# Perfect RTA, but MidBass gets flat?



## speakerman99 (Apr 18, 2016)

Rookie Tuner here so please be gentle:

Each time I tune my system to match the standard ATF curve on the Helix I am disappointed with the resulting midbass, specifically I lose all punch in the mid bass area.

I'm running a Helix P6 120 watts to Hertz ML 6.5's in the doors LPF at 250 hz -24db, HPF at 63 Hz -24db. They have a lot of punch without being overbearing prior to any adjustment, but the resulting RTA curve shows my sub 200hz frequencies off the charts, like 8-10db high. Each time I use the EQ to tune to the reference curve I lose all midbass punch which we work so hard to get up front.......Each time I tune by ear the Reference curve is hosed. What am I missing? Don't bother with a reference? Do what feels good? This is supposed to be an entry level SQ build so I don't want to stray too far.

So my question is kind of academic or bigger picture. What is the point of tuning to a reference curve if the resulting sound is so boring? I understand why the punch leaves when I cut the EQ bands, but I don't understand why a design looking curve can't have some punch, if that makes sense? I've read about numerous reference curves in the industry, but I'm guessing that they aren't too far off from the standard ATF curve. 

I've read numerous tuning threads and how to's here, but I can't put my finger on a simple answer to satisfy my curiosity. If such a thread exist please point me to it! Thanks again for all of your help.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

most people have an over exaggerated expectation of midbass. are you sure its actually missing it? or are you just wanting unrealistic (to the source) midbass levels?


----------



## GEM592 (Jun 19, 2015)

I would say a reference curve is a good starting point but it is your ears that will be listening to it. Even if you get the reference tuned, you have the Munson correction (human hearing) to adjust for, which varies with power. Why not just adjust it to where you think it's best, unless you're worried about some judge or something?


----------



## speakerman99 (Apr 18, 2016)

SkizeR said:


> most people have an over exaggerated expectation of midbass. are you sure its actually missing it? or are you just wanting unrealistic (to the source) midbass levels?


Good point. I'm pretty sure that very few DIYMA members could use the word reasonable and realistic with a straight face. :laugh: 

You are likely on point. After a few decent system builds, clean/tight midbass UPFRONT was a must with this install. I love how it makes the sub disappear when blended. I cannot say that I'm not listening for something more than the source material. I just know that the intro to Money for Nothing sounds incredible with that tight punch of drums up front.

For the record, I get the same readings when tuning without the subwoofer. I have some overlap between the two, but point is my ears are tuning higher levels below 200hz even without the subs. Adding the subs just kicks it up a notch.


----------



## speakerman99 (Apr 18, 2016)

GEM592 said:


> I would say a reference curve is a good starting point but it is your ears that will be listening to it. Even if you get the reference tuned, you have the Munson correction (human hearing) to adjust for, which varies with power. Why not just adjust it to where you think it's best, unless you're worried about some judge or something?


Agreed. I'm not worried about judging at this point. Maybe if I really get the bug in the future. I guess I made the rookie assumption that all I had to do was match the curve and sonic nirvana was a given. Like most other things in life, the real world is much more nuanced than we want to assume at first glance. I struggled through learning to change timing and crossover points to address peaks and valleys on a measured curve only to be rewarded with dull lifeless, albeit perfectly tuned boring system


----------



## GEM592 (Jun 19, 2015)

I use reference curves to identify big problems. If the install was decent then from there you're pretty much guaranteed that it sounds flat. Then the real work starts. 

I feel your comments on midbass, dragging the subs up front, etc. There is nothing like it when it snaps in. You know it's right when you have good transparency all the way down.

I should tell you I don't use DSPs yet because I don't think they've yet evolved to allow for consistent tuning on a song-to-song, recording-to-recording basis at high volume. I still use parametric preamps, and a successful tune for me is an F/Q selection that allows me to dial in any track with minimal adjustments. So we may be talking past each other unless we account for equipment.


----------



## GEM592 (Jun 19, 2015)

speakerman99 said:


> Agreed. I'm not worried about judging at this point. Maybe if I really get the bug in the future. I guess I made the rookie assumption that all I had to do was match the curve and sonic nirvana was a given. Like most other things in life, the real world is much more nuanced than we want to assume at first glance. I struggled through learning to change timing and crossover points to address peaks and valleys on a measured curve only to be rewarded with dull lifeless, albeit perfectly tuned boring system


Very well said and I will tell you a rookie would have much less insight. Whatever you learn is valuable, but there are always intangibles. The good news and the bad news is that you're not a rookie.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

GEM592 said:


> I should tell you I don't use DSPs yet because I don't think they've yet evolved to allow for consistent tuning on a song-to-song, recording-to-recording basis at high volume.


Ummmm... I'm sorry but this is just silly. You don't tune a car on a per song basis. You tune to fix the abnormalities the environment introduces to get accurate reproduction. Unless you don't care for accurate reproduction, your going about it wrong

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## GEM592 (Jun 19, 2015)

I understand your point of view Skizer but don't agree.

You are arguing really that tuning on a per song basis is outdated, rather than silly. Otherwise the in dash preamp would have never evolved. I would reply that the "one tune fits all" concept is not yet mature enough to trust. At best it's only a baseline.

Do you adjust anything other than the volume when moving from track to track? Then there you go or you need to broaden your musical exposure. Even if you touch only the volume I could argue that you're tuning to compensate for recording variations or personal tastes.

All the DSP I need for now is contained in a networked deck. Beyond that I prefer real-time access to praying in front of an REW dataset in the vain hope of finding the curve that will work for everything I listen to, down to the last intangible.

And I still say your cat's high.


----------



## DDFusionV2 (Jul 11, 2016)

You don't tune for a song. Period.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

speakerman99 said:


> Rookie Tuner here so please be gentle:
> 
> Each time I tune my system to match the standard ATF curve on the Helix I am disappointed with the resulting midbass, specifically I lose all punch in the mid bass area.
> 
> ...


The point of a reference curve is to get a baseline and then tune for accuracy from there, based on what you're hearing. I'm not sure what the Helix curve looks like but if it runs flat from ~300-1khz, that could be part of the problem.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

GEM592 said:


> Do you adjust anything other than the volume when moving from track to track? .


Actually no, I dont. Occasionally I'll turn up the subs gain knob when I want to get ignorant and jam out but that's rare. Seriously, tuning on a per song basis is just straight up wrong if your going for accurate reproduction.


Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Lorin (May 5, 2011)

using a particular song as a reference in which you KNOW how it SHOULD sound, can work quite well in tuning. Isnt that what one reason that judges use same materials?


----------



## Rybaudio (May 23, 2008)

Reference curves are guidelines - they are supposed to give you an idea of what should make the system sound spectrally balanced in a car environment. The exact curve that will make the system sound balanced varies car to car, engine on/off, with speed and road noise, etc. If you are trying to get it balanced, you will probably want to dial it more than just aiming for the guideline.

Unless you are aiming for some specific competition, you also don't have to make it sound balanced - nothing wrong with a little extra punch if that's what you prefer.


----------



## GEM592 (Jun 19, 2015)

SkizeR said:


> Actually no, I dont. Occasionally I'll turn up the subs gain knob when I want to get ignorant and jam out but that's rare. Seriously, tuning on a per song basis is just straight up wrong if your going for accurate reproduction.
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


Even if you get ideal "accurate reproduction" it is guaranteed to only apply with a certain volume range - due to nonlinearities of the human ear (Munson curve) and other factors. Thus any volume adjustment must require another tuning correction to get back to where you thought you should be spectrally. That's just one example.

I hate to break the big lie to you, and I certainly don't think that DSPs are useless, but they only really provide a means of getting to a better reference point (or multiple points) than was previously possible. You throw in recording variations and intangibles, and I'm going to want to make slight band adjustments yes on a per song basis. 

If what you say is right, then why do DSPs come with more than one preset? Why have they recently added touch screen interfaces that allow for band level control, etc? Just for ignorant fun?

I can't tell you how many high end systems I've demoed where the guy thinks he has the whole thing adjusted down to the volume knob and track selection. Within a small volume range, possibly. Turn it up and it's a different story.


----------



## GEM592 (Jun 19, 2015)

When you tune to a reference curve, you have to keep in mind that you're not actually hearing it in your brain as it appears. The difference between what you see and what you hear depends on volume. Thus, with a fixed tune you're never going to be able to hear "accurate reproduction" across a sufficiently wide volume range. That's one reason you don't tune at very low volume, you choose a medium level to make the reference more helpful. Different tracks have differences in different frequency ranges, so song to song tuning can never really be eliminated.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

GEM592 said:


> Even if you get ideal "accurate reproduction" it is guaranteed to only apply with a certain volume range - due to nonlinearities of the human ear (Munson curve) and other factors. Thus any volume adjustment must require another tuning correction to get back to where you thought you should be spectrally. That's just one example.


come to think of it, 90% of the time i listen its at the same volume. i tune at the same volume i like to listen to my music. when its quieter, im most likely not paying attention as much and do not care about the small differences from the fletcher munson curve.



GEM592 said:


> I hate to break the big lie to you, and I certainly don't think that DSPs are useless, but they only really provide a means of getting to a better reference point (or multiple points) than was previously possible. You throw in recording variations and intangibles, and I'm going to want to make slight band adjustments yes on a per song basis.


What "variations and intangibles" are in recordings that dsp's cant fix? i was completely unaware that digital files magically and randomly change.




GEM592 said:


> If what you say is right, then why do DSPs come with more than one preset? Why have they recently added touch screen interfaces that allow for band level control, etc? Just for ignorant fun?


theres a few reasons. like what ill be doing in my car once i get the director installed.. 
1) windows up, front driver seat position
2) windows up, both front seat position
3) windows down, front driver position
4) windows down both front seat position
..and many more

then on top of that it gives you the option to flip between tunes to see which one you did better with. and last but not least, yes. pure ignorant fun




GEM592 said:


> I can't tell you how many high end systems I've demoed where the guy thinks he has the whole thing adjusted down to the volume knob and track selection. Within a small volume range, possibly. Turn it up and it's a different story.


you just answered your last point. presets for different volumes as well. fletcher munson curve isnt the only thing you need to worry about. reflections get worse at high volume, drivers may not handle crossovers as well at high volume, etc etc. more than enough reasons for this and as to why you would want/need presets. if thats the case id currently need to do 15000 tunes.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

GEM592 said:


> When you tune to a reference curve, you have to keep in mind that you're not actually hearing it in your brain as it appears. The difference between what you see and what you hear depends on volume. Thus, with a fixed tune you're never going to be able to hear "accurate reproduction" across a sufficiently wide volume range. That's one reason you don't tune at very low volume, you choose a medium level to make the reference more helpful. Different tracks have differences in different frequency ranges, so song to song tuning can never really be eliminated.


id have to say this is false if your referring to the fletcher munson curve again. everything we hear is effected by it. even the people who are recording the music we listen to at the studio. a (accurate) recording of a guitar is still going to sound like a guitar. its not like microphones or speakers do something to reverse our own ears natural "frequency response"


----------



## GEM592 (Jun 19, 2015)

I think you miss my point. 

What do you mean by "accurate reproduction" exactly?

If you mean the same spectral signature (as detected by the microphone and tuning equipment) as the source at power, that is fine, but the spectral signature you actually hear will distort with volume. You might have "accurate reproduction" - but it won't sound like the source unless you correct.

If you mean you want to actually hear the same spectral signature at any power, for the reasons above you'll never be able to capture that with one tune.


----------



## GEM592 (Jun 19, 2015)

SkizeR said:


> come to think of it, 90% of the time i listen its at the same volume. i tune at the same volume i like to listen to my music. when its quieter, im most likely not paying attention as much and do not care about the small differences from the fletcher munson curve.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


But now you're contradicting what you said earlier about "volume only, and maybe the bass knob."

Do you correct for F/M (as would apply to your own hearing I assume) when you tune? This is one example of "fluctuations and variations" I was referring to. That's what I've been talking about.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

GEM592 said:


> But now you're contradicting what you said earlier about "volume only, and maybe the bass knob."
> 
> Do you correct for F/M (as would apply to your own hearing I assume) when you tune? This is one example of "fluctuations and variations" I was referring to. That's what I've been talking about.


yes but hardly do i touch the volume knob or bass knob when doing critical listening. and no, i do not apply the fletcher munson curve to my tune. please explain why i would need to


----------



## GEM592 (Jun 19, 2015)

SkizeR said:


> c
> 1) windows up, front driver seat position
> 2) windows up, both front seat position
> 3) windows down, front driver position
> ...


