# Spinoff poll: Is RTA flat the 'proper' way to listen?



## tRidiot (Jun 29, 2006)

If a system has a FR that is 100% FLAT on an RTA with pink noise, then when you play music, you will hear the music exactly as it was recorded on the album. It is the contention of some people that this is the way the artist intended their music to sound (I'd suggest we leave that for another discussion).

I just wonder what most of us on this board feel about the practical listening value (i.e., 75 MPH in traffic) of an RTA-flat system.


----------



## 60ndown (Feb 8, 2007)

@ 75 mph, in your average car, your gonna have a noise floor of about 70db @ 100hertz i think. 

if you can tune your system to sound flat above that noise floor your golden.


----------



## 89grand (Nov 23, 2006)

Screw flat frequency response. Set it up to sound good to you. Like a lot of people, I like some extra low end. Is that what the artist, or recording engineer intended? Who cares.


----------



## MiniVanMan (Jun 28, 2005)

89grand said:


> Screw flat frequency response. Set it up to sound good to you. Like a lot of people, I like some extra low end. Is that what the artist, or recording engineer intended? Who cares.


I care, and you're wrong...  

I voted "good starting point". I usually tune by ear though, as I can achieve the results I like that way. I like my bottom end to have a bit more presence as well. 

I think an RTAs true value comes in finding out how your setup is reacting to you're particular car. For that, it's an invaluable resource.


----------



## sqkev (Mar 7, 2005)

read up on npdang's thread explanation on different ways to measure a system's FR, an RTA does not reveal all about a system. Flat on RTA doesn't mean it's accurate.


----------



## npdang (Jul 29, 2005)

x2... Flat on an rta doesn't necessarily mean accurate.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

MiniVanMan said:


> I think an RTAs true value comes in finding out how your setup is reacting to you're particular car. For that, it's an invaluable resource.


x2. I can tell a WORLD of difference after I used rta software in my car. I was able to see many trouble spots that I wasn't before. More than anything though, is that I no longer have to adjust things or go to a different pre-set when I change genres. Now, all my music sounds good on the same setting. Though, I do have different pre-sets for various ways I like to hear my music, I dont' HAVE to change anything to be satisfied when listening to my iPod on "random".


----------



## DS-21 (Apr 16, 2005)

I voted "no value" because an RTA is in my eyes an utterly obsolete instrument. But that was hasty, because I should've voted "what's an RTA."

A more precise measurement setup, such as a decent measurement mic and mic preamp hooked up to a MacBook running FuzzMeasure is of great value. But an RTA can cover up flaws just as it exposes others.


----------



## Fellippe (Sep 15, 2006)

A perfectly "flat" system isn't the most desirable.....

If it were, an RTA would be the ticket to perfect sound....and it in itself isn't enough to get you there.

A great tool to help though.


----------



## legend94 (Mar 15, 2006)

i cant believe you have to ask someone how to listen to your system  

maybe a different story if you were competing


----------



## Genxx (Mar 18, 2007)

I always tune by ear first. Then when I get around to stopping over at buddies place I will through an RTA on it just to see what the RTA thinks its doing. I will tweak some of the areas that the RTA show as problem spots then listen to it to see if appears that it made a improvement. If it sounds like crap I go back to what I had and continue tweaking by ear. 

Even in my couple comp vehicles in the past once adjusted to the RTA the judges made some not so good comments. For comp if you have a way to save several setting you can have one for in car listening and one for the RTA. However you are not suppossed to touch the car if I remember correctly between these lanes.(A lot of people used to do it but I didn't tell you)


----------



## tRidiot (Jun 29, 2006)

legend94 said:


> i cant believe you have to ask someone how to listen to your system
> 
> maybe a different story if you were competing


WTF? I'm not sure where you got that, but you have had difficulty figuring out the point in several of my posts now.... maybe I'm not typing in your native language?

<edit> Then again, maybe you're not having difficulty with comprehension... maybe there's another cause behind it.


----------



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

the proper way to tune is start with phasing and level setting....then with the rta take your 6 + mic readings and average them out and tune your car for stereo seperation....then tune by ear for tonal issues then repeat with the 6 + mic readings...bottom line is to get the right freq response the same as the left...can't do that by ear folks.....


----------



## Genxx (Mar 18, 2007)

the other hated guy said:


> the proper way to tune is start with phasing and level setting....then with the rta take your 6 + mic readings and average them out and tune your car for stereo seperation....then tune by ear for tonal issues then repeat with the 6 + mic readings...bottom line is to get the right freq response the same as the left...can't do that by ear folks.....


I would agree with this^^^. The RTA has proven to be a friend on several occasions. Most of the time I just do not have the patience. I wind up tweaking then run the RTA mabey 2 times. Then I will adjust to get it where I like it. Then later before shows I would run the damn RTA and tune for an entire day until I get to the point where I was like ok screw it that should be good enough to place top 3 at least and grab some points.

Then on the way home I would screw with it to get it back to the way I liked it then repeat the above process. Seemed to be a never ending merry-go-round or I still cannot tune for Sh**, probably the later.


----------



## tRidiot (Jun 29, 2006)

Genxx said:


> Then on the way home I would screw with it to get it back to the way I liked it then repeat the above process. Seemed to be a never ending merry-go-round or I still cannot tune for Sh**, probably the later.


So then a summary would be that you compete the way they tell you to, then you actually LISTEN to it differently for yourself. Is that right?


----------



## chuyler1 (Apr 10, 2006)

I feel the RTA is a great "learning tool" for your ears. I simply don't trust the microphone enough to make it the end-all tuning guide. There is so much going on in a car environment with respect to resonation, reflections, cancelation, and driver mounting location differences. I simply don't think the RTA can give you an accurate read out of what will sound good.

I feel it is a perfect tool to pick crossover points. You can easily see roll off points on your drivers and watch in real-time what a particular crossover point will do.

After setting gains and crossover points you can use it to find peaks and valleys but I would never try to flat-line my system with an RTA and 30-band EQ.


