# Definition of “Sound Quality” inspired by IASCA



## bobditts (Jul 19, 2006)

Definition - Sound quality is the ability to *accurately *reproduce the music as the recording artist originally intended it. 

Example – if you are at a large concert venue, and there is a single person on the center of the stage playing a constant tone of B flat and it is recorded properly. You then take that recording and play it in your car. Your sound system (to qualify as a sound quality setup) should be able to accurately reproduce that sound and make it appear as if you never left the concert venue. It should not sound like a trumpet with a little extra midbass or a little extra top end. It should sound EXACTLY the same.

This might not be the definition that you agree with, BUT this is the definition that IASCA judges on.


----------



## ClinesSelect (Apr 16, 2006)

bobditts said:


> Definition - Sound quality is the ability to accurately reproduce the music as the recording artist originally intended it.
> 
> Example – if you are at a large concert venue, and there is a single person on the center of the stage playing a constant tone of B flat and it is recorded properly. *You then take that recording and play it in your car. Your sound system (to qualify as a sound quality setup) should be able to accurately reproduce that sound and make it appear as if you never left the concert venue. *It should not sound like a trumpet with a little extra midbass or a little extra top end. It should sound EXACTLY the same.
> 
> This might not be the definition that you agree with, BUT this is the definition that IASCA judges on.


If that is the standard, how many points do you lose for reproducing the recording in stereo?


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

That could require a lot of tweaking, then, to get the crappy recordings of today to sound like a concert. I never thought that was even the studio engineer's goal.


----------



## Hillbilly SQ (Jan 26, 2007)

i can agree with this method and it's the sole reason i'm so picky with how something sounds. i don't know how many systems i've heard that just didn't sound like a real instrument. sure it sounded fine with the rap played on the radio but you get my drift. i have a cd that will tell you real quick if a system is truly good or a trainwreck. stuck it into the stock system in a friends tahoe and it didn't even try to accurately reproduce it lol...the rippingtons-weekend in monaco.


----------



## Hillbilly SQ (Jan 26, 2007)

MarkZ said:


> That could require a lot of tweaking, then, to get the crappy recordings of today to sound like a concert. I never thought that was even the studio engineer's goal.


also agree with this. that's why straight up tonality with decent staging as a bonus is a goal that's far more realistic than trying to get perfect staging.


----------



## bobditts (Jul 19, 2006)

MarkZ said:


> That could require a lot of tweaking, then, to get the crappy recordings of today to sound like a concert. I never thought that was even the studio engineer's goal.


 
thats why I said the trumpeter was recorded "properly". ofcourse it will never be perfect, but should still be believable.


----------



## michaelsil1 (May 24, 2007)

I would love my system to accurately reproduce, however, it falls short. 

I do the best I can tuning with an RTA, going back to the install so I don't have to EQ if at all possible, listening and retuning again.


----------



## Jethro (Jun 14, 2007)

Hmmm.... I somehow expected _a soundstage at ankle height_ to be part of the definition...


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

bobditts said:


> thats why I said the trumpeter was recorded "properly". ofcourse it will never be perfect, but should still be believable.


Right. But my point was that in order to make it sound "believable", you often have to depart from how the recording engineer intended.

In other words, reproducing the recording as it was intended & emulating a realistic performance are often two COMPLETELY different things.


----------



## michaelsil1 (May 24, 2007)

MarkZ said:


> Right. But my point was that in order to make it sound "believable", you often have to depart from how the recording engineer intended.
> 
> In other words, reproducing the recording as it was intended & emulating a realistic performance are often two COMPLETELY different things.


Also what the recording engineer intended and the master might be two different animals.


----------



## matt62485 (Jun 7, 2008)

if i only had the money to do things like i really want so i could compete lol


----------



## dejo (Jan 3, 2006)

money is the point that iasca leaves out of the rules book, but it is there in reality.


----------



## bobditts (Jul 19, 2006)

money is not an object to start competing. The rookie class is very simple and the rules are very easy. Rookie class focuses primarily on the sound and not so much on the install. But we digress...


Going back to the recording quality conversation.... that is why its so important to get high quality test cds and tune your system accordingly as opposed to tuning your system to a regular cd of a rock band/jazz band/etc


----------



## dejo (Jan 3, 2006)

I know that the rookie class is pretty straight forward but the other classes seem to be more money geared for no reason, or at least somewhat that way. who cares if you have some exotic materials in the install, how does that equate to sound quality.


----------



## rockondon (Jan 18, 2008)

dejo said:


> I know that the rookie class is pretty straight forward but the other classes seem to be more money geared for no reason, or at least somewhat that way. who cares if you have some exotic materials in the install, how does that equate to sound quality.


Agree. It has gotten too much BLING BLING and look at all my TVs.
Just my .02

And congratulations bobditts on your going the extra to help further education of this hobby.


----------



## bobditts (Jul 19, 2006)

dejo said:


> I know that the rookie class is pretty straight forward but the other classes seem to be more money geared for no reason, or at least somewhat that way. who cares if you have some exotic materials in the install, how does that equate to sound quality.


 
IASCA doesnt care about exotic materials. The installation judging is mostly about safety and proper installation. Anything else is just a bonus. IASCA has changed their points structure so that even if somoeone has a kickass install but their sound doesnt do as well, the person with the kickass SQ and a medocre install with still win.

But this has nothing to do with the definition of SQ. If you guys want to start a thread discussing the IASCA rules, feel free.


----------



## michaelsil1 (May 24, 2007)

bobditts said:


> But this has nothing to do with the definition of SQ.


Does SQ equate to no coloration whatsoever?

If this is the case I would think the driver would not have any distinctive character.


----------



## Neil (Dec 9, 2005)

If that is indeed the definition, can anyone explain why they judge using their ears?


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

bobditts said:


> Going back to the recording quality conversation.... that is why its so important to get high quality test cds and tune your system accordingly as opposed to tuning your system to a regular cd of a rock band/jazz band/etc


...maybe if you're competing. But if you're actually using the equipment to listen to music, rather than satisfy some insecure obsession, then your "test" CDs should be an assortment of program material that's representative of what you normally listen to.


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

MarkZ said:


> ...maybe if you're competing. But if you're actually using the equipment to listen to music, rather than satisfy some insecure obsession, then your "test" CDs should be an assortment of program material that's representative of what you normally listen to.


 
Agreed, fully. In fact, I'll go so far as to say that if IASCA would allow competitors to use their own music or a suggested playlist for judging, there might be more than 7 SQ competitors at events. Let's face it, how many people really want to subject themselves and their work to a critique of sound quality using a Rebecca Pidgeon song in which she mewls about being dissapointed by a jerk on a picnic?


----------



## Scott Buwalda (Apr 7, 2006)

^ LOL Nice.

Scott


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> Agreed, fully. In fact, I'll go so far as to say that if IASCA would allow competitors to use their own music or a suggested playlist for judging, there might be more than 7 SQ competitors at events. Let's face it, how many people really want to subject themselves and their work to a critique of sound quality using a Rebecca Pidgeon song in which she mewls about being dissapointed by a jerk on a picnic?





Scott Buwalda said:


> ^ LOL Nice.
> 
> Scott


lmao, x2.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

I think that definition leaves out the large part of audiophiles that prefer their setup to have a certain character. Anything that is warm, airy, or lively should loose a good amount of points. You lost over 50% of the crew right there.


----------



## bobditts (Jul 19, 2006)

I dont know if its just me but you guys are bringing up some silly points. Do you forget what IASCA is? It is a competition that is designed to help boost the sales of car audio equipment. Thats it. Its not around to make people feel good about their mediocre setups. Its about judging cars and giving suggestions on how to improve. Saying that it would be better to let people use their own recordings doesnt make any sense. How would that be fair at all? For a competition, you have to have the same musical standard across the board. 

For those of you who havent had the opportunity to listen to or even read the book that comes with the IASCA cd, it (in my eyes) is a very well put together disc. Certain tracks are used to test different things. For example, the superman song (planet krypton) is used to test tonal accuracy and spectral balance. other songs are used only for staging while other songs are used to test imaging. (side note, IASCA no longer does RTA/SPL testing). 

Going back to my statement about using the test cds to tune..... The idea behind this is that if you can tune your system to the best of its ability to a test CD and make it sound as realistic as possible, any other cd you play after that fine tuning will sound great (provided that it was recorded well). 

And to the member who made the comment about personal taste into your tuning..... You are confusing SQ with personal preference. If we were to be tested on our personal tastes, no one would win because there isnt a set standard. 

Im not saying that IASCA is 100% correct or that this is the way it should be. I am just trying to educate all of you how IASCA views SQ. If this is something you are interested in, great! If not, continue doing your own thing. As long as you are happy that is all that matters.


----------



## Neil (Dec 9, 2005)

bobditts said:


> For a competition, you have to have the same musical standard across the board.


You also have to have the same measurement standard across the board, which they don't and never have as far as I'm aware. Given the current setup, it makes just as much sense to let people use whatever tracks they want.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

bobditts said:


> And to the member who made the comment about personal taste into your tuning..... You are confusing SQ with personal preference. If we were to be tested on our personal tastes, no one would win because there isnt a set standard.


How do you set a standard with human ears? It is far more accurate to measure the setup with a mic for tonal balance and output. IASCA refuses to use this method per your statement, therefore it does favor some personal preference in judging. It's just an incongruence with the said definition and practice. IASCA obviously believes some departure from flat EQ is needed to get the maximum worth out of a setup.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

bobditts said:


> I dont know if its just me but you guys are bringing up some silly points. Do you forget what IASCA is? It is a competition that is designed to help boost the sales of car audio equipment. Thats it. Its not around to make people feel good about their mediocre setups. Its about judging cars and giving suggestions on how to improve. Saying that it would be better to let people use their own recordings doesnt make any sense. How would that be fair at all? For a competition, you have to have the same musical standard across the board.


And that's precisely the point that we're making. It's utterly absurd to suggest that there's such a thing as a "musical standard" with which to judge people's audio systems. That's the height of naivety. As I said originally, program material varies so widely that a one-size-fits-all approach is exactly how NOT to build an audio system. The only way you can approach the problem with that kind of design goal is if you define the "ideal" system as having a certain kind of transfer function given certain limitations (eg. flat response with a maximum of X dB). But that's *not* what SQ means to me, or apparently most people that have weighed in on this thread.



> Going back to my statement about using the test cds to tune..... The idea behind this is that if you can tune your system to the best of its ability to a test CD and make it sound as realistic as possible, any other cd you play after that fine tuning will sound great (provided that it was recorded well).


And that, Bob, is demonstrably false. Not all CDs are recorded with the same goals in mind. You even acknowledged this point earlier in the thread.



> And to the member who made the comment about personal taste into your tuning..... You are confusing SQ with personal preference. If we were to be tested on our personal tastes, no one would win because there isnt a set standard.


Ding ding ding!


----------



## Sassmastersq (Jan 12, 2007)

If you're bringing in a song that I've never heard before, then as a judge, how can I judge whether or not it is being reproduced correctly? how can I judge a source that I don't have a reference for? and if I'm judging on whether or not it sounds good, then my personal taste is way more of a factor than if I'm judging on whether or not it sounds correct based on having liner notes and having listened to the same tracks on many systems.

honestly, if you think that you should be able to bring in your own music, then go start your own organization. The only way that I can see people using different music is if the judge brings a disc with testing tracks for a sound off, we've done that before for a "top 10" event, and it went well, each judge brought a track they know well, and scored the systems on that.


----------



## Abmolech (Nov 2, 2006)

The use of an equaliser?
This has got to be a joke, for "sound quality". Move your head a little bit, and the equaliser settings are incorrect.
I am NOT suggesting people don't use an EQ (or its equivalent), but a two dimensional solution for a three dimensional problem makes very little sense.

Even worse, trying to use two channel stereo to reproduce music in a car, to any "SQ" standard is retarded.



Sound quality competitions are simply a hobby, they are just about worthless for use a "standard". Have fun, but don't fool yourself you have ever obtained stereophonic in a car.

Tested in a stationary vehicle makes very little or no sense.

Car audio, thirty years of proving stereophonic doesn't work in a car.


----------



## DS-21 (Apr 16, 2005)

bobditts said:


> I dont know if its just me but you guys are bringing up some silly points. Do you forget what IASCA is? It is a competition that is designed to help boost the sales of car audio equipment.


That is entirely correct, and why it utterly bores me. I hate to channel that feckless, looks-like-a-walrus thug John Bolton, but honestly if 90% of the car-fi industry disappeared tomorrow, would anyone who didn't work for any of those companies even notice?

The equipment offered by most car-fi suppliers today can't for the most part be judged on a scale that tops out higher than "mediocre." There are of course a few exceptions, such as the JBL WGTi subs, but they are very few and far between. 

Sure, one pretty much has to use some of it (amps, HUs, signal processors) unless one goes really esoteric. But beyond that stuff, why bother if one's goal is MZ's "actually using the equipment to listen to music?" 

But for "competition," obviously competitors who use sponsoring firms' gear and install it flashily are going to do better than people who seek out good equipment and install it well. Even if it's not in the rulebooks, it's in people's minds. Otherwise, IASCA's raison d'être vanishes.


----------



## Luke352 (Jul 24, 2006)

Sassmastersq said:


> If you're bringing in a song that I've never heard before, then as a judge, how can I judge whether or not it is being reproduced correctly? how can I judge a source that I don't have a reference for? and if I'm judging on whether or not it sounds good, then my personal taste is way more of a factor than if I'm judging on whether or not it sounds correct based on having liner notes and having listened to the same tracks on many systems.
> 
> honestly, if you think that you should be able to bring in your own music, then go start your own organization. The only way that I can see people using different music is if the judge brings a disc with testing tracks for a sound off, we've done that before for a "top 10" event, and it went well, each judge brought a track they know well, and scored the systems on that.


Agree completely, I do some judgeing with an organization in Aus, and the method we use in our state is that the Judges bring the music they want, it works well and we seem to get pretty consistent results. Because it shouldn't matter what music is used as long as the Judge knows it well, I don't listen to some of the Testing CD's out there so why should I judge with it, I can't even tune with some of them so how can I judge with them. The competitors in my mind shouldn't have a point of argument with this method since if there system is tuned correctly it should reproduce any music well and as it's intended.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

Sassmastersq said:


> If you're bringing in a song that I've never heard before, then as a judge, how can I judge whether or not it is being reproduced correctly? how can I judge a source that I don't have a reference for? and if I'm judging on whether or not it sounds good, then my personal taste is way more of a factor than if I'm judging on whether or not it sounds correct based on having liner notes and having listened to the same tracks on many systems.


I agree with you, and I think you've pointed out why "SQ competitions" cannot possibly work while still maintaining any notion of "sound quality", which is a subjective characteristic.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

So, what? We're arguing that SQ comps aren't "real" because everyone listens to music differently?

I don't compete, and it's obvious to me that a judge needs 'familiar' material, and yes, your putting your faith into a judge's ears. This seems to be the argument; faith in the judges. As much as I'd like to think I know what to listen for, I'm confident that the judges are better suited for this task. I have no issues with putting my trust there, and if I don't like what they have to say I don't have to follow their input. 


I'm on the fence here. I see both sides, but I think this may be getting blown out of proportion.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

Luke352 said:


> Because it shouldn't matter what music is used as long as the Judge knows it well,


Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. Wrong! 

All music is not created equally. Nor is it the same to begin with. Nor do the recording engineers, musicians, and everyone else involved in the production of the album have the same goals or vision as the next group. 

One type of music may very well benefit from a certain setup that would be completely unnecessary to reproduce another type of music. This is why, when people use subjective criteria to tailor their sound rather than some arbitrary objective standard (like "flat" transfer function), they often find themselves adjusting the equalizer or other sound-shaping tool from CD to CD.

There is NO SUCH THING as a one-size-fits-all audio system. Not if you listen at appreciable levels to a variety of music. Reproducing Barbara Streisand and Siamese Dream, for instance, are two very different endeavors. Imaging can be crucial in one recording and an afterthought in the minds of the engineers in another. Midrange power content can be overwhelming (and difficult to reproduce at appreciable levels) in one recording, and practically absent in another. The list is endless.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

Abmolech said:


> The use of an equaliser?
> This has got to be a joke, for "sound quality". Move your head a little bit, and the equaliser settings are incorrect.
> I am NOT suggesting people don't use an EQ (or its equivalent), but a two dimensional solution for a three dimensional problem makes very little sense.
> 
> ...


Can I add to this? 

Very little sense: two seat judging, different hight judges, too fat judges, too skinny judges, seat moved to lowest position for optimum stage hight - can't see above the steering wheel in a moving car, seat moved all the way back for more depth of stage - can't reach brake pedal. 

I'm taller, skinnier and have longer legs than the average driver = I ****ing win! 



DS-21 said:


> But for "competition," obviously competitors who use sponsoring firms' gear and install it flashily are going to do better than people who seek out good equipment and install it well. Even if it's not in the rulebooks, it's in people's minds. Otherwise, IASCA's raison d'être vanishes.


x2 I'm inclined to believe they are geared to "help boost sales of car audio equipment" per the op's observation. How many of us use 100% car audio equipment? I doubt the whole industry is supported too.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

bikinpunk said:


> So, what? We're arguing that SQ comps aren't "real" because everyone listens to music differently?
> 
> I don't compete, and it's obvious to me that a judge needs 'familiar' material, and yes, your putting your faith into a judge's ears. This seems to be the argument; faith in the judges. As much as I'd like to think I know what to listen for, I'm confident that the judges are better suited for this task. I have no issues with putting my trust there, and if I don't like what they have to say I don't have to follow their input.
> 
> ...


By definition, a judge does NOT know what suits your ears better than you do, unless you're completely inept. What he might be able to tell you, however, is what most people who consider themselves "SQ competitors" tend to prefer when listening to the same kind of music. But those preferences are pretty meaningless, unless you're either striving to emulate their tastes (ie. being a lemming), or your tastes just so happen to coincide with their listening preferences and musical tastes -- unlikely.

Come on, people. The reason most of us became interested in audio came from a passion for music, right? And I'd wager that people who are truly interested in music (and haven't lost sight of it by becoming preoccupied with a "hobby" of collecting shiny electronic things) will continue to listen to good music because it's good music, and not just because it's recorded in a manner that's consistent with notions of "SQ". Some listen to a lot of mainstream music, whether pop, rock, jazz, or whatever. Others listen to a lot of esoteric ****. Whatever floats your boat. But don't let that decision be influenced by what makes you feel good about the equipment you use. That's just plain retarded.

I'm not entirely against "SQ competitions". Like most industries, fields, or hobbies, it can be useful to come together with others who share your interests and exchange ideas. And if turning it into some pathetic attempt at sport adds interest or motivation, then fine, I suppose. But my sense is that this thread began as a sort of critique of the idea of an objective characterization of something that's individualistic and subjective, and so I think it's fair to question the so-called authority of IASCA definitions of "sound quality".


----------



## DS-21 (Apr 16, 2005)

MarkZ said:


> The reason most of us became interested in audio came from a passion for music, right? And I'd wager that people who are truly interested in music (and haven't lost sight of it by becoming preoccupied with a "hobby" of collecting shiny electronic things)...


Ha! That would be a whole lot funnier, alas, if it weren't so often true.



MarkZ said:


> I'm not entirely against "SQ competitions". Like most industries, fields, or hobbies, it can be useful to come together with others who share your interests and exchange ideas.


Exactly. After my first "competition" visit I got the feeling that it was a neat idea for people who work at shops to get together and blow off some steam from the tedium of "deck and four's" and "I want it to hit hard" and express some creativity/hone skills that might be useful should someone come in with a blank checkbook. And that's perfectly cool. It's just not that interesting for someone who doesn't spend all day every day doing the other stuff.


----------



## bobditts (Jul 19, 2006)

alright everyone. lets all take a breather.  True, there isnt a set in stone standard for judging SQ as many of you would like to see. But is it really even possible? How does one go about judging stage height, width, depth, tonality, and imaging with a tool that is 100% correct everytime? To my knowledge, such a device does not exist. 

Again, this thread was not started to become a debate thread, but rather to spread my knowledge of what I learned in the judges training. Its OK if you dont agree with it. No one is forcing you to compete IASCA. No need to start fighting.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

That's fine. I'm just pointing out that the definition and example you posed are inherently problematic, and that the whole concept behind "SQ judging" is fatally flawed.


----------



## Abmolech (Nov 2, 2006)

> But is it really even possible? How does one go about judging stage height, width, depth, tonality, and imaging with a tool that is 100% correct everytime? To my knowledge, such a device does not exist.


