# HOW COME NOBODY MAKES A GOOD DSP??



## IJCOBRA (Nov 21, 2014)

I've had several head units with DSP-like functions, and have had a Fosgate 3Sixty.3 for years. I feel I'm comfortable with the fundamentals of electronics and sound through my military & college training/experience and car stereo tinkering. I've spent hundreds of hours tuning my DSP. Looking at what is and has been available on the market, it seems that the mobile audio manufacturers are really dropping the ball on what a good signal processor should be and do.

There is zero reason that the JBL MS-8 and Alpine Imprint (and some head units) are the only DSPs with an auto-tune function. This is as silly as having to do long-hand math on a calculator. Manually tuning a car stereo takes weeks, months, or years of tuning with spectrum analyzers, o-scopes, and other expensive equipment to MAYBE get it right... and probably at just one listening position. There are just too many factors and variables, which is why having a computer (DSP) do it in about 5 minutes is a no-brainier.

But even the units that have an auto-tune function do not do it right. It seems to me they do not have a feedback loop. It seems they just measure frequency response and send delays to the speaker channels... without re-verifying that the corrections were adequate. Same for equalization: it measures and might reduce power at a few frequency points but was that enough? It needs a real-time negative feedback cycle.

They also do not adjust crossover points/slopes/types to find which work best and which don't.

Once the auto-tune is over, the DSP interface needs to actually show you what changes were made and allow for manual adjustment after that.

The DSPs seem to all be 8-channel and I think 12-channels is more appropriate now-a-days.

They also do not test the frequency and power limits of speakers and detect clipping, and adjust to maximize power and frequency range.

There should be a couple auto-tunes: flat, equal loudness contour, and "preferred".

I like how the MS-8 uses binaural headphone mics and has you look straight and to the sides during the auto-tune for a more average/balanced/on and off axis measurement, but other that it lacks all the other features I mentioned.

Just seems to me there is a lot of potential being left on the (design) table...


----------



## gu9cci (Mar 28, 2011)

I agree on all counts. 2016 technology should have at least all dsp Apple or Windows tablet tune friendly
Also I would gladly pay 2k for processor with advanced auto tune and 12 chanels


----------



## Victor_inox (Apr 27, 2012)

to establish point of reference what you consider good DSP?
home, pro, whatever?


----------



## IJCOBRA (Nov 21, 2014)

gu9cci said:


> I agree on all counts. 2016 technology should have at least all dsp Apple or Windows tablet tune friendly
> Also I would gladly pay 2k for processor with advanced auto tune and 12 chanels


I probably would too.


----------



## IJCOBRA (Nov 21, 2014)

Victor_inox said:


> to establish point of reference what you consider good DSP?
> home, pro, whatever?


One that has the features I mentioned, plus an iOS and Android interface.


----------



## ninetysix (Dec 6, 2009)

If we're still waiting for mythical head units with spdif that can play flacs.... You might be waiting a while for such a dsp!

Besides, if they threw everything and the kitchen sink into their next product, who's going to buy the next product after that? Like with cars, cameras, iPhones... They might be working a generation or 2 or 3 ahead, while marveling at the innovation in their latest model


----------



## IJCOBRA (Nov 21, 2014)

ninetysix said:


> If we're still waiting for mythical head units with spdif that can play flacs.... You might be waiting a while for such a dsp!
> 
> Besides, if they threw everything and the kitchen sink into their next product, who's going to buy the next product after that? Like with cars, cameras, iPhones... They might be working a generation or 2 or 3 ahead, while marveling at the innovation in their latest model


Good point: we also need a fully digital headunit (zero D/A conversions) which sends the digital signal (via optical or even Wi-Fi) to the DSP. For a while TOSLINK was included on some head units but it seems we are regressing. I hate that. I'm appalled in the amount of D/A, A/D, D/A again, and D/A again conversions that happen when I play my iPhone through my stereo. You loose some resolution with every conversion, like saving a JPG image over and over. Eventually it looks like crap.

So when I listen to music in my car stereo through my iPhone:
The original analog music was recorded onto analog tapes. These tapes were played and digitized (A/D) and pressed on a CD. Depending on the "ripping" method, the CD could have been played and converted to analog and then digitized (D/A and A/D conversion) into a MP3 type file. Who knows if my headunit converts the iPhone USB audio signal to analog, then digital for its on-board processing, then analog again to go out the RCAs, then digital again in the DSP, then analog out the DSP RCAs to the amps.


----------



## JVD240 (Sep 7, 2009)

I think Audio Frog may have something coming that meets some of your criteria. 

That Andy W. is a smart dude.


----------



## Victor_inox (Apr 27, 2012)

IJCOBRA said:


> One that has the features I mentioned, plus an iOS and Android interface.


 why is windows based software not good enough for you?
After all tuning is done you don`t need to use it.


----------



## gu9cci (Mar 28, 2011)

JVD240 said:


> I think Audio Frog may have something coming that meets some of your criteria.
> 
> That Andy W. is a smart dude.


I was just about to mention that.From ces info he's coming with interesting product hopefully


----------



## ninetysix (Dec 6, 2009)

IJCOBRA said:


> Good point: we also need a fully digital headunit (zero D/A conversions) which sends the digital signal (via optical or even Wi-Fi) to the DSP. For a while TOSLINK was included on some head units but it seems we are regressing. I hate that. I'm appalled in the amount of D/A, A/D, D/A again, and D/A again conversions that happen when I play my iPhone through my stereo. You loose some resolution with every conversion, like saving a JPG image over and over. Eventually it looks like crap.


That's why I go android (flac or tidal HiFi) > USB spdif dac > DSP > amps


----------



## Victor_inox (Apr 27, 2012)

gu9cci said:


> I was just about to mention that.From ces info he's coming with interesting product hopefully


That wouldn`t be a first time when awesome on paper product never materialized or was not as perfect as on paper.

quite common with limited market products in general.


----------



## JVD240 (Sep 7, 2009)

Victor_inox said:


> why is windows based software not good enough for you?
> After all tuning is done you don`t need to use it.


I see what you're saying, Vic, but this is 2016.

People want wireless everything. People want to access things on ANY platform.

In my world (commercial AV) things are shifting to web based controls. It's great because you can access it from any device and are not tethered to a physical connection.

I personally don't want to tune on an iPad but I'm sure there are people who would want to. Even preset controls, or minor EQ stuff would be nice.


----------



## Alextaastrup (Apr 12, 2014)

There are quite different needs for people listening music in the car: Some prefer BT streaming, some others - 12 channels, smartphone as a remote control, 0.1dB tuning accuracy, possibility for a number of presets, 96kHz/24bit internal processing ... Such a list of requirements might be endless. 

One could find a number of new models of DSP with some smart features (Helix, Steg, Mosconi, Rainbow - just to mention few).

Some time ago I have tried Alpine's autotuning (Imprint). I think they've found a little but good nische on the market, but it was not able to satisfy everybody's whishes. After just 2 weeks I switched to APL and never regreted that solution.

What is my point - ideal DSP does not exist, and it is a challenge to find the most appropriate one for the current needs, current setup and current desire. It would be borrowing if everyone had the same set of speakers, amps and DSP's. It would be definetely end of this hobby 

Looking for DSP with in-built High-Rez streming (not BT, aptx, AMAS, etc.), probably based om wifi technology, but ready to use from my Android source.


----------



## sq2k1 (Oct 31, 2015)

subbed for interest in topic.


----------



## gu9cci (Mar 28, 2011)

I think autotune and tuning allowance via tablet is the main desire from consumers like me.


----------



## ninetysix (Dec 6, 2009)

Alextaastrup said:


> ....It would be borrowing if everyone had the same set of speakers, amps and DSP's. It would be definetely end of this hobby


Gotta have a challenge to keep the OCD fires burning. Once I finally get a system about as good as I can get it, I end up just listening to AM radio on the daily commute :blush:


----------



## gu9cci (Mar 28, 2011)

Alextaastrup said:


> There are quite different needs for people listening music in the car: Some prefer BT streaming, some others - 12 channels, smartphone as a remote control, 0.1dB tuning accuracy, possibility for a number of presets, 96kHz/24bit internal processing ... Such a list of requirements might be endless.
> 
> One could find a number of new models of DSP with some smart features (Helix, Steg, Mosconi, Rainbow - just to mention few).
> 
> ...


This hobby never ends my friend!!!!??


----------



## Victor_inox (Apr 27, 2012)

JVD240 said:


> I see what you're saying, Vic, but this is 2016.
> 
> People want wireless everything. People want to access things on ANY platform.
> 
> In my world (commercial AV) things are shifting to web based controls. It's great because you can access it from any device and are not tethered to a physical connection


Man can dream,right?

Do you know a single code writer who knows all platforms and hardware? I don`t.and I know shidload of them. It`s about team participation and leader ability to build such team. once project objective is established, financial aspects of all parties involved killing half of it and that is another common practice of product development. How much you personally spend to finance such project? and then it will have features only of 1% people will be using and If project is not self sustainable it will die. plain and simple. 
Even big guns like abandoning their great product, there is many examples of that.


----------



## Alrojoca (Oct 5, 2012)

IJCOBRA said:


> Good point: we also need a fully digital headunit (zero D/A conversions) which sends the digital signal (via optical or even Wi-Fi) to the DSP. For a while TOSLINK was included on some head units but it seems we are regressing. I hate that. I'm appalled in the amount of D/A, A/D, D/A again, and D/A again conversions that happen when I play my iPhone through my stereo. You loose some resolution with every conversion, like saving a JPG image over and over. Eventually it looks like crap.
> 
> So when I listen to music in my car stereo through my iPhone:
> The original analog music was recorded onto analog tapes. These tapes were played and digitized (A/D) and pressed on a CD. Depending on the "ripping" method, the CD could have been played and converted to analog and then digitized (D/A and A/D conversion) into a MP3 type file. Who knows if my headunit converts the iPhone USB audio signal to analog, then digital for its on-board processing, then analog again to go out the RCAs, then digital again in the DSP, then analog out the DSP RCAs to the amps.




I have an old iPod mini with the 24 pin cable and at high volumes it clips sometimes due to the double or triple conversions, the newer phones are not supposed to have any converter, except for the headset jack.

I use USB flash drives and have none of the clipping issues, just as if cd's were being played. Maybe some of us are better off without a DSP to avoid the double DA conversion from the head unit and and the DSP until HU's with optical outputs are available


----------



## IJCOBRA (Nov 21, 2014)

Victor_inox said:


> why is windows based software not good enough for you?
> After all tuning is done you don`t need to use it.


Because people hardly have Windows based PCs anymore. I had to buy one specifically for this purpose.

Everyone has an iOS or Android device tho, and this trend is not reversing.


----------



## IJCOBRA (Nov 21, 2014)

Alrojoca said:


> I have an old iPod mini with the 24 pin cable and at high volumes it clips sometimes due to the double or triple conversions, the newer phones are not supposed to have any converter, except for the headset jack.
> 
> I use USB flash drives and have none of the clipping issues, just as if cd's were being played. Maybe some of us are better off without a DSP to avoid the double DA conversion from the head unit and and the DSP until HU's with optical outputs are available


Proper A/D or D/A conversions shouldn't cause clipping, just a loss of some resolution. Probably unnoticeable but it is still there. Your clipping is probably caused by a gain mismatch somewhere in the signal chain.


----------



## ninetysix (Dec 6, 2009)

IJCOBRA said:


> Because people hardly have Windows based PCs anymore. I had to buy one specifically for this purpose.
> 
> Everyone has an iOS or Android device tho, and this trend is not reversing.


Something like 85%+ of the world's desktops and laptops run windows, so that trend has a long way to go before obscurity. Pretty sure you can emulate windows on OSX or Linux, probably a hassle but beats buying a pc/laptop you won't otherwise use.

Different story for tablets and phones though, I wish minidsp would get to work on either iOS or android connectivity.


----------



## ninetysix (Dec 6, 2009)

Alrojoca said:


> I use USB flash drives and have none of the clipping issues, just as if cd's were being played. Maybe some of us are better off without a DSP to avoid the double DA conversion from the head unit and and the DSP until HU's with optical outputs are available


I'm sure you can get spdif out of Apple devices, cut out the middle man, he's stepping on your gain structure


----------



## rton20s (Feb 14, 2011)




----------



## Victor_inox (Apr 27, 2012)

IJCOBRA said:


> Because people hardly have Windows based PCs anymore. I had to buy one specifically for this purpose.
> 
> Everyone has an iOS or Android device tho, and this trend is not reversing.


You not serious,are you?
Windows accounts for at least 80%of all laptops sold. I **** devices for people who don't tinker with hardware.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G925A using Tapatalk


----------



## LumbermanSVO (Nov 11, 2009)

Victor_inox said:


> why is windows based software not good enough for you?
> After all tuning is done you don`t need to use it.


As someone who didn't own any Windows computers, a big factor in choosing my DSP(PPI DEQ.8) was that it had OS X software. At that point I hadn't owned, or even used, a Windows OS in about 9 years.


----------



## Victor_inox (Apr 27, 2012)

LumbermanSVO said:


> As someone who didn't own any Windows computers, a big factor in choosing my DSP(PPI DEQ.8) was that it had OS X software. At that point I hadn't owned, or even used, a Windows OS in about 9 years.


 You are in minority. if product developers were oriented on non windows devices they would be driven out of business. PPIDEQ.8 support both.
I own both and still prefer BSOD to white screen of death mac laptops shows even though rarely.
Windows 7 is very stable platform so is win 10 exhibiting so far.


----------



## miniSQ (Aug 4, 2009)

Victor_inox said:


> You not serious,are you?
> Windows accounts for at least 80%of all laptops sold. I **** devices for people who don't tinker with hardware.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G925A using Tapatalk


i would not waste my energy on this mentality. He does not understand that the complexity of the DSP software is something that is not going to run on android. I think of the youth of today as mostly uneducated spoiled brats who think they can just throw their phone at a problem and solved it. If that doesn't work they are lost.


----------



## jrock645 (Apr 15, 2015)

Victor_inox said:


> why is windows based software not good enough for you?
> After all tuning is done you don`t need to use it.


I dont own a windows laptop, therefore any unit requiring one is out of the question and i wont even consider it.


----------



## Alrojoca (Oct 5, 2012)

IJCOBRA said:


> Proper A/D or D/A conversions shouldn't cause clipping, just a loss of some resolution. Probably unnoticeable but it is still there. Your clipping is probably caused by a gain mismatch somewhere in the signal chain.


I did not notice any change in the output when it happened and I think it was distortion or noise caused by over excursion only with one track that played very low, one of those things that happens to almost all of us at some point, never with cd's or flash drives using the same file. Maybe 1 Db higher volume on the iPod I dis not notice, but it's just strange since none of the drivers were crossed at risky lower freq than they can handle.



ninetysix said:


> I'm sure you can get spdif out of Apple devices, cut out the middle man, he's stepping on your gain structure


Yes, that seems to be the latest topic, thanks but until I get a phone with enough storage, I will look into it at that point. Many ways to do it from what I've seen.

___________________________________________________________________________


I would like to have a 16 ch DSP with a 5 way front stage with 8's, 5's, 4's, 2.5 's and 1.3"s tweeters with 3 subs running at 3 different frequencies.

Just to make sure there the response is flat, with no peaks.


----------



## Victor_inox (Apr 27, 2012)

jrock645 said:


> I dont own a windows laptop, therefore any unit requiring one is out of the question and i wont even consider it.


Somehow your narrow mindedness is developers problem?

I consider best tool for the job and adjust accordingly.


----------



## Victor_inox (Apr 27, 2012)

miniSQ said:


> i would not waste my energy on this mentality. He does not understand that the complexity of the DSP software is something that is not going to run on android. I think of the youth of today as mostly uneducated spoiled brats who think they can just throw their phone at a problem and solved it. If that doesn't work they are lost.


 "I know everything" mentality is amusing and IMHO required guidance of the generation who actually developed all their toys.


----------



## ninetysix (Dec 6, 2009)

Alrojoca said:


> ....Yes, that seems to be the latest topic, thanks but until I get a phone with enough storage, I will look into it at that point. Many ways to do it from what I've seen ....


Might have to wait for a phone that can connect to a USB DAC and a portable hard drive/storage card at the same time. Or better yet, one with a micro SD slot.

Oh snap, what am I saying.... You can buy one already


----------



## Lanson (Jan 9, 2007)

So... has anybody covered the extreme NICHE this hobby is compared with others? Our numbers are incredibly low. Then there's the niche within the niche that is the sound quality fan, and that's us...that's who's going to use this thing. Return on investment sucks when you can't see enough of them to fuel a profit. 

IMO what we need is a full open-source project (like REW but tuned for our needs), completely open from the ground up.

Oh, and on the subject of interfaces...why the heck are we not all using HDMI in the car? It has so much bandwidth, so easy.


----------



## ninetysix (Dec 6, 2009)

miniSQ said:


> i would not waste my energy on this mentality. He does not understand that the complexity of the DSP software is something that is not going to run on android. I think of the youth of today as mostly uneducated spoiled brats who think they can just throw their phone at a problem and solved it. If that doesn't work they are lost.


The software for my minidsp 6x8 isn't very complex, certainly no auto tuning anyway. Doesn't exactly tax the CPU.

And using adobe air to connect, I can't think of a reason why it can't be done on android, other than the manufacturer isn't interested in doing it


----------



## LumbermanSVO (Nov 11, 2009)

Victor_inox said:


> You are in minority. if product developers were oriented on non windows devices they would be driven out of business. PPIDEQ.8 support both.
> I own both and still prefer BSOD to white screen of death mac laptops shows even though rarely.
> Windows 7 is very stable platform so is win 10 exhibiting so far.


I guess I'm just used to my industry where everyone used OS X and the only Windows machines are there purely to support gear that's 10+ years old and only came with Windows software.


----------



## Victor_inox (Apr 27, 2012)

LumbermanSVO said:


> I guess I'm just used to my industry where everyone used OS X and the only Windows machines are there purely to support gear that's 10+ years old and only came with Windows software.


 Whatever industry that is I`m sure you exaggerating.
besides why not to double boot to win7 to be able to support best DSP on the market. Simple solution to the problem that not even existed.


----------



## miniSQ (Aug 4, 2009)

ninetysix said:


> The software for my minidsp 6x8 isn't very complex, certainly no auto tuning anyway. Doesn't exactly tax the CPU.
> 
> And using adobe air to connect, I can't think of a reason why it can't be done on android, other than the manufacturer isn't interested in doing it


Then stop complaining that is isn't being done and get out and do it.


----------



## Victor_inox (Apr 27, 2012)

miniSQ said:


> Then stop complaining that is isn't being done and get out and do it.


I second that motion, stop complaining and do it.
You`ll learn coding in process and maybe will make a buck or few at the end.


----------



## ninetysix (Dec 6, 2009)

miniSQ said:


> Then stop complaining that is isn't being done and get out and do it.


Fair point. Although I've found an upside to not being able to endlessly tweak settings while driving... And not just road safety!

It seems like each time I get in the car no matter how prefect I had it set last time, it seems like the balance or TA are slightly out one side... Maybe it's just ear wax rolling from one ear to the other while I sleep, but eventually I realise it's about right and doesn't need adjustment


----------



## ninetysix (Dec 6, 2009)

Victor_inox said:


> I second that motion, stop complaining and do it.
> You`ll learn coding in process and maybe will make a buck or few at the end.


I thought it was more an observation than a complaint, but point taken


----------



## Victor_inox (Apr 27, 2012)

ninetysix said:


> Fair point. Although I've found an upside to not being able to endlessly tweak settings while driving... And not just road safety!
> 
> It seems like each time I get in the car no matter how prefect I had it set last time, it seems like the balance or TA are slightly out one side... Maybe it's just ear wax rolling from one ear to the other while I sleep, but eventually I realise it's about right and doesn't need adjustment


Bingo! once tuned, just leave it alone.


----------



## Victor_inox (Apr 27, 2012)

ninetysix said:


> I thought it was more an observation than a complaint, but point taken


:beerchug:


----------



## Niebur3 (Jul 11, 2008)

People still own Windows based computers???

Seriously though, I had to buy a Windows Laptop for tuning, etc. Everything else I have is apple.


----------



## IJCOBRA (Nov 21, 2014)

miniSQ said:


> i would not waste my energy on this mentality. He does not understand that the complexity of the DSP software is something that is not going to run on android. I think of the youth of today as mostly uneducated spoiled brats who think they can just throw their phone at a problem and solved it. If that doesn't work they are lost.


Yeah, those whipper snappers with the cell phones and text messages.

The complete 3Sixty.3 software install is less than 6 MB. I'm sure the hardware of any smartphone in the last 10 years is adequate.

The problem is legacy programmers who only know Windows and think of the Windows 95-XP era as "the golden years".


----------



## Victor_inox (Apr 27, 2012)

Niebur3 said:


> People still own Windows based computers???
> 
> Seriously though, I had to buy a Windows Laptop for tuning, etc. Everything else I have is apple.


 macbooks can run windows just as fine as "native" windows laptops, no need to buy separate laptop.


----------



## IJCOBRA (Nov 21, 2014)

Victor_inox said:


> Bingo! once tuned, just leave it alone.


I think the real problem is it wasn't tuned correctly in the first place. I wish I coul get back the hundreds of hours of tuning I've done; my girlfriend would probably be happier or I could have spent it: ENJOYING THE MUSIC!


----------



## Victor_inox (Apr 27, 2012)

IJCOBRA said:


> Yeah, those whipper snappers with the cell phones and text messages.
> 
> The complete 3Sixty.3 software install is less than 6 MB. I'm sure the hardware of any smartphone in the last 10 years is adequate.
> 
> The problem is legacy programmers who only know Windows and think of the Windows 95-XP era as "the golden years".


 take that file decompile it and make version for android- problem solved. 

Legacy programmers? who is that? never heard of such thing.


----------



## IJCOBRA (Nov 21, 2014)

fourthmeal said:


> So... has anybody covered the extreme NICHE this hobby is compared with others? Our numbers are incredibly low. Then there's the niche within the niche that is the sound quality fan, and that's us...that's who's going to use this thing. Return on investment sucks when you can't see enough of them to fuel a profit.
> 
> IMO what we need is a full open-source project (like REW but tuned for our needs), completely open from the ground up.
> 
> Oh, and on the subject of interfaces...why the heck are we not all using HDMI in the car? It has so much bandwidth, so easy.


Word up!


----------



## Victor_inox (Apr 27, 2012)

IJCOBRA said:


> I think the real problem is it wasn't tuned correctly in the first place. I wish I coul get back the hundreds of hours of tuning I've done; my girlfriend would probably be happier or I could have spent it: ENJOYING THE MUSIC!


 that is your own fault you get sucked into it. 
I`ve seen people going after audio artifacts that only exist in their head, tuning the **** out of perfectly sounding system.


----------



## ninetysix (Dec 6, 2009)

Niebur3 said:


> People still own Windows based computers???
> 
> Seriously though, I had to buy a Windows Laptop for tuning, etc. Everything else I have is apple.


When Steve Jobs talked about the post PC world, he (correctly) thought most people would surf on phones and tabs, he wasn't advocating innumeracy


----------



## gu9cci (Mar 28, 2011)

How can good thread about (make or wish dsp improvement)for the future go to Windows vs. Apple is beyond me
Victorinox you need to sometimes sit back and let it go brother.


----------



## Victor_inox (Apr 27, 2012)

ninetysix said:


> When Steve Jobs talked about the post PC world, he (correctly) thought most people would surf on phones and tabs, he wasn't advocating innumeracy


 Good thing he is dead.


----------



## Niebur3 (Jul 11, 2008)

Victor_inox said:


> macbooks can run windows just as fine as "native" windows laptops, no need to buy separate laptop.


Yeah, I know. I had XP on my apple MacBook until I updated my OSX and Parallels wanted me to pay to upgrade to work on the new OSX. At the same time, Windows announced they wouldn't support XP anymore and the DSP companies wouldn't be supporting XP. After looking to pay and upgrade parallels, my version was "too old" to pay for an update and they wanted me to purchase the entire program. The new Windows was so memory intensive, I would have had to add RAM to my MacBook. So, with all of that, it was cheaper to get a separate laptop and keep everything separate.