----------



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

you guys need to read the rta manual and learn how to use the rta....it will be your best friend....and I'm not talking tonaly...taking a 6 + mic average..this means taking a reading at ear level...an inch up...and inch down for both right and left ears...then have the rta make the average curve and adjust accordingly....most of u if not all I bet just take a single mic reading...this is not a tru picture of the freq response in your car...


----------



## tRidiot (Jun 29, 2006)

the other hated guy said:


> .most of u if not all I bet just take a single mic reading...this is not a tru picture of the freq response in your car...


Yeah, well, it's better than nothing, isn't it? Or is it? Is taking one reading worse than taking NO readings? Obviously it's not a picture of the whole response in every possible listening position in your car. That FR will change in relation to where one is... left or right ear, even in the same listening position.

We all know you can get as technical as you want to with this stuff... that's not the point, to me.

My overall question is, for your DAILY listening, do you listen to your music the way you have it RTAd, or do you tweak it?


----------



## Genxx (Mar 18, 2007)

tRdoc-I guess you could say that but I no longer do any kind of competing to many rules for me. Last time I did was 2001. I always liked more mid-bass and a little more sub. To prove a point on the way to a show after my buddy had done some tweaking I adjusted the sub volume and forgot to change it back before the judging lane. My score sucked got 4th place loosing to guys I had beat 3 or more times before-Weekend before I had placed 2nd. Next show made sure not to play with anything and hell what do you know got 2nd. 

First question got from my buddies was "We helped you get it right, why did you screw with it". They all won either 1st or 2nd. 

I believe we all have ways we like certain things to sound. Many of the judges I would say would have had some bad comments if I left it the way I liked it.

The guys that helped me tune my car for shows loved using the RTA. I like the RTA but still always need help making sure I am using it properly. Becuase I only use one mabey a couple times a year now if that. Tuning with the RTA to me is freaqin' boring as hell though. 

I have yet to get close to a flat response on a RTA and be happy with the way it sounded overall. I have also gone to a show with a near flat response and had a judge leave their comments. It did help me fix somethings I couldn't tell with my crappy tuning ear's though.


----------



## Hi There (Mar 16, 2007)

fixed:



tRdoc said:


> If a system has a FR that is 100% FLAT on an RTA with pink noise, then it will have a 100% flat response to pink noise on an RTA.




Let's not confuse the FR of a system with the experience of listening...NO ONE has hearing with a linear response across various volume levels. What sounds flat at one volume level won't sound flat at another, this will differ for each person at each volume level, and whether or not this has been compensated for, or how so, or for what expected playback volume level in musical recordings is anyone's guess. 

I look at RTA as a tool to give you hints for a baseline, or to measure one's ability to alter the response of a system, not a measure of the worthiness of a system from a listening perspective.


----------



## tRidiot (Jun 29, 2006)

Hi There said:


> fixed:


Whatever. I think many of you are reading waaaaaaay too much into this. We don't NEED to get this technical, but some people love doing that anyways.

I've seen enough to confirm most of my suspicions anyways.


----------



## Hi There (Mar 16, 2007)

I'll make it shorter: I think an RTA-flat system sounds like ass when listened to at moderately loud volume levels for most, but not all, the music I listen to...and at most speeds I drive.


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

Most RTA's we are using have one microphone and no grey matter.

Plug one ear, turn your head sideways and listen to your system... that's what the RTA hears... period. it does not "hear" a lot of issues our brains will filter out and things that we cannot stand. A peak may be due to an ER that will go away if you move the mic an inch. 

RTA's in a car especially suck, RTA's in a concert venue only pretty much suck. I rarely use them, I will use them in setting crossovers/delay playing BW limited pink noise but I have not played full bandwidth pink noise in over 10 years now... not once.


----------



## backwoods (Feb 22, 2006)

until you measure the fr, you will never know if you are missing certain areas.

I've always found that peaks are not too difficult to pick out by ear, but sometimes dips are impossible to find. the problem there is, you may be missing out on alot of your recordings that could be enjoyable.


Like the other hated guy said, it's about how much time you spend with it, and how accustomed you become to using it.


----------



## tRidiot (Jun 29, 2006)

backwoods said:


> until you measure the fr, you will never know if you are missing certain areas.


I agree... that's absolutely possible... 

But what I'm talking about is how you LISTEN to your music. If you're tuning it for RTA judging, do you then leave it as-is (assuming you scored well) and listen to it every day like that?


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

backwoods said:


> Like the other hated guy said, it's about how much time you spend with it, and how accustomed you become to using it.



I have spent a very long time using it... and are very accustomed to using it... and use it to get desired results when I HAVE to... like when I'm in a coma. 

Chad


----------



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

chad said:


> I have spent a very long time using it... and are very accustomed to using it... and use it to get desired results when I HAVE to... like when I'm in a coma.
> 
> Chad


chad... 1st off the only way to truely tune a car is to tune for stereo seperation...this does a few things...


it fixes freq issues...
prevents a side biased setup
helps aid in gaining focus
helps depth
usually means less T/A is used...

but you already knew this right!....


----------



## backwoods (Feb 22, 2006)

tRdoc said:


> I agree... that's absolutely possible...
> 
> But what I'm talking about is how you LISTEN to your music. If you're tuning it for RTA judging, do you then leave it as-is (assuming you scored well) and listen to it every day like that?


nope, I do make some changes, but nothing drastic. Normally, I'll end up making a couple small cuts up top for some sibilance issues, and do a little work in the midrange to add some realism to the voices. they tend to sound dead when it is flat.

One thing it will show you, is how bloated the bottom end normally is in most systems...

But, when I am finished, I'll realize how small of changes I really had made from flat, compared to where I started at...


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

the other hated guy said:


> chad... 1st off the only way to truely tune a car is to tune for stereo seperation...


That's officially the month of June's "most vague statement"

One could also assume that tuning for "true mono" operation would also be correct right?... now think about that before you toss up another rolleye thingie 






the other hated guy said:


> this does a few things...
> 
> 
> it fixes freq issues...


And we have a runner up! How? are you tuning via placement are we talking strictly in an electronic sense?



the other hated guy said:


> prevents a side biased setup


Sounds like another reason to setup using true mono (L=R)



the other hated guy said:


> helps aid in gaining focus


See one up



the other hated guy said:


> helps depth


See 2 up



the other hated guy said:


> usually means less T/A is used...


