# which one of these contributes more to sound quality?



## ImK'ed (Aug 12, 2013)

Just curious so thought i'll start a poll, seems as though we are forever changing our installs in some way. The option that im not including is tuning whether its via headunit or dsp as this seems like the number 1 thing in good sound im interested in everything else but tuning.


----------



## subterFUSE (Sep 21, 2009)

I vote for speaker placement.

This is probably one of the most important factors for improving soundstage, IMO.


----------



## maggie-g (Aug 20, 2014)

personally, I feel it is something that is not in the poll - the music (or sound) itself. Meaning, the quality of the file (if digital) or the quality of the disc/recording. You can have the best system in the world, but if the music is terrible (quality), then what is the point?


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

You can build a great stage using stock locations which to most is NOT optimal. Source/tune is the base line and build off of that


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

If the tune is out, none of the option above will give you sound quality.


----------



## ImK'ed (Aug 12, 2013)

sqnut said:


> If the tune is out, none of the option above will give you sound quality.


After tune which would you think is 2nd most imporant?


----------



## Victor_inox (Apr 27, 2012)

I voted speakers because they are.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

ImK'ed said:


> After tune which would you think is 2nd most imporant?


Speaker placement followed by the actual speakers, with amps and hu bring up the rear and being least important.


----------



## Phil Indeblanc (May 27, 2015)

So is the source of most stereo systems available today from the decent to great brands have a source signal that strongly impacts the overall quality?

The question is a tough one for the way it is worded, as there are different qualities to differentiate under the general term SQ.

You can have a low signal source and still have general SQ. 
You can have a great source and still have mediocre sound due to speakers, among other things like placement. Perhaps it is a symphony of things to rule out, and each situation is a bit different. But starting with a decent source would be key, then from there you can have great speakers and better placement...and you have pretty good SQ. After that everything incrementally matters. But thats my perspective, and different folks will be more strict in execusion with, "I must have x-volts out, then I must have xyz..etc"

You can have a good component set with very good passive xover which can place it better than say, great individual drivers with no tuning, and you might be SOL.


----------



## ImK'ed (Aug 12, 2013)

Yes sq being subjective doesnt help but its good to see what people think is most important. I'll have to confess that i still waste too much time changing amplifiers and messing with them over anything else even though i know theres more important things.


----------



## LaserSVT (Feb 1, 2009)

Victor_inox said:


> I voted speakers because they are.


+1


----------



## ATOMICTECH62 (Jan 24, 2009)

In general its speakers,but,Its really the weakest link in the chain.

Amplifiers is probably the least of all.

Imagine a high end system with 10k in electronics then using Walmart VR3/Dual or Power Acoustik $39 components.


----------



## Weigel21 (Sep 8, 2014)

So the general census is that it really a combination of at least two items that are required for optimum SQ, those pretty much being a quality source material and quality speakers. And while there are other factors to getting quality sound, they aren't quite as important as the two I just mentioned. 

The least important factor seems to be the amplifier, which is kind of funny, given how many claim that low cost budget brand amplifiers are complete junk. 

So, are some of you claiming one could get an equally good sounding system using say Pyle amplifiers as using say McIntosh amplifiers?


----------



## LaserSVT (Feb 1, 2009)

Yeah everything he listed is all important factors in SQ but quality speakers, to me, seem to be the most important. I am not saying expensive speakers, just good speakers. There are tons of sub $300 components that sound excellent when tuned properly.

So my opinion is that after a tune the importance in sound quality is speakers>location>source unit>active/passive>Amplifiers.


I have done these one at a time and every time it made a huge impact on the sound quality and staging. I am using OEM speaker locations and while my stage isnt perfect it was better than 80% of the SQ cars sound stage I heard at the last competition. When I swapped from the PRS80 to the P99 there was a very significant change in sound quality. Switching to active helped even more but thats due to being able to properly TA the truck. The shocker was going from a high end amp to an even higher end amp made a significant change in sound quality as well even though the new amp is only 25% more powerful.


----------



## LaserSVT (Feb 1, 2009)

Weigel21 said:


> So the general census is that it really a combination of at least two items that are required for optimum SQ, those pretty much being a quality source material and quality speakers. And while there are other factors to getting quality sound, they aren't quite as important as the two I just mentioned.
> 
> The least important factor seems to be the amplifier, which is kind of funny, given how many claim that low cost budget brand amplifiers are complete junk.
> 
> *So, are some of you claiming one could get an equally good sounding system using say Pyle amplifiers as using say McIntosh amplifiers*?


Some say that but I have found otherwise. Switching from MB Quart amps to JL Slash at HALF the Quarts power has made for a much better sounding setup. Swapping the JLs out for Mosconi has yet again made a large leap in SQ and sheer output. Amps do not sound the same and I have proven it time and time again but there will be people that will argue it to their dying breath.
Take Victors new Class A/Tube amp hes making at 100 watts per channel and run it against a Kicker 100 watt amp and I would put money on the table that says his will outperform the Kicker in every way.


And tuning is the most important thing but as far as hard parts/installation goes I believe drivers have the single largest impact.


----------



## lizardking (Nov 8, 2008)

I've found that tuning creates the biggest impact in SQ.


----------



## ATOMICTECH62 (Jan 24, 2009)

Amps do not sound the same.
They may sound very similar if not identical at very low volumes.But when pushed hard they show their true colors.


----------



## 1fishman (Dec 22, 2012)

If you take any of the choices to the extreme any of them could be first. A real bad amp, or real bad speaker placement, or real bad crossover... 

But if we look at a average system, with adequate parts not "great parts" but fair parts, the speakers can contribute the most to improving SQ period.

Tuning was not one of the options


----------



## Victor_inox (Apr 27, 2012)

ATOMICTECH62 said:


> Amps do not sound the same.
> They may sound very similar if not identical at very low volumes.But when pushed hard they show their true colors.


Word of wisdom from the man who repaired more amplifiers than probably all of us combined ever owned.


----------



## Victor_inox (Apr 27, 2012)

LaserSVT said:


> Some say that but I have found otherwise. Switching from MB Quart amps to JL Slash at HALF the Quarts power has made for a much better sounding setup. Swapping the JLs out for Mosconi has yet again made a large leap in SQ and sheer output. Amps do not sound the same and I have proven it time and time again but there will be people that will argue it to their dying breath.
> Take Victors new Class A/Tube amp hes making at 100 watts per channel and run it against a Kicker 100 watt amp and I would put money on the table that says his will outperform the Kicker in every way.
> 
> 
> And tuning is the most important thing but as far as hard parts/installation goes I believe drivers have the single largest impact.


You are too kind. wait until my Hybrid released here is one of the prototypes playing


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

That's going to be a hit Victor. I swear if I had more money, I would get a few of your amps.

Unless you wanted to do a **** load of trading...lol.


----------



## Victor_inox (Apr 27, 2012)

Well see,I think that I've read enough on this board to learn people preferences. I'm always up for good trade.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G925A using Tapatalk


----------



## Pitmaster (Feb 16, 2010)

1fishman said:


> If you take any of the choices to the extreme any of them could be first. A real bad amp, or real bad speaker placement, or real bad crossover...
> 
> But if we look at a average system, with adequate parts not "great parts" but fair parts, the speakers can contribute the most to improving SQ period.
> 
> Tuning was not one of the options


 This is the best summary and answer to this threads question.


----------



## Pitmaster (Feb 16, 2010)

In addition, adding any amp to a factory system already running an after market H/U, even with factory speakers makes a big difference. Now just add good A/M speakers to that same system realizes great improvements.
To the average enthusiast, these are probably the best SQ improvements for the buck. Lets not forget tuning .


----------



## LaserSVT (Feb 1, 2009)

Victor_inox said:


> You are too kind. wait until my Hybrid released here is one of the prototypes playing


We need a damn "Like" button! LOL


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

I was adding tuning to source since that's where the tuning comes from. Kind of. Maybe in a certain point of view.


----------



## Jesus Christ (Aug 3, 2010)

Speakers 33%
Install 33%
Tuning 33%
Everything else 1%


----------



## Victor_inox (Apr 27, 2012)

Jesus Christ said:


> Speakers 33%
> Install 33%
> Tuning 33%
> Everything else 1%


 Source,processing, wiring,Amplifiers 1% absoluuuutely:laugh:


----------



## rxonmymind (Sep 7, 2010)

ATOMICTECH62 said:


> Amps do not sound the same.
> They may sound very similar if not identical at very low volumes.But when pushed hard they show their true colors.


In all the back & forth arguing of amps sonic signature what you just said made the most sense. Separating the wheat from the chaff if you will. No different than a high end car and a Kia. Run at 20mph around town they will both performe the same. Pushed, well now things get interesting. Lol.


----------



## Jesus Christ (Aug 3, 2010)

Victor_inox said:


> Source,processing, wiring,Amplifiers 1% absoluuuutely:laugh:


Source, as long as you stay away from the very bottom of the barrel the difference is minimal. Most processors are more limited by the abilities of the person tuning them than the processor itself. Wiring? Seriously? As long as it's the proper size there's not much else to worry about. Amps, as long as they have the power and features necessary for the install are commodity items.


----------



## Phil Indeblanc (May 27, 2015)

A couple decades ago the graphic artists were starting to complain about their industry as the computer quickly transitioned that industry.

So the music industry is hurting as everyone has the ability to learn how to be a DJ fairly quick, or let it run automated.

Bands are finding concerts to be the selling point over cd sales or downloads.

Sectors in photo are hurt, as everyone can take a snapshot and make it good enough for the vacation pix and what not.

Digital put the film industry and its largest world player Kodak out of business.

Now the art of amp making is up and are hurting, as technology has caught up and made power efficiency mainstreamed. So brands that were once gods of selling $1000-2000 amplifiers have had to drop zeros from their prices. 

All these still have a level of something intangible, something hard to measure, something that takes more than just results. Sometimes there are areas where the undetermined quality has some value. And sometimes the quality is in your face, in the workmanship, but the results are not making a difference often enough for most people. Are you most people?

There will always be the crap brands looking for the maximum profit, and the opposite extreme of brands looking for elite status at all costs. If you're looking for functionality, you need to go to someplace between these two poles. Plenty between them to do the job good to great without a fuss.

Almost anything that takes talent is now marginalized and the talent sucked out of the craft, and the end result is all that is looked out for. How will the future look?


----------



## Victor_inox (Apr 27, 2012)

Phil Indeblanc said:


> A couple decades ago the graphic artists were starting to complain about their industry as the computer quickly transitioned that industry.
> 
> So the music industry is hurting as everyone has the ability to learn how to be a DJ fairly quick, or let it run automated.
> 
> ...


 Good points here. Future look bleak, Jesus coming!


----------



## Beckerson1 (Jul 3, 2012)

To bring this back onto topic....


All contribute in some way for the most part (crap in=crap out, and keeping $$$$ out of it) and of what's listed I would have to say a properly placed speaker will trump just about everything in the list. Shifting a speaker left, right, up, or down could have a huge (be a positive or negative) impact on the end result. This is why I say what I say.


----------



## ImK'ed (Aug 12, 2013)

hurrication said:


> Am I the only one here who is sick of seeing threads like these pop up?
> 
> We all know how this is going to end. Just like all the others.
> 
> I can't help but think that the OP was thinking to himself - "Hmm, I think I'll start some **** today by making another one of 'those' threads.".


Not my intention. We have many threads on amp x vs amp y im not interested in that type of thread, i genuinely want to learn about what should be priority in equipment or install as like me many will continue spending money in this hobby so with more knowledge (what ive learnt and the massive amount of experience our fellow members have) its money and time better spent.


