The art of processing
08-23-2004, 12:00 PM
#1
50 Watt CAFz'r
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 206
Getting board at work so I figured I'd start a new topic other than which amp , subs, or speaker I should buy (lol)
The art of processing...........
Whats your personal preferance for processing ?
For me I want as little as possible to be used. and here's my theory behind processing:
Why do we need to process. The three basic reasons are adding, subtracting, and manipulating the signal.
All of the systems I build and design are baised on a simple three way. Low, mid and high. To achive this I must remove signal from each of the freq ranges that I use. Remove lows, and mid from the high, remove mid, and high from the low, ect.
I never ever use passive. I'm not saying they don't work, or can't be used. I just don't like the downfalls. I always use active crossovers
So I cannot get away from crossovers. If I could it would be buy using a fullrange driver. Some companies make them but they are very expensive, and have very mixed reviews. And they do not do the full 20-20khz effetivly.
Now here's comes the fun part........
Adding, subtracting and manipulation is done in most cases with eq'ing. Again I like to have as little eqing as possible. I fully believe in letting the drivers do the work. If the install and drivers are operating the best they can be then 90% of the work is done. I actually do more work with the crossover points, slopes ect than I do eq'ing. For myself EQ's are the last resort.
However in most cases eqing is required. One thing that I never do is add with an eq (long story, look up some pro-audio notes on eq's, and why manufacturers build reduction units)
Now I do design cars to have a cr@p load of processing ability, but it is rarely fully used. but if we need it, it's thier to use. Plus it gives me the ability to completly adjust the system to configurations that I think won't work, but sometimes you never know. Two cars that activly compete today (Marc Turners, and Rina Beckham) use very little eq. Most of the eq used is in the area where the vehicle has it's (as some people call it) standing wave, or resonant frequency. I like to call it "that F-ing freq that won't go away" (lol) and It's all reduction.
These two vehicles have alot of work done on the crossover (hours and hours) on slopes, freq's, levels ect. Also we used some time alignment. Not only was this done for stage positioning, but also for tonality. You would be suprised how a milisecond can make such a differance to the tonality of a signal.
One thing I NEVER EVER use is those silly acoutical processors. You know the one's with the locked down studio, concert hall, jazz club, stadium settings, but the idea does have benifits
I have been playing with digital reverbs in my SS. These are basically echo units from a studio enviroment. Used to add echo and various rates /depths to instruments. I have found that adding very very little (like 1-2% of the signal) reverb into a signal improves a sound stage in great detail. To much really sounds obvious, and very bad. This is something I'm still playing with, and have been trying it on only mids, and only highs (one at a time), as fullrange it doesn't sound very good (bass echos are nasty...lol)so far it's working, but in some cases it doesn't (music dependant)but for ambiance it is like nigth and day.
I'll let you know if i keep the unit in or not
Thats my basic processing theory let's hear how everyone else does thier's.
[img]graemlins/beer.gif[/img]
The art of processing...........
Whats your personal preferance for processing ?
For me I want as little as possible to be used. and here's my theory behind processing:
Why do we need to process. The three basic reasons are adding, subtracting, and manipulating the signal.
All of the systems I build and design are baised on a simple three way. Low, mid and high. To achive this I must remove signal from each of the freq ranges that I use. Remove lows, and mid from the high, remove mid, and high from the low, ect.
I never ever use passive. I'm not saying they don't work, or can't be used. I just don't like the downfalls. I always use active crossovers
So I cannot get away from crossovers. If I could it would be buy using a fullrange driver. Some companies make them but they are very expensive, and have very mixed reviews. And they do not do the full 20-20khz effetivly.
Now here's comes the fun part........
Adding, subtracting and manipulation is done in most cases with eq'ing. Again I like to have as little eqing as possible. I fully believe in letting the drivers do the work. If the install and drivers are operating the best they can be then 90% of the work is done. I actually do more work with the crossover points, slopes ect than I do eq'ing. For myself EQ's are the last resort.
However in most cases eqing is required. One thing that I never do is add with an eq (long story, look up some pro-audio notes on eq's, and why manufacturers build reduction units)
Now I do design cars to have a cr@p load of processing ability, but it is rarely fully used. but if we need it, it's thier to use. Plus it gives me the ability to completly adjust the system to configurations that I think won't work, but sometimes you never know. Two cars that activly compete today (Marc Turners, and Rina Beckham) use very little eq. Most of the eq used is in the area where the vehicle has it's (as some people call it) standing wave, or resonant frequency. I like to call it "that F-ing freq that won't go away" (lol) and It's all reduction.
These two vehicles have alot of work done on the crossover (hours and hours) on slopes, freq's, levels ect. Also we used some time alignment. Not only was this done for stage positioning, but also for tonality. You would be suprised how a milisecond can make such a differance to the tonality of a signal.