Which is a good thing IMHO



the other hated guy said:


> but you already knew this right!....


Yep

Chad


----------



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

chad said:


> That's officially the month of June's "most vague statement"
> 
> One could also assume that tuning for "true mono" operation would also be correct right?... now think about that before you toss up another rolleye thingie
> 
> ...



chad...any day you wanna play who has the better sounding car after august...I'm down...then talk smack after you whooped up on me....and how an rta is worthless since your ears must be the best on earth.....


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

the other hated guy said:


> chad...any day you wanna play who has the better sounding car after august...I'm down...then talk smack after you whooped up on me....and how an rta is worthless since your ears must be the best on earth.....


Here we go again...

By the way, did you ever get that "lack of midbass" issue sorted out?


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

the other hated guy said:


> chad...any day you wanna play who has the better sounding car after august...I'm down...then talk smack after you whooped up on me....and how an rta is worthless since your ears must be the best on earth.....


What happens in August? I'm reeling with anticipation.

I don't stoop to levels such as this, go play with someone else.


----------



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

MarkZ said:


> Here we go again...
> 
> By the way, did you ever get that "lack of midbass" issue sorted out?


no the bottom line is this...you boys talk all the trash u want behind the ole keyboard...I'm willing to put my money were my mouth is.... my car is ready for a challenge... who wants to play?


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

the other hated guy said:


> no the bottom line is this...you boys talk all the trash u want behind the ole keyboard...I'm willing to put my money were my mouth is.... my car is ready for a challenge... who wants to play?


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

Hi There said:


> Let's not confuse the FR of a system with the experience of listening...NO ONE has hearing with a linear response across various volume levels. What sounds flat at one volume level won't sound flat at another, this will differ for each person at each volume level, and whether or not this has been compensated for, or how so, or for what expected playback volume level in musical recordings is anyone's guess.


That's definitely true, but I don't think the disparity is all that wide. Keep in mind that the brain does its own "compensating", and that we all have pretty much a common basis from which to compensate: the power spectrum of natural sounds.

So even though we may not hear everything the same, it's pretty damned close.  That is, assuming there isn't some sort of deficit -- like hearing loss, eustachian tube dysfunction, ear wax, etc. Individual variation is dominated more by personal preference than by our sensory apparatus.


----------



## Genxx (Mar 18, 2007)

*the other hated guy*-Does it really matter who has the best sounding car. You like yours Chad likes his.

No matter who had the better sounding car you still won't agree and what the hell does it solve. One of you might have more time in the install, tuning and one might have better equipment.

Wait you want to turn this into a "whos is bigger than whos conversation".Sorry


----------



## Preacher (May 8, 2006)

A proper RTA with a good mic is much better suited for "training your ear" than tuning your system. 

If I hear something I don't like and can't find it on the EQ then RTA may reveal that to me. Everyone's ears are different and everyone's preferences are different. There are some basics like most people don't like spikes. Dips leave something desired,but they're difficult to pinpoint to an untrained ear. Most people would like any number of curves if they're smooth, but an A weighted or C weighted curve seem most pleasing. Even there the variations of slopes are open to play according to preference. Think about why the "Loud" button is so popular on mass market HU's. 

Flat response is an acquired taste (like asparagus) and if you think you deserve an audiophile merit badge for acquiring that taste ...


----------



## backwoods (Feb 22, 2006)

Genxx said:


> *the other hated guy*-Does it really matter who has the best sounding car. You like yours Chad likes his.
> 
> No matter who had the better sounding car you still won't agree and what the hell does it solve. One of you might have more time in the install, tuning and one might have better equipment.
> 
> Wait you want to turn this into a "whos is bigger than whos conversation".Sorry


 
no offense, but it proves alot, especially in a discussion involving ways to tune your car. 

If I sit in two different vehicles, I will be much more apt to ask details about the better sounding one. 

Isn't that what everyone is trying to achieve? If you are not looking for ways to improve the quality of the final outcome, then what's the point in this? 

It's not about who has the bigger wang, but about what method gives the best result, and if you are confident that your method is more reliable and outperforms the other, then why would you shy from a comparison?


damn, I'd challenge him just for a chance to hear his car...

I guess I'll have to get him REALLY pissed to make him drive up here to compare...


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

backwoods said:


> no offense, but it proves alot, especially in a discussion involving ways to tune your car.
> 
> If I sit in two different vehicles, I will be much more apt to ask details about the better sounding one.


And you should. But that of course depends on how you define "better sounding". If there was an absolute measure for such a thing, then we'd all be using the same speakers (the "best sounding ones", duh! ). But we have different goals and different obstacles, so that becomes a very difficult metric.

Also, it should be pointed out that you're very limited in the conclusions you can draw from believing the person whose car sounds better. I think chad's reputation speaks for itself, but I'd also bet he doesn't have the "best sounding" car in the country. So what does that mean? He doesn't know much about audio or fabrication? Or maybe it's just that his car fits his own needs, budget, and aesthetics. He admittedly hasn't gone the full nine yards in terms of ripping his whole car apart, deadening it, and putting it back together.

Besides, no matter how good otherhatedguy's car sounds, it doesn't make him an authority on all things audio. If we want to truthfully answer the question of whether or not RTA is a useful tool, or how phase is mathematically defined, etc, the answer to the question isn't "who has the better sounding car?" That's just plain silly.


----------



## Genxx (Mar 18, 2007)

Markz-

You explained it perfectly. What you explained is exactly what I am talking about. My car may never win anything and you may say I hate the way your car sounds but if I like it thats I really car about. I am not worried if you like it or not. I am not here to impress anyone.

On the flip side what if someone uses an RTA and one guy does not. Let's say the outcome is the that the guy that used his ears car sounds better does that discredit the usefulness of an RTA. I say "NO".

Then maybe you find out that the car that was tuned with an RTA had a thrown together system, no deadening ect.

I think you have to take the other variables into consideration.

