Thanks for posting Clark's amp challenge. Like MOSFET, it's been a long
time since I've read it.

If I'm not mistaken, he has never ever paid out the $10,000, correct?

Tony


--
2001 Nissan Maxima SE Anniversary Edition
Clarion DRZ9255 Head Unit, Phoenix Gold ZX475ti, ZX450 and Xenon X1200.1
Amplifiers, Dynaudio System 360 Tri-Amped In Front and Focal 130HCs For Rear
Fill, Image Dynamics IDMAX10 D4 v.3 Sub

2001 Chevy S10 ZR2
Pioneer DEH-P9600MP Head Unit, Phoenix Gold Ti500.4 Amp, Focal 165HC
Speakers & Image Dynamics ID8 D4 v.3 Sub

Great points made here. Getting a 15" sub because it will play down to 20Hz
is asinine because I dont know of any music that plays that low. 20Hz is
practically inaudible, and getting a speaker just because it will do that is
a bit of a mistake. Like said in the post I responded to, deadening and
dampening is a major factor in this scenario. Just concentrate your money
on getting your car quiet (a donkey dick exhaust pipe isn't the answer
here). You can get mufflers that will make your car almost inaudible when
inside, even at higher RPM's for a decent price.

--
- AUSTIN BECKER
"Brandonb" wrote in message
...
Inline...and OP snipped slightly

justin time wrote:

The clarity of the frequency response will NOT get better, no. You are
correct. BUT, it will help with sound reinforcement and allow the
clarity that IS there to push thru the rest of the noise, like road
noise and wind. You can't deny this. That is my main logic in all this.

If your prime objective is overpowering or to "push thru" the road
noises, you may wish to focus your energies on ways to minimize those
instead. For instance, sound deadening and dampening. Products like
Dynamat and similar work great... for rattles and resonating surfaces.
It'll do jack for road noise though. For that, dampening is what you'd
want to do. For a good example, try pulling up your vehicle's carpet
some time. You'll notice a funky foam/fabric cushiony underlining. This
stuff is pretty similar to what you'd find under carpet in a house also.

You can buy this stuff at carpet stores or online, etc and for pretty
cheap. Like 15 cents a square foot or less. It comes in different
thicknesses as well. Find where most of the noise is coming through and
put some in. It wouldn't hurt to add some deadening in those spots as
well, expecially in doors and on backs of interior panels. Windshields
are of course the weakness in this plan.

How do you know how much fiberglass I can get for how much money, and
how much I already have? Fiberglass fabrication is a hobby for me. I
even made my car's body kit.

I envy you. You can even use your fiberglassing skills to beef up the
deadening and dampening. A couple layers on the backs of interior
paneling for instance.

Actually, no, it doesn't. If I'm intent on putting x amount of speakers
in my car, they're going to require x amount of boxes. x amount of
fiberglass boxes is going to weigh far less than the same amount of MDF
boxes. I'll assume you already understood that.

The main argument here, from my standpoint at least, is a matter of
quantity over quality. Some people are thinking quality of speakers, but
I don't care about that. The quality I'm talking about is of the
install. You can make the world's best and most expensive speakers sound
like the world's worst speakers in a ****ty install. The opposite is
true also. You can make cheap speakers sound great in a good install as
long as they aren't damaged. The idea is to give them an enclosure they
are designed for, with proper volume and tuning if applicable, and
enough power without too much power. The power is the easy part. get one
that can at least do what is recommended, and even more if within
budget. An amp can always be turned down, but it can only be turned up
so far.

Naturally, you can understand that with
10 6x9's, you're going to need a significant amount of bass to back that
up and cut through the mix. It doesn't necessarily have to be loud, it's
just reinforcement that I am worried about. The main issue here is sound
quality. The subs are there just to reinforce the low-end of the
spectrum, not to go around mexi-thumping in my neighborhood with my hat
on backwards letting everyone know how cool I am. I drive a LOT, and I
want excellent sound reproduction, not competition volumes.

I think you'd be surprised with how much bass you will end up getting
with 10 6x9s. My factory 6x9s in my front doors sound like 1 or 2 10"
subs in a sealed box now that I have them externally amped. That's just
two paper-cone speakers that came with the car, but they designers
actually did a decent job with the door enclosure. Since you do
fiberglass work for a hobby and seem to be rather astute at it, I
suggest you make an enclosure for your 4 current 6x9s, equidistant from
listener or time-corrected accordingly, and test it out before dropping
the cash of the other 6. You may be very pleased with the result. Try
the dampening idea with it also.