----------



## Victor_inox (Apr 27, 2012)

gu9cci said:


> How can good thread about (make or wish dsp improvement)for the future go to Windows vs. Apple is beyond me
> Victorinox you need to sometimes sit back and let it go brother.



how is that my fault, I fail to see that. It`s crApple fans stirring the pot, i react.


----------



## IJCOBRA (Nov 21, 2014)

While we're on the subject I called Rockford Fosgate tech support about 9 months ago asking some tech questions about the 3Sixty.3 crossovers, and they let slip that they were working on a software update to allow controlling it via iOS and Android. They said it would be out in December. When December came and went I called back and talked to the lead tech and he said NO, they weren't working on it at all. Fosgate was too busy making new speakers and other useless crap.

Lame.

Hopefully the upcoming JL Audio TwK has auto-tune and iOS support.


----------



## sq2k1 (Oct 31, 2015)

Simple fact is that if a Dsp were to offer any open source code and compatibility with any operating system, the end results could be awesome for the SQ community and car audio as a whole. You would see innovation and also possibly see the flexibility of options not currently available in current DSP units because the options could be made by the end-users instead of the actual makers of the DSP itself.


----------



## gu9cci (Mar 28, 2011)

Victor_inox said:


> Good thing he is dead.


Really?


----------



## Victor_inox (Apr 27, 2012)

gu9cci said:


> Really?


 yes he is really dead.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

gu9cci said:


> Really?


yes really

https://www.google.com/search?btnG=1&pws=0&q=is+steve+jobs+dead&gws_rd=ssl


----------



## gu9cci (Mar 28, 2011)

Victor_inox said:


> yes he is really dead.


Common man don't be like cocky a$$hole being happy that Steve Jobs is death.


----------



## MB2008LTZ (Oct 13, 2012)

These seem "GOOD".... New at 2016 CES


----------



## gu9cci (Mar 28, 2011)

MB2008LTZ said:


> These seem "GOOD".... New at 2016 CES


That should be good


----------



## IJCOBRA (Nov 21, 2014)

MB2008LTZ said:


> These seem "GOOD".... New at 2016 CES


Looks promising...


----------



## Victor_inox (Apr 27, 2012)

gu9cci said:


> Common man don't be like cocky a$$hole being happy that Steve Jobs is death.


I don`t want to hijack this thread further, if you want to talk about SJ or me being ******* start another thread please.


----------



## ninetysix (Dec 6, 2009)

Oh I get it, this thread was really just a marketing experiment to get us talking about the zapco!

That said, the zapco looks pretty sweet, something the market really needed. Now just wait for next years model with a built in android front end that can run tidal HiFi or similar and we can forget about head units & phones


----------



## AAAAAAA (Oct 5, 2007)

I'm also discouraged at all the "dumb" processors that everyone comes out with.


----------



## gu9cci (Mar 28, 2011)

That zapco might be a ticket.


----------



## Victor_inox (Apr 27, 2012)

Why nobody take Audissey or similar processor and autotune all they want? whole thing is pretty small.


----------



## MB2008LTZ (Oct 13, 2012)

Victor_inox said:


> Why nobody take Audissey or similar processor and autotune all they want? whole thing is pretty small.


What...????


----------



## Victor_inox (Apr 27, 2012)

MB2008LTZ said:


> What...????


----------



## MB2008LTZ (Oct 13, 2012)

Victor_inox said:


>


Please elaborate...as I do not follow or comprehend the horrible grammar of your statement....I apologize for my ignorance.


----------



## Victor_inox (Apr 27, 2012)

MB2008LTZ said:


> Please elaborate...as I do not follow or comprehend the horrible grammar of your statement....I apologize for my ignorance.


http://www.audyssey.com/


----------



## IJCOBRA (Nov 21, 2014)

Victor_inox said:


> Audyssey


Ok I checked their site but cannot find any actual automotive products. They seem to just partner with high end OEMs like Jaguar.


----------



## mbradlawrence (Mar 25, 2013)

IJCOBRA said:


> Good point: we also need a fully digital headunit (zero D/A conversions) which sends the digital signal (via optical or even Wi-Fi) to the DSP. For a while TOSLINK was included on some head units but it seems we are regressing. I hate that. I'm appalled in the amount of D/A, A/D, D/A again, and D/A again conversions that happen when I play my iPhone through my stereo.


Some higher end cars run full digital to the amp on a most bus. Using a mobridge that signal can be converted to optical out and provided to a dsp or they make a DA3 that has build in DSP so head unit to DSP to all DSP processing, all digital. 

No autotune, well, thats an excuse for me to ignore my wife for a few hours every weekend!


----------



## Victor_inox (Apr 27, 2012)

IJCOBRA said:


> Ok I checked their site but cannot find any actual automotive products. They seem to just partner with high end OEMs like Jaguar.


It`s DIY site, right?


----------



## Victor_inox (Apr 27, 2012)

mbradlawrence said:


> No autotune, well, thats an excuse for me to ignore my wife for a few hours every weekend!


Signature worthy!


----------



## Alrojoca (Oct 5, 2012)

IJCOBRA said:


> While we're on the subject I called Rockford Fosgate tech support about 9 months ago asking some tech questions about the 3Sixty.3 crossovers, and they let slip that they were working on a software update to allow controlling it via iOS and Android. They said it would be out in December. When December came and went I called back and talked to the lead tech and he said NO, they weren't working on it at all. Fosgate was too busy making new speakers and other useless crap.
> 
> Lame.
> 
> Hopefully the upcoming JL Audio TwK has auto-tune and iOS support.


I heard the engineer that was working on that software app, quit and left Rockford hanging with the unfinished project. 

I wonder if he is still working on it or he just got a better job


----------



## ninetysix (Dec 6, 2009)

mbradlawrence said:


> No autotune, well, thats an excuse for me to ignore my wife for a few hours every weekend!


You mean a few hours every day right? My Mrs used to think car audio was cool...


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

IJCOBRA said:


> Manually tuning a car stereo takes weeks, months, or years of tuning with spectrum analyzers, o-scopes, and other expensive equipment to MAYBE get it right.......


 This is SO far from reality, you really have no idea how wrong you are here. I have to say something lest someone read this and believe it's true.


----------



## IJCOBRA (Nov 21, 2014)

Niick said:


> This is SO far from reality, you really have no idea how wrong you are here. I have to say something lest someone read this and believe it's true.


Just look at the post above yours from one of the many others who are frustrated by the lack of a good auto-tune, or the never ending manual tuning.

Are you saying you can tune so there is no phase cancellation, no comb filtering, perfectly linear eq and response, loud, clear, perfect stage & time alignment for all seats, etc? You can tune it so it sounds great right now, and also tomorrow? With all styles of music? Sounds good at low volume. High volume?

Sounds like a tall order, and it is, and it probably is impossible with a manual tune. But an advanced auto-tune could come as close as possible, if an advanced auto-tune existed in car audio.


----------



## Darth SQ (Sep 17, 2010)

Six posts trumpeting the death of Steve Jobs as a good thing.
WTF is wrong with you all?
You guys are truly f'd up.


Bret
PPI-ART COLLECTOR


----------



## Niebur3 (Jul 11, 2008)

IJCOBRA said:


> Just look at the post above yours from one of the many others who are frustrated by the lack of a good auto-tune, or the never ending manual tuning.
> 
> Are you saying you can tune so there is no phase cancellation, no comb filtering, perfectly linear eq and response, loud, clear, perfect stage & time alignment for all seats, etc? You can tune it so it sounds great right now, and also tomorrow? With all styles of music? Sounds good at low volume. High volume?
> 
> Sounds like a tall order, and it is, and it probably is impossible with a manual tune. But an advanced auto-tune could come as close as possible, if an advanced auto-tune existed in car audio.


How on earth could any tune, manual or auto, tune for perfect stage and time for all seats? Seems to me like maybe your expectations are a little high.

There are just some things DSP's can't fix. What I normally see is people wanting their cake and eating it too by putting speakers in crappy factory locations or most aesthetically pleasing locations and want the DSP to fix all the issues this can cause.


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

Buy an ADI Sigma DSP evaluation board and download Sigma Studio. That might be open source enough for what most of you want to do. You can get this at Digikey. 

If you're waiting around for some car audio company to make an open source DSP that will allow you to do anything you want on top of a bunch of proprietary code designed exactly the way you want it and one that will be willing to tech support you, make some popcorn and settle in for a long wait.


----------



## Niebur3 (Jul 11, 2008)

PPI-ART COLLECTOR said:


> Six posts trumpeting the death of Steve Jobs as a good thing.
> WTF is wrong with you all?
> You guys are truly f'd up.
> 
> ...


I agree Bret. People are pretty sick. Happy that a guy is dead?  

Good competition brings better products. If you don't like Apple or Microsoft, then at least respect that the each company is good for the industry as it pushes others for better products. If it wasn't for Apple, we'd all be using blackberry or flip phones and apps, as we know them today, would be non-existent.


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

IJCOBRA said:


> Just look at the post above yours from one of the many others who are frustrated by the lack of a good auto-tune, or the never ending manual tuning.
> 
> Are you saying you can tune so there is no phase cancellation, no comb filtering, perfectly linear eq and response, loud, clear, perfect stage & time alignment for all seats, etc? You can tune it so it sounds great right now, and also tomorrow? With all styles of music? Sounds good at low volume. High volume?
> 
> Sounds like a tall order, and it is, and it probably is impossible with a manual tune. But an advanced auto-tune could come as close as possible, if an advanced auto-tune existed in car audio.


1. Eliminating comb filtering in a reflective environment isn't possible.
2. The audibility of comb filtering isn't settled.
3. Every listening environment IS a comb filter. Great sounding concert halls are giant comb filters designed SPECIFICALLY for a pleasant sound.


----------



## IJCOBRA (Nov 21, 2014)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> 1. Eliminating comb filtering in a reflective environment isn't possible.
> 2. The audibility of comb filtering isn't settled.
> 3. Every listening environment IS a comb filter. Great sounding concert halls are giant comb filters designed SPECIFICALLY for a pleasant sound.


How can the audibility of comb filtering not be settled when they build concert halls as comb filters for pleasant sound?

Are we wasting our time until they invent transparent carpet for use as windows?

The DSP should also control the amp gains, and know exactly how many volts/watts are being produced and how much gain overlap. You could enter in the speaker specifications and Thiel-Small parameters and it would adjust using those tolerances.

If only we were striving for constant improvement and perfection instead of high profits. Anyone producing new speakers because we sure need more of those? There are over 1000 different models of car audio speakers, and not one intelligent DSP, headunit and amp combo. Guess there is good money in speakers and RCAs. Better and more expensive speakers have diminishing returns, but a smart auto-tune DSP would be an exponential increase in quality. Perhaps this knowledge is what keeps a good DSP off the market.


----------



## IJCOBRA (Nov 21, 2014)

Niebur3 said:


> How on earth could any tune, manual or auto, tune for perfect stage and time for all seats? Seems to me like maybe your expectations are a little high.
> 
> There are just some things DSP's can't fix. What I normally see is people wanting their cake and eating it too by putting speakers in crappy factory locations or most aesthetically pleasing locations and want the DSP to fix all the issues this can cause.


True, you can't have perfect staging in all seats simultaneously, but with averaging you can get it as good as it will get. A smart auto-tune DSP could tune for every seat, all seats, or a combo in 5 minutes. It would take forever to do it manually, especially if re-equalization and cancellations are factored in and not just time alignment.


----------



## gregerst22 (Dec 18, 2012)

Personally I'm happy that to see the DSP's that are available to us today. I mean given how high-end car audio is really a niche there are some pretty powerful, reliable and somewhat affordable processors out on the market. 
In all honesty I probably wouldn't bother much with after market car audio if I didn't have the capabilities that a good DSP gives me. Yes it can be hard and I don't care what anybody else says, for somebody new to this there is a BIG learning curve to overcome. Audio is complicated throw that into a car environment and there's a lot to understand and learn before you know how to start tuning. 
People that are saying DSP's should automatically do everything perfectly in every car environment clearly don't understand what they're asking for. Throw a few hundred developers and engineers at it with millions in R&D funding they could come up with something better but that's not going to happen.


----------



## JimmyDee (Mar 8, 2014)

gu9cci said:


> I would gladly pay 2k for processor with advanced auto tune and 12 channels


This sums it up.

If I had a wish list for a DSP (over and above what is already offered by everyone else), it would be these two things.


----------



## miniSQ (Aug 4, 2009)

IJCOBRA said:


> True, you can't have perfect staging in all seats simultaneously, but with averaging you can get it as good as it will get. A smart auto-tune DSP could tune for every seat, all seats, or a combo in 5 minutes. It would take forever to do it manually, especially if re-equalization and cancellations are factored in and not just time alignment.


And what do you do when you don't like how the auto tune sounds?


----------



## IJCOBRA (Nov 21, 2014)

miniSQ said:


> And what do you do when you don't like how the auto tune sounds?


Like I said on page 1, the DSP interface will show you exactly what settings it made per channel (crossover type, slope, points, eq curve, time alignment, and overall gain... most DSPs already have these settings). Then you can manually adjust. But the DSP will also make presets like "flat", "equal loudness", and "preferred" among others.

The JBL MS-8 does not show you what changes it made. If the 3Sixty.3 had the auto tune of the MS-8, I would be happy. Give me 12-channels and iOS interface... Better yet. But there would still be room for improvement in sophistication and an all-digital signal chain.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

Niick said:


> This is SO far from reality, you really have no idea how wrong you are here. I have to say something lest someone read this and believe it's true.


x2. my last tune took about 5 hours.. the whole "taking months" thing is just people fiddling with it because they can or want to try something different.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

ijcobra, your asking for way to much and then some. some of the stuff your asking for isnt even possible.


----------



## gregerst22 (Dec 18, 2012)

SkizeR said:


> x2. my last tune took about 5 hours.. the whole "taking months" thing is just people fiddling with it because they can or want to try something different.


You've been into car audio how long? I'm sure you have many, many hours of research, learning, experimenting & fiddling. So after all of that you can tune a system in 5 hours.
Somebody with no or very little experience in car audio tuning isn't going to be able to do that. They could spend thousands in gear and it will still sound like garbage. 
I get why there needs to be a better DSP that takes the steep learning curve out of the equation but making it happen is not going to be easy or cheap.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

gregerst22 said:


> You've been into car audio how long? I'm sure you have many, many hours of research, learning, experimenting & fiddling. So after all of that you can tune a system in 5 hours.
> Somebody with no or very little experience in car audio tuning isn't going to be able to do that. They could spend thousands in gear and it will still sound like garbage.
> I get why there needs to be a better DSP that takes the steep learning curve out of the equation but making it happen is not going to be easy or cheap.


about 5 or 6 years. and ive only been doing complex tuning for about 6 months.. its really not THAT hard. its a bit difficult at first, but once you get a mic and can see whats going on, you learn very quickly. quick learning curve if you have a mic.


----------



## IJCOBRA (Nov 21, 2014)

Other things that could be added:
1. Measure engine noise at idle, on the highway, sunroof open, convertible top down, etc and compensate. Compensate based on rpm and speed.
2. An actual "loudness" function which pumps up bass at low volume, since headunits are doing away with this very useful function.


----------



## gregerst22 (Dec 18, 2012)

SkizeR said:


> about 5 or 6 years. and ive only been doing complex tuning for about 6 months.. its really not THAT hard. its a bit difficult at first, but once you get a mic and can see whats going on, you learn very quickly. quick learning curve if you have a mic.


I agree it's not that difficult after you grasp the basics. But there is still a steep learning curve upfront that must be overcome. There have been studies on how long it takes for somebody to learn a new skill. I think it was 20 or 40 hours to get decent and 10,000 hours to completely master something.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

gregerst22 said:


> I agree it's not that difficult after you grasp the basics. But there is still a steep learning curve upfront that must be overcome. *There have been studies on how long it takes for somebody to learn a new skill. I think it was 20 or 40 hours to get decent and 10,000 hours to completely master something*.


once you understand how it all works, which there is PLENTY of info to read about and help from others, there is no excuse. as far as the bolded part.. that has to be very general. what i mean is, nothing takes the same amount of time to learn and then master. hell, some stuff might even be impossible to master. take my other hobby for example, snowboarding. 20 years ago people couldnt grasp the possibility of anyone doing more than one flip in the air or ANY of the crazy stuff that gets filmed in urban areas. now were up to quad flips (which is just stupid, looks like damn gymnatsics now), and hitting massive kinked rails


----------



## IJCOBRA (Nov 21, 2014)

SkizeR said:


> about 5 or 6 years. and ive only been doing complex tuning for about 6 months.. its really not THAT hard. its a bit difficult at first, but once you get a mic and can see whats going on, you learn very quickly. quick learning curve if you have a mic.


Omnidirectional mic? Binaural? Is it pointing forward where the driver's head would be looking? I have 2 ear holes and they are pointing to the side of my head. If you turn your mic 20 degrees is your frequency spectrum completely different? Are you measuring 1/3 octave? Is your flat curve still flat at 1/6, 1/12, or 1/24? Are you doing flat or equal loudness or something else? Are you measuring combined amplitudes of crossed over speakers and adjusting phase for max peak? Are you measuring at the exact crossover points? Ever just invert a channel pair after doing all this and discover it kinda sounds better?

I have a mic too and it is anything but easy or quick.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

IJCOBRA said:


> Just look at the post above yours from one of the many others who are frustrated by the lack of a good auto-tune, or the never ending manual tuning.
> 
> Are you saying you can tune so there is no phase cancellation, no comb filtering, perfectly linear eq and response, loud, clear, perfect stage & time alignment for all seats, etc? You can tune it so it sounds great right now, and also tomorrow? With all styles of music? Sounds good at low volume. High volume?
> 
> Sounds like a tall order, and it is, and it probably is impossible with a manual tune. But an advanced auto-tune could come as close as possible, if an advanced auto-tune existed in car audio.


No matter how you look at it, even your beloved "auto-tune" was designed by some guy telling the machine what decisions to make in what scenarios. The algorithms are written by human beings. Now, an actual human being can make decisions on the fly, and can take into consideration aspects of the system that the auto tune has no way of doing. A real live human, with the proper skills and tools, can reach the same end result that an auto tune system can reach, in VERY short time. But with the ability to know WHY he's making the decisions that he's making. And the ability to adjust and adapt to changing acoustic environments. 

The thing is, you just haven't met anybody yet who truly specializes in this aspect of car audio yet. We're out there. Despite what some people might say, truly skilled tuners aren't all that common. All installers want to learn to fabricate, very few have the desire in the first place to want to understand how to use advanced acoustic analysis tools/techniques. 

The DIY community seems to be quite ahead of the professional installer community in this regard, from my perspective at least.

Now, i realize that you weren't saying professional vs. DIYer one way or another. Im just giving you the perspective of a professional install who just so happens to specialize in the very thing you originally posted about.

And I feel that it's important to make sure that, in the event that there is someone reading this thread who might just be getting into car audio, that they are given a counter perspective. That they be informed that it IS possible to learn the fundamentals of acoustics and loudspeaker interaction, and that that knowledge can be expanded upon to the point where one reduces the mysteries and seemingly endless variables of a multi-channel DSP to a series of step-by-step logical problems, that are analyzed and solved one at a time. 

Now OF COURSE listening plays a HUGE roll in the creation of a tuning workflow that works for each individual. But once the fundamentals are firmly grasped and the interactions understood, tuning a system to sound wonderful is not as big of a challenge as it might at first seem. I mean, after all, what about the "auto-tune" process do you think the algorithms are doing behind the scenes that a live human cannot? Its adjusting all the same parameters.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

IJCOBRA said:


> Omnidirectional mic? Binaural? Is it pointing forward where the driver's head would be looking? I have 2 ear holes and they are pointing to the side of my head. If you turn your mic 20 degrees is your frequency spectrum completely different? Are you measuring 1/3 octave? Is your flat curve still flat at 1/6, 1/12, or 1/24? Are you doing flat or equal loudness or something else? Are you measuring combined amplitudes of crossed over speakers and adjusting phase for max peak? Are you measuring at the exact crossover points? Ever just invert a channel pair after doing all this and discover it kinda sounds better?
> 
> I have a mic too and it is anything but easy or quick.


your saying all of this lke an autotune can do all of this.. its not like an auto tune has an infinite amount of eq points so it gets a PERFECTLY flat response at all resolutions. most just use what it has and tailors them to have the best outcome possible.


----------



## IJCOBRA (Nov 21, 2014)

Niick said:


> No matter how you look at it, even your beloved "auto-tune" was designed by some guy telling the machine what decisions to make in what scenarios. The algorithms are written by human beings. Now, an actual human being can make decisions on the fly, and can take into consideration aspects of the system that the auto tune has no way of doing. A real live human, with the proper skills and tools, can reach the same end result that an auto tune system can reach, in VERY short time. But with the ability to know WHY he's making the decisions that he's making. And the ability to adjust and adapt to changing acoustic environments.
> 
> The thing is, you just haven't met anybody yet who truly specializes in this aspect of car audio yet. We're out there. Despite what some people might say, truly skilled tuners aren't all that common. All installers want to learn to fabricate, very few have the desire in the first place to want to understand how to use advanced acoustic analysis tools/techniques.
> 
> ...


I agree that the number of car audio "professionals" who understand or practice good DSP tuning is laughably small. Getting it done right is expensive and time consuming.

Auto-tune.


----------



## gregerst22 (Dec 18, 2012)

This thread has got me thinking. What if there was a car audio company, like audiofrog , that provided a DSP+Amp combo that could also connect to the internet and download custom DSP settings or DSP profiles. These would be customized for specific cars, like an 8th gen honda accord sedan with 2-way setup. This could work really well if all the gear came from the same company and was using OEM speaker locations. But it could still work for custom setups like with midrange in the pillars. 
Different DSP profiles could be uploaded and shared by the user community. Then people would have the option of downloading and trying any of them for their car. This could get them exactly what they want without knowing anything about tuning but you would still have the option of tweaking a profile to your liking once downloaded.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

gregerst22 said:


> This thread has got me thinking. What if there was a car audio company, like audiofrog , that provided a DSP+Amp combo that could also connect to the internet and download custom DSP settings or DSP profiles. These would be customized for specific cars, like an 8th gen honda accord sedan with 2-way setup. This could work really well if all the gear came from the same company and was using OEM speaker locations. But it could still work for custom setups like with midrange in the pillars.
> Different DSP profiles could be uploaded and shared by the user community. Then people would have the option of downloading and trying any of them for their car. This could get them exactly what they want without knowing anything about tuning but you would still have the option of tweaking a profile to your liking once downloaded.


each install, even if in the same car is always going to require at least a somewhat different tune. unless they all have the same gear which is highly unlikely, which makes it not really worth it :/


----------



## gregerst22 (Dec 18, 2012)

Yep that's why i mentioned that it would work best if all of the gear came from the same company and were installed in the OEM locations. But at least the DSP+Amp would need to be the same for it to be feasible. the biggest hurdle is getting a large user base so that profiles could be created and shared.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

Ya know there is another way too.....another forum member came up with the idea, and we tried it, and IT WORKED!! 

Im talking about TeamViewer. If someone has a DSP, but need it tuned, and they dont live near anyone whos capable, they could put a mic(s) in the car, and a capable tuner could optimize DSP parameters form anywhere in the world. I've been giving more and more thought to this, and I already have enough equipment that I could even ship a mic array and interface (and technically a laptop if necessary) to the person, if they didnt already have such things. Many people, however, do have at least one mic and interface as a result of REW.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

Niick said:


> Ya know there is another way too.....another forum member came up with the idea, and we tried it, and IT WORKED!!
> 
> Im talking about TeamViewer. If someone has a DSP, but need it tuned, and they dont live near anyone whos capable, they could put a mic(s) in the car, and a capable tuner could optimize DSP parameters form anywhere in the world. I've been giving more and more thought to this, and I already have enough equipment that I could even ship a mic array and interface (and technically a laptop if necessary) to the person, if they didnt already have such things. Many people, however, do have at least one mic and interface as a result of REW.


thats actually not a bad idea. only thing you couldnt really do is the time alignment


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

SkizeR said:


> thats actually not a bad idea. only thing you couldnt really do is the time alignment


what? why not? time alignment is the easiest part. or are you one of those guys who thinks it has to be done by ear?