Is the RTA a useful tool YES.IMO By using it will it make you car sound perfect "NO".IMO


----------



## Hobbes26 (Mar 9, 2005)

I think we're missing a few things in the whole issue. First, there's the time domain issues that the RTA cannot measure, and then there's the fact that our hearing system is binaural. If there was a way to get those three things (Freq. response, Time response, and binaural) accurately measured, then there might be a chance of getting an accurate sound. There's just too many other things that affect the sound that the RTA is unable to measure/show.


----------



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

Hobbes26 said:


> I think we're missing a few things in the whole issue. First, there's the time domain issues that the RTA cannot measure, and then there's the fact that our hearing system is binaural. If there was a way to get those three things (Freq. response, Time response, and binaural) accurately measured, then there might be a chance of getting an accurate sound. There's just too many other things that affect the sound that the RTA is unable to measure/show.


and if binaural mics are used for the 6 + mic placement average


----------



## backwoods (Feb 22, 2006)

Actually, the tables would be somewhat in Chad's favor on this one. (I don't know chad's install, so I am not trying to knock what he has) Let's say he has no deadening, not much as far as installation, very little in the work of plds...etc...

Now, his car with no adjustments, to being accurately tuned, could make quantum leaps in quality.

Now, if you have a car that has been carefully designed, well built, with some of the best quality drivers available, it should sound pretty incredible "out of the box". Meaning his percent of gain from tuning would be drastically lower to improve the sound of his car. He could make some headroom, but alot of it was taken care of in the install and design phase.

So, it would be simple to compare tuning processes, and the other hated guy, would be behind the eightball at the start of the competition.


If I was a betting man, I'd put it on the guy who knows how to properly measure fr in his car, and adjust accordingly.

If you are happy with your car, and don't care what anyone else thinks, then more power to ya! I'm glad your happy. But, I'd be willing to bet that theres some people out there who could tune your car to sound even better, and you'd enjoy it even more.

I can't think of one time, after tuning a car for someone, where they asked me to put it back to the way it was....But, maybe I'm just special...:blush:


----------



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

backwoods said:


> Actually, the tables would be somewhat in Chad's favor on this one. (I don't know chad's install, so I am not trying to knock what he has) Let's say he has no deadening, not much as far as installation, very little in the work of plds...etc...
> 
> Now, his car with no adjustments, to being accurately tuned, could make quantum leaps in quality.
> 
> ...



agreed...this is not to discredit or down play those who are happy with their setup...but to say that RTA's are worthless..then that's a joke and those who say that truly don't know what they are talking about or have never heard a car that was tuned properly with multiple mic placements.....


----------



## tRidiot (Jun 29, 2006)

the other hated guy said:


> those who say that truly don't know what they are talking about or have never heard a car that was tuned properly with multiple mic placements.....



Not altogether true... what if they HAVE heard said cars and just DON'T LIKE that type of sound?


----------



## backwoods (Feb 22, 2006)

tRdoc said:


> Not altogether true... what if they HAVE heard said cars and just DON'T LIKE that type of sound?


 
one topic at a time, dammit...can't you see I'm trying to strut my wang around here!


----------



## sqkev (Mar 7, 2005)

theotherhatedguy,
pls explain a bit more on the 6+ mic placement average method to me, all i see that it does (as I understand, you move the mic 1" up/down from your left/right ears?) is average the slight differences in on and off axis responses in the beaming frequencies. The midrange and bass reflections would be measured as well, does your method take account of that?
How does this method measure accurately the lower bass region? (80hz and below)


----------



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

tRdoc said:


> Not altogether true... what if they HAVE heard said cars and just DON'T LIKE that type of sound?



Matt Roberts truck and van and soon to be another zapco competitors car is always open for demoing....if you sit...listen....and if you don't leave with your head shaking then I'll set my car on fire....


----------



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

sqkev said:


> theotherhatedguy,
> pls explain a bit more on the 6+ mic placement average method to me, all i see that it does (as I understand, you move the mic 1" up/down from your left/right ears?) is average the slight differences in on and off axis responses in the beaming frequencies. The midrange and bass reflections would be measured as well, does your method take account of that?
> How does this method measure accurately the lower bass region? (80hz and below)


most people only do a single mic placement reading at ear level and most do it with mic placed what would be your nose...even if they took the extra step and placed it at the ear position our ears take in info from a faily wide area...which is why doing the multiple mic reading is crucial...now if one were inclined to go the extra step and do it binural mics then your head is factored into the equation...this is to get the L & R freq response as close as you can to one another.....


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

A RTA is a TOOL, just like MLSSA, and other measurement formats, the latter being MUCH better in looking for time based issues. 

Now lets say you have everything time based working out and you still have glaring issues... would an RTA help you if you just can't get it? Damn straight. 

But chances are, if you are having issues that happened due to phasing, etc then an RTA is not going to do anything but make your rig sound worse. This is why I suggested a mono arrangement from the get go. If it can zero down to one point on a stage (where you want your center image to be) then it will get as "wide as you cold ever imagine or what the engineer prescribed for that mix. It CAN be too wide! Phasing and time domain play a very important role in image placement and one thing is certain, mono=middle.

If you take an install and from the turn of the key pop an RTA in there and start jacking with the EQ you are going to have problems, big ones! You are going to dig yourself into a hole that you can't get out of. Again, it's a tool, use it on the right thing at the right time. 

I'll be willing to bet that if your rig is set up correctly in the time domain that you will not need an RTA for more than a few minutes to set the EQ and most of you will go, "damn, I knew it was around there somewhere". I would also be wiling to bet that if most of our members sat at home with a 1/3 oct EQ or a nice parametric for a week that they would feel the same way as I do.....

An RTA is simply a "spanner wrench" in a whole chest of audio tools, you should not need it very often if at all, but if you are in a pinch and absolutely have to see if you "are going nuts" then it's handy to have. If you have experience that comes from doing this for a long time a 1/3 oct EQ placed in line and your ears will end up getting you better results faster without the bother of placing mics and averaging.

Trust your ears, grab a buddy, a family member, get input. you can look at graphs and numbers all day long but in the long run it's YOUR ears with YOUR grey matter betweent hem that counts, and as specified earlier, unless you grew up on the moon you should be able to dial it in just fine, just practice, it's DIY and that's what it's all about.

