing for tonality. Also, don't try to do it all at one time. Do it once and then come back later and do it again from the beginning as it may take some time for your ears to "focus" on where the sound is coming from.


----------



## Pseudonym

this couldnt possibly be done with an alpine 9835's internal 5band parametric right?


----------



## Mr Marv

Pseudonym said:


> this couldnt possibly be done with an alpine 9835's internal 5band parametric right?


You need the ability to EQ the left and right individually however I don't think that headunit does(?).


----------



## Kuztimrodder

WOW! The thread jumped to 5 pages over night Y'all done made me gonna gotta go get a 31 band EQ now...damnit!


----------



## FoxPro5

unpredictableacts said:


> can the DEQ-p9 only be used with certian pioneer HU?
> 
> just not formiliar with the pioneer Set ups.


It might be interchangable with the ODR stuff, but that's it. If you're asking if you can use the DEQ with any other Pioneer HU, than no you can not. You really have to run the combo as the DEX is just a transport.

Looks like the best alternative at this time, well that has the processing power anyway, is the DCX-730, but that's only 13 (I think) bands L and R.


----------



## FoxPro5

Mr Marv said:


> Sweet! I bet you thought I was blowing smoke up your butt didn't you  .


No, not at all. One of the first thoughts through my mind was "wait till Marv hears this ****!"


----------



## t3sn4f2

How is your stage width and classic stereo sensation after the retuning. Is it possible to take away what makes stereo stereo by playing with the EQ like this and does it sound so much better now that what might have been lost is not noticable in a car anyway?


----------



## FoxPro5

t3sn4f2 said:


> How is your stage width and classic stereo sensation after the retuning. Is it possible to take away what makes stereo stereo by playing with the EQ like this and does it sound so much better now that what might have been lost is not noticable in a car anyway?


Stage width was not really affected. However the space in which the recording was made came alive. Again, it's like the stage ate the windshield.

"Classic stereo sensation??" Not sure what that means.

"Is it possible to take away what makes stereo, stereo by playing with the EQ?" I have no idea, but my guess would be no. I didn't remove a side of the car, I just brought them together.

Yes it sounds MUCH better. I was just listening to Holly Cole's "I Can See Clearly Now" and I'll be damed if the stand up bass plucks are EXACTLY right behind her! It's like they go back and forth throughout the song....she sings, the bass comes in...she sings. The piano is on the right, and to my ears, is further away than the bass. 

Again, it's like I can tell where her mouth is on her face...whereas before, she was just singing on the track...kind of sort of in the middle of the windshield. The windshield is gone now and the music is alive. It's all about focus. And when you have an exact image that is well focused, the stage seems further away because the respective elements of the original recording are resolved.

I learn by trial and error, so I have to redo this...as Marv said...a few more times to get some more trials in so that I know where my errors are. You just have to do it yourself and see if it works. Asking some n00b how to explain it is like asking a 3 year old to teach you to read like an expert.


----------



## t3sn4f2

B-Squad said:


> Stage width was not really affected. However the space in which the recording was made came alive. Again, it's like the stage ate the windshield.
> 
> "Classic stereo sensation??" Not sure what that means.
> 
> "Is it possible to take away what makes stereo, stereo by playing with the EQ?" I have no idea, but my guess would be no. I didn't remove a side of the car, I just brought them together.
> 
> Yes it sounds MUCH better. I was just listening to Holly Cole's "I Can See Clearly Now" and I'll be damed if the stand up bass plucks are EXACTLY right behind her! It's like they go back and forth throughout the song....she sings, the bass comes in...she sings. The piano is on the right, and to my ears, is further away than the bass.
> 
> Again, it's like I can tell where her mouth is on her face...whereas before, she was just singing on the track...kind of sort of in the middle of the windshield. The windshield is gone now and the music is alive. It's all about focus. And when you have an exact image that is well focused, the stage seems further away because the respective elements of the original recording are resolved.
> 
> I learn by trial and error, so I have to redo this...as Marv said...a few more times to get some more trials in so that I know where my errors are. You just have to do it yourself and see if it works. Asking some n00b how to explain it is like asking a 3 year old to teach you to read like an expert.


Cool. Oh, by classic stereo sensation I meant that sensation you get when you press the stereo button on a receiver and go back after having it set on mono. I thought maybe that spaciousness would be affected by doing this, guess not. 

And tone wise everything still sounds balanced right to you?

I hope my questions don't seem to imply that I am doubting your technique or results. This techniques is just new to me and I'm trying to see if there are any trade offs to it.


----------



## FoxPro5

t3sn4f2 said:


> Cool. Oh, by classic stereo sensation I meant that sensation you get when you press the stereo button on a receiver and go back after having it set on mono. I thought maybe that spaciousness would be affected by doing this, guess not.
> 
> And tone wise everything still sounds balanced right to you?
> 
> I hope my questions don't seem to imply that I am doubting your technique or results. This techniques is just new to me and I'm trying to see if there are any trade offs to it.


The change in tonality brought about focus, is what I'm saying. I think. Again, I have no reference to the original recording to answer that indefinitely. The only thing I do is watch AIC Unplugged on TV and then try to hear that in my car. :blush: TV!!! I don't own a home stereo system. 

I don't know man, just do it. If you don't like it, undo it.


----------



## FoxPro5

Well I did a little more tinkering and lost the center image to the right about 3-4". When I look at the EQ, it's pretty clear that I killed the left quite a bit so I think it kind of slid off. Then I did some T/A work and it came back.

But I did flip back and forth between flat and my new settings and it's a major improvement. The sage is not really wider as in pillar to pillar, but the it seems like it's out on my hood more in the shape of a square vs the shape of a triangle. The placement of the instruments on the stage and their individual focus is what really improved the most.

Tonality wise it's clearer and some of the subtile nasties are better. Whiterabbit mentioned a "haze" and I think that is better now too.


----------



## arrogantt

is it just me, or does that website only have (27) actual downloadable files? 

i've downloaded them all twice now, and the 4 on the second page are the same as 4 on the first...

*EDIT* Ok, that's weird... I figured it out, but it took refreshing page 2 a few times before the .mp3 files changed to the 8* series!! that's a bit odd


----------



## FoxPro5

Yep, you're right. Here, try these instead: 
http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=d472c46c14c387e9b5ad86680473e660bec1ee510e871be5


----------



## HCCA

Congrats, B-squad! I did something similar 12 years ago, but it will be easier with your method. I will be doing the same, and I hope others will too. Enjoy the fruits of your labors.


----------



## pwnt by pat

Awesome.

I would think with this method, you could focus your stage at the certain frequencies and then RTA not to achieve a flat response, but to boost/cut relative frequencies.

Like say you start with a flat response. You center 1khz and 2khz. When you hit the stereo with an RTA, you use one mic, play both L and R speakers at the same time, and cut both L AND R at the SAME TIME to match 1khz output to 2khz output.


----------



## FoxPro5

Thanks guys.

What's interesting is to hear the subtilties when I save my EQ settings and then flip back and forth between my corrections and flat. My stage comes in and out of fine focus. 

I'm going to do it again today. The thing about the 31 band is that you really can only do about 25 of them as you can't hear the extreme top and bottom of the FR. Therefore you guys with the 16 band EQ's will do almost as well here I think.