Yes I would agree many more. Like at least all of those for every song that you could ever play back at every possible volume level corrected for the hearing of every person who might listen to it seated in any possible position in the car also allowing windows to be halfway up only (more bass) and _ and _ and _ .... lots of memory in that DSP.


----------



## gijoe (Mar 25, 2008)

GEM592, the only way to get what you want is to apply DSP to each track, then play it through a flat system. You simply cannot have enough presets to optimize each song, and why would you want to? I love this hobby as much as anyone, but what you seem to be suggesting takes every ounce of fun from it. I like this hobby because I love music, all of this preset nonsense takes away from simply enjoying music. 

DSP has done more to improve car audio than anything else. Speaker technology hasn't improved drastically, power is still power, but DSP has taken this hobby to a level that wasn't possible a while ago.


----------



## GEM592 (Jun 19, 2015)

SkizeR said:


> yes but hardly do i touch the volume knob or bass knob when doing critical listening. and no, i do not apply the fletcher munson curve to my tune. please explain why i would need to


So that what you're actually hearing at your preferred power level (as opposed to what is measurable by your tuning equipment) spectrally matches the source. This would vary somewhat person to person and with volume anyhow so of course the answer would be no. It was rhetorical. You can't. That's why there is no perfect tune. It doesn't exist.


----------



## GEM592 (Jun 19, 2015)

gijoe said:


> GEM592, the only way to get what you want is to apply DSP to each track, then play it through a flat system. You simply cannot have enough presets to optimize each song, and why would you want to? I love this hobby as much as anyone, but what you seem to be suggesting takes every ounce of fun from it. I like this hobby because I love music, all of this preset nonsense takes away from simply enjoying music.
> 
> DSP has done more to improve car audio than anything else. Speaker technology hasn't improved drastically, power is still power, but DSP has taken this hobby to a level that wasn't possible a while ago.


Agree, as I have said above even before this post. I want something on top to ball park it by ear. It is not a crime and takes no fun out of it for me, quite the contrary.

Oh speaker tech has come a long way. Those two are the biggies.


----------



## Bayboy (Dec 29, 2010)

No need to fiddle with the dsp per song. If you have a global EQ, sub level, or a simple bass & treble through the deck, then that's all you need It's understandable that songs will vary quite a bit, especially on a mix cd or playing randomly through a flash drive or so. However, you have to realized that maybe it is the way the artist & engineer wanted it to sound and you shouldn't fool with it much. All studios aren't created or creating equally.


----------



## gijoe (Mar 25, 2008)

GEM592 said:


> Agree, as I have said above even before this post. I want something on top to ball park it by ear. It is not a crime and takes no fun out of it for me, quite the contrary.
> 
> Oh speaker tech has come a long way. Those two are the biggies.


But, speaker tech hasn't. Some materials have changed, but speakers aren't significantly better than they ever were. They are smaller, and lighter, but really they aren't drastically better than they were 100 years ago. Speaker evolution has been slow.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

Before I even read the replies since I don't have much time this second, can you at least tell me why you would need to tune for every song? Do you not trust the musicians, recording engineers, and the people doing the mix and masters?

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Bayboy (Dec 29, 2010)

SkizeR said:


> Before I even read the replies since I don't have much time this second, can you at least tell me why you would need to tune for every song? Do you not trust the musicians, recording engineers, and the people doing the mix and masters?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


You don't. That's a good way to wind up with a mistune or simply waste time. Some albums are dark sounding, some clear & bright, some heavy in the midrange, some even slightly clipped on purpose (Flying Lotus), but I still listen to it with rare adjustments for tolerance. It is how it is meant to be


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

exactly what im getting at. hes not realizing that he is tuning for how he wished the song was mastered (which is fine). im tuning to reproduce exactly what was on that CD


----------



## GEM592 (Jun 19, 2015)

gijoe said:


> But, speaker tech hasn't. Some materials have changed, but speakers aren't significantly better than they ever were. They are smaller, and lighter, but really they aren't drastically better than they were 100 years ago. Speaker evolution has been slow.


Don't agree at all really.


----------



## Drop11 (Jul 4, 2016)

I don't care about pure sq. I don't care about pretty curves and a super flat response.

What works for me across the board is a downward slope from 30hz to around 3khz and from 3hz flat out to 10khz with a slight bump above that. 3db or so.

What I do care very much about is knowing where I'm starting. I start with a nice flat response and tune to my liking from there. Most important to me is left/right eq. Get that, phase and time alignmet right and it's pretty hard to make a system sound bad.


----------



## GEM592 (Jun 19, 2015)

SkizeR said:


> exactly what im getting at. hes not realizing that he is tuning for how he wished the song was mastered (which is fine). im tuning to reproduce exactly what was on that CD


I already addressed this. You're not hearing what you're seeing, the difference varies with volume, listener, position, everything. It's a baseline and not a gold standard. It is "accurate reproduction" only in a very qualified sense.


----------



## gijoe (Mar 25, 2008)

GEM592 said:


> Don't agree at all really.


Care to elaborate? I have a set of 35 year old speakers at home that I would gladly put up against most of today's speakers. Regardless, that is of little importance to this topic.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

Drop11 said:


> I don't care about pure sq. I don't care about pretty curves and a super flat response.
> 
> What works for me across the board is a downward slope from 30hz to around 3khz and from 3hz flat out to 10khz with a slight bump about that. 3db or so.
> 
> What I do car very much about is know whinging where I'm starting. I start with a nice flat response and tune to my liking from there. Most important to me is left/right eq. Get that, phase and time alignmet right and it's pretty hard to make a system sound bad.


Gradual slope? Maybe that's where your midbass issues lie

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## GEM592 (Jun 19, 2015)

SkizeR said:


> Before I even read the replies since I don't have much time this second, can you at least tell me why you would need to tune for every song? Do you not trust the musicians, recording engineers, and the people doing the mix and masters?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


Yes we are talking past each other now. I am questioning the notion that there is one proper gold-standard tune that provides "accurate reproduction" specifically at least over a wide variety of recordings and listening levels. Spectrally matching the source gives at best a working approximation. The instinct to make further adjustments from there on yes a song-to-song and/or volume basis (not practical with most DSPs but otherwise very possible) is not incorrect, or "doing it wrong" or similar.

