# OK, so here's a silly question about staging.



## pwnt by pat (Mar 13, 2006)

OK. After seeing the the whole 5.1 for each listener in a car, I've started wondering about staging. My prevoius ideas about staging was that the dashboards emulated the concert stage, where the vocals come from the center of the dash and instrument layout sounds like it comes from the various locations on the dash. But primarily, center stage is center-dash.

Is my understanding of staging the traditional accepted notation of staging or should it actually sound like the stage is the 3-feet of the dash in front of the listener, center being straight ahead, with left and right?


----------



## 89grand (Nov 23, 2006)

pwnt by pat said:


> OK. After seeing the the whole 5.1 for each listener in a car, I've started wondering about staging. My prevoius ideas about staging was that the dashboards emulated the concert stage, where the vocals come from the center of the dash and instrument layout sounds like it comes from the various locations on the dash. But primarily, center stage is center-dash.
> 
> Is my understanding of staging the traditional accepted notation of staging or should it actually sound like the stage is the 3-feet of the dash in front of the listener, center being straight ahead, with left and right?


I would say the former is what I consider to be a proper sound stage.


----------



## T3mpest (Dec 25, 2005)

yeah, proper soundstage puts the center at the center of the vehicle, not in front of the listerner.


----------



## MantaOwner (May 15, 2007)

> yeah, proper soundstage puts the center at the center of the vehicle, not in front of the listerner.


What?? At the center of the vehicle? Sorry, but you are wrong here. For example, a quote from official rules for a SQ competition in Europe:


> 1.2.1 Sound Stage – Distance to sound stage (0-15 points)
> This is to find out the distance to the point of origin of the sound in regards to the listener’s position. Good staging offers the illusion of a stage upon which players are located and it has a sense of height, width, and depth. (Even apparently exceeding the front boundary of the vehicle). This is considered to be ideal as it approximates the experience of listening to a concert or a fine home audio system.
> Listen carefully to the bass. Does it seem to come from up front, or from behind? Maximum points within each “point range” should only be given to systems which convincingly create the illusion that all sounds originates from the specified location.
> Many systems will exhibit some localisation of the low bass towards the rear. The judges should not regard these vehicles as being "behind the listening position" point range. Instead, the judges should deduct 2 points for obvious rear-bass. Go with your first impression, you should only give 0 (zero) points when the first impression of all sound is coming from behind.
> ...


You can find the rules here:
http://www.emmanet.com/download/rulebook/Rulebook07sound.pdf

Tõnu


----------



## Avalanche (Jun 13, 2006)

I just read your Competition rules and nowhere does it imply that the center of the stage should be anywhere but in the center of the dash.


----------



## MantaOwner (May 15, 2007)

Well, it's said right here:


> How to score:
> 13 to 15 Sound stage is out of the front windshield


You get the maximum points when the stage is as far from the listener as possible.

Tõnu


----------



## FoxPro5 (Feb 14, 2006)

If you go to a concert, is the singer not always in the middle of the stage? He/she doesn't move as you move. Isn't the goal here to accurately recreate the source material?


----------



## durwood (Mar 7, 2007)

MantaOwner said:


> Well, it's said right here:
> 
> You get the maximum points when the stage is as far from the listener as possible.
> 
> Tõnu


Yes but no where in there did it say in front of the listener. It's definitely center of the dash. Anytime I competed with it centered in front of me vs center of the dash I was deducted a point for having the center, left of center. 

From my experience, if it's located right in front of you, it will not have as much depth as it would if located in the center of the dash. Alot depends on placement of the speakers and tuning though. Others may have had different results.


----------



## MantaOwner (May 15, 2007)

> Yes but no where in there did it say in front of the listener. It's definitely center of the dash. Anytime I competed with it centered in front of me vs center of the dash I was deducted a point for having the center, left of center.


It seems we are talking about different things here. My comment was related to T3mpest's saying that the center of the stage should be in the *center of the vehicle*, I don't agree with that and so don't the european rules for SQ competitions.
There may be differencies between the competition rules in Europe and the US, that wouldn't be surprising.


> If you go to a concert, is the singer not always in the middle of the stage? He/she doesn't move as you move. Isn't the goal here to accurately recreate the source material?


You are correct, the singer might not stay in the center of the stage all the time. But for judges to evaluate the sound system and how well it keeps the singer in the center, there is a special technical test track on the official Competition CD:


> The sound stage produced by an audio system can be defined as the perceived space from which the sound originates. Much like the stage in a concert hall is the space from which the sound originates.
> The term "Imaging" describes a sound system's ability to reproduce the sound of instruments in their correct locations and proportions on the sound stage. Five image locations across the sound stage are to be considered:
> 
> Left
> ...


Tõnu


----------



## durwood (Mar 7, 2007)

I have competed in 3 different orgs in the US- MECA, SLAP, And IASCA, and the staging rules are pretty much the same.

I'll give you 2 examples to think about:

1) Why does Alpine go at great lengths to rip the front seats out and totally redo their demo vehicles so that you sit exactly in the center of the vehicle rather then employ other various methods of kick panels, or dash/a-pillar work alone?

2) Ok, if you place the soundstage directly in front of the driver and then meausre the distances from the left and right sides of the car, there is a distance difference you will have that will make it hard to place sounds/instruments/singers at their proper locations. That is why they judge more than just center, but instead far left, left of center, center, right of center, and far right.

If you go with a center in front of the driver, you will have problems with stage placement of left of center or right of center falling too close to far left or far right depending on which side of the car you sit or drive from.

I think you are confusing soundstage depth and stage positioning. Soundstage depth has been an area of controversy and it's not always judged I believe.


----------



## durwood (Mar 7, 2007)

Ok so I dug out the MECA rule book and copied this exact phrase from it:

Center Stage



> The placement of center stage will be judged based on the horizontal plane on which it sits, equidistant from the physical boundaries of the vehicle (a-pillars, side glass, etc.). It will not be too far left or right in relation to the original recording. It will be correctly sized in relation to the original recording. Movement will be produced accurately.


and here is their judging section on Depth



> The realism of depth will be judged in relation to the spatial area of the vehicle. Ideally, it will reach beyond the limits of the vehicle, beyond the glass or apparent constraints of the vehicle, and not be hindered by the vehicle area in front of the listener.


and finally, Stage realism:



> 1. This encompasses the deﬁned presence of front stage. Ideally, no distractions will be noticeable from behind the listener;
> stage placement will be accurate.
> 1 – 2 Stage is completely neutral or dramatically set to the
> rear of the listener.
> ...


Manta, it looks like you are talking about Stage Realism now that I compare the Meca Rules and your rules you posted.

www.mecacaraudio.com


----------



## Preacher (May 8, 2006)

Where's werewolf on this one? 

Just an amusing thought. Does it ever amuse anyone that we spend time trying to recreate the "soundstage" as if music was recorded onstage when much of it was cut one track at a time in soundproof booths? 

I've generally been very pleased if the stage had a center image near the center of the dash and the far left was just outside my car around my mirror. That slight ambience of a wider soundstage satisfies me just fine. I'll never be able to get the center right over my steering wheel even if its "officially" the correct place. For me whatever efforts I use to pull the center to the left ends up narrowing the stage over all. I'll never get all the "positions" I get from a home setup and that's ok


----------



## durwood (Mar 7, 2007)

Preacher said:


> Where's werewolf on this one?
> 
> Just an amusing thought. Does it ever amuse anyone that we spend time trying to recreate the "soundstage" as if music was recorded onstage when much of it was cut one track at a time in soundproof booths?


Chad, could probalby weigh in on that one. It's really good to know people who know how certain tracks are recorded so that they can tell you were things sould be. I mean you could use a live track, but live tracks have other things going on. That is why you should not limit yourself to one type of music when tuning.


----------



## AudioBob (May 21, 2007)

I used to compete and every sound system that I have built I have tried to get the image centered on the dash. It can be very difficult to do without using special processing. 

I have had the best results using an Audio Control ESP-3 along with a dedicated center channel and amplifier. When used properly, an ESP-3 can produce a solid center image, raise the soundstage and expand the width and depth of the stage far beyond the confines of the vehicle.

I have always used the test track L,LCenter,Center,RCenter,Right to define the image and getting the image on the center of the dash. When the inventors of stereo separation were debating the merits of how many channels were needed, several were saying that it would take more than two to create a realistic sounding system. I only wish that they would have made three channel the minimum definition. It would save all of us a lot of time and effort trying to create a realistic sound stage with adequate width and depth.

I know that this is my first post, but I have been building car audio systems since the early 80's and have won several IASCA events over the years with various cars. I think that this forum is a great place for information and there are several very talented individuals here.


----------



## Thumper26 (Sep 23, 2005)

AudioBob said:


> I used to compete and every sound system that I have built I have tried to get the image centered on the dash. It can be very difficult to do without using special processing.
> 
> I have had the best results using an Audio Control ESP-3 along with a dedicated center channel and amplifier. When used properly, an ESP-3 can produce a solid center image, raise the soundstage and expand the width and depth of the stage far beyond the confines of the vehicle.
> 
> ...


so, call me an idiot, but just for clarification: proper soundstage should be coming from dead center of the dash in the middle of the car, and not right in front of you?

i've never competed, but when adjusting my TA, I always put center stage right in front of me, so it's like I'm standing in front of the middle of the stage. Is that right?


----------



## 60ndown (Feb 8, 2007)

interesting question tho.


----------



## 89grand (Nov 23, 2006)

In my opinion it would be nearly impossible to have a center image in front of you in the drivers seat without destroying the systems soundstage width. The only way it could work is if you could somehow make your system sound like left speakers are several feet outside of the car.

My system is set up so that vocals appear to be coming out from the windshield just below the rear view mirror while still maintaining soundstage width.


----------



## AudioBob (May 21, 2007)

That is correct, just under the rear view mirror. This enables the soundstage width and depth to be add the audible cues that creates an illusion of space and movement. In the last car that I built using a center channel, the passenger had the same exact experience as the driver because the image was centered in the car.

Typically, one of the drawbacks to using time alignment is that it will correct for only one listener. If you use settings that correct for multiple listeners, it creates a compromise setting. If you are like me, you don't care because you are in the car alone most of the time.


----------



## 89grand (Nov 23, 2006)

AudioBob said:


> That is correct, just under the rear view mirror. This enables the soundstage width and depth to be add the audible cues that creates an illusion of space and movement. In the last car that I built using a center channel, the passenger had the same exact experience as the driver because the image was centered in the car.
> 
> Typically, one of the drawbacks to using time alignment is that it will correct for only one listener. If you use settings that correct for multiple listeners, it creates a compromise setting. If you are like me, you don't care because you are in the car alone most of the time.



Exactly. My car sounds great in the drivers seat, and sounds like **** in the passenger seat because of T/A.

I drive alone 95% of the time...besides, most people that are in my car the other 5%, don't even really know what a proper soundstage is anyway. I think if a system is tonally good most passengers won't even realize what they're missing by not being in the drivers seat.

Screw them anyway, it's my car.


----------



## Thumper26 (Sep 23, 2005)

AudioBob said:


> Typically, one of the drawbacks to using time alignment is that it will correct for only one listener.


6 memory settings on the 701 FTW! 

also, i'm not sure if I can get re adjusted to sitting left of the singer 

I'll mess around with the settings and see what I can do.


----------



## MantaOwner (May 15, 2007)

> I think you are confusing soundstage depth and stage positioning. Soundstage depth has been an area of controversy and it's not always judged I believe.


I don't think I'm confusing something here.
I drove a small picture to explain things a bit - like they say, one picture tells more than thousand words:










T3mpest said that the center of the stage should be in spot D, I don't agree with that and I said that in my opinion and also according to the european competition rules it should be in spot A or even more away from the listener. After that you brought in spot C and B although I never said anything about that center of the stage should be somewhere on the same line with the driver and spot C.

Tõnu


----------



## Thumper26 (Sep 23, 2005)

yeah, from that pic, i've been adjusting to get mine around C, however before I though the ideal spot was C, but on the same horizontal line of A...i.e. driver is centered, but it sounds like things are coming from the hood of the car.


----------



## 89grand (Nov 23, 2006)

MantaOwner said:


> I don't think I'm confusing something here.
> I drove a small picture to explain things a bit - like they say, one picture tells more than thousand words:
> 
> 
> ...


I think you did misunderstand. No one here thinks that image "D" is correct. 

I don't even know how you'd get a center image there. Image "A" is ideal and image "B" being what many people get if they don't have enough tuning. Image "C" is also incorrect, but apparently some people have their systems setup that way. I must have misunderstood you too, because I also thought you were saying that image 'C" was correct..

But no one has a center image of "D".


----------



## MantaOwner (May 15, 2007)

> I think you did misunderstand. No one here thinks that image "D" is correct.





T3mpest said:


> yeah, proper soundstage puts the center at the center of the vehicle, not in front of the listerner.


Hmm... if he had said "center of the dashboard" then it would have been ok.

Tõnu


----------



## 89grand (Nov 23, 2006)

MantaOwner said:


> Hmm... if he had said "center of the dashboard" then it would have been ok.
> 
> Tõnu


Yeah, I see where the confusion comes from. I don't want to speak for T3mpest, but I'm sure what he meant was the the center image should not in front of the listener, like how "C" is in your drawing, but rather in the center like A or B.


----------



## pwnt by pat (Mar 13, 2006)

without tempest responding again I think he was referring to center of the dash, not center of the car.


----------



## rcurley55 (Jul 6, 2005)

MantaOwner said:


> I don't think I'm confusing something here.
> I drove a small picture to explain things a bit - like they say, one picture tells more than thousand words:
> 
> 
> ...



The original question is about the placement of the center in one dimension (right to left). It said nothing about depth to stage or stage height. T3mpest's answer iirc was in the center of the car (in that dimension). This means - and every sq organization I've looked into (including emma) describes the center image as being centered between the physical boundaries of the car - not directly in front of the driver.

So, your center should be somewhere along the line AD if we are judging the image focus of your center. Points A, B, and D could all have a well focused center, but great, ok, and crap distance to stage respectively.

So, I think most people here would like their center to be at point A, no one at point D, and only a few have been striving for point C, but mine most often ends up at point B 

better?


----------



## durwood (Mar 7, 2007)

Cool. A picture is worth a thousand words. Good job. I agree. Wording gets tricky on these technical forums.


----------



## MidnightCE (Mar 5, 2007)

Interesting... My time correction puts center stage at C, which I always thought sounded bad. I'm thankful for this thread, because I have no idea what 'correct imaging' is, either. When I turn on my rear fill, it actually centers it correctly, but then I end up with the stage very close.

With time correction, everything is drawn forward, but it sounds like this:

Left---Middle-------------Right

So its like a bunch of instruments and the singer are grouped on one side, then there's a couple lonely instruments waaaay over to the right.


----------



## FoxPro5 (Feb 14, 2006)

That pic is very nice. To me, if I got it right, I'm always looking to the right about 20* at the singer (if he/she is not moving). If he/she is in front of me, I know something is wrong or the track is just like that.

A great test is Alice In Chains "Unplugged." Layne and Jerry don't move but Jerry should always be over Layne's left shoulder...or right of center. If the stage is correct Jerry should sound behind him...and further yet...the drums behind both of them, but in a straight line behind Layne. I guess if you are really good you can put Layne at "A" with Jerry almost to the front right tire and the drums over the hood emblem??


----------



## 89grand (Nov 23, 2006)

MidnightCE said:


> Interesting... My time correction puts center stage at C, which I always thought sounded bad. I'm thankful for this thread, because I have no idea what 'correct imaging' is, either. When I turn on my rear fill, it actually centers it correctly, but then I end up with the stage very close.
> 
> With time correction, everything is drawn forward, but it sounds like this:
> 
> ...


