rear fill is useless or not
12-01-2004, 10:36 PM
#13
50 Watt CAFz'r
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 56
Hey man If it sounds good to you do it. I am a big man,6'6" and 290 lbs, and when I get into one of these sq cars with the front stage kick panel pods and all that crap it's useless. My legs block all the driver's side output anyway. All I really hear is the passenger side output. Honestly, I don't know if anyone can hear those driver kick panel pods properly. My suggestion is to do things that sound good to you, unless you are planning to compete in which case you gotta tow the line so to speak. I have always had rear full range speaks and to me they add a lot of good clean sound to my ride. This whole; "it's got to sound like it's live b.s;" kills me. I've seen at least 100 concerts and I ran a rock and roll bar for 5 years. You know what, I always prefered the recording studio stuff, to me most of the artists suck in person. Anyway, my opinion, if it's clean and loud I like it. Forget all that imaging and soundstage crap. Anyway, I'm out, got a couple a honeys waiting.
12-02-2004, 08:56 AM
#14
1000 Watt CAFz'r
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 1,649
As much as the last post is pretty damn funny, I actually agree with the "Attitude". It's your ride.......... so make it sound so that it pleases you. Take advice from others but take it with a grain of salt. But at the end of the day, make it sound like you want it to sound. IOt's your ride and your creation.
Anyways, my opinion for my tastes is that rear fill is pure bullsh!t. It's a waste of cash. I'll spend the money to upgrade elsewhere......... bigger amp, better front stage speakers, better deck, etc, etc. OK, with that being said, the ONLY time I would disagree with myself on that is if I was setting up video in a car with 5.1 surround sound. Then yes, you need rear fill.
Anyways, my opinion for my tastes is that rear fill is pure bullsh!t. It's a waste of cash. I'll spend the money to upgrade elsewhere......... bigger amp, better front stage speakers, better deck, etc, etc. OK, with that being said, the ONLY time I would disagree with myself on that is if I was setting up video in a car with 5.1 surround sound. Then yes, you need rear fill.
12-02-2004, 06:57 PM
#16
Yankee
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,599
Sadly though Big Sexy's post disagrees with mine pretty much perfectly... he does have a point or two that ring true, first-high end car audio is tough on the big guys, Second- many of the current musicians belong in the studio not on the road.
I would not forget the 'imaging and soundstage crap' they are fairly important if you can get it right (and untill you do you are missing somthing). But like the dog man said make yourself happy, 5.1 could make folks happy it certainly works in my den.
happy john
[ December 05, 2004, 09:25 AM: Message edited by: JohnVroom ]
I would not forget the 'imaging and soundstage crap' they are fairly important if you can get it right (and untill you do you are missing somthing). But like the dog man said make yourself happy, 5.1 could make folks happy it certainly works in my den.
happy john
[ December 05, 2004, 09:25 AM: Message edited by: JohnVroom ]
12-02-2004, 08:37 PM
#17
50 Watt CAFz'r
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 56
Hey you know what, if you get a car, truck or whatever that has good front speaker locations, your ride can sound pretty damn good. I have a
2002 Intrepid RT with big 6 3/4" front oem location that are nice and high. They are half way up and all the way to the front of the door. I get great midbass and stunning highs from top notch co-axials( focals 165ca)and my friggin' leg doesn't block em. I have also read that co-axials may be more accurate due to the fact that mids and highs are very close together and don't cause phase problems... whatever the hell that means. Anyway, I think it sounds damn good and I don't have to do any custom crap and have some little bastard thief look inside and rip my stuff off. That's all I got to say. oh by the way this board is kind of...well fun. LATER!!!!!!!
2002 Intrepid RT with big 6 3/4" front oem location that are nice and high. They are half way up and all the way to the front of the door. I get great midbass and stunning highs from top notch co-axials( focals 165ca)and my friggin' leg doesn't block em. I have also read that co-axials may be more accurate due to the fact that mids and highs are very close together and don't cause phase problems... whatever the hell that means. Anyway, I think it sounds damn good and I don't have to do any custom crap and have some little bastard thief look inside and rip my stuff off. That's all I got to say. oh by the way this board is kind of...well fun. LATER!!!!!!!
12-08-2004, 07:37 PM
#18
50 Watt CAFz'r
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 113
Reasons [from my website] why rearfill is fundamentally bad in many ways:
www.betteraudio.com/geolemon/phasing/phasing.htm
Notice on the graphs, the phasing anomolies occur more often at higher frequencies, and not hardly at all at lower frequencies. Just note that for a minute.
There are exceptions, of course..
...and I'd consider people carefully using rear fill judiciously to be in the vast minority of those that really could technically benefit (particularly since their 'benefit' is almost always simply subjective):
Most people have speakers in their doors.
Many of those people have cheap speakers.
Cheap speakers have excursion limitations... which is important to consider, when you consider that as you play lower and lower frequencies through any speaker, that speaker must reach higher and higher excursion levels to produce the same dB level - to the order of 4x the excursion for every octave traversed.
Obviously, a speaker with a longer throw will be able to play lower than one with a short excursion... but realistically any speaker has excursion limitations, and that's fundamentally why you can't get sub-bass out of a midrange driver... even midbass is difficult sometimes!
(I am getting to making a point, really!)
Also, doors aren't good cabinets.
Speakers really need some sort of cabinet to prevent the rear wave of the speaker from cancelling out the front wave of the speaker, since they are exactly out of phase with each other.
Doors have access holes in them... which means the rear sound energy can flow right around and cancel with the front of cone area.
Depending on how big or far away the holes are, determines what frequency cancellations begin...
