# JL Audio "MAX" Measurement System & TuN 4.0 Product Spotlight Premier Thurs. 10/21/2021 (YouTube Link inside)



## bbfoto (Aug 28, 2005)

Just saw this in my YouTube notifications and thought I'd share. Premiers 10/21/2021 @ 10am PST/1PM EST.

Will have to wait to see what it's all about...


----------



## bbfoto (Aug 28, 2005)

EDIT: Check the YouTube Link after watching the Trailer for the Premier time. Looks to be between Noon & 1 PM on the West Coast USA.


----------



## Audi-A3 (Jul 18, 2021)

Just watchEd this…. Tun4 looks like a very useful tool


----------



## JI808 (Nov 20, 2013)

MAX-KIT


MAX Audio Measurement System MAX™ is a professional-grade, dual FFT measurement system with five microphones. It is ideal for general audio system measurements, system tuning with DSP, troubleshooting and testing equipment, and solving OEM integration challenges. MAX™ has many applications in...




www.jlaudio.com


----------



## bbfoto (Aug 28, 2005)

JI808 said:


> MAX-KIT
> 
> 
> MAX Audio Measurement System MAX™ is a professional-grade, dual FFT measurement system with five microphones. It is ideal for general audio system measurements, system tuning with DSP, troubleshooting and testing equipment, and solving OEM integration challenges. MAX™ has many applications in...
> ...


I like how well it is integrated into the TuN 4.0 DSP software, and for the higher tier JL Audio dealers it's a no-brainer. But for the DIY'er $3,499 compared to a miniDSP UMIK-1/2 or UMIK-X + REW Pro, Smaart v8, or SysTune, etc?

@ErinH
@dumdum
@oabeieo
@Truthunter
@bertholomey
@captainobvious 
@SkizeR

At one point I think Andy @GotFrogs was working on a multi-mic array measurement system as well, but not sure if he is still pursuing it?


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

bbfoto said:


> I like how well it is integrated into the TuN 4.0 DSP software, and for the higher tier JL Audio dealers it's a no-brainer. But for the DIY'er $3,499 compared to a miniDSP UMIK-X + REW Pro, Smaart v8, or SysTune, etc?
> 
> @ErinH
> @dumdum
> ...


this is one of niicks creations, there has been some rumor of it here at the shop, from what I’ve heard it’s supposed to be pretty freaking awesome.

i’m definitely going have the store buy one as I tune a ton of vx amps

I am very excited to play around with it 

I thought I heard someone tell me something about maybe some smaart in there. I definitely could be thinking something else.... it’s been a while, and I know it’s been a while in the making also


----------



## HCWLSU101 (Apr 30, 2009)

I’m just hoping all the new features will work with my umik-1. If so, it’s a game changer and I’m glad JL did this!


----------



## AudioGal (Oct 16, 2019)

Very cool and definitely something that is suited for shops to optimize the setup and tuning process and the price reflects that. In watching the videos it almost seemed to have a Smaart V8 feel in areas especially around the 2 channel transfer function measurement. I would be curious in looking at the EULA and or the intellectual property statement of the purchased product to see if they are using someone else's API and FFT engine or if it is their own top to bottom. Either way pretty neat to see an industry focused measurement system.


----------



## Mic10is (Aug 20, 2007)

AudioGal said:


> Very cool and definitely something that is suited for shops to optimize the setup and tuning process and the price reflects that. In watching the videos it almost seemed to have a Smaart V8 feel in areas especially around the 2 channel transfer function measurement. I would be curious in looking at the EULA and or the intellectual property statement of the purchased product to see if they are using someone else's API and FFT engine or if it is their own top to bottom. Either way pretty neat to see an industry focused measurement system.


Bc it is Smaart at it's core. JL has a licensing agreement from what I understand. Then it's been repackaged into their Tune software

Yes, this is expensive...but my friend summarized it best by saying...people are willing to spend $2-4k on an amp or speakers but balk at investing in having the proper tools to tune a system which will ultimately make a much bigger impact than a single piece of equipment.


----------



## AudioGal (Oct 16, 2019)

Mic10is said:


> Bc it is Smaart at it's core. JL has a licensing agreement from what I understand. Then it's been repackaged into their Tune software
> 
> Yes, this is expensive...but my friend summarized it best by saying...people are willing to spend $2-4k on an amp or speakers but balk at investing in having the proper tools to tune a system which will ultimately make a much bigger impact than a single piece of equipment.


Ok that makes sense it sure looked like a Smaart ish built up varient.

Absolutel, i agree. I own a proper copy of smaart v8 and i have a EW m23r and other XLR mic’s to do my stuff. 

Tuning is the gold imho after the install. 

Like i said nice package overal.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

I have been beta testing it for the last few months. It's a killer unit. I don't necessarily think it's for the typical hobbyist (thanks to its price) but I do strongly believe that a shop should see this as an investment in a tool that will improve tuning time and allow for a better product for their customer. It will earn them their money back in no time. Especially given the going rate per hour that some installers charge for tuning. 

Aside from the tuning aspect, this sucker packs some SERIOUS internals that make its electronics measurement section on par with $20k+USD Audio Precision units. You can measure up to 80V peak input (which is about 800w @ 4ohm), you can measure line level inputs (for example, if you want to test a headunit's RCA output). You can do impedance measurements as well. But, to me, the coolest part is that the self noise on my unit sits at a very, very low -120dB at worst (and -135dB at best). I may actually start testing electronics with this thing.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

Got to play with it a few weeks back. It's pretty neat, but I also have a very hard time justifying its price. Even as someone who would use it once a week.


----------



## Turb0Yoda (Jan 4, 2019)

I wish I had a reason to buy this stuff lol.


----------



## vactor (Oct 27, 2005)

can't wait to try the Tun 4.0 on my vxi8008


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

ErinH said:


> I have been beta testing it for the last few months. It's a killer unit. I don't necessarily think it's for the typical hobbyist (thanks to its price) but I do strongly believe that a shop should see this as an investment in a tool that will improve tuning time and allow for a better product for their customer. It will earn them their money back in no time. Especially given the going rate per hour that some installers charge for tuning.
> 
> Aside from the tuning aspect, this sucker packs some SERIOUS internals that make its electronics measurement section on par with $20k+USD Audio Precision units. You can measure up to 80V peak input (which is about 800w @ 4ohm), you can measure line level inputs (for example, if you want to test a headunit's RCA output). You can do impedance measurements as well. But, to me, the coolest part is that the self noise on my unit sits at a very, very low -120dB at worst (and -135dB at best). I may actually start testing electronics with this thing.
> 
> View attachment 314400


dood , so so awesome , thank you for posting that , I’m definitely getting one for the shop


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

SkizeR said:


> Got to play with it a few weeks back. It's pretty neat, but I also have a very hard time justifying its price. Even as someone who would use it once a week.


i would use it 4-5x a week..... but, in all honesty,part of that would be just me wanting to play with it 🤓🤓🤓


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

Kinda wish I would have taken them up on the beta test offer so I could have gotten it without that price tag lol


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

SkizeR said:


> Kinda wish I would have taken them up on the beta test offer so I could have gotten it without that price tag lol


for reals ..... I’m jellie ..... that’s a cool privilege to help beta test , I was super excited to help with Dirac 2.0. That’s all I’ve been asked to help with as of now.

Erin has a dam good thing goin, he’s a stud in my book. I’ve always hoped someone would do a channel like his.

minidsp asked me to do a review of the 8x12 and I knew I wasn’t quite up for the precise typing. I referenced Erins write up and they used it and put it in there newsletter.... that’s so so cool


----------



## Cayo71 (Apr 22, 2020)

I’ll be testing TUN 4 w/ mini DSP microphone on my car that has VXi amps and compare with the tune I made using REW. Can’t wait to see how they compare. It will be interesting to see if I can use the same target curve.


----------



## mfenske (Feb 7, 2006)

I'm 11 minutes in to the video and already BLOWN AWAY by this thing.


----------



## bbfoto (Aug 28, 2005)

@AudioGal @Mic10is

Yup, noticed the obvious similarities to Smaart right off the bat as well.  Nice, powerful stuff that is done really well so no complaints.

@ErinH Although I had idea this unit was in the works, after seeing the video, I figured that you might be somehow involved since you've done a fair bit of beta testing on a few of JL's other products as well.  And Yeah, this will be a very nice tool to have in your arsenal.  Great to hear that its self-noise is so low, too. Might be a pass otherwise.

Did you test it using the supplied 5 microphones and mic array mounting bar & stand and/or your Earthworks mic? Just wondering about potential measurement anomalies due to the mic bar, mic clips, stand, etc? I suppose some typical wonkiness in the upper treble, constructive/destructive interference? (As opposed to how the mic is secured within the NFS "boom").

Anyway, I'm looking forward to how you are able to put the MAX to use and any potentially interesting revelations.


----------



## Mic10is (Aug 20, 2007)

I just drove to Charleston SC to John Kisers house this past week for help tuning my wife's X3 in preparation for Finals.
It's 4.5hrs one way.
Why would someone who's won championships in different orgs and built and tuned other championship vehicles do that??

