# SQ really is subjective.



## qwertydude

I think just like all the hifi nonsense like line conditioners, speaker wire elevators, and green marker on CD rims can't stand up to real double blind tests, it seems musical instruments suffer from the same biases.

Double-Blind Violin Test: Can You Pick The Strad? : Deceptive Cadence : NPR

I picked the right one but have to say it sounded close but I remember hearing recordings of Stradivarii violin solos compared to other ones and distinctly remember that they have more muted lows so to me I could tell. But only just so.


----------



## SHOToonz

I agree, inasmuch as not everyone's hearing is the same. Take me for example. I have significant hearing loss in both ears thanks to repeated exposure to guns, cannons and explosives. To compound that, my right ear's more gone than my left. Therefore a system set flat sounds like a dog fart to me. Therefore I set up a system that sounds good to me, despite having the loudness on and the EQ on my head unit heavily tweaked.

But that's just me...


----------



## 14642

Google Sean Olive at Harman and check out his blog for more scientific information regarding listener preference. The gist is that the preferences of beginning listeners are all over the map, but as listeners become more experienced, their preferences tend to converge on a very specific set of criteria that confirms the science of making greta sounding speakers and refutes the suggestion that all listeners prefer something different and that speakers are like musical instruments. 

Making music is art. Reproducing it is science.

However...some recordings suck and the quality of the listening experience can be dramatically enhanced by some significant coloration in the playback system (this is my postulate, but I'm not a scientist).


----------



## quietfly

I find Loudness also can greatly affect the perception of SQ. A car is such a poor vehicle (pun intended) for critical listening.


----------



## Hillbilly SQ

When I dail a system in it's catered for my hearing loss and my right ear is a lot weaker than my left. It's your typical equal loudness curve with a little more bite on the tippy top than a lot of people usually prefer. To be honest a good sounding automobile system is made by making the best out of a bad situation. Combine a bunch of highly reflective surfaces in close proximity with each other with locations that will always be a compromise in one way or another and you have a situation where a speaker is only as good as the room you put it in. NPDang couldn't have said it better.


----------



## pjhabit

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> Google Sean Olive at Harman and check out his blog for more scientific information regarding listener preference. The gist is that the preferences of beginning listeners are all over the map, but as listeners become more experienced, their preferences tend to converge on a very specific set of criteria that confirms the science of making greta sounding speakers and refutes the suggestion that all listeners prefer something different and that speakers are like musical instruments.
> 
> Making music is art. Reproducing it is science.
> 
> However...some recordings suck and the quality of the listening experience can be dramatically enhanced by some significant coloration in the playback system (this is my postulate, but I'm not a scientist).


That reminds me of THIS article that suggests it's a learned behavior....well, that or it affirms that youth is wasted on the young


----------



## qwertydude

That article already confirms what I knew people's preference is entirely psychological.

Since I learned early on what dynamic range, frequency response, and what real instruments sound like I knew what to tune for.

And real instruments sound nothing like what vinyl sounds like or what compressed MP3 sounds like. Try listening to classical on vinyl and all the hiss clicks and pops are just too much a distraction during the quieter lulls. That's why I hold disdain equally for vinyl and tube amp adherents when they claim that those technologies were real "sound quality"

I much prefer CD quality or high bit rate MP3 which is for all intents and purposes indistinguishable. I could also say FLAC but it's of such limited use, mainly for archiving, because for mp3 players it just takes up too much space.

My own version of sound quality is the ability to reproduce the sound exactly as it's heard when listening live. So even then it's hard to say because this rules out any amplified music such as electric guitars or microphones because then they'll have coloration from the speakers or amps they're using.


----------



## brett

i've found something similar to what andy said for myself. my sq tastes haven't changed, so much as they've evolved. my journey started as a young dude back in the 80's listening to classic vinyl on my dad's home system through altec lansing stonehenge speakers. i always thought it sounded great but my ears were always wanting a little brighter sound. then in my teens i got my first home stereo consisting of mtx 4way tower speakers. even then i wanted to turn the highs up though it had horns. then in high school i got into car audio. i, again, loaded the car up with drivers and at one point had at least 3 sets of tweeters in one car! so time went by, more installs came and went. i also became a musician and learned to play guitar and drums. in this time playing insanely loud music, loud intruments and going to many loud shows, im sure my hearing got damaged. with my current system i find myself dialing the highs down a little bit, but probably not as much as i know they should be. at this point, with my experience listening and reading and more listening, i know i should have less but i think im just compensating for potential hearing loss.

this is just my personal story, but im sure others have their own. but like andy said, in the last few years i've had more of an understanding of what things should sound like and i think the best way to find that audible least common denominator is to just be patient. listen, listen, listen to as many cars and systems as possible. expand your understanding of what sq could mean to you because for me it has definitely evolved.

hope that helps


----------



## RNBRAD

qwertydude said:


> That article already confirms what I knew people's preference is entirely psychological.
> 
> Since I learned early on what dynamic range, frequency response, and what real instruments sound like I knew what to tune for.
> 
> And real instruments sound nothing like what vinyl sounds like or what compressed MP3 sounds like. Try listening to classical on vinyl and all the hiss clicks and pops are just too much a distraction during the quieter lulls. That's why I hold disdain equally for vinyl and tube amp adherents when they claim that those technologies were real "sound quality"
> 
> I much prefer CD quality or high bit rate MP3 which is for all intents and purposes indistinguishable. I could also say FLAC but it's of such limited use, mainly for archiving, because for mp3 players it just takes up too much space.
> 
> My own version of sound quality is the ability to reproduce the sound exactly as it's heard when listening live. So even then it's hard to say because this rules out any amplified music such as electric guitars or microphones because then they'll have coloration from the speakers or amps they're using.


Exactly what is is, personal preference, just like anything else. The music we like and how we like it is a part of our socialization as well as genetics. So sound quality to you and SQ to me is an entirely different definition. That's why we argue so much about it and always will.

As far as vinyl goes, it's like anything else. Use good vinyl from good manufacturers that's not recycled and company's that use better release agents that don't adhere as much to the new vinyl. Also keep it clean and handle with rubber gloves, buy a box (50ct 5 dollars) use one each time, dont need both, prevents prints and static. No I'm not kidding!! Your vinyl will sound much better, pops clicks gone. Oh and invest in a Rockport, preferably a Sirius System III, IV, or V. The price we pay for SQ, and whatever that term means to you.

You say you like it live? What venue? Outdoor (bandshell or stand), Opera/concert hall (numerous sizes, stadium (open or closed dome?)club, dance hall, studio, they all sound different, so saying I like it live brings on a whole different level of sound characteristics. Depends where your playing, and btw which venue has the best SQ? :laugh:I'm sure we could devote not just a thread but an entire site on that one. :laugh:


----------



## Hillbilly SQ

LOL I personally HATE live recordings for the most part. There are a couple exceptions but that's it. Guess all the clapping and other crap annoys me too much.


----------



## MarkZ

Some live recordings are done directly through the board though.

btw I'm not totally convinced that the convergence Sean Olive is talking about is entirely learned. Our sensory systems develop according to the environment. If you alter what "natural stimuli" are, you also alter sensory perception and performance later in life. There's clinical evidence of this, and also these experiments have been done in animal models too (one group won a Nobel Prize for this in the 80s). We all experience more or less the same sensory stimuli during development, which explains why certain things work the way they do in all of us. So, the whole idea that the preferred spectral content of music, for example, is similar among people may be due (at least in part) to how well music with those properties mimic natural stimuli, rather than our overt attempt to try to conform to some standard that we're taught.


----------



## co_leonard

cajunner said:


> might as well put the link up for Andy, who may not be able to do so on account of some policy or whatnot at Harman...
> 
> Audio Musings by Sean Olive: Part 1- Do Untrained Listeners Prefer the Same Loudspeakers as Trained Listeners?
> 
> 
> maybe this one is better:
> 
> Audio Musings by Sean Olive: Part 3 - Relationship between Loudspeaker Measurements and Listener Preferences


Here's the actual article: http://www.aes.org/tmpFiles/elib/20130105/12206.pdf

Very good read!


