6x9 speakers in front doors

[dawin2122]

Hi guys maybe somebody tell me if is posible put a 6x9 in front doors i know need mod but maybe sounds better than the 6.5 or i am in mistake all rec. is welcome thanks

[TOLMACH]

Short answer: you'd better get decent 6.5 ones (2 way or three way component speakers).

Normally 6*9 belong to the rear deck (will not play same low in the doors .. the door as an enclosure being too small for them)

[dawin2122]

Short answer: you'd better get decent 6.5 ones (2 way or three way component speakers).

Normally 6*9 belong to the rear deck (will not play same low in the doors .. the door as an enclosure being too small for them)

thanks tolmach apreciate the reply

[daf62757]

I just had some 7 inch speakers put in my front and back doors. The place that did the install said they didn't even have to use an adapter to put them in.

[sqcomp]

I have the Hybrid Audio L6SE in my doors. It does require an adaptor to mount properly.

I'd agree with tolm regarding the use of a good 6.5" speaker over the 6x9.

[RedRide]

As a long time audiophile.....
I will just add that a good full range speaker is better than a mediocre 2 or 3way speaker any day.

Also, a tweeter such as might be used in 2-3 way speaker is almost useless in the doors of the Yaris as it's positioned too low to transmit the directional highs (to your ears) it is ment to reproduce.


BTW........Actually, most stock speakers in today's cars are fairly good. However, a car is one of the worst acustical enviourments around, so trully great and expensive speakers in a car is often a waste. Personaly, I save all the money for high end audio hardware for home equipment

[TOLMACH]

As a long time audiophile.....
I will just add that a good full range speaker is better than a mediocre 2 or 3way speaker any day.

Also, a tweeter such as might be used in 2-3 way speaker is almost useless in the doors of the Yaris as it's positioned too low to transmit the directional highs (to your ears) it is ment to reproduce.


BTW........Actually, most stock speakers in today's cars are fairly good. However, a car is one of the worst acustical enviourments around, so trully great and expensive speakers in a car is often a waste. Personaly, I save all the money for high end audio hardware for home equipment

I agree to some of the things you say.. and strongly agree on that some of the OEM speakers are good

Stock front door woofers (actually full-ranges) in my 3D HB are awesome compared to some cheap aftermarket stuff

[RedRide]

Yeah, it's amazing how much audio garbage is sold and considered good by today's consumers.

Many people just want/ get overpowering bass and they think they got a great sys.

[sqcomp]

Also, a tweeter such as might be used in 2-3 way speaker is almost useless in the doors of the Yaris as it's positioned too low to transmit the directional highs (to your ears) it is ment to reproduce.

^This relates to head related transfer function, group delay, and sound localization. You also have level and intesity differences to take into effect.

IIRC, above 15kHz to 20kHz a person's ears can very accurately discern the location of sound. This stands to reason why you see a lot of the OEM systems these days having a tweeter mounted in the a-pillars. It assists in raising the soundstage without too much, if any, equalization or time alignment.

There's a nice little graph that has been posted up, either by myself or Derick, that shows one the frequency breakdown illustrated on a graph. This is fundamental for learning your sound descriptors and ranges...as a matter of fact, here you go:

http://www.independentrecording.net/irn/resources/freqchart/images/main_chart.jpg

This is a really neat graph to work with.

Take note of what Derick and I are doing with our Yaris systems. See where we place our speakers and ask questions. Derick is learning big time as am I. I may have a few more contacts into the mobile audio world than the normal person and am happy (most of the time) to give advice. I'm trying to get Derick into IASCA competition on the NE. After my resounding siccess on the IASCA circuit out here in the NW, I absolutley know our cars can sound off with world championship potential.

Pay attention to what we do. Let us spend our money, it'll help you avoid some of our mistakes. One word of advice...BE PATIENT! Don't go out and blow your wad, have something go wrong, and then quit. Great sound is a learning process. You're not going to get the same sound as a million dollar sound room in your Yaris...you can get close though. That takes time, some money, and *ahem* patience.

