# Dynamic SQ Vehicles



## #1BigMike (Aug 17, 2014)

Good Day to everyone!

In your own opinion, what makes an SQ vehicle sound very dynamic while being crystal clear? The type of vehicle that once you step out, you can qualify it as and "EXPERIENCE!" 

If possible, please list examples of vehicles that you have listened to that demonstrated these traits. Pics of the installs would be nice if available.

Please no bashing just list your on personal experience.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Dynamics and vibrant sound is a factor of both, right timing and response. I have heard a lot of cars that were tonally decent, but sounded flat, with stretched vocals, because timing was off. Tweak the timing a bit and BAM suddenly the sound is vibrant and dynamic, and vocals that sound natural and real. 

If timing is off, you're messing up the natural / recorded gap between the fundamental and harmonics of each note, specially if the fundamentls are from one set of drivers and the harmonics from a different set. A lot of setups that sound tonally good but flat is down to timing issues.


----------



## BlackHHR (May 12, 2013)

Scott Welch`s charger
Brian Mitchell 
John Marsh Gt 
That is 3 cars right there that I have sat in and have first hand listening experience in.


----------



## evangojason (Feb 12, 2010)

Scott and Brian cars are an "EXPERIENCE!" for sure.


----------



## #1BigMike (Aug 17, 2014)

BlackHHR said:


> Scott Welch`s charger
> Brian Mitchell
> John Marsh Gt
> That is 3 cars right there that I have sat in and have first hand listening experience in.


Care to elaborate on the vehicles listed?


----------



## gregerst22 (Dec 18, 2012)

sqnut said:


> Dynamics and vibrant sound is a factor of both, right timing and response. I have heard a lot of cars that were tonally decent, but sounded flat, with stretched vocals, because timing was off. Tweak the timing a bit and BAM suddenly the sound is vibrant and dynamic, and vocals that sound natural and real.
> 
> If timing is off, you're messing up the natural / recorded gap between the fundamental and harmonics of each note, specially if the fundamentls are from one set of drivers and the harmonics from a different set. A lot of setups that sound tonally good but flat is down to timing issues.


What you're saying makes sense. The more time aligned the frequencies are the clearer the music will be which directly effects the dynamics you hear.


----------



## 1fishman (Dec 22, 2012)

Grey's BlackHHR is very dynamic. +1 on Scott's. My Honda's are also...


----------



## BlackHHR (May 12, 2013)

1fishman said:


> Grey's BlackHHR is very dynamic. +1 on Scott's. My Honda's are also...


Thanks Fishman 

Here is Becky and Scott Welch at finals. They swept the regional in Pro.


----------



## BlackHHR (May 12, 2013)

#1BigMike said:


> Care to elaborate on the vehicles listed?



Sure John Marsh First


----------



## BlackHHR (May 12, 2013)

#1BigMike said:


> Care to elaborate on the vehicles listed?


Scott Welch


----------



## mrpeabody (May 26, 2010)

Ones that aren't tuned for SQ competitions.


----------



## mrpeabody (May 26, 2010)

Scott's Charger definitely was awesome, and I enjoyed the dynamics of Richard's Civic as well with his current set-up.


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

Both of Fred Lynch's cars fit this description as well. The Passat in particular was fantastic. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## BlackHHR (May 12, 2013)

mrpeabody said:


> Ones that aren't tuned for SQ competitions.


I am sorry, I am biased towards the SQ cars that get off. 
But these cars I mentioned have Arc amps "except Ms Becky`s car". The Arc guys have produced a very serious sq amp. 
The volume is linear from the 75 db thru 105+ db and hold together very well. Both John`s car and Scott`s car is a hair moving demo at elevated levels. Brian's car is also very dynamic and is nothing to scoff at. Once again Arc Audio top shelf amps.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

#1BigMike said:


> Good Day to everyone!
> 
> In your own opinion, what makes an SQ vehicle sound very dynamic while being crystal clear? The type of vehicle that once you step out, you can qualify it as and "EXPERIENCE!"
> 
> ...



Here's one I did a few months ago 

http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum...nstall-gallery/227282-2015-ram-build-log.html


----------



## #1BigMike (Aug 17, 2014)

This is really good to read. I don't get the chance to get to many comps (2 so far) so reading about these cars and seeing other folks opinions is very helpful.

Keep the examples and pics coming.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

#1BigMike said:


> This is really good to read. I don't get the chance to get to many comps (2 so far) so reading about these cars and seeing other folks opinions is very helpful.
> 
> Keep the examples and pics coming.


Dynamic sq cars as title , or do you mean showcases of installs? 

I can post up some ugly ass **** that is dynamic and has tons of sq. 

So which is it ? Are you looking for install ideas or do you want to see the "lab"?


----------



## #1BigMike (Aug 17, 2014)

I am more interested in overall SQ + dynamic sound and your opinion on what makes that particular vehicle sound dynamic. 

Install pics good or bad is cool. Just as long as the car sounded bad ass. 

If you name drop please list gear or a pic. I have not been around long enough to know who some these folks are. Although I hope to hear their systems some day.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

#1BigMike said:


> I am more interested in overall SQ + dynamic sound and your opinion on what makes that particular vehicle sound dynamic.
> 
> Install pics good or bad is cool. Just as long as the car sounded bad ass.


 In that case all I can possibly say is a four letter word HLCD! 
I can't think of anything else that is truly dynamic and has SQ


----------



## BlackHHR (May 12, 2013)

This is a build that will never be shown at a SQ event. It is an old 69 El Camino that was gutted and rebuilt by Justin Marks.
It goes to a lot of car shows, but not SQ. 502 big block crate motor. 
3 way up front and 4 - 10" subs . PGold amps .
Justin Marks this one is for you.

Amp rack and subs 



















Dash Built 




















Assembled


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

mrpeabody said:


> Ones that aren't tuned for SQ competitions.


dynamics doesnt mean loud..


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

BlackHHR that camero is sick! Wow! I love his eye for creativity.

Edit Camino


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

The first thing I noticed about Gary Summer's Mercedes is that it's about as dynamic as any horn car I've heard, but it uses direct radiators. My 'hunch' is that this is mostly because it uses midranges with a very high EBP, much higher than you typically see in direct radiators.

https://www.facebook.com/MorelHiFi/posts/104933073010721


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Patrick Bateman said:


> The first thing I noticed about Gary Summer's Mercedes is that it's about as dynamic as any horn car I've heard, but it uses direct radiators. My 'hunch' is that this is mostly because it uses midranges with a very high EBP, much higher than you typically see in direct radiators.
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/MorelHiFi/posts/104933073010721


His car is very nice, very well executed from what I hear it sounds very nice indeed. I just moved away from morel and I'm very happy I did so far. However I have nothing bad to say about morel, it's still one of my favorites . This is a lot to be said in regards to dynamics when about every driver in the car having a 3" or bigger voice coil -the tweeter but it's vc is the circumference of the entire driver. I have had dynamics and sq with my dynaudio and morel stuff and Gary's car is top notch. .... However, it lacks that " X-ray quality" and I know that you know what I am talking about


Maybe his car has it idk I never listened to it, but my morel stuff never could.


----------



## Bluenote (Aug 29, 2008)

I too felt Gary Summers should be referenced in this thread. I heard his car 3 years ago before his recent upgrades and it's still very memorable!


----------



## mattyjman (Aug 6, 2009)

Horns and HE drivers make dynamics you've probably never even heard. Just sayin...


----------



## BlackHHR (May 12, 2013)

I ran a pair of ID CD2 Comp drivers many years ago. I purchased the drivers from Hi Fi Buys in Alpharetta Ga. This would have to have been before 1996 . Gary Stackpole was a regional manager at the time, If i recall correctly.
Just saying


----------



## #1BigMike (Aug 17, 2014)

mattyjman said:


> Horns and HE drivers make dynamics you've probably never even heard. Just sayin...


You are correct I have never heard horns or he drivers.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Dynamics is down to the tune, not the equipment or install. I also agree with Nick that dynamic does not mean loud or thumping bass......maybe we need to clarify what dynamic means. I'm wondering what the OP means by dynamics.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

sqnut said:


> Dynamics is down to the tune, not the equipment or install. I also agree with Nick that dynamic does not mean loud or thumping bass......maybe we need to clarify what dynamic means. I'm wondering what the OP means by dynamics.


I beg to differ! 

I can pull almost the EXACT rta curve with just about any set of drivers, and I know you know what I'm talking about because I know how much you preach about tuning but sincerely brother a well executed horn system with an identical RTA curve WILL have a more dynamic and more LIFELIKE sound. ( with a few exceptions and there's not many) 


Next time you're in your car cup your hands behind your ears and tell me if you hear more detail in your system I would suggest that you will. Horns do the same thing in reverse though so you don't have to have some crazy clamshells around your ears to hear it .

And how the heck can you say the install has nothing to do with it? That's absurd! So if I'm mount all of my entire system drivers in the drivers door panel in the back of the car you're telling me it's going to sound just as dynamic in full as long as i tune it right?
How about if I pull all my speakers out and go buy a 30$. Set of boss speakers and tune away? Please tell me I missing something. You've always been correct on helping folks and you even once helped me but this I can't agree with I sorry 

P.s. I still love you you one of my diy friends so no offense it's just in good intelectualizing  


dy·nam·ic
dīˈnamik/
adjective
1.
(of a process or system) characterized by constant change, activity, or progress.
"a dynamic economy"
2.
MUSIC
relating to the volume of sound produced by an instrument, voice, or recording.
"an astounding dynamic range"


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

^^^^^^^thread killer^^^^^^


I sorry


----------



## claydo (Oct 1, 2012)

I can't believe Kirks acura hasn't been mentioned! Easily one of the most dynamic cars I've ever encountered.........and for the record, no, it's not a horn car.......


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

oabeieo said:


> His car is very nice, very well executed from what I hear it sounds very nice indeed. I just moved away from morel and I'm very happy I did so far. However I have nothing bad to say about morel, it's still one of my favorites . This is a lot to be said in regards to dynamics when about every driver in the car having a 3" or bigger voice coil -the tweeter but it's vc is the circumference of the entire driver. I have had dynamics and sq with my dynaudio and morel stuff and Gary's car is top notch. .... However, it lacks that " X-ray quality" and I know that you know what I am talking about
> 
> 
> Maybe his car has it idk I never listened to it, but my morel stuff never could.


Yep. A properly designed horn shapes the wavefront for the first millsecond or so (about 13.5") and the lack of diffraction/reflection for the first millisecond definitely makes things sound different. You can see this in the impulse response; a really good horn has freakishly good impulse response. LeCleach is a good example of this.

If I had unlimited space I'd have a car with waveguides and a car with horns. But I don't, so I'm doing waveguides.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

claydo said:


> I can't believe Kirks acura hasn't been mentioned! Easily one of the most dynamic cars I've ever encountered.........and for the record, no, it's not a horn car.......


Kirk......???

I'm always intrested in a nice setup. Any links?

And sorry you don't have to have horns to be dynamic by any means, horns just make it better that's all.


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

Kirk Proffit


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## claydo (Oct 1, 2012)

^^You sir are correct!^^ He's got some build log action here, sorry, been a long day and I'm beat ass tired so I'm too lazy to get yer link, but......try searching user name KP......


Oh....and I reckon my car has been called dynamic a time or two as well......


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

oabeieo said:


> I beg to differ!
> 
> I can pull almost the EXACT rta curve with just about any set of drivers, and I know you know what I'm talking about because I know how much you preach about tuning but sincerely brother a well executed horn system with an identical RTA curve WILL have a more dynamic and more LIFELIKE sound. ( with a few exceptions and there's not many)


i dont think hes referring to eq work. i think hes talking about timing.

and for those who arent positive on what dynamics really is, the best analogy i can think of would be like this.

loud = top speed of a car. how fast can it go?
dynamics = acceleration, braking, and handling of a car. how fast can it go from 0-100, back down to 50, power through a turn, and take off again


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

SkizeR said:


> i dont think hes referring to eq work. i think hes talking about timing.
> 
> and for those who arent positive on what dynamics really is, the best analogy i can think of would be like this.
> 
> ...


True, I kinda mouthed off, sorry sqnut 

But regardless , even if it is timing or eq that isn't always the solution every time. Does it make thing better ? YES! However There's way more at play than that. And some speakers, horns, install technique and yes tuning can help in improving sq and dynamics better than others for any given install and any given environment and any given subjective expectation. 

I concede 

And again everyone else. Regular speakers again are dynamic and can sound very dynamic especially after the HPF , we all know this And I don't want to detract from my point. I was just saying horns do it so much better and with so little effort. 


Btw ILOVE the Analogy. So my Hyundai isn't very dynamic  lol


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

claydo said:


> ^^You sir are correct!^^ He's got some build log action here, sorry, been a long day and I'm beat ass tired so I'm too lazy to get yer link, but......try searching user name KP......
> 
> 
> Oh....and I reckon my car has been called dynamic a time or two as well......


I found it. This car I can only guess sounds very nice.

Awesome install that's for dam sure. I would so love to listen to it


----------



## claydo (Oct 1, 2012)

oabeieo said:


> I found it. This car I can only guess sounds very nice.