----------



## 14642

My experiiences in doing demonstration of great sounding audio for lots of different people--experienced critical listeners and neophytes is that there is a certain sound that gets a "Wow, that's awesome" from nearly everyone. Some deviations from that certain sound are more objectionable than others and sometimes people prefer some of the deviations. More or less bass is one of them. More or less high frequency is another. However, the overall shape of the response, has to be maintained within some limits in order to get the "wow". I've posted that response here many times. 

My method in arriving at this wasn't the same kind of science that Sean does--it wasn't a controlled experiment, it's been 30 years of building systems and products and listening carefully to what people say. In my experience, the difference between a "trained" and "untrained" listener has nothing to do with hearing acuity or even an understanding of system building, woofers, tweeters, crossovers, equalization or what have you. The "training" is in being able to explain to the person doing the survey WHAT you don't like. It's the job of the salesperson or installer to be the translator and a good one listens to what you mean and not necessarily what you say. 

Years ago when I was an installer, we had a customer who came in for a pretty good system. I think we installed a couple of amplifiers, a sub and 4 speakers. He loved it. He left. A week later he came back and said it wasn't loud enough. We added amplifiers and another sub. He loved it again. He came back a week later and said, "It still isn't loud enough". We doubled the speakers in the front, doubled the power again, added two more subs. He loved it a third time. He came back a week later and said, it's better but still not quite loud enough. We were out of space in the car to add more and the thing was ridiculously loud. 

My boss (really smart guy who is now no longer in the industry because he teaches music at a local university) went out to the the car and asked the guy to play something at the level he usually listens. The volume control was 1/4 of the way up. Normal listening level. Hmmm...WTF? I go out to the car and jump in the back seat. My boss asks the guy to play a song that he thinks is a good example of what's missing. He puts on some vocal track and says, "See, whe she sings that note, it isn't loud enough and when the bass player plays that part of the music, it isn't loud enough."

We took out half the power in the car and traded in the amplifiers for a pair of Audio Control EQTs and spent the rest the day in the car with an RTA. The next day, the guy came to pick up the car, listened and said, "That's exactly what I wanted". 

This taught me to listen MUCH more carefully to what people MEAN and to do some additional investigation when necessary. The disconnect was that the customer's ability to articulate his desires using words we understood wasn't well developed--he didn't speak audiophile--but it had nothing to do with his ears. My job as a product manager is to TRANSLATE, which means I have to be the expert. The job of a salesman or an installer is also to TRANSLATE. 

What Sean does is another kind of translation. He performs carefully controlled experiments in order to be able to express the results in another language--the language of science, which has its own rules and constraints--the most important being repeatability. Sometimes that means limiting the words people use to describe the experience and for that, training is required. You can read about the listener training program at Harman online. I don't know where it is, but just Google "Harman Listener Training".


----------



## RNBRAD

I think a taught standard should conform to our natural experiences (in a perfect world of course). Seems like it did pretty good tho comparing trained to untrained listeners in Part 1. I think once we understand there is a slight difference in all of us, were better to understand other points of view. Even identical siamese twins, the closest production of the same individual that we know, still experience things differently and have different personality & tastes. Anyone ever thought about why that is? Usually the argument is nature versus nurture. Nature and nurture for siamese twins is about as close as it can get.


----------



## fhlh002

and all this time I thought SQ was about the brands you used....


----------



## file audio

SO what are the must do things to get sq.? turn off head unit loudness function ,, whats more?,,, Im trying to get quality but I WANT TO learn new things about sq.


----------



## TheScottishBear

It's an interesting subject. I was never compelled to pursue anything sq with my system's prior iterations. Then I picked up a pair of ID horns. Right after installing them with minimal eq (7 band) I could see something was different. After getting a 30 band eq and tuning them towards my own personal preferences I was picking up massive amounts of detail on very familiar passages. The dynamics of some live music brought a huge smile to my face when I leaned back and closed my eyes. I think that was the time when I attempted to listen critically to my stereo. As I did I could see flaws that were either ignored or didn't notice until now. I cursed myself at the realization. lol Ignorance really is bliss. My time as a bass head was over. It is taking a fair amount of my will not to rip my wall out immediately and go to an IB setup. I swore to keep it in until the demo/show season is over this fall but every tweak I make weakens my resolve. 
The most interesting thing is that I have found some serious flaws with my stereo and that awareness leads to a near state of panic. I have this weird sense of abominable will that is driving me to make my stereo better now. I've never felt such drive with a hobby before...like ever.
The only thing I am saving in the rebuild is the horns, 30 band eq and my batteries. Amps, subs, midbass, HU; are all getting replaced. It feels like the best way to go forward is to start back at the beginning. This is just some ramblings of a 35 yr. old bass head turned sq convert. I still would like to try 2 21" IB so maybe it's not completely out of my system yet. lol


----------



## file audio

TheScottishBear said:


> It's an interesting subject. I was never compelled to pursue anything sq with my system's prior iterations. Then I picked up a pair of ID horns. Right after installing them with minimal eq (7 band) I could see something was different. After getting a 30 band eq and tuning them towards my own personal preferences I was picking up massive amounts of detail on very familiar passages. The dynamics of some live music brought a huge smile to my face when I leaned back and closed my eyes. I think that was the time when I attempted to listen critically to my stereo. As I did I could see flaws that were either ignored or didn't notice until now. I cursed myself at the realization. lol Ignorance really is bliss. My time as a bass head was over. It is taking a fair amount of my will not to rip my wall out immediately and go to an IB setup. I swore to keep it in until the demo/show season is over this fall but every tweak I make weakens my resolve.
> The most interesting thing is that I have found some serious flaws with my stereo and that awareness leads to a near state of panic. I have this weird sense of abominable will that is driving me to make my stereo better now. I've never felt such drive with a hobby before...like ever.
> The only thing I am saving in the rebuild is the horns, 30 band eq and my batteries. Amps, subs, midbass, HU; are all getting replaced. It feels like the best way to go forward is to start back at the beginning. This is just some ramblings of a 35 yr. old bass head.
> 
> 3xcuse me what is the meaning of "IB ser up"? Your pos5 has poetry sad at times , hopefull at the end, wise and smart, I understand what you are saying cause that smile that fullfill your face was SOmetimes 3 times in my life, a mix of satisfaction and surprise , the moment of glory had arrived("perfect" SQ ) but you know inside you , here you go again looking for ssom3thing more...


----------



## TheScottishBear

file audio said:


> TheScottishBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's an interesting subject. I was never compelled to pursue anything sq with my system's prior iterations. Then I picked up a pair of ID horns. Right after installing them with minimal eq (7 band) I could see something was different. After getting a 30 band eq and tuning them towards my own personal preferences I was picking up massive amounts of detail on very familiar passages. The dynamics of some live music brought a huge smile to my face when I leaned back and closed my eyes. I think that was the time when I attempted to listen critically to my stereo. As I did I could see flaws that were either ignored or didn't notice until now. I cursed myself at the realization. lol Ignorance really is bliss. My time as a bass head was over. It is taking a fair amount of my will not to rip my wall out immediately and go to an IB setup. I swore to keep it in until the demo/show season is over this fall but every tweak I make weakens my resolve.
> The most interesting thing is that I have found some serious flaws with my stereo and that awareness leads to a near state of panic. I have this weird sense of abominable will that is driving me to make my stereo better now. I've never felt such drive with a hobby before...like ever.
> The only thing I am saving in the rebuild is the horns, 30 band eq and my batteries. Amps, subs, midbass, HU; are all getting replaced. It feels like the best way to go forward is to start back at the beginning. This is just some ramblings of a 35 yr. old bass head.
> 
> 3xcuse me what is the meaning of "IB ser up"? Your pos5 has poetry sad at times , hopefull at the end, wise and smart, I understand what you are saying cause that smile that fullfill your face was SOmetimes 3 times in my life, a mix of satisfaction and surprise , the moment of glory had arrived("perfect" SQ ) but you know inside you , here you go again looking for ssom3thing more...
> 
> 
> 
> IB is infinite baffle. Do a quick search on the site and a ton of information will come up
Click to expand...


