midbass location

[helotaxi 5,000+ posts]

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.

Point taken but there's a big difference between the uneducated doing what they've done for years and the well educated thinking the book has all the answers. Structural engineering is one thing. The engineer is most always right, physics being what they are and all; however as soon as you throw human perception into the mix, the books are usually split down the middle or in a ton of different places. For every reference you find saying that this is percieved in such and such a way, you can find several more saying not only the polar opposite but also the entire spectrum in between. Fact is the human ear makes a shitty reference instrument. What the "average person" percieves one way when it comes to audio or localization, someone particularly attuned to what they are listening to and for may hear it entierly differently. Tactile sensation is not needed to get localization cues, clearly, but if tactile transfer is present it CAN alter the perception of the origin of a sound.

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.

You have theoretical support for your argument, HH has his experience and that of others. He's telling you straight up what he's observed and relating what others have observed. That is real world. You are referencing studies that are partially applicable at best and based on that theory that you have read rather than observed first hand, dismissing him out of hand. How is that not jumping to conclusions? How is that not reality vs. theory?

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.

Sounds to me like you skipped the first couple pages. My comments also aren't in reference just this thread. If you think that a college eduaction makes you the de facto expert in all fields you need to go back to school. I won't tell you how to build a bridge or whatever it is you do, you probably shouldn't be trying to tell HH how to make the best sounding cars out there. He's not alone in his methods, and trust me just about every location for a midbass speaker has been tried. The fact is that if thy are in the back, you can tell. Turn up the sub crossover and you can that it's behind you. You don't even have to get it up that high. If midbass was as lacking in localization cues as you seem to believe it to be, how is it that running a single midbass with a summed signal messes up the stereo image? The books tells you that this isn't the case but ask an experienced stereo installer, not just a mobile installer either. Know-it-all engineers, not even ammusing at their best.

 

[Thnking 10+ year member]

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...

Buffalohed is right on the money.

You continue to repeat the same things, which have no relation to what you've originally said. I never argued AGAINST mid-bass positioning up front or aimed based on localization, I'm arguing that aiming it based SOLEY on azimuth localization is going to have the give the same localization results. There is no perceptual depth and height cues within the midbass frequencies. Height is mainly an upper frequency cue and depth is mainly a HTRF, psychoacoustic, and learned cue.

Just because someone is an engineer, doesn't give them the ability to correctly theorize on acoustical localization principles. Like I said, this is based on R&D well beyond what a single individual can do and well outside a person's budget.

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

You’re avoiding any discussion on how you’ve come to these conclusions and not providing any established reference to back up these ideas which go against proven and well known theories on localization.

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!!!!!

again /temper tantrum

No one called you dumb or a bad installer. You just simply don’t understand localization principles very well.

 

[Thnking 10+ year member]

Point taken but there's a big difference between the uneducated doing what they've done for years and the well educated thinking the book has all the answers. Structural engineering is one thing. The engineer is most always right, physics being what they are and all; however as soon as you throw human perception into the mix, the books are usually split down the middle or in a ton of different places. For every reference you find saying that this is percieved in such and such a way, you can find several more saying not only the polar opposite but also the entire spectrum in between.

But there isn’t any information backing up tactile 3-dimensional localization with mid bass. Either mid-bass has 3-dimensional localization cues or it doesn’t. And as soon as human perception and ego’s are thrown into the theoretical/physics vs perception mix, people start making up explanations of things for which they either don’t have the knowledge of or can’t find the knowledge of.

Fact is the human ear makes a shitty reference instrument. What the "average person" percieves one way when it comes to audio or localization, someone particularly attuned to what they are listening to and for may hear it entierly differently. Tactile sensation is not needed to get localization cues, clearly, but if tactile transfer is present it CAN alter the perception of the origin of a sound.

And I clearly defined tactile sensations having a definite psychoacoustic effect on sound reproduction.

