Whats with Alpine ditching the time correction?

[[email protected]]

Now only one HU with time correction? Pioneer doing the same thing.
What gives?

[[email protected]]

Body Roll wrote:
> What is time correction?


Time Correction
A processing circuit found in some receivers that compensates for the
uneven distances between left and right car speakers and listeners'
ears. Time correction delays signals from the closest speaker(s), so
that all the sound arrives at your off-center listening position at the
same time. You'll get a more accurate, lifelike stereo image.

[Cyrus]

In article . com>,
wrote:

> Now only one HU with time correction? Pioneer doing the same thing.
> What gives?
>

Too bad and I hadn't known, bet there's more blinky lights and/or
brighter colored face plate though.

--
Cyrus

*coughcasaucedoprodigynetcough*

[MOSFET]

I just checked the Alpine website and Crutchfield and you're right. What a
SHAME!

Looks like I bought my 9853 at the right time! Bass Engine Pro is soon to
be a thing of the past!

I'm afraid we are seeing in action what those snobby Audiophile have been
moaning about for years: as a society, consumers are moving away from SQ in
favor of convience, compatability and multi-formats. You'll notice that
some of those new decks have Bluetooth compatibility, USB connections, etc.

Now it appears the name of the game is to squeeze as many formats as
possible into a HU, never mind the sound quality.

MOSFET

[Captain Howdy]

That's because time correction is not needed in car. Like I said in the past
post regarding this issue, Time correction is Alpine's sick joke on those
that don't know any better.


In article . com>,
wrote:
>Now only one HU with time correction? Pioneer doing the same thing.
>What gives?
>

[Body Roll]

Oh... then, could it be because the wives have complained? :^)

[RG]

Agreed ... and FWIW, in my experience, BBE is much superior.

-RG

"Captain Howdy" > wrote in message
...
> That's because time correction is not needed in car. Like I said in the
> past
> post regarding this issue, Time correction is Alpine's sick joke on those
> that don't know any better.
>
>
> In article . com>,
> wrote:
>>Now only one HU with time correction? Pioneer doing the same thing.
>>What gives?
>>

[MOSFET]

"Body Roll" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Oh... then, could it be because the wives have complained? :^)

LOL LOL LOL

SO TRUE!!!!!

[MOSFET]

> That's because time correction is not needed in car. Like I said in the
> past
> post regarding this issue, Time correction is Alpine's sick joke on those
> that don't know any better.
>
BULL ****!!!

Sure, maybe if you have horns or kick-panels, but Howdy, I WISH you could
listen to my car. It is STUNNING the difference with TC in vs. TC out.
With TC, I have a solid center image. Without TC, my center image is blurry
and floats around. EVEN MY WIFE can hear a very clear difference. I wish
you could hear my car.

MOSFET

[MOSFET]

BBE is nice (I had it on my Alpine 7863), but it is no substitute to TC.
And frankly, BBE seems to be mostly a bass boost (as is most of those
"special enhancer" circuits). I know, I know, BBE widens the soundstage by
boosting left/right differences, but most of the time I had my BBE off.

MOSFET

"RG" > wrote in message
...
> Agreed ... and FWIW, in my experience, BBE is much superior.
>
> -RG
>
> "Captain Howdy" > wrote in message
> ...
>> That's because time correction is not needed in car. Like I said in the
>> past
>> post regarding this issue, Time correction is Alpine's sick joke on
>> those
>> that don't know any better.
>>
>>
>> In article . com>,
>> wrote:
>>>Now only one HU with time correction? Pioneer doing the same thing.
>>>What gives?
>>>
>
>

[RG]

Huh ??

-RG

"MOSFET" > wrote in message
...
> BBE is nice (I had it on my Alpine 7863), but it is no substitute to TC.
> And frankly, BBE seems to be mostly a bass boost (as is most of those
> "special enhancer" circuits). I know, I know, BBE widens the soundstage
> by boosting left/right differences, but most of the time I had my BBE off.
>
> MOSFET
>
> "RG" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Agreed ... and FWIW, in my experience, BBE is much superior.
>>
>> -RG
>>
>> "Captain Howdy" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> That's because time correction is not needed in car. Like I said in the
>>> past
>>> post regarding this issue, Time correction is Alpine's sick joke on
>>> those
>>> that don't know any better.
>>>
>>>
>>> In article . com>,
>>> wrote:
>>>>Now only one HU with time correction? Pioneer doing the same thing.
>>>>What gives?
>>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[MOSFET]

> TC worked very well when I competed in IASCA with my Pioneer ODR system.
> My center image improved and the rear subs sounded like they were on
> *stage* in front like a live concert. When was the last time you heard
> bass guitar or drums at the back of the concert hall?
>

EXACTLY. It was during the heyday of IASCA that TC really took off.
Serious competitors realized they could gain a significant advantage if they
could digitally equalize path lengths. This WAS NOT something Alpine
dreamed up as some new gimmick (as Howdy suggests), it was driven by the
demands of serious competitors and audiophiles.

