# Audiofrogs



## poker11788 (May 4, 2014)

Hey guys,

This will be more of a layman type of thoughts about the Audiofrogs.
On my way home from San Jose last week, I was listening to my system and it sounded ok. When I turned up the volume it started sounding thin and a little distorted which is a problem for a big metal head and sorry to say I was a little disappointed, I even started to second guess my choice of components.
I decided to go to meet Mike Lycancat at the MECA show to see if he could help me. We got in the car and went to work, each setting started to round out the system more and more. I started to see the light at the end of the tunnel. 

It all started to come together. I was able to hear everything every note, where every band member was supposed to be, every subtle touch on the keys of a synthesizer. The singers voice so crisp, clean and human like. There was one thing I never heard before and that was actually hearing the singers breath in before starting to sing. 

Hears How I can tell I'm happy with this SQ, I haven't listened to any metal since I left that show. Michael Jackson, Floyd, Cranberries, Rush so on and so on. 

All you need is an Awesome tuner and audio frogs. You'll be set.

One last thought, if there's anyone who's stuck on deciding their comps and Audiofrog is in the race. Choose the frogs.


----------



## SQLnovice (Jul 22, 2014)

What's your setup? Amps, drivers, dsp? etc?
Thanks


----------



## Black Scorpion (Jan 6, 2015)

Awesome, I believe just posted his build log. All Mosconis amps and processor.


----------



## Lycancatt (Apr 11, 2010)

I had never heard the audio frogs before this install, so I was pretty anxcious to work with them. the car has top notch gear and install, so I expected good fun and an easy tune.

at first I didn't like the mids at all, but that was do to positioning and overcome by crossover slope and proper time alinement, but this is true of any speaker in the challenging car environment so I wasn't surprised at all.

I usually find myself having to do multiple eq cuts in the mid/high, not using every band mind, but definitely getting the eq to do things, and in this install, I had to use a lot less eq than I thought I would have to in the compromised positions the mid/tweet are mounted in. this tells me that andy took time to listen to the car environment and understand where a home speakers shortcomings are and engineer fixes into the frequency response of the actual drivers..neat!

the real winners were the midbasses, both the op and I listen loud! they never missed a beat, took eq well, and took power even better! if I needed a highend midbass to compare with hybrid l6se, dynaudio 650 etc, these would be very high on my list, only beaten by the focal eutopia b stuff but at a higher price.


----------



## I800C0LLECT (Jan 26, 2009)

I love the GB60's. They really do an excellent job!

I've contemplated getting the GB15 and removing the GB10/GB25 combo just because I really have no excuse to change anything up now. I'm glad somebody else is enjoying Andy's hard work


----------



## poker11788 (May 4, 2014)

Black Scorpion said:


> Awesome, I believe just posted his build log. All Mosconis amps and processor.


Mosconi
Zero 1
Zero 3
Zero 4
Amas
6to8 V8
Mini controller

Audiofrogs 
GB 10's
GB 25's
GB 60's
GB 10 D4's


----------



## rawdawg (Apr 27, 2007)

I listened to your car at the meet. You certainly like your music loud. What surprised me was how stable and balanced your front stage was when you cranked it up, and those 2 10's were humpin'. Highly impressed with the 2.5's in the pillar and those 6's were sounding big, real big.


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

Cool. Thanks guys. Poker, I'm glad you like your system.


----------



## SQLnovice (Jul 22, 2014)

If i ever decide to spend the $$$, it will definitely be the AF's. Main reason is because I like my volume on a little of the loud side and just from reading about these drivers, It seems to be the best option for my listening. Thanks OP and thanks to Lycancatt for your opinion on these.


----------



## emilime75 (Jan 27, 2011)

Lycancatt said:


> ...this tells me that andy took time to listen to the car environment and understand where a home speakers shortcomings are and engineer fixes into the frequency response of the actual drivers..neat!


Uhmmm, what does that mean? Not trying to dis you or deny that alot of R&D went into the design and engineering of AF drivers, but... 

There's nothing inherently wrong with "home" speakers for use in a car as far as frequency response goes. Saying a driver has intentional response peaks and dips to make it more suitable for a car environment is the exact opposite of what you'd want in a driver. How would the designer/manufacturer know what the resulting response of a driver would be of every car/install and then try to compensate for it in the design? That's impossible, along the same lines as why one size fits all passive crossovers tend to not work right most of the time, too many variables. If anything, the goal of a good driver design/build is to try and get the raw response of a driver to be as flat as it can be in its intended pass band. Regardless if a driver is "intended" to be used in a home, car, PA...if you start with one with as flat a response as you can, then you're tuning the response faults of the environment, like the cabin of a car, and not the downfalls of said driver.

Anyway, like I said, not trying to dis you or start a piss fight. I just had a problem with the quoted comment.


----------



## poker11788 (May 4, 2014)

emilime75 said:


> Uhmmm, what does that mean? Not trying to dis you or deny that alot of R&D went into the design and engineering of AF drivers, but...
> 
> There's nothing inherently wrong with "home" speakers for use in a car as far as frequency response goes. Saying a driver has intentional response peaks and dips to make it more suitable for a car environment is the exact opposite of what you'd want in a driver. How would the designer/manufacturer know what the resulting response of a driver would be of every car/install and then try to compensate for it in the design? That's impossible, along the same lines as why one size fits all passive crossovers tend to not work right most of the time, too many variables. If anything, the goal of a good driver design/build is to try and get the raw response of a driver to be as flat as it can be in its intended pass band. Regardless if a driver is "intended" to be used in a home, car, PA...if you start with one with as flat a response as you can, then you're tuning the response faults of the environment, like the cabin of a car, and not the downfalls of said driver.
> 
> Anyway, like I said, not trying to dis you or start a piss fight. I just had a problem with the quoted comment.


Well at least you didn't dis him...

There's nothing wrong with sharing your opinion on this forum, actually it's what this forum is made of, good information and opinions about that information but when you tell someone that you don't mean to dis them before and after a post it makes me feel like you think we're all a bunch of idiots when it's painfully obvious that's exactly what you meant to do.

I hope this didn't dis you...


----------



## Lycancatt (Apr 11, 2010)

I don't feel dissed, but I think he's forgotten about marketing demands and the fact that most companies exist to sell product. engineering a hump here, and a dip here, to taylor a certains brands sound to develop brand recognition is nothing new at all.

reason I use home audio as the example is because much of home audio highend purchases are "audiophiles" who actually want the flattest response, and its quite the opposite for car audio guys looking for high end..not all mind, but for quite a lot of people, most of which would think our forum is silly, loud and showing off are big parts of there ca audio experience, and car audio specific brands know this.

case in point, I doubt many of you would like my daily tune when/if my vehicle gets finished, it will be quite far off "proper sq" but will be hugely impressive to the masses.


----------



## emilime75 (Jan 27, 2011)

Poker, chill, you've got it wrong and no, I did not mean to offend him and from his response it appears that I did not.

Lycancatt, I'm a little confused, but it appears our end goals are different so maybe our thought process differs as well. I think most people who buy "home" audio drivers for car use do so because they realize they can generally buy higher quality for less money. Marketing is marketing, and the difference between a good "home" and a good "car" driver is just that, marketing. There's been plenty of instances where car audio companies have taken home audio drivers, rebranded them as their own and resold them and at a premium compared to what the original drivers could be bought for. I'd say that companies who sell speakers for the masses sound a certain way due to a lack of R&D, and not the other way around.


----------



## I800C0LLECT (Jan 26, 2009)

I think this will help....


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Lycancatt said:


> this tells me that andy took time to listen to the car environment and understand where a home speakers shortcomings are and engineer fixes into the frequency response of the actual drivers..neat!


Are you saying that car speakers need a funky pup response as some sort of pre eq to handle the cars environment.............roflmao. BTW be it car audio or home audio, you want the speaker to have a flat response in the pass band you plan to use it in. A funky pup FR specially in the mid range will give you a crappy distortion profile, bang in the middle of the range where your ears are most sensitive to it.


----------



## Lycancatt (Apr 11, 2010)

you are right that home audio speakers are used in car a lot of the time, and I'm not saying that audiofrog engineered there speakers to sound a certain way, I am saying though that they've done there homework on knowing how there drivers will be used, ho most will install/compromise to use them, and the lack of eq I had to apply to get a very favorable result shows this. does that mean the speaker is flat? well, I cant see the graph so I don't know, but I assure you, neither myself or the original poster has any inclination to listen to boring flat sound..ever lol.


----------



## #1BigMike (Aug 17, 2014)

@poker11788

I am so glad to see that you finally got your install done. Your selection of installer/gear is excellent IMO. I know it has been a long time coming but I am sure it has been well worth the wait. 

Enjoy it sir!!!