I chose my subwoofers for frequency response. The 10's that I selected
respond down to 30hz. I want another set to respond around 20hz. Run
them together and they should make a nice compliment to each other.

Getting 2 10" subs and 2 15" subs may be detrimental also. The 10" subs
will likely play just as low as the 15" subs. However, because of pure
cone area and efficiency, the 15" subs will sound louder at those lower
frequencies. Which means the 10's will be focusing on slightly higher
bass frequencies, which the 15's will do fine at, and will basically be
overrun by the 6x9's, which with the sheer number will get the midbass
you're wanting, but not the low-end extension. You keep stating you
don't want competition bass. Well.... stop adding equipment like you do
then .

And I was simply
stating that you can make Pyle's sound good if you have them in a good
configuration, depending on what you wanted to do with them.

Bravo. Good answer.


Brandonb

"Austin Becker" wrote in
news:Zg8Kf.778868$x96.737524@attbi_s72:

Great points made here. Getting a 15" sub because it will play down
to 20Hz is asinine because I dont know of any music that plays that
low.

In my experience with home speakers (non-car) the subs that drop to 20hz
typically sound better at all lower frequencies, whereas the those dropping
to 30hz or more seem to lose a lot of the lower resonance.

I don't really like Korn, but there was a song that makes a good example of
this. I think it was called Falling Away From Me. On my CAT LEB-404's
(dropping to 20hz), the introduction bass hit in this song is very clear
and undistorted and blends well with the mains. I've found the same is true
for other speakers that drop to 20hz, while subs that only drop to 30hz can
barely render this same bass hit at audible levels.

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

In article ,
Brandonb wrote:

I could really care less about what brand of speakers are used or how
much was paid, etc. But Austin does bring up a good point here for any
system. The more speakers introduced, the more phase issues become
probable and very likely, problematic. Just verifying positive and
negative on each speaker may not be enough, in and of itself. All ten
6x9s (discounting all other point-sources) would need to be equidistant
from the listener. If some are closer than others, it could create a
problem. I'll have more in another post in this thread.

Brandonb



However when a correct line array is installed/built, the capabilities
are awe inspiring.

--
Cyrus

*coughcasaucedoprodigynetcough*

Not that I've heard of.

Brandonb


Tony F wrote:
Thanks for posting Clark's amp challenge. Like MOSFET, it's been a long
time since I've read it.

If I'm not mistaken, he has never ever paid out the $10,000, correct?

Tony

MOSFET wrote:
You know, Tony, I didn't think the multi-6x9 approach was that bad an idea.
We all know that, all things being equal, your typical 6x9 is comparable to
your typical 8" subwoofer.

But all other things are not equal. Oval speakers are a bad design,
period. Standard round speaker designs have enough issues with linear
response... oval drivers are just that much worse, because of their shape.

As most car makers have moved away from the 6x9,

That's because oval speakers were a kludge from the very start, when car
audio was far from a major concern of auto manufacturers. Modern car
interiors are designed with audio in mind, and as such are designed with
proper mounting surfaces and good enclosure baffling. Oval drivers were
invented to allow manufacturers to cram larger cones into narrower and
badly-shaped areas that had no initial consideration given to audio
equipment.

I imagine prices have gone down consideribly for these types of speakers.
So, if you are the type who likes LOTS of sound coming from behind you,
6x9's may give you THE MOST bang for the buck. Again, it's like buying an 8'
subwoofer, midrange and tweeter all in one low-price package. I can
CERTAINLY see this being the best way to go for some people.

Yes: those with older cars that already have cutouts designed for ovals.
That's about it.


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0608-0, 02/20/2006
Tested on: 2/21/2006 5:37:35 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

In article yfPKf.59143$sa3.50751@pd7tw1no,
Matt Ion wrote:

MOSFET wrote:
You know, Tony, I didn't think the multi-6x9 approach was that bad an idea.
We all know that, all things being equal, your typical 6x9 is comparable to
your typical 8" subwoofer.

But all other things are not equal. Oval speakers are a bad design,
period. Standard round speaker designs have enough issues with linear
response... oval drivers are just that much worse, because of their shape.

As most car makers have moved away from the 6x9,

That's because oval speakers were a kludge from the very start, when car
audio was far from a major concern of auto manufacturers. Modern car
interiors are designed with audio in mind, and as such are designed with
proper mounting surfaces and good enclosure baffling.

To some extent, I concur. However, most humans haven't grown those ears
on their ankles yet. Most cars are still designed with placement of
drivers in the way wrong locations.