Just to have his help tuning using Smaart.

Quite simply the ability to use smaart allows u to see things a basic RTA can't show you.
For me, most importantly is impulse response and phase alignment.
Being able to precisely time align in real time using impulse response and see where the signal is in phase and where it goes out of phase is crucial just like they said in the video.
For example, when aligning the sub. We could get good summation at the crossover point around 70hz...but then the phase wrap quickly went out of phase around 120hz....

That's out of the passband for the driver, but it's still in the region where the driver would play harmonics.
So we had to increase delay on other speakers to remove delay to get everything to line up.

What the tune software has added with additional features like auto eq and the auto alignment is a huge time saver.

I don't tune enough cars and don't work in the industry to justify the price, but is be happy to pitch in for someone in a reasonable distance from me to buy one and use it when needed


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

bbfoto said:


> Did you test it using the supplied 5 microphones and mic array mounting bar & stand and/or your Earthworks mic?


I have the 5-mic array.


----------



## JCsAudio (Jun 16, 2014)

Whoa, Tun4 looks like a huge upgrade over the previous version. I’m pretty excited to try this out with my Vxi amplifiers.


----------



## bbfoto (Aug 28, 2005)

JCsAudio said:


> Whoa, Tun4 looks like a huge upgrade over the previous version. I’m pretty excited to try this out with my Vxi amplifiers.


And Rob Haynes mentioned that the next update to TuN 4 will include additional functionality for their *TwK* DSPs. Not sure to what extent, but any added functionality is welcomed.


----------



## bbfoto (Aug 28, 2005)

Mic10is said:


> I just drove to Charleston SC to John Kisers house this past week for help tuning my wife's X3 in preparation for Finals.
> It's 4.5hrs one way.
> Why would someone who's won championships in different orgs and built and tuned other championship vehicles do that??
> 
> ...


No doubt. Smaart is incredibly powerful.

But I wish this MAX measurement/tuning rig was closer to $2,499 instead of $3,499, as I feel that exponentially more shops/dealers/installers would adopt it at that price.

But I completely understand the pricing considering the power, quality, and flexibility it offers, and the need for JL Audio to maximize their ROI.


----------



## Mic10is (Aug 20, 2007)

bbfoto said:


> No doubt. Smaart is incredibly powerful.
> 
> But I wish this MAX measurement/tuning rig was closer to $2,499 instead of $3,499, as I feel that exponentially more shops/dealers/installers would adopt it at that price.
> 
> But I completely understand the pricing considering the power, quality, and flexibility it offers, and the need for JL Audio to maximize their ROI.


No doubt, but considering the R&D to integrate w existing JL products and I wouldn't expect them to sell a bunch of them Bc it's a pretty niche item so they gotta make up some ROI there too.

It would be superb if all JL Audio dealers had the product knowledge and tools but there is such a steep learning curve to use smaart correctly I don't see it being adopted very quickly.

I mean hell, most major companies with a DSP provide dealer trainings and they still can't use even a basic DSP for tuning


----------



## bbfoto (Aug 28, 2005)

Mic10is said:


> No doubt, but considering the R&D to integrate w existing JL products and I wouldn't expect them to sell a bunch of them Bc it's a pretty niche item so they gotta make up some ROI there too.
> 
> It would be superb if all JL Audio dealers had the product knowledge and tools but there is such a steep learning curve to use smaart correctly I don't see it being adopted very quickly.
> 
> I mean hell, most major companies with a DSP provide dealer trainings and they still can't use even a basic DSP for tuning



My point was kind of that JL really NEEDS to sell a lot of these for the health of car audio and DSP uptake in general, as well as their own reputation.

Consider this: They have ~1200 dealers in the U.S. alone that are potentially selling and installing these VXi amps and TwK processors! However, probably less than 5% of the shops & installers truly have a Solid Grasp on how to PROPERLY tune a system from A to Z.

It's fairly simple to manually setup basic Crossovers just from the manufacturer's recommendations for their component sets, or based off of the included passive networks. But that's all A LOT of shops are doing with these DSP products, maybe along with basic T/A because just about everyone knows how to use a tape measure and can input the Delays accordingly. I've heard countless stories of installers not even setting up ANY of the DSP functions (or just extremely basic settings) and hiding the passive crossovers for the component set under the dash or in the doors.

And because of this, I'd say that 90% of these systems with VXi amps or TwK DSPs are going out the door to customers without the system ever coming anywhere near their true potential!  That's sad.

I know that if I were a general consumer I'd be really disappointed if I spent solid coin to have top tier VXi amps, C7 components, and a JL subwoofer installed by a shop and the system didn't sound much better than the OEM setup, or even potentially worse. We all know that improper use of a DSP can result in a horrible sounding system!

That HAS TO result in A LOT of customers who are completely underwhelmed with "DSP" after all of the build-up, hype, and extra money they've been convinced to spend to include it in their upgraded system. Unfortunately, this reflects poorly on JL Audio's product and on the REAL advantages of using DSP, even though it is absolutely not their product that is to blame. This needs to change.

Have you used the TuN 3.0 software with the VXi amps? It's pretty straightforward. And with the way JL has integrated the Smaart features into their GUI, and the "Auto EQ to Target" functionality, I think it will be a lot easier for shops & installers to use.

JL's presentation video for this product announcement was really well done IMO, a lot better than most of their other training oriented videos. JL just needs to make a new series of really well produced videos (because that's how people "learn" now) which go through the step-by-step setup, routing matrix, & tuning process.

And most importantly, each video needs to focus on just ONE aspect at a time so that users can search, find, and learn just the ONE topic & technique solidly without additional aspects and information that will overwhelm and confuse them. The training and/or training videos need to be broken down into a 1, 2, 3 process. Perhaps a "Basic" series, and an "Advanced" series.

I think that producing really concise, high-quality training videos is a much more effective and productive way to reach 1200+ dealers & installers. They can watch the videos as many times as needed to make sure that they understand every detail and aren't missing something. And they can watch them _whenever_ they have "down time", or just before they are going to begin a tuning session with the product.

Ideally you would then have a hands-on training session to solidify your "hand/eye coordination" and burn it into your memory, as well as have any specific questions answered. Trying to educate & inform over 1200 shops with multiple installers via in-person training is simply an impossible endeavor, and not enough in-person training time can be dedicated by the shop or their employees to make this info "stick".

A YouTube Livestream training session should be set up as a regularly scheduled "event" so that shops and their installers can ask their specific questions via the Live Chat while they have the MAX measurement rig set up with a VXi or TwK unit connected and the software open & running. The JL trainer/tech can then walk them through the process in question via a screen share of the software GUI.

IDK, just my thoughts the way I see it. :shrugs:


----------



## dumdum (Feb 27, 2007)

The biggest thing for me when I started using smaart was wrapping my head around delays, phase, and generally how it all worked together to sort the sound to the ears

Also I found it was critical with a single mic for the timing and phase measurements to find a spot that set the timing correctly and related to my ears, I played the system, set timing, corrected timing, moved mic, set timing etc until I didn’t have to correct the timing anymore, that was when I knew the mic was in bang the right spot, then it all dropped into place

If JL can make this into a package that is easy to get and understand then it can only be good for tuning, I will say its the same as any other tool, you need to use it repetitively to get good with it, I have a slogged away with smaart 7 and then di2 and got the hang of using it over two years 👍🏼

I also have a umik-x but haven’t really played with that so much… I need to work through some stuff with it and play


----------



## timg (Mar 10, 2009)

I would love to see JL Audio add something to their dealer search with a list of which dealers have this and have certified/trained personnel who perform to a minimum standard. I would definitely pay a dealer extra to do this for me if I trusted them. Unfortunately, my trust in most dealers is quite low, so without that I'm more likely to buy the MAX for myself... For now, I'll be experimenting with the new software and my UMIK to see how it compares with REQ/TUN.


----------



## x550ciLX (Jan 16, 2017)

Nice! Makes sense. Let’s take all of the shops that don’t know how to set input gains, and give them a tool to measure phase alignments in real time. That’ll help!

lol.


----------



## bbfoto (Aug 28, 2005)

x550ciLX said:


> Nice! Makes sense. Let’s take all of the shops that don’t know how to set input gains, and give them a tool to measure phase alignments in real time. That’ll help!
> 
> lol.


First of all, no one is GIVING anyone anything. It's a $3,500 investment. And those types of shops won't even care about or want this tool. They'll just continue on with their Wham/Bam "Deck and Four" and "LOC + Prefab Box/Subwoofer + Amp" jobs.

And I'd have to say that if a shop owner can't afford a SMD DD-1+ and his installers can't understand or learn how to use it, close your shop and start digging ditches...manually, LOL.


----------



## JCsAudio (Jun 16, 2014)

bbfoto said:


> And Rob Haynes mentioned that the next update to TuN 4 will include additional functionality for their *TwK* DSPs. Not sure to what extent, but any added functionality is welcomed.