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Lycancatt said:


> you are right that home audio speakers are used in car a lot of the time, and I'm not saying that audiofrog engineered there speakers to sound a certain way, I am saying though that they've done there homework on knowing how there drivers will be used, ho most will install/compromise to use them, and the lack of eq I had to apply to get a very favorable result shows this. does that mean the speaker is flat? well, I cant see the graph so I don't know, but I assure you, neither myself or the original poster has any inclination to listen to boring flat sound..ever lol.


The speakers need to measure a flat response, a flat response is not what you want to hear. You made an incorrect connection between the two. Why do you need a speaker with a flat response? Two reasons, first it will likely have a good distortion profile and secondly it ensures that you're combating only one element (the environment) while tuning, instead of battling the environment and the damn speaker.

BTW, you may also want to look up Andy's graphs for a speakers response, measured 1" from the cone, and then at your ears. Even the speaker with the flattest measured response is still going to get crapped up totally at ear level. Which is why you will need to use all 31 bands on the eq, qualifying a speaker as better cause you feel it needs lesser eq just means you're not listening closely enough.


----------



## Lycancatt (Apr 11, 2010)

once again, sqnut proves how backwards and uninformed he really is..

not having to use lots of eq means I'm not listening hard enough? this is the most idiotic, sig worthy, flat out wrong piece of twottle I think I've ever heard.

just because a tool is there, doesn't mean we have to use all of it.


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

I was going to get some $20 cheap HT mids but I'm think I'm sold on AF.


----------



## Lycancatt (Apr 11, 2010)

DDfusion said:


> I was going to get some $20 cheap HT mids but I'm think I'm sold on AF.



I see what you did there :3 go for the af mids, they wont do you wrong, but remember to use all 31 bands of your eq so you can get the best sound out of the, phase response be damned.


----------



## emilime75 (Jan 27, 2011)

Yes, you're misinterpreting a driver's ability to remain flat in the intended pass band vs what we want and like to hear in a finished system. I've never met anyone who liked a completely flat response by the time it reaches their ears and that's because of our inherent variable sensitivity to a given frequency. There's charts online you can look up, there's also what's known as "house curves" which correlate with our hearing and how sensitive we all are to various sound frequencies. Of course, there's no one curve to fit all, but... anyway, the point is that a driver with a flat response is desirable, after that the environment and tuning determine what we actually hear and we all taylor that to suit our own liking. 

This has clearly gone way off topic so I'll quit here. I'm glad the OP digs his system and the AF drivers. So far there's been nothing but praise about them that I've seen.


----------



## Lycancatt (Apr 11, 2010)

emilime75 said:


> Yes, you're misinterpreting a driver's ability to remain flat in the intended pass band vs what we want and like to hear in a finished system. I've never met anyone who liked a completely flat response by the time it reaches their ears and that's because of our inherent variable sensitivity to a given frequency. There's charts online you can look up, there's also what's known as "house curves" which correlate with our hearing and how sensitive we all are to various sound frequencies. Of course, there's no one curve to fit all, but... anyway, the point is that a driver with a flat response is desirable, after that the environment and tuning determine what we actually hear and we all taylor that to suit our own liking.
> 
> This has clearly gone way off topic so I'll quit here. I'm glad the OP digs his system and the AF drivers. So far there's been nothing but praise about them that I've seen.



I agree completely with you, I'm thinking I made a wording mistake? or I'm just bass ackwards and a bit odd, which wouldn't surprise me.

I know all about house curves, we use them in pro audio lots of the time, keeps life simple.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

All I know is I can't wait to get my frog set up


----------



## poker11788 (May 4, 2014)

You'll love it, awesome components!!


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Lycancatt said:


> once again, sqnut proves how backwards and uninformed he really is..
> 
> *not having to use lots of eq means I'm not listening hard enough? * this is the most idiotic, sig worthy, flat out wrong piece of twottle I think I've ever heard.
> 
> just because a tool is there, doesn't mean we have to use all of it.


Yes master tuner the bold portion is spot on. The rest is just your opinion. Since your ears are telling you this, maybe Andy's graphs will give you pause to reconsider. You didn't need to eq the AF in the mid range frequencies in a car.......now THAT is truly sig worthy. Carry on I'm out.


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

sqnut said:


> Yes master tuner the bold portion is spot on. The rest is just your opinion. Since your ears are telling you this, maybe Andy's graphs will give you pause to reconsider. You didn't need to eq the AF in the mid range frequencies in a car.......now THAT is truly sig worthy. Carry on I'm out.


Why don't you go ahead and sig that. You obviously was there to know.


----------



## poker11788 (May 4, 2014)

I'm not sure where this thread went to ****. You guys beating the **** out of each other over who's right. 

I know I'm just learning a little bit each day and all this going back and forth is WAY over my head.

However the sole purpose of this thread was to get this across to other noobs.

When I picked up my ride the Audiofrogs sounded like **** simply because no one knew the sound I was going for, after I explained what I wanted. Mike tuned it a bit, the Audiofrogs sounded better than I ever imagined they could.

In closing

If you have a limited budget pick up the frogs because when their tuned well, they'll sound like you spent 3x the amount you really did.


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

emilime75 said:


> Uhmmm, what does that mean? Not trying to dis you or deny that alot of R&D went into the design and engineering of AF drivers, but...
> 
> There's nothing inherently wrong with "home" speakers for use in a car as far as frequency response goes. Saying a driver has intentional response peaks and dips to make it more suitable for a car environment is the exact opposite of what you'd want in a driver. How would the designer/manufacturer know what the resulting response of a driver would be of every car/install and then try to compensate for it in the design? That's impossible, along the same lines as why one size fits all passive crossovers tend to not work right most of the time, too many variables. If anything, the goal of a good driver design/build is to try and get the raw response of a driver to be as flat as it can be in its intended pass band. Regardless if a driver is "intended" to be used in a home, car, PA...if you start with one with as flat a response as you can, then you're tuning the response faults of the environment, like the cabin of a car, and not the downfalls of said driver.
> 
> Anyway, like I said, not trying to dis you or start a piss fight. I just had a problem with the quoted comment.


Yes and no. 

I agree that putting wiggles in the response of the speaker as a form of "car EQ" is a ridiculous proposition. 

There are several reasons that speakers for cars can and should be developed differently than speakers for homes. 

First, reflected sound is a much greater portion of what we hear in cars. The off axis response is more important. 

Second, we often play speakers MUCH louder with a lot more power than at home. Higher power handling is helpful. This condition is important in a small midrange--like the GB25. Compared to other little mids or "widebanders", these things handle lots more power and are more efficient. This wasn't easy to accomplish. 

Third, cars reinforce bass much more than big rooms. 

Fourth, the baffle for the midbass speaker in a car is almost always a corner. This is a big deal. 6" speakers designed for home audio boxes are almost ALWAYS designed with an elevated Q. This is to make more perceived bass in boxes with small baffles, which aren't big enough to provide reinforcement at low frequencies. That higher Q IS distortion. In cars, the midbass often goes in the bottom of the door or in a KP. Those locations boost low frequencies by about 6dB. This provides an opportunity to make a midbass with a lower Q and lower distortion that will provide flatter and more accurate midbass when mounted in that location. Makes it much easier to blend with the sound of the sub. If you've wondered why the GB60 sometimes sounds thin on the sound board in the store but plays loud and clear in the car, this is one of the reasons. Another way to accomplish "more bass" in a small bookshelf speaker is to use an inductive coil to reduce the midrange response. This is also pretty common in car speakers, especially European ones. Usually that entails using a 4-layer coil instead of a more common 2-layer coil. GB speakers use a single layer, edge wound coil and a copper cap over the polepiece to minimize inductance. That provides flatter response, better heat dissipation and reduced distortion.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

My $0.02 as someone who has tested a few of the AudioFrog drivers (see the following links):
GB15
GB40
GB25



While I certainly am a fan of a speaker that measures in certain regards the 'right' way, there's also more to a speaker's usefulness than solely the electro-mechanical properties. Case in point: The driver design/fitment. Both performance and size are important in the car, where space is a premium. Both are factors in why I have been using the GB25 in my car since late Summer. It allowed me to tuck the mid/tweet together behind the pillar's line structure. Much more OEM looking and physically nothing for the listener to see. 

Thanks to the GB25's small size I was able to from this....











to this....





Look, ma, no more speakers! 
(Worth noting: I do plan to cover the pillars in a tan to match the OEM but the stuff is no longer made so I didn't want to use it until I knew this install was going to stay this way)


I considered _numerous_ options when I decided that having big speakers sitting on the dash was something I could no longer stand to look at. One obvious option for its small size was the Aura 2" whisper + tweeter... but the Aura couldn't cross low enough to provide me the flexibility I needed since I needed a midbass-to-midrange crossover in the 300-400hz region, comfortably, with considerable output. Same thing for some of the tymphany/vifa options... faital pro, scan 10f (one of my all time favorites), etc, etc.... They either couldn't handle what I'd throw at them or were too large. I needed a small driver that could do the things I needed it to do because I couldn't stand to look at 5.25" mids and a 1" tweeter anymore. It was just distracting, mentally, to look at. 