I don't know why you would need to do anything to be happy with your setup. But I also don't know why you'd presume that anyone with a different or varying approach is "doing it wrong."


----------



## GEM592 (Jun 19, 2015)

gijoe said:


> Care to elaborate? I have a set of 35 year old speakers at home that I would gladly put up against most of today's speakers. Regardless, that is of little importance to this topic.


Then do so and enjoy! If you want to poll the question (or check if it has already been polled) you will find plenty of elaboration.


----------



## gijoe (Mar 25, 2008)

GEM592 said:


> Then do so and enjoy! If you want to poll the question (or check if it has already been polled) you will find plenty of elaboration.


None of the fundamentals have changed. Speakers work exactly the way they have for decades. Materials have changed, magnets have gotten smaller, we have some different motors, but there is nothing fundamentally different. The evolution of the loudspeaker has been incredibly slow, even compared to amplifier topology. The technology is incredibly similar to what it always was.

A poll is useless, my statement isn't a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact. The loudspeaker of today, if very, very similar to the loudspeaker of 100 years ago.


----------



## GEM592 (Jun 19, 2015)

lol on that "my opinion is fact."

We'll need to alert the entire audio community that no new speaker designs are needed. 

If you think nothing has changed, then which design should we all revert to? Careful, I want to hear only facts and no opinions.

Lots of improvements with newer speaker designs. The simplest improvement would be power handling. Many others. You are out on a limb generally, but within the confines of your world/preferences you may really be sure.


----------



## gijoe (Mar 25, 2008)

GEM592 said:


> lol on that "my opinion is fact"


You failed to explain how speakers are drastically different nowadays. Take a look at a 60 year old speaker, it works exactly the same as a speaker built yesterday. We're not discussing whether or not there exists speaker systems today that sound better than speaker systems of the past, we're discussing the fact that the loudspeaker itself is fundamentally the same as it has always been. After 100 years we've been able to replace paper cones with mineral cones, we've got smaller, lighter magnets, a couple new motor designs, and that's it. To me, there is nothing drastic about that, especially considering the technological advances in everything else. To put it into perspective, look at the telephone over the same amount of time. Now tell me that the loudspeaker has not evolved slowly.


----------



## GEM592 (Jun 19, 2015)

Look at edited post.

And I could say you failed to establish that big improvements haven't been made. Why don't you prove your assertion instead? Cars still roll on four wheels, that doesn't mean cars these days aren't way better in many ways.


----------



## DDFusionV2 (Jul 11, 2016)

I think y'all are arguing with somebody that has no idea what it can sound like. Somebody that's never heard a good tune


----------



## DDFusionV2 (Jul 11, 2016)

Speakers have changed. The very high end speakers of the 90s are entry level today. 
Materials have improved making output and bandwidth much better. 

None of that changes the fact a car still needs to be tuned to overcome the envirment.


----------



## GEM592 (Jun 19, 2015)

DDFusionV2 said:


> I think y'all are arguing with somebody that has no idea what it can sound like. Somebody that's never heard a good tune


I've heard many that were claimed to be the cat's meow and one-size-fits-all. Never true. I've never heard a tune that I didn't think could possibly be improved, that fits all songs/genres, for wide power ranges. I'll refrain with responding to your insult with another.


----------



## GEM592 (Jun 19, 2015)

DDFusionV2 said:


> Speakers have changed. The very high end speakers of the 90s are entry level today.
> Materials have improved making output and bandwidth much better.
> 
> None of that changes the fact a car still needs to be tuned to overcome the envirment.


Good then you can take on gijoe from here.


----------



## DDFusionV2 (Jul 11, 2016)

Well I guess you heard fakes. My daily playlist goes A to Z. Never change anything
But like Skizer, I normally keep it around the same volume. +/-5 clicks


----------



## GEM592 (Jun 19, 2015)

Just because you're satisfied with it doesn't mean that it's "accurate" to any objective standard, nor does it mean varying approaches aren't possible.


----------



## Catalyx (Oct 13, 2011)

Are you referring specifically to piston based drivers or speakers in general? Flat panel varieties like planer or electrostatic are quite different and this technology is intriguing:

Manger® Sound Transducer — Manger Audio


----------



## DDFusionV2 (Jul 11, 2016)

It's completely accurate. Passes every test for critical listening test. Which test multiple genres


----------



## GEM592 (Jun 19, 2015)

DDFusionV2 said:


> It's completely accurate. Passes every test for critical listening test. Which test multiple genres


Good for you. Then you can go listen to it and forget this forum forever. You never need to buy anything new, adjust anything, learn anything else, try anything different, your mission in car audio is complete. Or you can stay here just to try and convince everyone else that you already have it all figured out and they just need to do it like you do. You have found God's stereo. I would say really that you just think you have, and since I generally get little from a back and forth from such people I think I'll let you have the last word.


----------



## Catalyx (Oct 13, 2011)

As for the tuning argument, I think people in this thread have different goals with their systems so comparing methods for achieving those is not productive.

Some people like to tweak EQ or other settings per song in real time to sound the best to their ears.

Others want a standard reference tune based on an ideal compromise between the effects their gear, vehicle acoustics and install have on the overall sonic signature.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

GEM592 said:


> Just because you're satisfied with it doesn't mean that it's "accurate" to any objective standard, nor does it mean varying approaches aren't possible.


Care to explain why you need to tune per song?

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Drop11 (Jul 4, 2016)

The biggest reason I've seen for people that feel the need to tune track to track is poor sub integration or bad crossover points up high.
If your sub is off the system can sound GREAT on one track and completely fail on others. Same for bad crossover points. 

A car is no different from a home system or headphones. Once the system is tuned it tuned and will play everything very very well.
To those who need to tune on a song to song basis. Do you constantly fiddle with your home stereos every song as well as your headphones or is it just a car deal. If you find yourself tinkering more in the car youre system is very likely not setup right in the first place. A little more sub here and there is one thing but if you're busting out the eq every track something isn't right.


----------



## GEM592 (Jun 19, 2015)

I'm not interested in repeating myself on the technical parts. You can read.

I don't reset deck/DSP settings on a per song basis. They form a baseline, then I use levels on tuned parametric preamps for flexibility to account for further corrections in the cases I've mentioned. I need to because it works, and because I'm convinced no single tune (or family of tunes as you've described) is sufficient for my listening habits and variations. In any case I'd be no worse than what you do (just flatten the levels or leave them be, which I sometimes do). So maybe we're talking past each other on what we mean by "tune."

