[bigshot]

My car needs the opposite. It needs a curve like ^ But it has separate tweeters and a subwoofer.

 

[gregorio]

[1] Yeah, got it now thanks.
[2] Funnily enough, in our late teens/early adulthood, me and my circle of friends preferred the sound of Dolby for recording on high bias tapes but switching Dolby off on playback, particularly for our car stereos. The enhanced top end sounded great, and without noticeable bass penalty.

1. Great! I think maybe you were trying to complicate it, conceptually it's very simple. It's also a very good demonstration of the inherent problem with analogue audio, that no matter what you do, you always end-up with lower resolution. Using my example again, if the added hiss is greater than 12dB then our end result is a lower SNR by the same amount and if it's less, say 9dB then our end result would still be 1dB less SNR, due to the pre/de emphasis process itself. Analogue audio/music production was therefore always limited and the vast majority of music mixes had to be carefully planned, to minimise/not exceed a certain number of "bounce downs" or other processes and end-up with an unacceptable amount of noise.

2. I sometimes did that too, I don't think it was uncommon. There are several reasons for this: One is the very commonly overlooked fact that our hearing/perception of sound operates on the basis of relative levels/amounts, not absolute amounts and another is that most consumer tape recorders, players and the cassette tapes themselves often had such lousy mid and HF response that the added mid and HF compression/gain from the pre-emphasis (NR encoding) process effectively counteracted that lousy response, resulting in a flatter freq response without engaging the NR. So for most consumers the choice was between a flatter reproduction with more noise/hiss (by not engaging the NR decoding) or a mid/HF deficient reproduction with less hiss (by engaging the NR decoding) and some/many chose the former.

[1] Humans naturally gravitate toward a 'V'-shaped sound, mainly due to our natural sensitivity to mid- and upper-midrange frequencies.
[2] I am unique in that I keep the tone controls on my car and home stereos flat,
[2a] so what I'm playing comes through unaltered.

1. Sure we have a greater sensitivity to mid freqs but do you have any evidence that humans prefer ("naturally gravitate toward") a V-shaped sound? The evidence does not support that assertion. For example, the Harman studies demonstrated a preference for a flat response and if humans did prefer a V-shaped sound then that's what we'd expect to see in music masters, but we don't. Spectral analysis of the vast majority of music masters demonstrate a flat response or more commonly, a trend for a downward sloping response (similar to but not as extreme as pink noise). Certainly, V-shaped amplifier settings were very common but that was because most consumer systems had poor bass and HF response and so V-shaped settings compensated for this tendency, resulting in a flatter (not V-shaped) output. V-shaped consumer settings are somewhat less common today than they once were, because digital formats do not suffer the HF loss of analogue formats (particularly cassette tapes) so less HF compensation is generally required.

2. Firstly, that's certainly not unique, although of course many people do adjust their tone controls. And
2a. Secondly, that's not really possible! If you've got an accurate full range speaker system and a very well controlled listening environment then "what you're playing" would "come through" somewhat unaltered (altered by relatively little) but of course very few people have accurate full range speaker systems and very well controlled listening environments, so changing their tone controls can somewhat compensate and provide a reproduction that is less altered by their listening circumstances. The situation is more complicated when listening in a car because the listening environment is not only generally much noisier than home listening environments but is constantly changing, often very significantly. For example, in my particular case, I have the tone controls set to add a little more bass (but flat in the mid and HF). In slow moving traffic at low speeds this setting results in a little too much bass but out on the highway (motorway), at higher speeds, it results in too little bass, because our perception is based on relative differences and at higher speeds (my car and other traffic), there is more low freq environmental noise (rumble, etc.). My setting is based on the response of my car speaker system and is a compromise between my two typical driving conditions. If the response of my car speaker system were a little more bass heavy to start with or if I only drove in the city in slowly moving traffic, then like you, I would set my tone controls to flat.

[1] That could be the result of (albeit slight)non-standard encode and or decode.
[2] Didn't the Dolby NR encode equipt(at the plant) require periodic calibration?
[3] Also, I'm not sure if the decode process on cheaper cassette decks of the time, or in cars, conformed tightly to Dolby's standards.

1. As far as I'm aware, not likely. The encode and decode circuitry built into tape recorders and players had to actually be purchased from Dolby, so there wasn't much opportunity for a recorder/player manufacturer to screw the encoding/decoding up.

2. Again, I don't think so. Some pro flavours of Dolby NR, Dolby A and SR for example, did require calibration but consumer versions (both encode and decode) were much simpler and designed not to need re-calibration.