----------



## goodstuff

TheScottishBear said:


> I think that was the time when I attempted to listen critically to my stereo. As I did I could see flaws that were either ignored or didn't notice until now. I cursed myself at the realization. lol Ignorance really is bliss. My time as a bass head was over. It is taking a fair amount of my will not to rip my wall out immediately and go to an IB setup. I swore to keep it in until the demo/show season is over this fall but every tweak I make weakens my resolve.
> The most interesting thing is that I have found some serious flaws with my stereo and that awareness leads to a near state of panic. I have this weird sense of abominable will that is driving me to make my stereo better now. I've never felt such drive with a hobby before...like ever.


You've got....."the fever". Welcome to hell. LoL.


----------



## Oliver

file audio said:


> SO what are the must do things to get sq.? turn off head unit loudness function ,, whats more?,,, Im trying to get quality but I WANT TO learn new things about sq.


Signal control - EQ's, DSP


----------



## file audio

Oliver said:


> Signal control - EQ's, DSP


 Need an eq and dsp? Canyou be more specific .. hehe tnx in advnce


----------



## PPI_GUY

If all our brains were wired exactly the same and our perception of sound was identical then, I think we could argue SQ isn't subjective. There are other variables but, the differing construction of our auditory receptors is the primary roadblock.


----------



## Catman

Hillbilly SQ said:


> LOL I personally HATE live recordings for the most part. There are a couple exceptions but that's it. Guess all the clapping and other crap annoys me too much.


I agree totally. Live recordings are barely tolerable for background music. If I am listening for the enjoyment of the music it won't be a live recording. FWIW ...most studio recordings are not good enough for critical listening. This is why most of my CDs are either TELARC or Mobile Fidelity. It is getting harder and harder to find quality recordings these days.

With a good recording you should be able to tell if the piano is a Steinway / Baldwin / Yamaha or if the organ is a Hammond B3 or a synthesizer. If the drummer is using a Remo or a Ludwig bottom snare head ...or Paiste / Zildjian cymbals or even wood/nylon tipped sticks. Or if the vocals are through a Shure or a Sennheiser microphone. Or if the bass player is using flat or round wound strings.


>^..^<


----------



## Catman

file audio said:


> Need an eq and dsp? Canyou be more specific .. hehe tnx in advnce


EQ / DSP are 'band aids' for those who do not know how to design and install a system.


>^..^<


----------



## file audio

Catman said:


> EQ / DSP are 'band aids' for those who do not know how to design and install a system.
> 
> 
> >^..^<


WEll , I was planning to buy a audison bit one, but now i have 2 audiocontrol eqs and eqx, as I have a 3 way system and an adicional focal woofer as central speaker, and a cdt 1220 sub, Then With the 880prs i have dsp isnt it? I r3alize how relative is the SQ my wife doesnt want the volume more than 15% and the steve murano my own way song was the best one to sound check, as I BUY MORE equipment that song is getting worse and worse jojo and acustic songs and brass sections getting better.. hehe


----------



## minbari

Catman said:


> EQ / DSP are 'band aids' for those who do not know how to design and install a system.
> 
> 
> >^..^<


that is a silly statement. for an environment like a car where you are off-set to one side. the cabin is less than ideal. reflections. speakers are not in ideal enclosures. speakers are not in front of you, but instead to the side.

doesnt matter how good you are, a DSP can correct for a lot of stuff install cant.


----------



## MarkZ

Catman said:


> EQ / DSP are 'band aids' for those who do not know how to design and install a system.
> 
> 
> >^..^<


Those who do not know how to design and install a system tend to call DSP "band aids".


----------



## file audio

MarkZ said:


> Those who do not know how to design and install a system tend to call DSP "band aids".


FIght fight hehe na, is interesting to see diffrent opinions, theres a thread about time aligment, and nothing is written on stones ,,


----------



## CDT FAN

If DSP's are for people who don't know how to to intall, then count me in. In my car, the 80PRS made a huge difference with just the TA. I reset the TA to factory to compare the difference and I couldn't believe how it killed the soundstage.


----------



## minbari

cajunner said:


> SRS Wow effects are software DSP, right?
> 
> put on a good set of headphones and listen to stereo, then switch in and out, the SRS Wow effects on your media player.
> 
> in that instance, I can hear the artificiality of DSP, and to me the SRS Wow is coloring the music to such an extent that I prefer stereo.
> 
> and that's how it's been throughout my life with various effects processors, for whatever reason I am able to make stereo sound "right" in even severely mis-matched sound system locations.
> 
> 
> if that's a peculiar quality I don't know, I think it may be similar to the way some people have the neural pathway to curl their tongue like a U and others don't.


goofy EQ curves and reverb effects to give "live", "hall", etc are not really a good comparison to a good DSP that has a 8band PEQ with xover and T/A.

BTW, "DSP" stands for "digital signal processor" its a physical piece of hardware.


----------



## file audio

Im finding myself turning off loudness, sound retri3ver, bbe (i dont know its use) bmx is other function, on the 880prs that is the 88prs but premier (which H.U retail higher? 880prs or 88prs.. anybody knows a system that is using pasive xover and sounds amazing or its a rule that I got ti go active to achieve S.Q? Any suggestions,, excu se e my english


----------



## grim83

file audio said:


> Im finding myself turning off loudness, sound retri3ver, bbe (i dont know its use) bmx is other function, on the 880prs that is the 88prs but premier (which H.U retail higher? 880prs or 88prs.. anybody knows a system that is using pasive xover and sounds amazing or its a rule that I got ti go active to achieve S.Q? Any suggestions,, excu se e my english


Tom shaw i think is his name was/is one of if not the head guy for team arc runs a passive set up. On the original topic i believe hearing loss is another big factor into what you prefer i for instance cannot hear above 16khz but can hear down to 13 or so hz so i would be looking for a different response than someone who can hear up to say 20khz and down to 25hz. Either way this has been a very interesting read


----------



## MUGWUMP

goodstuff said:


> You've got....."the fever". Welcome to hell. LoL.


A year ago I couldn't fathom spending $800 on a processor.

Let's add up what I've purchased in the last 2 months...

Alpine PDX-F4
Alpine PDX-M6
Acoustic Elegance AEIB12 x3
Melodic Acoustic 8" Intimid8r midwoofers
Dayton RS125s
Audison Bit One
Endless amounts of little ****... RCA cables, fiberglass, flocking, screws, inserts, tools and materials.

I'm getting dizzy


----------



## Schramm

Subject comments become much more meaningful when everyone can agree on common definitions and actually describe what they are hearing in scientific, repeatable ways. Sean Olive's blogspot is really worth a visit.

I am surprised there have been so few comments on Harman's How to Listen Software mentioned earlier in this thread. I spent a few hours with the program and it was very educational. Here are some screen shots of the program. I was able to get up to level 7 for band identification after an hour of practice, but found it challenging above that level. My success rate dropped to about 60-65% when trying to identifying EQ peaks and dips when more than 8 frequency bands were given (at default settings gain 6dB, Q Factor 1). At least when I fail, usually I pick the band just above or below the correct band. I need more practice. Higher quality headphones and sound card would probably help, but not sure by what factor. The program will allow changes to the gain, Q factor, and number of bands which is really useful. I think anyone trying to tune their system by ear using DSP would really benefit from playing with the program. If you think you have golden ears, try increasing the bands to 24 and reducing the peaks/dips to 3 dB gain.


----------



## brett

thanks for posting this, had i known it existed i would've already tried this. i think i will find good and bad surprises;probably similar results to yours.


----------



## CDT FAN

Schramm said:


> Subject comments become much more meaningful when everyone can agree on common definitions and actually describe what they are hearing in scientific, repeatable ways. Sean Olive's blogspot is really worth a visit.
> 
> I am surprised there have been so few comments on Harman's How to Listen Software mentioned earlier in this thread. I spent a few hours with the program and it was very educational. Here are some screen shots of the program. I was able to get up to level 7 for band identification after an hour of practice, but found it challenging above that level. My success rate dropped to about 60-65% when trying to identifying EQ peaks and dips when more than 8 frequency bands were given (at default settings gain 6dB, Q Factor 1). At least when I fail, usually I pick the band just above or below the correct band. I need more practice. Higher quality headphones and sound card would probably help, but not sure by what factor. The program will allow changes to the gain, Q factor, and number of bands which is really useful. I think anyone trying to tune their system by ear using DSP would really benefit from playing with the program. If you think you have golden ears, try increasing the bands to 24 and reducing the peaks/dips to 3 dB gain.


