# Time Alignment Via Tape Measure Site... and a nifty tweak, too.



## ErinH

First of all, let me state that this is not intended to be a replacement for ears. /





*Time Alignment via physical distance measurement:*

Over the years I've found that the quickest way to get roughed in for time alignment is to simply measure the physical distance from your listening position to each speaker and apply the "delay math" to provide you with the amount of time delay you should add for each speaker. This is found in Alpine's manuals as well as some other places. It's not necessarily something that you set and forget, but man, it cuts out 90% of the work quickly. 



We've been floating various Excel sheets on this site over the years. I know I've shared the basic t/a calc sheet I made a few years back. I've thought a few times it would be nice to have an app or a site you could visit that you could simply punch the numbers in and get the delay values spit out rather than opening up an excel sheet on a computer you don't have. Especially now that people can use their phones to visit the web for this kind of thing.



With that in mind, I did the basic time alignment sheet in excel. Then I kicked it over to Robert (pockets5) to get it coded up for a site he hosts. This was built with the mobile platform in mind, as opposed to building an app for one O/S. 



It's simple to use... pretty much intuitive. When you go to that site, "clear all values", then simply type in your phsyical driver distances from your seat and click "Calculate". Below, the numbers for delay in milliseconds (ms) you need will be spit out. 



Note: To keep from re-inventing the wheel, the site was built with a 3-way front stage in mind. If you have a 2-way front stage simply leave the Midbass fields blank.​






*Stage Shift:*

Here's the cool part. Often when I tune, I feel like I've gotten everything pretty well focused. But sometimes I want to move the stage over to one side or the other a bit. What stinks is while fiddling with your delay and your levels, you may lose the focus you had. 



So.... The bottom section of the site is an *attempt* to help remedy that. Simply type in how much you want to shift the stage and in what direction (right-hand side drivers, you were thought of when I did this). Once you select the direction, the amount of delay and level you need to alter for each SIDE is provided. 

This uses the following logic: a) -6dB per distance doubled and b) midrange delta from your entered speaker distances are used to calculate the amount of attenuation.​






*Cliffs:*

Website you can use to calculate time delay for a 2-way or 3-way front stage + sub, based off physical distance measurements.

Site also tries to help you shift stage and not lose focus.

Access it from your phone to quickly get your setup roughed in. 





*The site can be found here:

http://tracerite.com/calc.html*







- Erin (and Robert)




*Edit:*
*Update 01/17/14:*

*The site has been updated to include an option to select 2-way or 3-way, making it a bit more intuitive. In addition, there has been an EXPERIMENTAL version of the time delay calculations I'll simply call the "crossover method".* 

*Crossover Method information:*
As it is, you can still enter your distances and get your 'standard' T/A values. However, with the new update, you have the _option _of entering in some crossover values and letting the sheet provide you with a new set of delay values that accounts for the low frequency wavelength. The notion being that in the area where our hearing is more sensitive to time, and that the wavelength of low frequencies is so long, the site will now account for adding additional delay based on your crossover frequency. 

This method is essentially a means of adjusting the phase angle at the crossover, so the speakers are as in-phase as you can get them with a tape measure. This doesn't seem to have any benefit for speakers crossed high; presumably due to the ILD/ITD relationship. So, I've left out the tweeter crossover... there's just no point. No, it doesn't account for slope (yet; though, I'm not sure I'll bother). It won't fix your response if your polarity on a driver is wrong and you may want to play with your slopes a bit to see if you can get better blending. 

*I cannot stress enough that this "crossover method" is really more for experimenting with your system than anything.* If it doesn't work, so be it. If it does, awesome. If it kind of does, then you can explore why. 


*That said, here's my personal findings and feedback on this method*:
In my car, I have a Helix DSP that has the ability to adjust phase in 12.5 degree increments, I believe. Right now, my phase angle is at 275 degrees, (if I recall correctly) which is about 11ms at 70hz. When I use the site's crossover method to calculate time delay, the half-wave value I get is 10.125ms. That's remarkably close to what I have with my phase of 275 degrees.

I've gotten feedback from friends who have tried this and it's been pretty positive thus far. Granted, it's fairly subjective, and even to me doesn't make an entire world of sense, but it seems to actually work and work well. Of course, every install is different, so YMMV. ​

*To use this method:* 

Select 2-way or 3-way first.
Under the "measurements" tab, enter your speaker distances from your head to approximately the motor of the driver.
Then select the "crossover" tab. 
Enter the appropriate crossover values.
Click "calculate".

You'll then be provided the values for time alignment in (ms). 
If you don't want to bother with the crossover method, skip steps 3 & 4.

A word of advice: the sub delay is likely going to be much longer than anyone can account for with standard DSP. So, one method is to *use the half-wave of the subwoofer value (provided in the results) and flip the polarity of the sub*. The 1/4 wave value doesn't really bear much fruit, but you can give it a shot if you'd like... that's why it's there.

http://tracerite.com/calc.html


Again, don't go having a cow over this crossover method. We are not trying to change the world. Just presenting something different. If you don't like it, stick with the standard method. But, I do encourage you to give it a shot. You may be surprised. 

- Erin


----------



## FreeTheSound

Thanks for posting this. I`m sure we will all gain some understanding from it!


----------



## SPLEclipse

Neat! Thanks guys.

On a side note, I've tried your excel alignment worksheet. It worked surprisingly well, especially in the low-mid/midbass/sub range (and the values it gave me were very close to the ones I was already using, which was a good sanity check).


----------



## Kevin K

Thanks for sharing.


----------



## pocket5s

FYI, the error Erin mentioned has been fixed..

Also, I don't have an android or windows based phone, so if anyone does (especially windows) please let me know how it works. I know it works in chrome just fine and IE 10 on a PC and, well, my iphone 5's Safari and Chrome browsers. Thanks


----------



## jode1967

thanks both of you (Erin and pocket5s) for taking the time and making to effort to help others. gratis


----------



## decibelle

Sub'd! Interested to hear how this works out for folks. Thanks Erin & Robert for your time and efforts


----------



## cajunner

thanks for doing the work that just floods this place with site traffic, guys. Don't be stingy though, sharing links to other sites is not bad karma...


----------



## ErinH

cajunner said:


> thanks for doing the work that just floods this place with site traffic, guys. Don't be stingy though, sharing links to other sites is not bad karma...


Says the one who also posts here. 

It's already done.


----------



## REGULARCAB

Well hell, I was gonna ask why we dont all just use a tape measure for a rough time align. i'll check it out.


----------



## jel847

Wow this is awesome thank you so much.
Worked fine on my android phone


----------



## Bayboy

Worked great!


----------



## ErinH

Thanks to a nitpicky friend who won the battle of mind warfare against me, this will be updated to reflect temp/humidity as soon as I get a chance and can sweet talk Robert in to updating the site. 

Do I personally think it's going to matter? Not enough for me to do it to begin with. I made the assumption that everyone has an HVAC system that works and this will have roughly the same in car air conditions. Not many people get in their 20 degree car and don't have it toasty in 5 minutes. 
BUT, I'm gonna add it because it may be useful in some cases. 

Sorry Robert.


----------



## ErinH

Bayboy said:


> Worked great!


cool stuff. glad to hear it helped.


----------



## ErinH

SPLEclipse said:


> Neat! Thanks guys.
> 
> On a side note, I've tried your excel alignment worksheet. It worked surprisingly well, especially in the low-mid/midbass/sub range (and the values it gave me were very close to the ones I was already using, which was a good sanity check).


I'm not sure I'm gonna do that particular one on a site. I may see what Robert thinks, but that particular method you reference is really more of a "try and see", whereas this one is pretty straightforward and accepted by many in all sorts of DSP industries as a standard (heck, even oppo does this basic calculation with the BDP units).


----------



## jriggs

Awesome. Thank you. Now how to convert to Pioneer?


----------



## ErinH

Pioneer is already converted itself. With their decks, you just enter in the measured distances directly and it does the delay for you.


----------



## REGULARCAB

A good read on Pioneer T/A that i found


----------



## sqnut

Pio's are a no brainer, unless you're a former Alpine user. Using measured distance is a great way to do 90% of the work as mentioned. You're setting arrivals for the direct sound which which gives you the cues for your stage. Some processors let you set arrival times both ways.


----------



## hpilot2004

sqnut said:


> Pio's are a no brainer, unless you're a former Alpine user. Using measured distance is a great way to do 90% of the work as mentioned. You're setting arrivals for the direct sound which which gives you the cues for your stage. Some processors let you set arrival times both ways.


Which ones?


----------



## 2fnloud

Would love to see the Left & Right rear added to this


----------



## ryanr7386

Sub'd

Great info!


----------



## goodstuff

Cool. Thanks.


----------



## ErinH

2fnloud said:


> Would love to see the Left & Right rear added to this



The problem is that they will likely be the furthest speakers after the sub. Which could mean all your TA is based on them. And if you want to add the standard 10-20ms for the Haas effect for true rear fill (ie; dolby or the like) then you're likely to run out of alignment. 

But, if you want to do this for rear speakers, simply do it a second time but with only the furthest speaker* (again, most likely the sub) and the rear speakers. This will give you the time delay they need. 

*Since the calcs are based on the furthest speaker, that's the only one you really HAVE to have for a reference.


----------



## 2fnloud

thanks, only mentioned rear because 5.1 DTS


----------



## ErinH

2fnloud said:


> thanks, only mentioned rear because 5.1 DTS



Yea. A certain someone recommended the same thing.


----------



## sqnut

hpilot2004 said:


> Which ones?


I can do it on my bit10 the bit1 is the same way.


----------



## ErinH

Since delay is a function of temperature it actually does factor in to these calculations. 

HOWEVER, after putting numbers to it, any change is so small that it's a wash. For example, the delta in time from 20 F to 105 F is 0.08ms. If I knock that down to something that is realistic (since no one has wild swings instantly like that) I get smaller deltas. 50-80 F is only a delta of 0.03 ms. You move your head less than an inch and that's gone. 

Maybe if you compete in the winter and summer when you don't have AC running you'll have to consider this, but for most of us, it's a non-issue.


Moving on to humidity, it's even less of a factor. Going from 25% to 100%, the change is in the 1/100ths of a millisecond. 

I'll play around with it a bit more to make 100% certain there's no need to update the site with this info, but as it stands, I think it's moot altogether. Especially when you consider the big picture. 


If anyone cares to verify me putting in the leg work on this, I'll be happy to send you my excel sheet with all the info. It's a nightmare. But it's there. PM me. Don't reply here.


----------



## sqnut

Cold winter mornings, start the car, the music kicks in but the lower end is missing. The cold air has entered your ear and reduced the ears sensitivity. Hence the sense of loss in lower end frequencies. 5 min later the heater kicks in, warm air enters your ear and you slowly get the lower end back. Not sure I'd change time alignment for that, but yeah temperature does affect our perception of sound.


----------



## ErinH

sqnut said:


> Cold winter mornings, start the car, the music kicks in but the lower end is missing. The cold air has entered your ear and reduced the ears sensitivity. Hence the sense of loss in lower end frequencies. 5 min later the heater kicks in, warm air enters your ear and you slowly get the lower end back. Not sure I'd change time alignment for that, but yeah temperature does affect our perception of sound.


Right. That's exactly what I'm saying. The difference is real... but how many people tune their car in moderate conditions and never drive them again in that? Unless, maybe, you tune in the Spring and don't touch your A/C when Summer rolls around...


----------



## avanti1960

Nice topic and I look forward to using the site spreadsheet, thanks. 

Some steps that have helped me achieve a more focused stage (see if they work for you) 
1) Check the acoustic phase of your drivers first. I was chasing my tail for months until I reversed polarity on my driver's side midrange using a "my voice is in phase" track with (no T/A applied). 

2) Use a wooden folding ruler- I found it more accurate than a tape measure and it made a difference.

3) Use the distances measured from left driver to left ear, and right driver to right ear. The sound from the right arrives at your right ear first and vice versa. Time / distance will be processed like this by your brain. Measuring to the center of your head is less accurate for each side. 

Now for things I struggle with- 
1)I can't seem to center the stage for all frequencies. Even left / right EQ does not help. I have a good compromise but still find higher frequency vocals veering to the left and some other shifting depending on frequency. It seems as if I can just about shut the left side drivers off yet the high freq. vocals still come from the left. 

2)Level vs TA. I know that level tends to affect the higher frequencies (above 2K or so?), both time alignment and level affects the mid frequencies and TA is the main affect to centering the lower frequencies. 
Although I have tried a number of ways to set the level of each driver, then set the T/A, or a little of each, etc. trial and error, I have not found a repeatable, precise way to manage the relationship between driver level and T/A for fine tuning purposes. 

Could the shifting high frequencies and other frequency dependent stage shifting not helped by EQ be non-fixable because of vehicle acoustics / geometry? 

Thanks


----------



## cajunner

bikinpunk said:


> Right. That's exactly what I'm saying. The difference is real... but how many people tune their car in moderate conditions and never drive them again in that? Unless, maybe, you tune in the Spring and don't touch your A/C when Summer rolls around...



wait, you're agreeing that the change is psychoacoustic and not physical parameters of the drivers themselves?

that the ears have to warm up, instead of suspensions loosening up?

I never heard of that.


----------



## 14642

avanti1960 said:


> Could the shifting high frequencies and other frequency dependent stage shifting not helped by EQ be non-fixable because of vehicle acoustics / geometry?
> 
> Thanks


Absolutely. Reflections play a huge part in all of this. If you can precisely match the measured frequency response from both left and right, that'll get you close. Then, you may have to deviate from that precise match to minimize the wandering around at other frequencies. 

The windshield is the devil for everything but a center speaker--unless you can stuff a full range driver WAY into the corner of the dash.


----------



## seafish

sqnut said:


> Cold winter mornings, start the car, the music kicks in but the lower end is missing. The cold air has entered your ear and reduced the ears sensitivity. Hence the sense of loss in lower end frequencies. 5 min later the heater kicks in, warm air enters your ear and you slowly get the lower end back. Not sure I'd change time alignment for that, but yeah temperature does affect our perception of sound.


LMAO...time for me to design and sell some ear wave guides with built-in, temperature stable pre heaters for the "true audiophile." They will be 3d printed for a perfect custom fit...also available in Vulcan and misc animal templates for the fun loving or perverse. The same people who buy $1000 cables will come flocking to my website and I'll be rich!!!

In all seriousness, thanks to the OP for the chart and info.


----------



## Libertyguy20

When I set T/A, I use tape measure then ta by ear listening to mono vocals and bands. However one question I've never really answered or asked, is where one should best place the tape measure at the speaker. At the voice coil in center, at the magnet by adding in a few inches, etc? Should one ideally remove door trim to get the most precise/exact difference or not since the sound hits the door panel before going into the cabin? How about the other end...if I'm measuring right side drivers to the right ear, is my "ear" where the tape measure touches the ear canal or another inch or more further in where ear drum is?

Just looking to see others degree of specificity or generality, since TA by ear should still follow


----------



## cajunner

I stick a rod under the head rest that comes to a point right above where the brainstem resides, equidistant between the two eardrums.
the end of the tape touching the speaker dustcap and reading the other end at the rod.


----------



## pocket5s

I'm glad everyone is finding it useful. I certainly don't mind doing the "alternative" method if there is enough interest and Erin deems it useful.


----------



## Kevin K

We appreciate it!


----------



## sqnut

cajunner said:


> wait, you're agreeing that the change is psychoacoustic and not physical parameters of the drivers themselves?
> 
> that the ears have to warm up, instead of suspensions loosening up?
> 
> I never heard of that.


Temperature affects your ears sensitivity. It's not psychoacoustics. Your equipment doesn't need to warm up.


----------



## sqnut

seafish said:


> LMAO...time for me to design and sell some ear wave guides with built-in, temperature stable pre heaters for the "true audiophile." They will be 3d printed for a perfect custom fit...also available in Vulcan and misc animal templates for the fun loving or perverse. The same people who buy $1000 cables will come flocking to my website and I'll be rich!!!
> 
> In all seriousness, thanks to the OP for the chart and info.


I just explained why it happens. I also mentioned I don't tune for it. So there:-D


----------



## sqnut

Libertyguy20 said:


> When I set T/A, I use tape measure then ta by ear listening to mono vocals and bands. However one question I've never really answered or asked, is where one should best place the tape measure at the speaker. At the voice coil in center, at the magnet by adding in a few inches, etc? Should one ideally remove door trim to get the most precise/exact difference or not since the sound hits the door panel before going into the cabin? How about the other end...if I'm measuring right side drivers to the right ear, is my "ear" where the tape measure touches the ear canal or another inch or more further in where ear drum is?
> 
> Just looking to see others degree of specificity or generality, since TA by ear should still follow


You are setting the arrival time for the acoustic wave. I measure from the cone. Don't overthink this cause remember this is only 90% the balance 10% will be by ear.


----------



## james2266

sqnut said:


> You are setting the arrival time for the acoustic wave. I measure from the cone. Don't overthink this cause remember this is only 90% the balance 10% will be by ear.


Ok, I get this but generally how much should one have to move the ta values by ear? ie. How much is just wrong or is there a 'too much' variation from the measured distances?


----------



## sqnut

james2266 said:


> Ok, I get this but generally how much should one have to move the ta values by ear? ie. How much is just wrong or is there a 'too much' variation from the measured distances?


To answer your question, the tweak by ear should keep you well within ~ 0.2ms per driver from the measured distance. Provided you measured correctly. You can go thru a complete cycle with about a 0.08ms increase/decrease. 

Measuring via a tape or impulse response is a great way to set the TA for a start. Doing the TA sets up your stage (everything from the front). Once you've done this, you can forget about it for a while and just focus on getting the L/R and overall response right. 

Balance for L/R, this will give you a fixed location for everything on the stage you created. If the vocals or any instrument wander about on the stage you have smearing and need to rework L/R. Once things are mostly stable, you may notice that while there is no smearing, the images are fixed but have some jitter. Now go back and tweak the TA for the arrival times from each driver. Using the eq and TA together will help stability specially in the 1-4khz range. When you're fine tuning the TA do it for all speakers on each side
and then get the two to blend. 

At the end of the day, TA sets the arrival times at your ear from each speaker. You want this to be simultaneous. But it's difficult to achieve and maintain cause while the speakers are fixed your head and ears are not in a vice. The idea is to use TA to always be in the ball park while focusing on overall response.


----------



## ecbmxer

Nice! I'll have to check it out. Particularly the shifting the center slightly one way or the other.


----------



## jel847

I have a chance to play with it for a few hours today and it's a great time saver. I especially like the ability to shift the stage to the left or right and it worked great.
I'm a amateur when it comes to tuning but this is a great starting point.
Thanks again for doing this!


----------



## fcarpio

Worth checking out, subbed.


----------



## ErinH

Glad to know the stage shifting section is working for you guys. I wasn't sure how well it would work for others, though I put it through the paces myself a few times to make sure it beared fruit enough to share. The one thing that's always been a pain is shifting the stage so I thought it might help others as well. 

Robert and I are gonna work on an advanced version of this that really is intended to be used as an experiment moreso than the version we posted up. We will post when it's ready to use.


----------



## ErinH

just realized the text for the stage shift answer isn't correct if you are a right-hand drivers. We'll get that fixed.

Edit: fixed


----------



## bertholomey

I'm looking forward to using this in the car (when I get it back), and I'm going to do the same in the wife's Pilot...... Thanks Erin and Robert!


----------



## basshead

Thanks for the tool

Humidity can greatly affect the sound of a driver. My untreated paper cone mid will have a completely different tune in high humidity environment. It's not just my ears, I've test it with my RTA and I can get a -+3db swing in the 500Hz and up.

Also I never measured, but at -14 like this morning, the interior plastic panel where still frozen after a 30 min commute. I suspect that the reflection of a material can be affected by its temperature.


----------



## ErinH

I've already done the math for the spreadsheet. In terms of time, the difference in 20% vs 100% humidity is less than the resolution of any DSP on the market. Pro audio included. Therefore, I don't see the need in adding it as a user input variable. Its just not worth the effort. 

As I mentioned before, temp makes a more marked difference but almost everyone will be using A/C or a heater in their car which makes the usefulness of that calc minimal. To achieve 0.03ms of change, you have to swing the temp about 30 degrees. That time is all the difference of moving your head about 1/2 inch.

So, I'm not saying you're wrong. What I am saying is, for *practical use*, it's not necessary to worry about the ambient conditions; certainly not humidity. I've built the sheet (and Robert has made the site) with nominal temperature/humidity (65*F/60%) as these are easily within the norm of what it's like in the car_ when you're driving_. We haven't written off adding temp for those who compete since they are the only ones who would be listening in a significantly different in-car ambient condition from what they would otherwise drive. Right now, we're working on something that's more interesting than a few 1/100's of a millisecond, though.


----------



## Golden Ear

Thanks, Erin and Robert, for taking the time to put this together for us. I'm looking forward to trying this out along with a few other things I just learned


----------



## luisc202

Thanks for posting this. I am new to a Audison Bitone and am stating to mess with the TA settings.


----------



## basshead

I've probably didn't express it as I should. The impact of the air/humidity level is minimal for sound travel in a car, that I won't argue, what I was trying to explain is that temp and humidity will have an impact on how you system sound because the component are affected by it. 

I know it's impossible to build a simple tool that will take everything into consideration, I just don't want people start to say that humidity and temp won't have an impact on sound because Erin said so LoL 

As for practical use, when I leave the parking garage in the building basement it take more than an hour for my mid to sound back to normal. The paper cone humidity level will take much longer to get back to "normal" than the air in the car, that extra humidity add mass to the cone and change how it sound. Another example, the rubber suspension on my midbass (installed in doors) on a cold day like today won't get warm and affect its performance (less travel) , even the heater in the car is having a hard time to get mildly warm with all this cold air coming in.


----------



## Mic10is

basshead said:


> I've probably didn't express it as I should. The impact of the air/humidity level is minimal for sound travel in a car, that I won't argue, what I was trying to explain is that temp and humidity will have an impact on how you system sound because the component are affected by it.
> 
> I know it's impossible to build a simple tool that will take everything into consideration, I just don't want people start to say that humidity and temp won't have an impact on sound because Erin said so LoL
> 
> As for practical use, when I leave the parking garage in the building basement it take more than an hour for my mid to sound back to normal. The paper cone humidity level will take much longer to get back to "normal" than the air in the car, that extra humidity add mass to the cone and change how it sound. Another example, the rubber suspension on my midbass (installed in doors) on a cold day like today won't get warm and affect its performance (less travel) , even the heater in the car is having a hard time to get mildly warm with all this cold air coming in.


solution--quit using paper cone drivers


----------



## ErinH

I understand. I didn't intend to say they aren't real world phenomena. Just, for us, it is essentially moot altogether. 

I do feel your pain with. Driving in the extreme swings now and again. My summers are equivalent to your winters. It takes quite a while to cool the car down from 130+ F inside temps with 1000000% humidity. 
But, I'm not gonna pull over to make adjustments in the settings for when the car finally reaches pleasurable conditions inside. Lol.


----------



## basshead

Mic10is said:


> solution--quit using paper cone drivers


too easy, ill fill the van with silica gel beads


----------



## roduk

What a great post and idea  Well done Erin & Robert 

I'll try this out when I get home, I just use my ears to do TA, be very interesting to see how my ears measure up to a mathematic equation!! 

One question though - I am using horns, so where do I measure from exactly? The compression driver or horn mouth and which part of the horn mouth along its width??


----------



## sqnut

The equipment used to produce sound will be measurably stable across a much wider temperature range, than the equipment used to hear that sound. The ears have a much narrower range of temperature for optimum performance. You don't have to worry about the the effect of temperature on the rubber surround or the spyder or whatever else. Equipment will be stable from say -30C to +50C. Your ears sensitivity will vary a great deal over this range. It's about what you need to do get the ears back in their comfort zone, i.e. heating/ac. 

I'm not sure I buy into the effect of humidity. Paper cones are always coated with materials that prevent moisture absorption. The cone is not going to start absorbing water vapour when humidity goes up from 40% to 90%.


----------



## Woosey

I can confirm it calculates on windows phone 8 with update 3 installed ( developer unlocked phone )

cant test the outcome since my pioneer does the calculation for me.. too bad..

I'll try to test next week in our company demo which has the mosconi 6to8...


----------



## SPLEclipse

roduk said:


> What a great post and idea  Well done Erin & Robert
> 
> I'll try this out when I get home, I just use my ears to do TA, be very interesting to see how my ears measure up to a mathematic equation!!
> 
> One question though - I am using horns, so where do I measure from exactly? The compression driver or horn mouth and which part of the horn mouth along its width??


You can consider the horn (or waveguide) to be part of the acoustic environment, so use the compression driver as the reference point.


----------



## roduk

SPLEclipse said:


> You can consider the horn (or waveguide) to be part of the acoustic environment, so use the compression driver as the reference point.


Really? Do you know so? I would have thought the horn mouth as that's where the sound begins to radiate, but where left to right on the horn mouth is where I get confused....


----------



## ErinH

My general take on the subject is to start from the voice coil as that's where sound begins. 

Ultimately, you're talking an inch or two at best. As long as it's from the same point on all speakers, it's not really going to make enough difference to stress over.


----------



## roduk

bikinpunk said:


> My general take on the subject is to start from the voice coil as that's where sound begins.
> 
> Ultimately, you're talking an inch or two at best. As long as it's from the same point on all speakers, it's not really going to make enough difference to stress over.


But a horn mouth is 15 inches long Erin!? Looking across the car to the opposite side horn you have at least 12 inches of possible starting points! Sorry to deviate and argue a bit, but I'd love to know this once and for all!!


----------



## ErinH

Sound originates at the voice coil. The horn controls the dispersion. I'd measure from the throat of the horn before I'd measure from the mouth.


----------



## Mic10is

roduk said:


> But a horn mouth is 15 inches long Erin!? Looking across the car to the opposite side horn you have at least 12 inches of possible starting points! Sorry to deviate and argue a bit, but I'd love to know this once and for all!!


measure from the center of compression driver where the sound originates.


----------



## kizz

That sure did save me some time. quite handy. Thanks for posting Erin.


----------



## avanti1960

sqnut said:


> Temperature affects your ears sensitivity. It's not psychoacoustics. Your equipment doesn't need to warm up.


Speakers do need to warm up in cold climates. Zaph audio did a complete study about this measuring the frequency response at colder temperatures.


----------



## avanti1960

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> Absolutely. Reflections play a huge part in all of this. If you can precisely match the measured frequency response from both left and right, that'll get you close. Then, you may have to deviate from that precise match to minimize the wandering around at other frequencies.
> 
> The windshield is the devil for everything but a center speaker--unless you can stuff a full range driver WAY into the corner of the dash.


Thanks for the reply- this is useful info - I'll know that even the best possible stage within my vehicle will be a compromise- and I can stop fiddling at some point!


----------



## avanti1960

Since there were no replies to the question about how to best manage the fine tuning of level setting drivers vs. distance setting, I'll offer the following site for reference. Basically I will enter the distances of my drivers relative to one another to determine the loss in sound intensity, closest to farthest away for each pair. 
Based on the calculator in the link, my left midbass driver is 2.7db louder than the right at the drivers ears, left midrange is 3.4db louder then the right, etc. 
I will balance all drivers levels based on these calculations (while maintaining the relative level of the door component "sets") and then fine tune the time alignment distances by ear. 
It seems like you need to level the relative intensity left to right for all drivers before you do anything else- no? 

Estimating Sound Levels With the Inverse Square Law


----------



## ErinH

I actually considered putting in a level estimator, and it would have been no more trouble than providing the time delay, considering I've already got the level calcs built in to the 'Stage Shift' section of the site. BUT, the reason I didn't do this is it makes the assumption that all your speakers have the same sensitivity AND the same voltage to them. What's more, it assumes full linearity in the response. Knowing that the former is not typical (based on staggered amp channels most people run) and the latter is simply not possible, I thought it might be a bit deceiving to add that calculation. Which is why I saved that math for the last bit and we made sure to note that it's only really effective if you are satisfied with the focus but just want to shift the stage.


----------



## cajunner

sqnut said:


> The equipment used to produce sound will be measurably stable across a much wider temperature range, than the equipment used to hear that sound. The ears have a much narrower range of temperature for optimum performance. You don't have to worry about the the effect of temperature on the rubber surround or the spyder or whatever else. Equipment will be stable from say -30C to +50C. Your ears sensitivity will vary a great deal over this range. It's about what you need to do get the ears back in their comfort zone, i.e. heating/ac.
> 
> I'm not sure I buy into the effect of humidity. Paper cones are always coated with materials that prevent moisture absorption. The cone is not going to start absorbing water vapour when humidity goes up from 40% to 90%.