Your T/A is way off. You need more T/A on the left speakers and less on the right.

I should sound like this from the driver seat.

Left------Middle------Right


----------



## MidnightCE (Mar 5, 2007)

89grand said:


> Your T/A is way off. You need more T/A on the left speakers and less on the right.
> 
> I should sound like this from the driver seat.
> 
> Left------Middle------Right


I hate Pioneer's TA. I don't want to enter inches, I just want to enter the delay for each speaker.


----------



## Lightninghoof (Aug 6, 2006)

In npdang's DIY thread regarding tuning your vehicle using a PC, he does his time alignment adjustments and tuning with the mic at the driver's headrest. From what you guys are describing, he was wrong in doing this. What gives?


----------



## Thumper26 (Sep 23, 2005)

Lightninghoof said:


> In npdang's DIY thread regarding tuning your vehicle using a PC, he does his time alignment adjustments and tuning with the mic at the driver's headrest. From what you guys are describing, he was wrong in doing this. What gives?


x2.

that combined with the TA instructions in the alpine manuals shows to center everything for the driver.

i heard this year iasca is requiring proper imaging for the passenger too. that threw me for a loop, b/c it's going to be hard to get good imaging for both seats.


----------



## 89grand (Nov 23, 2006)

Lightninghoof said:


> In npdang's DIY thread regarding tuning your vehicle using a PC, he does his time alignment adjustments and tuning with the mic at the driver's headrest. From what you guys are describing, he was wrong in doing this. What gives?


No it isn't.

You tune the car to sound good at the drivers seat. What is it that we're saying that contradicts what npdang is saying?


----------



## 89grand (Nov 23, 2006)

Thumper26 said:


> i heard this year iasca is requiring proper imaging for the passenger too. that threw me for a loop, b/c it's going to be hard to get good imaging for both seats.


Well, you won't be able to do it with T/A. With proper driver placement it's certainly possible to do. T/A is a bandaid for speaker placement. It works, but only in one spot in the car.


----------



## Lightninghoof (Aug 6, 2006)

89grand said:


> No it isn't.
> 
> You tune the car to sound good at the drivers seat. What is it that we're saying that contradicts what npdang is saying?


What happens when you place the mic at the driver's head rest and do all time alignment and tuning using the head rest as the reference point? Would that not cause the center stage to effectively be centered at the head rest, seeing as the head rest was the reference point for all tuning and TA? If not, then what methods must be implemented to essentially "adjust" the positioning of the center stage as it relates to the center of the vehicle's windshield?


----------



## 89grand (Nov 23, 2006)

Lightninghoof said:


> What happens when you place the mic at the driver's head rest and do all time alignment and tuning using the head rest as the reference point? Would that not cause the center stage to effectively be centered at the head rest, seeing as the head rest was the reference point for all tuning and TA? If not, then what methods must be implemented to essentially "adjust" the positioning of the center stage as it relates to the center of the vehicle's windshield?



Well, you put the mic on the drivers side headreast to tune it, but I would image npdang sets the TA by ear while sitting in the driver seat, adjusting it until he gets the proper center image, the center of the dash.

Even being lazy and using my 880's auto ta and eq feature putting the mic on the drivers side headrest results in a nice center image with vocals coming out of the windshield below the rear view mirror. Just like it should be. It doesn't set the center image right in front of the mic.


----------



## Lightninghoof (Aug 6, 2006)

According to npdang's article, TA was done using the mic at the headrest and MLS software to calculate and adjust the corrections. The mic at the headrest was used as the center reference point for all speakers and TA balancing. I just don't see how this type of tuning method would yield a soundstage centered at the middle of the windshield, which would be a good deal "to the right" of the driver's head rest. I would like to hear from him regarding this matter, I hope he chimes in soon.


----------



## pwnt by pat (Mar 13, 2006)

I'm really glad I asked this. I thought it was silly, but turns out to be conteversial...


----------



## Fast Hot Rod (Apr 19, 2007)

MidnightCE said:


> I hate Pioneer's TA. I don't want to enter inches, I just want to enter the delay for each speaker.


So why not just perform the calculations and go from there?

For example: Speed of sound = 1128 ft/sec = 13536 inches/sec

Distance measurement: 40 inches

Time = Distance/Speed of Sound

2.96 ms = 40 inches/13536 inches
3.02 ms = 41 inches/13536 inches
3.10 ms = 42 inches/13536 inches
3.17 ms = 43 inches/13536 inches
3.25 ms = 44 inches/13536 inches
3.32 ms = 45 inches/13536 inches
3.69 ms = 50 inches/13536 inches

etc...

Figure out what the 880 presets are, and you should be able to calculate the overall time delay between each setting.

I agree it is time consuming, but Pioneer made it easy on the average person... not the DIY guys.

If you have the numbers handy, send them my way and I'll make up a spreadsheet for you.

Mark

p.s. Didn't realize it was you from CF, bro! Fej got me to check this place out... pretty sweet! I'm waiting on the UPS man to drop off my 720PRS right now...


----------



## torog (Oct 2, 2005)

Personaly I don't think there are only a few people who try to put the singer in front of them.
I feel it is very natural to have it on "point C" instead of "point B" if you haven't enough sound processing to have it on "A".
The only downside is as mentioned it sound LEFT---CENTER------------RIGHT


----------



## MidnightCE (Mar 5, 2007)

Tuned it by ear with my 'in phase, out of phase' sheffield lab track. Sounds really strange, and I keep looking at the center of the dashboard. But the stage sounds MUCH wider.... Except all m ybass comes from my glove box now


----------



## Lightninghoof (Aug 6, 2006)

ttt

Where's npdang?


----------



## durwood (Mar 7, 2007)

Actually it is a very good question. I was at Borders last night looking for last months CarAudio Mag but found the new one instead. Inside there was a review article on the CDT center stage kit. There was a brief overview of how people seem to prefer point C over A/B.

Also, calculations will get you close on TA but I have never found it to be perfect. Same goes for Auto Alignment. Trust your ears. Use a variety of music you know well. Listen to it on a good home system first that is properly aimed/positioned. Then tune your car. That is my advice

Also, if you are using time alignment, then you probably need to remember to use attenuation too. You need to attenuate speakers closer to you, I believe the calculations/rule of thumb is 3db for every doubling of distance. So if you have a speaker 15inches away and one 30 inches away, attenuate the speaker 15 inches away at -3db (this could vary, just play with it). This will help you get a better image as well.


----------



## Thumper26 (Sep 23, 2005)

so, my stage starts off hard left. to pull it right, i TA the right speakers about 40ms until the bass drum is hitting right in front of me.

anyone else run into something similar? I figure it's b/c of on axis vs off axis response.

This is in a 96 Civic


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

You’re saying you ta the drivers side (closest to you) 40 ms? Is this the entire side? Or are you saying you add an additional 40ms to your values? I’m pretty sure I’m just misunderstanding you, because I know you know your stuff. If not though, you might want to consider looking at the Alpine manual for t/a. Each speaker should have different values since they are not all in the exact same place. I also posted a very generic Excel sheet on this site a while back. Just enter in furthest speaker, then enter in each distance of other speakers and it’ll give you the calculated t/a value in ms. It’s not dead on for your tastes likely, but it’ll get you within ballpark and you can go from there.


----------



## FoxPro5 (Feb 14, 2006)

Thumper26 said:


> so, my stage starts off hard left. to pull it right, i TA the right speakers about 40ms until the bass drum is hitting right in front of me.
> 
> anyone else run into something similar? I figure it's b/c of on axis vs off axis response.
> 
> This is in a 96 Civic


No, you should be delaying the left. Try phase first though. 

But yes it can be due to the FR and aiming as well, but still those left side drivers are going to be closer. Hell my sub is closer to my head then my right midrange. 

Something that I've learned from Marv is to do L/R EQ'ing. Make a tone disk for the EQ bands and play each one. The tone should sound like it's coming from the center of the sound stage. If not, then attenuate the L or R side accordingly until it does. 

T/A is not a band aid for poor speaker placement. Gimme a break, it's a fricken CAR for christ's sakes!!!!!!


----------



## FoxPro5 (Feb 14, 2006)

durwood said:


> Also, if you are using time alignment, then you probably need to remember to use attenuation too. You need to attenuate speakers closer to you, I believe the calculations/rule of thumb is 3db for every doubling of distance. So if you have a speaker 15inches away and one 30 inches away, attenuate the speaker 15 inches away at -3db (this could vary, just play with it). This will help you get a better image as well.


That's a very good point as well. To me it helps add depth for sure. 

I guess I wouldn't worry about nailing the T/A down to the exact inch. All you have to do is move your head a few inches and then everything else moves.


----------



## pwnt by pat (Mar 13, 2006)

That's a fantastic idea with the tone cd. I had never thought of that!


----------



## FoxPro5 (Feb 14, 2006)

pwnt by pat said:


> That's a fantastic idea with the tone cd. I had never thought of that!


Shhhh!  J/K.

If you guys get ahold of the Autosound 2000 CD, there a mono pink noise track that you can use as well. It works great too. You go from driver pair to driver pair and adjust the T/A until it's stage center. Then put it all together and make finite adjustments until it sounds like you have a center channel speaker dead center of the windshield.


----------



## Thumper26 (Sep 23, 2005)

bikinpunk said:


> You’re saying you ta the drivers side (closest to you) 40 ms? Is this the entire side? Or are you saying you add an additional 40ms to your values? I’m pretty sure I’m just misunderstanding you, because I know you know your stuff. If not though, you might want to consider looking at the Alpine manual for t/a. Each speaker should have different values since they are not all in the exact same place. I also posted a very generic Excel sheet on this site a while back. Just enter in furthest speaker, then enter in each distance of other speakers and it’ll give you the calculated t/a value in ms. It’s not dead on for your tastes likely, but it’ll get you within ballpark and you can go from there.


lol, when it comes to running active and imaging/soundstage, i'm still learning a lot. It's the main reason I hang around here. 

i'm saying i TA the passenger's side, which shouldn't be the case. when i TA the left, it just gets more left.

I figure it's b/c nobody hardly ever rides in my car, and my leg blocks all three speakers on the left side. I've been doing a lot of toying with phase, etc, but i'm still getting similar results.

as for them all being around 40, i worked the math out one day, and the mid and tweet have less than 5ms difference between them b/c they sit so close. I had the midrange at 35. I did some more tweaking and they're not at those values anymore.

oh, where can i get one of those tone cd's?


----------



## FoxPro5 (Feb 14, 2006)

Make your own: www.realmofexcursion.com


----------



## durwood (Mar 7, 2007)

I have a little delay on my right side as well. I dialed it in for the front stage and then I had to add an equal ammount of delay to all the front speakers to get it just right for the sub to blend in. Otherwise I end up with either sub localization or midbass cancellation. The test tones and pink noise are very useful. Everyone has their own way of tuning. We should have a tutorial on different methods of tuning besides an RTA, more along the lines of how people do it by ear. I.E. focus on on set of speakers/frequency band at a time then move on to the next and combine in the next set of drivers....yada yada yada


----------



## npdang (Jul 29, 2005)

Lightninghoof said:


> According to npdang's article, TA was done using the mic at the headrest and MLS software to calculate and adjust the corrections. The mic at the headrest was used as the center reference point for all speakers and TA balancing. I just don't see how this type of tuning method would yield a soundstage centered at the middle of the windshield, which would be a good deal "to the right" of the driver's head rest. I would like to hear from him regarding this matter, I hope he chimes in soon.


I like point C, but for tonal reasons. I could care less what it sounds like at point B to be honest. Point A IMHO is an illusion. Alot of people claim their center imaging at that point, but to my ears it's nowhere close... it just sounds like a very recessed midrange.


----------



## Lightninghoof (Aug 6, 2006)

[Lightninghoof summons npdang.]
[npdang nukes thread for 53,914 damage.]
[Thread dies.]


----------



## Thumper26 (Sep 23, 2005)

so.

how do you determine what frequency to use to center the tones? I have a 3 way front stage, each speaker covering different ranges, and the off axis responses change across the spectrum. how do you decide what to pinpoint? middle frequency of each range that each speaker covers?

/overthinking the process...


oh, and +1 for npdang confirming my thoughts on the matter...


----------



## pwnt by pat (Mar 13, 2006)

I would think any level you have crossover or eq steps you would want to try.

As a parallel to my other thread, I put my horns in last night and tonality, a couple peaks but sounds great. Staging wise, it seemed really far right. I flipped the phase of the drivers side and the stage now sounds like it's about halfway between my head and the rearview. I still have to play with the lower frequencies.


----------



## Hi There (Mar 16, 2007)

Time alignment IS a band-aid for proper speaker placement. I place all my speakers properly, that is why my car is 14 feet wide and 18 feet long. I'm sore because I welded my seat to the "***** hump" and it bent in the middle when I sat in it. I need a pace car and a chase car, (both with flashing lights) to drive on the highway, and an Army Corps of Engineers permit to cross certain bridges. _But it sounds killer._

BTW: If you flip the leads on a given driver in a set of similar drivers, it only changes the way the signals from the drivers interact tonally: It will result in a different summation in amplitude at a given position depending on frequency, where signals will only sum perfectly at frequencies where the differing distances between drivers are integer multiples of an audio wavelength in meters. This may act to change the way body panels resonate, or change the frequency response at your listening position....but there is no way for your ears to decide whether a signal is "ahead of" or "behind" another signal based on the phase it's in when it arrives. There is no such thing as a time delay in a system that has no memory. 

As often as flipping the leads seems to widen the stage or create a more centered image, it will act in an entirely unpredictable fashion and cause headaches with regard to response that may be only further exacerbated by changes in the musical requirements (male vs. female vocals, etc.). It's worth trying in systems with obvious deficiencies, but do so in response to specific needs, don't approach it expecting predictable results, and certainly don't do it just because "it's what the pros do". 

Time alignment can make a system better tonally. Although the car environment may never be an entirely predictable area in which to re-create an audio experience, careful speaker placement and time alignment are two things that if used judiciously will allow you to come closer to predictability. It's just much easier to eq a system where sound arrivals are within a few tenths of a millisecond of each other at the listening position. In this case, at least for the non-reflected waves, you're not dealing with degrees of phase cancellation across the entire frequency spectrum...the effects of such things are instead pushed into the higher frequencies away from the important ranges where we pick up image cues, or the influence of out-of-phase arrivals is regulated to reflected waves that are most often attenuated. 

Of course, I prefer to maximize listening pleasure for myself in the driver's seat. I have my doubts, however, that "sharing the love" between driver and passenger seating positions can possibly maximize the potential of both in a normal car environment. In my view, proper time of arrival is _essential_, as research in this regard suggests that as little as .1 millisecond difference in time of arrival results in the separation of apparent direction of origin. That's a heckuva path length difference requirement (must be within a few inches for a given set of drivers) to adhere to.


----------



## pwnt by pat (Mar 13, 2006)

While right about the that, it's always worth a try to see how it affects response. Not to do it 'casue others do, but to experiment and see what sounds best  

That's why I did it, and I noticed what I noticed. Like I said, I have a lot of playing to do in the next day or two.


----------



## npdang (Jul 29, 2005)

I prefer location C, because I'm the one listening to the system and I don't care about competing or the passenger at all. Imho tuning for one seat will be significantly better than tuning for 2 seats (for the driver anyway), or putting the center at point B which means you sit to the side. If you did want to tune for spot B, I think it'd be fairly easy. No time correction should be needed (as the drivers are equidistant to that spot), and the mic should be placed between the two headrests.


----------



## 89grand (Nov 23, 2006)

I wonder if we are all talking about the exact same thing. 