Speaking of golden ear, check this test out. I am about halfway through the golden ear level and I am struggling with the same thing you are. I went into it without training first, though. I need to take a few minutes to play with the training before I try it again.

An Audiophile Workout: Philips Golden Ears Training | InnerFidelity


----------



## FG79

Catman said:


> I agree totally. Live recordings are barely tolerable for background music. If I am listening for the enjoyment of the music it won't be a live recording. FWIW ...most studio recordings are not good enough for critical listening. This is why most of my CDs are either TELARC or Mobile Fidelity. It is getting harder and harder to find quality recordings these days.
> 
> With a good recording you should be able to tell if the piano is a Steinway / Baldwin / Yamaha or if the organ is a Hammond B3 or a synthesizer. If the drummer is using a Remo or a Ludwig bottom snare head ...or Paiste / Zildjian cymbals or even wood/nylon tipped sticks. Or if the vocals are through a Shure or a Sennheiser microphone. Or if the bass player is using flat or round wound strings.
> 
> 
> >^..^<


Interesting stuff.

You hit on a key point -- great recording is what allows one to differentiate this stuff. Amplifier, speaker,etc........helps but not as much.

For those that can tell those differences (experienced musicians only) that's cool stuff. But it is only good so long as it is musical sounding and not "clinical". 

As far as the evolution of a listener, man I've come a LONG way the last 13 years. My first car system was on treble boost +5, now with much better tweeters, amps, etc....it's a -2, haha. I can't even imagine how ear piercing that first system was to listen to, but back then I thought it was great.

Amongst "trained listeners" there are those with the ability to call out a brighter/thinner sound vs. a more relaxed warmer sound more quickly than others. Good vs. poor dynamics, presence or lack thereof....a "boxy" sound that's not out in the soundstage versus one that really projects. Coherent sound vs. incoherent sound, a bit harder. There's more, but that's just a few to start out. 

Untrained rookie listeners have only two criteria for the most part:

a) Loud
b) Clean (or Clear)

I hear those two words every time a non audio enthusiast listens to my car or home system. So frustrating. 

Maybe you can add how much bass there is. Naturally it's just bass, not midbass or subbass, hehe. 

BTW, that's why those smiley face EQ curves are so popular with the amateurs -- it gives more an impression of "stuff going on" than a mostly midrange-centric sound. Lots of bass and treble is not real sound, but the masses tend to like it. 

I also have to put this out there because I see it on audio forums a lot, but detail is also a bit of an overrated quality in SQ. All things equal, more detail is nice. But detail when the tonal balance sucks, or system doesn't project....it's boring.

Finally, becoming a great listener is not just listening to sound systems a lot, per se, but listening to a lot of different types of music on these sound systems. The great diversity of awesome, good, average, bad, terrible recordings for quite a few of us is pretty real. By hearing a lot of recordings, you tend to learn what is good sound, and then that helps you gravitate to what the "correct" sound is with gear.

The digital/analog thing takes that another level, but that's a discussion for another day!


----------



## ZeblodS

Catman said:


> EQ / DSP are 'band aids' for those who do not know how to design and install a system.
> 
> 
> >^..^<


:laugh:

Because it is even possible to correct phase issues and group delay issues due to listener placement and reflexion of the car without DSP.


----------



## minbari

Saying a dsp/eq is a bandaid is because you dont know how to use them correctly. 

sent from my phone using digital farts


----------



## FG79

minbari said:


> Saying a dsp/eq is a bandaid is because you dont know how to use them correctly.
> 
> sent from my phone using digital farts


I think the gist of the anti-dsp/eq people in this thread isn't so much that it's a complete band aid, but there are some people who don't put enough attention to overall system design, speaker choice, amplifier choice, amplifier gain setting, crossover points, subwoofer/midbass enclosure tuning, etc. and instead show a cavalier attitude that DSP and EQ can fix all sorts of issues.

How often do you see people just say:

"I don't care if the enclosure is too small, I'll just EQ the bass in"?

Also, if a tweeter is too bright, just fix it in EQ.

With regards to DSP, I think it's less of an issue unless someone wants to put speakers very haphazardly in a car and just time align them all instead of making a conscious attempt to put them in ideal locations in the first place.

In my opinion, DSP and EQ used too much is not good. At best it's used as spice to fix things up. 

In home audio you would never use those devices. That's a perfect example of a bandaid. You place your speakers properly, buy the right gear, treat your room right and you never have to use DSP or EQ.

A car is different, but the philosophy is still somewhat there. I've had nice sounding (but not perfect sounding) cars without them.


----------



## car8961

Depends how you define SQ. If it means the amount of info. you can hear, or something else. The something else is subjective. No big deal. Happy listening!


----------



## ZeblodS

FG79 said:


> I think the gist of the anti-dsp/eq people in this thread isn't so much that it's a complete band aid, but there are some people who don't put enough attention to overall system design, speaker choice, amplifier choice, amplifier gain setting, crossover points, subwoofer/midbass enclosure tuning, etc. and instead show a cavalier attitude that DSP and EQ can fix all sorts of issues.


Speaker choice and amplifier choice is one point, depend on what kind of sound you want (and your budget...)

Amplifier gain setting is something you have to do once for all (for a specific couple unit/amplifier), and then never touche it again. The gain setting is not a level setting!

Crossover points have to be defined by looking at the frequency response of each speaker mesured in the car from the listening point (usually the driver's head position). It will be dissymetrical between left and right due to the listener offset in the car, the speakers positions, and all car's reflexions. And the only way to do this is using a DSP.

Subwoofer/midbass enclosure tuning is mainly the mounting, but the effect of the confined space of the car cannot be tunned by the mounting, that's when the DSP is usefull.



FG79 said:


> How often do you see people just say:
> 
> "I don't care if the enclosure is too small, I'll just EQ the bass in"?
> 
> Also, if a tweeter is too bright, just fix it in EQ.
> 
> With regards to DSP, I think it's less of an issue unless someone wants to put speakers very haphazardly in a car and just time align them all instead of making a conscious attempt to put them in ideal locations in the first place.


Agreed.



FG79 said:


> In my opinion, DSP and EQ used too much is not good. At best it's used as spice to fix things up.


A DSP must be used properly. Depending of the car and the speakers, there will be more or less correction, there isn't a magical number.



FG79 said:


> In home audio you would never use those devices. That's a perfect example of a bandaid. You place your speakers properly, buy the right gear, treat your room right and you never have to use DSP or EQ.
> 
> A car is different, but the philosophy is still somewhat there. I've had nice sounding (but not perfect sounding) cars without them.


In home audio you don't have all the problems you have in car audio.
Some of these problems can only be solved using a DSP (time aligment and phase for exemple).


----------



## Hanatsu

A DSP is a vital piece of equipment in any SQ oriented system. Saying it's a bandaid is plain stupid.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy 3 via Tapatalk.


----------



## cajunner

DSP is valuable in home audio as well.

some of the best systems out are using the crap out of digital processing, and it's making a huge difference in what we hear.

just like in a car, we are surrounded by choices of where to put furniture, how to fit an audio system into a home is usually after the interior designer gets done, not before.

so in parallels, you're needing to fix things in home audio just like in car audio, and DSP is the magic bullet that addresses everything in one box, no big deal.

saying you can just "treat the room" is pretty far from most people's aesthetics, and saying you can just "put speakers where you want" in a car, is pretty out there too. If we did, we'd have speakers in our field of vision where we drive!


I don't know why it's so hard to accept the new for some people, other than the added complexity and the costs, and the learning curve and the time spent going from one adjustment to the next, it's a piece of cake!


lol..

much better than bread-boarding a passive crossover with 30 different capacitors and coil combinations, and not even building in zobels and notch filters, or trying out different slopes, man... you used to only read about people who did that kind of thing, and it was usually a speaker designer who had mega-bucks speaker models to support. 

Now everyone can be a speaker designer, good or bad, and it's good!