I think of it like this:

it's cold outside, and you run the car until it's comfy warm. Condensation occurs on everything exposed to the cold. The inside of a car's door is exposed to the cold. The thin speaker cone and spider are the only things separating the air inside the car, (warm, comfy) and the outside of the car. If water is condensing on the glass either inside or outside, water vapor is condensing in or on the speaker cone.

unless, of course, your speaker is encapsulated from the air inside of the door by a boundary of some sort, and if it's a foam baffle cup filled with polyfill, I imagine the polyfill gets some moisture as well if it's not tightly sealed.

paper speaker cones may sound great but as a direct barrier to the cold, maybe not so great.


----------



## avanti1960

bikinpunk said:


> I actually considered putting in a level estimator, and it would have been no more trouble than providing the time delay, considering I've already got the level calcs built in to the 'Stage Shift' section of the site. BUT, the reason I didn't do this is it makes the assumption that all your speakers have the same sensitivity AND the same voltage to them. What's more, it assumes full linearity in the response. Knowing that the former is not typical (based on staggered amp channels most people run) and the former is simply not possible, I thought it might be a bit deceiving to add that calculation. Which is why I saved that math for the last bit and we made sure to note that it's only really effective if you are satisfied with the focus but just want to shift the stage.


Understood and agreed- it gets complicated in a hurry. 
The level calculator would be useful for establishing initial settings for driver pairs- example left tweeter to right tweeter, left midbass to right midbass, etc. The spreadsheet could accurately estimate the shift distance and levels of each set of drivers relative to one another. 
You would have to determine the relative levels between left midbass and left tweeter. etc. by other means- example RTA with ear refinement.
Once you have your "sets" determined- example left door set, right door set, the spreadsheet would be useful for making relative changes- not absolute changes- to the driver pairs, left vs. right based on distance.


----------



## james2266

avanti1960 said:


> Since there were no replies to the question about how to best manage the fine tuning of level setting drivers vs. distance setting, I'll offer the following site for reference. Basically I will enter the distances of my drivers relative to one another to determine the loss in sound intensity, closest to farthest away for each pair.
> Based on the calculator in the link, my left midbass driver is 2.7db louder than the right at the drivers ears, left midrange is 3.4db louder then the right, etc.
> I will balance all drivers levels based on these calculations (while maintaining the relative level of the door component "sets") and then fine tune the time alignment distances by ear.
> It seems like you need to level the relative intensity left to right for all drivers before you do anything else- no?
> 
> Estimating Sound Levels With the Inverse Square Law


I used to always think this as well. I have always wanted a way to calculate this earlier in my tuning education (self-educating with massive help from some members off here and elsewhere). I have found that even measuring and matching eq bands for left and right I am still left with a wondering center and either a phantom(false) center or one completely misplaced depending on which order I did things in. I always assumed that the drivers' side speakers should all be lower intensity due to them being so much closer. I think I have one of the best tunes I have done yet right now. 

I used this website to calculate my time alignment and also a fact I got from my latest tuning thread (that someone else was nice enough to point out). From my left and right separated readings it was apparent to someone that my pass. midbass and my sub seemed to be virtually perfectly summing. Your calculator here showed almost that precisely as only needing 0.04 ms delay. I used all of these values as gold and then centered everything up with just my ears and band limited pink noise bursts from the Autosound 2000 discs I have for tuning. I had previously matched my left and right eq for all drivers almost perfectly from 200 Hz and up. What I found is I had to add +3 db back to my driver's tweet and almost level out a few bands in the 1-4 kHz range. I mean swings of as much as 8 db (4 db each side). I have not retaken any readings yet but I think I will for kicks sake. Anyways, I think I have all drivers playing at 0 db variance from left to right in comparison. I am noticing details in songs that I never heard before (or in a very long time). It is smooth and not grating at all for the first time in a long time (and first time with this setup really). I am really starting to think that alot of my issues were caused by comb filtering due to incorrect time alignment (pretty severely incorrect).

Reason I am bringing this here now is two fold. 1. to thank Erin and say I think this really does work and gets you real close to perfect time alignment for all drivers. I do think I have some slight tweaking to do yet tho. The second reason is to ask a question and bring a likely anser to it right now from Avanti's own website post. I have always noticed; as I stated above, that when I do eq left versus right with an rta I get a very wrong sound stage. How is it that the rta is not telling me the correct picture and why are my levels out when using an rta to set them left to right? Also, why does this level setting website absolutely not work for me? I will post this from the site and I have highlighted the likely reason in red here:

In the real world, the inverse square law is always an idealization because it assumes exactly equal sound propagation in all directions. If there are reflective surfaces in the sound field, then reflected sounds will add to the directed sound and you will get more sound at a field location than the inverse square law predicts. If there are barriers between the source and the point of measurement, you may get less than the inverse square law predicts. Nevertheless, the inverse square law is the logical first estimate of the sound you would get at a distant point in a reasonably open area. 

I really do think that it is impossible to avoid reflections especially from the windshield as Andy stated earlier but for us with mids/tweets in our apillars even moreso off the near side glass. I know that if I end up rebuilding these pillars I will be aiming for an angle much more into the center of the car than I got last time. I even took this into account when I made these but didn't take it far enough. I instead aimed more at the room area above the door. As sound is more omnidirectional in the midrange areas I think I am hitting far too much window and both messing up my driver levels and probably phasing a little too. This is probably making getting ta correct even more important too. What does everyone think of my observations? Sorry for the long post, I guess I had more to say on this than I thought.


----------



## garysummers

To match levels from left to right and even driver to driver balance, why are you not using an spl meter placed at the listening position? If it is placed properly it will give you a precise reading of what you are looking for.


----------



## garysummers

I should correct my last post with saying that the SPL meter should be used in conjunction with a spectrum analyzer to set and verify exact and proper levels.


----------



## sqnut

avanti1960 said:


> Speakers do need to warm up in cold climates. Zaph audio did a complete study about this measuring the frequency response at colder temperatures.


There's supposed to be a really cold spell over the weekend for your neck of the woods. Try this simple experiment. Run the engine and the heater and let the stereo play, now step out of the car and go back inside the house. Over 20 mts or so the car should have heated up, the interiors should be comfy and your equipment should have thawed out. Right?

Now step out of the house and stand around for 5mts. Time enough for the cold air to find its way into your ears. Now sit in the car and listen. How much of the low end do you have vs what you have normally. The ears have lower sensitivity in this range. With a drop in temperature the ears sensitivity falls and you lose the lower end. Sit in the warm car for 10mts, do you feel the lower end come back?

Silly experiment. The operating range of equipment is > than that of your ears. That's all I'm saying. Take what you want from it.


----------



## avanti1960

james2266 said:


> I used to always think this as well. I have always wanted a way to calculate this earlier in my tuning education (self-educating with massive help from some members off here and elsewhere). I have found that even measuring and matching eq bands for left and right I am still left with a wondering center and either a phantom(false) center or one completely misplaced depending on which order I did things in. I always assumed that the drivers' side speakers should all be lower intensity due to them being so much closer. I think I have one of the best tunes I have done yet right now.
> 
> I used this website to calculate my time alignment and also a fact I got from my latest tuning thread (that someone else was nice enough to point out). From my left and right separated readings it was apparent to someone that my pass. midbass and my sub seemed to be virtually perfectly summing. Your calculator here showed almost that precisely as only needing 0.04 ms delay. I used all of these values as gold and then centered everything up with just my ears and band limited pink noise bursts from the Autosound 2000 discs I have for tuning. I had previously matched my left and right eq for all drivers almost perfectly from 200 Hz and up. What I found is I had to add +3 db back to my driver's tweet and almost level out a few bands in the 1-4 kHz range. I mean swings of as much as 8 db (4 db each side). I have not retaken any readings yet but I think I will for kicks sake. Anyways, I think I have all drivers playing at 0 db variance from left to right in comparison. I am noticing details in songs that I never heard before (or in a very long time). It is smooth and not grating at all for the first time in a long time (and first time with this setup really). I am really starting to think that alot of my issues were caused by comb filtering due to incorrect time alignment (pretty severely incorrect).
> 
> Reason I am bringing this here now is two fold. 1. to thank Erin and say I think this really does work and gets you real close to perfect time alignment for all drivers. I do think I have some slight tweaking to do yet tho. The second reason is to ask a question and bring a likely anser to it right now from Avanti's own website post. I have always noticed; as I stated above, that when I do eq left versus right with an rta I get a very wrong sound stage. How is it that the rta is not telling me the correct picture and why are my levels out when using an rta to set them left to right? Also, why does this level setting website absolutely not work for me? I will post this from the site and I have highlighted the likely reason in red here:
> 
> In the real world, the inverse square law is always an idealization because it assumes exactly equal sound propagation in all directions. If there are reflective surfaces in the sound field, then reflected sounds will add to the directed sound and you will get more sound at a field location than the inverse square law predicts. If there are barriers between the source and the point of measurement, you may get less than the inverse square law predicts. Nevertheless, the inverse square law is the logical first estimate of the sound you would get at a distant point in a reasonably open area.
> 
> I really do think that it is impossible to avoid reflections especially from the windshield as Andy stated earlier but for us with mids/tweets in our apillars even moreso off the near side glass. I know that if I end up rebuilding these pillars I will be aiming for an angle much more into the center of the car than I got last time. I even took this into account when I made these but didn't take it far enough. I instead aimed more at the room area above the door. As sound is more omnidirectional in the midrange areas I think I am hitting far too much window and both messing up my driver levels and probably phasing a little too. This is probably making getting ta correct even more important too. What does everyone think of my observations? Sorry for the long post, I guess I had more to say on this than I thought.


James,
FWIW I have never had luck with left vs. right equalization with RTA either. I don't know why but I gave up on it. 
Some of your frequency swings may be due to phase issues / cancellations. 
One thing that helped me with that was to play test tones (not pink noise) of the crossover frequency between midbass and midrange, isolating the right and left sides. 
I "grounded" the right midbass T/A distance based on measurement, in other words set it and left it alone. 
Then I played the test tone at the crossover frequency (in my case 800 Hz) and manually, slightly adjusted the distance setting of the midrange driver until the test tone was focused and loudest. It did not take much but without this tweak, there was virtually no sound from the tone! in other words, cancellation at this frequency until I adjusted the distance of the midrange to bring it in phase with the midbass. 
Once that was set, I "grounded" the right midrange. 
The tone method does not work for me for left / right alignment though. 
Now I isolated the front midbass drivers and while playing a variety of reference material (am radio stations, fm radio stations, cd tracks, voice is in phase track) I slowly adjusted the measured distance of the left midbass until everything seemed centered- from lowest to highest frequencies in the material- until I had the best compromise. 
Then I did the 800Hz tone test to bring the left midrange in phase with the left midbass, looking for the most focused, loudest sound. 
Then I isolated the midrange drivers only, played a variety of material as before, and adjusted slightly the left midrange only- having grounded the right side. I find that it is more critical for midbass / midrange perfect phase from the right side than left, although the minor tweak of the left midrange to center the stage did not affect the left midbass to midrange phase that much. 
and that's it. stage is pretty decent, best I can do in my vehicle. 
Since you recently discovered that your T/A values were way off, you may need some time to get your new ones dialed in by ear. Mine have always been close because the pioneer unit allows entering of the inch or cm distances directly- no calculation required. 
good luck!


----------



## 14642

Precisely matching the left, right and center levels using amp of DSP level controls and EQ has always worked just fine for me.


----------



## Hanatsu

Imo, many that have problems with focus/imaging and compensenating L/R via measurements either have problem with the methodology of system measuring itself or they have a problem with the install. I have experience with the latter as it occured several times when tuning systems. Installs with midranges low in doors and big center consoles generally have issues with focus regardless of L/R balance because of strong phantom sound sources due to refections. Some of the car audio people would be surprised how easy and how hard some systems can be to tune because of different system designs (install).

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy 3 via Tapatalk.


----------



## sqnut

Typically frequencies between 1-3khz are the toughest to centre. This is the range of confusion for the ear. It's using both ILD and ITD to locate source of sound and not doing a very good job of it. It's also the range where the wavelengths are small enough for them to diffract around your head and be heard in both ears.

A slight movement of the head can cause the sound at these frequencies to jump from side to side. Since the brain is using both arrival times and amplitude, the catch to centering these frequencies is to use both TA (arrival times) and your EQ (amplitude). You want to get to a happy point that allows you slight movement of the head without making this range jump from side to side. Major head movement will still throws things out of whack though.


----------



## ErinH

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaalright....


*The site has been updated to include an option to select 2-way or 3-way, making it a bit more intuitive. In addition, there has been an EXPERIMENTAL version of the time delay calculations I'll simply call the "crossover method".* 

*Crossover Method information:*
As it is, you can still enter your distances and get your 'standard' T/A values. However, with the new update, you have the _option _of entering in some crossover values and letting the sheet provide you with a new set of delay values that accounts for the low frequency wavelength. The notion being that in the area where our hearing is more sensitive to time, and that the wavelength of low frequencies is so long, the site will now account for adding additional delay based on your crossover frequency. 

This method is essentially a means of adjusting the phase angle at the crossover, so the speakers are as in-phase as you can get them with a tape measure. This doesn't seem to have any benefit for speakers crossed high; presumably due to the ILD/ITD relationship. So, I've left out the tweeter crossover... there's just no point. No, it doesn't account for slope (yet; though, I'm not sure I'll bother). It won't fix your response if your polarity on a driver is wrong and you may want to play with your slopes a bit to see if you can get better blending. 

*I cannot stress enough that this "crossover method" is really more for experimenting with your system than anything.* If it doesn't work, so be it. If it does, awesome. If it kind of does, then you can explore why. 


*That said, here's my personal findings and feedback on this method*:
In my car, I have a Helix DSP that has the ability to adjust phase in 12.5 degree increments, I believe. Right now, my phase angle is at 275 degrees, (if I recall correctly) which is about 11ms at 70hz. When I use the site's crossover method to calculate time delay, the half-wave value I get is 10.125ms. That's remarkably close to what I have with my phase of 275 degrees.

I've gotten feedback from friends who have tried this and it's been pretty positive thus far. Granted, it's fairly subjective, and even to me doesn't make an entire world of sense, but it seems to actually work and work well. Of course, every install is different, so YMMV. ​

*To use this method:* 

Select 2-way or 3-way first.
Under the "measurements" tab, enter your speaker distances from your head to approximately the motor of the driver.
Then select the "crossover" tab. 
Enter the appropriate crossover values.
Click "calculate".

You'll then be provided the values for time alignment in (ms). 
If you don't want to bother with the crossover method, skip steps 3 & 4.

A word of advice: the sub delay is likely going to be much longer than anyone can account for with standard DSP. So, one method is to *use the half-wave of the subwoofer value (provided in the results) and flip the polarity of the sub*. The 1/4 wave value doesn't really bear much fruit, but you can give it a shot if you'd like... that's why it's there.

Again, don't go having a cow over this crossover method. We are not trying to change the world. Just presenting something different. If you don't like it, stick with the standard method. But, I do encourage you to give it a shot. You may be surprised. 

- Erin


----------



## ErinH

FWIW, since the crossover method involves additional delay, I know the folks whose DSP uses actual distance (inches or centimeters), like Pioneer, will need some help. I've already got this covered in my excel file, but I'm trying to make an easier way to port this over to a website for Robert to code up. Just be patient. We both are doing this on spare time, which neither of us have much of right now. 

- Erin


----------



## Kevin K

Good timing there Erin.
Tuning this weekend.
Thanks for your time as well as Mr. Robert (can't wait to hear his new setup)


----------



## Woosey

bikinpunk said:


> FWIW, since the crossover method involves additional delay, I know the folks whose DSP uses actual distance (inches or centimeters), like Pioneer, will need some help. I've already got this covered in my excel file, but I'm trying to make an easier way to port this over to a website for Robert to code up. Just be patient. We both are doing this on spare time, which neither of us have much of right now.
> 
> - Erin


I was asking myself this about 10 seconds after visiting the website again..

Thanks man! I appreciate the work you do!


----------



## ErinH

also, here's a really good link if you guys want to see the frequency/time/phase angle correlation:
Phase angle calculation time delay frequency calculate phase lag difference time of arrival ITD phi phase shift - sengpielaudio Sengpiel Berlin


----------



## Woosey

Erin, do you have a link to your new excell file? 

The one I have says that slopes have no effect on output..

Also, my subwoofer is not the furthest speaker, my right mb is. But it shows the distance of the subwoofer as furthest. ( solved this, in on the right in the sheet it says use decimals like 54.4 but instead of . I had to use , )

Thanks


----------



## jode1967

any reason for this method to sound substantially different than using straight measurements. I just input'ed my measurements and then converted them output back to distance for the w505/imprint module and was way better on a quick listen

thanks again for taking the time.


----------



## ErinH

Woosey said:


> Erin, do you have a link to your new excell file?
> 
> The one I have says that slopes have no effect on output..
> 
> Also, my subwoofer is not the furthest speaker, my right mb is. But it shows the distance of the subwoofer as furthest. ( solved this, in on the right in the sheet it says use decimals like 54.4 but instead of . I had to use , )
> 
> Thanks


No link, sorry. I currently have no made any adjustments in the calculations for slope. The version you have is actually outdated, as it still accounts for the midrange crossover delay between the tweeter. I've since ditched that notion, as it didn't seem to do any good. 



jode1967 said:


> any reason for this method to sound substantially different than using straight measurements. I just input'ed my measurements and then converted them output back to distance for the w505/imprint module and was way better on a quick listen
> 
> thanks again for taking the time.


Check my post about it above. I discuss the rationale behind it, which should explain your results.


----------



## pocket5s

It has been updated to account for those of you using Pioneer head units...

Let me know if anything is amiss, I believe I got Erin's instructions correct


----------



## ErinH

pocket5s said:


> It has been updated to account for those of you using Pioneer head units...
> 
> Let me know if anything is amiss, I believe I got Erin's instructions correct



Rockstar.


----------



## pocket5s

bikinpunk said:


> Rockstar.


I'll take that as a yes...


----------



## james2266

I think I am going to try these new numbers (if there is enough ta for my sub available that is - need 12+ ms for 53 Hz). One thing I have always wondered and have read/heard conflicting reports on is where to measure from? I have always taken the spot as close to the middle of my usual head position. I have also heard/ had suggested to take the left measurements from the left ear position and the right side speakers from the right ear position. Which is more successful in your opinion or is there an even better location to base off of? Sorry if this might be considered a nube question but I would like it aired here and I think I probably am not the only one.:blush:


----------



## ErinH

You're talking such a small difference that it's not enough to break a sweat over. 

Just measure from the center of your head area to the speakers' magnet. You can always try it both ways, though. 

For the sub, I recommend using the half wave. Don't forget to try flipping the polarity when you use the half wave value.


----------



## pocket5s

james2266 said:


> I think I am going to try these new numbers (if there is enough ta for my sub available that is - need 12+ ms for 53 Hz). One thing I have always wondered and have read/heard conflicting reports on is where to measure from? I have always taken the spot as close to the middle of my usual head position. I have also heard/ had suggested to take the left measurements from the left ear position and the right side speakers from the right ear position. Which is more successful in your opinion or is there an even better location to base off of? Sorry if this might be considered a nube question but I would like it aired here and I think I probably am not the only one.:blush:


When I first did TA I had this same dilemma. As Erin said it is so small of a difference it doesn't matter. And, you'll probably end up tweaking it a click here and click there anyway, but this will get you really close.


----------



## james2266

Thanks for that guys. I tried it out just now and I found that the suggested 1/2 wave value produced a pretty large dip at the cross point and when I flipped polarity there was a massive spike there. I just added about an extra 1 ms and everything flattened back out without flipping polarity according to my rta. I have only listened for a couple mins and didn't tell much difference at all but I also lowered output on the midbass and sub to a more suggested roughly 10 db increase from about 300 Hz whereas I was a little bass heavy before I figured. I have a 3 hour drive tomorrow which should be a good test. Also breaking in some new midranges which I loved at first but now am starting to wonder if they are right for me Will I ever find a midrange that I can live with or maybe it truly is a tuning issue. Maybe I will have better luck with Alpine's auto tune of the h800 for a starting point.

Another related question about measuring point. How about for taking frequency response readings for left and right balancing? Once again is it best to measure from center of head or left ear to left drivers and right ear to right drivers. I would think this would make more of a difference than ta values. Am I correct?


----------



## ErinH

I think that's best asked in another thread where you can get more eyes on it. No offense, I'd just rather keep this one on track and not get too far OT with RTA talk.


----------



## Woosey

pocket5s said:


> It has been updated to account for those of you using Pioneer head units...
> 
> Let me know if anything is amiss, I believe I got Erin's instructions correct


Sweet! thank guys!


----------



## kizz

This may have been covered but i have been behind in my reading and don't want to read 3 pages worth so. What about crossover slope? I know when I change my crossover sloper between my tweeter and midbass the stage shifts. the steeper the slope I use the more it shifts to the left. I see crossover frequency is now in the equation but what about slope? thoughts?


----------



## pocket5s

it was covered. at the top of the page.


----------



## kizz

Ha! Thanks


----------



## Hillbilly SQ

I've gotta give a BIG thanks to Erin and Pockets for doing this. I just plugged in the calculations for my Pioneer headunit and my stage got a lot more convincing. Kinda surprising the numbers it spit out were all in the hundreds for the frontstage. I suddenly have better height and more believable imaging. I don't think my depth got any better, but I only messed with crossover slope and phase afterwards. I did check the three calculated sub settings though and no matter how I sliced it the 1/4 wave setting was the most pleasing to the ear. I'd take it further with my current limited processing power but don't see the point since my new dsp will be showing up in a few days. Once that happens it will be on like donkey kong.


----------



## casey

Ill have to give this a shot once I get my new stuff installed.

For the sub stage...should it be giving negative readings? I just threw some rough estimate numbers in to see how the link worked. I have 99rs HU and my old car had the sub up front so I had it close to the ta setting for my right midbass.


----------



## ErinH

The full wavelength delay on the sub is really, really long. That's why it rolls negative for the p99. And why I suggest using the half wavelength.


----------



## casey

gotcha. Maybe im doing something wrong. Even if i put the sub at 36" away with reasonable figures for the other drivers, all three wavelength delays for the sub are negative when doing it for pioneer.

Ill retry it when I get a chance to measure distances in my car


----------



## sirbOOm

How come there isn't a "size of driver's head" calculation field?  Nice tool!


----------



## ErinH

casey said:


> gotcha. Maybe im doing something wrong. Even if i put the sub at 36" away with reasonable figures for the other drivers, all three wavelength delays for the sub are negative when doing it for pioneer.
> 
> Ill retry it when I get a chance to measure distances in my car



What's the crossover. 40hz or something low like that? Also, it's closer to you which means it needs to be delayed even more than if it were in the trunk.


----------



## pocket5s

casey said:


> gotcha. Maybe im doing something wrong. Even if i put the sub at 36" away with reasonable figures for the other drivers, all three wavelength delays for the sub are negative when doing it for pioneer.
> 
> Ill retry it when I get a chance to measure distances in my car


can you specify what the values are so I can duplicate it?


----------



## pocket5s

sirbOOm said:


> How come there isn't a "size of driver's head" calculation field?  Nice tool!


Erin is working up a calculation just for that. It is based on the difference between the person's perceived ego and what others think of said person's ego. When he gets the math done, I'll incorporate that into it. :evilgrin:


----------



## james2266

pocket5s said:


> Erin is working up a calculation just for that. It is based on the difference between the person's perceived ego and what others think of said person's ego. When he gets the math done, I'll incorporate that into it. :evilgrin:


Too funny I tried the added subwoofer delay at 1/2 wave length which was over 12 ms. I had to go a little further out to about 13.5 or so to get rid of a cancellation at the crosspoint. I went on a 3 hour road trip this weekend to test it out. My conclusion. The second I got back I went back to my original settings. It made things just sound wrong. It killed my bass drum and the sub pretty much vanished on all but songs that I know have a crap load of sub bass. It didn't move anything further away either for me. I ended up with around 1.2 ms added delay to both midbasses and sub and everything blends perfectly and I have my impact back. Everything sounds much more together (if ya know what I mean) and natural. I guess this new part of this calculator just doesn't work for me and my vehicle. I came up with 1.2 ms a while back going stricly by ear. I added it to both midbasses and sub as there was no issues at that crosspoint before adding the delay.


----------



## ErinH

Six of one, half a dozen of the other.


----------



## james2266

bikinpunk said:


> Six of one, half a dozen of the other.


Exactly. Every car is unique and every listener is too I guess The original calculator worked out wonderful for me however.


----------



## garysummers

James, You said you are adding 1.2ms delay to both your midbass speakers and your subwoofer. Unless they are all "exactly" the same path length to the listening position, then your time correction is not correct. What is the furthest speaker from the driver head position. That speaker should be "0" time delay. Are your left and right midbass speakers exactly the same path length. Amazing if they are! You should very carefully measure your path lengths from each speaker to the center of your listening position. Input those values into Erin's program and voila'.


----------



## james2266

garysummers said:


> James, You said you are adding 1.2ms delay to both your midbass speakers and your subwoofer. Unless they are all "exactly" the same path length to the listening position, then your time correction is not correct. What is the furthest speaker from the driver head position. That speaker should be "0" time delay. Are your left and right midbass speakers exactly the same path length. Amazing if they are! You should very carefully measure your path lengths from each speaker to the center of your listening position. Input those values into Erin's program and voila'.


Gary, I think there is some misunderstanding. I meant I added 'an extra' 1.2 ms delay to both midbasses and the sub. I did measure all drivers and used Erin's formula which did work very well. I just couldn't get the suggested added delay to midbasses and sub to work for me however. I was not seeing any cancellations at the sub/midbass crosspoints on either side so I just added 1.2 ms delay to all three drivers. For me this moved my vocals up and away and the bass was more blended into the soundstage. I found when I added the suggested delay for 1/2 wavelength, it just destroyed my sub output and made alot of things just sound wrong. I think I have the ta pretty set right now but there is still eq work to be done on this and when I get time I need to take down my pillars and open up the holes alot more as I think the midranges are being choked off for air supply a little. I will likely have to retune once again after that too. I will get this thing sounding as good as I can before March. I did pick up my H800+Rux today too so will likely be redoing everything once again soon too. Does it ever end?:laugh: If I can get some nice weather and time, I might even get a center channel in and operational too. That last part is a stretch tho.


----------



## casey

pocket5s said:


> can you specify what the values are so I can duplicate it?


like i said...just some figures im putting in, havent measured my setup. but correct me if any of my distances seem far fetched because im just making **** up.

It only does it when I use the crossover feature as well. just making sure im using it right honestly...

measurements: LT and LMR 24, LMB 32. RT and RMR 48, RMB 54. Sub 66
x overs: MR HP 315, MB LP 315, MB HP 80, Sub 80


----------



## sqnut

casey said:


> like i said...just some figures im putting in, havent measured my setup.


Measure, calculate, input, evaluate and then comment on the tool. Are all your decisions based on gut feel?


----------



## Woosey

bikinpunk said:


> The full wavelength delay on the sub is really, really long. That's why it rolls negative for the p99. And why I suggest using the half wavelength.


 In my situation the sub is closer than usual, about 3 feet.

The calculator result was nagative indeed, as I played a bit with the calculator, I found if I would set the sub to 250Hz it would be as good as no need to adjust ( halve wave version ) 

And how unusual it sounds, I'm really satisfied this way.. for now.. 

Sub till 250 ( crossoversetting )
midbass 80 till 250 ( Crossoversetting )


----------



## ISTundra

I also get negative values for my sub, for all wavelength delays. My sub is in my center console at 38" and LP'ed at 80hz


----------



## ErinH

That's simply because you are running out of time alignment on your DSP. You'd have the same result of you used a DSP with delay in ms, which is what I mentioned in the OP. Most DSPs are limited to around 10-15 ms delay, and the full subwoofer delay typically is in the 20ms range. The lower you cross, the longer it is. There's really nothing I can do for that, but like I said, I've personally had better luck using the half wave anyway.


----------



## avanti1960

a couple more tidbits for reference-

1) setting the relative driver levels with the inverse square law was useful as a starting point.
2) the spreadsheet combined with my deck's R/ L seat location switch convinced me to shift the center by adjusting both the left and right driver's T/A distances by equal measures when doing fine tuning by ear from the measured distances.
previously i had left the passenger side distances "grounded" and adjusted only the driver's side. the stage is much more centered and driver coherent when you adjust L/R by equal distances to shift to one side or the other.
3) My sub is very insensitive to distance settings- and is reverse phase, 80/24db by default. Distances plus / minus the nominal measurement have very little effect witnessed by RTA and ear subjectivity.


----------



## thebookfreak58

For the trick that shifts the stage left/right is there plans for a 'pioneer' mode too?


----------



## quality_sound

Once you tell it you have a pioneer it should do it automatically. 

Sent from my Moto X using Tapatalk


----------



## Woosey

Erin, is lead/lag acounted for on the website?

