# Soundstage Width



## Grindcore (Dec 12, 2012)

Heya guys after all thats said and done im pretty happy with my system.at the moment im having an issue with the sound stage width on the drivers side..Right hand side here in OZ!

Anyway ive used many tracks to evaluate the width and most recently ive been using the EMMA positions track...

Every position sounds amazing except for my drivers side..the right position is fine but when he says far right and extreme far right the width doesnt change much at all...it just sounds like its from the speaker and if anything the depth of sound just changes...on the left hand side the left and extreme left sound like they are way past the a piller...

So im just wondering what i should be looking at to adjust to help out the width on the right hand side...

The only info for speaker postitioning is that the drivers side mid/tweet pod is more on axis than the left side.

So would trying to angle out the drivers side mid make a difference? Maybe get it slightly more off axis? Other than that any tweaks i should be trying eq/time alignment wise?

Cheers for any help


----------



## gstokes (Apr 20, 2014)

Grindcore said:


> Heya guys after all thats said and done im pretty happy with my system.at the moment im having an issue with the sound stage width on the drivers side..Right hand side here in OZ!
> 
> Anyway ive used many tracks to evaluate the width and most recently ive been using the EMMA positions track...
> 
> ...


If the system isn't Time Aligned that would be good first step..

Checking to make sure the speaker is not 180 degrees out of phase would be another..

The speakers should be symmetrical in relation to their location..


----------



## Grindcore (Dec 12, 2012)

Cheers for the reply...ok a bit more background.
Time alignment has been done(now i was asking that if finer tweaking on that side would make a difference to the result im after.the sound stage is very good.vocals are rock solid center and up high near the rear view mirror..both male and female vocals have height and rock solid center.imaging is bang on...left and right information is bang on where its meant to be..depth is also very good but something that could be improved slightly..so all in all everything is how it should be.it just seems that the width at right of the sound stage is cut off at the a pillar where as the left side its out near the side mirror.

I can adjust phase quickly with the alpine h800 so will give that a try when i get home..as for time alignment like i mentioned could even finer tweaking there make a difference?

The position of the mids and tweets are symmetrical now...its just that im much closer to the speaker and its pointing more at me than the left side...i would say they are both angled in at about 20-30 degrees.

Thanks again


----------



## gstokes (Apr 20, 2014)

My Sony has a fine tune adjustment of -1 -2 -3 once you have the position set for left front, I tweaked mine to the -2 position and it put the stage on my steering wheel. Try facing the tweeters inwards and up towards rear view mirror, experiment with aiming and see what works best for your vehicles acoustics..


----------



## Grindcore (Dec 12, 2012)

Ahhh i see..interesting! ...ah well when i got home i messed around with it...phase was all good...flipping it only made me lose focus..gave the pods are good looking over and they are pretty much identical in position on each pillar..

what i did forget was that i was running rear fill with a mini dsp...so im wondering if i may need to tweak the rear right speaker settings to see if i can get the same effect as the lect hand side.i dunno if you have messed with L-R band limited and delayed rear fill but maybe i will mess with the delay and attenuation of the rear right and see if thats where my problem may lay...

just ouy of curiosity i disconnected the rear fill whilst playing that EMMA positions track and without the fill the stage did narrow a bit...so will have to hook up the laptop to the mini dsp and muck around with that..


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

A few observations:

1) time alignment and phase are two different things. Be very careful about arbitrarily changing either; either the two drivers are arriving at the same time or they are not.

2) How are you measuring arrival times? With a mic? Note that xover filters introduce a delay, and due to this, doing t/a with a tape measure isn't ideal.


----------



## mendopell (May 28, 2015)

Hey there, Grindcore. Really good post, about a very common issue. I'm going to be doing some experimentation of my own, to see just what may work better. 

This is the forum of super guru, car audio fanatic tuners. I'm shocked no one has stepped up to help make this a cool learning thread.



Grindcore said:


> Heya guys after all thats said and done im pretty happy with my system.at the moment im having an issue with the sound stage width on the drivers side..Right hand side here in OZ!
> 
> Anyway ive used many tracks to evaluate the width and most recently ive been using the EMMA positions track...
> 
> ...


----------



## Grindcore (Dec 12, 2012)

Patrick Bateman said:


> A few observations:
> 
> 1) time alignment and phase are two different things. Be very careful about arbitrarily changing either; either the two drivers are arriving at the same time or they are not.
> 
> 2) How are you measuring arrival times? With a mic? Note that xover filters introduce a delay, and due to this, doing t/a with a tape measure isn't ideal.


i havent used software to set up TA...well i used the h800 auto TA...then i went through with a tape measure to compare...and yes using a tape doesnt take in to account crossover filters etc....so i just let the alpine unit take car of TA...i gave it a few goes but got a really good result in the end after a listen so didnt venture in to using a program to measure it.i use trueRTA and a dayton mic for everything else.


----------



## Grindcore (Dec 12, 2012)

mendopell said:


> Hey there, Grindcore. Really good post, about a very common issue. I'm going to be doing some experimentation of my own, to see just what may work better.
> 
> This is the forum of super guru, car audio fanatic tuners. I'm shocked no one has stepped up to help make this a cool learning thread.


Thanks mate.well doing a search there are numerous posts on width etc and i started this one because of a specific problem with mine..i.e width on the right hand side...so yeah hoping a few more suggestions come up to try!

I messed with the rear fill and that wasnt much help either...
in one of the other width posts i read that width cues...well ambient cues are around the 4k mark..now this is pretty much were my crossover point is between my mids and tweets...so gonna have a mess around with things there and re TA the set up and see if that helps..

i cant physically mount the mids wider as they are up on the dash in the corners.the only way to get them wider would be in the kicks but for what im after i dont want to go to all that trouble when everything else sounds sweet the way it is...i may just have to live with it!


----------



## Grindcore (Dec 12, 2012)

If anything i can get the tweets wider...probably about 2 inches either side by mounting them in the sail panels...but again it may open up a whole can of worms with the install again and then a retune etc....if it really starts pissing me off i may just have to bite the bullet and mess with it!


----------



## claydo (Oct 1, 2012)

I experienced the same issue.......and I'll tell ya what I had. The stage seemed wider on the opposite side of the car, the near side just wouldn't separate the last few snare hits. While I thought this was the stage narrowing on the near side, it turned out to be the stage collapsing on that side. My problem, and I'm not saying yours is the same, but it sounds simular, was the level was too high on the closer speaker, causing the drivers side stage cues to pile on top of each other. Same situation as you've described, center beautiful, but the most extreme two snare hits on the drivers side seemed to come from the same place in space....last one no wider then the next to last. Try lowering the level of the drivers side mid/tweet, then revisit your time allignment to fix any skewing the new levels create. When i did this it allowed the opposite speakers more ability to pull the drivers stage out, better resolving the fine cues on the drivers side. I hope this works for ya, as it took me a while to get to the bottom of my issue.


----------



## I800C0LLECT (Jan 26, 2009)

First time I truly broke the confines of the vehicle... Meaning my stage sounds like it was outside the car... I used rear fill.

Specifically, R-L, attenuated, band passed, and delayed at least 20ms. It seemed like I had instruments out by my mirror and sometimes further

I think logic 7 or pro logic do the same thing but better. Didn't the h800 come with that? The idea is that you're creating the reflections that mimic a larger room


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

^^^^^

First, crossovers do introduce a delay, but that delay is group delay and so long as your crossovers are symmetrical (same on both sides) that phase change is kind of like absolute phase. No need to worry about that,

Rear fill is the ticket. You have PL2 in your H800. Is it on?


----------



## Babs (Jul 6, 2007)

Newb opinion here guys and take it for what it's worth but just from what I found tuning the little lowly 2-way. Three essentials to shoot for that really nailed down my imaging, and as result my stage:

1. Get your TA nailed rock solid including in-phase through your mids up into your tweeters. Fear not using your ears. Listen until it hurts with a good center vocal track that isn't replete with reverb panning and affects (relatively dry). Listen to pulse clicks, to the "center image" track. Anything that's solidly panned center but relatively simple with mid and high-freq information. There's a Diana Krall track that's nothing but finger snapping, stand-up bass and vocals all pretty dead center that's freakin' awesome for this. A "polarity pulse" track should have drivers disappear and become one image when they're nailed.

2. Get your left side and your right side EQ'd to their separate measurements are darn close. Folks scoff at that, but I'm a believer.. That, combined with spot-on TA did more for my image and stage than I could have imagined. This of course also involves leveling at your ears. 

Measure, fix, rinse, repeat steps 1 and 2.

Again caveat: I am just a wee babe in a wilderness of you guys who've tuned a helluva lot more than I. These are simply my theories since learning to tune, or rather learning that I have much to learn, after the NCSQ meet. And Clay if you hear my car at the fall meet and it blows, totally call BS on me there.  LOL

Case in point really, in short: My stage exploded when I worked on the center.. The image focus. Go figure.


----------



## claydo (Oct 1, 2012)

Lmao.......ok, will do........aw, it didn't totally blow last time, so I doubt it will this time either, lol.


----------



## Babs (Jul 6, 2007)

claydo said:


> Lmao.......ok, will do........aw, it didn't totally blow last time, so I doubt it will this time either, lol.


It blew all my hair off.  No wait.. That was your car.


----------



## claydo (Oct 1, 2012)

I feel car audio should be a visceral experience. :rockon:


----------



## Babs (Jul 6, 2007)

"Impact and dynamics!"


----------



## Grindcore (Dec 12, 2012)

Cheers for the input guys...ok first..the h800 does have those processing features but i cannot use them because my system is a 3 way front and sub rear.that us why i went the mini dsp route and split my midrange signal....then adjusted what i needed throught that ie...input signal/slopes etc etc..

today i will start playing with the levels of the right hand side mid and tweet and some fine TA adjustments and see if that suggestion may help also....thanks again for the suggestions


----------



## gijoe (Mar 25, 2008)

As Andy pointed out, you need a properly processed rear fill to fix. There is only so much that can be done to increase width when the speakers are mounted inside of a car. When a driver is physically mounted only 5 inches to your left (or right) you can't expect the stage to extend 2 feet outside of that physical boundary.

Properly processed rear fill (L-R, attenuated, filtered, and delayed) can help with this, but even with an excellent front stage, width is heavily determined by the physical boundaries of the car.


----------



## Babs (Jul 6, 2007)

So curious. On rearfill. How to process? I'll search but should they not be simply timed with your mains?


Sent from iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Grindcore (Dec 12, 2012)

claydo said:


> I experienced the same issue.......and I'll tell ya what I had. The stage seemed wider on the opposite side of the car, the near side just wouldn't separate the last few snare hits. While I thought this was the stage narrowing on the near side, it turned out to be the stage collapsing on that side. My problem, and I'm not saying yours is the same, but it sounds simular, was the level was too high on the closer speaker, causing the drivers side stage cues to pile on top of each other. Same situation as you've described, center beautiful, but the most extreme two snare hits on the drivers side seemed to come from the same place in space....last one no wider then the next to last. Try lowering the level of the drivers side mid/tweet, then revisit your time allignment to fix any skewing the new levels create. When i did this it allowed the opposite speakers more ability to pull the drivers stage out, better resolving the fine cues on the drivers side. I hope this works for ya, as it took me a while to get to the bottom of my issue.


really keen to give this a try later today...roughly how much lower did you have to lower the weaker side? As it stands atm i have the right side lower by 1db...just because its closer to me...then had TA done by the h800...i know it will be different for all cars etc but homy db did you eventually drop that side?


----------



## gijoe (Mar 25, 2008)

Babs said:


> So curious. On rearfill. How to process? I'll search but should they not be simply timed with your mains?
> 
> 
> Sent from iPhone using Tapatalk


No, they need approximately 20ms delay from the fronts to create the sense of a room that is larger than a car. The rear speakers, when done properly, will add ambiance, and can help with stage width. But, if not done properly, will hurt the front stage, not reinforce it. 

This is one reason why so few people run rear speakers. The processing required to do it in a way to help the front stage isn't readily available in a car. There are options, but not many, and those options generally come with their fair share of setbacks that motivate users to pass on them.


----------



## Grindcore (Dec 12, 2012)

gijoe said:


> As Andy pointed out, you need a properly processed rear fill to fix. There is only so much that can be done to increase width when the speakers are mounted inside of a car. When a driver is physically mounted only 5 inches to your left (or right) you can't expect the stage to extend 2 feet outside of that physical boundary.
> 
> Properly processed rear fill (L-R, attenuated, filtered, and delayed) can help with this, but even with an excellent front stage, width is heavily determined by the physical boundaries of the car.


The mini dsp and its rear fill plug in i thought was the correct processing way to go...it has all those features that are required for rear fill...so i thought i may just have to make finer adhustments within the program..with attenuation etc..
I dont totally agree with the boundaries being limited by the speaker placement only because i seem to be getting a much wider stage on the left side of my car and not the right side...


----------



## Babs (Jul 6, 2007)

gijoe said:


> No, they need approximately 20ms delay from the fronts to create the sense of a room that is larger than a car. The rear speakers, when done properly, will add ambiance, and can help with stage width. But, if not done properly, will hurt the front stage, not reinforce it.
> 
> This is one reason why so few people run rear speakers. The processing required to do it in a way to help the front stage isn't readily available in a car. There are options, but not many, and those options generally come with their fair share of setbacks that motivate users to pass on them.


Thanks.. Understood. So I imagine you mean 20ms or so of delay beyond what they'd normally have to match right up Left rear to left mid for example, which would mean left rear to L/R mid of course. 

So would it be safe to assume a "full-range" rear-fill (tweet and mid) be more appropriate for this? As opposed to just something like a mid-bass driver band-passed.

Edit: just did a search.. holy crap "rear-fill" is a rather extensive topic in and of itself. The one thing (thank you Andy) I really loved back in my MS-8 days was Logic 7 for rear-fill (as well as how it steered center). Hint.. Any new processors would do well to have such "surround" goodies.


----------



## Grindcore (Dec 12, 2012)

Oh do you mean the speaker that is closer to you...yes obviously thats only 5 or so inches away where the left could be 50.....i see your point


----------



## gijoe (Mar 25, 2008)

Babs said:


> Thanks.. Understood. So I imagine you mean 20ms or so of delay beyond what they'd normally have to match right up Left rear to left mid for example, which would mean left rear to L/R mid of course.
> 
> So would it be safe to assume a "full-range" rear-fill (tweet and mid) be more appropriate for this? As opposed to just something like a mid-bass driver band-passed.
> 
> Edit: just did a search.. holy crap "rear-fill" is a rather extensive topic in and of itself. The one thing (thank you Andy) I really loved back in my MS-8 days was Logic 7 for rear-fill (as well as how it steered center). Hint.. Any new processors would do well to have such "surround" goodies.


Correct, whatever delays need to be set up front to get the sound to arrive at the listening position simultaneously, the rears need to be about 20ms after. This is to recreate the reverberation that would occur in a larger room, to give a bigger sense of space to the music. 

With the correct processing, you can use a full range setup, but you could also likely get away with a simple midbass, or midrange. High frequencies are very localizable, they need to be attenuated and delayed so they appear to be reflections off of distant walls, not the source of the original sound.


----------



## I800C0LLECT (Jan 26, 2009)

Babs said:


> Thanks.. Understood. So I imagine you mean 20ms or so of delay beyond what they'd normally have to match right up Left rear to left mid for example, which would mean left rear to L/R mid of course.
> 
> So would it be safe to assume a "full-range" rear-fill (tweet and mid) be more appropriate for this? As opposed to just something like a mid-bass driver band-passed.
> 
> Edit: just did a search.. holy crap "rear-fill" is a rather extensive topic in and of itself. The one thing (thank you Andy) I really loved back in my MS-8 days was Logic 7 for rear-fill (as well as how it steered center). Hint.. Any new processors would do well to have such "surround" goodies.



If your goal is to add ambiance(rear fill) then you have to understand what's going on in a larger concert hall. What frequencies are reflecting? What does our brain do with reflections and sound?

The short story is that you will want to manipulate mid-range more than anything. The issue is the way songs are recorded, it doesn't always match up and that's why most people decide "Logic 7 sounds turrible!"

Try whatever variations may work best in your circumstance but if you can subtract R from L and play 300hz thru 3KHz delayed 20ms from the entire system(which means in addition to whatever speaker is delayed the most) and then attenuate the speakers so they play below what is recognized by your ears you will obtain depth and width that you could never achieve with a standard 2 channel stereo speaker install.

Going back to try variations...if all you have is the ability for delay, bandpassed, and attenuated...then try that. Just tinker to see how it works in your installation.

The best location is speakers installed in your rear deck.


----------



## I800C0LLECT (Jan 26, 2009)

doh!...beat me to it.


----------



## Grindcore (Dec 12, 2012)

The rear fill attenuation side of things..a starting point..minus 10db from front stage?


----------



## Babs (Jul 6, 2007)

I800C0LLECT said:


> If your goal is to add ambiance(rear fill) then you have to understand what's going on in a larger concert hall. What frequencies are reflecting? What does our brain do with reflections and sound?
> 
> The short story is that you will want to manipulate mid-range more than anything. The issue is the way songs are recorded, it doesn't always match up and that's why most people decide "Logic 7 sounds turrible!"
> 
> ...





gijoe said:


> Correct, whatever delays need to be set up front to get the sound to arrive at the listening position simultaneously, the rears need to be about 20ms after. This is to recreate the reverberation that would occur in a larger room, to give a bigger sense of space to the music.
> 
> With the correct processing, you can use a full range setup, but you could also likely get away with a simple midbass, or midrange. High frequencies are very localizable, they need to be attenuated and delayed so they appear to be reflections off of distant walls, not the source of the original sound.


Fascinating stuff! Nice thing about the Helix, I'd be able to process the rears just like any. My first thoughts were keeping mids at least in phase, regardless the final "helix grouped" delay amount. TA them perfectly in, then group them and add 20ms or so but in phase in the mid region. Thinking band-passed from maybe 80-100 up into say 500ish hz with a medium 12db slope was my first thought. Considering I've currently got the channels and the holes in the deck and the mids on the shelf, what the heck. Might as well.
Might be really cool.. Might be really baaaaaad. Dunno.

I do remember L-7 was freakin' awesome staging but don't have it now.
What's that I hear?.. An Audiofrog GB DSP? LOL!!!! Just ribbin' ya Andy. Speaking of, hehe.. Just thought to myself, if I were to put out a car-audio product it'd have to be at least 4 letters so it could pass the DIYMA search engine. LOL
Sorry.. I digress.


----------



## claydo (Oct 1, 2012)

Grindcore said:


> really keen to give this a try later today...roughly how much lower did you have to lower the weaker side? As it stands atm i have the right side lower by 1db...just because its closer to me...then had TA done by the h800...i know it will be different for all cars etc but homy db did you eventually drop that side?


With my dash mounted, in your face drivers, I had substantially more attenuation on the near side than you, lol. When I started I was at -4.......I ended up at -6.....


----------



## Grindcore (Dec 12, 2012)

Ahh ok good to know...well my mids are left at -7 and i had my right at -8..so will give the 2db difference a go first and work from there.cheers mate


----------



## Babs (Jul 6, 2007)

claydo said:


> With my dash mounted, in your face drivers, I had substantially more attenuation on the near side than you, lol. When I started I was at -4.......I ended up at -6.....



You had rear-fill when I heard it?



Sent from iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## claydo (Oct 1, 2012)

No rear fill here........just talking about front drivers. Being his car is opposite drive than mine, I try to use near and far, instead of left and right.


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

Think about it this way--if something is recorded only in the left channel and all you have is a left speaker, how can the sound seem to come from somewhere other than the left speaker?


----------



## claydo (Oct 1, 2012)

Uh.....wat? You been in the liquor cabinet this morning? Lol, joking of course, but I don't understand what yer getting at there......


----------



## Babs (Jul 6, 2007)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> Think about it this way--if something is recorded only in the left channel and all you have is a left speaker, how can the sound seem to come from somewhere other than the left speaker?


Absolutely.. In a home system, you have at least the room to assist a fully left or right panned sound in allowing the speaker to disappear a bit. Granted, I'd be one of those when I do the basement that'll have all the reflection points loaded with floating panels to effectively try to kill early reflections. But diffusion to keep the room lively is nice. 

In car, with reflections being so close, you can't simulate a nice room/hall affect based on those evil nasty reflections alone. So in this case, rearfill can serve to simulate essentially room reverb, rather than actually becoming part of the main signal source. A crude small room echo. 

However, I'd think with no decay/repeat capability to more accurately simulate reverb, such as a garden variety Lexicon rack-mount (hmmm.. Another Harmon brand, go figure), you'd definitely want to have those single short delay rear speakers attenuated quite a bit I imagine. Lexicon home theater gear.. mmmmm good.  Sorry.


----------



## I800C0LLECT (Jan 26, 2009)

I think my rears were attenuated around 10db or so. But then again, I attenuated by ear and stage manipulation. Even phase played a part. I could get the stage on the front hood of my car. Bass sounded like it was out at the front of the hood as well.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

claydo said:


> Uh.....wat? You been in the liquor cabinet this morning? Lol, joking of course, but I don't understand what yer getting at there......


Umm  re-read Andys post and figure out what he's saying. Communication is all about content and context. You're reading the content, but the context eludes you.


----------



## claydo (Oct 1, 2012)

I think yer right sqnut.......I'm still not there.....hmmm, maybe I should read back a few posts? Or is he just stating that the drivers themselves set stage width....or, well.....like i said, he lost me on that one....lol.


----------



## claydo (Oct 1, 2012)

Yup....I reread it multiple times....even slowly, outloud. I'm gonna need a lil help on this one guys......what is he hinting at there?


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

If you had got it prior to your post your content and context would have been different, anyway welcome to the party.


----------



## I800C0LLECT (Jan 26, 2009)

claydo said:


> Yup....I reread it multiple times....even slowly, outloud. I'm gonna need a lil help on this one guys......what is he hinting at there?


You don't hear just a speaker. You listen to the speaker+reflections. Those reflections help your brain understand the boundaries of the environment and the source of sound.

If you create reflections that don't exist but would in a larger environment you will effectively widen the stage and add depth. Those added reflections can't be created by your vehicle. But adding them nonetheless makes your brain and ears think music is larger than the confines of your cabin.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Sorry Clado I thought you were being snarky....internet.

The drum that is panned extreme left is playing only through your left channel and hence left speaker. You cannot hear it beyond the physical speaker, effectively its only one speaker playing. All the talk of 'I heard the last drum way past my side view mirror' is internet BS. Reflections and cross talk do define boundaries, but it doesn't apply in this case. Your left boundary is defined by cross talk of right channel and vice versa. In this case since content from right channel is virtually 0, cross talk or reflections aren't playing a part.


----------



## claydo (Oct 1, 2012)

sqnut said:


> If you had got it prior to your post your content and context would have been different, anyway welcome to the party.


Thanks, I like to party.....lol.



I800C0LLECT said:


> You don't hear just a speaker. You listen to the speaker+reflections. Those reflections help your brain understand the boundaries of the environment and the source of sound.
> 
> If you create reflections that don't exist but would in a larger environment you will effectively widen the stage and add depth. Those added reflections can't be created by your vehicle. But adding them nonetheless makes your brain and ears think music is larger than the confines of your cabin.


So, you believe he was speaking to reflections? I'm not really sure reflections set boundary width as much as signal manipulation both in the mix.....and on the playback system. I mean explain the songs that have a huge, open stage that widens the borders of your cars stage. I have tracks that go well outside and deeper than others, yet the reflections remain constant. Why is that?


----------



## claydo (Oct 1, 2012)

sqnut said:


> Sorry Clado I thought you were being snarky....internet.
> 
> The drum that is panned extreme left is playing only through your left channel and hence left speaker. You cannot hear it beyond the physical speaker, effectively its only one speaker playing. All the talk of 'I heard the last drum way past my side view mirror' is internet BS. Reflections and cross talk do define boundaries, but it doesn't apply in this case. Your left boundary is defined by cross talk of right channel and vice versa. In this case since content from right channel is virtually 0, cross talk or reflections aren't playing a part.


Naw nut, for once I wasn't being snarky...lol. I honestly didn't understand what he was hinting at!


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

The only way you're going to feel the physical width on the last beat is beyond the door (assuming that's where the speaker is mounted) is if you have either something like the logic 7 or rears going. 

The problem with algorithm based dsp is that neither music nor our ears work on the same algorithm, so there will be tonal artifacts. With rears the width seems beyond the door but that too is an illusion what seems further out is actually also closer to you, kinda like a curved tv.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

If you don't feel the separation between the second last and last drum beat, and they image up squished together, check your L/R timing and/or levels. More likely a timing issue.


----------



## claydo (Oct 1, 2012)

I heard a track in a home stereo shop the other day, by Roger waters of pink Floyd fame. That track had what sounded like an old tv playing dialogue far left over your shoulder........I need to get that in the car for ****s and giggles.....same track also had a cougar growl on the floor to the right......it was fun. I have a track myself off a chesky compilation of the persuasions covering the u2 song called I still haven't found what I'm looking for.......if you don't know, the persuasions are an a capella group, and late in the track one of the singers yells (woo, I think) far right.....like directly right on a home stereo, and just outside the passenger rearview in the car........honestly, no ********. Like I said, some tracks can push boundaries through some kind of mixing trickery, well beyond the boundaries of any reflections.


----------



## claydo (Oct 1, 2012)

sqnut said:


> If you don't feel the separation between the second last and last drum beat, and they image up sqished to gether, check your L/R timing and/or levels. More likely a timing issue.


This is the exact advice I offered earlier in the thread. Is gud advice!


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

claydo said:


> I heard a track in a home stereo shop the other day, by Roger waters of pink Floyd fame. That track had what sounded like an old tv playing dialogue far left over your shoulder........I need to get that in the car for ****s and giggles.....same track also had a cougar growl on the floor to the right......it was fun. I have a track myself off a chesky compilation of the persuasions covering the u2 song called I still haven't found what I'm looking for.......if you don't know, the persuasions are an a capella group, and late in the track one of the singers yells (woo, I think) far right.....like directly right on a home stereo, and just outside the passenger rearview in the car........honestly, no ********. Like I said, some tracks can push boundaries through some kind of mixing trickery, well beyond the boundaries of any reflections.


The effects on Roger Waters, Amused to Death are thanks to Q sound, which is also digital manipulation via delay. It has the dog barking at different places from on your hood to right outside your window etc, excellent album. I was talking more in terms of normal album and recordings.


----------



## claydo (Oct 1, 2012)

Yup....sorry sqnut, that was more to follow up my response to 800 collects reflections post than to our convo about andy's post. On most recordings and certainly the snare test track, my boundaries line up with my drivers width wise, but thankfully a foot or so behind them.....


And yes....amused to death....that was the album. I need to get that, it was full of fun imaging stuffs.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

claydo said:


> This is the exact advice I offered earlier in the thread. Is gud advice!


Well, then you were right before I was:thumbsup:


----------



## claydo (Oct 1, 2012)

I was all over it because I heard the exact effect when I first played the snare track in mine.......took a while to figure it out.....


----------



## Babs (Jul 6, 2007)

Brings up a good point though. Better recordings even will have effects so subtle they're not noticed until critical listening, which will do things to perceived staging. 

Even with car reflections the 7 drum beat IASCA track will and should typically localize right at the doggone drivers on beat 1 and 7 so I agree. On that track any mormal non-surround or rear-fill setup that's well timed on each side will localize right there in your face. Not out by the mirror or elsewhere. If it does it's either timing or a very odd reflection that likes those frequencies. 


Sent from iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## I800C0LLECT (Jan 26, 2009)

claydo said:


> Thanks, I like to party.....lol.
> 
> 
> 
> *So, you believe he was speaking to reflections?* I'm not really sure reflections set boundary width as much as signal manipulation both in the mix.....and on the playback system. I mean explain the songs that have a huge, open stage that widens the borders of your cars stage. I have tracks that go well outside and deeper than others, yet the reflections remain constant. Why is that?



I sure do. I don't know how I could ever tune my speakers to sound as if they're installed outside of my car without introducing information that was never originally provided. The way we interpret sound waves helps us to understand point of origin of a sound. That's why we look in a specific direction. Funny enough, how many times do we look in the wrong direction? Reflections do that. Ever look for a plane or helicopter in the wrong part of the sky while in a city?

I think the same thing applies to fooling your brain into thinking that sound is coming from beyond the vehicles cabin. Unless you put a speaker on your side mirror how else do you trick your brain? Reflections. The sound will be as big as the room as it is playing. How do you pretend you have a bigger room? Introduce the reflections that are typically found in a larger room...band-passed R-L, delayed at least 20ms, attenuate.

I think Lycan/werewolf went through all of it much better than I did in the rear fill thread.

http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/system-design-help-me-choose-equipment-my-car/9806-rear-fill-do-you-use.html


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

I don't know what else to say other than "I disagree" when you guys say that the width is solely at the raw driver location.

Reflection is a primary driver for width. The distance between the reflection and the source, the angle of the reflection, the polar response of the speaker with/without a crossover... all of these are parts of the "width" whole. 

Try this for an experiment...

take a midrange, put it in directly front of you on the dash, now angle it toward the driver's side window to where you see the _reflection of the speaker_ in the window pointing _toward you_ (ie; if you took a picture of your window you'd see the speaker looking at you within some angle window). what happens? hint: the width won't stop at just in front of you. 

now, play with the bandpass. 

now, play with making the distance to the side window vs midrange smaller. 


It may not be something you can use as a daily driver type install BUT it will be an enlightening experience.


----------



## I800C0LLECT (Jan 26, 2009)

ErinH said:


> I don't know what else to say other than "I disagree" when you guys say that the width is solely at the raw driver location.
> 
> *Reflection is a primary driver for width. * The distance between the reflection and the source, the angle of the reflection, the polar response of the speaker with/without a crossover... all of these are parts of the "width" whole.




I completely agree. I've tried that test in the past too  I think there's a guy training to be a pilot around here who did that? It's probably my fault we got stuck on reflections with rear fill but where you mount a driver obviously plays a big part in that too.


EDIT: I think Erin pointed out a big issue with my assumptions about driver placement. Anybody using their mid-range up high the way he describes? I guess because I've been thinking based on the assumption that the response is the same in all directions so long as you aren't beaming you could achieve the same effect?

I still stand by my other statement that to truly break the confines of the vehicle ambiance is key. I haven't been able to achieve the width I have without it. First time I experienced that it was pretty cool how the vehicle boundary was erased.


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

claydo said:


> I think yer right sqnut.......I'm still not there.....hmmm, maybe I should read back a few posts? Or is he just stating that the drivers themselves set stage width....or, well.....like i said, he lost me on that one....lol.


Bingo. If you don't have anything but left and right speakers, then those set the stage width.


----------



## I800C0LLECT (Jan 26, 2009)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> Bingo. If you don't have anything but left and right speakers, then those set the stage width.


But that just points to the same old story... Beaming? And location/reflections? And attenuation?


----------



## Grindcore (Dec 12, 2012)

Oookk lot of info in here now!! I have tried messing with attenuation on the rhs but still it didnt improve things much...

Another suggestion was angling out the dash speakers for reflections etc and see what effects there are...

Well ive dug up some old photos of my install pre glassing etc and it shows the position of my speakers as they are now..well the tweaters are up about an inch higher in the a pillars....will up load some newer photos to photobucket when i get a change...

Now my speakers aim out pretty much straight..i think they toe in about 20-30 degrees and are pretty much on axis...the tweets point to the interior light..

Now in an early post of mine i suggested if it would make a difference to have the speakers facing straight out...anyway as im always messing with my stereo i ordered some hatl3se to mess around with..they will be here in the next couple of days...so i will be placing them in a few locations to see how i go.kicks for me are still a no no...dont want to mess around in that department...
Ok so im pleased with my tang band bamboos but like i said im always messing with stuff...and this will ve a pefect time to mess with placement for widening purposes..so i will try them angled out more..i cannot get them any wider than they are at present...unless i go kicks...

The tweets tho could go wider next to the mids in the sail panel...now they would be lower than present but at least a couple of inches wider than they are now...wondering if that would seem sensible?..i know i will have to retune etc etc...


----------



## Grindcore (Dec 12, 2012)

Another thing i struggled with was depth of mounting...its an older school car so the dash isnt as deep as newer cars...but considering that depth isnt to bad at all and when using special tracks to test it it doesnt perform to bad...so in saying that depth isnt really mounting dependant? 

Im still messing with my rear fills...have everything i need to do it properly just need to spend more time dialling it in i guess!


----------



## I800C0LLECT (Jan 26, 2009)

I went with kicks to get them as wide as possible. I couldn't do that up high but like Erin mentioned, you might be able to help that with reflections. I feel like that's a trial and error thing though. That's another reason I went with kicks... Because looks took precedence over function.

Why not try the door above midbass?


----------



## claydo (Oct 1, 2012)

claydo said:


> I'm not really sure reflections set boundary width as much as signal manipulation both in the mix.....and on the playback system. I mean explain the songs that have a huge, open stage that widens the borders of your cars stage. I have tracks that go well outside and deeper than others, yet the reflections remain constant. Why is that?


OK Erin and 800collect, I don't have anything to counter your points with, but the only thing keeping me from buying the boundaries being set by reflections are in my above post. I need to know why changing tracks can change your width so drastically, with the reflections remaining constant. I'm not contending your arguements, I just have trouble getting my head around that part of it. So I'd love to know, with one track your boundaries are here (gestures hands to indicate width) and the next track they are here (does it again). The reflections, which are install based haven't changed....but the boundaries have.......I need some technical explanation of this phenomenon.......


----------



## I800C0LLECT (Jan 26, 2009)

I don't have any technical explanation. I think it comes down to recording techniques. Why? Because only the well recorded songs took advantage of my install while mono recording's didn't. Then there were many that were stereo but not recorded well.

The widest I've gotten my stage without rare fill is about the arm of the side mirror. With ambiance added, maybe a few inches past the mirror. This was done in my Grand Prix using 2-way and doors. However, I don't do comps so I lack ALL of that experience. I've had issues with fat left being pinned to the tweeter before but I don't know what I did in my tune to fix that.

I wish I was smart enough to give a flat technical explanation but all my trial and error tells me it comes back to reflections and that's what set me on the path to add rear fill initially. It seemed like an easy way to supplement any compromises made with speaker placement.

Lots of people didn't like it though. They thought it was neat but preferred standard oem chaos of random sound everywhere.


----------



## seafish (Aug 1, 2012)

claydo said:


> The reflections, which are install based haven't changed....but the boundaries have.......I need some technical explanation of this phenomenon.......


I am gonna go out on a limb here by suggesting that the reflections we hear in a car are not ONLY install based, but also based within the music -- i.e.. recording techniques, type of music, timbre of music, etc. In fact reflections are also based on the actual frequencies (wavelengths) being played and their proximity to the fixed "install based" reflections…in a sense, audible acoustic reflections will change based on the physics of comb filtering (frequencies interacting), not simply proximity to other surfaces.

sorry if I sound a little like cajunner here (just a little)…lol


----------



## claydo (Oct 1, 2012)

I800C0LLECT said:


> I don't have any technical explanation. I think it comes down to recording techniques. Why? Because only the well recorded songs took advantage of my install while mono recording's didn't. Then there were many that were stereo but not recorded well.



So, your saying that stage width is determined by mic setup/recording techniques and signal manipulation in the mastering process? This is kind of contridicting the reflection arguement. Or are you saying that the recordings optimizing big stage techniques are the only ones who can reach the reflection based limits of your stage? Do you believe end user signal manipulation like dsp tune can contribute?



seafish said:


> I am gonna go out on a limb here by suggesting that the reflections we hear in a car are not ONLY install based, but also based within the music -- i.e.. recording techniques, type of music, timbre of music, etc. In fact reflections are also based on the actual frequencies (wavelengths) being played and their proximity to the fixed "install based" reflections…in a sense, audible acoustic reflections will change based on the physics of comb filtering (frequencies interacting), not simply proximity to other surfaces.


So you think that reflections recorded and eminating from your speakers are at battle with the physical reflections of the auto interior?

I'm ready to buy the whole reflection border thing.....but until I can get my head around it I feel that reflections are more killers for response, therefore screwing around with your stage, just like improperly implemented l/r eq (ie: phantom sources creating peaks and nulls contradictory to the real info presented by the drivers). I feel borders of the stage are more influenced by the clarity of the cues recorded into the music, and the ability of your system to resolve these subtle cues through a properly aligned stereo presentation........without the stereo presentation none of this essque staging stuffs is possible....right? I am ready to understand, I just need some convincing, a display of information that computes in my simple grey matter.......


----------



## cajunner (Apr 13, 2007)

read up on miking techniques, mastering, panning left, panning center, wait, panning center, no, that can't be right..


----------



## claydo (Oct 1, 2012)

Come on caj! That post isn't up to your normal standard, where's the eloquent use of hugemongous words that I have to ponder the meaning of.......lol, just ribbin ya man, but, would like to hear your thoughts on reflections and stage boundaries.....


----------



## Grindcore (Dec 12, 2012)

Ok guys....to much rope-amused to death...roger waters...i will use this song as an example...and yeah i know it was recorded with some fancy tricks but i like using that track to evaluate things...along with the emma tracks etc...now for those that have heard the song there is a horse and carriage that starts very very left and pans across the whole stage then dissapears to the right...

Now the left sounds amazing in the car it starts way out of the passenger window and pans around nicely all the way till it gets to the rhs of my car...now the horse and carriage has different sounds coming from it...so there is the lower rumble of the hooves on the ground..there is also some higher pitched sound from a bell..what i do when im listening to it i will mute drivers to hear exactly what driver is playing what sounds...

if i mute the tweeter and leave the midbass and midrange on i get the sound of the hooves panning nicely and way around to the right with a sense of depth...now i know that the midbass are playing a lot of those frequencies and the midrange only playing a bit of it...

When i un mute the high range that stays at the a-pillar..
The bell sound and higher frequency sounds dont move around with the lower frequency sounds....i hope this is making sense!! 

Anyway i pulled the tweets from the pullers and stuck them to my sail panels...now the tweets are much wider than they were and im guessing they would be reflecting more of the side windows...

now the tweets are much lower than they were but without any tuning or ta it didnt seem to drop the stage down at all...but now the higher frequency sounds on that track seem to go around more to the hard right position with the lower frequencies...still not as convincing but has made a difference!..