----------



## Hanatsu

I'm using dual amplifiers and a miniDSP for my home audio system. Everything is high-end with Scan Speak Illumination towers, high current class A amps. Still, adding a DSP improved the system A LOT. I use lots of EQ below 120Hz to fix the room response, active crossovers are really nice to have, especially when you wanna use 4th order filters, passives tend to get complicated quickly.


----------



## FG79

cajunner said:


> DSP is valuable in home audio as well.
> 
> some of the best systems out are using the crap out of digital processing, and it's making a huge difference in what we hear.
> 
> just like in a car, we are surrounded by choices of where to put furniture, how to fit an audio system into a home is usually after the interior designer gets done, not before.
> 
> so in parallels, you're needing to fix things in home audio just like in car audio, and DSP is the magic bullet that addresses everything in one box, no big deal.
> 
> saying you can just "treat the room" is pretty far from most people's aesthetics, and saying you can just "put speakers where you want" in a car, is pretty out there too. If we did, we'd have speakers in our field of vision where we drive!
> 
> 
> I don't know why it's so hard to accept the new for some people, other than the added complexity and the costs, and the learning curve and the time spent going from one adjustment to the next, it's a piece of cake!
> 
> 
> lol..
> 
> much better than bread-boarding a passive crossover with 30 different capacitors and coil combinations, and not even building in zobels and notch filters, or trying out different slopes, man... you used to only read about people who did that kind of thing, and it was usually a speaker designer who had mega-bucks speaker models to support.
> 
> Now everyone can be a speaker designer, good or bad, and it's good!


Cajunner, I know many home systems that sound good without DSP. There's really no need for it, and treating a room is not like building a studio. It can be done without spending a fortune and/or remodeling the entire room. Also, if I couldn't place speakers in a living room where I wanted I have bigger problems! 

And the problem with DSP from a technical level is that it takes away some dynamics. 

That's a trade off I've noticed in cars too. 

The net result is better imaging, but it comes with some costs.


----------



## FG79

Hanatsu said:


> I'm using dual amplifiers and a miniDSP for my home audio system. Everything is high-end with Scan Speak Illumination towers, high current class A amps. Still, adding a DSP improved the system A LOT. I use lots of EQ below 120Hz to fix the room response, active crossovers are really nice to have, especially when you wanna use 4th order filters, passives tend to get complicated quickly.


Building custom speakers?

That's really hard to do both from driver location, materials, enclosure size/tuning and crossover design.

Better to stick with proven designs. 

Passives don't get love on the car audio side, but they are unbeatable in home audio for coherence if done right.


----------



## cajunner

FG79 said:


> Cajunner, I know many home systems that sound good without DSP. There's really no need for it, and treating a room is not like building a studio. It can be done without spending a fortune and/or remodeling the entire room. Also, if I couldn't place speakers in a living room where I wanted I have bigger problems!
> 
> And the problem with DSP from a technical level is that it takes away some dynamics.
> 
> That's a trade off I've noticed in cars too.
> 
> The net result is better imaging, but it comes with some costs.


accounting for first reflections, going too "dead" or too "live," floor bounce issues, you are dealing with stage depth, projector screen permeability, 2 channel vs. 7 channel, these are sort of jury-rigged attempts at making an acoustical space, into an acoustical scene. 

you want to have hard floors, you want to have Sonex tile ceilings, you want to have bass traps inconspicuously occupy each corner of your room?

DSP is not a panacea but it is a useful tool that provides for corrections in home or car, and it is just our ability to utilize various degrees of correction, that provides or prevents the nirvana completion...

nirvana completion, good band name?


haha...


----------



## Hanatsu

FG79 said:


> Building custom speakers?
> 
> That's really hard to do both from driver location, materials, enclosure size/tuning and crossover design.
> 
> Better to stick with proven designs.
> 
> Passives don't get love on the car audio side, but they are unbeatable in home audio for coherence if done right.


I'm no amateur when it comes to speaker design. They have carefully designed in LEAP and fine tuned to the location and room to yield the flattest response. Baffle step and diffraction have also been considered. Passives just doesn't have the flexibility of an active filter. A passive in a 3-way can quickly get both advanced and expensive. The room modes cannot simply be fixed with passives in any practical manner. 'Dynamics' can sometimes refer to heavy deviation in frequency response, I know some EMMA judges call an un-EQed response 'dynamic'. Me myself does not like that at all. I don't want that 'live' sound.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy 3 via Tapatalk.


----------



## ChrisB

Hanatsu said:


> I'm no amateur when it comes to speaker design. They have carefully designed in LEAP and fine tuned to the location and room to yield the flattest response. Baffle step and diffraction have also been considered. Passives just doesn't have the flexibility of an active filter. A passive in a 3-way can quickly get both advanced and expensive. The room modes cannot simply be fixed with passives in any practical manner. 'Dynamics' can sometimes refer to heavy deviation in frequency response, I know some EMMA judges call an un-EQed response 'dynamic'. Me myself does not like that at all. I don't want that 'live' sound.
> 
> Sent from my Samsung Galaxy 3 via Tapatalk.


The other thing that sucks about passives is when you roach a driver and find out that it has been discontinued. Now you get to rebuild your passive crossovers from scratch because the only driver that fits in your location has TS parameters that are WAY off from the one that died an early death. 

Active crossovers make the replacement process WAY easier. Throw in DSP and you will wonder why you agonized over building custom passives in the first place. I'm starting to find that the older I get, the less patience I have to deal with problems in my hobbies... Hobbies are supposed to be fun and not piss me off more than the things that piss me off at work!


----------



## Jroo

I think sq is very subjective and speaks directly to how much exposure you have. A couple of summers ago a local shop brought in a few company demo cars and a few cars that had one some sq shows. Certain aspects of the cars impressed me, but others I didnt think were that great. I loved the placement and image, but they all seemed flat sounding to me with huge dynamics between musical passages. 

Again, I only know what I know and certainly havent been trained to listen to what others were listening for. I remember guys raving about one car and when I sat in it, I kinda had the yeah ok feeling. Dont get me wrong, it sounded better than any car I had, but it wasnt night and day. The high end and mids all sounded muted or flat to me. The thing that stood out was the midbass. It had an attack quality that I have never had, but everything else was just ok to me. At 39 years old, what I like now is way different than when I was 21 but I have also heard on a few occasions what others consider sq and sorta didnt like the sound. On the flip side, I know the owners of a sq car would sit in my car and have their skin crawl.


----------



## Hanatsu

ChrisB said:


> The other thing that sucks about passives is when you roach a driver and find out that it has been discontinued. Now you get to rebuild your passive crossovers from scratch because the only driver that fits in your location has TS parameters that are WAY off from the one that died an early death.
> 
> Active crossovers make the replacement process WAY easier. Throw in DSP and you will wonder why you agonized over building custom passives in the first place. I'm starting to find that the older I get, the less patience I have to deal with problems in my hobbies... Hobbies are supposed to be fun and not piss me off more than the things that piss me off at work!


Agree... active filters are so much better really. With an ordinary surround amplifier you can cross different speakers active pretty easy. It took me a whole day getting the damn passives right. I'll never do that again. Waste of time when you got a DSP.


----------



## Hanatsu

Jroo said:


> I think sq is very subjective and speaks directly to how much exposure you have. A couple of summers ago a local shop brought in a few company demo cars and a few cars that had one some sq shows. Certain aspects of the cars impressed me, but others I didnt think were that great. I loved the placement and image, but they all seemed flat sounding to me with huge dynamics between musical passages.
> 
> Again, I only know what I know and certainly havent been trained to listen to what others were listening for. I remember guys raving about one car and when I sat in it, I kinda had the yeah ok feeling. Dont get me wrong, it sounded better than any car I had, but it wasnt night and day. The high end and mids all sounded muted or flat to me. The thing that stood out was the midbass. It had an attack quality that I have never had, but everything else was just ok to me. At 39 years old, what I like now is way different than when I was 21 but I have also heard on a few occasions what others consider sq and sorta didnt like the sound. On the flip side, I know the owners of a sq car would sit in my car and have their skin crawl.