You may notice there entire bias towards "stereophonic".
Does two channel stereophonic have any ability to correct stage height?
Nope
Does two channel stereophonic have any ability to correct stage depth?
Depth is TOTALLY an illusion, and bears little or nothing in common with the original event.
Does two channel stereophonic have any ability to correct stage width?
Nope: it is set by the acoustic crosstalk in the recording. In a car you may notice that the width is "static", IE it does not move in and out, due to the various recordings. (One significant proof of panned monophonic listening)
For example, it should be very narrow if we have a single vocalist, and very wide if we are trying to replicate a full orchestra.
Does two channel stereophonic have any ability to correct tonality?
Nope, unless both the power and polar response are matched to two channels stereophonic requirements, the tonality varies with each head movement, and recording.

Best test.
Single monophonic centre. Lets see stereophonic beat that for tonality, stage height.
Clue it isn't in the game.


----------



## Luke352 (Jul 24, 2006)

MarkZ said:


> Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. Wrong!
> 
> All music is not created equally. Nor is it the same to begin with. Nor do the recording engineers, musicians, and everyone else involved in the production of the album have the same goals or vision as the next group.


Yes but as a Judge you would like to think I have the ability to choose appropriate music, I personally use a few different tracks generally to listen for certain things in each track, tonality in one, midbass in another etc..



> One type of music may very well benefit from a certain setup that would be completely unnecessary to reproduce another type of music.


Thats why I try to use a broad range of music not just the absolute boring rubbish they have on some test CD's, simple rule *If I can't tune with it, I can't Judge with it.*


I think any SQ enthusiast should go along/enter a comp or two at some point you never know you may learn something and enjoy it, it's annoying seeing people carry on about how they don't like the idea or think it's rubbish when they've never been to a comp. Try it you may enjoy it or shock horror learn some new tuning tricks etc..


----------



## dkh (Apr 2, 2008)

Abmolech said:


> You may notice there entire bias towards "stereophonic".
> Does two channel stereophonic have any ability to correct stage height?
> Nope


 


Abmolech said:


> Does two channel stereophonic have any ability to correct stage depth?
> Depth is TOTALLY an illusion, and bears little or nothing in common with the original event.


 


Abmolech said:


> Does two channel stereophonic have any ability to correct stage width?
> Nope: it is set by the acoustic crosstalk in the recording. In a car you may notice that the width is "static", IE it does not move in and out, due to the various recordings. (One significant proof of panned monophonic listening)
> For example, it should be very narrow if we have a single vocalist, and very wide if we are trying to replicate a full orchestra.


 


Abmolech said:


> Does two channel stereophonic have any ability to correct tonality?
> 
> Nope, unless both the power and polar response are matched to two channels stereophonic requirements, the tonality varies with each head movement, and recording.


 


Abmolech said:


> Best test.
> Single monophonic centre. Lets see stereophonic beat that for tonality, stage height.
> Clue it isn't in the game.


I've seen lots of people with one ear 
Do you ever get the feeling people are ignoring you? 

You just go on every forum you can post and spill this stuff about x amount of years and stereo still hasn't moved / learnt etc etc.

And?


----------



## Hillbilly SQ (Jan 26, 2007)

i know this question was probably on bobby's "dreaded" list when he started this thread but does anyone think there might be some "competitor bias" going on in the judging...as in a judge just happens to be best friends with the winner? i'm no judge, but i wouldn't hesitate to tell a good friend that their system is a trainwreck if i know they will take heed to what i said and improve it. i've said that to a very well respected forum member on here a couple times and each and every time i hear it it's a little (or a lot) better.

basically, all certified judges have different ideas on what sounds good and with imaging cues they can allow leadway but hopefully that's not the case. i'm not directing this at anyone. just throwing it out there for discussion.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

Luke352 said:


> Yes but as a Judge you would like to think I have the ability to choose appropriate music, I personally use a few different tracks generally to listen for certain things in each track, tonality in one, midbass in another etc..


But that's the entire point! What's "appropriate music" to you is nothing but an artifice.



> I think any SQ enthusiast should go along/enter a comp or two at some point you never know you may learn something and enjoy it, it's annoying seeing people carry on about how they don't like the idea or think it's rubbish when they've never been to a comp. Try it you may enjoy it or shock horror learn some new tuning tricks etc..


Then I think by the same token you need to pry yourself away from competitions for a while and enter the real world, where music is the goal, not arbitrary one-size-fits-all standards in an attempt to justify the existence of the industry in its current form.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

dkh said:


> I've seen lots of people with one ear
> Do you ever get the feeling people are ignoring you?
> 
> You just go on every forum you can post and spill this stuff about x amount of years and stereo still hasn't moved / learnt etc etc.
> ...


His post is absolutely 100% on-target in this thread. It's another example of the silliness behind the notion that "SQ" is an attempt to recreate the concert experience. It's ridiculous, especially considering that such a thing is never in the recording engineer's goals to begin with: stereo being the prime example.


----------



## Oliver (Jun 25, 2007)

All the vehicles i notice where I live go bump sizzz [is rap played at competions? ], got some definite contenders around here


----------



## dkh (Apr 2, 2008)

MarkZ said:


> His post is absolutely 100% on-target in this thread. It's another example of the silliness behind the notion that "SQ" is an attempt to recreate the concert experience. It's ridiculous, especially considering that such a thing is never in the recording engineer's goals to begin with: stereo being the prime example.


I disagree. Stereo is how the engineer recorded the music, unless of course it's mastered 5.1 or any other format.

I think the 'concert' experience is a side-note. The main issue is whether two channel setups (ie stereo) can recreate a musical experience - yes they can IMO.

Can they create depth? yes they can - in my experience as a listener.
Can they create a stage? again, yes they can in my experience as a listener.

Can you judge an install with a stereo CD? within set parameters yes.

Ears and the listening experience is a funny thing but, if the CD containing the information is produced at a good enough level, you can have x amount of people listen and tell you (on a good system) from where in the stage the various sounds are positioned. This is how SQ judging takes its cues - the other thing is timbre, can you tell whether a saxophone or a trombone is playing - yes you can.

More so, due to sounds being split in a multi-amped / multi-speaker system, does the sound of a particular instrument wonder or is it precisely located.

I think that this, what I have said above, is a given?

If you now add that IASCA (UK) like a bassy yet clinical sound - I'm with you as I have witnessed this first-hand.

EMMA, the European sound quality judging standar, on the other hand prefers warm, analogue sounding systems.

But, aside from this, both will tell you whether your stage is wide, deep, narrow etc etc and, from this point of view, no one I know has been told - go and buy x,y or z to improve the sound.

If you like being judged to or by a certain set criteria - get judged, if you just want your sytem to sound as you want it, don't go for competitions.


----------



## dkh (Apr 2, 2008)

MarkZ said:


> "SQ" is an attempt to recreate the musical experience.


Yeah  I like the sound of that edited version much better, it's how I would put it


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

dkh said:


> I disagree. Stereo is how the engineer recorded the music, unless of course it's mastered 5.1 or any other format.
> 
> I think the 'concert' experience is a side-note. The main issue is whether two channel setups (ie stereo) can recreate a musical experience - yes they can IMO.


I think you need to define your terms. You're using the term "musical experience" as a vague alternative to "concert", when many before you have been arguing that they're essentially the same. My point all along has indeed been that they're not the same, that engineers and musicians usually have goals that are different from recreating a concert, not only in terms of imaging and soundstage and other basically directional cues, but also in terms of tonality and dynamics.



> Can they create depth? yes they can - in my experience as a listener.
> Can they create a stage? again, yes they can in my experience as a listener.
> 
> Can you judge an install with a stereo CD? within set parameters yes.


*If* the installation was designed to mimic these parameters. I can give you a list of the ten albums I listen to most frequently, and I guarantee you that their "depth", imaging, tonality, and whatever other parameter you want to use are completely different from one another, and probably different from a set of ten that you choose. So what goal, then, do we choose when building the audio system to reproduce our favorite music? Do we use your albums as a template or mine?



> Ears and the listening experience is a funny thing but, if the CD containing the information is produced at a good enough level, you can have x amount of people listen and tell you (on a good system) from where in the stage the various sounds are positioned.


Well, that sort of dog and pony trick first requires that you choose a musical program in which that was one of the engineer's goals.



> This is how SQ judging takes its cues - the other thing is timbre, can you tell whether a saxophone or a trombone is playing - yes you can.


Let me ask you a question, and I'd like an honest answer. Whenever I discuss these sorts of things with people on the internet, they almost always use instruments like trombones, clarinets, and violins as examples of instruments that can be picked out rather easily in a "well-installed" system. Do you primarily listen to music with saxophones and trombones? There's nothing wrong with that, of course, but I really find it hard to believe that everybody in here who discusses "SQ" actually listens to clarinets all day.

I think it's yet another example of people redefining their musical tastes to serve some sort of sorry attempt at an objective criterion for "SQ". I'm not saying it applies to you, but the others...you know who you are. 



> If you like being judged to or by a certain set criteria - get judged, if you just want your sytem to sound as you want it, don't go for competitions.


What happens if you want both? Do competitors have a competition car for competitions and then a daily driver that actually reproduces their music correctly, or do they just suffer through the competition car sound afraid to tweak anything to suit their personal tastes?


----------



## dkh (Apr 2, 2008)

Nice replies.

I personally listen to all sorts of music, ranging from classical (international) through a little pop to rock, jazz, country (again international) blues etc.

I think why people use saxophone or strings etc is because a lot of people know how they sound unlike a santoor or mandolin.

If your installation can reproduce what can be imitated in x number of systems then (from my understanding) it should be producing close to how the music was intended to be listened to (not forgetting we're talking about all the limitations of stereo etc here) so, a competition setup should play all types of music pretty accurately without bias towards any one frequency.

My experience of producing (engineering) an album or CD is that you use two speakers (not a image in your head) to try and balance the sound so that no frequency is dominating - most good engineers try not to pan sounds unless they're working on very poor recordings or they're trying to add an effect.
Then, this mix is played through a set of home audio type speakers to ensure it still sounds neutral.

It is true that musicians actually move around on stage rather than standing still but, since what they're playing comes out of two sets of speakers (again) for the concert audience, they will hear a (unfortunately) stereo experience.


----------



## dkh (Apr 2, 2008)

MarkZ said:


> *If* the installation was designed to mimic these parameters.


I think your taking the mimic'ing of parameters to an un-realistic level.



MarkZ said:


> What happens if you want both? Do competitors have a competition car for competitions and then a daily driver that actually reproduces their music correctly, or do they just suffer through the competition car sound afraid to tweak anything to suit their personal tastes?


Have you ever competed? Or, are you from the school of 'this is this and that is that' ?

Most SQ cars have two settings - one for stationary listening and one for 'on the move'.

I'm sure you know why.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

dkh said:


> If your installation can reproduce what can be imitated in x number of systems then (from my understanding) it should be producing close to how the music was intended to be listened to (not forgetting we're talking about all the limitations of stereo etc here) so, a competition setup should play all types of music pretty accurately without bias towards any one frequency.


And this is exactly the problem I was talking about, when you approach the issue with an objective standard in mind (ie. "flat" transfer function) rather than the desire to please one's own cerebrum. 

By the way, "the way the artist intended" sometimes sucks (and is often not truly the way the _artist _intended).



> My experience of producing (engineering) an album or CD is that you use two speakers (not a image in your head) to try and balance the sound so that no frequency is dominating - most good engineers try not to pan sounds unless they're working on very poor recordings or they're trying to add an effect.


I can give you a mile long list of CDs where the engineer apparently disagrees with your strategy for producing an album. That doesn't make you wrong and it doesn't make them wrong. Just be aware that there are differences, and unless we're going to throw away hours and hours of music just because it doesn't make us feel good about our audio installation, then they're differences that we'll have to deal with.



> It is true that musicians actually move around on stage rather than standing still but, since what they're playing comes out of two sets of speakers (again) for the concert audience, they will hear a (unfortunately) stereo experience.


Having two speakers does not make stereo. 

And, at a live gig, unless you're standing in a "sweet spot", or unless the room's acoustics have been exquisitely designed, then you're gonna get the very same imbalances that you spend so much time eliminating in your recordings. Some of us in this forum actually spend a great deal of time listening to amplified music. I'd wager that even more are in the closet about it, despite them raving about the tonality of the xylophone on track 6.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

dkh said:


> Have you ever competed? Or, are you from the school of 'this is this and that is that' ?


When I choose to compete with people, it's usually in the form of real sport or intellectual curiosity.

If you're asking if I've ever been to a competition, yes I have. I've also been to the circus.




> Most SQ cars have two settings - one for stationary listening and one for 'on the move'.
> 
> I'm sure you know why.


Yeah, one's to test well and the other is to make an attempt at personal enjoyment -- which usually never actually comes from the music, because the sort that becomes obsessed with competing has usually lost sight of the music sometime after they found the power of the shiny electronic equipment and brand recognition.


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

Look, competing in IASCA is nothing more than getting all the points possible by following the rules precisely. Does that guarantee a great sounding car? Absolutely not. Is it possible to build a great sounding car by following the rules? Yes. 

If it's accuracy that is to be judged, then the SQ judging can be entirely objective, just like the installation judging--zip tie every 18", fuses that have to be installed even though they protect nothing and wire gauges that make no sense. I had a judge tell me that it was impossible for my system to work because I had used an 8 gauge instead of a 4-guage. If he had said, "the rules say it has to be 4 gauge. You lose points." that would have been credible. 

The reason the tracks on the test CD's suck is because they're free. Making an interesting recording isn't the same as making a good one. Recording a jazz quartet in the shower of a high school locker room migh present an interesting effect and the audiophile quack who writes the liner notes would be able to wax poetic about the venue and about how precisely it's reproduced, but the result for many listeners will be unimpressive. Saying, "Listen for the reflection from the tiled surfaces" won't be accessible for many people who have never heard live music in the shower of a high school locker room. 

If you use popular music as test music, the whole thing becomes more accessible and people can say, "Wow, i've never heard that song sound like that" instead of "Thank God I've never heard that song before and thank God i'll never hve to listen to that boring crap again."


----------



## tard (Jul 13, 2006)

i can agree with the standard. i know i like my set ups to sound as real and accurate as possible. if i get to be close to a sax player and i can about feel the air in my face, i want my system to be able to give me that same representation. i don't add in extra treble because i like a bright tweeter, or peg the subs because a slammin system in my preferance. i just like it to be true to the source. granted at times i make tweek it just to bring out certain things, but it goes right back. example is boosting up the subs on some hard fast metal where the double kick drums firing away really pound the heck out of me.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

tard said:


> example is boosting up the subs on some hard fast metal where the double kick drums firing away really pound the heck out of me.


You can't do that! That's not how the artist intended it!


----------



## Neil (Dec 9, 2005)

tard said:


> i know i like my set ups to sound as real and accurate as possible.


This is the whole problem, though. I don't know anyone who is knowledgeable enough or has reliable enough ears to even come close to telling me that a system is as real and as accurate as is possible. These competitions masquerade with the premise that they can objectively determine whose system is more real and accurate, when in fact they haven't got a hope.....they are inherently flawed in their current state.

And again, we can go back to the current method of recording and mastering that only makes this concept even more pointless.


----------



## pikers (Oct 21, 2007)

MarkZ said:


> There is NO SUCH THING as a one-size-fits-all audio system. Not if you listen at appreciable levels to a variety of music. Reproducing Barbara Streisand and Siamese Dream, for instance, are two very different endeavors. Imaging can be crucial in one recording and an afterthought in the minds of the engineers in another. Midrange power content can be overwhelming (and difficult to reproduce at appreciable levels) in one recording, and practically absent in another. The list is endless.


Well, if you're tuning to a certain genre, your system is inaccurate even if it flatters that genre.

Accuracy should apply to all types of music, which is why (if anything) there should be a standard "set list" that judges use to determine accuracy.

So, have an EQ curve that you like all you want, just don't expect it to score well.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

pikers said:


> Well, if you're tuning to a certain genre, your system is inaccurate even if it flatters that genre.
> 
> Accuracy should apply to all types of music, which is why (if anything) there should be a standard "set list" that judges use to determine accuracy.
> 
> So, have an EQ curve that you like all you want, just don't expect it to score well.


And that's the point. Competition is competition, sound quality is sound quality. Two different goals, two different things.


----------



## Abmolech (Nov 2, 2006)

> It is true that musicians actually move around on stage rather than standing still but, since what they're playing comes out of two sets of speakers (again) for the concert audience, they will hear a (unfortunately) stereo experience.


I think you need to go back to school. You try to come across as someone who has "recording experience", yet you have no clue of basic fundamentals of sound. As Markz, said, just because you have two speakers doesn't mean you have stereophonic. The vast majority of amplified concerts are in monophonic or panned monophonic. If you want to hear it as the artist intented....

As to this two ears crap, if you have a bird chirping in a tree, is it monophonic or stereo?
Perhaps you should FORCE ALL natural sounds to some how be stereo?

The premise of checking stereophonic imaging in a car is a joke. Next time you get a 70 foot wide stage of Gothic cathedral pipe organ in a car, you call me, I will be waiting.
How about something simpler? A single vocal opera singer, this should be a mere three inches wide.

Stereophonic requires the RIGHT (expects)relationship between you and the speakers, it has no mechanism for changing this. While surround, logic7 and ambisonics, may be more forgiving as to that relationship, they can not preform to their peak without it.

Try something that has a hope, VBAP (Vector based amplitude panning). Just like monophonic, the relationship between the speakers and the listener is EXTREMELY forgiving. Try listening to two channel stereophonic behind the speaker? The advantage with VBAP is you (The listener, the one whom the recording must please), get to specify where the speakers are in relationship to YOU. 
Can it correct height?
Yes
Can it correct depth
Yes
Can it correct width?
Yes

Why are we STILL using stereophonic when there is OBVIOUSLY better alternatives? Because car audio competitions are about maintaining status quo.

How many more lemmings is car stereo going to require to fill the ditch between it and sonic Nirvana?

Car audio: thirty years of PROVING stereophonic doesn't work in a car.

Take your system out of your car, put in a decent room, with the speakers in the correct relationship. I can PROMISE you it will eat your car audio alive. How is that I can make such an outlandish comment, when I have never heard your system? 
Because I grasp what it takes to produce stereophonic, you are still bewildered. You would think after thirty plus years, SOMEONE would get stereophonic to work in a car, what are you (MR two ears) going to different to every other lemming that has stepped up to the plate?


----------



## pikers (Oct 21, 2007)

Abmolech said:


> \Take your system out of your car, put in a decent room, with the speakers in the correct relationship. I can PROMISE you it will eat your car audio alive.


What set room dimensions are you operating off of to make that assumption? What if my room is the same size as the interior of my car? In other words, what difference does the venue make if the gear and the space is identical? You can't change the rules of the game to prove a point. Fair comparisons involve proper environmental matching, or it's irrelevant as comparing home run hitters in the pre and post-juice ball era.

I hear from some that don't bother with car audio that "There's no point, since it's impossible to have sound as good as in-home." To which I always ask, "What gear, which car, and which room in your house are we making these comparisons?" There are many systems in people's vehicles on this forum that would flat embarrass home systems in tonality and overall accuracy. Again, I'm sure with the passion in your response you must have something in your head that generates that passion. Instead of making blanket statements, enlighten us on what that is.

Sorry, but I find the comparison with its multitude of variables terribly flawed, since there's no standard to begin with. And, does it even matter if it's stereophonic to begin with? Is that the yardstick for accurate sound, or another option?



> How is that I can make such an outlandish comment, when I have never heard your system?
> Because I grasp what it takes to produce stereophonic, you are still bewildered.


I think you're showing your age.

You need to provide parameters for comparison's sake. Saying it can never be as good is, well, leaving a lot of variables on the table.



> You would think after thirty plus years, SOMEONE would get stereophonic to work in a car, what are you (MR two ears) going to different to every other lemming that has stepped up to the plate?


Actually I would think after 30 something years, people would begin to understand that without parameters expectations are irrelevant.


----------



## Abmolech (Nov 2, 2006)

> Actually I would think after 30 something years, people would begin to understand that without parameters expectations are irrelevant.


I still waiting, little or no signs so far.

Let as consider ONE of the tenements for stereophonic replay.

The FACT that you need to at a 60 degree azimuth to the speakers. How well is your car doing?

My room, no problem.


> I think you're showing your age.
> 
> You need to provide parameters for comparison's sake. Saying it can never be as good is, well, leaving a lot of variables on the table.


Perhaps your showing your age, maybe you need to go to school to learn about acoustics?