Like i said i will be playing with some new mids in the next couple of days and i would like to try and get them out near the sails and facing straight out instead of toed in and see how that goes with reflections and all..

I havent messed any further with the rear fill..but will see what i can get out of the front stage...

Now the emma postions track is just a male voice that names the postions of the soundstage..left..far left...extreme far left...etc etc..that all sounds good but when i get to the right and extreme right moving the tweets made no differernce...now im guessing this is because there is no high frequency stuff going on there and the problem is still with my dash mounted mids also...


----------



## I800C0LLECT (Jan 26, 2009)

claydo said:


> So, your saying that stage width is determined by mic setup/recording techniques and signal manipulation in the mastering process? This is kind of contridicting the reflection arguement. Or are you saying that the recordings optimizing big stage techniques are the only ones who can reach the reflection based limits of your stage? Do you believe end user signal manipulation like dsp tune can contribute?


IMO, stage width is a combination of everything coming together. In a near-field environment, reflections have a bigger influence on how the brain interprets the sound as it's harder to differentiate between the source and reflection in such close proximity. I believe that's why some installations prefer beaming over omnidirectional. In those instances they're trying to stay away from reflections. But if your speakers are omnidirectional you have to pay attention to their location vs. the directivity of a beaming speaker.

Obviously a mono recording isn't going to take advantage of your stereo install...so recording techniques do play a role in all of this.


----------



## claydo (Oct 1, 2012)

To the op, I'm glad you're making progress! You opened quite the can with your questions, and this is what happens, folks come and debate and exchange ideas......... I love it, these threads that blow up are sometimes some of the best!


----------



## I800C0LLECT (Jan 26, 2009)

Try pointing that mid off axis? Just a hunch


----------



## Grindcore (Dec 12, 2012)

claydo said:


> To the op, I'm glad you're making progress! You opened quite the can with your questions, and this is what happens, folks come and debate and exchange ideas......... I love it, these threads that blow up are sometimes some of the best!



So true..i love this place! Haha....


----------



## Grindcore (Dec 12, 2012)

I800C0LLECT said:


> Try pointing that mid off axis? Just a hunch


Yeah that will be my next step...if i like the results it means new a pillars!!..

Will mess around with the mids when those HATs get here...stupid usps taking forever!

Now ideally i have to point both mids out wouldnt i?


----------



## I800C0LLECT (Jan 26, 2009)

Hrmmm.

After looking through this a little more...I bet we're mostly together on this topic we're just using words differently. So if your saying signal dictates stage as in...if the recording sucks you're screwed...I agree.

But in those instances, ambiance can help but it's not a fix'all. The best circumstance is good use of a vehicle's reflections in addition to excellent recordings. Maybe that puts us all on the same page?


----------



## claydo (Oct 1, 2012)

I'm not really debating against reflections setting boundaries, I am just having trouble getting someone to explain why boundaries can change depending on source material when the reflections are a constant, in a way I can make work in my head. If the boundaries are hard set by reflections in the car, how are some tracks able to expand past these limits?


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Can some with good photo shop or paint skills take this pic and add an image of a small speaker on the dash firing at the driver side window and place another small driver on the side window where the sound from the first driver would reflect of the side window......If some one can do that it will make it easier for me to explain and for people to follow.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

due to limited time, I'll make this very brief. it's not intended to be brief out of spite or condescension. 


I think at some point you guys started talking about two different things. My reply was in regards to the limitations of the soundstage based on the reproduction of the signal and installation/environment. The other aspect that you guys are talking about is how the signal was put on the media in the first place. Just remember, sound engineers also know how to manipulate the signal to create various effects. Some tracks I use for demo consist of differential signal elements, making the soundstage pretty much at the extremes of the possible limit.


----------



## claydo (Oct 1, 2012)

I'm with you on the two different things, I introduced the second (material stage size) as a contridiction to the statement that reflections set hard borders that couldn't be broken with signal manipulation. If it can be manipulated on the recording side (your music) why couldn't it be manipulated on the playback side (your tune). Everyone has tracks they demo to show off width.....then they state reflections set a hard limit to stage size. These two things together don't compute in my head, you can't have it both ways at the same time. Enough knowledgeable peoples state this as fact, so I need someone to explain how these two facts can coexist.......cos I know the material can expand your stage.......so how do reflections set a hard stage limit that different material can surpass?


Does anyone see the contridiction that I'm asking about?


----------



## I800C0LLECT (Jan 26, 2009)

I think I understand what you're getting at. If a sound engineer can do it why can't we do it too?

I think we can... But I don't think they all lump together. There's driver placement, characteristics of the vehicle interior, eq manipulation... Which for the most part is a huge part of what we do to manipulate the total response. Then there's all the neat tricks we come up with based on what we want... Center channels, single tweeter setups, opsodis, rear fill... Etc.

And I'm not the brightest person or the best communicator. Sometimes when I talk I feel like I'm just trying to shine ****. I don't know very much about recording material and I didn't know engineers add algorithms or extra material to help ambiance. I thought that was relegated to hone theatre. But really, that's the same as any other manipulations we try but it's built into the source, like you bright up earlier. I confused everything because tuning to me is moreso the t/a, eq, and attenuation and not the neat tricks. My bad

Really appreciate the feedback Erin.

Claydo... I'm just a bad person to talk to about this


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

at this point, I think it's time to bring in the topic of ASW and LEV.

Unfortunately it seems most of the resources available aren't really freely available. this was the best I could find in a quick google search. 
http://www.icad.org/websiteV2.0/Conferences/ICAD2002/proceedings/Morimoto1.pdf

You guys may find better discussion on it but I'm short on time. I did see some discussion on diyaudio.com but didn't grab that link as I think scholarly text is more important when trying to learn what something is rather than a buncha folks talking about it. 


most of what I've read on the subject has been from Floyd Toole's _Sound Reproduction _book (Clay, PM me). Which I highly recommend people look in to.


----------



## I800C0LLECT (Jan 26, 2009)

I love that guy! And I'm with you Erin... I try to stick to generalizations with links . I've been terrible in this thread... I apologize to everybody


----------



## claydo (Oct 1, 2012)

Naw man, you haven't been terrible anywheres dude! It has been an excellent discussion, one that I'm hoping isn't over yet.....lol. I'm looking to learn sumthin........


----------



## claydo (Oct 1, 2012)

I800C0LLECT said:


> I think I understand what you're getting at. If a sound engineer can do it why can't we do it too?


Kinda sorta......what I'm really getting at is "if" reflections set hard borders in our cars, notice I said "hard" borders, as in can't be surpassed without being addressed by physical changes, how can simply changing tracks affect these same borders?

That's what I want to know.......


----------



## I800C0LLECT (Jan 26, 2009)

I don't think reflections set borders... They can be used as spatial cues to expand the limits of your stage. Those links above will help a lot. I never fully understood until I started reading into psycho acoustics


----------



## Babs (Jul 6, 2007)

Good freakin thread!
That is all.

Actually. I'll add this.. For an exercise in seeing how the recordings themselves will affect staging, pick some tracks with somewhat center-focused vocals. If you compare them via headphones or car, you'll notice subtle differences in effects the sound engineers used to either enhance or otherwise process just the vocal track alone even. Sometimes it will be very "wet" with effects such as delays or reverbs or split panning, basically stereo effects, and sometimes they'll be pretty dry with main focus being just the voice. That'll support the idea how the media itself has built in work to enhance or convey the image. 

Example: Robert Plant.. Big Log.. Very split and panned center vocal. Certainly nice stage but also certainly not one to choose for evaluating your center image. In contrast Kate Davis.. Just one of those Things. Dead nuts center, not a lot of effects. Just killer stand up bass and center vocals. Good for center image evaluation. 

I've noticed as I'm learning to tune, I had figured if I can truly nail that center image and freq response, my stage is kind of "is what it is" but accurate to as it was intended by the recording. So my personal choice is accuracy of image over width for the sake of width any day. 

Sent from iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## I800C0LLECT (Jan 26, 2009)

Here's some free Floyd goodness.  

Loudspeakers, Rooms, and Subwoofers - Audiophile Articles


If you find my build thread I posted a link to his youtube presentation as well. He doesn't get into what we're talking about here but it's still a great presentation.


----------



## I800C0LLECT (Jan 26, 2009)

Babs said:


> Good freakin thread!
> That is all.
> 
> Actually. I'll add this.. For an exercise in seeing how the recordings themselves will affect staging, pick some tracks with somewhat center-focused vocals. If you compare them via headphones or car, you'll notice subtle differences in effects the sound engineers used to either enhance or otherwise process just the vocal track alone even. Sometimes it will be very "wet" with effects such as delays or reverbs or split panning, basically stereo effects, and sometimes they'll be pretty dry with main focus being just the voice. That'll support the idea how the media itself has built in work to enhance or convey the image.
> ...





This too....




Floyd Toole said:


> In stereo systems, the sound from each loudspeaker travels to both ears. When identical sounds radiate from both channels, as happens for a center image, there is a comb-filter effect at each ear when the direct sound from the nearer loudspeaker acoustically interferes with the slightly delayed sound from the opposite loudspeaker. The dominant effect is a distortion of the amplitude and phase response of the sound of the center image
> 
> Ironically, no matter how perfect a loudspeaker may be in creating a flat frequency response and a linear phase, those features will not be appreciated in the sound of the center image because of a limitation of two-channel stereo itself. You don’t believe me? Play some monophonic pink noise and move in and out of the stereo sweet spot. As you move from the left or right towards center you will experience phasiness, and as you approach the precise center location, the sound will get noticeably duller as the destructive interference dip around 3-4 kHz develops. *Fortunately, room reflections help to minimize the annoyance of the effect in most home installations.*
> 
> Figure 1. Multichannel audio: the first attempt. Two-channel stereo as we have known it for over 50 years. It is optimized for a single listener in a symmetrical “sweet spot” – a restriction that is routinely violated.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Cross talk induced by reflections, sets the hard borders, this is science. The underlying assumption is that you're listening to a stereo source. Your left boundary is established by the cross talk induced by the right channel content, reflecting off the driver side window and going in your left ear. The timing difference between content from the right channel in right ear and left ear, defines your left boundary. 

If you can reduce cross talk by cancelling the content reflecting off the drivers window, the boundary will move further out to the left, same for the other side. Polk did this with their SDA range of speakers, they project a stage wider than the room. 

But it needs extra drivers on each side. In a car you can't achieve this with your normal 2 way you need at least 3 drivers per side. You can run the 3 way as a 2 way and use the midrange to play the band passed, reversed phase and attenuated content.Using such a set up your physical boundaries can indeed be pushed beyond the L/R physical boundary.

Location cues are always taken from the direct sound, not the reflected sound. Let's say we have one 3" driver playing 200-6K, we will locate it exactly where it is cause the location cues are taken from the direct (first arrival) sound. Now aim the driver so that its firing at a point on the drivers window, directly in line with your left ear. HP the driver at say 6khz. What happens? 

In this case you will locate the speaker at the reflection point. Why? Because with the driver in beaming there is little to no content coming direct from the speaker to your ear. The first arrival is the reflected sound. But this is only with one driver playing, the minute you add the second driver and you have cross talk......

One other thing, raise your arms shoulder high along your sides, when the source of sound lies in this direction i.e. 0 deg azimuth to your ears, we suck big time in being able to exactly distance of the source of sound. So in the above example, is the speaker at your window or beyond it is down to your perception.


----------



## I800C0LLECT (Jan 26, 2009)

But in a near field environment at what point are early reflections ignored? Isn't that why Andy suggests that you eq the sound at your ears and not at the speaker?


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

In a car you only have early reflections. In a car these early reflections do two things, first like all reflections they help define boundaries secondly they make us perceive the 500hz+ louder. Reflected energy is not heard as a separate sound, it just adds to the amplitude of the direct sound, something easily cured with an eq. All the supposed audible issues supposedly due to reflections, are basically just tuning issues.


----------



## I800C0LLECT (Jan 26, 2009)

I completely agree with what you're stating but I thought our brains were more inclined to allow some reflections to be perceived as part of the source while ignoring others vs. ignoring all reflections. The trouble is, how do we know which ones our brain is ignoring.

That's why beaming can or can't be beneficial. I presume that with on-axis, those cues from beaming are defining the boundary before the reflections can help/hurt our perception...? If he can change crossover points to remove beaming maybe the omnidirectional response will help with those cues as more reflections will be perceived to be with the original source?


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

I800C0LLECT said:


> I completely agree with what you're stating but I thought our brains were more inclined to allow some reflections to be perceived as part of the source while ignoring others vs. ignoring all reflections. The trouble is, how do we know which ones our brain is ignoring.


The brain ignores everything after the direct sound, nothing to do with frequencies. Reflections only make the incident louder, that's all.


----------



## I800C0LLECT (Jan 26, 2009)

sqnut said:


> The brain ignores everything after the direct sound, nothing to do with frequencies. Reflections only make the incident louder, that's all.



So how do reflections add ambiance then? Maybe I'm confused with what you're saying...our brains ignore the reflections in a vehicle's environment?

EDIT: I understand ILD and ITD help provide spatial cues...those are reflections, right? But don't baffles and the object mounted to the speaker itself represent reflections which help shape the sound characteristics of the speaker?...that's getting into the topic of constructive and destructive interference that you're referencing, right? Isn't that why people in home audio place so much emphasis on baffle design and snark at car audio for lack of thought process towards baffles? Am I confusing terms? I'm bad at this. I thought we were listening to the car+speaker in a nearfield environment and not the speaker...hence, EQ the sound at the ears instead of a microphone placement that may or may not pick up information relevant to our perception?


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

I800C0LLECT said:


> So how do reflections add ambiance then? Maybe I'm confused with what you're saying...our brains ignore the reflections in a vehicle's environment?


What you're talking about is achieved by late reflections, but in a car there are no late reflections......unless you run rears, band passed to a certain range and delayed ~20ms.......and we've come full circle. Running rears this way can give you the perception of bigger space.


----------



## I800C0LLECT (Jan 26, 2009)

I must be using the wrong words and misunderstanding...sounds like we're trying to convey the same thing

EDIT: Maybe this makes more sense...near-field characterizes the sound source and I'm confusing nearfield w/the word reflections


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

Just get a MS-8. Install it, tune it, mess with it, tune it, mess with it, tune it, mess with it again, tune it. You don't have to worry about any of this stuff


----------



## Babs (Jul 6, 2007)

DDfusion said:


> Just get a MS-8. Install it, tune it, mess with it, tune it, mess with it, tune it, mess with it again, tune it. You don't have to worry about any of this stuff


If you could actually tune it, rather than just only it tuning you, and if it had an optical input, I'd have one in the car, one in the truck, and three spares on the shelf.


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

You can tune some but once its good and you know the quirks you don't need to do anything but enjoy.


----------



## Grindcore (Dec 12, 2012)

sqnut said:


> Can some with good photo shop or paint skills take this pic and add an image of a small speaker on the dash firing at the driver side window and place another small driver on the side window where the sound from the first driver would reflect of the side window......If some one can do that it will make it easier for me to explain and for people to follow.


I would like to see this but my photoshop skills are quite poor.!


----------



## Grindcore (Dec 12, 2012)

The new mids arrived today! Will get a chance over the weekend to play with placement and messing with a bit of a tune...will try the things mentioned in here and see what results i can come up with.....


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Grindcore said:


> I would like to see this but my photoshop skills are quite poor.!


Me too, that's why I posted the pic hoping someone would be better.


----------



## Grindcore (Dec 12, 2012)

Indeed! Just got home and these were awaiting me..cant wait to give em a run...really gonna mess with placement of them and see if i can achieve some more width in my set up...


----------



## Grindcore (Dec 12, 2012)

Ok...i got a chance to throw these in my pillars....fmd...they sound good...all i did was drop the crossover lower on them to 200hz which in turn let me drop my xls 8 down to 200hz both on a 36db slope..from experience the xls dont like playing up too high...now the highest i had them crossed was around 300hz...from first listen i really like the lower crossover setting...bass seems much tighter from them...now i have left all other settings the same..so now the mids are playing from 200hz-5k...i havent messed with eq yet...this is just a straight swap with the TB bamboos...and im mighty impressed with em..first thing i noticed was the clarity and the bass output from them..guitar basslines jumped out more...i dunno..they arent even broken in yet...and i still am yet to suss things out with the rta...but all in all im glad that i purchased these things...i turned em up somewhat and there was no break up like i was getting with the TB..they sounded great but didnt like gettin to much volume in to them...i know this is way off topic but thought i would give you guys a little review on them...

But this will bring me around to the positioning of them etc...hopefully tomorrow i will remove the pillars and just sit these in various positions on the dash.....the doors...above the midbass and maybe even the kicks....just to see what i can get out of them width wise...now by just throwing them in the exact positions of the TB i didnt notice any real change in width..i didnt expect any really!!.so yeah im really excited to start muckin around with them and trying out a lot of the suggestions in here..


----------



## derickveliz (May 15, 2009)

*Reading this thread made me remember the day I was trying to explain a friend that the Further apart physically the speakers are, the wider the stage would be. (see image below)

So the further to the Left (pilot's side) you install your Mid the wider the stage would be.

Yes tuning is part of it but if you can resolve most of the equation mechanically then add digital adjustment the better results you will have recreating a stage. my 2 cts

*



D.


----------



## tjframe (Jun 17, 2015)

Grindcore said:


> I would like to see this but my photoshop skills are quite poor.!


I can do this quite easily, but I'm not 100 percent sure what you are asking. 

You want a mock-up dash mounted drivers off-axis pointing at opposite windows, yes? Tweeters or mids?

Then you also want another set of drivers '_on the side window where the sound from the first driver would reflect of the side window_' Are you saying you want just images of speakers floating on the windows where the dash speakers would hit the window? Do you want actual real speakers, or just simplified iconic drawings of speakers. 

Not sure if you want this stuff photo-real, or just a diagrammatic representation for illustration purposes because it sounds more like you are requesting a diagram than a pre-visualization image. 

Either way this is a super simple thing to create


----------



## I800C0LLECT (Jan 26, 2009)

So SQnut...you brought up a very good point about cross-talk. I don't think it's a huge problem but it brings up the idea of a width controller. Anybody understand these things? Are they supposed to invert the signal and remove as much crosstalk as possible? My understanding is the potential to crosstalk shouldn't be of concern unless playing at VERY high SPLs.

This is one of the first things that popped up. He says you can't completely negate the width controller through the POT so he adds an on/off switch. I think a few companies used to provide these with their amps in the 90's?

Stereo Width Controllers




EDIT: Talking about this stuff really makes me want to get a CarPC so I can start playing with more plugins instead of having to build it. quick search: https://www.gearslutz.com/board/product-alerts-older-than-2-months/972382-new-stereo-width-controller-wayne-kirkwood.html


----------



## I800C0LLECT (Jan 26, 2009)

derickveliz said:


> D.


Stick to the basics and you can't go wrong  That was why I went into the kick panels too. Maybe one day I'll push them into the frame.


----------



## Grindcore (Dec 12, 2012)

Heya all....well....i ripped out my a pillars and im starting again from scratch.ive spent the last few days trying out various posotions with the HATs and my tweets.

I wish it was all good news but here goes...
Im def gonna throw the tweets in the sail panels...that way had the best compromise between width and depth and height...

I tried the mids and tweets in the kicks resting on a towel and i had great depth but width suffered somewhat...

I also tried the mids on the dash as far as i could get them and again...depth was great but the stage narrowed...

Ive settled on glassing the mids into a new set of a pillars...they will be completely on axis and as wide as i can possibly make them in the pillars.


----------



## mendopell (May 28, 2015)

I've been watching this for a bit now. Interested in what all would be discovered. I have fought this battle with many cars, for 30+ years. Every blue moon, I've seen an auto where moving the speakers inwards a bit from the corners of the sail/dash, gave just enough room for dispersion, where the speaker could soundstage outside of it's physical boundaries. However this was almost always in LARGER vehichles, with enough room for this sound perception. But 95% of the time, it ends in getting the speakers as wide as possible, and living with the results.
I'm afraid a lot of spatial clues comes from room reflections. In autos, we don't have that room. The only other thing I've tried that helped occasionally, is boosting 20k a bit. A ton of spatial clues live in the airy high frequencies, in my experience.


----------



## cajunner (Apr 13, 2007)

one of the first parts of the spectrum to absolutely disintegrate is the high frequencies.

if you put high frequencies in the reflection you draw the focus from the stage to accentuate the surround, and it's an artificial device.

Dolby recognized that most reverb in a room was 7Khz and under, because the return echo for frequencies above that line was lost to reflection absorption, even hard surfaces have a hard time return volley high frequencies without diminishing their sound power.

Dolby Digital is an altogether different animal and requires high frequency content from each of it's separated sources to recreate an auditory scene that is comprised of discrete components and not matrixed or upmixered from two channel stereophonics.

so putting a lot of highs behind you in a customized two-channel ambience modeling a concert hall, is probably not going to be as realistic as being in that concert hall...


just an opinion...


----------



## drop1 (Jul 26, 2015)

Feeding a portion of the opposite side of the stereo image into the opposite but reversed in phase and attenuated with a touch of reverb can do this pretty easily. 

I wish more guys mixed this way. It's such a simple technique that really can make for a wide stereo image.

Sorry. I meant to quote someone but my phone didn't cooperate


----------



## mendopell (May 28, 2015)

cajunner said:


> one of the first parts of the spectrum to absolutely disintegrate is the high frequencies.
> 
> if you put high frequencies in the reflection you draw the focus from the stage to accentuate the surround, and it's an artificial device.
> 
> ...



Yes. But I very much value your opinion. It's a great tool, which helps me to keep learning.
And I agree with what you wrote .... but not in a car. And there's no way I can start to tell you why. Many people here are simply genius. Scientists that I can't even follow fully. But for some strange reason, in my own experiences, I've found that adding that super high info trick to work to add both depth, as well as width, but not always of course. And I'm not even smart enough to know why it did work those times , lol. 
For clarity sake, when it worked, I was only adding 2-3 db at the most. 

But one thing ive learned for sure .... car audio acoustics are often beyond what seems to make sense, to my limited mind anyway.


----------



## cajunner (Apr 13, 2007)

mendopell said:


> Yes. But I very much value your opinion. It's a great tool, which helps me to keep learning.
> And I agree with what you wrote .... but not in a car. And there's no way I can start to tell you why. Many people here are simply genius. Scientists that I can't even follow fully. But for some strange reason, in my own experiences, I've found that adding that super high info trick to work to add both depth, as well as width, but not always of course. And I'm not even smart enough to know why it did work those times , lol.
> For clarity sake, when it worked, I was only adding 2-3 db at the most.
> 
> But one thing ive learned for sure .... car audio acoustics are often beyond what seems to make sense, to my limited mind anyway.


I've done it too. I also felt that the insertion of high frequencies from behind, could open up or audibly integrate a continuity in the sound, that running a cut-off on the highs out back just couldn't do as well.

It was source dependent, or it only mattered when I wasn't playing actual concert recordings, and when the front stage has anomalies that weren't addressed with traditional techniques in mounting locales or using powerful equalization hardware.

But it made me happy, as does a lot of non-conventional attempts I do in a non-scientific way to increase my understanding of acoustics and presence and auditory scenes.

My musical tastes aren't comprised of mostly orchestral events or binaural mics in front of a live band, I seem to find myself drawn to the wizardry of the recording room mastering engineer and the boxes of tricks they use, on all those panning channels.


Rock and roll, man.

A good 80% of sound quality comes from the content of the recording and a lot of rock and roll doesn't have spatial integration and perfect symmetry across a stage, sometimes you're lucky that an instrument can be pinned down to a general area, haha...


so, I wouldn't get too excited about the precision requirements of a few wackos on the internet, in order to obtain the maximum pleasure from your equipment choices.

keep it simple, is a fine concept and if you want to dirty it up with some wooly rear speaker high frequency splatter, hey man...

no problem.


----------



## seafish (Aug 1, 2012)

IIRC, and according to AW, processed rear fill works well using approximately 300 to 3500 hz….apparently not much need for frequencies above and below that range.


----------



## Babs (Jul 6, 2007)

One of the better stages I've heard was in Req's V-dub actually. Based on the principles of from inside out tweets, then mids then mid-bass. It was IMO very well executed. 


Sent from iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## davewpy (Jun 22, 2014)

Grindcore said:


> Ok guys....to much rope-amused to death...roger waters...i will use this song as an example...and yeah i know it was recorded with some fancy tricks but i like using that track to evaluate things...along with the emma tracks etc...now for those that have heard the song there is a horse and carriage that starts very very left and pans across the whole stage then dissapears to the right...
> 
> Now the left sounds amazing in the car it starts way out of the passenger window and pans around nicely all the way till it gets to the rhs of my car...now the horse and carriage has different sounds coming from it...so there is the lower rumble of the hooves on the ground..there is also some higher pitched sound from a bell..what i do when im listening to it i will mute drivers to hear exactly what driver is playing what sounds...
> 
> ...


Have you verified the XO points and level between your high and mid, as well as L/R drivers? I personally find that is a very important factor, excluding TA.

I am in a similar situation with you, also RHD, but i think that doesn't really matter. My guitars are on my driver side mirror, out of the visual boundaries, but the speakers are in OEM position for a VW MK5.

The EMMA right and right centre tracks are differentiated by about 15-20 inches.

Apologise if this reply is out of context, its already > 12 pages long on my phone!  

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## Grindcore (Dec 12, 2012)

Babs said:


> One of the better stages I've heard was in Req's V-dub actually. Based on the principles of from inside out tweets, then mids then mid-bass. It was IMO very well executed.
> 
> 
> Sent from iPhone using Tapatalk


im trying to understand what you mean by this...care to explain further please?


----------



## Grindcore (Dec 12, 2012)

davewpy said:


> Have you verified the XO points and level between your high and mid, as well as L/R drivers? I personally find that is a very important factor, excluding TA.
> 
> I am in a similar situation with you, also RHD, but i think that doesn't really matter. My guitars are on my driver side mirror, out of the visual boundaries, but the speakers are in OEM position for a VW MK5.
> 
> ...


hey mate...i hear you about the crossovers between mids and highs...i think someone else mentioned it in here also...i had my mids and tweets crossed over at 5k...now the speakers are pretty much on access but their dispersion is reduced.now a couple of comments in here was to use the drivers dispersion and maybe reflections off the side glass could help with width.before i ripped my pillars out i dropped the crossovers to 3.2k/3.6k/4k/4.5k messed with slopes also and i didnt seem to get any extra width from the drivers not beaming.

now in your set up you are saying you have guitars out on the side mirror on the drivers side? Thats something that im really trying to attain...to get the RHS at least out passed the pillar.now tho i have started to redo my pillars for the HAT L3se and im def gonna throw the morel mt23 In to the sail panels...then redo all my tuning....haha not looking forward to it really! Whats the stock location in your car BTW?


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

For better width try the L3 up high in the doors.


----------



## davewpy (Jun 22, 2014)

Grindcore said:


> hey mate...i hear you about the crossovers between mids and highs...i think someone else mentioned it in here also...i had my mids and tweets crossed over at 5k...now the speakers are pretty much on access but their dispersion is reduced.now a couple of comments in here was to use the drivers dispersion and maybe reflections off the side glass could help with width.before i ripped my pillars out i dropped the crossovers to 3.2k/3.6k/4k/4.5k messed with slopes also and i didnt seem to get any extra width from the drivers not beaming.
> 
> now in your set up you are saying you have guitars out on the side mirror on the drivers side? Thats something that im really trying to attain...to get the RHS at least out passed the pillar.now tho i have started to redo my pillars for the HAT L3se and im def gonna throw the morel mt23 In to the sail panels...then redo all my tuning....haha not looking forward to it really! Whats the stock location in your car BTW?











This is my passenger side.

My tuning philosophy is.. make one change at a time.

It is actually quite simple, you want 2 drivers to integrate with each other, for the frequency range they are both playing and at the correct level.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## Grindcore (Dec 12, 2012)

Heya sq.Ahhh yes..the doors.i did consider that.will see if i can temp mount them tomorrow and see how they sound..how is the depth with them in the doors dave?...i guess its all a compromise..width/depth etc....

I realise that levels between speakers are important as well...all these aspects have to come together....looks like i will see what results i can get mounting the mids in the doors...only negs i can think of is that the distance from the tweet will be further than it is now...and that the midranges will be closer to me than having them up in the pillars...


----------



## Babs (Jul 6, 2007)

Grindcore said:


> im trying to understand what you mean by this...care to explain further please?



He told me during the meet he tested some psychoacoustic principles of sound localization by running tweeters innermost, then mids outside and mid-bass further out. Principle being this gave the best balance for imaging and staging. So in car placement he mimicked this. In fact his mid-bass was actually in the rear locations by the seats. You'd need to review his build log on this in here I think. But the principle was based on how we use two ears and the width of our heads to localize sound at certain frequencies.. Then as lower freq wavelengths are long enough that localization becomes less capable as our ear distances are only so wide. Hehe. I'm certainly no expert on this, but it was amazing that his mid-bass was crossed in such a way that they could hardly be located. Imaging was great, as was a huge stage. Maybe he can join us and explain it. While the car is sort of on the SPL side, in terms of image and stage he had it nailed quite nicely I thought. No issues in the bass dept I'd say as well with two free-air custom 18's. LOL!


Sent from iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Babs (Jul 6, 2007)

Grindcore said:


> im trying to understand what you mean by this...care to explain further please?



Here's a good read on it:

http://diymobileaudio.com/forum/showthread.php?t=150134


Sent from iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## davewpy (Jun 22, 2014)

Grindcore said:


> Heya sq.Ahhh yes..the doors.i did consider that.will see if i can temp mount them tomorrow and see how they sound..how is the depth with them in the doors dave?...i guess its all a compromise..width/depth etc....
> 
> I realise that levels between speakers are important as well...all these aspects have to come together....looks like i will see what results i can get mounting the mids in the doors...only negs i can think of is that the distance from the tweet will be further than it is now...and that the midranges will be closer to me than having them up in the pillars...


I've been in a car that had the width exactly at the pillars and right centre is in front of the driver, and in another preset that images as ****ty as mine. Haha.

My depth is at the edge of the dashboard for centre and left centre, but in the middle of the dashboard depth, i.e. closer to me, for right centre, using EMMA as a reference.

Why not stick to the tweeter and mid merged into the pillar setup?

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## Babs (Jul 6, 2007)

Also Erin's last and somewhat current setup is sorta utilizing some of this at least up top. Tweeters are most inward, and mids further out. Impressive imaging and stage. It deviates from there by using kicks for midbass but the tune being a typical ErinH tune ends up with phenomenal staging and imaging. So I'd consider that placement info above as one more tool in the toolbox. 


Sent from iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Keep in mind that SQ set up's in the Far East and Japan place the vocalist directly in front of the driver, i/o under the rear view. My only issue with that is, that you're not giving equal physical space for the L & R stage to develop. But that's the way its done over there.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

That sounds like OPSIDUS (I can never spell it right) arrangement Patrick Bateman was been talking about.


----------



## Grindcore (Dec 12, 2012)

Interesting read on the vw set up..i could manage something similar...and the tops of my doors are angled in somewhat...and the midranges wouldnt be to far from the tweets in the sails...also the midrange and midbass would be on the same vertical plane...

will check it out tomorrow..
I was always worried about that midrange placement for fears of having no depth...but i guess i wont know till i try it!


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

The mids will be good in that spot, but put the tweets in corners of dash for the best depth.


----------



## drop1 (Jul 26, 2015)

This my be situational but I find tweets in the pillars or on the dash , mids in the doors has by far given me the most width over the years. Some slick crossover setting and proper eq and the sound orginatetes between the tweet and mid similar to how it does for your center image with left and right channels. Once you get that gap bridged and the speakers sounding off from a point between the 2 it's relatively easy to push it further out. You use the same eq bands you do to give depth to an image. Slightly reducing are 5k is a good start.


----------



## Grindcore (Dec 12, 2012)

Ok got the mids in the doors up high above the midbass..i temporarily have the tweets double sided taped in the corners of the windshield...cross firing.both pointing in towards the rear view mirror.

All i did was adjust the TA to suit the new positions..just with a tape and some calcs..

Sounded good...the width was better and the depth was noticable..the height tho had dropped,from midway above the dash to a couple of inches above the dash..

Started tweaking crossovers...i remembered i had my mids on 5k when they were on axis..now they are no where near on axis so i dropped the crossover down to 3.6k.put the tweets the same..tried slopes from 24db-36db...and im liking the 36db slopes..the stage raised from doing this..nowhere near as high as it was with mids on dash...but i can live with it for the improvement in width and depth..

I gave it a quick look over with the RTA and there are now a couple of things im gonna have to mess around with nothing majour..there is a pretty big peak at 5k that i never had before and there is a little dip in the 315hz region..but from my previous install i remeber cutting the 315hz region..so when i have time i will mess with that and see how it sounds.

The only thing im considering now is if im gonna get the tweets right out of the corners and mount them in the a pillars..now by doing that i could get them up higher..but the higher i go up the a pillar the width of them will suffer.so i may just compromise and get them up a bit and lose a bit of that depth...will sort out some more double sided tape and really give them a try in a few positions...


----------



## Grindcore (Dec 12, 2012)

I actually though the depth would suffer because i had moved the midranges closer to me but with the tweets so far back it didnt seem to make it worse..if anything slightly better.i was always lead to believe that the midrange should be mounted as deep as you can also to help with depth..

Anyway like i said i will mess with the L and R eq when i have a fair bit of time and see if i can improve on it..im sure i will 
be able to


----------



## davewpy (Jun 22, 2014)

What is the XO on the midbass?

If ur amp gains are set properly, try using Mid HP at 3150/24 and tweeter LP 3600/24.

Tweeter level should be 6db lesser than the mid.

Just suggesting.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## Grindcore (Dec 12, 2012)

Always open to suggestions mate cheers....will give em a try...

Midbass playing from 56hz up to 220hz.36 db ..midrange from 220hz up 36 db slope to 3.6k...


----------



## Grindcore (Dec 12, 2012)

All gains set correctly..max unclipped signal...and am using dsp to set db levels between drivers..i think my midranges are at -9db and my tweets are at -3db


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

I don't know how high you can play those midbasses, but with both of them in the door, you could bring the XO point up to 4-500 hertz.


----------



## Grindcore (Dec 12, 2012)

thehatedguy said:


> I don't know how high you can play those midbasses, but with both of them in the door, you could bring the XO point up to 4-500 hertz.


Heya mate...i have never got a really clean sound with these peerless over 300hz without a heap of eq work...i have read elsewhere of people with the same problem......i can bring them up to 250-280hz...


----------



## Grindcore (Dec 12, 2012)

Actually i do have a tune saved with them at 350hz which doesnt sound too bad...


----------



## Grindcore (Dec 12, 2012)

But no higher than that...


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Grindcore said:


> All gains set correctly..max unclipped signal...and am using dsp to set db levels between drivers..i think my midranges are at -9db and my tweets are at -3db


Try something like -3db on the mid and -6db on the tweet. Glad the suggested locations are working. Lowering xover point will raise the height as you found out.


----------



## davewpy (Jun 22, 2014)

What is the Fs on those? - 31.5hz. Also good if you can measure the distance between hi-mid-low.

Try 80-450/24 on those midbass? Then lower the HP to the edge where it becomes "unclean", just guessing it would be around 71.

The mid could start around 520 and following my previous suggestion. But you would need to play around with the 3 levels to make them sound " right".

If you RTA them as a whole... The 315 dip might be a cancellation issue either L/R XOR mid vs midbass.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## Grindcore (Dec 12, 2012)

sqnut said:


> Try something like -3db on the mid and -6db on the tweet. Glad the suggested locations are working. Lowering xover point will raise the height as you found out.


Will give that a try...yeah cheers for that the locations sound like they are gonna be sweet..

like i said gains are max unclipped signal..i used multiple test tones in the frequency range of the speakers...had them connected so under load and used an oscilloscope to set them.

dropping down anything lower than -9db when at highish volumes the mids are way too harsh..i set the levels by ear so nothing was overpowering anything else..

my midbasses are at -2 and -5db
Midranges are at -9.5db and the tweets -3db

Midranges and tweets are getting 150wrms each and the midbass are gettin 200wrms each

When i started out with my tuning i always came back to these levels..

I can always start another tune...i probably will...with suggested levels then go through the EQ and TA again and store it in another preset...

I tried those crossover settings that were suggested and there wasnt a real noticable difference in anything...im thinking because i have changed the front set up..not only positions of the speakers but new drivers as well im gonna do a tune from scratch...im a bit more motivated because all the cds i ordered from EMMA arrived today so want to give them all a listen as well!


----------



## Grindcore (Dec 12, 2012)

davewpy said:


> What is the Fs on those? - 31.5hz. Also good if you can measure the distance between hi-mid-low.
> 
> Try 80-450/24 on those midbass? Then lower the HP to the edge where it becomes "unclean", just guessing it would be around 71.
> 
> ...


awesome....will definitely give all this a go when i have the time...like i mentioned im gonna start from scratch on a new tune and take a lot of this stuff on board..then give it an RTA and see how the L&R EQ is going


----------



## Grindcore (Dec 12, 2012)

Actually id really love for someone else to jump in my car and have a play around with everything...none of my mates are really into this SQ thing so its all been self taught with plenty of reading in here....i havent checked out the competition scene yet..its all just for the love of music...haha


----------



## Grindcore (Dec 12, 2012)

Come to think of it when i was initially tuning left and right response i was adjusting levels to smooth it out before making any cuts


----------



## Grindcore (Dec 12, 2012)

Out of the 6 presets i used different methods for each of them...


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Grindcore said:


> Will give that a try...yeah cheers for that the locations sound like they are gonna be sweet..
> 
> like i said gains are max unclipped signal..i used multiple test tones in the frequency range of the speakers...had them connected so under load and used an oscilloscope to set them.
> 
> ...


Just sharing some personal thoughts on tuning.