I find it confusing why I should set the subwoofer at 0 distance or even a negative value( max delay or even more than max ) as it's also not the driver with the biggest distance. 

with the rest of the drivers having a setting close to the end of the distance to be entered in the pioneer version. ( short delay ) 

With the lowpass of the sub also lagging AND the distance to 0 ( max delay ) does this not create a huge difference in arrival time? ( adding groupdelay from the enclosure makes it even worse )

in other words: could it be that the calculator works inverted ( the opposite way ) ? 

Or am I completely off with my thinking?


----------



## Mic10is

I believe it was discussed in a previous thread that 0 setting on a Pioneer is actually max delay


----------



## Woosey

Mic10is said:


> I believe it was discussed in a previous thread that 0 setting on a Pioneer is actually max delay


I know hence the question... 2nd sentence


----------



## ErinH

Woosey said:


> Erin, is lead/lag acounted for on the website?
> 
> I find it confusing why I should set the subwoofer at 0 distance or even a negative value( max delay or even more than max ) as it's also not the driver with the biggest distance.
> 
> with the rest of the drivers having a setting close to the end of the distance to be entered in the pioneer version. ( short delay )
> 
> With the lowpass of the sub also lagging AND the distance to 0 ( max delay ) does this not create a huge difference in arrival time? ( adding groupdelay from the enclosure makes it even worse )
> 
> in other words: could it be that the calculator works inverted ( the opposite way ) ?
> 
> Or am I completely off with my thinking?



The subwoofer filter is the driving factor because the low frequency creates a _very _long wavelength, which results in a _much _longer span of time to delay in order to put that back at you. ie; 80hz = 12.5ms. 
So, without crossover time added, you may have your sub at 2ms. With crossover time added, it's now 2+12.5 = 14.5ms. This alone would exceed most DSP time delay restrictions. 

Let's say pioneer is capped at 11.5ms (this may actually be correct if my quick math/logic was right). So, if you used the 14.5ms, you're actually (-)3ms on the pioneer. Which can't be done. Flip this -3ms to inches and then you understand why the Pioneer subwoofer values go negative. 

If you are using a 3-way, I also add the additional midbass delay. So, you may go from 14.5 to 17.5ms. And as you can imagine, this only makes the Pioneer issue worse.


The negative is scaring some people... but don't let it freak you out. All it means it's exceeded the amount of delay the P99 permits. It's the *same thing* I'm doing for non-Pioneer calcs... *I'm just converting time to inches and when you exceed that 155.39 inches the P99 allows for, you go negative. *If I put a max delay of 10ms on the non-pioneer calcs, everyone else would be getting -7ms or something crazy and they'd be freaking out, too. 


Hope that helps.


----------



## Woosey

bikinpunk said:


> The subwoofer filter is the driving factor because the low frequency creates a _very _long wavelength, which results in a _much _longer span of time to delay in order to put that back at you. ie; 80hz = 12.5ms.
> So, without crossover time added, you may have your sub at 2ms. *With crossover time added, it's now 2+12.5 = 14.5ms.* This alone would exceed most DSP time delay restrictions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hope that helps.


if it ( the subwoofer ) is allready delayed by the distance and the crossover, and you then add even more delay ( the 0 inch setting = max delay) is what confuses me..


To me this sounds like the mids and tweeter are almost with no delay, and the subwoofer with added delay would make the time gap huge...


An example how I think it should be:

The sub is delayed by distance and lowpass.

This is probably the signal that arrives the latest in time, set this to 0 delay ( max distance )

the rest of the speakers are also delayed by distance and crossover, but the wavelengths are getting shorter, then will the delay be shorter too.. 

The rest arrives sooner as the subwoofer, thus they should be delayed to reach the point in time to meet the subwoofer..


Maybe subtracting the calculated value from the max distance ( 0 delay ) would be the sollution... ( i'm going to try this tomorrow )


----------



## ErinH

The method is to align the speakers by physical distance first. Then apply additional delay for the crossover. 

You're welcome to alter it as you wish. Like I said, it's just an experiment. I wouldn't lose sleep over it.

Edit: I understand what you're saying. I've had it like that in a previous iteration. I just went with what I have now due to better results and feedback. Feel free to tweak as you desire.


----------



## req

erin, i think you is one person that has donated as much to this community as you have with just scientific data.

thanks sir. i will give this a go-round.


----------



## Woosey

bikinpunk said:


> The method is to align the speakers by physical distance first. Then apply additional delay for the crossover.
> 
> You're welcome to alter it as you wish. Like I said, it's just an experiment. I wouldn't lose sleep over it.
> 
> Edit: I understand what you're saying. I've had it like that in a previous iteration. I just went with what I have now due to better results and feedback. Feel free to tweak as you desire.


Aaaight!! 

I'll try to post results tomorrow


----------



## avanti1960

Hanatsu said:


> Imo, many that have problems with focus/imaging and compensenating L/R via measurements either have problem with the methodology of system measuring itself or they have a problem with the install. I have experience with the latter as it occured several times when tuning systems. Installs with midranges low in doors and big center consoles generally have issues with focus regardless of L/R balance because of strong phantom sound sources due to refections. Some of the car audio people would be surprised how easy and how hard some systems can be to tune because of different system designs (install).
> 
> Sent from my Samsung Galaxy 3 via Tapatalk.


This sounds exactly like my my car and my issues. There are phantom frequencies (maybe standing waves?) that will not move no matter what I do- for example a certain vocal frequency originates from the upper left- almost as if there is a phantom speaker that is anchored in place> I can move it slightly with time or amplitude adjustments but it takes so much of either that the rest of the stage is whacked. 

I'm ready to go back to coaxials in the kick panels, getting a center channel- whatever- short of severe physical modifications to the interior as long as I can get a full-time centered image.

Maybe if I knew what frequency was the culprit I could cut it down like a bad weed.


----------



## avanti1960

Hanatsu said:


> Imo, many that have problems with focus/imaging and compensenating L/R via measurements either have problem with the methodology of system measuring itself or they have a problem with the install. I have experience with the latter as it occurred several times when tuning systems. Installs with midranges low in doors and big center consoles generally have issues with focus regardless of L/R balance because of strong phantom sound sources due to refections. Some of the car audio people would be surprised how easy and how hard some systems can be to tune because of different system designs (install).
> 
> Sent from my Samsung Galaxy 3 via Tapatalk.


In case this helps anyone I made a very big discovery today that allowed me to finally achieve nearly perfect focused, non-wandering centered image. 
Just for grins I popped in my test tones CD (not limited pink noise, true sine waves) and ran up and down the frequency range. After turning down the volume so my eardrums would not burst I noticed that only (1) track was veering far left and all of the others were just to the right of center. 
As a reference I did not find this when playing the limited bandwidth pink noise tracks. 
The lone track that focused far left happened to be 630 Hz. I then adjusted the L/R EQ in equal amounts until the frequency aligned with all the rest, just to the right of center. It took nearly 11db of total adjustment to center that frequency.
Played some music and I could not believe it! The holy grail has been found! 
Until now I was under the impression that you should not L/R EQ with tones because of standing waves. 
This is incredible. It sounds so "right" and true now. My image was wandering like crazy before this despite lots of hours to fix it.
If you have tried the pink noise method to center your image and it still wanders, give the test tones a try.


----------



## ErinH

I use a mix of tones and pink noise. I usually don't run tones up past 800hz just because it kills my ears.


----------



## james2266

avanti1960 said:


> In case this helps anyone I made a very big discovery today that allowed me to finally achieve nearly perfect focused, non-wandering centered image.
> Just for grins I popped in my test tones CD (not limited pink noise, true sine waves) and ran up and down the frequency range. After turning down the volume so my eardrums would not burst I noticed that only (1) track was veering far left and all of the others were just to the right of center.
> As a reference I did not find this when playing the limited bandwidth pink noise tracks.
> The lone track that focused far left happened to be 630 Hz. I then adjusted the L/R EQ in equal amounts until the frequency aligned with all the rest, just to the right of center. It took nearly 11db of total adjustment to center that frequency.
> Played some music and I could not believe it! The holy grail has been found!
> Until now I was under the impression that you should not L/R EQ with tones because of standing waves.
> This is incredible. It sounds so "right" and true now. My image was wandering like crazy before this despite lots of hours to fix it.
> If you have tried the pink noise method to center your image and it still wanders, give the test tones a try.


For me I believe it was 500 Hz but it might have been 630 too. Don't have my software open right now to check. I think I had to cut driver's midrange by something like 11 db to get it to center. After I discovered my Autosound 2000 cd when down in Florida (thanks Steve!), all I use now for centering are those tones. Well, I have been messing with the rta for this but it just doesn't hear like my ears I guess but it does get me close I find. I was always thinking that issue was being caused by too small a box syndrome but after talking to a couple fellows with far more experience than me, I guess this is a common issue in alot of vehicles. it could be some kind of horn loading effect from the midrange being in a corner. It could just be serious reflections from the window glass (windshield, and both side windows) or maybe the dash or all of them. Cars are a real ***** to get right! That is what I have learned from this journey over the past 3 years or so.


----------



## james2266

bikinpunk said:


> I use a mix of tones and pink noise. I usually don't run tones up past 800hz just because it kills my ears.


yes, they can get a little annoying. I just turn down the volume when I am doing this. It helps the ears and also easier on speaks/amps I assume. I find if the eq is set off the rta properly that the volume doesn't change too drastically from band to band. It shouldn't anyways. At times I do find a band or two that are hot that the rta didn't catch and if its like 2.5 kHz that is painful.


----------



## avanti1960

now you guys tell me!


----------



## james2266

avanti1960 said:


> now you guys tell me!


wow, something I knew that you didn't?


----------



## moparman1

So how does one know how much delay your crossover is adding?


----------



## pocket5s

moparman1 said:


> So how does one know how much delay your crossover is adding?


The crossover isn't really adding delay. The 'crossover method' attempts to align the wavelengths at the crossover point.

Erin can go into details, but that's it in a nutshell.


----------



## moparman1

Gotcha. That makes perfect sense. With my setup however, it just seems you can't quite get it right. Dial in time delay to where bass and mid bass sound great and integrate well and imaging goes to he'll and vice versa.
come to think of it, the culprit is likely the passive fronts.


----------



## jriggs

bikinpunk said:


> The subwoofer filter is the driving factor because the low frequency creates a _very _long wavelength, which results in a _much _longer span of time to delay in order to put that back at you. ie; 80hz = 12.5ms.
> So, without crossover time added, you may have your sub at 2ms. With crossover time added, it's now 2+12.5 = 14.5ms. This alone would exceed most DSP time delay restrictions.
> 
> Let's say pioneer is capped at 11.5ms (this may actually be correct if my quick math/logic was right). So, if you used the 14.5ms, you're actually (-)3ms on the pioneer. Which can't be done. Flip this -3ms to inches and then you understand why the Pioneer subwoofer values go negative.
> 
> If you are using a 3-way, I also add the additional midbass delay. So, you may go from 14.5 to 17.5ms. And as you can imagine, this only makes the Pioneer issue worse.
> 
> 
> The negative is scaring some people... but don't let it freak you out. All it means it's exceeded the amount of delay the P99 permits. It's the *same thing* I'm doing for non-Pioneer calcs... *I'm just converting time to inches and when you exceed that 155.39 inches the P99 allows for, you go negative. *If I put a max delay of 10ms on the non-pioneer calcs, everyone else would be getting -7ms or something crazy and they'd be freaking out, too.
> 
> 
> Hope that helps.


Okay. So when you get a negative number for the subwoofer on the p99 using this calculator should I set the number to zero or 155.39?


----------



## sirbOOm

I can tell you that I've tried prayer to get a nice time alignment... the G O D does not care.


----------



## rton20s

sirbOOm said:


> I can tell you that I've tried prayer to get a nice time alignment... the G O D does not care.


Maybe if you quit playin' that Devil's music!


----------



## sirbOOm

Don't you be dissin' my Justin Beeebzzz


----------



## therapture

OK, forgive some of my considerable n00b-ness....

I have found my best focus is a gap of 1.67ms between the left right. So this brings up a scenario...or a couple...

1. Right speaker at 0ms, left at 1.67ms delay.

2. Right speaker at 8.67ms, left at 7ms.

Now, the *difference* between the two settings is the same, *1.67*, so...I need to shift the center a couple inches to the RIGHT...so this calculator (and common sense actually) tells me I want the right side to start playing sooner (reduce delay) and that I need to make the left side play a bit later (increase delay)...

But I thought that the differential needed to stay approximately the same to maintain focus? So, taking #2 above, if I add .33ms to the left, and cut .33ms on the right to move the center 2 inches to the right, I get 9ms on the left and 6.67ms on the right...which is a *much larger differential of 2.33ms*. If I keep doing this to move the center to one side or the other, pretty quick the mids are completely out of phase with each other and the midbass goes to ****. Of course, maybe I misunderstand how much a few tenths of a millisecond actually affects the phase until a certain point at which it becomes audible and affects focus and midbass output.

Also, if the differential stays the same, then the center cannot actually move anywhere because the relativedelay between left-right is the same, all you are doing is changing the time at which both mids start playing in relation to the subwoofer?


Again, forgive my n00b, I am learning stuff here every single day I visit


----------



## sqnut

A delay between L/R mid at 1.67ms is very high. Most vehicles and installs will be in the 0.85 to 1.15ms range at most. I have my mid bass in similar door locations like your g8 and the delay between my L/R mid is 1.05ms. Reduce the delay between the mids and see how it sounds. More importantly see if you get better cohesion and sense of oneness. 

If you keep the delay between the mids constant and tweak ta on both mids with equal value, all you're doing is changing the arrival times between the mids and sub and the mids and tweets.


----------



## ZeblodS

I have a question, and it might be stupide, but I wonder how it can works since it doesn't take into account the group delay induced by IIR filters on the DSP (Xovers, EQ, etc.)?

The phase response of an IIR filter (High-Pass, Low-Pass, Peak, etc.) isn't linear and cause group delay at some frequency (the more the Q factor is big, the more the group delay is big), so you need to take them into account in order to compute the "perfect" time aligment setting per speaker.


----------



## sqnut

ZeblodS said:


> I have a question, and it might be stupide, but I wonder how it can works since it doesn't take into account the group delay induced by IIR filters on the DSP (Xovers, EQ, etc.)?
> 
> The phase response of an IIR filter (High-Pass, Low-Pass, Peak, etc.) isn't linear and cause group delay at some frequency (the more the Q factor is big, the more the group delay is big), so you need to take them into account in order to compute the "perfect" time aligment setting per speaker.


Can you explain what the irregular phase response of an IIR filter sounds like? Or what the group delay at some frequency does to your overall sound? It's a car, to think of phase as anything other than arrival times for the direct sound and polarity of your drivers, is a bit of a waste. Once you have these two covered, it's all about the response.


----------



## ZeblodS

sqnut said:


> Can you explain what the irregular phase response of an IIR filter sounds like? Or what the group delay at some frequency does to your overall sound? It's a car, to think of phase as anything other than arrival times for the direct sound and polarity of your drivers, is a bit of a waste. Once you have these two covered, it's all about the response.


A group delay is a local phase shifting centered on a frequency which can be seen like a different delay in the sound signal between before and after this frequency.
If you pile up several group delays at different frequencies, you will have for each one a delay which will add to others.

Each IIR filter induce a group delay, and this group delay is not always the same (depends of the value of the Q factor).
Or these group delays weight on the time alignment value of each speaker, in addition to the distance.

The only way to have the "perfect" value of time alignment, is doing a frequency swipe of each speakers and use a mic with a software like HOLMImpulse to compute the impulse distance between each speakers.


----------



## Hanatsu

ZeblodS said:


> A group delay is a local phase shifting centered on a frequency which can be seen like a different delay in the sound signal between before and after this frequency.
> If you pile up several group delays at different frequencies, you will have for each one a delay which will add to others.
> 
> Each IIR filter induce a group delay, and this group delay is not always the same (depends of the value of the Q factor).
> Or these group delays weight on the time alignment value of each speaker, in addition to the distance.
> 
> The only way to have the "perfect" value of time alignment, is doing a frequency swipe of each speakers and use a mic with a software like HOLMImpulse to compute the impulse distance between each speakers.


Lol... have you looked at the group delay in an acoustic measurement? It looks like crap, as expected, since the the system ain't minimum phase. In fact, I argue it's impossible to fix the phase response fully with any amount of processing. All in all, the GD of the filter is a minor problem.


----------



## ZeblodS

Hanatsu said:


> Lol... have you looked at the group delay in an acoustic measurement? It looks like crap, as expected, since the the system ain't minimum phase. In fact, I argue it's impossible to fix the phase response fully with any amount of processing. All in all, the GD of the filter is a minor problem.


I am not talking about correcting the phase here, I am just talking about computing the time alignment of each speaker (the "delay" setting in the DSP), and that IIR filters group delays must be taken into account in this process, not just the distance between each speakers. Which is not the case in the website linked.

Correcting the phase is whole another thing, and as you said it can only be done where it is minimum phase. Some phase shifting will never be corrected, but you can correct most of phase deviation.


----------



## therapture

sqnut said:


> A delay between L/R mid at 1.67ms is very high. Most vehicles and installs will be in the 0.85 to 1.15ms range at most. I have my mid bass in similar door locations like your g8 and the delay between my L/R mid is 1.05ms. Reduce the delay between the mids and see how it sounds. More importantly see if you get better cohesion and sense of oneness.
> 
> If you keep the delay between the mids constant and tweak ta on both mids with equal value, all you're doing is changing the arrival times between the mids and sub and the mids and tweets.


I'll re-measure, but in my car, it a really long ways over to the passenger speaker as compared to the driver. Measured by pure distance, it shows ~1.51ms. Also one of the reasons my left side is so hard to tame.

I tried lower, and at 1ms or less, it is so far out that midbass suffers and vocals are diffuse. It only starts to center and sharpen up ~1.3ms and more. I have it at 1.57ms right now, which is slightly less than the previous 1.67.


----------



## Woosey

Woosey said:


> Aaaight!!
> 
> I'll try to post results tomorrow


Well that didn't really work out for me.. 

I'm thinking of dropping the p99 and get me a 6to8 for processing..


----------



## Hanatsu

Woosey said:


> Well that didn't really work out for me..
> 
> I'm thinking of dropping the p99 and get me a 6to8 for processing..


Use both 

It's nice to have some tweaks available from the headunit too. The channel independent P-EQ is what I'm after in an external DSP.


----------



## Woosey

Hanatsu said:


> Use both
> 
> It's nice to have some tweaks available from the headunit too. The channel independent P-EQ is what I'm after in an external DSP.


Hmmm. thinking of that... I have a rockford oeq2 laying around.. it's left right separated 

which range benefits most from extra parametric eq? Running 4-way now..


----------



## BEAVER

Erin, thank you so much for taking the time to do this. The results in my car were amazing.


----------



## casey

glad this thread was bumped.

Erin - thank you again as well. I used it in my car and I am extremely impressed. Any plans to update it for shifting the stage for pioneer users?


----------



## ErinH

casey said:


> glad this thread was bumped.
> 
> Erin - thank you again as well. I used it in my car and I am extremely impressed. Any plans to update it for shifting the stage for pioneer users?


I hadn't really considered it, TBH.




In other news, I am considering trying to port this over to an app. Likely iPhone as that's what I have and can test it myself with that. Of course, I have no coding experience or app building experience so it may not really get off the ground. On top of that, the developer charge is $99....

I think it would be really cool and convenient to have this stuff on a phone app. Download and rock. We'll see though. I'm going to take some software for a spin and see where I get with it.


----------



## Black Rain

You are one smart dude, but I do agree that coding it pretty tricky. I would agree that to have all this accessible on your phone and get all the calculations right at your fingertips. This would be awesome.


----------



## Kevin K

would be very neat to have phone app like that,something very useful


----------



## pocket5s

Not to rain on Erin's parade (cause he did ask me about coding for the iphone), but, the site is fairly mobile friendly


----------



## ErinH

Yes, it is. Robert was the first person I asked about getting my excel sheet up on a site and one that was mobile friendly. The idea was at first to have an app but we figured it'd be easier to do the site.

But, over time, I've thought it'd be pretty sweet to have the calculations as an app you can just call up on your phone via an app.


----------



## BEAVER

pocket5s said:


> Not to rain on Erin's parade (cause he did ask me about coding for the iphone), but, the site is fairly mobile friendly


Sure is. I have it saved to my favorites on my phone and use it frequently. Piece of cake.


----------



## WestCo

sub'd


----------



## mojozoom

This is really amazing work - thank you guys for putting it together.

Regarding the sub/mid transition, it's really not possible to calculate a workable time offset unless you incorporate the phase shift (hence delay) caused by the crossovers that are in play. My sub/mid transition is optimized currently, but if I change the only slope of the crossover used on the mids or the sub the bass goes way down as the waveforms don't line up anymore. 

There are a number of factors that make it tough to do. Often there are low pass and/or subsonic filters in the sub amp with unknown slopes, sometimes passives on the mids, sometimes people run different slopes on the mids than they do on the sub, and sometimes I don't think the DSP crossover filters work exactly per the textbook. All this stuff adds up to make the actual phase shift at the cutoff frequency hard to accurately figure out (not to mention that most system don't actually cross over at the selected cutoff frequency).

The simplest method to figure this out is to run a test tone at your crossover frequency and monitor the SPL with an RTA or phone app. Then just increase the delay on the sub a step at a time until you find the highest SPL level you can, note the delay and the level, flip the phase, and do it again. When you're done you'll know the phase and amount of delay needed.

To visualize what was going on at the sub/mid transition I made a spreadsheet that shows the relationship of the sine waveform at the crossover frequency for both the sub and the mid. Then you can see the impact of different filters, delays, swapping sub polarity, etc.

Here's a shot of the tool with just the raw distances and crossover slopes entered in. The 3sixty.3 is set for 36 db/octave slopes on both the mids and the sub, crossing at 65 Hz. The only other filter in the system is the non-defeatable LP filter that's built into the sub amp, and I have it cranked up as far as it'll go so the sub operates in the pass band of that 24 db/octave filter.









This shot shows what happens when I add the correct amount of delay to the left mid and the sub. I've left the right mid at zero delay.









This shot shows what would happen if I changes the slope of the subwoofer crossover in the 3sixty.3 to 24 db/octave. The sub waveform shifts away from the others and won't sum with them as well.









Erin, do you think you could integrate something like this into the calc? I'd be happy to send you the spreadsheet. I don't think the graphical part is required - just the calculation.

Thanks!


----------



## hot9dog

I have the web page saved to my phone.... it has done wonders for my install and 4 others that i have put together. Thank you so much Erin!!! If your ever in tucson.... the grill is always going and the drinks are always flowing. You have my respect and admiration! !


----------



## spyders03

Great additions Erin, I have this site bookmarked on my phone and laptop, and always easy to use. Android might be a cheaper option for development, but I know you don't have one, so that makes it hard to test, although I'd be happy to test for you


----------



## casey

used it again a week or so ago since I accidentally wiped out my original numbers like an idiot. I did the measurements over again and got them even more precise than the first time. It got even better! very happy with the results and the site is super easy to use


----------



## pocket5s

spyders03 said:


> Great additions Erin, I have this site bookmarked on my phone and laptop, and always easy to use. Android might be a cheaper option for development, but I know you don't have one, so that makes it hard to test, although I'd be happy to test for you


android might be a little easier for me since it in java, which is what I code in all day long anyway. but, I too have an iPhone, so...

Erin and I are going to talk about the options and see what comes about. I already have an Apple Developer account and have dabbled a tad in objective-c (the language used for iphone development).


----------



## Kevin K

I've actually have the site bookmarked on my phone. And with no internet access, it does work with no problem. Have used it like that 3 times and just verified again that it would work.

While not an app per say, does work without using data or wifi if bookmarked.


----------



## pocket5s

Kevin K said:


> I've actually have the site bookmarked on my phone. And with no internet access, it does work with no problem. Have used it like that 3 times and just verified again that it would work.
> 
> While not an app per say, does work without using data or wifi if bookmarked.


It's probably cached locally, which helps a lot. all the calculations are done on the client browser so no round trips to a server are needed.


----------



## spyders03

pocket5s said:


> It's probably cached locally, which helps a lot. all the calculations are done on the client browser so no round trips to a server are needed.


Very smart, and appreciated!


----------



## installpat

just tried a couple of different measurements in the calculator. interested to notice that it applies time alignment to every driver. there doesnt appear to be a reference point ,eg wouldnt one speaker be at 0 and all other speakers delayed


----------



## pocket5s

installpat said:


> just tried a couple of different measurements in the calculator. interested to notice that it applies time alignment to every driver. there doesnt appear to be a reference point ,eg wouldnt one speaker be at 0 and all other speakers delayed


were they all zeroed out to begin with?

basically it doesn't matter, as the results are relative to each other. if you say delay a single speaker 1ms or 1000ms and you are only listening to that one speaker you won't notice any difference in the perceived distance.

it is only when the arrivals between speakers are different that your ears notice the change.

Hope that makes sense


----------



## installpat

thanks for the quick reply i forgot i had crossover values set


----------



## jnads87

First off I just want to say thank you for this amazing tool. I just tried it today and it set my stage just perfect. I only have 1 question though. I'm selecting 2 way and pioneer (I have 80prs). I tired all 3 sub calculations, tried flipping the phase as well and no matter what, I'm still losing some low end compared to my settings before I tried your T/A settings. Played a test tone around my crossover point between sub and midbass, and messed with the sub delay until it sounded the weekest and then flipped the phase. I feel like I got my low end back, but it still sounds off somehow. If the sub delay amount is higher than all the other speakers, wouldn't that mess with the arrival time, especially if it's the furthest driver and now getting delayed the most? Could that possibly be why I think it sound a little "off?


----------



## sirbOOm

This is when you look at it with an RTA. It is plausible that what you are sensing as off is actually "more correct" - that your bass is blending with the rest of your system. There are high SQ subs like the Morel Ultimo that get similar comments - less bass. But in reality, it is just blending well. But, that said, I've never had time alignment reduce bass - unless it came from a JBL MS-8 so I can't offer much. Hope you get it addressed.


----------



## jnads87

Thanks for the quick reply. My sub actually is the morel Ultimo SC so I am familiar with how well it blends. That's not the issue. I feel like I got my low end back it's just weird. Almost like it's still not perfectly in phase or slightly arriving too late of something. That's why I was wondering if the sub now getting the most delay out off all my components, even though it is the furthest would mess with timing or anything like that. Sadly I have no access to an rta except my phones app which isn't too accurate in the low end.


----------



## Bayboy

The Pioneer is backwards, but once you set the sub's distance, you shouldn't adjust it again. You should be adjusting the rest of the system. Loss of bass comes from being out of phase (t/a related) so that would indicate the rest of the system is off from the sub. It takes a bit of finagling with the 80prs, but it is still fairly simple to get the sub to "disappear" unless the level is too high. Also it helps to use all -24db slopes so you don't have to keep flipping.


----------



## jnads87

Bayboy said:


> The Pioneer is backwards, but once you set the sub's distance, you shouldn't adjust it again. You should be adjusting the rest of the system. Loss of bass comes from being out of phase (t/a related) so that would indicate the rest of the system is off from the sub. It takes a bit of finagling with the 80prs, but it is still fairly simple to get the sub to "disappear" unless the level is too high. Also it helps to use all -24db slopes so you don't have to keep flipping.


Yeah I get the pioneer is backwards. I only messed with the sub after the fact cause the settings presented using the ta website link didn't seem right. The low end is there now that I messed around with the sub TA. It just seems of and slightly late or something. With my sub number being lower than the other speakers (more delay) wouldn't that cause the sub sound to arrive to me later? Or does it not really work like that for subs and low end freq?


----------



## Bayboy

What is happening is the midwoofers are needing more work. When there is less bass it is because they ware working against the sub and possibly each other. Set the sub back to where it is supposed to be and work on the mids. They are the hardest to get right because you're dealing with left/right vs a mono sub.


----------



## BEAVER

I've gotten good results by using the numbers provided by this site, less the sub. Leave the sub at 0 then delay everything else an additional 7-8 ms compared to what the sites measurements tell you. I read about it somewhere else on this forum, but cannot remember where...Anyway, the results are impressive. Give it a try and see for yourself.


----------



## jnads87

Thanks for your help man. I'll try it out tomorrow. On a side note, does anyone know or could the op explain why the TA settings are different for a pioneer HU then just putting in the actual distance. Why are all the numbers it's showing me to enter in the high hundreds and not just leaving it at the actual distance?


----------



## Bayboy

You first have to get out of your head how delay works on other units especially Alpine. Pioneer delays differently from others in the numbers you see, but it works. Just remember to set the sub first, then all others are set according to what the sub's basis is. So even though it says the left front driver is closest, it is actually delaying it more... basically it is making the conversion for you. Best way I know how to put it at this moment, but I understand it. The hard part comes in the fine tuning where you are trying to move the stage or keep drivers in phase, not phase by flipping, but in & out of phase by setting distances. If you listen careful enough you can hear it.