Yup, good guess. I've demoed this car twice......and twice it put my jaw in my lap.......another you can add is erin's civic.....while I haven't demoed his latest mid/high iteration, his car is always tuned to be very crankable......lol.


And.....to add to the discussion, I feel that while cone area, efficiency, and power can all be contributing factors, I agree with sqnut in that the tune is where it's at........phase coherency (timing) across drivers is what gets the speakers working together, and this is where every system's true dynamic capability is hiding.......



Aaaaand, I'm gonna add a dynamic duo (pun intended) of a young couple, mr. Grayson and miss Ally.....these two have the tuning for dynamics thing down as well. The last time I heard Allys monte it would pin yer ears back pretty well......and while it's been a while since I've heard Grayson's lancer, I know what he is capable from his finals winning setup several years back.....so I feel confident saying his latest setup is a safe bet.....


----------



## #1BigMike (Aug 17, 2014)

OP here. My initial/current idea of a Dynamic vehicle is along the lines of the analogy @SkizeR used (which was a good one). 

All the little things coming together in a system arriving at the listing point at the same time which in turn will produce a dynamic sounding effect. My personal preference is to have a vehicle that can achieve this at normal listening levels AND "Let's Boogie Levels " while still being ultra clean sounding.

I can see how a large portion comes down to tuning and knowing the type sound you are after. I also believe proper gear selection is a huge part of the equation as well.

I am still learning so much about this hobby and my thinking may be off in some areas but that is why I like threads such as this. Its one I can go back to 6 months from now and say "thats what he meant by that" lol.

So please keep comments and vehicles coming I really hope to listen to some of these cars in 2016. So I will be coming back and visiting this thread often.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

I agree with Nick's analogy on dynamics. Dynamics are the difference between the softest and the loudest part of a recording, and they start at the recording. So a loud and highly compressed recording is going to lack dynamics even in KP's car.

I would extend this a bit further and say that if you were to break down a dynamic recording to its individual notes, then each note will have its own sense of dynamics. So a C4 note on the piano will have its fundamental at 250 hz and the even order harmonics from the hammer striking the string.

Each harmonic is adding texture to the fundamental note and highlighting things like the woody undertones, the resonance on the strings etc. This is what combines to make that piano note sound vibrant and lifelike. 

Zoom out a bit from the note and you will see, that the note has two faces. It has a response profile across the fundamental and harmonics, as recorded. The fundamental will be much louder and the response on the harmonics will tail off with higher order. This high / low gives the note it's dynamics. The right system response will accurately reproduce this at your ear. Without the right response profile you're not going to get a true sense of dynamics. The note will sound, tinny, honking, just 'off'.

The second face of our piano note is timing. There is a natural delay between the fundamental and each harmonics on the note and this is captured in the recording. Our ears are *incredibly * sensitive to timing differences and we can tell a 1/100,000 sec difference. Now, if your timing is out, the natural gap you should be perceiving is going to be out. This is very important if the fundamental and harmonics are being played by different sets of drivers. 

So in a typical 3 way, our fundamental is from the woofer but the bulk of harmonics are from the mid range. If the timing is even slightly off between the two we are messing up the natural delay between the fundamental and harmonics. This will totally kill your sense of dynamics. The timing has to be right before you can make the overall response correct.

To get the full sense of dynamics out of the recording, you have to have both timing and response in place. Switching to horns or pro audio drivers is going to make your setup louder, but more dynamic? That's down to the tune, the dynamics in the recording fall in place once you have the correct timing and response.


----------



## mattyjman (Aug 6, 2009)

<public service announcement>

My bad guys... I didn't want to turn this into a horns vs conventional speaker thread...

A full true experience can be provided with either. Install, tuning, etc. are still very relevant regardless what type of drivers you're installing. Please carry on.

</public service announcement>


----------



## #1BigMike (Aug 17, 2014)

@SQNUT 

Damn lol!!! Taking me to school and I am loving it. Keep all the good info coming folks. 

The driver type does not matter, horns, pro drivers, woofers etc.. Dynamics & SQ is the topic and I thank you all for contributing.

I am sure a lot of folks on and off the forum will benefit from such a topic in relation to car audio.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

mattyjman said:


> <public service announcement>
> 
> My bad guys... I didn't want to turn this into a horns vs conventional speaker thread...
> 
> ...


I don't think we are doing that. I just thought OP was peaked his interest on a special nitche that would give him a edge. Horn surely would that all a was alluding to. No bashing . 

Sq nut made a very concise statement ^ 
I would definitely coincier him one my best friends on here. He posts as much as I do and is very smart.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

sqnut said:


> . Switching to horns or pro audio drivers is going to make your setup louder, but more dynamic? That's down to the tune, the dynamics in the recording fall in place once you have the correct timing and response.


Very good read man! 
I still think a light weight paper cone will be more dynamic. Or a horn. Think about it ? Why do pro drivers have such high sensitivity? I would suggest it's what there made from. If you have two 6" drivers one is car audio and is designed to play 20hz to 3khz has a 86db rating is made of plastic , has a heavy rubber surround, a heavy former, heavy wire, and is further damped by its own construction materials so that's it's resonant peak is low so it will sound good in the door of a car with no sub. You plan to use that driver to play 500hz to 2khz On the contrary, you could have a 6" driver that is 100db, has a paper cone, a paper surround, a extremely short light weight former , light amounts of wire, and has a high natural resonant peak , but the peak is outside of its designed use, you plan to use that diver within its specifications of 500hz to let's use 2khz for arguments sake. The 100db driver is 100db because it's sensitive! Sensitive to what? Sensitive to its input signal ! So it reacts extremely responsively and picks up the minute detail that would have otherwise ABSORBED by the low efficient driver in its own cunatruction materials. That sensitivity to its signal is audible , and the diffrance you hear is the minute details. Hence making it more dynamic. 
The first driver has a large xmax the second dosent etc . You don't need more than .5mm of travel so the 100db driver seems to be a better choice for that specific need. 
Pro drivers are tailored to needs , not to just sound all around good. And the diffrance is substantial if you impliment and install & tune correctly


Btw I love your post on harmonic balance. Or shall we say spectral balance. You are correct when harmonics are lined up and not over/under shadowing fundamentals it's a very real like experience .


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

oabeieo said:


> Very good read man!
> I still think a light weight paper cone will be more dynamic. Or a horn. Think about it ? Why do pro drivers have such high sensitivity? I would suggest it's what there made from.


didnt read the rest of your post yet, but i have to stop you here. its not about what the cone is made from


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Dynamics is not about the cone material or the sensitivity of the driver, period. Sometimes its best to know when to cut your losses and call it quits .


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

sqnut said:


> Dynamics is not about the cone material or the sensitivity of the driver, period. Sometimes its best to know when to cut your losses and call it quits .


I never said that is what it is about! I was just making the point that to improve and maximize dynamics driver selection should be used carefully when designing and implementing a system. Sometimes it's best to know when to cut your losses and call it quits


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

SkizeR said:


> didnt read the rest of your post yet, but i have to stop you here. its not about what the cone is made from


Again, wasn't implying cone material makes things more dynamic, driver selection , crossover, position , tuning, and install to name a Few make things more dynamic sorry for misunderstanding


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

oabeieo said:


> Again, wasn't implying cone material makes things more dynamic, driver selection , crossover, position , tuning, and install to name a Few make things more dynamic sorry for misunderstanding


idk man...

"I still think a light weight paper cone will be more dynamic. Or a horn. Think about it"


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

A plastic cone driver can be very dynamic and more so than a paper cone if implimentation is done right. We all know this. I was suggesting why pro drivers are usually made from paper and lighter materials. I mean , go look at us speaker and PE and look at the pro selection , tell me how many cone materials you find than go look at car. Im not saying one is better , im saying one could be better for a specific application , either car or pro driver could meet the need for any given requirement , I was simply trying to show just tuning alone is the fix for everything, and that high sensitivity drivers are often (NOT ALWAYS) a good solution and have the variety we need to MAXIMIZE performance for a given situation. 


Geeeesshhhh


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

SkizeR said:


> idk man...
> 
> "I still think a light weight paper cone will be more dynamic. Or a horn. Think about it"


Read the rest I gave a example of that thought process , on a midrange , ok sure there's some materials that work great for midrange , I just don't see very many of them out there , go look at usspeaker and PE . I'm not saying it's imperical just a example.


Please go reread my post in its entirety it and get the spirit in which I am trying to say and please stop taking that so literal . Ok paper isn't always more dynamic , I said it you happy? Ok now on to the point I was making please


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

If this is the case I should just go throw my morel driver back in my car and throw away my audax because I didn't tune it right? Come on 

Anyone that has heard my car has been BLOWN AWAY by the audax , it is way way way more dynamic for its use in the system ! With extra emphasis on the phrase for its use in the system


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

oabeieo said:


> If this is the case I should just go throw my morel driver back in my car and throw away my audax because I didn't tune it right? Come on
> 
> Anyone that has heard my car has been BLOWN AWAY by the audax , it is way way way more dynamic for its use in the system ! With extra emphasis on the phrase for its use in the system


thats not at all what im saying. it just seems that you think drivers are automatically more "dynamic" if they have a lighter moving mass. i was just straightening things out for anyone else reading it who might not know better


----------



## gijoe (Mar 25, 2008)

sqnut said:


> I agree with Nick's analogy on dynamics. Dynamics are the difference between the softest and the loudest part of a recording, and they start at the recording. So a loud and highly compressed recording is going to lack dynamics even in KP's car.
> 
> I would extend this a bit further and say that if you were to break down a dynamic recording to its individual notes, then each note will have its own sense of dynamics. So a C4 note on the piano will have its fundamental at 250 hz and the even order harmonics from the hammer striking the string.
> 
> ...


This is exactly why I advocate for a great, 2-way front over a 3-way, especially for people who do not have any intention of making this hobby a priority. If you choose capable equipment, then you can cover the entire frequency range within few drivers, this makes it much easier to match up the timing and balance. Even if you nail the timing, you still need to nail the balance. If the harmonics are in time, but 3dB higher, or lower, then you have just as unrealistic of a reproduction. This is why it is very likely to have a 3-way front stage that sounds worse than a 2-way front stage. 

Keeping a system simple has many, many benefits, as long as the equipment selection if appropriate and the install and tuning are on point.


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

sqnut said:


> Dynamics is not about the cone material or the sensitivity of the driver, period. Sometimes its best to know when to cut your losses and call it quits .


Cone material definitely plays a part. If you have two drivers that are identical, and you lower the moving mass of one, you'll raise the EBP and the efficiency.

I'm not a big fan of using untreated pair to lower the mass; generally I'd prefer to raise the efficiency via an array. But it's still a viable way to increase the output.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

gijoe said:


> This is exactly why I advocate for a great, 2-way front over a 3-way, especially for people who do not have any intention of making this hobby a priority. If you choose capable equipment, then you can cover the entire frequency range within few drivers, this makes it much easier to match up the timing and balance. Even if you nail the timing, you still need to nail the balance. If the harmonics are in time, but 3dB higher, or lower, then you have just as unrealistic of a reproduction. This is why it is very likely to have a 3-way front stage that sounds worse than a 2-way front stage.
> 
> Keeping a system simple has many, many benefits, as long as the equipment selection if appropriate and the install and tuning are on point.


I'm not even getting into the whole 2 way vs 3 way debate. Of course it is much easier to tune a 2 way, and I've mentioned that you need to get both timing and response right to get the dynamics. 



Patrick Bateman said:


> Cone material definitely plays a part. If you have two drivers that are identical, and you lower the moving mass of one, you'll raise the EBP and the efficiency.
> 
> I'm not a big fan of using untreated pair to lower the mass; generally I'd prefer to raise the efficiency via an array. But it's still a viable way to increase the output.


Cone material affects efficiency yes, but all that means in real terms is that with a low efficiency driver (assuming the tune is right) I just need to click the volume up a notch or two. If your timing and response are out, using high efficiency drivers is not going to give you a more dynamic sound. Louder yes, but more dynamic? no.


----------



## Mic10is (Aug 20, 2007)

I still think too many people are confusing a vehicles ability to play loud as being dynamics.
As its been pointed out, by definition, dynamics means changing. Its the fluctuation between a soft passage and a loud passage
Diminuendo vs crescendo.

I have heard many systems where people turn up the volume so loud that its hard to be critical or pick out any details bc its so difficult to get past the sheer in your face amplitude. While this can be cool...this doesnt illustrate dynamics.

Dynamics is being able to play music with precise detail and clarity at all volumes levels and have it be equally impressive at every level with the soft passages to louder passages keep you interested and engaged in the listening experience. It becomes a visceral listening experience


----------



## Eric Stevens (Dec 29, 2007)

"Dynamic" or "Dynamics" is a widely used descriptive term that if not properly defined in its use, can mean many things. So some of you might possibly be thinking of things in different ways.

A high efficiency driver will typically have a great dynamic "range" than a lower efficiency driver. To properly evaluate you need to look at power compression relative to power input and over timeas well for even more revealing results.

You can achieve dynamic and lively sound with any type of speaker including those with lower efficiency. That said the speaker with the greater dynamic range will do a better job reproducing dynamics and transients in the music. It is just basic math to prove and understand that. A lower senstivity speaker if kept within its useable dynamic range can do an excellent job with reproducing dynamics and transients within the music, but the higher sensitivity speaker with a greater dynamic range will be able to reproduce the dynamics at a higher output level.