----------



## toolfan91

Very good read B-Squad, think ill have to try that out


----------



## Mr Marv

Here is the entire procedure as I learned it from Chuck Music



> There are several different methods used to tune eqs. This is the one I use. An RTA is not needed if the steps are done correctly. This method uses crossovers and gain settings as the most important factor in tuning. I think the eq should be last in line when tuning. Remember after each step to write down your settings. If the sound gets worse, then you can go back to the previous step’s settings and start over.
> 
> 
> 1. Set all bands flat, as well as the head unit bass and treble.
> 
> 2. Turn off the subs. Using music with a good bass line, run the highpass crossover up and down until the midbasses can play as low as possible without any distortion or excessive door panel vibrations.
> 
> 3. Unhook the mids and tweeters, allowing only the midbasses to play. Listen to mono pink noise or a well-recorded song with a centered vocalist. Test CDs such as the IASCA test CD or Autosound 2000 Test CD 102 or 103 will work great. Listen to where the centered sounds are coming from. Then reverse the polarity of one midbass (Reverse the speaker wires coming from the passive crossover and going to the speaker, just flip the positive and negative wires. I usually flip the driver’s side speaker.) and re-listen to the test CD. If the sounds are more centered then keep it as is. If the centered sounds are more diffuse and un-locatable, then flip the polarity back to where it was originally.
> 
> 4. Then unhook the midbasses and play the mids only and follow the same polarity and listening tests as before. Mark your best settings.
> 
> 5. Do the same procedure for the tweeters.
> 
> 6. When you have tested for the proper polarity from all three ranges of speakers, hook all of them back up with respect to each set of speaker’s best polarity. You can have any combination of polarity, such as all the midbass and tweeters straight and one midrange reversed.
> 
> 7. Now you should have the correct “acoustic” polarity set within each set of speakers. Next is to set the acoustic polarity between the sets of speakers.
> 
> 8. Listen to some very familiar music with a good range of sounds. Then flip both midbass’ polarity and listen again. Before you only flipped one midbass, now you are doing both at the same time. For example if the left midbass was reversed and the right was not before, now the left will be not reversed and the right will be. Listen to the music again. If the midbass is more powerful and full then leave the wiring as is. If the midbass sounds weaker and wrong then restore the wiring as before.
> 
> 9. Perform the same listening tests while flipping the mids and tweeters, and use the wiring configuration that sounds the best.
> 
> 10. If you have went though all these steps adjusting the polarity of the speakers then the system should sound really good without any eq adjustments. You might want to play with the gain adjustments on the crossover and/or amp to better blend all the speakers together.
> 
> 11. Now onto the eq! The first eq step is to adjust the tonality. While listening to familiar music, adjust each individual band up and down slowly. When the music sounds better then move to the next band. Adjust the left and right bands equally. (We’ll get to the separate left and right adjustments soon.) It really does not matter if the bands are boosted or cut, just that it makes the sound better. Not every band needs to be adjusted. In fact if you did steps 1 thru 10 correctly you should not have to adjust over half the bands. Having a 1/3 octave eq does not mean you have to adjust every band. It means you have the ability to adjust each band if needed. Watch out for big jumps from band to band, like one band set to +4 and the next band set to –6.
> 
> 12. Continue through all the bands, take a break, and do the same procedure over again. But this time the adjustments will be smaller as you get the tonality dialed in. This step might take several days, weeks, or longer.
> 
> 13. In tuning you will find some eq bands will raise, lower, move the sound closer, or farther away if adjusted in certain manners. For example, lowering 5 KHz will generally move the soundstage farther away and raising 2 KHz will make the soundstage rise. Each vehicle and system will have different settings that will be the best. The best way to achieve awesome sound is to constantly adjust.
> 
> 14. When you are satisfied with the tonality of the system, it is time to start adjusting the left and right channels separately. These adjustments should not affect the tonality, but improve on the imaging and soundstaging. Using the Autosound 2000 Test CD 102 or 103 “My Disk” listen to the individual frequency pink noise tracks. (Test CD103 has the tracks arranged in an easier configuration.) Each frequency band should sound like it is coming from the center of the soundstage. If one band is off to one side, then use each band’s left and right eq controls as a balance control. This is very similar to the head unit’s balance control, only now you are balancing each frequency band by itself. For example if 200 Hz seems to be shifted to the left of center, lower the left 200 Hz band and raise the right 200 Hz band one dB at a time until the band is centered. If a frequency is shifted to the right, lower the band’s right channel and raise the left channel in small amounts.
> 
> 15. When you have when through all the bands take a break. Then later go back through each band one by one and make any further needed adjustments until all the frequencies are lined up in the center of the soundstage.


----------



## foosman

John, do you have any way to record this in another format besides mp3? My h/u doesn't read mp3's. I'd gladly pay you. Thanks David


----------



## Oliver

Kewl, this is way better than hearing someone say "Yeah, I read that" and it didn't do anything for me, but now that this old, non updated thread really works [ WTF ! ], who would have guessed 

Chuck Music posted this on ECA in 2004 from a file he had written for SD and then saved on his computer.


----------



## quality_sound

foosman 100 said:


> John, do you have any way to record this in another format besides mp3? My h/u doesn't read mp3's. I'd gladly pay you. Thanks David


Save them as mp3s and then burn them as wavs.


----------



## FoxPro5

foosman 100 said:


> John, do you have any way to record this in another format besides mp3? My h/u doesn't read mp3's. I'd gladly pay you. Thanks David


I'm sending the files to the email addy I have for you. Once you have them, just download them to your HD and then burn them to CD like you would any music track. No MP3 data disk needed.


----------



## FoxPro5

When you are done with the EQ work, you can verify the image position with this center track. It's a recording of an actual person playing the maracas at dead center in stero. Obviously, the more real-life, pinpoint and focused, the better.

http://www.mediafire.com/?ekxzztbxwvx


----------



## backwoods

I didn't read much of the thread, but you have to be careful doing this, and it is normally the VERY last step as far as tuning. 

Remember to keep the same relationship between l&r on your cut & fills while doing this.

If you have L boosted 3 db's at 400hz and R cut 5db's at 400. Then make sure to keep an 8 db seperation between them as you slide the bands in the direction you need the stage to move...

This is an old school trick back when all we had were analog 30 band Eq's...

New dsp's have all sorts of different options to handle this now.


----------



## FoxPro5

backwoods said:


> New dsp's have all sorts of different options to handle this now.


31 band left/right EQ's, namely.  

And yea, it's not the end all be all but I think it pretty much kicks ass.


----------



## mobeious

just went out and tried this in my truck i couldnt get any depth change out of it but the tonality got better seems alot more detailed now... my problem in my truck is my stage depth ends at the winshield

runnin 
H701
Arc300.2 X 2
Arc1000.1 x 1
Image Dynamic XS6 {doors} 
Image Dynamic XS1 {dash firing up} till a-pillers are done
Memphis M1 12" (temp)


----------



## MiloX

The IASCA setup disc and Sheffield's My Disc have the tones you need to do this. 

Welcome to the world of L/R balance!

Once you get this foundation correct, the rest of the technicals just fall into place. 

Not only does getting the l/r levels help depth, it has a huge impact on width, height, and placement. 

I'd suggest using an RTA first to get you into the right ballpark, and then use the tones. 

The first time i actually saw this technique being used (not just reading about it) was with Matt Roberts in my G. 

Another thing to do with these tones is to search for peaks and dips in the response of each set of drivers being tested. IOW, as you go up the bands, the relative level band-to-band should not jump drastically. 

Have fun tweaking guys!


----------



## kimokalihi

On the pioneer 880prs does it do left and right graphic EQ or just all together?


----------



## envisionelec

B-Squad said:


> 31 band left/right EQ's, namely.
> 
> And yea, it's not the end all be all but I think it pretty much kicks ass.


Damn, you found one of my quickie setup tricks. Damn. Damn. Damn.


----------



## Mr Marv

kimokalihi said:


> On the pioneer 880prs does it do left and right graphic EQ or just all together?


 The 880 does left/right separately as well as combined and if you follow the entire technique I posted a few pages back as I learned it from Chuck Music you will find that even with only 16 bands you can make a dramatic improvement in stage and imaging.

BTW, since passing this on to B-Squad and him posting it I have had a TON of people email/call me asking about this. This is NOT something I came up with on my own rather something I learned from Chuck Music several years ago. (I have added a few extra "tweaks" learned from guys like Keith Turner and Steve Head along the lines of what MILO mentioned with the RTA but I won't mention them specifically without asking permission first). Although an RTA is NOT necessary (one of the best things with this technique) there are a couple of things to note and the main one is that this technique is not designed to "make up" for poor install etc. This should be the VERY LAST step in your tuning chain and is used to _*improve*_ on your _*already well laid out foundation*_. I have had several guys call me back after trying this saying it didn't work well for them. It's not something that you are going to get "perfect" on the first try so it needs to be repeated until your ears get accustomed to it and you MUST do the other steps first. If you do NOT find benefit in your system after doing this technique (several times) you need to look back up the chain for something else that is not right.


----------



## FoxPro5

Word up, Marvin.

I just posted my findings so that all the n00b idiots like me with expensive toys see that there is YET more ways to tinker.

As I said before, and Marv is right, do this after you've gotten everything else worked out first....ESPECIALLY phase. If the phase is off, you're just going to get out of phase focus and detail and it won't be spot on.

Also, where are the tones on "My Disk." All I see is tracks 47-56 which are three to a track 10 second pink noise at 1/3 octaves?


----------



## Mr Marv

B-Squad said:


> Word up, Marvin.
> 
> I just posted my findings so that all the n00b idiots like me with expensive toys see that there is YET more ways to tinker.
> 
> As I said before, and Marv is right, do this after you've gotten everything else worked out first....ESPECIALLY phase. If the phase is off, you're just going to get out of phase focus and detail and it won't be spot on.
> 
> Also, where are the tones on "My Disk." All I see is tracks 47-56 which are three to a track 10 second pink noise at 1/3 octaves?


It's amazing how much better things sound when you just get the levels, phase and crossovers set properly and this just puts icing on the cake . BTW, those are the the only tones on "My Disc" and it is much easier with a disc that has each tone on it's own track.