----------



## ErinH

*the reason the sub delay is so long is due to wavelength. It's ENTIRELY possible to be out of phase by some degree at one frequency (ie; 30hz) and be acoustically in phase at another (ie; 70hz - the crossover point). 
(see here for more discussion)*

I notice most people who say it doesn't work are focusing on the apparent lack of impact at their seat... because the bass is moved up front and blended at the crossover rather than being some degree out of phase (15, 30, 45, etc; not just 0/180). This is simply an artifact of the wavelength. So, while I'm not saying I don't believe the results you are getting aren't right manually, I must also say that my experience tells me that most people simply aren't used to the "correct" bass you get when the midbass and sub are truly matched _at the crossover point_. 

Again, the crossover method is an experimental way to achieve this. The best way is to break out the RTA and measure the different results when you add delay in large increments. The second best way is to use test tones around the crossover point and listen. The method prescribed here is an attempt to shorten the time needed to achieve great results. It, however, is NOT an attempt at replacing your ear. If you absolutely don't like the results, then simply don't use them. My feelings won't be hurt. I'm just trying to shave some time off the tuning process by getting you 80% there, 200% faster.


----------



## jnads87

Bayboy said:


> You first have to get out of your head how delay works on other units especially Alpine. Pioneer delays differently from others in the numbers you see, but it works. Just remember to set the sub first, then all others are set according to what the sub's basis is. So even though it says the left front driver is closest, it is actually delaying it more... basically it is making the conversion for you. Best way I know how to put it at this moment, but I understand it. The hard part comes in the fine tuning where you are trying to move the stage or keep drivers in phase, not phase by flipping, but in & out of phase by setting distances. If you listen careful enough you can hear it.


Yes I understand that. I know that if it says front left is closest, it's being delayed the most. (the lower the number the more delay) what I'm confused about is that it's telling me to do the opposite. Maybe if I share the numbers it tells me it will be more clear. After I put in my distances it's telling me to enter 131.86 for left tweeter, 147.45 for right tweeter, 137.88 left mb, 150.87 right mb, and 155.39 for sub. 1/2 wave 77.69 1/4 wave 38.84. Now all of these sub settings seemed to take away some low end, so I messed with TA playing a 75hz tone until the sound was the weekest and almost not there, flipped the phase and boom, all my low end is back. My sub is set at 110. This is now the speaker with the most delay compared to everything else, even though it is the furthest speaker. Wouldn't that mess with the arrival time?


----------



## Bayboy

Erin's last reply was quite interesting as well as the link provided. Something I will have to fool with myself. My system is a mess right now from fiddling & trying different tunes.


----------



## Wongway

Curious...
How and where would you measure something like a speaker array?

In my case, I have 3x6.5inch woofers a side in a straight line on the bottom of the doors, with 1x6.5inch woofer under each seat. (So basically, 4x6.5inch woofers a side)

They're wired in such a way, that 2x6.5inch woofers forward of the doors are paired down into one channel. The rearward 6.5inch woofer is wired with an underseat 6.5inch woofer is also paired into another channel.

When trying to time align something in this case, do you measure from the center of two speakers?

I can't even begin to describe how I'd consider measuring the rearward 6.5 in the door that's paired with an underseat 6.5...


----------



## Kjimi

It would be nice to have two buttons on the http://tracerite.com/calc.html from which you could select if the measurements you input are in inches or centimeters.


----------



## Woosey

jnads87 said:


> Yes I understand that. I know that if it says front left is closest, it's being delayed the most. (the lower the number the more delay) what I'm confused about is that it's telling me to do the opposite. Maybe if I share the numbers it tells me it will be more clear. After I put in my distances it's telling me to enter 131.86 for left tweeter, 147.45 for right tweeter, 137.88 left mb, 150.87 right mb, and 155.39 for sub. 1/2 wave 77.69 1/4 wave 38.84. Now all of these sub settings seemed to take away some low end, so I messed with TA playing a 75hz tone until the sound was the weekest and almost not there, flipped the phase and boom, all my low end is back. My sub is set at 110. This is now the speaker with the most delay compared to everything else, even though it is the furthest speaker. Wouldn't that mess with the arrival time?


I see it the same way. I posted something comparable on page 5 or so.. the furthest speaker ( the sub ) is going to be delayed on top of the delay of distance..


----------



## mikka1986

Time alignment are not design to fix phase problem.
Do not try to fix phase problem using time alignment, it will never sound good even if you "think" you get it right.
Time alignment is used to focus image and that is what give you a hard and powerful drums where all sound arrived to you at the same time.

Here you will be using a full active setup, which all driver's filter, level and time delay can be adjust.

1. Make sure you get all your driver installed properly.
2. Get your crossover adjusted properly without phase cancellation and smooth response. This is the most important part which it will take you forever to choose the best sounding filter point to use. It is recommended you study your stock crossover design for what frequency filter to use.

3. Driver's level. choose a songs that have same level of loudness for left and right. adjust each driver until you felt left and right level are balance, don't bother about the tweeter or subwoofer level first, just focus on your left and right balance.
Usually the level of the driver nearest to you has to be reduced more.
Make sure you feel that all the front stage drivers are equally loud to your left and right. then proceed to time alignment.

4. Delay the driver nearest to you. get your remote control, position yourself, mute the mid-bass and subwoofer, adjust the tweeter first. find a good center vocal songs, start pressing the button until you feel the treble focus and not blurred. It feels like a camera lens focus on an object, it is obvious if you have good concentration, close your eye for better listening. If you start hearing the sound pan to the right side, that means the right driver is leading, you'll have to balanced it up until you get a nice focused image just like a camera.
Repeat again with the mid-bass driver, mute the other drivers other than left and right midbass.
After midbass driver is done, now you have to get both tweeter and mid-bass time align. adjust the balance to the right or left side, which is nearest to you. record down the value you get just now. Start delay the tweeter (usually nearest to you). If the tweeter is leading, the tweeter will stand out. adjust it like you adjust the left and right time alignment, you will get to a point where you felt it sound clean and focused.
Now add the number before and after to the passenger side driver, Do some math.

For subwoofer, you will need to pay attention to the beat of the bass, adjust it until the beat is connected to the midbass. The amount of delay always somewhere around the ruler measurement. If you dial it to somewhere else, you probably confused with phase and time. You want the beat to hit at the correct timing, not the SPL of phase. If the subwoofer is leading, the bass will felt like coming from behind, if the subwoofer is retard, there will be a empty gap in between the bass, like an extra instrument in the music. If you get it right, the subwoofer will sound tight and transparent.
Find a nice tracks with hard hitting drums, usually available on some audiophile test track.

Here is another tips, if you get the driver level wrong, you will need to redo it again with the particular pair of drivers.
If you felt some phase cancellation going on, it's your filter settings wrong, TA wrong will just sound like unfocused image.
If you tried to dial around and unable to hear any focus going on, you probably delay the wrong driver.
Feeling pain in one side of your ear after long listening time? driver level set wrongly, reset the time alignment and check for driver level again.

Image shifting is normally caused by driver level adjusted problem. For an extremely tight focused image, that will be our competition secret. If you done all the above correctly, it will sound amazing, very good enough to enjoy your music like an audiophile.


----------



## derickveliz

mikka1986 said:


> Time alignment are not design to fix phase problem.
> Do not try to fix phase problem using time alignment, it will never sound good even if you "think" you get it right.
> Time alignment is used to focus image and that is what give you a hard and powerful drums where all sound arrived to you at the same time.
> 
> Here you will be using a full active setup, which all driver's filter, level and time delay can be adjust.
> 
> 1. Make sure you get all your driver installed properly.
> 2. Get your crossover adjusted properly without phase cancellation and smooth response. This is the most important part which it will take you forever to choose the best sounding filter point to use. It is recommended you study your stock crossover design for what frequency filter to use.
> 
> 3. Driver's level. choose a songs that have same level of loudness for left and right. adjust each driver until you felt left and right level are balance, don't bother about the tweeter or subwoofer level first, just focus on your left and right balance.
> Usually the level of the driver nearest to you has to be reduced more.
> Make sure you feel that all the front stage drivers are equally loud to your left and right. then proceed to time alignment.
> 
> 4. Delay the driver nearest to you. get your remote control, position yourself, mute the mid-bass and subwoofer, adjust the tweeter first. find a good center vocal songs, start pressing the button until you feel the treble focus and not blurred. It feels like a camera lens focus on an object, it is obvious if you have good concentration, close your eye for better listening. If you start hearing the sound pan to the right side, that means the right driver is leading, you'll have to balanced it up until you get a nice focused image just like a camera.
> Repeat again with the mid-bass driver, mute the other drivers other than left and right midbass.
> After midbass driver is done, now you have to get both tweeter and mid-bass time align. adjust the balance to the right or left side, which is nearest to you. record down the value you get just now. Start delay the tweeter (usually nearest to you). If the tweeter is leading, the tweeter will stand out. adjust it like you adjust the left and right time alignment, you will get to a point where you felt it sound clean and focused.
> Now add the number before and after to the passenger side driver, Do some math.
> 
> For subwoofer, you will need to pay attention to the beat of the bass, adjust it until the beat is connected to the midbass. The amount of delay always somewhere around the ruler measurement. If you dial it to somewhere else, you probably confused with phase and time. You want the beat to hit at the correct timing, not the SPL of phase. If the subwoofer is leading, the bass will felt like coming from behind, if the subwoofer is retard, there will be a empty gap in between the bass, like an extra instrument in the music. If you get it right, the subwoofer will sound tight and transparent.
> Find a nice tracks with hard hitting drums, usually available on some audiophile test track.
> 
> Here is another tips, if you get the driver level wrong, you will need to redo it again with the particular pair of drivers.
> If you felt some phase cancellation going on, it's your filter settings wrong, TA wrong will just sound like unfocused image.
> If you tried to dial around and unable to hear any focus going on, you probably delay the wrong driver.
> Feeling pain in one side of your ear after long listening time? driver level set wrongly, reset the time alignment and check for driver level again.
> 
> Image shifting is normally caused by driver level adjusted problem. For an extremely tight focused image, that will be our competition secret. If you done all the above correctly, it will sound amazing, very good enough to enjoy your music like an audiophile.


*That's is great! even for your 1st post

Thanks for all the tips.*

D.


----------



## ErinH

mikka1986 said:


> Time alignment are not design to fix phase problem.


actually, it is. time alignment alters the incremental phase by moving the signal in time *relative *to another signal. 

this is basic sine wave stuff... if you have two sine waves of the same frequency that both start at 0ms, then you delay one by some amount of time, you alter the pattern between them and therefore the summed response is different than what you had originally.

a specific example is if you have two speakers playing a 500hz tone (to keep it simple, we'll look at a tone, which is a sine wave which comprises all music; compressed or not). 
If both are played at the same time then you have a combined response which results in the two waves adding together to create a higher SPL (3dB). 
If you then delay one speaker by 1.0 ms this sine wave is 180 degrees out of phase with the other and you get... no sound....


to say time delay has no effect on phase and therefore FR is not true. it absolutely does.


----------



## gijoe

ErinH said:


> actually, it is. time alignment alters the incremental phase by moving the signal in time *relative *to another signal.
> 
> this is basic sine wave stuff... if you have two sine waves of the same frequency that both start at 0ms, then you delay one by some amount of time, you alter the pattern between them and therefore the summed response is different than what you had originally.


Thank you for responding. I read through the comments above and was going to respond, but I see that you took care of it. 

Time alignment shifts the graph slightly (the x axis is the time domain). Adjusting the timing literally is altering the phase relationship between two or more waves. 

As Erin pointed out, it's "basic sine wave stuff."


----------



## Jepalan

gijoe said:


> Thank you for responding. I read through the comments above and was going to respond, but I see that you took care of it.
> 
> Time alignment shifts the graph slightly (the x axis is the time domain). Adjusting the timing literally is altering the phase relationship between two or more waves.
> 
> As Erin pointed out, it's "basic sine wave stuff."


Completely agree with Erin and GIJoe here, but also want to test my understanding a bit here with (potentially a dumb) question:

In the general sense time alignment is phase shift and phase shift is time alignment, but I think there are some important distinctions in what they are and how they are used. 

As I understand things, time alignment is generally used to equalize the arrival of sound waves from speakers or sets of speakers to the listener. It does this by adding a bulk delay to everything being launched from a particular driver. When done right it focuses the image and defines the stage. We generally use the term "time alignment" or "time delay" when dealing with these aspects of tuning the system.

However, we also have to deal with reflections, modal effects, nulls and peaks in frequency response and optimization of acoustic crossover points. In general we use terms like "phase shift", constructive and destructive interference and "phase effects" when talking about these system characteristics. AND, we do not use "time alignment" to treat nulls, peaks, nor to optimize crossover settings. Instead we optimize driver placement and aiming, apply EQ and adjust filter Q & slopes.

When I read mikka1986's post, I took him to mean the above two distinctions when he made the statement "time-alignment are not designed to fix phase problem". While the statement he used was literally wrong, I think the intention was correct as expressed in the rest of his post.

Am I way off base here?


----------



## mikka1986

Yes, I do mean time alignment are not for fixing phase problem.
As you trying to use TA to fix phase, your tonal will be smeared, blurred and doesn't sound powerful anymore. Leading driver will appear stand out.

take example of a drum's beat, if you trying to fix phase using time delay, the peak of the drums will be doubled and smeared, which will reduced the amount of dynamic. If music is just a single tone sine wave, everything will be easy.

TA usually the easiest one to do, while crossover are the one which is extremely difficult and should be worried about.

you can measure time alignment using impulse response, but this method is very time consuming and troublesome, good for PA system when all the speakers are very far away.


----------



## Jepalan

Would there be the same concern when using time-delay adjustment to treat nulls and peaks at the *subwoofer* acoustic crossover point?


----------



## ErinH

Phase: it's all relative...


----------



## mikka1986

Jepalan said:


> Would there be the same concern when using time-delay adjustment to treat nulls and peaks at the *subwoofer* acoustic crossover point?


nulls and peaks should be adjust through filter frequency and slope. The subwoofer enclosure should be correctly design. placement of it will affect sub-bass group delay and also SPL.

you can try separate mid-bass to subwoofer filter frequency. for example, 100hz 12db/oct hpf + 80hz 12db/oct lpf REV or 80hz hpf and 63hz lpf
usually separate works well to me. overlap usually give peaks or harsh bass same goes if you put 80hz-80hz or 63hz-63hz, which the acoustic crossover will overlap a little.
I personally suggest using 2nd order (-12db/oct) for subwoofer and midbass filter slope, higher slope always get "null" as what you describe.


----------



## ErinH

mikka1986 said:


> nulls and peaks should be adjust through filter frequency and slope.


Sure, in an ideal world. But even in home systems 99% of the time there is a delay between the tweeter and mid's impulse because they aren't aligned acoustically in all planes. Typically only aligned in the y-plane and never more than that unless it's a concentric drive unit (concentric /=/ coaxial; coaxials are still off in the z-axis). Now think of a car where the drivers aren't on the same plane in _any _axis. Time alignment is used to improve the phase relationship between the drivers. It can't repair it entirely but it's an additional tool because crossover/slope alone cannot make up for this. Crossover/slopes are big changes... 90 deg increments, typically. T/A works in much smaller increments (frequency dependent), but 0.02ms change even at 4khz is ~29 deg phase alteration.


----------



## mikka1986

gijoe said:


> Thank you for responding. I read through the comments above and was going to respond, but I see that you took care of it.
> 
> Time alignment shifts the graph slightly (the x axis is the time domain). Adjusting the timing literally is altering the phase relationship between two or more waves.
> 
> As Erin pointed out, it's "basic sine wave stuff."












This is a picture of a drum's waveform which i took it from google image.
Take this as mono track which both left and right channel are equal, when one of the channel plays 0.5ms slower, the combined waveform will be smeared. If trying to fix phase using time alignment, let say 20ms, there will be 2 sound combined which will give you lack of correct tonal details and somewhat gives you a fake clarity and no dynamic, everything will sound a little slow paced. It may sound awesome in some jazz songs, but for rock songs, it will be so annoying that you can't listen it in high volume.
when going for like 500ms (which most dsp do not support), now you'll hear something similar to a microphone echo effect.

If music is only a sine wave, you can fix phase cancellation by using time delay.


----------



## Babs

To get a feel for what inaccurate T/A will do see guitar affects pedals which take the signal, add a delay at some milliseconds and do sweeps with the other signal.. Recombined the two do things like a "phaser" pedal or "chorus" pedal or "flanger". All basically forms of a modulating delay. In which case, smearing the signal becomes a desired affect, ironically.


----------



## ErinH

mikka1986 said:


> This is a picture of a drum's waveform which i took it from google image.
> Take this as mono track which both left and right channel are equal, when one of the channel plays 0.5ms slower, the combined waveform will be smeared. If trying to fix phase using time alignment, let say 20ms, there will be 2 sound combined which will give you lack of correct tonal details and somewhat gives you a fake clarity and no dynamic, everything will sound a little slow paced. It may sound awesome in some jazz songs, but for rock songs, it will be so annoying that you can't listen it in high volume.
> when going for like 500ms (which most dsp do not support), now you'll hear something similar to a microphone echo effect.
> 
> If music is only a sine wave, you can fix phase cancellation by using time delay.


You're talking about two different things.

The reason I brought up the sine wave example was to simply illustrate that, yes, time delay alters phase which alters frequency response. It's an absolute example. 

Your example is trying to discredit that notion, it seems, by supplying the same kind of thing and saying that time alignment messes up timbre (or whatever other adjective you choose to use). Of course it does... if you're looking at two sources and altering the time. That's what I've already stated. But, that's not a car.

*What you're missing is the scenarios are different.* In a car, time alignment is used to line up the sound sources as best you can in time, which results in a higher SPL because the two wavefronts are more time synced at that particular position. Again, they are in phase (or at least, as much as they can be given the environment). The amount of time in this case isn't of concern other than to line up those wave fronts. If you are simply given a time but not a distance or a frequency then it's meaningless. 20ms... that could very well be plausible if one source is actually 20ms ahead of another (not likely in a car other than the lowest of frequencies). 






And finally, YES, music is SINE WAVES. All sounds are rooted in a sine wave. A 50hz fundamental kick drum and all it's harmonics ... sine waves. Go outside and hit your car... you hear... sine waves. Listen to a CD... it's reproducing sine waves. How the waveform is constructed determines what you hear and how the waveform interacts with other waveforms (sine waves vs sine waves) do the same. Time alignment is nothing more than a means of altering phase of sound... which is comprised of sine waves.


----------



## mikka1986

ErinH said:


> You're talking about two different things.
> 
> The reason I brought up the sine wave example was to simply illustrate that, yes, time delay alters phase which alters frequency response. It's an absolute example.
> 
> Your example is trying to discredit that notion, it seems, by supplying the same kind of thing and saying that time alignment messes up timbre (or whatever other adjective you choose to use). Of course it does... if you're looking at two sources and altering the time. That's what I've already stated. But, that's not a car.
> 
> *What you're missing is the scenarios are different.* In a car, time alignment is used to line up the sound sources as best you can in time, which results in a higher SPL because the two wavefronts are more time synced at that particular position. Again, they are in phase (or at least, as much as they can be given the environment). The amount of time in this case isn't of concern other than to line up those wave fronts. If you are simply given a time but not a distance or a frequency then it's meaningless. 20ms... that could very well be plausible if one source is actually 20ms ahead of another (not likely in a car other than the lowest of frequencies).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And finally, YES, music is SINE WAVES. All sounds are rooted in a sine wave. A 50hz fundamental kick drum and all it's harmonics ... sine waves. Go outside and hit your car... you hear... sine waves. Listen to a CD... it's reproducing sine waves. How the waveform is constructed determines what you hear and how the waveform interacts with other waveforms (sine waves vs sine waves) do the same. Time alignment is nothing more than a means of altering phase of sound... which is comprised of sine waves.



Thanks for understanding.
phase response mostly have to do with equipment, installation, driver positioning, reflection, diffraction.... not much can be done by DSP tuning.

Music isn't just purely sine wave, if so then there will be no annoying music that try to kill speakers


----------



## ErinH

all sound is made of sine waves. period.


----------



## Jepalan

All sound can be *represented as* an infinite sum of sine waves (see Fourier Series). But you can also represent a sine wave as an infinite sum of square waves (see Schauder basis). So I'm not sure it is fair to say all sound is *made of* sine waves (in the sense that matter is made of atoms).

Regardless of the semantics of it all, here is really cool experiment that shows how complex sounds can be constructed from a very limited set of vibrating strings (sine waves). 

Link - >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muCPjK4nGY4


----------



## Woosey

Jepalan said:


> All sound can be *represented as* an infinite sum of sine waves (see Fourier Series). But you can also represent a sine wave as an infinite sum of square waves (see Schauder basis). So I'm not sure it is fair to say all sound is *made of* sine waves (in the sense that matter is made of atoms).
> 
> Regardless of the semantics of it all, here is really cool experiment that shows how complex sounds can be constructed from a very limited set of vibrating strings (sine waves).
> 
> Link - >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muCPjK4nGY4


That's pretty cool if you ask me 

just stirring the pot : is synthetic music also sinewaves?


----------



## crackinhedz

Very greatful for the hard work put into this, definitely a lifesaver for a newb like me to Time Alignment. 

Stage is now dead center...or at least super close! 

:rimshot:


----------



## 14642

Some interesting suggestions here and some misapplication of stuff that's often and correctly used for designing home speakers to the tuning of a car. 

When one designs a home speaker, he's designing a single system independent of the room in which it will be used. This is especially the case in developing the crossover and often the enclosure or baffle shape. 

When you design a home speaker crossover, the idea is to develop a network that, when combined with the response of the speaker has flat (or some target) response without big phase anomalies. Standard crossover alignments and their predicted sums depend on the distance from the speakers' acoustic centers to the measurement positions being equal. If they are not, then several things can be done. The slopes and Qs of the electrical filter can be changed to accommodate the difference and to achieve something similar to the target. This is a time consuming pain in the ass, but it's made a bit easier with some good computer modeling.

In a speaker with a passive network, a simple delay isn't possible, but shifting phase is. Because a simple delay isn't really possible, some speaker manufacturers (Google DCM Time Window) took pains in enclosure design to align the voice coils as an approximation of acoustic center. This makes it a bit easier to develop crossovers according to classical alignments for which the results are known. All of this is done for a single multi-way speaker in an anechoic chamber or some such environment. Once the single speaker has been designed, it is replicated and they are sold in pairs. BOTH SPEAKERS ARE THE SAME.

Once developing a powered speaker with DSP became cheap and easy, developers of these single speakers had a new tool--delay. Now, instead of having to be so focused on actual placement, they are able to delay the tweeter to match the mid on a flat baffle. Or, they can use delay to adjust phase at the crossover because when you're designing a single speaker, the only relative phase that really matters is phase between drivers in the range where both speakers play. Using delay to fix a ****ty crossover design is incorrect but effective. In addition, the existence of high and low pass filters combined with EQ makes developing crossovers that PRECISELY match the classical alignments is now much easier. These guys are still designing a single speaker.

Then, the single speakers with their internal crossovers, EQ and delay are set up in a room and often a separate room correcting DSP is used to reduce peaks fro standing waves and used to delay the ENTIRE channel that's sent to each of the IDENTICAL speakers. That provides an image for an offset listener.

OK. Now, compare that to a car. We do the same thing, with ONE HUGE EXCEPTON. The crossovers and EQ and the location and the shapes of the baffles are NOT the same, so the right speaker and the left speaker are not identical. No problem.

UNTIL YOU START USING DELAY TO FIX CROSSOVER PHASE PROBLEMS. As Erin mentioned, this is no big deal for tweeters. We don't hear ITDs at really high frequencies. However, in the midrange, if you set the left mid and the right mid delays to accommodate the difference in distance to the listening position so you get a phantom center image and THEN you readjust those delays to accommodate the crossover, then there's a good chance that you screw up the phantom center. 

If you are using delays to set the system up for a single sweetspot for an offset listener, using the "Crossover Method" is NOT CORRECT. If you don't need delays to create a phantom center for an offset listener because you have an UPMIXER and a center channel or you DON'T CARE ABOUT THE IMAGE AND ONLY CARE ABOUT FREQUENCY RESPONSE, then the crossover method is valid. 

The all pass filter is the better way to adjust crossover phase. There is an easier way, though. Set the delays and then choose 24dB/octave LR filters and EQ the drivers to match that target response. You'll be shocked that the sum is often quite flat and in phase, so long as the delays are set so that the sound from both the speakers arrives at the same time.

That works with upmixers and center speakers AND for systems that use delay to optimize for a single seat. 

Home audio and car audio are quite different. Applying the principles speaker design and systems engineering for home audio speakers specifically to cars is not a straightforward thing.


----------



## Niick

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> Some interesting suggestions here and some misapplication of stuff that's often and correctly used for designing home speakers to the tuning of a car.
> 
> When one designs a home speaker, he's designing a single system independent of the room in which it will be used. This is especially the case in developing the crossover and often the enclosure or baffle shape.
> 
> When you design a home speaker crossover, the idea is to develop a network that, when combined with the response of the speaker has flat (or some target) response without big phase anomalies. Standard crossover alignments and their predicted sums depend on the distance from the speakers' acoustic centers to the measurement positions being equal. If they are not, then several things can be done. The slopes and Qs of the electrical filter can be changed to accommodate the difference and to achieve something similar to the target. This is a time consuming pain in the ass, but it's made a bit easier with some good computer modeling.
> 
> In a speaker with a passive network, a simple delay isn't possible, but shifting phase is. Because a simple delay isn't really possible, some speaker manufacturers (Google DCM Time Window) took pains in enclosure design to align the voice coils as an approximation of acoustic center. This makes it a bit easier to develop crossovers according to classical alignments for which the results are known. All of this is done for a single multi-way speaker in an anechoic chamber or some such environment. Once the single speaker has been designed, it is replicated and they are sold in pairs. BOTH SPEAKERS ARE THE SAME.
> 
> Once developing a powered speaker with DSP became cheap and easy, developers of these single speakers had a new tool--delay. Now, instead of having to be so focused on actual placement, they are able to delay the tweeter to match the mid on a flat baffle. Or, they can use delay to adjust phase at the crossover because when you're designing a single speaker, the only relative phase that really matters is phase between drivers in the range where both speakers play. Using delay to fix a ****ty crossover design is incorrect but effective. In addition, the existence of high and low pass filters combined with EQ makes developing crossovers that PRECISELY match the classical alignments is now much easier. These guys are still designing a single speaker.
> 
> Then, the single speakers with their internal crossovers, EQ and delay are set up in a room and often a separate room correcting DSP is used to reduce peaks fro standing waves and used to delay the ENTIRE channel that's sent to each of the IDENTICAL speakers. That provides an image for an offset listener.
> 
> OK. Now, compare that to a car. We do the same thing, with ONE HUGE EXCEPTON. The crossovers and EQ and the location and the shapes of the baffles are NOT the same, so the right speaker and the left speaker are not identical. No problem.
> 
> UNTIL YOU START USING DELAY TO FIX CROSSOVER PHASE PROBLEMS. As Erin mentioned, this is no big deal for tweeters. We don't hear ITDs at really high frequencies. However, in the midrange, if you set the left mid and the right mid delays to accommodate the difference in distance to the listening position so you get a phantom center image and THEN you readjust those delays to accommodate the crossover, then there's a good chance that you screw up the phantom center.
> 
> If you are using delays to set the system up for a single sweetspot for an offset listener, using the "Crossover Method" is NOT CORRECT. If you don't need delays to create a phantom center for an offset listener because you have an UPMIXER and a center channel or you DON'T CARE ABOUT THE IMAGE AND ONLY CARE ABOUT FREQUENCY RESPONSE, then the crossover method is valid.
> 
> The all pass filter is the better way to adjust crossover phase. There is an easier way, though. Set the delays and then choose 24dB/octave LR filters and EQ the drivers to match that target response. You'll be shocked that the sum is often quite flat and in phase, so long as the delays are set so that the sound from both the speakers arrives at the same time.
> 
> That works with upmixers and center speakers AND for systems that use delay to optimize for a single seat.
> 
> Home audio and car audio are quite different. Applying the principles speaker design and systems engineering for home audio speakers specifically to cars is not a straightforward thing.