3. It had to conform with Dolby standards. It was patented/copyrighted and the hardware had to be bought from Dolby themselves, as far as I remember.

G

 

[TheSonicTruth]

Post #5445: Every car I'm driven that wasn't mine had either the bass & treble fully clockwise, or a combo of bass & treble boost and a mids cut. That was my point.

Sure we have a greater sensitivity to mid freqs but do you have any evidence
that humans prefer ("naturally gravitate toward") a V-shaped sound?

From my own post, #5445, on top. Perhaps 'smiley' EQ would be more accurate in describing it? Either way, V-shaped, Smiley-shaped, it's all boom & sizzle to me. Not how I prefer to listen to music, recorded or otherwise.

 

[bigshot]

I think I'll stick with Harman.

 

[gregorio]

[1] From my own post, #5445, on top.
[1a] Either way, V-shaped, Smiley-shaped, it's all boom & sizzle to me.
[2] Not how I prefer to listen to music, recorded or otherwise.

1. So that's a "no" then, because ...
1a. On a relatively flat (including the environment) system, setting the tone controls to a V/smiley shape would give an "all boom & sizzle" result but if the system isn't flat, say it has weak low and high freq response then V-shaped settings would give a flatter/ish response. So your post is NOT evidence that people prefer a "V-shaped" sound, it could just as easily be evidence that people prefer a flat sound and apply V-shaped tone settings to achieve that when driving.

2. Me neither. Again, that's why I effectively apply half a V-shaped tone control settings, not because I prefer "all boom" but because I prefer a flattish response and my raised bass setting somewhat achieves that in my car and my driving conditions.

G

 

[TheSonicTruth]

1. So that's a "no" then, because ...
1a. On a relatively flat (including the environment) system, setting the tone controls to a V/smiley shape would give an "all boom & sizzle" result but if the system isn't flat, say it has weak low and high freq response then V-shaped settings would give a flatter/ish response. So your post is NOT evidence that people prefer a "V-shaped" sound, it could just as easily be evidence that people prefer a flat sound and apply V-shaped tone settings to achieve that when driving.

2. Me neither. Again, that's why I effectively apply half a V-shaped tone control settings, not because I prefer "all boom" but because I prefer a flattish response and my raised bass setting somewhat achieves that in my car and my driving conditions.

G

2. Did you measure , as in, with a spectrometer, how flat your car response is while moving the tone controls?

Also, unless you've undertaken any sound-deadening action(inside your doors, the floor pan, or the trunk) in your vehicle, at least half of what you're hearing isn't directly from your transducers.

 

[gregorio]

2. Did you measure , as in, with a spectrometer, how flat your car response is while moving the tone controls?
[3] Also, unless you've undertaken any sound-deadening action(inside your doors, the floor pan, or the trunk) in your vehicle, at least half of what you're hearing isn't directly from your transducers.

2. Of course not. Firstly, it's not safe to measure while driving and Secondly, as I've already effectively mentioned twice, at what speed should I measure? At a higher speed I'll measure more bass due to environmental LF rumble (and therefore perceive less bass from the speakers), which is why I boost the bass (use a half a V-shaped setting). You're the one making the claim though, what did you measure with a spectrometer (and at what speed)?

3. Exactly! Haven't you read the posts you're responding to?

G

 

[bigshot]

Who worries about flat response in a car? I can't even imagine that. It would be an impossible task. You can get good sound in a car, but not studio quality. All you want is a good listenable balance. In my car, that means turning the bass and treble WAY down and working out a level that works with the subwoofer.

 

[Glmoneydawg]

You have headphones and home speakers to fiddle with....the car should be for enjoying music without fiddling with it...good music is enjoyable on the most primitive of systems.....relax and enjoy the drive/music,you can mess with your home system if you feel the need.

 

[gregorio]

[1] Who worries about flat response in a car? I can't even imagine that. It would be an impossible task.
[2] You can get good sound in a car, but not studio quality.
[3] All you want is a good listenable balance.
[4] In my car, that means turning the bass and treble WAY down and working out a level that works with the subwoofer.

1. Not a flat response but a flatter response. It would be an impossible task to get a flat response, except maybe when the car is stationary in a quiet location. But when driving, how would you separate the traffic noise and the car's own noise from the speakers' output when measuring or get a perceptually flat response, as the traffic/car's own noise varies so much?

2. Not sure you can get even a "good sound" in a car. I suppose it depends on what you mean by "good" and maybe for one specific condition (say stationary for example).