Both setups - the previous and the new setup - sound great in their own regard but the latter is much better for numerous reasons. It not only allowed me to get past the issue of seeing the speaker, but it's small size allowed me to get the speaker away from the driver's side window which always caused a stage 'skew' where the left side of the stage depth started closer to me than the right side. When I moved the mid from that area, the stage became much more symmetrical in terms of depth to stage (and thus depth of stage) as well as in terms of width. There is no longer a trapezoidal stage; it's much more symmetrical between the left and right sides. Even before the previous setup, I used to have a concentric and moving the tweeter away from the mid helped get rid of some issues off the nearside window but then I had issues with cohesion that I didn't feel time alignment properly resolved to the magnitude of physically placing the mid/tweeter together. 


Sure, the GB25 costs anywhere from 2-10x as much as other 2-3" mids, but it's small frame size combined with it's relatively high linear excursion, smooth response about an octave above beaming, good polar response (on/off axis response matching), and thermal handling all are reasons why the driver is worth, at least to me, that price differential. Most of the common 2-3" drivers simply cannot be crossed as low as I needed and some have poor off-axis response which is important to me because you still have to mate a tweeter to it. At this point, the GB25 is certainly in my top 3 favorite drivers. To date, there is no other driver with this same footprint that can cover the same bandwidth as effectively. That was worth paying for.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

ErinH said:


> My $0.02 as someone who has tested a few of the AudioFrog drivers (see the following links):
> GB15
> GB40
> GB25
> ...


Erin! Awesome man! I once tested a GB 15 too. I have the data at work, will post to compare when I get to work in a couple of hours. I also once tuned a full Audiofrog system. 

The GB15 in this particular system had the lowest extending freq. response of any tweeter I've yet measured. It also had the least HF extension. 

It was almost like a small midrange, versus a large tweeter?? 

Incredible build quality. 

I like the stuff myself. 

I think the lack of HF extension is to be expected, it is a rather large tweeter.

I really want to get my hands on a GB10.

I also contacted Andy to make sure my data and testing methodology was at least somewhat correct. He gave me a "yep, that looks about right" response  ........ which pleased me greatly.


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

Andy don't say car audio brands design speakers to be used in a car!! That's blasphemy around here.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

Ok, so here is some quasi-anechoic, raw unwindowed free-air, and in car data of the GB15.

my overall impression of Audiofrog speakers thus far: Love 'em.


----------



## Lycancatt (Apr 11, 2010)

good to know about the gb15, I was seriously considering it as the tweeter in my build but because I will need that hf extention and will have a 4 or 5 mid to give me the output I need, I might look into the gb10 instead. judges like "open airy" sound and those upper harmonics not being there would possibly be a problem.

since I cant see the response graph, how far down does the db go up top? and where does it start? also, do you guys think any of it would be reinforced by reflections in the car? I doubt it up that high but still..


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

while i was quite impressed with the Audiofrog GB15 for a few different reasons.....I must say high frequency extension is not it's strong point.

BUT, nor should it be. That's what the GB10 is for, my understanding anyways.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

If you want on _and_ off axis extension then you have to go with a smaller tweeter. At what point that begins to matter (where beaming occurs in the HF) is up for debate. Most importantly is how well the on/off axis response track with each other.


----------



## Lycancatt (Apr 11, 2010)

I like on axis for tweeters and slightly off axis for mids personally, no idea why, but that's just what sounds right to me in a car, I'd wager it comes down to reflections and how they interact by the time the sound hits my ear.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

and that would probably change depending on the driver's polar response. some may sound better than others on axis simply based on their polar response (in regards both to it's beaming point and how well the off-axis response tracks the on-axis). and vice versa.


this is a FINE example of why *proper* measurements of a raw driver are important and why it is also important to test placement and aiming of whatever drivers you are considering. then maybe you can draw a correlation between the measured responses and what works best in your car for a given install. and to think... we still have people debating over measurements' usefulness...


----------



## I800C0LLECT (Jan 26, 2009)

I'm with Erin...before I REALLY want to hack things up I tried the GB10 in my A-pillar and practiced building those out while using the GB25 in my kicks. The initial practice attempt for A-pillar didn't go so well. Anyways, I switched focus to location and performance.

Although I still want to throw the GB25's in the A-pillar I have a very solid stage with them in the kicks. I placed the GB60's under the seats. It was a compromise based on the success from BMW's. I'm floored at how pronounced and well cued the system is overall. I may use the doors later just because I want to add under-seat drawers. The thicker windshield used for my hybrid helps a lot with reflections too. In all of this...it's the GB25 that allows so much flexibility in driver use and placement.

I think a strong mid-range like this is a keystone.

I'm really glad people are talking more about their experience because I can't wait to see what else Audiofrog decides to release.

I just wish I had the ability to give my vehicle over to a place like simplicity in sound.





























Really glad you have such a nice build poker! Wish I could hear it


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Niick said:


> Erin! Awesome man! I once tested a GB 15 too. I have the data at work, will post to compare when I get to work in a couple of hours. I also once tuned a full Audiofrog system.
> 
> The GB15 in this particular system had the lowest extending freq. response of any tweeter I've yet measured. It also had the least HF extension.
> 
> ...


There's not more than a dog whistle above 14k seems that the gb tweeter should be ok . Play it down to 2k or so 

Heck I would be thrilled to have that tweeter


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

Lycancatt said:


> ......since I cant see the response graph, how far down does the db go up top? and where does it start? also, do you guys think any of it would be reinforced by reflections in the car? I doubt it up that high but still..


Help me understand exactly which part you're wanting to see and Ill zoom in and re-post a better pic for ya. 

Maybe this will help, this is the same curve from the last post, in-car, POST EQ/Xover, multi-mic array, spatially averaged, 1/3 octave SMOOTHING applied.


----------



## SQToyota (May 14, 2015)

If i dont like my morel integra 402's this wil probably be where i end up. Ill have to listen to them when i can. Have wanted to hear auduofrog


----------



## SQToyota (May 14, 2015)

He needs it described. I would but i have no idea what im looking at


----------



## Guest (Dec 15, 2015)

ErinH said:


> Thanks to the GB25's small size I was able to from this....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Erin,

That looks WONDERFUL, I love it.... Getting that much of the frequency band up that high and NOT be able to see anything... just spectacular sir !


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

ErinH said:


>


for a second i thought you ditched your whole system.. that actually looks awesome


----------



## rton20s (Feb 14, 2011)

Erin, I appreciate your feedback and the sharing of your testing of the Audiofrogs. Other than holding them in my hand at the SIS event last year, I still have no experience with the AF drivers. I look forward to getting ears on a properly tuned install. 

Any chance you've had a chance to demo the Illusion C3? It seems to me it would be one of the closest matches to the GB25 available. It would be interesting to see how the two stacked up objectively and subjectively. I would loan you my set for testing, but I extract too much joy from listening to them in my car every day.


----------



## Lanson (Jan 9, 2007)

Niick, I don't think you understand why Lycancatt (Mike) can't "see" your graph, but let me help you.

Close your eyes. 

Keep them closed.


Now, do you see your graph? 


Mike is blind, he's doing this entirely without sight. So whenever he says he hasn't seen it, he's being quite literal.


----------



## rton20s (Feb 14, 2011)

fourthmeal said:


> Niick, I don't think you understand why Lycancatt (Mike) can't "see" your graph, but let me help you.
> 
> Close your eyes.
> 
> ...


I don't think he is going to be able to read the last half of your post.


----------



## Babs (Jul 6, 2007)

I'm in a predicament. You guys talking 'Frogs.. Doggonit.. I have GS42's staring at me on shelf. Coaxials. If I place in my Si pillars (same as Erin's) it'd be a lot like Erin's earlier bulbous look, but I'm dying to try them. While quite a compact and lovely little driver, it's a bit fat for my A-pillar areas still. I was hoping they'd fit right in there. There's hope there if Erin can cram Satori 5's in there, doggonit some 4 inchers aughta go, right? Bigger hammer.

Would be a nobrainer if I didn't have D3004 and 10F scanspeaks right next to them on the same shelf, that would allow something closer to Erin's "after" shot as the 10F is more petite mid-range and would actually recess into the window a bit.

So... In effort, cuz I really wanna know, I'm gonna fit up the frogs again and see if pods might be done without touching the actual pillar panel itself, loaded with the GS's.. If so, I'm gonna find some PVC end caps or something for a, non-optimal of course, make-shift enclosure to mount them, throw 'em in and test some more. Just playing free air, I tell ya, they were very very nice. Yeah dat's right, I said Coax's. LOL!

You can see it'd take a big hammer to pound 'em in there.. My kingdom for an inch. (that's what she said).

















Maybe something like this SIS build, granted it'd be more than slightly protruding.


----------



## Lanson (Jan 9, 2007)

You know what I really like about AF? Everything looks awesome with its grilles on.

Can't say that with a bunch of other brands, and it means a custom installer has less crazy work to do sometimes.