I understand you're very good at what you do and I do respect that. But it does baffle me when people seem to think that if I touch preamp levels on a per song or varying volume basis then I'm doing it wrong, and don't know how to tune, and all of this. Not true or necessary, and I've made a known pathological argument to defend my position that even with a good tune, slight adjustments may be expected to improve the sound further.


----------



## GEM592 (Jun 19, 2015)

Catalyx said:


> As for the tuning argument, I think people in this thread have different goals with their systems so comparing methods for achieving those is not productive.
> 
> Some people like to tweak EQ or other settings per song in real time to sound the best to their ears.
> 
> Others want a standard reference tune based on an ideal compromise between the effects their gear, vehicle acoustics and install have on the overall sonic signature.


Very sensible I fully agree.


----------



## GEM592 (Jun 19, 2015)

Drop11 said:


> The biggest reason I've seen for people that feel the need to tune track to track is poor sub integration or bad crossover points up high.
> If your sub is off the system can sound GREAT on one track and completely fail on others. Same for bad crossover points.
> 
> A car is no different from a home system or headphones. Once the system is tuned it tuned and will play everything very very well.
> To those who need to tune on a song to song basis. Do you constantly fiddle with your home stereos every song as well as your headphones or is it just a car deal. If you find yourself tinkering more in the car youre system is very likely not setup right in the first place. A little more sub here and there is one thing but if you're busting out the eq every track something isn't right.


I constantly fiddle a little bit. This level slightly more, that one slightly less. If the DSP tune is good and the parametric bands are well selected, I only touch things slightly (but I almost always touch something). One DSP tune won't otherwise account for recording and volume variations as well.

You pay a penalty with compactness of install, etc. No doubt. It is a tradeoff many would not bother with, especially the way cars are today. I'm fine with that.

I certainly agree that if you're swinging things around alot all the time your baseline setup is no good.


----------



## Drop11 (Jul 4, 2016)

GEM592 said:


> I'm not interested in repeating myself on the technical parts. You can read.
> 
> I don't reset deck/DSP settings on a per song basis. They form a baseline, then I use levels on tuned parametric preamps for flexibility to account for further corrections in the cases I've mentioned. I need to because it works, and because I'm convinced no single tune (or family of tunes as you've described) is sufficient for my listening habits and variations. In any case I'd be no worse than what you do (just flatten the levels or leave them be, which I sometimes do). So maybe we're talking past each other on what we mean by "tune."
> 
> I understand you're very good at what you do and I do respect that. But it does baffle me when people seem to think that if I touch preamp levels on a per song or varying volume basis then I'm doing it wrong, and don't know how to tune, and all of this. Not true or necessary, and I've made a known pathological argument to defend my position that even with a good tune, slight adjustments may be expected to improve the sound further.


The only reason I even entered this thread was 20 years ago I would have sided with you. You are exactly how I was back then.
I used to constantly adjust my system on the fly. It was years later when I got my hands on an rta and a good bit more knowledge that I found out just how far off I really was to having anything close to a balanced system. In fact it was so bad I was basically trying to tune peaks to peaks.
It's easy to go down this road when you have limited eq and no really reference. We don't have the net back when I started. I'd read about sq in mags and try to recreate it based off of descriptive words. Of course my systems were a mess.


----------



## GEM592 (Jun 19, 2015)

Drop11 said:


> The only reason I even entered this thread was 20 years ago I would have sided with you. You are exactly how I was back then.
> I used to constantly adjust my system on the fly. It was years later when I got my hands on an rta and a good bit more knowledge that I found out just how far off I really was to having anything close to a balanced system. In fact it was so bad I was basically trying to tune peaks to peaks.
> It's easy to go down this road when you have limited eq and no really reference. We don't have the net back when I started. I'd read about sq in mags and try to recreate it based off of descriptive words. Of course my systems were a mess.


Got your midbass right yet?

Seriously I hear you. I don't mean to throw the baby out with the bathwater. New tech has helped immensely in the area of tuning. But that doesn't mean it is possible to use DSPs to find one optimum tune that accounts for all use variations.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

To put my point simply.. what goes in, comes out. I'm just eliminating the environments ****ery of the sound. I just want to hear exactly what is saved on that disk or ipod or phone. If you want to adjust songs to how you want them to sound, that's fine. But I am not a fan of someone giving advice saying that one perfect tune is perfect (read: accurate to the source) for that song, but not any other 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## GEM592 (Jun 19, 2015)

SkizeR said:


> To put my point simply.. what goes in, comes out. I'm just eliminating the environments ****ery of the sound. I just want to hear exactly what is saved on that disk or ipod or phone. If you want to adjust songs to how you want them to sound, that's fine. But I am not a fan of someone giving advice saying that one perfect tune is perfect (read: accurate to the source) for that song, but not any other
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


Well I'm not a fan of presupposing there is such thing as a perfect tune achieved yet by anyone anywhere, even for just one song in one particular listening environment for one listener. At best it would only be an approximation within a volume range particular to that song. So there we are.


----------



## Drop11 (Jul 4, 2016)

GEM592 said:


> Drop11 said:
> 
> 
> > The only reason I even entered this thread was 20 years ago I would have sided with you. You are exactly how I was back then.
> ...


Nope. I bought speakers that dont play nice together. It'll never sound right with what I have. Hard to know that before you get something in the car and try to tune it.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

GEM592 said:


> Even if you get ideal "accurate reproduction" it is guaranteed to only apply with a certain volume range - due to nonlinearities of the human ear (Munson curve) and other factors. Thus any volume adjustment must require another tuning correction to get back to where you thought you should be spectrally. That's just one example.
> 
> I hate to break the big lie to you, and I certainly don't think that DSPs are useless, but they only really provide a means of getting to a better reference point (or multiple points) than was previously possible. You throw in recording variations and intangibles, and I'm going to want to make slight band adjustments yes on a per song basis.
> 
> ...





GEM592 said:


> When you tune to a reference curve, you have to keep in mind that you're not actually hearing it in your brain as it appears. The difference between what you see and what you hear depends on volume. Thus, with a fixed tune you're never going to be able to hear "accurate reproduction" across a sufficiently wide volume range. That's one reason you don't tune at very low volume, you choose a medium level to make the reference more helpful. Different tracks have differences in different frequency ranges, so song to song tuning can never really be eliminated.