----------



## mobeious

u all say boosting and cutting but with mine, if the L and R eq are the same it sounds more centered lol is that weird or good?


----------



## FoxPro5

mobeious said:


> u all say boosting and cutting but with mine, if the L and R eq are the same it sounds more centered lol is that weird or good?


Then leave it. If it's centered, no adjustment needed. For me, it happens on probably like 4-5 bands each time. 

One thing I will say for sure is that moving your head during this can have pretty dramatic shifts, at least in my one-seated car anyway. Thus, I feel the need to repeat it maybe 3 times in one week.

And just to validate the importance of this technique, I was talking to a veteran IASCA competitor recently and he basically said that it's really a must to achieve a whole new level of focus in the car. RTA or no RTA. Use your RTA to _check _your ears, not _BE _your ears....................................IMHO. 

After doing something like this over and over you really come to appreciate what it means to invest your time and energy into something you've spent ungodly amounts of money on.


----------



## James Bang

I just barely finished up trying this technique. I have to say the center image is more focused than what i had before. Listening to all those tones got my ears and thinking out of whack at the moment... so listening for changes in tonality will have to wait till tomorrow.


----------



## dirthog

When I did this some of the freq where washed out. It was left of center and no focus at all. I would try to shift it right, but it wouldn't change. Turned out to be a bad reflection off the driver side window from the right side tweet.

Made tweeter adjustment went back to the eq and everything was much better.


----------



## h.norman

I notice by doing a change in the L or R freq band, it affects the next band as well. e.g. dropping down the left eq 125hz by -1db affects the left eq of the next band say 200hz. I guess this might be way G.eq works as increasing the freq band affects the other freq bands surrounding it.

This is indeed a very sinful method but if used too greedily, adding and subtracting too much to find balance, loses alot to tonality.


----------



## Foglght

B-Squad said:


> It's crazy when you listen to the tones and then move your head even the slightest bit you might not even hear anything in one ear. I don't understand this, thus why I ask. How the hell my brain can interpret it differently when it all comes from all the drivers is beyond me.
> 
> I should put a disclaimer on this thread: RESULTS NOT TYPICAL.


I had the same thing happen. I literally thought when I read this post that I had logged on while sleeping and posted the exact same thing. 

It was crazy at higher frequencies (Used the tone generator) how moving my head a couple of mm could change the listening area so drastically. 

I have 3 settings now after about 15-20 hours of screwing around. 1 for driving, 1 for sitting in driving position, and 1 for driver and passenger sitting all the way back in the seat. 

I had my wife tell me the difference between me not being in the car and then pause...I get in and she says the sound is not as bright. I feel like I need to invest in a crash test dummy or a really heavy blow up doll to stick in the car for tuning. 

My eq was all over the place too. I actually had to boost and cut a few frequencies +-6db!


----------



## Oliver

In the tutorial, what were your findings compared to these...

edit:
typically in my car and about every car i help tune recetly there is a boost at 20 and 25hz typically at least 3db
80 or 100hz is cut by 2-4db
then 250hz or so is also cut by 2-4db

1k-2k is cut by at least 2-4db

16 and 20k boosted usually 2-4db

But majority of this is all driver,speaker location and tuning ability dependent.

No worse feeling than trying to help a guy out, and you know the exact area that needs tweaked and they have no way of tweaking that area.


----------



## kimokalihi

I have to boost probably about 4db at 80hz to get a decent low end. 1.25-2khz really kills my ears and gets cut a lot in my car. I boosted the 12.5khz region quite a bit in my car. Made for a lot more clarity. 20khz I can't hear a thing. I boosted it 6db and cut it all the way down to -6db and I head absolutely no difference. 

Is it normal to be able to hear that high? I thought that was right around where most people cannot hear anymore?

After going through my test tones CD that I created by downloading only the tones that matched the 16bands of my EQ on the 880PRS, I noticed it sounded better in some ways but worse in others. The image shifted to the left so that it sounded like it was coming from directly in front of me. Which I didn't think sounded as good as the center of the windshield.


----------



## T3mpest

kimokalihi said:


> I have to boost probably about 4db at 80hz to get a decent low end. 1.25-2khz really kills my ears and gets cut a lot in my car. I boosted the 12.5khz region quite a bit in my car. Made for a lot more clarity. 20khz I can't hear a thing. I boosted it 6db and cut it all the way down to -6db and I head absolutely no difference.
> 
> Is it normal to be able to hear that high? I thought that was right around where most people cannot hear anymore?
> 
> After going through my test tones CD that I created by downloading only the tones that matched the 16bands of my EQ on the 880PRS, I noticed it sounded better in some ways but worse in others. The image shifted to the left so that it sounded like it was coming from directly in front of me. Which I didn't think sounded as good as the center of the windshield.


20k is where little children and adults that wear eamuffs all day can hear with little difficulty. If your over 15 your unlikely to hear to 20k easily expect to need a 8-12db rise there. In a moving vehicle with its floor noise, it's a lost cause.


----------



## kimokalihi

Yeah this was with the car off not other noise in the car. 20khz boosted to the max. Then I figured, it could be damaging my ears and I wouldn't know it for what's the point.


----------



## Foglght

kimokalihi said:


> I have to boost probably about 4db at 80hz to get a decent low end. 1.25-2khz really kills my ears and gets cut a lot in my car. I boosted the 12.5khz region quite a bit in my car. Made for a lot more clarity. 20khz I can't hear a thing. I boosted it 6db and cut it all the way down to -6db and I head absolutely no difference.
> 
> Is it normal to be able to hear that high? I thought that was right around where most people cannot hear anymore?
> 
> After going through my test tones CD that I created by downloading only the tones that matched the 16bands of my EQ on the 880PRS, I noticed it sounded better in some ways but worse in others. The image shifted to the left so that it sounded like it was coming from directly in front of me. Which I didn't think sounded as good as the center of the windshield.


18khz is all I can hear. Past that I can't tell if I'm hearing something or its just the wind passing through my ears.


----------



## h.norman

kimokalihi said:


> Yeah this was with the car off not other noise in the car. 20khz boosted to the max. Then I figured, it could be damaging my ears and I wouldn't know it for what's the point.



But is it becos of a graphic eq concept, by boosting 20khz, the DSP is also booasting up the surrounding frq such as 15khz to 19khz which i think is the main motive for boosting 20khz. Hence boosting 20khz may not be deem totally useless. can anyone confirm this?


----------



## MadMaxSE-L

So, say we are running a DCX-730 or similar unit in a 2way actve + sub where the actual frequencies of the bands are adjustable, as well as level and Q. Which tones would you use to set your freq. points? Wouldn't you have to know which freq.s actually needed to be adjusted before you could tune?

My issue with this is that if you are using a dedicated EQ that just has sliders or something, your frequency points that can be adjusted are already given to you. But if YOU are the one who has to set the points, as well as the levels of each point, then how do you know which freq's need to be adjusted?


----------



## FoxPro5

MadMaxSE-L said:


> But if YOU are the one who has to set the points, as well as the levels of each point, then how do you know which freq's need to be adjusted?


If you are a complete nutcase, then ALL of them!  

But you could halve the EQ points and go 1/6 octave....for a total of 64...which would give you a ton of control. Use the NCH Tone Gen and make some. 

I just think of this is a poor man's focusing technique. No RTA needed. You can use an RTA after to see how well you did, but it's still a guess. A microphone is not an ear drum and can't hear a center image.


----------



## MadMaxSE-L

B-Squad said:


> If you are a complete nutcase, then ALL of them!
> 
> But you could halve the EQ points and go 1/6 octave....for a total of 64...which would give you a ton of control. Use the NCH Tone Gen and make some.
> 
> I just think of this is a poor man's focusing technique. No RTA needed. You can use an RTA after to see how well you did, but it's still a guess. A microphone is not an ear drum and can't hear a center image.


For some reason, this does not answer my question at all - I still don't know where to begin with the eq frequencies. 

If I don't have any points to begin with, how can I halve them?

Please forgive my newbishness...


----------



## FoxPro5

MadMaxSE-L said:


> For some reason, this does not answer my question at all - I still don't know where to begin with the eq frequencies.
> 
> If I don't have any points to begin with, how can I halve them?
> 
> Please forgive my newbishness...


I'm pretty sure you can EQ every frequency on the DCX. From 20 - 20,000 hz.  Been a long time since I used it, so someone correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## MadMaxSE-L

B-Squad said:


> I'm pretty sure you can EQ every frequency on the DCX. From 20 - 20,000 hz.  Been a long time since I used it, so someone correct me if I'm wrong.


Yes, you can. That is exactly the root of my problem - the certain frequencies that can be adjusted for every channel(11 or 13 IIRC) have to be selected by the end user - not so with a "slider" EQ where the freq's are already selected for you, the end user just has to set the level each of those frequencies, up or down.