----------



## Babs (Jul 6, 2007)

fourthmeal said:


> You know what I really like about AF? Everything looks awesome with its grilles on.
> 
> Can't say that with a bunch of other brands, and it means a custom installer has less crazy work to do sometimes.



That's a fact. The GB line has the best thought out grill and mounting hardware I've seen yet in a car speaker. 

The GS's have the same grill with a simpler full flange ring single piece rather than separate flange and flush trim ring. Easy enough.. Just do flush DIY ring then press-fit the provided frog grill. Just won't have the nice chrome ring around it. But if space allows, a guy can use the full flange ring. 


Sent from iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

fourthmeal said:


> Niick, I don't think you understand why Lycancatt (Mike) can't "see" your graph, but let me help you.
> 
> Close your eyes.
> 
> ...


ok, I'm sorry about that. i sincerely spaced that out. ok.....I'll work on a description. Again, I sincerely apologize.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

oabeieo said:


> There's not more than a dog whistle above 14k seems that the gb tweeter should be ok . Play it down to 2k or so
> 
> Heck I would be thrilled to have that tweeter


the owner of the vehicle with the the GB15s wants more H.F. extension. As Lycancatt said, the "air" of the recordings is not as present. It's -6dB down at 10K. 

NOW, IM NOT SAYING I don't like this tweeter, quite the opposite.

What I would like to do, is use this tweeter with a smaller "super tweeter" covering 10K-ish and above. 

I would really like to try that.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

Lycancatt said:


> good to know about the gb15, I was seriously considering it as the tweeter in my build but because I will need that hf extention and will have a 4 or 5 mid to give me the output I need, I might look into the gb10 instead. judges like "open airy" sound and those upper harmonics not being there would possibly be a problem.
> 
> since I cant see the response graph, how far down does the db go up top? and where does it start? also, do you guys think any of it would be reinforced by reflections in the car? I doubt it up that high but still..


my apologies for not fully grasping what you meant when you said you couldn't see the graph. 
So, after EQ, the passband was very flat from right about 2 to 8.5K, where its down 2.5dB on either end. Past 8.5K, it continues to fall to -6dB at 10k, after that it levels off a bit to right around 15 or 16K, then steadily and steeply rolls off to about -18dB at 22K, which is nyqist. 

The data was taken with three calibrated Dayton EMM6's in an array, oriented two directions (vertically and horizontally) and spatially averaged.


----------



## Babs (Jul 6, 2007)

Niick said:


> the owner of the vehicle with the the GB15s wants more H.F. extension. As Lycancatt said, the "air" of the recordings is not as present. It's -6dB down at 10K.
> 
> NOW, IM NOT SAYING I don't like this tweeter, quite the opposite.
> 
> ...


Couldn't see a pic but I wonder how on/off axis the tweeter is placed?


----------



## Lanson (Jan 9, 2007)

They are very off-axis, for a smooth look for the pillars.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

Babs said:


> Couldn't see a pic but I wonder how on/off axis the tweeter is placed?


In the vehicle I was talking about, the GB15s were in the sail panels in the doors, molded in custom pods, very "factory appearing".....which I like.

They ended up being....oh....MAYBE about 75 degrees or a little more for the near tweeter, slightly less than that for the far one. I don't say "left and right" with this particular car because the system was tuned for PASSENGER seat SQ, rather than driver seat. 

It a vehicle used by a rep for demos.

Hard for me to say exactly as I don't have any pics of the install


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

Well, if they're WAY off axis, then the measurements make at least some sense. Dispersion is a function of diaphragm size. The GB15, measured on axis an anechoically doesn't flal off steeply above 10k. Niick, your measurement looks like it includes a 10k low pass filter.


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

Niick said:


> Ok, so here is some quasi-anechoic, raw unwindowed free-air, and in car data of the GB15.
> 
> my overall impression of Audiofrog speakers thus far: Love 'em.



It also looks like you've measured this tweeter mounted in a baffle. The dip at 12k is a function of the height of the dome above the baffle. That exists in all dome tweeters--except inverted domes--they behave a little differently. We don't often mount a tweeter in a flat baffle in a car.


----------



## Babs (Jul 6, 2007)

My SB29's measure with the high end falling off like a brick after 10khz.. Mainly because my old Dell has no output sound I have to measure via noise in REW's RTA function rather than sweeps. And that's with tweeters right on axis, measuring mic at 0 degrees. To my ears though, it's all there.

graph


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> Well, if they're WAY off axis, then the measurements make at least some sense. Dispersion is a function of diaphragm size. The GB15, measured on axis an anechoically doesn't flal off steeply above 10k. Niick, your measurement looks like it includes a 10k low pass filter.


I thought the same thing. But, after checking over the install (which I did not perform) It seems the signal was fed into a Helix DSP (8ch) from the factory ford H.U. From there it went out to a single multi-ch Diamond Audio amplifier, and finally on to the speakers. 

I had very little time to tune the vehicle, which was in dire need of help, as the install and tuning was performed by a local shop....I want to, but I can't say any more.....

The reality is, the installation FABRICATION was.......very, very good. 

The system tuning on the other hand, and this was attempt #2 for them.....yeah....well as an example, I couldn't for the life of me make sense of why the sub's response (also an Audiofrog unit) dropped like a rock above 40Hz.

It wasn't set that way in the DSP!!! So what the hell. I had a huge gap in response down low where the sub handed off to the 6 1/2"

Not looking forward to disassembling someone else's custom work, I gained access to the amplifier to find that the low pass filter ON THE AMPLIFIER was engaged and the dial turned FULLY counter clockwise, I think the markings on the amp had it set to 30Hz.....AND BELOW!!!

WTF!!

So yeah, there ya go. High end fabrication.......sure. Knowing what the **** they're doing with the myriad of variables that comes with a fully active DSP controlled system tuning....not a chance. 

SO MANY shops/installer spend their entire careers learning how to fabricate, they'll have thousands upon thousands of dollars worth of tools for the purpose. They'll attend training after training, all in the name of fabrication. 

But when they talk about the idea of purchasing and learning to use equipment like I have, the conversation often turns to, "it's all about return on investment, why would a shop spend thousands of dollars in that stuff, and all the time it takes to learn to use and maintain it.....when what they have now is working...."

Well clearly it wasn't working for these guys. 

Anyways, I'll get off my soapbox. 

I say all this because, looking back...you might very well be right Andy. I wouldn't put it past 'em. My time was so limited, I had to download the Helix DSP gui (as this was my first helix tune), install it, work out the bugs (which were my own fault, to anybody who says "well I've installed the helix DSP gui and I didn't have any problems"....good for you!...I did have problems, they were small and relatively quickly figured out....) tune the system, all in a few hours. 

I am wanting to get some more time with said vehicle, when I do, I'll measure the electrical signal at each point in the chain, find out what's truly going on there. 

In fact, I think I'll email the owner right now and see if we can't schedule a time. 


I'll report back with updated data


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

Babs said:


> My SB29's measure with the high end falling off like a brick after 10khz.. Mainly because my old Dell has no output sound I have to measure via noise in REW's RTA function rather than sweeps. And that's with tweeters right on axis, measuring mic at 0 degrees. To my ears though, it's all there.
> 
> graph


not the case here. This data is accurate. It could be, like Andy said, the electrical signal feeding the tweeter being attenuated..rolled off....crossed over.....however you want to say it...up high.

BUT, if that is the case, it isn't a setting on the amp now that I think about it. I remember when I found the problem within the sub channel, I looked at all the other settings on the amp to be DAMN SURE they didn't do anything else stupid.

So that leaves the helix DSP, which, I suppose I might have had a low pass filter engaged on the tweeter channels......it was the first time I had ever worked with a helix, and I had only a couple hours to do so by the time I got all the Pre-Tune Bugs worked out. 

Or it could be the signal feeding the helix. 

I'll get it figured out.


----------



## Babs (Jul 6, 2007)

Niick said:


> not the case here. This data is accurate. It could be, like Andy said, the electrical signal feeding the tweeter being attenuated..rolled off....crossed over.....however you want to say it...up high.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Once you get the hang of the Helix tool you'll be hooked. Best I've seen yet and AF continues to refine it, making me even more a Helix fanboi. 


Sent from iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> It also looks like you've measured this tweeter mounted in a baffle. The dip at 12k is a function of the height of the dome above the baffle. That exists in all dome tweeters--except inverted domes--they behave a little differently. We don't often mount a tweeter in a flat baffle in a car.


yeah, I remember you telling me that, but the thing is....ITS NOT in a baffle. It's mounted on a 1/4" wide metal pole, about 6 feet off the ground. I actually sent you a pic of the measurement setup when I took the data. The shop in the background makes it kinda hard to pick out the pole and tweeter because it's so thin. But no, it wasn't in a baffle.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

Babs said:


> Once you get the hang of the Helix tool you'll be hooked. Best I've seen yet and AF continues to refine it, making me even more a Helix fanboi.
> 
> 
> Sent from iPhone using Tapatalk


yeah, it's without a doubt my favorite too, and I only used it once. For my workflow, the delay group feature is invaluable.