This is no simple subject but it simple to state and prove that higher sensitivity speakers will typically have greater dynamic range resulting in improved reproduction of dynamics and transients in the music, especially when asked to do it at levels that approach a live performance.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

If/when Steven Head ever builds a new car, it will be dynamic...there were only a couple cars as dynamic as the last build of his Civic was.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

Mic10is said:


> I still think too many people are confusing a vehicles ability to play loud as being dynamics.
> As its been pointed out, by definition, dynamics means changing. Its the fluctuation between a soft passage and a loud passage
> Diminuendo vs crescendo.
> 
> ...


wholeheartedly agree.

I often see people associating a loud system with it being dynamic. That's not the case. This has been pointed out by numerous people at this point.




As for as what makes a system dynamic, I think a lot of factors are involved. They have been touched on already as well. I believe, like sqnut mentioned, timing is a huge factor here.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Eric Stevens said:


> but the higher sensitivity speaker with a greater dynamic range will be able to reproduce the dynamics at a higher output level.


Assuming the tune is right in the first place, yes the high efficiency driver will reproduce the dynamics at a higher output level, but all that really means is that with my non pro audio speakers, I need to need to turn the volume up a few clicks, to get to similar levels. In absolute terms, the high efficiency driver will always be louder with same power, yes. But if the tune is wrong in the first place, swapping in a high efficiency driver is not going to give us more dynamics, that is my simple submission.


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

If the higher efficency speaker does not have the power handling to keep up when those vocals go from soft to screaming they won't be dynamic for long.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

I am purposely quoting these two together for a reason, 





Mic10is said:


> I still think too many people are confusing a vehicles ability to play loud as being dynamics.
> As its been pointed out, by definition, dynamics means changing. Its the fluctuation between a soft passage and a loud passage
> Diminuendo vs crescendo.
> 
> ...



I couldn't agree more Mic , 

In my personal experience especially between 315hz and 1.2khz high sensitivity drivers really shine. And I don't mean balls to the wall loud. Just normal levels I can clearly hear a LOT more detail with argueably the same flattened responce via. Eq-timing conpensiations appropriate for each driver. 



The morels could easily play 1khz but it wasn't sharp , it wasn't defined , that driver had no business trying to play that high, but around 300hz that driver would shine! Both were in the power responce of the driver, anyway ....thank you 



sqnut said:


> Assuming the tune is right in the first place, yes the high efficiency driver will reproduce the dynamics at a higher output level, but all that really means is that with my non pro audio speakers, I need to need to turn the volume up a few clicks, to achieve the same amplitude. In absolute terms, the high efficiency driver will be louder, yes. But if the tune is wrong in the first place, swapping in a high efficiency driver is not going to give us more dynamics, that is my simple submission.


I degrees .


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

DDfusion said:


> If the higher efficency speaker does not have the power handling to keep up when those vocals go from soft to screaming they won't be dynamic for long.


I think that goes for any speaker with low power handleing, I don't think anyone on this thread uses 45$ cheapos lol


----------



## garysummers (Oct 25, 2010)

My personal observation, and I am not very knowledgable about the technical things, but the more "coherent" I was able to get my system, the more dynamics it was able to reproduce. I think this has been talked about already.
The systems time correction must be set correctly as well as proper selection of the crossover slopes and frequencies so the audio in the crossover bandpass is coherent. I am tuning a fully active 15 speaker, 5.1 system. I have found this is my current experiments with true coincident point source speakers. When you have from say 150hz to 15khz perfectly time and phase correct, the dynamics are reproduced with amazing accuracy, as well as a incredibly defined soundstage. Just sharing my personal observations.


----------



## Eric Stevens (Dec 29, 2007)

sqnut said:


> Assuming the tune is right in the first place, yes the high efficiency driver will reproduce the dynamics at a higher output level, but all that really means is that with my non pro audio speakers, I need to need to turn the volume up a few clicks, to achieve the same amplitude. In absolute terms, the high efficiency driver will be louder, yes. But if the tune is wrong in the first place, swapping in a high efficiency driver is not going to give us more dynamics, that is my simple submission.



Sorry, Just raising the volume of your lower efficiency system wont make them equal in dynamic range. I tried to make this a point of my post, power compression along with many other non-linearities will not allow for more power to makethem equal. 

If any speaker or sytem is not tuned correctly it will sound like POO, this is not a point supporting your statments. I am not arguing that tuning doesnt have an effect BTW. Just that it wasnt relative to the reply you made.


----------



## Eric Stevens (Dec 29, 2007)

DDfusion said:


> If the higher efficency speaker does not have the power handling to keep up when those vocals go from soft to screaming they won't be dynamic for long.


Hence why you need to consider power compression when considering dynamic range as I stated.


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

Eric Stevens said:


> Hence why you need to consider power compression when considering dynamic range as I stated.


Everything in this fine hobby of ours is give and take.


----------



## Eric Stevens (Dec 29, 2007)

DDfusion said:


> Everything in this fine hobby of ours is give and take.


If you take some time to do some calculations you will find that for increased dynamic range or simply higher peak or maximum amplitude, higher sensitivity gives more than it takes typicaly unless its a wideband driver like a Lowther. But they have their place also with no crossovers to mess with the time, phase and polar response of the system. There is that damn give and take thing again...


----------



## claydo (Oct 1, 2012)

I consider a dynamic system as one who can sound sweet and composed at all volume levels, being able to produce quiet passages at realistic volume levels, and keeping it's composure at the same volumes when transients try to rip your head off......lol. So unfortunately playing rather loud seems to be a requirement, because if not, the loud passages are going to dictate the volume levels rather than playing the quiet at a desired volume......if I can't listen to the soft delicate solo woodwind at a reasonable level of enjoyment in fear of damage with the coming full orchestral swell, well, I don't consider the system to be dynamic at all...... 

I know this doesent strictly adhere to the definition of dynamics, but it is the most important factor to my personal requirements.....


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Eric Stevens said:


> Sorry, Just raising the volume of your lower efficiency system wont make them equal in dynamic range. I tried to make this a point of my post, power compression along with many other non-linearities will not allow for more power to makethem equal.
> 
> If any speaker or sytem is not tuned correctly it will sound like POO, this is not a point supporting your statments. I am not arguing that tuning doesnt have an effect BTW. Just that it wasnt relative to the reply you made.


Eric just delivered a TKO.


----------



## High Resolution Audio (Sep 12, 2014)

It's not just the light weight of the cone, that helps in dynamics, it has to do with both the stiffness of the surround and spider which both act to put restrain on the cone to hold it in place. The more free the cone, the more dynamic the driver will be.


----------



## dawaro (Jul 22, 2015)

Eric Stevens said:


> "Dynamic" or "Dynamics" is a widely used descriptive term that if not properly defined in its use, can mean many things. So some of you might possibly be thinking of things in different ways.
> 
> A high efficiency driver will typically have a great dynamic "range" than a lower efficiency driver. To properly evaluate you need to look at power compression relative to power input and over timeas well for even more revealing results.
> 
> ...


Although it was many years ago, after hearing Eric's Sable v2, he absolutely knows what he is talking about when it comes to dynamics. I had the privilege of working on that car and close to 20+ other horn installs under Matt's tutelage.

There is just something about a horn you don't get from regular drivers WHEN they are done right. Problem is their install isn't as easy as mount them to the dash and run with it.

For Big Mike the OP, are you looking for something for your Raptor? If so I might be able to help you soon as I am working with Matt on a horn for my F150.


----------



## 2DEEP2 (Jul 9, 2007)

Now the most Dynamic car I've ever heard, Eric Steven's Sable.

I normally listen in the 86 dB range because less dynamic cars normally do not exhibit dynamics at lower volumes.

A more dynamic SQ vehicle will exhibit dynamics at both low and high volumes.

The key for me is Speaker Efficiency, Power, and Gain structure.

A vehicle that's not tuned well will sound like A$$, but it can still be very dynamic.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Eric Stevens said:


> Sorry, Just raising the volume of your lower efficiency system wont make them equal in dynamic range. I tried to make this a point of my post, power compression along with many other non-linearities will not allow for more power to make them equal.
> 
> If any speaker or sytem is not tuned correctly it will sound like POO, this is not a point supporting your statments. I am not arguing that tuning doesnt have an effect BTW. Just that it wasnt relative to the reply you made.


No matter what speaker you use, you can't get more dynamics than what is in the recording. So let's say the recording has a dynamic range of 12 db. Now just as an example, driver X with a dynamic range of 20 db is not going to sound more dynamic than a driver with a DR of 15. Even to flesh out what's on the recording, you need the right tune.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

2DEEP2 said:


> A vehicle that's not tuned well will sound like A$$, but it can still be very dynamic.


Loud yes, dynamic no.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

this whole horn vs not-horn thing boils down to sensitivity and power. it's pretty straightforward. if a driver can take a given amount of power required to make it achieve X SPL, that's pretty much where the argument of one being more dynamic than the other ends. 

dynamics... headroom... a means to an end of achieving a given SPL. if you have a speaker with 10dB higher sensitivity then it simply requires less power to achieve a dynamic peak threshold in the recording.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

High Resolution Audio said:


> It's not just the light weight of the cone, that helps in dynamics, it has to do with both the stiffness of the surround and spider which both act to put restrain on the cone to hold it in place. The more free the cone, the more dynamic the driver will be.


Yes! Yes! Yes! 

The cone is made crisp and rigid from the surround , it dosent absorb shock it reinforces what's played through it . It lets the energy be pushed into the cone thus making it more sensitive and articulate. It's funny I just went on a drive and I just recently installed my Beyma 10g40 midbasses in ported boxes, what came out was a dynaudio mw182 in sealed boxes and morel 6.5" came out for a audax pr170mo and horns and the diffrance is OMYGOD. 
Without a doubt right now my car is the best car I have ever heard. 2minths ago when I had morels and dyns it was good, very good , but on a whole diffrent level it's way better now. Like, I just can't put it into words how bad ass those Beyma drivers are bridged on a 600/4


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

sqnut said:


> No matter what speaker you use, you can't get more dynamics than what is in the recording. So let's say the recording has a dynamic range of 12 db. Now just as an example, driver X with a dynamic range of 20 db is not going to sound more dynamic than a driver with a DR of 15. Even to flesh out what's on the recording, you need the right tune.


I wouldn't try schooling Eric first off, 

I pretty sure he was talking about power compression as a factor. So if you recording has 12db of range, and you low efficient driver soaks up 5-7db of it because it's burned up into mush because you had to tweak you eq so hard to get your beloved tune that you speak of, sure you think it's all there right? Hey just crank up the gain another 10db to make up for it. Wrong buddy. It's only part there. Stuff really would be missing, not to mention the mushy responce from you full roll rubber surround.


I'm not trying to bash you I just trying to use my words with ..... Enthusiasm. I'm not saying you can't have a spectriclly balanced system with car driver, you can and its awesome and dynamic and can do very well. But goddam pro drivers get the job done so well.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

ErinH said:


> this whole horn vs not-horn thing boils down to sensitivity and power. it's pretty straightforward. if a driver can take a given amount of power required to make it achieve X SPL, that's pretty much where the argument of one being more dynamic than the other ends.
> 
> dynamics... headroom... a means to an end of achieving a given SPL. if you have a speaker with 10dB higher sensitivity then it simply requires less power to achieve a dynamic peak threshold in the recording.


I think we're talking about all hi sens drivers, but we can talk horns too  


And I agree with you Erin , it takes less power to get there, so there's a LOT less compression going on in the gap thus making a effortless transient dynamic responce


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

Right. But you're also sitting 3 feet away from said low sensitivity drivers. 

There's a reason I run HE drivers in my HT. And there's a few reasons I don't run them in my car.


----------



## Eric Stevens (Dec 29, 2007)

sqnut said:


> No matter what speaker you use, you can't get more dynamics than what is in the recording. So let's say the recording has a dynamic range of 12 db. Now just as an example, driver X with a dynamic range of 20 db is not going to sound more dynamic than a driver with a DR of 15. Even to flesh out what's on the recording, you need the right tune.


I see your logic and argument, but I find it full of holes with a lack of proper understanding of music performance and reproduction.

A 16 bit recording on a CD has a theoretical dynamic range of 96dB. But even that is not the right way to think of dynamics. 

For most high end audio nuts I know the holly grail is to have their system sound like a live performance or production rather than recorded sound. So we need enough volume potential to reproduce the dynamics of a live performance. So if the average SPL of the live performance is 100dB and it has 12dB dynamic peaks in the recording you need to be able to clearly produce 112dB without clipping or added distortion. The dynamic peak level will vary greatly with different styles of music and instrument types, drums are extremly dynamic and reproducing a rim shot on a snare drum that is lifelike is something I have experienced only very rarely. Strings and Piano are other difficult dynamic instruments that if you have any compression in there reproduction they dont sound realistic.

If all you want is a moderate level reproduction of a live performance than you are absolutely fine with system that cannot produce live performance levels of dynamics.


----------



## Huckleberry Sound (Jan 17, 2009)

Amazing Information!


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

I hope you enjoy your pro audio mids under 200hz.