One thing I NEVER EVER use is those silly acoutical processors. You know the one's with the locked down studio, concert hall, jazz club, stadium settings, but the idea does have benifits
I have been playing with digital reverbs in my SS. These are basically echo units from a studio enviroment. Used to add echo and various rates /depths to instruments. I have found that adding very very little (like 1-2% of the signal) reverb into a signal improves a sound stage in great detail. To much really sounds obvious, and very bad. This is something I'm still playing with, and have been trying it on only mids, and only highs (one at a time), as fullrange it doesn't sound very good (bass echos are nasty...lol)so far it's working, but in some cases it doesn't (music dependant)but for ambiance it is like nigth and day.
I'll let you know if i keep the unit in or not
Thats my basic processing theory let's hear how everyone else does thier's.
[img]graemlins/beer.gif[/img]
08-23-2004, 01:08 PM
#2
2000 Watt CAFz'r
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 2,406
Originally posted by Impala Builder:
One thing I NEVER EVER use is those silly acoutical processors. You know the one's with the locked down studio, concert hall, jazz club, stadium settings,
One thing I NEVER EVER use is those silly acoutical processors. You know the one's with the locked down studio, concert hall, jazz club, stadium settings,
[img]graemlins/thumb.gif[/img]
08-23-2004, 01:24 PM
#3
1000 Watt CAFz'r
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,239
Originally posted by Impala Builder:
So I cannot get away from crossovers. If I could it would be buy using a fullrange driver. Some companies make them but they are very expensive, and have very mixed reviews. And they do not do the full 20-20khz effetivly.
So I cannot get away from crossovers. If I could it would be buy using a fullrange driver. Some companies make them but they are very expensive, and have very mixed reviews. And they do not do the full 20-20khz effetivly.
Where they are placed is ideal for midrange but not for the higher freq`s. The image gets all smeary...
08-23-2004, 05:55 PM
#4
Guest
Posts: n/a
processing, no matter how disliked by the purist,is necessary to achieve the optimum results from every car stereo. if i were to try to put this into #'s, i would say that without eq'ing, no matter how many times you change you passives, or slopes or speakers you will never get any better that 85-90% of what your system is capable, and i think those percentages are generous. its an unfortunate fact that eq's are needed but remember the environment we are trying to get great sound out of, one of the most hostile i would guess. great install is VERY important, but will only get you so far
08-23-2004, 10:13 PM
#5
50 Watt CAFz'r
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 146
Originally posted by defro13:
processing, no matter how disliked by the purist,is necessary to achieve the optimum results from every car stereo. if i were to try to put this into #'s, i would say that without eq'ing, no matter how many times you change you passives, or slopes or speakers you will never get any better that 85-90% of what your system is capable, and i think those percentages are generous. its an unfortunate fact that eq's are needed but remember the environment we are trying to get great sound out of, one of the most hostile i would guess. great install is VERY important, but will only get you so far
processing, no matter how disliked by the purist,is necessary to achieve the optimum results from every car stereo. if i were to try to put this into #'s, i would say that without eq'ing, no matter how many times you change you passives, or slopes or speakers you will never get any better that 85-90% of what your system is capable, and i think those percentages are generous. its an unfortunate fact that eq's are needed but remember the environment we are trying to get great sound out of, one of the most hostile i would guess. great install is VERY important, but will only get you so far
08-23-2004, 10:13 PM
#6
500 Watt CAFz'r
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 871
I set my eq settings differently depending on what type of music I am listening to:
Classical music is recorded in a large symphony hall with usually only 4 mics for the entire orchestra; 2 are placed in front of the orchestra at a distance where the conductor stands, and the other 2 are placed above the orchestra in the air. Since my subwoofers are in sealed enclosures, when listening to this type of music, I need to crank up my sub bass levels quite high on the eq for me to get the feeling of actually being in a symphony hall. (If the subwoofer enclosures were ported, then I probably wouldn't have to crank up the low end frequencies). Cranking up the 25Hz and 33Hz bands creates a sense of envelopment of the sound all around me which I don't realize if I don't crank up these frequencies. It just sounds alot better this way in my car. It sounds much more realistic. At the same time, I also drop certain frequencies which are peaking in my car to avoid the windows from buzzing. The rest of the frequency bands are left flat.
When listening to jazz, the frequencies which make my windows buzz are dropped. All other frequency bands are left flat. There is no need for me to crank up the low end frequencies with this type of music because of the way it is recorded. Mic placement is usually very close to the musician, and thus the recording is quite a bit louder than a classical music recording. The deep, deep, bass heard and felt from an acoustic stand-up bass is very prominent in this type of recording and there is no need to increase the low end frequency bands in this case.