MOSFET

[MOSFET]

Excuse me, I was thinking of something else, a "Sonic Maximizer". BBE works
in a completely different way by using subtle phase shifts and a delay of
low frequencies to correct for phase errors. But, it does boost high and
low frequencies as I mentioned, like a supped up "loudness" function.

MOSFET

"RG" > wrote in message
...
> Huh ??
>
> -RG
>
> "MOSFET" > wrote in message
> ...
>> BBE is nice (I had it on my Alpine 7863), but it is no substitute to TC.
>> And frankly, BBE seems to be mostly a bass boost (as is most of those
>> "special enhancer" circuits). I know, I know, BBE widens the soundstage
>> by boosting left/right differences, but most of the time I had my BBE
>> off.
>>
>> MOSFET
>>
>> "RG" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Agreed ... and FWIW, in my experience, BBE is much superior.
>>>
>>> -RG
>>>
>>> "Captain Howdy" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> That's because time correction is not needed in car. Like I said in
>>>> the past
>>>> post regarding this issue, Time correction is Alpine's sick joke on
>>>> those
>>>> that don't know any better.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In article . com>,
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>Now only one HU with time correction? Pioneer doing the same thing.
>>>>>What gives?
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Captain Howdy]

This can all be corrected with fader, balance, gain and speaker placement.
>>
>BULL ****!!!
>
>Sure, maybe if you have horns or kick-panels, but Howdy, I WISH you could
>listen to my car. It is STUNNING the difference with TC in vs. TC out.
>With TC, I have a solid center image. Without TC, my center image is blurry
>and floats around. EVEN MY WIFE can hear a very clear difference. I wish
>you could hear my car.
>
>MOSFET
>
>

[Captain Howdy]

Your bass shouldn't sound directional, what's up with that?
>>
>>
>TC worked very well when I competed in IASCA with my Pioneer ODR system.
>My center image improved and the rear subs sounded like they were on
>*stage* in front like a live concert. When was the last time you heard
>bass guitar or drums at the back of the concert hall?
>
>When I was competing people were mounting their subs under the front
>floors or firewalls of their vehicles to solve the delay/position
>problem.

[Captain Howdy]

No audiophile would use time correction or and other processor, hell most
audiophile can't even stand the idea of EQ's or anything that colors sound. If
it was an IASCA must have AudioControl would have cashed in on it back in the
day.
>
>
>EXACTLY. It was during the heyday of IASCA that TC really took off.
>Serious competitors realized they could gain a significant advantage if they
>could digitally equalize path lengths. This WAS NOT something Alpine
>dreamed up as some new gimmick (as Howdy suggests), it was driven by the
>demands of serious competitors and audiophiles.
>
>MOSFET
>
>

[Chad Wahls]

Captain Howdy wrote:
> No audiophile would use time correction or and other processor, hell most
> audiophile can't even stand the idea of EQ's or anything that colors sound. If
> it was an IASCA must have AudioControl would have cashed in on it back in the
> day.
> >
> >
> >EXACTLY. It was during the heyday of IASCA that TC really took off.
> >Serious competitors realized they could gain a significant advantage if they
> >could digitally equalize path lengths. This WAS NOT something Alpine
> >dreamed up as some new gimmick (as Howdy suggests), it was driven by the
> >demands of serious competitors and audiophiles.
> >
> >MOSFET
> >
> >

Most audiophioles spend every day till they sell their home positioning
speakers "correctly" We are in a car and unfortunately things are
limited. TA DOES make a big difference. And yes Audiophiles DO use TA
but a crude form like all pass filters to adjust phase relatioships of
drivers, etc. Big time TA came from Pro Audio and is now a staple in
that area.

Chad

[Chad Wahls]

TA keeps your bass up front. Wihtout allignemnt it is MUCH easier to
localize the low frequency information. We are creatures that are
designed to hunt and protect. We are naturally fine tuned for
localization via a time domain. My dog probably would not notice the
difference :)

Chad

[Chad Wahls]

Jesus Dude you really do live in the stone ages.... In other areas of
audio you can make Subs Cardioid as opposed to omnidirectional. You
can STEER columns of speakers. Frequency response can be corrected due
to the fact that speakers have different planar relationships.
With..... You guessed it, time domain DSP.

What you just said it soooo wrong it's not even funny. We do 90% of
our localazation based on time domain not inherent volume. There have
been countless studies done on this. But i digress... To each his own.
You twiddle with the balance knob.... I'll stick with DSP, both on my
car and at my job.

Chad

[Chad Wahls]

Jesus Dude you really do live in the stone ages.... In other areas of
audio you can make Subs Cardioid as opposed to omnidirectional. You
can STEER columns of speakers. Frequency response can be corrected due
to the fact that speakers have different planar relationships.
With..... You guessed it, time domain DSP.

What you just said it soooo wrong it's not even funny. We do 90% of
our localazation based on time domain not inherent volume. There have
been countless studies done on this. But i digress... To each his own.
You twiddle with the balance knob.... I'll stick with DSP, both on my
car and at my job.