How does one know WHICH frequencies to try and adjust in the first place? There are ALOT of different points between 20hz and 20khz...


----------



## FoxPro5

See pics below for points of reference.


----------



## MadMaxSE-L

B-Squad said:


> See pics below for points of reference.


That is EXACTLY what I needed, thanks


----------



## FoxPro5

If you're making your own CD you really need to go from like 100 hz to 12.5K or so, because you can't hear the other tones. 

After sealing off my under dask from the majority of sound spectrum - 250 to 5k - my consistancy of results with this has certainly imporved. I still do get those really odd one-ear tones that I can't fix....so I just move on.


----------



## DonutHands

did i read that right? you are using all of 4 channels on your Xetec amp? yeesh, what a waste.

also, as i read this, your method does nothing but center the sound, if you have a jacked up response before doing this, you are still going to have a jacked up response afterwards, its just going to be centered.


----------



## FoxPro5

internecine said:


> did i read that right? you are using all of 4 channels on your Xetec amp? yeesh, what a waste.
> 
> also, as i read this, *your method does nothing but center the sound*, if you have a jacked up response before doing this, you are still going to have a jacked up response afterwards, its just going to be centered.


Actually I think I had it bridged down to 260x4. Can't remember now. 

Not *my* method, brother. Been done for ages by guy's looking for different ways to tweak and tune their systems.

The rest of your statement just makes me laugh.


----------



## DonutHands

i hope you are using that whole amp, it looks so damn good on paper.

not your method, but the method you used. it just sounds like you centered whatever response you had before by balancing the left and right levels.


----------



## FoxPro5

internecine said:


> i hope you are using that whole amp, it looks so damn good on paper.
> 
> not your method, but the method you used. it just sounds like you centered whatever response you had before by balancing the left and right levels.


Let me ask you something. Did you even try this? What results did you get?

Seems you know what you're talking about, so why not share from experience.  

I'm just sharing what I've found, that's all. 

Now that I've done this a bunch of times, I really come to appreciate it as a focusing technique more than anything. It's not a save-your-ass-miracle-because-you-can't-set-the-rest-up-correctly method. It can clear up any elements that are diffuse on the stage, especially the center image, but there's more to listening to songs than just the center, as I commented 6 months ago. 

Get your system to the best of your ability, apply this technique, and listen to what happens. If it's worse off, then at least give it another couple more trys. If you still think it doesn't sound right, undo it! Easy.


----------



## tcguy85

can i simply use a radio shack meter to level out all the frequencies on my EQ?

just make a tone for each band on my eg and adjust it using the radio shack meter to get the flattest response. or are the radio shack meters not accurate and not a good tool for this at all?

then go back and do this method to improve the center image?

any of this make sense?


----------



## FoxPro5

tcguy85 said:


> can i simply use a radio shack meter to level out all the frequencies on my EQ?
> 
> just make a tone for each band on my eg and adjust it using the radio shack meter to get the flattest response. or are the radio shack meters not accurate and not a good tool for this at all?
> 
> then go back and do this method to improve the center image?
> 
> any of this make sense?


Yes you can do that, but that's not the purpose of this post, really. It involves listening to where the tone appears on the stage and adjusting accordingly. A SPL meter cannot hear a center image, but it can balance the car from R to L. Get it??


----------



## tcguy85

FoxPro5 said:


> Yes you can do that, but that's not the purpose of this post, really. It involves listening to where the tone appears on the stage and adjusting accordingly. A SPL meter cannot hear a center image, but it can balance the car from R to L. Get it??


yea i know what this thread is about. i just figured i'd ask this after reading this whole thread. thanks.


----------



## Amish

If you are going to use the Radio Shack meter, make sure you track down the correction figures. On the low end it starts getting fairly inacurrate. Just google for it or search around a few home audio forums.


----------



## James Bang

I have to bump this thread.

I just use this method again after swapping out my HLCD motors and i'm in Heaven.


----------



## ErinH

James Bang said:


> I have to bump this thread.
> 
> I just use this method again after swapping out my HLCD motors and i'm in Heaven.


Yes, it does work quite well.


----------



## Megalomaniac

hmmm im going to have to try this


----------



## Fast1one

Thanks for the bump guys! Hehe...


----------



## Timmah318

I have a question... Could I do something similar with a parametric EQ? I have a HX-D2 (DRZ9255 for you guys) with 5 bands per side. I might give it a whirl this weekend (we have a comp on sunday here in Victoria) and see how it goes


----------



## Ge0

I can't stress enough how important L/R frequency balancing is to your over all experience.

Issues in the frequency AND time domain will cause you problems. L/R balance solves half of the equation.

You may notice that your image is centered most of the time but smears or drifts once in a while. This may be due to L/R balance anomalies. Fix it and be much happier.

Ge0


----------



## Oliver

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


----------



## FoxPro5

a$$hole said:


> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


That looks like a FR plot of my car! :blush: 

I can't believe how this thread keeps resurfacing. I've since built kill switches into my system so this technique goes very fast. And I still like it.


----------



## ErinH

a$$hole said:


> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


x2.

For the most part my setup is pretty well centered. But, I do notice that with certain frequencies the singer's voice will actually move withing a few inches' range while singing. It's actually cool that I notice it, but sucks that I'm not experienced enough with the frequencies to know right away what frequency is causing the issue. :blush:


----------



## Hernan

This is a nice thread. It deserves another bump!

I have tried the L/R tone centering technic. I have no good results. Tonality went out of the park.
I like music and I have fun with my car stereo.
I'm not an audiophile but I had the luck of hearing some good home audio systems and I have "played" with graphic and parametrics since the 80s.
My car audio system has a 3 way front plus sub running from a dva9881 connected to the 701 processor, all active.

I use to tune my system by xo points and gains. Usually I set the xo points leasining to each single driver one by one. Next polarity and gain checks by pairs, the fase and t/a between each pair of drivers.
Tha last thing is listen to each single channel for tonnality. They usually have severe diferences caused by the install. I just use the L/R EQ to dial the right tonality for each side. After this, the image is pretty well focused. At last, I try to get the T/A for the midbasses the best as posible.
Thanks for the oportunity to share my experiences with you!


----------



## annoyingrob

I tried this out this evening. It wasn't an amazing 'cream my pants' difference, however it DID make the sound stage a lot crisper and more focused (less 'hazy' if you will). It definitely made a notticable improvement.

I first balanced out the frequencies the best I could using my SPL meter (CEM DT-8850 set to A weighting), then centered them by ear.

Overall, I'm quite happy with the result.


----------



## donkeypunch22

dudes, thanks for the info.


----------



## an2ny888

hmm i'd like to try this, would just having 4 parametric eq bands be enough?


----------



## tbonez3858

Great method. I started the process about a week ago. I disagree that it takes 10 minutes. I am on my third round of making minor adjustments and I spend about an hour each time.I have one frequency that I cant figure out (hi hat cymbals) that is a little right instead of dead center. I think some of the staging issues people run into may be in the recording of the CD. After I tuned my system I put in a DMB CD. I thought I had major problems because the horns were playing basically out of one side. I put in another CD with horns and it played equally. I went back to the tones/pink noise and found that my system was set up correctly..We have to remember that the music may be recorded to favor one side for certain instruments to give a spacial feel. It may just be that the artist likes sounds coming from "different" direction... This will drive you nuts while trying to tune..Thats why you have to go back to pink noise or tones and validate reality. I highly recommend this method if you dont plan to drop coin on an RTA...


----------



## reindeers

Worth a try... Bump!


----------



## Mr Marv

For those interested here is the entire simple tuning process as I learned it from Chuck Music before passing it on to FoxPro.
http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/diyma-tutorials/33740-simple-way-tune-courtesy-cmusic.html


----------



## Oliver

up


----------



## benny

YES!! A real thread!! n00bs, take your install threads elsewhere! THIS is the stuff DIYMA is made of!


----------



## Ge0

bikinpunk said:


> Yes, it does work quite well.


Pretty much the basis for a proper tuning in a vehicle. Foxy's method is rather crude but in the right direction.

Bump

Ge0


----------



## mosconiac

There are a few caveats that should be considered when adopting this method.

1) If your FR is not where you want it prior to doing this, it will still not be where you want it after doing this.

2) Using steady tones can excite nodes in your car that won't be excited by transient signals such as music. What is centered for steady tones may not be centered for transients. Pink noise or (tight) warble tones would be better tests.

3) Our ears are not linear devices & are generally not perfectly equal, so this would explain how some bands are tough/impossible to center. You can have a drop-out or roll-off in one ear that no amount of EQ can fix.