I don't use speaker levels to level match L/R, a 31 band eq per channel is sufficient to both balance L&R and dial in your final curve. I don't use asymmetric levels for L/R. I start by setting basic levels, whic for me for me is nothing more than, this for a 3 way:

Mid Bass: 0
Midrange: - 2-3 db ----> start here and then after you're done with balancing L/R and dialing in your overall curve see if you need to tweak +/- 0.5-1 db here.
Tweeters: -3-5 db ------> " " "

Or this with a 2 way:

Mid bass 0
Tweeter -6 ----> start here and then after you're done with balancing L/R and dialing in your overall curve see if you need to tweak +/- 0.5-1 db. With a two way it will also depend on the tweeter you're using and how low you're driving it.

In your setup the drivers are crossed as follows:

Midbass: 56-220 hz ---> Try raising this to 400, as already suggested. I'm not sure I'd drive a 3" below this at high volumes. If there are response issues with your mid bass past 250, use the eq. Is there a dip in response or a peak when you cross higher?

Mids: 220-3.6 khz ----> try dropping this to 3 it will raise the stage a bit more.

Tweets: 3khz+

Use the same slopes across the drivers, no asymmetric L/R and no under/over lap. Now use some tape to mark an X under the rear view. Break out the 1/3 oct PN tracks and centre each frequency at the X. Do this one set of drivers at a time. 

Play only the mid bass and use the eq on the MB channels to centre 50-600 hz, beyond 600 cut all frequencies L&R on the MB eq to the max.

With only the mids playing, centre 200-5khz and then cut everything past 5khz to the max on the mids eq. Do the tweets from 1.6 up till you can hear the tones. 

Now measure each set of drivers for L/R with full range PN and you may find that you don't need to cut L/R levels.

If you've read this far, the reason why you need to cut the mids by 9 db is probably because the 500-4khz range is too hot. That will make the mids harsh and sharp specially at high volumes.

Let's address your over all response curve. You need ~ 10-14 db roll off from ~30-200hz, flat from 200-500 and then a 2 db roll off from 500-1 khz, from 1-4 khz go for a 2-3 db/oct roll off. You will need to cut progressively more at each 1/3 on the eq to achieve this. Ease back a bit on the eq cut at 5khz and cut 8khz a ton. Take a listen. If you have excessively breathy vocals cut 12.5 khz and some at 16 khz. All this is after you have set L/R. You can do this with your mic and REW. 

Now take a listen, how does it sound? Measure the FR and post up the graphs if you can. We can then move one to playing one side at a time to get it tonally accurate.


----------



## davewpy (Jun 22, 2014)

Grindcore said:


> Actually id really love for someone else to jump in my car and have a play around with everything...none of my mates are really into this SQ thing so its all been self taught with plenty of reading in here....i havent checked out the competition scene yet..its all just for the love of music...haha


Yes I understand how it is. I started out with just switching out my default speakers and it sounded plain crap.

It was lucky for me to meet one of the experienced installers who also happened to be an EMMA judge.

We clicked and it is very different to have someone to discuss with and explain to you what to listen for to translate to tuning terms using standard EMMA tracks.

For e.g. how to recognise 0.5db changes, how to tell if the low freqs sums properly in the first bass strum, the mid and midbass integration of the strumming, the front and back depth of the tick tock, and the tweeter precision and excursion of the Chinese cymbals, using track 4 onwards.

By having the mid in the sides, you will be facing a different issue, right centre will never sound as focused as having them in the pillar.

In other words, we can all give advises, but there is no right advise as it is all about your expectations. Having too much advises would just confuse you, as much as it did to me in the beginning.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## Grindcore (Dec 12, 2012)

An update...pretty pleased with the results.used a few suggestions in here...ie..db levels for pairs of speakers and also crossover points...

i played with the mids with a heap of different points and settled on 315hz-3.2k 24db slopes up top and 36db down below.

i kept the midbass at 56hz-315hz...36 db slopes on the lower end and 24db to match with the midrange..

set levels as suggested then went over it with the L and R eq...

got the curve i wanted..smoothed out whatever peaks there were and basically got both sides within a db of each other...could do with a bit more fine tuning but for now im pretty happy...
as i mentioned i ordered the 3 EMMA cds so have been sitting in the car going through these...on all the positions tracks i was getting good width depth and height...im actually liking the mids in the tops of the doors.....and the tweets deep in the corners of the dash..still a lot more listening and some finer adjusting..
thanks for all the input in here guys..

Just a question about EQ..now i have done left and right got them pretty close then played full range and nothing really changed much..a couple of small peaks but overall very smooth...
Now i have read that people will l and right then maybe make small tweaks while all speakers are playing.Now my concern is im using the PXA-H800..hopefully other users can chime in here...you set left and right eq by holding the channel buttin in...all good...do what i need to to...then when i want to switch to left and right together it asks to data copy...L-R or R-L before you can mess with combined eq..problem is...this data copy thing does just that...if you choose L-R it applies whatever settings you used on the left side and puts them on. The right side...virtually screwing everything up...and if you do R-L it applies your right side settings to the left side...

When i tried doing these with pink noise playing you can hear the changes to the sound when it does the data copy..
does this mean that you cannot do combined eq after you have done left and right eq?..
You can tho mess with combined first then switch to left and right but that is pointless isnt it?

Anyway its just an observation i made while using the apline and was wondering if what i have written here is on the money?


----------



## Grindcore (Dec 12, 2012)

Been listening more and dialling in the TA abit..it was mentioned that on the positions track right center may suffer now that i have my mids on the doors...but i still get good focus in that position...like i have mentioned the hight is still a couple of inches lower than when i had everything up in the dash...but im ok with that because of the overall sound of the system now...when i close my eyes it really does seem like tje speakers just dissappear..i think im well on the way with this next tune.I think now im gonna have to fine tweak the tonality of it more.

i have also made contact with an audio guy here in sydney who is meant to be great with his tuning so will def take the care to him when i think im pretty much done..are we ever really done?! Haha


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

A tuning thread in the making?

Yes, you will eventually need to tweak combined response, but not yet. As and when you do, I guess you'll have to go back and forth between L & R eq to adjust the same frequency on both sides. If it's any consolation, most dsp don't have the feature to combine L&R without some form of summing. I know its a pain, but it is what it is. 

I'm glad the placements worked out. With xovers, I keep matching points and matching HP/LP slopes at a xover point. You're good on that front too. If the sound does not pull toward the drivers, the overall timing should be good. So for now it's down to dialing in tonality.

Do the tonality one side at a time, cause its easier that way. All the work now is on the eq. If you can post up some graphs along with how each side sounds in some details, it will help in suggesting some eq tweaks. After you are done dialing in the tonality on each side, then listen to the combined response and you'll probably need to do the final tweaking with the combined response.

.......and no it never ends. As long as you continue to hear how it can get better along with how good it is, and you stick with it, you'll always find a way to make it better, every time. Cycle keeps going.


----------



## drop1 (Jul 26, 2015)

> .......and no it never ends. As long as you continue to hear how it can get better, along with how good it is, and you stick with it, you'll eventually find a way to make it better, every time. Cycle keeps going.


Isn't that the damn truth 


If you are using low mids (in he doors) and tweeters on the dash or pillars something that hs helped me greatly with width is to fade all the way to one side and treat the med/tweeter lije it has its own stage. Trying to get as my content in the crossover frequencies to originate from between the 2 speakers on the door can get you outside your windows. Its picky and you have to be sure you aren't affecting you overall stage in the process. Frequency response is important but ta is as well. It's helpful to block refections from the other side of the car while doing this. Off axis tweeters can reflect quite hard off the oposite side of the vehicle.

I mostly focus on the drivers side being that it's usually the spot that benifits the most from the illusion.


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

This is exactly why I gave up on the bit 1 and got the MS-8. Everything has been perfect and I can just sit back and enjoy it, not chasing perfection every time I get in the car.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

The MS-8 has the best auto tune for someone looking for a plug and play sound. But if you're serious about tuning, you'll get better results and the sound will go much further with the Bit-1. I'd take the Bit1 over the MS8 any day. It isn't tough to beat the MS8 tune.


----------



## Grindcore (Dec 12, 2012)

sqnut said:


> Just sharing some personal thoughts on tuning.
> 
> I don't use speaker levels to level match L/R, a 31 band eq per channel is sufficient to both balance L&R and dial in your final curve. I don't use asymmetric levels for L/R. I start by setting basic levels, whic for me for me is nothing more than, this for a 3 way:
> 
> ...


Thanks again for all the info..will be messing around with the car later today..
one thing i did discover is if i use the alpine software on my pc to adjust the eq instead of the rux controller i can actually eq each driver seperatley..which you dont have the option to do on the controller...it just lets you do L and R...so you can also eq as a pair if need be also...so Left tweet RIght tweet and so on.i didnt realise that the pc had more control over the tuning...i had thought that the controller had the exact same functions but obviously not!

So in your post you mention eq the midbass...im gathering you mean you still cut everything thats not in the passband? I have read somewhere that when tuning and you have sets of speakers playing you should cut peaks that you see on the rta even if those sets of speakers arent meant to be playing them...?


----------



## Grindcore (Dec 12, 2012)

So upon reading up on that in the manual...i will be able to eq left and right and then hopefully i can just link all the drivers and eq them as a whole...the manual isnt to clear on that part of things but will find out more later today


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Grindcore said:


> So in your post you mention eq the midbass...im gathering you mean you still cut everything thats not in the passband? I have read somewhere that when tuning and you have sets of speakers playing you should cut peaks that you see on the rta even if those sets of speakers arent meant to be playing them...?


Yes I cut the eq on a driver beyond the passband. So If the MB is playing say 50-300, I use the eq in this range to balance L/R and for better tonality. But beyond ~ 600 or so I will cut everything to the max, on the MB eq. BUT this is only possible and relevant if you have 31 bands of eq per channel. IIRC the H800 has 31 bands L&R. In this case, just forget about this tweak. I posted it assuming that you had 31 bands per channel, so my bad. Don't worry it's not something major.

Again it would really help to see some graphs and screen shots of your eq, to better understand where you are and how you got there, and therefore, what you can try.


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

sqnut after reading all this thread. Apparently it's very hard to beat the MS-8s tune. I couldn't do it with months of using the Bit 1.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

DDfusion said:


> sqnut after reading all this thread. Apparently it's very hard to beat the MS-8s tune. I couldn't do it with months of using the Bit 1.


Let's not clog up the OP's thread with an OT discussion. Start a separate thread and I'd be happy to discuss the topic. Just as a hint though, how many of the top 10 cars (by total scores) at finals run the MS8? Ans - probably none. It's not tough to beat the MS8 tune, but you have to be adept at manual tuning.


----------



## Grindcore (Dec 12, 2012)

Had a little fiddle with the laptop tuning and i can eq each speaker seperatley..i can mute all speakers except the one i want to work on and i can adjust both left and right independently...so in effect its not exactly seperate eq for each channel....as the eq is the same for high..mids and lows...but i can adjust each of the speakers in their passbands..so gonna muck around with eqing eqch driver...get the response i want from it...ie...smooth the peaks in the crossover frequencies and then match the right hand driver to that....then do that for each driver...


----------



## Grindcore (Dec 12, 2012)

So as you mentioned i wont be able to cut areas that are not in the speaker im working withs frequency response because its all the one eq...but i can isolate drivers seperatley which i cant do on the controller...so i will be using the pc for this next tune...


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Don't tune for tonality with only one set of drivers playing, eg mid range only. None of the set of drivers is playing the entire range. So getting the mid range only to sound tonally accurate and complete, is only setting up for a mess up when you bring in the tweets and MB. Which is why I suggested doing tonality one side at a time.


----------



## Kazuhiro (Apr 28, 2015)

If I have matched the drivers individually with rew and they are at the same level at the driver position, I dont have to worry about dropping a db or two on the near driver right?
Because the near driver never seems to be louder, even with gain cuts equal.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Kazuhiro said:


> If I have matched the drivers individually with rew and they are at the same level at the driver position, I dont have to worry about dropping a db or two on the near driver right?
> Because the near driver never seems to be louder, even with gain cuts equal.


The near side drivers are louder at specific frequencies. EQ L/R driver at 1/3 oct, and you won't need to play with L/R levels.


----------



## Kazuhiro (Apr 28, 2015)

I think my excessive individual EQ ended up covering it all, probably not a good habit. Given the option of more bands, would you personally make use of them?


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

In a car you need tons of eq. Use every single band and and there is no such thing as minimal eq.

[edit]

For a start, measured right is about halfway to sounding right. To go from measured right to sounding right, 90% of the work is on the eq. To get the most out of the eq one needs to associate what a cut/boost at each frequency does to the overall sound. Once you have a good measured base, it's all about this tuning by ear.

[edit]


----------



## Grindcore (Dec 12, 2012)

sqnut said:


> Don't tune for tonality with only one set of drivers playing, eg mid range only. None of the set of drivers is playing the entire range. So getting the mid range only to sound tonally accurate and complete, is only setting up for a mess up when you bring in the tweets and MB. Which is why I suggested doing tonality one side at a time.


All i am doing first us playing the drivers seperate and knocking doen any peaks..then i will play each pair of drivers and see how they react response wise and tame any peaks..then i will play left side...concentrating on a curve and levels...then match the right side to that...then finally play it all together and check for any major peaks etc...listen to how it sounds then adjust anything i dont like by ear after that


----------



## Kazuhiro (Apr 28, 2015)

So if these are my midranges before EQ, 300hz - 3khz. Is it worth making changes?
Or is that enough for maintain good image?


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

Kazuhiro said:


> So if these are my midranges before EQ, 300hz - 3khz. Is it worth making changes?
> Or is that enough for maintain good image?


Be aware that your measurement methodology/conditions will play a part in the resulting on-screen trace. Are you using multi-mic/spatial averaging of any kind. 

Lets say you're using a single mic in a fixed location, and, Let's say you eq out all the differences that you can, then you re-measure in a few days. If you don't get the mic in EXACTLY the same position, you'll have new differences in the traces. 

What I like to do, is set up target curves, like in the pic, based on the idealized electrical filters being applied to the driver in question, and eq both drivers to match the target. 

For instance, here is a target curve set-up for a system I tuned a couple days ago.....I seem to remember ErinH created something for REW that creates targets.

That being said, for what it's worth, I think you did pretty good.......


----------



## Kazuhiro (Apr 28, 2015)

Yep, 4 measurements per ear. In each measurement I vary the mics direction as I don't believe it is completely omni directional (especially above 10khz).
Lately I have been aiming for the JBl curve but I think I'll give sqnut's description a try, main difference is 2db/octave after 500hz. That would make it an 8db when it passes 8khz, which seems quite low, but I wont know till I try.


----------



## Grindcore (Dec 12, 2012)

I have had very good results with the jbl curve as a reference..i get it pretty close then do what i want by ear after that


----------



## Grindcore (Dec 12, 2012)

Ok guys...started a whole new tune...using the pc version of the h800 software.As mentioned i can mute all channels and just tune each driver..will post up a couple of pics soon..

I rta'd each driver just to smooth out any peaks..ran through and did all speakers seperately.then went through and did the pairs of drivers...had a listen like that and wasnt to impressed.

I then played left side only...and i had to mess with the response a lot...then i played right side and matched it to left..while making changes to both sides..i now have a good base tune to go back to.i still want to get left and right smoother and similar and then i will try all speakers playing and adjust each side as needed...pics soon


----------



## Kazuhiro (Apr 28, 2015)

Did it improve the soundstage width?


----------



## Grindcore (Dec 12, 2012)

Left speakers all played seperate and overlayed on rta...i matched right side to left side individually...i stuffed upsaving those pics...will get them up when i can..



this is the pairs of speakers playing at the same time...

Will take some left and right side readings tomorrow.


----------



## Grindcore (Dec 12, 2012)

I have a dip at 125hz thats mucher deeper on the right side...but still there on the left side also...messed with phase..no change...gonna mess with crossovers when i have another go...


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Can You post screen shots of your L&R eq, just want to see how you got here.


----------



## Grindcore (Dec 12, 2012)




----------



## Grindcore (Dec 12, 2012)




----------



## Grindcore (Dec 12, 2012)

green left side..blue right side...nothing eq'd at this stage in left vs right...all eq so far has been independent and then tweaks with pairs of drivers playing


----------



## lizardking (Nov 8, 2008)

I noticed that over the past couple weeks that tighten up my L/R within 1-2db really helps focus and keep the width wide. Really shocked me today when I was tuning even more to tighten things up.


----------



## Grindcore (Dec 12, 2012)

lizardking said:


> I noticed that over the past couple weeks that tighten up my L/R within 1-2db really helps focus and keep the width wide. Really shocked me today when I was tuning even more to tighten things up.


Yep when i get a chance i will be getting them as close as possible with each other..within .5db would be nice!...now that i have a base tune again with the new speaker positions whenever i feel keen i can jump in to the car and make a few adjustments...save it have a listen etc etc...


----------



## lizardking (Nov 8, 2008)

Grindcore said:


> Yep when i get a chance i will be getting them as close as possible with each other..within .5db would be nice!...now that i have a base tune again with the new speaker positions whenever i feel keen i can jump in to the car and make a few adjustments...save it have a listen etc etc...


I was able to get some spot on L/R...pretty much everything from 200hz on down is right at 0db. Everything above that varies from 0-2db. Hoping to get more time to get everything from 200-2000hz within .5db to 1db. It helps to measure at 1/24th for 100hz on down and 100-2000hz at 1/12th. Anything above that I keep at 1/6 smoothing.


----------



## Grindcore (Dec 12, 2012)

lizardking said:


> I was able to get some spot on L/R...pretty much everything from 200hz on down is right at 0db. Everything above that varies from 0-2db. Hoping to get more time to get everything from 200-2000hz within .5db to 1db. It helps to measure at 1/24th for 100hz on down and 100-2000hz at 1/12th. Anything above that I keep at 1/6 smoothing.


Funny you mention that my l and r is pretty spot on from 200 down...except the peaks which i need to cut...but plenty of work up from there haha!


----------



## Grindcore (Dec 12, 2012)

Ok guys a little update...messed with left and right and im getting them pretty close..the scale is a bit ordinary but its not so big of a deal because im just getting them equal...it may be tough for you guys tho if giving advice on what to tweak..anyway some pics


----------



## Grindcore (Dec 12, 2012)

The null at 125hz is because of my leg im pretty sure...the one at 2500 i havent messed with...im guessing its just the placement of my right mid...can boost it a db or so but havent boosted any frequencies with this tune..i may go through and give tiny boosts but having a listen it sounds pretty good...

Now this tune its only left and right seperate..no combined eq yet but it does sound very good to my ears...now my ears mightnt be the best but i think i know what sounds rubbish and what sounds good...dont know if you guys can give any input here but thought i would just keep this thread alive...

Like i said i have a pretry good base tune and anything from here will be smaller adjuatments?


----------



## Kazuhiro (Apr 28, 2015)

Definitely looking in the ballpark. I dont think 125hz would be influenced by your leg. If its from one speaker only, then it will be door related. Energy can and will find a way to spread through the vehicle instruments, even if it is inaudible. Correct me if I am wrong.


----------



## Grindcore (Dec 12, 2012)

Heya mate! Well its kinda strange because doing a few measurements and keeping the mic in the same areas...sometimes i had it sometimes i didnt...could it maybe be volume related then? Im sure the last 2 tunes i had the volume up much louder than the first 2 tunes..so maybe the higher volume messing up response in that door only? I cant think of any other variables that i did different between tunes...thanks for the input! Much appreciated!!


----------



## Grindcore (Dec 12, 2012)

By that i mean a vibration or rattle? Or backwaves? Both doors are sealed and deadend and have some egg shell foam behind each speaker....


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

If you're not hearing what's wrong, how will you make it better? 

Take a track you are very familiar with and listen to it on a 2ch at home or using good headphones. Then listen to the same track in the car, now pick the differences. You will have to go back and forth between the sounds a few times to start catching things. Make a list of 5 things and we will take it one at a time. Makes sense?


----------



## Grindcore (Dec 12, 2012)

sqnut said:


> If you're not hearing what's wrong, how will you make it better?
> 
> Take a track you are very familiar with and listen to it on a 2ch at home or using good headphones. Then listen to the same track in the car, now pick the differences. You will have to go back and forth between the sounds a few times to start catching things. Make a list of 5 things and we will take it one at a time. Makes sense?


Ok i tried this on a few tracks on my home set up and nothing jumped out at me immediately...which i guess is a good thing!?..

Tonally it isnt sounding to far off...i will have to really sit down and listen for a while..

i ended up fixing my tweets permanently in the corners of the dash with the pods that came with the tweets...if anything..just raised off the dash



They are angled in slightly from the windshield..gave them a quick RTA and no majour peaks or dips


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Grindcore said:


> Ok i tried this on a few tracks on my home set up and nothing jumped out at me immediately...which i guess is a good thing!?..
> 
> Tonally it isnt sounding to far off...i will have to really sit down and listen for a while..
> 
> i ended up fixing my tweets permanently in the corners of the dash with the pods that came with the tweets...if anything..just raised off the dash


Give yourself time don't rush or force it. The differences once you start hearing them will be subtle to start with and as you keep going, more and more will start to stand out. 

Listen to your reference sound with your eyes closed. Let your mind focus totally on the audio, by taking away all visual distractions. Do the same thing when you're in the car. Listen for specific things. Focus on the vocals, are they more relaxed and open on the 2ch while being a touch stretched in the car? 

Go with a song that has a piano piece as the piano covers a wide frequency range so easier to pick differences. Does the piano sound as rich and vibrant in the car, or is it a touch flatter maybe a touch tinny. Focus on one aspect of the sound, and block everything else out. Go back and forth a few times then take a break. Then do it again.

I'm not sure what sort of music you're auditioning with, but two things you should ensure are, excellent recordings and real instruments. The advantage of using music with real instruments is that they create harmonics which gives them a unique timbre and dynamics, synthesizers don't create harmonics the way real instruments do. It's easier to pick differences when you have these dynamics in the sound. Check this on the 2ch and in your car. Remember dynamics is not about how hard the bass hits, but how real everything sounds. 

Listen to tight and snappy drum solo's on the 2ch, is it the same in the car? Do this over a couple of days, some things will be easier to pick than others. If something sounds right, despite repeated listens, move on to the next thing.


----------



## Grindcore (Dec 12, 2012)

sqnut said:


> Give yourself time don't rush or force it. The differences once you start hearing them will be subtle to start with and as you keep going, more and more will start to stand out.
> 
> Listen to your reference sound with your eyes closed. Let your mind focus totally on the audio, by taking away all visual distractions. Do the same thing when you're in the car. Listen for specific things. Focus on the vocals, are they more relaxed and open on the 2ch while being a touch stretched in the car?
> 
> ...



Thanks for the info mate...yeah i figured im gonna need plenty of time for this part...

The stuff im in to varies quite a lot..mostly metal but but everything in between...

For auditioning i have a few cds that im very familiar with that i will do this with...

AIC unplugged,Alanis Morisette unplugged,RATM debut album and then the various EMMA cds that i ordered and plenty of other recommendations for certain tracks on DIYMA...

The most familiar ones are the AIC and RATM cds so i will base a lot of stuff on those...

Now everything i will be looking for will be tonally only...so when listening at home depth,width and height will be irrelevant? I have read you can tune a bit somewhat to help improve those things but install will limit most of that...but in saying that im happy with all that and image in the car so this will all be now to improve the overall sound and dynamics?


----------



## Grindcore (Dec 12, 2012)

Any tracks you can recommend off the top of your head? Or just stick to the familiar stuff now?


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Grindcore said:


> The most familiar ones are the AIC and RATM cds so i will base a lot of stuff on those...
> 
> Now everything i will be looking for will be tonally only...so when listening at home depth,width and height will be irrelevant?


Couldn't have said it better. Yes just focus on tonality and forget the rest for a bit.



Grindcore said:


> I have read you can tune a bit somewhat to help improve those things but install will limit most of that...but in saying that im happy with all that and image in the car so this will all be now to improve the overall sound and dynamics?


Don't believe everything you read. The only install issue which was a hindrance for tuning, was a car I tuned that had tweets in the kick panels, I just couldn't get rid of the bowing. But other than that install has never really been an issue.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Grindcore said:


> Any tracks you can recommend off the top of your head? Or just stick to the familiar stuff now?


From stuff that I listen to:

All Floyd, Supertramp, FleetwoodMac, Steely Dan / Donald Fagen, Most Jazz and oh yeah Sarah McLachlan Freedom Sessions. The album has a song called Hold On, which is just Sarah on the piano. Fantastic dynamics and great for tuning She's done several versions of this song but this is the best. Plus its slow enough to allow you to hear each note on the piano. In the car when things are dialed in, you should hear her like she was in the car and almost feel her breath on your face. 

The Meca / Emma disks also are very good.


----------



## lizardking (Nov 8, 2008)

At what volume level you guys measuring at? 3/4 volume


----------



## drop1 (Jul 26, 2015)

lizardking said:


> At what volume level you guys measuring at? 3/4 volume


Around 90 db is what I measure at. 3/4 volume could be any spl level depending on your gear and most measuring mics don't like high spl not to mention resonances in the vehicle doing all sorts of screwy things to your measurements when ever thing is shaking. Just above talking level is just about right for me.


----------



## lizardking (Nov 8, 2008)

I agree. I generally have curve around 65db at 40hz down to 30db at 10k. Overall level around 80-85db. I see graphs on here with the bass region around 100db down to 60-50db around 10k. That has got to be insanely loud.


----------



## drop1 (Jul 26, 2015)

lizardking said:


> I agree. I generally have curve around 65db at 40hz down to 30db at 10k. Overall level around 80-85db. I see graphs on here with the bass region around 100db down to 60-50db around 10k. That has got to be insanely loud.


I think insanely loud is very relative to what you are used to listening at. I'm in my vehicle more than most and in the mornings I start put around 80 db. By the time I get home in the afternoon who the hell knows how loud it is lol


----------



## Grindcore (Dec 12, 2012)

sqnut said:


> From stuff that I listen to:
> 
> All Floyd, Supertramp, FleetwoodMac, Steely Dan / Donald Fagen, Most Jazz and oh yeah Sarah McLachlan Freedom Sessions. The album has a song called Hold On, which is just Sarah on the piano. Fantastic dynamics and great for tuning She's done several versions of this song but this is the best. Plus its slow enough to allow you to hear each note on the piano. In the car when things are dialed in, you should hear her like she was in the car and almost feel her breath on your face.
> 
> The Meca / Emma disks also are very good.


Yep listen to a lot of that already...but will take the other suggestions on board! Cheers!


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Just one more tip. I put the cart before the horse and I'm asking you to do things which come down the road, sorry my bad.

When you listen to the 2ch, don't think about the differences you want to pick. Block out everything, and just listen to and enjoy the music. Get immersed in hearing the sound and try to visualize each instrument the vocalist, how it looks etc. Think about how it makes you feel. Play the same track 2-3 times on the 2 ch and just listen, visualize and feel. Take a 2 min break between each repeat. 

The objective here is to try and develop a strong correlation what you're hearing, seeing (with your eyes shut) and feeling, for a given ref sound. The ability to hear, see and touch are three of our senses and we all use them. However within that, some are more visually inclined, others aurally, and for still another set touch and feel is very important. 

Now, when we have the correlation going, and we listen in a different environment, the aurally inclined will find it easier to pick the differences from how it sounds, the visual from how they see things and the tactile will know when it doesn't feel right.

The more relaxed you are, with a blank, calm mind, the easier it will be to start building the correlation. Spend about 10-15 min a day with your 2ch doing this. See where you are a week down the line.


----------



## peenemunde (Aug 31, 2013)

sqnut said:


> Just one more tip. I put the car before the horse and I'm asking you to do things which come down the road, sorry my bad.
> 
> When you listen to the 2ch, don't think about the differences you want to pick. Block out everything, and just listen to and enjoy the music. Get immersed in hearing the sound and try to visualize each instrument the vocalist, how it looks etc. Think about how it makes you feel. Play the same track 2-3 times on the 2 ch and just listen, visualize and feel. Take a 2 min break between each repeat.
> 
> ...


Probably the best advice I've ever seen... 
I applaud you  closing your eyes and cutting out all other senses can make a world of difference when critically listening to music 

Many nights have I sat in a dark room, jamming headphones and been transported to another place. Where you can feel the artist's voice, the emotion they convey pouring out in front of you.. It's one thing to listen to a song but to BECOME the music is an art. 

Then, you have your end goal. All that's left is tuning to find it


----------



## Grindcore (Dec 12, 2012)

Heya sq been doing some listening...using this track


Piano dead center but her voice sounds left at the start of the song but after a verse it shifts to center with the piano??


----------



## Kazuhiro (Apr 28, 2015)

I've recently retuned my system with the core-1 dsp. At the moment, the focus is centred, but the left centre and right centre seem so close to the speakers. Not sure what to do here. There is a neat stage depth option which expands the virtual stage, but I prefer it off. 

Sent from my HTC_PO582 using Tapatalk


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Grindcore said:


> Heya sq been doing some listening...using this track
> 
> 
> *Piano dead center but her voice sounds left at the start of the song but after a verse it shifts to center with the piano??*


Vocals shift ~ 1:30 right? Don't worry that's how the song is mic'd. Starts off with one mic for her and another for the piano and then switches to one for both. Yeah that happens in my car as well. How did you like the song? For some reason it chokes me up every time I listen to it, and I've probably heard it a million times. 

Get really familiar with the song on your 2ch and then see if you can start picking differences. How are the listening sessions going?


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Kazuhiro said:


> I've recently retuned my system with the core-1 dsp. At the moment, the focus is centred, but the left centre and right centre seem so close to the speakers. Not sure what to do here. There is a neat stage depth option which expands the virtual stage, but I prefer it off.
> 
> Sent from my HTC_PO582 using Tapatalk


If the sound pulls to the sides (towards the speakers), you may have too much delay between L&R speakers. Try and reduce this and see if it helps.


----------



## Kazuhiro (Apr 28, 2015)

Ok so keep the same distance ratio, but close them in together a bit? 

Sent from my HTC_PO582 using Tapatalk


----------



## Grindcore (Dec 12, 2012)

ahhh sweet...just making sure it wasnt the medium i was using...its meant to be lossless streaming! So thats all good...is there a small bit of noise? Ie hiss? 

Also...because i cant stop messing with settings...i lifted the crossover on the hat L3SE from 250hz to 400hz..like you suggested...at high volumes i was getting distortion with most songs with piano in them...was quite brutal actually...so i lifted that and lifted the midbass to meet them at 400hz...they needed a bit of eq but am now quite happy with the results...

I went over the set up again with the rta and am happy with that overall...

now the listening...its been going well...have spent a bit of time with the home 2 channel and then in the car...its been very difficult to find much difference with anything.i think the vocals in car are to in your face..not harsh..but just loud...tonally it seems pretty good..but is this possible when left and right eq have been adjusted indiscriminately? I will be heading back to the car soon...i wish to listen to that track a bit more on my home 2 channel...and then with headphones after that....


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Kazuhiro said:


> Ok so keep the same distance ratio, but close them in together a bit?
> 
> Sent from my HTC_PO582 using Tapatalk


Not sure if you have a 2 way or 3 way, but do this two drivers at a time. Play only the L&R midbass. Is it centred or does it pull to the sides? Let's assume its pulling to the sides and the TA settings are say 1.5 ms on the near mid bass and 1.0 ms on the far one. This gives a 0.5 ms delay between L&R. 

Now reduce the delay on the near driver by one click to say 1.48 ms and increase the delay on the far side driver by one click to say 1.02 ms. Now the relative delay between L&R is 0.46 ms. Do this with each pair of drivers till sound from each pair is centred. Now go back play all drivers and listen. Better?


----------



## Kazuhiro (Apr 28, 2015)

Will give it a shot in the morning, after Ive taken all my measurements again.
Usually I use the centre track on the iasca cd, but I find it not so great when matching the tweets or midbass, only the midrange. Would you recommend something better?

EDIT: I think I know how I caused this. When moving my stage closer to me, I simply delayed the driver side speakers more rather than adjusting both sides of the stage, which must have really widened up the centre


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Grindcore said:


> ahhh sweet...just making sure it wasnt the medium i was using...its meant to be lossless streaming! So thats all good...is there a small bit of noise? Ie hiss?


Cut a bit 2-3 db at 16khz. Cut a lot, 3-5db at 8khz. Better? Cutting at 8 khz will help reduce shouty, in your face vocals.



Grindcore said:


> Also...because i cant stop messing with settings...i lifted the crossover on the hat L3SE from 250hz to 400hz..like you suggested...at high volumes i was getting distortion with most songs with piano in them...was quite brutal actually...so i lifted that and lifted the midbass to meet them at 400hz...they needed a bit of eq but am now quite happy with the results...


I've been through exactly what you're going through, couldn't stop fiddling. As far as xovers go, once you find a happy ground, leave them alone. The real secret is in the eq. Keep the sub/mid bass crossover under 80, keep all drivers in their omni direction zone (much easier with a 3 way like yours) and keep LP/HP matching across the board, I like 4th order on everything except on the sub which I have on 36db, this with the sub and mid crossed at 50hz. Avoid under / overlapping drivers. Once you have the basic network set, forget about tweaking it. Just focus on the eq, things will go quicker.




Grindcore said:


> I went over the set up again with the rta and am happy with that overall...


The RTA is like a tube you use while learning to swim, it keeps you afloat to start with (get your measurements in the ball park), as you learn to float and swim (use your ears to accurately tell better or worse with each tweak) you'll find yourself going back to the RTA less and less. Do you find that counter intuitive?



Grindcore said:


> now the listening...its been going well...have spent a bit of time with the home 2 channel and then in the car...its been very difficult to find much difference with anything.i think the vocals in car are to in your face..not harsh..but just loud...tonally it seems pretty good..but is this possible when left and right eq have been adjusted indiscriminately? I will be heading back to the car soon...i wish to listen to that track a bit more on my home 2 channel...and then with headphones after that....


Cut 5khz a bit to take everything (including vocals) a bit further from you. Couple this with the cuts at 8 & 16 mentioned above. Cut a bit at 800hz to push the vocals back into the mix, if they are too forward out of the rest of the mix. 

Re-read your post which I am replying to. Do you notice something? You are starting to pick stuff, based on how it sounds and images..........your qualitative comments are much more useful to me than your RTA graphs, which are pretty decent for a start. Keep going, you're doing really good.:ears::2thumbsup:


----------



## Grindcore (Dec 12, 2012)

Ok thanks for taking the time with me and i really appreciate your suggestions and input! ...

When it comes to the cuts you suggested...how would i apply them with my processor? I.E...i can only left and right eq seperatley..i cant merge them like the helix then adjust them together...

so for example...if making a cut at 800hz would i cut both sides evenly from now on? So .5 both sides...1db both sides etc?

As for the listening...this is now another phase which im relying on more now...yes the rta i use only when i have made major adjustments with crossovers etc...get it flat and then put it away and only use my ears from there...

Using the home 2 channel has really opened my ears and going back and forth i am slowly picking up differences and things that sound different between home and car...and i can only imagine this will get much easier the more i do that...so again another part of the learning curve which im happy with so far...but i know there is always room for improvement!!

With your comments on x over settings..yeah i know set and forget!! Easier said than done..but now i think i am happy where they are..i was always worried about having the mids playing as much as the midrange as possible as read in here in DIYMA..like it was gospel...at lower volumes sure..but at higher volumes a 3 inch mid aint gonna perform at 250hz...so compromises must be made...

I too have mid to sub at 56hz 36db slope and my other x overs are at 24db slopes...no under/overlap...


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Grindcore said:


> Ok thanks for taking the time with me and i really appreciate your suggestions and input! ...


Aww, thank you that's really sweet....



Grindcore said:


> When it comes to the cuts you suggested...how would i apply them with my processor? I.E...i can only left and right eq seperatley..i cant merge them like the helix then adjust them together...


My bit10 is also like that, can't link L&R so you'll need to go to left eq cut 16 by say 2 db then go to right eq and repeat. For now I'm going on the basis that L/R is balanced for a start, more on this at the end of this post.



Grindcore said:


> so for example...if making a cut at 800hz would i cut both sides evenly from now on? So .5 both sides...1db both sides etc?


Bingo!



Grindcore said:


> As for the listening...this is now another phase which im relying on more now...yes the rta i use only when i have made major adjustments with crossovers etc...get it flat and then put it away and only use my ears from there...
> 
> Using the home 2 channel has really opened my ears and going back and forth i am slowly picking up differences and things that sound different between home and car...and i can only imagine this will get much easier the more i do that...so again another part of the learning curve which im happy with so far...but i know there is always room for improvement!!


Wanna know why you tweak incessantly? Cause with each tweak you 'hear' the difference, but because you're starting out you need to build the accuracy for telling better and worse, and to get intuitive with your eq. Keep going and things will start to fall in place. 



Grindcore said:


> With your comments on x over settings..yeah i know set and forget!! Easier said than done..but now i think i am happy where they are..i was always worried about having the mids playing as much as the midrange as possible as read in here in DIYMA..like it was gospel...at lower volumes sure..but at higher volumes a 3 inch mid aint gonna perform at 250hz...so compromises must be made...
> 
> I too have mid to sub at 56hz 36db slope and my other x overs are at 24db slopes...no under/overlap...


The *toughest* part of tuning for me was knowing when to stop. I'd get it sounding really good, and I'd go chasing something minor and screw up everything else in the process. I kid you not, I must have fallen on my arse doing this, about 10,000 times. Tune a bit and then spend a day listening to it before tweaking again.

Do you have the frequency PN tracks? Put an X jwith some tape on your windshield just under your rear view. Now play the PN tracks and try to get everything centred at the X. This is a much more accurate way of balancing L/R. When you measure with the RTA you're measuring to resolution of ~+/- 1 db or so. Your ears on the other hand can tell a difference at 0.1db. Do this and see if your image becomes more focused.


----------



## Grindcore (Dec 12, 2012)

Very insightful! Now with the pink noise tracks...i would play each track and with the eq for eg..if 400hz pulled to the left i would drop the left by say a db..but then i would raise the right by one db...but only do the eq this way when centering the frequencies? So again down by two on one side and up by two on the other? ...i have dont it that way before...but this tune i only got left and right seperate eq very close my image is very centered and stable...but will run through each freq and see if any are out so to speak..