Chad

[Chad Wahls]

Jesus Dude you really do live in the stone ages.... In other areas of
audio you can make Subs Cardioid as opposed to omnidirectional. You
can STEER columns of speakers. Frequency response can be corrected due
to the fact that speakers have different planar relationships.
With..... You guessed it, time domain DSP.

What you just said it soooo wrong it's not even funny. We do 90% of
our localazation based on time domain not inherent volume. There have
been countless studies done on this. But i digress... To each his own.
You twiddle with the balance knob.... I'll stick with DSP, both on my
car and at my job.

Chad

[MOSFET]

"Chad Wahls" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> TA keeps your bass up front. Wihtout allignemnt it is MUCH easier to
> localize the low frequency information. We are creatures that are
> designed to hunt and protect. We are naturally fine tuned for
> localization via a time domain. My dog probably would not notice the
> difference :)

That's right. We zero-in on the sounds that come to us first. Again, this
is why in most typical systems it sounds like the bass is coming from the
rear, it is because the bass is hitting our ears a little late. My TC
corrects for this, and my bass does seem to be much more "up-front".
Another cool use for TC is with rear-fill. I delay my rear-fill 9.3 ms.
With this much delay, I can turn my rear-fill up quite loud, yet my stage is
still firmly in front of me. The reason is that my ears hear the sound of
my front speakers first and my brain tells me that is where the sound is
coming from, the rear-fill just adds ambience.

It is true that back in the days of IASCA many competitors who used time
correction borrowed heavily from the pro audio world. I saw many cars with
professional digital-delay units. There was TONS of rack-mountable gear
around I remember.

MOSFET

[MOSFET]

WELL SAID, CHAD!

That was such a good point it DESERVED to be posted three times! Well done!

MOSFET

[Captain Howdy]

So what you are saying is that you delay your rear-fill 9.3 ms to make the
rears sound even further (unless you are tuning your system front the back
seat) then you compensate the delay difference by cranking up the rears
louder. Shouldn't you delay the fronts and not the rears

In article >, "MOSFET"
> wrote:
>
>"Chad Wahls" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> TA keeps your bass up front. Wihtout allignemnt it is MUCH easier to
>> localize the low frequency information. We are creatures that are
>> designed to hunt and protect. We are naturally fine tuned for
>> localization via a time domain. My dog probably would not notice the
>> difference :)
>
>That's right. We zero-in on the sounds that come to us first. Again, this
>is why in most typical systems it sounds like the bass is coming from the
>rear, it is because the bass is hitting our ears a little late. My TC
>corrects for this, and my bass does seem to be much more "up-front".
>Another cool use for TC is with rear-fill. I delay my rear-fill 9.3 ms.
>With this much delay, I can turn my rear-fill up quite loud, yet my stage is
>still firmly in front of me. The reason is that my ears hear the sound of
>my front speakers first and my brain tells me that is where the sound is
>coming from, the rear-fill just adds ambience.
>
>It is true that back in the days of IASCA many competitors who used time
>correction borrowed heavily from the pro audio world. I saw many cars with
>professional digital-delay units. There was TONS of rack-mountable gear
>around I remember.
>
>MOSFET
>
>

[MOSFET]

I delay both the fronts and the rears, the only speakers that are not
delayed are the subs.


"Captain Howdy" > wrote in message
...
>
> So what you are saying is that you delay your rear-fill 9.3 ms to make the
> rears sound even further (unless you are tuning your system front the back
> seat) then you compensate the delay difference by cranking up the rears
> louder. Shouldn't you delay the fronts and not the rears
>
> In article >, "MOSFET"
> > wrote:
>>
>>"Chad Wahls" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>>> TA keeps your bass up front. Wihtout allignemnt it is MUCH easier to
>>> localize the low frequency information. We are creatures that are
>>> designed to hunt and protect. We are naturally fine tuned for
>>> localization via a time domain. My dog probably would not notice the
>>> difference :)
>>
>>That's right. We zero-in on the sounds that come to us first. Again,
>>this
>>is why in most typical systems it sounds like the bass is coming from the
>>rear, it is because the bass is hitting our ears a little late. My TC
>>corrects for this, and my bass does seem to be much more "up-front".
>>Another cool use for TC is with rear-fill. I delay my rear-fill 9.3 ms.
>>With this much delay, I can turn my rear-fill up quite loud, yet my stage
>>is
>>still firmly in front of me. The reason is that my ears hear the sound of
>>my front speakers first and my brain tells me that is where the sound is
>>coming from, the rear-fill just adds ambience.
>>
>>It is true that back in the days of IASCA many competitors who used time
>>correction borrowed heavily from the pro audio world. I saw many cars
>>with
>>professional digital-delay units. There was TONS of rack-mountable gear
>>around I remember.
>>
>>MOSFET
>>
>>

[MOSFET]

Howdy, this is TRULY not meant as an insult, but instead of trying to create
the wheel here and start at square one, I would invite you to check out the
writings of Richard Clark and David Navone (both acoustic and electrical
engineers), two pioneers (might I say gods) in the area of hi-fi in the car.
They have written EXTENSIVELY on the benefits of DSP, time correction,
rear-fill and how it should be used, and many other aspects of high-end car
audio. Now, if you have no idea who these guys are and could care less, OR
think you know more than they do then I guess we have little more to
discuss.