[sqcomp]

Many people just want/ get overpowering bass and they think they got a great sys.

^ x 10000000000

These are the same people who sit in a real SQ car and thier jaws drop. "This is the cleanest sounding $hit I've ever heard!" is the usual response...

[RedRide]

^ ^ ^
When I tell people I want/have a flat resopnse in my home system, the answer is often somthing like "why do you want a flat sounding system"?
They haven't a clue.

[sqcomp]

My first though when I read the word "flat" is that you're not using any EQ.

"Flat" can be bad or good depending on your definition of the word in this circumstance.

Do you mean natural or transparent? Flat is a mixed bag. That could mean not exciting to some.

[RedRide]

My first though when I read the word "flat" is that you're not using any EQ.

"Flat" can be bad or good depending on your definition of the word in this circumstance.

Do you mean natural or transparent? Flat is a mixed bag. That could mean not exciting to some.

No, I presenly have a vintage 7 band Technics stereo EQ. Personally, I have found when you have more than about 7 bands per channel you drive youself crazy trying to find a setting you like in a home enviourment for all program sources.

I use '"flat" in the classic, correct way..... the way it's supposed to be used.... to denote accurate freq response.
People can can change the meaning of "flat" in ther own minds due to ingnorance on the subject but the correct, classic meaning remains.
If something sounds natural and transparent, it means the freq response is realitively flat.


Yes, I'm aware that any setting can change with volume. :smile:

[sqcomp]

This is where I need clarification from you...

Flat response is a terrible sound. It sounds like you're talking through a can. I'm speaking of a flattened response as on an RTA. I know it sounds terrible, I've put my car on a totally flat response; it was a razor flat response within 1 dB. That is a car though, I'd be willing to bet if one ran white noise through the RTA on a room, it wouldn't be flat in it's response. Moreso than the car though!

Now, correct or not in the definition, flat depends on the person's interperetation.

[RedRide]

Flat respose measured how?
With a db meter, etc?
Let's not forget we all hear with our ears and what our ears perceive is all that counts.
If you system sounds terrible, you have it EQed all wrong!
We are evidently not at al on the same page here!
A flat response means simply that a sys repreduces sound as close as possible to the program souce.

BTW, you have nicely illustraded my point that many today are no longer are aware of what a "flat" respose means and that it's even desireable.
There was a time not that long ago when a "flat respose" was the "holy grail" of audio..... even among non audiophiles.
Now we get nonsensical terms like speakers that "hit hard", speakers that "put out watts", "sound stage" and other meaningless BS.

When was the last time you heard meaningful audio terms like "dynamic range" or "damping factor"?


BTW, flat resone in a car? It's an exercise in futility due to the horrible acoustical environment and the many changing variables...... not to mention road noise etc.
Unless you you are building a dedicated sound show car it's a waste of money IMO for a DD and one should save their money for a great sounding home sys.:smile:

[sqcomp]

Mmm...we are on the same page actually.

A "flat response" based off a flat RTA reading in a car demonstrates that the nasty acoustical environment can be tamed. Nothing more.

http://www.icecavern.com/reviews/cleansweep/after-cleansweep.jpg

^flat response...measurably. The 40 Hz and below measurement can be improved dramatically. I tend to lean towards this vehicle not having a big bore woofer or a non sealed/higher tuned ported enclosure that unloads below 40 Hz...or a combination of both perhaps.

We agree, we just don't know it yet. I completely agree that if your system sounds bad there is something wrong, whether that be EQ'ing, time alignment, axial response, or what have you.

Yeah...speakers don't "put out Watts". That's a funny one! Like you said, totally nonsensical. When someone says, "it hits hard" I have to qualify that with what kind of speakers we're discussing and in what context. Hitting hard means a fast attack and decay to me initially. Sound stage however, I use quite a lot. The audio picture as it were is presented (or should be) presented to your brain through your ears like a stage in front of you given whatever boudaries you're working with. I believe I use dynamic range and damping factor quite a lot as well. Transient response and damping factor are important key phrases for me that go a long with attack and decay. Ambiance, imaging, spectral balance, staging, tonality...all very important phrases for me.