Now, for the OP, as to what I prefer.... I prefer a "modified flat" I don't do as much of a mid scoop that Fletcher-Munson says I should. in fact I have found to prefer just a little dip from 2.5-4K depending on the drivers used. Sometimes I'll put a bit of tippy top (just enough to bring out the S's and T's and some hi-hat stick) in but the Seas have proven to me that they are more than capable of handling this on their own. I also prefer a tiny dip between 160-250 somewhere, again, depending on the rig/ environment. For low end I like a bit of rumble but again not as extreme as Fletcher-Munson's recommendations. Just little hints here and there to help me eliminate fatigue, that's it.

Many won't like my rig because it is flattish and it sounds a bit dry, for me it's fine because it resembles the stuff I work with day-in and day-out.

Chad


----------



## npdang (Jul 29, 2005)

Hi There said:


> fixed:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes, it's true the sensitivity of our ears is not flat by any means. However, that's not to be confused with the reproduction of a recorded signal in which you would want the playback device to have a flat response in order to reproduce the recording as it was originally intended. If the speaker is flat at 80db... it will still be flat at 100db (non-linear distortion not withstanding)... although your ears will interpret the sound differently that is "normal".


----------



## sqkev (Mar 7, 2005)

the other hated guy said:


> most people only do a single mic placement reading at ear level and most do it with mic placed what would be your nose...even if they took the extra step and placed it at the ear position our ears take in info from a faily wide area...which is why doing the multiple mic reading is crucial...now if one were inclined to go the extra step and do it binural mics then your head is factored into the equation...this is to get the L & R freq response as close as you can to one another.....


dual mono measurements is what I generally use, I still don't see how taking a few measurements and combined them in the form of RTA accurately measure's the system's true response.


----------



## less (Nov 30, 2006)

(oh well - it looks like someone beat me to this reply, but I had to get back to work and after reading 3 pages, I didn't see anyone consider this yet =)

Has anyone here ever had their ears checked to measure if they hear a perfectly flat requency response? 

I can promise you that at 47 and way too many Ted Nugent (and 30+ pther bands) concerts, there is no way that I still hear 15,000hz within a few decibels of its intended level. Lord knows how accurate our hearing is, and that is going to vary greatly from person to person. I do belive that starting with a flat response is desirable, but to your ears, that might not be flat at all!

In the end, unless you are competing and losing points for being off flat, it is the ear that should rule. Flat ata first will let you know if that sounds good to you - or if your ears hear things at the same levels as the bands intended. It may be just fine, but I promise you... I didn't spend $5+k to listen to music that makes someones print out happy and leaves my ears wanting!

Then again, if you spent the money, its none of my business what makes you happy, so do as you please!

Less


----------



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

sqkev said:


> dual mono measurements is what I generally use, I still don't see how taking a few measurements and combined them in the form of RTA accurately measure's the system's true response.


have you ever tried it..you would be surprised that just by moving the mic an inch up and and inch down on how much the freq response changes... you are not getting an accurate picture using a single mic placement period!!!


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

the other hated guy said:


> have you ever tried it..you would be surprised that just by moving the mic an inch up and and inch down on how much the freq response changes... you are not getting an accurate picture using a single mic placement period!!!


X 1.75 kazillion


----------



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

chad said:


> X 1.75 kazillion


this is taken right off of AC's website

6. Recall the stored curves and derive a curve that is an average of all of them. The
rationale behind averaging is to help separate out response flaws that are caused
by the microphone position versus those flaws that are caused by the acoustical
environment and its interaction with the sound system.


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

the other hated guy said:


> this is taken right off of AC's website
> 
> 6. Recall the stored curves and derive a curve that is an average of all of them. The
> rationale behind averaging is to help separate out response flaws that are caused
> ...


It's also why their storage function on the 3050 is heinously easy to operate but nobody seems to take advantage of it


----------



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

chad said:


> It's also why their storage function on the 3050 is heinously easy to operate but nobody seems to take advantage of it


agreed.....the only thing that would make this the end all be all is if you can get the resolution better than 1/3 octave for those who have the ability to adjust frequencies were the issue is and not were we think it is...


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

the other hated guy said:


> agreed.....the only thing that would make this the end all be all is if you can get the resolution better than 1/3 octave for those who have the ability to adjust frequencies were the issue is and not were we think it is...


Yep, yep. But also remember, the 3050 hooks nicely up to tractor feed dot matrix printers...... It's an old dog  and was expensive.

Pinguin audio meter works well for a simple computer based interface. For RTA and correlation I prefer it over smaart, it's resource friendly.

Now you can buy/build a decked out PIII 1G laptop for around 300 bucks. My how times have changed.

Have you used Smaart's delay locator and other goodies?


----------



## npdang (Jul 29, 2005)

For those that haven't... check out this comparison of various measurement methods. 

http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12096

I've done quite a bit of fooling around with different techniques... and they all mostly suck if you're looking for a one stop solution without any real understanding of how the measurements are derived (i.e. most people with an RTA and pink noise disc). 

My take on spatial averaging is that it's very dependent on the kind of averaging you do. If you have a peak in one area and a dip in another, and you average them together to get a flat response I'm not sure that's all too helpful. I've gone as far as taping a mic to a headband and wearing it over my ears and averaging both sides across my head, but again the results weren't completely satisfactory. Also with smoothing, I find 1/3rd octave to be about right. If you're using a non-parametric eq it can be difficult to correct anything smaller than that, and in general our ears work at about the same level of averaging. With most MLS software you can even go up to 1hz resolution and beyond, but then you get what looks like a mess.

I dunno... so far what's worked for me has been a combination of many measurement methods and good old fashioned listening. I like it mostly for verifying driver phase, time alignment, checking reflections in different install locations, checking that my filters are functioning correctly, etc.


----------



## npdang (Jul 29, 2005)

less said:


> (oh well - it looks like someone beat me to this reply, but I had to get back to work and after reading 3 pages, I didn't see anyone consider this yet =)
> 
> Has anyone here ever had their ears checked to measure if they hear a perfectly flat requency response?
> 
> ...