Localization cues and the HRTF are very well studied topics. Hearing aid companies and spatial processing companies have dumped millions into the field. The fact remains that localization is based on particular factors, people may interpret them differently but the same principles apply.

You have theoretical support for your argument, HH has his experience and that of others. He's telling you straight up what he's observed and relating what others have observed. That is real world. You are referencing studies that are partially applicable at best and based on that theory that you have read rather than observed first hand, dismissing him out of hand. How is that not jumping to conclusions? How is that not reality vs. theory?

A reality vs theoretical discussion is one where, for example, someone says “theoretically” rivers don’t flow in a direction opposing gravitational forces. And the “real world” person says, well "ABC river" is an example of a river which flows against gravitational forces. Theory vs. reality.

This is a discussion on causes of mid-bass localization. Theory vs theory.

HH is saying mid-bass is localized due to tactile localization (he hasn’t even mentioned how he came to this conclusion or why or given any supporting evidence). I’m saying frequencies under approx 250-200hz are very insensitive frequencies to humans for localization, so it’s very unlikely those frequencies will be localized- and also that mid-bass only needs to be mounted for azimuth localization because frequencies around 200-600hz only contain azimuth cues- and that tactile sensation only provides a familiarity reference for people, not a localization reference.

Sounds to me like you skipped the first couple pages. My comments also aren't in reference just this thread. If you think that a college eduaction makes you the de facto expert in all fields you need to go back to school. I won't tell you how to build a bridge or whatever it is you do, you probably shouldn't be trying to tell HH how to make the best sounding cars out there.

Did I ever say how someone should make the best sounding car’s out there…no I didn’t. You’re adding your own context to what I’m saying. I strictly said, that mid-bass doesn’t need to be aimed in the same manner he’s doing it in his vehicles for it to sound as good.

And let’s not forget audio installation is a learned process, a car I put together can sound just as good as a car someone else put together provided similar budgets and components/equipment and time frames are relevant to skill levels.

And I’m not a structural engineer, I’m a MEP engineer (mechanical, electrical, hydraulic) for a general contractor.

He's not alone in his methods, and trust me just about every location for a midbass speaker has been tried.

That’s not what it sounds like to me. It seems more like people have implanted some knowledge of how it’s “supposed” to be done and try to accomplish that goal. And in car audio its general practice, it seems, that mid bass in the rear is already not going to work just based on all of this “supposed to” information.

The fact is that if thy are in the back, you can tell. Turn up the sub crossover and you can that it's behind you. You don't even have to get it up that high. If midbass was as lacking in localization cues as you seem to believe it to be, how is it that running a single midbass with a summed signal messes up the stereo image?

Like I said, midbass contains azmimuth cues, basically the definition of left and right.

The books tells you that this isn't the case but ask an experienced stereo installer, not just a mobile installer either. Know-it-all engineers, not even ammusing at their best.

What book says this, I‘ve repeated that mid-bass has azimuth cues almost every post. Maybe you need to concentrate more on understanding what you’re reading that criticizing people based on their education.

 

[Hebrew Hammer 10+ year member]

jesus crist...do I have to spell it out to you..

If you can feel it...you can localize it...end of story...no other discusion or rebutle needs to happen....the transfer function of tactile energy transfer directly correlates to how you percieve stage height and center image etc...you cannot tell me that a panel or baffle that your driver is mounted to is completely decoupled from the rest of the car....I've gone to great lengths using a multitude of different mediums to lessen the effect...I'm talking over an inch and a half of different material on the floor and I still have tactile energy transfer..which still depending how loud and hard I push my frontstage lowers the stage or draws my attention to it's location which thus effects staging....

that's it..no more arguing with you..I'm done..come up with what ever you want...open that thesaurus of yours and come up with something witty...

my advice...get laid....****....