For a system to playback true to the source, I'd call that tonally accurate and properly staged.

Now, here is a point where we differ. IMHO, a sound car isn't a waste of money because I damnwell know that if I can make a car sound spectacular, I can make a room sound great without half the effort. Car audio is much more of a challenge in my book. I'm taking the more difficult path as a challenge before walking the "easy path" as it were.

[xbr3akd0wnx]

Now, here is a point where we differ. IMHO, a sound car isn't a waste of money because I damnwell know that if I can make a car sound spectacular, I can make a room sound great without half the effort. Car audio is much more of a challenge in my book. I'm taking the more difficult path as a challenge before walking the "easy path" as it were.

Amen.

[RedRide]

Shure you can make a car sound great using a given volume but, open a window, go down the the road ( road noise) , add a passenger, etc or just tun up the volume and it all for nothing as you drastically change the cars acustics since it's such a small confined enviourment.

Yes, I tried in the past in different vehicles and spent too much money trying but, I finally came to my senses and just turn on the stock sys and wait until I get home for Great sound.:smile:

BTW, before I retire from this (circular) thread I will just repeat.... Any sort of meter is absolutly worthless when EQing for a flat responce and your ears must be the sole "instrument" used, othewise, WTF is the point?

[sqcomp]

I dunno, with that mantra RR, you simply resign yourself to not having a real system in a vehicle.

I can drive at 65 down the freeway and have a system that easily overcomes road noise and still sounds just fine.

You're giving up on this thread? Let me bring you another level of understanding...the meter is a measure. Your definition of flat response is a bit off.

Flat response is :"A characteristic of an audio system whereby any tone is reproduced without deviation in intensity for any part of the frequency range that it covers."

You are referring to flat response in relation to a microphone. When referring to flat response on a microphone: "An ideal 'flat' frequency response means that the microphone is equally sensitive to all frequencies. In this case, no frequencies would be exaggerated or reduced (the chart above would show a flat line), resulting in a more accurate representation of the original sound. We therefore say that a flat frequency response produces the purest audio.

In the real world a perfectly flat response is not possible and even the best 'flat response' microphones have some deviation.

More importantly, it should be noted that a flat frequency response is not always the most desirable option. In many cases a tailored frequency response is more useful. For example, a response pattern designed to emphasize the frequencies in a human voice would be well suited to picking up speech in an environment with lots of low-frequency background noise.

The main thing is to avoid response patterns which emphasize the wrong frequencies. For example, a vocal mic is a poor choice for picking up the low frequencies of a bass drum."

You keep referring to flat response alone without connecting the definition of flate response meaning that a measured flat response sounds like crap. If you sit the RTA in your listening room and put white noise through the meter, you won't have a "flat response" curve. You'll have peaks and valleys in the acoustic response. With those peaks and valleys, you'll probably have a great sound.

One last shot to you...

A meter is absolutely NOT worthless. It helps you visualize what your ears are hearing for true to the source music. This is what I get to play with:

http://i720.photobucket.com/albums/ww203/sqcomp/2007%20Toyota%20Yaris%20S/CIMG2870.jpg

^It absolutely helps seeing what your filters, slopes, crossover points, time alignment, and amplitude levels. You can't get that just your ears...at least you can't follow everything you've tried without pages of notes and a hell of a lot more time.

[RedRide]

Some prefer to make their meters happy while others prefer to make their ears happy.
I stand by my statements.

I refuse to go round in circles with some whos sole purpose is to get the last word.

[sqcomp]

Yeah, it's because you're losing the debate...

Seriously though, I'm not making a meter "happy" for normal listening, I'm gauging what the changes are in the sound with visual cues from the program. What about that makes what I'm doing improper? AND...Who said anything about not making my ears "happy"? The ONLY reason I'm using the Audio Control piece is to measure a preset for a flat measured frequency response. It's part of the IASCA Triple Crown format.