Agreed, that would be nice. I’m still using a twk88 in my wifes car and in my F150 for now until I find the time to change it for the VXi or P-6 I have. TBH, my truck sounds really good so I’m not motivated to change it either. My CX5 on the other hand needs some work on tuning + the driver locations make tuning this car a real challenge. I also think the Vxi amplifiers sound better compared to my Helix P-6, but the P-6 has a very nice DSP built in with more features to it.

Learning to tune takes time like anything else worth learning but if someone wants to know bad enough then they can learn how to tune properly with the basics. If someone is going to do that for a living then they should know this. If a shop cant tune with Room EQ Wizard and a simple UMIK mic and get decent results then I feel like they wont be ready for JL’s multi array mic even if it can do most of the work for you. Maybe I'm off there but honestly, if a shop cant do a basic tune with a DSP and $80 mic then a shop shouldn't be charging people for installing a DSP. If they disclose this then I guess thats ok then.

I haven’t test driven the TuN4 yet but I like that they finally have an RTA and autotune feature built in which is about time, finally. JL Audio also does do a lot of training videos focusing on one topic at a time that they host on their facebook page. I never make the time to watch these videos but I do get the alerts often.


----------



## bbfoto (Aug 28, 2005)

@JCsAudio
For as powerful and _relatively_ simple as it is, I think that a lot of shop owners and installers just see REW as too daunting to take on and invest the time to learn. It's also a 3rd party solution with no direct dealer support.

As an example, Dean at *5 Star Car Stereo* who is a huge advocate of using DSPs has owned Andy's Audiofrog UMI-1 measurement system for like 3 years now. But AFAIK he has NEVER actually used it (except that he loves the included Test CD), because it would require him to learn to use the REW software...and learn to interpret and apply the resulting data. It's unfamiliar territory and a steep learning curve (from his perspective).

He KNOWS that it would provide excellent results, but at this point in time he's pretty set in his ways as far as "tuning" goes because his current methods have generally provided _satisfactory_ results for the majority of his customers. And in his case, producing his social media content takes priority.

But IMO, the fact that JL has now incorporated the actual "Measurement System" to be tightly integrated into the TuN software and their DSP products, I think that will help a lot more shops and installers "take the measurement plunge", as they are already at least somewhat familiar with the TuN software & hardware, AND they know that they will have direct dealer support and training from JL, whereas they are "on their own" in terms of using REW.

And although there are plenty of tutorials and videos for using REW, I'm sure that it is still viewed as somewhat of a "wild west" product and not a "car audio specific" product by most traditional shops and installers...compared to something like the AudioControl DM-RTA, for instance.


----------



## Cutaway (May 5, 2020)

I am really excited to see a piece like this which is kind of a tweaked version of SMAART but tightly integrated into JL's ecosystem. I highly doubt that 90% of dealers will ever have to pay the MSRP of this product and will likely get it for a much discounted rate. Helix's DSP software also does similar functions and i know that MSC has provided on site hands on training to installers to show them how to use it. But most of the shops around me who sell and install Helix (most also carry JL too) still can not tune a car... 

The "auto" concept is a huge step forward and a powerful tool, but the person using it still needs a deeper understanding of the basics of sound such as why an Electrical XOver point does not always equal the acoustical equivalent. The AutoTun/Auto EQ feature of these products is going to try and EQ things like environmental NULLS & comb filters. 95% of installers still do not understand the concept of level matching and barely understand gain setting and gain overlap. 

There are a ton of installers out there that are excellent at fabricating and making things looks really good. That is a skill set that those installers dedicated themselves to learning and what most shops and customers put value in. the concept of tuning and truly setting up individual components in a system to play as one is really lost on most people in the retail industry. Most industry people do not take the time to learn and understand the difference between Polarity and phase. And most shops do not want a car sitting in the bay for hours that is "only being tuned" 

I think this JL piece is amazing and deff needed and more than anthing i hope that it inspires both installers and shop management to see that fabrication is only part of the install job


----------



## msmith (Nov 27, 2007)

I am following all your comments with interest and I'll add a few as I re-introduce myself. It's been a while since I've dived into DIYMA. My name is Manville Smith and I'm the SVP-Marketing at JL Audio. I have been intimately involved in the TuN 4 / MAX project from its inception, which was about 3 years ago. It's fun to finally spill the beans and show off our shiny new toy. 

There are really two layers to this product intro. The first is the TuN software itself, which is free to download and includes Single FFT measurement functionality: RTA, Meters, Spectrograph. It also includes the Autoset EQ to Target function and tight integration with VXi and MVi amps (TwK coming in next update). The TuN software can run in "Measure Only" mode so it can be used as a standalone measurement system to help tune any audio system, from any manufacturer. Again, Tun 4 is free and available on the jlaudio website: www.jlaudio.com/tun

The second part of the intro is the MAX measurement system, which operates via the above-mentioned TuN software. When you add MAX, you add Dual FFT measurement capabilities: Real Time Phase, IR, Magnitude, plus multi-microphone capabilities (it comes with five mics). The multi mics can run via Hardware Multiplexing, where the MAX hardware combines their output to a single channel, OR it can run as discrete transfer functions for each mic input, which TuN can then combine and average in a number of fun ways. 

A big part of the "magic" in MAX is that it is designed in concert with TuN and has really nice default setups that help to avoid confusion and lead to a friendlier learning curve. I totally agree that we have a challenge in front of us to get users trained in how to use this product. As some of you have noticed, we have been training on the fundamental concepts for over a year now. Now, we will turn our attention to teaching how to use TuN and MAX, from basics to advanced topics. The goal is to help people achieve better audio through a sensible, yet complete analysis process.

MAX is not cheap, and we know that. The hardware is made to an extremely high standard, with measurement performance that rivals the best audio test equipment. It is rugged and designed for life in a working environment. The five mics are included, too. MAX is capable of measuring high voltage electrical signals, so it is also a very nice tool for analyzing OEM signals or any amplifier outputs, really. It can handle 80 V peak at each XLR input. And, naturally there has to be some money to go towards all the R&D, engineering and software development that went into all this.

When you connect MAX, the free TuN 4 software you've already downloaded is ready to accept it and run with it. While some of you with sharp eyes have noticed a resemblance to Smaart v8, it is not a direct port of Smaart. TuN 4 uses the same measurement libraries, which we license from Rational Acoustics, but there are additional features and several key differences designed to make it easier to use in our applications, and better suited for small spaces. A huge amount of work went into creating TuN 4 and incorporating the measurement libraries into it.

Of course, TuN 4's integration to our DSP products and the automatic routines therein add even more benefit if you work with our products, but you can use Tun 4 and MAX to measure any audio system and guide DSP setup for any manufacturer's product. You can even use MAX as an interface connected to other measurement software, like REW, or as a nice DAC when it's not working for a living. 

So, anyway... Sorry for the long post, but there is much to talk about with this product and I'm happy to answer questions or get answers to ones I might not have answers to.

Cheers,

Manville Smith
JL Audio, Inc.


----------



## JCsAudio (Jun 16, 2014)

Hi Manville,

Good to see you participating on this forum. I’m a big fan of the JL vxi amplifiers and Twk88 DSP’s of which I own several of each.

I would say that educating your dealer/installer base is critical to enabling your dealer networks to be more successful with their installations and this new JL tuning product. I’m pretty excited that you and your company have incorporated these new features into TuN4. I think this alone will make all your DSP products more attractive to the enthusiast. bbfoto discusses the complexity of REW and the overall difficulty in learning how to tune but I believe its all in how one approaches a complex process, their understanding of the basic concepts of tuning, and how audio interacts in an automobile. REW to me is just a tool, and honestly I do not use most of its capabilities because I feel I dont need to. If these people could learn the basic concepts then they could build on those concepts and everything else should come easier as they do the work. Andy Wehmeyer lays out these concepts beautifully in his tuning guide.

I started out using the autotune feature within REW and got good results. I did a lot of messing around and made a lot of mistakes in the beginning (still do) but once I started to grasp the concepts, I went from just messing around to developing a process that I can use in most any car and get good repeatable results. I feel like anyone can do this if they put their mind to it and learn the concepts (foundation) of which they can build on. They also need to put the time in and most people here are just enthusiasts like me but a few have been able to take things to the next level such as Nick Apicella who has probably logged tens of thousands of hours tuning, lol. He literally started out of his parents garage and now he owns one of the most successful car audio shops on the East coast. An amazing entrepreneurial story and I have had the privilege to listen to many entrepreneurs tell me their stories because of what I do for work.

Ok, so the first thing I did was update the TuN app on my iPad. One of the main features I love about the VXI amplifiers is that I can do a full tune wirelessly with my iPad and never connect the DSP to my laptop, although I still hate that I have to use it for REW. My question is will JL Audio incorporate the features in TuN4 into the iPad app?

Thank You,

John


----------



## vactor (Oct 27, 2005)

it's been abit ... is there any difference in Tun capabilities between the Twk-88 and the Vxi dsp in the amps? i seem to remember that there was, but ti may have just been that you can add BT control with the BT-C to the Vxi amps but not the twk.