----------



## omnibus (Feb 20, 2015)

I say tweaking and source. You have to be playing a quality source material first and with some timing delay, EQ..etc is what makes it shine imo. Otherwise great speakers and placement can still sound like crap with MP3 and poor or no tweaking


----------



## Beckerson1 (Jul 3, 2012)

True a source should be number one as without it you can't have tunes lol


----------



## Eric Stevens (Dec 29, 2007)

I voted for speaker placement because it's all about the installation to get it good. Speaker quality and tuning would be close behind.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Jesus Christ said:


> Speakers 10%
> Placement 15%
> Tuning 74%
> Everything else 1%


There, fixed it for you.


----------



## schicksal (Jul 31, 2015)

What about deadening / noise reduction? Maybe I'm biased because most of the cars I've owned have been old with little to no insulation anywhere but I'm thinking that huge amounts of interference will affect sound quality more than pretty much anything else.


----------



## lpreston (Dec 29, 2006)

I'm going with speaker placement.

I did a system in a Dodge Neon (first gen) that used Magnadyne tweeters, Hafler mids and a brand of sub that nobody outside of Knoxville would know. Clarion head unit, Clarion 92eq, Clarion 4 channel for front and rear fill and a Clarion 2 channel bridged on the sub. I spent forever on tweeter alignment, installation quality (running the RCAs up along the roof away from OEM wiring, sound deadening, etc). This was right after Rockford bought Hafler and was blowing out drivers at $10 each. I had less than $800 in equipment. Best staging I've ever had. Sound quality was pretty good too....last competition I took my class and best of show.


----------



## Jesus Christ (Aug 3, 2010)

sqnut said:


> There, fixed it for you.


The best tune in the world still can't make up for improper speaker selection or install. Besides, the more thought and effort put into speakers and install the less tuning that will need to be done.


----------



## vwjmkv (Apr 23, 2011)

maggie-g said:


> personally, I feel it is something that is not in the poll - the music (or sound) itself. Meaning, the quality of the file (if digital) or the quality of the disc/recording. You can have the best system in the world, but if the music is terrible (quality), then what is the point?


i agree, one may have the best of the best installs/equipment, but if the recording is crap, then all that equipment will play the best crap you can listen to


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Jesus Christ said:


> The best tune in the world still can't make up for improper speaker selection or install. Besides, the more thought and effort put into speakers and install the less tuning that will need to be done.


Yes Install, placement and speakers together account for 30%. 

Install basically just needs to be correct and safe. Zip tied wire and soldered and crimped connections don't add to SQ. Things like deadening and isolation of some sort, are a given and basic must do's. A correct and safe but slightly ghetto install with the right tune, is still going to sound amazing. A show winning install with a meh tune, is going top sound meh.

Placement, well getting the drivers as close to the boundaries of your car (as wide as possible and as far forward as possible) and keeping 200hz and above is great for maximizing stage dimensions. Even with a less than ideal placement (tweeters in kicks) and hence bowing, the right tune is still going to sound amazing, even if the visual cues aren't up to scratch. Perfect install and placement with a meh tune.......

Speakers, if you're running a 2 you want a woofer that's good down to ~60 with good specs and a linear response to about 2khz. You want a tweeter that can play low without getting harsh. In a 3 way the mid range is most important. You need to choose the drivers with some care. A great tune will make good $300 diy speakers sound as good as a $1,000 big box offering. Stock speakers with the right tune have won SQ championships. Perfect install, placement and $7,000 speakers with a meh tune.......

I rest my case.


----------



## Phil Indeblanc (May 27, 2015)

That brings us back to the symphony of the variables.

But let's not be technical on this and start at zero. Maybe we can say the sample is someone with a ddd cd recording, and the head unit is outputting a good flat signal.

Besides some oem HU, a lot of the stereo brands like alpine, pioneer, ken wood, clarion, jvc, all have a acceptable level of quality source output. Also take the amp out of the equation for the similar reasons. You are left with the others to slice up.

So speaker, placement and active vs passive...
I would think ....It's generally the best start point.


----------



## Jesus Christ (Aug 3, 2010)

sqnut said:


> Yes Install, placement and speakers together account for 30%.
> 
> Install basically just needs to be correct and safe. Zip tied wire and soldered and crimped connections don't add to SQ. Things like deadening and isolation of some sort, are a given and basic must do's. A correct and safe but slightly ghetto install with the right tune, is still going to sound amazing. A show winning install with a meh tune, is going top sound meh.
> 
> ...


I consider placement and deadening part of install as well as proper enclosures for the drivers. 

At low volume, sure, you can tune just about anything to sound good but once you start raising the volume deficiencies in speaker selection and install become more apparent and no amount of tuning can compensate for that. You can tune a set of Revelators until you're blue in the face but at the end of the day there's nothing you can do to give them the same output as a set of horns. Same goes for install, it doesn't matter how well your doors are treated, you'll never achieve the same results as you would if you made proper enclosures for your drivers.


----------



## Pitmaster (Feb 16, 2010)

Jesus Christ said:


> The best tune in the world still can't make up for improper speaker selection or install. Besides, the more thought and effort put into speakers and install the less tuning that will need to be done.


This^^^

The following answer was given to years ago by n_olympios when I asked the question about placing midranges in my a-pillars, and what tuning and equalizing is necessary to get optimum sq. I also thank kelvin for his input.

"Kelvin's right though, you can't cure reflections with processing.At best, you just try to make them work for you instead of against you, but that happens in the prior stage of processing: installing the drivers."


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

i truly dont think you can put "percentages" on how much a piece of the puzzle effects the sound. its all dependant on other factors, and each other factor interacts with another.


----------



## Pitmaster (Feb 16, 2010)

SkizeR said:


> i truly dont think you can put "percentages" on how much a piece of the puzzle effects the sound. its all dependant on other factors, and each other factor interacts with another.


Exactly, proper speaker placement beforehand will greatly improve a good tuning, making it at least as important as tuning by itself.
You can't build a house from the roof down.


----------



## cajunner (Apr 13, 2007)

I disagree with many people on various thoughts exhibited here in this thread.

which means, either I'm crazy or their perception has led them to some erroneous findings.

trying to guess-timate, or assume a position of authoritative tone in regards to this "sound quality" definition and assigning degrees of success based on an either/or, proposition is what they call not congruent, or an SAT test question reject...


there is no percentages, there is no right and wrong here.


the answer is too complex for the answer format, the multiple choices does not cover the field of possibility, the design of the poll is skewed.


but because I'm drinking coffee, let me break it down for you.

music doesn't have to be realistic, to be enjoyed.

the system doesn't have to disappear, to hear the music.

the step between critical listening and musical rhapsody is large, and yet so easily taken.

some of us are hopeless.


wait, I mean that in a good way, you know what I mean.


----------



## Pitmaster (Feb 16, 2010)

cajunner said:


> I disagree with many people on various thoughts exhibited here in this thread.
> 
> which means, either I'm crazy or their perception has led them to some erroneous findings.
> 
> ...


You read like a cross between a legal document and a Shakespearean play, but I definitely agree with you on this assessment.


----------



## LaserSVT (Feb 1, 2009)

LOL

He has great points every now and then.


----------



## Victor_inox (Apr 27, 2012)

LaserSVT said:


> LOL
> 
> He has great points every now and then.


I agree! primitive mind love to simplify everything- linear FR -+0.01db must be best sounding system, God forbid using bass knob or anything in the path of signal They insist that`s how music was recorded. when in fact only mastering engineer and maybe producer does. Look what happened to music in the last 20 years, it`s mostly poorly recorded garbage and because of that I dial it as I pleased and absolutely don`t give a damn how linear my system is. 
Poor kids of today, they don`t know better.... and unwilling to learn.


----------



## hurrication (Dec 19, 2011)

cajunner said:


> music doesn't have to be realistic, to be enjoyed.
> 
> the system doesn't have to disappear, to hear the music.
> 
> ...


I agree with this completely.

The #1 thing people seem to be forgetting in this thread is how important of a role the listening environment plays.


----------



## Pitmaster (Feb 16, 2010)

LaserSVT said:


> LOL
> 
> He has great points every now and then.


Yes he does, but it's often masked in riddle.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Victor_inox said:


> I agree! primitive mind love to simplify everything- linear FR -+0.01db must be best sounding system,


Let me explain this slower so you can understand it better.

You...want...the...speakers...to...have...a...linear...response...so...that...they...are ...easier...to...tune. In...a...car...you...don't...want...to... hear...a...linear...response.

Get the difference?


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Jesus Christ said:


> At low volume, sure, you can tune just about anything to sound good but once you start raising the volume deficiencies in speaker selection and install become more apparent and no amount of tuning can compensate for that.


By raising the volume you're raising the distortion from your amps, speakers, install and environment itself. Distortion from amps+speaker+install=10% while distortion from environment = 90%. So if at insane volumes your sound falls apart, it's thanks primarily to your environment. Clear?



Jesus Christ said:


> You can tune a set of Revelators until you're blue in the face but at the end of the day there's nothing you can do to give them the same output as a set of horns. Same goes for install, it doesn't matter how well your doors are treated, you'll never achieve the same results as you would if you made proper enclosures for your drivers.


Any car with a decent install and equipment and a great tune is good till ~105db. That's plenty loud for me. SQ at 120 db is a bit of an oxymoron. No fricking can way your ears can tell sound quality at 120db. Horns eh?


----------



## Bayboy (Dec 29, 2010)

Sticking to the choices given I would have to say speakers. 

Can it be done with stock? Sure, but who is to say that the stock speakers aren't already of good quality and would take much more dollars to improve upon once both have had the regular treatments of deadening & a bit of dsp applied? The Nak door speakers in an LS400 has proven that enough to me to leave their replacements on the shelf gathering dust for the time being. The sub was improved by a simple swap to something more suitable to gather a few extra DB's while retaining control. 


Now on the other hand, in the Tacoma, the drivers are limited. I can hear the door mids lose composure even with stock power. The tweets are barely audible and have little upper response that makes a difference. I'm confident enough that even a mere driver swap while leaving the headunit alone would make an improvement vs swapping the headunit out for the 80prs that's going to replace it will do little for the drivers. For that scenario, the full treatment of driver swap, amplification, deadening, & response treatment is expected to bring it up to where _I'd like it to be._ Drivers still take precedence.


----------



## jpeezy (Feb 5, 2012)

imagine walking out on a hill that overlooks a field of wheat stalks first thing in the morning, when the fog is just concealing the wheat stalks, not enough that can't tell its wheat,but that the details are just concealed (factory radio with factory low quality d/a's built in). now imagine the same scenario but the fog is gone, and you can see all the details in the stalks and grain, and the golden brown colors. (aftermarket radio with much higher quality D/A's and better preamp section). I've heard the difference, on several occasions ,(they all involved a Mcintosh head unit with Mcintosh outboard D/A, and Macintosh amps) I've also heard denon, rockford, and pioneer prs-80 create very similar differences. Sound from an audio system is only as good as the source.


----------



## Bayboy (Dec 29, 2010)

While I agree, how does that pertain to those keeping the stock headunit and using DSP?


----------



## Qmotion (Sep 29, 2013)

The answer to the trick question is "all of the above" ... lol.


----------



## jpeezy (Feb 5, 2012)

Bayboy said:


> While I agree, how does that pertain to those keeping the stock headunit and using DSP?


semi difficult,expensive to get the original digital signal out of factory headunit(i didn't say impossible, so all of you stock head unit-dsp guys don't jump all over my sh$t, but even using say a mobridge on a bmw with a high quality dsp is going to get pretty expensive. Now if your feeding an amplified signal from a factory head unit into a dsp, it doesn't matter how nice a dsp your using,your still trying to dsp an amplified signal, and i can assure you with the exception of a few very expensive oem systems, they are going to be limited on one or all of the following: frequency response, dynamics, stereo separation, phase (frequency dependent or otherwise), and the list goes on and on. Not to mention that when a system is designed for a factory audio system less is given to maximum quality than ergonomics,and agreeable sound. a large number of factory sound systems have an agreeable sound, think mp3 over cheap headphones or earbuds. putting a band aid on it, is really just that, your not really fixing it just covering it up. If you've never heard or experienced really neutral high quality audio reproduction, then you don't know it exists.