4) Boundary effects can cause time-domain issues for one channel only, so this would explain how some bands are tough/impossible to center. You can have a resonance/cancellation in one speaker (say from the steering wheel or asymmetric console) that no amount of EQ can fix. Owners of HLCDs are particularly familiar with this issue.

I'm not trying to downplay the importance of balancing left/right FR, just stating that you should also employ more tools to get to the final goal. Thank you for stressing this important idea.


----------



## jbholsters

I wouldn't say, as some other have, that this is the poor mans RTA. If you try this with an RTA, and then by ear, you should get better results from your ears. One mic or even 2 is not equal to your ear. Many things come into play, including shape of ears vs mic, and the effect your body has on the response. Even though this should be the last step, you can go back and RTA the car, and if anything needs tweaked (tonally), make adjustments. Just make sure to mirror them for both L and R. Sit behind the drivers seat and hold the mic at head level and move it around in a figure 8 the width of your head from ear to ear will give better results than having it stationary on a stand. Use the average function. On the Coustic it is like 20 seconds, and similar on the Audio Control-if using a PC based system, set the average at 100 and do this while counting to 20 then hit stop. I only use the stand to get started.


----------



## mitchjr

Subscribe


----------



## nubz69

mosconiac said:


> There are a few caveats that should be considered when adopting this method.
> 
> 1) If your FR is not where you want it prior to doing this, it will still not be where you want it after doing this.
> 
> 2) Using steady tones can excite nodes in your car that won't be excited by transient signals such as music. What is centered for steady tones may not be centered for transients. Pink noise or (tight) warble tones would be better tests.
> 
> 3) Our ears are not linear devices & are generally not perfectly equal, so this would explain how some bands are tough/impossible to center. You can have a drop-out or roll-off in one ear that no amount of EQ can fix.
> 
> 4) Boundary effects can cause time-domain issues for one channel only, so this would explain how some bands are tough/impossible to center. You can have a resonance/cancellation in one speaker (say from the steering wheel or asymmetric console) that no amount of EQ can fix. Owners of HLCDs are particularly familiar with this issue.
> 
> I'm not trying to downplay the importance of balancing left/right FR, just stating that you should also employ more tools to get to the final goal. Thank you for stressing this important idea.



I have to absolutely disagree with #2. If a steady tone excites a resonance a transient signal will excite the same resonance. It may not be excited to the same level but it will be excited. Now I will say that if it is excited with a transient and it decays quickly you may never actively notice it. The problem is that you will still notice it passively if somehow you remove the resonance.


----------



## usmcsoldriver

Its alive


----------



## andy335touring

Sorry for the bump but if you're going to try this on a h/u with 1/3 oct 31 bands which Q level do you use so your adjustments don't overlap the preceding band ?

I've got Q values of 1, 3, 5, 7 and 20 to play with and i'm new to EQ's so i don't want mess with and make it worse through me not knowing what to do.

Also i've got my sub up front where the glove box used to be, it's crossed over to the mids at 80hz/12db so do you think it's worth starting the tones from around 50hz ?


----------



## sqnut

I'd start by keeping the q's at the steepest curve. This would ensure min impact over the frequency above and below. Once you are familiar with each frequency and how it affects the sound, you can play around a bit with the q's.

Say you need to cut 2-3db across an octave. You can put all three frequencies on a steep q and cut each for 2 and 3 db. That would be one sound. Or you can cut each frequency 1 or 2 db's but on a shallower q. So while you're cutting less, each cut is affecting whats above and below more. You're prob still getting the 2/3 db cut overall. This sound would be different. See which one sounds more lifelike. How does it impact imaging, stage proportions tonality etc. 

Play around to know what works best for your environment and placement.


----------



## andy335touring

Thanks for the info


----------



## adrenalinejunkie

I Will have to try this once the Eclipse CD7000 is installed. Will this h/u be able to do this task? It has 7 band parametric EQ. thanks


----------



## marvnmars

subscribed for good info


----------



## garysummers

As an earlier poster mentioned, the use of steady state narrow band tones are subject to the development of standing waves and will skew you perception of balanced. The best thing to use is 1/3 octave filtered pink noise bands. These can be found on better tuning CD's. Do a search and you may find a download. Try it, you'll like it!!:laugh:


----------



## Jaze63ford

In the days of the dinosaur I used a tone generator.. It was great for doing "mini" tone sweeps and it covers more frequencies.. But you can set an RTA mic. in your "head" position and get amplitude readings that are usually more accurate than your ears perceive.. Of course this new found focus comes at the cost of the passenger.... You will hear them say "She is right in front of me" To which you will reply "you are just hearing it wrong" Hehe.. Anyway... I used to start with level setting with EQ bypassed get that close with your RTA on a mic. stand in the center of the car centered between driver and passenger ears.. flatten out the overall curve.(which will sound kind of lame) then do some tone sweeps and repeatedly change seats.. of course long periods of listening will bring on fatigue that will ruin all of your work but that's another discussion.. after working through the tones this way you will find the stage wont be so compressed on the side you did all the tuning from and will in fact work better for both listeners.. It may seem I am over simplifying the whole deal but this is where the tough part comes.. make it actually sound nice... make it sound like real instruments and people singing or talking or whatever.. I was fortunate to be able to sit in some of the very best sound quality cars ever built and even tuned a couple of world champions myself... But I have yet to hear a system that does it all... As an IASCA judge I could quickly point out problem areas in most systems.. or even welcome surprises in different layouts.. Take some time seeing live musicians play.. Not Metallica.. Like a small jazz performance.. sit in the best seat and really listen.. Also..a true quality pair of home audio speakers is where you learn humility... When you are done tweaking if they work and sound like those... You did it.


----------



## myhikingboots

sub'd


----------



## therapture

I played with this method a whole lot yesterday...I can definitely center the image, but I lost some of the "impact" of the midbass. I still have PLENTY of output, but the snap is not there on the kickdrum, etc. I want my snap back! I LOVE the way the doors dig deep though, if I can just regain the impact. My Imagine 6.5's are highpassed at 75hz-24db linkwitz with the sub on a 65hz lowpass but at 36db. I have solid integration and upfront bass.

I have a VERY strong left side 160hz band, and to balance it left to right, I have to cut left eq ~8-10 db and boost right side @2db. This does not seem right at all, that's a HUGE change. Not to mention the big cut affects the neighboring bands alot, using a q of 4 currently, does that need to be LARGER numerically for a steeper q?

I will be back to the tuning game tonight. I have my original curve saved, it has plenty of midbass impact, and I am using that as a baseline setting. I need to work on TA more to center up better.

Also the 250-315 range is being cut 3-4 db on the left side.


----------



## pocket5s

therapture said:


> I played with this method a whole lot yesterday...I can definitely center the image, but I lost some of the "impact" of the midbass. I still have PLENTY of output, but the snap is not there on the kickdrum, etc. I want my snap back! I LOVE the way the doors dig deep though, if I can just regain the impact. My Imagine 6.5's are highpassed at 75hz-24db linkwitz with the sub on a 65hz lowpass but at 36db. I have solid integration and upfront bass.
> 
> I have a VERY strong left side 160hz band, and to balance it left to right, I have to cut left eq ~8-10 db and boost right side @2db. This does not seem right at all, that's a HUGE change. Not to mention the big cut affects the neighboring bands alot, using a q of 4 currently, does that need to be LARGER numerically for a steeper q?
> 
> I will be back to the tuning game tonight. I have my original curve saved, it has plenty of midbass impact, and I am using that as a baseline setting. I need to work on TA more to center up better.
> 
> Also the 250-315 range is being cut 3-4 db on the left side.


sounds like you need to level match the left and right sides first. i.e. bring the left side as a whole. Not sure about your dsp, but mine (bitone) allows me to adjust output levels per channel, so I can bring down the level of the left to match the right, then go about doing the fine tweaking like this method mentions.


----------



## subwoofery

therapture said:


> I played with this method a whole lot yesterday...I can definitely center the image, but I lost some of the "impact" of the midbass. I still have PLENTY of output, but the snap is not there on the kickdrum, etc. I want my snap back! I LOVE the way the doors dig deep though, if I can just regain the impact. My Imagine 6.5's are highpassed at 75hz-24db linkwitz with the sub on a 65hz lowpass but at 36db. I have solid integration and upfront bass.
> 
> I have a VERY strong left side 160hz band, and to balance it left to right, I have to cut left eq ~8-10 db and boost right side @2db. This does not seem right at all, that's a HUGE change. Not to mention the big cut affects the neighboring bands alot, using a q of 4 currently, does that need to be LARGER numerically for a steeper q?
> 
> I will be back to the tuning game tonight. I have my original curve saved, it has plenty of midbass impact, and I am using that as a baseline setting. I need to work on TA more to center up better.
> 
> Also the 250-315 range is being cut 3-4 db on the left side.