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

Niick said:


> what? why not? time alignment is the easiest part. or are you one of those guys who thinks it has to be done by ear?


i dont think it has to be. but i do know that the measurement method is good, but isnt always 100%. my cars TA happens to be very close to the measured distance way. also, blending he sub to the midbass might be a bit tricky but that is easy for almost anyone to do by ear


----------



## miniSQ (Aug 4, 2009)

IJCOBRA said:


> Like I said on page 1, the DSP interface will show you exactly what settings it made per channel (crossover type, slope, points, eq curve, time alignment, and overall gain... most DSPs already have these settings). Then you can manually adjust. But the DSP will also make presets like "flat", "equal loudness", and "preferred" among others.
> 
> The JBL MS-8 does not show you what changes it made. If the 3Sixty.3 had the auto tune of the MS-8, I would be happy. Give me 12-channels and iOS interface... Better yet. But there would still be room for improvement in sophistication and an all-digital signal chain.


all i read here is that you are totally clueless when it comes to how to make a stereo sound good...among other things.


----------



## ninetysix (Dec 6, 2009)

IJCOBRA said:


> Just look at the post above yours from one of the many others who are frustrated by the lack of a good auto-tune, or the never ending manual tuning.


I didn't say *I* was frustrated by a lack of auto tune.... But the Mrs is.

In home theatre where everything is far more ideal than in any car, and auto tuning is well established on AV receivers, auto tune isn't the be all and end all. It helps a lot but I only use it as a starting point.

But I've learnt a lot over the last few months by spending many many hours tweaking and measuring, realising the things that no tune can fix which need physical adjustment. Throw in some noise gremlins and faulty amps and yeah, that's a lot of time spent in the driveway.

But now I can get quite good results quickly, last night I installed a minidsp 6x8 into the Mrs car and including a quick and dirty install, running an extra pair of RCA's and a pair of speaker wires for the tweets (went from passive to active) and I've got the sub and left side (passenger side) done in about 3 hours. You can only do so much with 6 parametric eqs per input & output, but you can do enough. Plus having auto eq with REW makes for a fairly automated process IMO


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

Niebur3 said:


> How on earth could any tune, manual or auto, tune for perfect stage and time for all seats? Seems to me like maybe your expectations are a little high.
> 
> There are just some things DSP's can't fix. What I normally see is people wanting their cake and eating it too by putting speakers in crappy factory locations or most aesthetically pleasing locations and want the DSP to fix all the issues this can cause.


MS-8 can


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

SkizeR said:


> i dont think it has to be. but i do know that the measurement method is good, but isnt always 100%. my cars TA happens to be very close to the measured distance way. also, blending he sub to the midbass might be a bit tricky but that is easy for almost anyone to do by ear


Blending sub to midbass is a bit of a specialty of mine, and the timing thing, well, so long as youve place at least one mic in the center of the listener's head position, the timing WILL be spot on. And of course, your free to tweak all you want after


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

There is no point arguing this. The ones saying manual is the only way are the ones re tuning every couple of days. 
That's what they want than so be it. 

The ones that get a auto tune right will be enjoying our music everyday.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

DDfusion said:


> There is no point arguing this. The ones saying manual is the only way are the ones re tuning every couple of days.
> That's what they want than so be it.
> 
> The ones that get a auto tune right will be enjoying our music everyday.


NOT TRUE!!! I'm saying manual has the potential to not only out-do auto tune in capable hands, but in those same capable hands it doesnt take DAYS, MONTHS or YEARS. It's hours.

There are plenty of people who have had their systems tuned by me or someone like me who either did it themselves because they themselves were capable, or who paid someone likle me to do it, and it took a matter of hours, and now they're enjoying their systems on a daily basis. Re-tuning is NOT part of their schedule. Re-tuning is NOT something these people WANT to do, nor do they need to do it. 

Auto-tuning has it's place. But simply because someone has never personally met a capable tuner, doesnt mean they dont exist!


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

Niick said:


> NOT TRUE!!! I'm saying manual has the potential to not only out-do auto tune in capable hands, but in those same capable hands it doesnt take DAYS, MONTHS or YEARS. It's hours.
> 
> There are plenty of people who have had their systems tuned by me or someone like me who either did it themselves because they themselves were capable, or who paid someone likle me to do it, and it took a matter of hours, and now they're enjoying their systems on a daily basis. Re-tuning is NOT part of their schedule. Re-tuning is NOT something these people WANT to do, nor do they need to do it.
> 
> Auto-tuning has it's place. But simply because someone has never personally met a capable tuner, doesnt mean they dont exist!


you ever notice its stuff like he claims is only ever said by people who can only rely on auto tune?


----------



## Niebur3 (Jul 11, 2008)

DDfusion said:


> MS-8 can


Perfect timing and stage in EVERY seat is what he said, at the same time. Maybe he only meant the front seats, but they way he is talking, I doubt it.


----------



## IJCOBRA (Nov 21, 2014)

Niick said:


> NOT TRUE!!! I'm saying manual has the potential to not only out-do auto tune in capable hands, but in those same capable hands it doesnt take DAYS, MONTHS or YEARS. It's hours.
> 
> There are plenty of people who have had their systems tuned by me or someone like me who either did it themselves because they themselves were capable, or who paid someone likle me to do it, and it took a matter of hours, and now they're enjoying their systems on a daily basis. Re-tuning is NOT part of their schedule. Re-tuning is NOT something these people WANT to do, nor do they need to do it.
> 
> Auto-tuning has it's place. But simply because someone has never personally met a capable tuner, doesnt mean they dont exist!


If I spent $500-$1000 for someone to tune my system, I doubt I'd mess with it either... even if I thought it didn't sound right. Otherwise it would have been a huge waste of money, right?

I would like to know the exact techniques you would use to tune a 3-way front+subs fully active system. I'd also like to know why it couldn't be automated to take about 1% the time.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

Niebur3 said:


> Perfect timing and stage in EVERY seat is what he said, at the same time. Maybe he only meant the front seats, but they way he is talking, I doubt it.


yeah, i really do not think its physically possible to have perfect staging from all seats in a car. if you do think its perfect from all seats, that just makes me question what you consider perfect


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

IJCOBRA said:


> I would like to know the exact techniques you would use to tune a 3-way front+subs fully active system.


there is a search bar you know..




IJCOBRA said:


> I'd also like to know why it couldn't be automated to take about 1% the time.


because that takes a ton of time and money. something most of the companies who make dsp's dont really have much of these days


----------



## Alrojoca (Oct 5, 2012)

Besides the fact that a perfect auto tune is almost impossible, it may not be in the manufacturer's and installer's, tuner's best financial or simple interest.

Tuning is a skill or art more than a science in my opinion.


Look at Iasca wanting stages where, besides the singer, you can pin point at least where some instruments are while MECA is more about where the singer's voice is, and not so much emphasis on pin pointing the instruments or something like that, may be not, but they look for different things.

Now, can we have a DSP with auto tune that can tune for Iasca and also for Meca please? 

Every tune is different, done with RTA or Mics and then by ear or just by ear, every person wants something different or custom tuned. Some tuner's have their own style, their tunes sound similar, in different cars. 

That is probably a good reason Auto tune may be for the average person, and not for the most demanding or competition car audiophile.


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

Alrojoca said:


> Besides the fact that a perfect auto tune is almost impossible, it may not be in the manufacturer's and installer's, tuner's best financial or simple interest.
> 
> Tuning is a skill or art more than a science in my opinion.
> 
> ...


A tune should reproduce the music. Is cut and dry. There is no different styles. The auto tune has swept ISACA, it works. All formats look for the same thing but use different tracks.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

IJCOBRA said:


> If I spent $500-$1000 for someone to tune my system, I doubt I'd mess with it either... even if I thought it didn't sound right. Otherwise it would have been a huge waste of money, right?
> 
> I would like to know the exact techniques you would use to tune a 3-way front+subs fully active system. I'd also like to know why it couldn't be automated to take about 1% the time.


I'm sure you would like to know these things. And to tell ya the truth, I probably give away WAY more information and techniques than I should. Skills that I've had to learn on my own thru research , trial and error, experimentation, staying late at work, coming in early, lugging home heavy backpacks and laptop cases full of measurement equipment that I then strung all over my living room at the annoyance of my wife, etc. 

I've spent a lot of money, time, energy on this stuff. ALOT. Because I'm passionate about it. If you search this forum you'll find ALOT of posts by me that go quit in depth regarding techniques. I'm probably a little TOO generous with this information. You'll also find posts by other forum members who have seen my techniques firstand. And heard the results. 

I'm not at all saying that what I do is somehow special. I've simply spent the time to learn how to do it. The main reason an "auto-tune" couldn't do what I do as effectively is because computers lack the ability to see the bigger picture. They're finite, but the human mind is infinite. I can take into consideration things that a computer cannot. I can talk with the customer and understand his/her intended use of their system, and since ALL successful audio systems are an artful balance of the right compromises, I can decide what to gain, and what to sacrifice, based on my experience, knowledge of the equipment at hand, and conversations with the end user. This is something no auto tune will ever be able to do.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

Niick said:


> I'm sure you would like to know these things. And to tell ya the truth, I probably give away WAY more information and techniques than I should. Skills that I've had to learn on my own thru research , trial and error, experimentation, staying late at work, coming in early, lugging home heavy backpacks and laptop cases full of measurement equipment that I then strung all over my living room at the annoyance of my wife, etc.
> 
> I've spent a lot of money, time, energy on this stuff. ALOT. Because I'm passionate about it. If you search this forum you'll find ALOT of posts by me that go quit in depth regardingy techniques. You'll also find posts by other forum members who have seen my techniques firstand. And heard the results.
> 
> I'm not at all saying that what I do is somehow special. I've simply spent the time to learn how to do it. The main reason an "auto-tune" couldn't do what I do as effectively is because computers lack the ability to see the bigger picture. They're finite, but the human mind is infinite. I can take into consideration things that a computer cannot. I can talk with the customer and understand his/her intended use of their system, and since ALL successful audio systems are an artful balance of the right compromises, I can decide what to gain, and what to sacrifice, based on my experience, knowledge of the equipment at hand, and conversations with the end user. This is something no auto tune will ever be able to do.


oh nick, speaking of your techniques.. i tried the uncorelated pink noise in the car (last time we talked it was on my computer). same response as with correlated besides a 2db hump at 800hz


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

Has one of your tunes ever swept ISACA?


----------



## Niebur3 (Jul 11, 2008)

DDfusion said:


> A tune should reproduce the music. Is cut and dry. There is no different styles. The auto tune has swept ISACA, it works. All formats look for the same thing but use different tracks.


Who was that? What year and what class?


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

Niebur3 said:


> Who was that? What year and what class?


he might be talking about the one time he competed with one other person in his class a couple years ago..? but that was meca


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

SkizeR said:


> oh nick, speaking of your techniques.. i tried the uncorelated pink noise in the car (last time we talked it was on my computer). same response as with correlated besides a 2db hump at 800hz


"Same response, except it was different" LOL 

NO, just kiddin  but seriously, where was the mic? I would suppose that the smaller the room/car, the less and less this comb filtering effect stands a chance of manifesting itself as a difference in measure frequency response, correlated vs. uncorrelated. The point is, if you understand comb filtering, then you'll understand that you stand a chance of placing your mic in a null, or peak, at some frequency or another, if you use correlated noise and play both channels at once.

HOWEVER, I USE CORRELATED NOISE WHEN I TUNE. BUT, the only time I really measure both channels simultaneously I have already aligned the acoustic energy arrival IN TIME, thus removing this potential, so, in other words, if you used that mic position to time align your speakers, then correlated noise will present no problems. It's when the arrival time (at the mic) is different from two identical speakers playing identical sound that you stand a chance of having inadvertently placed you mic in a null or peak, and therefore stand a chance of acquiring "bad" data.

Does that make sense?


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

Niick said:


> "Same response, except it was different" LOL
> 
> NO, just kiddin  but seriously, where was the mic? I would suppose that the smaller the room/car, the less and less this comb filtering effect stands a chance of manifesting itself as a difference in measure frequency response, correlated vs. uncorrelated. The point is, if you understand comb filtering, then you'll understand that you stand a chance of placing your mic in a null, or peak, at some frequency or another, if you use correlated noise and play both channels at once.
> 
> ...


mic was moved around the head area. i do TA by ear. so maybe thats why it measures the same. this was also one average vs one average so that narrow 2db hump may just be an inconsistency


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

DDfusion said:


> Has one of your tunes ever swept ISACA?


Not yet, but there is a forum member who does compete in IASCA who does very well and who will be competing again very soon. He and I have worked together on tuning strategies, techniques, tools. He's on the opposite coast from me, so unfortunately I haven't had an opportunity to hear his car myself, but I would love to. He'll be competing again real soon, we'll see how he does.


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

Well you have yet to beat a auto tune.


----------



## Alrojoca (Oct 5, 2012)

DDfusion said:


> A tune should reproduce the music. Is cut and dry. There is no different styles. The auto tune has swept ISACA, it works. All formats look for the same thing but use different tracks.


Not sure I agree with you 100%, I have listened to a few podium systems.

I have noticed, narrow stages, deep stages different, and similar when tuned by the same person. Maybe some will depend on the car, but to me it is not cut and dry. 

There is a reason why you tune for a CD and when you play music you like it still sounds good but not to my taste, and that is a reason why some tune just for certain type of music since a single tune will not be good for all music.


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

You don't tune to play certain music. A good tune plays everything.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

DDfusion said:


> Well you have yet to beat a auto tune.


post some event results with people who have won with an auto tune. and sure, you can include the event you went to a few years ago with one other person in your class. other examples would be appreciated though


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

Andy did it. I figured people here would know that. The all mighty Nick, I think it was even done on stock speakers. 
I'll post my score card soon. Factory locations, class D amps, crappy Hertz speakers like you think.. A "SPL" sub.. I'm sure it wont do well.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

andy did it? where and when and with what?


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

You tell me Nick. You are the god of sound quality. I'm always wrong and never know what I'm talking about remember?


----------



## Alrojoca (Oct 5, 2012)

DDfusion said:


> You don't tune to play certain music. A good tune plays everything.


That is what I do, once I find what I like but if you compete you need to tune for that disc the judges will play in your system.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

DDfusion said:


> You tell me Nick. You are the god of sound quality. I'm always wrong and never know what I'm talking about remember?


where did i claim to be a god? never have i ever done that. what i am pretty good at is spotting/calling BS.. so again, when and where did someone (andy you say) "sweep" iasca with an autotune? and no, im not saying theyre bad. im just making you back your claim


----------



## brumledb (Feb 2, 2015)

Seriously, how much fun could it possibly be to win with an auto-tune? If all you can do is auto-tune, what's the point? In Andy's case, I get it. He's is designing the DSP that is winning the comp. If you are only using the auto-tune device that someone else built, then seems kinda lame.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

2011? If we could tag on here I'm sure he would tell you. 
Go spot that BS buddy.


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

Alrojoca said:


> That is what I do, once I find what I like but if you compete you need to tune for that disc the judges will play in your system.


No. You don't tune to play one CD. Reproduction of the source, its all the same. If the source is good the tune is good no matter what material is playing


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

brumledb said:


> Seriously, how much fun could it possibly be to win with an auto-tune? If all you can do is auto-tune, what's the point? In Andy's case, I get it. He's is designing the DSP that is winning the comp. If you are only using the auto-tune device that someone else built, then seems kinda lame.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Its fun to actually enjoy the system. Everyday, everything you want to play. Just listen and enjoy. Not listen to spot every missing detail that makes you want to go back and change everything


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

DDfusion said:


> 2011? If we could tag on here I'm sure he would tell you.
> Go spot that BS buddy.


link to results?


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

Tag him on facebook. I would but you remember, I got kicked off the page after you got mad that you where wrong about the alternator


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

DDfusion said:


> Tag him on facebook. I would but you remember, I got kicked off the page after you got mad that you where wrong about the alternator


i was wrong? hmm. thats weird because if i remember correctly he fixed the issue without a new alternator. was that like the time on there where you said raw drivers cannot sound good and arent "loud" ?


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

A raw driver meant for a HT is designed around a sealed enclosure. Are our doors a sealed enclosure? 
Its the same as using a woofer optimized for sealed and porting it. Yes it works but it don't work how it was intended.


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

Anyway, tag him. Since we cant have our own opinions on anything if it goes against the norm


----------



## brumledb (Feb 2, 2015)

I know we can all Google and I'm sure most of us know what DD is referencing but anyways 

http://www.businesswire.com/news/ho...-MS-8-Sweeps-Sound-Quality-Competition-Spring


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

brumledb said:


> I know we can all Google and I'm sure most of us know what DD is referencing but anyways
> 
> JBL MS-8 Sweeps Sound Quality Competition at Spring Break Nationals | Business Wire
> 
> ...


Thanks. I was a few years off.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

very interesting. so, any more? or just one?


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

One is enough to prove its that good. I'm sure there are more and if I get enough events there will be one more documented


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

DDfusion said:


> Well you have yet to beat a auto tune.


LMFAO!!! What?? What does that mean?   oh my goodness, there is SO MUCH MORE to the merits of an audio professional's skills than whether or not he's won the favor of some "judge" or contest. LOL


----------



## Alrojoca (Oct 5, 2012)

DDfusion said:


> No. You don't tune to play one CD. Reproduction of the source, its all the same. If the source is good the tune is good no matter what material is playing



No, if the music and all recordings were perfect then one tune will do, TA and Stage yes, SQ no because not all recordings are the same
, you will always add more bass or increase volume for road noise too and sometimes boost some high frequencies or reduce them, I can find a point where I can leave it alone but then some recordings need a cut on high frequencies and some a boost in them also besides turning the sub vol up and down when needed. 
Either I leave with it or do a minor boost or cut to enjoy it.


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

Niick said:


> LMFAO!!! What?? What does that mean?   oh my goodness, there is SO MUCH MORE to the merits of an audio professionals skills than whether or not he's won the favor of some "judge" or contest. LOL


It means people can talk all they want. Which happens a lot on the internet. Without proven results its just talk


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

Alrojoca said:


> No, if the music and all recordings were perfect then one tune will do, TA and Stage yes, SQ no because not all recordings are the same
> , you will always add more bass or increase volume for road noise too and sometimes boost some high frequencies or reduce them, I can find a point where I can leave it alone but then some recordings need a cut on high frequencies and some a boost in them also besides turning the sub vol up and down when needed.
> Either I leave with it or do a minor boost or cut to enjoy it.


Once again, no. If you are changing the tune you are changing the reproduction. Think about it. Volume levels change, not the tune


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

I don't know what that says more about, the brilliance of your auto tune, or the weakness of your competition and/or ineptitude of the judges at the event??


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

DDfusion said:


> It means people can talk all they want. Which happens a lot on the internet. Without proven results its just talk


I'm not just talking, there are OTHER FORUM MEMBERS who have experienced what I do. If that's the kind of "proof" you're after. ?


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

Don't say anything because it don't matter. Show it


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

I once again proved what some of you say cant happen. 
As far as I've read I'm the only one that has proven anything. 
I hope someone does, I'm working all night so I got time.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

DDfusion said:


> I once again proved what some of you say cant happen.
> As far as I've read I'm the only one that has proven anything.
> I hope someone does, I'm working all night so I got time.


Huh?? You totally lost me dude. I've never said anything that "can't happen" 

Ok, you win  LOL


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

Lets do a simple eval
One person says you cant have the same tune for different orgs. Well in this case it proves you can, ISACA and MECA
One person says a auto tune is not as good as a manual tune. This was SBN, where some of the best cars in the nation compete. 
So that's 2 for 2. 
There is only one way to prove anything, results. Not ego, or opinion.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

DDfusion said:


> Lets do a simple eval
> One person says you cant have the same tune for different orgs. Well in this case it proves you can, ISACA and MECA
> One person says a auto tune is not as good as a manual tune. This was SBN, where some of the best cars in the nation compete.
> So that's 2 for 2.
> There is only one way to prove anything, results. Not ego, or opinion.



You're right, with logic like that, I now see the light. I see now the error of my ways. I'll quit learning all I can about acoustics, loudspeakers, audio test and measurement, acoustic analysis, and I'll stop offering my services to people who have dsp's that don't offer an auto tune function.

Thank you for showing me the way.

I'll just tell people from now on, I'll tel 'em "ya know what, you should get rid of that Helix DSP Pro, or that Mosconi 6 to 8, etc. and you should get you a processor that does auto tune instead"

Yes, that's what I'll do. I'll get right on that first thing when I get to work tomorrow. And now that I don't have to "waste" my time pursuing such silly passions, maybe I'll take up stamp collecting, or knitting.


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

You are taking to far and personal. I never said you cant have a perfect manual tune, of course you can. I'm saying a auto tune CAN be just as good which was the original misinformation


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

slowhatch said:


> So, I took Niick up on his offer and made the 3 hour trip down to OR. Let me just say, this was the single best move I have made with my car audio. Niick is head and shoulders above anyone else I have ever met in the car audio business. He really really knows his stuff. It all started days before I even showed up with him asking lots of questions in order to familiarize himself with the system. He also downloaded and began learning the software for the pxa800h. I don't know any other installer/tuner that takes that puts this much effort and fore thought into their tuning. This all got me really excited and reassured me that I had the right guy finally. So onto the process...
> 
> I will try to explain the process/technique he used but I will probably miss something or screw it it up so please bare with me. First off he let me listen to two great systems, both were tuned by Niick and both sounded great. We then listened to my car, and he noted that it wasn't terrible(lol). After that he got to work. He marked my listening position and set up his three microphones in that position. Then he hooked up to the DSP and ran an aux cord to my system in order to play tones/pink noise. At this point he also measured the tweeters impedance. This is when he started setting the crossover electrical crossover points and slopes all while explaining what he was doing and why(which I missed at least half of) as well as showing me the acoustic crossover. He then began EQing each channel(my DSP won't separate the tweeter/woofer). After this he time aligned everything. So the crazy part to me was that we never listened to it, not once while tuning! We finally buttoned it all up(I was rushing him��) and took a listen. All I can say is AMAZING, NIGHT AND DAY DIFFERENCE!
> 
> ...


Ok, so here's an example for ya. Funny thing is, this particular individual actually HAD A ALPINE DSP with the auto tune function, AND HE WASNT COMPLETELY HAPPY WITH IT!!

That is awesome!!! I wasn't gonna do it, but I figured, ahh, what the hell, I'm being accused of being one of these internet all-talk kinda guys, and wouldn't ya know I totally forgot that this particular example ACTUALLY HAD AUTO TUNE, and he didn't like it!!!

Now that's quite a coincidence.


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

I'm sure you know the Alpine does not use the Binaural mic the MS-8 uses.
Most are not happy with the Alpine's tune. Apples to oranges


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

Fun arguing with ya DDFusion, all right I'm going to bed. Goodnight.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

DDfusion said:


> I'm sure you know the Alpine does not use the Binaural mic the MS-8 uses.
> Most are not happy with the Alpine's tune. Apples to oranges


oh, right, that's true. Good point.


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

I enjoy having intelligent conversations with intelligent people.


----------



## Alextaastrup (Apr 12, 2014)

Me too - I liked Alpine autotuning (just for one week). It was definetely better than without it. But then I tried to make my own (manual tuning) with the target curve I prefer, with separated tuning of left and right channels. And that worked for me. All these sleepless nights with Imprint are back in the past. Just listening to music and enjoying it


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

DDfusion said:


> I once again proved what some of you say cant happen.
> As far as I've read I'm the only one that has proven anything.
> I hope someone does, I'm working all night so I got time.


so an auto tune (actually, probably not completely auto), wins one event like 8 years so auto tune is better?