----------



## Grindcore (Dec 12, 2012)

I too have had something sound good but then mess it up trying to make it better!! Good thing about the H800 is that you can store 6 presets so a couple are of the base tune and the others i mess around with..then what i will do is play a track and click through each preset and see how they differ and what i think sounds better between them and then take what i like and apply that to another preset...but i can always go back to my base tune if i completely screw something up!!..

Tomorrow i will give those eq suggestions a go and will also run through the pink noise tracks..tonight i will do some more listening inside and start fresh out in the car tomorrow!!

Again...thank you for your time and will post up how i go tomorrow!


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Grindcore said:


> Very insightful! Now with the pink noise tracks...i would play each track and with the eq for eg..if 400hz pulled to the left i would drop the left by say a db..but then i would raise the right by one db...but only do the eq this way when centering the frequencies? So again down by two on one side and up by two on the other? ...i have dont it that way before...but this tune i only got left and right seperate eq very close my image is very centered and stable...but will run through each freq and see if any are out so to speak..


Just cut the hotter side, you're already in the ball park so you don't really need to do the cut one side raise the other bit. After you've done it this way. Then go back and check one octave at a time. Let's say 400-800hz. Play 400 for 1 sec see where it images and jump to 500 hz and play that for 1 sec then jump to 600 and so on. Are they all dead centre or do they move slightly?


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Grindcore said:


> ...its meant to be lossless streaming! So thats all good...is there a small bit of noise? Ie hiss?


Where are you streaming the lossless from? I'm listening to you tube on buds and I think the best sounding stuff on you tube is 320 kbps because in about 20 songs I've heard, none have been lossless. The better sounding ones sound like 320 but are still missing dynamics, and on quieter passages it has that hiss. Then again, it might just be crappy buds.

Anyway, here are a couple of other good reference songs I like. The Billy Joel song is another simple tune with minimum instruments. The Supertramp song on the other hand, is with a full blown orchestra, great for getting a real feel for how each instrument sounds in isolation and together. Not sure you'll get a FLAC of this version, but definitely worth it if you can. 

Someone mentioned its from the 'Live in Paris concert' or try searching under 'It was the best of times'. You should find the Billy Joel flac file easily it's from 'The Stranger'. The idea is to listen to the downloaded flac and then stream it, do you hear a difference? Do this on your 2ch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cx3QmqV2pHg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aWDxuhD0FI

One for the road, another one to hear on flac.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBJ8b0DvyaY

P.S. The You tube version of Fools overture is not the one on live in paris. Oh well. Here's another one. The original version is 25 min .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSRJvq4Wd48

I must thank you, thanks to this thread, after a very long time, I've spent the whole day listening to music.


----------



## Grindcore (Dec 12, 2012)

sqnut said:


> Where are you streaming the lossless from? I'm listening to you tube on buds and I think the best sounding stuff on you tube is 320 kbps because in about 20 songs I've heard, none have been lossless. The better sounding ones sound like 320 but are still missing dynamics, and on quieter passages it has that hiss. Then again, it might just be crappy buds.
> 
> Anyway, here are a couple of other good reference songs I like. The Billy Joel song is another simple tune with minimum instruments. The Supertramp song on the other hand, is with a full blown orchestra, great for getting a real feel for how each instrument sounds in isolation and together. Not sure you'll get a FLAC of this version, but definitely worth it if you can.
> 
> ...


I use Wimp Hifi...its based in Europe but i signed up when i was travelling overthere a couple of years ago...its a bit pricey..30 AUS a month but it works flawlessly and pretty much all music on there is lossless...so its perfect from for the car! Will search and see if i can find the tracks you listed here!...will give them some time inside before i head out to the car...

Haha no worries! But a thank you for reaching out on here might be a stretch!!! Again cheers for all this!


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Hi, hows the tuning and listening going?


----------



## Grindcore (Dec 12, 2012)

Heya sq! Its all going good....im really right in to the home listening and then listening in the car....i messed with a couple of eq settings that you mentioned and it did help somewhat....after numerous listens it just seems like the whole midrange is just to loud...not so much at lower listening levels but when i give the volume knob a bit of a nudge the midrange just gets shouty and im guessing just starts to break up abit..so im gonna drop the levels on the midranges by a couple of db..and mess with that..because eq wise i have the midrange pretty flat from 250-3k...am i just asking to much from the little 3 inch HATs? What spl would be ball park for these drivers...just so i know im not trying to get to much outof them? I know its crossover dependant etc...but at the moment im around 360hz 36db slope on the bottom end and at 3.2k at the top end 24db slope....its a bit off topic but just after some thought on what im hearing in the midrange....


----------



## Grindcore (Dec 12, 2012)

Listening has been put on hold for a bit...im really getting frustrated with my midrange at the moment...a bit off topic but what spl should i expect out of the HAT L3se...just a ball park figure...maybe im asking to much of them at higher volumes? My FR in the car is pretty flat from 250hz-3k...so no peaks that are making it sound unpleasant at higher volumes...they just seem to get messy when up around 3/4 volume...i can mess with the levels abit..drop them down a couple of db...crossover wise im at around 360hz 36db slope bottom end and 3k top end 24db...


----------



## Grindcore (Dec 12, 2012)

What is the average spl level of a sq system??


----------



## Grindcore (Dec 12, 2012)

I actually thought one of my posts was deleted..but gah...asking the same thing...


----------



## Kazuhiro (Apr 28, 2015)

Is there any silly null boosting? Don't take offense, I have made a mistake that caused a similar result. 

Sent from my HTC_PO582 using Tapatalk


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Grindcore said:


> What is the average spl level of a sq system??


At 100-105 db the sound should be loud and clean.



Grindcore said:


> Listening has been put on hold for a bit...im really getting frustrated with my midrange at the moment...a bit off topic but what spl should i expect out of the HAT L3se...just a ball park figure...maybe im asking to much of them at higher volumes? My FR in the car is pretty flat from 250hz-3k...so no peaks that are making it sound unpleasant at higher volumes...they just seem to get messy when up around 3/4 volume...i can mess with the levels abit..drop them down a couple of db...crossover wise im at around 360hz 36db slope bottom end and 3k top end 24db...


At the lower end cross the mid bass and mid range ~600 on 24 db slopes. Shouty vocals are a combination of 800 and 8 khz being too hot. My tweet levels are set to -6db both sides and 8 khz is cut -6.5 db on one side and -8db on the other. 

You don't want a flat response from 250-3khz. It needs to slope downwards. As a rough ballpark, 500 should be 1-1.5 db lower than 250, 800 a further db down and from 1.25-4khz you should have ~ 4-6 db roll off. You will need a slight rise at 5khz and then the massive cut at 8. Open up gradually from 8-12, cut 16 to reduce the 'brittle' sound and use 20khz as the brightness control.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Some key frequencies and what they 'sound' like:

80hz: You're getting a ton of cabin gain in the 60-80hz range so this range is typically hot in most cars. 80 hz makes the low end thick and bloated and typically needs to be cut a lot. I have it cut -5 db on one side and - 3.5 db on the other. The low notes Sarah's piano opening on hold on should have fullness and a woody feel 

100 hz: This the energy in your mid bass, this is a good frequency, cut only to balance L/R I have it cut 1.6 db on one side and 2.5 db on the other. The low notes opening notes on 'hold on', should have fullness and a woody feel rich feel tweak this with 80-160.

160hz: 0.5 db excess here and the sound will be fat and bloated, conversely 0.5 db too little and the sound will be paper thin. Do this one by ear _after_ you have set 100, and the 200-250 range and after you have tweaked 500 & 1 khz....more don this down the line. 

200/250: Most cars have another hump here and these frequencies need big cuts. Note: I'm not talking about graphs now I'm going purely by how it sounds. These frequencies make the low end bloated and your entire stage bigger than it should be. A lot of time we will have the stage extend from our dash up to our eye level. That's too big. The vocalist recorded front centre should be at your rear view and in an area the size of a normal mouth. Each instrument should occupy its fixed location and be contained in a circle about 4" dia. 

Of course the music has to be recorded to make this stand out. You can also have recordings that are technically good, but the recording itself has been done in a small room. These recordings will sound good, but everything will feel kinda squished together. A LOT of good recordings are done in small rooms. A good recording in a huge studio give a sense of space and separation that can't be matched. Nut shell, cut at 200-250 to take the bloat of you mid bass and to make the stage smaller. In my setup 200 is cut -4.5 db on one side and 3.5 db on the other, more or less like wise for 250. 

300 hz: Most recording engineers use this frequency to give power to the vocals. In my setup 300 iz cut to balance, but the overall cuts are less than the 200-250 range. 300 hz is also the low end for female vocals and if vocals sound thin add a bit here and see how it sounds. 

400 hz: 400 and 4 khz together add 'chaff' to the sound. I cut 400 more than 300.

500 hz: 500 hz is good for vocal presence and is the early harmonics of the mid bass fundamentals. This is the start of the 'snappy and tight' mid bass. I have it cut 1 db on one side and 1.8 db on the other. Too little at 500 and the low end will be dull. Too much at 500 and it will begin to sound like a cheap 2" speaker, kinda like the honky sound on the telephone.

600 hz: Too much is honking and too little is again dull. Too much here will make guitars honk. Too little and your drums will never sound right. 

800 hz: Raise to bring the vocals forward from the mix. 800 also contributes to the shouty vocals at 8khz. Too much here can contribute to the 'shoutiness' and make both acoustic and electric guitars will have a nasty twang. Not enough here and your vocals will be submerged in the rest of the sound, and not upfront the way vocalist recorded front centre should be. Too little and the mid bass will be dull.

1 khz: Along with 500 hz, 1 khz is the 'dude', when it comes to making everything from 100-600 sound really dynamic. The other way to look at dynamic is make things sound real. Cut the flab at 80/200-250 and your low end will suddenly sound thinner, now use 500 and 1khz to tighten that low end, Then for final tweaking of the low end go back and fine tune 160. Too much energy here and the sound will thin out very quickly and start to get tinny. 

1.25 khz: This is where I start the deep cuts. I have it -4 db on one side and -5 db on the other. Cut to reduce tinny sounds and grainy sounds.

1.6 khz: The 'bite' in your mid range is around this frequency. If your midrange has excess bite and sharpness, if instruments like a sax or trumpet or even the piano sound tinny and sharp, if vocals hurt, try starting your cuts here.

2-2.5 khz: The sound will have too much bite and tinniness if this range is hot, and it will be dull and vocals will loose clarity, if you cut too much. 

3-4 khz: Too much makes the sound grainy and vocals will be edgy. I'm cutting a lot at both these frequencies. Start by cutting both ~ 4 db then play +/- 0.5 db to find the best results. Cut 4 khz to make the sound less grainy / less chaffy (is that a legit word?  )

5 khz: If things below 5 khz are set properly, you can open up a bit here (i.e. smaller cuts) I have 5 khz cut 2 db on one side and 1.5 on the other. Raising a bit hare makes the sound more transparent and more detailed. Too much energy here and the sound will be in your face and you will start to hear sibilant sounds, the 'aahhh' sound. The right amt makes the sound more dynamic and clearer. 

6-8khz: Really, really nasty zone. Sibilance, shouty vocals, its all here. I'm cutting 8 khz -8db on one side and -6.5 on the other. One general observation, if your tweets are on the dash and you have some sort of dash mat, you will need to cut a bit less. In my case the tweets are in pods in the dash corners with no dash mat, so I need to cut tons. Even with a dash mat though, in every car I have tuned 8 is normally cut 5-6 db.

10kz: Good for dynamics for upper end midrange fundamentals. Cuts are much less here than in the 6-8 range.

12.5 khz: Good for the 'air' in the sound. Minimal cuts to balance L/R, do this by ear.

16 khz: Too much = brittle sound, too little =dull and dark. Cut more here than at 12.5.

20 khz: roll off to make sound darker, open up to add more light. I'm only balancing L/R here and that too by ear.

Once you have a decent measured base, use the eq to make it sound right, dont wory about how it measures. Here's a great tool to figure out the eq and to get intuitive with it. Run the peak / dip exercise and the idea is to develop ~85% accuracy at level 6.

Harman How to Listen

P.S. edited for greater details.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

A kind of P.S. post to my two previous posts. 

Where ever I have mentioned the level of my cuts, it's basically to give you an idea of a ballpark number. The environment and its effect and the setup in our cars is different. Thus the ear level response and hence how much you need to cut will differ. 

For instance, you're running a 3 way while I have a two way. For me 60-2 khz is from my mid bass, and I'm not cutting the levels on the mid bass. In your case if say 500-2 khz is from your mid range, and you're cutting the levels by 2db, then everything in that range is already attenuated by 2db. Now my 5 db cut at 3 khz would mean you probably need to cut here, maybe a touch less than me. We're assuming for a bit that the environments and equipment are kinda similar. They're not but that difference is more minor. 

You have obviously reached a point where you are hearing how different your car sounds vs your 2 ch, and yet three weeks ago you thought they sounded similar. What got you here, are your ears and their ability to hear a difference. Keep going and you'll continue to pick more differences. Hearing the difference is one part of the story, the other is using the eq to correct it. It is here that the Harmon tool is really useful. 

Making changes in +/- 0.5 db steps will make a big difference in what you're hearing and from time to time, when somethings not working, you'll want to measure and see if you messed up anything. By all means do so. However you may find that when you make 2-3 db cuts across say an octave, that shows up on the graph. Yet when you make a bunch of +/- 0.5-1 db changes, which change the sound completely, it doesn't really show up on the graphs in any meaningful way. This is because the resolution at which you're measuring and that at which you're hearing are two very different things. 

Measurements are good for getting in the ballpark, your ears are the mic when you're trying to get it to sound right. So it's very important to build accuracy in what you're hearing. If you tune for something and feel it is better, it should sound better the next day too.

This whole tune by ear thing boils down to three basic things, hearing the difference, knowing how to fix it (90% on the eq), and repeat-ability. As the three fall into place you'll hear the sound get better.


----------



## seafish (Aug 1, 2012)

Sqnut, ^^^^ posts are VERY useful…thanks for posting.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

I've updated post 229 to explain using the eq in greater depth




seafish said:


> Sqnut, ^^^^ posts are VERY useful…thanks for posting.


glad you find it helpful.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

As you know by now, I have a thing for good recordings, done in big spaces with a live orchestra. Listen to a flac version of this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vschhZ7TxIM

and another couple 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SbUC-UaAxE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRIbf6JqkNc

I'm spending a lot more time listening to music on my 2 ch, thanks to this thread.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Going by your eq screen shots on page 8, I'd start with deep cuts at 1.25, 2, 3 & 4 khz and then bring up 500. Cut a fair bit at 200 as well.


----------



## Grindcore (Dec 12, 2012)

Ok guys...messed around a bit more...i took a lot of what you mentioned in here SQ with cuts and stuff...

Started off with my base tune...which was the flat one from 250-3k...played some music and started messing with 800hz and 8k...started with .5db cuts and i cut each side equally...so at 800hz i already had it cut by 3db one side and i think it was around 6db the other...now i have it at 5db and 8db...next i cut 8k...i had that around 4db and 6db...i cut them a couple of db each side...

Now just by doing that the midrange is less harsh...well the vocals are less harsh..the midrange was sweet when playing instrumental music...so i knew the problem was with the vocal range mostly...i gave 500hz a .5db boost on both sides..they were both 0db..that little boost seemed to make things seem more alive..more dynamic i guess...i started messing with the 1k-4k area...only .5db cuts at a time each side...this seemed to clean up the midrange also especially at higher volumes...i saved that tune and had a good listen...i like where its going...things seem much cleaner/sharp...and the edgyness has been taken away especially male vocals..female vocals where always pretty crisp but if anything at higher volumes sibilance was a problem...not so much anymore..

will continue to listen to familiar music and just mess with certain frequencies .5db at a time...tedious...but will be worth it..

Havent messed with the low end much..the 125-250 region but want to sort out the mid-upper midrange then start cutting the lower end...

Have still been listening to the home set up...but its starting to get easier to actually pick up whats wrong with things when you listen enough to your home set up...

All this help is much appreciated! Next time im messin with the car i will grab a couple of screenshots of the eq settings in the H800 software...

all in all im slowly getting there and i see what you mean when you measure a lot of stuff and get a certain curve but you really do need to listen to things on a good 2 channel home set up to really know how things should sound that an rta really isnt going to show you...


----------



## Grindcore (Dec 12, 2012)

sqnut said:


> As you know by now, I have a thing for good recordings, done in big spaces with a live orchestra. Listen to a flac version of this.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vschhZ7TxIM
> 
> ...


Will have a chance to listen to these tracks over the weekend and will hop back in the car and do some more in depth listening and tweaking....thanks again!


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Grindcore said:


> will continue to listen to familiar music and just mess with certain frequencies .5db at a time...tedious...


....and addictive. There's a lot of stuff that you're picking up instinctively like moving in small steps. That's something I should have highlighted more. But that doesn't always mean you cut something 0.5 and move on to something else. If a cut of 0.5 db sounds 'better', try another 0.5 and another till it sounds wrong, and then back up some.

500 hz is giving power to the vocals and dynamics to the low end, as you discovered. Once you think you've got it sounding much better, save and date that setting. A month down the line when you again think 'yes!' save that setting. Now A/B the two settings and you will hear the progress you're making. 

When you get around to setting the 80-250 zone, don't be surprised if the low end thins out abruptly and the sound becomes sharp. Shave off some of the 1.25-4khz range and the low end will come back. If it's still a bit bright at the top try small cuts from 12-20. Play a bit at 5 for final finishing touches. 

Once you have somewhat of a balance across the ranges sub / mid bass / mid / highs, and you cut one range, you have to go back and trim everything else to get that balance again. 

Spread that deep cut at 800 over 600, 800 and a bit at 1. The balance in this octave is critical to your entire mid range.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Grindcore said:


> Will have a chance to listen to these tracks over the weekend and will hop back in the car and do some more in depth listening and tweaking....thanks again!


On the Elton John set, listen to the first number 'Sixty years on', on your two ch a few times. 

3:00-4:10 Is a solo piece on the harp, for the most part the fundamentals are ~400-1khz. Does it sound like it's honking? If so cut a bit here. Harmonics are 1.6-4khz. Does this sound sound tinny, too much bite? If so cut this range a bit.

4:15-4:50 - The mass of bass from the cello's, voila's and violins is 50-200hz. You want just the right amount of fatness here. The growl, dynamics are 100 and then 300-800. This piece is repeated 2-3 times in the song. Break the bass into mass and energy, for me it's about 50/50.

6:30-6:40 Is a short brass section, if its honking cut 500-1, if has too much bite cut in the 1.25-3 range, a small cut at 5 would also help.

Elton's vocals are ~300 at the lowest end power at 500-800, upper end 1.6-4 khz, this is all harmonics.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

Grindcore said:


> all in all im slowly getting there and i see what you mean when you measure a lot of stuff and get a certain curve but you really do need to listen to things on a good 2 channel home set up to really know how things should sound that an rta really isnt going to show you...


With the acoustic analysis tools available today, and some good ones even being FREE, an RTA isn't even worth using as it shows you so little.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Niick said:


> With the acoustic analysis tools available today, and some good ones even being FREE, an RTA isn't even worth using as it shows you so little.


It's not about which software you use, nor what desired measurement parameters you measure to. This is about what happens after you're done measuring.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

I really like your posts explaining how different energies present in different ratios in different freq. ranges create different sounding results. 

As an exercise to further my ability to hear what sounds natural, "live" if you will, and to understand how drive unit interactions with each other and the car's interior affect these things, I recently started a project where a client of ours, who is a musician, specifically he's a drummer, has been kind enough to bring in some drums and allow me to record them, so that I have a live recording of acoustic instruments that I have a definitive reference for. 

So far we've done drums, next we'll do vocals, acoustic guitar, then all at once. We'll throw in some electric instruments as well, but I'll keep separate the purely acoustic recordings from the acoustic/electric recordings. 

The things that so far have shown the most promise so far are actually in the time domain. Transient attack and decay. How different drive units interact to reproduce the hit of a snare for example.


----------



## crazhorse (Mar 9, 2010)

Sounds interesting.... I'm trying to figure out a curve I like, one the guitars just sound flat... Another just sounds to jumbled... The search continues...


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

crazhorse said:


> Sounds interesting.... I'm trying to figure out a curve I like, one the guitars just sound flat... Another just sounds to jumbled... The search continues...


 so, I've really started to look deeply into the time domain behavior of loudspeakers. I believe that it's in the time domain that ALOT of the things that we do or don't like about a sound system are actually found. Looking only at the frequency domain will keep us forever in the dark as to the reasons of these things. Now, we can infer much about a system by observing the freq. domain, SO LONG as we have an in depth knowledge of loudspeaker interaction. It is the quest of this knowledge that has led me to study the time domain behavior.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Niick said:


> so, I've really started to look deeply into the time domain behavior of loudspeakers. I believe that it's in the time domain that ALOT of the things that we do or don't like about a sound system are actually found. Looking only at the frequency domain will keep us forever in the dark as to the reasons of these things. Now, we can infer much about a system by observing the freq. domain, SO LONG as we have an in depth knowledge of loudspeaker interaction. It is the quest of this knowledge that has led me to study the time domain behavior.


You don't need to endlessly tweak the TA to make it sound better. 85% of the work is at your eq, period.


----------



## JTele (Aug 21, 2015)

Niick said:


> I really like your posts explaining how different energies present in different ratios in different freq. ranges create different sounding results.
> 
> As an exercise to further my ability to hear what sounds natural, "live" if you will, and to understand how drive unit interactions with each other and the car's interior affect these things, I recently started a project where a client of ours, who is a musician, specifically he's a drummer, has been kind enough to bring in some drums and allow me to record them, so that I have a live recording of acoustic instruments that I have a definitive reference for.
> 
> ...


I find this to be pretty fascinating stuff! While I'm a total novice when it comes to car audio, I've been a professional musician for over 40 years (guitarist), and I'm just getting into this car stereo thing after being away from it for a couple of decades, primarily because I've just purchased a new car with a crappy-sounding system. 

Long story short, since I have no idea how to take RTA measurements or anything along those lines, I've decided to tune my car system entirely by ear. I've been approaching it mostly from my experience with setting up active P.A. systems and working in recording studios, but I really like to zero in on shaping the overall tonal qualities of my system so that all of the vocals and instruments sound as natural and realistic as possible. To me, that seems to be one of the most difficult things to do in any system. It's the little nuances that make or break a system, IMHO. For example, one might set up a system so that the vocals, guitars, drums, and whatever might sound pretty good, but once a saxophone or another instrument is thrown into the mix, the system may reveal a shortcoming that doesn't at all capture the true tone of the particular instrument that's being played. 

Without going into details any further, I guess my point is that no matter how many measurements or graphs or whatever one may use in setting up a system, it really comes down to basic common sense and fine-tuning the sum of its parts - no matter what they may be - all while utilizing every capability possible to achieve a full and well-balanced listening experience.

Just for the record, I'm loving this forum! Needless to say, I'm getting quite an education from following many of these threads! I just want to say "thanks" to all of you!


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

sqnut said:


> You don't need to endlessly tweak the TA to make it sound better. 85% of the work is at your eq, period.


Hahaha, by time domain behavior, I'm not talking about "endlessly tweaking the T.A." !!LOL  

Eq is WAY important, yes. As an example, I recently tested a HAT ring radiator tweeter, and saw that it had an impossibly ideal IR. I was like "wow, I've never seen such a textbook perfect IR from a tweeter before" 

So I decided to measure it's step response, here's the pic:

The top trace is the acoustic measurement, the bottom trace is the trigger input, which is he electrical signal sent to the speaker. By using an electrical voltage step, you can see the step response of a speaker in real time on an oscilloscope. It's the same trace you get as measuring with REW and selecting "step" in the IR screen.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

So here is a more conventional metal dome tweeter, this step is much more indicative of what I'm used to seeing

Now, both of these tweeters have similar freq. response, but sound very different. The HAT ring radiator is very well liked by many, and now I think I'm closer to understanding why.


----------



## crazhorse (Mar 9, 2010)

Accurate reproduction of tele quacks are required....


----------



## JTele (Aug 21, 2015)

crazhorse said:


> Accurate reproduction of tele quacks are required....


Or Strat quacks?


----------



## crazhorse (Mar 9, 2010)

Yep....


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

Here's another way in which measurements CAN help to make wise decisions regarding system set-up and tuning. In a time sensitive situation, while tuning and setting up a system for a client, I needed to KNOW, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that my decision regarding tweeter aiming and orientation was a wise one, so, I used measurements, ALONG WITH listening to confirm what the data was telling me. Here's the measurements:

Edit: these were tweeters from Focal KRX2 components, determining the best orientation of the "grill/waveguide"


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

And here's with the tweeters rotated 90 degrees:


----------



## JTele (Aug 21, 2015)

Niick said:


> Here's another way in which measurements CAN help to make wise decisions regarding system set-up and tuning. In a time sensitive situation, while tuning and setting up a system for a client, I needed to KNOW, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that my decision regarding tweeter aiming and orientation was a wise one, so, I used measurements, ALONG WITH listening to confirm what the data was telling me. Here's the measurements:


You know, I certainly wasn't trying to imply that taking measurements isn't helpful......quite the contrary. In fact, I'm in the process of learning all I can so that I can obtain much more knowledge about setting these things up. I will say, though, that I've heard a few systems that were installed and tuned by so-called "experts" who've used all kinds of technical techniques imaginable, but I felt that most of these systems fell a bit short when it came down to capturing the true nature of the vocals and instruments being played. I really applaud those who address these issues a little more carefully, for it really does take someone who knows how these things are supposed to sound in real life in order to reproduce them properly through a stereo system.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

JTele said:


> You know, I certainly wasn't trying to imply that taking measurements isn't helpful......quite the contrary.


For sure! I get ya. I think that there has been a long tradition in car audio to use an RTA as the main acoustic measurement tool, probably a lot of this has to do with the fact that Audio Control builds (built?) one. I am a huge fan of taking measurements while SIMULTANEOUSLY listening to the results. This cannot be accomplished with an RTA. This is why I've decided to make my own recordings of actual instruments, then, from the recordings, I create custom excitation signals for system tuning. 

Another good one I'm gonna try, is to make recordings of people's voices that I'm very familiar with, wife, baby, co-workers, etc.


----------



## Grindcore (Dec 12, 2012)

sqnut said:


> On the Elton John set, listen to the first number 'Sixty years on', on your two ch a few times.
> 
> 3:00-4:10 Is a solo piece on the harp, for the most part the fundamentals are ~400-1khz. Does it sound like it's honking? If so cut a bit here. Harmonics are 1.6-4khz. Does this sound sound tinny, too much bite? If so cut this range a bit.
> 
> ...


really love eltons music so am very familiar with his work...this recording is amazing...gave this a play at home and the soundstage is out there! It also helps watching the video as you can check and see where your stereo images with where they are on stage....you really get a sense of space as well...you can hear that straight away in his vocals...
I normally pick up on this first...the reverb? I guess...a slight echo...havent really picked that up with individual instruments yet but im guessing its not as obvious? The whole thing sounds brilliant and i cant wait to throw it on in the car...


----------



## Grindcore (Dec 12, 2012)

Im guessing such a good recording could make a car system sound better than it is with just regular cds or would it be quite the opposite?


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

Grindcore said:


> Im guessing such a good recording could make a car system sound better than it is with just regular cds or would it be quite the opposite?


I seem to have found over the years that car audio systems are just like any other audio system in that regard. The better the speakers, the better the electronics, the better the overall setup/tuning, the more it is unable to "hide" ****ty source material, and, conversely, the better it illuminates great sounding recordings, too.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Grindcore said:


> really love eltons music so am very familiar with his work...this recording is amazing...gave this a play at home and the soundstage is out there! It also helps watching the video as you can check and see where your stereo images with where they are on stage....you really get a sense of space as well...you can hear that straight away in his vocals...
> I normally pick up on this first...the reverb? I guess...a slight echo...havent really picked that up with individual instruments yet, but I'm guessing its not as obvious? The whole thing sounds brilliant and i cant wait to throw it on in the car...


Yes, this is a very special recording, and the visuals are a big help....I think the reverb / growl on the cellos originates from the instrument and it's highlighted a bit using reverb during mixing. For that growl on the low end of a cello the harmonics at 500-800 are very important to bring out the low fundamentals around 100. Roll off a bit at 16 to maintain that slightly dark sound....and the reverb is there in his vocals as well in parts, specially in the powerful passages....exceptional sense of space, I agree. You're doing good by picking all this up.

P.S. [edit] Compare how fat the cellos sound on your 2ch vs their fatness in the car. If they sound fatter in the car, it's an indication that the 80, 125, 160 and 250 may need some trimming. I'm excluding 200 from the list cause your last posted graph showed 200 lower than 250.[edit]



Grindcore said:


> Im guessing such a good recording could make a car system sound better than it is with just regular cds or would it be quite the opposite?


At whatever stage a car setup is, an exceptional recording like this one, will _always_ make the car sound much better than normal cd's...but that is down to the quality of the recording. The idea is to get your car closer to your 2ch with recordings like this, while you stay two steps ahead in being able to pick differences. 

Honestly, I think you're doing really, really well and making tons of progress. I hope you're enjoying it. Is the urge to measure receding a bit?


----------



## Grindcore (Dec 12, 2012)

sqnut said:


> Yes, this is a very special recording, and the visuals are a big help....I think the reverb / growl on the cellos originates from the instrument and it's highlighted a bit using reverb during mixing. For that growl on the low end of a cello the harmonics at 500-800 are very important to bring out the low fundamentals around 100. Roll off a bit at 16 to maintain that slightly dark sound....and the reverb is there in his vocals as well in parts, specially in the powerful passages....exceptional sense of space, I agree. You're doing good by picking all this up.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Cheers mate! And all of your input is very helpful....again much appreciated! Havent thrown the tunes in the car yet but have heard the album twice over at home and when i do get to the car im sure i will hear more things that are different between home and car....to tell you the truth i havent even thought about the RTA...im really trying to get in to the music/sound and really getting to know it and then have a good listen in the car...it makes so much more sense doing it like this after taking measurements etc...so you actually know what you need to hear...i think thats the best info you can give someone...i never thought about doing listening comparisons before this...sure listen to your home set up and then when in the car you throw something else on...the advice is common sense really but yeah its something that never crossed my mind! Kinda stupid really...i was more worried about trying to get graphs right etc...

RTA...and time alignment etc etc is just the beginning...but the finer tuning with the ears is where its at and its much more enjoyable...


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Grindcore said:


> Cheers mate! And all of your input is very helpful....again much appreciated! Havent thrown the tunes in the car yet but have heard the album twice over at home and when i do get to the car im sure i will hear more things that are different between home and car....to tell you the truth i havent even thought about the RTA...im really trying to get in to the music/sound and really getting to know it and then have a good listen in the car...it makes so much more sense doing it like this after taking measurements etc...so you actually know what you need to hear...i think thats the best info you can give someone...i never thought about doing listening comparisons before this...sure listen to your home set up and then when in the car you throw something else on...the advice is common sense really but yeah its something that never crossed my mind! Kinda stupid really...i was more worried about trying to get graphs right etc...
> 
> RTA...and time alignment etc etc is just the beginning...but the finer tuning with the ears is where its at and its much more enjoyable...


Welcome to the bottomless rabbit hole.

Over time, you will get intuitive with the eq. You'll hear a problem, and instinctively know where to cut / boost, and be be spot on ~70% of the time and the balance 30% within +/- a third of an octave of the right frequency (the Harmon to listen tool is great for getting started on this). You'll know that it's best to move in small steps, and in steps of three. Most times the three steps will be across ranges. Like you cut 800 and 8 and probably something in the 1-3khz range. Stop and take a listen before going further. 

Some times the three cuts could be ina narrow range, say the guitars are honking and you need to cut 500-800, take that as one step. When a narrow range is hot, its always masking out the heat of some other range. Now when you cut 500-800 the guitars may sound better but the vocals may have a touch of the 'aah' because 12.5 was too hot but masked out. Cutting the 500-800 range will also change the lower end, it will become a touch duller and fatter cause the bloat at 160-250 was being masked. You'll learn to hear the balance across the ranges.

This is stuff that you will learn over time, but this is not the engine that drives the train. Rather the tuning sessions are the wheels that move the train. The engine that drives the whole thing, is the experience you get when listen to the 2 ch, the calming of the mind, the light headed, slightly buzzed feeling that a listening session can induce. As you continue to listen, this experience is going to get stronger and more intense and in turn will push you to up the experience in the car, at the same pace. In the car though, you'll only move in what feels like inches, give it time, this is the way it is. You'll hear differences faster than you can cure them. There will be times when you feel like you're hitting a brick wall in the car and get frustrated. Just go back to the 2 ch and enjoy the experience for a few days, because that's the reason you're in this hobby. Don't think about the car on those days.


----------



## Babs (Jul 6, 2007)

After discovering last night how appropriate iterative work on a particular trim visually seeing it in REW's EQ section, I'm a believe now that working with an actual measurement is a huge tool for getting it right the first time. While I long to have an ear that good, being able to see the narrow spike or a wide bump that needs work at a particular Q value, is quite invaluable. I had 10 trims applied to just one mid last night for example to bring it to the target I was after, with widely varying Q's and cut values.


----------



## JTele (Aug 21, 2015)

Grindcore said:


> RTA...and time alignment etc etc is just the beginning...but the finer tuning with the ears is where its at and its much more enjoyable...


Funny about time alignment, but when I first got back into this car audio thing, I hadn't even heard about it. I honestly didn't buy into it at first; after all, I wondered if a single millisecond could really make a difference in an automobile? I found that "yes," it makes a huge difference. It only took me about 5 or 10 seconds of A/B'ing no delay to TA to become totally hooked on it. Then I started messing around with fine-tuning that 1ms and found how it could shift the focus in the stage setting. Cool stuff! It's sort of odd to think that I've been playing in bands all these years in a time-alignment setting without ever realizing it......LOL. I guess I just never thought of it in that sense.

I have yet to create an RTA graph on my system, but I hope to do so soon. I sense that I'll likely find some small peaks or spikes that I may not be able to completely dial out of my system. Since I only have 10 bands of parametric EQ on each channel, it's nearly impossible to dip in closely enough to completely tune out any subtle, but disturbing frequencies, so I'll probably have to settle for a compromise of some sort. Still, I think I'm getting pretty close to where I need to be.

Sqnut is right: this car audio stuff is indeed a "bottomless rabbit hole".......LOL.


----------



## benny z (Mar 17, 2008)

JTele said:


> Since I only have 10 bands of parametric EQ on each channel, it's nearly impossible to dip in closely enough to completely tune out any subtle, but disturbing frequencies, so I'll probably have to settle for a compromise of some sort. Still, I think I'm getting pretty close to where I need to be.


i'm gonna guess you are using the zacpo processing. 

i use older zap dc reference amps (for at least 8-9 years) and recently changed my setup such that two of the channels drive speakers playing 250hz - 20khz. only now am i finding 10 bands of parametric eq to be...limiting.

i had been using the amps with my oem source unit in this car for over 5 years and was happy to not have to change the stock look and feel of the oem source. however i decided to bite the bullet and bought a p99rs which adds not only a pure output, but also a stereo 31-band graphic eq. i only ran one signal cable to the amps so i am not using the p99 for any crossover/level/time correction.

so now i have been able to take my system from sounding really good with the tune i had using just the zapco processing, to exceptional with the ability to further fine tune the left/right eq ahead of the zapco processing. i have come to also really appreciate that once you do left/right eq, you can then change the overall eq without affecting the left/right eq differences. love it.


----------



## JTele (Aug 21, 2015)

benny z said:


> i'm gonna guess you are using the zacpo processing.
> 
> i use older zap dc reference amps (for at least 8-9 years) and recently changed my setup such that two of the channels drive speakers playing 250hz - 20khz. only now am i finding 10 bands of parametric eq to be...limiting.
> 
> ...


I'm using an Audison AP8.9 bit unit, and I am indeed finding the 10-band para EQ to be a bit limiting. It does a decent job of tone-shaping the overall system, but it's not able to cut the narrow spikes very well. I do have the capability to isolate and EQ each channel, though, so that helps.

I also opted to keep the stock head unit since I didn't want to mess around with its nav, Bluetooth, and other features. The more I get into this, though, the more I'm finding that the stereo system is of far greater importance.....LOL. But, I'll have to live with it for now.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

On a side note, did you get a chance to do the exercise with the taped X and the PN tracks by ear? I know you've set this with the RTA and the graphs looked good, but just remember that you're hearing at a sensitivity / resolution that is much higher than that at which you're measuring. You may find that doing this takes the focus of your imaging to a new level. I don't expect you to have to adjust more than +/- 0.5 db at most frequencies, but it may make a big difference overall.


----------



## phil r (Sep 25, 2014)

As a novice i have been following this thread and it has improved my system a whole lot...so thanks fella's.
i taped the 4" target to the screen at about eye level, then went through the 1/3 PN and adjusted to centre, 
after that i found that as i raised or lowered frequencies for tonality (it's the first time ive done that) the majority of them seemed to move to the target fairly easily........i'm using the current EMMA disc and the one instrument on track 8 that i can't raise to eye level from the dashboard is the tambourine..... any thoughts would be welcome....every thing else is quite good.....just need to shrink voices a bit.
thanks


----------



## Grindcore (Dec 12, 2012)

sqnut said:


> On a side note, did you get a chance to do the exercise with the taped X and the PN tracks by ear? I know you've set this with the RTA and the graphs looked good, but just remember that you're hearing at a sensitivity / resolution that is much higher than that at which you're measuring. You may find that doing this takes the focus of your imaging to a new level. I don't expect you to have to adjust more than +/- 0.5 db at most frequencies, but it may make a big difference overall.


yep ran through that a while ago when you mentioned it and everything was pretty much on the mark...and you are right i probably shifted two or 3 frequencies at around .5db...so was pretty much right there to begin with.

i played that elton set in the car and it sounds good...such a good recording...

okay...im happy with the vocals now even at higher volumes..
problem is now it seem pretty bloated in the low end...i cut the subs off and just played mids tweets and midbass...i could tell the bloat was in the midbass area and the sub bass was just adding to it...from what you said because i messed around the midrange area by making cuts the lower end is gonna now stand out and be over emphasised...

after what i have done so far with tuning i did a quick RTA measurement and believe it or not it is more downward sloping than i have ever had....was always tuning for flat...now i listened before i took a reading and im pretty sure i can see that bloat on the graph....will post a pic shortly SQ


----------



## Grindcore (Dec 12, 2012)

Now i know we said no more RTAing but after the changes i made and listening i wanted to see how the FR looked...and like i said i worked out where i thought the bloat was by turning off subs and working out what frequencies i thought were causing problems.

not the only other thing i looked at after measuring was the peak at 1600hz on the right side...that had been cut by 12db on the eq already...but everything else seemed fine...the bump at 5 that you mentioned...and from the cuts that you mentioned i ended up like this....now i dont know how important the whole RTA thing is at this point but i guess it helps me understand the changes i made and how it does look on a graph...