Well... think of it like this. If you're copying a drawing for example, and you want to make an accurate copy, then you want to copy it exactly. It doesn't matter what the guy looking at the drawing sees or if you hold the picture close or far away.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

npdang said:


> I've gone as far as taping a mic to a headband and wearing it over my ears and averaging both sides across my head


Prove it. Where are the pics?


----------



## sqkev (Mar 7, 2005)

the other hated guy said:


> have you ever tried it..you would be surprised that just by moving the mic an inch up and and inch down on how much the freq response changes... you are not getting an accurate picture using a single mic placement period!!!


I had my own rta for quite awhile now, I've been doing some mls and room measurements as well. I never said there will be no changes at all when you move the mics around, I said that even averaging the responses from moving up and down 1" both ways, you're only accounting for the midrange and tweeter frequencies in the system's response. Doing rta still does accurately measure the lower frequencies nor tel the whole picture of what you've said "tru picture of freq response in your car"


----------



## T3mpest (Dec 25, 2005)

This is such a difficult subject. With a flat measurement your basically hearing it was it was intended to be heard. However, since the record producers ears aren't the same as yours, what he felt sounded good may not sound the same to you, hence your not really hearing it as it was intended to be heard, you have a different set of ears. Overall, I've always liked MLS and RTA solutions as you can get something that will approach "correct". Then I tune by ear to suite my own personal tastes.


----------



## Rbsarve (Aug 26, 2005)

Didn't have the energy to read through all pages so if this already been stated I'm sorry.

Yes, a flat eq curve is how it was intended to sound if:
A) Your listening sourroundings are compleatly quiet.

B) Your hearing is on par with the recording engineer's.

Most rooms have a low frequency sound floor of at least 40 dB, while in a moving car you are closer to 80 dB. 
Trying to get a "correct reporduction" with a flat curve in these circumstances is like trying to do a perfect lap of Daytona with a Top fuel dragster...

If I remember correctly Buel & Kjeer recommends a gentle slope from the low frequencies upwards with about 1-2 dB less per Octave and that is what sounds natural in most rooms to me.

In a car i usally have a steeper slope between 120 and 300 Hz with a plateu from 100 Hz and down.


----------



## thadman (Mar 1, 2006)

Flat on the RTA is a good starting point, but you need to remember it is only a single point in space. Homogeneous flat power response from 20hz-20khz (at least for the first ms, beyond that _may_ not be _as_ important as our brain registers sounds 1-25ms for ambience) is what you should be trying to achieve.

Flat FR isnt always the most desirable, for example Linkwitz points out that around 1000-3000hz our ears are much less sensitive to diffuse/reflected sound that we wouldn't hear in the venue but would show up in the recording as a product of the way it was recorded. He personally compensates for this by adding a 4dB dip in that region. There are probably other situations I'm not aware of, but flat FR should definitely not be the supreme achievement although it is a great starting point.


----------



## Hi There (Mar 16, 2007)

npdang said:


> Yes, it's true the sensitivity of our ears is not flat by any means. However, that's not to be confused with the reproduction of a recorded signal in which you would want the playback device to have a flat response in order to reproduce the recording as it was originally intended.


Sorry to resurrect an old thread, but I've been gone a while (new daughter to care for). 

I keep seeing this "way it was intended" argument popping up. Even if the recording engineer himself listens to a perfectly flat reproduction of a recording he made, but selects a +6dB listening level, his ears will tell him the system has changed in frequency response (even if it has not). So, without altering, or effecting a transform of some sort on the response of another part of the system on playback, how do you suggest the listeners achieve what the engineer "originally intended", when the engineer has no control as to the volume level selected by the listener on playback? 

Let's take it back to a textbook signals analysis. I submit that:

1. Ears are part of the system of playback, with perception being the end point, and their frequency response must be considered in the same way we consider FR in every other link in the path: playback device, processor, amplifier, speaker, acoustic environment of the car, etc.
2. Ears do not have an even response, nor is it linear with regard to volume levels across all frequencies, nor are any two the same.
3. The odds you listen to music at the same volume level the engineers do during the recording process are slim.

Thus, with perception being the last stop in the chain, not the ears, if you want to experience "the recording as it was originally intended", then you _must_ compensate for the above. To do otherwise is to accept non-linearity in the response, even though it would seem it is your intent to do otherwise. 

Others will argue as to sounds in nature being the standard to which we should adhere, that if you can reproduce exactly the sound a bird makes, for example, with even frequency response and matched volume level, then you can recreate the experience of being in a forest, irregardless of the hearing ability of the listener. If a listener says, "I want the forest to sound like it did when I was five, not like it does now that I'm 55", who are we to challenge that? Is the perception of the five-year-old somehow without merit? And why should it be, when the entire industry is based around creating false perception (Dire Straits does not, in actuality, perform on the hood of my car).

I want the devices I use to have a flat response because it makes it easier to achieve my perceptual goals. But these devices, for me, are not the end of the process of creating a great listening experience.




npdang said:


> Well... think of it like this. If you're copying a drawing for example, and you want to make an accurate copy, then you want to copy it exactly. It doesn't matter what the guy looking at the drawing sees or if you hold the picture close or far away.


When I observe an artist's work, I put my glasses on. If you put a photographic measuring device in front of them, you'll find that my glasses alter the system response from what one would consider "linear", at least in terms of focus. I put them on because my eyes _also_ alter the system response, and my glasses compensate. I don't think it is the intent of most artists to present me with the perception of a blurry mess. You can make all the arguments you want about fidelity, the fact is our senses play as much a role in accurate transmission as any other part in the chain. It isn't the copy that is the end of the process. In the same way I use my glasses to correct for faults in my vision, I can use my stereo settings to correct for faults in my hearing, and for choices in volume level.


----------



## npdang (Jul 29, 2005)

I don't think that's the same thing at all. If you're copying a drawing, and you want to make an EXACT copy of it, you don't "alter" it so that someone who has vision problems would see it as an exact copy. Rather that person puts on glasses so they can see it properly. The same with reproducing a recording... that person should wear a hearing aid or similar device.

