midbass location

[grouchy 10+ year member]

Thanks for all the interesting discussion. One main reason I'm interested in putting the midbass up near the mids and tweeters is because with a nice midbass speaker I should then have the option of raising the crossover on the midbass up higher. What if a nice 6" midbass can accurately play up to around 500 or 600. It might sound better than the smaller 4" midrange playing that area plus maybe it would free up the 4" midrange to better handle the upper frequencies since it doesn't have to reach down as low. Anyway, with an active setup it should allow more flexibility in experimenting with crossover points if the tweeter, mid, and midbass are closer together.

Also I'm sure psychoacoustics comes into play as I could then actually see the speakers up high, front, and together, but then when/if psychoacoustics does come into play it will be in my favor.

 

[xtremekustomz 10+ year member]

Frequency range for a 6" midbass usually 500 is not a problem. I had the Dynaudio System 360 in my truck and if I'm not mistaken the 8" went all the way up to 900hz. I would still run the midrange as low as you can. 160 hz should work out really well for you or even 200. It really all depends on how far you really want to go with the install. If you just want something that will sound ok then run it higher.

 

[helotaxi 5,000+ posts]

Personally my focus would be getting the midbass playing as low as possible. A cone midrange should be able to effortlessly cover above 200hz and still be fine on the top end as well. Of course a good tweeter will keep the mid from having to go that high anyway. The more of the frequency range you can get coming from a single driver, the better off you will be. For one you will get a point source, alleviating any time domain issues. Second you will not have to worry about crossover shift in that region of the audio spectrum. Mounting the mid and the tweet on the same plane and axis, you can get them to be pretty close to the ideal, especially if you are using a digital crossover where phase shift isn't an issue.

Ah, yes. Once again Thnking takes the wrong side on theory vs. reality cause he fully knows that his books on acoustical theory and electrical theory trump reality. Unfortunately reality was never infromed that it was a lame duck. We'll get right on that //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/rolleyes.gif.c1fef805e9d1464d377451cd5bc18bfb.gif

 

[Thnking 10+ year member]

I have heard it all now folks....dude...go live in your dream world
and it's obvious you have never been to a major iasca comp nor meca...because it's as far from bling as you cna get...nice try dude

and it's prolly the fact that you don't know what you are listening to?......or how to listen?.....

LOL, you don’t' think the competing car's setups are flashy...good one.

You're right, I don't know how to listen //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/rolleyes.gif.c1fef805e9d1464d377451cd5bc18bfb.gif...

Who are your trying to kid, you think because you've built a huge number of car's stereos that you understand all the complex principles behind them... Obviously you don't. I have a lot of time listening to home/car audio, setting up home/car audio, and building components of home/car audio (including amplifiers/prototype speakers)... you're not the only person who's been around the block.

All of this technical stuff comes from a collaborative of people who've done R&D beyond what any single person could ever do in their lifetime...and you're telling me that your made up non-scientific "technical" explanations of what occurs is somehow correct... and these much more knowledgeable people's information who've spent much, much more time doing real world testing and what I base my personal experience to, is wrong..?

I hope you're not serious, and that this is an ego thing.

 

[Thnking 10+ year member]

Ah, yes. Once again Thnking takes the wrong side on theory vs. reality cause he fully knows that his books on acoustical theory and electrical theory trump reality. Unfortunately reality was never infromed that it was a lame duck. We'll get right on that //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/rolleyes.gif.c1fef805e9d1464d377451cd5bc18bfb.gif

Oh really, and what am I saying that's wrong? Are you trying to say theories aren't based on reality...or that established theories aren't based on reality...

The idea of "tactile energy" having very pronounced and significant effects on depth and vertical localization cues - which is what HebrewHammer is saying happens - is a theory. There is no established real world evidence to back it up, it's something he read somewhere and somehow applied to mid bass localization. As a result of varying the location of midbass, he believes he can localize it based on this energy, yet there are different explanations of why this happens.

So which theory is wrong, how do you have the ability to differentiate...//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/eyebrow.gif.fe2c18d8720fe8c7eaed347b21ea05a5.gif

 

[Hebrew Hammer 10+ year member]

LOL, you don’t' think the competing car's setups are flashy...good one.
You're right, I don't know how to listen //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/rolleyes.gif.c1fef805e9d1464d377451cd5bc18bfb.gif...

Who are your trying to kid, you think because you've built a huge number of car's stereos that you understand all the complex principles behind them... Obviously you don't. I have a lot of time listening to home/car audio, setting up home/car audio, and building components of home/car audio (including amplifiers/prototype speakers)... you're not the only person who's been around the block.

All of this technical stuff comes from a collaborative of people who've done R&D beyond what any single person could ever do in their lifetime...and you're telling me that your made up non-scientific "technical" explanations of what occurs is somehow correct... and these much more knowledgeable people's information who've spent much, much more time doing real world testing and what I base my personal experience to, is wrong..?