When I was talking about my center image, I meant I setup my system to sound good from the drivers seat, not in the middle of the car. But...the vocals seem to be coming from the windshield below the rearview mirror. My system actually does not sound that good at the passenger seat because it's too loud on the right side when sitting over there. Considering how narrow most cars actually are, it's not like the vocals are way off to the right, just to the right and I have a car that's wider than most peoples car here. The only way to get a decent image for both front seats is with careful driver placement I would think, T/A wouldn't be able to fix that.

In other words, I like the center of the stage to be at point B, while in the drivers seat not that that's where I would place the mic, or where I was sitting when it was tuned. If you are trying to get your center image at point B, You would have to use T/A as you'll have a system that it left side biased more than likely other wise. When people (npdang and a few other) say they want their center image at point C would that mean you want the vocals to come from just above the steering wheel?

So again I ask, are we all actually talking about the same thing here?

I took that image to show where the vocals are coming from when sitting in the drivers seat.


----------



## pwnt by pat (Mar 13, 2006)

that's what I assumed


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

MantaOwner said:


> Tõnu


The majority and proper place would be at point C in front of driver. Stage depth would only be as deep as the physical distance forward from the driver to the farthest speaker and only as wide as the physical distance from the driver to the right-most speaker. Point A and B can be attained but you have to change the focus of the TA around a point in the center of the dash. The physical distances will then place stage depth on the hood. A and B are ridiculous to me, it is missusing TA. You should use the tool to focus the stage around the listener not arround the dash.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

If you have a stage that has a lot of depth, center would be point A. However if you were sitting in your car listening to the stereo and point to point A in the car, you would really be pointing more towards point C, which according to what seat you are in would be left or right of the physical center of the car. The stage should not be in the physical center of the if you have any depth to your stage.

That is how I have judged IASCA cars and was taught to listen for center when I started to compete in 2001.


----------



## 89grand (Nov 23, 2006)

Uhhh, I don't get it. If people want their center image at the steering wheel, then wouldn't you have to get the illusion that your left speakers where actually several feet outside the car in order to maintain stage width?

It's hard to describe how my car sounds. It doesn't sound like I'm sitting off to the left side, but the vocals are not right in front of me, sort of in front of me, but slightly to the right towards the center of the windshield. It doesn't sound like the vocals are coming out of the center of the dash like I have a center channel or something.

Which brings up another point, when center channels where all the rage years ago in competitions to get a center image, what was the point of putting it in the center of the dash if the center image should be above the steering wheel?

Or even with kickpanel setups, if both left and right speakers are mounted at the same angles, but mirrored from each other, would that not achieve a center image towards the center of the dash?


----------



## 89grand (Nov 23, 2006)

thehatedguy said:


> If you have a stage that has a lot of depth, center would be point A. However if you were sitting in your car listening to the stereo and point to point A in the car, you would really be pointing more towards point C, which according to what seat you are in would be left or right of the physical center of the car. The stage should not be in the physical center of the if you have any depth to your stage.
> 
> That is how I have judged IASCA cars and was taught to listen for center when I started to compete in 2001.



Yeah, I guess that's what I was trying to say in my post above when I described my center image. See, I think a number of us are not on the exact same page, that's why I brought it up earlier.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

thehatedguy said:


> If you have a stage that has a lot of depth, center would be point A. However if you were sitting in your car listening to the stereo and point to point A in the car, you would really be pointing more towards point C, which according to what seat you are in would be left or right of the physical center of the car. The stage should not be in the physical center of the if you have any depth to your stage.
> 
> That is how I have judged IASCA cars and was taught to listen for center when I started to compete in 2001.


I think I get it: we are basically talking about a point E? that lies in front of the listener on the hood - like the equivalent of point C with depth A. Still...how do you get more depth without focusing TA away from the listener, I'd say physical placement is a restriction. I believe you can make the left speakers sound as if they are out of the car when TA d with the right side but depth wise what is there to do?


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

I agree...I don't think everyone is on the same page either. Like Kevin said earlier, depth is tied to width and height...the three each have an impact on each other. And this isn't to be confused with judging listening position, which is how close you are to the stage...and is something to listen for independent of the other things.

I'm curious to the people quoting rulebooks...how many of you have competed or compete? Or even have heard good cars (that have done well at Finals or other large events) that were built and tuned for those rules? I think it is a bit misguided to use those rulebooks as a reference without seeing how the rules are implemented by qualified judging staff.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

Placement, phasing, getting FR as close as possible, and controlling early reflections. If you are relying on TA as the main setup tool to get your car to stage and image...then you probably should start over and work on getting the basics like placement down first to get your car to stage correctly.

Once you do that, then you start messing with TA. I've heard quite a few cars that had the stage outside of the physical boundaries of the car from both seats. My car would go pillar to pillar from both seats and would normally score 8/10 in the technical stuff like depth, width, height, and 8s in image placement.

I think too many people on the internet reply too heavily on TA to compensate for other issues in their cars.



cvjoint said:


> I think I get it: we are basically talking about a point E? that lies in front of the listener on the hood - like the equivalent of point C with depth A. Still...how do you get more depth without focusing TA away from the listener, I'd say physical placement is a restriction. I believe you can make the left speakers sound as if they are out of the car when TA d with the right side but depth wise what is there to do?


----------



## AudioBob (May 21, 2007)

This is a good discussion. I have competed in the past and won my class at several IASCA events and have had many discussions and constructive criticism from judges.

Here is what I learned from them as far as the soundstage. The wider the better. Ideally you want it to sound as if it is much wider than the width of the car left to right. You want to get a strong center image that does not move or appear to be confused. A on the graph would be excellent if you can get the image out that far, but B is easier to achieve. 

The instruments should be clearly identifiable in the locations that they would be on the stage. If you listen to well recorded classical or jazz musicians you will notice the width and depth of the soundstage quite easily. the width and depth of the soundstage should totally surround you with the instruments/vocalists infront of you. On well recorded tracks, if you close your eyes you should feel like you are in the room with them. In a really well executed and tuned car you can even feel how large or small the room is that the musicians are playing in.

You should not be able to localize the sound of any individual driver, including your subwoofer. I think that it is most important to choose the proper speakers, locations, installation and tuning techniques and minimize any T/A.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

thehatedguy said:


> Placement, phasing, getting FR as close as possible, and controlling early reflections. If you are relying on TA as the main setup tool to get your car to stage and image...then you probably should start over and work on getting the basics like placement down first to get your car to stage correctly.
> 
> Once you do that, then you start messing with TA. I've heard quite a few cars that had the stage outside of the physical boundaries of the car from both seats. My car would go pillar to pillar from both seats and would normally score 8/10 in the technical stuff like depth, width, height, and 8s in image placement.
> 
> I think too many people on the internet reply too heavily on TA to compensate for other issues in their cars.


I feel like you are assuming my install is garbage. Unless you sat in my driver's seat lately it's a little presumptuous. I posted pics of my car months before I put my hands on fiberglass and relyed heavily on the members' advice for placement of the drivers. 

I may very well have a stage that extends far out but I'm afraid I have no score cards to show for it.

I was hoping you could tell me HOW to get the center image on the hood, notice I did not limit the discusion to TA nor did I mention my personal setup as the gold standard.


----------



## Abmolech (Nov 2, 2006)

Why are you using stereo?

To create the ILLUSION of depth. If the acoustic crosstalk matches the speaker positions, then you will achieve this illusion. An example is pwnt by pat, changing the phase of one driver and thereby increasing the acoustic crosstalk. The image centred and he gained depth. If your not prepared to use stereo to create a "proper" stage I question your thinking. 

A panned mono system can give an ideal left-right position. A Mono speaker directly in front can't be beaten if thats were you want your image. Monophonic will always beat stereo for tonality.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

Why am I using stereo? I don't know if the question is aimed at me, I'll assume it is  Many reasons: I can't physically install the drivers I want on the dash (I can't fit a Seas w18, BG Neo8 and a third lcy 108), the processing needed for a "good" mono is ridiculous, let alone added to the processing already needed for a 5way stage, I would have to reflect it off the windshield.

I don't know why but everythime I put a speaker out of phase it sounded far off.
it seemed like the stage was more diffused plus voices sounded thin and odd. Any requirements for mingleing with the phase?


----------



## npdang (Jul 29, 2005)

There are also some psycho acoustic factors that are responsible for auditory depth perception. Cutting at certain frequencies around 800-2khz tends to push the stage back, because it changes the tonality of voices and some instruments in such a way that we perceive them as being farther away. Also as thehatedguy mentioned, a high ratio of direct to reflected sound will be perceived as being closer... whereas drivers with a wide dispersion and controlled early reflections will make for a much more spacious sound. I also don't doubt that if you put a speaker on your dash, the visual cues will certainly help to create that illusion that your stage is much deeper than it really is


----------



## Abmolech (Nov 2, 2006)

It was rhetorical.:blush: 

For stereo you should increase the acoustic crosstalk of the time sensitive frequencies only. Run a mid range out of phase.



> Also as thehatedguy mentioned, a high ratio of direct to reflected sound will be perceived as being closer


actually one of the strengths of stereo is the tolerance of reverb to create depth.



> whereas drivers with a wide dispersion and controlled early reflections will make for a much more spacious sound.


Possibly, but most spaciousness is create by the LACK of acoustic crosstalk in intensity sensitive frequencies (ambiance). In fact spacious is the relationship to direct to (time)reflected.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

I was making a general statement about internet boards in general. I see it on nearly every car audio board that I am on. People stick drivers in bad locations and then try to rely on TA to "fix" everything. Which, it doesn't happen that way. I have never seen your car or the install (haven't looked for pictures yet), so I can't coment on your speaker placement. 

It seems to me that the first thing out of people's mouths these days is, "Well I was messing with the TA" or, "Just add more delay to the driver's side to get the stage centered."

You should first be worried about placement, that is paramount. Then, yuo need to get levels matched. Then you need to get phasing issues taken care of as best you can, and with a 2 way system there will be some trade offs with midbass/midrange phasing and centering in the car. Then you should do TA and finally EQ. Then start all over with the levels. You should be really close in the ball park once everything is "right."

But relax some, I was making a general statement in reference to your question.



cvjoint said:


> I feel like you are assuming my install is garbage. Unless you sat in my driver's seat lately it's a little presumptuous. I posted pics of my car months before I put my hands on fiberglass and relyed heavily on the members' advice for placement of the drivers.
> 
> I may very well have a stage that extends far out but I'm afraid I have no score cards to show for it.
> 
> I was hoping you could tell me HOW to get the center image on the hood, notice I did not limit the discusion to TA nor did I mention my personal setup as the gold standard.


----------



## durwood (Mar 7, 2007)

thehatedguy said:


> I'm curious to the people quoting rulebooks...how many of you have competed or compete? Or even have heard good cars (that have done well at Finals or other large events) that were built and tuned for those rules? I think it is a bit misguided to use those rulebooks as a reference without seeing how the rules are implemented by qualified judging staff.


I was quoting it to help explain. and yes I have competed. I don't go around stating I placed this or that at this competition because I was never in it for the throphies or the money. I wanted to learn and get my car to sound as good as it could for myself. Bill Lawerence judged my car very well more than once, and I have had a few other judges really love my car and I have taken their critcism and tried to improve areas that I lacked, but my car will rpobaly never be "the best". 



thehatedguy said:


> Placement, phasing, getting FR as close as possible, and controlling early reflections. If you are relying on TA as the main setup tool to get your car to stage and image...then you probably should start over and work on getting the basics like placement down first to get your car to stage correctly.
> 
> I think too many people on the internet reply too heavily on TA to compensate for other issues in their cars.


TA works great for people like me who use basic placement areas without cutting holes everywhere and buildign elaborate kick panels. TA can be missused though. I agree. 



Abmolech said:


> Why are you using stereo?
> 
> To create the ILLUSION of depth. If the acoustic crosstalk matches the speaker positions, then you will achieve this illusion. An example is pwnt by pat, changing the phase of one driver and thereby increasing the acoustic crosstalk. The image centred and he gained depth. If your not prepared to use stereo to create a "proper" stage I question your thinking.
> 
> A panned mono system can give an ideal left-right position. A Mono speaker directly in front can't be beaten if thats were you want your image. Monophonic will always beat stereo for tonality.


I have a mono center channel once, and I had a judge once tell me it was weird. There were alot of factors incloved but later after I had removed it the same judge said wow, what an improvement. Center channels can be hard to implement correctly. 



npdang said:


> There are also some psycho acoustic factors that are responsible for auditory depth perception. Cutting at certain frequencies around 800-2khz tends to push the stage back, because it changes the tonality of voices and some instruments in such a way that we perceive them as being farther away. Also as thehatedguy mentioned, a high ratio of direct to reflected sound will be perceived as being closer... whereas drivers with a wide dispersion and controlled early reflections will make for a much more spacious sound. I also don't doubt that if you put a speaker on your dash, the visual cues will certainly help to create that illusion that your stage is much deeper than it really is


Yes.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

So, cvjont, you have 8s in the doors, mids in the kicks, neo 8s in the kicks, and the ribbons on your dash?

If so, you are never really going to get that setup to work really well. You have too many point sources going on. To begin to get something as somplicated as your system to work right, you would need delays for each channel and each speaker. Your rear fill probably isn't doing you much good either unless it is a summed L-R setup.


----------



## Hi There (Mar 16, 2007)

Abmolech said:


> It was rhetorical.:blush:
> 
> For stereo you should increase the acoustic crosstalk of the time sensitive frequencies only. Run a mid range out of phase.


...but wouldn't the effects of such an arbitrary phase shift be entirely frequency-dependent, therefore creating a situation with an arbitrarily graduated stage? Even within the bounds of a midrange speaker, wavelengths vary by many multiples of that of the highest frequency. In doing such, are we recovering additional information from the recording and using it to best effect, or are we simply trying to overcome the physical limitations of the listening environment by adding a sort of post processing to it that assumes everything about the recording environment and intention of the recording engineers? Since we're adding crosstalk to increase depth, how do we do so in a way that maintains the close-in feel of sounds that were recorded with the intention of being close-in?


----------



## ludlamtheory (May 31, 2005)

thehatedguy said:


> So, cvjont, you have 8s in the doors, mids in the kicks, neo 8s in the kicks, and the ribbons on your dash?
> 
> If so, you are never really going to get that setup to work really well. You have too many point sources going on. To begin to get something as somplicated as your system to work right, you would need delays for each channel and each speaker. Your rear fill probably isn't doing you much good either unless it is a summed L-R setup.



eeeeeeeeeexactly

i dont deny the fact that you probably have some great tonality assuming youre not getting icky cancellations
and you can probably get damn loud with so much cone area

buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut

way too many point sources to get a nicely centered stage.
and thats not even beginning to mention the fact that you have full-range rear-fill, but thats a whole diferent thread


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

ludlamtheory said:


> eeeeeeeeeexactly
> 
> i dont deny the fact that you probably have some great tonality assuming youre not getting icky cancellations
> and you can probably get damn loud with so much cone area
> ...


Why do you say that?

Good installers can create a good stage with multiple point sources. Just because something is difficult doesn't make it impossible.


----------



## MidnightCE (Mar 5, 2007)

How do you get a stage wider than the windows?


----------



## Whiterabbit (May 26, 2006)

by pushing drivers as wide and as far away from you as possible.

I guess the question wasnt so silly, huh.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

Whiterabbit said:


> by pushing drivers as wide and as far away from you as possible.
> 
> I guess the question wasnt so silly, huh.


...or using time alignment and multiple point sources to do the job for you...at least until thehatedguy comes with the beat down.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

thehatedguy said:


> So, cvjont, you have 8s in the doors, mids in the kicks, neo 8s in the kicks, and the ribbons on your dash?
> 
> If so, you are never really going to get that setup to work really well. You have too many point sources going on. To begin to get something as somplicated as your system to work right, you would need delays for each channel and each speaker. Your rear fill probably isn't doing you much good either unless it is a summed L-R setup.





ludlamtheory said:


> eeeeeeeeeexactly
> 
> i dont deny the fact that you probably have some great tonality assuming youre not getting icky cancellations
> and you can probably get damn loud with so much cone area
> ...