Andy, today I did a system (tuned to drivers seat)where I set the delays to account for the distance, then I adjusted the delay of just the right tweeter by .20 ms(if I remember correctly.) I also adjusted the delay of the sub to blend well thru crossover with the midbass. The system had fully active 2 way components and a sub. The midrange/midbass delay times were never changed to help with summation thru Xover. In addition to the additional .20 ms delay on the left tweet, I inverted the tweet polarity as well. I also used 24 dB LR xovers in the processor, as advised by you in another conversation. It worked very well. Do you think that adding that .20ms delay to one tweeter was a bad idea. The difference in summation thru Xover for that side was about 7dB ish thru the Xover range. The other side summed together nicely from the start.

After today, I retract my previous statement, I am now a big fan of tuning to the drivers seat. It really did sound great, one of my best so far.


----------



## Niick

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> The all pass filter is the better way to adjust crossover phase. There is an easier way, though. Set the delays and then choose 24dB/octave LR filters and EQ the drivers to match that target response. You'll be shocked that the sum is often quite flat and in phase, so long as the delays are set so that the sound from both the speakers arrives at the same time.


Andy, when you say that the sound arrives at the same time, exactly what sound are you referring to. Where I get confused, is if I have a 2 way active system for example, and it's crossed over at 3000hz. If I look at the IR of the woofer, it's peak will be dominated by the high freq. region of that drivers passband. Then, if I look at the tweeter, it's peak will also be dominated by THAT drivers passband. So the IR of the tweeter will show a peak who's energy contained within is not even in the same freq range being reproduced by the midbass. Therefore, lining up the IR peaks obviously isn't the way to go, so what is. Tape measure? Or maybe applying a band pass filter to the IR (which can be done in the software I use), a filter who's passband is centered right on the crossover region, thus assuring that I'm measuring the arrival time of acoustic energy that's actually being produced by both drivers? This "filtered IR" method sounds promising, I think i'll experiment with it soon.


----------



## 14642

Niick said:


> Andy, today I did a system (tuned to drivers seat)where I set the delays to account for the distance, then I adjusted the delay of just the right tweeter by .20 ms(if I remember correctly.) I also adjusted the delay of the sub to blend well thru crossover with the midbass. The system had fully active 2 way components and a sub. The midrange/midbass delay times were never changed to help with summation thru Xover. In addition to the additional .20 ms delay on the left tweet, I inverted the tweet polarity as well. I also used 24 dB LR xovers in the processor, as advised by you in another conversation. It worked very well. Do you think that adding that .20ms delay to one tweeter was a bad idea. The difference in summation thru Xover for that side was about 7dB ish thru the Xover range. The other side summed together nicely from the start.
> 
> After today, I retract my previous statement, I am now a big fan of tuning to the drivers seat. It really did sound great, one of my best so far.


As Erin mentioned in a previous post, we don't hear ITDs very well at high frequencies. In addition, many listeners LIKE the sense of space that out of phase tweeters provide. In this 2-way system, that crossover method may not do much damage to the image, so long as the mids are delayed to compensate for pathlength differences only.


----------



## 14642

Niick said:


> Andy, when you say that the sound arrives at the same time, exactly what sound are you referring to. Where I get confused, is if I have a 2 way active system for example, and it's crossed over at 3000hz. If I look at the IR of the woofer, it's peak will be dominated by the high freq. region of that drivers passband. Then, if I look at the tweeter, it's peak will also be dominated by THAT drivers passband. So the IR of the tweeter will show a peak who's energy contained within is not even in the same freq range being reproduced by the midbass. Therefore, lining up the IR peaks obviously isn't the way to go, so what is. Tape measure? Or maybe applying a band pass filter to the IR (which can be done in the software I use), a filter who's passband is centered right on the crossover region, thus assuring that I'm measuring the arrival time of acoustic energy that's actually being produced by both drivers? This "filtered IR" method sounds promising, I think i'll experiment with it soon.


Now we're getting somewhere. Yes, picking the peak doesn't work well if the speaker in question doesn't include high frequency output. The slope of the line in the impulse response is determined by high frequencies and the peak is not the initial arrival. The impulse response is basically another way to look at a collection of sine waves and a 20k sine wave reaches its first peak much more quickly than a 100Hz sine wave.


Here's a trick you can use to get closer. Measure and store the impulses. Most programs normalize them (match the level of the peak). Then, find the peak and back up to the left by some number of dB. The algorithm in MS-8 uses 12, but you may be able to use a higher number. While this may not be a way to find the EXACT initial arrival, that doesn't matter. Remember that we don't hear ITDs at high frequencies. That means that if the error creates a comb above the LPF of the midrange, then it doesn't really matter. Plus, we're limited in delay settings to a single sample. Most DSPs sample at 48k.

Use 12dB, 18dB, even 24dB. 

What makes that method a little easier than trying to figure out precisely the point at which the impulse rises above 0 is that you don't have to figure out what part of the curve is preringing and thus, not an accurate part of the reading.

IF you want to try the bandpass method, then center the passband on the region in which the speaker has flat response. That's where you're going to use the speaker and that's the range that has to be delayed to make left and right sum to provide a good phantom center for an offset listener. When you think about how you are going to use delay at the crossover, also think about what that does to the arrival of left and right.

I just heard from a dealer the other day that "delay and phase are the same thing" and I wanted to cringe. Delay does change phase, but they are not the same. 

Think about how a comb filter works when two speakers are mounted at different distances. The difference in distance that corresponds to a half a wavelength at frequency X will cause a big hole in the sum at frequency X and at multiples. If I delay the signal to the nearest speaker, the entire comb filter is eliminated. If I reverse the polarity of one of the speakers (the old flip one mid out of phase trick), I simply exchange the positions of the peaks and nulls. For door mounted mids, that improves the female vocal range (about 200Hz) which corresponds to the difference in distance for door mounted mids in most cars. If I use an all pass filter to change the phase of one of the speakers at the lowest frequency null, I can eliminate it, but all of the higher frequency nulls will remain. If I used several all pass filters to eliminate all the nulls, I could have the two speakers in phase over the entire frequency range, but the sound from one would arrive before the sound of the other and I'd hear the nearer one first. The result would be an image shift toward the speaker from which the sound arrived first.

DELAY IS NOT THE SAME AS PHASE.


----------



## Niick

yes, preringing, I've seen this before. Yesterday, one channel that I measured, I think it was the one with the highest energy/closest arrival time, the front left, it definitely had a very distinct preringing leading up to the Initial arrival/HF peak area. What causes this? I've also seen this before at other seemingly random times, while other times, more often, it isn't there. Ok, a I'll post this one, make some coffee, star getting ready for work, then, I've got another question for ya, this next one is gonna take some typing though, so here goes......


----------



## Niick

Yes, I fully get the delay/phase thing.....here's a different question, ok, so I had this theory about determining a objective means of measuring the coherence between left and right, ya know, like playing dual mono pink noise and hearing a well defined "stripe" of sound right in the center. But I wanted to be able to visualize this, so this first pic is with UNCORRELATED pink noise, the left side is the left speaker, the middle is halfway between left and right, the right is the right speaker. I swept the mic left to right at the same time constant as the spectrograph screen was moving.


----------



## Niick

Now this next one is with dual mono pink noise (correlated)


----------



## Niick

I was thinking, maybe I could use comb filtering to my advantage, and use this same method of spectrograph sweeps in a car and the car with the better set up left to right soundstage would show more evenly spaced, well defined stripes. That makes sense doesn't it?

Edit: but that's not the question I really wanted to ask......it's coming


----------



## Niick

Ok, here goes. A while back I was searching for a way to determine the relative polarity of speakers that I couldn't see. As there are a few different "phase checker" (they call 'em) devices on the market, like the cricket and the mobile solutions kit, and the iPhone app that has a speaker polarity +/- symbol, I wanted a more sure fire way of knowing. It's probably just me being me, but if you've ever used one of these things in the heat of battle, they're not exactly 100% confidence inspiring. So, I downloaded the "speaker pop" signal from studio six Digital's website, and found that when I played that into a speaker, and observed the result from a mic on my scope, it was clear as day, definitive, unquestionably the direction of the rise was reflecting the direction of cone movement. Now, I'm sure you're thinking, duh! No ****! But keep in mind this was before I had really gotten serious about acoustic analysis, in fact this is part of what led up to it.

So, it wasn't long before I noticed that the resulting impulse on the scope screen when playing the signal thru the speaker looked EXACTLY LIKE a step response as described by John Atkinson. So John A. Said that the step response can reveal issues with the crossover. So anyway, I've been experimenting with this, and so far, it all makes sense. If I play this signal to a mid and a tweet(xovers engaged), one at a time. Place a marker on the scope where the more distant drivers peak is at, then play the other driver while adding delay until the peaks are at the same time, or play them both and watch the combined step response until the tweeters peak blends smoothly into the midbass/midrange..........???

I guess my question is, what are your thoughts on the step response, and can't it be used to verify a good Xover setup, and possibly shed light on areas that need work, like if someone brought me there car, that I didn't install, and wanted it tuned?


----------



## omnibus

I'm probably the only one here that wasn't wowed by time alignment. I can hear that the sound raises up towards the dash more but didn't do anything for me. I didn't hear any difference with the sub though, still sounded like it was behind me.


----------



## Niick

Well, I look at it like this, I'm trying to transform, FOR THE CUSTOMER, the musical waveform from the electrical domain into the acoustical domain, with as little alteration as possible. We (serious installers) are a "waveform delivery service". (I got that saying from Bob Mcarthy, author of Sound Sytems, Design and Optimization). Using delay and other tools is simply a means of achieving that end. You most likely haven't heard an A/B comparison of a properl tuned system, to the same one with the processor bypassed. That's all. The difference that proper system optimization, which usually includes the use of delay, can make is staggering.


----------



## gijoe

omnibus said:


> I'm probably the only one here that wasn't wowed by time alignment. I can hear that the sound raises up towards the dash more but didn't do anything for me. I didn't hear any difference with the sub though, still sounded like it was behind me.


A subwoofer will sound like it's behind you when the LPF is set too high, the TA is not correct, or simply that there are materials resonating behind you at higher frequencies when the subwoofer plays. 

With good TA, and well deadened panels, I have been able to play subs beyond 120hz without any real localization. All it takes is one little clip or trim piece to buzz at the same time as a bass note to create enough high frequency noise to draw your attention backwards.


----------



## sqnut

omnibus said:


> I'm probably the only one here that wasn't wowed by time alignment. I can hear that the sound raises up towards the dash more but didn't do anything for me. I didn't hear any difference with the sub though, still sounded like it was behind me.


Locating the sub behind you could be an issue of TA done incorrectly, too high a LP on the sub and/or shallow slopes and/or the response around your xover point.


----------



## 14642

The step response is simply the system's response to a perfect square wave as an input. almost the same as the impulse response. Inductance and mass smooth the leading edge of the square. Stored energy (whether it's capacitance or inductance) elongate the tail. 

I'm not so sure that the step response is necessarily some panacea of crossover performance analysis. If you want to know what the sum looks like (when you are designing a home speaker), then make an impulse response measurement, perform an FFT and view the frequency response and phase. 

My guess is that the waveform used for the polarity checker is a half a square wave and that's why when you view the acoustic output it looks like a step response.


----------



## Niick

Ok cool, yeah I'll investigate that further, thanks for your thoughts!


----------



## Woosey

omnibus said:


> I'm probably the only one here that wasn't wowed by time alignment. I can hear that the sound raises up towards the dash more but didn't do anything for me. I didn't hear any difference with the sub though, still sounded like it was behind me.


Turn down the level of the sub...


----------



## Niick

Ok, so here's a question for everybody:

Do you think it's possible to create a method of system optimization using a combination of tools,ears,experience,logic,trial and error, etc. that would get a system tuned to basically maximum optimization in a matter of hours? Like, let's say 3 hours. I'm talking about a fully active 2 or 3 way front stage with sub(s) and maybe rear fills. With processor.


----------



## pocket5s

no. 

3 hours? just getting started. That might be initial TA and initial eq work. it'll sound good, but "maximum optimization"? no hardly.

I have two tunes with roughly 6 hours each, by people who really know what they are doing and the car still isn't at max potential. 

part of that is you get tired, especially your ears. You can only listen for so long before getting fatigued and need to stop. part of it is because it is just time consuming. tweak, listen, tweak, watch rta, tweak, listen some more. and repeat over and over again.


----------



## sqnut

Niick said:


> Ok, so here's a question for everybody:
> 
> Do you think it's possible to create a method of system optimization using a combination of tools,ears,experience,logic,trial and error, etc. that would get a system tuned to basically maximum optimization in a matter of hours? Like, let's say 3 hours. I'm talking about a fully active 2 or 3 way front stage with sub(s) and maybe rear fills. With processor.


You can get it to measure right in 2-3 hours but getting it to sound right needs someone who tunes by ear and they will need a few sessions.


----------



## 14642

Niick said:


> Ok, so here's a question for everybody:
> 
> Do you think it's possible to create a method of system optimization using a combination of tools,ears,experience,logic,trial and error, etc. that would get a system tuned to basically maximum optimization in a matter of hours? Like, let's say 3 hours. I'm talking about a fully active 2 or 3 way front stage with sub(s) and maybe rear fills. With processor.


Of course. 

However, in order to do that, there has to be an agreed-upon end. That means an accepted target that can be defined from a mostly objective standpoint must exist, or there has to be a point near the end of the process for which an objective evaluation rules. This is really important if you are going to do this work as a professional. If you're a hobbyist, then it doesn't matter.

What if you hired a guy to paint your house and he couldn't tell you what color it would be, what kind of paint he would use or how long it would take, but he wanted you to pay him by the hour? I'd say no-way, but this is the way many in the industry charge for tuning. 

Or, they say, "A basic tuning will be four hours labor". Then, they screw around without a process for four hours and when the egg timer dings, they disconnect the computer and you get what you get.


----------



## 14642

pocket5s said:


> no.
> 
> 3 hours? just getting started. That might be initial TA and initial eq work. it'll sound good, but "maximum optimization"? no hardly.
> 
> I have two tunes with roughly 6 hours each, by people who really know what they are doing and the car still isn't at max potential.
> 
> part of that is you get tired, especially your ears. You can only listen for so long before getting fatigued and need to stop. part of it is because it is just time consuming. tweak, listen, tweak, watch rta, tweak, listen some more. and repeat over and over again.


Interesting. I don't listen until it meets the objective target. Saves time and fatigue. If it's a front speaker system with a sub that's installed without some crazy-ass ridiculousness that doesn't bear any resemblance to generally accepted acoustic principles, I can usually do the whole thing in an hour or two. Sometimes far less. 

If the system includes side and rear speakers, an upmixer and a center channel and must be optimized for both front seat passengers then it's more difficult. If it's the upmixer system with a tiny center speaker and must be optimized for both front seat passengers and a separate optimization for the driver only, then it is MUCH more difficult. 

IF you're doing a front and sub system and you're using delay, crossover and a graphic EQ, then a professional ought to be in and out in an hour so long as there's nothing stupid going on.


----------



## sqnut

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> Interesting. I don't listen until it meets the objective target. Saves time and fatigue. If it's a front speaker system with a sub that's installed without some crazy-ass ridiculousness that doesn't bear any resemblance to generally accepted acoustic principles, I can usually do the whole thing in an hour or two. Sometimes far less.


I agree, you don't need to really listen till you get the timing right, L&R balanced and a base curve dialed in to get the response in the ball park. But this is the easy bit and the real work, imho lies after this when you're tuning for tonal accuracy.


----------



## Jepalan

sqnut said:


> I agree, you don't need to really listen till you get the timing right, L&R balanced and a base curve dialed in to get the response in the ball park. But this is the easy bit and the real work, imho lies after this when you're tuning for tonal accuracy.


Yes, OCD *is* hard work. Exhausting really. 

But to Andy's point I think this last stage really only matters to the 'tuner' or 'hobbyist', but not the 'customer'.


----------



## Babs

Tuning time all depends on your place on the learning curve really... 

Depends on how fast you can:
1. dial in timing by distance and ear,
2. phase by the same, 
3. flatten individual driver peaks,
4. verify/correct anything phase/wonky with driver pairs and groups
6. final touches on full stage by ear.

My first real tune took oh 8 to 10 nightly sessions, fumbling around with gear, accidentally doing some good measuring, wrestling with the laptop in the passenger seat, getting a neck cramp from staring at it, getting cables tangled everywhere, accidentally screwing up the Helix file, fixing same file, troubleshooting mic cable issues, referring to REW help, reading tuning threads (over and over), asking questions, second-guessing myself, and general stuff a guy who doesn't know his butt from a hole in the wall would do, etc etc etc.

Next time, watched Kyle's vids, asked a few key people, start-finish took oh maybe 2-3 hours total tune-time to get her 90% there.

Do I know my butt from a hole in the ground now? ..Oh I'd say I know just enough to be dangerous.  Measuring skills, ear skills, software skills, audio knowledge, etc etc.. There's a lot to it, to be sure.


----------



## omnibus

sqnut said:


> Locating the sub behind you could be an issue of TA done incorrectly, too high a LP on the sub and/or shallow slopes and/or the response around your xover point.


Right, 60hz is what I'm using and 24db slope. I played with it a number of ways with my given options at various points throughout this past year. TA is from the HU so no clue how great it is anyway. I can play with the distance and did initially try a tape measure to set it but basically the presets were about the same from what I could tell...which sounded fine, I can hear the difference with the mains, it sounded different in a way but did not increase any clarity, richness other than raise the sound upwards some. but just saying it didn't do anything for me. Maybe I'm not easily impressed....the Pioneer Andrew Jones speakers didn't wow me either despite all the reviews of how good the SQ is.


----------



## 14642

sqnut said:


> I agree, you don't need to really listen till you get the timing right, L&R balanced and a base curve dialed in to get the response in the ball park. But this is the easy bit and the real work, imho lies after this when you're tuning for tonal accuracy.


I disagree. Tonal accuracy IS the frequency response measurement. If you hit your target and it doesn't sound right from a tonal perspective, then you don't have the right target. Ideally, listening is for confirmation that everything is good. If not, then listening ought to be to determine which compromise you are going to choose because you can't hit the target with the tools you have.


----------



## 14642

Setting anything by ear is nuts. 

What if you were going to fabricate a trunk? Would you use a tape measure or would you go over to the trunk, hold out your arms to measure the width of the trunk and then go to your piece of wood and hold your arms out in the same place again to mark the dimension?

Shoes have sizes marked on them so you can find the ones that fit quickly. 

Your car has a speedometer so you can determine how fast you're going without ambiguity.

Your cable box displays channels as numbers so you can find what you want to watch easily.

Your table saw includes a rail with a tape measure glued to it so you can transfer a measurement quickly.

A measuring cup has marks to indicate volume so you can add the right amount of liquid quickly and without ambiguity.

The keys on your computer are labeled so you can know what you are about to type without ambiguity.

Why do we accept these kinds of things for everything but when we tune a car we think we're a painter or a sculptor all of a sudden? Or a chef. Ask any of those what it's like to do their work and they will describe a period of experimentation (learning) and then the implementation of a process that includes tools designed to increase accuracy.

But we tune by ear for 16 hours and claim to be artists. Give me a break.

LOL


----------



## lizardking

None of that is infinite, it either is or it isn't. I've seen nothing ever published as the "is" of tonal accuracy. However, I have seen multiple claims as to what it should be. I suppose due to variables of the environment.


----------



## pocket5s

Those are drastic over simplifications. I can, and have, hit the same frequency response and achieved different results, mostly due to phase issues. 

I know that you know that an accurate reproduction of the recording can't be achieved with an rta and some curve. 

However that is the implication of your comment and those who do not yet understand that will be really frustrated when they measure some curve, listen to their vehicle then listen to another that was done by someone who knows what to listen for, says they did it mostly by ear and their system walks all over what the inexperienced did with a tape measure and an rta. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Jepalan

pocket5s said:


> Those are drastic over simplifications. I can, and have, hit the same frequency response and achieved different results, mostly due to phase issues. <snip>


What do you mean by "phase issues", exactly?


----------



## Niick

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> Setting anything by ear is nuts.
> 
> What if you were going to fabricate a trunk? Would you use a tape measure or would you go over to the trunk, hold out your arms to measure the width of the trunk and then go to your piece of wood and hold your arms out in the same place again to mark the dimension?
> 
> Shoes have sizes marked on them so you can find the ones that fit quickly.
> 
> Your car has a speedometer so you can determine how fast you're going without ambiguity.
> 
> Your cable box displays channels as numbers so you can find what you want to watch easily.
> 
> Your table saw includes a rail with a tape measure glued to it so you can transfer a measurement quickly.
> 
> A measuring cup has marks to indicate volume so you can add the right amount of liquid quickly and without ambiguity.
> 
> The keys on your computer are labeled so you can know what you are about to type without ambiguity.
> 
> Why do we accept these kinds of things for everything but when we tune a car we think we're a painter or a sculptor all of a sudden? Or a chef. Ask any of those what it's like to do their work and they will describe a period of experimentation (learning) and then the implementation of a process that includes tools designed to increase accuracy.
> 
> But we tune by ear for 16 hours and claim to be artists. Give me a break.
> 
> LOL


Andy, I 110% agree with you. Also, I realized thru more testing that what I was doing when using the phase trace to determine delays, ultimately WAS compensating for distance, and I now see the potential error in doing so SOLELY using the phase trace. So, over the past couple weeks I've come to understand so much more about driver to driver interactions, thanks largely to the discussions we've had which have forced me to take a harder look at my methodology.

Today, I put the finishing touches on a method of setting delays that is truly different than anything I've ever heard about, but is quicker and more accurate too. It involves a custom pulsed signal and a two channel oscilloscope with an external trigger, a mic, and a preamp, and measurement software. I'm going into the shop on my day off tomorrow to start painting the bay, when I get there I'll take some screenshots and pics and post a how-to on this method. I think it'll be very interesting at least. And, I'll say it now, using this method, you can achieve OPTIMUM delay times/crossover settings in about an hour at most, if everything else is installed and ready to tune.


----------



## Spud100

Niick said:


> Andy, I 110% agree with you. Also, I realized thru more testing that what I was doing when using the phase trace to determine delays, ultimately WAS compensating for distance, and I now see the potential error in doing so SOLELY using the phase trace. So, over the past couple weeks I've come to understand so much more about driver to driver interactions, thanks largely to the discussions we've had which have forced me to take a harder look at my methodology.
> 
> Today, I put the finishing touches on a method of setting delays that is truly different than anything I've ever heard about, but is quicker and more accurate too. It involves a custom pulsed signal and a two channel oscilloscope with an external trigger, a mic, and a preamp, and measurement software. I'm going into the shop on my day off tomorrow to start painting the bay, when I get there I'll take some screenshots and pics and post a how-to on this method. I think it'll be very interesting at least. And, I'll say it now, using this method, you can achieve OPTIMUM delay times/crossover settings in about an hour at most, if everything else is installed and ready to tune.


You seem to be describing what HOLMIMPULSE sets out to do.
I now understand that TA is first of all dealing with the different speaker positions relative to the listener AND, the tricky part, in compensating for crossover phase delays.
Gerry


----------



## Niick

I've used Holmimpulse, wasn't my cup of tea. I'm a real-time guy myself....the measurements on the scope are real time, they move as you adjust delay, it involves the use of markers.....


----------



## Niick

Spud100 said:


> You seem to be describing what HOLMIMPULSE sets out to do.
> I now understand that TA is first of all dealing with the different speaker positions relative to the listener AND, the tricky part, in compensating for crossover phase delays.
> Gerry


Yes, delay does affect the phase RELATIONSHIP thru crossover of two drive units, like a mid and a tweet. Andy W. and I (and others) have had very in depth discussions of this very topic on this forum. I think, if you can measure the acoustic phase, all the better. Which I can, and do. In a highly reflective automotive interior. Full range. With very high resolution. Using windowing. Frequency dependent windowing. But that's not the only measurement I take. It's a big mix of different measurements that get you to where you're going, and it's the proper implementation of a specific, step by step procedure that gets me where I'm going. Where I'm going is to optimizing systems in a time efficient manner, by optimize I means signal in = signal out. In the time and frequency domain.


----------



## Niick

pocket5s said:


> Those are drastic over simplifications. I can, and have, hit the same frequency response and achieved different results, mostly due to phase issues.
> 
> I know that you know that an accurate reproduction of the recording can't be achieved with an rta and some curve.
> 
> However that is the implication of your comment and those who do not yet understand that will be really frustrated when they measure some curve, listen to their vehicle then listen to another that was done by someone who knows what to listen for, says they did it mostly by ear and their system walks all over what the inexperienced did with a tape measure and an rta.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


. So, a tape measure and an RTA.....you don't really think that those are the tools of the trade do ya? Andy's example was one of professionals using tools that help them perfect their craft. In the field of audio and sound system optimization, a tape measure and an RTA is like a rusty spoon and a stick to a surgeon.


----------



## 14642

Of course my post is an oversimplification, but it was meant to suggest that purporting complexity that can't be simplified or personal taste that can't be qualified as an excuse to eschew basic acoustic measurement tools and the time and effort required to learn how to use them is not a good excuse for tuning by ear.


----------



## mclaren1885

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> Setting anything by ear is nuts.
> 
> But we tune by ear for 16 hours and claim to be artists. Give me a break.





Andy Wehmeyer said:


> Of course my post is an oversimplification, but it was meant to suggest that purporting complexity that can't be simplified or personal taste that can't be qualified as an excuse to eschew basic acoustic measurement tools and the time and effort required to learn how to use them is not a good excuse for tuning by ear.


Fortunately, we started to use RTA to tune all of our builds right from Day 1 (thanks to the wonderful posts by ErinH, Hanatsu, yourself Andy and many more). It gives you a fair idea of what is going on rather than tuning blindly by ear and expecting your ears to do a better job than scientific tools that are meant for that specific purpose! 

Just as you mentioned, lack of knowledge/unwillingness to use technology often translates to our peers in the field trying to tell everyone that measuring tools cannot replicate the "soul" or "tonal accuracy" in music and the "sound signature" should appeal to your ears and not to some House Curve/silly graph! While we prefer to use a mixture of both! 

The kind of resistance we continue to receive to promoting tuning setups with RTA or any other scientific method isn't even a joke! People claim that those with golden ears are the true artists who understand music and anyone who uses a mic and SW are just a bunch of tech savvy kids who just pretend to be doing something on laptops to swindle clients off their money. LOL.


----------



## Niick

mclaren1885, I'm with ya on that one. I feel that if you can present your clients with objective proof that their system (that they just paid thousands of dollars for) is faithfully reproducing the music as it is recorded, then that's worth more to most people than some guy claiming to have "golden ears"! Talk about snake oil!!

So on a slightly different note, I'm posting a link to to an article written by one of my personal heroes, mr Bob Mcarthy. This is what really got me to thinking that the phase trace could and should be used to delay align different drivers that cover different freq ranges but share a crossover. 

https://bobmccarthy.wordpress.com/2...-of-subs-why-i-dont-use-the-impulse-response/

In a car audio scenario however, one must be fully understanding the implications of doing so. I still think that for sub to midbass transition, this is the best way to be sure that your subs are at the proper delay setting relative to the upper freq range.


----------



## Kazuhiro

Once your rta scores are perfect and you still spend 16 hours tuning with your golden ears, well maybe they arent so golden after all..


----------



## sqnut

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> Tonal accuracy IS the frequency response measurement. If you hit your target and it doesn't sound right from a tonal perspective, then you don't have the right target.


The _right _ response for a given vehicle/install is unknown. House curves like the MS8 curve _are just a starting point_. Implement the house curve across cars/installs and you will get decent sounding cars, that still sound like a car. 

To get the car sounding like a proper 2ch you have to tweak all base curves by ear to get to the _right _response. There is no single curve that can be implemented across all cars/installs to get them all sounding like a 2ch.

Why is this so difficult to understand? Your sig at one point was something to the effect that you could count the number of great sounding cars on your fingers, chances are they were ALL tuned by ear after dialing in whatever base curve.

For any given car/install measure and apply whatever you think is the appropriate curve. Now give the car to someone who knows how to tune by ear, guys like KP, Scott Eldrige, my buddy Aarton or any folks at that level. I can guarantee they will have the car sounding *better* in 15 mts. How did they do it?

Remember the HK tool on how to listen? What is it doing? It's training your ears to listen to be able to tell if 500hz has been cut or raised by 0.5db now when you're in the car and tuning by ear you're listening and deciding what needs to be cut or raised. That HK tool is is training your ears to understand what a cut/boost at each frequency sounds like and hence what you need to correct. 

Once you've dialed in your base curve measure the response. Take a listen and if your ears tell you to raise 500 hz by 0.5 db, do it and you'll hear the difference. Vocals are clearer and your whole low end just came to life. Huge difference as you hear it. Now measure it again, do you even measure the difference? Beyond a point, the correlation between what you measure and how it sounds begins to tail off. 

You've been in the trade too long not to have come across folks who tune by ear. Like with everything else, some will be better at it than others and this is after discounting 90% of the internet jocks who claim tune by ear 'a bit'. A few people understand this and fewer still get really good at it. But to totally rubbish the concept seems like an un-scientific approach for you scientists. 