MOSFET

"Captain Howdy" > wrote in message
...
>
> So what you are saying is that you delay your rear-fill 9.3 ms to make the
> rears sound even further (unless you are tuning your system front the back
> seat) then you compensate the delay difference by cranking up the rears
> louder. Shouldn't you delay the fronts and not the rears
>
> In article >, "MOSFET"
> > wrote:
>>
>>"Chad Wahls" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>>> TA keeps your bass up front. Wihtout allignemnt it is MUCH easier to
>>> localize the low frequency information. We are creatures that are
>>> designed to hunt and protect. We are naturally fine tuned for
>>> localization via a time domain. My dog probably would not notice the
>>> difference :)
>>
>>That's right. We zero-in on the sounds that come to us first. Again,
>>this
>>is why in most typical systems it sounds like the bass is coming from the
>>rear, it is because the bass is hitting our ears a little late. My TC
>>corrects for this, and my bass does seem to be much more "up-front".
>>Another cool use for TC is with rear-fill. I delay my rear-fill 9.3 ms.
>>With this much delay, I can turn my rear-fill up quite loud, yet my stage
>>is
>>still firmly in front of me. The reason is that my ears hear the sound of
>>my front speakers first and my brain tells me that is where the sound is
>>coming from, the rear-fill just adds ambience.
>>
>>It is true that back in the days of IASCA many competitors who used time
>>correction borrowed heavily from the pro audio world. I saw many cars
>>with
>>professional digital-delay units. There was TONS of rack-mountable gear
>>around I remember.
>>
>>MOSFET
>>
>>

[Chad Wahls]

MOSFET wrote:
> WELL SAID, CHAD!
>
> That was such a good point it DESERVED to be posted three times! Well done!
>
> MOSFET

Damn google groups :)

Chad

[Chad Wahls]

Bingo. Tweets in sail panels have the longest delay. I have no rear
speakers... But so do very few audiophiles in their listening rooms :)

Sub has 0Ms of delay.

Chad

[RG]

Richard Clark a god, LOL ... That's a good one, hahah. And what did he
pioneer ? Or more to the point, what did he say he pioneered ?

-RG

"MOSFET" > wrote in message
...
> Howdy, this is TRULY not meant as an insult, but instead of trying to
> create the wheel here and start at square one, I would invite you to check
> out the writings of Richard Clark and David Navone (both acoustic and
> electrical engineers), two pioneers (might I say gods) in the area of
> hi-fi in the car. They have written EXTENSIVELY on the benefits of DSP,
> time correction, rear-fill and how it should be used, and many other
> aspects of high-end car audio. Now, if you have no idea who these guys
> are and could care less, OR think you know more than they do then I guess
> we have little more to discuss.
>
> MOSFET
>
> "Captain Howdy" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> So what you are saying is that you delay your rear-fill 9.3 ms to make
>> the
>> rears sound even further (unless you are tuning your system front the
>> back
>> seat) then you compensate the delay difference by cranking up the rears
>> louder. Shouldn't you delay the fronts and not the rears
>>
>> In article >, "MOSFET"
>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>"Chad Wahls" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>>>> TA keeps your bass up front. Wihtout allignemnt it is MUCH easier to
>>>> localize the low frequency information. We are creatures that are
>>>> designed to hunt and protect. We are naturally fine tuned for
>>>> localization via a time domain. My dog probably would not notice the
>>>> difference :)
>>>
>>>That's right. We zero-in on the sounds that come to us first. Again,
>>>this
>>>is why in most typical systems it sounds like the bass is coming from the
>>>rear, it is because the bass is hitting our ears a little late. My TC
>>>corrects for this, and my bass does seem to be much more "up-front".
>>>Another cool use for TC is with rear-fill. I delay my rear-fill 9.3 ms.
>>>With this much delay, I can turn my rear-fill up quite loud, yet my stage
>>>is
>>>still firmly in front of me. The reason is that my ears hear the sound
>>>of
>>>my front speakers first and my brain tells me that is where the sound is
>>>coming from, the rear-fill just adds ambience.
>>>
>>>It is true that back in the days of IASCA many competitors who used time
>>>correction borrowed heavily from the pro audio world. I saw many cars
>>>with
>>>professional digital-delay units. There was TONS of rack-mountable gear
>>>around I remember.
>>>
>>>MOSFET
>>>
>>>
>
>

[MOSFET]

> Richard Clark a god, LOL ... That's a good one, hahah. And what did he
> pioneer ? Or more to the point, what did he say he pioneered ?
>
> -RG

How about horn loaded drivers to start. He may not have invented the idea,
but his Buick single-handedly ushered in an entirely new class of car audio
speaker (the horn-loaded driver). He also helped develop the first
stiffening capacitors used for car audio applications. David Navone
developed the first twisted-pair interconnects for car audio applications.