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

SkizeR said:


> so an auto tune (actually, probably not completely auto), wins one event like 8 years so auto tune is better?


I take it you still have nothing productive to add? More rabble since you have nothing educated to say. Congrats, Ill send you a cookie for effort.
Next time if you don't know enough about a topic just take a back seat, believe it or not, you still have lots to learn


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

DDfusion said:


> I take it you still have nothing productive to add? More rabble since you have nothing educated to say. Congrats, Ill send you a cookie for effort.
> Next time if you don't know enough about a topic just take a back seat, believe it or not, you still have lots to learn


Lol ok 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## gregerst22 (Dec 18, 2012)

Niick said:


> Ya know there is another way too.....another forum member came up with the idea, and we tried it, and IT WORKED!!
> 
> Im talking about TeamViewer. If someone has a DSP, but need it tuned, and they dont live near anyone whos capable, they could put a mic(s) in the car, and a capable tuner could optimize DSP parameters form anywhere in the world. I've been giving more and more thought to this, and I already have enough equipment that I could even ship a mic array and interface (and technically a laptop if necessary) to the person, if they didnt already have such things. Many people, however, do have at least one mic and interface as a result of REW.


I had a discussion about this with somebody a couple years ago. Remotely accessing another computer can work for a basic tune but it's clunky. What I thought would be neat is if the DSP itself had wifi builtin and the software was cloud based. Then it could be remotely accessed by a tuner and the DSP should allow common MICs to be plugged into it. Still all of this relies on other people and probably paying them.


----------



## IJCOBRA (Nov 21, 2014)

I still don't see any reason why a smart auto-tune couldn't completely replace a manual tune. It is using the same tools and methods... Only 1000 times faster. Faster means it can tweek one small thing and completely re-run a spectrum test to compare, and then keep the changes or continue tweeking all in about 10 seconds. It has a non-fading memory (unlike us) that will remember every little harmonic resonance or issue at the same time and factor that in. for these reasons I think it could be way better than a manual tune.

I can understand arguing against the current auto-tunes, because they aren't that smart. But arguing against the goal/concept/future reeks of desparation. We've already seen people fighting against smartphones and tablets on page 2...


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

If you ask Andy he'll tell you that the SBN car had a LOT of manual tuning above and beyond whatever auto tune was used. It also had logic processing for extra width etc. A pure MS8 auto tune has never won anything of consequence and nor will it. Wanna know why? Because if you could measure the response in all the top cars, you'd get curves that are slightly different from each other, but a VERY high degree of correlation over every octave. Sure there would be small differences within each octave due different environments and installs, but overall...a high degree of correlation. The MS8 curve is different to this basic SQ curve.

Sure, the MS8 has the best auto tune, but the best tune?? Pls. The revered MS 8 curve is wrong to start with. It allows for too much energy in the 200-1khz range and not enough of a roll from 1-4.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

IJCOBRA said:


> I still don't see any reason why a smart auto-tune couldn't completely replace a manual tune. .


Because a good manual tune will ALWAYS trump any auto tune. Those who know how how to tune manually would NEVER have it any other way. The MS8 was a product for the masses like McDonalds. Good for those who don't know better or don't want to invest time and effort in finding a better alternative. Nobody who's good at tuning ever took it seriously. 

I find it mildly amusing that someone who probably doesn't understand tuning very well, starts a thread "How come nobody makes a good dsp". If you had really used your 360.3 to it's real potential, you wouldn't be asking this question.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

sqnut said:


> I find it mildly amusing that someone who probably doesn't understand tuning very well, starts a thread "How come nobody makes a good dsp". If you really had used your 360.3 to it's real potential, you wouldn't be asking this question.


Mhmmm


Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Darth SQ (Sep 17, 2010)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> Buy an ADI Sigma DSP evaluation board and download Sigma Studio. That might be open source enough for what most of you want to do. You can get this at Digikey.
> 
> If you're waiting around for some car audio company to make an open source DSP that will allow you to do anything you want on top of a bunch of proprietary code designed exactly the way you want it and one that will be willing to tech support you, make some popcorn and settle in for a long wait.


I hope you all caught this little nugget of gold from Andy.
I did.


Bret
PPI-ART COLLECTOR


----------



## I800C0LLECT (Jan 26, 2009)

Well then...

SigmaDSP Evaluation Boards | Design Center | Analog Devices


----------



## Victor_inox (Apr 27, 2012)

EVAL-AD1940MINIBZ Analog Devices Inc. | Programmers, Development Systems | DigiKey


----------



## Victor_inox (Apr 27, 2012)

In true spirit of DIY


I800C0LLECT said:


> Well then...
> 
> SigmaDSP Evaluation Boards | Design Center | Analog Devices


----------



## IJCOBRA (Nov 21, 2014)

sqnut said:


> Because a good manual tune will ALWAYS trump any auto tune. Those who know how how to tune manually would NEVER have it any other way. The MS8 was a product for the masses like McDonalds. Good for those who don't know better or don't want to invest time and effort in finding a better alternative. Nobody who's good at tuning ever took it seriously.
> 
> I find it mildly amusing that someone who probably doesn't understand tuning very well, starts a thread "How come nobody makes a good dsp". If you had really used your 360.3 to it's real potential, you wouldn't be asking this question.


You mean a good manual tune (which is extremely rare) will trump any CURRENT auto tune. There will be a day when this is not true.



sqnut said:


> I find it mildly amusing that someone who probably doesn't understand tuning very well, starts a thread "How come nobody makes a good dsp". If you had really used your 360.3 to it's real potential, you wouldn't be asking this question.


If it came with a MS-8 style (or better) auto tune, I probably wouldn't have needed to post this thread.


----------



## IJCOBRA (Nov 21, 2014)

"...no computer will ever beat an expert human at chess..."


----------



## brumledb (Feb 2, 2015)

Hopefully this DSP will come stock in my flying car that runs off hydrogen.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## IJCOBRA (Nov 21, 2014)

brumledb said:


> Hopefully this DSP will come stock in my flying car that runs off hydrogen.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Speaking of stock, it seems many OEMs are more advanced than the aftermarket in digital signal chains and signal processing. Nice to see factory stereo systems getting better. I probably won't even have to upgrade the stereo in my next car.


----------



## Victor_inox (Apr 27, 2012)

IJCOBRA said:


> "...no computer will ever beat an expert human at chess..."


To set a record straight:Kasparov won three and drew two of the following five games, defeating Deep Blue by a score of 4–2
Deep Blue was then heavily upgraded, and played Kasparov again in May 1997. Deep Blue won game six, therefore winning the six-game rematch 3½–2½ and becoming the first computer system to defeat a reigning world champion in a match under standard chess tournament time controls.[1] Kasparov accused IBM of cheating and demanded a rematch. IBM refused and retired Deep Blue.
that is hardly a win in my books.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

IJCOBRA said:


> "...no computer will ever beat an expert human at chess..."


Poor analogy.


----------



## Alextaastrup (Apr 12, 2014)

IJCOBRA said:


> "...no computer will ever beat an expert human at chess..."


So far computers are also made by humans


----------



## Victor_inox (Apr 27, 2012)

sqnut said:


> Poor analogy.


completely different algorithms, I agree.


----------



## Victor_inox (Apr 27, 2012)

Alextaastrup said:


> So far computers are also made by humans


Although SHift happens


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

sqnut said:


> If you ask Andy he'll tell you that the SBN car had a LOT of manual tuning above and beyond whatever auto tune was used. It also had logic processing for extra width etc. A pure MS8 auto tune has never won anything of consequence and nor will it. Wanna know why? Because if you could measure the response in all the top cars, you'd get curves that are slightly different from each other, but a VERY high degree of correlation over every octave. Sure there would be small differences within each octave due different environments and installs, but overall...a high degree of correlation. The MS8 curve is different to this basic SQ curve.
> 
> Sure, the MS8 has the best auto tune, but the best tune?? Pls. The revered MS 8 curve is wrong to start with. It allows for too much energy in the 200-1khz range and not enough of a roll from 1-4.


There isn't much manual tuning you can do. And that year at a very large event a manual tune was the best tune.


----------



## IJCOBRA (Nov 21, 2014)

Victor_inox said:


> To set a record straight:Kasparov won three and drew two of the following five games, defeating Deep Blue by a score of 4–2
> Deep Blue was then heavily upgraded, and played Kasparov again in May 1997. Deep Blue won game six, therefore winning the six-game rematch 3½–2½ and becoming the first computer system to defeat a reigning world champion in a match under standard chess tournament time controls.[1] Kasparov accused IBM of cheating and demanded a rematch. IBM refused and retired Deep Blue.
> that is hardly a win in my books.


Deep Blue was 20 years ago and is old news. There have been challenges since which were dominated by a simple PC (not mainframe supercomputer).

What else can't computers do or automate? How about drones (we'll never replace pilots... Until we do), tomahawk missiles, fully automatic combat systems suites, SKYNET? Self driving cars? Computerized CNC machines? SETI and human genome/cancer cure computations?

An auto-tune DSP is not difficult at all. Enter in system specifications, measure, adjust, re-measure, adjust til a diminishing return threshold is reached.


----------



## Victor_inox (Apr 27, 2012)

IJCOBRA said:


> Deep Blue was 20 years ago and is old news. There have been challenges since which were dominated by a simple PC (not mainframe supercomputer).
> 
> What else can't computers do or automate? How about drones (we'll never replace pilots... Until we do), tomahawk missiles, fully automatic combat systems suites, SKYNET? Self driving cars? Computerized CNC machines? SETI and human genome/cancer cure computations?
> 
> An auto-tune DSP is not difficult at all. Enter in system specifications, measure, adjust, re-measure, adjust til a diminishing return threshold is reached.


 Documented challenges? prove it!.

I`m not saying modern computers lack compilation abilities, quite the opposite.
BTW I can bet you don`t play chess at all and have vague understanding how computers works too. 
how about you create one hell of autotune solution and we all benefit from it? Or better yet offer it for sale but not half baked like Sigma style board but complete working solution instead.


----------



## Victor_inox (Apr 27, 2012)

Alextaastrup said:


> So far computers are also made by humans


Software written by humans as well.


----------



## IJCOBRA (Nov 21, 2014)

Victor_inox said:


> Documented challenges? prove it!.
> 
> I`m not saying modern computers lack compilation abilities, quite the opposite.
> BTW I can bet you don`t play chess at all and have vague understanding how computers works too.
> how about you create one hell of autotune solution and we all benefit from it? Or better yet offer it for sale but not half baked like Sigma style board but complete working solution instead.


Google Deep Fritz for documented chess challenges.

How much would you like to bet?

If a shipboard computer can solve the fire control problem in less than a second and put a 75mm warhead through an incoming supersonic anti-ship missile, we can certainly manage a 20-20khz frequency spectrum.


----------



## Victor_inox (Apr 27, 2012)

IJCOBRA said:


> Google Deep Fritz for documented chess challenges.
> 
> How much would you like to bet?
> 
> If a shipboard computer can solve the fire control problem in less than a second and put a 75mm warhead through an incoming supersonic anti-ship missile, we can certainly manage a 20-20khz frequency spectrum.


 Bet on what, that you don`t play chess? how about you play me on chess.com and we`ll go from there?

What programing languages you use? care to share a few lines of code so I can see for myself?

Why Are you implying that Im anti computer is beyond my understanding
I probably spent more years in industry than you`ve been alive. 
Seriously, I don`t understand the point of your argument.


----------



## IJCOBRA (Nov 21, 2014)

My point is RIGHT NOW an auto-tune could beat an expensive, laborious, and time consuming manual tune and make the world better for everyone except manual tuners and probably elite speaker manufacturers ... if a company would just invest in it.


----------



## Victor_inox (Apr 27, 2012)

IJCOBRA said:


> My point is RIGHT NOW an auto-tune could beat an expensive, laborious, and time consuming manual tune and make the world better for everyone except manual tuners and probably elite speaker manufacturers ... if a company would just invest in it.


 ThInk about it as investor. would you invest in something you`ll have no return on? 
How many receivers with Audyssey autotune Denon sell in a year?
I bet in hundreds of thousands perfectly justifying Licence fee, programming,etc. If there is no demand, there will be no profit, therefore there will be no development. Factory entertainment systems in cars became better every generation, aftermarket car audio slowly dieing. 
For 99.9% of consumers it`s already good enough. 
Software development is costly proposition with average coders salaries 75 grand a year and up. It`s not uncommon for projects like that completely scrapped if one programer leaves the company.


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

Wow...nice thread. 

We did win SBN with BMW that included MS-8. In fact, there was no additional tuning on top of the autotune. That doesn't mean anything. Winning some competition means that the car was built according to the rules. BFD.

Nick is right about one thing--and that's a human's ability to make a judgement call when the situation requires it. Edge cases are always a problem for any algorithm. 

I can guarantee you that no one on this forum but me and Adam Strauss (who may not check out what goes on here anymore) has a ****ing clue what MS-8 does. He wrote much of the code. 

Any automated optimization process has a defined spec that it's designed to hit. The quality of the algorithm is determined by how often it can hit the spec and by how far it deviates from it when presented with varying configurations to optimize. Consumer preference (I like it or I don't like it) is not a spec. In developing a spec for a automated optimization routine that will be included in a consumer device, it's important to consider consumer preference and to choose a target type of consumer. If possible, some amount of tuning for consumer preference can be helpful in providing a device that pleases consumers that aren't completely pleased by the spec. 

The question is not, "Can an autotune be devised that can, in every case, out perform ANY manual process?". Of course, the answer to that is "no". That's like asking, "Is 10 larger than any other number that could ever be defined?" No.

Did MS-8 work? Yeah, when presented with a system that falls within the 48 systems it's designed to tune it works pretty well. There are some problems that break the code. A high Q sealed subwoofer in the trunk of a BMW is one of those problems. There are other occasions when MS-8 fails to flatten the midrange sufficiently. In these cases, a manual tuner would make a different decision because he/she doesn't have to follow the algorithm's rules. 

"How come no one makes a good DSP?" Is a pretty incendiary way to start a thread. The answer to that question is "There are plenty of good DSPs. There may not be any that meet your requirements."

Since there aren't any that meet the OPs requirements, I posted a way for him to get closer to what he wants since no one on the planet probably gives enough of a rat's ass to make one for him and since his manner is likely to annoy those who could. 

Is it possible to build a car that sounds great in both front seats and in the back seats too? That depends on the spec for what good sound is. 

Being able to tune a single seat in a car in which several people in other seats also listen in a way that makes the other seats sound like garbage does not make you a "tuning God". It makes you a learner. Given the right tools, I can do all four seats and I'm still a learner.


----------



## Victor_inox (Apr 27, 2012)

Andy, can`t wait for you to finish that 24ch AF and let`s see what can be done with that.
I have high hopes for that device.


----------



## IJCOBRA (Nov 21, 2014)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> Wow...nice thread.
> 
> We did win SBN with BMW that included MS-8. In fact, there was no additional tuning on top of the autotune. That doesn't mean anything. Winning some competition means that the car was built according to the rules. BFD.
> 
> ...


I just bought an MS-8 off eBay. I'll post updates. Since the MS-8 is no longer produced or supported, I believe my thread title stands correct.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

IJCOBRA said:


> I just bought an MS-8 off eBay. I'll post updates. Since the MS-8 is no longer produced or supported, I believe my thread title stands correct.


Imagine the opposite end of the specrum. All the audio professionals across the world who (I'm talking home, pro sound, car...whatever) use DSP in their daily work. Imagine if all of a sudden the only dsp's available we're ms8 auto-tune only type things. There would be tens of thousands of people saying, "what the hell happened, why aren't there any GOOD (get it?) DSPs anymore?!"

A true audio professional wants and needs direct control over the signal going to the loudspeakers. If a change needs to be made, say a different model speaker is connected, because the old ones burnt out and they're not available anymore, a real audio professional would NEED to know EXACTLY what changes needed to be made and why. They would not be content to just push a button and have blind faith that the guys who wrote the algorithms have sufficiently thought of every potential scenario that could ever possibly exist, and what if (now I know you don't think this is possible) but what if they pushed "tune" button and the results were not satisfactory?


----------



## IJCOBRA (Nov 21, 2014)

Niick said:


> Imagine the opposite end of the specrum. All the audio professionals across the world who (I'm talking home, pro sound, car...whatever) use DSP in their daily work. Imagine if all of a sudden the only dsp's available we're ms8 auto-tune only type things. There would be tens of thousands of people saying, "what the hell happened, why aren't there any GOOD (get it?) DSPs anymore?!"
> 
> A true audio professional wants and needs direct control over the signal going to the loudspeakers. If a change needs to be made, say a different model speaker is connected, because the old ones burnt out and they're not available anymore, a real audio professional would NEED to know EXACTLY what changes needed to be made and why. They would not be content to just push a button and have blind faith that the guys who wrote the algorithms have sufficiently thought of every potential scenario that could ever possibly exist, and what if (now I know you don't think this is possible) but what if they pushed "tune" button and the results were not satisfactory?


True, and exactly what I said on page 1. I'm not saying the MS-8 is the end all be all. I think it's biggest shortcoming is it doesn't show you any of the changes it makes (it doesn't have to be that way). I'm just tired of tuning over and over manually every day when my hearing is different or the weather changes, or I'm not positive I did it perfectly or get the great idea that I could do it differently/better. I want to tune it once and be happy with it and just accept that if it doesn't sound perfect it is just my ears that day or the weather but not that I didn't tune it as good as reasonably possible. Sometimes less is more.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

What I'm hearing is that you have a mistrust in your ability to understand and properly adjust all the parameters of a modern DSP. And that's perfectly fine. I don't trust myself properly rebuild a computer and load a new operating system and all that kinda stuff, even if I did it and it seemed to work, I'd always wonder if it could run faster or better. This is because I don't do that kind of work. I'd rather pay a professional who does. 

You'd rather pay a professional too, you just prefer your professional to be a manufacturer of the equipment. That's cool, that's your preference.

The part where I feel you have it a little confused is where you define products that don't meet your preferences as not good. "There aren't any GOOD processors". 

We all have different preferences in life. 

There are many good processors and even a couple great ones, all you have do do to live in this reality where there ARE good processors is change your definition of good.

Learn how to adjust the parameters in a DSP, and you might find that you have more faith in your own abilities than you previously thought you could.

I have faith in YOU.


----------



## IJCOBRA (Nov 21, 2014)

Niick said:


> What I'm hearing is that you have a mistrust in your ability to understand and properly adjust all the parameters of a modern DSP. And that's perfectly fine. I don't trust myself properly rebuild a computer and load a new operating system and all that kinda stuff, even if I did it and it seemed to work, I'd always wonder if it could run faster or better. This is because I don't do that kind of work. I'd rather pay a professional who does.
> 
> You'd rather pay a professional too, you just prefer your professional to be a manufacturer of the equipment. That's cool, that's your preference.
> 
> ...


As far as I know there are currently no auto tuning signal processors being made except the Alpine IMPRINT (is that still being made?) and the crap in the Pioneer headunits like mine (AVH-4000NEX) which I am not utilizing. All the other DSPs are basically the same; meaning the parameters they control (time/distance, gain, crossover, eq, channel) are all pretty much the same. The only other differences are cosmetic, minuscule specification improvement, additional bling features, or interface.

I've had my 3Sixty.3 for almost 3 years and have tuned it using every method I've found two hundred times at least. I have all the correct equipment and fundamentals. I've read about it and understand as much as a human is capable of with 18 years electronics and stereo experience. I'm just tired of it. I just want to set it and forget it and chalk anything else up to a crap automotive environment. 

We'll see how I feel after using the MS-8.


----------



## IJCOBRA (Nov 21, 2014)

Niick said:


> What I'm hearing is that you have a mistrust in your ability to understand and properly adjust all the parameters of a modern DSP. And that's perfectly fine. I don't trust myself properly rebuild a computer and load a new operating system and all that kinda stuff, even if I did it and it seemed to work, I'd always wonder if it could run faster or better. This is because I don't do that kind of work. I'd rather pay a professional who does.
> 
> You'd rather pay a professional too, you just prefer your professional to be a manufacturer of the equipment. That's cool, that's your preference.
> 
> ...


Furthermore, I feel DSPs are leaving a lot on the table. We should be able to tell the DSP when setting amp gains where we are at 0db rated voltage, and easily use that as a starting point for gain overlap and system leveling. My 3Sixty.3 has no idea how many watts/volts are being output as far as the tuner can tell. It should know speaker size and T/S specifications to account for sensitivity in system leveling and crossover points/slopes/beaming without leaving that completely up to you to figure out. It should run a speaker test and listen for clipping and know the upper and lower limits of the speaker (both in frequency and amplitude) and factor that into the tune. It should adjust and measure the frequency response of every combonation of crossover type/point/slope in relation to the other speakers' crossover combos and select the optimum combination of high pass and low pass in the entire speaker system based on the results instead of letting the owner manually use their best guess and hope for the best. Doing this manually would take an eternity of complicated mess. And it could do all this in 5 minutes. All these tuning methods are nothing but step by step processes with known desired end states... the perfect thing for a program to do automatically.

Even in the given example from post #205 from Niick of a professional replacing a set of speakers with a different set and "having" to manually re-tune... why? A proper, full, smart auto-tune should be able to do it far quicker and more accurately.

My question is: What is the current GOOD DSP, and what is the current GREAT DSP?


----------



## Darth SQ (Sep 17, 2010)

IJCOBRA said:


> I just bought an MS-8 off eBay. I'll post updates. *Since the MS-8 is no longer produced or supported, I believe my thread title stands correct*.


Wow...just wow.


Bret
PPI-ART COLLECTOR


----------



## IJCOBRA (Nov 21, 2014)

PPI-ART COLLECTOR said:


> Wow...just wow.
> 
> 
> Bret
> PPI-ART COLLECTOR


Show me otherwise, please. The MS-8 came out in like 2007 and is no longer on JBL.com or any of the online retailers. If you are counting a 3rd party resource (non-manufacturer or owner corporation) like this site as support... Ok. But it's certainly not official or warrantied or legally binding. I'd love to be wrong tho.

https://www.jbl.com/search?q=Ms-8

If you are trying to say you think there are GOOD DSPs being produced: name them. I'm surprised nobody has gushed over Audisdon yet but the MS-8 which has gotten a few nods even though it's not being produced anymore.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

IJCOBRA said:


> An auto-tune DSP is not difficult at all. Enter in system specifications, measure, adjust, re-measure, adjust til a diminishing return threshold is reached.


I'll say this slowly, we...only...understand...about...40%...of...how...our...brain...and...ears...process...sound. How on earth are you going to write an algorithm for an auto tune that sounds right? Trial and error? If finding the ideal algorithm is trial and error how is it different from manual tuning? FWIW I've tuned the MS8 in two cars and heard about 6 which had the MS8......meh!....in comparison to what you can achieve with a full manual processor like the helix pro, 360.3, both audisons, mosconi etc. What you can dial in with these processors in say a week (assuming about 2 hours a day tuning time), will be streets ahead of what any auto tune does......provided you know how to tune. 

If you know how to tune manually by default it means that you would hear 90% of the differences between say a 2 ch at home vs a car with the ms8 tune, a stock car and say KP's / Richards car. Your ears will tell you, 2ch ~= KP's car > ms8 > stock. The difference between KP's car and the ms8 would be huge. 

None of the auto tunes really work because:

1. All the house curves used are less than ideal. Measure the heck out of KP's car and then build your auto tune.
2. We are writing algorithms for stuff we don't fully understand. 
3. Who's evaluating the end result? Someone who can hear the difference or an engineer who is measuring if parameters were met, well even if the parameters are met, thanks to point 2 above there are good chances that the parameters themselves are incomplete / incorrect.Get the final product
verified by someone who can tell the difference between good and better. Andy, with due respect my ire is aimed at OP who is probably just brash and ignorant. A guy who can't get his car sounding incredible with a 360.3 starts this thread, hilarious.