----------



## msmith (Nov 27, 2007)

JCsAudio said:


> Ok, so the first thing I did was update the TuN app on my iPad. One of the main features I love about the VXI amplifiers is that I can do a full tune wirelessly with my iPad and never connect the DSP to my laptop, although I still hate that I have to use it for REW. My question is will JL Audio incorporate the features in TuN4 into the iPad app?
> 
> Thank You,
> 
> John


Hi, John. Appreciate your comments. I think we’re definitely on the same page. A lot of great businesses seem to start in garages. Apple comes to mind. Also a couple of buddies named Jim and Lucio who decided to build home speakers in 1975… they called it JL Audio. 

The tablets do not have the horsepower or I/O to run the measurement features of TUN 4, so the Tun Mobile software is staying at 3.x for now. The update you installed contains bug fixes, EQ gain range expansion, global max distance for delays in a network project, but no measurement capabilities. 

You could run TuN 4 on a laptop and still tune your Twk with the tablet. 

The new TuN 4 does not currently offer integration with Twk for eq overlays or auto-eq. We are already working on the next update to add TwK support, but it will take a few months. 

In the meantime, you can open two instances of TuN 4 on your computer, one for the TwK and one in “Measure Only” mode. 

Regards,

Manville Smith
JL Audio


----------



## msmith (Nov 27, 2007)

vactor said:


> it's been abit ... is there any difference in Tun capabilities between the Twk-88 and the Vxi dsp in the amps? i seem to remember that there was, but ti may have just been that you can add BT control with the BT-C to the Vxi amps but not the twk.


Compared to TwK’s feature set, VXi adds shelving filter options in the parametric EQ, as well as a tunable all-pass filter in each channel. Also, networking capabilities and wireless compatibility with TuN mobile via the VXi-BTC accessory. 

In terms of specs, VXi runs at 24 bit/96 kHz, whereas TwK and MVi run at 24/48. 

Regards, 

Manville Smith
JL Audio, Inc.


----------



## vactor (Oct 27, 2005)

msmith said:


> Compared to TwK’s feature set, VXi adds shelving filter options in the parametric EQ, as well as a tunable all-pass filter in each channel. Also, networking capabilities and wireless compatibility with TuN mobile via the VXi-BTC accessory.
> 
> In terms of specs, VXi runs at 24 bit/96 kHz, whereas TwK and MVi run at 24/48.
> 
> ...


time for a Vxi Tun 4.0 standalone DSP 

thank you M. you and the team are the man(s)!! (no gender is implied in that statement)


----------



## Cutaway (May 5, 2020)

msmith said:


> …,A lot of great businesses seem to start in garages. Apple comes to mind. Also a couple of buddies named Jim and Lucio who decided to build home speakers in 1975… they called it JL Audio.


And great people too, like a guy named Nick 👍👍


----------



## bbfoto (Aug 28, 2005)

msmith said:


> ...
> The tablets do not have the horsepower or I/O to run the measurement features of TUN 4, so the Tun Mobile software is staying at 3.x for now.
> ...
> Regards,
> ...


Thanks for all of the details, Manville.

I would think that the new iPad Pro models with the M1 CPUs would be more than capabile of handling the new TuN 4.0 computations?

I know that even my year old 12.4" Samsung Galaxy Tab S7+ does some serious multitasking, and I use several "heavy lifting" 4K video editing apps and powerful photo editing apps that run smoothly with no hiccups or stutters, as well as some very processing-intensive VSTs...all while loading/transferring/updating 40-60GB+ files from an attached portable 2TB USB-C SSD through a multi-port USB-C Hub.

But I guess one of the newer MS Surface Pros might be the way to go for more of a Tablet experience with Windows 10/11 and Tune 4.0. Has this been tested?

From what I understand there are still a few features that are not available when using MacOS, and only Wnidows 10 offers full functionality when using TuN 4.0? Can you specify what functions are lost when using MacOS?


----------



## msmith (Nov 27, 2007)

bbfoto said:


> Thanks for all of the details, Manville.
> 
> I would think that the new iPad Pro models with the M1 CPUs would be more than capabile of handling the new TuN 4.0 computations?
> 
> ...


There is no difference between Mac and PC versions of TUN 4 in terms of features. 

I’m no computer expert, but I’m told that TuN 4 is PC (Windows 10) or Mac (Catalina and up) only and a tablet version is not in the works. I’ll ask one of the engineers next time I talk with them for more detail. 

Regards,

Manville Smith
JL Audio


----------



## Cutaway (May 5, 2020)

bbfoto said:


> But I guess one of the newer MS Surface Pros might be the way to go for more of a Tablet experience with Windows 10/11 and Tune 4.0. Has this been tested?


I use a Surface Pro to run SMAART, I am assuming it would run TUN 4.0 also


----------



## timg (Mar 10, 2009)

Interesting that the MAX can be used with REW. I wonder how long until some of the Home Theater crew jump into it as a multi-mic measurement system. They go absolutely nuts for REW. 

I'm wondering how much shops are going to charge for tuning using MAX. It's not hard to forecast $500-1k for tuning. At that rate, if you make system changes frequently, have multiple cars, or want to use this for HT and auto use, then buying your own kit might actually start to make sense.


----------



## msmith (Nov 27, 2007)

Cutaway said:


> I use a Surface Pro to run SMAART, I am assuming it would run TUN 4.0 also


Surface Pro seems to work great. Yes... lesser Surface laptops may have issues.


----------



## msmith (Nov 27, 2007)

timg said:


> Interesting that the MAX can be used with REW. I wonder how long until some of the Home Theater crew jump into it as a multi-mic measurement system. They go absolutely nuts for REW.
> 
> I'm wondering how much shops are going to charge for tuning using MAX. It's not hard to forecast $500-1k for tuning. At that rate, if you make system changes frequently, have multiple cars, or want to use this for HT and auto use, then buying your own kit might actually start to make sense.


Sure... if you are really comfortable with REW, MAX can be used simply as a USB multi-mic interface. You would need to use TuN 4 to set MAX up and you might be tempted to try TuN 4's measurement capabilities. You can also run MAX with TuN 4 and REW concurrently! (You just have to make sure that both REW and TuN 4 are set to run at the same sample rate before you connect the MAX.)

No idea what shops will charge. That's up to them, obviously But, I think that MAX will remove a lot of the uncertainty that goes into their pricing now. A shop owner goes nuts when he sees an employee tuning a DSP for five hours, lacking a good method and the right tools. I think it could bring the price of a good tune down.


----------



## AudioGal (Oct 16, 2019)

timg said:


> Interesting that the MAX can be used with REW. I wonder how long until some of the Home Theater crew jump into it as a multi-mic measurement system. They go absolutely nuts for REW.
> 
> I'm wondering how much shops are going to charge for tuning using MAX. It's not hard to forecast $500-1k for tuning. At that rate, if you make system changes frequently, have multiple cars, or want to use this for HT and auto use, then buying your own kit might actually start to make sense.


I use Smaart already for room acoustic measurements . The 2channel impulse function works great to lower the noise floor of the measurement, such as a true 60dB dynamic range for RT60 measurments. Once you go 2-channel it’ll is hard to go back, lol!

REW has some other cool features though so using both for their respective capabilities makes for one powerful tool kit. We are so lucky to be able to have available such great tools. It will only get better 😁


----------



## JCsAudio (Jun 16, 2014)

The market and economies of scale will determine what the going rate for a tune will be on average. Shops have overhead like employees, taxes, equipment to buy and maintain, and training, etc. I think $500-$1000 isn’t unreasonable now considering how much work it can be but if these new tools cut down on labor and help shops produce consistently great results then prices could come down as more competitors enter the market. Right now its a very small limited nitsch market and I think most of the customers that can afford to pay $5000-$15000 for a professionally installed system are not your average joe, lol. 

There are a lot of people here that will gawk if the price of one pair of speakers is more than $300 but to be fair this forum was more about finding ways to make great sound without spending a lot and using sweat equity to get there. You also have hobbyists who enjoy the process of DIY, and then you have the people who recognize the value of that great sounding system but would rather pay, and have the means to pay someone else to do the work even if it costs thousands of dollars. 

JL Audio does offer the twk88 DSP which I still think is a great entry level (price wise) DSP. There are many entry level DSP’s but they tend to have issues especially with noise. The twk88 gives you a lot ofr the money in my opinion. 

💭💵🤑💸⚱


----------



## Cutaway (May 5, 2020)

Okay I have to ask and it’s out of ignorance not arrogance or being a smart arse. 
How does the max differ from using REW and SMAART other than direct integration with JL products? If a shop where already comfortable with and already made the investment of multi mic setup, SMAART and REW multi mic license? Why make the investment in this product? again not throwing shade or being negative.

i applaud JL for moving in this direction and am really excited to see this come out.


----------



## dumdum (Feb 27, 2007)

msmith said:


> Sure... if you are really comfortable with REW, MAX can be used simply as a USB multi-mic interface. You would need to use TuN 4 to set MAX up and you might be tempted to try TuN 4's measurement capabilities. You can also run MAX with TuN 4 and REW concurrently! (You just have to make sure that both REW and TuN 4 are set to run at the same sample rate before you connect the MAX.)
> 
> No idea what shops will charge. That's up to them, obviously But, I think that MAX will remove a lot of the uncertainty that goes into their pricing now. A shop owner goes nuts when he sees an employee tuning a DSP for five hours, lacking a good method and the right tools. I think it could bring the price of a good tune down.