----------



## Babs (Jul 6, 2007)

Niick said:


> yeah, it's without a doubt my favorite too, and I only used it once. For my workflow, the delay group feature is invaluable.



Explaining to guys who use something like a 99RS for DSP is the thing.. Being able to group and relatively adjust makes a huge world of difference. My tune is ok at the moment but I want to save it and try fresh again using the shelf filter for broad shaping as well before EQ work to bring my mids to the curve. First and last bands in EQ will allow switching to that. Thus fewer cuts for the final product. The capabilities are limited only by your imagination. 


Sent from iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

Babs said:


> Explaining to guys who use something like a 99RS for DSP is the thing.. Being able to group and relatively adjust makes a huge world of difference. My tune is ok at the moment but I want to save it and try fresh again using the shelf filter for broad shaping as well before EQ work to bring my mids to the curve. First and last bands in EQ will allow switching to that. Thus fewer cuts for the final product. The capabilities are limited only by your imagination.
> 
> 
> Sent from iPhone using Tapatalk


 I like it.....i like it a lot!


----------



## Lycancatt (Apr 11, 2010)

thanks for keeping this thread alive with good info! it is very much appreciated as af has my full attention right now..very good stuff and well built and I cant wait to get some of my own..if the gb25 is any indication of there quality I really want to try the gb40s.

sorry if I was unclear on why I couldn't see the graphs..i don't think of myself as blind half the time lol, so I forget I should probably elaborate when I say I cant see something.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

Lycancatt said:


> thanks for keeping this thread alive with good info! it is very much appreciated as af has my full attention right now..very good stuff and well built and I cant wait to get some of my own..if the gb25 is any indication of there quality I really want to try the gb40s.
> 
> sorry if I was unclear on why I couldn't see the graphs..i don't think of myself as blind half the time lol, so I forget I should probably elaborate when I say I cant see something.


what I'll do when I get back to work, is take the GB15, I have access to a pair of them, (the ones in the car were not the same ones I tested free-air) ill re-run the measurements, use a few different mics, document the input signal frequency range and amplitude, the distance from the tweeter to the floor, the first reflection, the mounting hardware, all that stuff. 

We'll see if there might be a flaw in my testing methodology that is leading me to these unexpected results. 

I'm always wanting to learn more about testing loudspeakers.


----------



## Bluenote (Aug 29, 2008)

Has anyone compared the GB60 with any of the dominate 8" available? Illusion C8, ZR800 and such? Really want an 8" and wondered if there could be a GB80 coming down the line?


----------



## rton20s (Feb 14, 2011)

Bluenote said:


> Has anyone compared the GB60 with any of the dominate 8" available? Illusion C8, ZR800 and such? Really want an 8" and wondered if there could be a GB80 coming down the line?


I would love to see some feedback from people with considerable experience with the ZR800 compare the two. Perhaps Erin? He has lots of experience with the ZR800 and has been testing/implementing some of the new Audiofrog gear. I know the ZR800 has the capability to move more air, given fairly similar Xmax but greater Sd. But there is obviously a whole lot more to performance than just moving air.


----------



## Bluenote (Aug 29, 2008)

Thanks for the feedback, I am looking at the ZR for its stated performance and price point. But I would really consider paying more for something from AF in an 8".


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> It also looks like you've measured this tweeter mounted in a baffle. The dip at 12k is a function of the height of the dome above the baffle. That exists in all dome tweeters--except inverted domes--they behave a little differently. We don't often mount a tweeter in a flat baffle in a car.


So no baffle. Hmmm. What I'm not fully understanding is why the EQ settings seem to create a brick wall at 10k. Are you using EQ settings that the analyzer outputs? Does it EQ above 10k? Sometimes algorithms designed for room correction in big rooms don't EQ that high. I had this debate at Harman when we were developing MS-8. The engineers insisted that high frequency EQ wasn't valid. I insisted that valid or not, it contributed an improvement in cars. After a few listening tests, they agreed to include it, even though it is NOT included when the same algorithm is included in room correction for home audio.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

Hey Andy, I just got to work, hopefully if i gett some time later i can run some more measurements of the GB15. So, just to kinda clarify, this here is the out of car, secured to 1/4" thin metal pole 6 feet off the ground, measurement (0, 45, 90...of course)

upper graph: the IR is windowed to remove floor reflection 

lower graph: raw, unwindowed, 1/12 octave smoothing


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

And then here is black trace raw, out of car 45degree data from above, overlaid against the pre-EQ (but post xover) in car left and right measurements


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

ok everybody Ive had a little free time at work today, here is a pic of the measurement setup... I'm re-testing those Audiofrog GB15 tweeters 

so no baffle


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

And here is the data from tweeter #1 (im gonna test the pair)

45 degree and 0 degree, three traces for each (3 different EMM6 mics)


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

That looks pretty similar to what we measure. What are you using to drive the tweeter?


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> That looks pretty similar to what we measure. What are you using to drive the tweeter?


so, I run the digital out of my Tascam US1800 tithe digital in of a cheapie pioneer receiver. This cheap pioneer receiver actually works well for testing purposes like this, as it has a very flat freq. response from below 20Hz to above 20Khz. And, believe it or not, has no problem driving lower impedance loads, like factory 2ohm Bose drivers. Never had it shut down on me, not once. Not unless I literally short the output.

Anyways, I generate periodic pink noise with SysTune, and I also use log sweeps, I've been learning about the benefits of data acquisition using log sweeps (like REW, but real time).

I got really busy the last day and a half at work, never got to post the rest of the data.


----------



## Lanson (Jan 9, 2007)

Goddamn that's a smooth response, nice tweet!


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

I think the next thing to figure out is why whatever you're using to EQ or to generate filters isn't correcting the response above 10k.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

So, the EQ of the in-car response traces was a Helix. The EQ is totally manual of course. I often will let a tweeter just roll off naturally on the top end, which was probably my thinking when I tuned tis vehicle. I remember being impressed/intrigued by how wide of a bandwidth this tweeter covered, I crossed it lower than any tweeter I've yet worked with. 

I do remember thinking," Geeze, it's down 6dB or so at 10k? Must be because its so big??"

I hadn't yet encountered that kinda roll off on the top end of a tweeter in car at this point.

Looking back, probably ahold have applied some EQ above 10k to follow target, I might have been afraid of how much boost I would have been using. I've also been thinking, maybe next time ill cut down the entire passband about 4-5 dB or so, this way matching target above 10k won't require tons of boost.

Speaking of matching target......EVERYTHING in SysTune is COMPLETELY manual. There is no auto EQ function whatsoever. SysTune does have a feature called "virtual EQ" which allows you to simulate the effects of different EQ/Xover filter settings on the data, but this too is completely manual. It doesn't do any kind of automated "match to target" filter generation at all. It's entirely up to the user to come up with any and all necessary EQ filter settings, and it is entirely up to the user to interpret the data shown on the screen. 

This is part of the reason the learning curve is so steep. Nothing whatsoever is automated. 

Wait, I take that back, there is one plug-in that comes with the program called Delay Analysis, it's EXTREMELY handy. You choose two saved overlays to put into delay analysis (one saved trace is the "delay" and the other is the "reference"), and it will show you what their response WILL be IF you delay the "delay trace" by X-milliseconds. Also it shows you what the response WILL be if you invert the polarity of one of the traces. It predicts this in all data display types, so in other words, it will show you what the phase response (of both the delayed trace and the resulting summation) will change to, the IR, ETC, Magnitude, everything. It's like acoustic analysis and prediction. 

Anyways, that's IT for automation with SysTune.


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

The tweeter is mounted WAY off axis. You're going to have to boost at the top to get the info above 10k back. 

Ideally, tweeters should be within about 30-degrees. In a 3-way, aiming the midrange and midbass isn't really necessary so long as you can cross in an area where the dispersion is wide.


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

Niick said:


> I thought the same thing. But, after checking over the install (which I did not perform) It seems the signal was fed into a Helix DSP (8ch) from the factory ford H.U. From there it went out to a single multi-ch Diamond Audio amplifier, and finally on to the speakers.
> 
> I had very little time to tune the vehicle, which was in dire need of help, as the install and tuning was performed by a local shop....I want to, but I can't say any more.....
> 
> ...


I heard this truck about three or four weeks ago and I thought it sounded pretty good. I also had a go with tuning it a few months ago.


----------



## XSIV SPL (Jun 24, 2014)

Niick said:


> So, the EQ of the in-car response traces was a Helix. The EQ is totally manual of course. I often will let a tweeter just roll off naturally on the top end, which was probably my thinking when I tuned tis vehicle. I remember being impressed/intrigued by how wide of a bandwidth this tweeter covered, I crossed it lower than any tweeter I've yet worked with.


You didn't mention; what was the crossover frequency you used?