 

[Thnking 10+ year member]

jesus crist...do I have to spell it out to you..If you can feel it...you can localize it...end of story...no other discusion or rebutle needs to happen....the transfer function of tactile energy transfer directly correlates to how you percieve stage height and center image etc...you cannot tell me that a panel or baffle that your driver is mounted to is completely decoupled from the rest of the car....I've gone to great lengths using a multitude of different mediums to lessen the effect...I'm talking over an inch and a half of different material on the floor and I still have tactile energy transfer..which still depending how loud and hard I push my frontstage lowers the stage or draws my attention to it's location which thus effects staging....

And how does tactile energy directly correlate to stage height and center image...

How does tactile energy affect the HRTF, and how do elevation cues, which only exist to humans above the 2Khz frequency, existent in low frequencies…

In terms of mounting, energy IS transferred from speaker to panels/materials. Harmonics/resonance from these materials can cause localization and, this is what I’ve pointed out. But the “tactile energy” coming from the panels isn’t causing localization.

And overshadowing treble with bass/and low frequencies can cause less localization of the image. It’s possible when you push the low end, you have a combination of not being able to hear the upper end well (causing dis-localization) and high frequency harmonics from the panels causing a lower height localization.

that's it..no more arguing with you..I'm done..come up with what ever you want...open that thesaurus of yours and come up with something witty...

my advice...get laid....****....

Any time you’d like to actually have a real conversation about localization feel free to PM me. It’s pretty obvious from the above you are confused on concepts. Your comments don’t contribute to anyone learning anything.

 

[Hebrew Hammer 10+ year member]

I'm done it's no use to argue with a person who doesn't to listen...who just wants to argue....

you win I'm dumb

 

[helotaxi 5,000+ posts]

But there isn’t any information backing up tactile 3-dimensional localization with mid bass. Either mid-bass has 3-dimensional localization cues or it doesn’t. And as soon as human perception and ego’s are thrown into the theoretical/physics vs perception mix, people start making up explanations of things for which they either don’t have the knowledge of or can’t find the knowledge of.

DO you undertstand the difference between "why" and "that?" Honestly some scientist/engineer type can knock himself out with the why. Those who actually do this stuf are concerned with the that. Don't really care why it happens at this point but know that it does. Theory vs. reality.

Localization cues and the HRTF are very well studied topics. Hearing aid companies and spatial processing companies have dumped millions into the field. The fact remains that localization is based on particular factors, people may interpret them differently but the same principles apply.

Big difference between well studied and well understood. Priciple without application is just writing on paper. How it is percieved by the person in question is all that matters. You previously mentioned learned response to spatial cues. If all persons concerned have the same learned response and you fail to account for that, where does that leave you? The response being learned rather than innate, makes it no less valid a response.

A reality vs theoretical discussion is one where, for example, someone says “theoretically” rivers don’t flow in a direction opposing gravitational forces. And the “real world” person says, well "ABC river" is an example of a river which flows against gravitational forces. Theory vs. reality.

Have you read the thread at all? You've stated over and again the theoretical reasons and HH has stated over and again that he has experienced a different outcome to what the theory would suggest. If you want to insist that his experience is theory (he never tried to suppose as to the reason why, only stated that) then, whatever, you are in need of a vacation or something to bring you back to what is reality.

HH is saying mid-bass is localized due to tactile localization (he hasn’t even mentioned how he came to this conclusion or why or given any supporting evidence).

You mean other than trial and error, which he stated more than once?

I’m saying frequencies under approx 250-200hz are very insensitive frequencies to humans for localization, so it’s very unlikely those frequencies will be localized- and also that mid-bass only needs to be mounted for azimuth localization because frequencies around 200-600hz only contain azimuth cues- and that tactile sensation only provides a familiarity reference for people, not a localization reference.

Unlikely is quite different from impossible. Reality is filled with unlikely events. You should get out more. Also you should know that azimuth involves 360 degrees of reference. If midbass contains azimuth cues, then mounting drivers producing those frequencies behind you will provide cuing to their location as coming from behind you. Stage height is a different story.