----------



## capnxtreme (Feb 5, 2008)

If you are going to suggest that someone needs to go to school, please at least take the time to type a response with proper spelling and punctuation.

I am off to do some research about VBAP (thank you), since you would rather rant than enlighten us.


----------



## Jethro (Jun 14, 2007)

Abmolech said:


> I still waiting, little or no signs so far.
> 
> Let as consider ONE of the tenements for stereophonic replay.
> 
> ...


This stereophonic conspiracy theory of yours is rather intriguing... are there others who follow this line of thinking, or did you come up with this revelation on your own? If you could provide links that expand upon this theory, I'd sure like to read more about it. Thanks.


----------



## Neil (Dec 9, 2005)

Jethro said:


> This stereophonic conspiracy theory of yours is rather intriguing... are there others who follow this line of thinking, or did you come up with this revelation on your own? If you could provide links that expand upon this theory, I'd sure like to read more about it. Thanks.


It really isn't a conspiracy, to be honest. It is mostly common sense. I think Abmolech already mentioned this example in this thread, but imagine any sound created in the distance: is that sound monophonic, or stereophonic? The answer is obviously monophonic, so why do we use stereophonic sound as a way to "reproduce" that original sound? It makes absolutely no sense.

Google VBAP or Vector Based Amplitude Panning. There are a few papers out there, one done by I believe a Finnish (somewhere Nordic) gentlemen that makes many good arguments.

By the way, I take no credit for anything I have just said. I read a few posts from Abmolech and then started reading up on various recording and playback techniques. Once armed with the requisite knowledge of each approach, it becomes obvious that stereo is just a really, really dumb way to not achieve what we think we are achieving.


----------



## Jethro (Jun 14, 2007)

DevilDriver said:


> It really isn't a conspiracy, to be honest. It is mostly common sense. I think Abmolech already mentioned this example in this thread, but imagine any sound created in the distance: is that sound monophonic, or stereophonic? The answer is obviously monophonic, so why do we use stereophonic sound as a way to "reproduce" that original sound? It makes absolutely no sense.
> 
> Google VBAP or Vector Based Amplitude Panning. There are a few papers out there, one done by I believe a Finnish (somewhere Nordic) gentlemen that makes many good arguments.
> 
> By the way, I take no credit for anything I have just said. I read a few posts from Abmolech and then started reading up on various recording and playback techniques. Once armed with the requisite knowledge of each approach, it becomes obvious that stereo is just a really, really dumb way to not achieve what we think we are achieving.


Interesting... I guess I'll have to do some reading... thanks for the info.


----------



## tard (Jul 13, 2006)

DevilDriver said:


> This is the whole problem, though. I don't know anyone who is knowledgeable enough or has reliable enough ears to even come close to telling me that a system is as real and as accurate as is possible. These competitions masquerade with the premise that they can objectively determine whose system is more real and accurate, when in fact they haven't got a hope.....they are inherently flawed in their current state.
> 
> And again, we can go back to the current method of recording and mastering that only makes this concept even more pointless.



i agree, some of this mastering really screws everything up. but lets say by our tuning, we "untweek" what the recording studio did. not that we may be able to get it perfect on many recordings. 

is there anything "as possible"? it can meet that criteria for now, but things are always improving. making todays "as possible" sub par tomorrow.

if anyone has spent a lot of time listening to live performances, even if it's you friend strumming away on his guitar, what's so hard about taking a bunch of time tweeking to make your system reproduce those sounds to best match what you heard on the live event? and not all speakers are equal, a turd is a turd and will never replicate a top notch performance no matter how much tweeking you do.


----------



## tard (Jul 13, 2006)

DevilDriver said:


> It really isn't a conspiracy, to be honest. It is mostly common sense. I think Abmolech already mentioned this example in this thread, but imagine any sound created in the distance: is that sound monophonic, or stereophonic? The answer is obviously monophonic, so why do we use stereophonic sound as a way to "reproduce" that original sound? It makes absolutely no sense.


i'll have to take the time later to look up all of that, but isn't the reason for "stereophonic" what we need to give the sense of direction back?

that monophonic sound coming from the left, right, dead ahead. this is supposed to be accomplished with only one speaker? how is one going to make a sound appear to be coming from the right, if the only speaker is on the left?


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

capnxtreme said:


> If you are going to suggest that someone needs to go to school, please at least take the time to type a response with proper spelling and punctuation.
> 
> I am off to do some research about VBAP (thank you), since you would rather rant than enlighten us.


Why do you need probver sb3ling for his argument to make sense? If you are getting confused it's because the man often speaks in technical terms. This "rant" bellow is the stand upon which all your guys' arguments will break apart.



Abmolech said:


> The FACT that you need to at a 60 degree azimuth to the speakers. How well is your car doing?


It's also the reason why a budget center seat car setup will absolutely kill any other entrants in a fair competition. So many enthusiasts praise top shelf components such as DLS and Dynaudio. Give me a break, these two make up 50% of the competition cars. Without major tricks to combat the car environment itself I have every reason to believe they sound very much the same. 

If I were a judge I would simply slice half the available points for lack of originality.


----------



## andthelam (Aug 9, 2006)

"Quote:
Originally Posted by Abmolech 
\Take your system out of your car, put in a decent room, with the speakers in the correct relationship. I can PROMISE you it will eat your car audio alive. 

What set room dimensions are you operating off of to make that assumption? What if my room is the same size as the interior of my car? In other words, what difference does the venue make if the gear and the space is identical? You can't change the rules of the game to prove a point. Fair comparisons involve proper environmental matching, or it's irrelevant as comparing home run hitters in the pre and post-juice ball era."



I agree with Ab on this one. Just the fact that you can create equal distance and angles between L/R drivers is HUGE!! even if the room was as big as a car, you could still sit in the middle not driver's or passengers and less compromise on speaker position.


----------



## Abmolech (Nov 2, 2006)

I would of thought this thread had reached a new low, when the best debate centrers around punctuation and spelling.

Still there is light in the tunnel.



> I agree with Ab on this one. Just the fact that you can create equal distance and angles between L/R drivers is HUGE!! even if the room was as big as a car, you could still sit in the middle not driver's or passengers and less compromise on speaker position.


You sir, deserve huge praise. Welcome to the real world.
The fact is, the VAST majority of people cannot grasp this simple concept.
Finally people are starting to understand acoustics. 

One of the saddest myths in car audio today, is the concept of "equal path lengths".

Could some stereophonic fan boy, explain to us why headphones and ear buds can't reproduce a stereophonic image?
Perhaps the path lengths aren't even enough?
Perhaps they have not "angled" the speakers well enough?
Maybe if they run one mid range out of phase?
Perhaps with an equaliser we can fix this problem?

Please explain why a stereophonic recording cannot reproduce a stereophonic image with headphones and ear buds

Waiting to see if car audio has learnt anything in the last thirty years.....




> I am off to do some research about VBAP (thank you), since you would rather rant than enlighten us.


Good man, at least you have a modicum of curiosity to seek out new things.

In my day (shows age), IQ was a direct relationship on how curious you were. Todays rote rated IQ tests leave the computer has the highest IQ.


----------



## XC-C30 (Jul 24, 2007)

It's all good abmo..... I have not been in audio for too long, but what I do know is that people don't think these days..... I can't count the times they told me "you don't know cause you're not as experienced as I am"

Yeah well..... you might be more experienced, but if you have learned some things the wrong way, your "experience" doesn't mean $h!t.....

some time ago, I had some discussion about pathlenghths too.... Wether or not a tweeter should be placed little more in the back as opposed to mid/kick or not (assuming you're not using TA) because it is more direct...


----------



## Neil (Dec 9, 2005)

Abmolech said:


> One of the saddest myths in car audio today, is the concept of "equal path lengths".


I usually take this as a misused term for a real effect. Of course, just having equal path lengths is insufficient...you need crosstalk as well so the brain can compare the difference in arrival times (aka inter-aural time differences). We also require crosstalk so the brain can compare the difference in amplitude (aka inter-aural intensity differences).



Abmolech said:


> Could some stereophonic fan boy, explain to us why headphones and ear buds can't reproduce a stereophonic image?


Well, I know you clarified this a bit later in the post, but for the sake of sharing with those who may not already be aware....a binaural recording can do it. The binaural approach is actually a relatively intelligent method of achieving what we are seeking....the only problem is that it requires headphones or some arrangement that completely eliminates any crosstalk.



Abmolech said:


> Please explain why a stereophonic recording cannot reproduce a stereophonic image with headphones and ear buds


This is answered by what I mentioned above.


----------



## Abmolech (Nov 2, 2006)

> Yeah well..... you might be more experienced, but if you have learned some things the wrong way, your "experience" doesn't mean $h!t.....


Provocative statement, I like it.

There was an excellent article in the Time mag comparing an experienced ER nurse against a relatively new intern. Both made poor decision, howbeit for different reasons.

My one
Experience at what?



> some time ago, I had some discussion about path lengths too.... Whether or not a tweeter should be placed little more in the back as opposed to mid/kick or not (assuming you're not using TA) because it is more direct...


What this really should be about is polar response and power response. The notion that a tweeter should crossed high and angled 90 degrees off axis in an "A" pillar, at least proves some are not deaf. However they clearly have little clue about power response and polar response.
There are FAR better solutions.


----------



## Abmolech (Nov 2, 2006)

> Well, I know you clarified this a bit later in the post, but for the sake of sharing with those who may not already be aware....a binaural recording can do it. The binaural approach is actually a relatively intelligent method of achieving what we are seeking....the only problem is that it requires headphones or some arrangement that completely eliminates any crosstalk.


Yeah, spoil my fun
Stereophonic requires the RIGHT amount of crosstalk to work. Headphones simply are not going to give us that.

With Binaural recording we could also use a barrier to separate two speakers, AKA ambiphonics and quadraphonics. Consider the centre console a prime candidate for this barrier (there are others). It may be car dependant, however this might provide a possible solution to people who have thrown of the shackles of stereophonic.


----------



## XC-C30 (Jul 24, 2007)

I say equal pathlenghths are more than just that when you take it all into accounts. Yes, sound travels by 300m/sec..... But it depends on response if sound will reach same point at specific time.... And that is one thing people tend to forget.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

I don't really understand why people are fighting so hard to defend the status quo. IASCA, and car "audiophiles" in general, are the most unoriginal breed going, and are a detriment to true progress. I'm sorry if that insults some of you, and I'm sorry that the (relatively) few out there who are competing and are really doing some intriguing things in the car are lumped in with the other wannabes. But know that I'm referring to you wannabes, as it's usually the wannabes who resist change so emphatically.

Abmolech makes some great points. I don't completely share his view, because I think stereo can be kinda neat in some cases on a superficial level (although not for the sake of doing "what the engineer intended", or trying to fantasize about being in a concert hall with cellos or some ****...). But you guys should spend more time thinking about his words than parsing the grammar.


----------



## Oliver (Jun 25, 2007)

Is it black ? Is it white ?

No it really is a convoluted gray


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

XC-C30 said:


> But it depends on response if sound will reach same point at specific time.... And that is one thing people tend to forget.


I don't know what this means. Response of what? Are you talking about phase coherence?


----------



## Oliver (Jun 25, 2007)

Musicians are hard to understand


----------



## XC-C30 (Jul 24, 2007)

Sorry, I'm trying to explain myself here..... I'm not too aware of all the technical terms, and certainly not in English..... 

Let me try again.....:blush:

I guess I trying to see the difference in response between different types of drivers..... Whereas (assuming all drivers mounted on-axis), a tweeter is more direct then a mid, kick (dispersion?) so that that it's not all pathlenghth that matters.


----------



## XC-C30 (Jul 24, 2007)

a$$hole said:


> Musicians are hard to understand


Actually, I was never good at explaining myself.....:blush:


----------



## Abmolech (Nov 2, 2006)

> Abmolech makes some great points. I don't completely share his view, because I think stereo can be kinda neat in some cases on a superficial level (although not for the sake of doing "what the engineer intended", or trying to fantasize about being in a concert hall with cellos or some ****...)


There is little doubt stereophonic has provided much enjoyment to people for a long time. The question should poised though, is there anything better?

I just think it is laughable "SQ"(?) (As the original poster quited it) is totally biased towards two channel stereophonic. This "idea" of the way the artist intended, is almost as heroic in its attempt to be silly. We all understand, that a live orchestral etc, concert is in monophonic. Don't make me bring out the big "H" word.

If artists had any real intentions of keeping their music unmolested, they should release it on the internet and bypass the sound producer. I lay the rise of MP3 (128) and ipods listening at the foot of their rubbish "hot" recordings. Perhaps a little harsh, but not too far from the truth I believe.


----------



## Oliver (Jun 25, 2007)

What would be great is if a new form of listening could be shown to be better than the old way of doing it


----------



## Abmolech (Nov 2, 2006)

> I guess I trying to see the difference in response between different types of drivers..... Whereas (assuming all drivers mounted on-axis), a tweeter is more direct then a mid, kick (dispersion?) so that that it's not all pathlenghth that matters.


Polar response.
As the mid range nears its top frequency (set by the crossover), it starts to become increasingly narrow. In fact by around 1.5 KHz on a 5 " driver, the polar response will be so poor, we could use two mid range drivers and a single tweeter to achieve a somewhat even response. (MTM array) Crossing over them higher simply exasperates the problem.

The power response difference at his level obviously becomes very directional, slight movements of the head produce large changes. I blame this for the rise of the "audiophile", and cable and power amplifier differences. Anything but, having your head in a vise (unless MTM or waveguides) is going to produce this phenomenon. Coupled with stereophonic this is a recipe for endless chasing of smoke.


----------



## XC-C30 (Jul 24, 2007)

a$$hole said:


> What would be great is if a new form of listening could be shown to be better than the old way of doing it


just spin aaround 180° ..... Or try and listen with your eyes and see with your ears....





Or just go mono (not new, but it's the way it should be)


----------



## Neil (Dec 9, 2005)

I dunno. I realize we are straying a bit to a new topic, but the advent of really poor recordings came well before mp3 players were even available. In fact, such concepts would not have even appeared if there weren't a commercial interest in them. Don't blame the mp3 players....blame the people who choose them. 

However, we can be a bit excited about the future of digital audio storage. Internet bandwidth is increasing as is the storage capable in a given footprint (whether it's a hard drive, flash, etc). This makes the use of and storage of codecs like FLAC more relevant to the masses.

And hopefully people will follow the lead of groups like NIN who have started releasing music on their own, occasionally in formats that permit creating our own high quality masters.


----------



## XC-C30 (Jul 24, 2007)

Abmolech said:


> Polar response.
> As the mid range nears its top frequency (set by the crossover), it starts to become increasingly narrow. In fact by around 1.5 KHz on a 5 " driver, the polar response will be so poor, we could use two mid range drivers and a single tweeter to achieve a somewhat even response. (MTM array) Crossing over them high simply exasperates the problem.
> 
> The power response difference at his level obviously becomes very directional, slight movements of the head produce large changes. I blame this for the rise of the "audiophile", and cable and power amplifier differences. Anything but, having your head in a vise (unless MTM or waveguides) is going to produce this phenomenon. Coupled with stereophonic this is a recipe for endless chasing of smoke.


Thanks for the englitnment on a few terms This will for sure help in future discussions..... cause now, to some I pretty much look like an idiot n00b, while I think, at least you can acknowleadge you know we're on the same path.


----------



## Neil (Dec 9, 2005)

Just to clarify what power response is for those who may not already be aware....

Power response refers to the total sound power level a speaker creates vs. frequency. Power response considers polar response (dispersion patterns) and axial response (what is commonly, but mistakenly, referred to as frequency response). In general, constant power response across your entire bandwidth is preferable, but this is tough to achieve in practice. As frequency increases, dispersion will narrow for a given driver; if we have flat axial response (as is often the goal), the power response will drop off.

Waveguides, horns, and very well designed speakers (like a good MTM) can help solve problems like this. The best situation is simply to use drivers within a bandwidth that their dispersion characteristics do not drastically change, ie. small diameter drivers. Of course, you then run into the challenge that is producing any meaningful output in a linear fashion at low frequencies.


----------



## XC-C30 (Jul 24, 2007)

DevilDriver said:


> I dunno. I realize we are straying a bit to a new topic, but the advent of really poor recordings came well before mp3 players were even available. In fact, such concepts would not have even appeared if there weren't a commercial interest in them. Don't blame the mp3 players....blame the people who choose them.
> 
> However, we can be a bit excited about the future of digital audio storage. Internet bandwidth is increasing as is the storage capable in a given footprint (whether it's a hard drive, flash, etc). This makes the use of and storage of codecs like FLAC more relevant to the masses.
> 
> And hopefully people will follow the lead of groups like NIN who have started releasing music on their own, occasionally in formats that permit creating our own high quality masters.


Something I'd seen for the first...... lossless downloads on an artist webpage (aka moon)..... Usually all I see is crappy 128kbps to save space.....


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

a$$hole said:


> What would be great is if a new form of listening could be shown to be better than the old way of doing it


What incentive is there in that?

Hell, they could begin releasing the raw mix and let the users tailor it to their own tastes, but that would be a disaster.

It's never been about "SQ" or emulating live experiences and whatnot. It's about putting a product out there that's appealing to the masses.


----------



## XC-C30 (Jul 24, 2007)

MarkZ said:


> What incentive is there in that?
> 
> Hell, they could begin releasing the raw mix and let the users tailor it to their own tastes, but that would be a disaster.
> 
> It's never been about "SQ" or emulating live experiences and whatnot. *It's about putting a product out there that's appealing to the masses.*


Unfortunately the sad truth


----------



## Abmolech (Nov 2, 2006)

> I dunno. I realise we are straying a bit to a new topic, but the advent of really poor recordings came well before mp3 players were even available. In fact, such concepts would not have even appeared if there weren't a commercial interest in them. Don't blame the mp3 players....blame the people who choose them.


I believe I would have a difficult task at persuading you about the sudden demise music recordings, however I challenge you to pick the difference between a modern CD recording and an MP3 128. There would be few candidates to consider.



> Thabks for the englitnment on a few terms/D This will for sure help in future discussions..... cause now, to some I pretty much llok like an idiot n00b, while I think, at least you can acknowleadge you know we're on the same path.


Actually I prefer this definition.
"The very definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results.” - Philip Mangano ...

I believe there is considerable distance between your approach, and SQ competitions, who fall quite neatly in this definition.


----------



## XC-C30 (Jul 24, 2007)

I so happen to like a more or less sterile sound (though not 100%, just that tad warmer but not by much), and I do happen to like tune my system according to my own taste, which is just that.....

Does that give me best of both worlds? 

and as far as imaging goes (guess this should be in the imaging thread but what the heck..... it's a part of SQ too)..... I like it to be the center in front of me...... if only it wasn't so hard to widen the left-hand side of the stage accordingly.... So yeah..... guess they will deduct points now  ....... Although the further in front your stage is, you could put the center image at the center , since the angle will get smaller.


----------



## BMWturbo (Apr 11, 2008)

It took me a while to be able to visualise the centre of the stage and it's depth. I found I was setting the centre image too far to the passengers side to begin with, as I was aiming to have the centre vocal/whatever in the centre of the dash (Point A). 

In fact when the centre vocal is in FRONT (Point B) of the windscreen, if you draw a line from that position directly back to the listener and see where it meets the dash, it will actually be towards the drivers side of the dashboard moreso then directly in the centre.

I find that it's hard to get the extremities right in this arrangement also, because as you can see in the sketch, the LH section of the stage appears to be extended more then the RH of the stage. 

Should the centre vocal be set up at Point C?

Sketch is a little rough, but gives you an idea what I'm discussing.


----------



## Melodic Acoustic (Oct 10, 2005)

Here is my take on it. Wrong or Right here it is, its just opinion and like an A**hole everyone has one 90% of the time its full of Sh*t.

So let me take my dump!!

Just about everything I know of that use the word competition to describe itself has some sort of standard/rules. 

Lets say basketball has a standard for ball size, now what is the other team wants to use a small ball because they can shoot better with it. 

Goal height, My team wants 9' goal because my players are a little shorter then yours.

12 mins pre quarter. My team wants to play 8 mins because they are in the best shape and can't run for that amount of time.

Has to be a standard to even the playing Field. Everyone want like it, but it is a most.

As we all know having true to life play back in the car is next impossible, its just to many things against us, but that shouldn't stop us from trying to get as close as possible. Also we all should know as state early the competition sound and your every day sound is more then likely to different settings. Hell my work shoes and going out shoes are different also.

I've been around for a long time and the competition rules has change so many times to try and please the masses, but the problem is the masses keep changing their minds also.