It has been a really long time since I've read this thread but I don't think you've done it the right way... 
You're supposed to cut and boost by the same amount in order to center freqs... L -4dB / R +4dB ----- or ----- L +7dB / R -7dB

Kelvin


----------



## therapture

pocket5s said:


> sounds like you need to level match the left and right sides first. i.e. bring the left side as a whole. Not sure about your dsp, but mine (bitone) allows me to adjust output levels per channel, so I can bring down the level of the left to match the right, then go about doing the fine tweaking like this method mentions.




I can indeed adjust output per channel. In fact, I initially had the left side down 2db as a whole. I will be trying again tonight and see if I get better at it.


----------



## therapture

subwoofery said:


> It has been a really long time since I've read this thread but I don't think you've done it the right way...
> You're supposed to cut and boost by the same amount in order to center freqs... L -4dB / R +4dB ----- or ----- L +7dB / R -7dB
> 
> Kelvin


Yes, I did that mostly, but that frequency was LOUD, and if I only cut the left side 3db, I would need to raise the right 3db, I thought that was too far?

I am going to retune tonight and implicitly follow the guidelines....I will report back.


----------



## therapture

Any idea why my midbass impact dropped?


----------



## subwoofery

Well, focus on 1 thing first: centering frequencies 

You can always work on tonality later on 

Kelvin


----------



## subwoofery

therapture said:


> Any idea why my midbass impact dropped?


Because you've been changing the tonality... You lowered a couple of freqs that had an impact on the overall impression of your system. 

Kelvin


----------



## therapture

subwoofery said:


> Because you've been changing the tonality... You lowered a couple of freqs that had an impact on the overall impression of your system.
> 
> Kelvin


Understood. I know that midbass impact is not all in the bass range.

Would it be...acceptable...to cut the whole left side by say, 2-3db, to ease up on the cuts in the left EQ, then start the centering process?

I also need to find some individual pink noise tones, the ones in the link on the first page are 3 to a track, and they only last 10 seconds each, very troublesome to have to FF and RW to keep on the same frequency long enough to dial in the ranges...


----------



## therapture

Update: GREAT news!

I started fresh and used test tones AND pink noise and followed the guidelines for cutting and boosting LH-RH levels. I would use the test tones to get close, then use the pink noise to fine tune. Actually ended up cutting the RIGHT side level by 1.5 db. I ended up cutting alot of the bands on the left up until I got to the 1250hz and up, at which point that strong right tweeter needed some cutting to level it out. The curve is not as whacky as it was before on either band, and I was able to avoid having huge cuts/boosts in relation to neighboring frequencies, so the overall EQ curves are smoother and not so "city scape" looking, which resulted in good tonality.

Vocals are locking into the center now, and as a performer moves around a stage, I can follow the voice with my ears. Fantastic! Midbass and sub-bass are firmly anchored slightly lower, above the head unit, while the higher end stuff floats just above the dash and it definitely widened the soundstage at the same time.

*AND, I kept my midbass impact!* I am very excited right now, but after a 1.5hr tune and jam session to verify settings, my ears are tired, and I stopped for the night. Thank you all for the help, this is a bad ass forum, so much better than those "all i want is bass" other car audio forums.


edit: and whoever thought SQ could not be loud, is dead wrong. I don't know what SPL I am hitting (nor do I care actually), but it gets loud enough to please my old SPL tendencies, but it stays TIGHT and CLEAR.


----------



## therapture

I re-ran all my testing tones, some more music, and made some changes as needed. I worked the 1/3 octave pink noise bands over, using the balance of the HU to check for center by moving it left or right 1 increment, then I pause the track and make adjustments to the EQ, and then continue. Then at the end I ran through all the tracks from bottom to top, and I have my center image getting very close to vertical across the range.


I had a *BA-ZING!* moment last night. I had worked on the bands, and popped in my new ZZ Top Greatest Hits. Whoa...the detail and focus knocked me out. Drum panning, vocals, bass guitar, lead, amazing, all of it. I just can't say enough how well this method works for us "ear tuners". I made a tiny adjustment in the right TA to move the image slightly right and get some of the low midbass out of my right knee area.


----------



## win1

Sub'd great info


----------



## sbaumbaugh

You could try using Audacity to generate tones at the various frequencies at desired lengths.

It will also generate correlated pink noise.

Save it...
Burn it...

Also, it takes a very skilled listener to do this by ear alone.

That being said, I would also check this if possible using a mic and REW or some other type of software...

You would then be able to see what you can hear.

You definitely don't want to boost a null...

A boost of 3 db requires 2x the power to achieve...


----------



## sqnut

subwoofery said:


> It has been a really long time since I've read this thread but I don't think you've done it the right way...
> You're supposed to cut and boost by the same amount in order to center freqs... L -4dB / R +4dB ----- or ----- L +7dB / R -7dB
> 
> Kelvin


I do it differently. Let's say 160hz is ~6db louder from the right, where I sit. So I can set L 0 / R -6 at the eq but for 160 I would probably set this at -3/-9. Simply because 160hz is typically a problem frequency and excess of 160 and 200 makes the sound boomy. The -3 kinda defines how I'm setting 160 relative to the other frequencies and the -9 tells me difference between L/R. 

100hz is 5db louder on the right. But 100/125hz has a lot of punch and energy in the midbass. I typically like this a little higher than whats around it. So I'd probably set 100hz -1/-6, and so on. I'm kinda setting a rough overall HC even as I'm balancing for L/R. Of course, once I'm done balancing L/R I will come back and tune for tonality, where I will cut/raise both sides of a frequency by the same amt for better tonality. 

On my eq there is no frequency for either side that is set > 0. Everything is cut. Within that, what I want boosted eg 1khz is cut less overall while balancing. Frequencies where I need a deep cut eg 160, 1.6, 4khz etc, are cut more for both sides while balancing.


----------



## subwoofery

sqnut said:


> I do it differently. Let's say 160hz is ~6db louder from the right, where I sit. So I can set L 0 / R -6 at the eq but for 160 I would probably set this at -3/-9. Simply because 160hz is typically a problem frequency and excess of 160 and 200 makes the sound boomy. The -3 kinda defines how I'm setting 160 relative to the other frequencies and the -9 tells me difference between L/R.
> 
> 100hz is 5db louder on the right. But 100/125hz has a lot of punch and energy in the midbass. I typically like this a little higher than whats around it. So I'd probably set 100hz -1/-6, and so on. I'm kinda setting a rough overall HC even as I'm balancing for L/R. Of course, once I'm done balancing L/R I will come back and tune for tonality, where I will cut/raise both sides of a frequency by the same amt for better tonality.
> 
> On my eq there is no frequency for either side that is set > 0. Everything is cut. Within that, what I want boosted eg 1khz is cut less overall while balancing. Frequencies where I need a deep cut eg 160, 1.6, 4khz etc, are cut more for both sides while balancing.


You know that 160Hz is 6dB louder on your right side because you're using an RTA. The method described in this thread is using your ears to center up frequencies... 
Your method is just different but the outcome and goal is supposed to be the same. 

For this thread, the method is center up frequencies by ear. Then you can tune for polarity with either your ears or an RTA  

Kelvin


----------



## sqnut

The way I balance for L/R would be the same whether I use the spl meter or my ears to centre the frequencies. 

My issue with the additive inverse way is that, one is boosting the overall response at all frequencies which are corrected. Goes against the basic tennet of cut before you boost. 

Frequencies that have the largest L/R imbalance would wind up being boosted the most, relative to the other frequencies in the pass band......so you would wind up with a balanced L/R but tonally you could be so out of whack that the average user who goes this route might struggle while trying to regain tonal balance. 

[edit] I'm not saying that the way mentioned in the thread is wrong / doesn't work. I haven't tried it. All I'm saying is that it sounds counter intuitive for reasons that I have mentioned. However, this is tuning and often there's more than one way to bell the cat. [edit]


----------



## therapture

I tried the boost/cut each side by the same amount initially, and finally went a different direction, I was never quite happy with that method as it seemed to make the right side too hot since it is more on axis with my head. 

I just followed my housecurve basic plan, then went by ear from there and balanced manually.

Now, I need to look at my current response that I am happy with, make a new housecurve that matches it closer, and fine tune it...


----------



## peenemunde

sub'd! sounds like my cup-o-tea


----------



## BigRed

Some frequencies using this method will not center no matter what. Another way to deal with those is using 31 band pink noise and listening to each side using the balance feature. The faster u can switch sides the easier it will be to determine amplitude the Rta will not give u what your ears do, especially at higher frequencies. 