Is this enough for you? I COULD go on and on.

MOSFET

[RG]

You don't really believe this ... do you, LOL ????

Yes, please go on and on as this is hilarious.

-RG

"MOSFET" > wrote in message
...
>> Richard Clark a god, LOL ... That's a good one, hahah. And what did he
>> pioneer ? Or more to the point, what did he say he pioneered ?
>>
>> -RG
>
> How about horn loaded drivers to start. He may not have invented the
> idea, but his Buick single-handedly ushered in an entirely new class of
> car audio speaker (the horn-loaded driver). He also helped develop the
> first stiffening capacitors used for car audio applications. David Navone
> developed the first twisted-pair interconnects for car audio applications.
>
> Is this enough for you? I COULD go on and on.
>
> MOSFET
>

[Captain Howdy]

I wonder if his $10,000 all amplifiers sound alike contest is still going LOL


In article >, "RG"
> wrote:
>Richard Clark a god, LOL ... That's a good one, hahah. And what did he
>pioneer ? Or more to the point, what did he say he pioneered ?
>
>-RG
>

[Captain Howdy]

No insult taken, I don't need DSP unit's to get my sound stage right, in fact
I don't even need an EQ. Richard Clark is a pioneer of nothing, and a noob of
all. The funny thing about Richard Clark was that everytime he opened his
mouth there was always someone there to prove him dumb.


In article >, "MOSFET"
> wrote:
>Howdy, this is TRULY not meant as an insult, but instead of trying to create
>the wheel here and start at square one, I would invite you to check out the
>writings of Richard Clark and David Navone (both acoustic and electrical
>engineers), two pioneers (might I say gods) in the area of hi-fi in the car.
>They have written EXTENSIVELY on the benefits of DSP, time correction,
>rear-fill and how it should be used, and many other aspects of high-end car
>audio. Now, if you have no idea who these guys are and could care less, OR
>think you know more than they do then I guess we have little more to
>discuss.
>
>MOSFET
>

[MOSFET]

"RG" > wrote in message
...
> You don't really believe this ... do you, LOL ????
>
> Yes, please go on and on as this is hilarious.
>
> -RG

I'm sure your accomplishments FAR outweigh theirs. Their success must all
be a complete fluke, right? Do I detect a little jealousy?

I actually know David Navone (well, I've spoken to him on the phone several
times) and he is a REALLY bright guy, and a hell of a nice guy too (he'll
talk your ear off if you let him!). So slam him all you like, he will be
laughing all the way to the bank.

MOSFET

[MOSFET]

I don't know how old you are Howdy, or you RG, but one thing both of you
CANNOT dispute (if you are at least around 40 years old) is that Richard
Clark and David Navone were instrumental in bring car audio out of the "dark
ages" of the eighties (EQ boosters, full-range subwoofer boxes, etc.) and
helped bring about a the "car audio renaissance" of the early nineties where
SQ became the driving force in the industry (as was the creation of IASCA).

Regardless of what they did or did not actually "invent" themselves, their
promotion of high-end autosound completely changed the industry. THAT IS
UNDISPUTABLE!

Trust me, without those two men, the industry WOULD look very different
today, IMHO.

MOSFET

"Captain Howdy" > wrote in message
...
> No insult taken, I don't need DSP unit's to get my sound stage right, in
> fact
> I don't even need an EQ. Richard Clark is a pioneer of nothing, and a noob
> of
> all. The funny thing about Richard Clark was that everytime he opened his
> mouth there was always someone there to prove him dumb.
>
>
> In article >, "MOSFET"
> > wrote:
>>Howdy, this is TRULY not meant as an insult, but instead of trying to
>>create
>>the wheel here and start at square one, I would invite you to check out
>>the
>>writings of Richard Clark and David Navone (both acoustic and electrical
>>engineers), two pioneers (might I say gods) in the area of hi-fi in the
>>car.
>>They have written EXTENSIVELY on the benefits of DSP, time correction,
>>rear-fill and how it should be used, and many other aspects of high-end
>>car
>>audio. Now, if you have no idea who these guys are and could care less,
>>OR
>>think you know more than they do then I guess we have little more to
>>discuss.
>>
>>MOSFET
>>

[Captain Howdy]

That's funny, Oil filled capacitors have been around since the days of Nikola
Tesla, nothing about the car audio capacitor is deferent in car audio other
then the sticker that's on the outside of it.

What's different about the technology of twisted-pair interconnects of car
audio vs. the technology of twisted-pair cabling that was invented in the
1880's for wiring up the early telephone systems?


But I do see where you're going with this, I invented blue led's in cell
phones, My phone had blue led's 2 good year years before any manufacture used
them in their phones. That was back in the day of the Nokia's 5160. I have
also used blue power led's in my amplifiers long before alpine. Should I go on
about my ultra violet led lighting in the car?