I will have to agree with Markz on one thing. There are does of as out there that are trying to truly improve thing and truly know, truly know and there are some of as who just ride to coat tales of those of us who truly know and just have meaningless things to say. Now the question and one we should ask ourselves is which one am I.

Now I ask who has truly listen to some music in a recording studio and then taken it to your car and listen and tried to reproduce it the was it sounding in the studio. I'm not talking about the mixed down and processed version of it the first and true rare version. or even did the same thing with a live recording of a performance. Lets see a show of hands. WAVING MY HAND

Now does this make me more qualified to judge what SQ really is, YOU BET YOUR A** IT DOES, JOKE. NO It DOES NOT. Sound is just to subjective. So we do need a standard.

Now I'm finished talking sh*t O sorry taking my dump, let me wipe and go to bed.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

BMWturbo said:


> It took me a while to be able to visualise the centre of the stage and it's depth.


To be honest I never heard a good center in a car before and I've been in many of all kinds. For the longest time I thought I just did not get staging cues, until I gave my home audio a good listen. Sitting exactly in the center the image comes to life. Move just the tiniest bit and it's lost. I'm fairly positive right now that it's not achievable in a car, sure you can get like 10% worth though processing but what's 10%?



Here-I-Come said:


> As we all know having true to life play back in the car is next impossible, its just to many things against us, but that shouldn't stop us from trying to get as close as possible. Also we all should know as state early the competition sound and your every day sound is more then likely to different settings. Hell my work shoes and going out shoes are different also.


I'm with you my friend. Just because the car is an inferior playground it does not mean we can't play. However, it seems to me that by the definition  the goals are too lofty for this competition business. 

There is a huge emphasis on staging cues yet that's the shame of this hobby, it's like you're kidding yourself. Furthermore people bring in the same high dollar brands to get the job done and fool people into believing that's where the magic is. It should be quite obvious by now that the listening environment is the key to scoring well.

Let's be honest if feedback is all we want then why not ask a friend? Why medals? People do tune their setups for their liking and they're not likely to take a second place seriously, it only causes grief. I've said this before, car audio meets are the best place to get input. 

I've seen many claims that some individuals do not understand this hobby ie. girlfriend or mom. It may very well be that you aren't doing it right or that your goals are unachievable, be realistic.


----------



## dkh (Apr 2, 2008)

And here's me wondering what IASCA's SQC was all about 

I know... a bird sings somewhere in a tree and to it's left there is a rustle of the leaves, at the same time to the far right there is a discussion about something.

Now tell me. Are these a collection of monophonic sounds set on a stage of sorts?

So we record this by placing my favourite stereo mic in there somewhere and it records on my stereo mini-disc recorder. Then, I play it back in my stereo and  what do you know - it sorta sounds like what I experience earlier with the birds and leaves and chit-chat.

So, I now go into my car which is sort of setup to kind of play this kind of thing.... viola, not as good but - I can tell there is a bird singing with some leaves rustling to it's left and chitter-chatter to the right.
Now, call me stupid, naive or whatever but, I can even tell that the bird is closer than that chitter-chatter how? Do I give a fcuk? my aim was to try and get an accurate reproduction not argue with know-it-alls who obviously went to the right school - and their friends!

Oh by the way, which school would you suggest I go to?


----------



## dkh (Apr 2, 2008)

Hi Mr Ab, I have a word for you... you ready?

Stereo


----------



## the other hated guy (May 25, 2007)

find this thread absolutley histerical... have any of you other than andy or scott who seem to know everything about compitition ever competed?.. What's funny is that you guys seem to know everything about it... sure the original concept of competing was to drive sales.... but now most manufacturers could give a **** less... and installation... heaven forbid that some of us may actually want an install that looks professional... car audio comp today is not about the bling...

also... most of the guys/gals who compete really go for the top 30 style judging were judges provide their own music and everybody is on a level playing field..

the bottom line is this... competition drives innovation in installation techniques and tunning capabilities... you don't beleive me? go to a show... I can name a few cars that I'm 100% positive will show you how far car audio can be taken...

and... I have asked for almost a year now for pictures and examples of a car that has what Abmolech babbles about... you guys need to stop listening to his constant BS... because there still has not been 1 single car supplied but over a year of constant threads of **** that looks great on paper..


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

the other hated guy said:


> find this thread absolutley histerical... have any of you other than andy or scott who seem to know everything about compitition ever competed?..


It was only a matter of time before you'd chime in with this gem.

Have you actually followed what the discussion is about (an objective standard to define "SQ")? Or are you getting defensive just because everybody doesn't embrace your "sport"?

A person does not have to compete in order to realize the absurdity of a one-size-fits-all approach.


----------



## the other hated guy (May 25, 2007)

there isn't a one size fits all.... you are judged on technical and tonal reproduction.. which is what all of us strive for... it's just that competition bodies put it in writing...and judges score accordingly... sure you are going to have a quack judge here and there... but then again... there are guys who have been judging for years and have a great ear... people just don't like to be told that after spending time and money that there car needs improvement... I have sat in cars that should have been left stock...seriously... 

what's true in life is true in car audio comps.. to become better in anything, you have to play/compete with people who are better then you...


----------



## Abmolech (Nov 2, 2006)

> and... I have asked for almost a year now for pictures and examples of a car that has what Abmolech babbles about... you guys need to stop listening to his constant BS... because there still has not been 1 single car supplied but over a year of constant threads of **** that looks great on paper..


Cant win with a clear concise argument? Try character assinion..
You could try to argue using acoustic principles, would that be too much of a mind stretch?

Just where is this innovation?
Still supplying two channel stereo? check

Its not my job to knock your sport, but don't confuse that with reality. I get a "bee in my bonnet" when its thrashed down our throat, like it has anything to do with a daily driver. When I see testing done at road speed I might pay more attention, in the mean time, enjoy your hobby.

As an ambassador, you are doing a fine job of proving my point, please continue....



> I know... a bird sings somewhere in a tree and to it's left there is a rustle of the leaves, at the same time to the far right there is a discussion about something.
> 
> Now tell me. Are these a collection of monophonic sounds set on a stage of sorts?


Yes, the only time you hear stereophonic is in proper a replay environment. 
Clue
A car is not a successful two channel stereophonic replay environment.



> Now, call me stupid, naive or whatever but, I can even tell that the bird is closer than that chitter-chatter how? Do I give a fcuk? my aim was to try and get an accurate reproduction not argue with know-it-alls who obviously went to the right school - and their friends!


I will only call you stupid, when you won't learn from basic acoustics. Sound replay is all about physics, and acoustics.
Leave the quasi BS to the audiophiles.

If you can understand how sound is created and interpreted, it will lead to that goal. Otherwise feel free to be another lemming. 


> Oh by the way, which school would you suggest I go to?


I am not familiar with the American system, but here we can do degrees in physics and acoustics.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

the other hated guy said:


> there isn't a one size fits all.... you are judged on technical and tonal reproduction.. which is what all of us strive for...


No, actually, in the real world (that is, outside of the competition circuit), most of us are striving for something a bit different from one another. We all place different weights on the relative importance of "flat" transfer functions, shaped transfer functions, phase coherence, staging, depth, output capabilities, stereo separation, volume (not magnitude, volume as in d^3); and the interplay as well as tradeoffs of maximizing each of those parameters. Some of those things are chosen based on personal taste. Some of it, however, is based on the program material that the person tends to listen to. For instance, there's no point in designing a system geared towards embellishing directional cues when the engineers of your favorite CDs are more concerned with producing an ocean of sound.

Oh, right, I forgot...we all listen to flutes and oboes in this forum. 

By virtue of the fact that judging follows a certain template, whether intended or not, you're transforming the relative weights of these parameters into a one-size-fits-all. Or, perhaps more accurately, one-size-fits-the-judge. Rather than strive to create an audio system tailored to the listening preference of the user, the goal instead is to conform to some universal definition of "sound quality" (see post #1) to satisfy others.



> what's true in life is true in car audio comps.. to become better in anything, you have to play/compete with people who are better then you...


That's very true. But their knowledge and experience can not be put to use when they dismiss your goals.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

Abmolech said:


> I am not familiar with the American system, but here we can do degrees in physics and acoustics.


what about phsycoacoustics?


----------



## Abmolech (Nov 2, 2006)

> what about phsycoacoustics?


Leave that to car audio competitions.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

bikinpunk said:


> what about phsycoacoustics?


Degrees in psychology or neuroscience,then. 

I'm not a big believer in relying on degrees and schools just to learn these concepts, but I think Ab's point was not to dismiss fundamental laws of physics in favor of post hoc conclusions. There's a reason why experiments and peer-reviewed papers are still the currency of science, and not anecdotes from people with a lot of trophies.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

Abmolech said:


> Leave that to car audio competitions.


I've really been watching this thread, and I lack the 'knowledge' from either side to really put in $.02. I just think about some of these points in a common sense format. I'm still seeing both sides of the argument, and maybe that's the way it should be. Maybe it's possible that both sides are so overcome by their influences/opinions that the inability to agree to disagree has taken over?

FWIW, I plan to start competing this Summer. But I don't have any intentions of winning anything. I'm just going so that I can hang out with guys that share my interest. Maybe that's what all this 'SQ' should be about to begin with.


----------



## Abmolech (Nov 2, 2006)

> There's a reason why experiments and peer-reviewed papers are still the currency of science, and not anecdotes from people with a lot of trophies.


Very true.
The hated guy is a large fan of DR Earl Geddes (with good reason), yet never stands up for the basic principles he promotes to obtain two channel stereophonic.
Dr Geddes waxes lyrical about constant directivity, and the requirement to have MINIMUM 24 degrees of polar response just to obtain stereophonic. Yet it is not even mentioned once in car audio competitions. Where is the berated use of a tweeter, crossed above 4 KHz, and off axis in the "A" pillar. This goes against just about everything Dr Geddes stands for, yet not a whisper?

How about Mr Linkwitz?
http://www.linkwitzlab.com/
Often quoted to back some quasi argument, yet he gives quite precise details of what you need to do to reproduce two channel stereophonic in a room. 
Yet both these gentlemen, with peer reviewed tests, are dropped like a "hot turd" when we start talking about MEETING those requirements in a car.
Why?


----------



## Neil (Dec 9, 2005)

On the topic of Geddes, he and Lidia Lee have also dedicated large amounts of time to researching the ability of humans to identify and interpret distortion, with the end result being that humans are very poor at consistently identifying a wide-range of acoustical problems (particularly non-linearities). And yet, people still believe that an ear is a good way to judge "technical accuracy".......

edit: I am quite open to any discussion supporting whatever argument you "SQ competition" supporters are making, as long as it doesn't rely on how many times you've competed and how many trophies you've won.


----------



## dkh (Apr 2, 2008)

Abmolech said:


> Cant win with a clear concise argument? Try character assinion..
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## BigRed (Aug 12, 2007)

spank spank


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

the other hated guy said:


> there are guys who have been judging for years and have a great ear... people just don't like to be told that after spending time and money that there car needs improvement... I have sat in cars that should have been left stock...seriously...
> 
> what's true in life is true in car audio comps.. to become better in anything, you have to play/compete with people who are better then you...


You mean just like there are guys who don't like to be told that after spending time judging other people's cars their ears need some training? 

Where's the blindfold other hated guy? How can you claim the results are legitimate?

Don't tell me you've played for a medal believing there's enough players for you to never reach your goal. Any person that is honest to himself will believe he has a winning combination in order to enter. 



dkh said:


> Now, what you write on paper is all very well and good but, if that doesn't translate into real world physics then the paper is worth about as much as your opinions


How does it not, does your car defy the laws of physics? Can you honestly say you can get your car to image as well or better than a simple home audio setup?


----------



## AWC (Mar 31, 2008)

You guys are funny. Seriously, I'm pissed too. Bikinipunk!!! Who the hell do you think you are? If I were you I would consider a hasty retrofit to your prior avatar of the great Forest Gump. The mere thought of not being greeted by his Gumpness...too much to bare


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

ha! That's me flexin on DIY. You guys better get your act together. 

Actually, maybe this avatar would be better suited for Bob?


----------



## AWC (Mar 31, 2008)

I have to say, in a death-match between Arny and the Gumpster, Forest would accidentally woop up on Conan!!!

Please continue the rants as to why your definitions of what sounds good to me is better than the other definitions of what sounds good to me


----------



## Abmolech (Nov 2, 2006)

> You Mr Ab, posted a comment on talkaudio about not being able to hear where midbass comes from because of abc physics even though a total non-schooler like me can hear what the other guys were trying to tell you.
> You decided not to post there anymore, I wonder why? too many morons for an intellectual like you to handle?
> 
> Now, what you write on paper is all very well and good but, if that doesn't translate into real world physics then the paper is worth about as much as your opinions


Pretty close. When the "leader of the pack" suggested basic acoustic principles don't apply in a car (Like the car is some void off a another planet) I decided that they lacked the ability to move forward.

Mr real world of physics.
Please show me how you have obtained the 60 degree azimuth REQUIRED to obtain stereophonic listening in a moving vehicle. (We are talking a daily driver here) Or is this STILL a "talk audio" proposition that acoustics don't apply in a car?

Boy am I going to dine out on this one. What is a inside a car that dares to defy physics, perhaps now, we have found the perfect place to put our cold fusion reactor?
Our world energy and hunger problems are solved, we can finally use the inside of a car, because it doesn't conform to any known physics or acoustic principles, its a clean slate, what a gift.



> You Mr Ab, posted a comment on talkaudio about not being able to hear where midbass comes from because of abc physics even though a total non-schooler like me can hear what the other guys were trying to tell you.
> You decided not to post there anymore, I wonder why? too many morons for an intellectual like you to handle?


Clue
We know you can't locate bass below a certain frequency, and even above frequency in specific relationship to the listener, you can't locate it. (Yes I know your golden eared friends can hear elephant farts all the way from Africa, but back in the real world). 
The question is do you accept those peer reviewed tests?
You have two logical choices.
1/ Refute the claim with a peer reviewed test procedure.
2/ Accept the claim, and try to figure what MIGHT be the cause of you being able to locate the bass. (Hint resonance and harmonics)
3/ Stay with the talk audio crowd (lets face it there is safety in numbers), and say physics don't apply in a car. Our total auditory system mysteriously changes the instant we enter its hallowed space.




> And, asking someone to go back to school is science?


Perhaps it is simply good advice. You have some major misconceptions about how acoustics applies. For example you think (or now possibly used to?) that all natural sounds are stereophonic. It appears you can learn little or nothing from me (Like most at talk audio), and are perhaps better off finding someone that you can respect, that has an acoustics degree.


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

MarkZ said:


> Degrees in psychology or neuroscience,then.
> 
> I'm not a big believer in relying on degrees and schools just to learn these concepts, but I think Ab's point was not to dismiss fundamental laws of physics in favor of post hoc conclusions. There's a reason why experiments and peer-reviewed papers are still the currency of science, and not anecdotes from people with a lot of trophies.


Isaac Newton said, "'Tis the temper of the hot and superstitious part of mankind in matters of religion to be ever fond of mysteries and for that reason to like best what they understand least." 

If religion is a matter of belief and science is the quest to know by way of hypothesis and proof, then psychoacoustics is not a religious catch-all for things unproven that's just masquerading as science. It is science. It's the science of the perception of acoustics. 

If you like it but you can't or haven't proven it, then say "I like it". If you like it or hate it and have proven it or can provide someone else's proof, say "it is" or "it isn't", and be prepared to provide a supporting arguement. There's no sense in getting angry about the truth and getting angry about your belief is just bullying and doesn't serve anyone very well.


----------



## DS-21 (Apr 16, 2005)

DevilDriver said:


> On the topic of Geddes, he and Lidia Lee have also dedicated large amounts of time to researching the ability of humans to identify and interpret distortion, with the end result being that humans are very poor at consistently identifying a wide-range of acoustical problems (particularly non-linearities). And yet, people still believe that an ear is a good way to judge "technical accuracy".......


Yep. There are some interesting threads in that area on diyaudio.com right now. Anyone interested should do a search under "GedLee" to read Dr. Geddes current musings on that topic, and a few others.


----------



## DS-21 (Apr 16, 2005)

dkh said:


> You Mr Ab, posted a comment on talkaudio about not being able to hear where midbass comes from because of abc physics


That should in fact be quite true. Localization in a car generally occurs much higher than in a domestic environment. In a typical UK-market sized car (say, a Citroën C4 or VW Golf) maybe as high as 200-250Hz.

What people actually hear when they say they can "hear" midbass (or bass) in back is usually rattles excited by drive-units the people who are listening know reside back there...

I wonder if, extrapolating from Geddes' findings for bass in home audio, the highest fidelity means of achieving midbass in a car is random placement of drive-units playing below 200Hz (maybe 3) for maximum mode excitation. Randomized in both the horizontal and vertical planes. I've never tried it, and considering that the car I drive 99.9% of the time is a small 2-seater I probably won't for several years until I restore the Goddess, but it seems like an interesting concept that may pay dividends.

(Writes someone who, before he knew better, spent too much time and later money on front-mounted enclosures for a pair of 12" subwoofers!)


----------



## Abmolech (Nov 2, 2006)

Very True Andy Wehmeyer,
I took liberty at the chance to jest at the expense of car audio competitions being a useful gauge from which to draw a reasoned hypothesis.

Psychoacoustics is a very important science, and helps us realise how easily we can be fooled. Take two channel stereophonic for example, which has the lofty aim of creating a three dimensional image. (IE depth) 
Is it real?
It is amusing to read the replies of people who claim to have some special auditory perception, which allows them to confound basic physics (and they KNOW they are not fooled), yet also claim their system fools them.
Bring out the big "H" word?

If you would not mind answering a bated question (IE you are not required to do so)..

Was it car audio competitions that led your company into the innovation, of adapting logic7 to a car, or perhaps a more philanthropic company policy?
IE were car audio competitions the main driver for MS8?

Just want to see if there is any substance to the bold claim, that, car audio competitions are a driver for audio innovation.


----------



## Abmolech (Nov 2, 2006)

> That should in fact be quite true. Localization in a car generally occurs much higher than in a domestic environment. In a typical UK-market sized car (say, a Citroën C4 or VW Golf) maybe as high as 200-250Hz.
> 
> What people actually hear when they say they can "hear" midbass (or bass) in back is usually rattles excited by drive-units the people who are listening know reside back there...
> 
> I wonder if, extrapolating from Geddes' findings for bass in home audio, the highest fidelity means of achieving midbass in a car is random placement of drive-units playing below 200Hz (maybe 3) for maximum mode excitation. Randomized in both the horizontal and vertical planes. I've never tried it, and considering that the car I drive 99.9% of the time is a small 2-seater I probably won't for several years until I restore the Goddess, but it seems like an interesting concept that may pay dividends.


Your not trying to suggest a car is still an acoustic space on the earth, bound by the same physics that effect similar spaces? You are also hinting the human auditory system doesn't change within the confines of an automobile?? Better not go to talk audio.... You would be called a heretic. 
Quoting a peer reviewed Dr of acoustics to back your hypothesis? Its not your own idea or belief, so it cannot be relevant, surely?

What I find untenable, is you also offer realistic solutions, shame on you.


----------



## npdang (Jul 29, 2005)

bobditts said:


> Definition - Sound quality is the ability to *accurately *reproduce the music as the recording artist originally intended it.
> 
> Example – if you are at a large concert venue, and there is a single person on the center of the stage playing a constant tone of B flat and it is recorded properly. You then take that recording and play it in your car. Your sound system (to qualify as a sound quality setup) should be able to accurately reproduce that sound and make it appear as if you never left the concert venue. It should not sound like a trumpet with a little extra midbass or a little extra top end. It should sound EXACTLY the same.
> 
> This might not be the definition that you agree with, BUT this is the definition that IASCA judges on.


I think it's an admirable goal, but one that I also think is impossible.

The first problem is, how do you recreate the acoustic space of a live concert inside a vehicle?

The second problem is, attempting to judge the recreation subjectively. On what basis do you know what the recording is supposed to sound like? Suppose in the recording, that a trumpet for whatever reason IS supposed to sound unnatural or altered, then what?


----------



## khail19 (Oct 27, 2006)

npdang said:


> I think it's an admirable goal, but one that I also think is impossible.


Exactly. Trying to define a _subjective_ term, such as "quality," is utterly pointless. Everyone's opinion differs and there will never be an accurate definition. It's like trying to get the world population to agree on a single best type of pizza. Not possible.