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

phil r said:


> ........i'm using the current EMMA disc and the one instrument on track 8 that i can't raise to eye level from the dashboard is the tambourine..... any thoughts would be welcome....every thing else is quite good.....just need to shrink voices a bit.
> thanks


The size of the mouth depends on timing of drivers and L/R balance. 

Go back and play the 2-4 khz PN tracks see where they centre, and put your finger on the windscreen at that point. Now mark an X here. Since we don't know where exactly we placed the last X, this will keep us close, instead of having to go through the whole process again thanks to an inaccurate placement.

Run through the tracks by listening to two successive frequencies, say 400 hz for five seconds, then jump to 500. Repeat 5 times and if there is still no jump L/R, move on to doing 500 with 630 and so on. If on the other hand 500 jumps just a touch to the right go in and cut 500 on the right by 0.2db, cut more if the jump is significant and then go back and verify. 

This is a fairly advanced exercise and depends on your being able to hear a difference in L/R for a single tone at that 0.2db. As you keep tuning, this is something you can try every 4-6 weeks. It will start falling in place. 

That is not to say that you can't hear a 0.2 db difference today, you can just not in isolation. With music and the entire spectrum of frequencies playing simultaneously, the multiple but minor differences act in stretching the width of the mouth.

On the Tambourine, I don't have the EMMA disk so I don't know what the note sounds like. Is it just the jangles or is the note that pulls down, a strike on the drum head?

TLDR: If the mouth is not the size of a mouth, but more the size of a softball, don't fret it for now. Eventually the mouth will fall in place.

*[edit]* when you do the L/R testing, do the 50-20khz in 2-3 sessions, else your ears will start playing tricks on you*[edit]*


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Grindcore said:


>


Now that looks much better and the best part is that your ears are telling you that as well. Let's tackle the low end bloat, I know the focal disks have this track of solo drums that is just kick drums, toms and snares, else just pick a drum solo that has these three drums, cut the sub and listen to the track.

*[edit]* The reason I'm editing the entire post and making you read it over, is cause I jumped squares with my earlier post. I need to go step by step. 

We want to end up with drums that have an impact and are tight. You want to get to the point where the drums sound dry and tight and with impact. Impact is 40-100 which is primarily the kick drum and 80% from your sub. The toms and snares should sound really dry, tight and fizzy at the low end i.e. ~100-400. 

- 80-125 hz: cut left 2.5 db this will thin out the low end and move the perception of low end, away from you and more towards the centre. But the bass will thin out.

- 200 & 250 hz cut right side 1.5 db, then go back and cut 200 for both L&R by 1 db. This will again take out bloat and tighten your perception of the low end, in the middle [edit].

So your immediate take away is hmm, where's my bass? It just sounds thin and flat and horrible. Remember our balance thing? Shave of a bit from the 1-4 kz range. Cut 1-2 to reduce the tinny sound and 3-4 to cut down on graininess in the sound. If this gives you excess *thwack* on the drums, cut 0.5 db at 600. Now see if you have a tighter low end. 

Take a listen. Now bring your sub back in, play at 80, 160 and 200 for any finishing cuts, if required. If you still feel the need for just a touch more at the low end......teeny weeny bit please...raise 60 and 100 by 0.5 db both sides, 60 will add some mass and 100 will add the fizz. 

Now let your ears settle into this sound for a couple of days. You'll slowly start noticing how much better the low end is...........and this is just the first time you're shaving off bloat. Don't be surprised you play with 80 / 160 and 200 down the line again... curious to hear if it works out the way I've written it*[edit]*


----------



## phil r (Sep 25, 2014)

> The size of the mouth depends on timing of drivers and L/R balance


after a bit of experimenting with t/a, i have increased the delay on both mids by .02ms....that seems to have tightened the focus a little more...i now have a couple of mid frequencies that are 2" ish in diameter, the rest of the mid frequencies are bigger (not bigger than the 4" target) and not quite so focused and i don't seem able to shrink them.. maybe i should rta the mids for clues....?

as for the tambourine....which i forgot to mention before, pans right to left.
the jangles and the drum head are low...
when i listened to the talking track on emma today i noticed that the lower tones of the voice were a bit below the rest of the voice...so i reduced the midbasses by .75db...(did i do the right thing?)the voice then seemed to blend better, this also raised the drum head from dash level to just a couple of inches below the target height,ive also raised the jangles, but not quite to target height yet. what i have noticed is that if a centred bass guitar or drum is playing it stays centre at the target height. 
however if drums are swopping L/R as in dire straights money for nothing, they take a dive towards the lower corners of the dash, and i don't know how to sort that.....
thanks for your help..


----------



## Grindcore (Dec 12, 2012)

sqnut said:


> Now that looks much better and the best part is that your ears are telling you that as well. Let's tackle the low end bloat, I know the focal disks have this track of solo drums that is just kick drums, toms and snares, else just pick a drum solo that has these three drums, cut the sub and listen to the track.
> 
> *[edit]* The reason I'm editing the entire post and making you read it over, is cause I jumped squares with my earlier post. I need to go step by step.
> 
> ...


Awesome mate thanks again...will give this a run some time this afternoon....its all starting to make more sense...when you mess with one part of the spectrum then you gotta compensate in other areas.....it runs along the same lines as level matching....tho level matching is messing with a whole group of frequencies between different drivers...but making sure that nothing is standing out when you have adjusted another frequency etc....hope i made sense there?! Haha...
and the problem above? Rainbowing? Pretty sure SQ will have some help for you with that!


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

phil r said:


> after a bit of experimenting with t/a, i have increased the delay on both mids by .02ms....that seems to have tightened the focus a little more...i now have a couple of mid frequencies that are 2" ish in diameter, the rest of the mid frequencies are bigger (not bigger than the 4" target) and not quite so focused and i don't seem able to shrink them.. maybe i should rta the mids for clues....?
> 
> as for the tambourine....which i forgot to mention before, pans right to left.
> the jangles and the drum head are low...
> ...


Cutting the mid bass was a step in the right direction. But before we go further some basics would help. Where are the speakers installed? How is the network setup, xovers/slopes etc. Can you measure the system as it stands? Can you post screen shots of the eq for each channel?

P.S. Try some cuts in the 200-400 zone. This will lift vocals and the drum head hits on the tambourine.


----------



## phil r (Sep 25, 2014)

the midbasses are in the lower front corners of the doors under the dash, with the mids at the top of the door panels, the tweeters are on the top of the dashboard about 6" in from the sides and leaning slightly forward firing at the screen, they are only just visible from the driving position. all speakers are in the original positions, not angled.
the car is a bit of a classic, so i did'nt want to carve it up.

midbass 60-331 L/riley 24 actual x/over point 320 hz set with flat eq.
mids 364-4862 L/riley 24 actual x/over point 4.6khz set with flat eq.
tweets 4797- open L/riley 24 

yes i can measure it as it stands.......posting screenshots might be more of a challenge!!
thanks


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

phil r said:


> the midbasses are in the lower front corners of the doors under the dash, with the mids at the top of the door panels, the tweeters are on the top of the dashboard about 6" in from the sides and leaning slightly forward firing at the screen, they are only just visible from the driving position. all speakers are in the original positions, not angled.
> the car is a bit of a classic, so i did'nt want to carve it up.
> 
> midbass 60-331 L/riley 24 actual x/over point 320 hz set with flat eq.
> ...


I can see that you have tuned a lot by changing the xover points in small steps. Are you willing give all that up and start from scratch?

Seeing graphs is one thing, but I also need to see how you got there, hence the screen shots are kinda essential.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

A word on bowing.

Most cars have the mid bass mounted low in the doors / kicks and the mids and tweets mounted up higher. On some systems the sound at the left and right extreme seems to pull down, specially the low end. This is what is commonly refereed to as bowing. 

About 80% of bowing is due to incorrect timing between drivers and 20% is down to the 200-400 range being too hot. As a specific solution to Phil's issue:

Play only the sub, right mid bass and right midrange. When your timing between the drivers is correct 95% of the sound including most of the low end, including what feels like sub frequencies, should sound like its coming from the mid-range. Very little if anything should sound like it coming from lower than the mid. 

*[edit]* our ears can tell higher or lower above ~800 hz, below that and specially at the low end, our ears are pretty poor at locating height accurately. Now when when we're hearing everything in a mix / song, we're hearing a ton of information above 800 and a bit less below say 500. Now as long as the timing is right between the drivers producing these frequencies our brain goes by the height of 800+ range and kinda slaps the low end along with it. 

If however the timing is out and you're hearing the mid bass before the mid, precedence effect will kick in and you will locate the lower frequencies down low. Even while hearing the mix, the precedence effect is strong enough to pull the low end down, towards where the woofer is located. This is out at the edges and even at the centre you have horizontally split stage like Phil mentioned, i.e. the lower end of vocals (200-400) image lower than say the 800+ range. *[edit]* 

Play the same Dire Straits number, is everything at the mid range or does the lower end pull to the midbass? Or is the sound placed somewhere between the location of the mid and the midbass. Add delay to the mid bass and reduce the delay on the mid a touch. *[edit]* Repeat for left. Then play one set at a time to ensure they still centre, mid bass, mid range and tweets. *[edit]*

Those with a two way replace the mid bit with tweets. Do this, and cut the 200-400 range a bit and it should help a lot with eliminating the bowing effect.


----------



## phil r (Sep 25, 2014)

start from scratch !! 

ok, what could possibly go wrong 
i'll start a new thread later and include screenshots of the current eq settings on the dsp...........


----------



## Grindcore (Dec 12, 2012)

Ok.....made those cuts as suggested...the left side was hotter so adjusted that down a bit in the 80-125hz region...also did a couple of .5db adjustments around 400hz and at 5k....

Overall that helped....but correct me if im wrong...with my RTA reading am i to hot in the sub bass midbass region compared to where my midrange is? To my ears when playing music it just seems the bass is way to overpowering...now because i have left and right pretty well matched...and sone frequencies on the right hand side..ie.200hz and 250hz..i have them cut by 12db already.....so now would this be a time to attenuate sub and midbass levels to balance out the sound??

apart from that im pretty happy with the midrange and top end...and at volume im not getting any nasty break anymore....


----------



## lizardking (Nov 8, 2008)

Post up a new graph. You might want download REW as well. I would also suggest changing from 10db graph to 5db.


----------



## Grindcore (Dec 12, 2012)

lizardking said:


> Post up a new graph. You might want download REW as well. I would also suggest changing from 10db graph to 5db.


will have to take some new readings this afternoon...i can adjust the scale in smaart tools to 5db also...

have downloaded room EQ but really cant be arsed with my laptop and stuff....smaart tools on my ipod touch with the dayton emm 6 mic calibrated does the trick and can do pretty much everything except apply an eq etc....


----------



## lizardking (Nov 8, 2008)

5db will provide more detail....on what is happening.


----------



## lizardking (Nov 8, 2008)

I would also measure at 1/3 smoothing at 2k-20k, 1/6 smoothing at 200hz to 2k and 200 on down at 1/12 smoothing. I found that anything other than 1/3 smoothing in the upper frequencies causes you fix things that don't exist. 

Seems to work best from my experience. I've also found a downward slope of at least 22db to 28db from 20hz to 20k is an absolute must to get it to sound balanced.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Grindcore said:


> Ok.....made those cuts as suggested...the left side was hotter so adjusted that down a bit in the 80-125hz region...also did a couple of .5db adjustments around 400hz and at 5k....
> 
> Overall that helped....but correct me if im wrong...with my RTA reading am i to hot in the sub bass midbass region compared to where my midrange is? To my ears when playing music it just seems the bass is way to overpowering...now because i have left and right pretty well matched...and sone frequencies on the right hand side..ie.200hz and 250hz..i have them cut by 12db already.....so now would this be a time to attenuate sub and midbass levels to balance out the sound??
> 
> apart from that im pretty happy with the midrange and top end...and at volume im not getting any nasty break anymore....


Cut 80 hz both sides by 2 db

Cut 160 in 0.5 db increments till the sound thins out. Then back up by 0.5 db.

If the low end still feels fat cut more at 200.

Now take a measurement at 5db resolution as suggested. Screenshots of the L/R eq would also help.


----------



## Grindcore (Dec 12, 2012)

sqnut said:


> Cut 80 hz both sides by 2 db
> 
> Cut 160 in 0.5 db increments till the sound thins out. Then back up by 0.5 db.
> 
> ...


Heya Arun...as i mentioned though my right side 200hz and 250hz are cut by 12db already...thats the max i can do


----------



## Grindcore (Dec 12, 2012)

So im limited on 200hz...but will cut those other frequencies you mentioned and go from there...sorry bout that you didnt mention 250hz!


----------



## Kazuhiro (Apr 28, 2015)

12dB is one hell of a cut... Bit of resonance happening?


----------



## Beckerson1 (Jul 3, 2012)

Grindcore said:


> So im limited on 200hz...but will cut those other frequencies you mentioned and go from there...sorry bout that you didnt mention 250hz!


Are we sure this isn't a crossover issue or could be helped by changing the crossover. Usually there is a issue with 80hz, and the 100 to 200 hz range in vehicles but if your maxed out on EQ I would consider taking a look at the Response and see if this isn't a issue with say your sub having a peak at this location. Ya you may be digitally crossed over well before that, doesn't mean it truely is. For all we know a different driver could have a peak at this location. Would explain why EQ may not be as effective in this area.

Are we a 2 way setup or 3 way? Crossovers?


----------



## Babs (Jul 6, 2007)

Kazuhiro said:


> 12dB is one hell of a cut... Bit of resonance happening?



I found that definitely to be the case. Amazing the difference after some more work in the doors. 


Sent from iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Grindcore said:


> Heya Arun...as i mentioned though my right side 200hz and 250hz are cut by 12db already...thats the max i can do





Grindcore said:


> So im limited on 200hz...but will cut those other frequencies you mentioned and go from there...sorry bout that you didnt mention 250hz!


After you're done with the 160hz cut's you may need to raise 200 & 250 hz a couple of db to bring in the warmth to the vocals . 12 db are really big cuts and here. Without seeing the eq I didn't know how much you'd cut.

It might not be a bad idea to first raise 200-250 then start the 160 hz cuts. 160 is the main issue issue here. When you're cutting 160 hz the bloat will start tinning out bit by bit with each 0.5db cut. Then one cut and boom, the sound will be paper thin. Back up 0.5 db from here. After you're done with the 160 hz cuts listen to the Elton John set. Now raise 200-250 to bring warmth to the low end of his vocals. Typically 200-250 can have about 6-8 db cuts that's normal.

*[edit] *For the rationalists wondering why a 6-8 db cut would be normal, if your eq is on the average +/- 2-3 db then an 6-8 db cut is a 5-10 db cut relative to everything else. If however your eq is is - 2 to -5 db (avg) for everything else, then the 8 db cut is just a 3-5 db cut to tame the pesky peak or hump. 

But wait say the folks, with average cuts around 4 db you're taking a lot of the loudness off the table. True that, but consider the fact that in our sound chain the single largest distortion machine is the cars environment. The louder you take things the more distortion you're likely to hear. To clean out the sound you first need to lower using the eq or the channel gains on the dsp to drop the distortion levels, then use the eq to clean out the sound and then mm your way up on the gain for the loudest sound that stays clean. *[edit]*


----------



## Grindcore (Dec 12, 2012)

ok just got a couple of quick measurements..havent hooked up laptop to get photos of eq settings yet...i know those will help but will try this arvo..i made those couple of cuts and adjusted a bit here and there...the largest cut is 200hz at 11db now

The larger scale the bottom pic..

having a quick listen it doesnt sound bad at all...everything seems balanced a bit more now...


----------



## Grindcore (Dec 12, 2012)

Havent messed with the sub eq yet so i know i can pull down that peak quite easily...and 100 can be cut more also....bit of a dip at 250hz as well but i know also that i had that cut by a lot so shoukd be able to lift that up a bit...through the midrange there are a couple of little things but when i have a bit more time i will try and smooth that area out a bit....


----------



## lizardking (Nov 8, 2008)

It was me, I would smooth the peaks and dips from 250-2k. I would also bring up the top end a little. 6k-16k. Just my $0.02


----------



## Kazuhiro (Apr 28, 2015)

That whole low end hill should peak within 20hz to 60hz tops, then decline after that. Looking at the graphs - the hill appears to start around 50hz, way too high, infact that's where mine starts to drop.


----------



## lizardking (Nov 8, 2008)

I agree....^^^


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Well, I guess one way to cure the low end bloat is to raise the 500-2khz range and mask it out again.

Do you have the setting for the graph in post 268? Try going back there and then just work 80 & 160 as suggested. The ~6db roll off from 500-2khz in that graph is just about perfect, and I think it is a great base line. The low end will be hot in that graph so work on it. Don't mask it out. 

From the current graph 100 needs a cut, 160 needs major work, 300-400 needs major work.......but all that is masked out by the stuff you raised 'here and there (aka 500-2)'. 

Unless you have the 6-16hz cut like crazy on the eq, the top end roll off is probably just a measurement thingy. 

Can you go back to the graph in 268 and post up the screen shots on the eq? Maybe that would be a good starting point......


----------



## Grindcore (Dec 12, 2012)

sqnut said:


> Well, I guess one way to cure the low end bloat is to raise the 500-2khz range and mask it out again.
> 
> Do you have the setting for the graph in post 268? Try going back there and then just work 80 & 160 as suggested. The ~6db roll off from 500-2khz in that graph is just about perfect, and I think it is a great base line. The low end will be hot in that graph so work on it. Don't mask it out.
> 
> ...


Heres hoping i didnt save this over that other setting...i dont think i did but im gonna have to go through the presets and check...i will know which one by what settings i made on the eq...

no major cuts on the top end...only thing is both tweets attenuated by -6db ...

see if i get a chance to suss it out this arvo...


----------



## Elektra (Feb 4, 2013)

Hey Guys awesome thread...

I am new here and would like to learn as well..

Firstly when you EQ do you guys ensure the left and the right are equal in frequency response? So basically EQ left and right individually? 

Is your TA active in this process?

If you tune for equal response left and right how are your speakers angled as the drivers speakers are on axis and the passenger is off axis (on axis for the passanger - so in a right hand drive car the passanger Mids and tweeters are firing at your RIGHT ear and the the passanger side Mids and tweeters are firing at the passanger LEFT ear) the frequency roll off is very different... This would require a ton of EQ or building the pods to have the same angle to the driver both sides of the car - therefore less EQ required to get them equal? 

What do you guys say? Currently I find the left side lacks detail compared to the right - right side is on axis left side isn't? Is this a install error or is this the correct way to install speakers? Obviously on axis both sides to the driver makes it a single seater car.. But is it the best way to get the best sound from the car?


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Elektra said:


> Hey Guys awesome thread...
> 
> I am new here and would like to learn as well..
> 
> ...


I start with setting the TA first before I eq for L/R, but it doesn't matter what you do first because initially you're going to go back and forth between the two a bit because changing TA also changes the FR in the xover zone. You can balance left and right by measuring one side at a time and then correcting, that works too. I just just use some tape to mark a small X under the rear view and then play the 1/3 octave PN tracks and use the L/R eq to get each frequency to centre at the X, done. Lower frequencies will image slightly lower, that's ok. Yes TA is dialed in when I'm doing this.



Elektra said:


> If you tune for equal response left and right how are your speakers angled as the drivers speakers are on axis and the passenger is off axis (on axis for the passanger - so in a right hand drive car the passanger Mids and tweeters are firing at your RIGHT ear and the the passanger side Mids and tweeters are firing at the passanger LEFT ear) the frequency roll off is very different... This would require a ton of EQ or building the pods to have the same angle to the driver both sides of the car - therefore less EQ required to get them equal?


As long as you're keeping the drivers largely in their omni directional zone (out of beaming range), angles and axis don't matter. They really don't.



Elektra said:


> What do you guys say? Currently I find the left side lacks detail compared to the right - right side is on axis left side isn't? Is this a install error or is this the correct way to install speakers? Obviously on axis both sides to the driver makes it a single seater car.. But is it the best way to get the best sound from the car?


You have a right hand drive right? Chances are it's an issue of TA and the delay between your L and R drivers. If you're hearing sound from the right side drivers before that from the left drivers, precedence effect will kick in and pull the image to the right. The vocalist will be directly in front of you instead of at the rearview......add some delay on the right side, see what happens.


----------



## Elektra (Feb 4, 2013)

sqnut said:


> I start with setting the TA first before I eq for L/R, but it doesn't matter what you do first because initially you're going to go back and forth between the two a bit because changing TA also changes the FR in the xover zone. You can balance left and right by measuring one side at a time and then correcting, that works too. I just just use some tape to mark a small X under the rear view and then play the 1/3 octave PN tracks and use the L/R eq to get each frequency to centre at the X, done. Lower frequencies will image slightly lower, that's ok. Yes TA is dialed in when I'm doing this.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


When you EQ the opposite side of the car is the purpose to get the left and right equal? In my car I think that would be impossible as you have to literally raise a whole bunch of frequencies up by like 12dbs - won't this present other issues?

The only way I can get the left and right to sound the same is to focus on the angles and making sure the roll off is about the same from left and right...

What will that achieve in the car?

Thanks for such a detailed response..


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Elektra said:


> When you EQ the opposite side of the car is the purpose to get the left and right equal? In my car I think that would be impossible as you have to literally raise a whole bunch of frequencies up by like 12dbs - won't this present other issues?
> 
> The only way I can get the left and right to sound the same is to focus on the angles and making sure the roll off is about the same from left and right...
> 
> ...


Measure the *shortest* distance to each speaker, left side speakers to left ear and right side to right ear. Set your TA based on this and then do the X thingy to balance L/R. I can guarantee you won't have to raise anything 12 db.


----------



## Grindcore (Dec 12, 2012)

Ok had a bit of time with the car...top is combined but 10db scale...i stuffed up...

Bottom is left and right 5db scale..

now that dip at 125hz right i can not eq it..i didnt mess with crossover or slopes though...i can boost it a couple of db but i left it at 0db...the peak at 1600hz right side is cut by 12db! I cant cut anymore so im guessing an install issue or another problem i could sort with crossovers/slopes...dont know..didnt get enough time to mess with it but i have a baseline saved that sounds very good so can always go back to that and then start messing with other things other than eq...i messed with the bass region and its much better than it was before...to me its still bass heavy so i attenuated the subs and the midbass down by 6db each and that helped a lot...i dont have an RTA of that i just did that by ear to balance it with the midrange....still a ways to go but L and R are pretty close to each other and i do like the way it sounds...will give it a couple of days to sink in..listen to some music and see how it goes...anything that you can throw at me now regarding what you see here will be taken aboard!!


----------



## Grindcore (Dec 12, 2012)

Just realised the top end is cut off in the photo...gah will upload another


----------



## Elektra (Feb 4, 2013)

sqnut said:


> I start with setting the TA first before I eq for L/R, but it doesn't matter what you do first because initially you're going to go back and forth between the two a bit because changing TA also changes the FR in the xover zone. You can balance left and right by measuring one side at a time and then correcting, that works too. I just just use some tape to mark a small X under the rear view and then play the 1/3 octave PN tracks and use the L/R eq to get each frequency to centre at the X, done. Lower frequencies will image slightly lower, that's ok. Yes TA is dialed in when I'm doing
> 
> Are you saying going through each frequency and adjusting left and right individually at the X marker?


----------



## Grindcore (Dec 12, 2012)

Also only cuts in the top end are minimal so just a measurement thing or natural roll off...dont have a crossover on the tweets up top


----------



## Grindcore (Dec 12, 2012)

Combined 5db scale...blue line is nothing...i dont know how to remove when recalling saved graphs!!


----------



## Grindcore (Dec 12, 2012)

Maybe that dip at 125hz is a phase issue? That peak at 1600 has me stumped


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Grindcore said:


> Ok had a bit of time with the car...top is combined but 10db scale...i stuffed up...
> 
> Bottom is left and right 5db scale..
> 
> now that dip at 125hz right i can not eq it..i didnt mess with crossover or slopes though...i can boost it a couple of db but i left it at 0db...the peak at 1600hz right side is cut by 12db! I cant cut anymore so im guessing an install issue or another problem i could sort with crossovers/slopes...dont know..didnt get enough time to mess with it but i have a baseline saved that sounds very good so can always go back to that and then start messing with other things other than eq...i messed with the bass region and its much better than it was before...to me its still bass heavy so i attenuated the subs and the midbass down by 6db each and that helped a lot...i dont have an RTA of that i just did that by ear to balance it with the midrange....still a ways to go but L and R are pretty close to each other and i do like the way it sounds...will give it a couple of days to sink in..listen to some music and see how it goes...anything that you can throw at me now regarding what you see here will be taken aboard!!


Try setting the sub and mid bass levels flat again. Now cut L&R as follows:

80 hz: Cut both sides 4 db

100 hz : Cut both sides 1 db

125 hz : Cut the green side (hotter side) 3 db

160 hz : Cut in 0.5 db increments both sides till the sound thins out then back up 0.5db both sides. 

Now take a listen. *[edit]* By cutting the low end bloat the sound will thin out a bit, now go back and shave off some more in the 1.25-4 khz region, and that will tighten up the bass, also look at cutting L&R at 5khz by 0.5db. If your low end is right you will normally have a 4-5 db roll off from 1-4khz.*[edit]*




Grindcore said:


> Also only cuts in the top end are minimal so just a measurement thing or natural roll off...dont have a crossover on the tweets up top


I'm not looking at the top end.........yet.


----------



## Grindcore (Dec 12, 2012)

sqnut said:


> Try setting the sub and mid bass levels flat again. Now cut L&R as follows:
> 
> 80 hz: Cut both sides 4 db
> 
> ...


Ok....done....set levels back to 0 and made those adjustments....i like it.....


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Elektra said:


> Are you saying going through each frequency and adjusting left and right individually at the X marker?


Yes, you have to balance for L/R one frequency at a time. If your processor gives you 31 bands per channel, do this one set of drivers at a time eg, L&R mid bass, then L&R mid range etc. If your processor gives you 31 bands combined for all drivers then do it with all drivers playing.


----------



## Grindcore (Dec 12, 2012)

Im getting a bit of vibration in the drivers door....gonna have to get to that...its all deadened etc but i think its the door card...some extra screws will fix that haha


----------



## Grindcore (Dec 12, 2012)

The bottom end now has that fullness without being overbearing...


----------



## Elektra (Feb 4, 2013)

sqnut said:


> Yes, you have to balance for L/R one frequency at a time. If your processor gives you 31 bands per channel, do this one set of drivers at a time eg, L&R mid bass, then L&R mid range etc. If your processor gives you 31 bands combined for all drivers then do it with all drivers playing.


Ok ... This is an interesting exercise...

So effectively I must ensure every frequency in the 31 band EQ is centre - based on the "X" marker - so what your basically saying is that even though we can measure the distance between each driver and compute each value into the processor. This does not necessarily mean you have a proper centre?

I have the ODR setup so I have 31band LR EQ so that's not a problem - I also have the Focal test disc which has each frequency as a individual track so I can do this. 

So essentially raising and lowering the output after TA per frequency can move the image slightly left or right - eg - if 1000hz is to the left I can drop the right level by 0.5db?

Am I understanding this correctly? 

Very interesting...


----------



## Grindcore (Dec 12, 2012)

Elektra said:


> Ok ... This is an interesting exercise...
> 
> So effectively I must ensure every frequency in the 31 band EQ is centre - based on the "X" marker - so what your basically saying is that even though we can measure the distance between each driver and compute each value into the processor. This does not necessarily mean you have a proper centre?
> 
> ...


if its to the left you want to drop the left by .5db and raise the right by .5db........that was my understanding with that method..


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Grindcore said:


> Im getting a bit of vibration in the drivers door....gonna have to get to that...its all deadened etc but i think its the door card...some extra screws will fix that haha


100 hz at play. Chances are if you cut here the buzzing will go away, but you'll lose a ton of fizz and energy in your midbass. Try it and see. If it's the door card, just adding some mass, with some dynamat etc on the inner side should help. What is the worst pita is when the plastic rivets that go into the door frame become loose. 



Grindcore said:


> The bottom end now has that fullness without being overbearing...


Your SQ discs will have tracks with solo drums. Close your eyes and listen to it on your 2 ch, get a solid base on what the kick / snare and cymbals sound like. Then listen to it in the car, go back and forth if you have to and pick the three biggest differences. If you can highlight 3 differences, I'll try and work ith you to use the eq to correct things................then see if you can pick the next 3.


----------



## Elektra (Feb 4, 2013)

Grindcore said:


> if its to the left you want to drop the left by .5db and raise the right by .5db........that was my understanding with that method..


Thanks - I give it a try...

Once you have achieved that exercise - how would you address sorting out spikes etc? Would you for eg on 500hz 2db spike - would you drop left and right by 2db as if you drop only one side then the 500hz won't be centre any longer?


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

At this rate we will soon have a new tuning thread. 



Elektra said:


> Ok ... This is an interesting exercise...
> 
> So effectively I must ensure every frequency in the 31 band EQ is centre - based on the "X" marker - so what your basically saying is that even though we can measure the distance between each driver and compute each value into the processor. This does not necessarily mean you have a proper centre?


Measuring distance is to get the timing from L&R dialed in. This puts everything 'from the front'. Balancing for L&R eliminates smearing and gives everything a fixed place. Measure L&R at 1/6 oct and then do this exercise and then measure again. See if L&R are better aligned, do the next round based on measured differences. In any case this is something you should do once every week to 10 days to start of with. The idea is to keep measuring while training your ears to pick a difference with increasing accuracy.



Elektra said:


> I have the ODR setup so I have 31band LR EQ so that's not a problem - I also have the Focal test disc which has each frequency as a individual track so I can do this.


There are two types of tones out there. Test tones and pink noise. Thanks to reflections, test tones are pretty worthless above ~ 500hz. IIRC the Focal disk has tones. Tones sound like a beep while PN sounds like putting a sea shell to your ear.



Elektra said:


> So essentially raising and lowering the output after TA per frequency can move the image slightly left or right - eg - if 1000hz is to the left I can drop the right level by 0.5db?
> 
> Am I understanding this correctly?
> 
> Very interesting...


Yes


----------



## Grindcore (Dec 12, 2012)

sqnut said:


> 100 hz at play. Chances are if you cut here the buzzing will go away, but you'll lose a ton of fizz and energy in your midbass. Try it and see. If it's the door card, just adding some mass, with some dynamat etc on the inner side should help. What is the worst pita is when the plastic rivets that go into the door frame become loose.
> 
> 
> 
> Your SQ discs will have tracks with solo drums. Close your eyes and listen to it on your 2 ch, get a solid base on what the kick / snare and cymbals sound like. Then listen to it in the car, go back and forth if you have to and pick the three biggest differences. If you can highlight 3 differences, I'll try and work ith you to use the eq to correct things................then see if you can pick the next 3.


I messed around with the door...got some foam in behind the panel and then proceeded to screw the door panel back with self tappers....problem solved!!!

Did a bit of listening today not as much as i would like....will be giving the SQ tracks a listen to tonight at home....then will give em a listen to in the car...

as it stands i threw some dire straits on in the car...something im very familiar with and i liked how it sounds...i think you are right Arun...that base tune is very solid and something i can work on slowly....


----------



## Kazuhiro (Apr 28, 2015)

Just when you think you have it dialed in - money for nothing is there to bring out the harshness you though was gone 

Sent from my HTC_PO582 using Tapatalk


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

If Dire Straits sounds good, you have a good baseline from 60 hz up. Use your mic and laptop and get 2-3 readings so that you have a record. I agree, you should tweak at your pace, and you can always come back and ask if you run into any issues.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Kazuhiro said:


> Just when you think you have it dialed in - money for nothing is there to bring out the harshness you though was gone
> 
> Sent from my HTC_PO582 using Tapatalk


What sort of harshness?

Cut at 600-800 to reduce honking kind of harshness

Cut at 1.25 and 4 to reduce grainy harshness

Cut at 1.6-2.5 for biting harshness

Cut at 8 khz to reduce shouty harshness.


Most likely it's a combination of some or all these frequencies, play around with 0.5 db cuts either side to figure out which ones help the most then pick those 2-3 and figure out how much you have to cut each.


----------



## Wesayso (Jul 20, 2010)

Grindcore, do you still use the ambient speakers? The thread started about width and focussed on the ambient possibilities for a while. I wondered if you still use it.


----------



## Kazuhiro (Apr 28, 2015)

sqnut said:


> What sort of harshness?
> 
> Cut at 600-800 to reduce honking kind of harshness
> 
> ...


I decided to take some measurements and compare them with my old dsps tuning. The top curve is the current curve, the bottom one is from many months ago, which use to sound absolutely fine by my ears. Note that there is more smoothing on the bottom curve due to more averages. I have since boosted 200 - 400, cut 800 - 1.2k a bit and added a bit to 2k and 3k, while taking the 2.4k bump out.










Sounds ok until I go for a drive and music becomes loud and lacking in low end. Perhaps my amplifiers arent linear in power with the voltage change, since one is mosfet, and the other is opamp regulated.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Are you cutting a lot at 160? If so back up about 1 db and cut 200 hz by a db. Cut 400 hz 1 db and cut Cut 8 khz 3 db and if you are cutting at 10 khz raise that a bit 0.5db. Are you cutting at 16khz? After you're done with the previous cuts try cutting 16 in small increments, you're looking for the sound to become less brittle.

Better?


----------



## Kazuhiro (Apr 28, 2015)

Will try in the morning, Thank you! There is no cut at 160, there is a 10db modal null in the drivers head area only. (Confirmed with test tone and moving mic around) 
The 200 to 1k is basically flat now by the way. 

Would you know why the lower curve doesn't sound harsh, even with the roll off not starting until 3k? I can't figure it out at all. Could be the change in tweeters, amps and DSP. Or perhaps the change from a Dayton to minidsp mic, although both brands should be accurate.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Kazuhiro said:


> I have since boosted 200 - 400, cut 800 - 1.2k a bit and added a bit to 2k and 3k, while taking the 2.4k bump out.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Kazuhiro (Apr 28, 2015)

If anything, when I turn it up the sound becomes very immersive and great in general. It is the standard to lower listening levels where it just sounds like the dash speakers are doing 90% of the work.


----------



## Kazuhiro (Apr 28, 2015)

Im finding it hard to pinpoint the harshness. I thought it was around 1k but when i lower that, doesnt seem to help. 

On the song November rain, a lot of the time axls voice is quite harsh, sort of 'ringing' in my ears. Like the last line, "Even cold November rain" does it. 90% of the guitar is fine, just bit here and there such as the build up to the solo which makes me turn it down. I'd like to keep the volume right up on this song however, as it is a nice broad orchestral type of band effort.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Can you post another measurement?............and don't tweak after you measure 

P.S. Measure at 1/6 oct and also post up your eq screenshots. Also some basic info on where the speakers are mounted / xovers / slopes etc. Thanks.


----------



## Kazuhiro (Apr 28, 2015)

Yeah I have a bad habit of making a final minor tweak and not measuring after due to laziness. Will post curve soon 

Sent from my HTC_PO582 using Tapatalk


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Do two sets of measurements, one at a slightly louder volume and one at the volume where you're primarily hearing the dash speakers.


----------



## Kazuhiro (Apr 28, 2015)

I misread your request before leaving to measure... I got two curves at different volumes. There is a variation around 2 - 3k, it doesnt match so it might be because I only took 8 averages per measurement. Excuse the massive sub curve, this is a level that seems to work for me now.










I think this looks fine... Rew is plugged directly into the dsp with aux/rca. When I am listening to music, I use an android device connected to a generic bluetooth aptx receiver, with digital coaxial out to a nakamichi burr-brown dac (mid 90's) which is connected to the amp via rcas. I am starting to think this setup could be influencing the curve, but I cant test rew with it.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

What are you using for eq? Possible to get screen shots of the eq? Also some details on the network and speaker placements.


----------



## Kazuhiro (Apr 28, 2015)

Would be hard to get screenshots of eq due to annoying tabs in the massive dsp, would need to do 8 screenies. 
Pretty straight forward setup, 4" and tweeters slightly off axis in pillars, midbass anarchies in doors sealed with deadener, single 12" in sealed box in wheel well in trunk.
All running off two 4ch os amps, bridged for sub.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Will write a longer post in a bit, but trust me there's a reason I'm asking all these questions, and will explain that in a bit. What are the xover points and slopes? Is the eq 31 bands per channel or 31 L&R combined for all drivers? I'm not sure which is going to be less painful, taking 8 screen shots or noting down and typing out the settings on each eq, either will do.


----------



## Kazuhiro (Apr 28, 2015)

I'll probably have to wait for the weekend to post all that. 
Its a 96 band parametric but the Q values aren regular Q, but it does tell you the frequency range of the width you choose... so I have some flexibility I suppose. EQ is in 1dB steps. I have quite a few large cuts, some 12dB around resonances. My crossovers are linkwitz 24dB/octave, at 70hz, 300hz, 3khz. A high shelf filter was manually applied to both tweeters in the dsp. Also it isnt exactly 96 band parametric like it says on the box. I get 10 parametric bands per tweeter, 8 per midrange, 8 per midbass and 10 for subwoofer.