Oval drivers were
invented to allow manufacturers to cram larger cones into narrower and
badly-shaped areas that had no initial consideration given to audio
equipment.

I imagine prices have gone down consideribly for these types of speakers.
So, if you are the type who likes LOTS of sound coming from behind you,
6x9's may give you THE MOST bang for the buck. Again, it's like buying an
8'
subwoofer, midrange and tweeter all in one low-price package. I can
CERTAINLY see this being the best way to go for some people.

Yes: those with older cars that already have cutouts designed for ovals.
That's about it.


--
Cyrus

*coughcasaucedoprodigynetcough*

Cyrus wrote:
In article yfPKf.59143$sa3.50751@pd7tw1no,
Matt Ion wrote:


MOSFET wrote:

You know, Tony, I didn't think the multi-6x9 approach was that bad an idea.
We all know that, all things being equal, your typical 6x9 is comparable to
your typical 8" subwoofer.

But all other things are not equal. Oval speakers are a bad design,
period. Standard round speaker designs have enough issues with linear
response... oval drivers are just that much worse, because of their shape.


As most car makers have moved away from the 6x9,

That's because oval speakers were a kludge from the very start, when car
audio was far from a major concern of auto manufacturers. Modern car
interiors are designed with audio in mind, and as such are designed with
proper mounting surfaces and good enclosure baffling.


To some extent, I concur. However, most humans haven't grown those ears
on their ankles yet. Most cars are still designed with placement of
drivers in the way wrong locations.

Unfortunate, but true... however, short of placing the driver in a
single center seat and putting speaker pods on top of the dash, certain
design compromises must still be made. However, the door and kick-panel
designs are least being angled upward in most cars now, whereas at first
they merely mounted in a hole cut in the metal, and door construction
and panels are much more solid and thus provide better baffles and
therefore better bass (although the primary reason for this is more
likely to help cut road noise).

Actually, as far as imaging goes, the kick panels are about the best
location you can get for standard driver designs. The biggest problem
with proper image staging in a car is how the listeners are so badly
offset from the drivers - the sound from the closer speaker arrives
sooner, and the brain detects the sound as "leaning" to that side
(timing cues are more important to how the brain handles image placement
than level is, so the balance control is really of minimal usefulness as
far as balancing the stereo image).

The best way to control imaging, then, is to reduce the DIFFERENCE in
the distance from each speaker to the listener. The ideal is to have
both left and right speakers the same distance from the lister, or a
ratio of 1:1. If you put tweeters in your dash, for example, the left
speaker may only be 2 feet from the driver, while the right speaker is
upward of 6 feet away, for a 3:1 ratio. If you can mount the tweeters
at the farthest, deepest corners of the kick panels, you can increase
left distance to, say, 5 feet, and right distance to 8 feet, thus
reducing the ratio to around 1.6:1, thus giving both driver and
passenger a much more balanced stereo field.


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0608-0, 02/20/2006
Tested on: 2/21/2006 10:39:21 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

In article vGTKf.60944$H%4.48056@pd7tw2no,
Matt Ion wrote:

Cyrus wrote:
In article yfPKf.59143$sa3.50751@pd7tw1no,
Matt Ion wrote:


MOSFET wrote:

You know, Tony, I didn't think the multi-6x9 approach was that bad an
idea.
We all know that, all things being equal, your typical 6x9 is comparable
to
your typical 8" subwoofer.

But all other things are not equal. Oval speakers are a bad design,
period. Standard round speaker designs have enough issues with linear
response... oval drivers are just that much worse, because of their shape.


As most car makers have moved away from the 6x9,

That's because oval speakers were a kludge from the very start, when car
audio was far from a major concern of auto manufacturers. Modern car
interiors are designed with audio in mind, and as such are designed with
proper mounting surfaces and good enclosure baffling.


To some extent, I concur. However, most humans haven't grown those ears
on their ankles yet. Most cars are still designed with placement of
drivers in the way wrong locations.

Unfortunate, but true... however, short of placing the driver in a
single center seat and putting speaker pods on top of the dash, certain
design compromises must still be made. However, the door and kick-panel
designs are least being angled upward in most cars now, whereas at first
they merely mounted in a hole cut in the metal, and door construction
and panels are much more solid and thus provide better baffles and
therefore better bass (although the primary reason for this is more
likely to help cut road noise).