Example: 6k seems off. Play 6k pink noise go hard left with it playing. Listen. Switch to hard right as quickly as possible. Do this a few times. Make adjustments accordingly 

Just my .02 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## subwoofery

BigRed said:


> Some frequencies using this method will not center no matter what. Another way to deal with those is using 31 band pink noise and listening to each side using the balance feature. The faster u can switch sides the easier it will be to determine amplitude the Rta will not give u what your ears do, especially at higher frequencies.
> 
> Example: 6k seems off. Play 6k pink noise go hard left with it playing. Listen. Switch to hard right as quickly as possible. Do this a few times. Make adjustments accordingly
> 
> Just my .02
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


That's exactly my method 

Kelvin


----------



## sqnut

I tune mostly by ear and these are a few things that work for me.

Most folks use the pink noise 1/3 octave tracks, measure with a mic and rta/app to get a flattish response, or a house curve, or look at cutting peaks etc. However you do it, once it is set go back and just listen to the tracks from 300-5khz and use your ears to judge if each frequency louder, softer or about equal to the preceding one. Do this a few times and make notes on each go. If you set this range about flat with the mic/rta, chances are the 1-3khz range will sound hotter and stand out. Our hearing is most sensitive in the 1-4khz range and if you use an rta to set say 600 and 1.2khz at the same level, when you hear the noise tracks, I can bet 1.2 sounds louder by a bit and more. In this range measured flat is not flat as perceived. 

Now try and cut the frequencies that are hotter and level it out by ear. Once you feel you have it leveled, do the jumping test. Listen to 500 then 800, 1.2khz, 2khz, 3khz etc. Then do 400, 600, 1khz, 1.6khz etc. Once you have it sounding level and if you measure, you will probably measure a dip in the ~1.2 khz-4khz range. Once this is done you have a good starting point. Now listen to music. If you find the sound dull and the vocals lacking clarity, try opening up the 500-1khz range a bit, you'll get the clarity/bite you want. If the sound gets thin, hollow or honky, you've gone too far. 

Next try opening opening out the 8-12khz range this is for overall brightness in the sound. It's like the brightness control in pic editing programs. You want to have the right balance between the 500-1khz and 8-12khz range. If the sound gets over bright, brittle, a bit screechy, you've over cooked the top end. Once you have got it dialed in 90% and you still feel the need for that little extra, then go back and play in the 1-5khz range in tiny increments. At the end of it you should have a sound that is still a wip but very different (hopefully much better ) than what you had with rta flat. 

Once you get the base in place you're tuning based on how it sounds not so much how it measures. Pick a couple of well recorded cd's and go back and forth between your car and a good ref setup, either a decent 2ch at home or flac files with good cans. You're tuning for tonality so keep picking on what sounds wrong in the car instead of thinking about what sounds right. 

The other thing I aim for is a smooth transition in the xover zone. In a two way, a lot of people will cross mid and tweet in the 2-4khz range. Which is our most sensitive range. So peaks and dips are going to stand out a lot more in this range. Smooth to me means not only overall FR but more importantly a smooth transition from one set of drivers to the next. But you need to be able to eq each driver separately to do this. 

I have my setup crossed at 3.15khz. I will typically take an octave above and below as the transition zone. I'll play only the mids and listen to the frequency tracks from 1.6khz to ~5khz playing only the mids. I'm listening for a smooth roll off from ~2.5-4khz and then I'll use the eq to make progressively steeper cuts via the eq in addition to what the slope is doing. It's a combination of the slope you use and the eq. Then I'll play only the tweets and again do the 1.6-5khz range. Below 1.6 I'm going to cut the eq on tweet by max and use the eq and slope to allow a gentle rise from 1.6 to about 2.5 and then let the tweet gallop from about 4khz on. Listen to music see if the transition is better. You want the transition range to be smooth and effortless. 

If I need to cut a frequency in this transition zone for overall response, you should keep in mind where the bulk of the cut will be applied i.e. to the mid or tweet or if it's to be distributed equally.


----------



## Libertyguy20

sqnut said:


> I tune mostly by ear and these are a few things that work for me.
> o
> Most folks use the pink noise 1/3 octave tracks, measure with a mic and rta/app to get a flattish response, or a house curve, or look at cutting peaks etc. However you do it, once it is set go back and just listen to the tracks from 300-5khz and use your ears to judge if each frequency louder, softer or about equal to the preceding one. Do this a few times and make notes on each go. If you set this range about flat with the mic/rta, chances are the 1-3khz range will sound hotter and stand out. Our hearing is most sensitive in the 1-4khz range and if you use an rta to set say 600 and 1.2khz at the same level, when you hear the noise tracks, I can bet 1.2 sounds louder by a bit and more. In this range measured flat is not flat as perceived.
> 
> Now try and cut the frequencies that are hotter and level it out by ear. Once you feel you have it leveled, do the jumping test. Listen to 500 then 800, 1.2khz, 2khz, 3khz etc. Then do 400, 600, 1khz, 1.6khz etc. Once you have it sounding level and if you measure, you will probably measure a dip in the ~1.2 khz-4khz range. Once this is done you have a good starting point. Now listen to music. If you find the sound dull and the vocals lacking clarity, try opening up the 500-1khz range a bit, you'll get the clarity/bite you want. If the sound gets thin, hollow or honky, you've gone too far.
> 
> Next try opening opening out the 8-12khz range this is for overall brightness in the sound. It's like the brightness control in pic editing programs. You want to have the right balance between the 500-1khz and 8-12khz range. If the sound gets over bright, brittle, a bit screechy, you've over cooked the top end. Once you have got it dialed in 90% and you still feel the need for that little extra, then go back and play in the 1-5khz range in tiny increments. At the end of it you should have a sound that is still a wip but very different (hopefully much better ) than what you had with rta flat.
> 
> Once you get the base in place you're tuning based on how it sounds not so much how it measures. Pick a couple of well recorded cd's and go back and forth between your car and a good ref setup, either a decent 2ch at home or flac files with good cans. You're tuning for tonality so keep picking on what sounds wrong in the car instead of thinking about what sounds right.
> 
> The other thing I aim for is a smooth transition in the xover zone. In a two way, a lot of people will cross mid and tweet in the 2-4khz range. Which is our most sensitive range. So peaks and dips are going to stand out a lot more in this range. Smooth to me means not only overall FR but more importantly a smooth transition from one set of drivers to the next. But you need to be able to eq each driver separately to do this.
> 
> I have my setup crossed at 3.15khz. I will typically take an octave above and below as the transition zone. I'll play only the mids and listen to the frequency tracks from 1.6khz to ~5khz playing only the mids. I'm listening for a smooth roll off from ~2.5-4khz and then I'll use the eq to make progressively steeper cuts via the eq in addition to what the slope is doing. It's a combination of the slope you use and the eq. Then I'll play only the tweets and again do the 1.6-5khz range. Below 1.6 I'm going to cut the eq on tweet by max and use the eq and slope to allow a gentle rise from 1.6 to about 2.5 and then let the tweet gallop from about 4khz on. Listen to music see if the transition is better. You want the transition range to be smooth and effortless.
> 
> If I need to cut a frequency in this transition zone for overall response, you should keep in mind where the bulk of the cut will be applied i.e. to the mid or tweet or if it's to be distributed equally.


while I agree with most of what you said I do have one point of contention. my point isn't something that has never been discussed before on multiple threads. It's just something that I find valid to make sure that I hear the music as intended. 

well recorded music will have had been recorded with the 1-4K range in mind (since it is the most sensitive area at our ears). with that said most engineers will have already accounted for that perceived loudness and we'll have made cuts as needed. therefore, if we simply play pink noise tracks and alter the percieved loudness by (likely) cutting the 1-4k range further, when we then play back the well engineered song it will have double the cuts to the 1-4K range. therefore I do not suggest making the loudness of the 1-4 K range equal to the perceived loudness of all the other areas. while this technique will get you in the ballpark, you really need to visually see a frequency response and make a smooth transition. 

so again, if you were to your use your Eq to generate a smooth downward slope up top, it should and will appear brighter in the 1-4 k range when listening to pink noise; however, when you play the music (especially well recorded music) you will hear it as intended with better definition and tonality. Feel free to disagree.


----------



## sqnut

Libertyguy20 said:


> well recorded music will have had been recorded with the 1-4K range in mind (since it is the most sensitive area at our ears). with that said most engineers will have already accounted for that perceived loudness and we'll have made cuts as needed. therefore, if we simply play pink noise tracks and alter the percieved loudness by (likely) cutting the 1-4k range further, when we then play back the well engineered song it will have double the cuts to the 1-4K range. therefore I do not suggest making the loudness of the 1-4 K range equal to the perceived loudness of all the other areas. while this technique will get you in the ballpark, you really need to visually see a frequency response and make a smooth transition.