The whole reason behind this is that without seeing the original work, you have NO point of reference from which to "alter" the exact copy of the original reproduction. Sure you may know what an apple looks like, as you may know what a guitar sounds like, but you have no idea what the original rendition of that piece from which the copy was made looks like.

I'm not arguing which is the better or preferred method of reproduction. I'm only saying that IF you want to reproduce a recording accurately, as in 1:1, a necessary but not sufficient condition would be to at least have a flat frequency response in the reproduction chain.

Yes, your ears aren't linear either, but that has no effect on the accurate reproduction of a recording. Why? Because having a flat response in the reproduction chain doesn't mean you are listening to all frequencies with equal amplitude. It means that no one given frequency is reproduced with an amplitude that is out of proportion to any other as recorded. So no matter what volume you are listening at, although your ears may perceive it differently, the amount of energy at any given frequency is in proportion to any other as was originally recorded. For example, imagine listening to a guitar at low volume would sound different than it would at higher volume.... yes they sound different, but it's still the same guitar. Now why would one EQ the guitar so that it sounds the same at all volume levels to compensate for our hearing? That's not accurately reproducing what it should sound like at differing volume levels. The same as if you wouldn't alter a drawing so that it looks the same color in dark light as it did in bright light... and then say that it's an accurate reproduction of the original... because the original should look different in differing light levels.


----------



## npdang (Jul 29, 2005)

Rbsarve said:


> Didn't have the energy to read through all pages so if this already been stated I'm sorry.
> 
> Yes, a flat eq curve is how it was intended to sound if:
> A) Your listening sourroundings are compleatly quiet.
> ...


That's a valid argument. However, it could be construed as still maintaining a flat response but with noise compensation as the end goal isn't to accentuate the bass beyond what was originally intended in the recording.

#B strays into a different sort of argument other than reproduction accuracy.


----------



## Abmolech (Nov 2, 2006)

It can be a very useful tool, the question is what do you do with the information?

I suggest the use of the EQ is where the problem lies. 
When two dimensional tool can correct a three dimensional output, you may garner my attention. I notice a consistent and persistent reliance on most of these forums for electronic solutions to an acoustical problem.
Not the least of which is using a stereo output in a environment, that in no fashion resembles the intended listening space.

Use acoustical solutions and a flat RTA response may prove to be the most desired listening reproduction. Use an EQ, and the Bessel filter will impose a phase shift, which will alter the timbre.


----------



## npdang (Jul 29, 2005)

Abmolech said:


> It can be a very useful tool, the question is what do you do with the information?
> 
> I suggest the use of the EQ is where the problem lies.
> When two dimensional tool can correct a three dimensional output, you may garner my attention. I notice a consistent and persistent reliance on most of these forums for electronic solutions to an acoustical problem.
> ...


I agree completely. However, I think using nothing at all is even worse. And sometimes you're limited with what you can do given the constraints of the vehicle's interior.


----------



## Abmolech (Nov 2, 2006)

Your not trying to be practical are you? 
I see people quoting the ideal of 90 % is install etc, but having very few clues what that means, I humbly suggest in most peoples minds it is using an electronic tuning device.
The endless peddling of assorted electronic paraphernalia and drivers has not resulted in a single triumphant stereo system in a car.
How can I state that with ANY degree of confidence?
Because that combination will never achieve the desired outcome in a listening space such as a car. 
We talk about harmonic distortion, impulse response etc, but they are dwarfed by a acoustic space.

All a trained RTA scan does is provide the confirmation of a known set of acoustic difficulties. The laundering of electronic services suggests a program of social assimilation, rather than a promised outcome.


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

Abmolech said:


> All a trained RTA scan does is provide the confirmation of a known set of acoustic difficulties. The laundering of electronic services suggests a program of social assimilation, rather than a promised outcome.


Have already had that argument here. 

*Edit* Holy **** it was this thread after a quick search!

You may even notice my suggestions on doing some monophonic tuning


----------



## Hi There (Mar 16, 2007)

npdang said:


> I don't think that's the same thing at all. If you're copying a drawing, and you want to make an EXACT copy of it, you don't "alter" it so that someone who has vision problems would see it as an exact copy.


 Right, but I would argue that you are mixing the recording (copied picture or CD) with the means to enable the desired perception. I'm not saying the copier/recording engineer should pursue anything less than an exact copy, I'm saying that it is up to the listener/observer to alter the environment of reproduction to suit their particular needs. What difference does it make if I use a hearing aid, glasses, or my playback device to balance, say, a louder or softer volume level than the recording engineer was using to make the recording? It's all in the name of perception. As there are more than one direction of reference where a flat response curve varies in listener perception (volume at playback, variations in listener hearing at each frequency), I would argue that a flat response curve from the point of view of a microphone is simply what it is: A point of reference and nothing more. It's not conjecture that if you play a perfect recording on perfect reproduction equipment, then select various volume levels other than what the recording engineer used, it will not match, in a human being's perception, the same perceived response curve that the engineer enjoyed. It's a verified phenomenon. 

Remember, if your aim is to reproduce exactly what was recorded in the studio, the 1's and 0's encoded on all your CDs will only get you so far. They represent a decibel level that is entirely useless without a point of reference for volume. As far as your ears are concerned, your "flat" response curve only works at one volume level. I don't see what's wrong with dealing with that for differing volume levels, unless you're suggesting I listen to a flat system only, then volume match it every time I switch from Mozart to Motorhead. I value my hearing too much for that, and I'd much rather just use a preset EQ curve, if necessary, at a volume level of my own choosing.


----------



## SSSnake (Mar 8, 2007)

I usually don't call people out but...



> The laundering of electronic services suggests a program of social assimilation, rather than a promised outcome.


It's only audio... not some Nazi uprising.  

Gotta love the passion though!