You're not going to optimize the sound in a car if you don't tune by ear, once you're done measuring, correcting and aligning to your hearts content. You never hit the 'best', it's always shades of better. With all folks who're good at this, no matter how good the sound, if you're really in the zone, you can make it better in 10 mts and this process is endless.


----------



## sqnut

Niick said:


> . So, a tape measure and an RTA.....you don't really think that those are the tools of the trade do ya? Andy's example was one of professionals using tools that help them perfect their craft. In the field of audio and sound system optimization, a tape measure and an RTA is like a rusty spoon and a stick to a surgeon.


No matter what tools and science you use, at the end of the day you're depending on the instruments to tell you if its sounding right. Why not train and use your ears? It's a great ride and you'll get further.


----------



## Babs

sqnut said:


> The _right _ response for a given vehicle/install is unknown. House curves like the MS8 curve _are just a starting point_. Implement the house curve across cars/installs and you will get decent sounding cars, that still sound like a car.
> 
> To get the car sounding like a proper 2ch you have to tweak all base curves by ear to get to the _right _response. There is no single curve that can be implemented across all cars/installs to get them all sounding like a 2ch.


Yep.. Hanatsu in one of his tuning threads calls it "balance" and it's as unique for each car and audio build as there are cars. 



sqnut said:


> For any given car/install measure and apply whatever you think is the appropriate curve. Now give the car to someone who knows how to tune by ear, guys like KP, Scott Eldrige, my buddy Aarton or any folks at that level. I can guarantee they will have the car sounding *better* in 15 mts. How did they do it?


I think it's a best practice for a mixture of tools, including the measurement mic, and the two great mic's attached to our heads. Each reaffirm and complement each other.



sqnut said:


> You're not going to optimize the sound in a car if you don't tune by ear, once you're done measuring, correcting and aligning to your hearts content. You never hit the 'best', it's always shades of better. With all folks who're good at this, no matter how good the sound, if you're really in the zone, you can make it better in 10 mts and this process is endless.


I imagine in an anechoic chamber, a person might dial in multiple drivers suspended in space at various distances with great results by an automated tool, but in a fish-bowl of a car surrounded by fabric, glass and plastic, there's simply too much going on hit perfection.. We're all really hoping to mess around in that 95% perfection zone aren't we. 

I'll tweak one little thing by ear in levels such as pulling back a tweet on one side then pulling both back .25-.5db and am astounded at what such a small increment does to improve.


----------



## lizardking

Don't some of the greatest musicians tune by ear? I've read and watched documentaries over the years to hear musicians that tune by ear.


----------



## Jepalan

sqnut said:


> The _right _ response for a given vehicle/install is unknown. House curves like the MS8 curve _are just a starting point_. Implement the house curve across cars/installs and you will get decent sounding cars, that still sound like a car.
> 
> To get the car sounding like a proper 2ch you have to tweak all base curves by ear to get to the _right _response. There is no single curve that can be implemented across all cars/installs to get them all sounding like a 2ch.
> 
> Why is this so difficult to understand? Your sig at one point was something to the effect that you could count the number of great sounding cars on your fingers, chances are they were ALL tuned by ear after dialing in whatever base curve.
> 
> For any given car/install measure and apply whatever you think is the appropriate curve. Now give the car to someone who knows how to tune by ear, guys like KP, Scott Eldrige, my buddy Aarton or any folks at that level. I can guarantee they will have the car sounding *better* in 15 mts. How did they do it?
> 
> Remember the HK tool on how to listen? What is it doing? It's training your ears to listen to be able to tell if 500hz has been cut or raised by 0.5db now when you're in the car and tuning by ear you're listening and deciding what needs to be cut or raised. That HK tool is is training your ears to understand what a cut/boost at each frequency sounds like and hence what you need to correct.
> 
> Once you've dialed in your base curve measure the response. Take a listen and if your ears tell you to raise 500 hz by 0.5 db, do it and you'll hear the difference. Vocals are clearer and your whole low end just came to life. Huge difference as you hear it. Now measure it again, do you even measure the difference? Beyond a point, the correlation between what you measure and how it sounds begins to tail off.
> 
> You've been in the trade too long not to have come across folks who tune by ear. Like with everything else, some will be better at it than others and this is after discounting 90% of the internet jocks who claim tune by ear 'a bit'. A few people understand this and fewer still get really good at it. But to totally rubbish the concept seems like an un-scientific approach for you scientists.
> 
> You're not going to optimize the sound in a car if you don't tune by ear, once you're done measuring, correcting and aligning to your hearts content. You never hit the 'best', it's always shades of better. With all folks who're good at this, no matter how good the sound, if you're really in the zone, you can make it better in 10 mts and this process is endless.


I'm not trying to take us down a rat-hole. I want to learn and have some serious questions - all variations on a theme:

1) You imply that different cars require different house curves (aka targets). If the freq/phase & impulse responses are measured *at the listening position* then what is it about a given car that requires a different target to be needed? i.e. What are the scientific principles at play that require the target to be different from car to car? 

2) In what way does the HK tool train ears to hear things that a scientific measuring tool cannot? What *exactly* can ears distinguish that tools can't?

3) How does an instrument based tune fail in a given car in such a way as to require an ear-based final tweak to "fix it"? i.e. if the tune actually required +0.5dB at 500Hz to "sound right" why did the instrument based tune miss this? What is it exactly about the car, or the instrument or the measurement technique that causes this to happen?

I can imagine an explanation for some of this, such as the measurement mic not being a perfect replication of how we hear (ITD, ILD, etc). But I am curious what others think.


----------



## pocket5s

Jepalan said:


> What do you mean by "phase issues", exactly?


An EQing experiment that turned out horribly  on the RTA it matched my baseline curve, but sounded nothing like it. The reasoning was, partially, the phase issues introduced due to the eqing I had done. 



Niick said:


> . So, a tape measure and an RTA.....you don't really think that those are the tools of the trade do ya? Andy's example was one of professionals using tools that help them perfect their craft. In the field of audio and sound system optimization, a tape measure and an RTA is like a rusty spoon and a stick to a surgeon.


I didn't say that now did I?

I don't use a tape measure anymore because I can do it by ear faster most of the time. Not to mention that TA is useful for more than just distance matching, as eluded to in other post. 

An RTA is a valuable tool, but it doesn't tell you everything about how it sounds. I know that, you know that, Andy and many others know that as well. But someone new to the hobby would see "tools" and "rta" and not know there are other, more advanced, tools out there. Or even more educational would be to say don't look at the end result of the RTA and think you have a winner because it looks like some other end result. 

Also educational is that you don't _have_ to use more advanced tools. The vast majority don't because they train their ears and know how to use the basic tools very well. There are TEF analyzers, polar response charts and kinds of other stuff that tell you lots of information, but they don't _have_ to be used to achieve great sounding system.


----------



## Jepalan

> Originally Posted by Jepalan
> What do you mean by "phase issues", exactly?





pocket5s said:


> An EQing experiment that turned out horribly  on the RTA it matched my baseline curve, but sounded nothing like it. The reasoning was, partially, the phase issues introduced due to the EQing I had done.


I'm not trying to be stubborn, but I still don't understand what you mean by "phase issues". The is a somewhat ambiguous term. How did you know you had "phase issues" and how did you fix said "phase issues"


----------



## pocket5s

Jepalan said:


> I'm not trying to be stubborn, but I still don't understand what you mean by "phase issues". The is a somewhat ambiguous term. How did you know you had "phase issues" and how did you fix said "phase issues"


I could tell by the way it sounded, even with my relatively inexperienced ears. It's hard to describe though. But even then only because I had a previous tune that allowed me to A/B the new one. I fixed it by removing that tune and going back to what I had


----------



## Babs

Jepalan said:


> I'm not trying to be stubborn, but I still don't understand what you mean by "phase issues". The is a somewhat ambiguous term. How did you know you had "phase issues" and how did you fix said "phase issues"


"Phase issues" typically mean where two drivers, let's say mids for example, when played together have destructive cancellations in freq response due to not being in perfect phase at the listening position. They might seem close as far as time alignment but not completely there, resulting in cancellations in some frequencies where they arrive in at or close to 180 degrees out. Or one might have a reflection that's strong at the listening position causing a cancellation (drop out) in response. While it occurs in all drivers from tweeters on down, because of longer wavelengths it is much more obvious the lower you go in frequency.

Fixed or rather "improved" by getting the timing right at the listening position either by time-alignment or phase adjustments at the processor, or by physical driver position in the car.

... Y'all correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## Niick

lizardking said:


> Don't some of the greatest musicians tune by ear? I've read and watched documentaries over the years to hear musicians that tune by ear.


ENTIRELY DIFFERENT. they have artistic freedom, they are creating the art. I (installer/system tuner) do not have artistic freedom. It is not up to me to decide how I like it. I want to hear what the artist intended for me to hear.


----------



## lizardking

I think there is something with a generic house curve vs. final tuning by ear. I noticed that when I tuned to the "generic house curve" that Han posted, I noticed some harshness that I had to tune out that changed my overall curve from the "generic house curve". That leads me to believe that a target curve is not going to be the same for everyone. That very well could be due to the fact that we hear differently from each other. What we hear vs. what we measure?


----------



## Niick

pocket5s said:


> The vast majority don't because they train their ears and know how to use the basic tools very well. There are TEF analyzers, polar response charts and kinds of other stuff that tell you lots of information, but they don't _have_ to be used to achieve great sounding system.


Ok, so I cannot speak for DIYers who have a serious passion for audio. I admire those of you who fit this description. For you, no, you don't HAVE to use advanced tools, you have all the time you want, you can do whatever you want.

However, as far as professional installers, the reality that I have witnessed since 1999 working in this business from Tulsa, OK to Dallas, TX to Corvallis, Salem, and Portland, OR, is that 99% of installers don't know or care about how to tune systems. They think it's a "pain in the ass". And I've said this before, but they'd rather build a volcano shaped enclosure out of fiberglass than put in the work to understand how it all works. Because they don't have the passion to. 

For me, once I really started to tune systems, I found that I WANTED more and more advanced tools, because my understanding was limited to what I could experience. I could theorize all day, but once I started to be able to measure these things I had always read about, but never REALLY understood, my knowledge expanded exponentially. There is a reason that the most highly regarded speakers (home for example) in the world have designers who use measurement equipment before shipping a speaker out the door to a customer. 
Take YG Acoustics, Yaov Geva doesn't design and test his speakers exclusively "by ear", that would be insane for a $100,00+ dollar speaker.

If I'm gonna perform a service for a customer, I'm gonna make damn sure that I have accurate, measure able, repeatable results. That means using, PROPERLY using measurement eqiipment. The measurement equipment I use, can use music as the excitation signal, so tuning is SIMULTANEOUSLY by ear AND analyzer........


----------



## Beckerson1

To many people forget to easily that in the END, it's up to the individual as to how they like things to sound. The process in which to get there varies as we can ALL agree on and there is no Set ONE way to do things. 

For example I demo'd some great cars this past weekend and even though they sounded great (staging, ect...) I can tell you some of them I didn't really like the balance (entire freq range) of the sound. That just comes down to what I like personally. A lot of that has come from being in band while in school. 

Take a piano tuner for example. Every tuner will have there own unique sound (or tune). The same can be said about today's Artists. It's funny when people say they tune to what the artist intended the sound to be (even though every artist has there own style which would mean you would have to tune based on every artists work you own), but without the artist physically there telling you how they wanted you to hear it, its impossible to accurately determine how they wanted you to hear it. It all comes down to the two little protrusions from your head and how you like the balance of the system. 

Now on topic to the title of the thread tuning TA by ear isn't something I could ever do but I can't say someone with enough practice would pick up on discrepancies and adjust from there.


----------



## Jepalan

Babs said:


> "Phase issues" typically mean where two drivers, let's say mids for example, when played together have destructive cancellations in freq response due to not being in perfect phase at the listening position. They might seem close as far as time alignment but not completely there, resulting in cancellations in some frequencies where they arrive in at or close to 180 degrees out. Or one might have a reflection that's strong at the listening position causing a cancellation (drop out) in response. While it occurs in all drivers from tweeters on down, because of longer wavelengths it is much more obvious the lower you go in frequency.
> 
> Fixed or rather "improved" by getting the timing right at the listening position either by time-alignment or phase adjustments at the processor, or by physical driver position in the car.


Thanks Babs - Yes, I understand what "phase issues" generally means. I was trying to understand pocket5's specific case since I think he was claiming his instrument based tune resulted in "phase issues" he could only fix "by ear". As it turns out from his answer, it meant that it 'sounded bad' so he reset everything back to 'the way it was before'. This is hardly the nuanced ear-tuning process SQnut describes and touts and now I've lost interest in that line of questioning 

I am more interested in testing SQnut's assertions now 

Modal effects, comb filtering and such are very difficult or impossible to treat electronically, even with advanced processing, so I don't see what advantage ear-tuning brings here, but maybe this is where the "art" of ear-tuning claims superiority?

"Phase issues" can also mean different driver types (woof, midbass) combining in bad ways in the narrow crossover region where they are playing the same signal - this is far easier to identify and faster to fix with instruments IMO.


----------



## Jepalan

Sorry for thread-jacking. 

I should probably start a thread in the Myths section titled "Tuning by ear is the only way to achieve an optimal install."


----------



## Niick

Beckerson1 said:


> To many people forget to easily that in the END, it's up to the individual as to how they like things to sound. The process in which to get there varies as we can ALL agree on and there is no Set ONE way to do things.
> 
> For example I demo'd some great cars this past weekend and even though they sounded great (staging, ect...) I can tell you some of them I didn't really like the balance (entire freq range) of the sound. That just comes down to what I like personally. A lot of that has come from being in band while in school.
> 
> Take a piano tuner for example. Every tuner will have there own unique sound (or tune). The same can be said about today's Artists. It's funny when people say they tune to what the artist intended the sound to be (even though every artist has there own style which would mean you would have to tune based on every artists work you own), but without the artist physically there telling you how they wanted you to hear it, its impossible to accurately determine how they wanted you to hear it. It all comes down to the two little protrusions from your head and how you like the balance of the system.
> 
> Now on topic to the title of the thread tuning TA by ear isn't something I could ever do but I can't say someone with enough practice would pick up on discrepancies and adjust from there.


By "what the artist intend for me to hear" I'm referring to the theory that signal in should equal signal out, no more, no less, that's not "funny" at all. It's physics.


----------



## Niick

So, with good recordings at least, the engineer(s)used monitors to mix and or master the album. I'm sure they'd be happy to hear you were playing that album back on a speaker system that was linear in freq. and time response. So, for example, if the artist didn't release the album with the bass range at 40dB above the rest, then maybe, just maybe, that because they didn't INTEND for it to BE 40 dB above the rest. But maybe not, maybe they really made the album thinking "hmm, now how will this sound when played on a system that emphasizes one freq range more than the other, and how will it sound on a system that has one freq range arriving in time differently than the rest?"

(Actually, the "loudness wars" is all about this very scenario, people listening on earbuds and such. Sad, sad, sad"


----------



## lizardking

I would like to see the perfect tonal accuracy curve that is the reference for all. A curve that is published and the standard for all to follow in car audio. A curve that is not disputed, but written about scientifically with proven techniques that have been certified as the standard.


----------



## Beckerson1

Niick said:


> By "what the artist intend for me to hear" I'm referring to the theory that signal in should equal signal out, no more, no less, that's not "funny" at all. It's physics.


Then why not say that? 



Niick said:


> So, with good recordings at least, the engineer(s)used monitors to mix and or master the album. I'm sure they'd be happy to hear you were playing that album back on a speaker system that was linear in freq. and time response. So, for example, if the artist didn't release the album with the bass range at 40dB above the rest, then maybe, just maybe, that because they didn't INTEND for it to BE 40 dB above the rest. But maybe not, maybe they really made the album thinking "hmm, now how will this sound when played on a system that emphasizes one freq range more than the other, and how will it sound on a system that has one freq range arriving in time differently than the rest?"
> 
> (Actually, the "loudness wars" is all about this very scenario, people listening on earbuds and such. Sad, sad, sad"


It is


----------



## Niick

lizardking said:


> I would like to see the perfect tonal accuracy curve that is the reference for all. A curve that is published and the standard for all to follow in car audio. A curve that is not disputed, but written about scientifically with proven techniques that have been certified as the standard.


lizardking, That is an interesting concept, you mean like the THX cinema X curve?

What I do, and I haven't had any complaints yet, is follow a step by step procedure, each step is of course TOTALLY dependent on many factors, and it takes a human being performing these steps carefully, and with an understanding of the scenario that I don't think can be fully successfully automated (at least not yet anyways), which is why auto EQ is still not a perfect solution in all scenarios. 

Anyways, what I'm going for is a smooth transition thru each crossover range with no severe phase induced cancellation, no abrupt changes in amplitude from one freq. to the next, and an understanding of how the system is going to be used, if it's going to be played loudly, or really loudly, and with what kind of music, also, I try beforehand get to know the customers likes and dislikes, do they have a home system, do they have any favorite recordings we can use as a reference, stuff like that. It is with this outlook that I approach the scenario, and finally when tuning I try to balance all the realities of the imperfection that is reproduced music in cars, with an "ideal scenario" type of theoretical perfection. It's never reached, but you have to learn what's important to try to fix, and what isn't. With a high enough resolution, ANY loudspeaker system in ANY environment will have imperfections. 

Successful system tuning FOR CUSTOMERS involves a very complex mix of different things, and in the end every system ends up a little different than the last. It takes an experienced tech to know when enough is enough, when it's as good as it's gonna get. And I truly believe that ANY given system does have a point where the available parameters for adjustment have been optimized, and by optimized I mean what goes into the system in the electrical domain, comes out at the listening position in the acoustical domain, with as little deviation from 1:1 as possible. And that ya gotta know when to recognize this point, and when any further messing about will only degrade the final product. 

The application of the science is in itself an art. And one last thing here, I keep reading many people refer to an RTA in the tools vs. ears debate. The types of tools I use, are so far beyond what an RTA is capable of, that it really isn't the same thing at all. I mean not at all. And I know (hope) that I'm not the only installer who uses tools like mine. The rest of the audio industry does, and despite what some people will try to tell you, just because it's in a car DOES NOT mean that all of a sudden were no longer dealing with moving coil/diaphragm transducers, filters, amplifiers, etc. cars have more early reflections, yes. Ok, we'll deal with that in the best way that our budget/time/customers desires will allow. It seems that too often I've heard things like, "but in a car it's different", some things are, must most things aren't.


----------



## Jepalan

Niick said:


> By "what the artist intend for me to hear" I'm referring to the theory that *signal in should equal signal out*, no more, no less, that's not "funny" at all. It's physics.


By 'signal' do you mean electronic, or 'acoustical at the listening position'?
And if 'acoustical at the listening position', what is the input reference? Engineer's perspective sitting in front of studio monitors at the mixing console? Audience member listening from center seat 10 rows back? 

See. It is never as simple as we think.


----------



## Niick

well, if "audience center seat 10 rows back" was the perspective of the original recording, then yes, that's the goal. If the perspective of the next cd the customer chooses to play was artificially created by a recording engineer at his mixing desk, then while that song is playing, that's the new perspective. I believe it is that simple. It's imperfect, yes, but it is that simple. I believe, IF WE ARE TALKING ABOUT 2 ch stereo, then, ideally, one should have a reference system at home, one should have recordings that they're intimitely familiar with, and one should try to achieve the same soundstage width, depth, focus, etc. in the car that they achieve on their reference home system. My home system is modest, but good. The perspective of the listener becomes that which was recorded. It changes from song to song.


----------



## Niick

Here's another perspective, if I try to sell you an amplifier that has uneven frequency response, varying by +/- 20 dB from 20-20k, it has a "feature" that induces massive group delay, stuff like that......nobody would think, "hey, what a great sounding amplifier", no, people want to know that their amplifiers are as linear, flat, and time coherent as possible. It's a measureable thing. That's why there are specifications for amplifiers. But, like Andy W. has said earlier, when it comes to speakers, everybody all of a sudden has artistic freedom to "re-master" the recordings by making changes to the linearity (time and freq. domain) of their system. They're just not making these changes in the electrical domain, they're making them in the acoustical domain. Why? "Because the car has reflections" ? So. That's an ugly fact of life. We deal with them the best we can. Tools help us deal with them (and understand them)best.


----------



## sqnut

Jepalan said:


> I'm not trying to take us down a rat-hole. I want





Jepalan said:


> This is hardly the nuanced ear-tuning process SQnut describes and touts and now I've lost interest in that line of questioning
> 
> I am more interested in testing SQnut's assertions now





Jepalan said:


> Sorry for thread-jacking.
> 
> I should probably start a thread in the Myths section titled "Tuning by ear is the only way to achieve an optimal tune."


Looks like you had a bit of a meltdown.


----------



## Niick

sqnut said:


> No matter what tools and science you use, at the end of the day you're depending on the instruments to tell you if its sounding right. Why not train and use your ears? It's a great ride and you'll get further.


Sqnut, I was interested in this that you stated earlier. I was wondering if you had ever used or heard of 2ch FFT real time transfer function type analysis systems like Smaart7, SatLive, SysTune, SpectraFoo, SIM3 (don't know why they mostly all start with S?) 

The reason I ask, is because these types of measurement systems are SOURCE INDEPENDENT. (Hence the name of Meyer Sound's SIM system. Source Independent Measurement)

Source independent means that they can use ANY type of excitation signal, so long as it has energy in the frequency range of interest. Meaning, with these, you can and sometimes should use music as your test signal. This brings a whole new dimension to the "by ear or analyzer" debate.

With these types of measurement systems, you can simultaneously use your ears AND your analysis to tune, and eventually you'll learn to correlate the analysis results with what you hear. The more senses you can involve in system calibration, the better. Don't ya think?


----------



## Jepalan

sqnut said:


> Looks like you had a bit of a meltdown.


No, not at all. I am interested in starting an intelligent conversation about tuning by ear. I simply realized this thread was probably not the best place to do that.

I have followed many of your attempts to guide other's remotely via REW graphs they posted in other threads. I simply do not see the same queues in those plots that you do. I would love to learn more about your thought process.

You speak highly of tuning by ear, yet also seem quite confident tuning by instrument, and clearly have far more experience at this than I do.

I admit I see things through 'science colored glasses' but that doesn't mean I can't learn from other approaches and perspectives.


----------



## 14642

Wow, this has turned into something similar to bringing a snowball to the floor of congress to dispute climate change.

No one is going to certify a freaking curve--because there's no one to certify a freaking curve. Second, the idea that all you have to do is line up the 31 dots and everything sounds good and if it doesn't then there's no scientific basis for using the tool is complete crap. Third, tuning a guitar by ear is not the same as tuning a car audio system by ear, despite the fact that the same word is used. Fourth, Yes, there is some variation in target curve based on the differences in various cars, various speaker systems and various measurement techniques, but that doesn't mean that there can be no objective guideposts to use in tuning.

I'm really amused that when something doesn't work out, the OBVIOUS problem are those mythical gremlins--phase issues. 

I'm also amused that despite car audio being nearly 50 years old, we're still taking cues from designers of home audio speakers as if they are gospel in tuning car audio systems.


----------



## Niick

Andy, I think that possibly the reason for the two very distinct opinions in this regard is that there are two very distinct perspective.

One perspective, is that of the DIYer, who is very passionate about audio, and who has basically unlimited time with which to fiddle with his/her system. This perspective in all honesty probably belongs here more so than the perspective that I share. This is after all "DIYmobileAudio". 

The other perspective, is that time is SEVERLY limited, and one must make the best possible use of the little time we're given. Therefore, scientific instrumentation is the ONLY logical choice. And even then, we still LISTEN to the system, if something doesn't sound right, it's because you didn't measure the right thing, or don't understand how to. Which is fine, if you've got all the time you want, and you're not charging people money, then who cares! Do what you want. Tune it by ear. You can eventually get there. 

But if you're charging people money in a professional capacity, that is an entirely different story. And for those of you out there who think that a 1/3 octave RTA, like the AudioControl SA305x is the tool that belongs in the "analyzer vs. ears" debate, it isn't. It was, at one time, a pretty advanced piece of equipment, and a lot of car audio shops have them simply because that's what they know of when it comes to acoustic analysis, because that's all they've ever been exposed to because either they're AudioControl dealers, or they've know other who are and that's what they've seen at events and such. 

But honestly, a lot, and I mean ALOT of shop owners and installers alike think, "yeah, but that thing is like $1200 dollars". Let me tell ya, if they don't like the cost of that, they're really not gonna like the cost of a modern analysis rig. The software alone is close to $1000. Then you need mics, interface(s), a computer, etc. 

So yeah, I think you can get a system sounding awesome by ear, the question is SHOULD you. Not if you're a professional installer, no, you shouldn't. 

Finally, the last time I talked to our AudioControl rep about getting an iAudioInterface2 for my AudioTools for iOS rig, he called his connect at AudioControl, and they said that the iAudioInterface is slated to take the place of the old, ubiquitous SA-305x. With the iAudioInterface and an iPad running AudioTools, you can do WAY, WAY, WAY more than you could ever do with the SA-305x, way higher resolution, way more accurate, etc.


----------



## lizardking

Niick said:


> Andy, I think that possibly the reason for the two very distinct opinions in this regard is that there are two very distinct perspective.
> 
> One perspective, is that of the DIYer, who is very passionate about audio, and who has basically unlimited time with which to fiddle with his/her system. This perspective in all honesty probably belongs here more so than the perspective that I share. This is after all "DIYmobileAudio".
> 
> The other perspective, is that time is SEVERLY limited, and one must make the best possible use of the little time we're given. Therefore, scientific instrumentation is the ONLY logical choice. And even then, we still LISTEN to the system, if something doesn't sound right, it's because you didn't measure the right thing, or don't understand how to. Which is fine, if you've got all the time you want, and you're not charging people money, then who cares! Do what you want. Tune it by ear. You can eventually get there.
> 
> But if you're charging people money in a professional capacity, that is an entirely different story. And for those of you out there who think that a 1/3 octave RTA, like the AudioControl SA305x is the tool that belongs in the "analyzer vs. ears" debate, it isn't. It was, at one time, a pretty advanced piece of equipment, and a lot of car audio shops have them simply because that's what they know of when it comes to acoustic analysis, because that's all they've ever been exposed to because either they're AudioControl dealers, or they've know other who are and that's what they've seen at events and such.
> 
> But honestly, a lot, and I mean ALOT of shop owners and installers alike think, "yeah, but that thing is like $1200 dollars". Let me tell ya, if they don't like the cost of that, they're really not gonna like the cost of a modern analysis rig. The software alone is close to $1000. Then you need mics, interface(s), a computer, etc.
> 
> So yeah, I think you can get a system sounding awesome by ear, the question is SHOULD you. Not if you're a professional installer, no, you shouldn't.
> 
> Finally, the last time I talked to our AudioControl rep about getting an iAudioInterface2 for my AudioTools for iOS rig, he called his connect at AudioControl, and they said that the iAudioInterface is slated to take the place of the old, ubiquitous SA-305x. With the iAudioInterface and an iPad running AudioTools, you can do WAY, WAY, WAY more than you could ever do with the SA-305x, way higher resolution, way more accurate, etc.




I believe that measuring will get you close, but depending how you hear, the finish touches will be done by ear for some. People hear things differently, that is fact. There is no perfect curve and never will be in car audio. Doesn't exist, just like the Boogeyman, Easter Bunny and GOD.


----------



## Niick

lizardking said:


> I believe that measuring will get you close, but depending how you hear, the finish touches will be done by ear for some. People hear things differently, that is fact. There is no perfect curve and never will be in car audio. Doesn't exist, just like the Boogeyman, Easter Bunny and GOD.


"Perfect curve"?? Not meaning to sound like a smart ass, because I actually don't disagree with you, but what's this obsession with a pre-determined, or post-tuning arrived at curve all about? 

What I think of when I read/hear someone refer to a curve, is like the classic "higher in the bass, flat thru the midrange, then gently sloping down at the high end" RTA readout that everyone used to think was a good "target curve" to shoot for when the AudioControl 1/3 octave RTA was all over the scene. 

If this is what you're meaning too, I can't help but be confused by this, as any "curve" like that is a VERY one-dimensional reading. Especially on an RTA. You could have two different systems with the exact same RTA reading and they could sound NOTHING alike. 

Amplitude vs. freq. (especially in time-blind spectrum mode, like an RTA) is only one (very, very small part) small part of a multidimensional measurement process. It's such an insignificantly small part of the process that I rarely EVER use RTA type spectrum measurements other than in the electrical domain.


----------



## lizardking

Who knows? I believe the overall consensus seems to be a downward slope. I don't think anyone nowadays uses the Audiocontrol curve.