In article >, "MOSFET"
> wrote:
>> Richard Clark a god, LOL ... That's a good one, hahah. And what did he
>> pioneer ? Or more to the point, what did he say he pioneered ?
>>
>> -RG
>
>How about horn loaded drivers to start. He may not have invented the idea,
>but his Buick single-handedly ushered in an entirely new class of car audio
>speaker (the horn-loaded driver). He also helped develop the first
>stiffening capacitors used for car audio applications. David Navone
>developed the first twisted-pair interconnects for car audio applications.
>
>Is this enough for you? I COULD go on and on.
>
>MOSFET
>
>

[MOSFET]

Yes, we could debate for days who invented what. My point throughout this
WHOLE little thread has been that these two men PROMOTED these things for
use in the autosound industry. OF COURSE THEY DIDN'T INVENT THE CAPACITOR,
THE LYDON-JAR WAS ESSENTIALLY A CAPACITOR INVENTED HUNDREDS OF YEARS AGO!

But Navone and Clark promoted the use of the Lydon-Jar for car audio
applications.

MOSFET

"Captain Howdy" > wrote in message
...
> That's funny, Oil filled capacitors have been around since the days of
> Nikola
> Tesla, nothing about the car audio capacitor is deferent in car audio
> other
> then the sticker that's on the outside of it.
>
> What's different about the technology of twisted-pair interconnects of car
> audio vs. the technology of twisted-pair cabling that was invented in the
> 1880's for wiring up the early telephone systems?
>
>
> But I do see where you're going with this, I invented blue led's in cell
> phones, My phone had blue led's 2 good year years before any manufacture
> used
> them in their phones. That was back in the day of the Nokia's 5160. I have
> also used blue power led's in my amplifiers long before alpine. Should I
> go on
> about my ultra violet led lighting in the car?
>
>
>
> In article >, "MOSFET"
> > wrote:
>>> Richard Clark a god, LOL ... That's a good one, hahah. And what did he
>>> pioneer ? Or more to the point, what did he say he pioneered ?
>>>
>>> -RG
>>
>>How about horn loaded drivers to start. He may not have invented the
>>idea,
>>but his Buick single-handedly ushered in an entirely new class of car
>>audio
>>speaker (the horn-loaded driver). He also helped develop the first
>>stiffening capacitors used for car audio applications. David Navone
>>developed the first twisted-pair interconnects for car audio applications.
>>
>>Is this enough for you? I COULD go on and on.
>>
>>MOSFET
>>
>>

[RG]

How does that response vindicate your assertions about their pioneering
prowess, LOL ? In other words, you did not answer the question or provide
proof for what you said.

-RG

"MOSFET" > wrote in message
...
>
> "RG" > wrote in message
> ...
>> You don't really believe this ... do you, LOL ????
>>
>> Yes, please go on and on as this is hilarious.
>>
>> -RG
>
> I'm sure your accomplishments FAR outweigh theirs. Their success must all
> be a complete fluke, right? Do I detect a little jealousy?
>
> I actually know David Navone (well, I've spoken to him on the phone
> several times) and he is a REALLY bright guy, and a hell of a nice guy too
> (he'll talk your ear off if you let him!). So slam him all you like, he
> will be laughing all the way to the bank.
>
> MOSFET
>

[RG]

.... you're not serious are you ? ... say it ain't so.

-RG

"MOSFET" > wrote in message
m...
>I don't know how old you are Howdy, or you RG, but one thing both of you
>CANNOT dispute (if you are at least around 40 years old) is that Richard
>Clark and David Navone were instrumental in bring car audio out of the
>"dark ages" of the eighties (EQ boosters, full-range subwoofer boxes, etc.)
>and helped bring about a the "car audio renaissance" of the early nineties
>where SQ became the driving force in the industry (as was the creation of
>IASCA).
>
> Regardless of what they did or did not actually "invent" themselves, their
> promotion of high-end autosound completely changed the industry. THAT IS
> UNDISPUTABLE!
>
> Trust me, without those two men, the industry WOULD look very different
> today, IMHO.
>
> MOSFET
>
> "Captain Howdy" > wrote in message
> ...
>> No insult taken, I don't need DSP unit's to get my sound stage right, in
>> fact
>> I don't even need an EQ. Richard Clark is a pioneer of nothing, and a
>> noob of
>> all. The funny thing about Richard Clark was that everytime he opened his
>> mouth there was always someone there to prove him dumb.
>>
>>
>> In article >, "MOSFET"
>> > wrote:
>>>Howdy, this is TRULY not meant as an insult, but instead of trying to
>>>create
>>>the wheel here and start at square one, I would invite you to check out
>>>the
>>>writings of Richard Clark and David Navone (both acoustic and electrical
>>>engineers), two pioneers (might I say gods) in the area of hi-fi in the
>>>car.
>>>They have written EXTENSIVELY on the benefits of DSP, time correction,
>>>rear-fill and how it should be used, and many other aspects of high-end
>>>car
>>>audio. Now, if you have no idea who these guys are and could care less,
>>>OR
>>>think you know more than they do then I guess we have little more to
>>>discuss.
>>>
>>>MOSFET
>>>
>
>

[MOSFET]

RG, I have absolutely no idea what your beef with these two guys are, but
frankly, it seems like it's personal or something.

