6x9 speakers in front doors

[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:



^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?

[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.

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]

Originally Posted by SAV912

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

Noted

[Kaykogi]

Originally Posted by RedRide

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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!

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

[Kaykogi]

Originally Posted by RedRide

BTW, a "flat (playback) response" means just one thing to real audiophiles.
Try disputing that here.
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?


Your previous post speaks for itself....

Originally Posted by 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.

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

Nice try..