Did I ever say how someone should make the best sounding car’s out there…no I didn’t. You’re adding your own context to what I’m saying. I strictly said, that mid-bass doesn’t need to be aimed in the same manner he’s doing it in his vehicles for it to sound as good.

The context of the discussion is car audio and building the best sounding car possible, I added nothing. You are trying to tell him that he's doing just that in the wrong manner.

And let’s not forget audio installation is a learned process, a car I put together can sound just as good as a car someone else put together provided similar budgets and components/equipment and time frames are relevant to skill levels.

Huh? I have no idea what you were trying to say there. My take away from that is that if you spend more money to account for your lack of skill level you can build a car system on par with the best?

That’s not what it sounds like to me. It seems more like people have implanted some knowledge of how it’s “supposed” to be done and try to accomplish that goal. And in car audio its general practice, it seems, that mid bass in the rear is already not going to work just based on all of this “supposed to” information.

Ever wonder where the notion came from? Maybe cause a lot of people tried it with less than desirable results and based on that experience rejected it as a viable practice?

Like I said, midbass contains azmimuth cues, basically the definition of left and right.

Again azimuth is 360 degrees. You can't have left and right without front and back.

criticizing people based on their education.

I never criticized based on education. I criticzed based on application of education and general attitude. A scientist is educated but open minded. A know-it-all engineer is educated an closed minded. They send out the vibe that there is only one answer and it is found in a book. Results that contradict their narrow view are either ignored or explained away as error. Which is worse: a very experienced person with little formal education who knows he doesn't know or a very educated person with very little real experience who thinks he knows it all? See where I'm going? If you had an open mind and cared about something other than trying to prove your educational superiority you would have used this thread to try to actually explain why HH is getting the results that he is rather than simply telling him that he isn't getting those results. Instead you insisted on sticking doggedly to the premise that you're right based on your education and what you read that someone else has studied and he's wrong and isn't really experiencing what he says he is.
Now let's talk theory. Here's mine. Based on what you have stated on the non localization of midbass frequencies, this is what would have to happen for a rear-mounted midbass to have no effect on the front to rear placement of the soundstage. First we have to assume that we can pinpoint the exact transistional frequency where localization cuing begins to occur or at least know for sure where it doesn't. Second, we would need a perfect filter with an infinite slope set somewhere below the localizable freq. Third, we would need a perfect loud speaker that will not introduce any harmonic distortion to the signal at the desired listening level. Fourth we would have to totally isolate the driver from all adjacent body panels to prevent the possibility of panel resonance introducing any harmonics into the sound. My basic theory is that harmonic distortion produced by the speaker itself is well within the easily localizable range and the distortion not the signal is the problem with rear mounted midbasses (and subs for that matter). How's that fly with your theories?

 

[Thnking 10+ year member]

DO you undertstand the difference between "why" and "that?" Honestly some scientist/engineer type can knock himself out with the why. Those who actually do this stuf are concerned with the that. Don't really care why it happens at this point but know that it does. Theory vs. reality.

Midbas doesn’t have 3 dimensional localization. It’s has nothing to do with midbass.

Big difference between well studied and well understood. Priciple without application is just writing on paper. How it is percieved by the person in question is all that matters. You previously mentioned learned response to spatial cues. If all persons concerned have the same learned response and you fail to account for that, where does that leave you? The response being learned rather than innate, makes it no less valid a response.

LOL.

Midbass isn’t being perceived as being 3 dimensionally localized. Simply moving a midbass speaker isn’t going to move the height and depth cues. So it has nothing to do with a learned response. It’s funny that you’re trying put things into your own context.

Have you read the thread at all? You've stated over and again the theoretical reasons and HH has stated over and again that he has experienced a different outcome to what the theory would suggest. If you want to insist that his experience is theory (he never tried to suppose as to the reason why, only stated that) then, whatever, you are in need of a vacation or something to bring you back to what is reality.