[ August 23, 2004, 11:18 PM: Message edited by: Keith ]
Classical music is recorded in a large symphony hall with usually only 4 mics for the entire orchestra; 2 are placed in front of the orchestra at a distance where the conductor stands, and the other 2 are placed above the orchestra in the air. Since my subwoofers are in sealed enclosures, when listening to this type of music, I need to crank up my sub bass levels quite high on the eq for me to get the feeling of actually being in a symphony hall. (If the subwoofer enclosures were ported, then I probably wouldn't have to crank up the low end frequencies). Cranking up the 25Hz and 33Hz bands creates a sense of envelopment of the sound all around me which I don't realize if I don't crank up these frequencies. It just sounds alot better this way in my car. It sounds much more realistic. At the same time, I also drop certain frequencies which are peaking in my car to avoid the windows from buzzing. The rest of the frequency bands are left flat.
When listening to jazz, the frequencies which make my windows buzz are dropped. All other frequency bands are left flat. There is no need for me to crank up the low end frequencies with this type of music because of the way it is recorded. Mic placement is usually very close to the musician, and thus the recording is quite a bit louder than a classical music recording. The deep, deep, bass heard and felt from an acoustic stand-up bass is very prominent in this type of recording and there is no need to increase the low end frequency bands in this case.
[ August 23, 2004, 11:18 PM: Message edited by: Keith ]
08-24-2004, 09:10 AM
#7
1000 Watt CAFz'r
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,783
Interesting topic Jamie.
Without naming specific products, I've found some products to passively EQ a system. I won't get into that here...as I'm sure people will dispute my claims. Still...I think you get the idea.
I'm 100% with you on the level setting,crossover point, and slope adjustments. I must have enough RTA graphs detailing this type of tuning to fill a good size picture book. After spending some quality time with some pretty good EQ/processors in my system, I've found X.O. points to be a fundamental tuning application.
At some point I'd like get into how to tune a system that has time alignment. It's not as easy as it sounds. So far I've found 3 different approaches to this, and each one still has some issues.
I think the art of processing is having a very detailed understanding of how music sounds in real life, and then being able to apply that to a system with whatever tools that system provides. I don't think that it is nessesarily "tool" dependant, but more how a person interprets difference between the system, live sound, and the adjustments available.
That is an art.
Jamie...I'll be bringing my car to you when it's done.
Adam
Without naming specific products, I've found some products to passively EQ a system. I won't get into that here...as I'm sure people will dispute my claims. Still...I think you get the idea.
I'm 100% with you on the level setting,crossover point, and slope adjustments. I must have enough RTA graphs detailing this type of tuning to fill a good size picture book. After spending some quality time with some pretty good EQ/processors in my system, I've found X.O. points to be a fundamental tuning application.
At some point I'd like get into how to tune a system that has time alignment. It's not as easy as it sounds. So far I've found 3 different approaches to this, and each one still has some issues.
I think the art of processing is having a very detailed understanding of how music sounds in real life, and then being able to apply that to a system with whatever tools that system provides. I don't think that it is nessesarily "tool" dependant, but more how a person interprets difference between the system, live sound, and the adjustments available.
That is an art.
Jamie...I'll be bringing my car to you when it's done.
Adam
08-24-2004, 01:39 PM
#8
Usually when I think of processing, I think of eq and 'sound changing' devices, say like a DSP unit (with those Hall, Concert, Studio, etc setting) but not usually crossovers but I guess they are indeed processing the sound. I prefer all-active systems too. My Avenger had no outboard EQ at all and I relied on the xover settings and meager bass/treble settings on my deck and amp. The sound was very good and I did well in the competitions I entered it in. You should see the RTA curve it had too (34 points; I still got the sheet) 
I think a crossover is essential, an eq is handy but not critical and other items are just candy that can help or hurt. I like the AudioControl ESP-2 for what it can do but it has to be used very carefully otherwise it will make the sound unnatural. I also like my Epicenter, but only on certain music that I can tolerate knowing that the bass is being synthesized to make it deeper. I bought an Alpine 3617 (their DSP unit) just because it was cheap on Ebay and I like the look of it
I think a crossover is essential, an eq is handy but not critical and other items are just candy that can help or hurt. I like the AudioControl ESP-2 for what it can do but it has to be used very carefully otherwise it will make the sound unnatural. I also like my Epicenter, but only on certain music that I can tolerate knowing that the bass is being synthesized to make it deeper. I bought an Alpine 3617 (their DSP unit) just because it was cheap on Ebay and I like the look of it
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Mr. Marco
Car Audio Forumz feedback and suggestions
4
05-03-2010 02:18 PM