To use multiple mics you need the rew pro upgrade that you get with the umik-x I think


----------



## HCWLSU101 (Apr 30, 2009)

Has anyone tried to use tun4 with a regular usb mic yet? I tried earlier today and can’t seem to get the RTA to work at all. I followed all the support in the help section to no avail.


----------



## msmith (Nov 27, 2007)

HCWLSU101 said:


> Has anyone tried to use tun4 with a regular usb mic yet? I tried earlier today and can’t seem to get the RTA to work at all. I followed all the support in the help section to no avail.


I will try to help. Let's check your settings first. Select the "Measure" tab and go to the "three sliders" icon on the top left of the screen...

You should be able to select your mic from the "Input From" pull-down menu. Select it. (If you don't see your mic in the pull down, you may need to check your computer's sound settings to see if it's visible there).

Now Select "1" from the Channel pull-down

Now Select where you want to output your signal generator audio... in the screenshot here, I have my monitor's speakers selected,

Now go to the RTA panel and select the pull down menu on the upper right corner of the RTA screen. You should see your mic listed. Click it so it's visible with the little green "play" arrow lit.

You should see your RTA on screen. If you don't, you might see arrows at the top or bottom of the RTA screen telling you that your trace is off screen. Use the up/down arrow on your keyboards to get the trace on screen.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

(Edited, I accidentally included other questions due to my fat thumbs and low skill at posting. )


Cutaway said:


> Okay I have to ask and it’s out of ignorance not arrogance or being a smart arse.
> How does the max differ from using REW and SMAART other than direct integration with JL products? If a shop where already comfortable with and already made the investment of multi mic setup, SMAART and REW multi mic license? Why make the investment in this product? again not throwing shade or being negative.
> 
> i applaud JL for moving in this direction and am really excited to see this come out.


MAX compared to other multi-mic systems -

I will attempt to answer this to the best of my ability. Like Manville, it’s been quite some time since I’ve posted here, and I hope you all will allow be back, even if briefly, to explain a bit about MAX/TüN 4. I am Nicholas Ames, my title at JL Audio is Electroacoustic Specialist, and I am now based in Phoenix, AZ.  The last time I was active on this forum I was working as an installer at Stereo King, in Aloha, OR.
I will start by directly addressing Cutaway’s excellent question. If a shop has made the investment in Smaart, microphones, an interface capable of all the channels needed (which is many more than just the mics, I’ll explain) the cabling etc., and the employees of that shop have taken it upon themselves to learn how to use it all… and if they do use it, regularly… then I say kudos to that shop, kudos to those installers, keep doing what you’re doing, you’re on the cutting edge.

In fact, it is the above scenario: investing in Smaart, the hardware to support it, the mics, a DSP dedicated just to generating targets (I’ll explain below), etc. which led to the development of MAX. Not the least of which was the need to be mobile. To travel. It used to require a shipment of 2 large cases of stuff to do only part of what we can now do with MAX.

Of course, if you have already made the investment of money and time to build your own multi-mic measurement setup, the MAX might not trigger your “I need this” button right away, but I’ll outline some reasons below that might just do that. And if you haven’t yet invested in a high quality acoustic test system, then we think MAX is a pretty compelling value.

Ok, so what might make MAX/TuN different from Smaart and a recording interface and mics?
It is our belief that with car audio systems, or almost any audio system, tuning the system does not mean only EQ. Many, many of you guys on here are highly talented at tuning systems, and you guys know this, so I’m preaching to the choir here. One of the absolute most critical aspects of tuning a system is controlling the interactions of the individual transducers. One of the more challenging things about active car system tuning is the fact that, in cars, we tend to “roll our own” crossover alignments (as they say in the pro audio world).
Because transducer interaction is so critical, it is often a key factor that differentiates merely good systems from unbelievably good systems. As a result, an acoustic target is about far more than just a 20-20k response shape. There should be individual acoustic targets for every active (or pair of active) transducers in the system. We can model the interaction of the transducers using a “regular old” IIR DSP.

The point of me saying all this is that, in TuN 4, what we call the Target Generator is really like a simulated 8 channel DSP being measured constantly, in real time. You can see the magnitude, the phase, and the impulse response of any, and all acoustic “Targets” or “modeled responses” that make up your overall system, and you can also see what happens when these individual passbands sum together, what happens when you delay one relative to the other, how it affects both the time and frequency domain, etc. These “Targets”,  are exactly identical to what you would have if you dedicated a full time, 8 channel hardware DSP to serving no other purpose than generating real time, on the fly target responses for your individual passbands, and if the interface you were using let you also measure all 8 of these channels in real time with Smaart, while simultaneously making your acoustic measurements, while simultaneously allowing you to sum any or all of them and measure that too.

So in addition to the channels needed for the mics, you would need an interface that has enough additional channels to facilitate the real time measurements of at least as many “acoustic target DSP channels” as you have passbands in your system.
Ok, so now you’ve set up a hardware (or software) DSP just to act as a target generator. Now your interface needs at least enough channels left for the 5 mics and at least one “loopback”, or hardware reference input. USB or Thunderbolt audio interfaces with this kind of channel count generally aren’t cheap, but you’ll need one, and you’ll need a dedicated DSP to act as a target generator, too, if you’re going to make a system from individual components that does what MAX does..
So now you’ve got the target gen system set up, you’ve got the mics and the XLR cables…now you’ve got to figure out how to get those cables into and out of the car unless you want to put what is likely a quite large Audio interface into the car. If that’s impractical, then you’ve got to figure out how to get 5 XLR cables, the audio cable carrying your test signal into the system, and the USB cable(s) from your DSP out of the car. Without leaving any visible indentations in the door seals that the vehicle owner will see. This can be a challenge.
With MAX, because of the compact dimensions of the product compared to most multichannel interfaces, there’s only 1 USB cable that needs to run out of the car, and a small DC power supply cable if you want to power MAX from 120VAC. Since MAX has a built in USB hub, your DSP(s) in the car can connect to it, so all you need is the one USB cable exiting the vehicle.

All the other stuff beyond just doing post install tuning:
If a person sets up all of this that I mentioned above, then they can do some pretty efficient, repeatable work. The use of the real time IIR based target system will give them insights into transducer interactions that they never would have gained otherwise, purely as a result of playing with the system and learning about how various filter types, slopes, delays and all pass filters, gains and stuff interact. (The reason IIR modeling works is because individual speaker drivers are minimum phase devices, just like the crossovers and EQ in your DSP)

At this point, you now are managing at least 3 pieces of software. 1 - analysis software, 2- DSP control software for the target generator, 3- DSP control software for the system you are tuning. It is a lot to manage, it’s at least as expensive as MAX, but you can do some amazing work and you can learn far more than you ever even knew there was to learn about system tuning and speaker interactions and all kinds of fun stuff (fun for nerds like myself). It should be noted at this point, if you have ever attempted to do what I am describing with recording interfaces and Smaart, then you know that a small, lightweight laptop isn’t going to do the trick. You will most definitely need a computer with significant horsepower to run all these simultaneous measurements in Smaart . Hopefully you’re using a hardware DSP for your target gen. If you’re using a software DSP (they do exist), then that’s even more horsepower required from the computer.

What you cannot do with a system like this is all the other stuff that you can do with MAX, which are things that need to be done on a far more common basis than just system tuning. You can’t do things like measure the output of amplifiers without fear of burning up the inputs to your interface. If you connect a big single rail Class D mono to the input of a Focusrite or RME for example, it very likely won’t survive, even if there is no signal playing (due to the large DC offsets that are often present on these kinds of amplifiers). Even if you attempt to put an XLR attenuator in line, the little resistors inside can turn into smoke in short order. Again, I’ve done this too. You can spend the time to build big AC coupling attenuator networks external to the interface, and if you know a shop that’s doing that, kudos to them as well. You’ll never get the noise floor of the measurement nice and low, and you’ll pick up all kinds of spurious noise unless you build it into some kind of shielded can…but you could do it. I know this from experience.
Another thing you can’t do with recording interfaces is accept any digital input sample rate from 8 kHz to 216 kHz without having to set the rate of the interface (and consequently your measurement software) to match. This is not a fun situation if the sample rate of the digital output you’re trying to test is 96k or higher, due to its effect on FFT resolution… or even if it’s just not exactly the same rate as what you’re currently running. It’s a pain in the butt to not be able to just “plug it in and see the signal” just like an analog input. Recording interfaces are built this way for a reason, and it’s one of the things that differentiate an interface made for recording and one made for audio test and measurement. Nor can you easily measure impedance (without building an external jig), which is immensely handy to know how to do in the install bay. It’s one of those things that once you understand how to do it, you’ll wonder how you ever lived without it.