But seriously, before you design the AF processor please listen to the handful of top cars in meca, they will all sound very similar and you'll instantly hear the difference between those cars and what you have so far accepted as the brick wall of the cars environment, while making the auto tune. This is the sound the auto tune should should be able to create. Oh and please, please give us manual TA.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

IJCOBRA said:


> If you are trying to say you think there are GOOD DSPs being produced: name them.


1. Helix pro
2. Mosconi 6 to 8
3. RF 360.3
4. Both Audisons

With the above processors the level of SQ one will achieve is 100% down to the persons tuning skills. A good tuner will be very satisfied with the results from any of these and not look to change anything. If however one is challenged when it comes to tuning, then all these processors will sound like crap. 

So now you're looking for a good auto tune and the ms8 is the best auto tune. Your original questions should have read " How come nobody makes a good auto tune dsp". There are plenty of good dsp's around you just need to know how to tune.


----------



## I800C0LLECT (Jan 26, 2009)

hrmm. hard headed op? There's still quite a bit of prime gear ready to be had that isn't officially supported anymore. We were lucky that Andy was given the resources he had by Harman to produce the MS-8. Unfortunately, I suppose they either didn't have somebody to take up where he left off or what's more likely is they're just shifting targets and product. It happens. I'm not sure any other company has the resources and know how to pull off Andy's accomplishment.

If you were in VA I'd say come check out my MS-8 tuned system. It's pretty nice. I must fall within one of those 48 installs he targeted.


----------



## Alextaastrup (Apr 12, 2014)

Not much I coul add to sqnut writting about a sound perception by humans and its interpretation in a form of ideal algorythm for DSP. We actually know too little about our brain work and how it treats the sound comming in ultra-small fractions, that will be then compiled to a final sound source image (place, location, reverberation, volume, frequency range, etc, - all inclusive). To design a correct algorythm for DSP is a challenge and maybe only in a form of approximation to the ideal solution. 

It was a good point here by Andy about edge situations for algorythm desingers. In this case manual tuning should be possible to solve extreme tasks after general autotuning has been done. 

With regard to a target curve - me personally missing serious readings on this topic. People use to copy target curves from each other without paying attention to individual preferences. Home stereo curves normally do not work in a car as they were designed for a stereo system placed in the room with bigger dimmensions, reverberations, etc. compared to the car cabin. I have tested i.e the ideal curve for loudspeakers designed by B&K from Denmark. Well known due to their measurement equipment for sound and noise tests (and many other things as well). Such curve correlates very well with output from high-end loudspeakers for home stereo, but in a car sounds, how to say it, far from to be natural. Tonality is fine. The sound perhaps too bright in the middel range, but scene has been lost. Reverberations and reflections recorded have been masked and their overall impact became much less, which resulted in a feeling of more close placement of insruments and absense of scene deepnees (assuming that it was a good quality record containing that stuff on CD). For those who is interested, I can show this B&K curve.

After that is said, autotuning could satisfy the majority of customers, and it's fine, but should leave the possibility to view the parameters changed and should give possibility for further manual adjustment (including a customer designed target curve, of course).


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

Op is not anymore hard headed than anyone else.

People tend to ignore what they don't want to hear and see.


----------



## fcarpio (Apr 29, 2008)

IJCOBRA said:


> There are just too many factors and variables


You said it yourself!


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

sqnut said:


> I'll say this slowly, we...only...understand...about...40%...of...how...our...brain...and...ears...process...sound. How on earth are you going to write an algorithm for an auto tune that sounds right? Trial and error? If finding the ideal algorithm is trial and error how is it different from manual tuning? FWIW I've tuned the MS8 in two cars and heard about 6 which had the MS8......meh!....in comparison to what you can achieve with a full manual processor like the helix pro, 360.3, both audisons, mosconi etc. What you can dial in with these processors in say a week (assuming about 2 hours a day tuning time), will be streets ahead of what any auto tune does......provided you know how to tune.
> 
> If you know how to tune manually by default it means that you would hear 90% of the differences between say a 2 ch at home vs a car with the ms8 tune, a stock car and say KP's / Richards car. Your ears will tell you, 2ch ~= KP's car > ms8 > stock. The difference between KP's car and the ms8 would be huge.
> 
> ...


SQNUT, You're full of ****.

Your continued advocacy for 31-band equalization and tuning by ear suggest that you're the one who understands 40% of what can be understood. Standard third octave EQ is insufficient for any real correction of anything. It is a useful program EQ--useful for changing the overall shape of the curve once some correction has been accomplished using a better tool. It's so silly, in fact, that 31-band EQ isn't even part of the on-chip libraries that provide many of the features in DSPs available for car audio. Anytime you see a 31-band EQ, that means that some engineer somewhere has written a UI for 31 parametric filters in which the frequencies and Q values are set behind the scenes and you have access only to the boost or cut sliders. 

1. Many autotunes, MS-8 included provide a way for you to change the house curve. Whether that happens before or after the autotune in the processor is immaterial. 
2. Are you writing algorithms? Granted, many autotune algorithms are written for fixing spaces larger than a car with systems that aren't like a car audio system. The first Alpine Imprint based on Audyssey was one such algorithm. The mistake was in letting the algorithm set the subwoofer crossover frequency based on a measured -3dB point for the front speakers. That works in a big room, but in a car, even a 6" speaker in the door can play nearly flat to below 20Hz. That means that the algorithm set the crossover to a minimum value. oops. 
3. Objective and subjective evaluation of the performance of all audio gear is a big problem. There are hundreds of home audio speakers on the market that are sold as high end that are horrible performers. I was fortunate to have worked at Harman when much of the research department's work was in correlating objective measurements to listener preference. It isn't arbitrary and those guys most certainly understand what they're doing. Whether the sales and marketing department chooses to pay any heed is another question. 

Once again, "I like it" isn't the same as "It is technically correct." "I won IASCA" isn't the same as "It's technically correct." 

I also object to the original post.


----------



## Guest (Jan 25, 2016)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> SQNUT, You're full of ****.


Well there you go....


----------



## AAAAAAA (Oct 5, 2007)

sqnut said:


> 1. Helix pro
> 2. Mosconi 6 to 8
> 3. RF 360.3
> 4. Both Audisons
> ...


Can any of those do a proper center channel? Can they tune and make all seats sound good?

All these "dumb" processors targeting one seat wonders.... no thanks.


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

AAAAAAA said:


> Can any of those do a proper center channel? Can they tune and make all seats sound good?
> 
> All these "dumb" processors targeting one seat wonders.... no thanks.


No. None of them include an upmixer.


----------



## rockinridgeline (Feb 2, 2009)

sqnut said:


> ...if you could measure the response in all the top cars, you'd get curves that are slightly different from each other, but a VERY high degree of correlation over every octave. Sure there would be small differences within each octave due different environments and installs, but overall...a high degree of correlation. The MS8 curve is different to this basic SQ curve.
> 
> Sure, the MS8 has the best auto tune, but the best tune?? Pls. The revered MS 8 curve is wrong to start with. It allows for too much energy in the 200-1khz range and not enough of a roll from 1-4.


Anyone know what this magical SQ curve looks like? I've searched...


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

It's the Harmon curve


----------



## I800C0LLECT (Jan 26, 2009)

DDfusion said:


> Op is not anymore hard headed than anyone else.
> 
> People tend to ignore what they don't want to hear and see.



You're right...I should have quoted the specific words but he admitted the MS-8 was probably the only auto tuner that is worth purchasing.

I think we all get close minded the more we "think" we know

Gotta keep those blinders off.


----------



## I800C0LLECT (Jan 26, 2009)

IJCOBRA said:


> We'll see how I feel after using the MS-8.



Make sure you post results...have any questions feel free to send me a PM.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

IJCOBRA said:


> ........ and understand as much as a human is capable of with 18 years electronics and stereo experience.......


Troubleshooting is one of my very favorite things to do, at work, and just in general. 

I think I found the problem!! 

Now that's ONE HELL OF A BOLD STATEMENT!! DAMN!!!


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> SQNUT, You're full of ****.
> 
> Your continued advocacy for 31-band equalization and tuning by ear suggest that you're the one who understands 40% of what can be understood. Standard third octave EQ is insufficient for any real correction of anything. It is a useful program EQ--useful for changing the overall shape of the curve once some correction has been accomplished using a better tool. It's so silly, in fact, that 31-band EQ isn't even part of the on-chip libraries that provide many of the features in DSPs available for car audio. Anytime you see a 31-band EQ, that means that some engineer somewhere has written a UI for 31 parametric filters in which the frequencies and Q values are set behind the scenes and you have access only to the boost or cut sliders.
> 
> ...


Just listen to the cars I mentioned. They only use a 31 band eq per driver. Please listen to the cars.


----------



## Alextaastrup (Apr 12, 2014)

Maybe European competitions are not so advanced compared to ... but this curve was used at Eurofinals in 2013 and was chosen as "the best sound":









It came from prosound world but proved to be as good in a car environment too.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

IJCOBRA said:


> ........ and understand as much as a human is capable of with 18 years electronics and stereo experience.......


Now THAT is "sig worthy" ......right? 

Can I get an AMEN?!

LOL


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

Alextaastrup said:


> Maybe European competitions are not so advanced compared to ... but this curve was used at Eurofinals in 2013 and was chosen as "the best sound":
> 
> View attachment 115305
> 
> ...


That's interesting, can we get that in a text file?


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

Andy, I don't in any way doubt what you're saying, I'm just wondering, and I've asked Guys FROM AUDISON this and they weren't certain why, but, when it test a bit one, the center freq of the slider isn't at the number listed, it's off, like 1k will be 978 or some small amount like that. And, the Q changes with boost/cut, AND the first slider to the left, the one labeled 20 Hz, isn't a "bell curve" it's a low shelving filter that seems to be centered very low, like 10-15 Hz...... I've posted a lot of this data before, but I don't understand why this is. 

Other dsp's I've tested, like the Helix and 360.3, their filters ore centered EXACTLY as labeled, the Q is constant, and if it's a shelving filter, it's LABELED AS SUCH. 

Why do you suppose that is?


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

sqnut said:


> Just listen to the cars I mentioned. They only use a 31 band eq per driver. Please listen to the cars.


Can you just admit you don't know what you are talking about. 
Normally when I'm proven wrong I accept it and move on


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

Niick said:


> Andy, I don't in any way doubt what you're saying, I'm just wondering, and I've asked Guys FROM AUDISON this and they weren't certain why, but, when it test a bit one, the center freq of the slider isn't at the number listed, it's off, like 1k will be 978 or some small amount like that. And, the Q changes with boost/cut, AND the first slider to the left, the one labeled 20 Hz, isn't a "bell curve" it's a low shelving filter that seems to be centered very low, like 10-15 Hz...... I've posted a lot of this data before, but I don't understand why this is.
> 
> Other dsp's I've tested, like the Helix and 360.3, their filters ore centered EXACTLY as labeled, the Q is constant, and if it's a shelving filter, it's LABELED AS SUCH.
> 
> Why do you suppose that is?


31-band EQs are also designed with some acceptable deviation from spec. The premise is that you should be able to boost all the bands by the same amount and the result should be a straight line that looks like what you draw. The shelf filters at the bottom and the top are included to approximate this at the low and high frequency limits. The Q of the filters in between are usually chosen as a compromise between 31 small peaks and one big hump in the middle when all of the bands are boosted or cut. That consideration has to be balanced with the expectation that boosting one band and cutting an adjacent band provides a curve that the user expects. making that happen pushes the acceptable filter Qs toward values that provide 31 peaks. 

The 31-band EQ in MS-8, for example, automatically adjusts adjacent bands so that the curve that's implemented very closely resembles the curve that's drawn. Maybe whoever designed the 31-band EQ in the bit processors was attempting something similar--or at least attempting to make the resulting curve approximate what is drawn. 

I can't explain why the center frequencies for the filters aren't marked exactly as they are implemented. If i had to guess, I'd guess that they've chosen to label as standard ISO centers and implemented something they think works better. 

In any case, 31-band EQs are NEVER what users expect them to be, but who checks? It isn't a serious tuning tool anyway.


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

Alextaastrup said:


> Maybe European competitions are not so advanced compared to ... but this curve was used at Eurofinals in 2013 and was chosen as "the best sound":
> 
> View attachment 115305
> 
> ...


Without any additional information about how this was measured, this doesn't mean a whole lot. If it was measured with a single microphone, using pink noise, then my assessment would be that there's way too much midbass. This could also depend a great deal on the directivity of whatever was used as high frequency speakers--but this also depends a great deal on the measurement technique.


----------



## Alextaastrup (Apr 12, 2014)

Niick said:


> That's interesting, can we get that in a text file?


Even zip-file exceeds the limits. The reason is that the curve was used for my present preset for APL1 with 4096 FIR taps, meaning that resolution is under 3Hz. Deleting the frequency range above 24kHz have not helped much. I will try to pm it to you.


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

sqnut said:


> Just listen to the cars I mentioned. They only use a 31 band eq per driver. Please listen to the cars.


This is a ridiculous way to use a 31-band EQ. 31-bands on a subwoofer is really about 6 bands on a subwoofer. All of the other filters have to be reserved and set to unity. A waste of processing. Similarly, 31-bands on a tweeter is ridiculous unless those bands can be adjusted so they can be used on the tweeter. 

Winning MECA or IASCA doesn't mean something is correct. It means it was built according to the rules and that the judges liked it.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> This is a ridiculous way to use a 31-band EQ. 31-bands on a subwoofer is really about 6 bands on a subwoofer. All of the other filters have to be reserved and set to unity. A waste of processing. Similarly, 31-bands on a tweeter is ridiculous unless those bands can be adjusted so they can be used on the tweeter.
> 
> Winning MECA or IASCA doesn't mean something is correct. It means it was built according to the rules and that the judges liked it.


It's not about the number of bands, but how they are used. I agree a sub doesn't need more than 6-7 bands Beyond ~ 100 all the bands are cut to max, that is essentially like using a steeper slope yes, same case with tweeter. I only mentioned the 31 bands because you raised that point. A 100 bands wont help if the basic curve needs tweaking. It's not about rules and what the judge likes, you know good sound and I guarantee YOU will like it, it will change your perception of whats possible in a car.......You're in CA right? Hook up with Richard and please hear his car, I think it came second to KP by like half a point. I know you think all this tuning by ear is mumbo jumbo, but please listen to the end product of the process.


----------



## sicride (Oct 26, 2014)

Everybody reasonable knows that you are right with what you are saying Andy. Based on your experience we know there is a logical and scientific reason you are correct. Based on his experience and tastes his statements are as accurate as he needs them to be to justify what he wants to believe. I think it is obvious that Sqnut is knowledgeable and probably able to achieve pretty good results with his tuning experience, but he could probably be a little more open minded to someone who has much much more experience than he.

My questions to you is if 31 band para-graphic EQ is not a serious tuning tool, what is? I would like to know more about it and how it works if you don't mind enlightening us?


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

DDfusion said:


> Can you just admit you don't know what you are talking about.
> Normally when I'm proven wrong I accept it and move on


Don't worry about me, just enjoy your MS8 tune. Accept the fact that YOU can't hear a difference between a 2ch and your ms 8 tune and move on.


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

You don't think Andy has heard good cars?


I enjoy it every song.


----------



## AAAAAAA (Oct 5, 2007)

^Or had to do a TON of manual tunes to figure out how to program something to do it? lol


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

It's funny when you have people that never accomplished anything talking like they know more than people that have. 

"I've never been tested but I'm sure I'm right" VS "I won one of the biggest shows in the country in 2 different divisions"


----------



## Alextaastrup (Apr 12, 2014)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> Without any additional information about how this was measured, this doesn't mean a whole lot. If it was measured with a single microphone, using pink noise, then my assessment would be that there's way too much midbass. This could also depend a great deal on the directivity of whatever was used as high frequency speakers--but this also depends a great deal on the measurement technique.


This is not a measured curve, but one recommended by vendor as a target curve. Definitely it was not measured in my car with a pink noise. I use another method, which is based on a full range sweep tone and tested not in one point. It is incorporated into the Workshop sofware from Acoustic Power lab. 

I am not going to start a long discussion about it as it is much better to address questions directly to designer. I am just a customer, happy castomer by the way. 

Regarding specific problems with install (beaming, directivity, TA alignment), yes, nothing to argue against. Everything will have its own impact. 

Regarding low end reproduction - sometimes it is even not too much (especially when driving) and I have to add some more with the help of volume control for sub. But it is VERY much dependent of the initial material - how bad or good was it recorded, at which surroundings, what kind of music it is , whatever. Again - personal preferences against the sub located in a trunk 

When parking - it is completely another situation. The curve must be more flat (that is normally used for competitions I think). I do not and most probably will not compete - It is just for hobby. 

Do not blame me hard for it.


----------



## Darth SQ (Sep 17, 2010)

IJCOBRA said:


> Show me otherwise, please. The MS-8 came out in like 2007 and is no longer on JBL.com or any of the online retailers. If you are counting a 3rd party resource (non-manufacturer or owner corporation) like this site as support... Ok. But it's certainly not official or warrantied or legally binding. I'd love to be wrong tho.
> 
> https://www.jbl.com/search?q=Ms-8
> 
> If you are trying to say you think there are GOOD DSPs being produced: name them. I'm surprised nobody has gushed over Audisdon yet but the MS-8 which has gotten a few nods even though it's not being produced anymore.


Nothing of the sort.
My post is to point out your arrogance when confronted by someone that not only knows a thing or two about DSP, he actually made them and continues to make the next gen of dsps for our consumption.
Just sayin' it wouldn't kill you to show a little respect.


Bret
PPI-ART COLLECTOR


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

DDfusion said:


> It's funny when you have people that never accomplished anything talking like they know more than people that have.
> 
> "I've never been tested but I'm sure I'm right" VS "I won one of the biggest shows in the country in 2 different divisions"


....and you STILL can't hear a difference.


----------



## Darth SQ (Sep 17, 2010)

AAAAAAA said:


> Can any of those do a proper center channel? Can they tune and make all seats sound good?
> 
> All these "dumb" processors targeting one seat wonders.... no thanks.


I can't argue with this point.
It all depends on how you build your cars.
My SUV is demanding upmixing and many many channels of processing to achieve good sound for all seats while my work car has only me in it 99% of the time so a one seat wonder is just fine in that case.


Bret
PPI-ART COLLECTOR


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

sqnut said:


> ....and you STILL can't hear a difference.


And you still can't admit you are wrong.


----------



## I800C0LLECT (Jan 26, 2009)

What I appreciate about the MS-8 is that you can go into "front mode" which removes the T/A for a single seat but maintains tone for the most part.

If you can't have a 2 seat install at least it's able accommodate passengers for a short time.


----------



## PPI_GUY (Dec 20, 2007)

sqnut, don't take this the wrong way but, everyone....and I mean everyone is pretty much going to defer to the opinion of someone like Andy who, has heard more audio (auto and home) than most of us ever will. Plus, he's designed some award winning equipment. If you want your opinions to be give the same amount of weight, you're going to need a similar background or technical history. 
Not a personal attack toward you, just stating the obvious.


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

Niick said:


> That's interesting, can we get that in a text file?



Try this. You may find this helpful for many other things, too.

Plot Digitizer


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

Alextaastrup said:


> This is not a measured curve, but one recommended by vendor as a target curve. Definitely it was not measured in my car with a pink noise. I use another method, which is based on a full range sweep tone and tested not in one point. It is incorporated into the Workshop sofware from Acoustic Power lab.
> 
> I am not going to start a long discussion about it as it is much better to address questions directly to designer. I am just a customer, happy castomer by the way.
> 
> ...


Cool. If this curve is meant for driving, then it makes more sense to me, especially if the road is rough or the tires are noisy. In my old car, the best midbass upgrade I ever installed were some Continental Extreme tires to replace some BF goodrich tires...


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

So, MS-8 was designed to automate a process I used to use to tune cars, which is similar to the process I still use. If I was going to provide a new process to be automated by an algorithm, I'd probably change a few things and avoid a few of the pitfalls of the current MS-8 algorithm and to improve two-seat performance even when no center speaker is available. 

For one, I'd eliminate left and right delay and use phase EQ instead. That would provide much better performance for two seats even in cars that don't include a center channel. I'd also change the gain setting algorithm for subwoofer level setting. I'd include a deeper 2k dip in the center channel frequency response target.


----------



## gumbeelee (Jan 3, 2011)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> SQNUT, You're full of ****.
> 
> Your continued advocacy for 31-band equalization and tuning by ear suggest that you're the one who understands 40% of what can be understood. Standard third octave EQ is insufficient for any real correction of anything. It is a useful program EQ--useful for changing the overall shape of the curve once some correction has been accomplished using a better tool. It's so silly, in fact, that 31-band EQ isn't even part of the on-chip libraries that provide many of the features in DSPs available for car audio. Anytime you see a 31-band EQ, that means that some engineer somewhere has written a UI for 31 parametric filters in which the frequencies and Q values are set behind the scenes and you have access only to the boost or cut sliders.
> 
> ...


Tell it like it is, ANDY!!


----------



## gumbeelee (Jan 3, 2011)

SQNUT, I personally know you are very knowledgable about tuning, way more than I will ever be, but like PPI_GUY said, u r fighting a battle with Andy u can't win!


----------



## claydo (Oct 1, 2012)

Difference of opinion is what sparks debate......it's a good thing. I respect andy's work, knowlege, and contributions.....but I have to agree with sqnut on this one. I've heard many ms8 cars, and while some of them sounded pretty good, none of them could hold a candle to the cars I've heard that were manually tuned with simple rta and (gasp) 31 band eq. One of my favorite, and most technically correct cars I've ever heard, is tuned with nothing but a global l/r 31 band graphic.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

gumbeelee said:


> SQNUT, I personally know you are very knowledgable about tuning, way more than I will ever be, but like PPI_GUY said, u r fighting a battle with Andy u can't win!


But I'm not fighting a battle, I'm only expressing my views and just asking Andy to hear a handful of cars, because he will hear the difference. I gave a fairly strong opinion on his labour of love and he reacted, no biggie.


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

What view? The one you said the BMW had extra tuning when the guy that did it said it didn't? 

Do you even know the MS-8 tunes measuring the car using a binaural mic?


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

I'm not suggesting that every car that includes an MS-8 is better than all cars that include a manual tune. That would be ridiculous. I am suggesting that most cars with MS-8 are better than most cars with manual tunes and I've heard thousands of cars with manual tunes. Most don't sound very good because many people have no idea what they are doing. MS-8 was designed to address that.


----------



## I800C0LLECT (Jan 26, 2009)

claydo said:


> Difference of opinion is what sparks debate......it's a good thing. I respect andy's work, knowlege, and contributions.....but I have to agree with sqnut on this one. I've heard many ms8 cars, and while some of them sounded pretty good, none of them could hold a candle to the cars I've heard that were manually tuned with simple rta and (gasp) 31 band eq. One of my favorite, and most technically correct cars I've ever heard, is tuned with nothing but a global 31 band graphic.


Without knowing what's right/wrong with all those different installs I'm not sure you can blame that on the MS-8 while glamorizing "manual tune"

Even Erin was impressed with how well the ms-8 tuned without people intervention. I'm not sure anybody could ever generalize contributions and end result to one or two variables. Andy never said a 31 band EQ is bad either. He just said it has a purpose.

I wouldn't bet on a pig in a horse race. I hate horses, but I love bacon.


----------



## Hillbilly SQ (Jan 26, 2007)

If I had a choice between a 31 band graphic and 6 band parametric eq I'd choose the parametric every day of the week and twice on Sunday. When it comes to fixing those big problem areas in my opinion a graphic eq is like trying to shoot a bear with a cheap bb gun from Walmart. Hell I've been shot by one and all it did was piss me off! Parametric can be intimidating until you learn to use it. However, a smooth scalpel cut right where you need it is almost always better than using several bands of a graphic eq to attempt to do the same thing. It's a personal preference thing and no one is "wrong" as long as the tools they tune with are getting them the results they want. Also, my truck is (and always will be) a one-seat-wonder. When someone is riding with me the music is OFF so we can talk.