Now, what you're suggesting is that one shouldn't use any meters or visual cues to tune a system. That belief is fine. It's like trying to tune your amplifiers gains without an Oscilloscope. You'll get close to peak output without clipping, but I'll get closer with the scope. Hence, if I use the visual "meter", in this case the Bit One processor to shape my sound (active control of my crossover points, slopes, line amplitude, channel phasing, and adjust time alignment) I'm not letting my ears do the tuning? Wrong! I'm coupling what my ears hear with what the processor is telling me is happening to be even more precise and make real time and measurable differences in the vehicle's response versus simply using my ears.

With the use of the "meter", I can adjust, save, and recall any adjustments I made with a click of the mouse.

Hell, I have a power supply I can plug in. I could do the same thing with my home system if I wanted.

If reinforcing my point is called getting the last word, then so be it. If making a very good sounding system in a vehicle isn't worth the time.

[sickpuppy1]

And you very seldom get a truly flat response anyway. No two cd or dvd makers mix the same and individual artists or producers do there's the same way either, they are looking for a certain sound. So maybe it would be flat as per the producers instructions, but he could be a bass freak or whatever. Telarc used to be pretty good at that. But I also havent followed that stuff for a while now. Radio stations? forget about it,lol
And as far as that goes, SQ and some of the guys here are not going for spl, but sq instead. And what they are doing is compensating for the inherent acoustic faults of the car in order to get what you are arguing about in the home environment. It take a lot of acoustic tuning to do this with the odd shape and changing roads etc of a car. If you saw all the deadening and absorbing material they use in order to get a more neutral playing field. I think, really, you both are after very similar objectives. But Redride, as he stated, has given up on the car side of it and pursues the home audio side only, and SQ and others are going after the car audio side. Same goals, but different playing fields.
Red, they are after quality, and uses all the tools at their disposal to achieve this, ears and electronics. You guys are both preaching to the choir,lol
Just as some home audiophiles use certain furniture only,wall acoustics, and bass traps, and stereo seperates or maybe tube only, and certain kinds of wires or connect cables. It all the same deal, just a different place to do it.
I love home audio more, but I need good tunes when I'm driving too. It all for the love of music isnt it?

[sqcomp]

I kept trying to tell him that...

[RedRide]

LOL... you guys are arguing and disagreeing with yourselves in you own post.

You state the need for fancy meters, esoteric theories etc and then agree that in the end, they are worthlees in the same breath.

You guys are also ignoring that I advocate the use of "graphic" EQs!

Now..And you very seldom get a truly flat response anyway. No two cd or dvd makers mix the same and individual artists or producers do there's the same way either, they are looking for a certain sound...........
Do you have a problem reproducing exactly (as much as possible) what the recording engineers/producers intended?
I guess you want eveything to sound pleasenty bland...... just like the junk audio produced for the audio ingnorant masses.

Does one also purposely get eye glasses that are not 100% accurate because there are some images you may not like? :wink:

[sqcomp]

RR...

Quote where I said fancy meters are worthless? You can't find it...cause that statement is not there.

When you say "flat response" from your speakers, I say you're referring to tonal accuracy, spectral balance, and soundstage imaging off the recording. We're saying the same thing just with different words. It's true that speaker manufacturers used to love saying how flat thier speakers resposes were...Some would have razor straight responses past audible hearing. The issue is, they sound like crap. This also has something to do with the recording and the engieering of said recording. It's all a chain (hence, the phrase signal chain).

A lot of speaker systems used to be measured in anechoic chambers to achieve "flat response". Why? No one listens in a dead room. You listen in some sort of room that is quite the opposite of an anechoic chamber. Your speakers do NOT put out a flat response.

The only way we can measure true to the source response is...wait for it...with the ears. OMGAWD! I said it! Wait, have we been saying the same thing the whole time? OMGAWD again! Yes we have. I have never had an issue with reproducing true to the source music. It's what I have this hobby of car audio for. I simply use meters and processors to help get me there.