3. Even that is impossible to achieve, unless your driving conditions never change or only change very little.

4. So in answer to your first question: You do! Although we're talking about "flatter" (somewhat flattish) rather than anywhere particularly close to actually "flat". The point I was trying to make is that you don't like/prefer an inverted V-shaped sound and I don't like a half V-shaped sound (raised bass), we both like roughly the same thing, a flattish response but to achieve that requires completely different (almost opposite) settings because our cars, the sound systems in them and probably our driving conditions are very different (mine doesn't have a sub for example).

You have headphones and home speakers to fiddle with....the car should be for enjoying music without fiddling with it...

I think a lot of people do fiddle with their car systems. In my case, just a couple of times to get a somewhat flatter response but it's a compromise setting and not worth spending more than a few minutes on. I would think I'm probably not far from the average car owner in that regard, although I should imagine there are quite a few who don't even go that far and of course there's a very small number who go really mad and spend many thousands on custom installs. Never really got that myself, it's a bit like trying to train a donkey to win the Kentucky Derby in my opinion

G

 

[sander99]

Smart DSP adapting to driving conditions? (Using information like speed, motor's RPM, sensors measuring the cars vibration, outside noise).

Funny coincidence: someone in the Smyth Realiser A16 thread is planning to do a PRIR measurement of his car audio system today.

 

[old tech]

Perhaps it is not possible to achieve a "good sound" in a car from the perspective of high fidelity, but a "good sound" from the perspective of subjective euphony is achievable.

The best sound system I had in a car was a Pioneer component system, back in the early 1980s with separate woofers, mids and tweeters. It was a cassette tape system but it sounded great - even the component FM radio sounded really good. It also had great sounding bass without the need of a subwoofer (which is just as well as they didn't exist in car audio back then). Apart from the stereo, I think the car itself contributed to the good sound - it was a boxy early Falcon with a large boot.

I currently drive a Jeep Grand Cherokee and it has a crap factory sound system - despite multi speakers and sub. So much so that I rarely play music in it but mainly listen to talkback and current affairs type of shows. I will definitely prioritise sound with my next car, even if it means fitting an after market unit.

 

[bigshot]

I wonder if people have audiophile telephones and balanced response intercoms?

 

[TheSonicTruth]

Perhaps it is not possible to achieve a "good sound" in a car from the perspective
of high fidelity, but a "good sound" from the perspective of subjective euphony is achievable.

The best sound system I had in a car was a Pioneer component system, back in the early 1980s
with separate woofers, mids and tweeters. It was a cassette tape system but it sounded great -
even the component FM radio sounded really good. It also had great sounding bass without the
need of a subwoofer (which is just as well as they didn't exist in car audio back then). Apart from
the stereo, I think the car itself contributed to the good sound - it was a boxy early Falcon with a
large boot.

I currently drive a Jeep Grand Cherokee and it has a crap factory sound system - despite multi
speakers and sub. So much so that I rarely play music in it but mainly listen to talkback and current
affairs type of shows. I will definitely prioritise sound with my next car, even if it means fitting an
after market unit.

A relatively recent Grand Cherokee? It's not the stereo - or the speakers. That thing is a tin can compared to your old Falcon. Sheet metal panels half the gauge(if you're lucky) of what the Falcon was built out of.

Despite what certain others on here believe, I'm going to suggest you are listening to resonances from body panels as much as from the speakers themselves. It will need acoustic sound-deadening to even get close to what you were used to in the older car.

 

[old tech]

A relatively recent Grand Cherokee? It's not the stereo - or the speakers. That thing is a tin can compared to your old Falcon. Sheet metal panels half the gauge(if you're lucky) of what the Falcon was built out of.

Despite what certain others on here believe, I'm going to suggest you are listening to resonances from body panels as much as from the speakers themselves. It will need acoustic sound-deadening to even get close to what you were used to in the older car.

Current model. The sheet metal panels are quite thick by modern car standards and the car is quieter and way better insulated than an old Falcon. I think the Falcon having a large sealed boot is part of the story.

My previous car (a large Holden Commodore sedan) also had a mediocre stereo sound despite being the premium model. It was better than the Jeep's stereo though. It is not just a Jeep thing either, all the cars I looked at had mediocre sounding stereos (of course I didn't look at every car or high end cars for that matter) and the way they are integrated in the car interior makes it difficult and expensive to upgrade.

Even accepting that the Falcon had an aftermarket car stereo, the part that gets me is why is the sound quality in most new cars so poor compared to the earlier car after nearly 40 years of technical advances and cost reductions?