3 dimensional spatial cues aren’t related to “tactile energy”. Therefore height localization being referenced to midbass, isn’t a result of midbass reproduction. Place a midbass speaker in a wooden enclosure in a room. Low pass it at 400hz. Walk back and forward closer and farther away from the box to change the tactile sensation. You’ll never be able to vertically localize it.

You mean other than trial and error, which he stated more than once?

You’re telling me that you’re dense enough to say a non-controlled environment with many varying acoustic properties, gives someone the ability to create a theory on a technical acoustical property of sound reproduction……lol

Unlikely is quite different from impossible. Reality is filled with unlikely events. You should get out more. Also you should know that azimuth involves 360 degrees of reference. If midbass contains azimuth cues, then mounting drivers producing those frequencies behind you will provide cuing to their location as coming from behind you. Stage height is a different story.

I could easily sit here and say frequencies under 200hz are NEVER going to be localized, and I have all of the proof to back myself up. But I’m not going to do that because I know azimuth cues exist below 200hz.

I know what azimuth means, I’ll explain to you how you’ve taken it out of context. The HRTF and spectral properties of monaural cues are used to determine front-back localization. These frequencies are above mid-bass. Left/right discrepancy uses binaural cues referenced from an azimuth location. Regardless of where on the azimuth the cues are referenced, the auditory system only provides a left/right location, not front/back.

The context of the discussion is car audio and building the best sounding car possible, I added nothing. You are trying to tell him that he's doing just that in the wrong manner.

I NEVER said it’s done in the wrong manner, only that it CAN be done DIFFERENTLY to obtain the same results. Is that plain enough for you…

Huh? I have no idea what you were trying to say there. My take away from that is that if you spend more money to account for your lack of skill level you can build a car system on par with the best?

With enough time, material, and money sure.

Again azimuth is 360 degrees. You can't have left and right without front and back.

See above on why this is wrong.

I never criticized based on education. I criticzed based on application of education and general attitude. A scientist is educated but open minded. A know-it-all engineer is educated an closed minded.

I’m not a know-it-all, and I’m very open minded. I’ve been into car audio for 11 years, over that time I’ve formed various opinions based on experience and found through research and reading that those opinions were wrong. A lot of your comments show your immaturity, and egotistical bias.

They send out the vibe that there is only one answer and it is found in a book. Results that contradict their narrow view are either ignored or explained away as error. Which is worse: a very experienced person with little formal education who knows he doesn't know or a very educated person with very little real experience who thinks he knows it all? See where I'm going? If you had an open mind and cared about something other than trying to prove your educational superiority you would have used this thread to try to actually explain why HH is getting the results that he is rather than simply telling him that he isn't getting those results. Instead you insisted on sticking doggedly to the premise that you're right based on your education and what you read that someone else has studied and he's wrong and isn't really experiencing what he says he is.

I started this discussion non-confronting, trying to explain why localization doesn’t happen and why it does. I NEVER said I was superior to anyone, all I’ve read is why you and HH are somehow right and I’m wrong based on education. It’s obvious you 2 are buddies, because your comments have no educational value to anyone, you’re simply trying to show me why you think engineers are wrong…

Now let's talk theory. Here's mine. Based on what you have stated on the non localization of midbass frequencies, this is what would have to happen for a rear-mounted midbass to have no effect on the front to rear placement of the soundstage. First we have to assume that we can pinpoint the exact transistional frequency where localization cuing begins to occur or at least know for sure where it doesn't. Second, we would need a perfect filter with an infinite slope set somewhere below the localizable freq. Third, we would need a perfect loud speaker that will not introduce any harmonic distortion to the signal at the desired listening level. Fourth we would have to totally isolate the driver from all adjacent body panels to prevent the possibility of panel resonance introducing any harmonics into the sound. My basic theory is that harmonic distortion produced by the speaker itself is well within the easily localizable range and the distortion not the signal is the problem with rear mounted midbasses (and subs for that matter). How's that fly with your theories?