----------



## chefhow (Apr 29, 2007)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> I'm not suggesting that every car that includes an MS-8 is better than all cars that include a manual tune. That would be ridiculous. I am suggesting that most cars with MS-8 are better than most cars with manual tunes and I've heard thousands of cars with manual tunes. Most don't sound very good because many people have no idea what they are doing. MS-8 was designed to address that.


This is possibly the best thing I have heard ANYONE say about people who tune their cars manually and think they know what they are doing.


----------



## I800C0LLECT (Jan 26, 2009)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> I'm not suggesting that every car that includes an MS-8 is better than all cars that include a manual tune. That would be ridiculous. I am suggesting that most cars with MS-8 are better than most cars with manual tunes and I've heard thousands of cars with manual tunes. Most don't sound very good because many people have no idea what they are doing. MS-8 was designed to address that.


Most cars I've heard sound like ****.


----------



## gumbeelee (Jan 3, 2011)

sqnut said:


> But I'm not fighting a battle, I'm only expressing my views and just asking Andy to hear a handful of cars, because he will hear the difference. I gave a fairly strong opinion on his labour of love and he reacted, no biggie.


I understand completely, u r entitled to your opinion, and i do respect your tuning ability, honestly. I read alot of your post and u r definately knowledgable about SQ.


----------



## I800C0LLECT (Jan 26, 2009)

chefhow said:


> This is possibly the best thing I have heard ANYONE say about people who tune their cars manually and think they know what they are doing.



The only conclusion I ever came to when manual tuning, is that I needed a processor with MORE capability. I also decided I wanted to spend less time doing it. 90% as good as the best tuners on this site in 5 minutes is outstanding. And I'm sure that's better than 99% of the vehicles with aftermarket equipment installed.


----------



## Hillbilly SQ (Jan 26, 2007)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> I'm not suggesting that every car that includes an MS-8 is better than all cars that include a manual tune. That would be ridiculous. I am suggesting that most cars with MS-8 are better than most cars with manual tunes and I've heard thousands of cars with manual tunes. Most don't sound very good because many people have no idea what they are doing. MS-8 was designed to address that.


The best way to help people who don't know what they're doing is to give them a quick tutorial to get their feet off the ground. Where they take it from there is up to them. I just recently got taught an easy way to set time alignment and levels by ear. I had always struggled in that area. And the person that taught me was Mrs. Papasin. To be honest though, I still don't know what the hell I'm doing when compared to some of the heavy hitters in the sq world and probably never will.


----------



## Wy2quiet (Jun 29, 2010)

Sorry, TL/DR, but in summary -

Is the MS-8 still the best option for set it/forget it with a STOCK system? My MK7 GTI has terrible SQ. I really want my center stage vocals back :-(


----------



## I800C0LLECT (Jan 26, 2009)

Wy2quiet said:


> Sorry, TL/DR, but in summary -
> 
> *Is the MS-8 still the best option for set it/forget it with a STOCK system?* My MK7 GTI has terrible SQ. I really want my center stage vocals back :-(


Yes. But it tunes...it doesn't overcome bad install or problems.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> I'm not suggesting that every car that includes an MS-8 is better than all cars that include a manual tune. That would be ridiculous. I am suggesting that most cars with MS-8 are better than most cars with manual tunes and I've heard thousands of cars with manual tunes.


I agree 100% that ms8 is the BEST auto tune, I've said that several times and the ms8 can improve any stock car by leap and bounds. But a good manual tune will trump it. It is also a fact that 99% of the manual tunes aren't good. All I'm saying is that a new dsp should be based on the sound quality in these top cars. Measure these cars and then derive the base curve. That's all I'm saying.


----------



## Guest (Jan 25, 2016)

sqnut said:


> All I'm saying is that a new dsp should be based on the sound quality in these top cars. Measure these cars and then derive the base curve. That's all I'm saying.


Completely agree with you sir...!

Take what the best, elite vehicles are doing right and build from that.... only makes sense...


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

But but the MS-8 tuned a top car in the highest classes. Soooo


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

I will say this about the MS-8. Over the years I've been that guy that was always trying different equipment to find sonic bliss. Many years of it and the bank account reflects it. 

Even with the bit 1 tuned by myself and a few others it just wasn't right, I don't have the golden ear but I know when something isn't right 

Now a few years after the Bit 1- the MS-8 is nailed in and I have zero need to ever change anything. Haven't in a full year.


----------



## sicride (Oct 26, 2014)

Is this top car you keep speaking of yours? Any more info on this top car in the highest class? I hear good things about the new helix auto eq feature, though I would not call it auto tune. Interested to see how close that will get it before I make my own tweaks.


----------



## I800C0LLECT (Jan 26, 2009)

sqnut said:


> I'll say this slowly, we...only...understand...about...40%...of...how...our...brain...and...ears...process...sound. How on earth are you going to write an algorithm for an auto tune that sounds right? Trial and error?* If finding the ideal algorithm is trial and error how is it different from manual tuning? FWIW I've tuned the MS8 in two cars and heard about 6 which had the MS8......meh!*....in comparison to what you can achieve with a full manual processor like the helix pro, 360.3, both audisons, mosconi etc. What you can dial in with these processors in say a week (assuming about 2 hours a day tuning time), will be streets ahead of what any auto tune does......provided you know how to tune.
> 
> If you know how to tune manually by default it means that you would hear 90% of the differences between say a 2 ch at home vs a car with the ms8 tune, a stock car and say KP's / Richards car. Your ears will tell you, 2ch ~= KP's car > ms8 > stock. The difference between KP's car and the ms8 would be huge.
> 
> ...



Harman has spent thousands of hours dedicated to finding a correlation between technical whatever and "hey...I like that".

The curve they came up with took more resources and man hours than any other company would dream of undertaking. Then Andy said "hey...draw your own curve using the 31-band EQ if you don't like it". What's really cool is that although it looks like a 31-band EQ it's really something else.

It's ok to dislike the ms-8. It's ok to describe it in a lot of ways to be honest. But it's not inept. It was never based on less than stellar research. We all put our foot in our mouths sometimes. no big deal. But you don't have a leg to stand on if you've never heard a direct comparison in a vehicle with ms-8 vs manual tune. That's the issue. If you have the best install competing with some random install that includes ms-8...that's not fair to Andy or anybody who needs objective feedback.

As far as I know...Erin H has the most objective review I've seen and he said it was pretty damn good in apples to apples comparison. Do you have apples to apples to talk about?


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

claydo said:


> Difference of opinion is what sparks debate......it's a good thing. I respect andy's work, knowlege, and contributions.....but I have to agree with sqnut on this one. I've heard many ms8 cars, and while some of them sounded pretty good, none of them could hold a candle to the cars I've heard that were manually tuned with simple rta and (gasp) 31 band eq. One of my favorite, and most technically correct cars I've ever heard, is tuned with nothing but a global 31 band graphic.


Thank you!!


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

I800C0LLECT said:


> As far as I know...Erin H has the most objective review I've seen and he said it was pretty damn good in apples to apples comparison. Do you have apples to apples to talk about?


I did that review back in 2010. So it may need to be re-tweaked a bit to reflect my own tuning capabilities' improvement and understanding of things since then. That said, I still stand by it in large majority. At least it can get polarity right... and some of the 'manual tune' cars I've listened to didn't have that going for them. :/


Which brings me to a rule I try to live by here and in general:
Be a skeptic.

Keyboard/internet heroes are born every day. If you say the right things, or you repeat the right quote without giving proper due credit, or simply have a high post count... people are likely to latch on to you and assume you know wtf you're talking about. I've learned first hand that these forum characteristics are (obviously) not truly telling of a person's ability to install/tune/listen. The best way to determine who you should take advice from is to see/hear their own work. Or if you have a friend who you trust on the same scale, you could take their second-hand opinion. I know it's not easy, but I've been around this and other hobbies long enough to learn that lesson the hard way.


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

sicride said:


> Is this top car you keep speaking of yours? Any more info on this top car in the highest class? I hear good things about the new helix auto eq feature, though I would not call it auto tune. Interested to see how close that will get it before I make my own tweaks.


Read the thread


----------



## claydo (Oct 1, 2012)

Hillbilly SQ said:


> If I had a choice between a 31 band graphic and 6 band parametric eq I'd choose the parametric every day of the week and twice on Sunday. When it comes to fixing those big problem areas in my opinion a graphic eq is like trying to shoot a bear with a cheap bb gun from Walmart.


Wut? ............C'mon chris, I know you've heard a spectacular car with a simple l/r graphic 31 band tune. You've heard the one I referred to in my post. I know good and well how powerful a parametric eq can be......but we both know graphic can get it done.



I800C0LLECT said:


> Without knowing what's right/wrong with all those different installs I'm not sure you can blame that on the MS-8 while glamorizing "manual tune"


Why do you assume the ms8 tunes I have heard were in subpar installs.........I've never experienced the ms8 "nailing it". Close, yes, but who is shooting for close? I clearly stated some sounded good......you have no idea what my reference for good is......



sqnut said:


> Thank you!!



No problem.....call em like I see em....

I will say for those with a tuning/hearing deficiencies the ms8 will get you close. It will also have you settling for less than your system is capable of, and never learning how to tune. Of course, if you must have a center and surround processing, it's cool, if yer into that......


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

sqnut said:


> I agree 100% that ms8 is the BEST auto tune, I've said that several times and the ms8 can improve any stock car by leap and bounds. But a good manual tune will trump it. It is also a fact that 99% of the manual tunes aren't good. All I'm saying is that a new dsp should be based on the sound quality in these top cars. Measure these cars and then derive the base curve. That's all I'm saying.


You would scratch your head at the curve of the most well known car in meca in the past 5 years

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Darth SQ (Sep 17, 2010)

claydo said:


> Wut? ............C'mon chris, I know you've heard a spectacular car with a simple l/r graphic 31 band tune. You've heard the one I referred to in my post. I know good and well how powerful a parametric eq can be......but we both know graphic can get it done.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The OP.


Bret
PPI-ART COLLECTOR


----------



## claydo (Oct 1, 2012)

PPI-ART COLLECTOR said:


> The OP.
> 
> 
> Bret
> PPI-ART COLLECTOR


The op.....THE OP? Who cares about the op....we're arguing here!!

Lmao, of course I'm joking......


----------



## I800C0LLECT (Jan 26, 2009)

ErinH said:


> I did that review back in 2010. So it may need to be re-tweaked a bit to reflect my own tuning capabilities' improvement and understanding of things since then. That said, I still stand by it in large majority. At least it can get polarity right... and some of the 'manual tune' cars I've listened to didn't have that going for them. :/
> 
> 
> Which brings me to a rule I try to live by here and in general:
> ...


Completely agree. I don't believe it's the end all of processors but telling people that on its best day it is still miles from a great manual tune isn't objective.

People need to build their experiences if they really want that last 10% of performance. What you said needs to be reiterated for all.


----------



## I800C0LLECT (Jan 26, 2009)

claydo said:


> Wut? ............C'mon chris, I know you've heard a spectacular car with a simple l/r graphic 31 band tune. You've heard the one I referred to in my post. I know good and well how powerful a parametric eq can be......but we both know graphic can get it done.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I would say that there's a lot of techniques and hardware that can get anybody close. My assumption wasn't based installs. The assumption was that there's give and take based on choices. You can't blame all the cons in ms8. Similarly, tuning can't overcome intentional compromises.


----------



## IJCOBRA (Nov 21, 2014)

PPI-ART COLLECTOR said:


> The OP.
> 
> 
> Bret
> PPI-ART COLLECTOR


I will be ecstatic if the MS-8 gets me to 99%. Even 90%. It'll never be 100% anyways because it is a vehicle. I don't care about learning any more than I already know about tuning or car stereos in general because I already know more than 99% of the population. Once my MS-8 is set I don't plan on ever having to deal with any of it again. I just want to finally be satisfied when listening to music during my commute, and use my free time for other ****.

I am an accidental mobile audio hobbiest, and don't really want to be. I'm not a competitor and don't want to be. I'm not in the mobile audio industry and not a professional. I don't want or need to know enough to be a professor of audio theory or engineering. I have a different career I am happy with.


----------



## fcarpio (Apr 29, 2008)

I would love to see that curve and hear that system.

Edit: for some reason my quote doesn't show (mobile site), but I was referring to Skizer's post.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

fcarpio said:


> I would love to see that curve and hear that system.
> 
> Edit: for some reason my quote doesn't show (mobile site), but I was referring to Skizer's post.


it was an rta reading from steve cooks avalanche that he posted a picture of in a question i asked on facebook. wish i saved it. im betting anyone here would look at it and think "there is no god damn way that sounds good".. but hey, didnt he win the cup 3 years in a row?


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

ErinH said:


> ......The best way to determine who you should take advice from is to see/hear their own work.......


Beautiful. There have been 3 forum members who have come to my shop and seen what I do firsthand. Even Andy heard a car I tuned once (I tuned it from scratch in about 2 1/2 hours, had very little time). That number will undoubtedly grow. Couple that with the fact that I offer up my experience and the things I've learned on a regular basis to anyone interested, and I think me, and people like me, are far from "internet heroes"

I invite ANYONE in my area to come see me. Please do!


----------



## gregerst22 (Dec 18, 2012)

IJCOBRA said:


> I will be ecstatic if the MS-8 gets me to 99%. Even 90%. It'll never be 100% anyways because it is a vehicle. I don't care about learning any more than I already know about tuning or car stereos in general because I already know more than 99% of the population. Once my MS-8 is set I don't plan on ever having to deal with any of it again. I just want to finally be satisfied when listening to music during my commute, and use my free time for other ****.
> 
> I am an accidental mobile audio hobbiest, and don't really want to be. I'm not a competitor and don't want to be. I'm not in the mobile audio industry and not a professional. I don't want or need to know enough to be a professor of audio theory or engineering. I have a different career I am happy with.


Sounds like you're frustrated with the way your system sounds. Since your local to me if your interested I'd be willing to help tune it. I used to have a 360.3 in one of my previous cars and really enjoyed it. I don't have the level of experience as some of the guys on here but I'd be willing to bet I can get it sounding good or at least get you in the right direction. Decent equipment and good install go a long way to making that happen though.


----------



## IJCOBRA (Nov 21, 2014)

gregerst22 said:


> Sounds like you're frustrated with the way your system sounds. Since your local to me if your interested I'd be willing to help tune it. I used to have a 360.3 in one of my previous cars and really enjoyed it. I don't have the level of experience as some of the guys on here but I'd be willing to bet I can get it sounding good or at least get you in the right direction. Decent equipment and good install go a long way to making that happen though.


PM sent!


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

ErinH said:


> Keyboard/internet heroes are born every day. If you say the right things, or you repeat the right quote without giving proper due credit, or simply have a high post count... people are likely to latch on to you and assume you know wtf you're talking about. I've learned first hand that these forum characteristics are (obviously) not truly telling of a person's ability to install/tune/listen. The best way to determine who you should take advice from is to see/hear their own work. Or if you have a friend who you trust on the same scale, you could take their second-hand opinion. I know it's not easy, but I've been around this and other hobbies long enough to learn that lesson the hard way.


I find your snide comments way more offensive than Andy's comment. You of all people should know what tuning by ear is all about, after all the years of competing and hearing its results. Every time we are on different sides, you pull out your snide, snarky comments. It's not my fault or problem that you don't know / aren't instinctive with tuning by ear. So park your comments and take a chill pill.


----------



## ca90ss (Jul 2, 2005)

sqnut said:


> I find your snide comments way more offensive than Andy's comment. You of all people should know what tuning by ear is all about, after all the years of competing and hearing its results. Every time we are on different sides, you pull out your snide, snarky comments. It's not my fault or problem that you don't know / aren't instinctive with tuning by ear. So park your comments and take a chill pill.


I didn't see any references to you or anyone else specifically in Erin's post. Maybe you're the one that needs to chill.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

ca90ss said:


> I didn't see any references to you or anyone else specifically in Erin's post. Maybe you're the one that needs to chill.


Was I talking to you?


----------



## rton20s (Feb 14, 2011)




----------



## imjustjason (Jun 26, 2006)

sqnut said:


> Was I talking to you?


I believe if you're posting openly, in a forum thread, you're talking to everyone.


----------



## ca90ss (Jul 2, 2005)

sqnut said:


> Was I talking to you?


You posted on a public forum, you're talking to everyone. If you don't want other peoples opinions then take it to pm or stop posting.



Edit: Jason beat me to it.


----------



## rton20s (Feb 14, 2011)




----------



## imjustjason (Jun 26, 2006)

ca90ss said:


> Jason beat me to it.


Great minds...


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Currently God mode is off


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

imjustjason said:


> I believe if you're posting openly, in a forum thread, you're talking to everyone.





ca90ss said:


> You posted on a public forum, you're talking to everyone. If you don't want other peoples opinions then take it to pm or stop posting.
> 
> 
> 
> Edit: Jason beat me to it.


Fair enough and good point.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

IJCOBRA said:


> *I don't care about learning any more than I already know about tuning or car stereos in general because I already know more than 99% of the population. *


Wow!! So you know more than 99% of the people but you still can't tune and wouldn't know a good dsp if it bit your rear end. Right.


----------



## Alextaastrup (Apr 12, 2014)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> Cool. If this curve is meant for driving, then it makes more sense to me, especially if the road is rough or the tires are noisy. In my old car, the best midbass upgrade I ever installed were some Continental Extreme tires to replace some BF goodrich tires...


It makes even more sense taking into account my past as a proffesional drummer 

Andy, thanks a lot for this info about digitalization of scanned graphs. It works and it is really cool.

If someboby could help with info about resizing pictures for aploading on this forum. Used photobucket, but could not find the right way to do it.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

SkizeR said:


> it was an rta reading from steve cooks avalanche that he posted a picture of in a question i asked on facebook. wish i saved it. im betting anyone here would look at it and think "there is no god damn way that sounds good".. but hey, didnt he win the cup 3 years in a row?


What did it look like? .


----------



## IJCOBRA (Nov 21, 2014)

sqnut said:


> Wow!! So you know more than 99% of the people but you still can't tune and wouldn't know a good dsp if it bit your rear end. Right.


I think both your DSP and mine are dinosaurs compared to what they can/should be.


----------



## Hillbilly SQ (Jan 26, 2007)

claydo said:


> Wut? ............C'mon chris, I know you've heard a spectacular car with a simple l/r graphic 31 band tune. You've heard the one I referred to in my post. I know good and well how powerful a parametric eq can be......but we both know graphic can get it done.
> 
> 
> 
> ......


I know which one you're talking about, but I think that tune could be much better with a standalone processor with a good peq in it. The reason I say this is you can't eq OUTSIDE of the passband for each driver with one lone global eq. If your midbass is pulling hard at 800, and the midbass-midrange crossover point is around that area too you're gonna throw the midrange off while trying to fix the midbass if the midrange doesn't have the same problem. 

For what it's worth, I haven't made a good showing the past couple years with my "work" so I'm pretty sure there has been talk about me not knowing wtf I'm doing. It's time for me to redeem myself and the tune I had at the DFW meet last month was on the right track. I'll be the first to admit that I don't know **** and sure don't want to be an "internet hero". I just want to do my thing and get better at it as years go by. Afterall, car audio isn't my main hobby. And it sure won't have anything to do with the $27000 chunk of fiberglass that will be getting purchased in the Spring


----------



## claydo (Oct 1, 2012)

Ok heelbeely, fair enuff.......I've sat in some highly acclaimed cars, and it's still one of, if not my favorite system.


----------



## AAAAAAA (Oct 5, 2007)

Just because I feel like it, ALPINE has the H800 that also does auto tune and center channel. It can make all the seats sound good and has one of, if not the best most convenient tuning tool, the rux controller.

You get auto tune and then you can add tweaks for yourself afterwards.

Certainly a solid effort by alpine. I don't think the autotune is ms8 level but it also allows manual tuning on top of the autotune (I think).


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

Niick said:


> Beautiful. There have been 3 forum members who have come to my shop and seen what I do firsthand. Even Andy heard a car I tuned once (I tuned it from scratch in about 2 1/2 hours, had very little time). That number will undoubtedly grow. Couple that with the fact that I offer up my experience and the things I've learned on a regular basis to anyone interested, and I think me, and people like me, are far from "internet heroes"
> 
> I invite ANYONE in my area to come see me. Please do!


well, I guess I'll have to come on up NW to listen to it. 



sqnut said:


> I find your snide comments way more offensive than Andy's comment. You of all people should know what tuning by ear is all about, after all the years of competing and hearing its results. Every time we are on different sides, you pull out your snide, snarky comments. It's not my fault or problem that you don't know / aren't instinctive with tuning by ear. So park your comments and take a chill pill.


wow...

I'd reply but you're so far off the map and out of place with YOUR snide/snarky remarks, I literally don't know where to start. If you want to extend a legit apology, I'd welcome it, though. Seriously.

As for my inability to tune by ear?.. I'd defer to the people I've helped in person with feedback or hands-on tuning of their system by using only my ear to be the ones to speak to that. I'm not sure where in the world you came up with that conclusion.  




ca90ss said:


> I didn't see any references to you or anyone else specifically in Erin's post. Maybe you're the one that needs to chill.


amen


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

ErinH said:


> wow...
> 
> I'd reply but you're so far off the map and out of place with YOUR snide/snarky remarks, I literally don't know where to start. If you want to extend a legit apology, I'd welcome it, though. Seriously.
> 
> As for my inability to tune by ear?.. I'd defer to the people I've helped in person with feedback or hands-on tuning of their system by using only my ear to be the ones to speak to that. I'm not sure where in the world you came up with that conclusion.


Just saying, live and let live .


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

sqnut said:


> What did it look like? .


Nothing like you would imagine

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

sqnut said:


> Just saying, live and let live .


Ironic of you to say that after you lashed out at me for no reason. There was no specific person I had in mind when I made that post. You were the one to jump to conclusions. 

FWIW, I've had a hand in tuning some of the championship cars you often post about. So much for my inability to "ear tune".


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

No point. Guy is obviously clueless.


----------



## chefhow (Apr 29, 2007)

SkizeR said:


> Nothing like you would imagine
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


Steve's' trucks curve was based on the B&O curve from his Audi S5 IIRC.


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

Hilarious. This thread has proved to be one of the most ridiculous in my more than 10 years here. 

It's par for the course in "high end" audio of all kinds. Ridiculous arguments in favor of the "art" of screwing around because since someone doesn't "know" nothing can be known and since nothing can be known, no objectivity can be applied. All of this protects the know-nothing's ability to claim that since preference is involved, there are no rules and an entire scientific discipline can be discounted as folly because someone won a contest. 

I'm out.


----------



## Nickpisp (Nov 23, 2015)

I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night, PM me if you guys have any questions.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

chefhow said:


> Steve's' trucks curve was based on the B&O curve from his Audi S5 IIRC.


Is this the same curve where it's like +8db at 2k?

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## MacLeod (Aug 16, 2009)

Oh what the hell, Ill throw in a little here. 

I prefer a nice big processor with lots of buttons to push and levers to slide because thats the fun of this thing of ours at least to me. Sitting in the car for 4-5 hours at a time trying to wring out every little detail is where all the fun is at for me. So something like the H800 is a "better" processor because its got all the play pretties I want. As for which does the better job between a big fancy DSP and an autotuner like the MS-8, I think there are way too many variables to determine a clear winner. A better insaller could get better results with the MS-8 than a better tuner with a worse install and so on. 

I agree with Andy that the "art" aspect of this hobby can drive you to pull your hair out. No basis in fact or science at all and its the kind of thinking that leads to idiotic things like these magic rocks that you can buy for like $50 to lay on your RCA cables. 










And lets not forget the $70 magic extension cord. Its almost more akin to religion than a hobby or enthusiast. 

The one thing I will disagree on though it the "just because it wins a lot of contests and everybody likes it, doesnt mean its right" thing, cause I think it kinda does. It may not have all the pretty graphs and everything but it sure sounds amazing. Im just a dumb cop and have never written any code or algorithms but if a system is winning all the SQ competitions and everybody really likes it, doesnt that make it "right" too? 