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> I heard this truck about three or four weeks ago and I thought it sounded pretty good. I also had a go with tuning it a few months ago.


Yes, he (the owner) told me that you had gratiously worked on the tuning for after the original setup. He said it was way better after you had worked on it, but that your guys' time was cut short/very limited, so you weren't able to completely go thru it. Then, just before I got ahold of it, he took it back again to the original place to have it gone thru completely. 

It was after this that I worked on the vehicle.

I'm glad you though it sounded ok. I did too, despite the upper end rolloff. You definitely have a much better memory of listening axis of the tweeters, as its been some time now since I saw the vehicle. I remember the tweeter pods being in the sail panels of the doors, but didn't have a clear memory of how far off axis the listening positio was relative to the tweeters.

It totally makes sense, and, as a beneficial side effect of this recent exercise, after re-examining the GB15 data, in-car and free-air, I've come to realize that even though the car's interior seriously modifies the speakers response, you can still see the general response in the car that you measured free-air.

The in car data follows very closely the very off axis data. Before all this, I never really took the time to compare the quasi-anechoic with the in-car. This has sent me on a whole new quest.... 

I do suppose, that similar to the fact that the mid bass/midrange always seems to be the most heavily effected by the vehicle interior, so too would the out-of-car data be more dissimilar to the in-car data. As compares to the tweeters? Yes?

I hope that made some sense!


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

XSIV SPL said:


> You didn't mention; what was the crossover frequency you used?


I don't recall, I have the helix setup file in one of my laptops at work. I'll try to remember to post it when I get there tomorrow. I do remember that the ACOUSTIC crossover was about 1.8ish......or so....I'll look it up tomorrow 

I usually (and I did on this vehicle ) run a quick impedance sweep of the tweeter before I tune a vehicle, this way I know what Fs is and this helps me ro establish known boundaries or parameters to stay above. I usually will shoot for 2x Fs minimum. This, coupled with coherence (a type of measurent data) and experience help me to determine my crossover settings. If I come to a "fork in the road" so to speak, an indecision about what settings to use, this is when I'll take advantage of a processors multiple presets as a tuning aide. I'll duplicate a tuning on two presets, duplicate everything except that which I'm indecisive about, then let listening tests and logic lead me for indecision to decision.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

I've also been thinking, that since using log sweeps as your excitation signal yields an IR/ETC with convieniently place distortion energy at the end (or wrapped back around to "before") the IR, and knowing that a speaker produces the most distortion at resonance, AND that (especially with tweeters) we always try to stay higher than resonance, thatby using log sweeps and looking at the pre-ETC distortion levels we can maybe use that to help determine crossover settings? Maybe? I haven't actually tried to impliment this technique yet, but it makes sense in my head!


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

Here is a picture of a home speaker I built with GB60s and GB15s. The waveguide is designed to match the dispersion of the tweeter to the dispersion of the midrange at the crossover frequency. The waveguide is ALSO designed to boost the output of the tweeter at low frequencies by about 11dB. That allows for a lot of cut in the EQ at the tweeter's low frequencies, so a crossover of 1k works fine. In addition, the box for the GB60 is vented--tuned to 55Hz. The port is a big 3" port with a giant flare which also dramatically reduces distortion at low frequencies around Fb


----------



## Babs (Jul 6, 2007)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> The tweeter is mounted WAY off axis. You're going to have to boost at the top to get the info above 10k back.
> 
> Ideally, tweeters should be within about 30-degrees. In a 3-way, aiming the midrange and midbass isn't really necessary so long as you can cross in an area where the dispersion is wide.


Yep, I'll never go back to off-axis after experiencing it. 

Might you mean rather than boosting >10khz, cutting <10khz to bring the rest of the tweeter down to the extention presence up top that's killed by placement? Cutting rather than boosting being the operative word for risk of distortion. Would be the way I'd approach it. Six in one hand, half dozen in another.


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

Babs said:


> Yep, I'll never go back to off-axis after experiencing it.
> 
> Might you mean rather than boosting >10khz, cutting <10khz to bring the rest of the tweeter down to the extention presence up top that's killed by placement? Cutting rather than boosting being the operative word for risk of distortion. Would be the way I'd approach it. Six in one hand, half dozen in another.


Boosting with the EQ and then reducing the gain of the whole channel is the same...


----------



## Babs (Jul 6, 2007)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> Here is a picture of a home speaker I built with GB60s and GB15s. The waveguide is designed to match the dispersion of the tweeter to the dispersion of the midrange at the crossover frequency. The waveguide is ALSO designed to boost the output of the tweeter at low frequencies by about 11dB. That allows for a lot of cut in the EQ at low frequencies, so a crossover of 1k works fine. In addition, the box for the GB60 is vented--tuned to 55Hz. The port is a big 3" port with a giant flare which also dramatically reduces distortion at low frequencies around Fb


Should post some more pics of those bad boys on the FB page! I thought they were dead sexy! I'm contemplating doing a pair myself since I've got TB mids wasting away on shelf. Maybe some tall skinny 2-way floor-standers even. Plus I saw Hypex DSP plate amps available as well for us newbs with little passive crossover skills might do the trick.


----------



## Babs (Jul 6, 2007)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> Boosting with the EQ and then reducing the gain of the whole channel is the same...


Gotcha
Side-note as I remembered you had some face time with REW a bit, that's a nice thing in the EQ section that'll allow you to spec a maximum boost of zero when having REW come up with filters to bring the graph to match a curve, as well as specifying the maximum individual boost (I use 2db). Thus while there may be boosts here and there of some significance, the overall boost amount will be zero.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

Andy, those speakers are ****IN AWESOME dude!!! My love for audio actually began as a very young (maybe around 2nd, 3rd grade) child with home audio. Although I work in car audio I still read and research and just generally drool over home audio. 

I bet those would make a kickass pair of recording monitors, aside from maybe the rear firing port?? 

I'm using a pair of KEF Q6s as reference and recoding monitors at the shop so I can have an on the spot reference of how a song should sound (imaging wise), I feel this can only help me during tunings. I brought my speakers to work to use for that purpose and as recording monitoring for my live instrument recording projects. 

I feel that my lowly little KEFs would cower in fear in the presence of your HD 2.1 DSP


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

Andy, when you say that a crossover of 1k works fine for the GB15, you're talking about the electrical filter, yes? Also, what slope is 1k good for?


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

Niick said:


> Andy, those speakers are ****IN AWESOME dude!!! My love for audio actually began as a very young (maybe around 2nd, 3rd grade) child with home audio. Although I work in car audio I still read and research and just generally drool over home audio.
> 
> I bet those would make a kickass pair of recording monitors, aside from maybe the rear firing port??
> 
> ...


A 55Hz wave is nearly 20 feet long. What's wrong with a rear firing port?


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

Niick said:


> Andy, when you say that a crossover of 1k works fine for the GB15, you're talking about the electrical filter, yes? Also, what slope is 1k good for?


I wouldn't do a 1k crossover without the waveguide. The point is that the waveguide boost allows an EQ of cut of about 12dB at 1k. That reduces the power around those frequencies to 1/16x. That's why there's almost no distortion despite the fact that I've crossed the tweeter below resonance. This waveguide is too big for a car. The effective part is about 5" in diameter. Better off doing a 3-way in a car for the same kind of performance.

This is also why we make the GB Series tweeters about 6dB more sensitive than the mids. That does two things--allows some boost and cut in the passive crossover AND allows you to reduce the amplifier's gain in an active system to prolong tweeter life AND to reduce system noise.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> A 55Hz wave is nearly 20 feet long. What's wrong with a rear firing port?


no, don't get me wrong, I don't know....hence the question mark. I wasn't sure if a rear firing port was good for recording monitor use, to me it would seem no problem, but then I think of some of the great monitors I've seen over the years, a specific pair of Genelc's come to mind.... And they all seem to use front firing ports.????

Not that your intention was to build a pair of recording monitors anyway.

No, if ya asked me, they would be AWESOME for monitoring. I just wasn't sure ???? about the rear firing port, if there was maybe some reason recording monitors often seem to use front firing.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> I wouldn't do a 1k crossover without the waveguide. The point is that the waveguide boost allows an EQ of cut of about 12dB at 1k. That reduces the power around those frequencies to 1/16x. That's why there's almost no distortion despite the fact that I've crossed the tweeter below resonance. This waveguide is too big for a car. The effective part is about 5" in diameter. Better off doing a 3-way in a car for the same kind of performance.
> 
> This is also why we make the GB Series tweeters about 6dB more sensitive than the mids. That does two things--allows some boost and cut in the passive crossover AND allows you to reduce the amplifier's gain in an active system to prolong tweeter life AND to reduce system noise.


Nice!!!  good info, thank you señor!!!


----------



## rton20s (Feb 14, 2011)

Niick said:


> Nice!!!  good info, thank you señor!!!


Andy?!