----------



## claydo (Oct 1, 2012)

Eric Stevens said:


> For most high end audio nuts I know the holly grail is to have their system sound like a live performance or production rather than recorded sound. So we need enough volume potential to reproduce the dynamics of a live performance. So if the average SPL of the live performance is 100dB and it has 12dB of dynamics in the recording you need to be able to clearly produce 112dB without clipping or added distortion. The dynamic peak level will vary greatly with different styles of music and instrument types, drums are extremly dynamic and reproducing a rim shot on a snare drum that is lifelike is something I have experienced only very rarely. Strings and Piano are other difficult dynamic instruments that if you have any compression in there reproduction they dont sound realistic.


Boom.......this is what I was trying to say earlier, but he said it better. To feel that a dynamic system doesent have to get loud is an oxymoron. How else is a single instrument gonna sound realistic, without a roomful of instruments being very loud?

Oh, and a realistic rimshot is painful, if recorded to resemble a small intimate venue.....that's what took out a tweet for me at a gtg yesterday. To properly play the track I was demoing, the rimshot made you flinch.......as it would in the room size the recording engineer was modeling.......


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

ErinH said:


> Right. But you're also sitting 3 feet away from said low sensitivity drivers.
> 
> There's a reason I run HE drivers in my HT. And there's a few reasons I don't run them in my car.


3ft away , with 100db of road noise.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

DDfusion said:


> I hope you enjoy your pro audio mids under 200hz.


Actually the 10g40 is the best sounding midbass I have ever heard in a car


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

oabeieo said:


> Yes! Yes! Yes!
> 
> The cone is made crisp and rigid from the surround , it dosent absorb shock it reinforces what's played through it . It lets the energy be pushed into the cone thus making it more sensitive and articulate. It's funny I just went on a drive and I just recently installed my Beyma 10g40 midbasses in ported boxes, what came out was a dynaudio mw182 in sealed boxes and morel 6.5" came out for a audax pr170mo and horns and the diffrance is OMYGOD.
> Without a doubt right now my car is the best car I have ever heard. 2minths ago when I had morels and dyns it was good, very good , but on a whole diffrent level it's way better now. Like, I just can't put it into words how bad ass those Beyma drivers are bridged on a 600/4


i just think your giving way to much credit to the cone.. like way to much. "it lets the energy be pushed into the cone" sounds like some strange audiophile marketing jibber jabber. not sure how a cone is made crisp and rigid from the surround, but high efficiency boils down to 3 main things that i know of. MMS, CMS, and BL.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

DDfusion said:


> I hope you enjoy your pro audio mids under 200hz.


the beyma 10g40 that oabeieo mentioned has an f3 of about 85 hz.. FS of 45. inside a car, i think itll be fine down to 70. all you need is down to 80, if that


----------



## bbfoto (Aug 28, 2005)

There are some great morsels in here to pick out among a lot of misunderstanding regarding the technical aspects of "dynamic range". Good read.



claydo said:


> Oh, and a realistic rimshot is painful, if recorded to resemble a small intimate venue.....that's what took out a tweet for me at a gtg yesterday. To properly play the track I was demoing, the rimshot made you flinch.......as it would in the room size the recording engineer was modeling.......


Claydo, sorry to read about your smoked tweeter.  Funny (sic) to read about this because I've had this happen as well due to trying to reproduce rim-shots realistically.  If you'd like, I can record a series of very dynamic rim shots in 24/96 and upload the file so you can do some more tweeter testing.  I kid. But seriously, when I have time I would actually like to do this, without any major processing applied to the recording, and would also like to provide a plot of the spectral response so that you can see all of the major frequencies and harmonics that are produced by a typical rim-shot.

Regarding blown tweeters, one of just many reasons that I have stuck with the Hiquphon tweeters as opposed to the "smaller" format Scans is that I haven't ever blown one up one of the Hiquphons with a dynamic rim-shot or other highly-dynamic sources. Of course, you must be reasonable with your XO and slopes, but all else being equal, I've had better luck with the Hiquphons. Pretty amazing since they are also 3/4" domes! Check them out if you aren't going to go the HLCD route.

Regarding dynamics, I will also agree that phase coherence and timing (T/A) between all drivers (referenced to the listening position) is critical. If there is any destructive interference (phase cancellation) at any given frequency, or range of frequencies (esp. @ the XO's), those frequencies will be reduced in amplitude relative to the adjacent frequencies (and will also sound somewhat diffuse/not coherent) which will ultimately reduce the overall dynamic capabilities of the system. You can get closer by balancing (smoothing) the FR with L/R EQ, but realistically you will not be able to do that effectively at certain frequencies if there are major phase anomolies in that area.

I'm actually amazed sometimes how Effing amazing we are able to get our vehicles to sound, given the wacky acoustical environment we're working with! Our ears and brain are truly amazing.

And back to dynamic capability, I'm sure that I'm just needlessly restating the obvious, but I'm another one that is a firm believer in having PLENTY of dynamic amplifier power available to ALL drivers, errr...HEADROOM, but especially important the lower you go in frequency range...let's say 160Hz-and lower...even with "high-efficiency" drivers. Obviously, the combination of a high-power transient burst that includes moderate clipping is a recipe for disaster that you want to avoid by making sure that you have plenty of headroom. Though, as stated, you also have to consider at what point each particular driver starts to exhibit power compression.

That's another reason that I love accurate & thorough driver testing such as some of the work Erin, Hanatsu, and a few others others have provided here. THANKS GUYS! It all comes back to the extremely important task of choosing the appropriate compliment of drivers that will integrate seamlessly into a complete, coherent, and Dynamic system. 

Ok, I'm dead tired at the moment and will come back later to re-read, absorb, and decipher all of this good chit. Thanks to all who have contributed.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

SkizeR said:


> i just think your giving way to much credit to the cone.. like way to much. "it lets the energy be pushed into the cone" sounds like some strange audiophile marketing jibber jabber. not sure how a cone is made crisp and rigid from the surround, but high efficiency boils down to 3 main things that i know of. MMS, CMS, and BL.


Okay well I have a hard time trying to explain things , sorry I wasn't precise on that statement lol. It kinda did sound nerdy . But really , the suspension and surround do add to something and it's obvious when you hear it play with a lot of power behind it, compared to a speaker with a half roll rubber/foam. 
The way the speaker feels when you play with it and when you hear it kinda makes sense to me. Hard to explain . Sorry I lack to vocab sometimes


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

oabeieo said:


> Okay well I have a hard time trying to explain things , sorry I wasn't precise on that statement lol. It kinda did sound nerdy . But really , the suspension and surround do add to something and it's obvious when you hear it play with a lot of power behind it, compared to a speaker with a half roll rubber/foam.
> The way the speaker feels when you play with it and when you hear it kinda makes sense to me. Hard to explain . Sorry I lack to vocab sometimes


its the speaker as a whole. not just the cone and suspension


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

SkizeR said:


> the beyma 10g40 that oabeieo mentioned has an f3 of about 85 hz.. FS of 45. inside a car, i think itll be fine down to 70. all you need is down to 80, if that


It goes to 62 at full power before needing a very steep slope (36db) to avoid the peak (fs) . Which is a very nice midbass indeed. and the way it's sounds in the 200-400hz range with that much sd isvery impressive lots of snare.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

SkizeR said:


> its the speaker as a whole. not just the cone and suspension


Well as a whole , but the suspension is the only thing diffrent than a regular speaker, so I am only guessing at this point on that. - I mean , it has a basket, a magnet, a gap, and a bobbin. So I am using plain old reasoning that that must be what sets it apart , after hearing it and touching it, and studying it's features and parameters.


But seriously no joke and I'm not bragging , I'm being serious , my mw182s sounded amazing , truly . But this speaker makes it look like a frikking shallow mount pioneer coax from wal mart . It's that much better


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

bbfoto said:


> There are some great morsels in here to pick out among a lot of misunderstanding regarding the technical aspects of "dynamic range". Good read.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


We would love some recordings if you have some.  were you kidding


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Eric you know much more than I do about HE drivers and I'm not arguing, just stating my POV and I could be wrong.



Eric Stevens said:


> A 16 bit recording on a CD has a theoretical dynamic range of 96dB. But even that is not the right way to think of dynamics.


True, but that 96 db is just theoretical. In real terms, I don't think there's anything recorded with this DR. In most cases a 15-18db DR is considered a very good recording and any conventional cone driver will reproduce this accurately, given the right tune. So the 45db DR of a snare rim shot is already compressed to 18db. No matter what we do we can't get back to the 45db 'live' DR. If I have 18db of DR on the recording _and _ my tune is right, I'm still only going to get that 18db regardless of whether my speakers are playing at 85 db or 92 db..... 



Eric Stevens said:


> For most high end audio nuts I know the holly grail is to have their system sound like a live performance or production rather than recorded sound.


But you can't go beyond whats on the recording.......



Eric Stevens said:


> So we need enough volume potential to reproduce the dynamics of a live performance. So if the average SPL of the live performance is 100dB and it has 12dB of dynamics in the recording you need to be able to clearly produce 112dB without clipping or added distortion. The dynamic peak level will vary greatly with different styles of music and instrument types, drums are extremly dynamic and reproducing a rim shot on a snare drum that is lifelike is something I have experienced only very rarely. Strings and Piano are other difficult dynamic instruments that if you have any compression in there reproduction they dont sound realistic.
> 
> If all you want is a moderate level reproduction of a live performance than you are absolutely fine with system that cannot produce live performance levels of dynamics.


The HE drivers are for sound propagation in big open spaces. So when we want to reproduce sound in a football field and listen 100' away from the speaker, it makes a big difference if speaker level SPL is 88 db or 95 db. But as Erin pointed out, in a car we are 3 feet away from the speaker. Now the extra 5-6db is less important specially keeping in mind the compromises that one has to make to achieve it.


----------



## bbfoto (Aug 28, 2005)

oabeieo said:


> We would love some recordings if you have some.  were you kidding


Nope. Not kidding. It's just the time to do it that is a bit scarce at the moment. I have all of the recording equipment and at least 4 different snare drums to choose from, and I could probably borrow a few more. It'd be nice to get a Mapex Armory Daisy Cutter snare to throw into the mix though!  At $260 its relatively inexpensive for a decent-quality snare, and I could probably sell it without too much of a loss if I didn't like it.

Hmmmm. If my job in Japan next week gets pushed back to a later date, which is looking to be a high probability, I should be able to put something together fairly soon if there's interest. Though I don't know how exciting listening to just repetitive rim-shots would be for you guys, LOL.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

sqnut said:


> Eric you know much more than I do about HE drivers and I'm not arguing, just stating my POV and I could be wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


To get a rim shot to sound real, and I mean very real takes a lot of power - cres factor , ok let's figure out how much power is needed first. The diffrance between a LE and HE driver can be upwards of 20db usually 8-10 on cones and 20db on compression drivers. So to get a additional 10 db you need let's count it out 3db is twice the power , 6db is 4x the power and 9db is 8x , 12db =16x the power 15db would be 32 X the power, 18db would be 64x the power 21db would be 128x the power.

Okay so I would suggest your low efficient driver would have to be hooked up to a 12,800 watt amp to be able to have a cress equal to the power for a speaker 21db more efficient running 100w .

So now that that is streight , horns defiantly have a advantage because I'm certian your speakers would run into some power compression at that wattage where as a horn would faithfully be able to reproduce that 18dbDR you speak of. 

So let's get real your LE drivers simply can't or you have a very big amp.

Now let's move on to something a bit more realistic , let's say there's a 6db drag between drivers , you would need 4x the power , so 400w that's doable right? Okay so at 400w does your LE driver run into power compression , I would suggest it would unless it's a very large vc and built über tough, I don't think I know of any except maybe some morels and dynaudio pieces that can and still they would have issues. 

Now we are speaking within your 18db range. Let's say even half of that is normal levels and not cress, so you would still need a TON of power to get it done.

There are some LE drivers that are capable but I think there numbers are in the single digits.


for your speakers to even play a part in the 18db of DR and if normal levels are 12 of those db to be fair uncompressed that's only a 3db swing , so the 3db diffrance in most music is reasonable and probably why most systems sound dynamic at all, but that 3-5 db that's not used in hi-bit that means a lot of reserve power and a driver that can take it. OR a more sensitive driver with less power to get the job done without having to have HD1200/1s on every speaker in the car


I would also suggest this is the #1 reason people mistake loud for dynamic range. Most recording don't have that much available dynamic range in them because of modern compression and if they do like a dvd or something we all would be much more on the same page. So let's make the best possible use of the 3db DR we usually see on our iPhones lol


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

oabeieo said:


> To get a rim shot to sound real, and I mean very real takes a lot of power - cres factor , ok let's figure out how much power is needed first. The diffrance between a LE and HE driver can be upwards of 20db usually 8-10 on cones and 20db on compression drivers. So to get a additional 10 db you need let's count it out 3db is twice the power , 6db is 4x the power and 9db is 8x , 12db =16x the power 15db would be 32 X the power, 18db would be 64x the power 21db would be 128x the power.
> 
> Okay so I would suggest your low efficient driver would have to be hooked up to a 12,800 watt amp to be able to have a cress equal to the power for a speaker 21db more efficient running 100w .
> 
> ...