I’m sure I’m leaving stuff out, little but important details like the fact that the measurement engines we are using are custom modified for us, by Rational Acoustics, to take into account the real world logistics of car tuning as opposed to the usual Pro Audio use case. That’s a story for another time. Also, there is the fact that we spent many months just getting the hardware to a point where it could withstand 10kV+ ESD strikes to any of its inputs or outputs without any kind of damage, balancing the compromises between every dB of noise floor sacrifice with added robustness was not something that I or the other engineers on the product took lightly.
In some ways, you can think of MAX as an engineering tool that we developed in-house to allow us the ability to test and engineer other products with, but one that we will also sell to the public, if they’re interested. That’s precisely what MAX is, I and other Engineers at JL use it daily for all sorts of tasks, and I also have the finest AP analyzers and Audio Interfaces and microphones and Oscilloscopes and all kinds of world class test gear that I am immensely lucky to be able to call “my own” at work. MAX still fills a needed role that none of this other stuff can fill, and it is so portable in comparison to other gear I have.

In conclusion, I think I can speak for all of us at JL Audio when I say that we are thrilled there is such interest in this topic and this product. For those that do buy it, we hope you get years of enjoyment and satisfaction from it, and you can always count on JL Audio to support you in any way we can.

Best regards,

Nicholas Ames
Electroacoustic Specialist
JL Audio, Inc.


----------



## dumdum (Feb 27, 2007)

Above you mention a speaker in a car is minimum phase… well I’d disagree, where it is subject to reflections and standing waves it’s far from minimum phase? You apply eq and the response won’t change by a proportionate amount, normally where there is a phase wrap in the phase display as you can’t eq reflected sound independently of direct as one is a consequence of the other

where a system is minimum phase you can ‘correct’ phase by eqing it flat.

I can see why this is a very good system and rolls lots of things into one, I am not sure on the above assumption and how much it will try and apply eq to various drivers where they aren’t minimum phase, and I am an example of a smaart user with a single mic which is excellent below 3-400hz depending on the size of the car, I don’t tune with an array, I use a moving mic and rew generally at 1/48 octave 

I have a umik-x but feel the regular pattern of the mics in a flat vertical plane and also the off axis response being different must mathematically lead to errors in measurements due to comb filtering effectively, I use an isemcon mic and a Scarlett 2i2 interface for smaart and it does what it says on the tin once I’d learnt how to approximate data and position the mic correctly as I mentioned previously

I should add to those wanting to play always position the mic tip at an angle 90 degrees to both mids and tweeters or an average if they are a distance apart, so in my car the mic tip ends up being maybe 10 degrees forwards of vertical so the mics polar and acoustic response is the same for both drivers, I see too many people measuring with a mic pointing perfectly up or forwards and making errors on the higher freqs where amplitude is more important, a mic is just like a tweeter, it beams in reverse effectively, smaller mic capsules exhibit this less, the isemcon is 1/4” vs a umik-1 for example that is 1/2” tip


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

dumdum said:


> Above you mention a speaker in a car is minimum phase… well I’d disagree, where it is subject to reflections and standing waves it’s far from minimum phase? You apply eq and the response won’t change by a proportionate amount, normally where there is a phase wrap in the phase display as you can’t eq reflected sound independently of direct as one is a consequence of the other
> 
> where a system is minimum phase you can ‘correct’ phase by eqing it flat.


The transducer is minimum phase. The resulting acoustic energy at the listening position may or may not be minimum phase, depending upon the frequency range in question. In cars, low frequency ranges (like subwoofers) tends to be perfectly minimum phase, and of course, as you go higher in frequency the dominant acoustic energy will indeed have excess phase.
This does not mean, however, that you cannot measure it, it does not mean that you cannot use the data, and it does not mean that you cannot model it with minimum phase IIR DSP. You most definitely can, and when you do, if you look at the IR for example, you’ll still see the minimum phase transducer still in there, at the beginning, with the impulse response energy that leads to the non-minimum phase behavior coming afterward.
Even though the “reflection dominant” energy happens very quickly in time after the direct arrival, it’s still after.
I probably should have been a bit more specific and stated the following:

“You can model the desired acoustic response for each active transducer using minimum-phase style IIR DSP. The reason you can do this is because the core transducers themselves are minimum phase. This does not mean, however, that the acoustic energy propagating from the transducer remains minimum phase, at low (subwoofer) frequencies it generally will, at higher frequencies it generally won’t. That’s perfectly fine, we still want to model the desired acoustic response, and we will use DSP, such as all pass filters for example, to purposely add excess phase when it is needed to match one speaker up to another who’s acoustic path has resulted in an uneven excess phase on one side compared to the other.”



dumdum said:


> I have a umik-x but feel the regular pattern of the mics in a flat vertical plane and also the off axis response being different must mathematically lead to errors in measurements due to comb filtering effectively, I use an isemcon mic and a Scarlett 2i2 interface for smaart and it does what it says on the tin once I’d learnt how to approximate data and position the mic correctly as I mentioned previously
> 
> I should add to those wanting to play always position the mic tip at an angle 90 degrees to both mids and tweeters or an average if they are a distance apart, so in my car the mic tip ends up being maybe 10 degrees forwards of vertical so the mics polar and acoustic response is the same for both drivers, I see too many people measuring with a mic pointing perfectly up or forwards and making errors on the higher freqs where amplitude is more important, a mic is just like a tweeter, it beams in reverse effectively, smaller mic capsules exhibit this less, the isemcon is 1/4” vs a umik-1 for example that is 1/2” tip


@dumdum, you make another very valid point here regarding the mics and the difference between the directionality of 1/2" to 1/4" mics. With MAX, we are using 1/4" pre-polarized electrets, very similar in diameter to mics like the iSEMcon EMX-7150 or Earthworks M30. We feel that the smaller diameter gives the user the flexibility to not really be concerned with aiming of the mics when used in the array format for the following reasons :

When used in the array format, inside the interior of the car, the random incidence nature of the acoustic energy (coming from many different directions) and the physical placement of one mic vs the other means that they are not going to all be receiving sound from the same direction...some might be getting more dominant energy from near side glass, others might be getting more dominant energy from the transducer itself, which is which can change depending upon which transducer you've unmuted, etc. Its all very "randomized" in a way (even more so when you start talking about working on many different systems in many different cars). Any differences at high frequency that might come from aiming tend to average out across 5 mics, so our recommendation is to focus on getting the tip of the microphone where you want it, and if that means you need to aim them up or down or left or right or diagonal, then that's ok.

Of course, this is just our recommendation to users who are going to be using MAX as a tool to perform a job function. In the end, as far as aiming goes, like most things with MAX/TüN, we have our recommendations but but we 100% encourage you to use it however you think is best. Not only that, but we can't wait to see the way it will be used. I, for one, have no doubt that you guys, the users, will come up with all sorts of ingenious ways to use MAX/TüN that we never thought of. We know that there is no way for us to predict all of the ways that a user will want to employ this system, as such we tried to leave the hardware and software very, very open and flexible and we tried not to lock the user down into one specific workflow or, as in the case of the array, one specific mechanical layout.


----------



## Cutaway (May 5, 2020)

@Niick 
Thank you for logging in and responding to our questions, you’ve provided some great information and in-depth explanations.


----------



## AudioGal (Oct 16, 2019)

Niick said:


> When used in the array format, inside the interior of the car, the random incidence nature of the acoustic energy (coming from many different directions) and the physical placement of one mic vs the other means that they are not going to all be receiving sound from the same direction...some might be getting more dominant energy from near side glass, others might be getting more dominant energy from the transducer itself, which is which can change depending upon which transducer you've unmuted, etc. Its all very "randomized" in a way (even more so when you start talking about working on many different systems in many different cars). Any differences at high frequency that might come from aiming tend to average out across 5 mics, so our recommendation is to focus on getting the tip of the microphone where you want it, and if that means you need to aim them up or down or left or right or diagonal, then that's ok.


I find this interesting. All mics should see all the signals ( frequencies) just at a different amplitude and delayed in time somewhat across each mic with one mic being time zero. Or put another way all mics through path length difference should see the same signal at slightly different times. Depending on the amount of delay the signals will add coherently or not. Being this is not a delay and sum array I assume, you are suggesting I think that the signal will add non-coherently and as a result form a quasi average of the signal with the largest amplitudes dominating the measurement . So are you suggesting that the mic array is immune to the delayed signals across the microphones because they ae not predominantly the largest amplitude ones as worded?

I find randomized is an interesting term as in each mic may see a different version of the same signal (magnitude and delay) but each mic should still see the same signal across the width of the array based on the speed of sound (delay). Would this not contribute to some level of comb filtering (constructive /destructive interference) or are you suggesting that the effect is so small that it is irrelevant. I would think off axis drivers to the array may experience this effect more so as they are arriving at the microphone array with potentially the most time difference do to the angle of the aperture relative to the transducer. Please help me understand how the array minimizes this effect? I am all for learning and moving forward  I am a moving mic devotee as well so I am all for understanding all aspects.