My old dsp had 31 band L and R which was nice to start with, real easy to get going but sometimes couldnt knock the frequencies i wanted to, I never realized how big of a step in difficulty parametric was.


----------



## trumpet (Nov 14, 2010)

I have the Core-1 DSP as well and I don't like how they programmed the Q setting. It's different than any other DSP. It makes REW's EQ feature a lot less useful. Even so, I would take parametric EQ over graphic any day in terms of getting precise results quickly.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

If you want to take things a bit further and get to the point where you hear your tuning efforts taking you forward, as opposed to feeling like swimming in circles, then you need to do two things, you need to dial in the basic curve and then let your ears take over from there. If you want to go some distance, then you may want a thread of your own, otherwise we're going to clog up OP's thread pretty quickly.

Ok, on to the last graphs. The basic problem as I see it is, that the 1-4 khz range is hotter than it should be, and this is why you need a ton of the low end. Even with that I'm guessing the low end you're hearing is more 30-60, with a chunk of your mid bass 80-300, still masked out. Cut the sub without changing anything, how much low end do you have?

Use your peq to give you a curve that looks like this, you'll have to measure and tweak a few times to get it in the ballpark.

*30-200:* Aim for a ~6-8 db roll off from 30-50, flat from 50-70 and then a 2-3 db drop to 80 and a 6-8 db roll off from 80-200. So you're looking at ~15-20 db roll off from 30-200. 

*200-500: * keep this range flat. Maybe a 2 db roll off in this range.

*500-1khz:* 3 db roll off over this octave.

*1-4khz* another 3 db per octave roll off. keep the roll off smooth, and avoid peaks like at 1.6 and the dip at 3 with a rise again at 4. 

*5-8khz:* The roll off from 1-4 flattens out a bit at % and past 5 you're again looking at 3-4 db roll off to 8.

Get it this far, take a listen and measure to see where you are.


----------



## Kazuhiro (Apr 28, 2015)

I havent gone out yet but when I use a roll off from 50hz - 200hz of about 12dB it sounds great with the car off or stationary... but as soon as I get driving or on the highway, the 17dB curve becomes necessary. I heard some of metallicas songs are a good benchmark for balanced low end so I gave "Fade to black" a try, and ended up making the curve this large. 










SO the black line is more of less what you are describing yeah? 
I would treat 2k-3k-4k with a 1dB cut-boost-cut, and drop the tweeter gain slightly.
But the sub curve park I am curious about, I know its curvier than I may have drawn it, but why the flat section at 50-70hz?


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Kazuhiro said:


> I havent gone out yet but when I use a roll off from 50hz - 200hz of about 12dB it sounds great with the car off or stationary... but as soon as I get driving or on the highway, the 17dB curve becomes necessary.


The bright 1-4 range is a bigger cause than the 12 db roll off. If 1-4 is a bit bright to begin with, then once the road noise cancels out a chunk of the 50-300 range, it's going to sound really thin. 

You can now do one of three things. Add in lots of low end to compensate cancellations, taper off the 1-4 khz range, or do a combination of the two. Personally, I would first sort out the 1-4 range then maybe look at adding in just a bit at the low end. If you need to add in a lot, that's just telling you something higher up may need fixing. Either you're competing and need the perfect balance while parked, or you need good balance while on the road. The same setting will not give you both. 



Kazuhiro said:


> I heard some of metallicas songs are a good benchmark for balanced low end so I gave "Fade to black" a try, and ended up making the curve this large.


Listened to that song on you tube. Like all metal there is a ton happening in the 600-5khz range and if this range is hot to start with............you will need a 20 db roll off.........I'm sorry if I sound like a stuck record .




Kazuhiro said:


> SO the black line is more of less what you are describing yeah?


As a starting point yes, maybe the roll of past 10 would a bit shallower.



Kazuhiro said:


> I would treat 2k-3k-4k with a 1dB cut-boost-cut, and drop the tweeter gain slightly.


I keep my tweeters cut by 6 db on both sides, I find that anything less than a 5-6db cut on the tweets makes the midrange and up bright and tough to control. I'm not sure where you have them currently. Going back to your last graphs I'm basing these cuts on the green curve. Keep a 12-15 db roll off on the bottom end and try these changes.

800hz: -3 on a narrow Q
1 khz: -1 on a narrow Q
1.25khz: -3 on a narrow Q
1.4 khz: -4 since you have PEQ I'm assuming you can select frequencies. Use a slightly wider Q here.

2khz: - 3 on a narrow Q
3.5khz: -4 to on a wide Q
8khz: -1 on a narrow Q.

Take a listen, measure and let's see what you think. If there's too much low end you will need to cut some in the 160-250 range, if it sounds a bit dull, raise 5 khz by 0.5 db.



Kazuhiro said:


> But the sub curve park I am curious about, I know its curvier than I may have drawn it, but why the flat section at 50-70hz?


 50-70 is the bottom end on 85% of the music and this is a range where your 6.5" midbass needs support, specially for those of us who run a low sub to mid xover.


----------



## Kazuhiro (Apr 28, 2015)

That brings up another thing I dont like about this DSP - The drivers overall level is not a dB cut/gain, just a x multiple like 0.8 or 1.2 :|

Another reason I asked about 50-70hz is because I havent seen anyone else doing that (yet)

Will try your tweaks tomorrow morning and post back!

Oh and sorry about the thread hijack grindcore, if the discussion doesnt benefit you I can post a new thread.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

I think good sound is all about good balance. A careful listen to any decently recorded material on a decent setup, should give you a sense of balance between the sub bass, mid bass, mid range and the highs that you're hearing. Everything is nicely balanced and no one range sticks out. 

Sometimes the musician will push the limits and make a couple of parts stand out, but that's just temporary right? and even then the 2.5 khz bite on the electric guitar is prominent, but doesn't take your head off. Overall things will be fairly balanced. The biggest challenge for 99% reading this, is the ability close your eyes and let yourself listen to the music instead of just hearing it. The OP knows this well.

The idea is to bring that sense of balance to the car. When one has decent balance in the car, turning the volume down means the loudness will drop, while still retaining that sense of balance. So the 50 hz bass growl will be muted, but present and dropping the volume won't make the mid range and highs dominate making the sound thin and tinny.

Sometime it's good to just listen to and tune for stuff that is simple. When you tune for material that is busy, you're trying to keep track of 4-5 things and how each change affects them. It can get fatiguing and one is prone to make errors. When I was actively tuning, whenever I ran into a space where I found myself going round in circles, but not really getting ahead, I always went back and tuned with simple stuff and just focused on vocals. If you can can get the simple stuff sounding stellar, the more complex mixes will really stand out.

I think this one is at 320 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUSzL2leaFM&list=PLChXeamhJLHrrKSHT_NQV3__knoeSGhYN 

I went through 2 CD's with the next two, and at one point the family (mainly the wife) would groan cause every time she sat in the car, this album would be playing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rOiW_xY-kc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahJ6Kh8klM4

This on flac or the cd https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MN3x-kAbgFU. For the first 3:40 just focus on Phil's vocals, the drums are off a synthesizer, beyond 3:40 just focus on the drums.


----------



## Kazuhiro (Apr 28, 2015)

Love the examples you are posting, they are all inside or near my collection. I am especially familiar with the REM albums (Out of time and Automatic for the people are my favs), which I know can range from simple to busy.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Kazuhiro said:


> That brings up another thing I dont like about this DSP - The drivers overall level is not a dB cut/gain, just a x multiple like 0.8 or 1.2 :|


Check your manual if it gives some sort of conversion.....



Kazuhiro said:


> Another reason I asked about 50-70hz is because I havent seen anyone else doing that (yet)


Normally it's one of the last things I do when tuning a system, just to add the final bit of oomph. 



Kazuhiro said:


> Love the examples you are posting, they are all inside or near my collection. I am especially familiar with the REM albums (Out of time and Automatic for the people are my favs), which I know can range from simple to busy.


Some of their older stuff like Murmur and Fables of Reconstruction are also worth a listen.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

One more listing for the simple stuff, well for the most part.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARuF8BFvjlY


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

Kazuhiro said:


> If anything, when I turn it up the sound becomes very immersive and great in general. It is the standard to lower listening levels where it just sounds like the dash speakers are doing 90% of the work.


The phenomenon where a stereo sounds "thin" at low volumes but sounds good loud is due to a few things:

1) Distortion makes everything sound louder. So it could be distortion causing the system to sound louder than it really is at moderate to high volumes.
2) Fletcher Munson curves. We're less sensitive to bass as the volume gets louder. IE, a "real" volume knob wouldn't change the volume at a constant level, it would increase the volume of the midrange more than the bass.
3) road noise


----------



## cajunner (Apr 13, 2007)

so many of us like it loud.

Bose may sound like crap for some, but they aren't building for the fringe, they are building for the average.

What I feel Bose does exceptionally well is produce music at background listening levels that doesn't detract, or cause undue involvement from the listeners.


They have an adaptive circuit, Dynamic whatever, that many here would say is totally rubbish since it changes the equalization of the music according to output level, and that is exactly what is needed if we are being honest with ourselves regarding lower-level listening.

A wide bandwidth driver in a BLH, or back loaded horn, such as the Fostex 103 is renowned for the ability to produce that low-level detail that is either missing or subdued in the highest power component parts we find at the top ends of the spectrum. The Fostex may not be able to make a rock band sound like they are in your room, but the 4-way processed, 3 sub surround monster is going to have a little trouble doing some things the Fostex can do easily, and that's not really debatable.

I have times where I would easily trade off a highly complex software driven system using kilowatts of reserve power and specialized room builds for a couple of Lowthers and a middle of the pack integrated tube amp, no matter the source used.

So it's here nor there, I guess. I find a lot of the magic is still trapped, when I'm using multiple presets on DSP menus and not finding that I've won, each of these audio battles defending one sect from the next.


----------



## Kazuhiro (Apr 28, 2015)

Here is the before and after, the one with the lower sub curve being the after of course. 










Another thing - source related - this is rew running straight into the dsp. I usually listen over bluetooth aptx with a dac. I have a headunit arriving next week, nothing special, just a kenwood excelon with the features I need. After installing it, will the head unit influence the sound assuming theres no settings enabled?


----------



## lizardking (Nov 8, 2008)

I tend to use this curve for a good baseline.....


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Kazuhiro said:


> Here is the before and after, the one with the lower sub curve being the after of course.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Cut a bit more 1.5-2 db at 1khz and 2khz, both on narrow Q's and cut 4 khz by 2-2.5 db on a narrow Q. Keep track of how the sound is changing, what's better and what's not. Flac streaming on bluetooth aptx + dac vs cd on your excelon? . Let us know what you think, once you get the hu installed.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Patrick Bateman said:


> The phenomenon where a stereo sounds "thin" at low volumes but sounds good loud is due to a few things:
> 
> 1) Distortion makes everything sound louder. So it could be distortion causing the system to sound louder than it really is at moderate to high volumes.
> 2) Fletcher Munson curves. We're less sensitive to bass as the volume gets louder. IE, a "real" volume knob wouldn't change the volume at a constant level, it would increase the volume of the midrange more than the bass.
> 3) road noise


Using the eq to dial in a perceived balance in the FR across the ranges, goes a long way towards solving this problem, and yes FM curves are a part of the puzzle, when dialing in the balance.


----------



## Kazuhiro (Apr 28, 2015)

For the first time ever I was able to get in person critique on the system. A user form here called Broshi changed my front stage alignment quite a bit, and it really snapped things into place. My ears must have played a trick on me, because beforehand I thought my alignment was fine.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Yep, alignment is something we hadn't looked at. It can make a huge difference in the focus. But focus is different from tonality / response. A change in timing will change the response specially around the xover points.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

cajunner said:


> So it's here nor there, I guess. I find a lot of the magic is still trapped, when I'm using multiple presets on DSP menus and not finding that I've won, each of these audio battles defending one sect from the next.


It is all down to hearing your way to the right timing and response that works for your install. You measure to a baseline and then let your ears take over. This is the only way to make your car sound like a decent 2ch in a room. I'm talking good floor standers with 8-10" midbass drivers, or a well integrated sub in the mix.


----------



## cajunner (Apr 13, 2007)

it's really more of a listening level thing, to me. 

if I am hung on a song and want it blasted I go for the big system dramatics, every time.

if the idea is to get low-level listening in, while still being able to resolve audio from the background noise I want the full range speaker with limited output.

this is the great divide, as every incremental increase in complexity in the pursuit of audio satisfaction only yields to high level listening and as you turn down the level from the ideal, things start to go sour, you do not have a graduated reduction in volume that maintains audio quality, after a certain point.

a system designed for high output but able to resolve low-level detail is the low distortion CD in horns, and the magnification of various circuit contributions are more easily noticed, IMHO.

I accept that supposed realism in playback means using/having extra volume compared to what a stock system is able to produce, but I'm not always in the mood for blasting audio so loud that I have trouble hearing the noises of the road, especially when I was trained to listen for engine noises and other things, related to safe driving practices.

Plainly put, sometimes I prefer the way a simple system sounds at lower levels, during 50% of my drive time, and the 50% that I just need that huge response from a 4-way massive headroom capable "hobby winner" is scaled disproportionately according to costs.

There was a time where I wouldn't have even entertained the possibility that output was not everything, and that reaching concert level volume in the car was just one goal out of many to pursue equally.

The point of what I'm saying is that I have become sophisticated in how I let my audio accompaniment drive my enjoyment during road time.

I understand that most of us are looking for the ceiling, setting our stereos to sound as good as they can right up to that ceiling, and when deciding on how effectively the system itself can reproduce audio, use the ceiling as our reference, much as how a band decides how loud to play in a venue.


That ceiling itself, is no longer my most important goal. I understand it, and I have brought many different components together to reach that highest undistorted output level as a main focus of my system design and tuning, but I find more and more that I am being forced to upset safe driving practices to get there, and when I turn down a system that has been optimized for those large signal response windows, it does turn thin, and it can be less satisfactory at lower levels than a system that has much less in the way, or complications to delivering the contents of the full audio envelope.

A system that has low-level capability built into it, is still not as popular as a high output capable system and that's probably never going to change for me, but I can understand the person who just wants to hear his tunes at or under 90 db most of the time, and trying to build them a system that can achieve undistorted response to 110 db is like trying to make a one-egg omelet in a stock pot.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

^^ That is an awfully long post to sit and rebut, point by point. Suffice it to say that there exists that narrow range of settings, that will allow you to go from 100 db to 60 db while maintaining a good semblance of balance, across the range. This is while parked. On the road, you're dead below ~75 in any case thanks to the road noise. 

*[edit] [edit]* You can take things to an extreme and argue that you'll lose this balance at 40, well sure you will, but so will you with most home setups as well. Eventually both in the car and the room it comes down to cone size and headroom from your amp and the ambient noise level that dictates where you have the thin out. But to get there in a car, you have to have the timing and response in place. When you're tuning in a car you have timing in one hand and response in the other and that's it, that's all you have. All tweaks you make are changing one or the other or both. With each tweak you need to pick better or worse accurately. 

Measurements will only take you so far, get a base curve and train your ears to start telling that better and worse accurately. Get intuitive with the eq understand what a cut at 600 or a 0.5 db raise at 1 khz sounds like. You have to first learn to hear the difference between your car and your ref setup, and then connect each issue to a frequency or a range of frequencies. It is a slow plodding journey but it's better than swimming in circles chasing science and curves. 

We spend way too much time complicating the heck out of this hobby without really getting anywhere, while ignoring what is something as natural as letting our ears listen and tell us accurately, better or worse. it's not about how it measures nor is it about the extent of science and thought devoted to understanding, why it doesn't sound right. At the end of the day, it's about the system giving you the same experience as your ref sound. You have to hear your way there. 

There is whole world out there beyond measured right, waiting to be discovered.  *[edit] [edit].*


----------



## Kazuhiro (Apr 28, 2015)

One word : Presets. 

I won't bother solving listening level loudness, but stationary and mobile configurations could be made for my preferred listening levels.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

The eq work to get it sounding right is much easier when the basics are tight, the network, timing and L/R balance. If you're tuning by ear, it's very important to keep revisiting the basics every 4-6 weeks. The idea here is, that as you ears settle in to hearing smaller and more differences, use this ability to correct differences you may have missed earlier. Even if you're scientifically inclined and trying to measure your way to good sound, this basic test can only make what you have, better. 

If you tune by ear, you'll find that for a few months every time you re-check the basics, you come away thinking sharper, tighter, more still, better defined, better balanced etc. Then you'll hit a point where it's meh, didn't really find anything, now continue to tune and revisit the basics every few months instead of weeks. Chances are you'll continue to get the occasional moments. Checking the basics is a simple 5 min job. 

*[edit]*As far as network goes, it's a fill it shut it and forget it, kind of thing. With due apologies to those who think tuning is largely about tinkering with xovers and slopes, just because you can and each setting sounds different, it's not. Find a good equilibrium and stick with it. Fill it........ I start with finding the lowest workable sub 80hz mid to sub xover, I use only matching xover points and 4th order slopes all round. The only exception is the sub where I use the steepest slope that I can get. For a 2 way with the tweet mounted up high, I'm looking for a xover ~ 2-3khz. A lower xover raises stage height and imho it makes the sound more dynamic.

With a 3 way I'm looking at bringing the mid in 400-600, depending how low and loud it will play without distorting, I normally bring in the tweet 3-5khz depending on how close the drivers are and what works for the given drivers. A couple of days of experimenting is all you need to settle on a good foundation. Here on in, it's all eq work.*[edit]* 

To check for timing and L/R balance all you need are the correlated or mono, full range PN track, the 1/3 octave PN tracks and the sweeps. The range on each sweep is irrelevant, as long as all 10 octaves are covered, and last but not least you'll need some coloured tape. 

While in the drivers seat, look ahead and then move your eyes to look at the far edge of the rear view mirror. Now place a finger on the windshield just under the far edge, but touching the edge (you want repeatability for next time and I'm assuming you don't fiddle around with your rear view mirror). Now mark an X here, about 3-4" tall and maybe 1-1.5" wide.

Play the mono PN one set of drivers at a time, L&R mid bass, L&R mid etc. You want the image with each set of drivers to centre at the X. If it's veering left add delay on the left to move it right, and vice versa if it images to the right of the X. If you run a 3 way and your midbass is band passed say 60-600hz, it may image slightly lower than the X, that's fine. The vertical alignment with the X is important. Do this with each set of drivers and get each set to centre at the X. Now play all drivers and test with the mono PN, its should image dead on the X, your timing is done. 

Now play the sweeps. If your l/r response is well balanced, you will hear each sweep start from, stay at, and fade from the X. If the sweeps veer L&R, go in and check with the 1/3 oct tracks and centre each track to the X. 

Now go back and listen to the music. It would be interesting to know how many of you'll who try this, come away feeling, sharper, tighter, more balanced, still sound..........


----------



## Beckerson1 (Jul 3, 2012)

sqnut said:


> The eq work to get it sounding right is much easier when the basics are tight, the network, timing and L/R balance. If you're tuning by ear, it's very important to keep revisiting the basics every 4-6 weeks. The idea here is, that as you ears settle in to hearing smaller and more differences, use this ability to correct differences you may have missed earlier. Even if you're scientifically inclined and trying to measure your way to good sound, this basic test can only make what you have, better.
> 
> If you tune by ear, you'll find that for a few months every time you re-check the basics, you come away thinking sharper, tighter, more still, better defined, better balanced etc. Then you'll hit a point where it's meh, didn't really find anything, now continue to tune and revisit the basics every few months instead of weeks. Chances are you'll continue to get the occasional moments. Checking the basics is a simple 5 min job.
> 
> ...


Probably one of the best, to the point, explications.


----------



## Kazuhiro (Apr 28, 2015)

Messing around with test tones, firing a 2khz sine for example.... and moving my head around. The different in loudness, from ear to ear, is ridiculous to say the least. Im talking up to 10dB of variation in just the drivers area. Makes me realize how poor the car environment is.

I haven't put tape on the windshield yet, but doing the sweep does center quite well. Although it doesn't center (cant locate) until it hits around 250hz.. and after 5k it diffuses.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Some frequencies in the 1-5 khz range can swing wildly from side to side when you move your head. These are frequencies with wavelengths ~ the distance between your ears. To centre these frequencies so that it allows some movement of the head without the wild swings, use the eq *and* a click of TA on relevant driver.

P.S. I hope you're using 1/3 oct PN and not the test tones....


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Kazuhiro said:


> Although it doesn't center (cant locate) until it hits around 250hz


That's ok for now. Next time you do the sweeps try and focus on the frequencies below 250, and see if 250hz and above comes in from the left or the right side.




Kazuhiro said:


> .. and after 5k it diffuses.


If it's diffused past 5 check the TA between the tweets. I know, someone has just re-done the timing by sitting in your car, it's much better and you don't want to mess with it. So save everything and try this.

Take an erasable magic marker, sit looking forward and play the mono full range PN one set of drivers at a time, woofers only, mids only, tweet only. With each set of drivers, mark a small X where the image centres. Are the three X's pretty much stacked one on top of the other, or are they spread a bit left and right? 

Now pick the X that closest to the acoustic centre (far edge of rear view) and move the other centres to overlap this point. Of course you can also use this opportunity move everything to the acoustic centre. 

Now take a listen........go back and forth between your saved setting and this one. Would be interested to hear the results.

P.S. Whenever one tunes by ear eg sets the TA by ear, it's always best to pass the results through a 'correction key filter' to see if they hold up. Plus it also keeps my friend Cajunner satisfied.


----------



## Kazuhiro (Apr 28, 2015)

sqnut said:


> P.S. I hope you're using 1/3 oct PN and not the test tones....


I was just messing around with the tone generator to look at loudness in the driver head area, nothing productive.

Today I redid the timing once again. After changing timing, I ensured both sides were EQ'd as close as possible and the curve was still in shape. (neither were, had to eq for a while...) 

I noticed in Hotel california (album version) that the kick drum is centered left a bit (note: I am in right hand drive vehicle) so I will give your magic marker method a try. 

The driver delay flexibility on this unit is roughly 1.5cm steps (no ms avail)

Also, "correction key filter"?


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Kazuhiro said:


> I was just messing around with the tone generator to look at loudness in the driver head area, nothing productive.


Those are most probably sine or test tones. Not very good for L/R balancing over about 500hz. Search posts by Hanatsu and somewhere he has a link to his dropbox with the pn tracks. Use these for measuring L/R, sweeps, etc.



Kazuhiro said:


> Today I redid the timing once again. After changing timing, I ensured both sides were EQ'd as close as possible and the curve was still in shape. (neither were, had to eq for a while...).


Initially, whenever one makes major changes like the ones above and it sounds good / better, it's always good to run a X session with the mono pink noise and the sweeps as the last part of the tuning session. If the changes sound good but fail the X test, go in and make the corrections. 

Keep doing this and you will get to a point where you will start to pick the inconsistencies that caused the fail, based on what you hear, see and feel. But keep returning to the X once in a while.



Kazuhiro said:


> I noticed in Hotel california (album version) that the kick drum is centered left a bit (note: I am in right hand drive vehicle) so I will give your magic marker method a try.
> 
> The driver delay flexibility on this unit is roughly 1.5cm steps (no ms avail)


I don't remember off hand where the kick drum is recorded on Hotel California, I'll see if I can check on that, and yeah the Brits gave us right hand drive as well. 1.5 cm is ~ 0.05 ms which is perfectly workable.



Kazuhiro said:


> Also, "correction key filter"?


Just some friendly banter with Caj in another thread, I know this thread is one of his secret pleasures. Basically if you make major changes verify with the X, over some time you may find yourself getting more out of the X, than the measurements you take


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Ok, just had a listen to Hotel California and the kick drums are pretty centre stage, maybe a touch to the right, as you sit in the right seat.


----------



## crackinhedz (May 5, 2013)

sqnut said:


> Now pick the X that closest to the acoustic centre (far edge of rear view)


sqnut, sorry to interrupt...Im not sure I understand this part, the far edge of the rear view mirror? (im in left side driver, USA) so to me the far edge of the mirror seems like it would be almost too far out, closer to the far pillar? If I try to have my stage centered, the near side of the mirror seems would be the better location, no? Any chance you could post a pic of what you mean? Im curious, and greatly appreciate the advice you are providing. Im learning a lot.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

crackinhedz said:


> sqnut, sorry to interrupt...Im not sure I understand this part, the far edge of the rear view mirror? (im in left side driver, USA) so to me the far edge of the mirror seems like it would be almost too far out, closer to the far pillar? If I try to have my stage centered, the near side of the mirror seems would be the better location, no? Any chance you could post a pic of what you mean? Im curious, and greatly appreciate the advice you are providing. Im learning a lot.


Good question. The reason I suggest left edge (for RHD) or right edge (for LHD), is due to the parallax effect, now when you visually mark the X at the edges, it will actually be centred at the centre of rear view or the acoustic centre. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

When it comes to our ability to hear and analyze the effect of a difference, in both the time and response domain, we are all sitting on a Bugatti Veyron and yet choosing to drive it as a suburban daily drive. Everyone has that ability, you just need to learn how to hear differences in smaller and smaller increments while building accuracy. 

So, the very top tuners, will have a 95%+ accuracy in telling better/worse at +/- 0.01 ms, and 0.01 db at any given frequency. On something like These guys are the Usain Bolts, naturally gifted and maximizing that potential. But not everyone is a Bolt however even the daily five miler can break into a fair clip when needed and hit 85% accuracy at +/- 0.02 ms and 0.3 db. That by it's self will give you sound that compares well with a 2 ch. One leverages and tries to tap into the ear and brains incredible ability to tell a difference. 

As the accuracy of what you hear, see and feel improves, one will start to pick small differences in say the X experiment. 0.5 cm shifts in the sweep or half cm L/R on the mono pink noise, will start to stand out. 

The ears are very sensitive to hearing differences, but they suck at absolutes. So even the talented Bolts will not be able to hear the 500 hz pn track and accurately call how loud it's playing to say within +/- 5 db. Our entire hearing is geared around hearing a difference. Your ears will tell stuff beyond what your measurements are telling you. If you're running say FR measurements, the software and mic are probably measuring in +/- 1 db and you have the resolution to learn to listen at +/- 0.3-5 db quite easily......


----------



## Kazuhiro (Apr 28, 2015)

With the pink noise I found it difficult to locate the timing accurate enough to mark with a pen, regardless of both sides being within 2dB (1/6th smoothing at least). I move my head right forward, and slowly move it back to listening position, visualizing the center which moves across the windshield toward the centre, but unfortunately gaining size as I do so.
The tweets and midranges seem to be at the centre, with the tweeter centre about 2/3 the height of the windshield, and the midranges about 1/3 height. 
The midbass I am having trouble with however. They are crossed 70 - 300hz. When I play the PN, the sound always seems to come from the left footwell, regardless of how much delay I use. Both drivers are EQ matched very nicely. Possible cause?

EDIT: I tried with midrange and midbass playing. When changing delay on the right side, I could notice the midbass noise moving from the footwell to the centre dash. Thats as far as it would go however, if setup right, I should be able to make it centre at the drivers side too? (not that id want to)


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Kazuhiro said:


> With the pink noise I found it difficult to locate the timing accurate enough to mark with a pen, regardless of both sides being within 2dB (1/6th smoothing at least). I move my head right forward, and slowly move it back to listening position, visualizing the center which moves across the windshield toward the centre, but unfortunately gaining size as I do so.
> The tweets and midranges seem to be at the centre, with the tweeter centre about 2/3 the height of the windshield, and the midranges about 1/3 height.
> The midbass I am having trouble with however. They are crossed 70 - 300hz. When I play the PN, the sound always seems to come from the left footwell, regardless of how much delay I use. Both drivers are EQ matched very nicely. Possible cause?
> 
> EDIT: I tried with midrange and midbass playing. When changing delay on the right side, I could notice the midbass noise moving from the footwell to the centre dash. Thats as far as it would go however, if setup right, I should be able to make it centre at the drivers side too? (not that id want to)


Are you trying this with mono / correlated PN or stereo? The X bit and timing won't work with stereo PN. The other simple way to do this is with AM talk shows. AM is mono so it will work, put on a talk show and then try the mid bass only, mid range only etc. See if this works better.

If you're using mono cues you should be able to centre it anywhere you want with TA. If you want to move the image to the left, reduce the delay on the left and/or increase the delay on the right and vice versa.

*[edit] *If your mid bass is band passed 70-300 on steep slopes, you're not going to get much height for the X, sometimes I get ahead of myself and don't explain fully what I do instinctively. To mark the X you need X and Y coordinates, with a 70-300 band pass you're getting the X axis coordinate because the frequencies are giving the left right cues, but you're practically getting nothing in height cues ie above ~800hz. When you do this exercise with the mid bass only, remove the LP filter and if you can't then shift the LP to 3khz and put it on a 6db slope, now mark the X . *[edit]*


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Ok, sometimes I'm a tube light and it takes time to put things together in my head, thank you crackinheds for your efforts and persistence 

Vision parallax is when you stretch your hand towards the far side to mark what you feel would be about the centre of the car width. Now for someone sitting in the middle of the back seat, where your hand ends up, would appear to be left (for rhd) or right (for lhd), of the actual centre as referenced by say the middle of the rear view. 

So if we want the vocalist at the acoustic centre i.e. middle of rear view should we not mark the X under the near edge of the rear view and then let parallax slide that towards or a bit beyond the middle like so 










Apparently no, the MECA judges want the sound tuned to the acoustic centre and hence have the centre stage at the far edge or just a bit beyond. My course correction here is that the X should be placed under the middle of the rear view (preferably with you in the back seat looking straight on) and not the far edge. Thank you once again for being my correction key filter


----------



## Kazuhiro (Apr 28, 2015)

Sweet, I will try the midbass without a low pass (edit: it doesnt matter that the range above 300 might be extremely unbalanced?)

One thing that has concerned me most about this is the size of the curve roll offs I must use to get a non threatening sound. A bass curve of nearly 20dB, then -5db over 500-1khz, -5dB from 1k to 3k, then another -5dB from 3k to 10k. This gives the curve a total scale of over 35dB..that seems ridiculous. The reason I say this, is because on my old setup I tuned to a JBL curve, 10dB low end, then a small roll off starting at 2k, ending in maybe 6 - 10dB lower at 10k. This never sounded harsh to me, and a lot of people around here seem to think that its fine. I did too, until it stopped working for me. I am beginning to suspect something is wrong with my setup. I might give RTA'ing a go, instead of popping out 16 sine sweep averages after each few changes.


----------



## Babs (Jul 6, 2007)

Yeah stands to reason if your TA is spot-on and EQ sides dialed in equal, center image will be dead nuts center between the drivers. Never understood that idea of adding/subtracting ms from sides to move center image, as I'd imagine it kicks midbass out of TDC phase coherence.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Kazuhiro said:


> Sweet, I will try the midbass without a low pass (edit: it doesnt matter that the range above 300 might be extremely unbalanced?)


You're only looking at arrival times, not response, it's mono remember? You're only looking at matching arrival times at L&R ears.



Kazuhiro said:


> One thing that has concerned me most about this is the size of the curve roll offs I must use to get a non threatening sound. A bass curve of nearly 20dB, then -5db over 500-1khz, -5dB from 1k to 3k, then another -5dB from 3k to 10k. This gives the curve a total scale of over 35dB..that seems ridiculous.


Are you tuning for your eyes and how the graph looks or for your ears therefore, for how it sounds? A 20 db low end is probably a little excessive though....



Kazuhiro said:


> The reason I say this, is because on my old setup I tuned to a JBL curve, 10dB low end, then a small roll off starting at 2k, ending in maybe 6 - 10dB lower at 10k. This never sounded harsh to me, and a lot of people around here seem to think that its fine. I did too, until it stopped working for me. I am beginning to suspect something is wrong with my setup. I might give RTA'ing a go, instead of popping out 16 sine sweep averages after each few changes.


Having heard both curves, what are the differences that stand out for you? Nothing's wrong with your equipment .


----------



## Kazuhiro (Apr 28, 2015)

I really cant say..but the JBL curve was carefree, although more on the clinical....unlively side, accurate music with a little added punch. I decided to spatial average with an rta for a change to see if it was different from sweeps. It was. The high end roll off seems larger on rta mode. 

Ambient and L+R; 8 averages 1/6th; Doing the rta ritual...mic swapping between ears


----------



## lizardking (Nov 8, 2008)

Be sure when using the RTA screen to use the RTA mode and not spectrum. I made that mistake. Huge difference!


----------



## Kazuhiro (Apr 28, 2015)

You may have solved my woes!

Heres are my new results, the curve explains everything. It shows there is still harshness at 1; - 2k, and when the car is on, the ambience is consuming most of the bass frequencies! It also shows that the bass curve is 10..12dB tops..


----------



## lizardking (Nov 8, 2008)

I read the post from the author of REW that's how I figured it out.


----------



## lizardking (Nov 8, 2008)

REW RTA - must be doing something wrong - Home Theater Forum and Systems - HomeTheaterShack.com


----------



## lizardking (Nov 8, 2008)

I use RTA 1/6 for 2khz on up. 1/12 for everything below. Works out very well once I realized I was using the wrong mode. I set mine up exactly how he suggested the other guy in the discussion in the REW forum.


----------



## Kazuhiro (Apr 28, 2015)

Well I sure dont feel like a bass head anymore haha... I will have to retune it on sunday.


----------



## lizardking (Nov 8, 2008)

I was having the same issue. Huge roll off up high and huge peak in the bass region, but didn't sound bass heavy, but still harsh and unbalanced. Once I used the correct mode/settings it was like.. Damn I see the problem I knew existed.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Kazuhiro said:


> You may have solved my woes!
> 
> Heres are my new results, the curve explains everything. It shows there is still harshness at 1; - 2k, and when the car is on, the ambience is consuming most of the bass frequencies! It also shows that the bass curve is 10..12dB tops..


cut that peak at 1.5, then go in and cut at 4 and then a chunk at 8. Now take a listen. If it sounds honky cut at 600 hz till that goes away. L&R are really well balanced, great job there. Lizardking has some great inputs on REW. So you're not a bass head after all .


----------



## Kazuhiro (Apr 28, 2015)

sqnut said:


> cut that peak at 1.5, then go in and cut at 4 and then a chunk at 8. Now take a listen. If it sounds honky cut at 600 hz till that goes away. L&R are really well balanced, great job there. Lizardking has some great inputs on REW. So you're not a bass head after all .


Haha sorry thats not L&R, thats car on and off. They are almost that balanced though!


----------



## ultimatemj (Jan 15, 2009)

Glad to see JohnM's input on my HTS thread is helping others.

That said, I'm not sure we've completely processed his feedback yet. 

Note his comments about random (uncorrelated) pink noise...


> over any short period its spectrum can deviate significantly from the ideal especially at low frequencies





> Random pink noise typically has a crest factor of around 12 dB





> That means to get a reasonably accurate (to within a few dB) view of the response at a single position you would need to leave the mic stationary there for about 30s, with the RTA averaging all the while.





> *Random pink noise is pretty useless for measuring responses./B]*


*

1.5sec of Random (uncorrelated) Pink Noise








Compare the 20-200Hz range when averaged for 30sec!









When I have been taking RTA measurements (at 6 mic positions and then averaging) I'm fairly sure I'm capturing "milliseconds" and getting random snapshots that (in the lower frequencies) vary up to 12db from the PN alone!

Once I have a chance to measure periodic PN vs random PN I'll share the results on my build log.*


----------



## Kazuhiro (Apr 28, 2015)

Here are some results after an RTA sesh..

Left and Right matched










Summed after a few tweaks (the variation in low frequency is just the sub going in/out of phase as I am moving the mic ear to ear)











Sounded so good...I almost cried..but then my ocd sense began to pickup something
The midbass alignment is odd to describe. When I try align them, it still sounds like the mono pink noise just ranges from passenger footwell to mid dash when i change the delay. And both drivers are matched quite well on the RTA.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

You must let yourself enjoy the breakthrough sound. I still remember the feeling from that first big breakthrough, perpetual smile on the inside and that top of the world feeling.......kinda like being in love for the first time after she said yes, she would go steady. It's for times like this that you spend all those frustrating hours tuning.

But always keep the ocd at hand. Eventually that's what is going to keep your sound quality moving forward. You're perhaps at 20% of where you would be if you keep tuning for a year. How far you go depends on when it's good enough for you. What is a must though is to have a reference sound in your head so that you can enjoy what's right and continue to pick what's not. Go back and forth with the same content between your ref sound and the car, and keep doing this. The differences will be subtle at first and then you will start picking them. 

If I may ask, how much of your tuning now is by measuring and looking at graphs and how much is it just by listening and correcting?


----------



## Kazuhiro (Apr 28, 2015)

Well at this point its hard to say, it ended up using ears a lot more before because the graphs were wrong. But I did the RTA session to get well into the ball park. I am moreso using a combination of both, perhaps I feel something in the bass is bothering me. If I know what frequency it is, it makes it much easier. If I dont however, I will start lowering the curve shape, using the rta to ensure it is going straight. I need the rta at the moment so when I make changes, I know what it looks like in the frequency domain. But the changes from now are all going to be due to ear preference.
My first pick is the bright upper ranges in the vocals, which is by no means as bothering as before, but I will drop 600 - 1k so it is the beginning of the roll off. 

Unfortunately I dont have a high end home 2ch to know a reference sound. The closest I have is a Philips Fidelio X1 headphone, which though mid market, provides a clean but warm sound. For now that is my reference... but I dont have plans for any other home audio purchases.t I have a homemade bookshelf pair with alpine dd components which may not have the reference sound, but the staging is excellent so I have a reference for that aspect if I need it (should have used it for hotel california haha). I have picked up that "The longest Time" by Billy Joel can be very hot in the midbass region, and I can notice it in the cans, but the car takes it a little too far unfortunately.


----------



## cajunner (Apr 13, 2007)

sqnut said:


> You must let yourself enjoy the breakthrough sound. I still remember the feeling from that first big breakthrough, perpetual smile on the inside and that top of the world feeling.......kinda like being in love for the first time after she said yes, she would go steady. It's for times like this that you spend all those frustrating hours tuning.
> 
> But always keep the ocd at hand. Eventually that's what is going to keep your sound quality moving forward. You're perhaps at 20% of where you would be if you keep tuning for a year. How far you go depends on when it's good enough for you. What is a must though is to have a reference sound in your head so that you can enjoy what's right and continue to pick what's not. Go back and forth with the same content between your ref sound and the car, and keep doing this. The differences will be subtle at first and then you will start picking them.
> 
> If I may ask, how much of your tuning now is by measuring and looking at graphs and how much is it just by listening and correcting?


not everybody has the OCD.