I'll state this again, I can get "there" with just my ears...BUT...I can get closer to perfection with the processor and programs that you seem to dismiss.

For some reason I'm thinking that you interpret my use of that Audio Control meter as a listening setting. I don't use it to set my system for listening. READ THIS NEXT STATEMENT: That Audio Control piece proves to the IASCA judges that I can overcome all the peaks and valleys in the horrid car auido environment. That is all. If you metered the vehicle how I listen to it and how it is judged for sound quality, you'd see something quite different than a flat response off the meter reading.

Now, to address the statement you made about "esoteric theories", since when are any of the auditory functions and methods of classification of sound esoteric? There's nothing mystical or vague about it. It's all covered by science. If you'd like, I can point you toward references.

I don't care what kind of equipment you use EQ or not. It's not my business to tell you what equipment to use and not use. If you get great sound by simply measuring with your ears, cool!

I use my ears more than anything simply because...that's what is doing the listening. I simply want to quantify what is happening with the sound around me by using a computer program that allows me to process the sound. Just think of it, a 31 band EQ for each speaker. Time alignment for each speaker...Oh my! I'm using parametric EQ. :) If something is wrong, I can fix it on the fly with the tools that I have.

Here's something to chew on that I agree with wholeheartedly:

"We all agree that a trained pair of ears is the ultimate arbiter of sound quality...I am merely suggesting that loudspeaker designers bear this in mind the next time they offer a flat measured response as proof of excellence. It ain't." JGH - Stereophile 1985

[SAV912]

Well this thread went splendidly. :drinking:

The Audio Sector of this forum continues to baffle me with how much dick flinging goes on in here.

-C

[sqcomp]

^as if "dick flinging" doesn't happen anywhere else on these forums?

RR and I are just going round and round about general audio semantics.

[SAV912]

I didn't say it doesn't happen anywhere else on the forums. It's fairly prevalent in the wheels and suspension forum as well.

Threads rarely seem to derail more than they do in the audio forum though. OP asked about 6x9s vs 6.5"s and the thread was jacked inside the first 10 posts over whether or not audio meters are useful vs the human ear. The information is plentiful and very useful as I've asked questions here myself. It just seems most of the derailments could take place over PMs. Take that as you will.

[/observant lurker]

-C

[sqcomp]

It just seems most of the derailments could take place over PMs. Take that as you will.

Noted

[Kaykogi]

I guess you want eveything to sound pleasenty bland...... just like the junk audio produced for the audio ingnorant masses.

This is one of the most pretentious things I've ever read.

[sqcomp]

^it is very much so.

The thing is, you must consider the source. He can't manage to produce great sound from a vehicle, so he's stuck at home. It's unfortunate really. Personally I think he was looking into a mirror while typing that statement.

I sure know that my little yaris isn't using junk equipment and that it doesn't sound bland. Heck, it was named the best sounding car in the pacific northwest by IASCA in the amateur division.

Make up your own mind.

[_S7V7N_]

Let the debate continue, There's quite a bit of information being tossed around , a few graphs here and there, Yes it got off topic but there's no cursing, and just maybe the OP can read through and draw his own conclusion on what type of speakers he wants to toss in his front doors. Just like i've posted before everybody has a certain degree of bias towards brands and in this case how stuff is tuned. In the end it's all personal preference.

[RedRide]

^it is very much so.

The thing is, you must consider the source. He can't manage to produce great sound from a vehicle, so he's stuck at home. It's unfortunate really. Personally I think he was looking into a mirror while typing that statement.

I sure know that my little yaris isn't using junk equipment and that it doesn't sound bland. Heck, it was named the best sounding car in the pacific northwest by IASCA in the amateur division.

Make up your own mind.
You seem to only hear what you want to to hear.
The OP simply asked about about installing a pair of 6x9 in his doors and I simply lt stated that is its a waste of money from a cost effective and audio perspective to install tweeters that low down in a door and money is better spent on a home sys for most people.
He had/has no interest in enteing his yaris in IASCA compitition!