Some of the SQ cars that I've heard sounded horrific. They used zero EQ and went on and on how dynamic their system sounded lol. I'm sure there were 10dB +/- variations in the response. When he heard mine, he went completely - uuuh WTF? It's so dead and lifeless and whatever and I said no, it's how it's supposed to sound, it's natural. His system sounded like standing 10 feet away from a pro speaker on a rock concert and some of people really loved that sound. I really can't stand it. I want smooth natural sounding systems with nothing that stands out or jumps at me, rather a little laid back, than too "forward".


----------



## Schramm

CDT FAN said:


> Speaking of golden ear, check this test out. I am about halfway through the golden ear level and I am struggling with the same thing you are. I went into it without training first, though. I need to take a few minutes to play with the training before I try it again.
> 
> An Audiophile Workout: Philips Golden Ears Training | InnerFidelity


I took a brief look on Philips site. It is basic, but worth a casual visit. https://www.goldenears.philips.com/en/introduction.html

By comparison, the Harman "How to Listen" software is a download and is much more comprehensive in scope and detail, with slightly different, more exacting definitions intended for serious critical listening in scientific research trials. Input sample files, although limited in number, are .wav and high quality. The output has some adjustment capability as well making it more useful, and challenging depending on settings used.


----------



## jdsoldger

A quick note on Andy's "wow" sound. It certainly works, since I got five "wows" out of five different people showing off my sound system in the last week. The MS8 is doing all the heavy lifting too, since this is my first real car system and I know the install is crap... Hope to correct some of it over the summer.



file audio said:


> SO what are the must do things to get sq.? turn off head unit loudness function ,, whats more?,,, Im trying to get quality but I WANT TO learn new things about sq.


The best way to learn about SQ is to first experiance it. Find someone with a really good set of headphones or a good home or car system and listen, really listen to it. 

The loudness function isn't actually a bad thing when used correctly. The freqency responce of our ears change with volume. At lower listening levels a well done loudness function corrects for that.


----------



## svnuss

I've been spending hours in my car using head phones to tune my system. If you don't know what you are missing, you can't correct your systems flaws. Even if it will never sound as good as my head phones.


----------



## tnbubba

bad advice..what constitutes good system?

go listen to LIVE music and then a recording of said performance..
fully duty is to capture and reproduce the original event

then compare 
or have the privileged of being in the studio of the engineer that mixes down the final track so you can listen to it on HIS system and compare to the ORIGINAL!


----------



## Victor_inox

minbari said:


> that is a silly statement. for an environment like a car where you are off-set to one side. the cabin is less than ideal. reflections. speakers are not in ideal enclosures. speakers are not in front of you, but instead to the side.
> 
> doesnt matter how good you are, a DSP can correct for a lot of stuff install cant.


I think you are too kind. silly statement? read his previous post, he has golden ears obviously. he can distinguish Steinway from Baldwin and remo from ludwig on the spot. he must be able to set time alignment without DSP as well. I`d like to know that secret.


----------



## Alextaastrup

My experience says that there is a huge difference between DSP and what they could do for you. Tried by myself both in the car and at home (SNELL EIII loudspeakers). 

Do not forget that each equalization changes phase to certain extend. EQ by no means should be used struggling with missing sound level at some frequences. By doing this you simply add some new information which could be hardly called "musical". It was not the idea of a composer or a musician . Preferably - only limiting peaks.

Sharing my last achievements it is worth mentioning the sound corrector from Acoustic Power Lab.
If you are SQ entusiast, you might be interested in its devices like APL1. It has a minimalistic design with no un-necessary smart features like BT, smartfone app, etc. But it has everything you need for SQ sound producing. Custom target curves with not less then 4096 (!) FIR filters - separately for each channel. It was used i the champion car at EMMA Eurofinals (21-23 March, 2014, Zalzburg) - two first places in Sound Quality and Multimedia Expert classes.

Take a look also on software for quick calculation of time delay. It could be downloaded free as a demo version. Amazing 3D pictures, which are easy to use. The whole process of TA alignment takes just minutes. I was impressed with the results (compared f.ex. with Imprint, PXA-100).

I have a passive front, but do not suffer more from wrong time delay and unbalanced sound. It was my best investment in the car audio parallel to CD changer (model Alpine CHA-624 with optical out). it is nothing to compare with the sound I used to hear from built-in CD player from Alpine one of the top-models from 2013. SQ taste is different from people to people, but this unit (despite its age) shocked me. It produces simply unlimited sound with a great dynamic range, ocean of details and deep-deep bass (which pressed me to reinforce the front doors). My point is not to forget the sound source when talking about SQ. Hope my info could be usefull.

Lol. Glad to share with such audience my positive impressions with SQ improvements in my car, as my wife does not understand me ...


----------



## SuperCooper

Wow there is so much good stuff in this thread. I don't have space to quote it all but special mention to


pjhabit said:


> it affirms that youth is wasted on the young


 that had me stitches. 
Good to see so many people realise that the only opinion that finally matters is your own. That's not to deride other peoples opinion and professional reviewers who all help us find what we like. 
One piece of the science I don't think the thread covers was shown by a friend. He would let you play your favourite pieces of music through his ATC speakers and let you adust the volume until is was slightly loud but still very comfortable. He would then speak to you and you couldn't hear him, you spoke back and could hardly hear yourself. Apparantly much of what we percieve as loudness is distortion. After that demo I am a believer. 
Finally one thing that drives (oops) us to design/build/install is like sex. We know there are professionals who can do it better than ourselves but we get so much more pleasure when we do it.


----------



## Elgrosso

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> My experiiences in doing demonstration of great sounding audio for lots of different people--experienced critical listeners and neophytes is that there is a certain sound that gets a "Wow, that's awesome" from nearly everyone. Some deviations from that certain sound are more objectionable than others and sometimes people prefer some of the deviations. More or less bass is one of them. More or less high frequency is another. However, the overall shape of the response, has to be maintained within some limits in order to get the "wow". I've posted that response here many times.
> 
> My method in arriving at this wasn't the same kind of science that Sean does--it wasn't a controlled experiment, it's been 30 years of building systems and products and listening carefully to what people say. In my experience, the difference between a "trained" and "untrained" listener has nothing to do with hearing acuity or even an understanding of system building, woofers, tweeters, crossovers, equalization or what have you. The "training" is in being able to explain to the person doing the survey WHAT you don't like. It's the job of the salesperson or installer to be the translator and a good one listens to what you mean and not necessarily what you say.
> 
> Years ago when I was an installer, we had a customer who came in for a pretty good system. I think we installed a couple of amplifiers, a sub and 4 speakers. He loved it. He left. A week later he came back and said it wasn't loud enough. We added amplifiers and another sub. He loved it again. He came back a week later and said, "It still isn't loud enough". We doubled the speakers in the front, doubled the power again, added two more subs. He loved it a third time. He came back a week later and said, it's better but still not quite loud enough. We were out of space in the car to add more and the thing was ridiculously loud.
> 
> My boss (really smart guy who is now no longer in the industry because he teaches music at a local university) went out to the the car and asked the guy to play something at the level he usually listens. The volume control was 1/4 of the way up. Normal listening level. Hmmm...WTF? I go out to the car and jump in the back seat. My boss asks the guy to play a song that he thinks is a good example of what's missing. He puts on some vocal track and says, "See, whe she sings that note, it isn't loud enough and when the bass player plays that part of the music, it isn't loud enough."
> 
> We took out half the power in the car and traded in the amplifiers for a pair of Audio Control EQTs and spent the rest the day in the car with an RTA. The next day, the guy came to pick up the car, listened and said, "That's exactly what I wanted".
> 
> This taught me to listen MUCH more carefully to what people MEAN and to do some additional investigation when necessary. The disconnect was that the customer's ability to articulate his desires using words we understood wasn't well developed--he didn't speak audiophile--but it had nothing to do with his ears. My job as a product manager is to TRANSLATE, which means I have to be the expert. The job of a salesman or an installer is also to TRANSLATE.
> 
> What Sean does is another kind of translation. He performs carefully controlled experiments in order to be able to express the results in another language--the language of science, which has its own rules and constraints--the most important being repeatability. Sometimes that means limiting the words people use to describe the experience and for that, training is required. You can read about the listener training program at Harman online. I don't know where it is, but just Google "Harman Listener Training".


That was a great post, where are you Andy?