It doesn’t, but at least now you’re having a discussion. Harmonic front to back localization of the misbass would mean, just as you said, harmonics of the resonance(s) would have to be at an audible level at the frequencies which cause front-back localization, which are around 2000hz. That’s not going to happen.

 

[helotaxi 5,000+ posts]

It doesn’t, but at least now you’re having a discussion.

So what you're saying at this point is that unless a sound breaches the 2kHz barrier, it can't be placed front to rear? In that case your rear surround channels need only play above 2K. With that statement I think you've pretty well shot up your credibility on the subject. You've also stated that you've formed your own opinions based on 11 yrs of car audio experience. There are a lot of people on this board doing it longer than you and the one in particular that you've adamantly disagreed with in this thread has outside varification of his experience in the form of national SQ titles. You have also stated in this thread that competition cars are flashy further eroding the bit of credibiilty you might have had on the topic. It's obvious that you don't want to listen to what anyone else has to say regardless of their experience and knowlege on the actual subject at hand rather than attempting to extrapolate nonrelated studies to back up your otherwise unfounded claims.
You ARE coming across as a pompous know-it-all ass and none of your claims of being open-minded are going to remedy that. Done with this.

 

[xtremekustomz 10+ year member]

Originally posted by Mark Eldrdige:

Hmmm... path length differences... You might as well get that signal alignment device cause I'm not going to help you...

Yea, right!

Actually, I'd recommend looking for past threads on the topic, in addition to what we discuss here. There have been a lot of threads on this subject in the last year or two, and you can find them in the archives and just by searching for threads on path lengths, imaging, staging, etc. Also, buy a copy of the Autosound 2000 Tech Briefs, and read tha articles in that collection. Between those two sources, you'll have more information than you can probably find form all other sources combined.

The real skivvy is that you want to minimize the differences, for a lot of reasons. Especially in the mid-bass through the midrange regions, the difference between left and right pathlengths is CRITICAL! In fact, between 100 and 400 Hz, the angle of the speaker won't even matter, as imaging cues are almost 100% determined by path length, not by intensity differences. Above 2000 Hz, imaging cues can be controlled by speaker angle and other intensity controlling techniques. Path lengths above 2000 Hz are not critical.

As far as the path length differences between the mid-bass driver, midrange, adn tweeter on a single side, you'll probably never get them exactly the same. The real problems with path length differences here will be int eh frequency and phase response in the crossover range. Signal alignment can help some here, as long as the speakers aren't too far from each other. It's more acceptable to have a mid-bass amd midrange separated than to separate the mid and tweeter. The mid-bass frequency range can make a difference in the perceived stage depth,a dn the center image stability. But, the upper midrange and high frequencies are responsible for the stage height, width, and depth, as well as image focus. Keeping these frequency range drivers close together will be a lot easier to control all the variables than separating them. If you need additional stage height because the mid and tweeter are in the kick panel area, then add a second set of tweeters high and wide, and crossed over pretty high as well (somewhere between 8000 and 20000 Hz). This configuration is what has been used in most all fo the best sounding cars that use conventional drivers. And in most of the HLCD systems, the additional tweeters are used for the same reason.

Anyway, locate the midrange drivers first, and work with them in their intended frequency range to achieve the best overall stage depth and center image. Don't worry too much about stage height or width yet.

Next, locat the mid-bass drivers so they blend well with the mids, have solid output, and do not detract from the center image. Doors will likely not be the best place for them. They can be mounted under the dash, in the floor, in the firewall towards the center of the car from the kick panel, or where ever else they work, adn can have a large enough enclosure.

The tweeters are the easiest. Mount them as close to the mids as possible, and make sure they give you the width and height you want, and help to focus the image performance. If you need the additional height, add the second set of tweeters.