----------



## Abmolech (Nov 2, 2006)

> The first problem is, how do you recreate the acoustic space of a live concert inside a vehicle?
> 
> The second problem is, attempting to judge the recreation subjectively. On what basis do you know what the recording is supposed to sound like? Suppose in the recording, that a trumpet for whatever reason IS supposed to sound unnatural or altered, then what?


Well if you believe the people who promotes car audio competitions as some standard that we should be be able to use in our cars...

First answer 
Live concert can be done successfully in car with two channel stereophonic (thirty plus years can't be wrong?)

Second
Trained judges will have little or no bias.

The first answer is demonstrated as scientifically false. (IE you can't get two channel stereophonic in a moving vehicle)
The second answer
No where does science use "trained judges" to quantify a hypothesis. They are peer reviewed, and then sent out to the general public for submissions. It may not be perfect, but it certainly many steps ahead of "trained judges".

This is therefore the question, 
Is sound reproduction a science or an art form?
If you believe it is an art form, then trained judges may be suitable.
If you believe it is a science, trained judges are not a useful medium.

Quite simple really.


----------



## dkh (Apr 2, 2008)

Abmolech said:


> For example you think (or now possibly used to?) that all natural sounds are stereophonic.


And where would you have got that assumption from - possibly a little evidence of my understanding in this seeing as we are talking science 

This thread originally started by someone giving their definition of 'sound quality' inspired by iasca.

Now, for those of us who are clearly alien, we can hear depth recreated using a CD source from two channels (L/R or stereo) be that an illusion or trickery but 'we' can clearly hear what instrument is where on a 'stage' and then recreate that in another environment (different car/home) and this to me suggests that the illusion is quite successful.

So, returning to the original discussion - are there parameters within which a car can be judged - yes.


----------



## Abmolech (Nov 2, 2006)

> And where would you have got that assumption from - possibly a little evidence of my understanding in this seeing as we are talking science
> 
> This thread originally started by someone giving their definition of 'sound quality' inspired by iasca.
> 
> ...


I want to keep this away from stereophonic versus monophonic, however if you accept that the bird is in monophonic, how is it that you get locational cues?
(IE not a replay)

The thread asked us what we thought about the IASCA definition of SQ, we could of just shortened it to.. Its meaningless and has little or no relevance, but most of us took the time to explain our reasons for doing so.

You enquire about successful auditory illusions?
This is the tenement of the original post. We have successfully proven this to useless. Basically we aren't stupid enough to be fooled by panned monophonic in a car.
(Perhaps it works for you)


MarkZ has put forward a throughly well thought proposition, that recordings are not "standardised", and using them makes little or no sense. And almost as important, tuning to a certain style (because you the listener, are the one that it has to please) is obviously not going to consistent with another style of recording. (Note not necessarily music style, RECORDING and sound production style)



> So, returning to the original discussion - are there parameters within which a car can be judged - yes.


Agreed, how much time and money you have put in, and how closely you have followed the latest fad.

Car audio competition, and car audio in moving vehicle have very little in common. To give you some perspective on how small of a pin head you are trying to stand on.
As a percentage, how many car audio installations ever see the light of car audio competition?

Point
Your majoring in the minors.

Sound quality for most of us on this site, is getting emotionally connected to the music we enjoy listening to.
We don't want and are not interested in some "judges" idea of what that should be.
I love Opera, and have twelve different recordings of Mozart's "Magic flute". If you think you can persuade me which recording I SHOULD find more pleasure in, good luck to you.

Just as I would not try to suggest you should like one song over another.


----------



## dkh (Apr 2, 2008)

That's good - we agree over one thing - that music is about passion (and passion is not scientific.)

Some people are passionate about listening to car audio with 5.1ch, some 2.1 and some 2 channel.

Now, just as no one can say to anyone else that one piece of music is rubbish in relation to another (non-technical here) you can not lecture me in my fruitless labour of passion nor anyone else for that matter (even if that spans 30 odd years).

You can only suggest there are alternatives.

Again, car audio competitions are about people passionate about what they are doing, they enjoy their hobby and just as any other hobby there will be competitions and if the judges are directing people to buy additional items due to x, y and z it is up to the person being judged to tell the judge where to go or otherwise.

And, just for the record, I understand what mono is (singular source/s) vs stereo (two sources trying to recreate that singular source/s).


----------



## Abmolech (Nov 2, 2006)

As I have said, I don't have a beef with car audio competitions. However when they try and use their arbitrary standard to try and define anything useful in a daily driver, I start driving in the stakes.

If I might paraphrase Thylanders salient point.
"Why are there no home audio competitions?"



> And, just for the record, I understand what mono is (singular source/s) vs stereo (two sources trying to recreate that singular source/s).


Now you understand that unamplifiered acoustic music is monophonic, and if you want to reproduce at as the artist intented... (Don't make me bring the big "H" word out)

Trying to obtain some reasonable sound reproduction in a daily driver is all about compromise. Just don't short change yourself and be limited to two channel stereophonic. 

Perhaps it is good time to consider if using two sources to make singular/s source makes any common sense? Still thats a debate outside the framework of this thread.


----------



## AWC (Mar 31, 2008)

khail19 said:


> Exactly. Trying to define a _subjective_ term, such as "quality," is utterly pointless. Everyone's opinion differs and there will never be an accurate definition. It's like trying to get the world population to agree on a single best type of pizza. Not possible.


pepperoni


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

Abmolech said:


> Very True Andy Wehmeyer,
> I took liberty at the chance to jest at the expense of car audio competitions being a useful gauge from which to draw a reasoned hypothesis.
> 
> Psychoacoustics is a very important science, and helps us realise how easily we can be fooled. Take two channel stereophonic for example, which has the lofty aim of creating a three dimensional image. (IE depth)
> ...


Why Logic7 in a car? Because it's a good way to overcome the most basic problem--the listener sits closer to one of the stereo speakers than the other. Recreating a mono sound with stable placement between the two stereo speakers and on the same plane as the speakers is an easy thing to do when when you can sit directly betwen the two speakers that have matched frequency response and level. It's also possible to do that for one listening position in a car using plenty of EQ and delay for one channel. It isn't perfect, but it's close enough to be pleasant. Adding a center channel and a matrix processor that places the sounds recorded in mono--those that should appear in the center--in a speaker located in the center helps to overcome the poor listening position. The surround processing in cars using logic7 is a small but audible benefit and helps to add some depth to the stage. Is it an illusion? Yes. Is it a pleasant one? I think so.

If MS-8 had been designed for competitors, I'd have had to work some magic in putting together an acceptable ROI proposal. It would also have included Digital inputs, super-duper D/A convertors, there would be ano amplification included and the RCA connectors would be gold plated. None of those are included. We've won several competitions with cars with prototypes at various stages of development and competitors seem willing to compromise their esoteric requirements because MS-8 makes cars sound so good. 

I have never demonstrated my Volvo (which, at the time included a prototype MS-8) for anyone who didn't like it. My mother wants one. My sister's response was, "Wow, that was fun. I've never heard anything like that. Wow... that's really cool." Nether of them are enthusiasts, but they both love music.

MS-8 is designed for regular people who just want their cars to sound great and who don't feel the need to pontificate about esoteric BS "required" to preserve signal purity, eliminate distortion they can't hear...blah blah blah. I call those things "those features that seem to be required although the importance is rarely substantiated by experience".

I don't think car audio competitions are a driver of innovation anymore. I don't see anything particularly innovative in any of the systems that compete from a technical perspective outside Alpine's F1 system and MS-8, although there's some interesting snake-oil-type marketing by manufacturers and competitors. The awarding of creativity points for using multi-ply birch for a baffle board by claiming it's some exotic wood is an example. I would have awarded the same points, but only for sheer gall. Competitions are mostly a bunch of enthusiasts who are fundamentalists clinging to some old stuff Richard Clark posited 10 years ago (or more). I don't mean to be insulting, because I have fun at those contests and many of the cars really do sound good. 

I compete and attend competitions because I feel it's my duty to bring something new and help the enthusiasts along a path to great audio that doesn't require all of that customization. For some, the installation and the system design is a means and for others it's the end. For me, it's a means and that makes it a commercial venture that may be viable and appreciated by lots of folks. For those for whom all that installation and design is the end and competing to see whose system sounds best is the means, I hope they'll like MS-8 and learn to use ALL the tools at their disposal to create an illusion that's pleasant to listen to. 

I know a hundred real scientists working on unconventional tools to improve that illusion. None of them are competition judges. I also know plenty of competition judges and none of them are working on cool new tools. 

I like compeitions and I hope they are here to stay because dyed-in-the-wool enthusiasts are a great challenge and there's nothing better than watching them have a paradigm shift. Doing demos of great sounding systems for regular people who WANT to be impressed is easy.


----------



## Abmolech (Nov 2, 2006)

First.
An Unequivocal thank you.
Seriously.


> Why Logic7 in a car? Because it's a good way to overcome the most basic problem--the listener sits closer to one of the stereo speakers than the other. Recreating a mono sound with stable placement between the two stereo speakers and on the same plane as the speakers is an easy thing to do when when you can sit directly betwen the two speakers that have matched frequency response and level. It's also possible to do that for one listening position in a car using plenty of EQ and delay for one channel. It isn't perfect, but it's close enough to be pleasant. Adding a center channel and a matrix processor that places the sounds recorded in mono--those that should appear in the center--in a speaker located in the center helps to overcome the poor listening position. The surround processing in cars using logic7 is a small but audible benefit and helps to add some depth to the stage. Is it an illusion? Yes. Is it a pleasant one? I think so.


Heretic.
How dare you suggest two channel stereophonic is not the holy grail of car audio.

I would suggest there is a fair bit more to it than this, although having a centre monophonic channel as the heart of the system, and the outers as an "after thought" is a great start.
The rears will help centre the image, by providing a more correct amount of acoustic crosstalk, and the sides will provide a much better left-right illusion. (Aside from the other obvious advantage of ambiance generation required to create any real chance of a believable image)

I have read some of your replies trying to appease the car audio comps, with suggestions that the monophonic centre maybe unnecessary. I realise you are required to be diplomatic, but let us be honest. Without a centre monophonic channel, this setup will never perform to its peak. You can safely say it on this forum.

We may have different approaches to sound reproduction, but yours indeed has some chance of delivering on that promise.

Yours
Create a believable illusion through good solid acoustic principles in a different space than the original recording.

Mine
Let the acoustic listening space create the required illusion, rather than trying to force a different space onto it.

Again
Thank you.
I wish you and your team every chance of success. Thankfully car audio competitors are such a minor part of the market, we can ignore their strait jacket mentality.


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

Actually, with no center speaker, MS-8 creates precisey the same illusion, but only in one seat at a time.


----------



## Abmolech (Nov 2, 2006)

Records yet another notch of audio innovation to acoustic and electrical engineers. Which goes missing in the shear magnitude of notches for this team.

Notes car audio competitions contribution still zero.



Something good about status quo at last.


----------



## Abmolech (Nov 2, 2006)

> Actually, with no center speaker, MS-8 creates precisey the same illusion, but only in one seat at a time.


Which is another way of saying, This food packet feeds four people..

If three are not hungry.


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

Sometimes a snack is all that's necessary to whet one's appetite.


----------



## Abmolech (Nov 2, 2006)

If music be the food of love, play on; 
Give me excess of it, that, surfeiting, 
The appetite may sicken, and so die. 
That strain again! it had a dying fall: 
O, it came o'er my ear like the sweet sound 
That breathes upon a bank of violets, 
Stealing and giving odour! 

William Shakespeare


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> Actually, with no center speaker, MS-8 creates precisey the same illusion, but only in one seat at a time.


Right when I thought I put the final polish on my setup...now I have to rethink everything. Link please


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

No Link yet. I'm the link and I'm happy to answer any questions via PM, email or phone.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

Abmolech said:


> The second answer
> No where does science use "trained judges" to quantify a hypothesis. They are peer reviewed, and then sent out to the general public for submissions. It may not be perfect, but it certainly many steps ahead of "trained judges".


Heh, actually that's not entirely true -- only we call them trained _subjects_, and the analysis of the results tends to include a little more than post hoc conclusions.


----------



## backwoods (Feb 22, 2006)

I have the same type of complaints with sports. 

Look at baseball for example. 

They can't even "standardize" the baseballs being used. Umps are terribly inconcsistent, and in this day & age, they could just use measurement devices to call balls/strikes.

Long fly balls will be nothing more then pop outs at some fields, and may be home runs in others. Wind directions can change. One team may have more left handed batters then another, so a good right handed pitcher may not even get to play.

Look how unfair the playoffs can be. One team could be cleary dominant, but because it doesn't have home field, and the other teams park is deep down the left field line, it makes the game completely onesided. 


Many of these criticisms of Iasca and other competitions completely miss the point of the events, just like my criticism of baseball.

It's not about who has the most definitively accurate and majority preffered stereo. It's not about the limitations of stereo or the progression of surround. It has nothing to do with rebadged home audio drivers at a steep market or whether you drive a lexus/taurus. 

It has to do with making your best attempt to overcome a given set of obstacles to the best of your ability within a given set of parameters. If you take out all the variables and subjection that comes with human judges, then you lose the compettitive spirit and people would be able to mail in the scores. 

Just like eating a hot dog and drinking a warm beer at a baseball game is what helps bring it to life, and the uncertainty of the participants on the field is what makes it exciting, those same things: comraderie, competition, uncertainty, warm beer and wafflehouse- are what makes the car audio scene so much fun.


Besides, in conversations like this, the majority of those bitching, shouldn't bother competing anyways, even if they brought their own "special recorded album"..

There are some cars that aren't in the lanes, that sound amazing, but not many. There are just too many tidbits and other pieces of info that can be obtained at these events to help push your setup to the next level, that you are never gonna "happen" across on the internet.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

Backwoods, I don't think what you're saying has been in dispute. People think competitions are fun, and so good for them. People create a set of goals and challenges, and then everybody tries to overcome them. That's fine. But what some of us are objecting to is the notion that this rather artificial set of goals that IASCA creates is somehow _the_ definition of "sound quality", and that if you can achieve the goals that IASCA sets forth then your audio system must then be suitable for all goals and challenges. As long as people recognize what competitions are (and you seem to), then there's no dispute.


----------



## michaelsil1 (May 24, 2007)

MarkZ said:


> Backwoods, I don't think what you're saying has been in dispute. People think competitions are fun, and so good for them. People create a set of goals and challenges, and then everybody tries to overcome them. That's fine. But what some of us are objecting to is the notion that this rather artificial set of goals that IASCA creates is somehow _the_ definition of "sound quality", and that if you can achieve the goals that IASCA sets forth then your audio system must then be suitable for all goals and challenges. As long as people recognize what competitions are (and you seem to), then there's no dispute.


I'm not familiar with IASCA, but it seems to be a bit sterile and anal.

At first I thought IASCA was about SQ, however, it seems to be mostly about rules if I'm getting the gist of it all.


----------



## Sassmastersq (Jan 12, 2007)

Iasca is a lot of fun, there see to be a lot of people here who have either tried to compete and found out that they couldn't build a successful system, or havn't competed at all and figure that if they havn't done it, it must be useless.

I've been doing Iasca for 4 years and I've made some great friends and learned an awful lot about how to make a car sound good.

Also, most of the people who have posted here seem to have absolutely no clue as to how SQ is judged at an Iasca event.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

Sassmastersq said:


> Iasca is a lot of fun, there see to be a lot of people here who have either tried to compete and found out that they couldn't build a successful system, or havn't competed at all and figure that if they havn't done it, it must be useless.


What a tired and oversimplistic assessment of this thread.


----------



## Sassmastersq (Jan 12, 2007)

MarkZ said:


> What a tired and oversimplistic assessment of this thread.


coming from someone who hasn't ever competed in IASCA, but claims to be an expert.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

Sassmastersq said:


> coming from someone who hasn't ever competed in IASCA, but claims to be an expert.


If you had any idea how logically flawed that statement was, you'd be embarrassed you posted it.


----------



## Abmolech (Nov 2, 2006)

Why do you need to compete in IASCA to know if their definition of sound quality is useful?

It is not a hobby I, or the great majority of the contributors to this forum are interested in. (Based on the numbers) 
We were requested to comment on that definition. It may have huge significance to its members, but to us, it is unhelpful.


----------



## Neil (Dec 9, 2005)

Sassmastersq said:


> Iasca is a lot of fun, there see to be a lot of people here who have either tried to compete and found out that they couldn't build a successful system, or havn't competed at all and figure that if they havn't done it, it must be useless.
> 
> I've been doing Iasca for 4 years and I've made some great friends and learned an awful lot about how to make a car sound good.
> 
> Also, most of the people who have posted here seem to have absolutely no clue as to how SQ is judged at an Iasca event.


Tell us what is so wrong. Like I said (maybe elsewhere), try to come up with an argument that doesn't involve how many competitions you've done or how many trophies you've won....that proves nothing, especially given the very flawed approach of these competitions.

No one is debating the social aspect; in fact, most of us have posted in support of that.

It is the belief that these competitions prove anything objective (or close to the definition IASCA uses) that is asinine. But please...by all means....prove us wrong.


----------



## Sassmastersq (Jan 12, 2007)

IASCA has set out to judge, within set parameters how accurately the information on the judging disc can be reproduced in a vehicle, no more no less. breaking that material up into sections that test tonal accuracy, stage width, stage height, stage depth, both as a starting point, and from there the depth of the stage from front to back; and then within those limitations of that particular system how precise the image is reproduced.

Perhaps we are reproducing a monophonic sound, recorded in a panned monophonic format, with a result that is only a panned monophonic result... but it is what it is. we're not trying to reproduce what the artist intended, or the producer intended, or make some magical euphoric musical nirvana, we're trying to accurately reproduce the data on the disc, period.

The representation that is striven for by Iasca competitors is not the same as the representation striven for by home audiophiles, since home audiophiles are trying to get the stage to center in front of them. In IASCA we strive to have the center image centered in the center of the dash/hood/windshield, wherever and then have the images recorded in the source material. and we try to overcome the limitations inherently placed on us by doing this in a car environment. If I wanted to have a home audio experience, I'd purchase and listen to a home audio system, which would be easy and boring.

The whold point of IASCA competition is to build a system that is safe, and will accurately reproduce the source. 

If accurate reproduction isn't your idea of sound quality, then good for you.


----------



## Abmolech (Nov 2, 2006)

> If accurate reproduction isn't your idea of sound quality, then good for you.


All I have is one question
Would it beat a monophonic centre array for stage height and tonality?

If it can't, your definition is completely flawed.

Accurate reproduction?
You clearly haven't bothered to read the thread...

Can you get accurate reproduction, using two channel stereophonic when the conditions it requires to do so cannot be met?

Clue
No.
Can a car meet those requirements?
No

So this whole posturing of sound quality is nothing more than an elaborate dance of words?
Yep

It is no wonder they make up such a small percentile of car audio users..


----------



## Sassmastersq (Jan 12, 2007)

Abmolech said:


> All I have is one question
> Would it beat a monophonic centre array for stage height and tonality?
> 
> If it can't, your definition is completely flawed.


Have you heard a monophonic car system with stage height at the roof? if you havn't, then yes, it would. I've never seen someone try a monophonic center array in a car... sounds like a really stupid idea, but if that's what turns your crank, then go for it. and I'm sure that a monophonic center array wouldn't have any sort of imaging, so your arguement is flawed there as well.

Nobody said that it was the absolute best way to get everything perfect, there is no such thing in a car. 

Iasca has set up a standard to measure and judge sound quality to their definition. Perhaps you should start an organization to do the same by your definition.


----------



## Neil (Dec 9, 2005)

I would love for someone to explain to me how you test for "tonal accuracy" consistently using your ears. Even better, explain how different judges can consistently test for "tonal accuracy" when they all have different ears, bodies, and brains.

Peer reviewed papers demonstrating this ability would help your case.

These competitions are not about accurate reproduction....they are about attempting to adhere to an illogical, pointless, and completely dynamic judging system.


----------



## Sassmastersq (Jan 12, 2007)

Please explain how this would be categorically impossible.

Peer reviewed papers demonstrating this complete impossibility would help you look like you're not just trying to start an arguement over something that cannot be proven or disproven within the realm of this internet forum.

You are right though, and many competitors have suffered because the judge who is judging their car is much larger, or taller, or shorter than they are. Part of installing a system for others to judge is doing your best to make these things non-issues.


----------



## Audio Junkies (Aug 28, 2006)

DevilDriver said:


> These competitions are not about accurate reproduction....they are about attempting to adhere to an illogical, pointless, and completely dynamic judging system.



You forgot to mention political...