Hell I dont know. After 13 pages, Im not even sure what we're arguing about anymore.


----------



## Guest (Jan 26, 2016)

MacLeod said:


> magic rocks that you can buy for like $50 to lay on your RCA cables.


Man... where can I get those rocks....!


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

SkizeR said:


> Nothing like you would imagine
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


C'mon now you're holding out. Did it look something like this?


----------



## Hillbilly SQ (Jan 26, 2007)

sqnut said:


> C'mon now you're holding out. Did it look something like this?


Is one line the left and the other the right side? If so, me sees sum loppiness.


----------



## rton20s (Feb 14, 2011)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> I'm out.


----------



## Darth SQ (Sep 17, 2010)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> Hilarious. This thread has proved to be one of the most ridiculous in my more than 10 years here.
> 
> It's par for the course in "high end" audio of all kinds. Ridiculous arguments in favor of the "art" of screwing around because since someone doesn't "know" nothing can be known and since nothing can be known, no objectivity can be applied. All of this protects the know-nothing's ability to claim that since preference is involved, there are no rules and an entire scientific discipline can be discounted as folly because someone won a contest.
> 
> I'm out.


The one member in this conversation that's actually making the next gen just left.
Great job guys. 


Bret
PPI-ART COLLECTOR


----------



## truckguy (Sep 2, 2013)

I think I heard a mic hit the ground. Lol

Thats the magic bus curve from a long time ago if I remember right.


----------



## rton20s (Feb 14, 2011)

PPI-ART COLLECTOR said:


> The one member in this conversation that's actually making the next gen just left.
> Great job guys.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## chefhow (Apr 29, 2007)

SkizeR said:


> Is this the same curve where it's like +8db at 2k?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


I didn't pay much attention to it to be honest, the curve was set using a B&O system with adjustable height tweeters for the reference, for a car that had much softer surfaces than mine with far greater output than mine. Driver locations were no where near where mine were installed and I wasn't willing to cut my car apart to follow that guide(which in order to work Steve did install cabinets on the dash of his Avalanche)
Apples to oranges....


----------



## rton20s (Feb 14, 2011)

truckguy said:


> I think I heard a mic hit the ground. Lol
> 
> Thats the magic bus curve from a long time ago if I remember right.


----------



## AAAAAAA (Oct 5, 2007)

MacLeod said:


> The one thing I will disagree on though it the "just because it wins a lot of contests and everybody likes it, doesnt mean its right" thing, cause I think it kinda does. It may not have all the pretty graphs and everything but it sure sounds amazing. Im just a dumb cop and have never written any code or algorithms but if a system is winning all the SQ competitions and everybody really likes it, doesnt that make it "right" too?
> 
> Hell I dont know. After 13 pages, Im not even sure what we're arguing about anymore.


It's all in what the contests mean...

So imagine a "race" contest where how you determine the winner isn't who crosses the line first by being the fastest...that was only part of the points you get in the overall contest. Other things that would give you points would be if you had shoe laces, how you tied them, do they have any chance of falling off, and so on. And so whoever crosses the line first isn't the winner of the race. To win you need all the other things that don't mean anything in terms of who is fastest. So who is the fastest? Who knows but the winner had the best tied shoe laces.

It's the same thing in these "SQ" contests.


----------



## rton20s (Feb 14, 2011)

AAAAAAA said:


> It's all in what the contests mean...
> 
> So imagine a "race" contest where how you determine the winner isn't who crosses the line first by being the fastest...that was only part of the points you get in the overall contest. Other things that would give you points would be if you had shoe laces, how you tied them, do they have any chance of falling off, and so on. And so whoever crosses the line first isn't the winner of the race. To win you need all the other things that don't mean anything in terms of who is fastest. So who is the fastest? Who knows but the winner had the best tied shoe laces.
> 
> It's the same thing in these "SQ" contests.


----------



## claydo (Oct 1, 2012)

Holy moly....so now we're discounting competition as a way to show your car sounds good? So mark eldridge, Jim becker, kirk profit, et al, have no idea what they're doing? What are we supposed to do, just take yer word for it that you have the best sounding system?

It seems maybe if we can sneak a mic in one of these guys cars....get a good analysis......and just replicate that in yer car......boom, you can be world champion too! I mean after all, there's nothing difficult about it....just cut and dry science.......right?


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

MacLeod said:


> The one thing I will disagree on though it the "just because it wins a lot of contests and everybody likes it, doesnt mean its right" thing, cause I think it kinda does. It may not have all the pretty graphs and everything but it sure sounds amazing. Im just a dumb cop and have never written any code or algorithms but if a system is winning all the SQ competitions and everybody really likes it, doesnt that make it "right" too?


Amen bro, your car and others at the very top sound amazing because they are spot on in every way that is counted as correct, every box is ticked. It's literally like listening to a proper 2ch setup and these guys get where they are, based on hearing minute issues and knowing how to correct them. I don't think you've waved a mic around your ear while tuning too often 

Measuring and then tuning extensively by ear is the only way you'll get close to these big boys. Problems start when 99% don't understand tuning by ear nor hear a difference between a 2ch and and an average car with speakers and amps. This is where the debates and trouble starts, sounds great to my ears

FWIW, Aaron here is my mentor and the person who patiently taught me how to hear a difference and tune by ear one step at a time, over a couple of years. I will always owe him big time. The sound in my car is ~85% there when compared to my 2ch at home. Come finals, these guys would be pushing 95+% of a good ref 2ch. In my book, Aaron is up there with KP in tuning skills, heck they went head to head for about 4-5 years often with 0.1-1 point difference. He is also humble enough to not to claim on a public forum that he can beat an auto tune with any normal install, although I know and he knows, that he'd do it 10/10 and be streets ahead of the auto tune. Dude, I still have a lot to learn from you.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

AAAAAAA said:


> It's all in what the contests mean...
> 
> So imagine a "race" contest where how you determine the winner isn't who crosses the line first by being the fastest...that was only part of the points you get in the overall contest. Other things that would give you points would be if you had shoe laces, how you tied them, do they have any chance of falling off, and so on. And so whoever crosses the line first isn't the winner of the race. To win you need all the other things that don't mean anything in terms of who is fastest. So who is the fastest? Who knows but the winner had the best tied shoe laces.
> 
> It's the same thing in these "SQ" contests.


Start by learning to hear a difference between a ref sound (2ch, decent cans) and your car.


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

Sqnut you are the most stuburn person I've ever had to read a post from. 
You ignore everything except those that agree with you. 
You ignore every document fact that goes against your opinion. 
That does nothing for you.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

DDfusion said:


> Sqnut you are the most stuburn person I've ever had to read a post from.
> You ignore everything except those that agree with you.
> You ignore every document fact that goes against your opinion.
> That does nothing for you.


Start by learning to hear a difference and things will slowly start to fall in place. You're hearing but you're not listening, HUGE difference.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

DDfusion said:


> Sqnut you are the most stuburn person I've ever had to read a post from.
> You ignore everything except those that agree with you.
> You ignore every document fact that goes against your opinion.
> That does nothing for you.


Irony 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

sqnut said:


> Start by learning to hear a difference and things will slowly start to fall in place. You're hearing but you're not listening, HUGE difference.


Start by looking at facts.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> Hilarious. This thread has proved to be one of the most ridiculous in my more than 10 years here.
> 
> It's par for the course in "high end" audio of all kinds. Ridiculous arguments in favor of the "art" of screwing around because since someone doesn't "know" nothing can be known and since nothing can be known, no objectivity can be applied. All of this protects the know-nothing's ability to claim that since preference is involved, there are no rules and an entire scientific discipline can be discounted as folly because someone won a contest.
> 
> I'm out.


Please just listen to the top cars, you will hear the difference.


----------



## benny z (Mar 17, 2008)

i don't understand why everyone is so hard on sqnut. i don't always agree with him, but a lot of the time i do.

i'm with him on your ears being the best measurement tool. however, it requires ear training; for the masses it's not an easy concept to grasp. this is where tools like the ms-8 and other auto-tuners come in as a "godsend" for the masses - it's an easy way to make a system better for most people.

...but for the people who have a trained ear, and know what to adjust with respect to what they are hearing and how it changes the sound...auto tuners are just a crux.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

SkizeR said:


> Irony
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


 nuf said.


----------



## Victor_inox (Apr 27, 2012)

SQ_TSX said:


> Man... where can I get those rocks....!


 i`ll throw some for free, I have backyard full of them...:laugh:


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

You talk like Andy has never heard top cars. 
I'm sure he has many more years of hearing top cars than you will ever have.


----------



## Guest (Jan 26, 2016)

sqnut said:


> Please just listen to the top cars, you will hear the difference.


Sir I'm in total agreement with you here.... 

.... I know, I almost fell out of my chair typing this....

Fact is, SQNUT is speaking the truth here... take the time to listen to some of the great SQ cars and there is a difference... there's more to SQ than just a curve... 

Now that said, tuning IS very important. ... but it's only a portion of the formula. ...


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

This is the last thing I'm posting here. This is a mostly objective process for tuning cars using a machine and some justification for its use. As professional, it's important to have a defined spec and a process for getting there within the time that' billed. It also includes a brief explanation of why, from a business and professional perspective, tuning by ear is not a retail solution. 

For those hobbyists here who WANT to tune endlessly and screw around for hours, go ahead. 

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26702498/Tuning Cars.pdf


----------



## benny z (Mar 17, 2008)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> It also includes a brief explanation of why, from a business and professional perspective, tuning by ear is not a retail solution.


nah. retailers just aren't hiring the right folks for the job. 

<3


----------



## Guest (Jan 26, 2016)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> This is the last thing I'm posting here. This is a mostly objective process for tuning cars using a machine and some justification for its use. As professional, it's important to have a defined spec and a process for getting there within the time that' billed. It also includes a brief explanation of why, from a business and professional perspective, tuning by ear is not a retail solution.
> 
> For those hobbyists here who WANT to tune endlessly and screw around for hours, go ahead.
> 
> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26702498/Tuning Cars.pdf


Andy, Thanks for taking the time to write down your process and share them with us... Looking forward to reading this document...


----------



## AAAAAAA (Oct 5, 2007)

I didn't say or insinuate in my analogy that the cars didn't sound good or great by the way. Just that ultimately you're not winning by sound alone. And also injected humor. You're welcome


----------



## mbradlawrence (Mar 25, 2013)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> This is the last thing I'm posting here. This is a mostly objective process for tuning cars using a machine and some justification for its use. As professional, it's important to have a defined spec and a process for getting there within the time that' billed. It also includes a brief explanation of why, from a business and professional perspective, tuning by ear is not a retail solution.
> 
> For those hobbyists here who WANT to tune endlessly and screw around for hours, go ahead.
> 
> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26702498/Tuning Cars.pdf


I just hit print, save and save as. Andy, the number of times I wanted to ask you to provide a synopsis of you method is without count.....an now, there it is.

Regarding reference cans discussed above, I guy I work with let me borrow his Grado RS1's today. Holy moly.......


----------



## Victor_inox (Apr 27, 2012)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26702498/Tuning Cars.pdf


now, there nothing else to learn therefore i`m out...


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

Victor_inox said:


> now, there nothing else to learn therefore i`m out...


Of course there's more to learn.

Resist...resist, Andy. Find something else to do.


----------



## Victor_inox (Apr 27, 2012)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> Of course there's more to learn.
> 
> Resist...resist, Andy. Find something else to do.



Amen!


----------



## imjustjason (Jun 26, 2006)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26702498/Tuning Cars.pdf


Right click, save. Thank you very much Mr Wehmeyer,


----------



## JVD240 (Sep 7, 2009)

Thanks very much for sharing, Andy.

Your slides reminded me of Pat Brown's training; Another guy I respect a ton.


----------



## MacLeod (Aug 16, 2009)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> This is the last thing I'm posting here. This is a mostly objective process for tuning cars using a machine and some justification for its use. As professional, it's important to have a defined spec and a process for getting there within the time that' billed. It also includes a brief explanation of why, from a business and professional perspective, tuning by ear is not a retail solution.
> 
> For those hobbyists here who WANT to tune endlessly and screw around for hours, go ahead.
> 
> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26702498/Tuning Cars.pdf


I get what you're saying. As a pro your job is to get the car to perform accurately so to speak. Then it's up to the customer to add his own flavor or changes that he likes based on his preference and music he listens to like boosted mid and sub bass for metal or cut some treble for hip hop or whatever. Whereas me being a hobbyist am striving for the sound I like best and what sounds best to me and not necessarily an RTA mic. Hadn't really thought about it like that. 

That's what us SQ competitors are trying to do. Shape the system to sound the way we like it and present our "interpretation" of good sound to the judges. May not be technically accurate but it sounds better to us. 



AAAAAAA said:


> It's all in what the contests mean...
> 
> So imagine a "race" contest where how you determine the winner isn't who crosses the line first by being the fastest...that was only part of the points you get in the overall contest. Other things that would give you points would be if you had shoe laces, how you tied them, do they have any chance of falling off, and so on. And so whoever crosses the line first isn't the winner of the race. To win you need all the other things that don't mean anything in terms of who is fastest. So who is the fastest? Who knows but the winner had the best tied shoe laces.
> 
> It's the same thing in these "SQ" contests.


What in God's name are you talking about? You're judged on sound quality aline, at least in MECA. Yeah they've got an install and RTA competition class but those are just that, install and RTA. The SQ champions won based solely on sound quality.


----------



## Darth SQ (Sep 17, 2010)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> Of course there's more to learn.
> 
> Resist...resist, Andy. Find something else to do.


Like sell me a 2450? 


Bret
PPI-ART COLLECTOR


----------



## rton20s (Feb 14, 2011)

PPI-ART COLLECTOR said:


> Like sell me a 2450?
> 
> 
> Bret
> PPI-ART COLLECTOR


----------



## claydo (Oct 1, 2012)

I understand the need to establish a time sensitive, repeatable method when you're talking about the retail end of things. When you base your reputation on systems turned loose to a customer, you must have a standard to guide those that work for you to turn out quality work, tuning included. Where we stray apart is the fact that a good part of us here are a little more involved than the average customer. I have never argued against measurements and tools to start your tuning, its specifically helpful in l/r eq, but I do argue about finishing that way......call it preference or whatever you want, but the ears are the last piece in the tuning puzzle. Now, given, I don't tune on an hourly quota, so I know where you're coming from, but the mass production time sensitive tunes would never make me happy...........like it says above I'm not the average shop customer. Besides another aspect left out of the arguement is the fact that a lot of us enjoy the constant tuning, the thrill of the chase, the knowledge gleaned from hearing the changes from tune to tune. It always amazes me how I can tune my car forty different ways, all with pleasurable results........is it wrong if it sounds good? Can it sound bad if it measures nice? Seems to me there's no set formula......


----------



## cjbrownco (Apr 30, 2014)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> This is the last thing I'm posting here. This is a mostly objective process for tuning cars using a machine and some justification for its use. As professional, it's important to have a defined spec and a process for getting there within the time that' billed. It also includes a brief explanation of why, from a business and professional perspective, tuning by ear is not a retail solution.
> 
> For those hobbyists here who WANT to tune endlessly and screw around for hours, go ahead.
> 
> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26702498/Tuning Cars.pdf


Just read through the whole thing. Thank you for sharing this, it is just what I needed.


----------



## IJCOBRA (Nov 21, 2014)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> This is the last thing I'm posting here. This is a mostly objective process for tuning cars using a machine and some justification for its use. As professional, it's important to have a defined spec and a process for getting there within the time that' billed. It also includes a brief explanation of why, from a business and professional perspective, tuning by ear is not a retail solution.
> 
> For those hobbyists here who WANT to tune endlessly and screw around for hours, go ahead.
> 
> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26702498/Tuning Cars.pdf


That was awesome; thanks!


----------



## gregerst22 (Dec 18, 2012)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> This is the last thing I'm posting here. This is a mostly objective process for tuning cars using a machine and some justification for its use. As professional, it's important to have a defined spec and a process for getting there within the time that' billed. It also includes a brief explanation of why, from a business and professional perspective, tuning by ear is not a retail solution.
> 
> For those hobbyists here who WANT to tune endlessly and screw around for hours, go ahead.
> 
> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26702498/Tuning Cars.pdf


I like how this is laid out. Very informative and easy to follow process with explanations as to why you choose the method you did. Thanks for sharing it Andy.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

benny z said:


> nah. retailers just aren't hiring the right folks for the job.
> 
> <3


This retailer is.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

claydo said:


> I understand the need to establish a time sensitive, repeatable method when you're talking about the retail end of things. When you base your reputation on systems turned loose to a customer, you must have a standard to guide those that work for you to turn out quality work, tuning included. Where we stray apart is the fact that a good part of us here are a little more involved than the average customer. I have never argued against measurements and tools to start your tuning, its specifically helpful in l/r eq, but I do argue about finishing that way......call it preference or whatever you want, but the ears are the last piece in the tuning puzzle. Now, given, I don't tune on an hourly quota, so I know where you're coming from, but the mass production time sensitive tunes would never make me happy...........like it says above I'm not the average shop customer. Besides another aspect left out of the arguement is the fact that a lot of us enjoy the constant tuning, the thrill of the chase, the knowledge gleaned from hearing the changes from tune to tune. It always amazes me how I can tune my car forty different ways, all with pleasurable results........is it wrong if it sounds good? Can it sound bad if it measures nice? Seems to me there's no set formula......


if something sounds bad but "measures nice" you're not measuring the right things. An RTA is NOT the tool for the job.


----------



## claydo (Oct 1, 2012)

Niick said:


> if something sounds bad but "measures nice" you're not measuring the right things. An RTA is NOT the tool for the job.


I wasn't talking about any specific measurement nick. Just asking a question.......can a system sound bad after you're happy with yer measurements and calabrations? No way no how? Never happened? Every one you've ever set up sounds to its utmost potential, not needing anything else and superior to all other identical setups? When you lay down your mic, you're confident you've squeezed every last ounce of potential out of a system?.........this is what I was getting at, not trying to bolster your disdain of the "rta".


----------



## V 2the C (Mar 12, 2015)

It's 5 shelves directly above that grandioso goop.


----------



## Guest (Jan 27, 2016)

V 2the C said:


> It's 5 shelves directly above that grandioso goop.


Man.... how did miss seeing those rocks reaching for the Grandioso goop...?


----------



## V 2the C (Mar 12, 2015)

Not sure


----------



## Guest (Jan 27, 2016)

V 2the C said:


> Was I talking to you? Take a chilling pill.


LOL... I assumed you were... just having some fun with a tongue-in-cheek post... no need get feathers ruffled...


----------



## Hillbilly SQ (Jan 26, 2007)

What makes me facepalm are people who depend on the rta so much that they quit trusting their ears, or never trust their ears to begin with. They tune to a target curve that someone on an audio forum says sounds good to them and leaves it be. At the same time time alignment is nowhere near correct, levels all over the place, acoustical phase all wrong, etc.


----------



## Guest (Jan 27, 2016)

Hillbilly SQ said:


> What makes me facepalm are people who depend on the rta so much that they quit trusting their ears, or never trust their ears to begin with. They tune to a target curve that someone on an audio forum says sounds good to them and leaves it be. At the same time time alignment is nowhere near correct, levels all over the place, acoustical phase all wrong, etc.


Very well stated sir... and very true....!


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

claydo said:


> I wasn't talking about any specific measurement nick. Just asking a question.......can a system sound bad after you're happy with yer measurements and calabrations? No way no how? Never happened? Every one you've ever set up sounds to its utmost potential, not needing anything else and superior to all other identical setups? When you lay down your mic, you're confident you've squeezed every last ounce of potential out of a system?.........this is what I was getting at, not trying to bolster your disdain of the "rta".


Of course it can. The same way that a system can sound bad after you've worn your ears and your mind out tuning by ear for hours, thinking you've got it, only to come back the next day with a fresh perspective and find "what was I thinking?!"

Now I KNOW that's happened to you as well. I guess what I'm getting at, is that IF your system "measured well" but sounded bad, then you (or me...he who measured) just THOUGHT it measured well. There was something that you, or I, or whoever is doing the measuring, doesn't understand. 

Of course this has happened to me. I'm constantly experimenting and learning new things when it comes to acoustic analysis, system tuning, and its effects on our SUBJECTIVE perception. 

That last part (correlation with our subjective impression) is without question the most difficult/challenging aspect of the whole thing, and the part where everyone seems to agree that people are easily fooled. We can easily fool OURSELVES into thinking something sounds good. Which is why, after I'm done tuning a car, or testing a method/theory, I listen to it, yes, of course, but I don't put undue faith in my own perception at the moment, because...hell I just spent a bunch of time and effort working on this thing, and how much of that time and effort is going to play a part in my subjective evaluation immediately after the fact?

No, instead, I go get OTHER PEOPLE, other people I always have on hand. And I'm lucky in that way, that I've always got other people, some of whom have actually heard amazing cars too, and who I can ask their SUBJECTIVE OPIONION about whatever it is I have just done. 

Can I always trust these other's opinions to be "right".....hell no!! 

Again, of course not. But, have you ever see the movie "Jackie Brown" where Robert De Niro asks Samual Jackson "you trust Melanie around your business!?" 

Samuel Jackson replies "of course I don't trust Melanie, but I can always trust Melanie, TO BE MELANIE" 

and that's it right there. I can always "trust Melanie TO BE Melanie" so to speak, so, while these other guys opinions might not be "right" they are certainly, CERTAINLY useful. 

I once read someone post on here that the benefit of using our ears as opposed to an analysis system, was that our ears were consistent.

Yes you read that right. Somebody actually claimed that. And another dude agreed with him!!!! 

I don't care where a person stands on the whole "tuning by ear" thing, but NO ONE can successfully argue that our perception is more rock solidly the same, hour by hour, day by day, than a measurement system. 

Finally, the reason I YET AGAIN expressed my opinion (which is not even considered an opinion by the worlds most well know audio engineers) that an RTA is NOT the right tool for the job, is because, you mentioned something "measuring well but sounding bad". Well, this is only a possible with a limited tool like an RTA. Because, anybody who actually has enough passion for acoustic analysis to want to put forth the effort to learn how to use more complex systems of acoustic measurement will quickly see that there are SO MANY ways to measure something, that to define "measures good, sounds bad" simply means you weren't measuring the right things. Obviously. Or you didn't understand the data and you only THOUGHT it measured good.

Edit: let me maybe clear up that last part. Look at it like this, the only way a person would ever come to the conclusion in the first place that something MEASURED GOOD (yet sounded bad), was if they 

1: reached the limit of their measurement system, LIKE AN RTA, and was only able see a limited perspective on the data, in that case, then yeah, I suppose something could "measure" "good"

2. Mistakenly believed that they had acquired valid data and understood it properly, thus leading them to the conclusion that something measured good, which obviously it didn't.


----------



## Victor_inox (Apr 27, 2012)

Hillbilly SQ said:


> What makes me facepalm are people who depend on the rta so much that they quit trusting their ears, or never trust their ears to begin with. They tune to a target curve that someone on an audio forum says sounds good to them and leaves it be. At the same time time alignment is nowhere near correct, levels all over the place, acoustical phase all wrong, etc.


 100% agreed.
People forget main reason they started- enjoy music.


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

Nobody has said never use ears. They are saying use the tools to get a baseline.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

Hillbilly SQ said:


> What makes me facepalm are people who depend on the rta so much that they quit trusting their ears, or never trust their ears to begin with. They tune to a target curve that someone on an audio forum says sounds good to them and leaves it be. At the same time time alignment is nowhere near correct, levels all over the place, acoustical phase all wrong, etc.


thank you sir, you've proved my point. The RTA is NOT the right tool for the job, is it!


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

I came to this forum to get away from the narrow minded Basshead community. 
This is just as bad with different context.


----------



## AAAAAAA (Oct 5, 2007)

Victor_inox said:


> 100% agreed.
> People forget main reason they started- enjoy music.


Yeah but many continue because of their even higher new found love of equipment. We all loooove getting our hands on new gear. I think I've gone through more new gear the last 10 years then new albums hehehe (exaggerating of course).