----------



## Alextaastrup

Everyone has own inner eorld

Sendt fra min GT-I9505 med Tapatalk


----------



## Alextaastrup

When two innner worlds meet each other, it is not strange that people do not understand each other. Strsnge when they do. 

Sendt fra min GT-I9505 med Tapatalk


----------



## Rainstar

it is very subjective and there are complete bias everywhere.

I see so many folks tune their car only to be able to listen to Bass and rap music and spend thousands but it hurts every other music they throw at it. I look at their EQ and shake my head.


----------



## Alextaastrup

You are right . We listen subjective. We all are only subjects in this world. Do you really think everybody like your curves? 

Sendt fra min GT-I9505 med Tapatalk


----------



## DC/Hertz

It's not subjective in the sense there is a guideline. It is subjective in the sense of your reference.


----------



## MrGreen83

I look at it like this....you'll never be able to satisfy everyone. That goes for judges at events as well. 

If you're competing, then by all means....have a preset for what the "judges like" so u can score well.

If you AREN'T competing, set your system up so it sounds good to YOU. You're the one who has to drive around listening to it. 

No one else's opinion matters 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Alextaastrup

MrGreen83 said:


> I look at it like this....you'll never be able to satisfy everyone. That goes for judges at events as well.
> 
> If you're competing, then by all means....have a preset for what the "judges like" so u can score well.
> 
> If you AREN'T competing, set your system up so it sounds good to YOU. You're the one who has to drive around listening to it.
> 
> No one else's opinion matters
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Even yours... ?, but you are close to be right! 

Sendt fra min GT-I9505 med Tapatalk


----------



## rayray881

I agree Mr. Green. When I competed I had a tune specifically for the Iasca cd. I never used that tune while I actually drove the car. This is why I decided to quit the competition scene. It made no sense for me to pay somebody money to judge what they did and didn't like about my stereo. I built the system for myself to enjoy. I'm not in the industry, so there was no benefit to me showcasing any product or install. I noticed most competitors are part of a team or they represent a store or brand. This is good for them as there is potential of recognition and monetary gain. I have heard some of the "best" cars in the country at competitions and to be honest, I never stepped out of any vehicle blown away. I believe some of these cars would sound amazing to me with a different "tune." Just my opinion, and if you want to compete, go for it!


----------



## DC/Hertz

I use the same tune for comps and daily.


----------



## PPI_GUY

When everyone's ears and brain are wired alike and physically identical then I will say SQ isn't subjective. 
Of course that day will never come. Too much variance and diversity in how we are genetically different. Example: some people have detached (free) ear lobs, some do not. While that's only a cosmetic detail and not immediately relevant to car audio, you can see my point.


----------



## Victor_inox

Never ever evaluate equipment on music you love, it seems counter intuitive but any piece of crap playing music you love will sounds music to your ears. Unless of course it`s irreversible subpar POS.


----------



## Swaglife81

Sound Quality is more like a gauge. It shouldn't be used in the context it's used in. Enthusiast s want better than cheap oem quality. Regardless of price, therefore we/they are improving sound quality. I think the term HiFi/audiophile quality should be used in the context we use when we say SQ build. Other than SPL competition builds everything is a SQ build. Like someone saying or building a fast car. Is 500 rwhp fast or is 750 rwhp fast, they are both fast. It's not that subjective, it's fast. One is faster than the other yes. 

Just like paint colors or anything else. Everyone has different tastes. Some people aren't sensitive to music. All they really hear is distortion or no distortion. My ex roommate was about 50, basically everything sounded the same to him, nothing was an improvement. Hearing test showed he had lost a good amount of hearing. My hearing tests last year showed I'm good at 35 years of age still and I have sensitive hearing. My old best friend as a teenager was deaf in his left ear. His stereo required a huge amount of treble. That loud ssss, tttttt horn type treble. Probably because his brain only hearing half of what we hear was like us turning treble down all the way in comparison. It sounded good to him but to us it was tiring, ear piercing horrendous treble. Women tend to hear better than men at higher frequencies. One guy might like a overly bright Focal while someone else might love a warm, calm speaker and prefer the one vs the other. To add, high performance to a person is perceived as the best they have seen or heard personally. If someone has never heard speakers that cost more than $200 than they don't know what a $5K Morel set should sound like. My work buddy was all pumped about his new system. I tried to help him. He bought a Boss audio head unit, cerwin Vega $80 components and cerwin Vega cheap compared axials for the rear. Stereo was set even on all speakers. He said it sounds amazing, one of the best car stereos he's ever heard. So I demoed this system. It sounded like dried **** on a good day and wet steamy **** on a great day. It was horrendous. Is this subjective or did it really sound like hell. He said he wasn't going to amp the components because that's just more power and a amp won't improve sound. He said he wasnt going to add a subwoofer because he doesn't listen to Rap. To top it off I still kept trying to advise and help the guy while being nice. He than said he sound deadened the whole car. I knew what that was gonna end up being. I said so you added CLD, closed cell foam, mass loaded vinyl and sealed off all holes in the door and made sure the 6.5s we're mounted on a baffle and sealed properly? He said no I used Dynamat because it's the best in 100% coverage and didn't need the other stuff. He's 21 and if it was raining outside he would argue with you about it that his phone said it wasnt. Those are just examples of the average guy. Usually wrong about everything in car audio.


----------



## drop1

Sq is not subjective. It doesnt truly exist.
We talk about imaging and stagining and trying to recreate a live , life like sound.
What we are really trying to recreate is the studio sound. The sound engineers may or may not try to recreate live sound. Thats up to them and their creativity.
Its also very genre based.
If you want to be happy with your system you really have to have some understanding of the music you listen to and how it was produced.
Something as simple as how loud you play the music affects its realism.
Take an acoutic soloist/vocalist in a small bar and compare that to a full blown rock concert.
The soloist will dictate a completely different volume setting than the rock show.
A simple twist of the volume knob has a massive affect on musics realism depending on what you are listening to.

Some where along the line we also have to take into account the producers intent and musical choices. As producers we know that speakers dont like to play more than a couple sounds in different frequncy ranges at the same time. Any more and you will wind up with a muddy jumbled up mix. In real life our ears can easily hear all the small details of several instruments at the same time. Speakers just cant compare. It takes some fantastic creativity to make a truly clean mix. The issue is to get that clean mix trade off must be made. Each of these trade offs is a deviation from the live sound. Giving the vocalist a little more top end to cut through a mix. Adding compression to drums. Cutting the kick drum at certian frequencies while boosting others to make room for the bass to sit in the mix. You have to give something to get something.
Lets look at a drum set as an example.
Producers like to pan the drums most of the way across our imagined stage. Sometimes all the way.
Say your 40ft away from a drumset in a venue. You will hear the sounds from what seems like a single location.
Thats a small venue. Take a larger venue where the drums are mic'd and you will hear the sounds from where ever the sound engineer feels like putting them. Its completely up to him where to pan each piece in the drum kit. 
In the end we are just hearing the choices the producer made when listening to recorded music. 
You guys know everyone hears a little different, likes different music and have your own ideas of what does and doesnt sound good. The people making the music are the same way. 
Take a perfectly produced (remember no such thing) jazz ensemble and compare that to rock or worst yet electronic music where the sky is the limit for creativity and the end results will be light years apart.
The most we can hope for is a system capable of accuratly reproducing what is in the recording. But we cant. We can make it sound good, but there is no way in hell of reproducing what the producer hears in their studio. 
So buy what you like, tune it how you see fit and make it sound good to YOU because i assure you thats exactly what producers and artist do. 
Ive heard it said their is a correct , and that correct is life like. Listening to what? 
The only music that will sound life like is music that was intended to sound life like from an extremely talented producer. 
I could go into hundreds of pages of details on production choices, tools, the reasons for doing things to get a desired result, equipment and so on. None of that changes the fact we are in tiny cars, amd those cars will NEVER be capable of recreating the mix as it was heard where it was made. Its impossible as we have not heard their rooms. Even if we had and immitated it our tune would make it sound completely different from the next producers.
Thankfully as humans music moves us. It doesnt have to be perfect for us to enjoy it. I have a cheap pair 8" powered studio monitors in my living room hooked to my tv and xbox. I think they cost maybe $300. I enjoy music on them just as much as my almost $15,000 car system. 
The car is more detailed and accurate but i enjoy the open room sound more. To end all this its all up to the end user to determine what they like. I wouldnt call that sq at all but personal preference. 
Theres just too damn much music where the producer had absolutely zero intentions of making it sound "real".
In fact music that was produced to sound real or live is a small portion of music i believe.
We havent even entered the music politics arena. A certian "sound" gets popular and sells well and all of a sudden everything coming out sounds the same, and it aint a live sound. The loudness wars are a perfect example.
So unless youre competing do what sounds good to you and be thankful that not all music sounds the same. How boring would that be.