----------



## Jepalan

I stumbled upon the perfect tuning method last night:

1) Wait until the air temperature is between 70 and 73 degree F
2) Park the car in the garage
3) Turn off all the lights and sit naked in the driver's seat.
4) DO NOT START THE CAR. DO NOT TURN ON ANY AUDIO EQUIPMENT.
5) In fact, make sure your keys are completely out of reach
6) Close your eyes and think happy thoughts. 
7) Visualize a 128-band graphic equalizer hovering 2 feet in front of your nose along a line between between your forehead and the front passenger-side tire.
8) Snap your fingers and listen VERY carefully to the car's reaction.
9) Repeat
10) Inhale slowly. As you exhale open your eyes and you will "see" the sliders on the EQ move into their "natural" resting positions.
11) Grab the pen and notebook you placed on the passenger seat in step 1 and draw a picture of the EQ for later reference.


----------



## Babs

Win!


Sent from iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Babs

I will say after much measuring and thinking I was on, I've tweaked right-side TA slightly like just a few clicks in Helix's .02ms increments totally by ear, by left to right snare track, by other trick tools from tuning tracks, by one guy counting panned center, and by center vocals music. And tweaked tweeter/midbass levels and verified sub phase, again by ear with a few discerning 80-100hz tones and Kate Davis' standup bass. While keeping my distance measurements in mind, my REW measured individual and paired driver EQ intact I am now jamming the best tune my car has ever had. It's a mix of actual measurement tools and ear techniques. 

My "house curve" I've not measured yet but in this build and this car its balanced and centered and coherent, best I can tell. In this long process it's been a good calibration for my ears I think. 

The scary part about this arduous process.. It's just a simple 2-way front stage. I can only imagine how much fun adding and extra set of mids would complicate it. 










By the way... Highly recommended as probably one of the best jazz recordings and awesome talent. She's eat up with talent. One of those "smooth and groovy" 3-piece jazz recordings that makes you want to crank it. 

Sent from iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Jepalan

Thank you for sharing Kate. Amazing.
:2thumbsup:


----------



## Babs

Jepalan said:


> Thank you for sharing Kate. Amazing.
> 
> :2thumbsup:



Yeah. That album as killer. Enjoy


Sent from iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 14642

Niick said:


> Andy, I think that possibly the reason for the two very distinct opinions in this regard is that there are two very distinct perspective.
> 
> One perspective, is that of the DIYer, who is very passionate about audio, and who has basically unlimited time with which to fiddle with his/her system. This perspective in all honesty probably belongs here more so than the perspective that I share. This is after all "DIYmobileAudio".
> 
> The other perspective, is that time is SEVERLY limited, and one must make the best possible use of the little time we're given. Therefore, scientific instrumentation is the ONLY logical choice. And even then, we still LISTEN to the system, if something doesn't sound right, it's because you didn't measure the right thing, or don't understand how to. Which is fine, if you've got all the time you want, and you're not charging people money, then who cares! Do what you want. Tune it by ear. You can eventually get there.
> 
> But if you're charging people money in a professional capacity, that is an entirely different story. And for those of you out there who think that a 1/3 octave RTA, like the AudioControl SA305x is the tool that belongs in the "analyzer vs. ears" debate, it isn't. It was, at one time, a pretty advanced piece of equipment, and a lot of car audio shops have them simply because that's what they know of when it comes to acoustic analysis, because that's all they've ever been exposed to because either they're AudioControl dealers, or they've know other who are and that's what they've seen at events and such.
> 
> But honestly, a lot, and I mean ALOT of shop owners and installers alike think, "yeah, but that thing is like $1200 dollars". Let me tell ya, if they don't like the cost of that, they're really not gonna like the cost of a modern analysis rig. The software alone is close to $1000. Then you need mics, interface(s), a computer, etc.
> 
> So yeah, I think you can get a system sounding awesome by ear, the question is SHOULD you. Not if you're a professional installer, no, you shouldn't.
> 
> Finally, the last time I talked to our AudioControl rep about getting an iAudioInterface2 for my AudioTools for iOS rig, he called his connect at AudioControl, and they said that the iAudioInterface is slated to take the place of the old, ubiquitous SA-305x. With the iAudioInterface and an iPad running AudioTools, you can do WAY, WAY, WAY more than you could ever do with the SA-305x, way higher resolution, way more accurate, etc.


I agree that there's a difference between the needs of a hobbyist and those of a professional--repeatability and predictability, mostly. 

Of course an RTA doesn't display everything. It represents level and frequency. That's it. Certainly there's more and there are ways to measure more. You use them. 

My argument is simply that this is not mystical. It CAN be understood. Many of the people who have worked at understanding it have provided the benefit of their experience in a form that makes learning it more efficient. 

Identifying the ingredients in a pizza and the process by which one is created can be mystical (It's the New York water) or scientific (one could describe the molecular structure and the transition involved in the heating process). 

It isn't the New York water.


----------



## Niick

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> I agree that there's a difference between the needs of a hobbyist and those of a professional--repeatability and predictability, mostly.
> 
> Of course an RTA doesn't display everything. It represents level and frequency. That's it. Certainly there's more and there are ways to measure more. You use them.
> 
> My argument is simply that this is not mystical. It CAN be understood. Many of the people who have worked at understanding it have provided the benefit of their experience in a form that makes learning it more efficient.
> 
> Identifying the ingredients in a pizza and the process by which one is created can be mystical (It's the New York water) or scientific (one could describe the molecular structure and the transition involved in the heating process).
> 
> It isn't the New York water.


Totally, in light of what you said regarding the "mystical phase issues" or something to that effect, which was funny. Good one.  

from the SysTune Pro manual:

"Tech-Note:
Because phase is so sensitive to small changes of the included delay time, it has long been considered as a side product only understood by a few enlightened people. But to be clear, phase itself is no mystery but just another simple number we can measure.
Like the magnitude, it is calculated from the real and imaginary part of the complex transfer function. Normally, phase data points are understood as points on a circle. They can only take values between 0 and 360 degrees, or –180 and +180 degrees if you like. Once computed, we can use phase to look at the transfer function in yet another way. Display options like unwrapping make the phase plots even more usable in practice."


----------



## sqnut

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> Wow, this has turned into something similar to bringing a snowball to the floor of congress to dispute climate change.


That's why I stepped away



Andy Wehmeyer said:


> No one is going to certify a freaking curve--because there's no one to certify a freaking curve. Second, the idea that all you have to do is line up the 31 dots and everything sounds good and if it doesn't then there's no scientific basis for using the tool is complete crap. Third, tuning a guitar by ear is not the same as tuning a car audio system by ear, despite the fact that the same word is used. Fourth, Yes, there is some variation in target curve based on the differences in various cars, various speaker systems and various measurement techniques, but that doesn't mean that there can be no objective guideposts to use in tuning.


We make tuning into rocket science which it is not. At the end of the day we only have control over timing and response and we need to use them together to tune the car. Objective guideposts like a good base curve and measurements to get everything in the ball park are a must. For 99% this is good enough while the 1% extreme hobbyists can take the sound closer to a home 2ch, but its a long and steep learning curve.



Andy Wehmeyer said:


> I'm really amused that when something doesn't work out, the OBVIOUS problem are those mythical gremlins--phase issues.


Phase coherence in a car is nothing more than correct timing between drivers, 4th order slopes all round and response smoothing (for the lack of a better term) around the xover point. 



Andy Wehmeyer said:


> I'm also amused that despite car audio being nearly 50 years old, we're still taking cues from designers of home audio speakers as if they are gospel in tuning car audio systems.


Pro Audio experts and 2 ch audiophiles will never have good sounding cars . It's funny when these experts tout their knowledge and experience in an environment that is totally different to the one in a car. Most of them look down on car audio anyways.


----------



## Beckerson1

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> Wow, this has turned into something similar to bringing a snowball to the floor of congress to dispute climate change.
> 
> No one is going to certify a freaking curve--because there's no one to certify a freaking curve. Second, the idea that all you have to do is line up the 31 dots and everything sounds good and if it doesn't then there's no scientific basis for using the tool is complete crap. Third, tuning a guitar by ear is not the same as tuning a car audio system by ear, despite the fact that the same word is used. Fourth, Yes, there is some variation in target curve based on the differences in various cars, various speaker systems and various measurement techniques, *but that doesn't mean that there can be no objective guideposts to use in tuning.
> *
> I'm really amused that when something doesn't work out, the OBVIOUS problem are those mythical gremlins--phase issues.
> 
> I'm also amused that despite car audio being nearly 50 years old, we're still taking cues from designers of home audio speakers as if they are gospel in tuning car audio systems.


I cant agree more BUT with the bold statement above the issue comes into play when people o various opinions come together and argue about one way vs another way is were things start to fail. Yes there are efficient ways to do things, and a ton of varying steps to get from point A to B, there are less efficient and (budget friendly) ways to do things. There is tuning a system for circuit judging (MECA, ect...), tuning for listening enjoyment, and so on. 

In the end it all comes down to what the end user hears in the end. That of course isn't the argument here. The argument is over a opinion. All this arguing is going to end up confusing more people then not.


----------



## Niick

sqnut said:


> Pro Audio experts and 2 ch audiophiles will never have good sounding cars . It's funny when these experts tout their knowledge and experience in an environment that is totally different to the one in a car. Most of them look down on car audio anyways.


Talk about confusing people. Dude, come on man, really. TOTALLY different!? 

Is it not acoustic energy propagating thru air? Is it not being generated by moving coil loudspeakers(most of the time), who have inductive and capacitive reactance, who are themselves band pass filters of sorts? Are these transducers not being driven by, and filtered thru passive and active electronics? 

Come on!

So the environment is more reflective, ok, we'll take that into consideration and learn how that affects what we hear. 

So the loudspeakers are closer to the listener, ok too, in fact, maybe this is a good thing since we're in such a reflective environment. 

The listener is in a fixed position-ok, cool, so my choice of compromises will reflect that. 

How can you speak for MOST of the home OR Pro Sound community? Of the people I've communicated with, known, met, over the years, a vast majority of them are audio nuts NO MATTER the venue. Someone who looks down on others IN THE SAME general field as them, because they don't do the same day to day specifics, isn't a real audio enthusiast anyway, so who cares what they think. If you met some ass hole from the home or pro sound community who in some way "had his nose in the air" regarding car audio, f**ck em! Who cares what they think! 

There is a lot to learn from all fields, all professions, all hobbies, all passions. ALOT.


----------



## sqnut

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> It isn't the New York water.


No it isn't. New York water is amp sq.


----------



## sqnut

Niick said:


> Talk about confusing people. Dude, come on man, really. TOTALLY different!?


Yes, totally and the comment was made tongue in cheek. Why does it get your back up?


----------



## Niick

sqnut said:


> Yes, totally and the comment was made tongue in cheek. Why does it get your back up?


Same reason I don't like texting people. You can never tell what they're really meaning because of the lack of tone/inflection. 

So, it wasn't until I started to take a look at the pro-sound industry, the types of tools they use, the forums, the papers and articles, that my own career in car audio took a turn for the better. 

If I had only stuck with the knowledge gained from my own experience in the car audio world alone, and if I had only used the knowledge gained from people whom I've met in the car audio industry alone, I wouldn't be anywhere near where I am now in my understanding of how it all works. Also, I wouldn't have the outlook on my future in this business that I have now.

I feel like if there is someone reading who is maybe kinda new at this stuff, and they get the idea that they should discount all knowledge/information that they happen across that isn't DIRECTLY car audio related, then I just feel like they're cutting themselves short of ALOT of useable ****. Ya know?


----------



## sqnut

Niick said:


> Same reason I don't like texting people. You can never tell what they're really meaning because of the lack of tone/inflection.


Well, I did use a smiley. 



Niick said:


> So, it wasn't until I started to take a look at the pro-sound industry, the types of tools they use, the forums, the papers and articles, that my own career in car audio took a turn for the better.
> 
> If I had only stuck with the knowledge gained from my own experience in the car audio world alone, and if I had only used the knowledge gained from people whom I've met in the car audio industry alone, I wouldn't be anywhere near where I am now in my understanding of how it all works. Also, I wouldn't have the outlook on my future in this business that I have now.
> 
> I feel like if there is someone reading who is maybe kinda new at this stuff, and they get the idea that they should discount all knowledge/information that they happen across that isn't DIRECTLY car audio related, then I just feel like they're cutting themselves short of ALOT of useable ****. Ya know?


I am not questioning or running down your pro audio knowledge, in fact it's an area I don't know much about and of course you'll learn much more about pro audio by interacting with people from that field and so on. 

But this is a car audio forum and the audio enthusiast who comes to learn should be taught from the perspective of a car audio environment. Over the years we have had several audio gurus from both the pro audio and home 2ch domains try and copy paste knowledge and skills and it doesn't always work that way. 

Car audio still doesn't have an identity of its own that is what Andy was saying. But it's a catch 22. Imagine if companies used in car, ear level response to sell speakers instead of the IB measurements. The marketing folks would have a heart attack.


----------



## cajunner

seems like the debate over phase is a quest for a processor that actually corrects phase.

and if that's true, then the APL-1 looks at hundreds of measurements, mapping the acoustics of a space.

when it applies a correction it's throwing all of the previous methods into the kitchen sink, and a magical return happens, where it is New York city water after all...


haha..

I will be surprised when the APL-1 is found out as a gimmick device and does nothing to phase, or anything else...

but if it could, wouldn't it's use supersede every other rascally rabbit like RTA's and FFT's, and EKG's...


----------



## Babs

So, I messed with AudioTools' "Delay Finder" app briefly... Nope. Not enough resolution for car use.. For large halls etc where a 10th of a foot resolution is adequate, it's an ok tool I guess. 

Willing to test others, but can't spring for the AudioTools add-ons anytime soon. Maybe attempt IR in REW. I have an IMM-6 now which has a mini-jack output so that might actually work for a feedback loop into the laptop. ? No external interface at present so, might give it a try. I use the UMM-6 via USB for FR measuring anyway.

I can confirm this though... Using just sheer distance measuring (left drivers to left ear, right drivers to right ear), I've found once I'm aligned on each side, deviating one side verses the other (grouped in the helix), I typically end up by ear darn near or right at the measurement delays from the tracerite site.. So this certainly validates the calculator on Erin's site. Hard to beat cold hard math.


----------



## cajunner

Babs said:


> So, I messed with AudioTools' "Delay Finder" app briefly... Nope. Not enough resolution for car use.. For large halls etc where a 10th of a foot resolution is adequate, it's an ok tool I guess.
> 
> Willing to test others, but can't spring for the AudioTools add-ons anytime soon. Maybe attempt IR in REW. I have an IMM-6 now which has a mini-jack output so that might actually work for a feedback loop into the laptop. ? No external interface at present so, might give it a try. I use the UMM-6 via USB for FR measuring anyway.
> 
> I can confirm this though... Using just sheer distance measuring (left drivers to left ear, right drivers to right ear), I've found once I'm aligned on each side, deviating one side verses the other (grouped in the helix), I typically end up by ear darn near or right at the measurement delays from the tracerite site.. So this certainly validates the calculator on Erin's site. Hard to beat cold hard math.


The BORG.

because, SCIENCE!


hahahah..


----------



## Babs

Yeah.. See I read more and realize I just thought (as a newb to this business) I had it figured out, then you guys throw in phase shift crap going on at the crossovers. Well f***! That's just peachy!

You know who caused all this acoustic difficulty don't you? One guess!


----------



## Brian_smith06

so I used this today on my car over break and I have to say it worked pretty damn well. My sound stage is finally pretty center(still likes to shift left a hair) and the depth now extend out past my windshield at times. I had to tweak it a hair but was a great guide!


----------



## Babs

Brian_smith06 said:


> so I used this today on my car over break and I have to say it worked pretty damn well. My sound stage is finally pretty center(still likes to shift left a hair) and the depth now extend out past my windshield at times. I had to tweak it a hair but was a great guide!


I observed when I fixed my TA my image is a tad left-heavy. When TA was off, I had the levels dead equal, compensating in error. Now the TA is correct, so rightly I should probably be dialed back just a bit on the left tweeter (being closer). This will undoubtedly shift center image to the right a bit.

But yes fellows, you can bet I'll take measurements and verify leftstage to rightstage graphs at ear to verify this.. I'll bet it should be slightly hot on left by maybe 1/2 a db or so.

But again, that's a "global" assumption as well.. 1/3 octave noise tests will tell me if stage creeps left/right up through the whole range.

So after re-doing TA, I've a good mind to break out the mic, reset EQ all around and start again. Yay!!  (Ah it's fun). Keeps getting better each time so what the heck.


----------



## val69

I haven't been able to access the site to input my measurement the last two days. Has anybody experienced this?


----------



## thefordmccord

Yeah, looks like the site is dead.


----------



## val69

DANG!!!

Do you know of something similar to the site?


----------



## Babs

thefordmccord said:


> Yeah, looks like the site is dead.





val69 said:


> DANG!!!
> 
> Do you know of something similar to the site?


http://theguitarforum.net/ta/


----------



## val69

Thank you!!!


----------



## Kazuhiro

https://web.archive.org/web/20150102011255/http://tracerite.com/calc.html


----------



## ErinH

I'll ping Robert on this and get him to see what's up.


----------



## Babs

Erin was this the correct formula you guys used for the site?




Babs said:


> Ah... So the formula is:
> 
> Driver N Distance = N inches
> Farthest Driver Distance = F inches
> IDD = Individual Driver Delay in ms
> 
> (F-N)/13.5 = IDD
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from iPhone using Tapatalk






Sent from iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## TwistdInfinity

Yeah, calculate delay distance by subtracting the distance of the driver you want to find from the distance of the furthest driver. These are my measured results, calculated using delay finder Android app. 


I'm in a right hand drive car, your results will be opposite haha. Also, I measured in cm and ms 

This is the app https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=cn.eriksen.delaycalc

Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk


----------



## pocket5s

I accidentally let the domain expire. It's renewed and the site is up. some make take a couple hours depending on your ISP service.


----------



## Kazuhiro

Just a wild question - Will crossing the subs and midbass lower, eg 60 as apposed to 80hz, make subwoofer time alignment a lot more precise? Less variation in the wavefront time arrival?


----------



## pocket5s

Kazuhiro said:


> Just a wild question - Will crossing the subs and midbass lower, eg 60 as apposed to 80hz, make subwoofer time alignment a lot more precise? Less variation in the wavefront time arrival?


no it won't


----------



## Kazuhiro

Cool, thanks for that

So if alignment is done correctly, the whole 'bringing the bass up front by crossing lower' is kind of a bust?


----------



## drop1

Kazuhiro said:


> Just a wild question - Will crossing the subs and midbass lower, eg 60 as apposed to 80hz, make subwoofer time alignment a lot more precise? Less variation in the wavefront time arrival?


Changing the slope or cutoff on your subs you will have to redo the time aligmnet. Everytime you change something it needs to be redone.

If you put a gap between points (sometimes this gives better frequency response).

The bigger the gap, the steeper the crossover slope the more the front stage will have to be delayed compared to the sub.


----------



## sqnut

Kazuhiro said:


> Cool, thanks for that
> 
> So if alignment is done correctly, the whole 'bringing the bass up front by crossing lower' is kind of a bust?


Depends. Our ears can tell front from back beyond ~70-80hz. So that is the highest you should go, if the sub is at the back. Plus a higher Xover means higer chances of resonance between the sub and your ears.

If you have the sub in front, you can cross higher, since now all speakers are in front of you.


----------



## Babs

TwistdInfinity said:


> Yeah, calculate delay distance by subtracting the distance of the driver you want to find from the distance of the furthest driver. These are my measured results, calculated using delay finder Android app.
> 
> 
> I'm in a right hand drive car, your results will be opposite haha. Also, I measured in cm and ms
> 
> This is the app https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=cn.eriksen.delaycalc
> 
> Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk


That's pretty cool! Don't see such for iOS (yet) but looking.. Nifty little tool.


----------



## quality_sound

I routinely cross between 80 and 100 and never have a problem with localization. In my MkV GTI the midbass was right next to my left ass cheek but sounded like it was on the hood even playing up to 250. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## sqnut

quality_sound said:


> I routinely cross between 80 and 100 and never have a problem with localization. In my MkV GTI the midbass was right next to my left ass cheek but sounded like it was on the hood even playing up to 250.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


You couldn't localize with the sub crossed at 250hz What slopes are you using?


----------



## ryanr7386

What happened to the tracerite site?


----------



## Kevin K

ryanr7386 said:


> What happened to the tracerite site?


Robert said he'll fix it in the morning.


----------



## ryanr7386

Cool, thanks


----------



## Niick

Niick said:


> Ok, so here's a question for everybody:
> 
> Do you think it's possible to create a method of system optimization using a combination of tools,ears,experience,logic,trial and error, etc. that would get a system tuned to basically maximum optimization in a matter of hours? Like, let's say 3 hours. I'm talking about a fully active 2 or 3 way front stage with sub(s) and maybe rear fills. With processor.


so, just an update, not only is it possible, but I've achieved it. Couple caveats:

1: to achieve an outstanding tune in a short amount of time, one must be VERY familiar with the processor in question. 

2: one must develop a proven workflow, step by step procedure.

Do these things, and my shortest time yet has been 1 hour and 20 minutes.

Some people might not believe that. Lucky for me more than one forum member has heard the results. 

It is ABSOLUTELY possible.


----------



## sqnut

Maximum optimization, as in tune a car that's going to place first/second at finals, in 3 hours? I'm going to have to say no. Good yes, but the best? No.


----------



## Kazuhiro

Can someone answer this for me; Is the basis of these measurements supposed to provide an image centered in front of the driver or the center of the cabin? Even if it doesn't, I just want to confirm.


----------



## sqnut

If you use measured distance to calculate delay, the vocals will be at the rear view not in front of you.


----------



## Vx220

Not read whole thread (I will though...) so apologies if already asked, but where do we measure from and to?

Left ear to left speaker (s) and right to right?

From nose to speakers?

From virtual centre-of-the-head?

To... Tip of tweeter dome? Tip of woofer/mid dustcap? 

Thanks in advance


----------



## fcarpio

val69 said:


> I haven't been able to access the site to input my measurement the last two days. Has anybody experienced this?


Are you referring to the site in my signature? It should be up and running.


----------



## SkizeR

I have too

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Babs

Tuning speed is simply practice practice practice.. Along with learning. Time alignment and phase used to drive me nuts. Now I realize that's kinda the easy part. 


Sent from iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## pocket5s

fcarpio said:


> Are you referring to the site in my signature? It should be up and running.


Is this your thread? no...

It's up now.


----------



## pocket5s

sqnut said:


> Maximum optimization, as in tune a car that's going to place first/second at finals, in 3 hours? I'm going to have to say no. Good yes, but the best? No.


I agree with this. 3 hours is just a start. and that's not by me, that's by people that really know what they are doing. 

To additionally clarify, good, to where most people would think it was awesome, yes. but to be awesome? no. I've heard awesome cars and not a single owner will tell you they did it in 3 hours.


----------



## Kevin K

fcarpio said:


> Are you referring to the site in my signature? It should be up and running.


No, he was referring to the original one.

http://tracerite.com/calc.html


----------



## Niick

sqnut said:


> Maximum optimization, as in tune a car that's going to place first/second at finals, in 3 hours? I'm going to have to say no. Good yes, but the best? No.


Actually, believe it or not, I'll have an answer to THAT question real soon!


----------



## sqnut

Niick said:


> Actually, believe it or not, I'll have an answer to THAT question real soon!


Finally!! Good luck dude, give it all you've got and keep us updated. If it's a 2X-3X event you should get to hear some top cars. Unless you meant something else.


----------



## fcarpio

pocket5s said:


> Is this your thread? no...
> 
> It's up now.





Kevin K said:


> No, he was referring to the original one.
> 
> http://tracerite.com/calc.html


No need to get excited. Under the mobile view I though this was my thread. My apologies to the OP.


----------



## thebookfreak58

Babs said:


> Tuning speed is simply practice practice practice.. Along with learning. Time alignment and phase used to drive me nuts. Now I realize that's kinda the easy part.
> 
> 
> Sent from iPhone using Tapatalk



I must admit it's something that still confuses me a little. 

So basic process should be: 

* gains
* crossovers
* TA/phase via measure
* EQ. 

Then keep refining the last two??


----------



## Beckerson1

It's what I do.


----------



## Niick

thebookfreak58 said:


> I must admit it's something that still confuses me a little.
> 
> So basic process should be:
> 
> * gains
> * crossovers
> * TA/phase via measure
> * EQ.
> 
> Then keep refining the last two??


No, ya got those last two backwards. Crossovers, EQ, delay/phase (not all processors have the ability to adjust phase)


----------



## pocket5s

You had it right. Eq last then tweak the ta and eq as needed. If you eq first you might be adjusting eq based on phase issues that would be corrected by ta



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ErinH

IMHO there is no definite, one-way to step through tuning order because you will need to do a couple passes anyway. Tuning isn't as simple as a,b,c,d. It's a more iterative process. I'm not saying you have to rinse/wash/repeat 15 times. But I am saying that to get the best result, you should expect to go through the process of EQ/TA/Level Matching a couple times.


----------



## Mic10is

ErinH said:


> IMHO there is no definite, one-way to step through tuning order because you will need to do a couple passes anyway. Tuning isn't as simple as a,b,c,d. It's a more iterative process. I'm not saying you have to rinse/wash/repeat 15 times. But I am saying that to get the best result, you should expect to go through the process of EQ/TA/Level Matching a couple times.


^^^^ THIS^^^^

and everyone has their own methods to reach the same general end goal. I wouldnt say any one way is more correct than others. 

Obviously gains should be 1st--but after that, some like to EQ before TA, others like to do rough TA before eq....so on and so forth

Try lots of different methods and do what works best for you. somewhere in the madness of tuning you'll find your own way which may be a mashup of lots of different options


----------



## Babs

Yep. Theoretically you could totally do XO's and individual driver EQ before even touching timing and phase. It's kind of an iterative process. A, B, C, D. Then rinse and repeat with whatever's needed. Trick is knowing by having a trained good ear and measuring and skill in interpreting what ear and graph are telling you. 

^ as if I actually know what I'm doing. I maintain that I'm only beginning to learn. Which is why the meets are so valuable. 

I guess one knows when he's getting it figured out when he can consistently repeat a good tune. 

Sent from iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fullergoku

Mic10is said:


> ^^^^ THIS^^^^
> 
> and everyone has their own methods to reach the same general end goal. I wouldnt say any one way is more correct than others.
> 
> Obviously gains should be 1st--but after that, some like to EQ before TA, others like to do rough TA before eq....so on and so forth
> 
> Try lots of different methods and do what works best for you. somewhere in the madness of tuning you'll find your own way which may be a mashup of lots of different options


As I try to learn more about tuning I wonder what are some of the specific disc that people use to help in this process or evaluate what you've done? I know some will use the 7 drum hits to help with setting T/A I have this disc myself, but what are some of the others people use?


----------



## Niick

If it's a fully active system, what I do, is determine xovers, then EQ each individual driver to match a specific target defined by me at the time of tuning, then, once each acoustic response matches the defined target, I set the delays. 

It is that simple. 

BUT.......coming to a point where you have it down to a LITERAL step by step process...well that isn't simple. That takes time, practice, and the proper tools. Your ears being one of them. Your ears should serve along the journey as a tool of validation, to validate if a method does work, or if a method doesn't work.


----------



## thebookfreak58

Thanks Team


----------



## sqnut

pocket5s said:


> I agree with this. 3 hours is just a start. and that's not by me, that's by people that really know what they are doing.
> 
> To additionally clarify, *good, to where most people would think it was awesome, yes. but to be awesome?* no. I've heard awesome cars and not a single owner will tell you they did it in 3 hours.


^^^This x 1,000, specially the bold portion. What sounds awesome to most is perhaps just fair to good when compared to the really awesome cars. Tuning time for these cars is usually at least a couple of months and they are without exception measured to a base and then tuned by ear.


----------



## dottie

I know this is an older thread but hopefully someone could respond. With the sub, why flip the polarity at the half wave length?


----------



## Niick

sqnut said:


> ^^^This x 1,000, specially the bold portion. What sounds awesome to most is perhaps just fair to good when compared to the really awesome cars. Tuning time for these cars is usually at least a couple of months and they are without exception measured to a base and then tuned by ear.


without exception? I happen to know of a certain forum member who competes in IASCA. And wins. What class and what member I'm not gonna say. But obviously others have heard this particular vehicle. Apparently they think it's pretty awesome. And it is NOT tuned by months and months of tweaking by ear. 

We'll never agree on this. And that's ok. But one thing I CAN do, is, over time, collect a long list of vehicles that pass your standard of "good sound". You've referred to this standard being met by certain criteria. Not the least of which being an official sound quality judging of some kind.