And mostly thank you for coming in and contributing to the conversation. I am speculating that this product due to its nice and neat collective measurement capability will contribute to an increase in the body (book) of knowledge distilled down to the masses that may have been more specialized and interest driven. This is awesome and training will be a deal breaker one way or the other


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

AudioGal said:


> I find this interesting. All mics should see all the signals ( frequencies) just at a different amplitude and delayed in time somewhat across each mic with one mic being time zero. Or put another way all mics through path length difference should see the same signal at slightly different times. Depending on the amount of delay the signals will add coherently or not. Being this is not a delay and sum array I assume, you are suggesting I think that the signal will add non-coherently and as a result form a quasi average of the signal with the largest amplitudes dominating the measurement . So are you suggesting that the mic array is immune to the delayed signals across the microphones because they ae not predominantly the largest amplitude ones as worded?
> 
> I find randomized is an interesting term as in each mic may see a different version of the same signal (magnitude and delay) but each mic should still see the same signal across the width of the array based on the speed of sound (delay). Would this not contribute to some level of comb filtering (constructive /destructive interference) or are you suggesting that the effect is so small that it is irrelevant. I would think off axis drivers to the array may experience this effect more so as they are arriving at the microphone array with potentially the most time difference do to the angle of the aperture relative to the transducer. Please help me understand how the array minimizes this effect? I am all for learning and moving forward  I am a moving mic devotee as well so I am all for understanding all aspects.
> 
> And mostly thank you for coming in and contributing to the conversation. I am speculating that this product due to its nice and neat collective measurement capability will contribute to an increase in the body (book) of knowledge distilled down to the masses that may have been more specialized and interest driven. This is awesome and training will be a deal breaker one way or the other


Hey @AudioGal ,

So lets start here:

If you image the mic array in a free field environment, one where the sound source is located, lets say...."in front of and off to the left" of the array....now..remember this hypothetical environment we are discussing is not the interior of a car, rather it is a free field environment where the energy propagating from the source of sound encounters the array and propagates on without ever hitting any boundaries and reflecting back again...so essentially only one "instance" of the sound is picked up by each mic. On a per-mic basis, there are no reflected copies of the sound being picked up. Ok...now imagine that the outputs of each mic are summed electrically and the summed result of all mics added together is plotted on a high resolution RTA.

If this were the case, then you are right, you would have comb filtering resulting from some mics being slightly closer to the source of sound, and therefore slightly closer in time. The summed output would indeed have the characteristic "sum/null" pattern with increasing frequency, and the exact pattern, or how low in frequency the comb filter extends would be a function of the physical distance separating the mics.

All of that is true.

What is not true, most importantly, is that we are not electrically summing the output of the mics

Also, we are not in a free field environment, but that is really neither here nor there, I just wanted to get a good, clean mental example of the concept without the need for concerning ourselves with reflected energy as well (additional delayed copies)

Since we are not summing the outputs of the mics, we do not experience comb filtering in the measured response as a result of microphone signal interaction. (Of course there will be whatever acoustic comb filtering is actually occurring in physical space, but not as a result of the mics' electrical signals being summed together)

What we are doing with the multiple mics, when used in RTA "multi-mic" mode...or what we call "multiplexing", is the following:

Another thought experiment -

Image that you have 5 microphones feeding a single RTA, but only ever 1 at a time, and you had a rotary switch that you could use to choose which one was feeding the RTA. Now imagine that you set the time averaging of the RTA, or the decay rate, to a long/slow value. Now imagine that you switched which mic fed the RTA and you continuously cycled thru the mics ... 1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4,5 (the pattern can be controlled too). Once you adjusted the switch rate and RTA time averaging/decay rate to result in a nice, stable response when reading, say, pink noise from a speaker...this would now be almost the exact same response shape that you get with a program like Smaart when you mathematically choose the "power average" in the RTA and feed it the same 5 discrete mic inputs. The "power average" will not be exactly the same as a straight up mathematical mean of the individual dB levels per RTA bar, instead, the resulting averaged response would give slightly higher "weight" to higher dB values from individual mics on a "per RTA bar" basis. So basically, higher dB values get higher weight in the average.

So in a nutshell...thats what we are doing with the RTA and MAX when you use multiplexing. The mic data is sequentially fed into the RTA, one mic after the other, but only ever one at a time, and the RTA's time averaging in combination with the cycling rate of the mics results in the averaged response of all 5 mics without the negative impacts of time differences between the mics, as you correctly stated would happen if the mic's outputs were indeed summed together.

What I meant by "randomized" was that the angle of incidence, or, the direction form which the dominant sound energy was arriving, can be different per mic, per speaker, especially at higher frequencies, where the mic's polar response has any kind of real effect. At lower frequencies, like maybe midbass drivers and subwoofers, the angle of sound at the mic isn't different mic to mic, but it wouldn't matter anyways because way down low the mics are very omnidirectional, so aiming then with respect to low frequencies truly doesn't matter. So basically, the reason I dont put too much concern about aiming is because at low frequencies they're omnidirectional anyways, at very high frequencies, in a car, the angle of incidence can be different per mic, per speaker, so I dont worry too much about it. With respect to aiming the mics, in a car, especially when used in the array format, it all "averages out in the wash"


----------



## AudioGal (Oct 16, 2019)

Excellent thank you Nick, that makes sense and address some of my concerns ( that I air 'd anyhow , lol). I figured for it to work , a multiplex setup is required to eliminate the time of arrival problem but I did not want to assume.

"Image that you have 5 microphones feeding a single RTA, but only ever 1 at a time, and you had a rotary switch that you could use to choose which one was feeding the RTA. Now imagine that you set the time averaging of the RTA, or the decay rate, to a long/slow value. Now imagine that you switched which mic fed the RTA and you continuously cycled thru the mics ... 1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4,5 (the pattern can be controlled too). Once you adjusted the switch rate and RTA time averaging/decay rate to result in a nice, stable response when reading, say, pink noise from a speaker...this would now be almost the exact same response shape that you get with a program like Smaart when you mathematically choose the "power average" in the RTA and feed it the same 5 discrete mic inputs. The "power average" will not be exactly the same as a straight up mathematical mean of the individual dB levels per RTA bar, instead, the resulting averaged response would give slightly higher "weight" to higher dB values from individual mics on a "per RTA bar" basis. So basically, higher dB values get higher weight in the average."

Makes sense. I am a SMAART devotee for the last year or so as well so think you for the added knowledge of the averaging function. and the difference to Max..

I am on board with your randomized explanation. 

Can you change the weighting of the mic's in Max like Smart especially in an array context. It would be interesting to weight the array mic's individually based on the side of the car you are measuring left or right to account for direct vs reflected response especially since the head creates a shadow effect depending on the side playing. And the weighting could be nothing if looking at both L+R at the same time. Sort of like a P.E.R.T weighting for each mic based on speaker ( transducer location ) location in the car being measured to simulate how we hear even more. This may create more confusion than it fixes though. More thought experiments and playing is in order


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

AudioGal said:


> Can you change the weighting of the mic's in Max like Smart especially in an array context. It would be interesting to weight the array mic's individually based on the side of the car you are measuring left or right to account for direct vs reflected response especially since the head creates a shadow effect depending on the side playing.


At this moment in time, with this initial software release (TüN v4.0), we do not have any direct UI controls that would allow for this. You could achieve this by simply having some mics gain higher than others, but with multiplexing you really dont want to dramatically change the gain of each mic relative to each other as this makes the resulting averaged response less stable, more "jumpy". The way to properly go about this would be to increase the "on time" of any given mic or increase the instances of it's appearance in the cycle bus. I would be lying if I said that there's no way at all to that second thing, there is, but it requires, at this point, a custom command given via the extensive scripting language that we have also built into TüN v4. I can talk about the fact that there is such a thing, as the "load script" button is visible in the UI, but beyond that we haven't figured out what, if anything, we want to release to the public in the form of the syntax for the scripting language. Suffice to say if there was enough interest from MAX users, we could certainly entertain adding such controls to the UI in a future release.


----------



## AudioGal (Oct 16, 2019)

Niick said:


> At this moment in time, with this initial software release (TüN v4.0), we do not have any direct UI controls that would allow for this. You could achieve this by simply having some mics gain higher than others, but with multiplexing you really dont want to dramatically change the gain of each mic relative to each other as this makes the resulting averaged response less stable, more "jumpy". The way to properly go about this would be to increase the "on time" of any given mic or increase the instances of it's appearance in the cycle bus. I would be lying if I said that there's no way at all to that second thing, there is, but it requires, at this point, a custom command given via the extensive scripting language that we have also built into TüN v4. I can talk about the fact that there is such a thing, as the "load script" button is visible in the UI, but beyond that we haven't figured out what, if anything, we want to release to the public in the form of the syntax for the scripting language. Suffice to say if there was enough interest from MAX users, we could certainly entertain adding such controls to the UI in a future release.


Yes I see what you mean. Weighted average would work with a delay and sum mics but in a multiplex mic arrangement it could/would cause jumps due to the long sequence of the mic train through the multiplexer. If you kept the overall measurement time window the same and parceled out the proportion of the time window to each mic giving the preferred mic more time in the overall window it would be a more stable and realistic measurement. Mic weighting should still work with native SMAART as it is a power average as you say and the mic's with more gain would skew the average as intended by the user I would assume but it does not seem ideal either. The cycle time adjustment seems better overall in the car environment . hmmm something to think about.