----------



## Jesus Christ (Aug 3, 2010)

sqnut said:


> By raising the volume you're raising the distortion from your amps, speakers, install and environment itself. Distortion from amps+speaker+install=10% while distortion from environment = 90%. So if at insane volumes your sound falls apart, it's thanks primarily to your environment. Clear?


In my experience, at high volume it's almost always the speakers that are the weak link. I'm willing to test your theory though, I'll measure the highest spl that my stereo maintains it's composure, then you send me your speakers and I'll replace my B&C's with them. Then we'll try to get the same spl from your speakers, if you're correct you have nothing to worry about, if I'm correct, I'll be sending you back a pair of paperweights.




> Any car with a decent install and equipment and a great tune is good till ~105db. *That's plenty loud for me.* SQ at 120 db is a bit of an oxymoron. No fricking can way your ears can tell sound quality at 120db. Horns eh?


Exactly, that's loud enough for *you*, at that volume speaker selection and install are less important. At the volume I require those things are much more important.


----------



## Victor_inox (Apr 27, 2012)

Jesus Christ said:


> In my experience, at high volume it's almost always the speakers that are the weak link. I'm willing to test your theory though, I'll measure the highest spl that my stereo maintains it's composure, then you send me your speakers and I'll replace my B&C's with them. Then we'll try to get the same spl from your speakers, if you're correct you have nothing to worry about, if I'm correct, I'll be sending you back a pair of paperweights.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Our Lord and saviour is SPL junkie, who knew....:laugh:


----------



## Jesus Christ (Aug 3, 2010)

Victor_inox said:


> Our Lord and saviour is SPL junkie, who knew....:laugh:


In my opinion, part of sq is the ability to achieve realistic output levels.


----------



## hurrication (Dec 19, 2011)

jpeezy said:


> semi difficult,expensive to get the original digital signal out of factory headunit(i didn't say impossible, so all of you stock head unit-dsp guys don't jump all over my sh$t, but even using say a mobridge on a bmw with a high quality dsp is going to get pretty expensive. Now if your feeding an amplified signal from a factory head unit into a dsp, it doesn't matter how nice a dsp your using,your still trying to dsp an amplified signal, and i can assure you with the exception of a few very expensive oem systems, they are going to be limited on one or all of the following: frequency response, dynamics, stereo separation, phase (frequency dependent or otherwise), and the list goes on and on. Not to mention that when a system is designed for a factory audio system less is given to maximum quality than ergonomics,and agreeable sound. a large number of factory sound systems have an agreeable sound, think mp3 over cheap headphones or earbuds. putting a band aid on it, is really just that, your not really fixing it just covering it up. If you've never heard or experienced really neutral high quality audio reproduction, then you don't know it exists.


Do you really think the minute audible differences between a mega high end Mac head unit and a stock deck are going to be so stark when you're rolling down the highway with a 75db noise floor?


----------



## Phil Indeblanc (May 27, 2015)

Funny just testing this in the car on the drive home. I peaked at 102db. One of the 2 was suffering , tweets or ears. Likely both.

But sounded pretty good listening to it. Before I thought it was 92-98. So, 102 is louder and 105 is even more a chunk louder. My system limit was 102, and I thought I had better than average gear :-/

I did think it could be louder, so I tried a bit more and it got sloppy, and I blew a tweeter!

But perfectly fine listening @96db


----------



## cajunner (Apr 13, 2007)

the difference between 90 db and 100 db is twice as loud, so that's really pretty loud since a 70 db noise floor is hard to talk over at normal volume conversation.

which means you are basically shouting to hear someone at 80 db, then 90 db is double that, and 100 db, that's about where you can't hear someone yelling during the loud passages in the music.

110 db, is twice that loud...

and 120 db? You don't want to know what 120 db is, but it's twice that loud.


haha..


----------



## Darth SQ (Sep 17, 2010)

This is not OT.
Control your language.
Last warning.


Bret
PPI-ART COLLECTOR


----------



## Bayboy (Dec 29, 2010)

jpeezy said:


> semi difficult,expensive to get the original digital signal out of factory headunit(i didn't say impossible, so all of you stock head unit-dsp guys don't jump all over my sh$t, but even using say a mobridge on a bmw with a high quality dsp is going to get pretty expensive. Now if your feeding an amplified signal from a factory head unit into a dsp, it doesn't matter how nice a dsp your using,your still trying to dsp an amplified signal, and i can assure you with the exception of a few very expensive oem systems, they are going to be limited on one or all of the following: frequency response, dynamics, stereo separation, phase (frequency dependent or otherwise), and the list goes on and on. Not to mention that when a system is designed for a factory audio system less is given to maximum quality than ergonomics,and agreeable sound. a large number of factory sound systems have an agreeable sound, think mp3 over cheap headphones or earbuds. putting a band aid on it, is really just that, your not really fixing it just covering it up. If you've never heard or experienced really neutral high quality audio reproduction, then you don't know it exists.


This same point was brought about in another forum. While most were changing out the headunit anyway, one particular decided to use it. Others detested causing the individual to actually test the unit. The results posted caused a bit of silence afterwards. The headunit had nothing special about it besides the quick tone controls (bass/treble), balance, fader, and your usual presets. Needless to say, he didn't even use DSP. Fed into decent amps with much higher quality drivers, one of which I have experience on. 

With that, I'm not saying your point isn't valid, but it's a bit on the extreme side. For years, many have done the simple switching out of drivers for an improved sound while leaving all else intact. Now to the degree of something competition worthy, that takes a bit of a turn.


----------



## cajunner (Apr 13, 2007)

PPI-ART COLLECTOR said:


> This is not OT.
> Control your language.
> Last warning.
> 
> ...


did I miss something?


----------



## Victor_inox (Apr 27, 2012)

Jesus Christ said:


> In my opinion, part of sq is the ability to achieve realistic output levels.


What is realistic output levels to you? 150Db?


----------



## hurrication (Dec 19, 2011)

cajunner said:


> the difference between 90 db and 100 db is twice as loud, so that's really pretty loud since a 70 db noise floor is hard to talk over at normal volume conversation.
> 
> which means you are basically shouting to hear someone at 80 db, then 90 db is double that, and 100 db, that's about where you can't hear someone yelling during the loud passages in the music.
> 
> ...


Perceived loudness is dependent on frequency, though.

As Phil mentioned a few posts above, ~100db from a tweeter is borderline unbearable, but in comparison ~100db from a subwoofer is not even a satisfying amount of bass for most.


----------



## Jesus Christ (Aug 3, 2010)

Victor_inox said:


> What is realistic output levels to you? 150Db?


Concert level.


----------



## Victor_inox (Apr 27, 2012)

hurrication said:


> Perceived loudness is dependent on frequency, though.
> 
> As Phil mentioned a few posts above, ~100db from a tweeter is borderline unbearable, but in comparison ~100db from a subwoofer is not even a satisfying amount of bass for most.


I believe he was talking about music signal not sinewaves


----------



## Bayboy (Dec 29, 2010)

I wish I knew exactly how loud I listen lately. I have a feeling I could get away with less than usual.


----------



## Victor_inox (Apr 27, 2012)

Jesus Christ said:


> Concert level.


What concert level, string quartet playing Mozart or Manowar?
big difference there you know.


----------



## Jesus Christ (Aug 3, 2010)

Victor_inox said:


> What concert level, string quartet playing Mozart or Manowar?
> big difference there you know.


Closer to the Manowar end of the spectrum.


----------



## Phil Indeblanc (May 27, 2015)

I guess there are extreme and maybe too many folks standing right in front of the 10' wall of speakers at a rock concert....umm, I've been in that situation and moved, while others may take their head and try inserting it into the speaker......


But there is this desire that you just want to know how far and loud you can push a system.....until you blow the tweeter like I did, and realize below 100 ...92-98 is perfectly loud and great to enjoy loud music. 92 is just generally great and pretty full/loud.

But 105 I wasn't able to get, and I would blow the other tweeter.

My wonderment is, which is the weak link in the chain?
And is there a calculation that converts dB to watts? Pre distortion maybe tougher to figure.


----------



## Victor_inox (Apr 27, 2012)

130 db is you idea of reasonable spl,got it.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G925A using Tapatalk


----------



## Jesus Christ (Aug 3, 2010)

Victor_inox said:


> 130 db is you idea of reasonable spl,got it.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G925A using Tapatalk


I shoot for 120 db+. I very rarely listen at those levels but I like to be able to when I want to.


----------



## cajunner (Apr 13, 2007)

What's wrong with my language?

Anyone?


----------



## Victor_inox (Apr 27, 2012)

Jesus Christ said:


> I shoot for 120 db+. I very rarely listen at those levels but I like to be able to when I want to.


I bet you have permanent hearing damage because no one in their mind will listen at sound pressure of fighter jet taking off.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

I do and would.

If I was playing a track of a marching band, I would want to replay them as they were recorded. And if I want to feel like I am watching Slayer live if I want to too.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

But that's the way competition systems used to play- it wasn't uncommon to do 115-120 db with your front stage on L'daddy. Some of the top cars like Eric Steven's Sable would do 125 from the front stage on that track. That's loud.


----------



## Victor_inox (Apr 27, 2012)

thehatedguy said:


> I do and would.
> 
> If I was playing a track of a marching band, I would want to replay them as they were recorded. And if I want to feel like I am watching Slayer live if I want to too.


I take it you never heard fighter jet taking off in close proximity.
How about top fuel dragster?Marching band or inside of movie theater is nowhere close.


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

Victor_inox said:


> I bet you have permanent hearing damage because no one in their mind will listen at sound pressure of fighter jet taking off.


Lol you might want to go to a air show with the blue Angels. It's not the same at all. I work on aircraft carriers. The sounds a jet makes on power is nothing like what a car stereo can produce. The stereo can't even get close.


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

I can't believe some one that builds amps would even consider jet noise db levels and a stereo db levels in the same post


----------



## Victor_inox (Apr 27, 2012)

DDfusion said:


> I can't believe some one that builds amps would even consider jet noise db levels and a stereo db levels in the same post


Exactly. Wearing 40DB ear protection barely helps. 
Top fuel dragster taking off is pure pain 100 yards away. I dropped my freaking camera when I first experienced that. I was in shock. 
what I think some people thinking is that their iphone mic can capture actual db level when in fact it simply can`t. My stuck on 111Db and when I hear it increasing in SP numbers won`t move.


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

But most think when they are listening to 120db measured on music it's the same. Last car was 150db and it was pleasant full tilt. I take my crainel off on deck and my head is ripped off


----------



## Victor_inox (Apr 27, 2012)

DDfusion said:


> But most think when they are listening to 120db measured on music it's the same. Last car was 150db and it was pleasant full tilt. I take my crainel off on deck and my head is ripped off


 ever measured SPL on deck?


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

I will repeat myself for the benefit of those who still dont get it. Sound quality at 120db is an oxymoron. It's like saying the stars shine bright in the sunlight. *At 120db your ears have pretty much lost the ability to tell good from crap in any meaningfull way.* At this volume your ear are the weakest link


----------



## gstokes (Apr 20, 2014)

What contributes more to SQ, that is the question.
I read my first reply and after thinking about realized i was wrong..

Amplifier has minimal effect on SQ so we can rule that out..
Head unit has some effect on SQ but not like the speakers do..
Speakers make a nice improvement to an audio system but they'll still not the leading factor in SQ.. 