Clark and Navone were instrumental in helping develop the rules and
standards for IASCA, which in turn influenced COUNTLESS car audio
manufacturers. I have spoken to COUNTLESS competitors who were influenced
by their ideas.

I have already provided examples of their contributions and all you can say
is " you're wrong, you must be joking, what a laugh " WITH NO PROOF OF YOUR
OWN! Who the hell are you that I should accept what you say without any
evidence, yet I need to provide extensive documentation and evidence because
you say "you must be joking"? You have a hell of an ego, mister!

MOSFET

"RG" > wrote in message
...
> ... you're not serious are you ? ... say it ain't so.
>
> -RG
>
> "MOSFET" > wrote in message
> m...
>>I don't know how old you are Howdy, or you RG, but one thing both of you
>>CANNOT dispute (if you are at least around 40 years old) is that Richard
>>Clark and David Navone were instrumental in bring car audio out of the
>>"dark ages" of the eighties (EQ boosters, full-range subwoofer boxes,
>>etc.) and helped bring about a the "car audio renaissance" of the early
>>nineties where SQ became the driving force in the industry (as was the
>>creation of IASCA).
>>
>> Regardless of what they did or did not actually "invent" themselves,
>> their promotion of high-end autosound completely changed the industry.
>> THAT IS UNDISPUTABLE!
>>
>> Trust me, without those two men, the industry WOULD look very different
>> today, IMHO.
>>
>> MOSFET
>>
>> "Captain Howdy" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> No insult taken, I don't need DSP unit's to get my sound stage right, in
>>> fact
>>> I don't even need an EQ. Richard Clark is a pioneer of nothing, and a
>>> noob of
>>> all. The funny thing about Richard Clark was that everytime he opened
>>> his
>>> mouth there was always someone there to prove him dumb.
>>>
>>>
>>> In article >, "MOSFET"
>>> > wrote:
>>>>Howdy, this is TRULY not meant as an insult, but instead of trying to
>>>>create
>>>>the wheel here and start at square one, I would invite you to check out
>>>>the
>>>>writings of Richard Clark and David Navone (both acoustic and electrical
>>>>engineers), two pioneers (might I say gods) in the area of hi-fi in the
>>>>car.
>>>>They have written EXTENSIVELY on the benefits of DSP, time correction,
>>>>rear-fill and how it should be used, and many other aspects of high-end
>>>>car
>>>>audio. Now, if you have no idea who these guys are and could care less,
>>>>OR
>>>>think you know more than they do then I guess we have little more to
>>>>discuss.
>>>>
>>>>MOSFET
>>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Chad Wahls]

Ummmm. Twisted pair don't do **** unless you drive it with a balanced drive
unit and it is also received by a device with differential inputs....

Chad


"MOSFET" > wrote in message
...
>> Richard Clark a god, LOL ... That's a good one, hahah. And what did he
>> pioneer ? Or more to the point, what did he say he pioneered ?
>>
>> -RG
>
> How about horn loaded drivers to start. He may not have invented the
> idea, but his Buick single-handedly ushered in an entirely new class of
> car audio speaker (the horn-loaded driver). He also helped develop the
> first stiffening capacitors used for car audio applications. David Navone
> developed the first twisted-pair interconnects for car audio applications.
>
> Is this enough for you? I COULD go on and on.
>
> MOSFET
>

[Chad Wahls]

"MOSFET" > wrote in message
...
>
> "RG" > wrote in message
> ...
>> You don't really believe this ... do you, LOL ????
>>
>> Yes, please go on and on as this is hilarious.
>>
>> -RG
>
> I'm sure your accomplishments FAR outweigh theirs. Their success must all
> be a complete fluke, right? Do I detect a little jealousy?
>
> I actually know David Navone (well, I've spoken to him on the phone
> several times) and he is a REALLY bright guy, and a hell of a nice guy too
> (he'll talk your ear off if you let him!). So slam him all you like, he
> will be laughing all the way to the bank.
>
> MOSFET
>

Yes, he is a nice fellow, Met him in person a few times. A very kind man
that knows his ****, hard to come by these days :)

Chad

[Chad Wahls]

"Captain Howdy" > wrote in message
...

> What's different about the technology of twisted-pair interconnects of car
> audio vs. the technology of twisted-pair cabling that was invented in the
> 1880's for wiring up the early telephone systems?
>
>

That telco twisted uses balanced topology and most cars don't so they just
"look cool" in cars :)

> But I do see where you're going with this, I invented blue led's in cell
> phones, My phone had blue led's 2 good year years before any manufacture
> used
> them in their phones. That was back in the day of the Nokia's 5160. I have
> also used blue power led's in my amplifiers long before alpine. Should I
> go on
> about my ultra violet led lighting in the car?