Wrong...wrong...and wrong. You guys are making too many assumptions.

1. Just because I have a rear stage it does not mean it is on all the time. I use multiple L-pads to attenuate the levels when I have no passangers....therefore no rear stage for practical purposes.

2. Speaker locations are as follows: the 8 and 7 in doors, planar in kicks, ribbon on dash.

3. I have delays for each and every speaker (rears aside TA is really odd there, but remember that it is not on 99% of the time)

4. No "icky cancelations" at least far less than most setups. Every driver that matters (bass and subbass aside) is pointing at me, on axis, I don't bounce anything off the windshield.

5. As far as having to many point sources note a few things: my xls 8 are really bass drivers filtered 63hz to 125hz, and toghether with the sub are almost impossible to localize. The closest thing to localization is when the xls cone literally hits you in the ass with sick xcursion    ; also the Neo and the Excel are so close to eachother and reproduce most of the vocal range 125hz to 4000hz I cannot tell there are two drivers there.


I gotta say this thread has been one of the greatest so far. I skipped on most new postings because aside from new drivers/good deals most stuff has been covered already. Not a silly question indeed!


----------



## Whiterabbit (May 26, 2006)

I'd say there is only one stage in the car to be had. a subwoofer does not have its own spacial stage. Nor do rear speakers.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

I'm not making too many assumptions.

You have poor speaker placement and are compensating by using TA to help get a good stage. Then you have too many point sources for the ranges of music you are covering.

IMO, you would have a better sounding (technically performing system, ie image and focus) if you simplified things- like the 8s in the door, 7s and the neo8s or neo3s in the kicks. Or depending on space, 8s in the doors, 5s and ribbons in the kicks...or last choice would be the 8s in the doors, 7s in the kicks, and the ribbons or planars in the pillars.

Rear fill isn't necessarily a bad thing. If you have it wired right, like the old summed rear (original ProLogic type of thing), and added a touch of delay, you could gain a ton of depth to the stage. Or if you were using something like the new JBL processor with Logic 7 decoding...you would get more depth to the stage that way too.

With your system, I think you are fighting an uphill battle with your speaker locations and number of drivers. You have (IMO) made things way too complicated.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

Whiterabbit said:


> I'd say there is only one stage in the car to be had. a subwoofer does not have its own spacial stage. Nor do rear speakers.


I was thinking more like segments: front/rear/trunk. Technically only the rears are .9 of a stage since it is still dependedt on the subs--true. I build a rear stage because I can do so without interfering with the front and imo is much better for the rear passangers as it makes a better gain match with the subwoofers at their back, otherwise they'd have too much low end with reduced 63hz up stage from the front.



thehatedguy said:


> I'm not making too many assumptions.
> 
> You have poor speaker placement and are compensating by using TA to help get a good stage. Then you have too many point sources for the ranges of music you are covering.
> 
> ...


I have pretty good positioning for a 5 way...there are very few ways to make one work. I listed all the incorrect assumptions you made, you just refuse to believe a 5 way can work and drop the ball on it.

For a "technically performing system ie image and focus" it is much better to drop the 4 way, 3 way and 2 way. Why not run a fullrange driver in a 2ch stereo or 3ch stereo + center high and deep in the pillars?

Car audio is not all about image and focus and therefore we have tradeoffs. I just believe there is much more to loose by simplifying things. The truth is I have payed carefull atention about staging when installing drivers and while it may be poor compared to some "professional" 2 way setups I found the difference to be fairly small and easily worth giving up in exchange of solid tonality, frequency response and output. I'm down for a blindfold sq. competition where more sound characteristics are valued. Untill such a competition will take place I will continue to care very little about existing ones.

The ProLogic summed rear sounds like poop with music even in home audio settings imo. The only real applications are for movies and video games and I care very little about these things in a car setting. I haven't heard the new decoding formats like Logic 7 at work.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

Why do you ask about how to make your car technically better with imaging and then say you don't care about it?

Point is with door mounted midranges playing the range you have them playing, you need to have both long path lengths and pay attention to angling of the drivers...if you ever want to have any serious attempt at making the car image without using the band-aid of a lot of delay. For good imaging, you need to have low PLDs in the midrange. Period. You don't have that.

No, I haven't heard your car, but I know enough to know what to fix to make it work right...been doing this for a few years now.

F. Alton Everest in the Master Handbook of Acoustics would disagree with your statement reguarding the rear fill. Sum it and delay it...use it to your advantage. And FWIW, the JBL processor with Logic 7 is pretty nice on all types of music.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

thehatedguy said:


> For good imaging, you need to have low PLDs in the midrange. Period. You don't have that.


Since you're so adamant that you can't compensate adequately for PLDs, perhaps you can elaborate on that point. I've asked this question several times and nobody has yet given a satisfactory answer (assuming we're not talking about optimizing listening for the passenger seat).

http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10367

My question starts at post #43.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

My philosophy is do as much as you can to optimize the situation, get it as close as you can to perfect before you start tuning. This to me involves proper speaker placement. Put the speakers in the best physical locations and then fine tune...not stick them anywhere and manipulate everything with delay. To me, it doesn't sound the same though you are doing the same thing on paper.

I have heard a few cars that were setup for 1 seat judging that were incredible...and they used a lot of TA on the driver's side- Earl Zausmer's BMW, Matt Robert's truck, David Hogan's truck, the DLS car from Thailand...they all had a ton of TA in ADDITION to having the midranges and midbasses placed in more optimal locations.

It probably boils down to a personal belief system from being involved with/in car audio for nearly 16 years. 

I think door mounted speakers are really limited in applications and good sound...unless you are talking about a center channel and some frequency steering ala Logic7. Then it's not so bad.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

But I think there are other factors at play that you're neglecting. In somebody's daily driver, they may not have the option (or frankly, the desire) to put the speakers in the best possible location. The best possible location may mean installing them in big ugly incovenient speaker pods of some sort. And so, like with all car audio, it becomes an issue of tradeoffs. To say that you can't achieve good imaging without minimizing PLDs is not only an oversimplification of a contentious issue, but also a misleading assessment IMO. There are people who are going to come away from threads like these either thinking they absolutely have to tear up their cars if they want good sound, or giving up altogether because modification is out of the question for them. I don't see the usefulness in slamming the door in their face.


----------



## kappa546 (Apr 11, 2005)

drivers seat imaging FTMFW lol


----------



## FoxPro5 (Feb 14, 2006)

kappa546 said:


> drivers seat imaging FTMFW lol


I removed my passengers seat just so there was simply no other option!!


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

I'll give you that...but building a set of kicks for midranges is no more intrusive or harder to do (and often times more cosmetically appealing) than big door panel builds. And with the kick mounted or dash mounted mids, you are relying less on digital manipulation and optimizing the physical placement.

And at that point you have to ask yourself if you want to take the extra set to make the mounting location more ideal or rely on delay to do the job...and you've already spent the effort to build door pods. You could spend less time on door panels- just build a flat baffle and dampen the door, and build kicks for the midranges that are small and out of the way. Spend the same amount of time (or less) doing it that way and end up with a more optimal location right off of the bat...so you have to use less delay to do the job for you.



MarkZ said:


> But I think there are other factors at play that you're neglecting. In somebody's daily driver, they may not have the option (or frankly, the desire) to put the speakers in the best possible location. The best possible location may mean installing them in big ugly incovenient speaker pods of some sort. And so, like with all car audio, it becomes an issue of tradeoffs. To say that you can't achieve good imaging without minimizing PLDs is not only an oversimplification of a contentious issue, but also a misleading assessment IMO. There are people who are going to come away from threads like these either thinking they absolutely have to tear up their cars if they want good sound, or giving up altogether because modification is out of the question for them. I don't see the usefulness in slamming the door in their face.


----------



## kappa546 (Apr 11, 2005)

omg thats the smartest thing i've ever heard of... i ****ing hate being anyones choffer. i even get annoyed if someone rides with me that's headed to the same location, unless it's some sexy piece i'm workin on


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

That's one way to skin a cat...lol.

What about your back seat?

  


B-Squad said:


> I removed my passengers seat just so there was simply no other option!!


----------



## FoxPro5 (Feb 14, 2006)

thehatedguy said:


> That's one way to skin a cat...lol.
> 
> What about your back seat?


Honestly, since my legs are pretty long...I'm practically sitting back there anyway. There's only about 6" between my seat and the back seat in my normal, everyday seated position...cuz I be layed back...wit my mind on my money and my money on my mind...  

I don't know about you guys, but my sub is closer than my midrange drivers in the kicks. Which is great for minimizing these so called "PLD's" you speak of.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

My subs are the closest speakers to me too. Midbasses next, supertweeters, and the horns are the furtherest away.


----------



## durwood (Mar 7, 2007)

Time to stir the pot---you have been doing car audio for 16 years, so TA was a luxury back then. Kick panels and horns ruled the day. Fast forward to today, TA is everywhere and my ears hear better than my ankles or knees. TA and dash mounted mids FTW!


----------



## kappa546 (Apr 11, 2005)

durwood said:


> Time to stir the pot---you have been doing car audio for 16 years, so TA was a luxury back then. Kick panels and horns ruled the day. Fast forward to today, TA is everywhere and my ears hear better than my ankles or knees. TA and dash mounted mids FTW!


preach!


----------



## FoxPro5 (Feb 14, 2006)

Here's a question for the competitors and judges out there: Doesn't the shape and depth of the stage have to do with:

1) Length of the hood. For example, from my position I can't see the end of my hood. So how could any of my music techically be out that far?

2) Angle of windshield. I was sitting in my Grandma's Caddy the other day it it had a short, flat and wide windshield...compared to mine which is long, curved, and fairly narrow. How does this equate?

3) Depth and position of the dash. Back to the Caddy for a second. The dash in that vehicle I swear is only 8" deep at most. In my car, the dash is three times as deep and about one foot lower. It also angles off toward the cabin fairly well....meaning it's not level with the hood, in fact it slopes off opposite of the hood.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

Length of the hood does not matter.

Angle of the windshield doesn't matter.

Again doesn't matter for sound judging.



B-Squad said:


> Here's a question for the competitors and judges out there: Doesn't the shape and depth of the stage have to do with:
> 
> 1) Length of the hood. For example, from my position I can't see the end of my hood. So how could any of my music techically be out that far?
> 
> ...


----------



## FoxPro5 (Feb 14, 2006)

thehatedguy said:


> Length of the hood does not matter.
> 
> Angle of the windshield doesn't matter.
> 
> Again doesn't matter for sound judging.


Well that sure throws my "perception" theory right out the door.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

But real installers can make a car do the same thing from both seats. One seat cars are easy to build, especially today. There is not much challenge in it. Making a car work well from both seats at the same time is a challenge.

But 16 years ago, most of the cars were using 8 speakers per door, a center channel, and rear fill...and most were getting beat by the simple kick panel and horn installs (if there were many if any horn cars in 1990).

Guess that is me being old school.



durwood said:


> Time to stir the pot---you have been doing car audio for 16 years, so TA was a luxury back then. Kick panels and horns ruled the day. Fast forward to today, TA is everywhere and my ears hear better than my ankles or knees. TA and dash mounted mids FTW!


----------



## npdang (Jul 29, 2005)

I still find alot left to be desired in a one seat car, much less trying to tackle the challenge of a 2 seater. Even in the home, a much less hostile audio environment, I find that it's very difficult to create the exact same image and tonality from both sides of the couch.


----------



## Abmolech (Nov 2, 2006)

If your going for the simple install with best image from all seats, you cannot beat a monophonic centre. (NO outers)

As to "multiple point sources" stereo must lose?

Reality check

I room can be acoustically defined in reflections, absorbers and to a lesser extent diffusers.

Surely a speaker can therefore, logically replace a room reflection? 

Having multiple speakers is not necessarily more difficult, it simply a matter of using them correctly.

Look for a system that uses speakers in almost any position and calculates how to use them.

VBAP

Vector based amplitude panning.

Stereo, 3.1 surround, ambisonics, ambiphonics and quadraphonics all have ONE common fault.

They expect the speaker to be in a certain relationship to the listener. Some may be more "forgiving".

Stereo would be the bottom of my list, simply because it is such a poor medium, especially when dealing with different rooms (space).

However if you insist on using it..

It has no mechanism for vertical cues,
It uses acoustic crosstalk in time sensitive frequencies to "pull" the stage away from the listener. This is the primary distinguishing feature over panned mono, the "controlled" crosstalk
It assumes the speakers will be on an equilateral triangle at ear height, it has no mechanism to correct, if this is not "true".
Acoustic crosstalk "sucks" in intensity sensitive frequencies, hence the rise of amibisonics etc.

All height cues are monophonic.


Use early reflections rather than "fight" them, after-all what is a wave guide/ horn without "early reflections".


----------



## npdang (Jul 29, 2005)

Can you explain vbap in more detail? Maybe give a beginner tutorial?


----------



## Neil (Dec 9, 2005)

npdang said:


> Can you explain vbap in more detail? Maybe give a beginner tutorial?


http://www.acoustics.hut.fi/research/cat/vbap/

edit: I think there's a couple AES papers on it as well, for those interested.


----------



## Abmolech (Nov 2, 2006)

> Can you explain vbap in more detail? Maybe give a beginner tutorial?


Will do. 

Some brief comments,
Vector based amplitude panning and ambisonics are the only two sources used for testing hearing perception. (University based peer tests)
Have a look at hearing aid testing and development, at the moment these would be the "bleeding edge" of acoustic development.

Thanks punkorama

Probably these will explain it better than I would.

I will look into starting a thread on this when I can gather "my thoughts".


----------



## Hi There (Mar 16, 2007)

Abmolech said:


> Use early reflections rather than "fight" them, after-all what is a wave guide/ horn without "early reflections".


When considering an out-of-phase midrange in a stereo configuration, does a dependency on early reflections arise from the cancellation effects of wiring the driver this way, at least for the sounds that are like between the two mids in a stereo arrangement? Or are we looking at it more from the distance perception point of view, where the early reflections give accoustic clues as to distance of source from listener? 

I'm of the mind that reverse phasing in the time-sensitive frequencies is, for the most part, simply a way of attenuating like sounds between speakers (they arrive out of phase and cancel), leading to an increase in left-right bias, and calling one's attention to early reflections surrounding the source which arrive slightly out of phase. Do I have this right? Perhaps such an arrangement can result in increased depth of stage, but I'm an engineer, and I have a desperate need to quell the "why"s before I can adjust and enjoy the "how's". (No, I don't just argue to be contrary)

As far as stereo assuming an equilateral triangle, and not making adjustment for other seating positions, isn't that some of what TA is for? I mean, with the arrivals aligned, doesn't that place a "check" in the box beside everything except relative loudness, hrtf, and ear-lobe vertical azimouth cues?


----------



## durwood (Mar 7, 2007)

Abmolech said:


> Stereo would be the bottom of my list, simply because it is such a poor medium, especially when dealing with different rooms (space).
> 
> However if you insist on using it..
> 
> ...


Abmolech-I know you have studied acoustic engineering and your descriptions are always interesting for me to read and try to wrap my head around. 2 questions for you:

1) What frequency range are you refering to here? 
"acoustic crosstalk in time sensitive frequencies to "pull" the stage"

2) What frequency range or frequencies are you refering to here? 
"Acoustic crosstalk "sucks" in intensity sensitive frequencies, hence the rise of amibisonics etc."

The only thing I know is that most vocals in stereo recordings are mono, and that range falls somewhere around 200-6KHz and our ears are most sensitive at 4Khz.