----------



## High Resolution Audio

drop1 said:


> Sq is not subjective. It doesnt truly exist.
> We talk about imaging and stagining and trying to recreate a live , life like sound.
> What we are really trying to recreate is the studio sound. The sound engineers may or may not try to recreate live sound. Thats up to them and their creativity.
> Its also very genre based.
> If you want to be happy with your system you really have to have some understanding of the music you listen to and how it was produced.
> Something as simple as how loud you play the music affects its realism.
> Take an acoutic soloist/vocalist in a small bar and compare that to a full blown rock concert.
> The soloist will dictate a completely different volume setting than the rock show.
> A simple twist of the volume knob has a massive affect on musics realism depending on what you are listening to.
> 
> Some where along the line we also have to take into account the producers intent and musical choices. As producers we know that speakers dont like to play more than a couple sounds in different frequncy ranges at the same time. Any more and you will wind up with a muddy jumbled up mix. In real life our ears can easily hear all the small details of several instruments at the same time. Speakers just cant compare. It takes some fantastic creativity to make a truly clean mix. The issue is to get that clean mix trade off must be made. Each of these trade offs is a deviation from the live sound. Giving the vocalist a little more top end to cut through a mix. Adding compression to drums. Cutting the kick drum at certian frequencies while boosting others to make room for the bass to sit in the mix. You have to give something to get something.
> Lets look at a drum set as an example.
> Producers like to pan the drums most of the way across our imagined stage. Sometimes all the way.
> Say your 40ft away from a drumset in a venue. You will hear the sounds from what seems like a single location.
> Thats a small venue. Take a larger venue where the drums are mic'd and you will hear the sounds from where ever the sound engineer feels like putting them. Its completely up to him where to pan each piece in the drum kit.
> In the end we are just hearing the choices the producer made when listening to recorded music.
> You guys know everyone hears a little different, likes different music and have your own ideas of what does and doesnt sound good. The people making the music are the same way.
> Take a perfectly produced (remember no such thing) jazz ensemble and compare that to rock or worst yet electronic music where the sky is the limit for creativity and the end results will be light years apart.
> The most we can hope for is a system capable of accuratly reproducing what is in the recording. But we cant. We can make it sound good, but there is no way in hell of reproducing what the producer hears in their studio.
> So buy what you like, tune it how you see fit and make it sound good to YOU because i assure you thats exactly what producers and artist do.
> Ive heard it said their is a correct , and that correct is life like. Listening to what?
> The only music that will sound life like is music that was intended to sound life like from an extremely talented producer.
> I could go into hundreds of pages of details on production choices, tools, the reasons for doing things to get a desired result, equipment and so on. None of that changes the fact we are in tiny cars, amd those cars will NEVER be capable of recreating the mix as it was heard where it was made. Its impossible as we have not heard their rooms. Even if we had and immitated it our tune would make it sound completely different from the next producers.
> Thankfully as humans music moves us. It doesnt have to be perfect for us to enjoy it. I have a cheap pair 8" powered studio monitors in my living room hooked to my tv and xbox. I think they cost maybe $300. I enjoy music on them just as much as my almost $15,000 car system.
> The car is more detailed and accurate but i enjoy the open room sound more. To end all this its all up to the end user to determine what they like. I wouldnt call that sq at all but personal preference.
> Theres just too damn much music where the producer had absolutely zero intentions of making it sound "real".
> In fact music that was produced to sound real or live is a small portion of music i believe.
> We havent even entered the music politics arena. A certian "sound" gets popular and sells well and all of a sudden everything coming out sounds the same, and it aint a live sound. The loudness wars are a perfect example.
> So unless youre competing do what sounds good to you and be thankful that not all music sounds the same. How boring would that be.


As far as competing is concerned, about two years ago I went to my first SQ competition. I thought my system sounded amazing back then and was shocked to get such a low score. Looking back, I had untamed peaks and unfocused imaging, phasing issues, and myriad of other issues. 

My impressions of the first couple of SQ systems were that they were dull and boring. They left me unimpressed and wanting to listen to my non-EQed untamed system. I was in the music and the instruments were all around me as I was enveloped in sound. 

Over time, I learned that the purpose of a SQ system was NOT to hear the music as if I were seated among the band members, or the instruments, but rather seated in front of musicians playing in front of me. It took me a long time to get use to listening to music that way as I had not done that all my life up to that point and I'm almost 50.

In the 1970's Producers and sound engineers spent countless hours in the studio tweaking music to get it to sound "just right". Some of the best music and mixing came out of that era. I listen to a lot of 70's music on my system. 

Today, it seems as if very little effort is put into creating great sound because there is not a huge demand for it. Most of the youth listen to music on ear buds. 

I've purchased modern music and the way it's produced is different. Not a whole hell of a lot of stereo separation. 

Norah Jones who's "Come away with me" album was recorded with upmost care and concern for Sound Quality and recorded with a Crystal Clear playback. That album is still used today to demo high end systems because of the paramount of sound quality. 

I bought a new album from Norah Jones "Day Breaks". WTF happened? The microphone and recording equipment was so sub par it was almost laughable. I could make a better sounding recording with my I-Phone. What gives?

What pisses me off even more, is the fact that Norah was one of the artists ( like Dave Matthews ) standing behind Neil Young's Pono Music " Bringing sound quality back to music " movement.

My question is did she loose her passion, and now just cares about the money? Does she not have a reference system that she can demo her latest albums before they go out for production? Does she not even worry about SQ anymore and just let her staff take care of that stuff?

I guess the positive side is that there is still recordings available today that one can seek out, hold on and appreciate. Nothing brings a smile to my face more than when I pop in a CD and notice the quality.

I have found out that there are many types of recordings that I enjoy listening to, and here are some of my favorites:

A recording that features sound stage depth.
A recording that features sound stage width. 
A recording that has amazing cool imaging and panning. 
A recording that features immersive sound. 
A recording that has a foot tapping beat.
A recording that has so many complicated sounds going on, but it still sounds good.

A recording that was simply done with just 3 or 4 instruments, with minimal processing. 

What I enjoy most is when I'm alone and in my bubble of sound and there is nothing to distract me and I can just enjoy quality music. 

For me investing in a sound quality system is an investment that brings forth pleasure for many, many years. Hell, I'm still using the mid-range drivers in today's system that I purchased in the early 1990's.


----------



## AyOne

High Resolution Audio said:


> ...A recording that features sound stage depth.
> A recording that features sound stage width.
> A recording that has amazing cool imaging and panning.
> A recording that features immersive sound.
> A recording that has a foot tapping beat.
> A recording that has so many complicated sounds going on, but it still sounds good


If you like immersive panning and foot tapping beats. This album is great!

Tipper-Surrounded


----------



## BrainMach1

I have never been a fan of Michael Jackson, but the wonders of streaming allowed me to listen to Billy Jean for free on my home system. Now I know why everyone was always talking about the song back in the day. The producer really used the whole stage. 

Modern electronic music doesn't use the whole stage. I like a lot of Lyle Lovette because of his accoutical and his large band. He uses the whole stage. 

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## AyOne

BrainMach1 said:


> I have never been a fan of Michael Jackson, but the wonders of streaming allowed me to listen to Billy Jean for free on my home system. Now I know why everyone was always talking about the song back in the day. The producer really used the whole stage.
> 
> Modern electronic music doesn't use the whole stage. I like a lot of Lyle Lovette because of his accoutical and his large band. He uses the whole stage.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


Check the album I posted above. He uses the whole stage very well. I also keep forgetting to play some MJ in my car thanks for reminding me.


----------