Wow, five pages into the discussion, and you still don't understand what dynamics are :shrug:

If the recording of a song has a DR of say 18db, it means that the difference between the softest and loudest passage on the SONG is 18 db. It does not mean that the crest from the rim shot is +18 db. The crest from the rim shot is probably +6-9db from the mix that's playing. 

Now my LE driver gives me say 88db at 1w/ 1m. So 2 watts will give me +3 db, 4 watts will give me + 6db and 8 watts will give me the +9 db. I don't need the 12,500 watts


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

sqnut said:


> Wow, five pages into the discussion, and you still don't understand what dynamics are :shrug:
> 
> If the recording of a song has a DR of say 18db, it means that the difference between the softest and loudest passage on the SONG is 18 db. It does not mean that the crest from the rim shot is +18 db. The crest from the rim shot is probably +6-9db from the mix that's playing.
> 
> Now my LE driver gives me say 88db at 1w/ 1m. So 2 watts will give me +3 db, 4 watts will give me + 6db and 8 watts will give me the +9 db. I don't need the 12,500 watts


Eek. You didn't read all of it . Try again . 

I'm wasn't talking about how loud your system gets when you turn up the dial. So do your math and tell me how much power you need to get to 100db , 8w right? .... Okay so what does everyone have 150w amps in there car? I don't see anyone's systems getting to 200db! Where is the power going than after that 1st watt? I would suggest it's compressing and burning into heat . If you read the entire post you would have seen I put it in real world senerios , sorta half asleep pulling **** out my ass as well, but I kept my math streight . I was making a point that you seemed to have missed when you question Eric down like that, and maybe you should read about power compression. I myself can't speak to it well because I don't know the math, there's a fourmla and ratio chart you can do, I've seen it somewhere on a page a long time ago. But it remains a fact , once you get upwards of 115db your 88db speakers simply start to Poop out and when you get close to 130db you have almost no headroom left if any at all and the rest turns to saturated mush . At that point and at those volumes ( making up numbers here I'm tired!) I don't think your amp has the power left unless you have that HD1200/1 on every speaker. Than you need a dam good LE speaker that can take it, otherwise your rimshot is now a mush shot and it's just loud. Distortion makes things appear loud

And yes 5pages of switching gears multiple times, I think I originally was saying install makes a diffrance and so does speaker selection not just tuning alone


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

oabeieo said:


> Eek. You didn't read all of it . Try again .
> 
> I'm wasn't talking about how loud your system gets when you turn up the dial. So do your math and tell me how much power you need to get to 100db , 8w right? .... Okay so what does everyone have 150w amps in there car?


Headroom. And in real world terms the speakers are almost never seeing the full 150 watts. Yes a lot of power gets dissipated as heat so now you need 30 watts instead of the 8 watts...........still no where close to 12,500. 



oabeieo said:


> But it remains a fact , once you get upwards of 115db your 88db speakers simply start to Poop out and when you get close to 130db you have almost no headroom left if any at all and the rest turns to saturated mush . At that point and at those volumes ( making up numbers here I'm tired!) I don't think your amp has the power left unless you have that HD1200/1 on every speaker. Than you need a dam good LE speaker that can take it, otherwise your rimshot is now a mush shot and it's just loud. Distortion makes things appear loud


In a car you can't have clean sound at 130 db. The car's interior is the biggest distortion machine in your sound chain and will crap up the sound much faster than your drivers, when you crank the volume. If you think running HE drivers will give you clean sound at 130 db in a car who am I to puncture your balloon. There is a big difference between sounds good and sounds good to me and my buddies ears.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

sqnut said:


> Headroom. And in real world terms the speakers are almost never seeing the full 150 watts. Yes a lot of power gets dissipated as heat so now you need 30 watts instead of the 8 watts...........still no where close to 12,500.
> 
> 
> 
> In a car you can't have clean sound at 130 db. The car's interior is the biggest distortion machine in your sound chain and will crap up the sound much faster than your drivers, when you crank the volume. If you think running HE drivers will give you clean sound at 130 db in a car who am I to puncture your balloon. There is a big difference between sounds good and sounds good to me and my buddies ears.


I'm tired and just throwing numbers bud, I don't listen at 130db , 
I'm going to bed , your in India ? So it's daytime there ? 
Go heat up your voice coils and loose some power transfer on those Polk components and enjoy your day heat them up to 100ohms and have fun . God bless


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

DDfusion said:


> Everything in this fine hobby of ours is give and take.


This is actually one of those things where there's (almost) a free lunch though. We're filling a very small space with sound, and due to that, it's fairly easy to achieve good dynamics. IMHO, the main thing that limits dynamics in 90% of the cars that I've listened to is that people use midbasses with an EBP that's too low. They're using midbasses that can play down to 40hz in an application where they only need to get to 80hz. That extra octave of output causes a huge penalty in efficiency.


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

Patrick Bateman said:


> This is actually one of those things where there's (almost) a free lunch though. We're filling a very small space with sound, and due to that, it's fairly easy to achieve good dynamics. IMHO, the main thing that limits dynamics in 90% of the cars that I've listened to is that people use midbasses with an EBP that's too low. They're using midbasses that can play down to 40hz in an application where they only need to get to 80hz. That extra octave of output causes a huge penalty in efficiency.


What about us 2 way guys that need that bump in the lower midbass


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

Eric Stevens said:


> I see your logic and argument, but I find it full of holes with a lack of proper understanding of music performance and reproduction.
> 
> A 16 bit recording on a CD has a theoretical dynamic range of 96dB. But even that is not the right way to think of dynamics.
> 
> ...


It's pretty amazing how high the SPL of a human voice can get. I listen to a lot of podcasts, and my reference speakers used to be Gedlee Summas. The Summas use a midrange that can handle about 1000 watts, and has an efficiency that's close to 100dB. So a pair of Summas can approach about 130dB in the midrange.

Even though I was using less than 100 watts of amplification, the dynamic difference was very noticeable, even on lowly podcasts.

IE, when I listened to a podcast at a fairly modest volume, the human voice was noticeably more "dynamic" over the Summas than it was with other speakers that I owned. (I also own a set of Vandersteen 2Cs)

TLDR: dynamics isn't just for rocking out at high volume; even when listening to a lowly podcast at a modest volume, the dynamic improvement you get when using midranges with low power compression is noticeable.


Come to think of it, I'd actually argue that the dynamic difference was LESS noticeable on music, because music recordings are ridiculously compressed. A lot of podcasts are recorded very simply, with little/no compression.


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

DDfusion said:


> What about us 2 way guys that need that bump in the lower midbass


It takes a **** ton of displacement to get a 'bump' in the midbass. For instance, if you want to get a speaker to play one octave lower, you need to quadruple the displacement.

So that means that if you want a 6.5" midbass to go one octave lower, you really should be using a 13" midbass! Or four 6.5" midbasses.


Personally, I'm a big proponent of arrays, at least when the frequencies start to get long. 160hz is seven feet long. Due to that very long length, you can add a second midbass and if it's within a few feet of the other midbass, you will perceive them as a single unit. Besides raising output levels and efficiency, the use of multiple units should smooth overall response. At low frequency you get really noticeable peaks and dips due to the geometry of the cabin. By using multiple units you still get those peaks and dips, but they smooth out the more you have, due to the averaging effect of multiple peaks.









One (strange) example of this is the Bose Wave Radio. If you've ever heard one of these, you'll notice that it sounds noticeably smooth and spacious when compared to conventional radios. The reason it sounds like that is because of the transmission line that's in the box; it basically adds a second set of outputs, delayed by about two milliseconds, which has the effect of smoothing the in-room response.

I'm hoping to cram eight midbasses into my current install.


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

Then it goes back to the take. Which would be price.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

sqnut said:


> Wow, five pages into the discussion, and you still don't understand what dynamics are :shrug:


yeah i gave up after the first sentence of the post you quoted..


----------



## dawaro (Jul 22, 2015)

DDfusion said:


> What about us 2 way guys that need that bump in the lower midbass


You can always try a Linkwitz transform. I have heard a few cars using B&C or Beyma pro drivers that have used one to get the response down a little lower.

While I understand this discussion is about overall dynamics here is an interesting read on efficiency.
http://stereointegrity.com/wp-content/uploads/Efficiency.pdf


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

oabeieo said:


> I'm wasn't talking about how loud your system gets when you turn up the dial. So do your math and tell me how much power you need to get to 100db , 8w right? .... Okay so what does everyone have 150w amps in there car? I don't see anyone's systems getting to 200db!


if 8 watts is 100db, 16 watts would be 103 db. 32 watts would be 106 db, 64 watts would be 106 db, and 128 watts would be 109 db.. and no, i didnt read the rest of your post because i cant. i just cant. the way you word things just makes zero sense and sometimes i cant even wrap my head around what your trying to say, and how they hell you even got there


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

DDfusion said:


> Then it goes back to the take. Which would be price.


My method of generating high output without breaking the bank is two fold:

First, I use highpass filters all the time. It's fairly easy to reduce by distortion by about ten decibels with a high pass filter.

Second, I nearly always use a phase plug on every driver. A phase plug can reduce distortion by 10-20dB.

Put these two things together, and you can take complete crapola drivers and push them right to their limits. I rarely use drivers that cost more than $30. Pyle is probably the brand I've used the most. 

Bill Waslo's speakers sound about as good as anything I've heard. His midranges are one dollar each.

The key to all of this is the electronic highpass and an acoustic lowpass.

The thing is, it's REALLY difficult to find drivers with wide bandwidth, smooth response, high output and low distortion. Dynaudio and Morel make some nice ones; they cost about $100-$200 each. But even $4 drivers have low distortion if you use them in a narrow range. $4 drivers do NOT have high output, but that's why I use piles of them. (A pile of Pyles? ha!)

I go into it in more detail in this thread : http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum...ssion/82067-diy-reducing-speaker-beaming.html


TLDR: I think there's a couple of ways to achieve this goal. The first way is to use drivers with high output and low distortion. Morel and Dynaudio are examples of this approach. The other is to use inexpensive drivers, band limited to lower distortion and arrayed to increase output.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

SkizeR said:


> if 8 watts is 100db, 16 watts would be 103 db. 32 watts would be 106 db, 64 watts would be 106 db, and 128 watts would be 109 db.. and no, i didnt read the rest of your post because i cant. i just cant. the way you word things just makes zero sense and sometimes i cant even wrap my head around what your trying to say, and how they hell you even got there


No one read it , 

I said if a horn that was running 100w and a LE driver that was 21db less efficient it would need 12,000 some odd watts to have the dynamic capabilities in power . 


I'm pretty sure I was being rediculious. And was just showing the extremes that we almost never see in real life.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

oabeieo said:


> No one read it ,
> 
> I said if a horn that was running 100w and a LE driver that was 21db less efficient it would need 12,000 some odd watts to have the dynamic capabilities in power .
> 
> ...


seems like you still dont understand that output doesnt mean dynamics


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Patrick Bateman said:


> My method of generating high output without breaking the bank is two fold:
> 
> First, I use highpass filters all the time. It's fairly easy to reduce by distortion by about ten decibels with a high pass filter.
> 
> ...


I love that were on the same page. 

I just get diarrhea of the mouth and don't know how to write what I'm trying to say as good lol . Yes I'm a nerd !


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

SkizeR said:


> seems like you still dont understand that output doesnt mean dynamics


But there's definitely a correlation.

If you have two speakers, and one is capable of 110dB of output, and another is capable of 120dB in output, the latter will likely sound "more dynamic."

I think the easiest way to see this in action is to look at some of the tests that Wayne Parham has performed at his audio shoot outs. What Wayne has done is test a loudspeaker at every power level, until it literally burns up.

The thing that's shocking in these tests is that the speaker is only linear at the very bottom of it's output. Once you put even 10% of it's rated power, *it starts to compress.* In a lot of the tests he did, going from 500 watts to 1000 watts barely added one decibel.

Basically the effect is that the more you put into the speaker, the less linear the output is.

So, obviously, if you have a speaker that's capable of massive output, it will be loafing at low power and it will be linear and dynamic.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Patrick Bateman said:


> But there's definitely a correlation.
> 
> If you have two speakers, and one is capable of 110dB of output, and another is capable of 120dB in output, the latter will likely sound "more dynamic."
> 
> ...


Pat, 

What is the average impedance of a speaker when it's in compression I am just curious how much power is actually doing loss I thought I read somewhere it's as much is half


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Patrick Bateman said:


> But there's definitely a correlation.
> 
> If you have two speakers, and one is capable of 110dB of output, and another is capable of 120dB in output, the latter will likely sound "more dynamic."




No it won't. Let's take an example, Oh Daddy from Rumours has a DR rating of 15. This means that the loudest passages on the song are 15 db higher than the quietest ones.

For a start, we can't get more dynamics than what is on the recording. 

Second, unless the timing and response are right (and they're not in 99% of the cars) you're going to lose out on a huge chunk of the 15 db in any case. If the tune is out you can use any driver, HE, horns whatever and yes it will be louder with the same amount of power. But more dynamic? No, because the tune (timing/response) is out.