> Have a look at hearing aid testing and development, at the moment these would be the "bleeding edge" of acoustic development.


Damn, I wish I would have gotten that job at the company I interned at in college since they were one of the largest producers of hearing aid transducers. I learned quite bit when I worked there, but not enough.


----------



## Hi There (Mar 16, 2007)

durwood said:


> 1) What frequency range are you refering to here?
> "acoustic crosstalk in time sensitive frequencies to "pull" the stage"


I'm curious as well, but I think he's referring to the range of frequencies your two ears determine direction from based on time of arrival between the ears, and those would, logically, have to have smaller wavelengths than your head (distance between ears)...just a guess, but above, say, 2khz?


----------



## Abmolech (Nov 2, 2006)

> When considering an out-of-phase midrange in a stereo configuration, does a dependency on early reflections arise from the cancellation effects of wiring the driver this way, at least for the sounds that are like between the two mids in a stereo arrangement? Or are we looking at it more from the distance perception point of view, where the early reflections give acoustic clues as to distance of source from listener?


Depth cues in stereo are "created" by acoustic crosstalk in the time sensitive frequencies. Imagine a single speaker playing 60 degrees off to one side. The sound will arrive at one side of your head and diffract around to the other-side. This time delay from one side to the other is our location instrument. Now somebody adds another speaker 60 degrees on the other-side of you. (You now have stereo setup) What we now have is both speakers "competing" for your attention. The first speaker still has the sound wrapping around your head, but wait theres more (if you are one the first ten callers ) The second speaker is also doing the same except from the opposite side. 

So what happens to the waves? The combine on either side of your head (acoustic crosstalk), Now if it is too much the image is in your head (panned mono), but if you back off the amount of crosstalk (60 %) the image is "pulled away from you", that is depth and width. The "secret" is to match the speakers at that illusion point, and then they "disappear", that is, the image goes beyond the speakers.

The early reflections (diffraction) are used to create the ideal (or more ideal) impedance medium to transfer energy from a high impedance (driver radiator) to a low impedance (air). IE a baffle, or wave guide.



> As far as stereo assuming an equilateral triangle, and not making adjustment for other seating positions, isn't that some of what TA is for? I mean, with the arrivals aligned, doesn't that place a "check" in the box beside everything except relative loudness, hrtf, and ear-lobe vertical azimouth cues?


Hopefully you can grasp that the speaker might be "timed right" but its actual location is incorrect for the amount of crosstalk, and therefore will always be in front of the speaker, that is, a narrow stage and little depth.



> 1) What frequency range are you refering to here?
> "acoustic crosstalk in time sensitive frequencies to "pull" the stage"


Below APPROXIMATELY 2.500 Hz to 250 Hz



> 2) What frequency range or frequencies are you refering to here?
> "Acoustic crosstalk "sucks" in intensity sensitive frequencies, hence the rise of amibisonics etc."


2.5 kHz and up to 10 kHz



> The only thing I know is that most vocals in stereo recordings are mono, and that range falls somewhere around 200-6KHz and our ears are most sensitive at 4Khz.


Actually most recordings are MONOPHONIC and are made into stereo with added reverb etc. Look to classical for any real hope of a stereo recording.

Always makes me laugh when you consider most peoples "bench mark" is live amplified concert, which is in monophonic or panned monophonic. 

People don't see the duplicity in "recreating" that with stereo


----------



## durwood (Mar 7, 2007)

Abmolech said:


> Actually most recordings are MONOPHONIC and are made into stereo with added reverb etc.
> Always makes me laugh when you consider most peoples "bench mark" is live amplified concert, which is in monophonic or panned monophonic.
> 
> People don't see the duplicity in "recreating" that with stereo


I had never though of it that way. I was going to say what about jazz?, but each instrument usually still has it it's own mic when recording (i'm assuming it's the same as rock).

Thank you that helped alot.


----------



## durwood (Mar 7, 2007)

> So what happens to the waves? The combine on either side of your head (acoustic crosstalk), Now if it is too much the image is in your head (panned mono), but if you back off the amount of crosstalk (60 %) the image is "pulled away from you", that is depth and width. The "secret" is to match the speakers at that illusion point, and then they "disappear", that is, the image goes beyond the speakers.


My friend tuned his car that way once. The center image was scary, so pinpoint, but man it screwed with my head. He changed it a little just as you describe, because it was "in our head" and messing with it.


----------



## durwood (Mar 7, 2007)

B-Squad said:


> Here's a question for the competitors and judges out there: Doesn't the shape and depth of the stage have to do with:
> 
> 1) Length of the hood. For example, from my position I can't see the end of my hood. So how could any of my music techically be out that far?
> 
> ...


You what I have found does matter if your mids are mounted in the dash, is the depth of the dash. I have a similar setup/same locations as my buddy but his dash sits farther away from him and is less obtrusive. His depth seems greater than mine, but it is probably because his path length difference is slightly better than mine.


----------



## Abmolech (Nov 2, 2006)

The easy way is to remove acoustic crosstalk altogether, simply use ear buds or headphones, then the "other speaker" cannot possibly have access to the opposite side.

Where does the image go? Inside your head.

Here some fun for you. (well it MIGHT be)

Start humming, place one finger in an ear canal.
Where does the image go?

Even more fun than a barrel of monkeys, try the same trick with both ear canals blocked.

Fun with acoustic crosstalk...


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

thehatedguy said:


> I'll give you that...but building a set of kicks for midranges is no more intrusive or harder to do (and often times more cosmetically appealing) than big door panel builds.


Not if the door houses mids as stock. Or if it can be modified "behind the scenes" while still giving the appearance of stock. The same is rarely true of kick panels.


----------



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

cvjoint said:


> Wrong...wrong...and wrong. You guys are making too many assumptions.
> 
> 1. Just because I have a rear stage it does not mean it is on all the time. I use multiple L-pads to attenuate the levels when I have no passangers....therefore no rear stage for practical purposes.
> 
> ...


bottom line is this.......

you have horrible placement...with WAY TO MANY POINTSOURCES!!!

you are freq steering to your doors period...end of dicsusion...and why on gods green earth would you put an 8 of all sizes in the kicks and only have them play a single octave? then multiple drivers in the doors playing different freqs?

the rules to doing things right is this....minimize point sources..minimize pathlengths...get the drivers as far and as wide as you can...no line arays...no need for center channels....and no rear fill unless you have a processor like a JBL ms 8....or you have taken impulse responses at which in point it can be used to push the stage to the middle of the hood...and what you are doing is far from that......

I don't want to have my 1st post bashing...but for god sakes go blow smoke up somebodies else rear end that hasn't been around the block once or twice


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

the other hated guy said:


> bottom line is this.......
> 
> you have horrible placement...with WAY TO MANY POINTSOURCES!!!
> 
> ...


Thanks for laying down the rules for us (non-competing) common folk. Straight out of the bible, I'll bet.


----------



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

MarkZ said:


> Thanks for laying down the rules for us (non-competing) common folk. Straight out of the bible, I'll bet.


can u be any more of a tool...seriously......I've been a long time lurker and please add something of merrit other than snide remarks when somebody with exp posts something that you don't like...when have you truly added anything that you didn't regurg of a previous post or thread?

there is nothing wrong with thinking out of the box and going the extra mile...and if you are not willing to do that then that's your prerogative ...but nothing that you are doing isn't anything different than the 1000's of mediocre systems before you...nothing....

and wrong is wrong..I don't have to listen to a car to know that it won't work...hell guys who been building for years and years and who try to go the extra mile don't always get it right....


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

the other hated guy said:


> can u be any more of a tool...seriously......I've been a long time lurker and please add something of merrit other than snide remarks when somebody with exp posts something that you don't like...when have you truly added anything that you didn't regurg of a previous post or thread?


Never. I steal everything I write.

You're not much of a lurker, are you?



> there is nothing wrong with tinking out of the box and going the extra mile...and if you are not willing to do that then that's your purgative...but nothing that you are doing isn't anything different than the 1000's are system before you...nothing....and wrong is wrong..I don't have to listen to a car to know that it won't work...hell guys who been building for years and years and who try to go the extra mile don't always get it right....


Ok, now try in english.

Speaking of going the extra mile, why don't you explain to me where your so-called hard and fast rules came from. Engage in rational conversation like your namesake rather than come into a new forum and attempt to lay the "my way or the highway" smackdown.

Lemme guess...you're an ECA import?


----------



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

MarkZ said:


> Never. I steal everything I write.
> 
> You're not much of a lurker, are you?
> 
> ...


import...yes...

were do my rules come from...use your head...it's not that hard of a concept to grasp...it is however easier to rationalize that not going the extra mile can be just as good...but in all reality it's not....


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

the other hated guy said:


> import...yes...
> 
> were do my rules come from...use your head...it's not that hard of a concept to grasp...it is however easier to rationalize that not going the extra mile can be just as good...but in all reality it's not....


I got my answer. You're a windbag that can't justify your statements and the criticism you threw at people. Your original post remains as unsubstantiated as I thought it would be. Way to go.

Scamper on back to ECA and let people who are capable of intelligently discussing the matter continue to do so.


----------



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

MarkZ said:


> I got my answer. You're a windbag that can't justify your statements and the criticism you threw at people. Your original post remains as unsubstantiated as I thought it would be. Way to go.
> 
> Scamper on back to ECA and let people who are capable of intelligently discussing the matter continue to do so.


nahh...I think I'll stick around just to mess with you....


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

the other hated guy said:


> bottom line is this.......
> 
> you have horrible placement...with WAY TO MANY POINTSOURCES!!!
> 
> ...


You did not even read my post correctly I don't see how your post is more than blowing smoke - the 8 inch midbass is in the door not in the kick. Prove to me why it is so wrong to divide the 20hz-125hz frequency in two, after all that is all the murder I've brought upon car audio.

Once again I get the old dog comments, I often call shops to ask about product and they guy talks his head off about how my 5 way will never work as if he has any clue sitting milles away on the telephone. If anyone needs to open their minds is professionals with God given proven techniques. I know you guys have valuable experience and information. Why do you have to be an ******* when stumbling on a new ideea?

Ohh one more thing...who said I am not minimizing pathlength differences?


----------



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

cvjoint said:


> You did not even read my post correctly I don't see how your post is more than blowing smoke - the 8 inch midbass is in the door not in the kick. Prove to me why it is so wrong to divide the 20hz-125hz frequency in two, after all that is all the murder I've brought upon car audio.
> 
> Once again I get the old dog comments, I often call shops to ask about product and they guy talks his head off about how my 5 way will never work as if he has any clue sitting milles away on the telephone. If anyone needs to open their minds is professionals with God given proven techniques. I know you guys have valuable experience and information. Why do you have to be an ******* when stumbling on a new ideea?
> 
> Ohh one more thing...who said I am not minimizing pathlength differences?


please tell me with door multiple door mounted drivers how you think you are taking care of PLD's...and please don't act like u are reinventing the wheel...and I'm not some BS local shop either.....


----------



## FoxPro5 (Feb 14, 2006)

Interesting discussion, really.

Mark, you seriously don't need to drop the snide remarks in. Why do you do that??

I really like to hear what the hated guy and all his identites have to say, whether I agree with him or not. Why attack the guy??

Can someone verify a PLD question for me please. How close to the drivers have to be in relationship with each other in order for us not to be able to hear if they are indeed different? I thought it was 12"??


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

B-Squad said:


> Interesting discussion, really.
> 
> Mark, you seriously don't need to drop the snide remarks in. Why do you do that??
> 
> I really like to hear what the hated guy and all his identites have to say, whether I agree with him or not. Why attack the guy??


Attack? I asked that he elaborate his position rather than chime in with a post that lacked any substance at all. He refused. If people are going to spout their opinions as if they were fact, then they'd better be prepared to justify those so-called facts.

Same **** happens in all the other controversial threads. Ask if all amps sound the same. [I dare you. ] Invariably you get someone who does exactly what the new hated guy did -- say with certainty that they do, and refuse to back it up when they're called on it.


----------



## backwoods (Feb 22, 2006)

Abmolech said:


> Depth cues in stereo are "created" by acoustic crosstalk in the time sensitive frequencies. Imagine a single speaker playing 60 degrees off to one side. The sound will arrive at one side of your head and diffract around to the other-side. This time delay from one side to the other is our location instrument. Now somebody adds another speaker 60 degrees on the other-side of you. (You now have stereo setup) What we now have is both speakers "competing" for your attention. The first speaker still has the sound wrapping around your head, but wait theres more (if you are one the first ten callers ) The second speaker is also doing the same except from the opposite side.
> 
> So what happens to the waves? The combine on either side of your head (acoustic crosstalk), Now if it is too much the image is in your head (panned mono), but if you back off the amount of crosstalk (60 %) the image is "pulled away from you", that is depth and width. The "secret" is to match the speakers at that illusion point, and then they "disappear", that is, the image goes beyond the speakers.
> 
> ...


thank you, I have been trying to explain that but doing miserably at it. My analogies sometimes just flounder.

Your posts in this thread have been extremely educational, and I hope everyone takes time to understand them.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

I am not "the other hated guy" if someone would/could check out IP addresses, you would see that we are not even in the same region of the country. I do know the guy quite well though.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

Yeah, but you are doing the same thing. Where is your support for your position? Do you have anything substantial for basing your opinions as fact?



MarkZ said:


> Attack? I asked that he elaborate his position rather than chime in with a post that lacked any substance at all. He refused. If people are going to spout their opinions as if they were fact, then they'd better be prepared to justify those so-called facts.
> 
> Same **** happens in all the other controversial threads. Ask if all amps sound the same. [I dare you. ] Invariably you get someone who does exactly what the new hated guy did -- say with certainty that they do, and refuse to back it up when they're called on it.


----------



## Abmolech (Nov 2, 2006)

How is that the our auditory system can locate a sound source perpendicular to our head, in the sub 125 Hz frequency?

Answer it cannot. The diffraction time around our head is too short (processing time) for our system to locate it.
The only thing "wrong" with a 7" and and 8" in the doors (perpendicular) is the amount of force these driver generate. I calculated it some time ago, it is about enough to open and close an "ordinary" house door (no latch) for a single driver.

Point

Resonance is a serious issue. My apologies for not looking at your install, but it better be built like a "brick **** house".

For what its worth I have four 8" for my mid bass.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

I used to love having know-it-all kids like you come into my shop...try to act like you have a Ph.D in Acoustical Engineering and what you have done and made work is something unique. You are the type of guy who walks in with some blue and yellow paint, mix it up, and say "look how awesome this red paint is." When I tell you it is green, and everyone else tells you it is green, you want to argue that it is red and that we are all dumb b/c you and what you are doing is unique.

You've not done anything special that breaks the laws of physics....I've read all of your old threads. Remember when you got that great increase in depth after you moved your neo8s from the doors to kicks? Now imagine what increases in depth you would get if you actually moved a speaker that was important for depth cues to the kicks...but I guess you could have TA the neo8s in the doors to have done the same thing, right? If so, why didn't you do that?



cvjoint said:


> You did not even read my post correctly I don't see how your post is more than blowing smoke - the 8 inch midbass is in the door not in the kick. Prove to me why it is so wrong to divide the 20hz-125hz frequency in two, after all that is all the murder I've brought upon car audio.
> 
> Once again I get the old dog comments, I often call shops to ask about product and they guy talks his head off about how my 5 way will never work as if he has any clue sitting milles away on the telephone. If anyone needs to open their minds is professionals with God given proven techniques. I know you guys have valuable experience and information. Why do you have to be an ******* when stumbling on a new ideea?
> 
> Ohh one more thing...who said I am not minimizing pathlength differences?


----------



## FoxPro5 (Feb 14, 2006)

thehatedguy said:


> I am not "the other hated guy" if someone would/could check out IP addresses, you would see that we are not even in the same region of the country. I do know the guy quite well though.