I agree to keep these little wins at tuning held in high regard but if the sound is similar to what this guy thinks is pretty good, it's probably pretty good and no reason to claim he's only 20% of the way to where he could be, or where it's implied, you are in tuning.

His system might need about 1.5 hours more tuning and he hits all the relevant points, how are we supposed to know where his system is in the scale from 0% to the final tweak?


At this point small changes may be all that is necessary and even then, not necessary at all.


I guess I take offense at the suggestion that you can assemble his system in your brain by looking at a graph and judge where he's at on the sound, maybe it's me...


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

cajunner said:


> not everybody has the OCD.


Read the post before mine and thy shall be enlightened. 



cajunner said:


> I agree to keep these little wins at tuning held in high regard but if the sound is similar to what this guy thinks is pretty good, it's probably pretty good and no reason to claim he's only 20% of the way to where he could be, or where it's implied, you are in tuning.


Perception bias. You are reading what I said based on your perception, while I am writing based on mine. So let me clarify. Tuning is a painfully slow process and I have mentioned that more than once in this thread. No matter how good you get to it, it remains a slow time consuming process. One year is a long time to stay focused on the hobby, but if one does it, then yes the sound will be better by a factor of five, and another five over the next year. That will be the perception if you A/B the sounds. Of course, unless you're competing, you can call it quits anytime, and I had mentioned that as well.

My intention was not to run down Kazuhiro, far from it. He has his timing and L/R balanced and a house curve that's in the ball park, I know what that sounds like and how it feels to go from not having it to having it. He's done it in matter of a week or two. It took me six months to get there. Both Gridcore and Kazuhiro have taken to tuning like a duck to water and they are hearing the results. Let them decide how far they want to go without someone telling them they are 1.5 hours away from nirvana. 



cajunner said:


> His system might need about 1.5 hours more tuning and he hits all the relevant points, how are we supposed to know where his system is in the scale from 0% to the final tweak?


No it will take longer than that. It is time consuming and it's not EASY. Kaz has probably spent 50+ hours if not more getting here, you don't see that time. Why don't you try it, before you dumb it down?





cajunner said:


> I guess I take offense at the suggestion that you can assemble his system in your brain by looking at a graph and judge where he's at on the sound, maybe it's me...


If tuning by graphs is all you've taken out from stalking the thread, then I don't know what to say.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Kazuhiro said:


> If I know what frequency it is, it makes it much easier. If I dont however, I will start lowering the curve shape, using the rta to ensure it is going straight. I need the rta at the moment so when I make changes, I know what it looks like in the frequency domain. But the changes from now are all going to be due to ear preference.


That correlation between what you're hearing and the correct frequency will come over time, for now just work on smoothing out the +/- 2-3 db peaks in the 1-5 khz range. Move the peq band up and down in small steps, and change Q's to smooth things out. 



Kazuhiro said:


> My first pick is the bright upper ranges in the vocals, which is by no means as bothering as before, but I will drop 600 - 1k so it is the beginning of the roll off.


By flattening the peak at 1.4 khz and 2.25khz, you will take oput a lot of the harshness you're hearing. If you are using a band that is close to these frequencies, just move the bands over to these two. If the bands you're using are further away then pick the first band below and above say 1.4 and move them a little closer to 1.4 and put them on wider Q's, you'll capture 1.4 between those two bands.

Cut 1.4 on both sides and 2.25 on the green side. After you're done with this listen to some guitars, if they sound like they are honking a bit, cut some at 600. 



Kazuhiro said:


> Unfortunately I dont have a high end home 2ch to know a reference sound. The closest I have is a Philips Fidelio X1 headphone, which though mid market, provides a clean but warm sound. For now that is my reference... but I dont have plans for any other home audio purchases.t I have a homemade bookshelf pair with alpine dd components which may not have the reference sound, but the staging is excellent so I have a reference for that aspect if I need it (should have used it for hotel california haha). I have picked up that "The longest Time" by Billy Joel can be very hot in the midbass region, and I can notice it in the cans, but the car takes it a little too far unfortunately.


Both the headphone and your home bookshelves will work great as a reference sound.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Kazuhiro said:


> The midbass alignment is odd to describe. When I try align them, it still sounds like the mono pink noise just ranges from passenger footwell to mid dash when i change the delay. And both drivers are matched quite well on the RTA.


Ok, lets try this one more time. This HP the midbass at 1khz on steep slopes, don't LP. Now try, now you should be track the centre across your windshield to mark that X that is vertically aligned with that from the mids and tweets. Get them stacked one above the other. This should work .


----------



## TwistdInfinity (Jun 7, 2015)

Sorry I haven't read the whole thread to see if you've tried this yet, but have you flipped the phase on your far side mid bass? I was having similar problems until I did that and then it was suddenly centred. It's definitely wired in phase, but acoustically it was out of phase and time alignment was only helping a little bit 

Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk


----------



## Kazuhiro (Apr 28, 2015)

Could be that the phase is backwards, I'll have to try it. 

I will admit I did spend countless hours getting here, far more than I should have. Rew sweeps never caused me trouble in the past, but now only the rta will show the accurate curve now. I'm rather annoyed I wasted so much time tuning wrong, but also greatful that perseverance paid off.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Kazuhiro said:


> Could be that the phase is backwards, I'll have to try it.
> 
> I will admit I did spend countless hours getting here, far more than I should have. Rew sweeps never caused me trouble in the past, but now only the rta will show the accurate curve now. I'm rather annoyed I wasted so much time tuning wrong, but also greatful that perseverance paid off.


Things take time and don't worry, you're doing really, really good. Try the cuts at 1.4 and 2.25 and see if the harshness reduces. I'm not a big fan of flipping polarity but sometimes polarity on drivers is wrongly marked or they are wired incorrectly and then flipping the polarity will help.


----------



## Kazuhiro (Apr 28, 2015)

I made the small cuts but havent given it a long listen yet. Unfortunately have an exam this saturday so I'l be cramming till then. 

I'd love to hear back from op on how the listening experience is going, and how the curve looks now. Grindcore...where art thou


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Good luck with the exam.....what subject? I agree it would be great to hear from Sam and hear how he's doing.


----------



## Kazuhiro (Apr 28, 2015)

sqnut said:


> Good luck with the exam.....what subject? I agree it would be great to hear from Sam and hear how he's doing.


High speed coms...3rd year electrical engineering. Fun stuff :sad::sad::sad:


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

Make your measurements of individual channels and adjust your EQ based on that. Avoid making adjustments based on a measurement of all channels playing. That should help you with the bass in the footwell.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> Make your measurements of individual channels and adjust your EQ based on that. Avoid making adjustments based on a measurement of all channels playing. That should help you with the bass in the footwell.


Andy, pure curiosity here, do you recommend this because the PN likely to be used by someone learning how to accurately measure in a car will be correlated between the left and right? If so, would the use of uncorrelated PN allow one to accurately measure an "all channels" scenario. 

Or is there a different reason?


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Hi Andy,

Thanks for popping in and it would be great if you can verify the following process to set timing and balance L/R:

1. Play mono full range pink noise one set of drivers at a time (woofer/mid/tweet) and get them to image at the same spot, hence the X marked on the windshield under the rear view. Get each set of drivers to image at the same tight spot at the X. In a three way the woofer band pass will typically contain frequencies which don't have height cues, so just HP the woofer at ~ 1khz and align for timing with mid and tweet. Timing is done.

2. Play the 1/3 oct, PN tracks and centre each frequency to the X marked above. Again the lows are not going to image up at the X and instead of intuitively trying to figure out if its L or R of the X, measuring the 50-400 range one driver at a time as you suggest would be the easiest solution, yes. 

3. Now play the sweeps and if timing and L/R is correct, each sweep will start from, stay at and fade away from the X. 

Done with timing and L/R response. The last bit is eq the combined response for dialing in the tonality.


----------



## Kazuhiro (Apr 28, 2015)

Thanks for the response Andy. It definitely sounds great but can sound greater. 
I will take your suggestion and eq drivers individually when I get the time, as it will sure involve making sure the each side adds up as a whole the same (should do if timing is right or may not due to other factors) and that the complete summed curve is fine. 
This should really constrain and balance frequencies to the correct drivers, which if timed right, will further detail the soundstage and fix the inaccuracies.


----------



## Babs (Jul 6, 2007)

I definitely recently became a huge fan of L/R matching and REW's tool to create a delta graph for running into the Auto EQ function or applying trims to one or other side to get L/R mids (for example) to be pretty darn dialed in equal. Even if the overall curve isn't some ideal, and I guarantee mine isn't, but what it does to center up the stage throughout the freq range is indescribable. 

It's not too much unlike listening to home speakers in an assymetrical room, and one is closer with different stuff in front and around it and angled completely different to you from the other. Then moving the two drivers to a symmetrical space and making the more 'offending' driver match the other, matching a good curve.

Granted there are guys who can do this fairly well by ear.. I ain't that good. UMIK-1 to the rescue, and then only make cuts unless there's much to be helped by a "small" gain somewhere.

Sorry.. It's friday and the coffee's flowing and since I have my tunes again I'm all chitty chatty.


----------



## Kazuhiro (Apr 28, 2015)

How do I ensure timing between driver groups is the best it could be? Test tone at crossover frequency and SPL meter? Or something using my ears?


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Measuring is the logical way to go about things, but measuring will only take you so far. At one point the resolution at which you measure is very different from the resolution at which you can hear a difference.

In my case, when I started out I sucked real bad at getting meaningful and repeatable measurements and it frustrated the hell out of me. For me it was easier and more intuitive to try and get timing from each set of drives and L/R response at each 1/3, fixed to a point. That solves the timing and L/R balance 90% and along the way you can keep measuring to see that you're actually getting better. Once timing and L/R is balanced measure and dial in the required curve.

This allows your ears to get better at picking small differences and it is this ability you will need once you have dialed in the base curve and you need to tweak the tonality. So in reality even tuning by ear means a fair amount of measuring.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Kazuhiro said:


> How do I ensure timing between driver groups is the best it could be? Test tone at crossover frequency and SPL meter? Or something using my ears?


You can use Impulse response, eg holm impulse. Not sure if REW has this. The only problem with IR is that you get sharp peaks that are easy to align on the mids and tweets. On the woofer and sub it's a much broader hump, so here again you have to set a high HP and then try.

For timing, the X experiment is a crude but effective solution. 

For balancing L/R I agree with Andy its better to measure 50-400 range one driver at a time. Beyond 400 the X will work for L/R too.


----------



## Babs (Jul 6, 2007)

Kazuhiro said:


> How do I ensure timing between driver groups is the best it could be? Test tone at crossover frequency and SPL meter? Or something using my ears?


Coherence between drivers with a "snap track" is one method I've used, where the two drivers become one. But being somewhat well timed does not mean in phase, so that's where your measurement through the crossover region comes into play.. pink noise or sweeps either, looking for destructive phase cutouts.


----------



## Beckerson1 (Jul 3, 2012)

Babs said:


> Coherence between drivers with a "snap track" is one method I've used, where the two drivers become one. But being somewhat well timed does not mean in phase, so that's where your measurement through the crossover region comes into play.. pink noise or sweeps either, looking for destructive phase cutouts.


I assume to fix such issues would require adjustments with the crossover. Such as type, slope, actual crossover points for the individual drivers. So you may find yourself crossing say your driver side mid at 1957hz but your tweeter may be 2156hz.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

I think what Kaz was struggling to confirm was the timing between the L&R mid bass, and a whole lot of folks jumped with response centric solutions. I think it started with misreading of the bass in the foot well comment. I am sure Kaz will figure out a way to confirm the timing on his mid bass, from all the options given. 

Changing xovers and slopes is going to change the response but have no effect on the timing. While on the topic of xover and slopes, your network is the foundation or base of the house you're trying to build. To build your sound the foundation needs to be solid. IMHO, a network with asymmetric xover points and slopes weakens the foundation. You want matching points and 4 th order slopes all round, or at the very least, matching LP/HP at each crossover

A lot of people will tell you that you can use the network to treat response issues like peaks and nulls, before you eq. Yes you can, but should you? No. This opinion is often spouted by individuals who are uncomfortable using the eq or don't know how to use it.
95% of response issues should be addressed with the eq and the balance 5% can be a combination of eq and a few clicks of TA if required. Don't correct response issues with with an asymmetric network. 

If phase coherence means anything in a car then you're only going to get it with the right timing and the right response. You're going to struggle to get the response right with an asymmetric network, i.e. underlap / overlap / asymmetric L&R points and slopes / asymmetric HP/LP slopes. To those who say I run an asymmetric network and it sounds fine to me...........well you have the potential to make it sound much better by using a symmetric network.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

sqnut said:


> I think what Kaz was struggling to confirm was the timing between the L&R mid bass, and a whole lot of folks jumped with response centric solutions. I think it started with misreading of the bass in the foot well comment. I am sure Kaz will figure out a way to confirm the timing on his mid bass, from all the options given.
> 
> Changing xovers and slopes is going to change the response but have no effect on the timing. While on the topic of xover and slopes, your network is the foundation or base of the house you're trying to build. To build your sound the foundation needs to be solid. IMHO, a network with asymmetric xover points and slopes weakens the foundation. You want matching points and 4 th order slopes all round, or at the very least, matching LP/HP at each crossover
> 
> ...


being that a moving coil loudspeaker is itself a band pass filter, the resulting acoustic crossover, ultimately the one that matters, will be a combination of the electrical filter characteristics coupled with the natural roll off of the speaker itself. Therefore, to achieve a symmetrical ACOUSTIC (the one that matters) crossover very often different ELECTRICAL filter orders are required. 

Simply selecting 24dB/octave for your high and low pass on a 2 way active component set, for example, DOES NOT in any way guarantee a symmetrical crossover end result.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Niick said:


> being that a moving coil loudspeaker is itself a band pass filter, the resulting acoustic crossover, ultimately the one that matters, will be a combination of the electrical filter characteristics coupled with the natural roll off of the speaker itself. Therefore, to achieve a symmetrical ACOUSTIC (the one that matters) crossover very often different ELECTRICAL filter orders are required.
> 
> Simply selecting 24dB/octave for your high and low pass on a 2 way active component set, for example, DOES NOT in any way guarantee a symmetrical crossover end result.


Name one set of home speakers that comes with asymmetric passive L/R filters? The only reason people use asymmetric is to try and cure response issues so that you need 'minimal eq'. Minimal eq in a car is an oxymoron.

Use symmetric and then use your eq to get a matching acoustic response. Tuning is much easier when you start with symmetric filters. Asymmetric just messes up your imaging.


----------



## SPLEclipse (Aug 17, 2012)

There's plenty of home speakers that use asymmetric filters in between drivers. I'd be willing to bet the designers would use different filters on each side if given the environment and seating position you find in a car.

I totally agree that EQ is fantastic, but crossovers and EQ are two sides of the same coin. They're both just filters. In some cases it is much easier to shape the response with a crossover than EQ, especially with limited EQ bands.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

SPLEclipse said:


> There's plenty of home speakers that use asymmetric filters in between drivers. I'd be willing to bet the designers would use different filters on each side if given the environment and seating position you find in a car.
> 
> I totally agree that EQ is fantastic, but crossovers and EQ are two sides of the same coin. They're both just filters. In some cases it is much easier to shape the response with a crossover than EQ, especially with limited EQ bands.


I was talking about asymmetric for L&R which folks use in a car. Asymmetric between HP/LP is very common on home speakers and the passives on component sets. But even the passives on the components don't have different filters for each side. 

I think with so many folks using asymmetric network in some shape of form, this topic can be filed under agree to disagree column, and we can move on.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Kazuhiro said:


> How do I ensure timing between driver groups is the best it could be? Test tone at crossover frequency and SPL meter? Or something using my ears?


Just looking at your FR graph, I think the groups are well timed because there is no sharp dip at any of the xover frequencies. I already told you the two ways I know how to check the timing.


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

sqnut said:


> I was talking about asymmetric for L&R which folks use in a car. Asymmetric between HP/LP is very common on home speakers and the passives on component sets. But even the passives on the components don't have different filters for each side.
> 
> I think with so many folks using asymmetric network in some shape of form, this topic can be filed under agree to disagree column, and we can move on.


They don't. Home speakers are designed to be identical left and right and tested using some kind of anechoic measurement. Once thet're in your living room, EQ is used to correct for the room. 

In a car, we also match left and right speakers, but not their enclosures and not their baffles. In addition, the reflective surfaces are so close that we don't hear them as echoes. We hear them as image spread and frequency response changes. 

Nick is right, the acoustic slopes are the ones that matter. However, setting your crossovers for 24dB/octave will get you a lot closer than setting them for 6dB simply because the attenuation rate is much higher.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> They don't. Home speakers are designed to be identical left and right and tested using some kind of anechoic measurement. Once thet're in your living room, EQ is used to correct for the room.
> 
> In a car, we also match left and right speakers, but not their enclosures and not their baffles. In addition, the reflective surfaces are so close that we don't hear them as echoes. *We hear them as image spread and frequency response changes. *
> 
> Nick is right, the acoustic slopes are the ones that matter. However, setting your crossovers for 24dB/octave will get you a lot closer than setting them for 6dB simply because the attenuation rate is much higher.


That is precisely my point that asymmetric L/R smears the image and affects the tonality, no matter how much one tries to balance things out with the eq. 
Yes, acoustic roll off is what counts, and it is much easier to match this L/R acoustic roll off when we start with matching points and slopes.

Asymmetric on HP/LP again makes it much tougher to match the acoustic roll off from each filter.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

sqnut said:


> I was talking about asymmetric for L&R which folks use in a car. Asymmetric between HP/LP is very common on home speakers and the passives on component sets. But even the passives on the components don't have different filters for each side.
> 
> I think with so many folks using asymmetric network in some shape of form, this topic can be filed under agree to disagree column, and we can move on.


Oh.......wow, not even kidding here, I had no idea that people used asymmetrical L-R xovers. Hmmmmmmm..........that's a tough one....I'm gonna have to side with the "not a good idea" camp on that one. 

Edit: I can't say that I've ever seen a scenario where that was necessary or desired.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> In a car, we also match left and right speakers, but not their enclosures and not their baffles. In addition, the reflective surfaces are so close that we don't hear them as echoes. We hear them as image spread and frequency response changes.


Andy, does the term "near field" accurately describe the listening conditions of most cars? 

Somebody asked me that the other day, and at first I was thinking "yeah, like that" but then I was like "we'll hang on now, IS that technically correct?"


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

So, how do we know when our setup sounds right? Is it when the measured response hits the desired curve, or is there something more we aim for? If the answer is 'I just know because it sounds right', my next question is, how do we verify that? I'm curious to hear how it works for everyone.


----------



## garysummers (Oct 25, 2010)

sqnut said:


> So, how do we know when our setup sounds right? Is it when the measured response hits the desired curve, or is there something more we aim for? If the answer is 'I just know because it sounds right', my next question is, how do we verify that? I'm curious to hear how it works for everyone.


When the sound reproduction from your car audio system is matched to the sound reproduction from your _reference_ audio system.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

sqnut said:


> So, how do we know when our setup sounds right? Is it when the measured response hits the desired curve,


 for me, it's definitely NOT that. For me, since I don't tune systems for myself, but for other people, I first get to know the client. 

How is this system going to be used? Do they own nice home audio gear? Are they an "audiophile"? How many presets? Different listening positions? What's their reference of good sound?..........and on and on and on..........

But let's take for example, a car (well actually it was a jeep) I recently tuned, with the instructions to make it "as good as YOU (me) can, how YOU would like it to sound"

I knew it was as good as I could get it when the music, familiar tracks, tracks that I know and have listened to on a variety of systems, from other cars to my KEF home speakers to my current reference headphones, etc., when THAT music brought a smile to my face, when every one else who heard it also gave me their feedback, when it was unanimously decided that it truly sounded brilliant. When people from other stores want to hear it, and when they do, they draw parallels to other incredible systems they've heard. 

That's how I know it's done


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

garysummers said:


> When the sound reproduction from your car audio system is matched to the sound reproduction from your _reference_ audio system.


 Exactly!! The point I was trying to make with my question was that unless:

A. You have a reference sound

B. You hear the difference between that ref sound and that in your car and correct based on that, you're not going to get the car sounding right, no matter how much you measure and tweak.


----------



## garysummers (Oct 25, 2010)

"_I knew it was as good as I could get it when the music, familiar tracks, tracks that I know and have listened to on a variety of systems, from other cars to my KEF home speakers to my current reference headphones_"

It is how you do it!

The point sqnut was making is that we have to have a reference audio system that we know is acoustically aligned correctly as a basis for tuning our car audio system. I would venture to say that having as many reference systems as you claim you consult to tune a car would lead to some confusion.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

garysummers said:


> "_I knew it was as good as I could get it when the music, familiar tracks, tracks that I know and have listened to on a variety of systems, from other cars to my KEF home speakers to my current reference headphones_"
> 
> It is how you do it!
> 
> The point sqnut was making is that we have to have a reference audio system that we know is acoustically aligned correctly as a basis for tuning our car audio system. I would venture to say that having as many reference systems as you claim you consult to tune a car would lead to some confusion.


No confusion, no two systems sound exactly the same. No ONE system is reference enough for me to fully know how every single system I tune should sound. Remember, every client has a different take on what's important, and what isn't. Since good audio systems are an artistic blend of *scientifically chosen* compromises, I draw on many different experiences to be able to say " yeah, this is a good one" 

Some systems remind me more of my home setup, systems that emphasize imaging, sound staging for example. 

Systems that are set up to play LOUD yet remain clean and undistorted, they might not remind me so much of my home setup, but they do remind me more of other really powerful systems with serious visceral impact that I've done or heard in the past. So yeah, I definitely draw on more than one reference. 

My headphones, admittedly not super premium, and only being powered currently by my iPad Air, nonetheless, I listen to those the most. Every day to and from work, for an hour each way at least. So I get yet another perspective there. 

No, I don't think having more than one reference is confusing. I think it's enlightening. 

Full disclaimer: on top of saying all that, let me firmly state that I personally have thousands of dollars and hours invested in my measurement setup at work. I rely HEAVILY on modern state of the art acoustic analysis software/techniques to tune systems. My ears then have the final say.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

I almost forgot, not only do I use different reference systems, but I recently started a project whereby I create my own reference recordings of live instruments, and I've been capturing the voices of people that I know and hear every day.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Seeing how the Grindcore the OP (who has been missing for a while :-( ) and Kazuhiro are Aussie and Kiwi respectively, this post seems appropriate. 

Due to their proximity and relative sizes, the two countries have this ongoing big brother little brother thing. If sheep rearing was a sport they'd probably be competing at that as well. Rewind to 8 months back and the two met in the finals of the cricket world cup. New Zealand was by far the best team (imho) of the tournament, but had an off day in the final, and the Aussies blew them away.

Fast forward to two days back and the rugby world cup final. No prizes for guessing the two finalists and this time the Kiwi All Blacks prevailed 34-17 in a well contested final. I'm a big fan of both the NZ cricket and rugby teams, both for the quality of on field and off field play. Sonny Bill Williams is the All Black player and Charlie Line is the 14 year old kid.

https://youtu.be/o1efwKglwZU

The two countries will be at it again in the next few days as they face off in a cricket test series. I'm rooting for the Kiwis and my 14 year old daughter is a die hard Aussie fan.......


----------



## Kazuhiro (Apr 28, 2015)

haha thanks for the post. Sonny Bill is actually local to me, his home stadium is just across the road from my work so you can expect Ive seen him around a few times. 
I should expect you would have watched the cricket too being a major nation in the sport.

Anyway this topic is really tipping the to-do tower of ways to fix my midbass issue. I am just going to stick with what andy said, and confirm with sqnuts L/R hp.


----------



## Spud100 (Mar 30, 2015)

We won't mention the netball at all!


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Kazuhiro said:


> haha thanks for the post. Sonny Bill is actually local to me, his home stadium is just across the road from my work so you can expect I've seen him around a few times.


I would love to live in a country where people inherently have the basic courtesy and decency which let's stars move around like normal people, not withstanding the odd request for a selfie . 




Kazuhiro said:


> Anyway this topic is really tipping the to-do tower of ways to fix my midbass issue. I am just going to stick with what andy said, and confirm with sqnuts L/R hp.


What exactly is your mid bass issue? With the discussion going in different directions, I might have lost track of the issue. So instead of writing a long post about an issue which is not what you want to check or correct, I would probably just add to the confusion. 

Is the issue that the lower frequencies pull to the far side footwell ? Or do you just want to confirm that your mid bass. mids and tweets are time? aligned.


----------



## Kazuhiro (Apr 28, 2015)

Its not so bad anymore. Maybe still a bit to the left. I have both drivers Eq'd within 1dB but I may have to reduce delay on the right a little more to centre it. The weird part about hotel california is that it was just the first two kick drum beats which came from the left, maybe its just the upper frequency products I am hearing from it. Another oddball: I have the balance/gain on the two midbass drivers set to 0.66 left, 1.34 right. No problems with the connections. I will be installing a headunit this weekend, hopefully it has no effect on my curve (all that hard work)


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Kazuhiro said:


> Its not so bad anymore. Maybe still a bit to the left. I have both drivers Eq'd within 1dB but I may have to reduce delay on the right a little more to centre it.


That should do it.



Kazuhiro said:


> The weird part about hotel california is that it was just the first two kick drum beats which came from the left, maybe its just the upper frequency products I am hearing from it.


You can use the headset's as a reference for tonality, but when it comes to an imaging issue like this, use your book shelves. It's possible the drums start by being close mic'd and image to the left at the start. Listen to it on on the bookshelves and if it gives the same effect, it's i the recording.



Kazuhiro said:


> Another oddball: I have the balance/gain on the two midbass drivers set to 0.66 left, 1.34 right. No problems with the connections. I will be installing a headunit this weekend, hopefully it has no effect on my curve (all that hard work)


Any specific reason for keeping L/R levels different? I normally keep L/R levels the same and just use the eq to balance L/R response. But since you've already balanced L/R with this setting, just let it be. The hu will give you a flat signal, so no it should not effect your curve.


----------



## Kazuhiro (Apr 28, 2015)

sqnut said:


> That should do it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Haven't tried speakers yet, headphones seem to have it from the right. Odd....

edit: I will have another crack at it in a few days. I will RTA at a higher volume to really bring out response problems if they exist.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Kazuhiro said:


> Haven't tried speakers yet, headphones seem to have it from the right. Odd....
> 
> edit: I will have another crack at it in a few days. I will RTA at a higher volume to really bring out response problems if they exist.


For imaging cues, you need reflections and with headsets there are no reflections, so the stage is squished in our head. Headsets are good for tonality but when we want to check imaging cues, it's best to use speakers in a room.

If the first couple of hits image from the right even on the speakers but from the left in your car, then it could be a timing and/or response issue. I think it comes in from the right too, cause I checked it in the car and mentioned it last time you asked. 

Check response one mid bass at a time and balance the 50-200 zone. If this zone is more or less balanced then just go in and cut delay on the right.


----------



## axipher (Oct 7, 2015)

Kazuhiro said:


> Haven't tried speakers yet, headphones seem to have it from the right. Odd....
> 
> edit: I will have another crack at it in a few days. I will RTA at a higher volume to really bring out response problems if they exist.


Just took a listen to Hotel California on my ear buds and my monitors and forgive my lesser knowledge of drum sets, but it sounds like there is a distinct snare on the right channel and toms on the left and right and the kick is mostly centered with a slight pull to the left.

Certain parts in the song though it seems like they've mixed it so that consecutive kick drum hits fade from right to left then coming back to just a little left of center.


----------



## Kazuhiro (Apr 28, 2015)

Probably a bad reference then haha!
I know the Sheffield Drum Record doesnt do anything like this for me.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

This is PRECISELY why I've begun recording my own reference tracks, so far I've done live drums. Since I recorded it, I know how it should sound.


----------



## Babs (Jul 6, 2007)

sqnut said:


> For imaging cues, you need reflections and with headsets there are no reflections, so the stage is squished in our head. Headsets are good for tonality but when we want to check imaging cues, it's best to use speakers in a room.


Should not the headphones give you spot on "panning" reference for track parts because of the lack of reflections and timing discrepency?

I find myself wondering a lot from track to track, is Nora or Dianna or Natalie or Kate or Allison panned dead center in this track or slightly right/left. 
(yep I like female vocals for center image vocals eval)
I would have thought headphones would answer that question succinctly.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

axipher said:


> Just took a listen to Hotel California on my ear buds and my monitors and forgive my lesser knowledge of drum sets, but it sounds like there is a distinct snare on the right channel and toms on the left and right and the kick is mostly centered with a slight pull to the left.


That's just drums close mic'd, so they are spread across your stage.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Babs said:


> Should not the headphones give you spot on "panning" reference for track parts because of the lack of reflections and timing discrepency?
> 
> I find myself wondering a lot from track to track, is Nora or Dianna or Natalie or Kate or Allison panned dead center in this track or slightly right/left.
> (yep I like female vocals for center image vocals eval)
> I would have thought headphones would answer that question succinctly.


Hard panning is easy to pick up with headsets. I was talking about overall imaging and staging. Think of it this way, the recording is made in a room and within that room you have the instruments and vocalists. You have to hear both to get the staging and imaging cues. 

With a headset, since there are no reflections the room is contained within your head and stage width cannot be wider than the distance between your ears, which is why if something is panned marginally left or right its difficult to tell with cans. The stage is tiny and kind of squished.


----------



## Babs (Jul 6, 2007)

sqnut said:


> Hard panning is easy to pick up with headsets. I was talking about overall imaging and staging. Think of it this way, the recording is made in a room and within that room you have the instruments and vocalists. You have to hear both to get the staging and imaging cues.
> 
> With a headset, since there are no reflections the room is contained within your head and stage width cannot be wider than the distance between your ears, which is why if something is panned marginally left or right its difficult to tell with cans. The stage is tiny and kind of squished.


I begin to see one point there as you're hearing JUST any ambiance in the recording, taking out any listening room acoustics. 

Also, if panned full left in a room, both ears will hear even far left panned information along with your listening room reflections, combined to psycho-acoustically perceive position and distance. One of the reasons I like a fairly dead room personally or a room with good absorption/diffusion balance. Not anechoic, but fairly quiet. In contrast, through headphones, you only get input in your left ear unless there's other ambiance or effects from that particular left-panned track or part that's present outside full-left from the mix down.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

sqnut said:


> Hard panning is easy to pick up with headsets. I was talking about overall imaging and staging. Think of it this way, the recording is made in a room and within that room you have the instruments and vocalists. You have to hear both to get the staging and imaging cues.
> 
> With a headset, since there are no reflections the room is contained within your head and stage width cannot be wider than the distance between your ears, which is why if something is panned marginally left or right its difficult to tell with cans. The stage is tiny and kind of squished.


Most popular recordings are actually NOT made that way. There are MANY over dubs, any "sound staging" is fully synthetic. It's not like they did it all (the song) in one take with all musicians playing simultaneously, all in the same room, with a couple room mics picking up the whole thing. There are some engineers who record this way, I've recently discovered Mark Waldrep. His recordings ARE this way. No EQ, no dynamic compression, no mastering of any kind (other than sequencing). 

Make no mistake, most popular albums were not recorded this way.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Niick said:


> Most popular recordings are actually NOT made that way. There are MANY over dubs, any "sound staging" is fully synthetic. It's not like they did it all (the song) in one take with all musicians playing simultaneously, all in the same room, with a couple room mics picking up the whole thing. There are some engineers who record this way, I've recently discovered Mark Waldrep. His recordings ARE this way. No EQ, no dynamic compression, no mastering of any kind (other than sequencing).
> 
> Make no mistake, most popular albums were not recorded this way.


Where have I suggested that recordings were done in one go???? The only point I'm trying to make is that every recording has the room and music recorded in it and with cans the room is inside your head.......and I think panning is something done while mixing and not so much during recording.


----------



## Kazuhiro (Apr 28, 2015)

I measured the midbasses and they were matched but.... wow. So I am crossed at 70hz for the high pass...But the result shows that they are playing as if they are crossed at 50hz or even less. I dont have any boosts that are causing this, so yeh, quite odd. I am going to try cutting it around there, and bringing the subwoofer levels up around the 50 - 70hz region. It seems the anarchys were doing most of the work, and that would be why they were giving my doors one hell of a beating.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

^^^ That's cabin gain for you, the sub will try and play above its electronic LP and the mids will push below the HP. If you get a chance to measure, post up the results. It would be interesting to see where you're at. Glad that the mids are matched......one less thing to fret about .


----------



## Kazuhiro (Apr 28, 2015)

Here is a little of this and that. I dont have the midbass pair alone measurement saved, I think I closed rew without saving 

Here is my previous curve, with and without subwoofer. 










Here is a change Ive been trying lately, a bit flatter under 50hz, like the jbl curve. Not sure whether or not I prefer it. 










Here is LR for that afterwards (ignore the 20khz anomaly...)
Blue is the better reference of the two, red needs to match better around 150,250, and the spot around 1k+











Is the subwoofer suppose to appear like that on rta? I am using 1/48th rta, about 30 averages going ear to ear, smoothed to 1/6th.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

I Think you nailed it.......how does it sound? I think you've spent a lot of time dialing it in .


----------



## Kazuhiro (Apr 28, 2015)

sqnut said:


> I Think you nailed it.......how does it sound? I think you've spent a lot of time dialing it in .


Sounds great. Responses from people I demo to are interesting. Ive had a couple people laugh at it. I ask what made you laugh haha? "I just cant believe it" "it puts everything Ive heard to shame". I gladly take the compliments but I always want to fish out criticisms for my advancement. These people wouldnt have heard a proper processed, time aligned system before, so I cant really get any advanced feedback from them.

My goal at the moment is to move the workload to the subwoofer before my doors fall apart (jokes). I will then just experiment with different curve shapes for 20 - 200hz to find what I like and compare them. I'll use multiple profiles.


----------



## TwistdInfinity (Jun 7, 2015)

Kazuhiro said:


> Sounds great. Responses from people I demo to are interesting. Ive had a couple people laugh at it. I ask what made you laugh haha? "I just cant believe it" "it puts everything Ive heard to shame". I gladly take the compliments but I always want to fish out criticisms for my advancement. These people wouldnt have heard a proper processed, time aligned system before, so I cant really get any advanced feedback from them.
> 
> My goal at the moment is to move the workload to the subwoofer before my doors fall apart (jokes). I will then just experiment with different curve shapes for 20 - 200hz to find what I like and compare them. I'll use multiple profiles.


If your mid woofers are handling the frequencies and the power you're throwing at it, I'd recommend just trying to fix the doors from rattling. It'd help keep the stage up the front more 

Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

TwistdInfinity said:


> If your mid woofers are handling the frequencies and the power you're throwing at it, I'd recommend just trying to fix the doors from rattling. It'd help keep the stage up the front more
> 
> Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk


^^^ this. The other thing is that with transferring more load to the sub (higher accoustic xover) the low end gets muddied a bit. I just have better clarity when I cross the sub and mids 50-60hz. Then again my woofers are mounted on dual 3/4" mdf rings with heavily deadened doors. So work on the install a bit if you have rattles and buzzing.


----------



## Kazuhiro (Apr 28, 2015)

I guess I will try go all out deadening them. I have fully covered outer and inner panels. The door cards are half covered. I cannot fit MLV in between them, so I used strips of hybrid foam cld. At my disposal I have three 80x40cm sheets of cld. Should I just attack each components and layer the rest? 

Sent from my HTC_PO582 using Tapatalk


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Can you cut the door card and just mount the woofer on a thick mdf ring? Looks sightly ghetto but it does the job...


----------



## Kazuhiro (Apr 28, 2015)

Maybe. If I did that it would take a lot of fabrication not to look ghetto 

Sent from my HTC_PO582 using Tapatalk


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Kazuhiro said:


> Maybe. If I did that it would take a lot of fabrication not to look ghetto
> 
> Sent from my HTC_PO582 using Tapatalk


Yeah, probably not a good idea. I just took a shortcut and worried about how it sounded w/o thinking about how it looked, though it never bothered me.

Assuming your woofer is mounted on a brace attached to the door, check how much clearance you have between the surround and your door card and maybe do a ring. Also cover every inch of the brace with stuff like dynamat. By adding mass you are lowering the resonance below where your driver is playing. It will take some effort but definitely well worth it.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

A while back Sam asked me what sort of curve would be a good baseline, well Kazuhiro's current one on the previous page is a good example. From here on in it's about tweaking in +/- 0.3-0.5 db steps to improve the tonality, and measurements are pretty much done and dusted once you get here. 

So now the sequence is:

Hear a defect--->identify the frequency--->cut/boost--->listen--->next issue---> rinse & repeat.

To hear the defect, you have to go back and forth with the same content between your ref sound and the car. The more you do this the easier it will be to pick the defect. Identify the frequency by breaking up the sound into sub bass / mid bass / mid range / highs. Over time you will get intuitive with picking the range and frequency within that range. Practicing with the Harmon how to listen tool, will help a great deal here. Do you need to cut or boost? If something sounds pinched, dull or muted, try raising a bit. If something is harsh, rough, sharp, bloated, grainy, try cutting. 

Another reference curve I like is the one in the Magic Bus.










Notice how it's a fairly smooth curve with minor peaks and dips where it's been tuned by ear. So get a smooth baseline and then +/- 0.3-0.5 db to dial in the tonality. The other interesting point is how L&R is matched to about 1.25 khz and from there on, the near side is progressively higher. This is to account for for the HRTF (Head related transfer function). Basically below ~ 1 khz the wavelengths are longer than the average distance between our ears. Also above 1khz we are increasingly more sensitive to L/R amplitude differences i/o timing differences. So under 1 khz, both L&R timing and amplitude must match. While above 1, it helps to keep the timing matched but due the shadow effect of the head the near side response is progressively louder than that from the far side. 