----------



## Babs (Jul 6, 2007)

Since we're talkin' frogs.. Anyone have any in-door un-EQ'd response curves for the venerable GB60's? Just curious as I know Andy's done extensive work making these drivers best of the best for 'car' use specifically. Here's an example of a not-so-car-voiced driver in my doors. An SB17 which is quite a good driver for it's price point. Terrible, I think, in-door response through the mids. Of course what can you expect for door mounted, behind a stock grill (which really needs to go) and heavily off-axis. I'm surprised actually it was as good as it is considering the non-optimal use. And this is actually in a rather overly well treated door with MLV, CCF, CLD, somewhat sealed, and FAST rings around the driver. Was much worse even prior to the extra ccf and rings.










So just curious how you guys are measuring with the GB60's? I suspect they're killer. Better than above I'd hope.

Also, I'm wide open for insider-secret-sauce suggestions for any further treatment work that might help. Always lookin' to improve.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

All speakers without eq will measure like crap in a car.


----------



## DLO13 (Oct 24, 2010)

sqnut said:


> All speakers without eq will measure like crap in a car.


That is quite the profound statement, assuming that you haven't heard ALL speakers in ALL cars... There are a lot of variables that you are neglecting with a statement like that.....

I can tell you 100% for sure, that the Audible Physics 3" AR3-A that I had in my car, with NO EQ sounded VERY good. 

I can also tell you that my car, at the last comp, had NO EQ, and I scored better than "crap" in tonality. 

Not sure where you are getting your information from, but considering that you are speaking of "measurements", it is VERY ironic to throw out such an arbitrary statement. In fact, I could say that this is the WORST post ANYONE has EVER made. 

:laugh:


----------



## Babs (Jul 6, 2007)

Maybe safe to say "many" speakers in "car doors" will measure like crap. 


Sent from iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

DLO13 said:


> That is quite the profound statement, assuming that you haven't heard ALL speakers in ALL cars... There are a lot of variables that you are neglecting with a statement like that.....
> 
> I can tell you 100% for sure, that the Audible Physics 3" AR3-A that I had in my car, with NO EQ sounded VERY good.
> 
> ...


i don't always agree with sqnut, however, if we break down the statement......maybe his choice of wording wasn't......oh, I don't know, the best choice of wording.....but, I think he kinda has a point here. 

I can't remember a single speaker system in a car that I've personally MEASURED, pre-EQ, that couldn't benefit from some (or a lot) EQ. 

Mostly in the way of EQing out the differences between the left and the right. 

So, while not all speakers are gonna SOUND like crap, pre-EQ, I think it's a safe bet that pre-EQ, all SPEAKER/ACOUSTIC CAR ENVIRONMENT INTERACTION is gonna MEASURE like "crap".......maybe "crap" is not the word......measure "poorly".....?

So, if it "measures" poorly, but sounds good........is this the reason for people's thinking that measurements and perception aren't the same. Some people believe this to such a degree that........well, you know.....

I'd like to take this opportunity to point out what I believe is a fundamental reason for the common belief that "measurements" are.....more inadequate than they are....for the purposes of system tuning. 

The fundamental reason is, when many/most people think of "measurements" they think FREQUENCY RESPONSE graph. There is a WHOLE LOT more to measurements than the 'ol RTA, or JUST frequency response, which, to be totally accurate, frequency response is comprised of both the magnitude AND phase response of a signal. You need both to completely describe the system freq. response. Magnitude is only one part of the requency response. 

Anyways, if we could get people thinking beyond just frequency response (magnitude) when the thought of "measurements" enters their minds, then we could maybe move beyond this assumption that "measurements don't tell ya much"..... maybe together, with many minds on the case, we can learn exactly how to more accurately CORRELATE measured data with perception. If more people simply believed it was possible, then it WOULD happen. 

So long as people BELIEVE that measurements and perception don't correlate.....they won't.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

DLO13 said:


> That is quite the profound statement, assuming that you haven't heard ALL speakers in ALL cars... In fact, I could say that this is the WORST post ANYONE has EVER made.
> 
> :laugh:





Babs said:


> Maybe safe to say "many" speakers in "car doors" will measure like crap.
> 
> 
> Sent from iPhone using Tapatalk


Oh brother!! I'll say it a little slower.

*All*....speakers....irrespective....of....how....they....measure....in....an....IB....mount....in....a....farfield.... environment....will....have....a....crapped up....response....when....installed....and....measured....in....a....car.

All you have to do is look at Andy's graphs of a speaker measured 1" from the cone in a car and then at ear level. The AF's are stellar speakers, at par with the Scans, but that does NOT mean they will magically measure any better un-eq than speaker X or Y or Z . BUT they will sound a 100X better than X, Y and Z AFTER you have taken time to eq them extensively. Andy has never claimed that engineered for car audio = smoother out of box response in a car. That is your interpretation, and it is wrong.

A speakers response gets crapped up by the cars environment which strictly follows NAACP guidelines and doesn't discriminate between stocks, Scans, AF's, or Sinfonis. It just craps up the response of all speakers. Excuse the use of poetic licence. 

So next time you think or hear someone say "I just used my network to smooth out the response so that I needed min eq", just remember that folks for thousands of years believed that the earth was flat. Now is my previous post the worst in the history of DIYMA or does your perspective need a refreshers course?


----------



## dawaro (Jul 22, 2015)

DLO13 said:


> That is quite the profound statement, assuming that you haven't heard ALL speakers in ALL cars... There are a lot of variables that you are neglecting with a statement like that.....
> 
> I can tell you 100% for sure, that the Audible Physics 3" AR3-A that I had in my car, with NO EQ sounded VERY good.
> 
> ...


I think you missed the point. He never said that cars with no EQ SOUNDED like crap. Nor did he say that cars with no EQ could not be very tonal.

If you have ever listened to a car that measured flat you would have probably listened to one you didn't care for. Measurements are completely different to the way the brain translates what it is hearing. More often than not a flat response isn't really a pleasurable listening response.

I think if you step back and re-read the post you will understand what his intentions were.

Worst post anyone has made? Or maybe worst post anyone has made that people didn't really think about before responding??


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

dawaro said:


> Worst post anyone has made? Or maybe worst post anyone has made that people didn't really think about before responding??


Thank you!! You are much better with words than I am.


----------



## I800C0LLECT (Jan 26, 2009)

Deja vu.

This discussion seems to be popping up a lot recently. 

The hardest part with these topics is speaking the language of the reader. Inevitably...it still gets misconstrued and somebody gets bent. I'm glad it's talked about though so that we all get a better understanding.


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

All speakers that play above 100Hz, when measured with a single mic in a single spot will measure like crap in a car. 

How about that? 

When that doesn't correlate with what you hear and what you prefer, then it's time to dig a little deeper.


----------



## I800C0LLECT (Jan 26, 2009)

There it is!


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

angrybot said:


> The goal of an ultimately true to the source rendering, whether or not that line is flat or built to taste, means that whatever is happening inside a car is separate from the reference.


I'm just expanding on your post. 

You don't hear a flat response in a room, why would you want one in the car? The FR that sounds good and accurate to source in a car, is a sloping line from 20-20k at roughly 3db/oct. Some octaves can be at 4-6 while others at 1-2. On an average 2.5-3 depending on environment/install etc.

A good speaker is easier to tune and most often gives better results and good speakers are engineered with science and passion. A speaker with poor / unusual numbers will reflect that fact somewhere in its sound signature.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> All speakers that play above 100Hz, when measured with a single mic in a single spot will measure like crap in a car.
> 
> How about that?
> 
> When that doesn't correlate with what you hear and what you prefer, then it's time to dig a little deeper.


 I don't YET dig as deeply as I would like to, funding and understanding not always being equal.........but, on this forum, attempts to dig a little further than the standard magnitude reading often get feverishly shot down with a "I've never heard of that....must not be valid...." mentality.


----------



## Lanson (Jan 9, 2007)

DLO13 said:


> ... In fact, I could say that this is the WORST post ANYONE has EVER made.
> 
> :laugh:


You must be only familiar with this forum "A.T." There's "B.T." and "A.T." That's "Before Tspence", and "After Tspence".

Be sure to research his posts before making a comment about the worst post ever.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> All speakers that play above 100Hz, when measured with a single mic in a single spot will measure like crap in a car.
> 
> How about that?
> 
> When that doesn't correlate with what you hear and what you prefer, then it's time to dig a little deeper.


Thanks....you are a wordsmith .


----------



## SSSnake (Mar 8, 2007)

> In fact, I could say that this is the WORST post ANYONE has EVER made.


With nearly 1200 posts I am very sure that you have seen worse. I saw much worse on day one.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

So, back to the audiofrogs, I also have a 2" (I think) AF midrange at work that I want to test. I figured this would be a good one to refine my testing methodology of open back speakers (as opposed to tweeters), being that we're lucky enough on this forum to have direct access to the actual designer of the product. (To give me a definitive "thumbs up" or "thumbs down" on whether or not my methodology is even remotely correct) 

The next step is making a baffle for mounting the speakers in, with a removable inner baffle that can be changed out with different diameter openings. 