Thinking that an amplifier should or could have a substantial effect on SQ is nuts..
It's only there to amplify the signal, that's it sole purpose in life, make it louder..

#1 thing that makes the biggest improvement to SQ is damping, it will do more to enhance the SQ than anything else..

Creating a quiet environment free of rattles, resonance, reflections, etc..

That's my story and I'm sticking to it


----------



## drop1 (Jul 26, 2015)

A lot of what you guys are debating has a lot to do with frequency responce at those levels. Good music is balanced. Peaks sound bad, and at high volume they flat out hurt. A smooth response on audio that was designed to sound pleasant can be enjoyed much louder than these extremes being mentioned. 
Hell 90 db at 1 khz absolutely makes my skin crawl but if it's balanced within the audio I don't even hear it.


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

Victor_inox said:


> ever measured SPL on deck?


IH people have. That's how they set our hearing protection areas. It's stupid loud, very loud when they take off and you are under them in the smoke pit. 

It's just noise, full spectrum, very painful loud noise


----------



## Victor_inox (Apr 27, 2012)

sqnut said:


> I will repeat myself for the benefit of those who still dont get it. Sound quality at 120db is an oxymoron. It's like saying the stars shine bright in the sunlight. *At 120db your ears have pretty much lost the ability to tell good from crap in any meaningfull way.* At this volume your ear are the weakest link


 Agreed.


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

You can still have good SQ at 120db. Look at some of the distance test with PA or non PA. If you can hear it over a 1/4 mile away I'm betting it's over 120db up close. And they still sound very nice. 

What DB do you think my old front stage did? Sub stage was a 148 at this point in time. 
It built a perfect image. 

http://youtu.be/5s78yxSIM3c


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

DDfusion said:


> You can still have good SQ at 120db. Look at some of the distance test with PA or non PA. If you can hear it over a 1/4 mile away I'm betting it's over 120db up close. And they still sound very nice.
> 
> What DB do you think my old front stage did? Sub stage was a 148 at this point in time.
> It built a perfect image.
> ...


I'm sure it sounded great,......*boom*chick*boom*boom*chick*chick. Yep, sounds really good.


----------



## LaserSVT (Feb 1, 2009)

I dont have any good equipment for testing and just have a few SPL apps on my Droid Turbo so I am sure its way off but I just sat in the truck and listened to some songs I really enjoy and played them at the level I do when I like to rock out and these were my findings:
Truck and AC running, at idle, AC on max: 74.7db
Subs off and volume set at 12 points below where I know distortion comes in: 109.8 peaks with 103.2 average.
Subs on, same volume: 115db at peaks and 107db average.
Bass music at 6-7 points below max safe levels on the deck: 128.9 and my head was vibrating.

I know at these levels you can just barley hear the person in the passenger seat yelling and not hear them at all when they sing along with the music.

Several months back using an Audio Control RTA with a balanced mic on test tones and with the JL amp the truck did push 142db before the subs started to protest.


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

Good enough to place in SQ a few times. 

I'm guessing you didn't play it.


----------



## Victor_inox (Apr 27, 2012)

Male hearing can drop 20DB in sensitivity if overloaded but female only 6.


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

If you really want to measure SPL you need a pressure sensor. AC RTA, phone App. None of that stuff.


----------



## omnibus (Feb 20, 2015)

My volume knob rarely goes much past halfway, it's enough to drown out traffic and I can hear the music clearly so I failed to see the need.
Now when I was a teen, I liked it loud for some dumb reason but these days it both annoys me and constantly makes me worry if I'm bothering others as I drive by.



Victor_inox said:


> Male hearing can drop 20DB in sensitivity if overloaded by a female's nagging.


Fixed for accuracy


----------



## Victor_inox (Apr 27, 2012)

DDfusion said:


> You can still have good SQ at 120db. Look at some of the distance test with PA or non PA. If you can hear it over a 1/4 mile away I'm betting it's over 120db up close. And they still sound very nice.
> 
> What DB do you think my old front stage did? Sub stage was a 148 at this point in time.
> It built a perfect image.
> ...


That is probably ****ty recording or my Dt770 heaphones but I can't stand how annoying high hat sounds in that video and no bass. At all.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G925A using Tapatalk


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

At NAS Pensacola, I was standing there in formation while the Blue Angels buzzed the deck at about 3 stories above us. 



Victor_inox said:


> I take it you never heard fighter jet taking off in close proximity.
> How about top fuel dragster?Marching band or inside of movie theater is nowhere close.


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

The bass is in the trunk. You can hear it at times. That high hat is crisp. That's in that recording.


----------



## gstokes (Apr 20, 2014)

DDfusion said:


> You can still have good SQ at 120db.


No you can't, at 85db and up your ears are ringing and can't tell a difference in SQ ..

It may sound good BUT you're not able to perceive any differences in SQ at 120db..


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

thehatedguy said:


> At NAS Pensacola, I was standing there in formation while the Blue Angels buzzed the deck at about 3 stories above us.


That's where I am now. Instructing. New guys love them, until they have to fix them everytime they fly

It's really cool when you are out to sea and the baby hornets break the sound barrier right beside the ship


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

****, my own car was metered at 115-118 (I don't remember which) at my first Finals when I had an equipment malfunction causing my subs not to play for my SPL test.


----------



## Victor_inox (Apr 27, 2012)

I like my fried chicken crisp,I prefer music natural.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G925A using Tapatalk


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

gstokes said:


> No you can't, at 85db and up your ears are ringing and can't tell a difference in SQ ..
> 
> It may sound good BUT you're not able to perceive any differences in SQ at 120db..


85db is talking level. You have some messed up ears. Or you are using bad measuring equipment.


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

Victor_inox said:


> I like my fried chicken crisp,I prefer music natural.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G925A using Tapatalk


That was the perfect song for that test. In the car with the bass with it it's pretty cool. 

But it's not for everybody and I get that. Does not mean it's impossible.


----------



## Victor_inox (Apr 27, 2012)

You like it and that what matters.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G925A using Tapatalk


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

A few judges also liked it. So that proves you can have SQ at higher levels than most hear believe.


----------



## Victor_inox (Apr 27, 2012)

DDfusion said:


> A few judges also liked it. So that proves you can have SQ at higher levels than most hear believe.


That prove that some judges better find another hobby......


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

That's your opinion. If it looks good on the RTA and the stage is on point than... It's good SQ. 

If you use the right equipment than its good to go. 
Building a car that can get that loud while sounding that good isn't cheap. 
Just because it's not what YOU like don't mean much to anyone else. 
Just because YOU have never heard it in real life don't make it impossible. 
If it passes every test and still gets very high output.. Well it passes the test


----------



## ImK'ed (Aug 12, 2013)

The volume ie spl of the system brings up a really good point! If im driving down the road and have it loud does that really mean true sq whether its acheivable or not is a different issue but can my ears even hear it.


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

It seems people on here are not measuring SPL levels correctly anyway so it's a mute point in this topic.


----------



## Victor_inox (Apr 27, 2012)

You nailed it,just because you like it doesn't mean anything to anyone else

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G925A using Tapatalk


----------



## 1996blackmax (Aug 29, 2007)

From the list...speakers.


----------



## Phil Indeblanc (May 27, 2015)

So, is there a way to translate wattage with distance, space and get a DB number?
This maybe more possible with pink noise?

DDF, running you JL amp and getting over 120 sounds odd. I am using the JL 150x4, and I barely get 102 before distortion starts.

Also, I think your ears shut down certain frequencies at such high levels whether you know it or not... so you really are not hearing SQ.


----------



## lizardking (Nov 8, 2008)

NOBODY hears SQ at 120db...110db...in an automobile...lmao. Internet B.S.


Just like my transistors and capacitors in my amp sound better then yours....


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

You keep believing that and be happy with your system that can't do it.


----------



## hurrication (Dec 19, 2011)

What we perceive as loud is *entirely* dependent on frequency range.

Why is this not sinking in, and why do so many people here not realize this?

It's time for some basic education - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-loudness_contour


----------



## Phil Indeblanc (May 27, 2015)

Ask.com says....

If a sound level of 85 decibels is endured for eight hours, permanent damage can result. At 100 decibels, permanent damage can result after as little as 15 minutes. Above 120 decibels, the damage can be both permanent and immediate

Noise-induced hearing loss afflicts roughly 10 million Americans. Hearing loss occurs when the microscopic hair cells found in the cochlea are broken or damaged. The loss may be sudden or cumulative. An idling bulldozer can generate 85 decibels, and a personal music system using headphones can generate more than 100 decibels when played at full volume. Depending on the proximity to the stage, a listener at a very loud rock concert can be exposed to levels exceeding 115 decibels.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

Phil Indeblanc said:


> Ask.com says....
> 
> If a sound level of 85 decibels is endured for eight hours, permanent damage can result. At 100 decibels, permanent damage can result after as little as 15 minutes. Above 120 decibels, the damage can be both permanent and immediate
> 
> Noise-induced hearing loss afflicts roughly 10 million Americans. Hearing loss occurs when the microscopic hair cells found in the cochlea are broken or damaged. The loss may be sudden or cumulative. An idling bulldozer can generate 85 decibels, and a personal music system using headphones can generate more than 100 decibels when played at full volume. Depending on the proximity to the stage, a listener at a very loud rock concert can be exposed to levels exceeding 115 decibels.


yeah but at what frequencies.


----------



## Phil Indeblanc (May 27, 2015)

With age we lose the higher frequencies as it is, so those Fq maybe the first to go.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

Phil Indeblanc said:


> With age we lose the higher frequencies as it is, so those Fq maybe the first to go.


im saying, at what frequencies does 120db do immediate permanent damage. 120 db in the sub bass region is nothing, meanwhile 120db at 1khz will make your brain explode :laugh:


----------



## Souldrop (Nov 2, 2014)

I could be mistaken, but I think Skizer was trying to point out that 120 db of constant noise is considerably different than transient music peaks which may or may not be at particularly damaging frequencies.

As far as the original topic I would have to say speaker placement followed closely by driver selections assuming everything else is decent.


----------



## Phil Indeblanc (May 27, 2015)

YEs, and why I would think it would be the higher frequencies that would do the damage. If you listen to the lower frq at 120+ db and you don't hear a ringing in your ear, you might be alright. But as you mention the 1K and above maybe the culprits of the ear ringing, a good sign of ear trauma.


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

Phil have you ever heard a 130 even 140db sub stage? 130db sub stages can be had from a Best Buy installed sub stage
Also to add, 120 distortion is way more painful than 130db clean


----------



## hurrication (Dec 19, 2011)

Phil Indeblanc said:


> YEs, and why I would think it would be the higher frequencies that would do the damage. If you listen to the lower frq at 120+ db and you don't hear a ringing in your ear, you might be alright. But as you mention the 1K and above maybe the culprits of the ear ringing, a good sign of ear trauma.


120db of bass is about what a healthy 500-600 rms 12" sub can produce without breaking a sweat.


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

A pair of $50 kicker 12s can get in the 130s out of a trunk easy


----------



## Phil Indeblanc (May 27, 2015)

I have plenty. but I never measured it. A bunch of cars with mediocre to decent SQ and powerful subs that overpower the rest of the system and I have no interest, but can only understand it to those that love it as a pacifying form of soothing treatment, not listening to music. I have also had the experience of aim for improved SQ levels, with incorporation of a sub that is powerful, and can really stand out in the system when you want it to for some music tracks with deep rich bass lines.

All at short bursts inside or close up, or from about 60 feet away. So, not sure how it effects hearing.


I have 500RMS to a 10" sub myself, and while I have not maxed its output, even turned up I'm still at 103 db. I guess its not one of those amazing subs :-/ ?
But it is way immersive, and its enough to rattle things, sound a little cookoo and turn it down.