I hope you're not serious, and that this is an ego thing.

well then I'll give it up...quit team zapco....stop helping and consulting for IASCA world champs because I'm an idiot....

you see...I'll try to find BS in every know it all's comments.who have tons of keyboard exp but little real life exp..and I found it...that's all I need....

ohh by the way....bring that car of yours to SVR this year and put your money were your mouth is........bet you don't show....

and if you think I'm the only person who thinks this way....then I'm sorry...all the best cars I have listened to and helped with over the years addresses every issue I mention...all cars that did not...were average or below....Coincidence I think not .....also please show me specific scientific in car data that your pulling this info from please.....specific data that disproves what I say.....

 

[Thnking 10+ year member]

well then I'll give it up...quit team zapco....stop helping and consulting for IASCA world champs because I'm an idiot....

/temper tantrum

you see...I'll try to find BS in every know it all's comments.who have tons of keyboard exp but little real life exp..and I found it...that's all I need....

How does this relate to that… You’re claiming tactile sensation provides definite point source localization in all directions. I told you that haptic cues are used as by our auditory process for familiarity with the source.

Are you saying you have experience with scientific studies on haptic cues?….I don’t think so. This isn’t a real world vs theoretical debate, this is your made up theory vs real world theory. Just as you claim frequencies over 40hz pull back a sound stage. You don’t have any proof of it, or any real world experience of it. It’s obvious that harmonics, psychoacoustics, and resonances with surrounding material are causing this, but you discredit this. How have you come to that conclusion.. again do you do scientific research and experimentation which contradicts hearing aid and spatial processing white / technical papers (and my personal experiences) …didn’t think so.

You place a mid bass in the rear, your soundstage changes, and surprise …you’re instantly an expert.

ohh by the way....bring that car of yours to SVR this year and put your money were your mouth is........bet you don't show....

You’re right, I doubt I will. I work 6 days a week, and I’m the only certified PE on my projects.

and if you think I'm the only person who thinks this way....then I'm sorry...all the best cars I have listened to and helped with over the years addresses every issue I mention...all cars that did not...were average or below....Coincidence I think not .....also please show me specific scientific in car data that your pulling this info from please.....specific data that disproves what I say.....

Google it yourself.

A good one to start with is http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=psychoacoustics&btnG=Google+Search

 

[Hebrew Hammer 10+ year member]

once again...you show little merrit other than the ability to regurgatate information...and to be honest very little studies have been made with near field listening and most importantly in car listening...do you want to argue with the 1000's of cars that have come through the lanes over the past 20 years have not been perfect but those who practice what I preach were **** near close...

once again...my challenge still stands...take your bs...build your car doing everything you claim...and beat my car....and you will get a public appolgy from yours truly..not talking install etc...IASCA sqc which nothing but audio reproduction...

I am done with replying and taking time to rubtle your rhetoric

 

[helotaxi 5,000+ posts]

Engineers and technicians really crack me up. I can't count the number of times in my job I've had a problem with the equipment or signals that the engineers assured me was "impossible" until I recreated the problem repeatedly and then watched as they scratched their heads because their book answer just didn't hold up. Signal propagation and interfrequnecy crosstalk in the C-band was my personal favorite "impossibilty". Fact is reality hasn't read books and isn't bound by what is contained in them. Theories are someones attempt to explain an occurance. Some are better tested than others. You consider yourself a scientist we shouldn't have to explain it to you.

 

[grouchy 10+ year member]

Personally my focus would be getting the midbass playing as low as possible. A cone midrange should be able to effortlessly cover above 200hz and still be fine on the top end as well. Of course a good tweeter will keep the mid from having to go that high anyway. The more of the frequency range you can get coming from a single driver, the better off you will be. For one you will get a point source, alleviating any time domain issues. Second you will not have to worry about crossover shift in that region of the audio spectrum. Mounting the mid and the tweet on the same plane and axis, you can get them to be pretty close to the ideal, especially if you are using a digital crossover where phase shift isn't an issue.

Ok thanks. After the midbass is up by the midrange I could experiment with the crossover points. It could be that it's best to keep the midbass playing down under about 200 or so....will see.

 

[Hebrew Hammer 10+ year member]

Engineers and technicians really crack me up. I can't count the number of times in my job I've had a problem with the equipment or signals that the engineers assured me was "impossible" until I recreated the problem repeatedly and then watched as they scratched their heads because their book answer just didn't hold up. Signal propagation and interfrequnecy crosstalk in the C-band was my personal favorite "impossibilty". Fact is reality hasn't read books and isn't bound by what is contained in them. Theories are someones attempt to explain an occurance. Some are better tested than others. You consider yourself a scientist we shouldn't have to explain it to you.

LOL...agreed...I couldn't count how many times in college that our lab classes would disprove or get slightly different end results from the concrete truth preached in my theory classes

 

[Thnking 10+ year member]

once again...you show little merrit other than the ability to regurgatate information...and to be honest very little studies have been made with near field listening and most importantly in car listening...do you want to argue with the 1000's of cars that have come through the lanes over the past 20 years have not been perfect but those who practice what I preach were **** near close...
once again...my challenge still stands...take your bs...build your car doing everything you claim...and beat my car....and you will get a public appolgy from yours truly..not talking install etc...IASCA sqc which nothing but audio reproduction...