GEM592 said:


> I think you miss my point.
> 
> What do you mean by "accurate reproduction" exactly?
> 
> ...





GEM592 said:


> Agree, as I have said above even before this post. I want something on top to ball park it by ear. It is not a crime and takes no fun out of it for me, quite the contrary.
> 
> Oh speaker tech has come a long way. Those two are the biggies.


Gem592, you need to unlearn before you can relearn and of course you need to listen to some good cars.


----------



## GEM592 (Jun 19, 2015)

sqnut said:


> Gem592, you need to unlearn before you can relearn and of course you need to listen to some good cars.


Oh that's productive. I addressed this sentiment upthread. What I need to do shouldn't really be your concern, what you think I need do to certainly isn't mine.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

GEM592 said:


> Oh that's productive. I addressed this sentiment upthread. What I need to do shouldn't really be your concern, what you think I need do to certainly isn't mine.


Your ignorance becomes our business when you post gibberish here. You've been politely told about facts but you refuse to listen. Flaunting your ignorance and getting butt hurt when you get called out go hand in hand. 

Do you tune from song to song when listening to your 2ch or your cans?


----------



## GEM592 (Jun 19, 2015)

sqnut said:


> Your ignorance becomes our business when you post gibberish here. You've been politely told about facts but you refuse to listen. Flaunting your ignorance and getting butt hurt when you get called out go hand in hand.
> 
> Do you tune from song to song when listening to your 2ch or your cans?


Oh please. Real great stuff now. Enjoy your last word.


----------



## nhtunes (Jul 31, 2016)

Unfortunately I have a MS08, sounds awesome but after re-autotuning it takes another 2 weeks to get it zeroed in with the EQ. You should know which tunes focus on areas that you are trying to fix, try to make that one instrument sound correct--set it and let it smolder and move to a different zone in the spectrum. Over a few hours of listening a few thing will annoy you on most songs--fix it. Get the EQ to where almost all songs sound perfect with little adjustment- I try not to use the EQ after the initial set unless it is a long term fix and use the bass, midrange, and treble adjustments after that (I usually regret breaking this rule).

If you are not sure how to use the EQ there are charts out there of different formats that explain the various frequency ranges. Remember to concentrate on one area at a time, listen to the individual instruments- do they sound good/natural?


----------



## speakerman99 (Apr 18, 2016)

Well this little thread has proved quite entertaining. Sort of reinforces one of my original comments that real life, or in this case "good sound", is seldom black or white to all people. I knew better than to post an academic question on here.....:laugh: Maybe next time we can argue over who has the roundest set of tires  Thanks for all the replies. 

I don't have enough windshield time in a precisely tuned system to really dial in anything by ear yet. See earlier reference to learning about SQ from magazines. Only so much you can learn on DIYMA. I can generally pick out a bad tune, or problem with a system. I'm just progressing to the point of really understanding what and how to address those issues and dialing in individual instruments is still trial and error.


----------



## speakerman99 (Apr 18, 2016)

sqnut said:


> The point of a reference curve is to get a baseline and then tune for accuracy from there, based on what you're hearing. I'm not sure what the Helix curve looks like but if it runs flat from ~300-1khz, that could be part of the problem.


The grey bars in the screen shot below is a screen shot of the "ATF Reference Curve". It gradually slopes down to 800hz at which point it's flat to 6.3Khz and begins to fall off again. It seemed like a reasonable place to start. This pic was from sort of mid-tune, meaning I had toned down some of the sub 160hz peaks, but still left plenty on the table. You can tell from the blue bars that I have some issues around the 200-250 range. Still haven't really figured out that one. I'm assuming the non-existent 20hz and 16khz+ frequencies are because I'm playing pink noise from an iphone, please don't hate. It's just a band-aid.


----------



## GEM592 (Jun 19, 2015)

speakerman99 said:


> Well this little thread has proved quite entertaining. Sort of reinforces one of my original comments that real life, or in this case "good sound", is seldom black or white to all people. I knew better than to post an academic question on here.....:laugh: Maybe next time we can argue over who has the roundest set of tires  Thanks for all the replies.
> 
> I don't have enough windshield time in a precisely tuned system to really dial in anything by ear yet. See earlier reference to learning about SQ from magazines. Only so much you can learn on DIYMA. I can generally pick out a bad tune, or problem with a system. I'm just progressing to the point of really understanding what and how to address those issues and dialing in individual instruments is still trial and error.


Mine! My tires! 

No we are just talking here and not taking anything personally. At least I'm not.

Really you are right you should have your thread back so with no further ado let us get back to that.


----------



## GEM592 (Jun 19, 2015)

So to fit the reference curve what exactly did you do? Did you try cutting say 300 to 600 then bringing down the sub level? If I understand you're running the sub up to 250 to try and compensate? If so that seems unusual/unlikely to work - you might try crossing the sub lower and cutting above the problem area to flatten it out. You might have already tried this.

The reference curve itself looks to be OK to me - that is the shape you usually see.


----------



## speakerman99 (Apr 18, 2016)

GEM592 said:


> So to fit the reference curve what exactly did you do? Did you try cutting say 300 to 600 then bringing down the sub level? If I understand you're running the sub up to 250 to try and compensate? If so that seems unusual/unlikely to work - you might try crossing the sub lower and cutting above the problem area to flatten it out. You might have already tried this.
> 
> The reference curve itself looks to be OK to me - that is the shape you usually see.


Sorry a little more detail is warranted. 3-way active system I THINK I have addressed any phasing issues and crossovers set as follows:

Sub:BM MKIV LPF @ 75Hz -24db
MidBass: Hertz Mille 1600 HPF @ 63Hz -24db > LPF @220 -24db
MidRange: AudioFrog GB25 HPF @200Hz -24db > LPF @ 3100Hz -12db
Tweeter: Diamond Audio S? HPF @ 3050 -24db

I have run the midbass all the way to 250 and tried various slopes and crossover types (BBW, LR, TSC?, etc) and overlaps. The hertz can go high as I need, but the punch sounds better if I keep them below 190. The frogs get a little scratchy if I run them below 200. Actually sound better if I leave them up around 230, but then I still have this hole between 200-250. 