Ooop, sorry. I'm going to keep it to myself who I think it is.  

Another staging question. Has anyone successfully been able to equally space the 7 snare hits on the IASCA disk?? In as many times I've tired, I always hear the first two beats almost right in the eact same spot on the far left of the sound stage.

TIA hated guyz....


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

thehatedguy said:


> Yeah, but you are doing the same thing. Where is your support for your position? Do you have anything substantial for basing your opinions as fact?


I was the one asking the question. I wasn't stating anything as fact (and therefore the reason I asked a question instead of starting a post that begins with "bottom line is this..."). 

As I said before, I'd like to know why time alignment is insufficient to compensate for PLDs. In other words, what aspect of minimizing PLDs is so important that a deficit supposedly remains even after removing the _arrival time difference_ variable?


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

Let me ask you clarify why it isn't important. And how can TA compensate for poor speaker locations?

And back to the door panel vs. kickpanels...there are a few guys on the forums doing these elaborate door builds and putting speakers in horrible locations b/c they didn't want to cut the car up, think kicks are too large, think TA can fix all...but the door panels they are cutting up cost more than a replacement plastic kickpanel (and that's if you use the factory panel as a base). You can build a small pod for a 5 or 6 that takes up less room than some of the monster door panels that I have been starting to see lately.

To me, the argument about kicks being too big, bulky, cost too much is a very weak argument.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

thehatedguy said:


> Let me ask you clarify why it isn't important. And how can TA compensate for poor speaker locations?


Note that I'm not talking about "poor speaker locations" per se. Obviously time alignment isn't going to help much if your tweeters are mounted under your seat. I'm talking about the quest to minimize PLDs, with all else being equal.



> And back to the door panel vs. kickpanels...there are a few guys on the forums doing these elaborate door builds and putting speakers in horrible locations b/c they didn't want to cut the car up, think kicks are too large, think TA can fix all...but the door panels they are cutting up cost more than a replacement plastic kickpanel (and that's if you use the factory panel as a base). You can build a small pod for a 5 or 6 that takes up less room than some of the monster door panels that I have been starting to see lately.
> 
> To me, the argument about kicks being too big, bulky, cost too much is a very weak argument.


Um...well, to each his own. I've had kick panels before and I've done door installations before. Whether or not I go with kicks is largely determined by aesthetics and what I want the interior of the car to look like. IMO, kicks are unsightly in many, if not most, cars. I hesitate to deviate from an outwordly stock appearance in my cars, but that's just my own preference. And I don't think it's as uncommon as you seem to think. So it's not a weak argument -- in fact, it's not an argument at all. It's a statement of fact: some people don't like the look of kick panels, or even non-stock in general. That's just the way it is.

But you're right, if the rationale is to save money, sometimes door builds aren't a very smart way of going about it either. However, there are quite a few cars that can house them with minimal (or at least, invisible) modification.


----------



## Abmolech (Nov 2, 2006)

> Another staging question. Has anyone successfully been able to equally space the 7 snare hits on the IASCA disk?? In as many times I've tired, I always hear the first two beats almost right in the eact same spot on the far left of the sound stage.


Probably not what you want to hear.

I tried this with the best stereo setup I could find (acoustic room) and the track still is compressed in its positions.

Works fine if broken down to single mono points and speaker placed in each poistion... 

I believe it is not a good test track for locational cues using stereo.


----------



## FoxPro5 (Feb 14, 2006)

Abmolech said:


> Probably not what you want to hear.
> 
> I tried this with the best stereo setup I could find (acoustic room) and the track still is compressed in its positions.
> 
> ...


No, that's exactly what I wanted to hear!


----------



## MidnightCE (Mar 5, 2007)

Funny you say that... Always had issues with the first and second snare.

Just put my tweeters in the corners on my dash, and played it (with t/a) and they were fairly evenly spaced. 

went from this:

12--3--4--5--67

to:

1-2--4--5--6--7


----------



## Abmolech (Nov 2, 2006)

> As I said before, I'd like to know why time alignment is insufficient to compensate for PLDs. In other words, what aspect of minimizing PLDs is so important that a deficit supposedly remains even after removing the arrival time difference variable?What's wrong with putting the left speaker a couple feet in front of you and the right speaker 3-1/2 feet diagonal to your right, IF you have the benefit of time alignment and equalization? In other words, why do you feel that TA is inadequate to compensate for PLDs? I'm not challenging you; I just want a satisfying answer to the question.


I hope I haven't quoted these out of context.

Time alignment will fix this problem as regards to phase arrival. The missing link? It is stereo, fine for panned mono, but for stereo it Expects the speaker to be in a certain location, and has the acoustic crosstalk percentage set accordingly. What will happen? The acoustic crosstalk will not match the actual locations of the speakers, the image therefore will ALWAYS be in front of the speakers (Rather than behind if the speakers matched the correct location) Final result a narrow stage and little depth, (limited by the speaker closest to you). that is, the angle is incorrect in relationship to the listener.

Stereo is a very unforgiving mistress, personally a single mono centre would give a number of the stereos in some cars a real scare. Tonality, centre image and stage height that stereo can but "dream of" 

It appears stereo's "last stand" is in car audio. Most shops these days, don't stock stereo systems for homes; people voted with their feet a long time ago.


----------



## FoxPro5 (Feb 14, 2006)

MidnightCE said:


> Funny you say that... Always had issues with the first and second snare.
> 
> Just put my tweeters in the corners on my dash, and played it (with t/a) and they were fairly evenly spaced.
> 
> ...


I'm impressed. 

Mine's always 12--3--4--5--6--7  But since I've heard now from 3 people that the track is not very representative, I'll concentrate on other things instead.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

Abmolech said:


> I hope I haven't quoted these out of context.
> 
> Time alignment will fix this problem as regards to phase arrival. The missing link? It is stereo, fine for panned mono, but for stereo it Expects the speaker to be in a certain location, and has the acoustic crosstalk percentage set accordingly. What will happen? The acoustic crosstalk will not match the actual locations of the speakers, the image therefore will ALWAYS be in front of the speakers (Rather than behind if the speakers matched the correct location) Final result a narrow stage and little depth, (limited by the speaker closest to you). that is, the angle is incorrect in relationship to the listener.
> 
> ...


Your input in this thread is much appreciated, as the others have already said.

It seems to me that this isn't a PLD issue. My questions have been specific to address the notion that you need to minimize PLDs. The point I'm getting at is this: PLDs are _not_ the problem. PLDs, in and of themselves, can be accounted for rather simply by time alignment. So the whole kickpanel debate is one big confound; people are attributing the benefits of a kickpanel installation to PLDs, when in fact the real benefit is from something else entirely. 

You seem to be saying that the main issue is the azimuthal orientation of the drivers relative to the listener. What happens if this orientation differs (symmetrically) from whatever is ideal in one direction vs. the other direction? For instance, if the speakers are placed further laterally from the sweet spot vs. being placed further in front of the sweet spot?


----------



## Abmolech (Nov 2, 2006)

> It seems to me that this isn't a PLD issue. My questions have been specific to address the notion that you need to minimize PLDs. The point I'm getting at is this: PLDs are not the problem. PLDs, in and of themselves, can be accounted for rather simply by time alignment. So the whole kickpanel debate is one big confound; people are attributing the benefits of a kickpanel installation to PLDs, when in fact the real benefit is from something else entirely.


Missed that, good point. It is more correct to suggest that azimuthal orientation is better for stereo.

Time sensitive frequencies are exceeding easy to locate directly in front of us. (We can do 1 degree at 500 Hz like falling off a log) Paradoxically intensity sensitive frequencies are perpendicular locational.

The "worst" place for a mid range is directly in front, with different azimuth angles, least location sensitive is perpendicular. That is the doors are going to less of a problem than the kicks from a purely location point of view.
But with stereo, acoustic crosstalk kills this option.

Best place for the tweeter is centre mirror.(No I am not joking) it is the least locational, however if you want width then having them on the dash etc, they are going to be highly directional.




> What happens if this orientation differs (symmetrically) from whatever is ideal in one direction vs. the other direction? For instance, if the speakers are placed further laterally from the sweet spot vs. being placed further in front of the sweet spot?


The "weakest link" determines the maximum sound stage, assuming you don't adjust the acoustic crosstalk. You probably noticed I believe the best compromise is to adjust the acoustic crosstalk to best suit your actual speaker positions. (OK I believe the best solution is to not use stereo )


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

Abmolech said:


> How is that the our auditory system can locate a sound source perpendicular to our head, in the sub 125 Hz frequency?
> 
> Answer it cannot. The diffraction time around our head is too short (processing time) for our system to locate it.
> The only thing "wrong" with a 7" and and 8" in the doors (perpendicular) is the amount of force these driver generate. I calculated it some time ago, it is about enough to open and close an "ordinary" house door (no latch) for a single driver.
> ...


One thing that I have going for me is that the 7 is HP'd at 125hz, the brutality being mostly the xls8's fault  
No apologies needed, you have contributed the most theory to this thread since its conception. My door is not built like a brick, in cold weather I start getting some of the familiar rattles back but unlike the days when I was using Honda door panels the music is several times louder and can easily overcome noise. 










The whole door is made out of 4 layers of fiberglass - ended up being 1/3 inch thick. the bottom part of the door is 7-8 layers. Inside I have 2-5 layers of dynamat extreme and closed cell foam inside and outside the door behind the panel. The main problem in this Honda was the actual window mechanism arms would vibrate. These doors stoped that rattle as the drivers are not attached to the door directly, but rather the fiberglass panel which makes contact with the metal at the ends of the door where the metal is thicker and no mechanisms are close.



thehatedguy said:


> I used to love having know-it-all kids like you come into my shop...try to act like you have a Ph.D in Acoustical Engineering and what you have done and made work is something unique. You are the type of guy who walks in with some blue and yellow paint, mix it up, and say "look how awesome this red paint is." When I tell you it is green, and everyone else tells you it is green, you want to argue that it is red and that we are all dumb b/c you and what you are doing is unique.
> 
> You've not done anything special that breaks the laws of physics....I've read all of your old threads. Remember when you got that great increase in depth after you moved your neo8s from the doors to kicks? Now imagine what increases in depth you would get if you actually moved a speaker that was important for depth cues to the kicks...but I guess you could have TA the neo8s in the doors to have done the same thing, right? If so, why didn't you do that?


Few reasons actually:
- I could not get the Excels on axis in the kicks or give them enough room to breathe.
- I wanted to retain the dead pedal and the Neos where perfect as they measure far less in width than the mid.
- very small trade-offs:

Measured my PLDs yesterday for the right side to driver head:

LCY 58 inches away
Neo 8 63 in.
Excels 58 in.

You see the PLD in between the excels and BG Neo is only 5 inches when measured from the phase plug ( I could measure it from the cone extreme next to the BG to get even better #s)

Some one here mentioned that at less than 12 in. away the two drivers would act as a point source. Also notice the exact equal PLD in the LCY and Excel case.










Note I've pushed the Excels as far down and away in the door as I could. I had to cut some metal behind and play with fractions of inches make that location still good and the door to close well. I ended up moving the speaker 5 inches lower than stock and 3 deep while mounting in almost on axis (within 5 degrees)


----------



## Abmolech (Nov 2, 2006)

Interesting setup.

I would of put the ribbon further into the kicks, to take advantage of the natural wave guide and to reduce baffle step diffraction. I can't see anything wrong with your door setup positions.

You probably notice I think "early reflections" are an advantage, it is only later reflections (for example 0.7 Ms = echo)that they become a problem. Basically I am suggesting to keep the radiation in the "baffle" as long as possible. The simplist wave guide is a flat baffle, and techinically speaking it is a horn (all wave guides are horns), but for most of us, a wave guide is were the rate of expansion can be radically increased so that it adds very little to efficiency. As npangs signature states, it is the environment (car) that has almost as much effect as the speaker choice.

If single point sources were such a major advantage, a sub should be able to play full range...... are there SOME advantages to splitting the frequencies to have dedicated drivers? 

Let me ask a question about "space"

If by some miracle a singer could be recorded in your car, microphone in the centre dash, could a single monophonic speaker reproduce that so all the depth, width, height etc is available.

Be careful....


----------



## Abmolech (Nov 2, 2006)

I thought I should qualify my reasons for the ribbon position.

The advantage of arrays is effectively the "control" (possibly "set" is a better term) where the off axis response will change. In this case it will start to produce a "barrel" shape dispersion at frequencies the distance from one side of the array to the other equals the frequency being placed (lobing). In this case the width of the array is narrower than height, and therefore the off axis response will be better across the ribbon (width) than the height. This is a great asset, for controlling the roof to floor interference (combing).

In other words the barrel dispersion pattern is perpendicular to the ribbon (barrel lying on its side)


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

Abmolech said:


> Interesting setup.
> 
> I would of put the ribbon further into the kicks, to take advantage of the natural wave guide and to reduce baffle step diffraction. I can't see anything wrong with your door setup positions.
> 
> ...


Unfortunately I can't dig the Neo's farther than say...an inch more. The problem is they are friggin tall! Not only that, but experimenting with them a bit made me realize that they can sound like crap if not on axis. combine that with a fairly tall chasis and you don't have much instal flexibility. I can get one or the other...depth...or on-axis install. Then there is that little hood release that I did not have to relocate with the BG element suspended like this.

I have been monitoring your position on "early reflections." I think I've stumbled over the same ideea without really realizing or being able to characterize the problem. I've posted a thread once upon a time as to how my Seas mags would resonate nasty with high volumes even filtered at 1.5khz (under breakup). After fabricating my doors and mounting the drivers like so it made a huge differece. Where I'm going with this: my Accord has a tall center divider in the front compartment, and I'm guessing the midrange (mounted facing the divider at the time) would play its frequency band and receive it right back with all sorts of cancelations -- a late reflection correct?

I don't think enough people realize how awsome it is to have dedicated drivers. Enjoy true ribbons with a high HP and great output, use the Neo 8 in the trouble frequency band 1khz-4khz where most drivers struggle off axis or due to low mechanical abilities, use a mag cone well before reaching the famous breakup, the xls 8 needs no intro I'm sure.

I'm humming the question about "space" and covering my ears from time to time


----------



## Abmolech (Nov 2, 2006)

There several "natural" wave guides in a car.

The first is legendary, the infamous transfer frequency. This is the whole car interior as a wave guide, often contributing 12 dB to our listing pleasure, with generally no ill effects. As far as I am aware nobody complains about this early reflection? ( I am sure there will be at least one )

The others?

Kicks
Dash to windscreen


I will "hold fire" on the monophonic speaker, to see if I can catch any "fish".

The "secret" is to have a smooth transition from the radiating driver into the "tunnel mouth", otherwise the wave can reflect back into the driver (= bad )

The other is to use arrays (ribbon as well) to control the dispersion pattern to reduce the floor to roof interference, and if your using kicks, the centre console to door interference. (The door to door still eludes me )


----------



## Hi There (Mar 16, 2007)

Abmolech, several times you have referred to manipulating acoustic crosstalk wrt to time-sensitive freqs (phase inversion on a mid, etc....in one post you talk about backing it off by "60%"). I am now, thanks to you, able to understand what a.c. is, but....how exactly does one adjust it, and how much is it changed by, say, a phase inversion to a midrange speaker? 

In regards to accoustic crosstalk, is the ear, in the time-sensitive region, phase-sensitive and able to make phase comparisons for multiple sound arrivals? Or is it about cancellation due to phase inversion, where the ear is affecting an amplitude comparison, or is it simply about repetition of the various sounds between the ears (basically, like a simulated reverb or echo)?