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

Phil Indeblanc said:


> I have plenty. but I never measured it. A bunch of cars with mediocre to decent SQ and powerful subs that overpower the rest of the system and I have no interest, but can only understand it to those that love it as a pacifying form of soothing treatment, not listening to music. I have also had the experience of aim for improved SQ levels, with incorporation of a sub that is powerful, and can really stand out in the system when you want it to for some music tracks with deep rich bass lines.
> 
> All at short bursts inside or close up, or from about 60 feet away. So, not sure how it effects hearing.
> 
> ...


How are you getting this 103db measurement?


----------



## Phil Indeblanc (May 27, 2015)

with a iphone app,


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

Phil Indeblanc said:


> with a iphone app,


Bro just stop


----------



## Phil Indeblanc (May 27, 2015)

I do have another SPL meter, but I remember these are pretty accurate, at least within a couple db's. Also this locks in the max it hits. Also the doors closed and nothing on I was at 48-50db


----------



## Phil Indeblanc (May 27, 2015)

how off can it be from a SPL meter? I'll take it out tomorrow and test it.
Do you want me to use the measurement mic from seat position with some software?


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

You cant be serious right now


----------



## Phil Indeblanc (May 27, 2015)

:huh:Just read that they are fairly accurate up to 100db:shrug:
I have the meter I will use tomorrow.

Umm, i don't measure spl levels. I didn't know knowing the apps limit was a prerequisite.


----------



## cajunner (Apr 13, 2007)

anyone see anything wrong with my language?

Bret posted a warning about language, right after my post, I don't know if he was warning me or someone else...

I really don't want to have my "last warning" without knowing why I was flagged, just doesn't make sense to me?

anyone else want to help a brother out?


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

You need to stop talking about SPL levels when you really have no idea. I would put money your single 10 is at least in the 120db range.


----------



## Phil Indeblanc (May 27, 2015)

i have not spoke about SPL levels or the tools they are measured in, in any way that might make one think that I know SPL. In fact I asked a couple times for anyone that does know about them if they can help me calculate, if possible wattage to DB, so I think its pretty obvious I'm not your SPL meter totting audio guy. Doesn't mean anything in regards to listening to music, sound reproduction, or car audio that I certainly enjoy a great deal. Great tool to know how effective sound deadening is doing, or to measure speaker to speaker levels, but over 100db? Not so much.


----------



## Phil Indeblanc (May 27, 2015)

I hope your right about the 10", but my concern and why this topic interested me to begin with was that I blew a tweeter, and was wondering if the tweeter blew due to it reaching its limit...And why I wanted to know the watts RMS to db...and just general better understanding. Doesn't mean I wont know a few related things that you might have skimmed ;-)


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

It don't work that way. At all


----------



## Phil Indeblanc (May 27, 2015)

Maybe that's the difference, this is work for you. (not that I have a clue to what you're referring to as "work" with that statement).

Cajunner, I doubt he was talking to you, as one of the other red colored member names used a profane word themselves. Perhaps they were just kidding around.


----------



## cajunner (Apr 13, 2007)

Phil Indeblanc said:


> I hope your right about the 10", but my concern and why this topic interested me to begin with was that I blew a tweeter, and was wondering if the tweeter blew due to it reaching its limit...And why I wanted to know the watts RMS to db...and just general better understanding. Doesn't mean I wont know a few related things that you might have skimmed ;-)


audio meters get less accurate the higher the decibels.

I have a Radio Shack analog meter, it's ancient and it's primitive, and it's reliably given me results up to around 120 db's.

It's rated for 126 db, and I have no reason to believe it's unable to meet that specification and there has been many a speaker tested with these, over the years.


I understand that there are calibration files, and general tolerance guidelines to soften the accuracy a bit, but I feel I have been pretty close to true with these predictions.

10 db higher or lower, is doubling/halving perceived sound levels.

this relates in a frequency dependent way, you can't have 120 db bass levels and your highs top out at 100 db, and you say your system can get loud enough to cause pain.

I don't believe there are any frequencies that 100 db actually causes pain? 

I do believe that if there was discomfort bordering on pain, your iPhone app may have fibbed a little on actual output, you may have been listening at 110-113 db levels while the meter was a mite peckish, at 102 db indicated.


so, first it's an accuracy issue with the metering equipment and within that objectivity there's the truth of physically pain inducing levels.

I also agree that some tones within the car can be much higher in a very narrow band involving just a couple of hertz, for instance, and a meter will miss it but your ears won't, owww....

like, the far side reflection into the side window glass from the unobstructed path across the vehicle. Although many frequencies will hit the glass and reflect, a few will multiply with the near-side speaker's output and cause a peak in the response that makes you go "what!?! was that..." because clearly, it didn't belong there or that loud...



oh, and thanks Phil, he had me worried there. I was misunderstood before and when you get a warning, I have decided to err on the side of caution...


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

If its not measured with a real meter it means nothing. Not a phone app or radio shack meter. Go find a termlab and get a reading. If its not done that way you really have no idea


----------



## Phil Indeblanc (May 27, 2015)

Thanks for that explanation. Its the same meter I have. 
I simply wasn't aware of the iphone and its limitations. 

Just for kicks, I do wonder if there is a plug in mic and some specific app to pass the limitations and hold some accuracy.

Ya, I was at odds with myself and somewhat disbelief that my db topped out at 103. Its what got me all frazzled and looking for answers. 

Thanks DD for pointing that out...maybe a little more open minded on receiving people wouldn't be bad, but at least now I know its the cell phone.

How about a calibrated measurement mic on a laptop?


----------



## cajunner (Apr 13, 2007)

DDfusion said:


> If its not measured with a real meter it means nothing. Not a phone app or radio shack meter. Go find a termlab and get a reading. If its not done that way you really have no idea


the old analog Radio Shack meters have been checked against extremely high quality measuring equipment and they are usually within 2 db, within the limited range.

your belief that it's not a "real" meter is based on what? Testing? Hearsay? Rumor mills?

the problem with the simple analog meters is they don't have much range but within their designed envelope they do pretty well.

a termlab is more useful for competition accuracy, imho and not necessary for a DIY sound quality analysis and measurement specification.

please, try to change my opinion with facts and not just "because I said so" type responses.


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

Mics wont work. you need to measure pressure. That's why Audiocontrol SPL mics always read way higher than sensors.


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

cajunner said:


> the old analog Radio Shack meters have been checked against extremely high quality measuring equipment and they are usually within 2 db, within the limited range.
> 
> your belief that it's not a "real" meter is based on what? Testing? Hearsay? Rumor mills?
> 
> ...


Its a mic not a sensor. No need to explain more. If you want to test it than test it against what works. 

Is it important? Not really. But it is if people want to really talk SPL levels.


----------



## Phil Indeblanc (May 27, 2015)

My ears were getting a sharp pain because the sound was increasingly distorted.


----------



## Phil Indeblanc (May 27, 2015)

Ya. not something I care for much at all>120(I'm guessing, yet to find out).
Just to protect my ears and gear.


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

I've been a SPL competitor for years. Most of you are listening to sub stages way higher than you think you are. I've seen stock 6x9s reach high enough to read on the TL, that's 120db. My little 8 can get in the mid 130s on bassy music. That's in a closed up trunk.


----------



## cajunner (Apr 13, 2007)

DDfusion said:


> Mics wont work. you need to measure pressure. That's why Audiocontrol SPL mics always read way higher than sensors.


isn't that a bass problem, though?


my understanding, (and I'm ready for schooling, here) is that the pressure mics are for those frequencies that are longer than the car interior's limited dimensional criteria, above Schroeder the need for the Termlab is negated by regular waveform generation and measurement is reliable with mics or pressure sensors...

SPL Meter | Studio Six Digital


at the bottom, it says the low range is topped out at ~100 db for iPhone devices.


Phil:

maybe that's why your meter is topping out?


----------



## cajunner (Apr 13, 2007)

okay, so what I've skimmed out (in a couple minutes) is that the condenser mics are picking up the reflections along with the direct, or primary waves and not able to filter them out, while a pressure zone mic is boundary loaded and only gets the primary wave, so if a Termlab mic is like that, then it will register *lower* decibel levels than the Audio Control mics that used to be the standard.

is this more accurate?


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

I don't know the details. I have done multiple test with AC mics and TL sensors. 

If you move the AC mic while its reading the score will jump through the roof. If you tap it on the dash it will jump through the roof. 

The phone apps and cheap meters are all over the place. I used a boom stick to find my peak before I knew better. It ended up being 10hz off.


----------



## Alex92 (Mar 27, 2015)

While browsing here the mention of hearing damage came up, I am curious how dangerous sub bass can be to my hearing around the 140-145db spl levels, the odd website I've seen mentions damage occurring at certain levels but doesn't mention the frequency


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

I get my hearing tested every year. I have no shift at all.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

cajunner said:


> anyone see anything wrong with my language?
> 
> Bret posted a warning about language, right after my post, I don't know if he was warning me or someone else...
> 
> ...


Bret's post wasn't aimed at you. Our friend Victor vented a bit (aimed at me) and that post was removed.


----------



## cajunner (Apr 13, 2007)

Alex92 said:


> While browsing here the mention of hearing damage came up, I am curious how dangerous sub bass can be to my hearing around the 140-145db spl levels, the odd website I've seen mentions damage occurring at certain levels but doesn't mention the frequency


my understanding is that all sound (frequencies) over 130 db can cause irreversible damage to hearing.

How much damage, what kind of damage, (dropouts, range narrowing, sensitivity, tinnitus) and the permanence of damage is less clear from what I've been able to source casually on the web. It's tied to duration.

I would guess that anything under 100 hz, can be enjoyed up to 130 db without any significant reduction over a few assorted episodes in life.

Constant, Daily Driver type pounding, perhaps 2 hours a day, does not seem to bode well for long-term protective guidelines?

I wouldn't expose myself to tones above 145 db or so, in any of the frequencies above 40 hz or so, just as a simple rule of thumb, for more than a blip of 10 seconds at a time, and maybe 5 times a year?


And a vehicle capable of 160 db, I probably wouldn't get into if the owner was sketchy on his "hair tricks" demos...:laugh:



sqnut:


thanks for that. I wasn't expecting Bret to find my inquiry but also didn't want to bother him with a PM.

so Victor took the lashing without complaint?

I think a part of internet intercourse is going to involve varying degrees of polish, I am afraid Victor's guilty of enjoying a little Russian brusqueness in his deliveries...


----------



## Alex92 (Mar 27, 2015)

Thankfully that gives me a little peace of mind with my car then haha, I'd be crazy to blast it continuously daily but feeling pretty proud of a comp I where over the weekend, came out with 140.5db @44hz from a single 12"


----------



## Phil Indeblanc (May 27, 2015)

its the hair follicles in the canal that get damaged. perhaps low frequencies don't cause this type of breaking of the follicles to cause the hearing loss/ ? High pitches much like the lady hitting notes to break glass is what causes the delicate hairs to shatter frazzle. While low frequencies bend....My interpretation of sound waves/?


----------



## ImK'ed (Aug 12, 2013)

After all this talk about spl vs what can be perceived as sq, in real world competitions at what volume Do they judge at?


----------



## Alex92 (Mar 27, 2015)

I've read in one guideline of a sq comp they take a db meter in the car and try test them all equally around 95db, probably changes with each place and how the judges do it


----------



## ImK'ed (Aug 12, 2013)

Doesnt seem very loud but then again these cars are parked up with engine off. I wonder how these top sq cars sound when winding the volume up like cruising around 70mph


----------



## Alex92 (Mar 27, 2015)

Would be interesting to hear, or better yet see how well they're deadened, the liberty that took top prize from the comp here is meant to be lined with dynamat all over what he described was most the car with the sound proofing foam or another equivalent laid over the dynamat to combat at much road noise as he could


----------



## ImK'ed (Aug 12, 2013)

No doubt sound deadening how ever its acheived is a must in a car as is sealed doors for if being used for midbass/mids . Reason i didnt include deadening in list or witing or tuning is because these are things that need to be done no matter what.