Path lengths are a different animal. They're kind of like the impedance of a woofer. Industry wide, we call a speaker a "4 ohm" or "2 ohm" speaker, when in reality, it is only really that impedance at one or maybe two frequencies. That's the "nominal" impedance which means "in name only." The actual impedance varies widely accoring to frequency. A "4 ohm" speaker in a box may have impedances as high as 50 ohms at resonance, and as low as 3 ohms elsewhere.

Likewise, the sonic cues that affect what we percieve as staging and imaging are frequency dependent, and there is no one single number, technique, or what ever that can be used across the frequency board.

Good luck!

 

[Big Reazon 10+ year member]

Way too much to read I have an el camino where do I put my mids and tweets. Kick panels apillars doors. And where do aI face them.

 

[xtremekustomz 10+ year member]

Way too much to read I have an el camino where do I put my mids and tweets. Kick panels apillars doors. And where do aI face them.

Usually you want to put your midrange and tweeter close together to have a single point source. Most times you get good results from kick panel locations and as for aiming, you will just have to put them down there and move them around and find the proper spot for you vehicle. If a little more height is needed you can put another set of tweeters in the a pillars. Doors are not a good place for speakers.

 

[Thnking 10+ year member]

So what you're saying at this point is that unless a sound breaches the 2kHz barrier, it can't be placed front to rear? In that case your rear surround channels need only play above 2K. With that statement I think you've pretty well shot up your credibility on the subject.

Rear speakers shouldn’t be played above whatever frequency someone begins to localize them. IE 200-250hz. There isn’t a front to back localization, there is an azimuth localization. Also, IMO someone wouldn’t want the summation of the rear and front frequencies changing making more EQ’ing necessary and adding distortion from a 2nd source.

It doesn’t seem like you’re reading my statements very well.

You've also stated that you've formed your own opinions based on 11 yrs of car audio experience. There are a lot of people on this board doing it longer than you and the one in particular that you've adamantly disagreed with in this thread has outside varification of his experience in the form of national SQ titles. You have also stated in this thread that competition cars are flashy further eroding the bit of credibiilty you might have had on the topic. It's obvious that you don't want to listen to what anyone else has to say regardless of their experience and knowlege on the actual subject at hand rather than attempting to extrapolate nonrelated studies to back up your otherwise unfounded claims.

Again you’re comparing installation knowledge to technical knowledge on acoustic reproduction. It’s obvious neither you nor HH have any real world technical experience testing loudspeakers, outside of moving them around and listening to them.

Telling me that an installation with a particular mounting location PROVES that midbass frequencies can be localized outside of the azimuth is ridiculous. Please provide any technical reading backing up anything you say.

Done with this.

I’m glad, you don’t contribute anything besides biased insults.

 

[T3mpest 10+ year member]

Meh, at the end of the day theories describe reality, not the other way around. Regardless of what "should" happen, if you not getting the same results in real life, your theories are wrong or aren't developed enough. In either case, what ACTUALLY happens wins out, regardless of why. I'd assume Randy and other SQ guys have spent literally thousands upon thousands of hours messing with their cars. If they have can all agree that midbass's in the back generally isn't idea, then it's probably not. Whether or not they know why this is the case or not isn't the point, it's reality. If theory can describe why, then more power to it, however, to simply say their real world experience should be dismissed is assanine, at best.

In the real world things get dicy, speakers aren't perfect, neither are mounting locations, reflections, resonance, etc. You can't always account for all of it. To use azimuth cues as the be all end all of where drivers can be mounted is missing alot of other variables. This came up on ECA too. Werewolf was discussing the pros and cons of kickpanels. Theoretically, if the midrange isn't running above 2k, you can simply place the tweets up high and your soundstage shouldn't suffer a bit. However, most of the better IASCA competors agreed they'd never actually heard a car do what werewolf said "should" happen in theory.

In closing, in theory, theory and practice are the same, in practice, they arent...

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

Or you can do what I do:

Try to find mids that have characteristics that work best for your application. I wanted to mount in the doors, so I found a set of mids that are supposed to do well in the doors.