----------



## AAAAAAA (Oct 5, 2007)

DDfusion said:


> I came to this forum to get away from the narrow minded Basshead community.
> This is just as bad with different context.


Humans gonna human


----------



## Hillbilly SQ (Jan 26, 2007)

DDfusion said:


> I came to this forum to get away from the narrow minded Basshead community.
> This is just as bad with different context.


Narrow minded because you're too narrow minded to accept our openmindedness?


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

Openminds would know there is more than one way to do things. What works for one won't work for all.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

DDfusion said:


> Openminds would know there is more than one way to do things. What works for one won't work for all.


EXACTLY!!!!  We have different circumstances and therefore different set of working criteria.


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

Yes but the outcome can be the same.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

DDfusion said:


> Yes but the outcome can be the same.


Right, precisely. The outcome CAN be the same! you could arrive at an AMAZING sounding system either way.

Or an amazingly bad sounding system, again, EITHER WAY.

Absolutely, Im certainly not disputing THAT.


----------



## Mic10is (Aug 20, 2007)

Its very funny when people talk so much about tuning being such an individual preference. while there are certain things that certain people prefer there are a ton of commonalities as well where pretty much all people will agree that something sounds good or great.

Most may not be able to specifically identify what it is that makes what they are hearing sound good or better without training, but words like "Clear, Clean" are common adjectives people will use to describe when something sounds good or better. 

preference comes into play with bass and the very top end. but between 160-3.2k a relatively flat response is desired by just about everyone.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

Mic10is said:


> Its very funny when people talk so much about tuning being such an individual preference. while there are certain things that certain people prefer there are a ton of commonalities as well where pretty much all people will agree that something sounds good or great.
> 
> Most may not be able to specifically identify what it is that makes what they are hearing sound good or better without training, but words like "Clear, Clean" are common adjectives people will use to describe when something sounds good or better.
> 
> preference comes into play with bass and the very top end. but between 160-3.2k a relatively flat response is desired by just about everyone.


i was thinking similar. only preference i usually see is the amount of output on the bass and the character of the roll off on the top end.


----------



## Mic10is (Aug 20, 2007)

what Andy wrote was a sensible guide for tuning for everyone. It wasnt just a tuning manual for the retail service industry. 
Its a guide to help people reach the end goal of making tweaks to their system faster.

Whenever I have helped people tune or tuned for profit, I always go back and have the customer listen or listen in during the process and tweak to their music preference.
But its always tuning for a baseline "target" curve 1st and then tweaking to their preference next.

I find it comical when people ask what I think of someone vehicle and I pointed out glaring audible errors in frequency response and they respond with " well thats the fun of the system" or " thats how he likes it"

to me that says that the person either lacks the education about good sound, lacks the tools to reach the end goal, or simply lacks the motivation to do anything about it.


----------



## Hillbilly SQ (Jan 26, 2007)

Mic10is said:


> Its very funny when people talk so much about tuning being such an individual preference. while there are certain things that certain people prefer there are a ton of commonalities as well where pretty much all people will agree that something sounds good or great.
> 
> Most may not be able to specifically identify what it is that makes what they are hearing sound good or better without training, but words like "Clear, Clean" are common adjectives people will use to describe when something sounds good or better.
> 
> preference comes into play with bass and the very top end. but between 160-3.2k a relatively flat response is desired by just about everyone.


You're exactly right. For me if a system is hitting on all cylinders for me it will "move" me. For what it's worth, I'm just now starting to somewhat be able to make my own system "move" me. Linda told me it was on the verge of coming out of its shell, and y'all both told me not to change anything. Guess what, I changed processors for the right reason. Makes tuning so much easier when everything is all on the same program. Other than that, everything is as it was and staying put.


----------



## redit (Jan 14, 2012)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> This is a mostly objective process for tuning cars using a machine and some justification for its use.
> 
> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26702498/Tuning Cars.pdf


This should be stickied.


----------



## jpswanberg (Jan 14, 2009)

redit said:


> This should be stickied.


I downloaded it to my desktop. JPS


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

Mic10is said:


> Its very funny when people talk so much about tuning being such an individual preference. while there are certain things that certain people prefer there are a ton of commonalities as well where pretty much all people will agree that something sounds good or great.
> 
> Most may not be able to specifically identify what it is that makes what they are hearing sound good or better without training, but words like "Clear, Clean" are common adjectives people will use to describe when something sounds good or better.
> 
> preference comes into play with bass and the very top end. but between 160-3.2k a relatively flat response is desired by just about everyone.


i must say I quite agree with you. Unless you're talking about a severe physical deformity, so long as its human, it's going to have human sound perception characteristics. I've known many an "old school" (LOL) installer in my 17 years in the installation business, and I cant tell you how many times I've heard this. "Well everybody hears differently...." Really!? I would think. We all have different PREFERENCES, but that only accounts for a small amount of the overall system setup. 

It's like Andy's shoe analogy. 

While some people might like one type of shoe over another, they're all gonna have common characteristics. They're all gonna have a sole, ya know, they're all gonna have certain physical, MEASUREABLE characteristics that define them as a shoe. They're not goon be so different that you can't just look at it and immediately recognize....."hey that's a shoe! That goes on a HUMAN foot!"


----------



## Alextaastrup (Apr 12, 2014)

It is hard to imagine that a car perfectly tuned for one kind of music will play the other one owfully. Agree, there might be some preferences (especially regarding the low end reproduction) but it should sound also good for all possible ganres (talking of focusing, staging, instrument placement, etc.). 

One can introduce some mastering for a competition disc, but this is another story. Anyway it's just polishing, I think.

We are discussing here a human perception of sound, but do not forget just ordinary psychological mode: you might be tired, screwed up, angry, whatever. In this case even your favorite music sounds not good, but next morning... Just a general comment to remember, nothing technical.


----------



## bflatmobile (Apr 10, 2014)

Anyone have a mirror of Andy's PDF? the link is dead...


----------



## cjbrownco (Apr 30, 2014)

Dang it, I read through it on my phone and forgot to save it on my computer at home


----------



## brumledb (Feb 2, 2015)

I have it but don't want to re-post publicly since Andy killed the link. If you pm me your email, I'll send you a copy.


----------



## IJCOBRA (Nov 21, 2014)

Alextaastrup said:


> It is hard to imagine that a car perfectly tuned for one kind of music will play the other one owfully. Agree, there might be some preferences (especially regarding the low end reproduction) but it should sound also good for all possible ganres (talking of focusing, staging, instrument placement, etc.).
> 
> One can introduce some mastering for a competition disc, but this is another story. Anyway it's just polishing, I think.
> 
> We are discussing here a human perception of sound, but do not forget just ordinary psychological mode: you might be tired, screwed up, angry, whatever. In this case even your favorite music sounds not good, but next morning... Just a general comment to remember, nothing technical.


I could see a car being perfectly tuned for one kind of music not sounding perfect for another. 

Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a standard recording level in the music industry. Newer songs are way louder than older. Different studios have different sounds. Some may implement equalization and others not or different eq. Older music seems to be completely lacking in bass. Older music (Beatles) didn't have realistic stereo; instruments were 100% on one channel or the other or both. 

I think all we can do about it is have some headroom for a bass control knob and/or maybe different equalization presets.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

IJCOBRA said:


> I could see a car being perfectly tuned for one kind of music not sounding perfect for another.


this would be tuning for preference, not accuracy


----------



## IJCOBRA (Nov 21, 2014)

SkizeR said:


> this would be tuning for preference, not accuracy


Accurate or not, most older (50's-60's) music doesn't sound very good unless the bass is boosted. But this would cause a wreck if we played some Dubstep as the next track.

The bass exists in these older songs, but it is so soft. Perhaps it was a necessity to record it that way due to limitations in most people's stereos (or monos) at the time (small speakers, low power, basic crossovers). I bet if they could do it over today the bass would be more apparent.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

IJCOBRA said:


> Accurate or not, most older (50's-60's) music doesn't sound very good unless the bass is boosted. But this would cause a wreck if we played some Dubstep as the next track.
> 
> The bass exists in these older songs, but it is so soft. Perhaps it was a necessity to record it that way due to limitations in most people's stereos (or monos) at the time (small speakers, low power, basic crossovers). I bet if they could do it over today the bass would be more apparent.


my guess is it's more to do with the media. 

from this link:
GREAT SOUNDING RECORDS



> That having been said, it is important to understand the limitations of this medium in order to make great sounding records. The first limitation is recording time and level (volume). The amount of time possible on a record side is entirely dependent on the cutting level (volume) and the amount of low frequency information (bass). Bass uses more space than treble.



and more than likely the mastering wasn't changed for some of these older songs to bring back up the LF rolloff. so modern media (say, a CD) of old songs will still have that same mastering applied.


----------



## Hillbilly SQ (Jan 26, 2007)

I could be an oddball here but some stuff just wouldn't sound "right" if it didn't have the rolloff down low and/or the rolloff up top with hiss in the recording. If you hear something one way from the time you were born you kinda grow fond of that sound because it takes you back to a simpler time even if it's inferior by todays standards.


----------



## Victor_inox (Apr 27, 2012)

SkizeR said:


> this would be tuning for preference, not accuracy


 **** accuracy, if it sounds ****ty I don`t care where myEQ stands. 
We given tools to enjoy music, too bad some of us enjoy equipment more than music. I`ll take tuning preference over accuracy. 
As of today I never heard one piece of music I wouldn`t change tonal balance somewhat.


----------



## Ainuke (Aug 27, 2014)

IJCOBRA said:


> So when I listen to music in my car stereo through my iPhone:
> The original analog music was recorded onto analog tapes. These tapes were played and digitized (A/D) and pressed on a CD. Depending on the "ripping" method, the CD could have been played and converted to analog and then digitized (D/A and A/D conversion) into a MP3 type file. Who knows if my headunit converts the iPhone USB audio signal to analog, then digital for its on-board processing, then analog again to go out the RCAs, then digital again in the DSP, then analog out the DSP RCAs to the amps.


I've added AirPlay to my car. AirPort Express goes optical to the Alpine DSP, which converts to analog for the amps. Provided there's a lossless source (AIFF, FLAC), the only D/A conversion is inside the DSP.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

IJCOBRA said:


> I could see a car being perfectly tuned for one kind of music not sounding perfect for another.
> 
> Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a standard recording level in the music industry. Newer songs are way louder than older. Different studios have different sounds. Some may implement equalization and others not or different eq. Older music seems to be completely lacking in bass. Older music (Beatles) didn't have realistic stereo; instruments were 100% on one channel or the other or both.
> 
> I think all we can do about it is have some headroom for a bass control knob and/or maybe different equalization presets.


Take the tutorial with a pinch of salt. It has some good information for those wanting to get started with tuning, but frankly it also has it's share of marginal analogies and pre conceived notions, some of which are plain wrong.

Every one claims to do a bit of tune by ear, but those who know what they're doing, don't tune to a female vocal or personal preference, they tune to what sounds right. The "right" comes from a rock solid ref sound imprinted in the head, coupled with being intuitive on your eq based on what you're hearing. Now when you get the sound right, good recording sound incredible and poor recordings sound crappy, irrespective of genre's.

P.S. The older recordings are by and large excellent, including the Beatles. A lot of the older recordings were also made in much bigger studios, you hear that as well, you just need the right tune.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> This is the last thing I'm posting here. This is a mostly objective process for tuning cars using a machine and some justification for its use. As professional, it's important to have a defined spec and a process for getting there within the time that' billed. It also includes a brief explanation of why, from a business and professional perspective, tuning by ear is not a retail solution.
> 
> For those hobbyists here who WANT to tune endlessly and screw around for hours, go ahead.
> 
> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26702498/Tuning Cars.pdf


Andy, I love the humor. I actually have a hard printed copy of this (or something extremely similar) that my boss Kevin Cornutt brought me back from Knowledgefest. 

For those who may just be getting into tuning, a word of advice-

Yes, you SHOULD trust the data.

However, should you trust YOURSELF to acquire VALID data? 

If youre using a PC based analysis system that makes use of a reference channel, or "loopback"....ALWAYS MAKE SURE the "monitor mix" knob is set fully to "COMPUTER" or "OUT" or "DAW" or..........whatever. 

Just NOT "IN" or "DIRECT"

If there is a switch (often labeled "Direct Monitoring" or "Latency Free Monitor") instead of a variable mix knob, make sure this is set to "OFF"








You HAVE to learn how your particular analyasis program works. You have to be confident that you've acquired valid data before you can trust it.

Even if youre not using the "loopback" or "reference" channel, for example, spectrum only data (like the RTA mode of REW) can still be corrupted if this "monitor mix" knob is set to any position other than fully "out" (ususally clockwise)


----------



## IJCOBRA (Nov 21, 2014)

Ainuke said:


> I've added AirPlay to my car. AirPort Express goes optical to the Alpine DSP, which converts to analog for the amps. Provided there's a lossless source (AIFF, FLAC), the only D/A conversion is inside the DSP.


I did this for a while. Got tired of having to re-connect to AirPlay. I think I also had problems with hearing calls through the speakers because it isn't supported via AirPlay.


----------



## I800C0LLECT (Jan 26, 2009)

sqnut said:


> *Take the tutorial with a pinch of salt. It has some good information for those wanting to get started with tuning, but frankly it also has it's share of marginal analogies and pre conceived notions, some of which are plain wrong.*
> 
> Every one claims to do a bit of tune by ear, but those who know what they're doing, don't tune to a female vocal or personal preference, they tune to what sounds right. The "right" comes from a rock solid ref sound imprinted in the head, coupled with being intuitive on your eq based on what you're hearing. Now when you get the sound right, good recording sound incredible and poor recordings sound crappy, irrespective of genre's.
> 
> P.S. The older recordings are by and large excellent, including the Beatles. A lot of the older recordings were also made in much bigger studios, you hear that as well, you just need the right tune.



You're honestly going to say that without backing it up? I think this is how we lost Lycan. *forehead slap*

The least you could do is bring any issues you have into focus for discussion and clarification.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

sqnut said:


> Take the tutorial with a pinch of salt. It has some good information for those wanting to get started with tuning, but frankly it also has it's share of marginal analogies and pre conceived notions, some of which are plain wrong.


Not that I've read Andy's document fully but I don't think it's any worse than seeing you telling people what EQ settings to apply based on an RTA reading they post here. Which I've seen you do countless times in various threads. (and note I said "any worse")

On that same note...




sqnut said:


> Every one claims to do a bit of tune by ear, but those who know what they're doing, don't tune to a female vocal or personal preference, they tune to what sounds right. The "right" comes from a rock solid ref sound imprinted in the head, coupled with being intuitive on your eq based on what you're hearing. Now when you get the sound right, good recording sound incredible and poor recordings sound crappy, irrespective of genre's.


I find it incredibly ironic you tell people how to tune their systems through the internet via a couple RTA graphs they share, having never heard their car. Yet you get upset with people in this thread over the idea of using a streamlined measurement method as opposed to tuning by ear.


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

If the recording is soft and play back is soft that's how it supposed to be. 
That's accuracy. Unless you are the one mastering something there is no need to change it. 
The good masters are artist, I enjoy their work. Not someone's interpertation of what they think it should sound like. If you want bass listen to songs with bass, they are out there.


----------



## Ainuke (Aug 27, 2014)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> This is the last thing I'm posting here. This is a mostly objective process for tuning cars using a machine and some justification for its use. As professional, it's important to have a defined spec and a process for getting there within the time that' billed. It also includes a brief explanation of why, from a business and professional perspective, tuning by ear is not a retail solution.
> 
> For those hobbyists here who WANT to tune endlessly and screw around for hours, go ahead.
> 
> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26702498/Tuning Cars.pdf


Hi Andy,

I've appreciated all your input to the forum (wish I could afford your drivers).
The link leads to a "404" error for me. Can you help a newbie out?
If you've removed the content, could you PM me?

There's so much to take in and understand. Very interested to see your perspective.

Erik


----------



## Ainuke (Aug 27, 2014)

DDfusion said:


> If the recording is soft and play back is soft that's how it supposed to be.
> That's accuracy. Unless you are the one mastering something there is no need to change it.
> The good masters are artist, I enjoy their work. Not someone's interpertation of what they think it should sound like. If you want bass listen to songs with bass, they are out there.


I have to disagree. Pink Floyd's The Wall, Gold Edition digital remaster CD, is leveled way down from the norm. I can't believe they wanted this to be listened to at 60% volume; ikely, there are accommodations for noise floor in the original recordings. However, anything that's been recorded in the past 20 years (likely digital, or intended for digital) is using a completely different set of tools than they had back in the day, and more likely to be what the artist/master intended to begin with...

This is an argument I have with audiophile purists (the ones who drop $10K on a turntable) who claim that the vinyl is "warmer" and that the CD sounds too "compressed". They refuse to acknowledge that vinyl is compressed as well, and subject to the constraints of the medium. Sure, it's "warmer", but by necessity, not design.

-Erik


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

Ainuke said:


> I have to disagree. Pink Floyd's The Wall, Gold Edition digital remaster CD, is leveled way down from the norm. I can't believe they wanted this to be listened to at 60% volume; ikely, there are accommodations for noise floor in the original recordings. However, anything that's been recorded in the past 20 years (likely digital, or intended for digital) is using a completely different set of tools than they had back in the day, and more likely to be what the artist/master intended to begin with...
> 
> This is an argument I have with audiophile purists (the ones who drop $10K on a turntable) who claim that the vinyl is "warmer" and that the CD sounds too "compressed". They refuse to acknowledge that vinyl is compressed as well, and subject to the constraints of the medium. Sure, it's "warmer", but by necessity, not design.
> 
> -Erik


They need a little "can of worms" symbol that you can click on, kinda like the little "smiley face" and "thumbs up"


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

You should have enough headroom to get the volume you need for old recordings. 
Example. I'm -15db down with new stuff. Close to full volume with old stuff. That's a output issue not a EQ issue.


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

sqnut said:


> Take the tutorial with a pinch of salt. It has some good information for those wanting to get started with tuning, but frankly it also has it's share of marginal analogies and pre conceived notions, some of which are plain wrong.
> 
> Every one claims to do a bit of tune by ear, but those who know what they're doing, don't tune to a female vocal or personal preference, they tune to what sounds right. The "right" comes from a rock solid ref sound imprinted in the head, coupled with being intuitive on your eq based on what you're hearing. Now when you get the sound right, good recording sound incredible and poor recordings sound crappy, irrespective of genre's.
> 
> P.S. The older recordings are by and large excellent, including the Beatles. A lot of the older recordings were also made in much bigger studios, you hear that as well, you just need the right tune.



This is precisely why I killed the link. After reading it again, I realized that all of what I know from having been able to ask questions of the world's leading acousticians, mathematicians. systems and transducer engineers while I was at Harman combined with 30 years of experience as a retail installer, product manager, and enthusiast was all complete and useless ******** that just steers people in the wrong direction. 

Thanks SQNUT for pointing that out so clearly. 

For those of you who have found my posts informative, helpful, humorous or generally entertaining, I'm sorry to have steered you wrong. If any of my advice has led to better enjoyment or a better understanding of your hobby or your craft, please disregard it. It was all BS.

All yours, SQNUT. 

By the way, The statement, "Now when you get the sound right, good recording sound incredible and poor recordings sound crappy, irrespective of genre's" is precisely why tuning by ear is the wrong process and it's EXACTLY what I wrote about in the tutorial. 

What makes you think that your back yard shade-tree process is so good that it exposes the faults in recordings made and mixed by professionals? I find the opposite to be true. Once the car is right, even recordings I once thought were terrible when I listened to them on lesser systems, are often more interesting and more detailed.


----------



## rton20s (Feb 14, 2011)




----------



## Blu (Nov 3, 2008)

Andy,

I don't post a lot, and I certainly don't profess to know a lot, but I wanted to say "Thank You" for posting the tutorial!

FWIW, I often have difficulties understanding the principals behind the tuning process, but I found your tutorial to be one that was clearly articulated and easily understood and I look forward to using and referring to it as my planned install comes to fruition.

I hope that you will continue to share your insight and experience with this site and that the frustration that you are sharing will not cause you to become another great resource that "went away".

Sincerely,

Blu


----------



## bigbubba (Mar 23, 2011)

So that explains why I can't get the file now. Great.


----------



## Victor_inox (Apr 27, 2012)

Andy, bunch of people thanked you ,please stop being such drama queen and just disregard disagreement from others.
In so many years in industry you should know that there is ALWAYS people who disagree with you, some of those people can be respected for their knowledge while others... not necessarily so.


----------



## Victor_inox (Apr 27, 2012)

bigbubba said:


> So that explains why I can't get the file now. Great.


I`m sure if you ask nicely someone will hook you up.


----------



## eviling (Apr 14, 2010)

haha, good read for a laugh. I just think it's an ignorant statement. but that's my opinion.


----------



## bigbubba (Mar 23, 2011)

Victor_inox said:


> I`m sure if you ask nicely someone will hook you up.


I just did. I should get it tomorrow.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> This is precisely why I killed the link. After reading it again, I realized that all of what I know from having been able to ask questions of the world's leading acousticians, mathematicians. systems and transducer engineers while I was at Harman combined with 30 years of experience as a retail installer, product manager, and enthusiast was all complete and useless ******** that just steers people in the wrong direction.
> 
> Thanks SQNUT for pointing that out so clearly.
> 
> ...


Andy, The same guy once told me that using acoustic analysis tools was analogous to swimming "with floaties on"...........yeah......

He said i need to learn to "trust my ears"

..........My reply was something similar to your reply. I gave an example of the guys from Meyer Sound who invented the Constellation Acoustic System.
(Not to mention Bob McCarthy/SIM).

"But alas" I said, "If only those guys had known all along that all they had to do was TRUST THEIR EARS"

"You're my new standard of excellence" I told him. Or something like that.

Then I was accused of taking things too personally...........


----------



## MacLeod (Aug 16, 2009)




----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

MacLeod said:


>


isnt he supposed to be answering that question?


----------



## brumledb (Feb 2, 2015)

I thought it was the women who didn't remember.....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Mic10is (Aug 20, 2007)

I trust my ears. I trust them enough to tell me I should get the rta out to verify what I'm hearing is correct and I can make the correction without spending any length of time trying to guess by ear.

After years of tuning and judging, I've also gained enough experience to know what certain tonal issues sound like or at least get at least in the ball park. That helps with making quick on the fly adjustments or providing feedback when judging but for any serious tuning like from scratch or to fix multiple issues it's so much faster and efficient to use an rta.

I've been fortunate enough to learn from people like Eric Stevens, Dell Helmer, Matt Borgardt, Steve Head, Mark Elderidge and many others over the years and every single one of them, when an RTA is available tunes to a baseline 1st and then makes some tweaks by ear.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

I800C0LLECT said:


> You're honestly going to say that without backing it up? I think this is how we lost Lycan. *forehead slap*
> 
> The least you could do is bring any issues you have into focus for discussion and clarification.


Tough to do a point by point rebuttal since I didn't save the doc and now its been taken off. The one thing that stuck is Andy's comment on how folks who tune by ear go about tuning things and the results there off, that was plain wrong.


----------



## Victor_inox (Apr 27, 2012)

This debate is silly.
I can bet to anyone 10000 bucks that I`ll tune by ear faster and it will sounds better than any of you RTA nuts. RTA needed to deaf people or newbies who only learning the art.
All you need is good ears,experience and knowing the limitations of your equipment.
I`ve heard numerous "winners" cars and in many cases was not impressed.


----------



## rton20s (Feb 14, 2011)

Victor_inox said:


> I`ve heard numerous "winners" cars and in many cases was not impressed.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

Victor_inox said:


> This debate is silly.
> I can bet to anyone 10000 bucks that I`ll tune by ear faster and it will sounds better than any of you RTA nuts. RTA needed to deaf people or newbies who only learning the art.
> All you need is good ears,experience and knowing the limitations of your equipment.
> I`ve heard numerous "winners" cars and in many cases was not impressed.


ill be in denver in two weeks if you wanna take that bet.. while i cant afford 10000 dollars, i can afford a few beers lol


----------