Now, I absolutely DO NOT believe that an IASCA (or any other) judge has any more OR LESS ability to determine the SUBJECTIVE QUALITY of a sound system than anyone else who has a REAL passion for the art and science of audio. 

But seeing as how unlikely it is that you'd ever hear one of these systems, that's probably the only way. 

I'll stop here. I have no intention or energy to engage in any kind of back and forth debate. I just wanted to make sure that anyone reading this who's new to system tuning gets a counter perspective (that others can testify to) to the idea that it takes months and months to get a system sounding absolutely killer. Or that THE ONLY way is to tune it by ear.


----------



## Niick

dottie said:


> I know this is an older thread but hopefully someone could respond. With the sub, why flip the polarity at the half wave length?


what exactly do you mean by "flipping polarity at the half wave length"? If you flip the polarity of a woofer, you change the ABSOLUTE polarity AT ALL WAVELENGTHS that that woofer reproduces.


----------



## Babs

TA for the sake of this thread topic is a matter of tape measurement and ear, but crossovers and EQ may be roughed in with a good ear but here's an example why a mic and software is essential for assessing what your ear may not tell you...










Two un-EQ'd mids in a 2-way. There's a lot going on here. Acoustic low-pass doesn't match the electrical crossover point which should be the same, so some work there is required to make acoustic plots all come together at nice X's at same freq and level. Also there's jaggedness throughout and that lovely dip in 400-900 range on each side. The natural response is far from balanced. Also I discovered a dip at 2khz on a left mid that even bumping out the crossover won't fill in. 

Point being lots of little things that FR plot will show very easily, as you adjust and measure again. This is where time spent in the seat with phones and a mic waving ear to ear on pink noise will give you more than ear alone.. In the FR work. 

In comparison of effort, to me, time aligning to a cohesive center image is a breeze just by tape measure then mono pink noise. Then once this above plot is fixed by EQ and crossover tweaking to balance in sides, rechecking TA again to verify center image. That's why I think it's an iterative process. 

Once the hot mess from that above plot is tamed (for all front stage drivers) and the two sides equal each other, the image focuses in like crazy better, so then you can really concentrate on verifying TA that extra bit more. 

Thus I mentioned you could even start your tune via individual driver leveling, crossovers and EQ, then do TA as your speaker-to-ear measurement is calibrated by balanced sides (individual drivers), then EQ pairs, side group EQ, then whole stage EQ. 

But good point on a so-so tune vs full and complete tune. I've been rolling on a tune that's just side matched and haven't EQ'd globally (whole front stage) and it's probably already one of the better tunes I've done in the car. The overall balance needs work of course but tonality is 95% there. 


Sent from iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## sqnut

Niick said:


> without exception? I happen to know of a certain forum member who competes in IASCA. And wins. What class and what member I'm not gonna say. But obviously others have heard this particular vehicle. Apparently they think it's pretty awesome. And it is NOT tuned by months and months of tweaking by ear.


I don't know about IASCA and I haven't heard the car so I can't comment. But in MECA 99% of cars that regularly score ~85 and higher are all tuned by ear, either by the competitor or someone who's paid to do it. Close your eyes and empty all thoughts from your head and then listen to these cars.



Niick said:


> We'll never agree on this. And that's ok. But one thing I CAN do, is, over time, collect a long list of vehicles that pass your standard of "good sound". You've referred to this standard being met by certain criteria. Not the least of which being an official sound quality judging of some kind.


We will approach convergence once you hear the above mentioned cars and hear a difference vs your car. Till then we'll agree to disagree. SQ judging is one way to check how good the sound is, yes.



Niick said:


> Now, I absolutely DO NOT believe that an IASCA (or any other) judge has any more OR LESS ability to determine the SUBJECTIVE QUALITY of a sound system than anyone else who has a REAL passion for the art and science of audio.


What if _you _heard a huge difference between your car and the 85+ car? Would that legitimize the role of the judge?



Niick said:


> But seeing as how unlikely it is that you'd ever hear one of these systems, that's probably the only way.


And therein lies the basic issue. For 99% the frame of reference is too small to show the real picture. Yu will have to make an effort to go and hear these cars yes, but they are certainly not inaccessible. 



Niick said:


> I'll stop here. I have no intention or energy to engage in any kind of back and forth debate. I just wanted to make sure that anyone reading this who's new to system tuning gets a counter perspective (that others can testify to) to the idea that it takes months and months to get a system sounding absolutely killer. Or that THE ONLY way is to tune it by ear.


Tuning by ear is not the only way, just the one that gets you furthest. You need to measure to get to a base and then learn to tune by ear. You will understand when you hear the difference for yourself. Remember to listen like I explained.


----------



## Babs

Yep.. Measuring with mic is basically giving you visual affirmation of what you're thinking you're hearing. But you gotta use your ears. Good example of this is a technique Kyle uses with 1/3 pink noise to see areas where the image is drifting left/right. Done just as easy as comparing plots and making balancing cuts. All just great little tools for the big toolbox. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Niick

sqnut said:


> Tuning by ear is not the only way, just the one that gets you furthest.


if your only tools are an RTA, then yeah, you're right. On a slightly different note, funny thing, I watched this really excellent video of Dr. Floyd Toole giving a seminar at a college. According to him, and I quote:

"....in order to do that we have to measure at high resolution, the old idea that 1/3 octave data is useful, I'm afraid if you have a 1/3 octave analyzer give it to your kids because it's a toy"

Look at the 4th bullet point down. What was that you once said about 1/3 octave data.....??


----------



## sqnut

Niick said:


> if your only tools are an RTA, then yeah, you're right. On a slightly different note, funny thing, I watched this really excellent video of Dr. Floyd Toole giving a seminar at a college. According to him, and I quote:
> 
> "....in order to do that we have to measure at high resolution, the old idea that 1/3 octave data is useful, I'm afraid if you have a 1/3 octave analyzer give it to your kids because it's a toy"
> 
> Look at the 4th bullet point down. What was that you once said about 1/3 octave data.....??


Listen to the cars.


----------



## BigRed

Niick said:


> No, ya got those last two backwards. Crossovers, EQ, delay/phase (not all processors have the ability to adjust phase)


why?


----------



## BigRed

sqnut said:


> ^^^This x 1,000, specially the bold portion. What sounds awesome to most is perhaps just fair to good when compared to the really awesome cars. Tuning time for these cars is usually at least a couple of months and they are without exception measured to a base and then tuned by ear.


I tuned my truck 2 years ago at MECA finals in 2 hours in my hotel parking lot. I did fairly well. I got lucky


----------



## truckguy

BigRed said:


> I tuned my truck 2 years ago at MECA finals in 2 hours in my hotel parking lot. I did fairly well. I got lucky


Aren't you a legendary tuner? What you can do in a few hours is something most people can't achieve....ever. No matter how much time you give them. Are you the Tom Brady of tuning? I'm like the high school senior 2nd string linebacker working to try and get in the game.


----------



## sqnut

BigRed said:


> I tuned my truck 2 years ago at MECA finals in 2 hours in my hotel parking lot. I did fairly well. I got lucky


Having the system 80% there and doing the last mile in 2 hours is very different from doing it in two hours from scratch.


----------



## Niick

BigRed said:


> why?


You're right. Why? I just figured out another method that shows promise, EQ first, THEN Crossovers, then delay. But that's not even true, I set my midbass delays first to arrive at the listening position at the same time just so summation with subwoofer can be determined, delays, etc. even though the delay setting I use for that aren't NECESSARILY the final settings. 

So yes, my apologies, it really does depend.


----------



## Beckerson1

truckguy said:


> Aren't you a legendary tuner? What you can do in a few hours is something most people can't achieve....ever. No matter how much time you give them. Are you the Tom Brady of tuning? I'm like the high school senior 2nd string linebacker working to try and get in the game.


While true I feel the best thing I've done in my short tuning career was to meet up with someone who has more knowledge and skill in a area of tuning and have Him/her guide me through there process. If I were close enough to BigRed or some of the other legendary tuners out there to be able to pick their minds and get quidance throughout the process. I'd love to be able to do that.

Makes these G2G very beneficial in the long run.


----------



## Babs

Beckerson1 said:


> While true I feel the best thing I've done in my short tuning career was to meet up with someone who has more knowledge and skill in a area of tuning and have Him/her guide me through there process. If I were close enough to BigRed or some of the other legendary tuners out there to be able to pick their minds and get quidance throughout the process. I'd love to be able to do that.
> 
> Makes these G2G very beneficial in the long run.



That's a fact. The meets are worth reading many threads. 


Sent from iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## garysummers

ErinH said:


> First of all, let me state that this is not intended to be a replacement for ears. /
> 
> *The site can be found here:
> 
> http://tracerite.com/calc.html*
> 
> 
> - Erin (and Robert)
> 
> 
> *Edit:*
> *Update 01/17/14:*
> 
> *The site has been updated to include an option to select 2-way or 3-way, making it a bit more intuitive. In addition, there has been an EXPERIMENTAL version of the time delay calculations I'll simply call the "crossover method".*
> 
> *Crossover Method information:*
> As it is, you can still enter your distances and get your 'standard' T/A values. However, with the new update, you have the _option _of entering in some crossover values and letting the sheet provide you with a new set of delay values that accounts for the low frequency wavelength. The notion being that in the area where our hearing is more sensitive to time, and that the wavelength of low frequencies is so long, the site will now account for adding additional delay based on your crossover frequency.
> 
> This method is essentially a means of adjusting the phase angle at the crossover, so the speakers are as in-phase as you can get them with a tape measure. This doesn't seem to have any benefit for speakers crossed high; presumably due to the ILD/ITD relationship. So, I've left out the tweeter crossover... there's just no point. No, it doesn't account for slope (yet; though, I'm not sure I'll bother). It won't fix your response if your polarity on a driver is wrong and you may want to play with your slopes a bit to see if you can get better blending.
> 
> *I cannot stress enough that this "crossover method" is really more for experimenting with your system than anything.* If it doesn't work, so be it. If it does, awesome. If it kind of does, then you can explore why.
> 
> 
> *That said, here's my personal findings and feedback on this method*:
> In my car, I have a Helix DSP that has the ability to adjust phase in 12.5 degree increments, I believe. Right now, my phase angle is at 275 degrees, (if I recall correctly) which is about 11ms at 70hz. When I use the site's crossover method to calculate time delay, the half-wave value I get is 10.125ms. That's remarkably close to what I have with my phase of 275 degrees.
> 
> I've gotten feedback from friends who have tried this and it's been pretty positive thus far. Granted, it's fairly subjective, and even to me doesn't make an entire world of sense, but it seems to actually work and work well. Of course, every install is different, so YMMV. ​
> 
> *To use this method:*
> 
> Select 2-way or 3-way first.
> Under the "measurements" tab, enter your speaker distances from your head to approximately the motor of the driver.
> Then select the "crossover" tab.
> Enter the appropriate crossover values.
> Click "calculate".
> 
> You'll then be provided the values for time alignment in (ms).
> If you don't want to bother with the crossover method, skip steps 3 & 4.
> 
> A word of advice: the sub delay is likely going to be much longer than anyone can account for with standard DSP. So, one method is to *use the half-wave of the subwoofer value (provided in the results) and flip the polarity of the sub*. The 1/4 wave value doesn't really bear much fruit, but you can give it a shot if you'd like... that's why it's there.
> 
> http://tracerite.com/calc.html
> 
> 
> Again, don't go having a cow over this crossover method. We are not trying to change the world. Just presenting something different. If you don't like it, stick with the standard method. But, I do encourage you to give it a shot. You may be surprised.
> 
> - Erin


Tried this calculator to get the time alignment and phasing correct between the mid-basses and the subs. IMHO it works like a charm. Also aided in finally arriving at the correct x-over frequency for the sub and mids. 
I know it was a long time ago, Erin, but thanks for sharing this. Best the low end in my car has ever sounded!


----------



## Souths1der

I was going to post something, just was not sure if I should start another thread, or post in an existing. So I searched and found this thread, and I think this one is the proper place.

I’ve been experimenting with TA settings, reading through many threads. I have a new Helix DSP Pro MK2 and have been playing with it. Last night while my kid was at basketball practice, I decided to park in the lot and fire up my laptop and try out some new methodologies I read about with regard to aligning the sub. 

I decided to play with the phase setting for the sub. I removed the TA setting that I was running, which was simply 1.16ms based on measurement. I muted the tweeters and played a 70Hz tone on the sub and mids (my crossover is at 70Hz). I then started adjusting the phase one tick at a time (11.25 degrees). After a few ticks the bass was noticeably louder, then it seemed to plateau for 5-7 ticks because I couldn’t really hear any change then around 11-12 ticks the bass started to attenuate and at 16-20 ticks it was almost silent in my car. At that point, I started going backward and settled on 4 ticks for the loudest which is 45 degrees.

On tracerite if I use the crossover option, it tells me 16.1ms delay. If I use the phase angle calculation site that equates to ~405 degrees. So that is a full 360 degree cycle and then some, so if I remove the full cycle, that leaves 45 degrees…which is where I found the bass the loudest. At 20 ticks (16 more ticks, or 180 more degrees) it was the quietest. I find this all very interesting and makes complete sense that the loudest and quietest are 180 degrees apart.

I ran out of time last night and plan to play a little more tonight, but I had some questions.

Can/Should you just have your sub aligned by the phase setting only, or should I also adjust time, or only do time?
Would the sub be better aligned at the full 405 degrees? I know the Helix can’t do that much phase, but it can do the 16.1ms, or a combo of phase and time.

That’s all for now. I’m somewhat of a lurker on this site, trying to sponge as much knowledge off you guys as possible. A lot of it is still going over my head, but some of it I’m starting to grasp. Big thanks to all of you who choose to help us out with your wealth of knowledge and experience.


----------



## ARCuhTEK

Another great thread on tuning. Thank you. I have a question....

Many of you do not know, but I have 100% hearing loss in my left ear. So I have the following problems (more problems than this but no peanut gallery comedians please..lol):

1. I am unable to hear stereo at all. To be clear, I can tell what stereo is, but my brain cannot process it properly. To give you an example of what it is like...put on ear buds and play Ozzys Crazy Train intro but do NOT insert your left ear bud. Now you easily see that part of the song/tracks are completely missing. A person with normal hearing can process the cool effects of stereo whereas I cannot. I have to play my portable device music on mono OR purchase a mono plug adapter. 

2. In my car I do hear all of the sounds produced, just not in the same manner you do. Even this is not entirely true....if I turn 180 degrees in my drivers seat, I can hear MORE of the left side information from the drivers. So the truth is..I am missing a lot of the charm of music. There is not much I can do but I have dreamed up a few crazy schemes over the years such as putting NO drivers on the left side of my vehicle and putting all drivers on the right and trying to set the listening stage to the center of my car, very close to my right ear. Maybe not such a crazy idea but then it sucks for anyone else in my car.

So back to the topic at hand:

a. Is it possible to have a mono mode in a DSP or HU output? I have a Bit One.1 and thinking of a Helix DSP. I would not mind to explore this, but my Bit One is in the shop atm. 

b. When measuring the speaker distances, should I measure to my left ear only or just stick to the traditional procedure and pretend I dont have a hearing issue? I do understand that measuring and setting up the mic is done multiple times (based on another thread here) from slightly different locations (I suspect this means moving the mic inches not feet).

c. Do you know anyone else who has similar hearing loss issues that is also a serious hobbyist that I might be able to connect with for some of the more unique issues with hearing loss and sound systems?

Thanks!


----------



## rton20s

ARCuhTEK said:


> Another great thread on tuning. Thank you. I have a question....
> 
> Many of you do not know, but I have 100% hearing loss in my left ear. So I have the following problems (more problems than this but no peanut gallery comedians please..lol):
> 
> 1. I am unable to hear stereo at all. To be clear, I can tell what stereo is, but my brain cannot process it properly. To give you an example of what it is like...put on ear buds and play Ozzys Crazy Train intro but do NOT insert your left ear bud. Now you easily see that part of the song/tracks are completely missing. A person with normal hearing can process the cool effects of stereo whereas I cannot. I have to play my portable device music on mono OR purchase a mono plug adapter.
> 
> 2. In my car I do hear all of the sounds produced, just not in the same manner you do. Even this is not entirely true....if I turn 180 degrees in my drivers seat, I can hear MORE of the left side information from the drivers. So the truth is..I am missing a lot of the charm of music. There is not much I can do but I have dreamed up a few crazy schemes over the years such as putting NO drivers on the left side of my vehicle and putting all drivers on the right and trying to set the listening stage to the center of my car, very close to my right ear. Maybe not such a crazy idea but then it sucks for anyone else in my car.
> 
> So back to the topic at hand:
> 
> a. Is it possible to have a mono mode in a DSP or HU output? I have a Bit One.1 and thinking of a Helix DSP. I would not mind to explore this, but my Bit One is in the shop atm.
> 
> b. When measuring the speaker distances, should I measure to my left ear only or just stick to the traditional procedure and pretend I dont have a hearing issue? I do understand that measuring and setting up the mic is done multiple times (based on another thread here) from slightly different locations (I suspect this means moving the mic inches not feet).
> 
> c. Do you know anyone else who has similar hearing loss issues that is also a serious hobbyist that I might be able to connect with for some of the more unique issues with hearing loss and sound systems?
> 
> Thanks!


I'm not sure about the specific processors that you mentioned, and don't have time at the moment to download to confirm. However, on many of the newer processors, the mixing matrix allows you to steer each channel individually. And this is managed on each preset. That would allow you to steer both the left and right signal to only the right speakers on preset one and then on preset two you could have a traditional stereo setup.


----------



## Babs

ARCuhTEK said:


> a. Is it possible to have a mono mode in a DSP or HU output? I have a Bit One.1 and thinking of a Helix DSP. I would not mind to explore this, but my Bit One is in the shop atm.


I can answer at least this one. I would imagine you can mono-sum inputs in bit one, but I know for certain you very much can easily sum left to right to any channel(s) in the Helix tool. If you download the v4 tool from audiotec-fischer you can play with it also in demo mode, without a Helix DSP, to see how the input/output (IO) screen works for signal assignments. You can even assign different percentage/ratios of multiple inputs to the output, for example 60% left input and 40% right input.. Though I've not found a use for it, except guys have done some stuff like that for ambient rear-fill with some tricks like differential steering (might be called something else) where they might have left rear-fill assigned 50% left input and 50% right input except right input polarity reversed, which you can also do. 

In short though (sorry), yep the Helix DSP's will let you do about anything imaginable with input assignments.


----------



## ARCuhTEK

Thanks Rton and Babs. This at least gives me some food for thought.


----------



## Vx220

Just wanted to thank Erin and Robert for this (and to give the thread a bump, how comes it's not stickied?)

I used it on my DEH80PRS, which meant turning back the clock to 1971 (I think that's when I first started with the metric system!) and switching shiny new head unit to inches...

My car is tiny, so using a telescopic aerial to help accuracy I measure passenger side tweeter and midbass at around 50" and drivers side tweeter and midbass at about 30" (I'll put up the exact measurements later, as I've left them in the car)

The calculator spat out some enormous figures of 145+"!!! So thinking my IT skills had let me down again, I nearly gave up. But I thought "why not?" and started putting the numbers into Erin and Roberts calculator. I was playing some Fleetwood Mac quietly as I did this, and could hear vocals wandering all over the dash and passenger door panel, so I was quietly cursing these two guys while patting myself on the back for writing down my previous settings and praising our lovely metric system (better not let my dad read this!)

But, once all the numbers were in (including sub at the "half wave" measurement) guess what? Centre vocals really good, and my drivers side half of the stage was fuller and wider. Brilliant!

But I'm left confused...

The Pioneer head units add more delay the shorter distance you enter, correct?

So how does putting in figures almost as long as the car(!) make the stage wider?

Is it a sort of relativity thing? Not even sure I can describe what I'm thinking really! Some little sounds and details now come from just outside my pillars, albeit with a little "rainbowing" of the stage. My centre is really good, vocals seem nice and high. A test CD I have with four toms plays them equally high and spaced just along the top of the dash, you can hear the two separate guitars on "Go Your Own Way", the slower tracks on "Pretty Hate Machine" have little detail noises bouncing all over my windscreen, it does sound brilliant, especially considering I have all OEM speaker positions...

So, can someone help me understand?

Thanking you in advance, and again thanks to Erin and Robert. Sticky!!!


----------



## ARCuhTEK

Babs said:


> I can answer at least this one. I would imagine you can mono-sum inputs in bit one, but I know for certain you very much can easily sum left to right to any channel(s) in the Helix tool. If you download the v4 tool from audiotec-fischer you can play with it also in demo mode, without a Helix DSP, to see how the input/output (IO) screen works for signal assignments. You can even assign different percentage/ratios of multiple inputs to the output, for example 60% left input and 40% right input.. Though I've not found a use for it, except guys have done some stuff like that for ambient rear-fill with some tricks like differential steering (might be called something else) where they might have left rear-fill assigned 50% left input and 50% right input except right input polarity reversed, which you can also do.
> 
> In short though (sorry), yep the Helix DSP's will let you do about anything imaginable with input assignments.


So I finally have the time to play with the Helix PC Tool and now more fully understand your feedback. I can totally drag and drop both inputs (L and R) and have that feed any speaker in my system as a summed signal. Pretty cool. As also suggested above, I can see a use for such thing for my situation personally and will be using it as one of the available presets along with a "traditional" tune in other presets. I am anxious to toggle between such presents to see the results hen all done.


----------



## Toneb210

This works great. My bass is so much better. Never would of added so much delay on my own. On my first try things sounded so good. But the imaging was literally right in front of me. And I prefer the image to be a little more towards the passenger side. So I tried shifting the image 2 inches the the right. Made more difference than I thought and now the image was to far. Started over and tried 1 inch to the passenger side. Perfect! Happy I found this calculator. I wonder if this applies to home theater as well. Going to plug in some numbers and try changing the delay on my subs at home to what the calculator says they should be. Will be interesting.


----------



## slicksilver79

Hello all. Thanks OP for the calculator you've made ?. Please help with this time alignment conundrum. Will be grateful!

I drive a right hand drive car. I'm deaf in my left ear. Single guy who has no co passengers and does not care about how it sounds to the other occupants. My car has two way components in the front and rear with a subwoofer in the trunk. Some questions : 

1. Do I measure the distance from my right ear sitting in the driving seat to the midrange of each door? To measure precisely should the other tape end be the middle of the midrange speaker? or midway between the tweeter and midrange? 
2. Should the subwoofer distance be calculated from right ear(seated in the driving seat) to the subwoofer location?


----------



## Theslaking

Ear you can hear from to middle of speaker.


----------



## slicksilver79

If this calculator for a left hand drive car and is also time aligned to the driver(one seat)?


----------



## SkizeR

slicksilver79 said:


> If this calculator for a left hand drive car and is also time aligned to the driver(one seat)?


doesnt matter what side. just input values. and it is also for one seat.


----------



## planaport

is this guide for only those with a DSP ?


----------



## pocket5s

planaport said:


> is this guide for only those with a DSP ?


kind of hard to do time alignment without a dsp.internal to the head unit or amp or external, doesn't matter.


----------



## SkizeR

pocket5s said:


> kind of hard to do time alignment without a dsp.internal to the head unit or amp or external, doesn't matter.


You should add a speaker wire length calculator for those that dont want to use any processing

Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## dumdum

2fnloud said:


> Would love to see the Left & Right rear added to this


Not sure if this has been replied to, but if you work out your front stage and then swap the midbass distances for the left and right rear and then use the figures for delay of the rear you will be all good also ??

I only add this for future reference if no one else has ??


----------



## truckguy

SkizeR said:


> You should add a speaker wire length calculator for those that dont want to use any processing
> 
> Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk


You crack me up man. I needed to see a comment like this today. Lol.


----------



## SkizeR

truckguy said:


> You crack me up man. I needed to see a comment like this today. Lol.


Hey man, gerald even told me his different length speaker wires were causing issues with his staging. Its gotta be a viable way!

Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## planaport

pocket5s said:


> planaport said:
> 
> 
> 
> is this guide for only those with a DSP ?
> 
> 
> 
> kind of hard to do time alignment without a dsp.internal to the head unit or amp or external, doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

I’m using my head unit (nex 2440) for time alignment. I just didn’t understand what this calculator does....


----------



## truckguy

SkizeR said:


> Hey man, gerald even told me his different length speaker wires were causing issues with his staging. Its gotta be a viable way!
> 
> Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk


I knew what you were referring to or at least I thought I did. Lol. I lurk on here way too much. You got to admire his passion and a ability to think out of the box. His truck probably sounds better than mine and he’s does all his own work and tuning I think. I only wish I had those skills.


----------



## DirtyBumOak510

I thought it was interesting that Tracerite (as of 7/8/2020) is consistently only .01 - .02ms slower than the JL Twk88/TUN auto calculators for distance. It's so close that the minimum number I can adjust the Twk88 by is .02ms. Not bad!


----------



## Attack eagle

fullergoku said:


> As I try to learn more about tuning I wonder what are some of the specific disc that people use to help in this process or evaluate what you've done? I know some will use the 7 drum hits to help with setting T/A I have this disc myself, but what are some of the others people use?


I think you might be referring to the auto sound 2000 test disc? I don’t have that one as of yet…
As a total DSP noob (I just did my first t/a, level matching, and eq/ xover in my match up7bmw in the f31 today) , I can only tell you what I did.

I used The Beach Boys 40th anniversary edition of Pet Sounds, because the CD has the same tracks with the same mix in both mono and stereo, and it is an album I’ve been listening to for decades on stereos headphones etc.
there are others that have wierd effects you only get on headphones or when TA is set for single position (the last couple of minutes of schizo mix of Just can’t get enough by Depeche Mode for example) so when I run across something like that I make a mental note of it. 

I used the website to check the results the match/helix dip software was giving me by measured distance, then to get an idea of what to adjust & by how much to move the center over a bit so I wouldn’t be too aggressive either And psych myself out due to wishful thinking / listening fatigue. 

once that was roughed in, and a few mono tracks listened to and levels matched and it was staying mostly centered up, I noted that third percussion hit in “Caroline, No” was jumping right even in mono so I knew it was an eq issue. Factory door locations means One speaker near on axis the other off axis which caused an issue at around 250 hz plus the gains were not as a result the expected 3db difference right to left) 

once I figured out, I was able to then get it to image correctly (or at least as close as I was gonna get ) in mono on right & left, then added in underseats, got them blended in right, and could switch to stereo tracks to start with fine tuning, adding in center and rears etc. 
switching back to same track in mono to test I hadn’t bolluxed something up. 

in my case, having mono and stereo of the same material made it easier for me to both fine tune TA and levels withIn the dsp, plus find those weird frequencies where left and right were acted differently… and I used the website to confirm I wasn’t crazy either so thank you guys for that!


----------



## dumdum

Attack eagle said:


> I think you might be referring to the auto sound 2000 test disc? I don’t have that one as of yet…
> As a total DSP noob (I just did my first t/a, level matching, and eq/ xover in my match up7bmw in the f31 today) , I can only tell you what I did.
> 
> I used The Beach Boys 40th anniversary edition of Pet Sounds, because the CD has the same tracks with the same mix in both mono and stereo, and it is an album I’ve been listening to for decades on stereos headphones etc.
> there are others that have wierd effects you only get on headphones or when TA is set for single position (the last couple of minutes of schizo mix of Just can’t get enough by Depeche Mode for example) so when I run across something like that I make a mental note of it.
> 
> I used the website to check the results the match/helix dip software was giving me by measured distance, then to get an idea of what to adjust & by how much to move the center over a bit so I wouldn’t be too aggressive either And psych myself out due to wishful thinking / listening fatigue.
> 
> once that was roughed in, and a few mono tracks listened to and levels matched and it was staying mostly centered up, I noted that third percussion hit in “Caroline, No” was jumping right even in mono so I knew it was an eq issue. Factory door locations means One speaker near on axis the other off axis which caused an issue at around 250 hz plus the gains were not as a result the expected 3db difference right to left)
> 
> once I figured out, I was able to then get it to image correctly (or at least as close as I was gonna get ) in mono on right & left, then added in underseats, got them blended in right, and could switch to stereo tracks to start with fine tuning, adding in center and rears etc.
> switching back to same track in mono to test I hadn’t bolluxed something up.
> 
> in my case, having mono and stereo of the same material made it easier for me to both fine tune TA and levels withIn the dsp, plus find those weird frequencies where left and right were acted differently… and I used the website to confirm I wasn’t crazy either so thank you guys for that!


You don’t need two tracks… just feed left and right to all drivers… if anything comes from left or right your eq or ta is off…

high freqs are effected by time alignment more than low due to shorter wavelength, once you realise this and focus on higher freqs it’s easier to get the focus correct with ta assuming the eq has been set (phase issues due to reflections will always pull the sound to the left and right, that’s down to experience to know what is pulling the ear and what is time alignment being off)


----------