BTW, on advice offered here, I tried inverting phase to one of my mid-basses (front stage is a two-way set, 63-3k bandpass on the mids, 2.8k up for tweets, tweets in dash about 1" from A-pillars, mids low and forward in doors facing in)...the effect was immediately apparent, I noticed a definite and greatly pronounced widening of the stage, and an increase in separation. Vocals did seem to be sourced from further toward the hood of the car from the center dash. However, there was also an immediate decrease in midrange response, and the added depth was, for me, offset by the lack of male vocal presence for the music I tried. I wondered as to whether the perceived depth increase was simply due to attenuation for common sounds between L and R due to phase inversion...perhaps the vocals sounded far off simply because they were attenuated. Also, although the speaker positions were much tougher to localize, the left side of the listening environment (I don't know how best to describe this) sounded compressed in space, as if I were standing next to a very large PA speaker, whereas the right side of the stage was everything I wanted: spacious and natural. No amount or lack of TA could get rid of the effect. I wondered as to whether a 3-way system would be better suited to the experiment.

I also tried, on the advice of a person with the same model car who has competed and won various events in the "stock" class, phase inversion of the passenger tweet, with accompanying addition of TA of about .7 ms to that driver, over and above what I had on other drivers in the system. The effect of this was to widen the stage and increase depth somewhat (effect was there but nowhere near as pronounced as phase inverting the mid-bass), while preserving vocal response. That's the way I'm currently running it for evaluation purposes. 

It seems the most even frequency response I can get is with everything TA'd by formula and in phase...when in this mode, I get very accurate L to R instrument placement, but it's as if I have little performers arrayed across my dash in a straight line: no depth. Every technique involving any sort of phase inversion I've tried has been a tradeoff between smooth response and stage width/depth.


----------



## Abmolech (Nov 2, 2006)

Unfortunately you have also increased the acoustic crosstalk in the intensity sensitive area. This is because a two way mid, is expected to play, into this region. Yes a three way is the answer to this normally, inverting the dedicated mid range phase can often work well.

You may be able to use your car computer to change the phase across a more limited bandwidth.

Other choice is to use a 5.1 system. You can forgo the centre channel, and use rears only. The rears are only meant to play up into the 2.5 kHz (normally higher frequencies are absorbed in a room), this will increase the acoustic crosstalk at the listening position (front and rear waves interaction) it should also help "lock" the centre.



> In regards to acoustic crosstalk, is the ear, in the time-sensitive region, phase-sensitive and able to make phase comparisons for multiple sound arrivals? Or is it about cancellation due to phase inversion, where the ear is affecting an amplitude comparison, or is it simply about repetition of the various sounds between the ears (basically, like a simulated reverb or echo)?


The acoustic crosstalk changes the phase at the listening position.


----------



## Hi There (Mar 16, 2007)

Again, thanks for the quick replies. I'm going to research software processing for my computer, also experiment with phase inversion with a little tighter crossover settings. I currently let the mid drift into the intensity region w/ a 6db slope, on manufacturer recommendation, sounds pretty smooth currently at moderate volumes, and the mid-tweet transition is seamless - DLS Ultimate Nobby 6.2's. 

In my setup, the Nobby's are pretty smooth with minimal eq through the female vocal region, the tweet is the slightest bit bright but manageable and not what I'd call spitty or pissy, and the mid has pretty good, smooth low end extension to where I have them (63 khz - can go to 45 with minimal pain, although it won't take as much volume in this config), but male vocals and high end bass are not as present as I'd like (requires some tweaking, and may be my install or tastes...definitely manageable, afaic).


----------



## Hi There (Mar 16, 2007)

Abmolech said:


> If by some miracle a singer could be recorded in your car, microphone in the centre dash, could a single monophonic speaker reproduce that so all the depth, width, height etc is available.


Given the microphone is a point-listener for all intents and purposes (it records only frequency and amplitude of sound, sound reflections, etc., and time of arrival is measured at a single point in space, not two), how, then, could the system reproduce for the listener the L and R cues, especially in the intensity-sensitive region, when it can't possibly differentiate those cues in the first place (by what mechansim does one determine left from right in the recording, presumably so one can apply L and R cues via some work-around in post processing)? How does a single speaker make it sound louder in one ear than the other, except by virtue of its own location and/or post-processing that assumes or has foreknowledge of the singers' original position? 

Presumably the mike on the dash is picking up environment cues like reflections and such, how do you account for the extra reflections that are created on reproduction, or do you rely upon some sort of room correction? 

I would think a headset mike, room correction on record, and some knowledge of the singer's position would be necessary to reproduce the effect of the singer's original position in the car, assuming some sort of alteration of sound could make up for lost left and right intensity cues in the intensity sensitive region. 

Otherwise, given choice of speaker location, and using an extremely directional mike in front of the singer, you could go for re-creating the singer's voice as it emanated from his/her mouth, and place the speaker in the same position the singer was singing in.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

I'm sure everyone agrees that Abmolech's and The(first)hatedguy's insight in this thread has been very valuable. Let me interject some commentary here, just to try to inject a dose of reality into our quest for a utopia of sound. If we're lucky it'll be completely ignored by almost everybody. If we're _really_ lucky, it'll start another flame war. 

I think one issue being overlooked here is that using a live acoustic performance as the benchmark for all recorded music is all wrong. Recordings are usually made without much effort in mimicking live sound, not only in terms of imaging, but also in terms of dynamics and even spectral content. Stereo is very much an artifice that's not necessarily used as a tool to recreate a soundstage, but instead to generate something that wasn't there to begin with. Some live amplified shows employ a related strategy (eg. Rolling Stones, Pink Floyd...). But with everyone talking about how they want to create the illusion of the singer sitting on your hood (ouch! hood ornament! ), in some cases they're attempting to warp the recording to achieve goals that the sound engineer never intended. But you can only work with the information that's present.

That's not to say that the sound engineer has his finger on the pulse of each of our individual goals. Obviously that isn't the case. And if it was, we'd all strive for flat RTAs and wouldn't need on-the-fly tone controls of any sort.

So you're not necessarily trying to recreate a realistic image that the sound engineer laid out for you. You should be trying to reproduce what the sound engineer intended, and then tailor slightly according to your tastes.

What does any of this have to do with trying to widen or deepen our stages as a generalized case? Well, it mostly has to do with the relative importance of staging as it relates to the other issues that we encounter in car audio. Like it or not, there is often a tradeoff between attributes like the spectral characteristics of the system, its output capabilities, staging, aesthetics, and so forth. It's up to the owner of the system to decide how he prioritizes those aspects of sound reproduction to suit his own tastes.

2 cents and all...


----------



## Hi There (Mar 16, 2007)

I'm with ya, Markz...further tuning this afternoon brought me to a better compromise...backing off the TA a little gives me a "horseshoe" stage where, although the apex of the shoe is about the front of my dash as it meets the windsheild, and centered, the L and R wrap around my listening position. This, to me, gives enough of the impression of space and realism that I don't miss the depth at center...plus, I have all the midrange presence back I was missing.

To each his own, I guess. I was thinking of competing, maybe end of summer or next year, just to have a few experienced judges sit in my car and offer suggestions (maybe besides "buy a midrange").

I've learned a lot on this forum, thanks to guys like yourself and Abmol and Hated, but one thing I learned is that it isn't enough to read about it any more...gotta learn by experimentation, intuition, elbow grease, and personal preference as well.


----------



## kappa546 (Apr 11, 2005)

Hi There said:


> I've learned a lot on this forum, thanks to guys like yourself and Abmol and Hated, but one thing I learned is that it isn't enough to read about it any more...gotta learn by experimentation, intuition, elbow grease, and personal preference as well.


AMEN! more people should take note before asking stupid questions that are harder to explain than to experience.


----------



## backwoods (Feb 22, 2006)

Mark, I don't believe everyone is trying to force a recording to image the way you think it should. I think we are trying (atleast I am) to recreate a soundstage in our car, that can easily be achieved by any decent stereo system in your home. (sounds simple, but anyone who has done several systems, knows full well, it is not.) That is why it is so important to have a reference system. 

If you have never listened to a reference system and taken time to learn imaging cues among other things, then how can you determine what end result you are after? That is why I didn't get involved in the center placement discussion pertaining to "a,b, and c". 

I don't think any reasonable person on here is trying to correct for errors that may have been done in the recording studio. We do that by playing with the EQ , but we are merely trying to emulate are favorite reference system.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

backwoods said:


> Mark, I don't believe everyone is trying to force a recording to image the way you think it should. I think we are trying (atleast I am) to recreate a soundstage in our car, that can easily be achieved by any decent stereo system in your home. (sounds simple, but anyone who has done several systems, knows full well, it is not.) That is why it is so important to have a reference system.
> 
> If you have never listened to a reference system and taken time to learn imaging cues among other things, then how can you determine what end result you are after? That is why I didn't get involved in the center placement discussion pertaining to "a,b, and c".
> 
> I don't think any reasonable person on here is trying to correct for errors that may have been done in the recording studio. We do that by playing with the EQ , but we are merely trying to emulate are favorite reference system.


I understand that, and mostly agree. The key point I was trying to make is that the information in the recording that makes the "home reference system" special may not actually be present in the recorded information. One might argue that the true goal is to emulate the inherent placement of the speakers relative to the listener in a large room, but that advantage may be of less importance based on the program material. 

But you're basically right on target, and I think people sometimes lose sight of that goal and begin to focus on expectations from the recording that simply aren't there.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

I filpped the phase around on the mids this weekend since I had to make a 2 hour drive. I'm refering to the Excels, I have them filtered at 125hz to 1000hz.

One mid out of phase:
Mid in question is a lot harder to locate and there is a sense of greater depth to the soundstage but the sound softens quite a bit, it's as if the mid was turned down and the other drivers now overpower it.
Most midrange duty seems to have fallen on the other mid which reproduces music more robustly and a more vivid lower midrange.

Changing the mid that is out of phase to be in phase and swithcing the phase on the other:
Same results with the bias being on the opposite side now

Both mids out of phase:
Midrange is now very subtle and thin. The whole stage seems to be off but the midrange cannot be located at all.


Is this what I should have been expecting? Did I have to mess around with TA after switching phase?


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

You need to start with the midranges and have the phasing right with just them. Get a track that has a voice that is in and out of phase. Listen to just the Excels, flip until you get at a combo that sounds as close to in phase at your seat. It doesn't matter at this point to which one you have in/out of phase.

Then just the midbasses, do the same thing.

Then listen to the midbasses and midranges together. They might be out of phase with each other. Flip and get them both in phase with each other.

Then bring in the Neo 8s keeping it all to sound in phase at your seat. 

Then bring in the ribbons...though I doubt you will hear much difference or hear anything in them at all.

Have the TA and EQ set to zero.

Listen to music. Your midbasses might center up the best with they are in phase on the vocal track, but make have more/better midbass when out of phase. You'll have to listen. Do this with the sub off.

Once you get the music to sound as centered as possible with flipping phases and have your midbass the way you like..., but only after you have levels adjusted right, use your TA to start delaying speakers. I use a drum track so that I can get the impact and the snap of the drums to line up at the same time. 

Then I bring in the subs. Adjusting phasing to get it to blend in the best with the front stage. Then with the same drum tracks, I TA the sub to give the rest of the impact and meat of the drum at the same time as the front stage.

Then you would EQ the car.

But that's how I set up cars, works pretty well and you should have the phasing right before you start TAing the speaker. TAing before phasing creates more problems IMO. And EQing before TAing can create some comb filtering.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

What method would you use to set phase in the first step:
a) basicaly making sure that all speakers have + on the positive terminal and - on the negative and filiping phase electronically to make sure
b) adjust to suit your preference (maybe a certain way to enlarge stage depth?)

What is considered a proper phase adjustment?

Ohh...can I even flip phase on the ribbons...I mean I have a passive filter on the + cable wouldn't that negate it's purpose?


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

When I do a comp car I don't pay attention to if the speakers are electrically correct- meaning I hook them up not paying attention to which is th pos/neg from the amp...doesn't matter since you will be listening to each and then adjusting the phasing either at the amp...or nearly every processor allows you to flip phasing on each speaker individually (Pioneer P9 does not).

There are disks like the Autosound 2000 disks that have voices that say "My voice is in phase............................my voice is out of phase." And the voices are recorded in phase and then out of phase. So when you listen to them, at the seat in your listening position, you will hear the difference. The in phase voice will be coherient and come from a single point source in the center of your stage. The out of phase voice will be difuse and difficult to locate- it will sound like the voice is coming from each side of the car rather than a single point.

And you keep adjusting polarities until it all is coming from a single point in the car.

This track is good for aiming midranges too since you can focus the speakers until the voice really tightens up to a nice pinpoint image.

You will really be able to start to hear these things on these old setup tracks. Good way to get familiarized with aiming speakers and l/c/r placement. The famous "my voice is coming from the left side, my voice is coming from the center, my voice should be coming from a single point in the right of your sound stage. At no time should my voice appear to move...." is good for aiming as well.

Man, I bet I gave some oldtimers a bad flashback quoting those tracks off of the top of my head...as it is forever burned into my memory...and probably everyone else who has set up a competition car...lol.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

And if you don't have that disk with the voices in/out of phase and the other stuff...or access to it, let me know and I'll make you one and send it to you.


----------



## kappa546 (Apr 11, 2005)

thehatedguy said:


> And if you don't have that disk with the voices in/out of phase and the other stuff...or access to it, let me know and I'll make you one and send it to you.


yea the "my disk" is a must have. the iasca setup disc (i think thats what it's called) with the liner notes and chesky cd are also essential. after that i throw in some of my focal cd's and other personal favorites for listening evaluation. i really need to get me some of those audionutz cd's too.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

I have "My Disk" somewhere...and a couple Focal disks...and a couple Audionutz...and a couple Zuki disks (1 and 3)- Zuki has the best music on his disks without a doubt.

But you really need some of those setup disks when you are trying to get an initial tune on the car.


----------



## MidnightCE (Mar 5, 2007)

Where can I get 'my disc?' Cant find it...


----------



## VaVroom1 (Dec 2, 2005)

my disc = autosound 2000 disc three

http://www.crutchfield.com/S-rNveZy...?g=236150&I=503CD103&search=autosound+2000+cd


----------



## MidnightCE (Mar 5, 2007)

VaVroom1 said:


> my disc = autosound 2000 disc three
> 
> http://www.crutchfield.com/S-rNveZy...?g=236150&I=503CD103&search=autosound+2000+cd


Ordered. Thanks!


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

I should go a head and get all 5...they are worth while to have and I have been wanting to get the others anyways.


----------



## Abmolech (Nov 2, 2006)

Great to see this thread come back to life.

Some very important issues.

First (bound to be unpopular)

* IF* you are not concerned about staging, why not use a single monophonic channel? Honestly a single mono channel can _often_ "hang a stereo system out to dry."

How can you possibly beat a monophonic image?


Second
I warned you to be careful. 

Name me any NATURAL sound that is NOT monophonic.

Would a recording in your car, played back, have all the correct staging, ambiance etc

*YES*

The idea of stereo is to recreate the recording in a different space. IE recorded "live" played back in your car.

It is a dismal failure, I would equate it to the visual media.
Stereo is the cartoon character, witty, entertaining but hardly "dramatic". 
Live is a film of real people etc.
What people really want is dramatic music, stereo is entertaining with various "effects" but it fools no one.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

I have a track of Jimi Hendrix that is recorded in mono that I use to check center and instrument placement.

But I don't think a mono system is where it is at in a car. Mono meaning one channel and one sound source.