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

The amount of deadening depends on the car. Some need more than others


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

For all you guys splitting hairs over SQ at carzy db numbers, keep the following thought in mind.

In a reverberant environment (tons of early reflections) measured amplitude and perceived amplitude are two different things, beyond ~500 hz. Measure and set 300hz and 1 khz PN tracks to say 80db. Now go back and forth between the two, do they sound equally loud? Which one is louder?

Your mic doesn't measure the effects of reflections, your ears do. So if you're measuring 100 db, you're actually perceiving it louder than that.


----------



## juiceweazel (Jul 28, 2014)

In my opinion it's the install above anything else, but it wasn't a choice so I said location. You can make a $50 pair of speakers sound pretty good with the right installation. On the other side you can ruin a system with a bad install very quickly. Speakers were my 2nd choice.


----------



## lizardking (Nov 8, 2008)

sqnut said:


> For all you guys splitting hairs over SQ at carzy db numbers, keep the following thought in mind.
> 
> In a reverberant environment (tons of early reflections) measured amplitude and perceived amplitude are two different things, beyond ~500 hz. Measure and set 300hz and 1 khz PN tracks to say 80db. Now go back and forth between the two, which one is louder?
> 
> Your mic doesn't measure the effects of reflections, your ears do. So if you're measuring 100 db, you're actually perceiving it louder than that.


Too many ear, nose and throat Doctors and Internet Google champions to get what you're explaining.


----------



## Qmotion (Sep 29, 2013)

Music reproduction is the chain of events needed to make it happen. If it's not happening then it's probably the weakest link that needs to be fixed....... . If all of the links are strong then the goal should be reached.


----------



## Phil Indeblanc (May 27, 2015)

The most important part that contributes to sound quality are your ears.


----------



## Qmotion (Sep 29, 2013)

Ha ha. My ears are shot.


----------



## Darth SQ (Sep 17, 2010)

After reading the following thread Techflex and wire loom should be at the top of this list. 

http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum...io-discussion/213417-acoustics-wire-loom.html


Bret
PPI-ART COLLECTOR


----------



## 1996blackmax (Aug 29, 2007)

I need to get some


----------



## lizardking (Nov 8, 2008)

Wish I would have seen that. I would have told him to find the most expensive loom he can grab and wrap it three times.....and then said that two pengiuns walked from the Antarctica to the middle east to get on a boat....and there are actual people that believe that. Why can't loom fix SQ?


----------



## Phil Indeblanc (May 27, 2015)

well if penguins can now fly.....


----------



## 1996blackmax (Aug 29, 2007)

Puffin bird


----------



## High Resolution Audio (Sep 12, 2014)

Sorry to derail this thread......but
1. Speakers are most important when it comes to Sound Quality 
2. Source Unit is 2nd most important.

Great sounding speakers will sound great pretty much wherever you place them.


----------



## carlos3621 (Aug 24, 2015)

Speakers most important 
Amplifier second 
Source third

I've had the first two, with oem source, that sounded incredible.
Yes, adding a better source would probably have bettered the sound slightly, but most of today's oem sources, are not THAT bad to start with


----------



## hurrication (Dec 19, 2011)

High Resolution Audio said:


> Great sounding speakers will sound great pretty much wherever you place them.


Come on man, really? This thread already has enough setbacks. We don't need to be taking any more steps backwards!


----------



## Alex92 (Mar 27, 2015)

I saw a video a while ago, wouldn't apply to every car as they've got varying quality components, in the videos case using a rta and pink noise they compared stock all round to stock source and aftermarket speakers then aftermarket source with stock speakers, I can't quite remember how the results went though


----------



## Victor_inox (Apr 27, 2012)

That was very informative


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

hurrication said:


> Come on man, really? This thread already has enough setbacks. We don't need to be taking any more steps backwards!


check the post above yours..


----------



## drop1 (Jul 26, 2015)

High Resolution Audio said:


> Sorry to derail this thread......but
> 1. Speakers are most important when it comes to Sound Quality
> 2. Source Unit is 2nd most important.
> 
> Great sounding speakers will sound great pretty much wherever you place them.


I don't agree. I've heard some great speakers sound worse than bad on a bad tune.
Did it myself for a long time when I was learning all this.


----------



## ImK'ed (Aug 12, 2013)

Techflex ftmfw


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

Aliens


----------



## lizardking (Nov 8, 2008)

I wonder how many people still drive around with their album of 1000 CD's....rocking it.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

lizardking said:


> I wonder how many people still drive around with their album of 1000 CD's....rocking it.


Yep, all my content is on cd's.


----------



## nineball76 (Mar 13, 2010)

sqnut said:


> Yep, all my content is on cd's.



No CD player in this setup for me. After I buy a CD, I rip it lossless uncompressed and store it away. All my library is 1411 or higher, except for some random downloads that were only released through ****ty iTunes and never made it to hard copy CD. No moving parts, it'll be in a rough riding lifted diesel. All files stored on a 2tb ssd in the CarPC.


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

Mostly CDs for me. My ford sync actually sounds better on Bluetooth than USB.


----------



## ruizal (Aug 4, 2015)

lizardking said:


> I wonder how many people still drive around with their album of 1000 CD's....rocking it.


I've got to go through and find all mine!


----------



## Phil Indeblanc (May 27, 2015)

I still have lots of CD's, but slowly copying much of the ones I want to revisit onto the USB Thumbdrives.

One thing the stock Toyota HUnit has is a great search feature to look through a collection on a thumbdrive


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Doesn't really matter what you're using, cd or lossless. Now cd and 320, well that's normally night and day. I wouldn't hesitate to use lossless except my p-80 hates connecting to anything and my phone has crappy memory.


----------



## cajunner (Apr 13, 2007)

lizardking said:


> Too many ear, nose and throat Doctors and Internet Google champions to get what you're explaining.


his explanation is esoteric, yes?

the problem with it is that it's applicability to real world, solve a problem kinesthetics, is low.

is it true that mics are not picking up loudness, that your ears are picking up?

is it true that mics aren't capable of detecting SPL (sound PRESSURE levels) as well as a sensor, is the Termlab listening component a sensor, or a microphone?

is it true that Audio Control scoring from past competitions in yesteryear, are not accurate and that if a Termlab was used, the actual numbers would be lower?

this seems to be the consensus, I don't go to SPL competitions or compete so I don't know if this is true, but I have gathered as much non-factual hearsay as most of us here, and that's what the story is.


so given all of these answers, where does the Sound Quality portion of any competition merit testing, on loudness?

I think that if your system is capable of 90 db @ <5% THD, on averages that it's loud enough to be tested for sound quality.


I know a lot of us build our systems for output well in excess of that, but I include the use of small wideband drivers like the Aura Whisper being used in a lower crossover design, where they are asked to play frequencies under 500 hz and given crest factor and power handling and music's dynamic signals, the ability to deliver 10 db of range above the average seems to me, to be enough to warrant inclusion in a contest.

So a system that has drivers that can cleanly do 100 db in peaks, and 90 db in averaged or longer term, "music power", is actually kind of loud, IMHO.

In almost all cars that you apply a minimum of interest towards decreasing noise, perhaps throw 1% of the cost of your system towards decreasing mean SPL floor, and the average cost of systems out there being say, 1500 bucks or so, you could put 15 bucks worth of Home Depot MLV on your doors and deck, firewalls...

you get the point, right?


you can reach sub 70 db cruising SPL, which leaves you with 30 db of range, (@ 100 db peaks) more than enough to enjoy the music or be tested for sound quality.


I know, it seems low and I agree I listen to my tunes a bit higher than that on a regular basis but if the vehicle is stopped and you basically have an environmental SPL of 50 db in a quiet neighborhood, you're able to produce 50 db of dynamic range with a 100 db capable system, and that's a lot.


You won't be able to test the noise floor of your amplifier with just 50 db of range but you will be able to detect very minute artifacts in quieter passages of source material, which to me, is the basis for testing for sound quality.


like most reviewers, the ability to distinguish at low levels is the margin we use to detect a speaker's sound quality, most of the time.

I know, some of us use this in reverse, where the ability to distinguish at high levels, marks a speaker's quality and that's not wrong, it's just a distortion of what I believe sound quality testing is looking for. And for some of you, the distortion is the other way around. You believe a speaker that can play clean very loudly is the true indicator of sound quality.

Is it this impasse, that sets many here against each other, some claiming that sound quality can be assessed with <90 db SPL testing and others that need to know what the limits of the system are at the point of distortion, before they'll concur or concede?

also, in passing I see that people look at waterfalls and in-car, find the long delays to be "reflections adding to SPL numbers" but in reality it's stored energy modes, the reflections and the reverberation from panels being excited by high power input, combine...

it's the car, stupid, is kind of how it looks to me, again imho...

the car is making those long group delay, imprecise bass notes by acting as an intermediary between the speaker's cone and your ears.


----------



## Phil Indeblanc (May 27, 2015)

great stuff!

I remember a couple decades ago, if a speaker would play audibly at low volumes with good clarity it was a strong indication as it being a good speaker. 

Maybe in the mix of all the tools available today, this still holds some strong merit/?


----------



## cajunner (Apr 13, 2007)

Phil Indeblanc said:


> great stuff!
> 
> I remember a couple decades ago, if a speaker would play audibly at low volumes with good clarity it was a strong indication as it being a good speaker.
> 
> Maybe in the mix of all the tools available today, this still holds some strong merit/?


if you look at the guys testing cabinets, using accelerometers and mechanic stethoscope stuff, looking for deflection and decay numbers, the car itself is like the enclosure in a lot of installs.

the enclosure has to be improved, decoupling the driver from a cabinet does wonders, even adding bracing inside a box, or putting CLD on thin speaker frames to control resonant modes in the basket of some drivers...


but the car!



IT'S THE CAR!



haha...


----------



## Phil Indeblanc (May 27, 2015)

I saw a thread a bit back...It was designing a car around the audio. Those would be some very interesting concepts. If they are derived from a SQ perspective, I would love to see automakers use some of those ideas incorporated in cars of say 5 years from now.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

cajunner said:


> his explanation is esoteric, yes?


Actually it's science and in this article Why does it happen above 500hz? Because wavelengths below 500 are longer and less prone to reflections. It has very definitive real world application when you're tuning the car.


----------



## nineball76 (Mar 13, 2010)

sqnut said:


> Doesn't really matter what you're using, cd or lossless. Now cd and 320, well that's normally night and day. I wouldn't hesitate to use lossless except my p-80 hates connecting to anything and my phone has crappy memory.



CD vs lossless wasn't meant to be in my statement. Simply stated that I'll carry a large library wherever on a ssd without having any moving parts that are subject to vibration while off roading. I like CD, I just don't want to chance them getting damaged from handling. Open it, rip it, store it.


----------



## Phil Indeblanc (May 27, 2015)

I use Cd's, but I keep hearing people say how anything above 320 is only for some very faint passages in classical music. 

Other forms will not be effected in any audible way. Is this true, and how true?

What do you think about that? Is it worth the extra 3 times the storage as I convert my CD's to my USB thumbdrives?

(At least we are still on topic as source


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

nineball76 said:


> CD vs lossless wasn't meant to be in my statement. Simply stated that I'll carry a large library wherever on a ssd without having any moving parts that are subject to vibration while off roading. I like CD, I just don't want to chance them getting damaged from handling. Open it, rip it, store it.