You howerver, proceded to tun it ito a pissing match bent on displaying how much one can spend on a car sys and your expertise in IASCA while complely ignorong my points and the OP's question,

Also, Where did I infer that you used "junk equipment"???


By your own admission you are just arguing semanticts.
RR and I are just going round and round about general audio semantics.
That is exactly why I said I was tired of this "circular thread".
Thank you for admitting that! :smile:

BTW, a "flat (playback) response" means just one thing to real audiophiles.
Try disputing that here. :wink:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/

[Kaykogi]

BTW, a "flat (playback) response" means just one thing to real audiophiles.
Try disputing that here. :wink:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/

REAL Audiophiles. Not those fake ones like sqcomp.

[sqcomp]

RR...

Read this AGAIN:

"We all agree that a trained pair of ears is the ultimate arbiter of sound quality...I am merely suggesting that loudspeaker designers bear this in mind the next time they offer a flat measured response as proof of excellence. It ain't." JGH - Stereophile 1985

You forgot to read that. J. Gordon Holt...look him up. I agree with his quote wholeheartedly. He got past flat response as an indicator of "quality" in speakers 26 years ago.

"I guess you want everything to sound pleasantly bland...... just like the junk audio produced for the audio ignorant masses."

Now, I inferred that you were talking about all car audio fans (of which I'm one) from your implied disdain for this "sect" of audio seeing as it is more than difficult for you to get past the road noise. One of the issues I take with your position is that my music reproduction doesn't sound bland by ANY stretch of the imagination. I also use IASCA as a measure of stability in this subjective topic. There are rules to what the IASCA judges listen for regarding sound quality...I know, I am one. I fall back on the IASCA rule book when talking about the terms and phrases regarding car audio measurement and sound qualification. Competition or not, I'm using a baseline for reference. This is in the very least a step for stability in the world of innuendo and (your coined phrase...used properly this time) esoteric descriptions of what sound is to a myriad of different people.

Now...notice that you've just inserted "playback" into your oft referred to phrase flat response. You realize that this changes the definition of the phrase that you've been defending for most of this thread.

If I've turned this into a pissing match, you're also equally to blame. It takes two to play keyboard commando. Note, I haven't said anything about the cost of my audio system...point me to where I have in this thread, and I'll offer an apology because it is truly irrelevant at this point as to how much I've spent on my system.

Three phrases playing around here that I think we need to qualify the meaning of:

Flat Response

Flat Playback Response

Flat Frequency Response

RR, want to take a crack at those meaning, compared and contrasted? I will if you won't...don't leave it up to me though...Seeing as I'm one of the unwashed masses who enjoys car audio and can come up with a damned good defendable reason why you need to change your terminology.

[RedRide]

..........Now...notice that you've just inserted "playback" into your oft referred to phrase flat response. You realize that this changes the definition of the phrase that you've been defending for most of this thread........

So you were talking about recording when the OP and I were talking about playback from square one? :laugh:


Your previous post speaks for itself....
This is where I need clarification from you...

Flat response is a terrible sound. It sounds like you're talking through a can. I'm speaking of a flattened response as on an RTA. I know it sounds terrible, I've put my car on a totally flat response; it was a razor flat response within 1 dB. That is a car though, I'd be willing to bet if one ran white noise through the RTA on a room, it wouldn't be flat in it's response. Moreso than the car though!

Now, correct or not in the definition, flat depends on the person's interperetation.

So, you are still seriously tying to convince us that you were talking about recording and not playback???
You car is a recording studio??? :wink:

Nice try..:rolleyes:

[sqcomp]

Flat response means what?

"An output signal in which fundamental frequencies and harmonics are in the same proportion as those of the input signal being amplified. A flat frequency response would exhibit relatively equal response to all fixed-point frequencies within a given spectrum."