----------



## Hi There (Mar 16, 2007)

Abmolech said:


> Would a recording in your car, played back, have all the correct staging, ambiance etc
> 
> *YES*


So, how does a mike on your dash know how to make it sound, to the guy in the driver's seat, like the singer, who was sitting in the passenger seat when the recording is made? Will it sound like the vantage point of the dash board,or do you apply some sort of transfer function to get it to sound as if it's emanating from the passenger seat as it did when the singer was singing? And if you do that, then how does it sound to persons in the back seat? Is the singer to the right of them as well? What about the reflections the mike recorded, in turn being reflected again during playback? If we assume that the reflections from the car assist in any way in localizing the sound or defining the space to our ears as the singer sings, what do we do with the conflicting reflection information both from the recording of a singer in the passenger seat, combined with the reflections of the sounds emanating from the speaker on playback? What sort of hellish processing would recreating the feel and staging of a singer in the passenger seat from a recording made on a point-source microphone on the dash for multiple vantage points in the car entail?


----------



## Abmolech (Nov 2, 2006)

> But I don't think a mono system is where it is at in a car. Mono meaning one channel and one sound source.


Agreed, 
Although a monophonic channel is surprisingly competitive. My point was to emphasise if you have installed a stereo system, logically you should be trying to recreate a stage (howbeit poorly, because stereo is so limiting)

Second point

That staging is what we really want, but not a cartoon character. 3.1 and surround are a step in the right direction (but not with prologic and logic 7) because they start to deal with the MAJOR problem. Trying to recreate the original "space" in a totally different space.
Stereo simply cant do it in anything except a close resemblance to the original recorded venue.

There is a reason why all performances are monophonic.


----------



## Abmolech (Nov 2, 2006)

> So, how does a mike on your dash know how to make it sound, to the guy in the driver's seat, like the singer, who was sitting in the passenger seat when the recording is made? Will it sound like the vantage point of the dash board,or do you apply some sort of transfer function to get it to sound as if it's emanating from the passenger seat as it did when the singer was singing? And if you do that, then how does it sound to persons in the back seat? Is the singer to the right of them as well? What about the reflections the mike recorded, in turn being reflected again during playback? If we assume that the reflections from the car assist in any way in localizing the sound or defining the space to our ears as the singer sings, what do we do with the conflicting reflection information both from the recording of a singer in the passenger seat, combined with the reflections of the sounds emanating from the speaker on playback? What sort of hellish processing would recreating the feel and staging of a singer in the passenger seat from a recording made on a point-source microphone on the dash for multiple vantage points in the car entail?


You need to slow down.

If a bird is singing in a tree.

Is it monophonic?
Will all those "horrible reflections" destroy the sound?

If we replaced the bird with a recording of itself (monophonic) with a monophonic speaker would it have all the correct staging? 

Point all natural sounds are monophonic, it is our auditory system that locates them, not the sound itself. (IE our brain not our "ears")


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

I can see your point with the 3.1 setup and logic, but right now it seems that we can only approximate that performance with stereo plus subwoofer...and a if you wanted, a center channel to get the mono center image.

Car is about the compromises...we are doing the best with what we have, you know?


----------



## Abmolech (Nov 2, 2006)

> Car is about the compromises...we are doing the best with what we have, you know?


Agreed.

It is important to grasp how stereo works and our auditory system if your going to maximise the potential of your audio system.

Already you have understood acoustic crosstalk, time alignment and path length differences and how they will effect the outcome.

This is "moving on" to explaining how the space will effect our audio system.

My first point.

All sounds are monophonic except "man-made" stereo.
Reflections are a good thing and to be cherished.
It is our brain that determines location, if we desire that sound etc, not our ears. If we have two microphone in a 180 degree arrangement, they cannot do this. (locate, enjoy music etc)


----------



## Hi There (Mar 16, 2007)

Abmolech said:


> You need to slow down.
> 
> If a bird is singing in a tree.
> 
> ...


I suggested as much in the earlier post. Singers don't have the reflections emanating from their mouths, the reflections and room acoustics are created as the sound travels away from them, therefore, if the singer is replaced with the speaker in the same environment it was recorded, why would it be necessary to have these environmental cues on the recording? Wouldn't they be re-created on playback?

My point was not that in the suggested model you couldn't replace the singer with a recording of the singer's voice at the place from which the singer sang and easily get the same or very similar effect. My point was that it wouldn't work very well at all using a recording made from the dashboard microphone and limiting yourself to practical locations for speakers in an automobile, and without some sort of means to isolate the recording from the reflections and acoustics of the car...not that reflections and room acoustics are bad, we want them to recreate the experience, but storage of these when the speaker is to be presented in the same environment the recording was made would confuse the sound field....no need to re-reflect the reflections. 

Replace the bird in your example with a recording made from a microphone at the base of the tree...now, you've confused your soundfield by presenting the bird as heard from the ground, but your recording is now emanating from a speaker high in a tree. The recording is not sourcing from the same place it was made, and therefore will sound different, and present itself differently than the bird did, no matter where one chooses to listen, unless measures are taken to alter the recording to accurately mimic the original source at it's point of origin....which is often a complex transformation and implies some knowledge or model of the stage.

As an engineer, you surely have an instinct for what is possible, as opposed to what is practical, cost-effective and likely.


----------



## Hi There (Mar 16, 2007)

Abmolech said:


> You need to slow down.
> 
> If a bird is singing in a tree.
> 
> ...


So all we have to do is replace all the birds with speakers?

I suggested as much in the earlier post, replacing the singer with a driver in the singer's position. But since singers don't have reflections and room acoustics emanating from their mouths, if the singer in your example is replaced with the speaker in the same environment it was recorded, why would it be necessary to have these environmental cues on the recording? Wouldn't they be re-created on playback, by the same virtues of the environment that housed it in the first place?

My point was not that in the suggested model you couldn't replace the singer with a recording of the singer's voice at the place from which the singer sang and easily get the same or very similar effect. My point was that it wouldn't work very well at all using a recording made from the dashboard microphone and limiting yourself to practical locations for speakers in an automobile, and without some sort of means to isolate the recording from the reflections and acoustics of the car...not that reflections and room acoustics are bad, we want them to recreate the experience, but storage of these when the speaker is to be presented in the same environment the recording was made would confuse the sound field....no need to re-reflect the reflections. 

I think the difficulty here is in re-creating, from a dash-mount speaker or similar location, the reflections and room acoustics of the sounds as they occurred when the singer sang _for the point of view of any listener, not from the point of view of a microphone_. Two different listeners in the car are going to hear the singer differently, how do we re-create that with a recording sourced on the dash board and played back in a third location (speaker), and have it be "true" for every listening position in the car? I'm sure I don't have to point out the impracticality of creating a driver location for every monophonic source in a musical recording. Since you suggest that there is a way to create staging on one speaker, I (perhaps improperly) assumed you alluded to being able to do so for multiple monophonic sources in a convincing way, from a single speaker, irregardless of differences in recording/listening environment. "It'd be so easy if we could simply get the London Symphony Orchestra to play a concert in my Acura, and replace all the instruments with separate driver locations" is silly conjecture.

Replace the bird in your example with a recording made from a microphone at the base of the tree...upon playback with the speaker in place of the bird, you've confused your soundfield by presenting what was heard from the ground, but your recording is now emanating from a speaker high in a tree. The recording is not sourcing from the same place it was made, and therefore will sound different, and present itself differently than the bird did, no matter where one chooses to listen, unless measures are taken to alter the recording to accurately mimic the original source....which is often a complex transformation and implies some knowledge or model of the stage.

As an engineer, you surely have an instinct for what is possible, as opposed to what is practical, cost-effective and likely. Sounds in nature can surely be modeled as a point source, or monophonic...but nature holds a variety of such sources at various locales on various stages, and listening environments can be just as varied....I don't have a budget allowing a speaker for every monophonic source imaginable, even if the source is as mundane as a three-piece garage band.

Is the type of proper staging from a monophonic source you talk about possible from a single speaker _without_ the recording sourced in the same place as playback, or without some modeling or foreknowledge of the stage upon which it is to be presented, and without limiting yourself to a single monophonic source (what about the _other_ birds in the _other_ trees)? If it is possible, is it practical in terms of processing? If it is possible and practical, why isn't there such a system in my car, and why don't manufacturers cater to such a system?


----------



## Abmolech (Nov 2, 2006)

I meant a microphone records the bird (microphone adjacent to the bird) and then a speaker replaces the microphone/slash bird on the tree branch/wherever the bird was.

The idea was to illustrate that the recording and play back is good enough to fool you/me etc. The point is our recording and replay methods are accurate enough. One very famous example was performed in Carnegie hall with wharedale speaker and tube amplifier in the 1950's. When the string quartet stopped playing, the astounding hush from the audience, was enough to prove at that time (1950's) the recording and play back was good enough.

So the "final frontier" for audio reproduction is the control of "the space". The fact that our car space differs so greatly from the recorded space, is the reason why we have such difficulty obtaining realism. (Which is what we ALL want from our music)

Stereo promised to reproduce music in a different space, 76 years of error and trial have shown it is extremely limited. As Npang states, "a speaker is only as good as the room". Not quite correct, but pretty close, it is how the room matches the recorded room that is the determiner.

As I stated earlier in this thread, a room can be acoustically defined in reflections, absorbers and to a lesser extent, diffusers. Surround sound, quadraphonics and ambisonics all seek to replicate that recorded room in a different room (your car?). A single monophonic channel works at the recorded place in the same room, or a very close replica of it (You don't complain at a live concert do you?). Stereo fairs little better, with the added loss of a small listening sweet spot. Note that stereo is never used at live concerts.......


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

thehatedguy said:


> And you keep adjusting polarities until it all is coming from a single point in the car.


Let me see if this is what you are getting at, basic point: proper phasing is to have all drivers in phase regardless of how it is attained. I guess you really can't get a better stage by having one mid out of phase in relation to the whole system without loosing that "center focus" which is several times more important imo.



Autiophile said:


> Do you mean a capacitor to protect them? It shouldn't make any difference. You are still preventing a low frequency signal from reaching them.


Yep, I guess one can hook one on the negative cable as well. Thanks!



thehatedguy said:


> And if you don't have that disk with the voices in/out of phase and the other stuff...or access to it, let me know and I'll make you one and send it to you.


Thanks man! I have several of these cd's I used to improve staging. The easiest to get would be a laser disc cleaner. I have several Emma competition cds - I kno a few successful competitors too  



Abmolech said:


> Reflections are a good thing and to be cherished.


Are we still talking about early reflections, or just any sort? Would you also say that multiple sound sources (such as a 4way) will attain some of the same benefits as reflections?


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

Right. But sometimes it is a judgment call as to which sounds better- the "right" in phase sound or the "wrong" out of phase sound. This happens more in the midbass department it seems...you might have the midbass in phase at the seat but it sounds weak with no impact, flip them back out and you loose some focus but have the output you want. Generally no so much in the midrange, though you can have the car center like crazy but sounds like poo-poo...and some people take the technical over the tonal.

Use the disks when setting up the car and aiming the midranges, it will help you a lot.

But I think as you progress with using the disks for aiming and placement, you might start to see where I am coming from.

Now you know one more competitor, though I have competed in a minute or 2. Judging is just too fun for me.



cvjoint said:


> Let me see if this is what you are getting at, basic point: proper phasing is to have all drivers in phase regardless of how it is attained. I guess you really can't get a better stage by having one mid out of phase in relation to the whole system without loosing that "center focus" which is several times more important imo.
> 
> Thanks man! I have several of these cd's I used to improve staging. The easiest to get would be a laser disc cleaner. I have several Emma competition cds - I kno a few successful competitors too


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

thehatedguy said:


> Now you know one more competitor, though I have competed in a minute or 2. Judging is just too fun for me.


I have to admit that my skills aren't too polished when it comes to staging. I had a friend of mine take a listen after a few months of upgrades and he literally put his finger on the stage center which was between the front of the driver seat and the center of the dash 
Needless to say I moved it slightly left right in front of me, different strokes for different folks he he


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

It is all about learning. You have to learn what you like and dislike, what is right and wrong...and sometimes what you like is not the "right" thing. 

You know?


----------



## iyamwutiam (Nov 20, 2006)

That was deep. I think there is the struggle hated guy. I mean a LOT of people are like trust your ears- but if you grew up on boomboxes, and crappy stereos - you wouldn't know a great system if it walked u and introduced itself to you. 
I know for one - I have and am trying to unlearn the need for boominess- or a lot of bass/midbass. It never sounds that way when you go a club and listen to musicians. Particularly a club like te Blue Note.

Sometimes - it is quite exasperating because many bands (almost all) use electronic equipment and Lawd Hep U - if the mix guy has decided its bass nite.


----------



## MidnightCE (Mar 5, 2007)

I have a question - when using T/A to bring the vocals to center stage, I get twin vocals.

IE, it sounds like the same person is singing from my left a-pillar _and_ from my center console. Both being fairly focused points. Flipping left midrange out of phase helped slightly, but flipping the midbass blurs everything.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

thehatedguy said:


> It is all about learning. You have to learn what you like and dislike, what is right and wrong...and sometimes what you like is not the "right" thing.
> 
> You know?


makes total sense. For example a lot of people cherish high mounted mids. I seem to like having my stage pulled down by the kick mounted Neos because it gives the sensation of having a huge stage (imagine home loudspeakers that are mounted at the ends of the dash).

Ideealy and technically voice coherence and a wide frequncy band at ear level is the norm, and even though I like the big stage effect I've learned that's mostly a preference of mine that goes against what is generally "right."


----------



## Hi There (Mar 16, 2007)

MidnightCE said:


> I have a question - when using T/A to bring the vocals to center stage, I get twin vocals.
> 
> IE, it sounds like the same person is singing from my left a-pillar _and_ from my center console. Both being fairly focused points. Flipping left midrange out of phase helped slightly, but flipping the midbass blurs everything.


I get that when I don't have either the tweet or the mid in phase or aligned in time with the rest of the system. One thing I did to detect what was going on was look for a variety of tracks with strong male and female vocals, so as to watch where, tonally, the sound pulls to the left. If it's primarily in lower freq vocals, you could try advancing your mid a little, if it's in the higher freqs, you can advance the tweet a little. Remember also that the tweets, as a pair, also need to be adjusted on a plane to align with the mids, as a pair.


----------



## norcalsfinest (Aug 30, 2008)

Sorry to beat a dead horse, but i believe there is any easier way to look at all of this.

As humans, it is in our nature to overcomplicate things. Stereo was one way to do that. The car environment is obviously very unforgiving, but we are not helping ourselves out at all. Each type of setup has its obvious advantages and disadvantages, so why don't we take a look at those first:

2-Way:
Pros- Less expensive, fewer drivers, less tuning invoved, easiest to get sound decent
Cons- Limited to terrible driver locations, large driver breakup while trying to stretch up the frequency spectrum, beaming, phase issues between woofer and tweets, hard to get ideal PLD's in critcal ranges

3 way:
Pros- Easier to get correct PLD's, less stress on drivers as bandwidth per driver is limited, great sound if done correctly, phase (put in both areas as it can be a pro or con depending on how it is handled)
Cons - Cost, complication of install and tuning, increased chance of phase issues to to more crossover points (unless using FIR's) space limitations

In a perfect world, a speaker could play 20-20K flat at a high output level. Research into bending wave loudspeakers are a step in the right direction, but that's a whole nother discussion. 

The best thing we can do in the car is to limit the amount of drivers, and as a result limit issues such as crossover distortion/phase wrap, PLD's, etc.

It really seems the best way to do so is full range drivers and large midbass drivers. It solves many of the issues we have, such as crossovers in critical vocal range, phase issues due to multiple drivers playing parts of the phase sensitive range, PLD's as a single set of drivers is easier to move around, etc.

To me, the downside is having a 3-4" driver on the dash/in pillars (but if you have a 3 way, you likely do already anyways...), and some people cannot fit larger midbasses in the doors (but if you have a 3 way, you likely already do anyways...)

Why don't more people go this way? It's not for the lack of high quality full ranges out there...


----------