----------



## bobditts (Jul 19, 2006)

I cant believe you guys are still argueing over this thread lol. So a question for all of you skepticals..... Have you ever heard gary biggs regal when it was still competing? It obviously follows the IASCA rules very closely, has near perfect imaging, soundstage and tonality. It obvioulsy is one of the most talked about SQ cars on the planet. Obviously it sounds great with any music it plays regardless of style of music. Kinda goes against a lot of what you guys are saying.


----------



## Sassmastersq (Jan 12, 2007)

but not as perfect as a monophonic center array


----------



## Neil (Dec 9, 2005)

Sassmastersq said:


> Please explain how this would be categorically impossible.
> 
> Peer reviewed papers demonstrating this complete impossibility would help you look like you're not just trying to start an arguement over something that cannot be proven or disproven within the realm of this internet forum.


First, I will remind you that we've already said in this thread where you can read more about human auditory perception from one of the leaders in the industry.

Second, why does the loudspeaker industry magazine Voice Coil physically measure distortion when it could "judge" the accuracy of the system and assign a numerical value to whatever they hear?

Third, and perhaps the simplest, I'm sure you'll agree that there is a threshold of human hearing. If there is a point where a difference exists but we cannot perceive it, then I ask...how can any human possibly judge which system is the most accurate?

Have you ever tested to see what levels of various types of distortion you can perceive? I assure you it will leave you quite disappointed with your ears, and it will only confirm for you that the human ear cannot be trusted.

I have been told of ABX tests that have been done where a person took the same test twice, 10 minutes apart, and scored differently each time. Are you sure your ears can judge which is "most accurate"?


----------



## Neil (Dec 9, 2005)

bobditts said:


> Obviously it sounds great with any music it plays regardless of style of music.


Which has nothing to do with how close to the source it is.


----------



## bobditts (Jul 19, 2006)

DevilDriver said:


> Which has nothing to do with how close to the source it is.


 
or does it?


----------



## Neil (Dec 9, 2005)

No, Bob, it doesn't.

If you guys wish to believe that all humans hear the same thing every time and are able to pick out even the slightest change in a performance all the time, then you are welcome to continue to believe so. You can't convince those who choose to ignore logic and years of empirical evidence, and I certainly won't waste my time in this thread anymore trying to do so.


----------



## Abmolech (Nov 2, 2006)

Its amazing how quickly "accurate sound reproduction" is dropped as soon as a real challenge comes along.....



> Have you heard a monophonic car system with stage height at the roof? if you havn't, then yes, it would. I've never seen someone try a monophonic center array in a car... sounds like a really stupid idea, but if that's what turns your crank, then go for it. and I'm sure that a monophonic center array wouldn't have any sort of imaging, so your arguement is flawed there as well.
> 
> Nobody said that it was the absolute best way to get everything perfect, there is no such thing in a car.
> 
> Iasca has set up a standard to measure and judge sound quality to their definition. Perhaps you should start an organization to do the same by your definition.



Remember ACCURATE sound reproduction.



> Iasca has set up a standard to measure and judge sound quality to their definition


First honest statement. We agree, but as you have had to concede it isn't "accurate sound reproduction".



> I'm sure that a monophonic center array wouldn't have any sort of imaging, so your arguement is flawed there as well.


Well since your test is biased towards that...
How accurate is that imaging. Shall I bring along my single vocalist, and see how well your two channel system beats mine for imaging? 
Not a fair test?

Thats the point.
We build it for our type of recording and music, not some quasi standard.


> I've never seen someone try a monophonic center array in a car... sounds like a really stupid idea,


Thats exactly why we are not the slightest bit interested in your biased judging.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

Sassmastersq said:


> we're not trying to reproduce what the artist intended, or the producer intended, or make some magical euphoric musical nirvana, we're trying to accurately reproduce the data on the disc, period.


If that was genuinely the goal, then you'd use objective parameters and measurements to test how well a given system achieves it.



> The representation that is striven for by Iasca competitors is not the same as the representation striven for by home audiophiles, since home audiophiles are trying to get the stage to center in front of them. In IASCA we strive to have the center image centered in the center of the dash/hood/windshield, wherever and then have the images recorded in the source material. and we try to overcome the limitations inherently placed on us by doing this in a car environment. If I wanted to have a home audio experience, I'd purchase and listen to a home audio system, which would be easy and boring.


And if soundstage was the only concern when building an audio system, maybe things would be a lot more easy to evaluate than they really are. IASCA sure does put a lot of effort towards reducing the dimensionality, so to speak, of the problem. But in doing so, you throw away a lot of important aspects of audio reproduction, and necessarily dismiss goals that place different importance on these parameters relative to others.



> The whold point of IASCA competition is to build a system that is safe, and will accurately reproduce the source.
> 
> If accurate reproduction isn't your idea of sound quality, then good for you.


It typically isn't, and that's the problem with calling your goals "sound quality".


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

bobditts said:


> Obviously it sounds great with any music it plays regardless of style of music.


Obviously.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

Sassmastersq said:


> You are right though, and many competitors have suffered because the judge who is judging their car is much larger, or taller, or shorter than they are. Part of installing a system for others to judge is doing your best to make these things non-issues.


And how do you do that voodoo man?



Sassmastersq said:


> Iasca is a lot of fun, there see to be a lot of people here who have either tried to compete and found out that they couldn't build a successful system, or havn't competed at all and figure that if they havn't done it, it must be useless.
> 
> I've been doing Iasca for 4 years and I've made some great friends and learned an awful lot about how to make a car sound good.
> 
> Also, most of the people who have posted here seem to have absolutely no clue as to how SQ is judged at an Iasca event.


I didn't jump of the bridge. I saw what was coming. 

On the other hand you have 4 years jumping off the same bridge. Btw I forgot to tell you just how excited I am about this, 4 years makes you a god here. 

I guess there is only one way to build an "sq" car and that is to compete in "sq" competitions. Do you read anything on this forum at all or are you just passing by? Do you like to talk rather than listen? Do you need friends? Iasca is there for you...

Honestly, if these judges are so mighty I don't see why they don't use a blindfold. Not trusting your ears now...? I think this is more of a visual artistic competition than audio.


----------



## ClinesSelect (Apr 16, 2006)

I competed pre-IASCA and became bored with the whole affair other than the social aspects. What are the current qualification to be an IASCA judge? Do you have first compete or can you just attend a class and be anointed into a judgeship?


----------



## dkh (Apr 2, 2008)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> No Link yet. I'm the link and I'm happy to answer any questions via PM, email or phone.


Hello Andy
I have heard a lot about the JBL-MS8 (hopefully this is the same product you are talking about).

When is it going to be available to purchase and just as importantly, will it also be available in the UK or will we have to resort to ebay etc to get one?

Thanks


----------



## Sassmastersq (Jan 12, 2007)

cvjoint said:


> And how do you do that voodoo man?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


this whole post made me laugh... thanks, I needed it.


----------



## dkh (Apr 2, 2008)

Sorry but I have to add to this post.

We have had sooo many mentions of the hypthetical word "mono sound".
What is this magical 'thing' - how does one create it?

If you're talking about a sound that emenates / radiates from a single location then how do you place it?

It's not like there is a void out there where this sound comes from.

Sound as percieved is a collection of waves, direct and indirect.

Now, if the direct and indirect sounds came from the same source then yes it's mono but it never does as it's the refections that tell you where the sound is coming from and how far it is in plain speak.

Now human perception is very, very good but not perfect. You can not scientifically say that this is what will be or will not be heard (the "against" sq judging argument).

But, this then makes a microphone (to measure sound) is about as useful as a bucket as it has as much relevance to what is perceived. Given this, what is the best tool to measure a sound?

Ears 

So what we talking about here then? Do we trust someone appointed as a judge or not - do we like the idea that there is this 'standard' against which we can be judged?

I am no SQ god nor am I very talented in tuning a car but, in my car I have had people who attend meets say that a certain sound 'seems' to be further than another certain sound or there is a clear stage on the dashboard and their hearing tells them a similar thing to mine so the illusion is pretty real.

Sooner or later one of the 'against judging' or 'sq and stereo' buddies is going to have to agree that within set parameters it is possible to give a credible judgment and whether you agree or not their way of going about this whole affair is not going to dissappear.

sound perception is a personal affair - it is about as much to do with science and scientific measurements as love or emotions - once you understand that then you have to move away from using mics etc to measure an ideal.

RTA etc are used but the final word goes to the ears.


----------



## br85 (May 2, 2008)

Abmolech stated something before about putting your car stereo in a room and comparing.

As much as that would (I'm sure) prove his point, *99 out of 100 people are not going to rip apart their install to do that.*

Try this, it takes 2 seconds:

When your car is stationary, turn all of your L/R Time alignment and panning off (since it is a bandaid anyway), and turn up to a reasonable volume (one that is nice and "full" but not harsh on your ears in any way) on any stereo track you are familiar with, and listen for a while.

Halfway through a segment of the song that is fairly drawn out, contort your body so that your head is above the center console (hell, sit on it if you have to), and note the difference. BAM! In most cars, your ears are now pretty much within the sweet spot of stereo. You still may not really have a "correct sound stage", but it WILL sound better, I guarantee it. A LOT BETTER.

This is why stereo fails in a car. Put your head back to where it normally is in the driver seat and *embrace the disappointment.*


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

dkh said:


> Sorry but I have to add to this post.
> 
> We have had sooo many mentions of the hypthetical word "mono sound".
> What is this magical 'thing' - how does one create it?
> ...


...yet it's still "mono" regardless.




> Now human perception is very, very good but not perfect. You can not scientifically say that this is what will be or will not be heard (the "against" sq judging argument).
> 
> But, this then makes a microphone (to measure sound) is about as useful as a bucket as it has as much relevance to what is perceived. Given this, what is the best tool to measure a sound?
> 
> Ears


Or microphones. Depends on what you're trying to measure, exactly. Since the IASCA crowd only cares about one parameter out of a whole slew of them, and since they think that parameter can be reduced to a single axis of "good" and "bad", then I can see why you'd object.



> So what we talking about here then? Do we trust someone appointed as a judge or not - do we like the idea that there is this 'standard' against which we can be judged?


No, we don't. I don't trust someone to know what I like more than I do, nor do I aim to adhere to standards that conflict with my own goals.



> sound perception is a personal affair - it is about as much to do with science and scientific measurements as love or emotions - once you understand that then you have to move away from using mics etc to measure an ideal.


...which I guess is why there's an entire scientific field devoted to studying precisely these things.

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater -- or, in this case, the scientific method out with your misunderstanding of human perception.


----------



## dkh (Apr 2, 2008)

MarkZ said:


> Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater -- or, in this case, the scientific method out with your misunderstanding of human perception.


This human perception we are talking about is different from one human to another right? dependant on mood, health, age etc so why do a study on something that is sooo different from person to person?

Unless you're telling me that an average human percieves sound to sound like this or that?


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

dkh said:


> This human perception we are talking about is different from one human to another right? dependant on mood, health, age etc so why do a study on something that is sooo different from person to person?
> 
> Unless you're telling me that an average human percieves sound to sound like this or that?


Actually, my point all along has been that personal preference eliminates a one-size-fits-all approach from being useful. So how do you reconcile what you say above with your stance that IASCA can tell us what everybody likes?

Anyway, to answer your question, yes, there's a great deal about human perception that we can rather easily model. Hence, the rise of fields like psychophysics and neuroscience that aim to understand perceptual processes using the scientific method. Some things, of course, are harder to get a handle on than others -- but I wouldn't exactly consider sound localization to be one of them.


----------



## br85 (May 2, 2008)

Something else to look at is what we actually listen to, and what we are trying to achieve with all of our time and money that we have all sunk into this obsession.

For me, it's mostly details. If I can hear stuff in my music I've never heard before, awesome. Also, I just happen to *like* what the frequency response of a car does to most of the music I listen to. Mostly not having standing waves in the subbass frequencies like my big rooms at home do. Also, I can listen to stuff whenever I want in my car at very high volume, so that each kickdrum is belting me in the guts and each snaredrum almost sounds like a shotgun going off. Can't do that at home with neighbors the way they are.

When I listen to metallica or some other hard rock/metal, it's all about the details and tonality at high volume. My car is awesome for that. 
BUT
When I listen to The shawshank redemption or lord of the rings soundtracks, the lack of ability to achieve stereo *really bums me* because I CANNOT achieve any stage width beyond the width of my car.

So I guess when you start down the DIY path, the biggest question you have to ask yourself is, "does the music I listen to every day really suffer if it cannot be reproduced to sound like it's in the acoustic space it's meant to?"

If the answer is "no", welcome to car audio. Enjoy and ignore abmolech's ranting about monophonic, VBAP, acoustic space and the like. However, if the answer is "yes", maybe stick to home audio unless you are prepared to have your mind blown


----------



## backwoods (Feb 22, 2006)

Mark, I am on board with what you are saying as well, but I do disagree with several of the notions on here that are attacking the format.

For example, 

"why don't they use equipment to measure/test accuracy and distortion performance?"

"why would I allow someone with different tastes assign a numerical value to my system?"

these two arguments seem to contradict each other. If you feel sound quality is subjective to each listener, then using any type of equipment to measure would not be beneficial or accurate either. They could create a class based on nothing more then flat fr or lowest distortion performance, but that does not equate in any way to "enjoyable quality". We all know that some times certain types of distortion can be quite enjoyable, and below certain thresholds is completely irrelevant, so in that regard, what is gained by measuring beyond the capability of human hearing?

Now, measuring for tonal accuracy is an interesting discussion, and could lead to more objective and consistent judging from competition to competition, but this as well flies in the face of the "personal enjoyment" argument and who wants to go to a competition that does nothing more then measure sine sweeps?


In essence, doesn't it seem many of the arguments against iasca, show the difficulty that the circuit has been trying to overcome, and shed new light on the attempts they have been making in trying to even out the playing field? I'm sure they would be thrilled if someone could come up with a simple, more effective way of judging that is cost justified and time manageable.


Basically, don't hate! 

I always will suggest for people to hit local shows whenever possible. You may be surprised at what you hear people ahve done using simple archaic "stereo & eq methods"...


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

backwoods said:


> Mark, I am on board with what you are saying as well, but I do disagree with several of the notions on here that are attacking the format.
> 
> For example,
> 
> ...


I agree that those two arguments contradict one another. But I think it's being presented differently than that. The first point above should be rewritten as: "_If_ you think that you can assign numbers in a single parameter-space that represents the 'sound quality' of the system, then why not measure some of these things instead of relying on a crude measurement of them through a judge's ears?"

My argument has been: it ain't that simple. I think the IASCA crowd is oversimplifying things with their obsessive focus on where the oboe sounds like it's coming from. Seriously, who gives a flying ****? We've got a million and one problems to face reproducing music in a car, which ranges from tonality concerns due to ankle-pointed drivers and reflections up the wazoo, to output capabilities from small-ish speakers and a limited power supply, and so forth. And not specific to the car are more general concerns about reproducing this music in a manner that's pleasing to us, then turning around a putting in a different CD with different tonal characteristics mixed by a completely different team, and trying to contort these properties into another experience that's pleasing to us...and then doing it all again later on.

But we've heard more than once from the IASCA crowd (my apologies to IASCA folks who aren't on board with them...) that *any* system that achieves *any* (IASCA-approved) person's goals well with *any* (IASCA-approved) piece of music will be perfectly equipped to achieve your goals too.

I'd argue that this ignorance comes from people who spend too much time on the competition circuit. 




> If you feel sound quality is subjective to each listener, then using any type of equipment to measure would not be beneficial or accurate either. They could create a class based on nothing more then flat fr or lowest distortion performance, but that does not equate in any way to "enjoyable quality". We all know that some times certain types of distortion can be quite enjoyable, and below certain thresholds is completely irrelevant, so in that regard, what is gained by measuring beyond the capability of human hearing?


I agree with where you're going with this, and I think I addressed this in my first paragraph above, but I do think you're making a mistake to say that subjectivity is completely measurement-less. Certain characteristics can, of course, be measured and correlated with subjective impressions of sound quality.

Think of what the typical strategy is in this forum for building a system. Measurement, followed by "tweaking by ear". Those of us who are experienced with this stuff tend to discover patterns in the measurements of the various parameters we're measuring that correlate with certain qualities, and we'll often use those measurements as a tool to get to where we want to go.

No, I'd never suggest that we abandon our ears in favor of some response profile. But I think it's also wrong to think that what we're observing with our ears is immeasurable, or that such measurements can't assist us in achieving our goals.

Also, I'd like to point out that with all this talk of subjectivity, the most subjective aspect of the entire process is NOT our ears -- it's our goals.

PS - I'm not hating on IASCA, per se. As I said much earlier in the thread, meetings can be very useful and enjoyable. My criticism is solely with the one-size-fits-all crowd.


----------



## dkh (Apr 2, 2008)

MarkZ said:


> but I wouldn't exactly consider sound localization to be one of them.


Again, you are trying to suggest that I am saying sound localisation isn't something that is understood?

We are talking about the ability of a person to judge against a given criteria.

If you haven't already, take a look at the IASCA CD in-lay card. It has a simple diagram of where the instruments should be in a few of the tracks on the cd (starwars, pink panther etc etc) and track 17 is a stereo track of 7 individual snare drum strikes used to judge positioning panning left to right.

Hardly rocket science would you say but, from this you or anyone who knows how a snare sounds can tell whether the sound changes (tonality, timbre) as it pans across from left to right and whether it moves across the stage or not and if it moves in equal steps...

Now, if a new format came along and did as described above, would someone in the backward stereo community cry heresy 

Or, would they say  that is better than I've ever heard before as in the introduction of the MS-8 and a centre channel.


----------



## backwoods (Feb 22, 2006)

MarkZ said:


> I agree that those two arguments contradict one another. But I think it's being presented differently than that. The first point above should be rewritten as: "_If_ you think that you can assign numbers in a single parameter-space that represents the 'sound quality' of the system, then why not measure some of these things instead of relying on a crude measurement of them through a judge's ears?"


It does make sense, but the cost required to do such a thing would make competition not only too expensive of a proposition, but also result in a loss of competitiveness. Even though subjective judging is inconsistent, the end result leaves room for argumentation, which adds more interest, emotions and intrigue to the heart of competition.




> My argument has been: it ain't that simple. I think the IASCA crowd is oversimplifying things with their obsessive focus on where the oboe sounds like it's coming from. Seriously, who gives a flying ****? We've got a million and one problems to face reproducing music in a car, which ranges from tonality concerns due to ankle-pointed drivers and reflections up the wazoo, to output capabilities from small-ish speakers and a limited power supply, and so forth. And not specific to the car are more general concerns about reproducing this music in a manner that's pleasing to us, then turning around a putting in a different CD with different tonal characteristics mixed by a completely different team, and trying to contort these properties into another experience that's pleasing to us...and then doing it all again later on.


well, I disagree to a point. Showing the location of the oboe, creates a defined set of goals to help limit the subjectiveness in a fair way. and besides, wouldn't correctly locating an instrument correspond directly with the original intent of it's sound quality description? It would be helping to achieve the original intent of that specific recording. AFAIK, it is not a different cd with different tonal characteristics. That is one regard in which there is an effort being made in objectivity.



> But we've heard more than once from the IASCA crowd (my apologies to IASCA folks who aren't on board with them...) that *any* system that achieves *any* (IASCA-approved) person's goals well with *any* (IASCA-approved) piece of music will be perfectly equipped to achieve your goals too.
> I'd argue that this ignorance comes from people who spend too much time on the competition circuit.


I wouldn't say "perfectly equipped", but I would say more adequate then most in achieving the majority of personal goals we all are searching for.

Also, keep in mind, many of the people on the circuit are also local installers and deal with consumers "wants" on a daily basis. So I don't believe the two are that distinctive from each other in most scenario's. 







I agree with where you're going with this, and I think I addressed this in my first paragraph above, but I do think you're making a mistake to say that subjectivity is completely measurement-less. Certain characteristics can, of course, be measured and correlated with subjective impressions of sound quality.




> Think of what the typical strategy is in this forum for building a system. Measurement, followed by "tweaking by ear". Those of us who are experienced with this stuff tend to discover patterns in the measurements of the various parameters we're measuring that correlate with certain qualities, and we'll often use those measurements as a tool to get to where we want to go.
> 
> No, I'd never suggest that we abandon our ears in favor of some response profile. But I think it's also wrong to think that what we're observing with our ears is immeasurable, or that such measurements can't assist us in achieving our goals.


I completely agree.