Actually, as far as imaging goes, the kick panels are about the best
location you can get for standard driver designs. The biggest problem
with proper image staging in a car is how the listeners are so badly
offset from the drivers - the sound from the closer speaker arrives
sooner, and the brain detects the sound as "leaning" to that side
(timing cues are more important to how the brain handles image placement
than level is, so the balance control is really of minimal usefulness as
far as balancing the stereo image).

The best way to control imaging, then, is to reduce the DIFFERENCE in
the distance from each speaker to the listener. The ideal is to have
both left and right speakers the same distance from the lister, or a
ratio of 1:1. If you put tweeters in your dash, for example, the left
speaker may only be 2 feet from the driver, while the right speaker is
upward of 6 feet away, for a 3:1 ratio. If you can mount the tweeters
at the farthest, deepest corners of the kick panels, you can increase
left distance to, say, 5 feet, and right distance to 8 feet, thus
reducing the ratio to around 1.6:1, thus giving both driver and
passenger a much more balanced stereo field.



Short of incorporating enclosures into the dash and making my vehicle
center seated, audio happiness in a vehicle won't happen for me. But I
can see your point, a simple nudge on the pan function a little to the
left is as good as it gets. Without spending way too much that is.

--
Cyrus

*coughcasaucedoprodigynetcough*

The best way to control imaging, then, is to reduce the DIFFERENCE in the
distance from each speaker to the listener. The ideal is to have both
left and right speakers the same distance from the lister, or a ratio of
1:1. If you put tweeters in your dash, for example, the left speaker may
only be 2 feet from the driver, while the right speaker is upward of 6
feet away, for a 3:1 ratio. If you can mount the tweeters at the
farthest, deepest corners of the kick panels, you can increase left
distance to, say, 5 feet, and right distance to 8 feet, thus reducing the
ratio to around 1.6:1, thus giving both driver and passenger a much more
balanced stereo field.

My speakers are in the doors and I use time correction to get a nice, sharp
center image. It's quite amazing, actually, the difference it makes (I
wonder how I got along without it all these years). Without the
time-correction employed, I am VERY aware of sound coming from both left and
right sides, when I engage the time-correction the image magically shoots
right to the center of the dash, it's EXACTLY like I have a speaker in the
center of my dash board (with mono sources, of course), and the left and
right speakers seem to disappear. I love it. The only problem is that for
the passenger (I have the time-correction set for the driver's side, of
course) the imaging is terrible. This is why kick-panels are TRULY the best
way to go. I hope to install a pair soon.

MOSFET

Cyrus wrote:

The best way to control imaging, then, is to reduce the DIFFERENCE in
the distance from each speaker to the listener. The ideal is to have
both left and right speakers the same distance from the lister, or a
ratio of 1:1. If you put tweeters in your dash, for example, the left
speaker may only be 2 feet from the driver, while the right speaker is
upward of 6 feet away, for a 3:1 ratio. If you can mount the tweeters
at the farthest, deepest corners of the kick panels, you can increase
left distance to, say, 5 feet, and right distance to 8 feet, thus
reducing the ratio to around 1.6:1, thus giving both driver and
passenger a much more balanced stereo field.




Short of incorporating enclosures into the dash and making my vehicle
center seated, audio happiness in a vehicle won't happen for me. But I
can see your point, a simple nudge on the pan function a little to the
left is as good as it gets. Without spending way too much that is.

Alpine used to have a processor - don't recall if it was a separate unit
or built into certain high-end decks - that would let the user configure
a time-delay between channels: a short (often 1ms) delay in the closer
speaker is all it takes for the sound from both to arrive off-center at
the same time and balance out the image.

Of course, those weren't cheap... they were effective only for one
seating position... and I don't know if anyone makes such a device
anymore (you could do it with a studio delay unit with small enough
delay increments, but that's a bit of a hack in the car).


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0608-0, 02/20/2006
Tested on: 2/22/2006 10:57:50 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

Frankly, I've never quite figured out why the Servo-Drive idea never
caught on; these things are staples of big concert sound, and automotive
designs claimed to produce the same bass output of a pair of 15" drivers
from a single 12". Never actually heard one, maybe they just didn't get
along with such bugaboos as car transfer function...

I agree. The servo-drive concept seems like a natural for the autosound
environment as the goal is to produce as much volume as possible from
limited spaces. Don't be surprised if this makes a resurgence in the
future. Good ideas do not die.