Ya, hard to imagine what scripting can be used for till it is put out into the wild and the user base uses it in predicable and unpredictable ways. Maybe in a year or two after the user community has acclimated to what you got now. It also opens up vulnerabilities and security issues that need to be accounted for in the interface design.


----------



## HCWLSU101 (Apr 30, 2009)

Is there an option to put in a microphone calibration file?


----------



## Mic10is (Aug 20, 2007)

The results for tuning using Smaart and with someone knowledgeable about how to use it


----------



## msmith (Nov 27, 2007)

HCWLSU101 said:


> Is there an option to put in a microphone calibration file?


Not yet, but it’s planned for the next update. The good news is that most measurement mics are more than flat enough for good measurements, even inexpensive ones.


----------



## UNBROKEN (Sep 25, 2009)

This kinda fell off. Anyone else playing with this system? Mine will be tuned with it today…looking forward to seeing what happens.


----------



## fatstrat (Jul 12, 2019)

UNBROKEN said:


> This kinda fell off. Anyone else playing with this system? Mine will be tuned with it today…looking forward to seeing what happens.


 Let us know your thoughts on it.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

UNBROKEN said:


> This kinda fell off. Anyone else playing with this system? Mine will be tuned with it today…looking forward to seeing what happens.


who is doing it?


----------



## UNBROKEN (Sep 25, 2009)

SkizeR said:


> who is doing it?


Jeffery Hald…and Nick Wingate is here too. I’m at MTI.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

UNBROKEN said:


> Jeffery Hald…and Nick Wingate is here too. I’m at MTI.


Oh nice. I thought you were out in california


----------



## UNBROKEN (Sep 25, 2009)

SkizeR said:


> Oh nice. I thought you were out in california


Formerly yes but I moved back to Texas quite a few years ago.


----------



## bbfoto (Aug 28, 2005)

UNBROKEN said:


> Jeffery Hald…and Nick Wingate is here too. I’m at MTI.


Curious how your system tune turned out and any thoughts on the MAX measurement system?


----------



## UNBROKEN (Sep 25, 2009)

My honest thoughts? It’s better than anything else currently available…period. I’ve had some really good vehicles in the past…my current one is better than all of them and uses stock speaker locations aside from the tweeters I moved to the sail panels. I’ve never owned anything that imaged or staged like this thing now does. I liked it before but I love it now. I’m pretty sure I could convince someone that didn’t know that there’s a sub in the dash…the upfront bass it has now is incredible. And that midbass impact….that just freaks me out.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

Crazy what you can do with some data


----------



## UNBROKEN (Sep 25, 2009)

SkizeR said:


> Crazy what you can do with some data


And there is a LOT of data. I don’t understand it…but the results are mind blowing.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

UNBROKEN said:


> And there is a LOT of data. I don’t understand it…but the results are mind blowing.


I'll be firing up my new mic array system most likely this week or early next week


----------



## JCsAudio (Jun 16, 2014)

SkizeR said:


> I'll be firing up my new mic array system most likely this week or early next week


Did you get the JL mic system?


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

JCsAudio said:


> Did you get the JL mic system?


No. I have something a bit different


----------



## Willbo (Mar 23, 2014)

UNBROKEN said:


> Jeffery Hald…and Nick Wingate is here too. I’m at MTI.


Did Jeffrey get the JL rig?


----------



## UNBROKEN (Sep 25, 2009)

Willbo said:


> Did Jeffrey get the JL rig?


Yep


----------



## bbfoto (Aug 28, 2005)

UNBROKEN said:


> My honest thoughts? It’s better than anything else currently available…period. I’ve had some really good vehicles in the past…my current one is better than all of them and uses stock speaker locations aside from the tweeters I moved to the sail panels. I’ve never owned anything that imaged or staged like this thing now does. I liked it before but I love it now. I’m pretty sure I could convince someone that didn’t know that there’s a sub in the dash…the upfront bass it has now is incredible. And that midbass impact….that just freaks me out.


Thanks for the reply and details. I figured as much.  The MAX measurement system with the updated TuN software make it _relatively_ easy to really dial in the response between drivers and the system overall. And IMO it's easier to grasp and use compared to the other software measurement tools currently available to us. This is partly due to JL's training videos for the TuN/MAX system, but also how they have designed and organized the TuN software. The combination is akin to providing us with a "Tuning For Dummies" and "Phase For Dummies" alternative. It concentrates the processes and gives us the tools we need to truly dial in our system, without a hugely steep learning curve, and without all the extra "fluff" in other tools/software that might otherwise complicate and confuse the process.

Now with that being said, I've never really had an issue in 95% of the vehicles and systems I've installed in obtaining excellent "up front" bass that is extremely tight, dynamic, and with excellent focus, which images even the deep bass frequencies precisely from Left to Right and Front to Back (with tracks that are mixed to convey it or mic'd to naturally capture that information). Off the top of my head, a quick example...though it's more midbass rather than deep bass...but try listening to the intro of "_Celestial Echo_" by _Malia & Boris Blank_ from the _Convergence_ album.

This "bass imaging" happens because nearly all bass instruments (even synthesized ones) have higher frequency harmonic components and/or percussive elements. These higher frequency elements and transients need to be matched precisely "in time" with the fundamental bass notes, otherwise the detail, dynamic impact, and "up front bass" illusion will be lacking or non-existent.

But I will say that since using Dirac Live, it has generally "tightened up" the soundstage overall with increased focus, depth, width, and separation/air/room ambience, along with better dynamics, compared to without DL. I'm sure that JL Audio's MAX/TuN setup will allow a lot more people to achieve similar results without using DL.

One prerequisite is that you really need to eliminate any rattles, buzzes, and resonances in the vehicle, which can be quite laborious depending on the vehicle. For example, the doors in most modern Porsche 911 & derivative models absolutely suck, and there are specific problematic areas in many vehicles that are difficult or impossible to completely tame. 

Anyhow, I'm really stoked that you are loving your new system, especially after all of the incredible time, effort, and expense you've poured into it! I usually get a huge grin on my face...and sometimes catch myself laughing out loud...nearly every time I hop in and drive one of my vehicles and play my system. And that's what it's all about!

Enjoy!


----------



## bbfoto (Aug 28, 2005)

SkizeR said:


> I'll be firing up my new mic array system most likely this week or early next week


Would be great to see an impromptu YouTube video of this.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

bbfoto said:


> Would be great to see an impromptu YouTube video of this.


There will be content. Classes too


----------



## bbfoto (Aug 28, 2005)

ErinH said:


> I have been beta testing it for the last few months. It's a killer unit. I don't necessarily think it's for the typical hobbyist (thanks to its price) but I do strongly believe that a shop should see this as an investment in a tool that will improve tuning time and allow for a better product for their customer. It will earn them their money back in no time. Especially given the going rate per hour that some installers charge for tuning.
> 
> Aside from the tuning aspect, this sucker packs some SERIOUS internals that make its electronics measurement section on par with $20k+USD Audio Precision units. You can measure up to 80V peak input (which is about 800w @ 4ohm), you can measure line level inputs (for example, if you want to test a headunit's RCA output). You can do impedance measurements as well. But, to me, the coolest part is that the self noise on my unit sits at a very, very low -120dB at worst (and -135dB at best). I may actually start testing electronics with this thing.
> 
> View attachment 314400


Erin, I'm curious if you have any further insights to share after using this system for a while?


----------



## toneloc2 (Nov 29, 2015)

i have one sitting beside me and hope to put it threw its paces in the upcoming week..


----------



## msmith (Nov 27, 2007)

A heads up to all that the new update of the TuN 4 for PC and Mac software now provides full measurement and tuning support for JL Audio TwK DSP's and also adds scope functionality. Still free, too.

jlaudio.com/tun


----------



## audionow (Oct 29, 2021)

Global eq in the update??


----------



## msmith (Nov 27, 2007)

audionow said:


> Global eq in the update??


No, that would require additional hardware capabilities, not just software. I you want a global EQ, you can use the preouts EQ's on VX (or unused outputs on a TwK)i as a global EQ by looping them back to another input.


----------



## captainobvious (Mar 11, 2006)

@msmith @Niick Does the free (awesome, thanks JL) TUN measurement software allow for multi transfer function/multi mic measurement with non-MAX hardware? IN other words, if I already have a mic interface and mics, does the software allow for usage beyond a single mic?

Love the kit- great solution. So much more portable and compact than a traditional setup as well which is a big plus for me.


----------



## yesiamthatman (May 12, 2021)

captainobvious said:


> @msmith @Niick Does the free (awesome, thanks JL) TUN measurement software allow for multi transfer function/multi mic measurement with non-MAX hardware? IN other words, if I already have a mic interface and mics, does the software allow for usage beyond a single mic?
> 
> Love the kit- great solution. So much more portable and compact than a traditional setup as well which is a big plus for me.


Negative. Those features are locked to Max hardware only. They licensed the underlying libraries from Smaart, so I imagine part of the cost of the Max kit is covering that.


----------



## captainobvious (Mar 11, 2006)

I figured that would be the case, makes sense. Thank for the confirmation.


----------