> Also, I'd like to point out that with all this talk of subjectivity, the most subjective aspect of the entire process is NOT our ears -- it's our goals.
> 
> PS - I'm not hating on IASCA, per se. As I said much earlier in the thread, meetings can be very useful and enjoyable. My criticism is solely with the one-size-fits-all crowd.


and I do agree here as well, but, that one-size-fits-all does create such a baseline that to tune from that point to your liking, is not near the gap that you may realize. 

Once the staging is done correctly, the TA/FR/TONAL balance is in place, the rest is fairly arbritary. Some like a hotter topend, or more of a bloated bass region. Others like a very strong midrange, but this type of adjusting can be made with a 1984 craig 1/2 din eq... All the hard work has already been completed.. 



It seems the argument really resides in comparing the end result to a daily driver. I'd venture to say the top systems on the circuit are much better prepared and suit the daily driver's interests to a much greater scale then most diy installers. Would your system pass a safety analysis? If your like me, you probably have been known to "temporarily mount" certain items, or twist a connection here or there instead of crimping/soldering..

I always hear the argument of "Well, i'm sure it sounds great parked, but probably sounds like **** while going 60 down the highway".

That's where the show experience really comes into play. I've been where they judged right beside the DB lanes. I've never driven down the highway beside a 165db van!!

It would be interesting to take an spl meter to a car show/outdoor show in a convention center and take a reading. I'd be willing to bet the ambient noise levels are surprisingly near what you experience on the highway.

It really comes down to the iasca members trying to explain how close to daily drivers there cars really are. It's just pride comes along with it, and results in non competitors feeling they are being looked down on..


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

backwoods said:


> It does make sense, but the cost required to do such a thing would make competition not only too expensive of a proposition, but also result in a loss of competitiveness. Even though subjective judging is inconsistent, the end result leaves room for argumentation, which adds more interest, emotions and intrigue to the heart of competition.


Oh, I agree. It makes things more interesting. Just like the baseball analogy of not computerizing the detection of the position of a pitch, or other inaccuracies in other sports. But, the thing is, we shouldn't then say that the umpire's eye is the best way to judge where the ball crossed the plate.



> well, I disagree to a point. Showing the location of the oboe, creates a defined set of goals to help limit the subjectiveness in a fair way. and besides, wouldn't correctly locating an instrument correspond directly with the original intent of it's sound quality description? It would be helping to achieve the original intent of that specific recording. AFAIK, it is not a different cd with different tonal characteristics. That is one regard in which there is an effort being made in objectivity.


But this is precisely my point. You're interested in the localization of an oboe. That's cool. I might be (and indeed, am) interested in something else entirely. For example, I spend a great deal of time with dynamics, tonal response (not necessarily 'flat' frequency response, mind you...), volume (as in d^3, not sound intensity), and reproducing recordings where the position of a wind instrument is never a concern. And yes, there ARE tradeoffs that have to be made that might sacrifice one of your goals for one of mine, or vice versa, especially in a car.



> Once the staging is done correctly, the TA/FR/TONAL balance is in place, the rest is fairly arbritary. Some like a hotter topend, or more of a bloated bass region. Others like a very strong midrange, but this type of adjusting can be made with a 1984 craig 1/2 din eq... All the hard work has already been completed..


No offense, backwoods, but I don't think the problem is anywhere NEAR as simple as that. The goals of the system influence the design strategy from the very beginning. You can't necessarily just layer a bit of personal preference on top of a system that's already been designed, unless the desired outcome is fundamentally the same as the original one that you're tweaking. And I think a lot of the talented competitors would agree with me on that point too -- if you gave them a different set of goals to achieve (not just superficial revisions, either...) before they embarked upon the design process, they'd likely come up with a completely different installation, right down to the choice of equipment.

We continually hear that car audio involves a series of tradeoffs. What do you think these tradeoffs are about anyway, if they're not a reflection of the different goals that people have?





> It seems the argument really resides in comparing the end result to a daily driver. I'd venture to say the top systems on the circuit are much better prepared and suit the daily driver's interests to a much greater scale then most diy installers. Would your system pass a safety analysis? If your like me, you probably have been known to "temporarily mount" certain items, or twist a connection here or there instead of crimping/soldering..


Well, right now I have a computer in the trunk without a panel on it and being held in place by a "tether" that's really the ground wire.  So, no, I don't think it would score well right now.



> It would be interesting to take an spl meter to a car show/outdoor show in a convention center and take a reading. I'd be willing to bet the ambient noise levels are surprisingly near what you experience on the highway.


Betcha they're not.  You need more than an SPL meter -- you need a complete RTA of the ambient sounds. We know from masking that the frequency content of the noise is crucial.

By the way, I drove to work today with all 4 windows down and the sunroof open. Bet it was noisier than the car show.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

Sassmastersq said:


> this whole post made me laugh... thanks, I needed it.


You laugh but that's not your laugh. You have nothing but delusions of grandeur. You'd save yourself some respect if you could answer the questions, but alas you don't practice what you preach. 



dkh said:


> But, this then makes a microphone (to measure sound) is about as useful as a bucket as it has as much relevance to what is perceived. Given this, what is the best tool to measure a sound?
> 
> Ears
> 
> ...


The mic has a certain place in measuring that a human ear could never achieve. It is more accurate and more exact. There's a lot to be learned from a test setup, in many ways it's your best mentor. 

The things that are left to the ear in terms of staging can easily be picked up by just looking at where the speakers are positioned. You cannot achieve stereo with left hand drive or right hand drive. Your stage is not going to expand past the physical placement of the drivers. End of story.

Tonality depends on your listening material and personal preferences. There is no reason to get "expert" opinion. There is no better ear, or no ear at all that other than yours that should dictate this parameter. 

What's there left to judge? I've been twisting, crimping, soldering and not one so far affected "sq." There are far better expressions of artistic potency than wire runs.


----------



## BigRed (Aug 12, 2007)

"Your stage is not going to expand past the physical placement of the drivers. End of story."

I totally disagree with the above statement. The ear can be tricked. What you see is not always what you get


----------



## MuTT (Apr 4, 2007)

Could all of this not be said for all competitions of any kind?...so, you're worlds fastest swimmer!...great!..but who cares, except the second and third fastest?

All the comparisons to home audio and/or perfect environments, whats the point?....it's car audio !

If people want to compete and other want to judge, then by all means, let them compete/judge/swim......

I like my wires all pretty and protected, I didn't hear any difference either, but I chose to do it to my equipment, with my money, in my car, taking my time.

I don't practice speed swimming because I have no desire to.....but I don't make fun of those who do (except for Greg Louganis..j/k)Edit: yes I know he was a diver)


----------



## guitarsail (Oct 12, 2007)

MarkZ said:


> But this is precisely my point. You're interested in the localization of an oboe. That's cool. I might be (and indeed, am) interested in something else entirely. For example, I spend a great deal of time with dynamics, tonal response (not necessarily 'flat' frequency response, mind you...), volume (as in d^3, not sound intensity), and reproducing recordings where the position of a wind instrument is never a concern. *And yes, there ARE tradeoffs that have to be made that might sacrifice one of your goals for one of mine, or vice versa, especially in a car.*


I'd have to dissagree on that one...I'm in the mindset of SQNLL (maybe a steal from the TA site...gasp)... My system will localize an oboe over there...a french horn here...and then Metalica kicks in (S&M CD anyone) and my dynamics and tonal response are amazing. Position of the wind instruments is a concern for me. SO is kicking the crap out of Deftones, Metalica or anything else I drop in. I think if you choose the right drivers, and put in tremendous amount of install time to make sure those drivers are put to the absolute best...tradeoffs aren't necessary. Do I have the perfect system..no my stage width isn't past my wing mirrors, and my depth stops at the end of the windshield...but then again I sit inside the car and listen and it sounds like the space being played in without any boundaries (outside of the recording) so I am happy with it.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

BigRed said:


> "Your stage is not going to expand past the physical placement of the drivers. End of story."
> 
> I totally disagree with the above statement. The ear can be tricked. What you see is not always what you get


How Jim, how?

You would need the right amount of crosstalk.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

guitarsail said:


> I'd have to dissagree on that one...I'm in the mindset of SQNLL (maybe a steal from the TA site...gasp)... My system will localize an oboe over there...a french horn here...and then Metalica kicks in (S&M CD anyone) and my dynamics and tonal response are amazing. Position of the wind instruments is a concern for me. SO is kicking the crap out of Deftones, Metalica or anything else I drop in. I think if you choose the right drivers, and put in tremendous amount of install time to make sure those drivers are put to the absolute best...tradeoffs aren't necessary. Do I have the perfect system..no my stage width isn't past my wing mirrors, and my depth stops at the end of the windshield...but then again I sit inside the car and listen and it sounds like the space being played in without any boundaries (outside of the recording) so I am happy with it.


I think it's generally accepted by everyone that there are tradeoffs when designing a system. I'm glad your system is right for you, but I'd wager that it isn't right for me. Especially if you consider Metallica to be some of the more dynamic stuff you've got, or if you use it to assess the tonal characteristics of an audio system (pre-Black album, especially 'Puppets, is a train wreck tonally -- although admittedly more dynamic than their highly compressed later stuff).

But to each his own -- which has been the central point of this thread.


----------



## guitarsail (Oct 12, 2007)

MarkZ said:


> I think it's generally accepted by everyone that there are tradeoffs when designing a system. I'm glad your system is right for you, but I'd wager that it isn't right for me. Especially if you consider Metallica to be some of the more dynamic stuff you've got, or if you use it to assess the tonal characteristics of an audio system (pre-Black album, especially 'Puppets, is a train wreck tonally -- although admittedly more dynamic than their highly compressed later stuff).
> 
> But to each his own -- which has been the central point of this thread.


True story on Metallica for sure. Preblack is an almost unlistenable train-wreck. And the newer stuff although tonally much better, has had the **** squeezed out of it to quote you So you're totally right there. Bad example. Made it to say my system will both stage well and play the dynamic stuff without a hint of distortion or objection from the system. But to each his own for sure. Be judged if you want to compete and accept the fact you must conform to the rulebook to actually compete and have a chance..and if you dont want to conform and tune design how you like it who cares what others say...then dont compete...I shall do both...yay for presets!!!


----------



## Abmolech (Nov 2, 2006)

One of the more interesting compromises, is the lack of attention to standing waves. When you measure with your RTA, it is not flat... The solution; use the equaliser. We all know it shifts phase, and this can be useful to move the node, but what does it do to the timbre?

Move the microphone, and its back again....

I use waveguides and steered arrays, to move the modes behind the listening position. Would I compromise tonality with a an EQ?
Again this is MY design goal. A very flat frequency response (Input versus output) without requiring to EQ, or use under lapped or over lapped crossovers. In home audio the thought of using an EQ to fix room modes, would barely be considered. Again different design goals.

This noise at an meet versus road noise is quite laughable...


> Be judged if you want to compete and accept the fact you must conform to the rulebook to actually compete and have a chance..and if you dont want to conform and tune design how you like it who cares what others say...then dont compete...I shall do both...yay for presets!!!


IE the above gentleman clearly admits, one setting for judges, one for the road.


----------



## npdang (Jul 29, 2005)

What do you suggest, as an alternative means of electronically correcting room issues? Building arrays, waveguides, and relocating drivers outside of stock locations isn't a practical option for many of us


----------



## guitarsail (Oct 12, 2007)

Abmolech said:


> One of the more interesting compromises, is the lack of attention to standing waves. When you measure with your RTA, it is not flat... The solution; use the equaliser. We all know it shifts phase, and this can be useful to move the node, but what does it do to the timbre?
> 
> Move the microphone, and its back again....
> 
> ...


I like this guy abmolech. Mmmmmm waveguides and steered arrays...I wish there was a heart/love smiley. I would love to learn how you pulled off a steered array in a car...seriously. That is awesome. Booh standing waves and EQ's which dont help. I know in live sound when designing systems...when you get big spikes or dips in freq. its possible its phasing or standing waves, especially when you start EQ'ing and nothing changes, its def. one of the above. We generally use slight changes in crossovers or minuscule amounts of TA on individual drivers to take care of those problems. I am a live sound audio engineer we use steered arrays quite often...not just line arrays. Has anyone ever tried a steered subwoofer array?? Absolutely the coolest thing. But anyways yessir Judges setting and road happy me setting. I may not fully comprehend all you speak of on monophonic things (understand the mean of what you are saying...all the things to get there...i cant say I do) But I like the cut of your jib sir. In live sound we dont mix stereophonic, so the reproducing the live sound in a car must be in stereo speakers is kind of laughable to me (although I do it for a lack of other processing). We mix in panned monophonic, becuase if you mix true stereo..the crowd Housleft or right is going ot missing out on whatever is panned to the opposite side...and everyone deserves the same experience since they all payed...not just the FOH engineer or people in the prime seats.....wow that was a mouth spew...I'm done now


----------



## Abmolech (Nov 2, 2006)

Yes we are dealing with different sound reproduction issues.
Panned monophonic can work very well, when used in the same space. (Obviously a live act would be one of them)
You wish to give the audience the best sound possible, and have some VERY difficult issues to overcome. I get a bit sick of the glib "as the artist intended", we have "two ears" brigade. That is the reason for my lack of patience, and suggestion of needing to go back to school.:blush:

Who, in the live audience, cannot locate the band members on stage, by sound alone?
Try the same trick in different space, and you would have difficult time. (Depending on how acoustically different the spaces were)

Back onto some far more interesting stuff.

Acoustic space the final frontier.
Can we agree on possibly one part of the sound quality definition?
I think we can. It is one seldom talked about.

Does it sound real?
Who cares if the oboe in the original space, was just "there"
What would they do if they had a different hall or studio, would they change the position of the oboist?
What we want is for a music replay to be good enough to get emotionally involved with.

What mechanism(s) destroy or suspend that attachment?
"False" sound. We simply know, that the sound doesn't belong there. It is in built, so we don't get fooled when we are being stalked, or are hunting. (precedence for example)
The problem with two channel stereophonic, is unless the listening space is close acoustic replica of the recording space, it is going to false.
Why is that?
Because two channel stereophonic recording, records the original space (OK more like two dimensional data), and then has to OVERCOME the listening space to replicate it.
(The listening space obviously has its own acoustic imprint) The problem stereophonic has, it is very weak, compared to the strength of the listening space. (Studio versus car?)

This is where, Logic7, surround and ambisonics start to "pick up the pace". These have far more channels at there disposal, and have far greater chance of overcoming the rooms acoustic imprint.
Alas, there are some problems with these.
First why would we want to put MORE power into the sound producers hands, who have given us such poor music recordings?
Second
While the listening sweet spot maybe larger than two channel stereophonic, they still expect the listener to be a certain relationship to the speakers. 
If the ambisonics uses an ambiophonics centre and rear, then that constraint is loosened even more. (The main reason why university's use ambisonics for audio)
Third
expense.

Anyway, if you have the inclination, surround sound with decent convoluter is available for use on a PC.
here
http://forum.doom9.org/forumdisplay.php?f=11
These are a lot better than the commercial rubbish current offered like prologicII etc. It remains to be seen if MS8, can equal or beat these. (unlikely)

There are also ambisonics, ambiophonics etc available.

These replays methods should be much more real the two channel could hope for. (There is a reason why universities use them...)


----------



## Sassmastersq (Jan 12, 2007)

cvjoint said:


> How Jim, how?
> 
> You would need the right amount of crosstalk.


and apparently that's imposisible... or so you think,


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

Sassmastersq said:


> and apparently that's imposisible... or so you think,


pending explanation, otherwise yes...it is.


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

cvjoint said:


> pending explanation, otherwise yes...it is.


How about "pending demonstration"? 

Hmmm...I'll take believability over accuracy any day.


----------



## Sassmastersq (Jan 12, 2007)

cvjoint said:


> pending explanation, otherwise yes...it is.


so anything you can't personally explain is impossible? wow, your world must be tiny. 

Nobody can yet explain why a magnet works the way it does, (we all know that when the atoms are aligned they exhibit certain behaviours, so don't bother trying to be smart in explaining that) but nobody has figured out what causes them to exhibit those behaviours and their effects on other iron atoms. (again, we all know WHAT happens, but nobody has been able to explain WHY it happens) and sice nobody has explained it, you must think that it is impossible... 

if the "right" amount is required, then how about trial and error until you find the "right" amount? oh, wait, that's impossible; according to you.


----------



## Abmolech (Nov 2, 2006)

> if the "right" amount is required, then how about trial and error until you find the "right" amount? oh, wait, that's impossible; according to you.


The right amount is obtained at a 60 degree azimuth.
If you not 60 degrees, you are unlikely to have the right amount. (PI stereo excepting)
Even at 60 degrees it can be tenuous, depending on the polar response. (It can only be worse at another degree)

Now you know the right amount to get, this should be easy. 

Stereophonic is nearly 80 years old, there is not a lot left to document.

Car audio, 30 plus years of proving stereophonic doesn't work in a car.


----------



## Sassmastersq (Jan 12, 2007)

Abmolech said:


> The right amount is obtained at a 60 degree azimuth.
> If you not 60 degrees, you are unlikely to have the right amount. (PI stereo excepting)
> Even at 60 degrees it can be tenuous, depending on the polar response. (It can only be worse at another degree)
> 
> ...


so what you just said is that it is not impossible... just difficult.


----------



## Abmolech (Nov 2, 2006)

Well when you can 60 degree azimuth for each speaker, your most likely driving an NZ inspired car. (McLaren)

http://www.bruce-mclaren.com/about-bruce-mclaren


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

can someone please help me understand why I can't have a great sounding car without 60-degree azimuth or point me to something I can read to help me understand why?


----------



## ca90ss (Jul 2, 2005)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> can someone please help me understand why I can't have a great sounding car without 60-degree azimuth or point me to something I can read to help me understand why?


Nobody said you can't have a great sounding car without it. What has been said is that you can't achieve stereo without a 60 degree azimuth.


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

ca90ss said:


> Nobody said you can't have a great sounding car without it. What has been said is that you can't achieve stereo without a 60 degree azimuth.


Ok, I'll restate my question. Can someone please explain to me why I can't have stereo without a 60 degree azimuth?


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> Ok, I'll restate my question. Can someone please explain to me why I can't have stereo without a 60 degree azimuth?


Nevermind. I found it.


http://www.eomonline.com/Common/currentissues/July01/toutin.htm


----------



## squeak9798 (Apr 20, 2005)

Abmolech said:


> Car audio, 30 plus years of proving stereophonic doesn't work in a car.


Works just fine in my car......


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

Sassmastersq said:


> so anything you can't personally explain is impossible? wow, your world must be tiny.
> 
> Nobody can yet explain why a magnet works the way it does, (we all know that when the atoms are aligned they exhibit certain behaviours, so don't bother trying to be smart in explaining that) but nobody has figured out what causes them to exhibit those behaviours and their effects on other iron atoms. (again, we all know WHAT happens, but nobody has been able to explain WHY it happens) and sice nobody has explained it, you must think that it is impossible...
> 
> if the "right" amount is required, then how about trial and error until you find the "right" amount? oh, wait, that's impossible; according to you.


I'll take tiny over phony any day.

If you read carefully I said I haven't heard a proper center in a car ever. I'm ready to demo more cars if needed, it hurts me none. I'm sorry if your word on the net doesn't do. It so happens that the word of honor is just about worthless compared to theory on a forum. 

I've experienced with various home and car setups. I noted only one can accurately produce a stage beyond physical placement of the speakers, only on some tracks, only in the sweet spot. Abmolech made an exquisite explanation of why stereo wouldn't and doesn't work in the car. He has no tangency with any entity that I know of and therefore I consider him unbiased. 

Until you or someone else either comes up with a better theory of why stereo doesn't work I'll stick to this one. Meanwhile I'll demo more cars and I will let you know as soon as I find the unicorn.


----------



## Abmolech (Nov 2, 2006)

This is the basic premise of two channel stereophonic.

When listening to a pair of speakers in a room both ears will hear the signals produced by both the left and right loudspeakers. The timing differences associated with this acoustic "crosstalk" between the two channels and each ear lie at the core of the "stereo illusion". This is what allows us to perceive phantom images between the speakers, and coincident-microphone and stereo-panning techniques (which employ only level differences between the two channels to convey the spatial information) rely entirely on this acoustic crosstalk to work properly. A large portion of the left speaker signal will go to the right ear of the listener, and similarly a large portion of the right speaker signal will go to the left ear of the listener When listening to ordinary stereo material via headphones, this interaural timing information is missing — we have only the differences in level between the two channels to go on — and hence the stereo images become non-linear and ill-defined. In fact, most people perceive the individual sound sources to lie on a line running directly through the centre of the head, instead of being portrayed in front of us as they would be with loudspeakers. 
While it is true that if coincident microphones of 20 cm apart, you should have 580 millisecond delay between left and right microphone, to simulate a 90 degree azimuth, crosstalk will reduce this to 250 Milli seconds. This results in a 30 degree loss in separation down to the recommended 60 degree speaker position, allowing the correct placement but with the loss in depth. Some have tried to reduce this crosstalk with various DSP logarithms, producing an increase depth, but at a serious loss with a VERY tiny sweet spot and any head movement completely collapses the illusion.