Third, assuming the tune is right, the driver with 120 db output will be louder than the 110 db one, but both are still reproducing the same 15 db DR. The 120 db driver is not more dynamic, but we are falling into the louder = more dynamic trap and are equating 15 db at 120 as more dynamic than 15 db at 110.


----------



## cajunner (Apr 13, 2007)

so, I see a lot of impressionable audio guys make their attempts at explaining dynamics, and I don't believe it's been successfully accomplished...

but be that as it may, let me tell a story:

so, I was a college-going audio freak and in my mind, I thought I was doing good with my bi-amping and subwoofer use, (back in ~1988...) and had it figured out.

I took music appreciation as a fine arts slot, and in the class after 3 weeks of getting the lecture portion, the instructor comes in with the monkey coffins and a pretty serious looking amp/turntable setup.

He's the guy in charge of sound at the University and while getting the stuff put in place, he's explaining how he must apologize for the room, (painted cinder block or cement) and that there's going to be a lot of reflections and we'll just have to do the best we can...

and since he's given the class often, he's able to set up pretty good, considering the room...

because, I was used to raising the volume to the point where I heard distortion, and then I'd back it off just until the distortion was minimized, that was my cue...

this guy just didn't care about that. 

Those Pioneer floor stander monkey coffins were like, ancient. I wouldn't doubt they were from when the University started the music program, because the teacher said as much, and they talked about how the replacement parts were hard to come by...

Now, I think TAD when I think of those...


anyways, we start the class and the guy asks for quiet, then SLAM!! the music starts. 

LOUD. 

I'm like, wow, this guy is crazy, he's playing this classical or orchestral, or whatever music, and he's got it on 11. And after the piece is over, he asks the class if they could hear the parts he had asked us to listen for, and we could, buried there in the middle of the response, even in a fully reflective room not very suited for audio at all...

I was really surprised, the realistic sound I heard from those big speakers made all the difference, it was as if I didn't experience much compression at all, and the teacher said as much there too, since he had sourced the music recordings from some special venue, (remember, 1988) and we couldn't just buy this stuff at the mall....

and that was my entry into dynamics, a benchmark I still use from old audio memory banks where the low passages in the music were clear and the right level for the playback based on instrument sounds, while the high passages were nearly deafening, and much higher than I expected to hear in a college class.

I gained a lot of respect for all music in that appreciation class, and came away with some greater understanding of how to serve music to others, so that they can also hear the low passages well, not buried in a noise floor, while the high peaks can cause the listener to experience a stun sensation, sitting motionless eh... while assaulted by the intensity of the music.

dynamics is "sound quality" and you cannot separate them if you are serious about realistic audio.


----------



## #1BigMike (Aug 17, 2014)

OP here. THANK YOU ALL for the insane amount of info. However with the way things are going, I am sure there is much more to come, at least I hope so.  Please continue with the examples of vehicles you have heard that exhibit dynamic SQ. 

This is a damn good thread thats for sure!!!


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

sqnut said:


> No it won't. Let's take an example, Oh Daddy from Rumours has a DR rating of 15. This means that the loudest passages on the song are 15 db higher than the quietest ones.
> 
> For a start, we can't get more dynamics than what is on the recording.
> 
> ...


All I think we're saying is with a more efficient driver, you don't have to work them so hard to get the desired "near live" experience leaving reserve power and reserve driver capabilities , it's just a small edge vs. LE drivers In those loud crescendos we all love so much. We're not saying a LE driver can't be good, not at all man. And tuning isn't going to make up for any inadequacies for power, install, or poor driver selection for specific bands.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

Eric Stevens said:


> For most high end audio nuts I know the holly grail is to have their system sound like a live performance or production rather than recorded sound.


I disagree. Most audiophiles are trying to achieve a reference playback; one that reproduces what is on the media to the best of it's ability. 

When you consider that recordings change from song to song for numerous reasons (mic placement, engineering doing his thing, etc) if one were to target a live sound, can you imagine how many different setups/tunes a person would need in order to make a kickdrum on X song sound like a kickdrum on Y song? If you want that snare on X song to sound live then you're going to need to do some work to make the snare sound the same on a different song. Now imagine taking this two-song samping and spreading it out over thousands of songs... 

Consider this simple case... if I tuned every song I have to make the kickdrum sound like it sounds on the Eagles Live disc, when I switched back to the Eagles disc that kick drum would put me in to the car in front of me (IOW, it would be greatly exaggerated).


----------



## strakele (Mar 2, 2009)

Hey guys, take a look at this. Little bit long, but interesting and on topic: https://www.soundonsound.com/sos/sep11/articles/loudness.htm

Headline: "We all know music is getting louder. But is it less dynamic? Our ground-breaking research proves beyond any doubt that the answer is no — and that popular beliefs about the 'loudness war' need a radical rethink."


Also, dynamic range is calculated using RMS values, NOT peak values. So to say the loudest instant in a recording with an 8dB DR is only 8dB louder than the quietest instant is NOT accurate. You can easily see this just watching your RTA as you play music. Even on 'brickwalled' recordings, levels jump significantly more than the 5-8dB worth of dynamic range these recordings are 'rated' for.

Just simply looking at listed DR of a recording and saying "ok, my low efficiency speakers can play the softest and loudest parts of this at the level I want with the power I have, so I'm good" is not entirely true.


----------



## garysummers (Oct 25, 2010)

ErinH said:


> Most audiophiles are trying to achieve a reference playback; one that reproduces what is on the media to the best of it's ability.


Agreed.

I want to hear the music, not my system. Accurate, uncolored, transparent reproduction.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

ErinH said:


> I disagree. Most audiophiles are trying to achieve a reference playback; one that reproduces what is on the media to the best of it's ability.
> 
> When you consider that recordings change from song to song for numerous reasons (mic placement, engineering doing his thing, etc) if one were to target a live sound, can you imagine how many different setups/tunes a person would need in order to make a kickdrum on X song sound like a kickdrum on Y song? If you want that snare on X song to sound live then you're going to need to do some work to make the snare sound the same on a different song. Now imagine taking this two-song samping and spreading it out over thousands of songs...
> 
> Consider this simple case... if I tuned every song I have to make the kickdrum sound like it sounds on the Eagles Live disc, when I switched back to the Eagles disc that kick drum would put me in to the car in front of me (IOW, it would be greatly exaggerated).



He said the holy grail for "most audio nutz I know" 
He hangs with hi eff crowd obviously and I would agree with him, the holy grail to me is a real sounding experience . 


But that said, I agree with you too , I also want a faithful reproduction . 
I would also add that it wouldn't surprise me that some of our systems have more sound and dynamics than what any given recording engineer was listening through when mastering. If the engineer didn't hear it and did a good job it dosent mean it was Lost forever because his speakers Were not set flat or what have you, Not all studios are bad ass and done right, but not all of them aren't either. 

There's a lot to be desired on repeatability on mastering sure, but on those recordings that sound live when played back, it's awesome! And no! It dosent always mean fiddling with the eq to make one track do it, ( unless you really like that track) it's more generalized , when it comes it comes in the mix, when it dosent - everything is balanced


----------



## Eric Stevens (Dec 29, 2007)

ErinH said:


> I disagree. Most audiophiles are trying to achieve a reference playback; one that reproduces what is on the media to the best of it's ability.
> 
> When you consider that recordings change from song to song for numerous reasons (mic placement, engineering doing his thing, etc) if one were to target a live sound, can you imagine how many different setups/tunes a person would need in order to make a kickdrum on X song sound like a kickdrum on Y song? If you want that snare on X song to sound live then you're going to need to do some work to make the snare sound the same on a different song. Now imagine taking this two-song samping and spreading it out over thousands of songs...
> 
> Consider this simple case... if I tuned every song I have to make the kickdrum sound like it sounds on the Eagles Live disc, when I switched back to the Eagles disc that kick drum would put me in to the car in front of me (IOW, it would be greatly exaggerated).


Erin,

You are either taking my statement out of context or you are misunderstanding the meaning I was trying to convey. Let me restate this for better understanding. 

The reference I think you would agree, is being there listening to the artist or band playing the music "live". This is what I was meaning in the statement you quoted. 

In other words close your eyes and have the sound so good it creates the illusion they are there performing "LIVE" in front of you rather than listening to a recording.


----------



## Eric Stevens (Dec 29, 2007)

sqnut said:


> No matter what speaker you use, you can't get more dynamics than what is in the recording. So let's say the recording has a dynamic range of 12 db. Now just as an example, driver X with a dynamic range of 20 db is not going to sound more dynamic than a driver with a DR of 15. Even to flesh out what's on the recording, you need the right tune.


Here is some food for thought: 

The dynamic range of human hearing is roughly 140 dB. The dynamic range of music as normally perceived in a concert hall doesn't exceed 80 dB, and human speech is normally perceived over a range of about 40 dB.

Far greater than 12dB or even 20dB for just normal speech!!


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

And not LIVE as in going through a venues PA, more like, live living in the flesh playing a song or instrument 

In case some didn't catch that


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

sqnut said:


> No it won't. Let's take an example, Oh Daddy from Rumours has a DR rating of 15. This means that the loudest passages on the song are 15 db higher than the quietest ones.
> 
> For a start, we can't get more dynamics than what is on the recording.
> 
> ...


I don't think it's that complex. I think it is as simple as this:

If you have two speakers, and both speakers are capable of hitting 120dB without power compression or distortion, then both speakers will have similar dynamics.

Where things get tricky is the fact that two speakers DO NOT have identical power compression or distortion.


















Here's some data, courtesy of Wayne Parham (http://www.audioroundtable.com/ProSpeakers/messages/486.html). If you look at the two response curves, they will appear identical. But if you look closely, you'll notice two things:
1) The response isn't linear as the volume is increased. At some frequencies the volume is increasing by as much as seven decibels, while at other frequencies it's increasing by just four decibels. Theoretically, it should increase by eight decibels across the board. So we're definitely seeing power compression here.
2) The distortion is approaching 100% as the volume is cranked up

By the way, this is a really well-behaved curve. I wish I had the time to dig one up from a speaker that performed poorly.

So what's going to happen is that the speaker isn't going to behave the same at 100dB as it will at 90dB.


Now this graph has established what power compression looks like. In this graph, we see that the speaker should get eight decibels louder when the power is quadrupled, *but it doesn't.* In the real world, the speaker gets 4-7dB louder.

If you look at the graph, that doesn't sound like a big difference. It's just a few dB. The thing is, a few dB could be the difference between sounding dynamic and anemic. If a recording has fifteen decibels of dynamic range, and your speaker is reducing the output by three decibels due to power compression, than the speaker is robbing you of 20% of your dynamics. (3/15 = 20%)


----------



## Eric Stevens (Dec 29, 2007)

sqnut said:


> Eric you know much more than I do about HE drivers and I'm not arguing, just stating my POV and I could be wrong.


 No worries its all about discussion and learning. 




sqnut said:


> True, but that 96 db is just theoretical. In real terms, I don't think there's anything recorded with this DR. In most cases a 15-18db DR is considered a very good recording and any conventional cone driver will reproduce this accurately, given the right tune. So the 45db DR of a snare rim shot is already compressed to 18db. No matter what we do we can't get back to the 45db 'live' DR. If I have 18db of DR on the recording _and _ my tune is right, I'm still only going to get that 18db regardless of whether my speakers are playing at 85 db or 92 db..... But you can't go beyond whats on the recording.......


I think the difference in opinion or problem lies in how you are defining Dynamic range versus how I am defining it, this excerpt nails it I think. I believe you are referring to 15-18 dB crest factor as if it were the dynamic range of the recording. I alluded to crest factor in one of my previous statements "if the average level were 100dB and a dynamic was 12dB above that the system would need to be capable of 112dB or more". Dynamic range is the difference in level from the quietest to loudest parts of the recording, I guarantee and promise you that it far exceeds 15 to 18dB even in crappy over compressed recordings.


Dynamic Range in Music

In music, dynamic range is the difference between the quietest and loudest volume of an instrument, part or piece of music. In modern recording, this range is often limited through dynamic range compression, which allows for louder volume, but can make the recording sound less exciting or live.

The term dynamic range may be confusing in music because it has two conflicting definitions, particularly in the understanding of the loudness war phenomenon. Dynamic range may refer to micro-dynamics, related to crest factor, whereas the European Broadcasting Union, in EBU3342 Loudness Range, defines dynamic range as the difference between the quietest and loudest volume, a matter of macro-dynamics.



sqnut said:


> The HE drivers are for sound propagation in big open spaces. So when we want to reproduce sound in a football field and listen 100' away from the speaker, it makes a big difference if speaker level SPL is 88 db or 95 db. But as Erin pointed out, in a car we are 3 feet away from the speaker. Now the extra 5-6db is less important specially keeping in mind the compromises that one has to make to achieve it.


Higher efficiency also produces lower distortion and that in turns leads to better clarity etc. which is beneficial IMHO. Dont get me wrong, I truly believe a 88dB driver can sound absolutely wonderful but I feel the benefits of HE are worthwhile in or out of a car.