Yes, when "zeroing' in to the ATF reference curve I've adjusted global sub & midbass level to get close and then cut (never add) any eq frequency to bring in line. I can get there, but I usually change it back a few days later because I miss the midbass upfront.


----------



## GEM592 (Jun 19, 2015)

speakerman99 said:


> Sorry a little more detail is warranted. 3-way active system I THINK I have addressed any phasing issues and crossovers set as follows:
> 
> Sub:BM MKIV LPF @ 75Hz -24db
> MidBass: Hertz Mille 1600 HPF @ 63Hz -24db > LPF @220 -24db
> ...


OK, have you tried fitting to a hypothetical "reference" that slopes upward (down toward the sub) from a higher starting point - so that it is biased with the problem area in mind?

Meaning boosting your reference from 63 to 800 say 2 db and tuning to that?

Your crossover points seem really not bad to me and I certainly agree that opting for lower (on the low mid/high mid) is better.


----------



## WhiteKnite (Nov 20, 2013)

OP where are you taking measurements from? I have found also using multiple sweeps around my head location and averaging them instead of using an RTA tends to give me better results, so could be worth a try.


----------



## speakerman99 (Apr 18, 2016)

WhiteKnite said:


> OP where are you taking measurements from? I have found also using multiple sweeps around my head location and averaging them instead of using an RTA tends to give me better results, so could be worth a try.


I'm using the miniDSP UMIK mic over USB into a MS Surface tablet running the Helix DSP software. Measurements taken while sitting in the truck holding mic at ear level and sweeping from ear to ear..... The software takes measurements in 20 second increments and I believe its averaging the readings.


----------



## Drop11 (Jul 4, 2016)

speakerman99 said:


> WhiteKnite said:
> 
> 
> > OP where are you taking measurements from? I have found also using multiple sweeps around my head location and averaging them instead of using an RTA tends to give me better results, so could be worth a try.
> ...


Nothing wrong with that. In rew you can set up how many averages you want to take. I measured until the line of the screen stops moving then move on to the next speaker.


----------



## speakerman99 (Apr 18, 2016)

GEM592 said:


> OK, have you tried fitting to a hypothetical "reference" that slopes upward (down toward the sub) from a higher starting point - so that it is biased with the problem area in mind?
> 
> Meaning boosting your reference from 63 to 800 say 2 db and tuning to that?
> 
> Your crossover points seem really not bad to me and I certainly agree that opting for lower (on the low mid/high mid) is better.


If I follow, yes I have essentially boosted global settings to the point that the dip at 200/250 hits the reference. Then cut everything else (a bunch) to match reference. Problem is that I have to cut all other frequencies so much that I lose too much overall volume which sort of defeats the purpose.

In chasing the 200/250 issues I have also tried to isolate the issue by measuring and adjusting the higher octaves on the mid-bass separately from the lower octaves of the mid-range. Meaning with everything muted but selected channel. I can get it closer with this, but still a noticeable dip in response. I swear it's like there is a bass trap at 200hz somewhere. Canceling reflections if that's such a thing?


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

speakerman99 said:


> If I follow, yes I have essentially boosted global settings to the point that the dip at 200/250 hits the reference. Then cut everything else (a bunch) to match reference. Problem is that I have to cut all other frequencies so much that I lose too much overall volume which sort of defeats the purpose.
> 
> In chasing the 200/250 issues I have also tried to isolate the issue by measuring and adjusting the higher octaves on the mid-bass separately from the lower octaves of the mid-range. Meaning with everything muted but selected channel. I can get it closer with this, but still a noticeable dip in response. I swear it's like there is a bass trap at 200hz somewhere. Canceling reflections if that's such a thing?


most likely a room mode. if so, nothing you can do about it. measure the offending speakers individually and post pics


----------



## Drop11 (Jul 4, 2016)

I have about a 14db peak at 200. It's definitely the car. My dip is centered on 80 and another small one at 300. Consider yourself lucky. 200hz is a trash frequency. Most music has content cut heavily in this region. You don't want to cut too much or the system will sound thin but its not a big deal if it's a few db low.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

speakerman99 said:


> The grey bars in the screen shot below is a screen shot of the "ATF Reference Curve". It gradually slopes down to 800hz at which point it's flat to 6.3Khz and begins to fall off again. It seemed like a reasonable place to start. This pic was from sort of mid-tune, meaning I had toned down some of the sub 160hz peaks, but still left plenty on the table. You can tell from the blue bars that I have some issues around the 200-250 range. Still haven't really figured out that one. I'm assuming the non-existent 20hz and 16khz+ frequencies are because I'm playing pink noise from an iphone, please don't hate. It's just a band-aid.


You will never have good mid bass with that curve.


----------



## speakerman99 (Apr 18, 2016)

sqnut said:


> You will never have good mid bass with that curve.


You have my attention. What would you suggest? Freestyle what feels good is is their another "standard" floating around the forums?


----------



## Drop11 (Jul 4, 2016)

speakerman99 said:


> sqnut said:
> 
> 
> > You will never have good mid bass with that curve.
> ...


Are you competing? 

If not get your ta right. You crossovers right and your left and right eq as close as you can. After that it's your system. Make it sound how you want it to sound. Save your base settings as a preset so you can always go back to a reference and do whatever you want with the eq. Give me a sec. I'll show you what I like.


----------



## Drop11 (Jul 4, 2016)

This is my system after adjusting to taste.
Keep in mind my left and right are VERY close. 
My base tune is very smooth. And it sounds like ass to me.


----------



## DDFusionV2 (Jul 11, 2016)

^ you get upfront bass with that tune?


----------



## Drop11 (Jul 4, 2016)

DDFusionV2 said:


> ^ you get upfront bass with that tune?


Very much so. I can crank the sub a lot more than that before it starts to pull on most music. On some bass heavy tracks I have to back off a little but for most of my music it works great. Keep in mind though. My sub is in my backseat. I can touch it from where I sit. I don't know if that helps or not but that's where it is.


----------



## BlackHHR (May 12, 2013)

speakerman99 said:


> Rookie Tuner here so please be gentle:
> 
> Each time I tune my system to match the standard ATF curve on the Helix I am disappointed with the resulting midbass, specifically I lose all punch in the mid bass area.
> 
> ...


Speakerman99,

Would you be interested in swinging by the shop? We can take a quick look with the rta and see what is going on in the car. 