What I really need to know, is how big the baffle should be, and how to (or what is the usual standard) for compensating for the effects of the baffle on the data.


----------



## Babs (Jul 6, 2007)

Niick said:


> So, back to the audiofrogs, I also have a 2" (I think) AF midrange at work that I want to test.


 That'd be the GB25.. If you have two, test away, but I'll tell you they're no good. You don't want 'em. Just send them to me to make them disappear accordingly.  Seriously though.. Damn good driver from all I've read on it.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

Niick said:


> So, back to the audiofrogs, I also have a 2" (I think) AF midrange at work that I want to test. I figured this would be a good one to refine my testing methodology of open back speakers (as opposed to tweeters), being that we're lucky enough on this forum to have direct access to the actual designer of the product. (To give me a definitive "thumbs up" or "thumbs down" on whether or not my methodology is even remotely correct)
> 
> The next step is making a baffle for mounting the speakers in, with a removable inner baffle that can be changed out with different diameter openings.
> 
> What I really need to know, is how big the baffle should be, and how to (or what is the usual standard) for compensating for the effects of the baffle on the data.



Here you go:
http://medleysmusings.com/afgb25/


All my test methodology is posted on the site as well.


----------



## Lanson (Jan 9, 2007)

Angrybot, are you Cajunner's alter-ego from 2013?


----------



## jtaudioacc (Apr 6, 2010)

ErinH said:


> Here you go:
> http://medleysmusings.com/afgb25/
> 
> 
> All my test methodology is posted on the site as well.


i was just about to post your site along with a suggestion to do a little more searching.


----------



## rton20s (Feb 14, 2011)

fourthmeal said:


> Angrybot, are you Cajunner's alter-ego from 2013?


----------



## DLO13 (Oct 24, 2010)

fourthmeal said:


> You must be only familiar with this forum "A.T." There's "B.T." and "A.T." That's "Before Tspence", and "After Tspence".
> 
> Be sure to research his posts before making a comment about the worst post ever.


I was making a play on words.... 

it seems to have been missed by everyone. 

I failed. 

I didnt think his post was the worst ever. It was a blanket statement with no actual thought behind it - Like his post.


----------



## Lycancatt (Apr 11, 2010)

color me amused.

so..new af measurements? I want to know about off axis 80ish degrees frequency response please if you are looking for something to measure.


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

Niick said:


> So, back to the audiofrogs, I also have a 2" (I think) AF midrange at work that I want to test. I figured this would be a good one to refine my testing methodology of open back speakers (as opposed to tweeters), being that we're lucky enough on this forum to have direct access to the actual designer of the product. (To give me a definitive "thumbs up" or "thumbs down" on whether or not my methodology is even remotely correct)
> 
> The next step is making a baffle for mounting the speakers in, with a removable inner baffle that can be changed out with different diameter openings.
> 
> What I really need to know, is how big the baffle should be, and how to (or what is the usual standard) for compensating for the effects of the baffle on the data.


This is NOT a simple exercise and it's why speaker companies build 4-pi and 2-pi anechoic chambers. Thankfully, I have some friends who let me use theirs. Tweeters are pretty simple because we're not concerned with accuracy at low frequencies. You haven't measured with a baffle, but if you had, then one larger than a wavelength at the lowest measurement frequency would have been sufficient. Not so simple for larger drivers...

The room in which you measure, even if you erect a big baffle, is also going to affect your measurements at low frequencies. 

My suggestion? Find a manhole cover in the parking lot, build a baffle that fits the hole. Suspend the microphone above the speaker and measure at night when it's quiet.

Now it's time to go to the library.


----------



## Justin Zazzi (May 28, 2012)

ErinH said:


> Here you go:
> http://medleysmusings.com/afgb25/
> 
> 
> All my test methodology is posted on the site as well.


Erin,

The simulation you posted for the effects of the baffle you built show a far-field response anomaly of about 4-5dB peak and null near 200hz and 325hz. I don't see these anomalies in your measurements. Are you windowing your measurements to eliminate the baffle effects? Do you do any ground plane measurements, and if you do, do you merge them together with the windowed measurements like in D'Appolito's measurement book?


----------



## jtaudioacc (Apr 6, 2010)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> My suggestion? Find a manhole cover in the parking lot, build a baffle that fits the hole. Suspend the microphone above the speaker and measure at night when it's quiet.
> 
> Now it's time to go to the library.












i just need to expand my circle template a bit for a baffle!!


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

Ground plane is OK for boxes but off axis is tricky.


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

jtaudioacc said:


> i just need to expand my circle template a bit for a baffle!!


Precisely. It's never quiet where you are, though. All that partying...


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

Jazzi said:


> Erin,
> 
> The simulation you posted for the effects of the baffle you built show a far-field response anomaly of about 4-5dB peak and null near 200hz and 325hz. I don't see these anomalies in your measurements. Are you windowing your measurements to eliminate the baffle effects? Do you do any ground plane measurements, and if you do, do you merge them together with the windowed measurements like in D'Appolito's measurement book?


I merge the NF/FF to help mitigate baffle (and room) effects. Where I merge (what frequency) depends on the driver size. I sometimes specifically denote this in the results writeup.


----------



## Babs (Jul 6, 2007)

jtaudioacc said:


> i just need to expand my circle template a bit for a baffle!!



Lemme know what bit gets it done through that, because that'll be where I source all mine for the new router. 


Sent from iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## rton20s (Feb 14, 2011)

Babs said:


> Lemme know what bit gets it done through that, because that'll be where I source all mine for the new router.
> 
> 
> Sent from iPhone using Tapatalk


No, remove the lid, and cut a new baffle to size. I bet JT is already on it.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

DLO13 said:


> It was a blanket statement with no actual thought behind it - Like his post.


Except my blanket statement was factually correct.


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

ErinH said:


> I merge the NF/FF to help mitigate baffle (and room) effects. Where I merge (what frequency) depends on the driver size. I sometimes specifically denote this in the results writeup.


I've been lucky enough to be invited to attend a day-long seminar put on by Audio Precision. I've seen some videos of AP's seminars where they talk about this very thing. Can't wait for the day!


----------



## Niick (Jun 3, 2015)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> This is NOT a simple exercise and it's why speaker companies build 4-pi and 2-pi anechoic chambers. Thankfully, I have some friends who let me use theirs. Tweeters are pretty simple because we're not concerned with accuracy at low frequencies. You haven't measured with a baffle, but if you had, then one larger than a wavelength at the lowest measurement frequency would have been sufficient. Not so simple for larger drivers...
> 
> The room in which you measure, even if you erect a big baffle, is also going to affect your measurements at low frequencies.
> 
> ...


 ErinH's site is obvious one of my refences. This manhole cover idea...... I like that. I'm gonna try that. So long as I can find one. Glad am I that this isn't a simple exercise. If it were I wouldn't be too in to doing it.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

Same IP address. I knew I saw the post last week and remembered there was "bot" in the name, but forgot the thread and couldn't parametrically search on my end for all users with "bot" in the screen name.



fourthmeal said:


> Angrybot, are you Cajunner's alter-ego from 2013?


----------



## XSIV SPL (Jun 24, 2014)

jtaudioacc said:


> i just need to expand my circle template a bit for a baffle!!


That'd be the ****tiest install you've done yet!


----------



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

fourthmeal said:


> Angrybot, are you Cajunner's alter-ego from 2013?


Good grief...


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

thehatedguy said:


> Same IP address. I knew I saw the post last week and remembered there was "bot" in the name, but forgot the thread and couldn't parametrically search on my end for all users with "bot" in the screen name.


I see some cleansing has happened.

He's going to hate me for this, I hope he sees the funny side. I think Linus is missing his blanket...aww!












I'm right, take that........











Naughty Boy!!!




















In a few days.......










Heck, I know I'd go thru withdrawal symptoms, if I ever got tossed for a month from Hotel California.


----------



## Lanson (Jan 9, 2007)

thehatedguy said:


> Same IP address. I knew I saw the post last week and remembered there was "bot" in the name, but forgot the thread and couldn't parametrically search on my end for all users with "bot" in the screen name.












When I got banned (mostly for being really against Ant's B.S. I'm guessing, who knows) I just stayed away. But you really aren't a DIYMA member unless you get banned some, rite? j/k don't try that.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

That's the bad thing about this position...I like the guy, but he was breaking a rule. Or someone who had a similar style and location was.


----------



## rton20s (Feb 14, 2011)

fourthmeal said:


> But you really aren't a DIYMA member unless you get banned some, rite? j/k don't try that.


Am I doing this right?


----------



## Babs (Jul 6, 2007)

fourthmeal said:


> When I got banned (mostly for being really against Ant's B.S. I'm guessing, who knows) I just stayed away. But you really aren't a DIYMA member unless you get banned some, rite? j/k don't try that.





rton20s said:


> Am I doing this right?


Funny I've always flown under the radar, all stealth-like.


----------