----------



## Eric Stevens (Dec 29, 2007)

sqnut said:


> Wow, five pages into the discussion, and you still don't understand what dynamics are :shrug:
> 
> If the recording of a song has a DR of say 18db, it means that the difference between the softest and loudest passage on the SONG is 18 db. It does not mean that the crest from the rim shot is +18 db. The crest from the rim shot is probably +6-9db from the mix that's playing.
> 
> Now my LE driver gives me say 88db at 1w/ 1m. So 2 watts will give me +3 db, 4 watts will give me + 6db and 8 watts will give me the +9 db. I don't need the 12,500 watts


I think you are referring to the crest factor of a recording because the dynamic range far exceeds 18dB even on crappy compressed recordings.

Think about it 128 watts will give you +24dB.

Here chew on this: If you are listening to music in your home at 90dB and the ambient noise level were 50dB you would have 40dB of dynamic range in the reproduction. Loudest 90 dB -Minus- Quietest 50 dB = 40 dB


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

that was nuclear 

I'm learning and lovin it! What a fun last 24hrs this has been


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

Eric Stevens said:


> Erin,
> 
> You are either taking my statement out of context or you are misunderstanding the meaning I was trying to convey. Let me restate this for better understanding.
> 
> ...


No, I simply don't agree. And your latest statement doesn't help that. lol. 

A recording is much different from the real world. There can be really, really bad albums/recordings/mixes. 

If you want something to sound like it's "live" in front of you when you close your eyes then that's as much to do with the recording as the playback system itself.


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

Eric Stevens said:


> <snip> Dynamic range is the difference in level from the quietest to loudest parts of the recording, I guarantee and promise you that it far exceeds 15 to 18dB even in crappy over compressed recordings.
> 
> 
> Dynamic Range in Music
> ...


I agree with most of what you posted. But this part I don't agree with. I've looked at some of my favorite recordings in Audacity, and the dynamic range is literally in the single digits. This is part of The Loudness Wars of course; modern recordings are compressed to a ridiculous degree.

The ironic part about all of this is that the people who REALLY need a lot of dynamic range are probably the ones who have no idea that's the problem. Podcasts are an obvious example. The Lexicon system in my Hyundai Genesis has something like seven hundred watts, and the car is very quiet, almost as quiet as a Lexus. But on some podcasts, it's challenging to figure out what the hell people are saying. Because the recordings have a great deal of dynamic range, due to the fact that many podcasters don't know the first thing about recording and they're not using compressors.

OTOH, when I play EDM in the Genesis, I can generally ramp down the volume by about ten decibels because the recording is so compressed.

So the irony here is that the EDM music, which you'd *think* would require a lot of dynamic headroom isn't the one that's taxing the system. It's the humble podcast recording.

I'm on one of the forums for one podcast in particular, and their fans are constantly bitching about the sound quality. The irony is that the recording is actually fairly purist! The lack of compression, combined with your average stereo, leads to what listeners perceive as 'bad sound.' What they really need is a system capable of more dynamic range.


----------



## Eric Stevens (Dec 29, 2007)

ErinH said:


> A recording is much different from the real world. There can be really, really bad albums/recordings/mixes.


If the albums/recordings/mixes are that really really bad why would someone even listen to them? 



ErinH said:


> If you want something to sound like it's "live" in front of you when you close your eyes then that's as much to do with the recording as the playback system itself.


Of course it takes a good recording, that shouldn't even need to be stated IMHO.

The better a system can resolve all the dynamics, nuances, and details of the music the better it will sound with all music types and it wont require a different tune for each music type or mix. 

Music is like food we all like it a little different.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

I have gigs of ****ty compressed files I NEVER listen to , don't even know why I haven't just deleted them already . 

When it comes to recorded audio. If it's good I'll listen to it, if it's real good I'll buy it on cd. And if it's very very good, it's in a Jewell case and in my collection and used as reference discs or demo discs. 

When we are talking in terms of dynamics of sound in recordings I automatically assume the person writing is using good media. And that's why I agree with Eric because the context of his post is solid.


And I've been fooled when I heard a set of summas on a old telarc disc


----------



## bbfoto (Aug 28, 2005)

Patrick, regarding Podcasts....LOL. So true. I listen to a few podcasts as well. There is one in particular where one of the guys talks REALLY softly most of the time when he is intimately describing something, and his mic is a POS so he's uninteligible. So you need to crank up the volume to hear him, but then he randomly gets excited or laughs and explodes into the microphone, which coupled with the proximity effect of the mic, and no limiter or compression, comes close to blowing you out of your seat and leaves you wondering if the coils just bottomed out on your mid-bass drivers.


----------



## strakele (Mar 2, 2009)

strakele said:


> Hey guys, take a look at this. Little bit long, but interesting and on topic: https://www.soundonsound.com/sos/sep11/articles/loudness.htm
> 
> Headline: "We all know music is getting louder. But is it less dynamic? Our ground-breaking research proves beyond any doubt that the answer is no — and that popular beliefs about the 'loudness war' need a radical rethink."
> 
> ...



Anyone read this article yet?


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

strakele said:


> Anyone read this article yet?


I read everything lol  

Yes it was good. I agree it's a good read!

Edit: It's a dam good read actually I knew about 40% so I learned about 60% from it . 
Thank you for sharing that 


Btw your build looks pretty dope. I have my midbass in a on floor box as well .


----------



## strakele (Mar 2, 2009)

Thanks man, finally got my new front sub in tonight. And yeah, I learned a good bit from that article too. 

(Only quoted myself cause it was at the very end of the last page while several people were posting and replying to stuff on the current page.)


----------



## bbfoto (Aug 28, 2005)

Maybe another thing to take into consideration are the RIAA standards that are applied when cutting a vinyl LP record pressing disc? I think that many engineers might have followed similar, but different guidelines for their standard mixes and/or masters which basically put a "safe limit" on the dynamics of the released CD...not for the format itself, but so as to sound good on the majority of playback systems used by the greater general public. This is separate from the more recent so-called "loudness war", but probably a general step in the same direction.

I'm sure that Gary mixes to a certain set of (higher) standards as it is known that the sound system in a theatre environment is always capable of and meets certain high-level standards such as THX, DTS, Dolby certifications, or for the capabilities of high-quality Blu-Ray releases.



Eric Stevens said:


> The better a system can resolve all the dynamics, nuances, and details of the music the better it will sound with all music types and *it wont require a different tune for each music type or mix. *
> 
> Music is like food we all like it a little different.


I agree with the first part of this statement for the most part, but I only partially agree with the part in bold. (But, yes music is like food, LOL.)

Even though they may all be technically "good" recordings, i.e. no clipping, no distortion, and not completely brick-walled, recordings vary WILDLY in EQ balance and overall character by each Genre, along with the artist's and engineer's preferences and fingerprints in the final mix... just as Erin stated with the differences between the kick drum in the Eagles live and studio albums, which again, are both technically very good recordings. I don't think that achieving a perfectly dynamic system has too much correlation here, other than it allowing you to hear all of the DIFFERENCES between various recordings.

I'll have to also side with sqnut here and say that we really are limited to what each recording provides us regarding dynamics. (Obvious by now). I have heard of a few engineers that, depending on the musical content, will track particular instruments, vocals or the entire performance with a separate bus send from each microphone with a -10dB or so pad engaged to ensure dynamic headroom, but moreso as a safety net. IOW, each microphone is recorded to two completely separate tracks, each having a different recording level, say one that peaks at the standard 0dB, and one at -6 to -10dB.

This is essentially the same as taking an HDR photographic image which makes three exposures of the same scene...one exposure that's 2 stops under, one that's normal or "0", and one that's 2 stops over. When these 3 images are "summed" into a single image, the resulting viewable image has a much wider dynamic range that shows incredible detail in both the shadows and in the highlights that would otherwise not be possible.

EDIT: But as I understand, the double-tracking technique above is mostly unnecessary with modern _digital_ recording (though it's dependent on the mics & other equipment used) if recording levels are set properly in the first place because the 24/96 format has plenty of dynamic headroom with basically immeasurable amounts of noise.

Regarding listening to "bad" recordings, there are (fortunately for us) a lot of "historic" old blues, folk, and other recordings that are absolutely amazing vocal and instrumental performances, which are incredibly enjoyable for that reason, but were limited by the recording devices and technical knowledge of the day.

There are also a lot of "modern" Heavy Metal recordings as well that are outstanding performances, enjoyable in content, but are limited in quality. Do you decide to not enjoy these by not listening to them because of the low-quality aspect? IMO, you'd be missing out on some incredible gems if so. Though I also admit that it is sometimes hard to get past the technical quality of some of these, do we throw them out of the window even though what they offer is not available anywhere else?

I had somewhat of the same problem in my former job as a Color Timer in the motion picture industry. My job was to make the movie or film look technically and aesthetically as good as possible on screen or on a TV screen, and to fix any technical problems along the way. It's still very difficult for me to sit down and just enjoy a movie without picking it apart in regards to the technical or aesthetic shortcomings.

Ok, I realize I'm gettin' a bit off topic, sorry. Back to Dynamics and Dynamic Vehicles. I would also love to hear if and when Steven Head built another system. How about Todd Luliak's (Highly) former install?

Oh, and thanks Grayson! I've read that before, but there's always so much to absorb that a reminder and refesh of the memory is always in order! There are a lot of other good reads in SOS and VC magazine.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Eric Stevens said:


> I think you are referring to the crest factor of a recording because the dynamic range far exceeds 18dB even on crappy compressed recordings.
> 
> Think about it 128 watts will give you +24dB.
> 
> Here chew on this: If you are listening to music in your home at 90dB and the ambient noise level were 50dB you would have 40dB of dynamic range in the reproduction. Loudest 90 dB -Minus- Quietest 50 dB = 40 dB


No I am referring to DR not crest factor. If you check the series of posts between me and oabeieo you would realise that he is the one confusing the two terms and telling me I need 12,500 watts to reproduce a DR of 18db.

Dynamic Range: The difference between the loudest and softest passage on a recording.

Crest Factor: The difference between the RMS and the loudest passage.

So the recording with a DR of 18db will have crests of 6-8db.


----------



## cajunner (Apr 13, 2007)

so, a fundamental parting of the minds regarding reference?

I believe that a system that can produce the illusion of live instruments in space, is well suited to be a system that can also produce the re-creation of whatever the mastering engineer's finishing touches, sounded like in his recording studio.

There is no real dissension when one tries to make their car sound realistic, and if the goal is differently stated, it's easy to understand that someone's reference being "how the studio made it" and another's reference is "live music" that we aren't that far from each other.

Of course, if the recording studio guy is trying to make his music distorted or achieve a moment of singularity in the artistic sense, in order to produce a trademark sound or even if the band itself is playing through various boxes that do specific things, these things that take away the truth of a natural vocal or instrument, to deliver something else, well...

we aren't trying to reproduce an artifice, as much as we are trying to go on that artist journey with him/her, as they make their magic.

so, making a trombone sound like a trombone, is one thing.

but listening to a body of work by an artist and the studio guru guy, Quincy Jones/T-Bone, Rubin etc. do their thing in-between, you're not really getting to make that trombone sound like a trombone. 


And that's a good thing, because trombones, kinda sound the same...


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

.....and for everyone claiming how HE drivers have less distortion and hence sound cleaner at louder volumes (say 120db) my humble submission is that in a car at 120 db your ears ability to tell good from bad goes for a toss. In terms of distortion profile:

Distortion from cars environment > distortion from speakers > distortion from amp.

Back to dynamics.......


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

sqnut said:


> .....and for everyone claiming how HE drivers have less distortion and hence sound cleaner at louder volumes (say 120db) my humble submission is that in a car at 120 db your ears ability to tell good from bad goes for a toss. In terms of distortion profile:
> 
> Distortion from cars environment > distortion from speakers > distortion from amp.
> 
> Back to dynamics.......


Nobody's listening at 120db  well not very often


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

cajunner said:


> so, a fundamental parting of the minds regarding reference?
> 
> I believe that a system that can produce the illusion of live instruments in space, is well suited to be a system that can also produce the re-creation of whatever the mastering engineer's finishing touches, sounded like in his recording studio.
> 
> ...


If there's only a few (3 or less) instruments , on a controlled recording on the right home system , I have had my moments where I thought there was actually someone playing before me. Rare? Yes. The older I get , the more I can tell what's going on accousticly and the more I strive for that , the more it becomes un-reachable. It seemed when I was first beginning the quest for the grail when things seemed more believable


----------



## GLN305 (Nov 2, 2007)

oabeieo said:


> Nobody's listening at 120db  well not very often


You've obviously never met Claydo....120 is where he starts!


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

GLN305 said:


> You've obviously never met Claydo....120 is where he starts!


Yeah my days of popping multiple 200A breakers are done. Lol. 
I just turned 40 last Friday so I'm officially a old fart now


----------



## TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL (Jan 31, 2011)

strakele said:


> Anyone read this article yet?


I skimmed it, didn't have enough time to fully go through it.

From skimming, basically seemed to correct the terminology between dynamic range and crest ratio. That said, while dynamic range may not have decreased recently, the overall loudness of recent releases still has a negative effect on music.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

sqnut said:


> No I am referring to DR not crest factor. If you check the series of posts between me and oabeieo you would realise that he is the one confusing the two terms and telling me I need 12,500 watts to reproduce a DR of 18db.
> 
> Dynamic Range: The difference between the loudest and softest passage on a recording.
> 
> ...