770-888-8200

Ask for 
Greg


----------



## WhiteKnite (Nov 20, 2013)

speakerman99 said:


> I'm using the miniDSP UMIK mic over USB into a MS Surface tablet running the Helix DSP software. Measurements taken while sitting in the truck holding mic at ear level and sweeping from ear to ear..... The software takes measurements in 20 second increments and I believe its averaging the readings.


Ok, that's basically how I do it too (Even down to the the UMIK and Surface lol) but I use REW. Just making sure you weren't taking a single measurement from some odd location with a big mid-bass spike that was causing cuts to compensate or something.


----------



## Drop11 (Jul 4, 2016)

BlackHHR said:


> speakerman99 said:
> 
> 
> > Rookie Tuner here so please be gentle:
> ...


That's awesome. I wish someone would have made me this offer when I was getting started.


----------



## strohw (Jan 27, 2016)

Drop11 said:


> This is my system after adjusting to taste.
> Keep in mind my left and right are VERY close.
> My base tune is very smooth. And it sounds like ass to me.


Have you ever tried rolling off your 20hz to 60hz to have a smooth transition to 70hz? 20hz to 60hz flat makes sub bass sound bloated to me in a vehicle. It over emphasizes the sub to midbass transition and makes all the notes in that range sound the same.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

speakerman99 said:


> You have my attention. What would you suggest? Freestyle what feels good is is their another "standard" floating around the forums?


This is the response from the magic bus, it's also at a 10db resolution so it looks smoother than it is, but this is the kind of curve you want as your base. For now you can ignore the left side bias above 1khz, just balance L&R to the centre. Try and avoid +/- 2-3 db swings at 1/3 oct.


----------



## speakerman99 (Apr 18, 2016)

Drop11 said:


> That's awesome. I wish someone would have made me this offer when I was getting started.


Awesome in deed. Sounds like an offer I can't pass up. Not sure if he remembers, but I actually spoke to Greg several months ago when I first bought the Helix P6. Top notch guy and very willing to answer my dumb questions.


----------



## Drop11 (Jul 4, 2016)

strohw said:


> Drop11 said:
> 
> 
> > This is my system after adjusting to taste.
> ...


Sure. I've tried just about everything you can think of. Been tuning cars for about 25 years. I like that bloated midbass. I don't care at all about pure sq. To me it is about the most boring sound on the planet. I don't need tons of bass but I like my kick drums. Just about everything I listen to is electronic music. I don't listen to any "band" type music at all. A few pop songs here and there. 
I'm perfectly capable of tuning that way


But to me this sound lacks punch severely and is very boring. And while everything above 200hz like this sounds fantastic everything below it sounds dull and a bit muddy. I just do not like the sound of subs playing up to 80hz. I never have. Its sounds terrible to me.If that's what people like cool. That's on them but it doesn't suit me at all.
Also. This tune pulls more to the rear on me than the one I posted earlier big time. Maybe some of you guys can't hear that but I definitely can.


----------



## speakerman99 (Apr 18, 2016)

Had the opportunity to speak with BlackHHR this afternoon. He is such an asset to this DIYMA community. Hopefully I can make sometime to visit the mothership at HAT soon! He also made a couple suggestions that I tried to model this afternoon.

First, since I like a little extra midbass punch he suggested to modify the ATF reference by starting at 160Hz and working backwards to ultimately end up about 12db above the 160Hz level. Also, suggested that I move the GB25 midrange HPF from 200 to 300Hz and move the midbass up accordingly. The frog's specs say to cross at -12db at 200 Hz, but I have heard them breakup with those settings with a heavy midbass note or two. Less breakup with -24db slope. 

Here's pic of the initial results prior to changing crossover settings. Same couple of issues. Spike at 50, Valley at 200. Otherwise, close enough for government work.


Here's a pic of just the frogs with the new HPF set to about 290Hz -24db.


I forgot to save just the midbass curve. Bumping up the LPF to 280Hz smoothed out the valley at 250, but still a hole around 200. +1 for that vehicle mode. 

I need to post a screenshot of the actual eq settings. I have some spikes at 50hz and 800-2kHz that require -8 to -15db or more eq cuts to levelize. Is it normal to require cuts this big? Those are all midrange cuts. The bookend frequencies are OK, but the mid response requires a lot of adjustment. I'm thinking windshield reflections?

This wasn't final, final but close enough to see what's left over with the new reference curve. A QUICK listen to actual music and it does have some punch. I still need some time to further evaluate, but it's a decent restart.


----------



## strohw (Jan 27, 2016)

Drop11 said:


> Sure. I've tried just about everything you can think of. Been tuning cars for about 25 years. I like that bloated midbass. I don't care at all about pure sq. To me it is about the most boring sound on the planet. I don't need tons of bass but I like my kick drums. Just about everything I listen to is electronic music. I don't listen to any "band" type music at all. A few pop songs here and there.
> I'm perfectly capable of tuning that way
> 
> 
> ...


The second graph is a little different than what I was expecting. You have a 6db roll off from 30-60hz. But you also have a 5-6db roll off from 70hz-350hz that you didn't have in the first graph. What was your impression mixing the 6db roll off 30-60z and keeping the flat 70hz-350hz?


----------



## Drop11 (Jul 4, 2016)

strohw said:


> Drop11 said:
> 
> 
> > Sure. I've tried just about everything you can think of. Been tuning cars for about 25 years. I like that bloated midbass. I don't care at all about pure sq. To me it is about the most boring sound on the planet. I don't need tons of bass but I like my kick drums. Just about everything I listen to is electronic music. I don't listen to any "band" type music at all. A few pop songs here and there.
> ...


Sounds big. Open and warm. I have a very deep stage with just about any tune. This one is extremely deep. Most music is about halfway down my hood. It's not blurry but very full and warm. Too laid back for my taste.


----------



## therapture (Jan 31, 2013)

Good discussion, but to throw my nickle in here - once I arrive at a pleasing baseline curve, I find I never do more than 1 click up/down on head unit treble, or more than +/- 2 on midbass for different music, and I listen to a LOT of different types. Oh yeah, and my sub level remote is constantly being fiddled with, far more than any other setting.

Also, I tune it for my solo "loud" level - at lower volumes with other people in the vehicle, it is a little flat in the midbass, but since we are usually talking I don't care. I drive an hours drive 5x a week for work so that is my jam time.


----------