I was using Blue LED's in stuff back in '96, when the Nokia 5160 was
someone's wet dream.

Dude NUV LED's are the ****, just got to play with some.... You got pics?

Chad

> In article >, "MOSFET"
> > wrote:
>>> Richard Clark a god, LOL ... That's a good one, hahah. And what did he
>>> pioneer ? Or more to the point, what did he say he pioneered ?
>>>
>>> -RG
>>
>>How about horn loaded drivers to start. He may not have invented the
>>idea,
>>but his Buick single-handedly ushered in an entirely new class of car
>>audio
>>speaker (the horn-loaded driver). He also helped develop the first
>>stiffening capacitors used for car audio applications. David Navone
>>developed the first twisted-pair interconnects for car audio applications.
>>
>>Is this enough for you? I COULD go on and on.
>>
>>MOSFET
>>
>>

[RG]

I don't have a "beef" with either of them. But from an observational
perspective, RC's self-annointed importance is amusing at best ( FWIW, I
never even mentioned Navone). As far as the examples (of proof) you provided
.... twisted pair in car audio is bogus, and RC was nowhere near the first to
use stiffening caps, contrary to what he claims. I'm surprised that he
doesn't lay claim to "inventing" subwoofers, too. If you want to "deify" him
that is your perogative I guess. But I prefer to think for myself. Truth is
an elusive thing and easy to distort to the unwary and gullible.

-RG

"MOSFET" > wrote in message
m...
> RG, I have absolutely no idea what your beef with these two guys are, but
> frankly, it seems like it's personal or something.
>
> Clark and Navone were instrumental in helping develop the rules and
> standards for IASCA, which in turn influenced COUNTLESS car audio
> manufacturers. I have spoken to COUNTLESS competitors who were influenced
> by their ideas.
>
> I have already provided examples of their contributions and all you can
> say is " you're wrong, you must be joking, what a laugh " WITH NO PROOF OF
> YOUR OWN! Who the hell are you that I should accept what you say without
> any evidence, yet I need to provide extensive documentation and evidence
> because you say "you must be joking"? You have a hell of an ego, mister!
>
> MOSFET
>
> "RG" > wrote in message
> ...
>> ... you're not serious are you ? ... say it ain't so.
>>
>> -RG
>>
>> "MOSFET" > wrote in message
>> m...
>>>I don't know how old you are Howdy, or you RG, but one thing both of you
>>>CANNOT dispute (if you are at least around 40 years old) is that Richard
>>>Clark and David Navone were instrumental in bring car audio out of the
>>>"dark ages" of the eighties (EQ boosters, full-range subwoofer boxes,
>>>etc.) and helped bring about a the "car audio renaissance" of the early
>>>nineties where SQ became the driving force in the industry (as was the
>>>creation of IASCA).
>>>
>>> Regardless of what they did or did not actually "invent" themselves,
>>> their promotion of high-end autosound completely changed the industry.
>>> THAT IS UNDISPUTABLE!
>>>
>>> Trust me, without those two men, the industry WOULD look very different
>>> today, IMHO.
>>>
>>> MOSFET
>>>
>>> "Captain Howdy" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> No insult taken, I don't need DSP unit's to get my sound stage right,
>>>> in fact
>>>> I don't even need an EQ. Richard Clark is a pioneer of nothing, and a
>>>> noob of
>>>> all. The funny thing about Richard Clark was that everytime he opened
>>>> his
>>>> mouth there was always someone there to prove him dumb.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In article >, "MOSFET"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>Howdy, this is TRULY not meant as an insult, but instead of trying to
>>>>>create
>>>>>the wheel here and start at square one, I would invite you to check out
>>>>>the
>>>>>writings of Richard Clark and David Navone (both acoustic and
>>>>>electrical
>>>>>engineers), two pioneers (might I say gods) in the area of hi-fi in the
>>>>>car.
>>>>>They have written EXTENSIVELY on the benefits of DSP, time correction,
>>>>>rear-fill and how it should be used, and many other aspects of high-end
>>>>>car
>>>>>audio. Now, if you have no idea who these guys are and could care
>>>>>less, OR
>>>>>think you know more than they do then I guess we have little more to
>>>>>discuss.
>>>>>
>>>>>MOSFET
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[[email protected]]

MOSFET wrote:
> I just checked the Alpine website and Crutchfield and you're right. What a
> SHAME!
>
> Looks like I bought my 9853 at the right time! Bass Engine Pro is soon to
> be a thing of the past!
>
> I'm afraid we are seeing in action what those snobby Audiophile have been
> moaning about for years: as a society, consumers are moving away from SQ in
> favor of convience, compatability and multi-formats. You'll notice that
> some of those new decks have Bluetooth compatibility, USB connections, etc.
>
> Now it appears the name of the game is to squeeze as many formats as
> possible into a HU, never mind the sound quality.
>
> MOSFET

I'm just bitter. I have a company car and don't want to use kick
panels. The time correction on the Alpines and Pioneer(I like Alpines
better) really helped the imaging with the Ford speaker locations.