I haven't really tried this and I target matching timing and response at ear level, all the way through. I use the PN and X technique to match L/R FR, but have never measured to check if this L/R match, translates into a louder measured response on the near side. Just throwing it out for discussion.


----------



## Kazuhiro (Apr 28, 2015)

I'll be fine with matched sides haha...

One thing I notice in a lot of curves, from mine, to jon whitledge, to jbl; 50hz - 100hz is -5dB, and 100hz - 200hz is -5dB. Seems to be the ideal level?


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Kazuhiro said:


> I'll be fine with matched sides haha...
> 
> One thing I notice in a lot of curves, from mine, to jon whitledge, to jbl; 50hz - 100hz is -5dB, and 100hz - 200hz is -5dB. Seems to be the ideal level?


Yes that is correct. The main difference on the JBL curve is that the 160-1khz zone is flat. But I think in real terms, we need a gradual roll off here. Early reflections make the incident sound louder, and frequencies above ~500hz are increasingly prone to reflections. So even if the mic measures 300 and 800 at 80 db, your ears will tell you that 800 is louder, perceived loudness due to reflections vs measured loudness. Hence the required tail off. It's there on Jon's curve too.


----------



## Alextaastrup (Apr 12, 2014)

The shape of these rings is also important, as they should not restrict air movement from a back side of a loudspeaker. A conical form is appreciated with bigger inner diameter facing back.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

sqnut said:


> A while back Sam asked me what sort of curve would be a good baseline, well Kazuhiro's current one on the previous page is a good example. From here on in it's about tweaking in +/- 0.3-0.5 db steps to improve the tonality, and measurements are pretty much done and dusted once you get here.
> 
> So now the sequence is:
> 
> ...


Sqnut, (no battling here.....for real) I'm having trouble understanding what you mean by your explaination of the difference between the two curves, and how that relates to the HRTF. Am I correct in assuming that, let's say for instance, we were in a home audio scenario, and the left/right speaker:room:listener was totally symmetrical, then the difference in these two curves wouldn't exist? (wouldn't be needed, you wouldn't want them, etc.)

Therefore, it's a manifestation of the fact that (in the car) the closer side .........(take if from here.......).is perceived to be louder? So, red is the left, blue is the right. Or no, red is right, blue is left???


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Niick said:


> Sqnut, (no battling here.....for real) I'm having trouble understanding what you mean by your explaination of the difference between the two curves, and how that relates to the HRTF. Am I correct in assuming that, let's say for instance, we were in a home audio scenario, and the left/right speaker:room:listener was totally symmetrical, then the difference in these two curves wouldn't exist? (wouldn't be needed, you wouldn't want them, etc.)
> 
> Therefore, it's a manifestation of the fact that (in the car) the closer side .........(take if from here.......).is perceived to be louder? So, red is the left, blue is the right. Or no, red is right, blue is left???


Blue is left and red is right. This is the page from his website where he talks about various measurements in his bus, including HRTF. Measurements 

Of particular interest to me, is how the sheer size of the bus (4-5X our typical sardine cans) coupled with 30G of acoustic treatment, brings the reverberation times from ~50hz to 10khz within ideal range _and well above that of the typical car. _. If the reverb time is too short, it affects the 'openness' of the sound and limits how dynamic the sound is. So the best tuned car (however done), will be spot on tonally and in imaging, but always sound less spacious and dynamic than a decent 2ch in a room. 

If you sat in the top 2-3 cars by pure score and cast your eye around, you'd probably notice a lot of treatment and what's visible is perhaps only 40% of actual. A great tune + improved decay times = the real 2ch experience in a car.

Some more articles on HRTF:

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.442.5500&rep=rep1&type=pdf The text was too scientific for me, but scroll down past the text and visuals are a bit easier to understand.

http://www.umiacs.umd.edu/~ramani/cmsc828d_audio/HRTF_INTRO.pdf

Frankly, I've never given this HRTF thing a spin to see if it works. I have always worked with keeping everything from ~80-15 khz on acoustic centre vertical, instead of centering from 80-1 khz and then biasing 1-20Khz to the near side. But just in tuning, if the near side gets hotter in the 2+ range, it starts causing smearing, and the right side of the stage becomes more prominent/brighter, and it wrecks the balance.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

Ok, yeah, so, there IS SOME MERIT to looking at the ETC.....(by this I mean actually trying to achieve a more "room-like" decay time.....) 

(Thinking cap tightly secured!)

Sometimes it gets too tight and cuts off oxygen! LOL

Edit: thanks for the further explaination, I'm at work now, will re-read post more carefully, and check out link when I get the time.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

^^ why are your attachments always postage stamps?


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

sqnut said:


> ^^ why are your attachments always postage stamps?


I DONT KNOW!! And they're not ALWAYS, for some reason, if I take a pic right now, and post it, it will be big and clear, but upside down!!??


----------



## benny z (Mar 17, 2008)

Niick said:


> I DONT KNOW!! And they're not ALWAYS, for some reason, if I take a pic right now, and post it, it will be big and clear, but upside down!!??



And we are to trust YOU with technical readings?!?! 

Jk lmao


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

benny z said:


> And we are to trust YOU with technical readings?!?!
> 
> Jk lmao


Right!! Maybe I should figure out how to post nice pretty pictures ALL THE TIME, instead of sometimes. Honestly, hasn't been on my high priority "to do" list. 

Now, this problem of postage stamp pics only occurs when I use my iPad to post.

Using the computer, I did learn how to post pics using photo-bucket!  

"Yay! I got big boy pants!" LOL

(And thinking about it now, I suppose I could use the iPad to post via photobucket too)

Good thing I'm not claiming to be a......what are those guys called.....I.T. specialists......yeah, I'm not one of those guys.......

I got a brother-in-law that does that, maybe I should ask him how to post pics, 

Wait, what am I rambling on about?


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

use photobucket...


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

Ok, so here is pic I literally just took with my iPad....I started printing out "system reports" for our clients to help me explain how their systems can be improved thru tuning.

Edit: see, now why did that pic come out so good? Ahh hell, who cares! Enough of this damn picture talk!


----------



## susedan (Aug 11, 2015)

SkizeR said:


> use photobucket...



Out of curiosity, why does everyone seem to use photobucket instead of something like imgur? Reasons or habit? Just curious


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

susedan said:


> Out of curiosity, why does everyone seem to use photobucket instead of something like imgur? Reasons or habit? Just curious


A forum member once told me:

"there is this site called photobucket........."

This is all pretty new to me. What's imgur like?


----------



## Kazuhiro (Apr 28, 2015)

So much easier. 

Sent from my HTC_PO582 using Tapatalk


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

Kazuhiro said:


> So much easier.
> 
> Sent from my HTC_PO582 using Tapatalk


Sweet! Checking it out...............NOW!


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

Imgur test......

http://imgur.com/yIsXVyG

Is that how it's supposed to work? I probably didn't do it right.......I tried it from within the imgur app on my iPad. Let me try it from the actual site itself....

Test #2.....
http://imgur.com/P775BHz

Hmmmm........???


----------



## Kazuhiro (Apr 28, 2015)

I just copy image url and paste into some img tags I usually type up out of habit ( for nearly a decade lol) 

Sent from my HTC_PO582 using Tapatalk


----------



## susedan (Aug 11, 2015)

Niick said:


> Imgur test......
> 
> http://imgur.com/yIsXVyG
> 
> ...



Works! Assuming you meant to do what you did 

Just add a .jpg to the end of one of those links and it'll take you straight to the image (instead of the imgur page) e.g. http://i.imgur.com/P775BHz.jpg

Optionally, use the img tag to view the photo inline as well


----------



## SPLEclipse (Aug 17, 2012)

When typing your post, click on this thing:










and past the image link there. I fyou are hosting the image on photobucket or another site, you will not need to attach it to the end of the post.


----------



## susedan (Aug 11, 2015)

SPLEclipse said:


> When typing your post, click on this thing:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Perhaps it's just too late in the evening... I'm not picking up what you just laid down


----------



## bbfoto (Aug 28, 2005)

Replace the "xxxx" that are within the brackets below with the actual hyperlink to the photo.










For example, if the hyperlink to the actual photo is: 

http://i.imgur.com/P775BHz.jpg

...copy and paste the hyperlink text that is above so it replaces the four x's between the brackets...then you end up with this in-line image when you submit your reply or post:












Whenever you type your message or reply in the text box, above the text box there is this tiny icon in the row of icons:









You click on that tiny icon (which means "Post a Photo in your reply") and another text box will pop up where you then Paste the Hyperlink to the photo that you want to appear. Then click OK. This process will automatically place the image hyperlink within (between) the brackets of the







Tags and makes the photo show up in your post.

EDIT: This is the procedure when using a standard web browser, not "Tapatalk".
.


----------



## susedan (Aug 11, 2015)

I haven't tried the desktop browser version, but can't you just paste the url of the image and it automagically displays it inline, so lon as it has the image extension (.jpg, .gif, .png)? It does through tapatalk. 

Gonna edit to test this out on desktop

Edit: Just gotta add the img tags before and after on desktop browser. Gotcha!


----------



## T3mpest (Dec 25, 2005)

sqnut said:


> Yes that is correct. The main difference on the JBL curve is that the 160-1khz zone is flat. But I think in real terms, we need a gradual roll off here. Early reflections make the incident sound louder, and frequencies above ~500hz are increasingly prone to reflections. So even if the mic measures 300 and 800 at 80 db, your ears will tell you that 800 is louder, perceived loudness due to reflections vs measured loudness. Hence the required tail off. It's there on Jon's curve too.


When tuning by ear I've always had to cut my ms8 at 800 and 1k. There is a strong rising response in that area every time it EQ's at least to my ear. Above 1k, it levels back out again.


----------



## T3mpest (Dec 25, 2005)

It doubled posted, so edited this one to ask a question 

What frequency range is more important when dealing with depth vs width. I'm used to doing 2 way installs, but will be doing a 3 way install in this next vehicle. I know for 2 seat imaging you want PLD's to be as close to equal on your midbass, but what about depth vs width as those things are often a tradeoff.

I think I remember hearing depth was more about midbass placement and midrange placement determined width. I'm sure there is some overlap, especially near the xover point, but is this more or less true?

Midrange in my doors would allow me to avoid door rattles from trying to get midbass out of it. I also have **** PLD's in my doors as well lol. The kickpanel area in my car is quite a bit deeper and has much better PLD's (very good actually). I'll have to see if I can get enough airspace if this is the case.


----------



## cajunner (Apr 13, 2007)

have you seen any posts where mid bass in the floor is the bomb-diggity?

"once you go floor, you never go door" is the snappy, right?

but trying to get depth usually means putting those image drivers out front, far as you can.

is the mid bass part of the image?

does your music normally throw the mid bass into the middle, or do you have separation?

the depth of the stage is the area of expertise the surround cabalists have captured most thoroughly, since the illusion of depth is easier to define if you are within the stage, and not simply in front of it.

you may be more easily able to affect the depth of the stage using ambient drivers that produce an immersive effect, usually causing depth shift to a point nearer to your axis, it may be eerily concise, but also not delineated depending on your mounting locations.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

T3mpest said:


> It doubled posted, so edited this one to ask a question
> 
> What frequency range is more important when dealing with depth vs width. I'm used to doing 2 way installs, but will be doing a 3 way install in this next vehicle. I know for 2 seat imaging you want PLD's to be as close to equal on your midbass, but what about depth vs width as those things are often a tradeoff.
> 
> ...


Erin's posted some measured data in the reflections thread and his subjective experiences with stage attributes dealing with the three dimensions. My experience basically is from tuning a few cars with different speaker placements. To my mind the width / depth / height is 70% down to speaker placement and 30% is frequency related.

For instance depending on the recording extreme L or R stage could be anything from cymbals to kick drums, anything that is placed at the extreme should image there, it could be any frequency. In terms of width I had good results with woofer and mid in the door, but the best width I had was in this one car where the windshield was popped and 4" and 1" holes were cut into dash corners to mount a mid and tweet. Amazing width and depth on that one. We can tell L/R from about 200hz and up so those are your width cues if you want to look at it that way. Erin has a pictorial in the reflections thread of a car. Look at the width at corners of dash, pillars and doors. Easy to see where you will get max width.

Height cues are from ~ 1 khz and up, again having ~ 2 khz and up at dash level and higher will give you better height, so back to placement. Which is why in a 2 way like ours it's very important to have a tweet that can play low and is mounted up higher (dash level or pillars)

We perceive distance (depth) by the roll off in the highs, having the mids / tweets physically further (corners of dash are furthest) and with a roll off at the top end is what gives you the perception of depth. Getting your mids and tweets in the corners is great for depth. 

So yeah I think 70% placement and 30% frequency (xover) related.


----------



## Kazuhiro (Apr 28, 2015)

Regarding soundstage again; I have always had my stage in what felt to be the centre of the windshield, but I have only recently tried the 'real' centre, the point of maximum constructive interference, which is the far edge of the rear view mirror and may seem far off the centre. This is the only genuine way to achieve a full scale stage, with no compression at either side. The downside is that the centre seems very distant, with the singer usually being further away. I will say I like it though, as placement now seems more balanced


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

cajunner said:


> have you seen any posts where mid bass in the floor is the bomb-diggity?
> 
> "once you go floor, you never go door" is the snappy, right?


At least in my car that is the truth. I have a 10" midbass in ported boxes on floor board passanger footwell and one behind my driver seat. 

I never really knew what ,,transparent " meant until I set that up . 

Snappy at 250hz like no other indeed and I can't localize the midbass . At all! And it will flat out boogy down to 60hz and I don't hear the cones slappin around at all. I'm afraid now to do my doors because I've come to love the way it sounds. 

It's crazy because when I run off the sub the 60-100hz range that a sub would be able to play has such a diffrent sound than the midbass , it sounds awesome with no sub , and with sub crossed at 40hz it sounds very well balanced . 

I'm a floor box fellow for sure now.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Kazuhiro said:


> Regarding soundstage again; I have always had my stage in what felt to be the centre of the windshield, but I have only recently tried the 'real' centre, the point of maximum constructive interference, which is the far edge of the rear view mirror and may seem far off the centre. This is the only genuine way to achieve a full scale stage, with no compression at either side. The downside is that the centre seems very distant, with the singer usually being further away. I will say I like it though, as placement now seems more balanced


Take a tape and measure from passenger window to yours. The centre will probably lie somewhere near the far edge of your rear view. You don't want the image to drift too far left of this, because that will reduce the width on the near side.


----------



## Babs (Jul 6, 2007)

sqnut said:


> Take a tape and measure from passenger window to yours. The centre will probably lie somewhere near the far edge of your rear view. You don't want the image to drift too far left of this, because that will reduce the width on the near side.


Yeah I had wrestled to achieve dead center image which was perplexing because it keep wandering leftward, even though I knew my TA was dead on right. Come to find out it was a freq response issue. Drivers just weren't properly balanced. It was just a thrown together tune. 

Fixed it by remeasuring and doing good filter work from Room EQ Wizard's EQ section, dialing sides in better to a curve and matching each other. The results never cease to amaze me how the image and stage come into focus.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Babs said:


> Yeah I had wrestled to achieve dead center image which was perplexing because it keep wandering leftward, even though I knew my TA was dead on right. Come to find out it was a freq response issue. Drivers just weren't properly balanced. It was just a thrown together tune.
> 
> Fixed it by remeasuring and doing good filter work from Room EQ Wizard's EQ section, dialing sides in better to a curve and matching each other. The results never cease to amaze me how the image and stage come into focus.


Sweeps that stay fixed to one point are a great way to check for L/R balance. To check for L/R timing, play full range mono PN and play only the tweets. Mark a small X where they image. Then play only the mids and mark another X and then the woofers (this X will be near the base of the dash). Check to see if the three marks are all vertically aligned. If something images L or R correct accordingly. Simple home made recipes that always work .


----------



## Kazuhiro (Apr 28, 2015)

What I'm about to say is completely debatable and perhaps opinion, but this is how I feel about the stage in a car.

Most people look at the windshield for centre reference, but this is not correct. The following image (terribly drawn) illustrates two centres, one on the windshield and the other adjacent to the speaker positioning. The correct centre is the one that passes the adjacent line in the middle of the speakers. This can seem wrong to most however, as on the windshield, this is seems like far quarter. 










Its all about how you perceive that sound, and ultimately, depth. Try to imagine the vocals coming from the centre of the dash below the rear view mirror, not from the windscreen. This allows other sounds to complete the space and provide some depth.


----------



## Babs (Jul 6, 2007)

Kazuhiro said:


> What I'm about to say is completely debatable and perhaps opinion, but this is how I feel about the stage in a car.
> 
> Most people look at the windshield for centre reference, but this is not correct. The following image (terribly drawn) illustrates two centres, one on the windshield and the other adjacent to the speaker positioning. The correct centre is the one that passes the adjacent line in the middle of the speakers. This can seem wrong to most however, as on the windshield, this is seems like far quarter.
> 
> ...



I believe, meaning opinion which may be completely wrong but here it is, that your ideal and correct center stage is solely determined by having correct TA, correct left/right freq and level balance. 

Thus if those are all correct your image center will simply be what it is, and I suspect dead center between the drivers. While you can play with that center moving +- delays, that brings your TA and mid phase slightly out or incorrect. 

So I shoot strictly for correct. Then if the center isn't dead nuts between drivers and pinpoint at that point, it's very probably a frequency response imbalance. 

So if that is prudent, then it supports deeply placed drivers for deeper stage or more center windshield image. To a point. However in hearing Steve's (Captainobvious's) car with closer widely placed tweeters, I know a lovely deep stage is achievable with closer tweeters outside a-pillars. So it makes me go hmm. 


Sent from iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Kazuhiro (Apr 28, 2015)

Of course accurately matched fr is implied, along with each speaker crossing at the correct frequency, and separate driver groups in phase with each other.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

When I look back, I think one of the reasons it took me so damn long to figure things out and dial in the tune, is because I would periodically go down these tangential rabbit holes where my entire focus was devoted to one aspect. 

It could be anything, phase (wrecked my head over that one for a long time), staging, imaging etc. All my tuning would be focused on getting one aspect right and I'd forget to pay attention to how it sounded. So I'd be kicked about getting the vocals from a smaller spot with better L/R balance, but I'd totally loose track of the fact that even though image was sharper, tonal balance was meh. 

I'd only wake up to this reality a month or two down the line. If I had focused more on tonality once I'd got a decent centre and stable sweeps, progress could have been faster. Once you have the basics decent just focus on hearing and correcting the differences between the ref sound and the sound in the car. Get the car sounding more balanced, accurate, take the stretch out of the sound and a lot of the staging and imaging details will fall in place.


----------



## Babs (Jul 6, 2007)

Kazuhiro said:


> Of course accurately matched fr is implied, *along with each speaker crossing at the correct frequency*, and separate driver groups in phase with each other.


Yep and not just electrical crossover points, but acoustic. I have one right side with a ability to have an acoustic slope as though it's set much higher than the left. Right mid simply has a hotter response than left mid at the low-pass slope. Being on verses off axis of course. Hate my 2-way. hehe. To be expected. The imbalance shows big time with pairs overlapping on their charts.

Thus next time I tune, I'll try to shape their individual electrical low-pass filters so they measure closer to the same, meeting somewhere in the middle I suppose. Will be trying this as well with the tweeters. Letting crossovers be used to shape inequalities between sides. Slopes will remain all the same LR4.

A nice thing with a DSP that can apply filters individually. And tuning to acoustic as opposed to just assumed electronic crossovers.

But makes me think, it can't be good for the stage if you're getting those high-mid freq's from above the dash on one side, yet from the door on the other.


----------



## Kazuhiro (Apr 28, 2015)

Yep, I went back through and made sure all four drivers involved in a crossover were pinpoint on an x mark. Then go through with a test tone and make sure the phase is correct, and you'll find that the crossover point has to be very low. Although I have all of these matched, some drivers roll off more than others after their crossover points. Just more battles...












what a mess hahaha...


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Babs said:


> Yep and not just electrical crossover points, but acoustic. I have one right side with a ability to have an acoustic slope as though it's set much higher than the left. Right mid simply has a hotter response than left mid at the low-pass slope. Being on verses off axis of course. Hate my 2-way. hehe. To be expected. The imbalance shows big time with pairs overlapping on their charts.
> 
> Thus next time I tune, I'll try to shape their individual electrical low-pass filters so they measure closer to the same, meeting somewhere in the middle I suppose. Will be trying this as well with the tweeters. Letting crossovers be used to shape inequalities between sides. Slopes will remain all the same LR4.
> 
> ...


You should try balancing L/R on your mid bass with the X process and then check using sweeps. Start an octave below your midbass HP to an octave above your LP. I think you will get a _big _jump in imaging.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Kazuhiro said:


> Yep, I went back through and made sure all four drivers involved in a crossover were pinpoint on an x mark. Then go through with a test tone and make sure the phase is correct, and you'll find that the crossover point has to be very low. Although I have all of these matched, some drivers roll off more than others after their crossover points. Just more battles...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Someones been tuning.....a lot. Overall, it looks really, really good. Notice how there's a slight summation bump in the combined response at both woofer to mid and mid to tweet xovers? Its an indication of well timed drivers. What happens if you cut back a bit at 300 & 400 on your mid range? Try it and see. Does the sound become cleaner and clearer? Are vocals less bloated? If the sound thins oput a bit cut 1.6 a touch. ;-)

Would love to listen to your car now.


----------



## Babs (Jul 6, 2007)

sqnut said:


> You should try balancing L/R on your mid bass with the X process and then check using sweeps. Start an octave below your midbass HP to an octave above your LP. I think you will get a _big _jump in imaging.



Yep. I should point out that ragged mess I posted was without any EQ. I'll try to see if I had equivalents with some EQ on it from that session. That graph was generated with mic moving left/right in RTA with pink noise, thus the high-end roll-off on the tweets. 

I have a bit of a driver issue on the laptop so I'm getting on audio out on the jack so sweeps aren't possible until I get an audio-interface of some kind. Dell Vostro laptop (ancient) and UMIK-1 is the current gear. 

I have to admit, it's way to doggone easy to just generate mono-noise and do averaging in RTA whereas sweeps in the measuring tool require many stationary runs moving the mic between sweeps, then averaging etc. Takes like 10 times the time to get measurements done. I'm not opposed to it and know the benefits, but the noise/RTA method is just so doggone easy.


Sent from iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Kazuhiro (Apr 28, 2015)

Sweeps didnt work out for me. The response curve was way out of wack with reality on my umik-1. I did all mine with about 30 ear to ear averages (mic ritual haha) with stereo pn for each measurement. There is a ridiculous amount of summation at the 300 - 400hz range, sounds awesome though so I wont change. If anything from here, I may drop off after 8 - 10khz a bit more. 1.6khz could have a little cut, it isnt so bad. Sometimes it doesnt show up in the measurements. Might just be height or head position variation etc..

Lately spending time to find more tracks to test imaging. Anyone have particularly busy and well staged tracks they're familiar with, that I could test and report on myself?


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Babs said:


> Yep. I should point out that ragged mess I posted was without any EQ. I'll try to see if I had equivalents with some EQ on it from that session. That graph was generated with mic moving left/right in RTA with pink noise, thus the high-end roll-off on the tweets.
> 
> I have a bit of a driver issue on the laptop so I'm getting on audio out on the jack so sweeps aren't possible until I get an audio-interface of some kind. Dell Vostro laptop (ancient) and UMIK-1 is the current gear.
> 
> ...


The two senses one uses the most in our daily life are that of sight and sound. Every single second that we are awake these senses provide constant feedback on our surroundings and they are geared towards working together. It is incredibly quick, easy and intuitive to use these senses while setting timing from drivers and the L/R balance. Once you understand the process and try it, the results will surprise you. 

Just take a look a Kaz's graphs, I mean there is some impeccable stuff happening there. From what I understand, he has used the X process to set timing and L/R response. I hope he chimes in with how he ran the process, results there of, and avoidable pitfalls if any.


----------



## Kazuhiro (Apr 28, 2015)

I didnt exactly take the X route completely. Once I had my midranges accurately timed at the centre, I aligned the tweeters and midbasses to the midrange and got them completely in phase with tones at the crossover points. It was interesting to fiddle with the phase and t/a of only two drivers eg left midrange and midbass....moving my head around the driver area, getting a feel for the space the alignment constructively interferes..and those it does not. EQ was done with the mic for now, because although you can centre a tone by eq'ing l and r with your ears, you kind of need the mic to do that and get a target response simultaneously. If I did by ear fatigue would warp my hearing in short time. But I may still use the method to correct anything that doesnt feel in the right place.


----------



## Babs (Jul 6, 2007)

sqnut said:


> Just take a look a Kaz's graphs, I mean there is some impeccable stuff happening there. From what I understand, he has used the X process to set timing and L/R response. I hope he chimes in with how he ran the process, results there of, and avoidable pitfalls if any.


No joke.. That plot is pretty darn awesome. On this X-process, are you referring to the taping of driver pair center image points, or something different?


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Babs said:


> No joke.. That plot is pretty darn awesome. On this X-process, are you referring to the taping of driver pair center image points, or something different?


Yes, mark the X and then put a line of tape from the X to base of the dash. Use mono full range PN and time each pair of drivers to the X or the vertical line. Next use stereo 1/3 PN and centre each frequency to the X or the line. Take a listen and measure...........


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Kazuhiro said:


> Lately spending time to find more tracks to test imaging. Anyone have particularly busy and well staged tracks they're familiar with, that I could test and report on myself?


There are enough cues on your graph to suggest that your imaging should be fairly pinpoint to whatever is on the recording. The imaging will keep improving as the tonality improves, imho that is where you should focus on for a bit. Hear something on your ref (bookshelves or headsets) then hear it in the car. Pick differences between the two and correct. It will take a bit of effort but time well invested. 

For instance, if you have Tusk by Fleetwood Mac, listen to the title track. Play with cuts in 300-400 region, do the kick drums get tighter? Are the snares sharp and dynamic?

Then listen to Brown Eyes. This is a slightly breathy recording, but if it sounds too breathy / ahhh, try cutting 8 & 12-16. Aim for crystal clear vocals with just a tinge of extra air/breath.....


----------



## Babs (Jul 6, 2007)

Kate Davis.. She's absolutely incredible, very well produced and not just for tuning purposes I catch myself playing her album a bunch.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Babs said:


> Kate Davis.. She's absolutely incredible, very well produced and not just for tuning purposes I catch myself playing her album a bunch.


Thank you for adding to my daily playlist, she is very, very good. Seem's she got her big break cause someone else didn't show up for a show.


----------



## Babs (Jul 6, 2007)

Yep. Eat up with talent. 


Sent from iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Beckerson1 (Jul 3, 2012)

I wanted to share this quote I found in September 2015 edition of popular science. 

I like it cause it relates to me and how I like to tune. Especially fine tune. A RTA is nice but what really counts is what you perceive in the end.

John Gardo (Gardo headphones)

"I never watch the frequency meter, I'll start hearing what it's displaying and not the true sound."

Later on he says (talking about his late uncle)

"He taught me that listening to sound is like looking at a painting. You're not looking at the whole picture. You're looking at the brush strokes, listening to a particular part of a song. You really have to get on there and listen."


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

Beckerson1 said:


> I wanted to share this quote I found in September 2015 edition of popular science.
> 
> I like it cause it relates to me and how I like to tune. Especially fine tune. A RTA is nice but what really counts is what you perceive in the end.
> 
> ...


This is so very true. What the end user of the system (in most contexts here that means YOU) perceives is ultimately all that matters.

what is also so very true, is that on the way to that end result, in this day and age, an RTA is about as representative of the "measurement" side of the process as a smoke signal is to modern day communications technology.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

Babs said:


> Kate Davis.. She's absolutely incredible, very well produced and not just for tuning purposes I catch myself playing her album a bunch.


How do you purchase her music?


----------



## Babs (Jul 6, 2007)

Niick said:


> How do you purchase her music?



Yeah her website leaves a lot to be desired. I got this album from iTunes but don't see it on iTunes now. Very strange. 











Sent from iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Beckerson1 (Jul 3, 2012)

Babs said:


> Yeah her website leaves a lot to be desired. I got this album from iTunes but don't see it on iTunes now. Very strange.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Horde the hell out of that. All her stuff is unavailable atm... other then the leeches on Amazon asking 74 for that very cd.


----------



## Beckerson1 (Jul 3, 2012)

She has some more recent stuff on Sound cloud but other then that idk


----------



## Babs (Jul 6, 2007)

Beckerson1 said:


> Horde the hell out of that. All her stuff is unavailable atm... other then the leeches on Amazon asking 74 for that very cd.



Oh that suuuuuuucks!


Sent from iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Babs (Jul 6, 2007)

Oh that suuuuuuucks! K. I may have to pay it forward a little. 

Sent from iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

Babs said:


> Yeah her website leaves a lot to be desired. I got this album from iTunes but don't see it on iTunes now. Very strange.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


hmm....


----------



## Beckerson1 (Jul 3, 2012)

Babs said:


> Oh that suuuuuuucks! K. I may have to pay it forward a little.
> 
> Sent from iPhone using Tapatalk


Lol would be nice. She has a good voice


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

I checked yesterday at a couple of cd stores here yesterday, she's not available here. Could not find much in the way of legit downloads..........so just downloaded her Christmas album via torrent .


----------



## Babs (Jul 6, 2007)

Well.. I'll just leave this right here. I mean wow just freakin' wow!

Kate's big break


----------



## bbfoto (Aug 28, 2005)

Kazuhiro said:


> Lately spending time to find more tracks to test imaging. Anyone have particularly busy and well staged tracks they're familiar with, that I could test and report on myself?


Here are 5+ Music Test Tracks that I ALWAYS use to confirm that my system is tuned as good as it can get (at least with my skill set):

*"Peel Me a Grape" - Diana Krall - Love Scenes CD*

This track was engineered and mixed by the great Al Schmitt. There are at least two Key Elements to check for in this track:

#1. You should be able to hear and actually "visualize" Diana's head moving Forward and Back in the sound stage (depth), and also left/right. You can practically "see" her mouth and lips moving, and each little breath that she takes, along with the movement of her head. The image size of her voice or mouth is just exactly right, and the space or air around her voice and the other instruments is incredibly realistic. It just sounds "natural".

#2. Upright Acoustic Bass Transients! The Realism, but especially the Transients of the Upright Bass are incredible. Even though you may have the tonality of the bass sounding excellent, if you are not hearing these transients, your timing and phase coherency are not quite dialed-in yet with each Group of Left Drivers and each Group of Right Drivers, in addition to the Subwoofer(s) and the system as a whole. In general, the Transients and Dynamics in Every Track that you play will be better when you've got this right. (Brian Bromberg's "Wood II" CD is a great test for this, too.)

"Peel Me A Grape" is just an all-around great recording, but there _is_ just one thing that really bothers me about this track, and that is you can distinctly hear the noise floor of the vocal track come up and then go down again when Al fades the vocal track in/out. When Diana is not singing, the background hiss in the recording is very low. But you can hear the hiss increase as Al brings up the fader for the vocal track just before Diana's vocals start. It's most likely the vocal microphone's self-noise, gain hiss from the mic preamp and/or overall signal chain.



*"Woman In Chains" featuring Oleta Adams - Tears For Fears - The Seeds of Love CD*

There is just A LOT going on in this track! But everything somehow "fits" in the mix and has its distinct place in the sound stage.

The Key Elements in this track are the Image Placement (in both Height & Depth) of the Two main Vocal parts. Roland's lead vocals are Front & Center, and if your system is dialed-in perfectly, Oleta's background vocals seem to "float" about 6 feet BEHIND _AND_ ABOVE Roland (way out over the hood). There is also another male background vocal that is positioned deep left (the bassist in the video).

See if you can locate and count all of the different instruments in this track!!! There is a Shaker, a Triangle, two different "flutes", multiple keyboard synths, guitars, hard-panned percussion effects, and more...Watch the black & white music video on YouTube for some visual reference, but you'll need to listen to the Lossless, CD-quality track to hear all of this properly.

The frettless electric bass and the drums in this track are awesome, too....BTW, the studio (album) recording is actually Phil Collins playing the drums. 



*"Soul Driven" - Robert Miles & Trilok Gurtu - Miles_Gurtu CD*

Very Wide Soundstage. Excellent layering of instruments in both Depth and Width, and very nice realism and transients. It combines both traditional acoustic instruments and electronic/synthesized instruments.

There are a few really spectacular imaging effects to listen to in this one that should image completely around you (front/back/sides/above)! 



*"Lucia Di Lammermoor" - The Fifth Element OST*

This is the Opera track in the movie that's performed by the beautiful blue alien woman.  

The Key Element (pun not intended) in this track is the Imaging of the Female Vocal. Like the "Peel Me a Grape" track, this is another one where you can literally hear the Singer's voice move up and down and side to side. And it's just really nicely defined in space. Another feature of this track is the processed hall ambience of her voice and the orchestra.



*"Royals" - Lorde - Pure Heroine CD*

I'm sure that a lot of you already use this as a test track, and for good reason. It is a fantastic all-around track, catchy and enjoyable, but the Key Element for system evaluation is the 30Hz tone and specifically the Timbre of that note.



*"Soul of the Bahia" & "Beyond the Stars" - Jeff Bradshaw - Bone Deep CD*

REALLY Excellent, Wide and Deep Soundstage in these! And they both have A LOT going on, but everything seems to fit perfectly in place. And both tracks have nice, catchy melodies.

Excellent realism as well, with many LAYERS of DEPTH in the stage, and tons of Left to Right imaging to go with the layers of depth.

The Key Element here is that Every Instrument should be well-defined in the soundstage, with space or air between each. Mediocre systems and/or tuning will jumble a lot of the individual elements together, mainly with no separation depth-wise. These are LAYERED!


*"Music" - Madonna - Music CD*

Starting at 2:24, this track demonstrates what Time Alignment alone can do to your soundstage. At 2:24 the Entire Soundstage shifts to the Far Right. Check your Left and Right VU or level meters when this happens, or use your Head Unit's "Balance" control to listen to just the Left Channel and then just the Right Channel during this section. You will find that both the Left and Right channels are Equally Balanced in Level or Amplitude when listening to them individually, and it is SOLELY the Time Alignment that shifts all of the music & vocals to the far right. 

I could probably list 100 more tracks, but these are always in my "Go-To" list for evaluation.

Here is another thread where we discussed some great tracks that demonstrate extreme Width, Depth, and Imaging...

http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/diy-music-forum/146642-specific-sq-tracks-test-extreme-stage-width-depth-boundaries.html

.


----------



## Kazuhiro (Apr 28, 2015)

Awesome post! Will definitely report back!

I love realistic tracks with a close vocalist. "Hands" by Jewel was one I thought was great.


----------



## Babs (Jul 6, 2007)

^ Good stuff bbfoto.. Agree.. That Diana Krall track tends to be a go-to track for me as well. "Woman in Chains" as well is a silly awesome track. Tears for Fears I'm finding now with a good system is among the best produced of the 80's for sure I think. Should hear Erin rave over the Vinyl he's been spinning, which I can only imagine is stellar.


----------



## Elgrosso (Jun 15, 2013)

While re-reading this thread... thank you Babs, didn't know Kate Davis: double bass & nice voice, perfect!


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

This thread was a real trip .


----------



## Babs (Jul 6, 2007)

Elgrosso said:


> While re-reading this thread... thank you Babs, didn't know Kate Davis: double bass & nice voice, perfect!



Yep. She is the bomb!


----------



## Elgrosso (Jun 15, 2013)

derickveliz said:


> *Reading this thread made me remember the day I was trying to explain a friend that the Further apart physically the speakers are, the wider the stage would be. (see image below)
> 
> 
> 
> D.*


*

That's exactly what I needed! Cool gif derickveliz
I was searching for infos on midbass placement effect on width, because I'm really considering going to floor or kick.
3 way, let's say 80-500hz max, no less than 300hz/1 seat/with dsp
But the car has some rather large sills/rocker panels (not sure of the name here).
So I would lose minimum 6 inches per side, even more if I can't install them flush.

Midranges are on the dash so most of the width comes from them, but can the midbass reduce significantly the width?*


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Elgrosso said:


> ............. but can the midbass reduce significantly the width?


We are not very good at telling distance (read width) when the speaker is a 0 deg azimuth, specially at the frequencies a typical mid bass plays in a 3 way. For width place your mids and tweets at the widest point in a car, i.e. corners of dash and sails.


----------



## Elgrosso (Jun 15, 2013)

sqnut said:


> We are not very good at telling distance (read width) when the speaker is a 0 deg azimuth, specially at the frequencies a typical mid bass plays in a 3 way. For width place your mids and tweets at the widest point in a car, i.e. corners of dash and sails.


Hum I don't understand, since in doors or in kicks woofers won't be at 0 deg azimuth anyway (?)

Mid/tweets are in corners now, but I'll try to put them even further one day.








[/URL]


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

0 deg left and right not front and back.


----------



## Elgrosso (Jun 15, 2013)

sqnut said:


> 0 deg left and right not front and back.


Still don't get it sorry.
None are at 0 deg, lateral or heigth.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

If you keep your arms at your side and then raise them to shoulder level then that more or less is the angle from which you're hearing your midbass. We are very poor at localizing sound when it comes from that direction.


----------



## I800C0LLECT (Jan 26, 2009)

If you have a speaker that's perpendicular to your head and directly below you...you aren't able to discern if it's left and right.

But, with cues from the mid, your brain will presume mid bass location is as far left or right as the response it's matched with.

I.e. Left mid bass is under seat with mid range in the corner won't effect width of cues from left stage. Right mid bass will align with right mid range as well.

I'd let you listen to my car if I could. I think placing mid bass as far left and right is still preferred but not critical

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## Elgrosso (Jun 15, 2013)

Great, so not critical, midranges placement and tuning should give good results, that's what I wanted to hear 

I guess it's also related to HRTF in the other thread.
If we were just a head without any body, speaker lower or more in front at the same angle would be the same (to the ear to ear segment/the cone of confusion thing).
But since we have a body, it has an influence on "lower" more than on "in front".

Finally I understand now why seat boxes are so popular in Europe.
Always thought it was crazy :blush:


----------