How do you measure the frequencies and harmonics at the speaker output level? With an RTA meter. More specifically an Audio Control 3055 as in the picture below. How do you measure if your setup has equal response on all fixed point frequencies? With pink noise. Why pink noise instead of a regular track of music? Because a “regular” music signal doesn’t have equal response at all fixed points across the audio spectrum (20 Hz to 20 kHz).

http://www.icecavern.com/reviews/cleansweep/after-cleansweep.jpg

“Any sort of meter is absolutly worthless when EQing for a flat responce and your ears must be the sole "instrument" used, othewise, WTF is the point?”

Go back to the beginning of the post. Do you notice where we started to part ways? It was when I got into the more technical area of the measurement of speaker response. You notice that I agree with the idea of music that is true to the source?

If you would have stated that any sort of meter is absolutely worthless when equalizing for listening and your ears must be sole instrument used…

This is why I came with the phrases tonal accuracy and spectral balance. Tonal accuracy means:

“Tonal accuracy describes how faithful a system is in general to the original recording. It can apply to instruments as well as vocals. The more accurate the system is while playing a good recording, the more you feel as if you are there, listening to a live performance as opposed to a recording.

Tonal accuracy can also apply to the ambiance in a recording, which refers to the space in which a recording is made. Most modern recordings are made in a sort of vacuum, with individual instruments recorded separately or, in the case of some rap music, the individual parts are sampled from other recordings. But many older recordings, some modern ones, and almost all live albums capture the environment in which the performance was recorded. In fact, certain recording studios and performance spaces are known and revered for their sound, which give a recording or performance a specific ambiance.

Think of timbre and tonal accuracy as the reproduction of how close you get to the actual performance or how the producer intended for it to sound. Whether it's the sound of Miles Davis's trumpet, Jimmy Page's guitar, a Dr. Dre beat, or the ambiance of Carnegie Hall, how well a system can reproduce it the way it went down in a studio or concert hall determines the difference between a good system and a great one.”

Spectral Balance means:

“Spectral balance is a test of the system’s overall tonal realism at the listening level, encompassing the tonal accuracy of the system across the entire frequency spectrum. Superior systems will sound effortless and natural. Weaker systems will exhibit distortion, unnatural discoloration, dynamic compression, and frequency response errors, which lead to listening fatigue and lend an unnatural sound to the music.”

If this is what you mean by flat response we are absolutely on the same page and agreement.

I read flat response as something that is measurable...hence the picture of the meter picture of a flat response measured on output with an RTA. My hearing of an absolute and measured flat response is a horrible listening experience. I've stated this once before.

Now, if by flat response you mean exactly the same experience as you'd hear at a concert for example, I offered the alternate phrase of tonal accuracy and spectral balance. With that translation, your ears are the only thing you're playing for anyway.

what are you thinking about this?

[derickveliz2]

Hi guys maybe somebody tell me if is posible put a 6x9 in front doors i know need mod but maybe sounds better than the 6.5 or i am in mistake all rec. is welcome thanks

Too much work, stick with 6.5 in the doors.

D.

[sqcomp]

^perhaps that's what I should have ended with.

The education on saudio emantics is too much for some to handle.

[derickveliz2]

I'm trying to get Derick into IASCA competition on the NE.

Looking forward! I believe in my set up... can't wait

D.

[SAV912]

^perhaps that's what I should have ended with.

The education on saudio emantics is too much for some to handle.

Or perhaps they didn't ask. :iono:

-C

[sqcomp]

Indeed.

This forum or thread is no place to talk sound or sound quality as it relates to car audio.

...Because you certainly can't measure "flat response" or any other response with a meter (only your ears) even if speaker manufacturers use them to quantify response on graphs all the time apparently. Those damned audio meters are junk afterall. O scopes and RTAs are from the devil Bobby Bouche!

Note sarcasm.

I think it's funny, trying to be set straight by someone who can't manage to produce good sound or overcome road noise by his own admittance in a vehicle and yet would claim or insinuate that the car audio fans are using junk equipment...on a car audio board.