I know, the thread is already a train wreck. I didn't want it to roll over and fall into a deep ravine of cd vs lossless. All good.


----------



## nineball76 (Mar 13, 2010)

Phil Indeblanc said:


> I use Cd's, but I keep hearing people say how anything above 320 is only for some very faint passages in classical music.
> 
> Other forms will not be effected in any audible way. Is this true, and how true?
> 
> ...



This is completely up to you. Only you can decide if it's worth it. I've copied several tracks in multiple formats to usb, the went for a drive with it on random play. At lower volumes the differences are much more difficult to hear, but cranked up, the increase in dynamics from the lossless is pretty evident. Your ears are different though, I promise.


----------



## Phil Indeblanc (May 27, 2015)

I wonder if there is a source handy enough with a few general music tracks of various kinds, and they let you download and play to see for myslef. 

Its not hard to make one, knowing which CD is of clean recording is another factor. For testing at least it would be a bit important.

Instead of me trying to guess, as now a days which CD recording is of higher quality , since they stopped labeling the recording format AAD, ADD, DDD....Its hard to tell when you buy CD's now, you never know. That in itself makes a difference. I avoid AAD recordings. But now, they simply aren't labeled.

I have a number of them at 1411, so I can dummy that down to 320 and see. Or a wav file would be like lossless I think? Anyway...STILL ON "SOURCE" as SQ


----------



## mbradlawrence (Mar 25, 2013)

My 2 cents:

My wifes ****ty Chevy sounds really good -- stock. The path length differences for the driver are tiny so it actually images to the center with no eq to T/A. 

My Audi has all expensive speakers but f'd locations. I have full DSP and my car sounds WAY better than hers, *when tuned*.

What does this tell me --- unprocessed, install is the key. 

I won't be moving my stock locations so, *in that case*, processing is the key and most likely tied with speakers as I have improved speakers in stages and noticed big changes at each stage. -- but not as big of changes in processed vs unprocessed.

My suspicion is that I could get by with way less tuning in the her car than mine as her install (from a pld point of view) is "better" than mine.


----------



## lizardking (Nov 8, 2008)

I haven't touched any of my CDs in a very long time. Occasionally, I may break out the GOLD disc Dark Side of the Moon...I left CD's behind a couple years ago.


----------



## Alex92 (Mar 27, 2015)

The topic of CDs has me wondering, yesterday I was told that apparently if I were to play a lossless cd and the exact same lossless file through USB the cd would sound better, any possible truth there?


----------



## Phil Indeblanc (May 27, 2015)

they are both digital. 
The processor that converts the digital to analog has influence in sound. 
The amount of information being the same, I don't see how. Maybe the buffer from storage to playable data might have some role? They would likely have or use the same DAC, no?

One thing interesting that my dad discovered years back. He would take a CD, and record it at higher speeds on reel to reel to uncompress the information in the recording, and he would play it back and he noticed a more comfortable and natural sounding playback from the reel to reel. This was when CD's were fairly new.


----------



## LaserSVT (Feb 1, 2009)

Alex92 said:


> The topic of CDs has me wondering, yesterday I was told that apparently if I were to play a lossless cd and the exact same lossless file through USB the cd would sound better, any possible truth there?


I was curious about this myself in the last CD vs MP3 thread last month and this is what I discovered. I used Billy Idols "Prodigal Blues" on CD and then copied it to my USB twice. Once as 320 MP3 and once as WAV since my deck can not play FLAC. 
I listened to it at around 95ish db first on CD and then on MP3. There was a very large change in dynamics. For the most part the song sounded the same but the low bass line didnt have as much impact or definition and when you get to the short and loud drum solo it just was terrible. The smack of the drum skin didnt smack you in the head and the high notes of the guitar just were underwhelming. I then switched to the WAV version and ended up switching from CD to USB and I could not pick out any changes until I upped the volume 7 more points. At that point all I could hear different was again in the drum solo. It had just a tad less impact on the WAV vs CD but thats with the truck stopped and the fan all the way down. It wouldnt have been noticed with the fan up higher or if driving.
I then tried it at that volume level with the MP3 and much more of the song just sounded off and his voice became muffled.

Since then I have been slowly converting all my songs to WAV but I am missing many of the CDs so it will take a while to rebuild.


----------



## Phil Indeblanc (May 27, 2015)

So your findings of wav vs cd are much like amplifiers?

jk.

So that tad difference of wav vs cd is interesting. I would think HUnits have a single DAC for the sources (Maybe not?). 

Maybe its the reading of the file. A laser picking up the signal vs a RAM? Is that possible?


----------



## LaserSVT (Feb 1, 2009)

Could be my conversion software. Its FreeStudio from DVDVIDEOSOFT. I haven't really tried any others. I also haven't really tried any other songs. That wouldn't be hard I guess. Maybe it was an anomaly, maybe its the software I used, maybe its the USB dive I use. All or any could contribute to the loss of fidelity.
They are so close though I prefer to keep my music as WAV on the USB as opposed to running a huge stack of CDs. That being said I still have a wallet of 30 in my truck. LOL


----------



## nineball76 (Mar 13, 2010)

Of the lossless formats, wav and aiff as are closest to CD, uncompressed lossless. Flac and ALAC are both compressed lossless. Flac and ALAC both take up less space than wav and aiff but also take a bit more processing power to decode them. Again it's all about preference but I archive in aiff, wav isn't as id3 tag friendly. But take into consideration what files you can play. Almost everything plays wav these days. I do keep nearly double of all my files, originals and sometimes I need to convert my high res 24 bit down to 16 for an iPod I use in my work truck.


----------



## cajunner (Apr 13, 2007)

since this thread is now dithering between known variables in the sound quality premise, to the finer sliced proportionally, I think we can all step back a moment and congratulate ourselves a bit...


I'm all for a pat on the back, and we can collectively allow for a mild patronization, as we decide for ourselves amongst the evidence provided by our fellow acolytes in the sound quality tradition.


it has come down to storage formats, lossless codecs and various observations about the Compact Disc as anachronism, a mere 30 years from their widespread introduction and yet, we still must engage it's formality as a benchmark in our sound quality dialogue.

The answer is shrouded in mystery, to me. 

Compact discs contain everything that a cassette could not, they contain more than a lossy mp3 re-strike, of the audio canals furried into vinyl grooves.

There is a natural progression and we now have proponents of the new sound funny, the Ponos or the Tidal or just plain numbers, 24/96 and the bitstream renderings, the bottleneck of jitter and dither become sampling errors, or is it the other way around?


is it wrong to assume that red box 44.1 is no longer viable as a storage medium, is it now only correct to format a collection in 48K standards? Is the music so much more now, that the only way to storage it is to put it into some rarified status where even the manufacturers are loath to produce product that isn't seen to be compromises?

I think the people who created 44.1 were just a little short in their presumption at higher frequencies, but for myself I don't know if I can tell if the 20Khz content is being truncated at 1411 cycling, or that my hearing is just playing tricks on me? And if that is true, then why can I hear, (like LaserSVT has noted) differences between the sum of parts that begin as 1411, (which is WAV, right?) and end as something else?

It might be the cheap decoder software, wouldn't that really burn the chaps off of some of the meticulous sorts who haunt this place with their "lossy sucks" preacher tone?

Is it that simple, is it that obvious? Should we not have a consensus on which decoder is the best, if we're moving 44.1K material to 48K before punching it into a Bluetooth grinder and asking it to make steak flavored hamburgers out of 44.1K gristle?

I know to me, it all seems a bit clutzy, cloudy, kludged, choose your word, when we have libraries of supposedly good enough mp3 @ 320, being measured and found wanting for the sake of storage space cost considerations.

I'd rather have 2 thumb drives filled with WAV than one filled with FLAC, but is that the line?

I'd rather have 2 FLAC drives rather than 1 mp3, isn't that better?

Can we get a consensus, is it now necessary to own 24/96 in the lossless, or is it okay to have it in storage at 24/96 but loaded into FLAC for the car?


somebody, help me. HELP ME find the solution you have found, I would hope that with the industry professionals available here there would be a consensus between those folks and the general public who doesn't give a damn about quality until someone points it out to them, and then it's whoa! what the hell...?!

We used to buy our music on vinyl and it was, what it was. Don't you hate that saying, though? 

it is what it is, isn't what it is anymore.

you can't buy a CD and it be a storage medium with all of the music in it. There's 24/96 now, there's downloadable content that stretches out the little ones and zeroes to....


96/320?


is that where we are headed? Is 44.1K a doomed storage medium, can't we fit it all inside, what are we to do?


how are we to know?

help me, 


please.


----------



## Phil Indeblanc (May 27, 2015)

lol, lol


----------



## ImK'ed (Aug 12, 2013)

Might sound like a dumb question but whats the best format of storing music on a sd card and whats best on cd?


----------



## High Resolution Audio (Sep 12, 2014)

drop1 said:


> I don't agree. I've heard some great speakers sound worse than bad on a bad tune.
> Did it myself for a long time when I was learning all this.


You probably never have heard great sounding speakers. Back in the late 1990's early 2000's there was a SQ war going on with all car audio manufacturers. Every manufacturer was trying to out preform the next. Great sounding speakers need very little tuning when combined with a great source unit. Maybe some time correction to sound optimal, but thats about it. 

But the key is the source unit. Back in the day, I switched from a Pioneer Super tuner III to an Alpine 7994 and it brought my great sounding Boston Pro Series speakers to life. They sounded amazing. I couldn't believe the difference. They sounded pretty good with the Pioneer, but amazing with the Alpine. Same amplifier 100 Watt Class A RMS per channel.

I dont think its possible to make great sounding speakers sound bad with tuning or placement. Hell you could even install great speakers in your ass and they would still sound great if the tweeters were aimed properly.

All joking aside, speaker placement would have to rank third in terms of SQ. And yes I only am running CD's. No compromises for me. And there are huge differences between individual CD's as far as SQ goes.


----------



## TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL (Jan 31, 2011)

^Not true at all. EVERY car needs time alignment and eq to sound optimal, period. No matter how good your speakers and source is, this is a fact. 

Something tells me you've never rta'd a speaker on a flat baffle, them rta'd the same speaker in a car in from the seated position.

When every car successful sound quality competitor I've known agrees and a 4 time Oscar winner for mixing sound agrees that the tune is the most important thing, followed by speaker placement and the speakers themselves, I tend to take their word for it. Of course, my experience mirrors theirs.


----------



## High Resolution Audio (Sep 12, 2014)

TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL said:


> ^Not true at all. EVERY car needs time alignment and eq to sound optimal, period. No matter how good your speakers and source is, this is a fact.
> 
> Something tells me you've never rta'd a speaker on a flat baffle, them rta'd the same speaker in a car in from the seated position.
> 
> When every car successful sound quality competitor I've known agrees and a 4 time Oscar winner for mixing sound agrees that the tune is the most important thing, followed by speaker placement and the speakers themselves, I tend to take their word for it. Of course, my experience mirrors theirs.


Well I guess you and I and a top customizer for Car Audio and Electronics have a difference of opinion. And I did mention time Alignment, if you read my post.



High Resolution Audio said:


> Jeremy Carlson who is a top customizer of all time for Car Audio And Electronics, when asked what is the most important physical component in a high end car audio install states that "speakers" are on top of the list. When asked about most important with regards to the physical part of the install, he was given "speaker placement" as a choice and he ignored that choice as a response and went straight to integration.
> 
> Here is a link to the video and the section being referenced starts at 2:23-2:53.
> 
> ...


----------



## TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL (Jan 31, 2011)

I did see that you mentioned time alignment, which is why I only mentioned eq. Both are needed.


If you look at what Jeremy says, he is responding to a question about physical aspects of the install. I'd bet if you asked him without the physical constraints of that question, his answer would be tune, speakers, placement.