I never said that , 

I said if you have a driver that is 21db more efficient running 100w you would need 12,800 watts to have the same power on a power/efficiently scale with a diver 21db less efficient

And I also stated later in the same post those were numbers never seen and I was being rediculious , I also said I was tired as I am now and shooting from my ass , 
I later gave more realistic examples in the same post if you would have read all of it


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

oabeieo said:


> I never said that ,
> 
> I said if you have a driver that is 21db more efficient running 100w you would need 12,800 watts to have the same power on a power/efficiently scale with a diver 21db less efficient
> 
> ...


1. Just in case you missed it, the thread is about dynamics not how loud you're hearing them. 

2. 15 db DR at 90 db spl is as dynamic as 15 db DR at 120 db spl. The thread is not about how loud the HE / Horns play.

3. You can run any speakers you want and a gazilion watts, if the tune is out (timing/response) you're not hearing more than ~3-4db DR out of the 15 db on the recording.

7 pages into the thread and you still can't wrap your head around these basic points.


----------



## claydo (Oct 1, 2012)

GLN305 said:


> You've obviously never met Claydo....120 is where he starts!



Lol....loud is gud.


----------



## strakele (Mar 2, 2009)

sqnut said:


> 3. You can run any speakers you want and a gazilion watts, if the tune is out (timing/response) you're not hearing more than ~3-4db DR out of the 15 db on the recording.


Ever watched your RTA while music is playing? Set it on peak hold? If you did you'd see instantaneous dynamic peaks are much more than the "listed DR" of the recording. You could take the worst recording and the worst tune and still see and hear much more than 3-4 dB of difference between loudest and softest points. Getting time aligned is vital, but it's not magically going to give you an extra 10-12db of dynamics. Old school cars with no t/a were proof of that. Many were more dynamic than most cars today.

I don't know exactly how DR is measured, but I'm very confident it doesn't tell the whole story. Just listen to a Death Magnetic song. Sure it's not a great recording, blah blah blah, but there's a hell of a lot more than 3db of difference between the loudest and softest points.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

sqnut said:


> 1. Just in case you missed it, the thread is about dynamics not how loud you're hearing them.
> 
> 2. 15 db DR at 90 db spl is as dynamic as 15 db DR at 120 db spl. The thread is not about how loud the HE / Horns play.
> 
> ...


Seven pages into the thread And you've only read maybe 1 or 2 of them. 

Please start taking people in context to what they are saying and stop twisting and changing the overarching message to everyone's posts . 

If you are illiterate or don't like to be intelectually fair. Than that's a personal problem. 

And tuning as important as it is because it's vital to a finished prouduct , it's not the ONLY thing. Install matters and so does prouduct. 


And lastly I'm pretty sure we've said a few times now that this discussion has switched gears a few times now. I'm not the one getting off point, but it's like we have to go try go through the entire learning process for you because 

1. Your too stubborn 
2. You don't care

When I exaggerate it's because I am trying to show you something . Catch a clue buddy


Probably didn't read this post , now here's the part where you only look at once or two words of what I said quote me and miss the point. I'm done


----------



## chefhow (Apr 29, 2007)

To bring this back on track, Todd's GTi at finals a few years ago may have been both the most dynamic car as well as moving car I have ever heard.


----------



## claydo (Oct 1, 2012)

chefhow said:


> To bring this back on track, Todd's GTi at finals a few years ago may have been both the most dynamic car as well as moving car I have ever heard.


I've wanted to hear that car for a long time....everyone says it's spectacular.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

strakele said:


> Ever watched your RTA while music is playing? Set it on peak hold? If you did you'd see instantaneous dynamic peaks are much more than the "listed DR" of the recording. You could take the worst recording and the worst tune and still see and hear much more than 3-4 dB of difference between loudest and softest points. Getting time aligned is vital, but it's not magically going to give you an extra 10-12db of dynamics. Old school cars with no t/a were proof of that. Many were more dynamic than most cars today.
> 
> I don't know exactly how DR is measured, but I'm very confident it doesn't tell the whole story. Just listen to a Death Magnetic song. Sure it's not a great recording, blah blah blah, but there's a hell of a lot more than 3db of difference between the loudest and softest points.


I'm sure there are tools to measure the DR, although a lot of time DR and crest factor are used interchangeably. From a personal perspective, just by playing a cd I know if it's dynamic or not. Then if the CD is rated for a DR of say 15 that's good enough for me, never really been curious to find out if it's 15 or 14 or 18. Generally the CD's that sound really dynamic have good DR numbers.

A whacked out tune wont kill dynamics? Here's a simple experiment. Raise 500-2khz by 1 db on your eq (messing up the response) and cut delay on the mid range by 0.5 ms (messing up timing). Now take a dynamic recording and A/B between your original setting and the revised setting. Notice a difference in dynamics? 

The pre dsp cars used kicks for better timing and analog eq for response. That said the best sounding car from back then would lose in a head to head with when pitted against something like KP, Eldrige, Matt Roberts cars. I'd be willing to bet serious money on it .


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

oabeieo said:


> Seven pages into the thread And you've only read maybe 1 or 2 of them.
> 
> Please start taking people in context to what they are saying and stop twisting and changing the overarching message to everyone's posts .
> 
> ...


Well you're the only one in the thread who seems to have a personal gripe with me...so who's illiterate and intellectually constrained?


----------



## TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL (Jan 31, 2011)

strakele said:


> Ever watched your RTA while music is playing? Set it on peak hold? If you did you'd see instantaneous dynamic peaks are much more than the "listed DR" of the recording. You could take the worst recording and the worst tune and still see and hear much more than 3-4 dB of difference between loudest and softest points. Getting time aligned is vital, but it's not magically going to give you an extra 10-12db of dynamics. Old school cars with no t/a were proof of that. Many were more dynamic than most cars today.
> 
> I don't know exactly how DR is measured, but I'm very confident it doesn't tell the whole story. Just listen to a Death Magnetic song. Sure it's not a great recording, blah blah blah, but there's a hell of a lot more than 3db of difference between the loudest and softest points.


I want to say that DR numbers like those on the dynamic range database are the difference between the songs rms and peak, but running some song through their tool, even that doesn't seem quite correct.

Easiest way for me to compare recordings is just to quickly load them in audacity. It very quickly shows if it's a good recording or not


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

It may just be my car but I'm more dynamic when the stage is at the rear view instead of closer to the hood.


----------



## brumledb (Feb 2, 2015)

TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL said:


> Easiest way for me to compare recordings is just to quickly load them in audacity. It very quickly shows if it's a good recording or not


Can you give a quick tutorial on how to do this and what I would be looking for to make such a determination?


----------



## TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL (Jan 31, 2011)

I should be off work in about 45 mins, I'll do it then.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

I would take that bet and your money. Earl Zausmmer, Steve Head, Eric Stevens, Richard Clark, and Garage Shoei could/would do it very easily.



sqnut said:


> The pre dsp cars used kicks for better timing and analog eq for response. That said the best sounding car from back then would lose in a head to head with when pitted against something like KP, Eldrige, Matt Roberts cars. I'd be willing to bet serious money on it .


----------



## strakele (Mar 2, 2009)

sqnut said:


> I'm sure there are tools to measure the DR, although a lot of time DR and crest factor are used interchangeably. From a personal perspective, just by playing a cd I know if it's dynamic or not. Then if the CD is rated for a DR of say 15 that's good enough for me, never really been curious to find out if it's 15 or 14 or 18. Generally the CD's that sound really dynamic have good DR numbers.
> 
> A whacked out tune wont kill dynamics? Here's a simple experiment. Raise 500-2khz by 1 db on your eq (messing up the response) and cut delay on the mid range by 0.5 ms (messing up timing). Now take a dynamic recording and A/B between your original setting and the revised setting. Notice a difference in dynamics?
> 
> The pre dsp cars used kicks for better timing and analog eq for response. That said the best sounding car from back then would lose in a head to head with when pitted against something like KP, Eldrige, Matt Roberts cars. I'd be willing to bet serious money on it .


You're probably right about crest factor/DR being used interchangeably. Though I'd still have a hard time believing a 3db crest factor rating.

A crappy tune will sound worse than a good one, obviously. And the right tune can make it sound more dynamic. I just took issue to your suggestion that a less than stellar t/a job can kill over 10db worth of dynamics. A bit here and there sure, but nowhere near that much.

KP has said that Richard Clark's GN was one of the most dynamic cars he's ever heard. I certainly believe that well tuned cars using modern DSP will edge out the old school cars in imaging, but we're just talking dynamics here.


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

strakele said:


> You're probably right about crest factor/DR being used interchangeably. Though I'd still have a hard time believing a 3db crest factor rating.
> 
> A crappy tune will sound worse than a good one, obviously. And the right tune can make it sound more dynamic. I just took issue to your suggestion that a less than stellar t/a job can kill over 10db worth of dynamics. A bit here and there sure, but nowhere near that much.
> 
> KP has said that Richard Clark's GN was one of the most dynamic cars he's ever heard. I certainly believe that well tuned cars using modern DSP will edge out the old school cars in imaging, but we're just talking dynamics here.


I'd agree with this. Clark's car never sounded all that great, but **** me running would it get up and boogie. 

I second Todd's car souding fantastic. It does things it shouldn't.


----------



## strakele (Mar 2, 2009)

Picture to prove a point. Bright blue is from a 'quiet passage' and darker blue is from a 'louder passage' in Unforgiven III off Metallica's Death Magnetic album. Just a random spot from earlier in the song where it's quieter and later once it gets heavier. Looks a lot more than 3dB worth of difference to me...


----------



## TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL (Jan 31, 2011)

brumledb said:


> Can you give a quick tutorial on how to do this and what I would be looking for to make such a determination?


Ok, so if you have audacity, all you need to do is import a song and look at it. You can go further, but I need more time than I'll have during the week to show that. But, here are some examples. 

These next two songs are the same song. One has a listed DR on the dynamic range database of 7, one has a DR listed as 13, can you tell which one?




The first one is the remaster of Slayer's Angel Of Death. Its clipped, and brickwalled. The second is a rip of the vinyl version, which retains the original mastering. They absolutely sound different. Interestingly enough though, and going along with Strakele's post, I plotted the spectrum of a few sections, the guitar intro at the beginning, and the second drum kick, and on BOTH versions there was about a 10db difference in amplitude between guitars and drum kick. That said, I need more time to work on this and see if I can figure it out better. 

But, looking at it, you can always tell when a song has been brickwalled, as it will look like the first one, with all peaks at the same level. If you zoom in enough, you can even see if they are clipped.

Here is another example. A late 2000's remaster of Hotel California, and the actual, original vinyl mastering. This is the first 1:15 of the song.




DR database lists the remaster as 7db, and the record as 15db. I plotted the spectrum of the quietest part of the guitar intro I could find, vs the drums, and found a 20db difference there in the vinyl version, but did not compare it to the remaster as I ran out of time. But, in order to play this song properly, you need 20db of headroom from whatever volume you'd like the quiet parts to be.



And, the Telarc 1812 Overture. Listed as 18db DR on the database.




I also plotted this one. A section before the first set of cannons that I know to be the quietest part of the track, and the actual cannon blasts. There was a 44 decibels between the two, and that's conservatively rounding the decimal.


----------



## TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL (Jan 31, 2011)

Here is the plots similar to strakele's above. Same thing, taken with audacity. Remember, this song is listed at a DR of 18. Audacity shows a difference of 46db between the peaks of these two plots.


----------



## #1BigMike (Aug 17, 2014)

chefhow said:


> To bring this back on track, Todd's GTi at finals a few years ago may have been both the most dynamic car as well as moving car I have ever heard.


Do you have any pics or a thread of this build?

Edit: Found it and that build is crazy lol.

http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/build-logs-project-install-gallery/116323-highlys-mk4-vw-gti-2011-comp-build.html


----------



## bbfoto (Aug 28, 2005)

chefhow said:


> To bring this back on track, Todd's GTi at finals a few years ago may have been both the most dynamic car as well as moving car I have ever heard.


Thanks Howard. He's torn it all out and given up the audio game in favor of speed/handling performance hasn't he?


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

sqnut said:


> Well you're the only one in the thread who seems to have a personal gripe with me...so who's illiterate and intellectually constrained?


I don't have a gripe with you Dood. 
Just being quoted and than taken out of context makes a fun conversation a retarded one.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL said:


> Ok, so if you have audacity, all you need to do is import a song and look at it. You can go further, but I need more time than I'll have during the week to show that. But, here are some examples.
> 
> These next two songs are the same song. One has a listed DR on the dynamic range database of 7, one has a DR listed as 13, can you tell which one?
> 
> ...


Very intresting


----------



## Mic10is (Aug 20, 2007)

Why is this post still going? question has been answered and this is only being continued by people getting wrapped up in semantics and interested in a pissing contest


----------



## TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL (Jan 31, 2011)

The thread turned into multiple topics, some of which haven't been fully answered.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Mic10is said:


> Why is this post still going? question has been answered and this is only being continued by people getting wrapped up in semantics and interested in a pissing contest


Because it's fun! 

Yeah , I agree mic, 

I sorry sqnut , friends?


----------



## #1BigMike (Aug 17, 2014)

Thanks to all who posted. Its a enough info in this one thread to keep me busy for the next 6 months!


----------