Yes, music is recorded keeping in mind our ears sensitivity. Which is precisely why I would never use an eq in my home setup. At home, I have the recording, the equipment and the environment (room). I don't need to eq for any of those. At home the room is just lending a character to the sound without intruding on the recording.

In a car I have the same recording, similar equipment and a unique, highly intrusive environment. One that is totally messing up the recording by the time it hits our ears. In a car, I'm not using the eq to correct the recording, I'm trying to correct what the environment is doing to it. The recorded 3-4 db dip in the 1-4 khz range, is suddenly full of 6-8db peaks thanks to combing and combing is just one of the many negative impacts of your environment. In the 1-4khz range your ears are most sensitive to peaks and dips across smaller changes of pitch, which is basically what combing is. Your brain process this as the entire range being much louder. An Rta flatish response in a car is going to make this range seem much louder. So too the -ve effects of your environment. 

Cars that give you the feeling of listening to music as if on a home setup, will all have some iteration of an overall FR decline from 20-20k. When you can get this ball park to work, how it measures is only giving a unique signature for your environment and install. Your focus is on getting it to sound more and more like your home setup.


----------



## Libertyguy20

I'm simply saying that you should not tune to the equal loudness curve and if you tune by ear with 1/3 octave pink noise bands you will more closely accomplish that type of curve than say a generally accepted house curve (ie Andy curve). they will have similar characteristics of course. my target curve is similar to Andy's curve but your previous post was making it sound like you suggested treating the 1-4K range differently because our ears are most sensitive there. of course you should take out any peaks that you need to take out and of course those peaks in a car audio environment will likely be exasperated, but that doesn't mean however that you try to make the loudness equal with pink noise. As I mentioned, you'll be in the ballpark, but your lose some detail. I personally use pink noise bands for imaging and staging but I only do that once I have already set the general tonality via an RTA (to a target curve) and crtical listening. Pink noise bands for tonality...not as accurate imho...but perhaps a starting point...especially if no RTA is present.


----------



## sqnut

If you follow Andys curve, that rolls off around 1khz as well. I never suggested that you set tonality with pink noise tracks. Tonality is set by ear, period. 1-4khz is treated differently cause it is rolled off, in Andys curve, in my FR and it should be in yours too if you follow Andys curve. So whats your point?


----------



## Libertyguy20

if you were not saying that you suggested using pink noise bands for tonality, then i have no point of contention....thought you were. Upon re-reading your original post it appears you were saying one method to reduce peaks is to use pink noise bands, which i agree with.


----------



## jperls

Ok...did this method (at least I think I did this method) this evening on my mid-woofers (will finish with tweeters tomorrow). What I did was burn two test CD's (one with frequencies for the mid-woofer and with frequencies for the tweeters so I didn't accidentally damage any speakers). I then muted all the other speakers except the one I was adjusting and made the adjustments on my EQ to where I thought the sound was coming from the center of the stage. I then repeated the process for the other speakers in the car.

I read through this thread and there was a constant reference to left and right EQs...this confused me slightly as from what I read, it seems that both left and right speakers were on at the same time and the EQs for those respective speakers was adjusted simultaneously...is this correct? 

I am just wondering if I did this incorrectly...but I will echo the OP's original reaction of "damn near greased my shorts" with regards to focusing the sound.

Suggestions on what I should do. This was after T/A and crossovers were done.


----------



## dumdum

jperls said:


> Ok...did this method (at least I think I did this method) this evening on my mid-woofers (will finish with tweeters tomorrow). What I did was burn two test CD's (one with frequencies for the mid-woofer and with frequencies for the tweeters so I didn't accidentally damage any speakers). I then muted all the other speakers except the one I was adjusting and made the adjustments on my EQ to where I thought the sound was coming from the center of the stage. I then repeated the process for the other speakers in the car.
> 
> I read through this thread and there was a constant reference to left and right EQs...this confused me slightly as from what I read, it seems that both left and right speakers were on at the same time and the EQs for those respective speakers was adjusted simultaneously...is this correct?
> 
> I am just wondering if I did this incorrectly...but I will echo the OP's original reaction of "damn near greased my shorts" with regards to focusing the sound.
> 
> Suggestions on what I should do. This was after T/A and crossovers were done.


They refer to left and right Eq’s because both sides are playing and you adjust both sides end at a time, so if you move one band up you move the opposite side of that band down, always opposites to move the perceived centre whichever way you require it to go


----------



## jperls

dumdum said:


> They refer to left and right Eq’s because both sides are playing and you adjust both sides end at a time, so if you move one band up you move the opposite side of that band down, always opposites to move the perceived centre whichever way you require it to go


Oh...ok I am new to this...looks like I need to re-do this entirely...should be fun.


----------



## jperls

So I re-did the EQ the correct way and its just amazing. However for it to truly be done properly, I believe I need more bands per channel (already have 31) because there are some frequencies that I could not get at since I ran out of bands to use (or I have done something wrong). Anyone in the Sacramento CA area want to help me out?

Edit: and leave it to the Zapco app to just delete the entire tune for no reason...back to square 1...CRAP


----------



## Vx220

jperls said:


> So I re-did the EQ the correct way and its just amazing. However for it to truly be done properly, I believe I need more bands per channel (already have 31) because there are some frequencies that I could not get at since I ran out of bands to use (or I have done something wrong). Anyone in the Sacramento CA area want to help me out?
> 
> Edit: and leave it to the Zapco app to just delete the entire tune for no reason...back to square 1...CRAP


LOL I feel your pain! I had good results doing this as best I could with a Pioneer DEH80PRS, not perfect but good. Then upgraded to a P99RS for the 31 bands and got closer still, but it showed me the true value of parametric EQ to get to those "in-between" bands!


----------



## bass_lover1

Well after being out of the game for a few years I'm back in it a little bit and getting my G35 up to an acceptable level.

I tried this last night, after reading about it years ago (I never did install that DQXS I had lying around forever), and giving it a shot with my Kicker IQ DSP. 

Holy balls I've never had a sound stage so high and so centered. I'm sure I need to make a bit more adjustments but my ears were fatiguing and I called it a day.


In addition to that, I found a few places I need to deaden/foam/mlv....still a bit of rattle/resonance left in my doors. I'm sure fixing that would require some readjustments to the DSP.


----------



## High Resolution Audio

FoxPro5 said:


> Rainbow Profi Kickbass. Doors. 80-250hz
> Lotus 4's. Kicks (still not done) about 30* off axis. 3.15-2.5k
> RT27f's. A pillar crossfiring exactly at each other. 3.15k and up
> 
> I learned this from Marv and he learned it from Cmusic on ECA IIRC.
> 
> I made the CD, but you can DL it here: http://www.box.net/shared/xsbbpejpkz
> 
> You know what, that's exactly how I felt! What have I created?!?


Cool, thanks for sharing!!!


----------



## jperls

OK...re-did the "base tune" after dropping my tweeter crossover from 5k to 2700 (Fs is 1200...doubled would be 2400...I add 300hz for safety net). 

So stupid question, when using this centering method...is it done on top of the base tune (meaning do the adjustments to the base tune), or is this done as a separate tune in its entirely?


----------



## Bayboy

jperls said:


> OK...re-did the "base tune" after dropping my tweeter crossover from 5k to 2700 (Fs is 1200...doubled would be 2400...I add 300hz for safety net).
> 
> 
> 
> So stupid question, when using this centering method...is it done on top of the base tune (meaning do the adjustments to the base tune), or is this done as a separate tune in its entirely?


Legit question. I've done it both ways, base curve before & after, and stand alone. Can't say for sure if there's a right or wrong here because of the fact that this method mainly uses your ears unlike base curves. Still, it's important to use both IMO, but you can save each method result in a preset and compare for yourself. 

Man & Machine... Power Extreme!


----------



## pocket5s

jperls said:


> OK...re-did the "base tune" after dropping my tweeter crossover from 5k to 2700 (Fs is 1200...doubled would be 2400...I add 300hz for safety net).
> 
> So stupid question, when using this centering method...is it done on top of the base tune (meaning do the adjustments to the base tune), or is this done as a separate tune in its entirely?


I personally do it after the base tune as a fine tuning tool. I don't use some predefined curve per se, but after the basics of XO, TA/phasing and general shaping, this type of tuning is getting down to the details, IMO. What it really does is tighten up the imaging and focus, so if the other stuff is off, particularly ta and phase, the benefits won't be as apparent.


----------



## tonynca

I noticed that a sine wave would bounce all over the car and it's hard to listen to where it's centered. 

I'm having better luck using REW's tone generator and doing the CEA-2010 bursts.

Sine is good for leveling volume and finding those nasty 2-4khz frequencies though. I was able to do that today with some good results.


----------