I responded because your post seemed to indicate that good speakers and a good source could outweigh eq, which it cant.


----------



## High Resolution Audio (Sep 12, 2014)

TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL said:


> I did see that you mentioned time alignment, which is why I only mentioned eq. Both are needed.
> 
> 
> If you look at what Jeremy says, he is responding to a question about physical aspects of the install. I'd bet if you asked him without the physical constraints of that question, his answer would be tune, speakers, placement.
> ...


You didn't watch the very next question in the video. In which that very question was asked. 

My point is that great speakers will produce a flat response ( with a great source unit ), and only need minor EQ to compensate for the individual car's interior. This is why high end stereo equipment has no tone controls. The better the speakers, the less EQ needed.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

High Resolution Audio said:


> Well I guess you and I and a top customizer for Car Audio and Electronics have a difference of opinion. And I did mention time Alignment, if you read my post.


The whole problem with your hypothesis and hence your belief is, that you're assuming the top customizer for CA&E has:

a. Heard good sound in a car.
b. Knows how to tune a car. 

Sorry to disillusion you, but going by his statements he strikes out on both counts. By extension, where does that leave your belief?

Think about it.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

High Resolution Audio said:


> Maybe some time correction to sound optimal, but thats about it. /QUOTE]
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## High Resolution Audio (Sep 12, 2014)

sqnut said:


> High Resolution Audio said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe some time correction to sound optimal, but thats about it. /QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL (Jan 31, 2011)

Again, the best speaker in the world with the flattest frequency response in the world, won't be flat from the seated position in a car. Not even close. Period.


----------



## juiceweazel (Jul 28, 2014)

High Resolution Audio said:


> *I dont think its possible to make great sounding speakers sound bad with tuning or placement. Hell you could even install great speakers in your ass and they would still sound great if the tweeters were aimed properly.*


Please tell me you're joking. I'm not an expert but I've found quite the opposite to be true.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

High Resolution Audio said:


> In my experience, If you start out with great speakers and great source unit, very little tuning is necessary to get a system sounding great is all I'm saying.
> 
> But if you would rather spend hours tweaking, testing, measuring, and tuning, then, by all means, go the other route.


Look at the FR graphs on this page. Interested to hear your thoughts. http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/technical-advanced-car-audio-discussion/167547-why-do-so-many-people-use-focal-speakers-7.html


----------



## nineball76 (Mar 13, 2010)

High Resolution Audio said:


> sqnut said:
> 
> 
> > In my experience, If you start out with great speakers and great source unit, very little tuning is necessary to get a system sounding great is all I'm saying.
> ...


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

I didn't say that.......


----------



## claydo (Oct 1, 2012)

High Resolution Audio said:


> In my experience, If you start out with great speakers and great source unit, very little tuning is necessary to get a system sounding great is all I'm saying.


Wow! To think everybody has been doing it all wrong for all these years.........roflmfao......


----------



## nineball76 (Mar 13, 2010)

I think it's more beneficial to do the work to make ok speakers sound their best, than waste a set of great speakers with shotty install.


----------



## claydo (Oct 1, 2012)

High Resolution Audio said:


> Great sounding speakers need very little tuning when combined with a great source unit. Maybe some time correction to sound optimal, but thats about it.
> 
> 
> I dont think its possible to make great sounding speakers sound bad with tuning or placement.


:facepalm:


----------



## Victor_inox (Apr 27, 2012)

TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL said:


> ^Not true at all. EVERY car needs time alignment and eq to sound optimal, period. No matter how good your speakers and source is, this is a fact.
> 
> Something tells me you've never rta'd a speaker on a flat baffle, them rta'd the same speaker in a car in from the seated position.
> 
> When every car successful sound quality competitor I've known agrees and a 4 time Oscar winner for mixing sound agrees that the tune is the most important thing, followed by speaker placement and the speakers themselves, I tend to take their word for it. Of course, my experience mirrors theirs.


 Could it be that these categories of people overestimate importance of what they do?I`m not saying they are just consider such possibility.
For 4 times Oscar winner I`m sure his mastering process is most important part of the movie. For cable guy it`s certainly cable.


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

You all will argue about the stupidest stuff


----------



## Guest (Aug 26, 2015)

My disclaimer... "In my opinion"... All the factors that have been discussed are important...

I do agree that the higher the level of equipment and attention to placement, the easier the tuning process will be... Now, I am speaking from a 2 channel stereo perspective... honestly that's where my experience is... Once we start discussing multi-channel... Processing becomes paramount simply by the nature of what we would be attempting to do... To implement multi-channel coding and panning... this takes focused tuning in respect to the logarithms being used... i.e. Dolby... etc....


----------



## juiceweazel (Jul 28, 2014)

nineball76 said:


> I think it's more beneficial to do the work to make ok speakers sound their best, than waste a set of great speakers with shotty install.


Exactly.


----------



## TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL (Jan 31, 2011)

Victor_inox said:


> Could it be that these categories of people overestimate importance of what they do?I`m not saying they are just consider such possibility.
> For 4 times Oscar winner I`m sure his mastering process is most important part of the movie. For cable guy it`s certainly cable.


I can see where your going with that, and that's understandable. 

I'll just say this. The guy in question has consistently one of the best cars I've heard (and I've heard some national championship winning cars, his included). I don't think I've ever heard a car that imaged as well. I have no doubt he would be competitive in the lanes with the best cars out there, if not better. He ALWAYS had maintained that tuning is the biggest piece of the puzzle.

In fact, every good car I've listened to has said the same.

Furthermore, I've never heard a non-dsp car sound better than a car with even mild dsp.

At the last gtg, I heard a car with dead stock speakers, dsp, and amps that sounded better than any car I've heard without dsp. Maybe a little volume limited, but the pure sound of it was great.


----------



## Victor_inox (Apr 27, 2012)

So what is it DSP or user ability to use it AKA tuning?


----------



## claydo (Oct 1, 2012)

DDfusion said:


> You all will argue about the stupidest stuff


Ok, mr. Sundown.......lol, sorry, it had to be said...... 



Victor_inox said:


> So what is it DSP or user ability to use it AKA tuning?


100% ability vic......100%.


----------



## TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL (Jan 31, 2011)

Victor_inox said:


> So what is it DSP or user ability to use it AKA tuning?


Tuning, should have made that more clear. A dsp is useless to someone that doesn't know how to use it and can do more harm than good in those cases.


----------



## Guest (Aug 26, 2015)

No doubt... there's real skill involved in tuning...


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Victor_inox said:


> So what is it DSP or user ability to use it AKA tuning?


I'm assuming the user has little or no prior experience with dsp.

Set the levels first, I don't cut the sub or woofer but the tweeters are cut about 6db. 

Set the network, keep sub/woofer xover under 80 and keep the drivers in the comfort zone. I use 4th order slopes and don't under/overlap xover points.

Set the timing from all drivers. Measure distance and set is a good start, you can also use IR if so inclined.

Balance for L/R. You can use PN tracks with an spl meter, or you can mark an X under your windshield play the PN tracks and adjust L/R to centre them at the X. You can also use a mic and REW. It all depends on what you find easiest. All 3 will work.

Next you need to set the overall response curve. Which is basically a downward slope from 30-200 flatish from 200-1khz and then sloping down ~2-3 db per oct.

This will give you a system that images decently and has decent tonality. BUT it will still not sound like a 2ch at home. For that you need to do all this and learn to tune by ear, that is a whole different topic.


----------



## ImK'ed (Aug 12, 2013)

sqnut said:


> I'm assuming the user has little or no prior experience with dsp.
> 
> Set the levels first, I don't cut the sub or woofer but the tweeters are cut about 6db.
> 
> ...


Excellent basic breakdown im going to give this a try.


----------



## Phil Indeblanc (May 27, 2015)

High Resolution Audio said:


> In my experience, If you start out with great speakers and great source unit, very little tuning is necessary to get a system sounding great is all I'm saying.
> 
> But if you would rather spend hours tweaking, testing, measuring, and tuning, then, by all means, go the other route.



I'm not sure if this is any value to you or anyone...

I used MB Quart QSD series speakers, which I think were highly regarded before the Focal flow. After install and the basic adjustments my installer knew based on general understand, which he has a solid core in, but not so much in tuning. He is not a DSP guy. 

My system sounded ok, but really missing a lot I know that could be imrpoved. My installer recommended a Pro tuner, he came in and after 6 or so hours with no breaks, the system is just AMAZING! It is alive. No longer a stereo system. Makes me wonder if you have had a system with all the adjustments made for the listener and fine tuned to the point of excitement you might get from a foam party/?


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

This thread is a hilarious train wreck. I'm being quoted a second time for something I didn't say. Can you please edit your post and correct it? Tks!!


----------



## Phil Indeblanc (May 27, 2015)

looks like a problem in the site. I fixed my post.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Phil Indeblanc said:


> looks like a problem in the site. I fixed my post.


It didn't work. Go to your post and click on edit. You will see the quote by HRA with the quote starting with his name and ID # right after that you should see my id details. Delete that.


----------



## Phil Indeblanc (May 27, 2015)

ok, fin


----------



## juiceweazel (Jul 28, 2014)

sqnut said:


> This thread is a hilarious train wreck.


We've spewed off on quite a tangent haven't we?
On that note, I'm ordering a sandwich so I can watch more action unfold without being hungry!


----------



## Phil Indeblanc (May 27, 2015)

ImK'ed said:


> Just curious so .....



curiosity killed the thread


----------



## ImK'ed (Aug 12, 2013)

Lol i got the answers earlier on and the general gist of my question. After that it was anyones thread lol


----------



## cajunner (Apr 13, 2007)

juiceweazel said:


> Please tell me you're joking. I'm not an expert but I've found quite the opposite to be true.


anything under 3" frames, am I right?

I don't believe anyone should be expected to fit anything bigger than that in one's orifice of brown note, in order to substantiate this assertion...

as far as my own tastes, it's why I like the Aura Whisper so much, it's so much easier to fit and it sounds great, no matter if it's solidly mounted or just puckered in the rim..


er...


well, with the caveat that the solder-tab versions are used, of course...


:surprised:


#TMI


----------



## juiceweazel (Jul 28, 2014)

Ribbed for his pleasure I guess


----------



## nineball76 (Mar 13, 2010)

I sometimes part my hair to the left to see if anyone notices


----------



## 1996blackmax (Aug 29, 2007)

juiceweazel said:


> Ribbed for his pleasure I guess


The ribbed portion on the inside


----------



## juiceweazel (Jul 28, 2014)

Sick minds, all of you!


----------



## dthor68 (Jan 10, 2016)

maggie-g said:


> personally, I feel it is something that is not in the poll - the music (or sound) itself. Meaning, the quality of the file (if digital) or the quality of the disc/recording. You can have the best system in the world, but if the music is terrible (quality), then what is the point?



I agree 100%!

On my system Breaking Benjamin sounds like crap while Three Days Grace sounds great. What I really cant understand is why BB sounds good on FM but not on CD? Everything from Donald Fagen/Steely Dan sounds great! Seems like all the highs are clipped on Elton John recordings.


----------



## Silvercoat (Dec 5, 2013)

Guess we need more DSP with analyze capable software per source and per file/track?


----------



## car8961 (May 7, 2013)

Knowing what live music sounds like contributes most to SQ.


----------



## Darth SQ (Sep 17, 2010)

Length and girth.
Especially girth. 


Bret
PPI-ART COLLECTOR


----------



## lynchknot (Sep 27, 2014)

I hear cannabis can improve sound quality but I vote for speaker/speaker placement.

However, quality speakers will not sound good unmounted sitting on your dash and the sub sitting in a five gallon bucket as an enclosure.... i've seen and heard it.


----------



## brumledb (Feb 2, 2015)




----------