An increase in crosstalk facilitates more width and depth because the apposing ear receives a much move diffuse signal, with the perception of increased depth and width.This is the reason for the "precise" conditions for stereo, too much cross talk in the intensity sensitive frequencies and the illusion collapses (70 percent) and too little, (55 percent) time sensitive frequencies landscape diminishes. (Easy to prove with headphones)


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

OK. Thanks. 

A really long time ago, it wasn't possible to enjoy music unless one learned to sing or the minstrel happened to be in town. Wow. that would be a bummer. Imagine...no ability to be entertained by just throwing on a record, tape, CD o what-have-you. 

Then, on December 4th, 1877, Thomas Edison recorded and played back the human voice. It was unintelligible, but his invention led to some work by folks who worked for Alexander Graham Bell. Edison had been experimenting with moving coils attached to diaphragms for several years. Bell's people replaced the sheet of paper (and eventually tin) that Edison's machine scratched to record the stimulus with a wax cylinder. They applied for a patent.

Ten years later, in 1887, Edison formed the Edison Phonograph Corporation and he began to market and sell phonographs. These provided a poor although intelligible reproduction of the human voice. 

Then came the Ediphone, Dictaphone and Grammophone in 1888. None of these sounded very good by today's standards, but they were huge successes at the time. Wire recorders were invented in the 1930s and magnetic tape recorders became commonly available in the 1950s. There were also Soundscribers, Dictabelts and a host of other machines. In 1948, AMPEX began to sell open reel-to-reel tapes and offered up to 32 tracks on a 2" wide tape.

There were 1/4 tracks, 1/2 tracks, 8 tracks, blah blah blah. I could go on and on...Then I could post the history of loudspeakers, amplifiers, signal processing, but who has time to type and read all of that? The point is that none of those early machines were very accurate, and if you listened to any of them today, you might say---"Ugh, that's horrible".

The point is that many pursuits are iterative. Think of the present day state-of-the-art as a point on a continuum. Glass is half empty or half full. An accurate reproduction of the human voice is pretty easy to provide. A reproduction of the space in which it was recorded is not--at least not using speakers---headphones can be better with the right processing. Although I'm pretty knowledgeable, I work with people who tire of having to remediate for me. I'm happy not to know everything, because I find lots of great surprises--especially when it comes to audio. Fortunately for me, I get to hear them before many others do. My job is to do my small part in making them available to people who are interested. 

I agree that compared to other processes and products, simple stereo does a poor job of recreating spaces, but even the most advanced products commercially available today do a poor job compared to what's coming. Even ambisonics and panned arrays pale in comparison to the most advanced signal processing. 

Iterative...

Abmolech, be patient while the rest of us catch up, and please...let us enjoy our ignorant bliss while we wait for the surprising next big improvement.


----------



## durwood (Mar 7, 2007)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> be patient while the rest of us catch up, and please...let us enjoy our ignorant bliss while we wait for the surprising next big improvement.


So Andy, how is the carpc processor coming along? Perhaps farther along than MS-8?  You are almost there-not too far behind. Links to VST plugins to try other forms of playback are on the mp3car wiki page(s).


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

I would keep an eye on the tech section of ECA as werewolf is talking about stereo and it's mechanisms now.

The little that I've played with ambiophonics showed that it was pretty cool. Durwood made me a couple demo disks that was pretty interesting.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

durwood said:


> So Andy, how is the carpc processor coming along? Perhaps farther along than MS-8?  You are almost there-not too far behind. Links to VST plugins to try other forms of playback are on the mp3car wiki page(s).


Hey durwood, has anyone managed to get the VST Winamp bridge to support multiple VST plugins yet?


----------



## bobditts (Jul 19, 2006)

reading back through this thread, its funny to see how it evolved from a simple explination of the way IASCA views SQ, to what everyones personal tastes are and the theories behind them.


----------



## durwood (Mar 7, 2007)

MarkZ said:


> Hey durwood, has anyone managed to get the VST Winamp bridge to support multiple VST plugins yet?


I tried it a while back and it partially works depending on what you are tring to do. I tried to use the VST bridge and load console, but whatever goes in basically loops back to winamp via 2 channels, so you can forget any type of multi-channel stuff whether it be a fully active setup, multichannel audio, or active + multichannel audio. Same problem in foobar as well. Convolution is a little funky as well.

To get it to work, the soundcard must be of "pro" type or one that has software AND hardware routing. Basically it has to work like this:

Audio software player -> Route the MME/WDM audio stream to ASIO audio stream -> Console/Plogue/Audiomulch/other VST host -> hardware audio outputs

You have to be able to "mute" the software channels from the actual hardware outputs in the DSP, otherwise it just won't work. The soundcard used is crucial as the list of possible options is small. This list hopefully will grow as more people experiment and report back. However, I have gotten it to work with ONE type of consumer card (creative audigy series + KX DRIVERS)



thehatedguy said:


> I would keep an eye on the tech section of ECA as werewolf is talking about stereo and it's mechanisms now.


Yes I have seen it. Hopefully it won't be biased. I think he missed a part of the monophonic definition that is pretty important, but I will stay out of the discussion/clinic for now.


----------



## AWC (Mar 31, 2008)

ok. I know most of the people on this forum rely on me in times of stress to help steer them to the pastures of happiness. Perhaps I've missed it. Why is it that such smart people (on all sides) offer problems with no inclinations to solutions? Perhaps I am just hoping for closure. I think my system sounds great but it isn't real. I can close my eyes and see the illusion but that illusion fades if I move my head. I believe I have just as deep and wide a soundstage as anybody on here (stereo...using the term loosely) except that I've been to, on and next to a soundstage and realize that a real stage doesn't depend on my head movement or placement. I started this whole trip in search of "sound quality" which, in my naiveity, I thought meant to improve the quality of sound. I screwed that up, didn't I? Seriously, how do we fix this and what the hell are you guys talking about? I know musicians that have spent countless hours in a studio and none of those intended artists care if it seems like a live concert and they definitely don't care if you listen in a care, at home, or on an airplane. Producers do. I've met them too. Many producers are making their best attempt at being a part of an art who have no artistic abilities and, therefore, utilize science to accentuate the artists vision....that has nothing to do with an illusion of a soundstage. Don't get me wrong I understand both sides. I know what goes into songwriting and producing. But in the end, growing grapes is very different than making wine. It seems like, if I follow, we'll need more speakers. A center speaker will, to an extent, nullify what we've worked so hard at because we'll be sending a vast majority of the sound to the center, which will need to be a very nice speaker, indeed. Then our precious comps will be like glorified rear-fills because the center will be the main focus. This leaves another problem. Not only will car audio need to adjust but car makers will need to redesign as well. Some cars already utilize centers but the vast majority do not. What, then, is the solution. How about a supremo tweeter (or the like, something with an extended frequency response) situated at 60 degrees of the driver and passenger (2 each). Maybe newly installed kick panels on the left and right of both sets of feet? Then tune the rest accordingly? It seems possible to leave left and right midbass as normal so long as we've put emphasis on directionality ONLY on the frequencies that require our attention. 

I am not the technical one nor am I making claims of having found the answer. It is a shame that the collective minds, here, concentrate on anything other than solutions after realizing that I problem is at hand. This is why I am the self-appointed spiritual leader of DIYMA. So that my minions may benefit from the warmth of any ensuing flames. Bring it


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

aworldcollision said:


> ok. I know most of the people on this forum rely on me in times of stress to help steer them to the pastures of happiness.


 

We're talking about 60 degree azimuth, not 60 degrees off axis, nor can you achieve any of these for both driver and passanger at the same time in a matchbox.

What is basically comes down to is that the definition is not realistic. Some folks continue to believe that a basic car arrangement has infinite potential, while in reality it's far from it. 

True alternatives come in the shape of a center mounted driving seat ie. McLaren F1, or advanced DSP (read as beyond stereo).


----------



## AWC (Mar 31, 2008)

cvjoint said:


> We're talking about 60 degree azimuth, not 60 degrees off axis, nor can you achieve any of these for both driver and passanger at the same time in a matchbox.
> 
> What is basically comes down to is that the definition is not realistic. Some folks continue to believe that a basic car arrangement has infinite potential, while in reality it's far from it.
> 
> True alternatives come in the shape of a center mounted driving seat ie. McLaren F1, or advanced DSP (read as beyond stereo).


so it is impossble to treat each seat as a seperate listening position?


----------



## durwood (Mar 7, 2007)

aworldcollision said:


> so it is impossble to treat each seat as a seperate listening position?


Stereo effect (yes it is an effect), requires equilateral triangle (unless of course your head is severely deformed and your ears are somehow grossly not centered on your oblong head).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle

When your head becomes one point of the triangle, and you move around, what happens to the triangle? Angles change, distances change...so it's not important right? Wrong. If the minor spacing difference between our ears matters, so does head position with stereo. Add another point to the polygon (center channel), add more (rear channels) etc etc, and take the head more so out of the triangulation, and you can lessen the problem with single seat listening. What are you doing when add more channels? Add more acoustic crosstalk/over-ride the room/spacial acoustics.

You mentioned why don't people come together and find a solution? Well car audio and home audiophiles are probably the worst at this-I would not look to them for answers (except for a few). They are stuck in a world of hurt, tuning with room correction, amps, and cables all the while the general population has already voted. They have chosen-multichannel surround over regular old two channel "stereo"..it sounds more realistic no? How many people watch movies in stereo? How many watch it in surround? What are they trying to do with surround that the stereo effect cannot provide?

For the brave who want to venture outside the realm of commercial Dolby/DTS...there is a brave world where music institutions, and hearing aid development, and virtual reality exist and ARE WORKING TOGETHER to find a solution. If you look through this thread there are plenty clues given on what to search for. This is not hidden info, it is out there for those who are curious, almost all of it can be experimented freely with a home PC, something that you are probably reading this forum on so I grow tired of those who have plenty of excuses and whine that someone is holding out on them, when this is not true at all.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

My thing is finding something that works for 2 seat judging. I know I'm in the minority here with wanting multi seat listening requirements.


----------



## Neil (Dec 9, 2005)

thehatedguy said:


> My thing is finding something that works for 2 seat judging. I know I'm in the minority here with wanting multi seat listening requirements.


I dunno about minority. If "accuracy" really is the goal, I think it should be a requirement....

Lots in home audio that want the same result at different seating positions, too.

Like usual, though, it is taking commercial users a lot longer to catch on to technical institutes and laboratories.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

Speaking in terms of those who compete, there aren't too many people around these parts who are interested in 2 seat SQ judging. I like the challenge.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

Neil said:


> I dunno about minority. If "accuracy" really is the goal, I think it should be a requirement....
> 
> Lots in home audio that want the same result at different seating positions, too.
> 
> Like usual, though, it is taking commercial users a lot longer to catch on to technical institutes and laboratories.


ha...that's a long shot. IMO in good ole US of A we like to squeeze as much money as possible from outdated technology before we move on to the next ant step. How long did it take us to move from standard definition TV to digital, to HD? Even simple cheaper things like cellphones, the Motorola V3 is one of the dumbest phones on the market yet survived in US as a top seller for over two years. Europe uses sim cards for everything and had 3.2 MP cameras with flash before US got the first 2mp camera.

What you are talking about is revolution, reaching to the centers of learning to be ahead of the curve. The more likely situation is you look at Japan and see what's coming.


----------



## cmusic (Nov 16, 2006)

thehatedguy said:


> Speaking in terms of those who compete, there aren't too many people around these parts who are interested in 2 seat SQ judging. I like the challenge.


And how many less people even know how to properly set up a 2 seat system? 

And there are even less people that know how to set up a 2 seat system with minimal or no changes to a stock interior without DSPs!!!!!


----------



## MIAaron (May 10, 2005)

cmusic said:


> And there are even less people that know how to set up a 2 seat system with minimal or no changes to a stock interior without DSPs!!!!!


Would you mind explaining or linking to a good explaination of doing this?  Are you talking about using a center channel?

The only person I MIGHT have a chance to talk to about it is Anthony Davis, but my schedule isn't helping me get to any local meets. I'm sure I'll hit some this summer, but I don't know if he would be able to and I'm starting my new install soon. 

Thanks.


Edit:
To add, a lot of the stuff I have read make use of DSP. It seems like there aren't a lot of vehicles out there that would do it well. As of right now I don't think my vehicle has even close to good enough PLD's to go 2 seat.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

Chuck, only changes to my interior are the extended seat rails and I cut a lot of the center console away. But I agree...setting up a 2 seat car without DSP is getting to be a lost art. 

When are we going to see you at some shows again?

-winslow


----------



## cmusic (Nov 16, 2006)

MIAaron said:


> Would you mind explaining or linking to a good explaination of doing this?  Are you talking about using a center channel?
> 
> The only person I MIGHT have a chance to talk to about it is Anthony Davis, but my schedule isn't helping me get to any local meets. I'm sure I'll hit some this summer, but I don't know if he would be able to and I'm starting my new install soon.
> 
> ...


Well, I have heard many old school cars in IASCA (think 1990 to about 1998) with no center channels and minimal interior changes that sound great. They may not sound absolute perfect from both seats, but they sound damn good from either one. One seat may have a slight edge in tonality and the other has the edge in imaging. In IASCA the most SQ points are in tonality, so most two-seat systems sound tonally great from both seats while sacrificing imaging and staging somewhat in one seat.

The key to the majority of these non-DSP and non-highly modified interior systems is in their initial design and speaker placement. The speakers were placed in locations, mainly the kicks but sometimes the lower front doors, that gave the most equal pathlengths for the majority of the sound range and the least minimal sound reflections. Then small things like minute speaker angle changes, sound absorbing materials in highly reflective areas (under the dash and along the center consoles), and placing the tweeter next to or co-axially mounting it in the center of the speaker were good design and install techniques to start with. Then tuning the system with the proper use of amp gains (to adjust the overall tonal balance of the system), crossover (both frequency and slope), speaker phase, and eq the system would begin to sound great. 

Most of these systems were very simple. Two tweeters and two mids that could play cleanly down to 75-150 Hz in the kicks or lower front doors and using 12 dB/oct passive crossovers, one or two subs that could play cleanly up to 200-400 Hz in the back (even if the crossover point was set to 100 Hz or lower), a clean head unit, dual 30 band eqs (or even dual 15 bands eqs or less), a well adjustable active crossover, and some good clean amps would all these system would have. I can’t think of his name but an installer from Michigan had several of his customer’s cars win their respective class at several IASCA finals using the same system design I mentioned above in each car. Many of the cars with more speakers or system components than would sound great most likely did not have all that extra stuff even playing. A friend of mine won his class at the 1991 IASCA finals with over 30 speakers in the car but only 4 10” subs, 4 6.5” midbasses, 2 4” mids, and 2 1” tweeters were playing. 

The key is KISS, Keep It Simple Stupid. Perhaps one of the best systems I have heard I helped build in a friend’s car. It had 2 Pioneer 6.5” coaxs in the kicks, one used MTX 15” sub in the rear, a cheap Pioneer head unit and a used Alpine 4 channel amp. It won its class and took best of show at a local show back in ’92. It sounded great because it did not have a lot of extra crap that other competitors had in their systems that actually hurt their score instead of helping it. (Here’s a comp tip; the more stuff you have in your system gives the judge more stuff he can deduct points on.)

Do on search on one of the forums on here for Mr Marv’s post with my SQ tuning method (search for cmusic). It has some of my tips for tuning a system.



thehatedguy said:


> Chuck, only changes to my interior are the extended seat rails and I cut a lot of the center console away. But I agree...setting up a 2 seat car without DSP is getting to be a lost art.
> 
> When are we going to see you at some shows again?
> 
> -winslow


Jason,

I don't know when I will be at shows again. I got married this past April and that has been taking up a lot of my time and money. Heck, its been about 3 months since I even posted or surfed on this site except for a for sale post. I miss the people at shows but I don't miss the competition. An IASCA competitor from the early to mid '90s told me the two best days of competing he ever had was the day he started and the day he quit. I know now what he meant. The many system re-builds, the traveling, the chance of getting incompetent judges, the money, and other things was getting to me after about 7-8 years of competing. For the past fews years I have enjoyed my systems more than I ever did when I was competing. I still set them up to IASCA SQ standards because I like to listen to my music that way, but I don't have the desire to try to be the best in my class anymore. If things in my life slows down in the future I would still like to judge some, but by going on when I was going to shows and had my judging certification I have the feeling I won't be asked. 

Chuck


----------



## durwood (Mar 7, 2007)

So the goal for some is KISS and great multiseat tonality?

*Goals:*
1) KISS
2) Little DSP (unless for crossover/gain useage)-NO EQ otherwise you really aren't using minimal DSP now are you?
3) Multiseat listening
4) Tonality

Everything else can take a backseat right?

The answer could not be any easier

A single centrally monophonic channel (Not single speaker-just single channel)

1) KISS-Check
2) Little DSP - Check
3) Multiseat Listening - Check
4) Tonality - Check


----------



## MIAaron (May 10, 2005)

cmusic said:


> Well, I have heard many old school cars in IASCA (think 1990 to about 1998) with no center channels and minimal interior changes that sound great. They may not sound absolute perfect from both seats, but they sound damn good from either one. One seat may have a slight edge in tonality and the other has the edge in imaging. In IASCA the most SQ points are in tonality, so most two-seat systems sound tonally great from both seats while sacrificing imaging and staging somewhat in one seat.
> 
> The key to the majority of these non-DSP and non-highly modified interior systems is in their initial design and speaker placement. The speakers were placed in locations, mainly the kicks but sometimes the lower front doors, that gave the most equal pathlengths for the majority of the sound range and the least minimal sound reflections. Then small things like minute speaker angle changes, sound absorbing materials in highly reflective areas (under the dash and along the center consoles), and placing the tweeter next to or co-axially mounting it in the center of the speaker were good design and install techniques to start with. Then tuning the system with the proper use of amp gains (to adjust the overall tonal balance of the system), crossover (both frequency and slope), speaker phase, and eq the system would begin to sound great.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the info Chuck.  Is Wil Thorne the Michigan installer you are thinking of? I've used that basic setup several times but I havn't been able to get it to the level that I have been able to get a 1 seater with DSP. But only one of the vehicles I have owned had pld's under 12", and I am far from an excellent tuner.

I'm very familiar with your tuning write-up and have used it quite a few times. I've also passed it on to many people on the forums as it addresses quite a few common issues. That post has helped a lot of people. I know the forum software on ECA couldn't do stickies, but I'm surpised it isn't a sticky here. I believe your post and the TA posts by Audionutz and Kev7909 on ECA are some of the most useful posts the forums have seen. Easy to follow tuning and setup advice based on what you hear.

I don't want to take up all your free time, but if you get a chance I'd really like to know your personal technique when initially aiming your speakers. Did you listen to music, pink noise, do one speaker at a time, etc.

Thanks,
Aaron


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

WTF is wrong with using DSP? 

I don't understand this, unless it's some sort of bizarre exercise or experiment. To me, the challenge in setting up a great sounding car without DSP is kinda like accepting a challenge to clear an acre of wooded land without any cutting tools--no saws of any kind.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> WTF is wrong with using DSP?
> 
> I don't understand this, unless it's some sort of bizarre exercise or experiment. To me, the challenge in setting up a great sounding car without DSP is kinda like accepting a challenge to clear an acre of wooded land without any cutting tools--no saws of any kind.


All you have to do is extend the seat rails length and width wise for judging.

Personally I'm going to install the speakers in the windshield and remove the front seats and center console, then make the judge sit in the backseat. It does wonders for PLDs and TA


----------



## Abmolech (Nov 2, 2006)

> WTF is wrong with using DSP?
> 
> I don't understand this, unless it's some sort of bizarre exercise or experiment. To me, the challenge in setting up a great sounding car without DSP is kinda like accepting a challenge to clear an acre of wooded land without any cutting tools--no saws of any kind.





> Iterative...
> 
> Abmolech, be patient while the rest of us catch up, and please...let us enjoy our ignorant bliss while we wait for the surprising next big improvement.


Perhaps you might wish to apply that last statement to yourself?


----------