----------



## npdang (Jul 29, 2005)

Hi There said:


> Right, but I would argue that you are mixing the recording (copied picture or CD) with the means to enable the desired perception. I'm not saying the copier/recording engineer should pursue anything less than an exact copy, I'm saying that it is up to the listener/observer to alter the environment of reproduction to suit their particular needs. What difference does it make if I use a hearing aid, glasses, or my playback device to balance, say, a louder or softer volume level than the recording engineer was using to make the recording? It's all in the name of perception. As there are more than one direction of reference where a flat response curve varies in listener perception (volume at playback, variations in listener hearing at each frequency), I would argue that a flat response curve from the point of view of a microphone is simply what it is: A point of reference and nothing more. It's not conjecture that if you play a perfect recording on perfect reproduction equipment, then select various volume levels other than what the recording engineer used, it will not match, in a human being's perception, the same perceived response curve that the engineer enjoyed. It's a verified phenomenon.
> 
> Remember, if your aim is to reproduce exactly what was recorded in the studio, the 1's and 0's encoded on all your CDs will only get you so far. They represent a decibel level that is entirely useless without a point of reference for volume. As far as your ears are concerned, your "flat" response curve only works at one volume level. I don't see what's wrong with dealing with that for differing volume levels, unless you're suggesting I listen to a flat system only, then volume match it every time I switch from Mozart to Motorhead. I value my hearing too much for that, and I'd much rather just use a preset EQ curve, if necessary, at a volume level of my own choosing.


I see what you're saying, and I'm not arguing against that if that's your preference. But, if you want to make an accurate reproduction it must be at the same reference level the recording was made at... if altered to have the same spectral balance at lower or higher volume levels, it wouldn't sound natural Imho.


----------



## Hi There (Mar 16, 2007)

npdang said:


> I see what you're saying, and I'm not arguing against that if that's your preference. But, if you want to make an accurate reproduction it must be at the same reference level the recording was made at... if altered to have the same spectral balance at lower or higher volume levels, it wouldn't sound natural Imho.


Agreed. I am well aware of, and am often caught taking advantage of, the fact that CD's sound best at a specific volume...perhaps that is, after all is said and done, the best way to experience it. Truth be told, the EQ curve on my processor is anything but exaggerated for most usage (no more than +1 or -2 in 3 areas with a wide Q), but I do use the old "U" shape when listening to rock at low volume levels.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

Bringing it back from the dead I guess.

Does anybody tune for the Fletcher-Munson curve? I imagine that's what will sound best on the ear no?


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

cvjoint said:


> Bringing it back from the dead I guess.
> 
> Does anybody tune for the Fletcher-Munson curve? I imagine that's what will sound best on the ear no?


I voice to the F-M curve for professional apps where I know what my target volume will be.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

cvjoint said:


> Bringing it back from the dead I guess.
> 
> Does anybody tune for the Fletcher-Munson curve? I imagine that's what will sound best on the ear no?


The Fletcher-Munson curve is a description of the transfer function between the ear and the brain. When you "tune", you're adjusting the transfer function between the CD and the sound waves that come from your speakers.

You don't want to adjust your FR to look like Fletcher-Munson unless you listen only to white noise and you want it to sound equally loud at all frequencies. Most of us, however, listen to music and want it to sound like music.


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

MarkZ said:


> The Fletcher-Munson curve is a description of the transfer function between the ear and the brain. When you "tune", you're adjusting the transfer function between the CD and the sound waves that come from your speakers.
> 
> You don't want to adjust your FR to look like Fletcher-Munson unless you listen only to white noise and you want it to sound equally loud at all frequencies. Most of us, however, listen to music and want it to sound like music.


Well yes and no, I have to provide for the masses and know a target volume. IMHO the reason I don't think it would work in our app is that we listen at all different volumes, except you "I got it pinned til the mid blows" Mark.  

Either way I look at it I'll end up with a F-M emulation for the volume I am at, I can do it at the house EQ and mix flat or I can tune flat and do it in the mix, but doing it in the mix starts to **** up loud and proud guitar solos, etc, and god forbid a board recording.

Chad


----------



## 60ndown (Feb 8, 2007)

the way a recording has been produced varies so much from an early 70s recording to a late 2007 a 1 set up fits all seems impossible to me.

but a 'neutral' set up from 20,000-80hz and seperate level controll on a sub seems to work well.

ime.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

chad said:


> Well yes and no, I have to provide for the masses and know a target volume. IMHO the reason I don't think it would work in our app is that we listen at all different volumes, except you "I got it pinned til the mid blows" Mark.
> 
> Chad


Stupid question: why would volume changes screw with the curve?


----------



## npdang (Jul 29, 2005)

Cvjoint, it's like this.

Back to the picture analogy. If you're copying a picture 1:1, in other words making an exact replica... you do just that. You don't alter it so that it will look the same at varying levels of light, or to compensate for poor color vision, or the nearly blind. 

Now, if you have an exact duplicate of a picture ... then you also have to reproduce the lighting conditions (among other things) as well in order to get the exact presentation of that picture when you copied it.

Same with recordings... if you play it back at a different volume level than it was recorded, it won't sound the same as the live event (obviously!). But nor should it. Would you expect a duplicate of a picture taken in regular lighting to look the same as one shown under a black light? No, because our perception of it is different (fletcher-munson for example) but that doesn't mean the photo isn't an exact duplicate. It's just one part of the equation in reproducing the actual item, but not the entire part.

What MarkZ and Chad are talking about are two different things. Mark is talking about not introducing anything new into the reproduction chain... while Chad is talking about mixing recordings before they are reproduced. It makes sense that if you are shooting for a certain volume, you would want to mix the recording so that it sounds listenable.

Think about it like this... you're recording a live concert. You know per Fletcher Munson that our ears have a different sensitivity to sound (things sound tonally different that is) depending on the volume level. You want to capture that same tonality at regular listening levels for playback in your car, which isn't going to be possible without altering the spectral balance of the recording. For example, record your voice shouting. Play it back at the same volume level, it should sound similar. But lower the volume, and now it sounds much different. You can however, go in and process that recording so that it sounds tonally similar at lower volume. 

And this is where the point of argument is... after the fact, when you're reproducing the recording should you go and alter the reproduction system to account for differences in listening volume? Personally, I don't think so. If I wanted it to sound real, I'd play it at a realistic volume... otherwise I'd rather it sound like an either louder or quieter version of the real thing... as it should be naturally.


----------



## Oliver (Jun 25, 2007)

Well said ! ^^^^


----------