I am done with replying and taking time to rubtle your rhetoric

What information's been regurgitated....or is that your boilerplate response when you don't have something to rebut.

Quite a lot of studies are near field, most spatial processing research for earphones are conducted in the near field

http://www.google.com/search?num=50&hl=en&q=NEARFIELD+SPATIAL+localization+audio&btnG=Search

Wow, what do you know, 52,900 hits…and it's not like that changes the fact that tactile sensation doesn't provide 3- dimensional localization.

You have no ground to stand on saying car's that follow the same principles you preach sound good. I honestly bet they do. There is absolutely nothing I can think of that that merits midbass up front sounding worse that midbass located in other places. There is nothing wrong with trying to recreate a soundstage someone is familiar with....whether it represents the actual soundstage or just a soundstage someone feels is right. I never said anything to contradict this...it's the principles behind your arguments which are wrong. It's the fact that midbass doesn't have to be located in the front, and frequencies coming from the front speakers don't need to reproduce 40hz-20Khz for a soundstage to be accurately reproduced.

Give me the funds / and setup a double blind listening non-biased group...and I'll gladly put you in your place.

 

[Thnking 10+ year member]

Engineers and technicians really crack me up. I can't count the number of times in my job I've had a problem with the equipment or signals that the engineers assured me was "impossible" until I recreated the problem repeatedly and then watched as they scratched their heads because their book answer just didn't hold up. Signal propagation and interfrequnecy crosstalk in the C-band was my personal favorite "impossibilty". Fact is reality hasn't read books and isn't bound by what is contained in them. Theories are someones attempt to explain an occurance. Some are better tested than others. You consider yourself a scientist we shouldn't have to explain it to you.

I can't count how many times, I've had technicians or non-engineers telling me how they've been doing something "this way for X years" and there's nothing wrong with it...for example supporting shear moments in formwork, or compressive lateral pressure failures in compaction, or not basing section modulus on sheeting sizes. People have died or had serious injuries because of "common sense" vs physics principles in the industry I'm in.

The fact is that I don't jump to conclusions without supported evidence. I don't cling on to non-proven theories unless they have a lot of associated research. And the fact is that this has nothing to do with real world vs theoretical, this is a theoretical vs theoretical conversation. Other factors/occurrences can account for what are being described as tactile localization.

It doesn't seem to me like you're reading this conversation because you're comments don't apply, you just want to point the finger at theory comments having no bearing on reality...it's amusing at best.

 

[Buffalohed 10+ year member]

At the risk of taking sides I'm going to have to agree with Thnking here because he has a perfectly valid argument while it seems like Hebrew Hammer is skirting the actual points Thnking has made.

I don't doubt that the methods HH uses create some incredible, championship sounding car stereos. But everything Thnking has said about theory and reality are spot on.

I think most importantly there is no reason for anyone to take the things Thnking says personally. Just because someone presents a new viewpoint or suggests that things might exist the way they do for a different reason than you originally suspected does not mean that you are wrong or were at fault for holding those beliefs. Also rather than argue his real world experience I would think that the type of people participating in this thread would be more likely to think about what he is saying and see if you can gain a new understanding or perhaps re-evaluate the way you look at things.

At the very least, respect what he is saying. It's perfectly reasonable. There is no reason for insults and "challenges"...

 

[Hebrew Hammer 10+ year member]

At the risk of taking sides I'm going to have to agree with Thnking here because he has a perfectly valid argument while it seems like Hebrew Hammer is skirting the actual points Thnking has made.
I don't doubt that the methods HH uses create some incredible, championship sounding car stereos. But everything Thnking has said about theory and reality are spot on.

I think most importantly there is no reason for anyone to take the things Thnking says personally. Just because someone presents a new viewpoint or suggests that things might exist the way they do for a different reason than you originally suspected does not mean that you are wrong or were at fault for holding those beliefs. Also rather than argue his real world experience I would think that the type of people participating in this thread would be more likely to think about what he is saying and see if you can gain a new understanding or perhaps re-evaluate the way you look at things.

At the very least, respect what he is saying. It's perfectly reasonable. There is no reason for insults and "challenges"...

believe what you may....his points have very little in car merrit...nothing more...

between Ketih Turner...Matt Roberts...Steve Head...Myself...Ron Buffington...Jason Winslow.....Anthony Davis...Jeff Smith.....all of us collectively have a houndred + years of car audio exp...most have numerous world championships...and are regarded as the best of the best.....There is a reason for this....and it wasn't from reading books and therories...it was doing and cataloging etc...THAT"S THE REAL DEAL!!! And if it takes a person who is an Engineer to show merrit then Anthony Davis who practices everything I preach is an Engineer and who has over the years won many championships and has one of the best sounding cars in the world....ask him about tactile energy transfer and speaker placement...

and I like to se how and were I'm skirting anything...my points are clear and precise....

I'll be the guy this year that people will drive cross country to hear my car at a major show...and will be regarded as one of the best ever...it's prolly because I'm dumb and full of ****....

last post....I'm out!!!!!