And speaking of good ideas, yes, at Phoenix Gold they love to experiment. I
was working there at the time the Cyclone subwoofer was introduced. Talk
about an avant-garde subwoofer!!! It consisted of a Plexiglas tube and two
counter-rotating "vanes" within the tube to produce the bass. These
"woofers" actually had an incredibly high efficiency because of their
design. The theory behind the Cyclone was to be able to fully utilize the
sound produced by BOTH the pushing AND pulling of an AC speaker signal.
Think about it, with a traditional sealed box, all the sound produced by the
"box-side" of the cone is wasted inside the box. This situation is improved
with a ported system (some of that sound can escape) and even further
improved with a bandpass box (but with certain sonic drawbacks like limited
frequency response). The thinking behind the Cyclone was to be able to
FULLY utilize ALL the sound that can be potentially produced by an AC
signal. Hence the radical (and brilliant) design of the Cyclone. It never
got off the ground, however, because when it reached it's mechanical limits,
it sounded like a car wreck. People were not used to subwoofers giving up
so completely and unpleasantly when they began to max out.

MOSFET

In article R1dLf.64036$H%4.59431@pd7tw2no,
Matt Ion wrote:

Cyrus wrote:

The best way to control imaging, then, is to reduce the DIFFERENCE in
the distance from each speaker to the listener. The ideal is to have
both left and right speakers the same distance from the lister, or a
ratio of 1:1. If you put tweeters in your dash, for example, the left
speaker may only be 2 feet from the driver, while the right speaker is
upward of 6 feet away, for a 3:1 ratio. If you can mount the tweeters
at the farthest, deepest corners of the kick panels, you can increase
left distance to, say, 5 feet, and right distance to 8 feet, thus
reducing the ratio to around 1.6:1, thus giving both driver and
passenger a much more balanced stereo field.




Short of incorporating enclosures into the dash and making my vehicle
center seated, audio happiness in a vehicle won't happen for me. But I
can see your point, a simple nudge on the pan function a little to the
left is as good as it gets. Without spending way too much that is.

Alpine used to have a processor - don't recall if it was a separate unit
or built into certain high-end decks - that would let the user configure
a time-delay between channels: a short (often 1ms) delay in the closer
speaker is all it takes for the sound from both to arrive off-center at
the same time and balance out the image.

Of course, those weren't cheap... they were effective only for one
seating position... and I don't know if anyone makes such a device
anymore (you could do it with a studio delay unit with small enough
delay increments, but that's a bit of a hack in the car).



They weren't cheap, thats for sure.

Currently I've got a RaneAC22 in my truck, so incorporating a delay unit
isn't a problem. As a matter of fact... had a cheap reverb unit with
delay wired in for ****s and giggles, in 5msec increments it was far too
much for my tastes. Although reverbs aren't meant for this application,
and are meant to be an effect. Not to mention I'm not comfortable
listening to audio fed through a reverb, rather than using a post fader
bus.

IMO Extra processing does more to produce audio, rather than reproduce.

--
Cyrus

*coughcasaucedoprodigynetcough*

MOSFET wrote:
Frankly, I've never quite figured out why the Servo-Drive idea never
caught on; these things are staples of big concert sound, and automotive
designs claimed to produce the same bass output of a pair of 15" drivers
from a single 12". Never actually heard one, maybe they just didn't get
along with such bugaboos as car transfer function...


I agree. The servo-drive concept seems like a natural for the autosound
environment as the goal is to produce as much volume as possible from
limited spaces. Don't be surprised if this makes a resurgence in the
future. Good ideas do not die.

Thinking about it now, and picturing the typical belt-drive motor
assembly, it may have just been too fragile for the constant shake,
rattle and roll of the car environment. In any case, I'd love to know
why PG never continued with the idea, or why nobody else picked it up.
I mean, come on... NASA uses these kinds of drivers to simulate rocket
launches!

And speaking of good ideas, yes, at Phoenix Gold they love to experiment. I
was working there at the time the Cyclone subwoofer was introduced. Talk
about an avant-garde subwoofer!!!

Yes, I remember seeing articles about those - they came out at the same
time as PG's Servo-Drive designs, and IIRC were developed along with the
Servo-Drive people as well (can't remember their name; it's Sound
Physics Labs now, but seems to be it was a different outfit before).


BTW, I found out Image Dynamics are still around and still making
horn-loaded drivers for the car...
http://www.imagedynamicsusa.com/prod...=cd2&type=horn
http://www.imagedynamicsusa.com/page...=techpage_hlcd


Cool stuff. Not cheap, though... cardomain.com lists the CD-2 at
$900/set(!!!) Granted, that's the "competition" series of drivers...
the "professional" CD-1s are a mere $470/set!





---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0608-1, 02/23/2006
Tested on: 2/23/2006 4:26:45 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com