[RedRide]

"Road noise"?? I rest my case.
You are now resorting to arguing with me by agreeing with me and arguing with me by putting words in my mouth?
I never sad it was imposible to get good sound in a car. I simply said that with road noise and so many other vaiable unique to a car it is an uphiil battle an money is better spent on a home sys.
If you want to spend lots of money on a car sys fine, but dont dispute the well known unique poblems with a car's accustics

The junk audio comment was made in response to the following post and I stand by it!!
If someone does not want to reproduce sounds as acurate as possible and strives to change what artists record, they obviously do not like accurate sound and do indeed prefer junk audio!!
They ovbiously do no understand the concept of a flat playback respose and how it has nothing to do with how something was recorded


And you very seldom get a truly flat response anyway. No two cd or dvd makers mix the same and individual artists or producers do there's the same way either, they are looking for a certain sound. So maybe it would be flat as per the producers instructions, but he could be a bass freak or whatever. Telarc used to be pretty good at that. But I also havent followed that stuff for a while now. Radio stations? forget about it,lol......................

Now give it up or at least be honest!!!

[sqcomp]

And your argument is none at all. You answer no questions, you don't read the posts. You offer no solid counterpoints. You belittle anyone that doesn't completely agree with you.

I say for the third time, read what is written. You'll see from the beginning that we agreed. I just take issue with your definition of flat response.

Yes...road noise. You said yourself that "I tried in the past in different vehicles and spent too much money trying...just turn on the stock sys and wait until I get home for Great sound."

You have stated the inability to install a system that works at all levels of road noise (from none to high speed noise) instead saying that car audio isn't worth it and to simply do a home audio system instead.

I can requote the multiple points where we agreed from the beginning but your reading comprehension ability won't pick up our agreement. We only disagree with the flat response definition. I've given you the definition as I understand it. I've given you the alternate definitions of spectral balance and tonal accuracy. You haven't read that apprently.

You can't debate. You can't apparently install a worthwhile system in a vehicle admittedly. You think that a base for standardization (IASCA) is only about competition. Stay with home audio, you're doing so well doling out advice here.

Note more sarchasm

[sqcomp]

...and don't quote sickpuppy and tell me to be honest. I didn't write that. Go at him, like you have.

You certainly can't take me down. You can't even comprehend what I write apparently.

[RedRide]

LOL.... You are taking yourself down! So, keep talking!:wink:

Somebody explain the difference between "I can't" and "I won't" to him.

[sqcomp]

Again, you have no support to your statements. You obviously cannot and will not read what was written.

YOU said you couldn't and wouldn't have the ability to tame the road noise.

I agree with you. You don't have the ability.

Now, leave the car audio aspect to the people who can make it work since you admittedly cannot.

[RedRide]

What.... no pretty pictures to go with your rant? :rolleyes:

[patm]

enough is enough. why dont both of you agree to disagree. i am sure that both of you are right and wrong in certain aspects. this is like the chicken and the egg conundrum - which came first ?

now shake hands and make up. :drinking:

boy i miss D.

[derickveliz2]

enough is enough. why dont both of you agree to disagree. i am sure that both of you are right and wrong in certain aspects. this is like the chicken and the egg conundrum - which came first ?

now shake hands and make up. :drinking:

boy i miss D.

Ditto

I miss him too... LOL

D.

[patm]

Welcome back.

[sqcomp]

^Have you and Derick met up yet? It seems that you're close enough.

[derickveliz2]

^Have you and Derick met up yet? It seems that you're close enough.

Not yet, it's a 2 hour drive, unfortunately in the opposite direction of my commute, but I'm sure we'll have a chance to meet soon.

D.

[sickpuppy1]

hmmm, 13 posts and only 2 were not edited.....
Anyways, your right derick, go with the 6.5 and call it good. But wait, is the component 6.5 or coaxial? lol, have a good night guys!

[sqcomp]

Hold on...let me change that.

:P

[xbr3akd0wnx]

is there any update with the 6x9 speakers on the front doors? 3 pages of comments later and still no update lol

[SAV912]

No. There is no update because no one has done it. It's difficult to do in the stock spots. You'd have to fabricate a custom panel.

See how easy that was? :drinking:

-C