...but bottom line is - from some point and down (meaning: no bass), cancellations will occur.
(Here's the point!)
Whether because of cheap speakers, or because the door is a bad cabinet - many people suffer a lack of bass and midbass up front, to some degree or another, due most often to one (or both) of these two things.
So who can benefit from rear fill?
Probably most people... but they generally go about it all wrong.
Most people stick a full-range driver back there.
In these situations, having a midbass or bass driver in the rear deck would help augment the "lacking midbass" situation - and NOT having a tweeter or midrange back there would still avoid the phasing anomolies described in that phasing article.
So... why aren't there more "midbass specific" rear deck drivers out there?
Hmm? [img]tongue.gif[/img]
www.betteraudio.com/geolemon/phasing/phasing.htm
Notice on the graphs, the phasing anomolies occur more often at higher frequencies, and not hardly at all at lower frequencies. Just note that for a minute.
There are exceptions, of course..
...and I'd consider people carefully using rear fill judiciously to be in the vast minority of those that really could technically benefit (particularly since their 'benefit' is almost always simply subjective):
Most people have speakers in their doors.
Many of those people have cheap speakers.
Cheap speakers have excursion limitations... which is important to consider, when you consider that as you play lower and lower frequencies through any speaker, that speaker must reach higher and higher excursion levels to produce the same dB level - to the order of 4x the excursion for every octave traversed.
Obviously, a speaker with a longer throw will be able to play lower than one with a short excursion... but realistically any speaker has excursion limitations, and that's fundamentally why you can't get sub-bass out of a midrange driver... even midbass is difficult sometimes!
(I am getting to making a point, really!)
Also, doors aren't good cabinets.
Speakers really need some sort of cabinet to prevent the rear wave of the speaker from cancelling out the front wave of the speaker, since they are exactly out of phase with each other.
Doors have access holes in them... which means the rear sound energy can flow right around and cancel with the front of cone area.
Depending on how big or far away the holes are, determines what frequency cancellations begin...
...but bottom line is - from some point and down (meaning: no bass), cancellations will occur.
(Here's the point!)
Whether because of cheap speakers, or because the door is a bad cabinet - many people suffer a lack of bass and midbass up front, to some degree or another, due most often to one (or both) of these two things.
So who can benefit from rear fill?
Probably most people... but they generally go about it all wrong.
Most people stick a full-range driver back there.
In these situations, having a midbass or bass driver in the rear deck would help augment the "lacking midbass" situation - and NOT having a tweeter or midrange back there would still avoid the phasing anomolies described in that phasing article.
So... why aren't there more "midbass specific" rear deck drivers out there?
Hmm? [img]tongue.gif[/img]
12-09-2004, 05:43 PM
#19
umm, because Midbass is directional so it does no good in the rear that's why.
If midbass was omnidirectional then it wouldn't be a problem, like a sub.....but since MOST midbass play over 100HZ they would easily be located in the rear deck, which is why most people deaden the hell out of thier doors and mount thier midbass there or make a kick enclosure.
Besides the door can be a very good cabinet if treated properly....obviously if you don't take the time to deaden them, then yea, they suck. Some of the best midbass I've ever heard comes from a door. Then again, some of the best midbass I've ever heard came from a midrange too.
"cheap speakers have excursion limitations"
Yea and so do $7000 Brax Reference components...What's your point? "you can't get subass from a midrange because of the excursion limitations". Well yea, that's why we use crossovers and subsonic filters to limit exactly what frequencies are played through what driver, even though it's not an exact science yet nor will it be I don't think.
If there was one set of drivers that played every frequency perfectly, we wouldn't be having this conversation and there would be an end to all speaker production excet these sets that play everything FLAT from 0-40KHz.
It's no surprise that this hasen't happened, I'm sure companies have the technology locked away somewhere never to be released(electrostatics would be the closest thing IMO) but think of what would happen to the industry if it ever did get released .....there would be no more industry.
So now and for centuries to come we will face these midbass and image/stage and tonality problems ecause we line the pockets of the companies.
If midbass was omnidirectional then it wouldn't be a problem, like a sub.....but since MOST midbass play over 100HZ they would easily be located in the rear deck, which is why most people deaden the hell out of thier doors and mount thier midbass there or make a kick enclosure.
Besides the door can be a very good cabinet if treated properly....obviously if you don't take the time to deaden them, then yea, they suck. Some of the best midbass I've ever heard comes from a door. Then again, some of the best midbass I've ever heard came from a midrange too.
"cheap speakers have excursion limitations"
Yea and so do $7000 Brax Reference components...What's your point? "you can't get subass from a midrange because of the excursion limitations". Well yea, that's why we use crossovers and subsonic filters to limit exactly what frequencies are played through what driver, even though it's not an exact science yet nor will it be I don't think.
If there was one set of drivers that played every frequency perfectly, we wouldn't be having this conversation and there would be an end to all speaker production excet these sets that play everything FLAT from 0-40KHz.
It's no surprise that this hasen't happened, I'm sure companies have the technology locked away somewhere never to be released(electrostatics would be the closest thing IMO) but think of what would happen to the industry if it ever did get released .....there would be no more industry.
So now and for centuries to come we will face these midbass and image/stage and tonality problems ecause we line the pockets of the companies.
12-09-2004, 08:20 PM
#20
sound becomes directional when 1/4 wavelength approaches cone diamter.. right? well, 1/4wave at 600hz is 5.6"... I think this is getting close to the upper limit of what most people would consider midbass.. and in many instances you wouldn't be able to tell where it was comming from.. I think 8s could handle it nicely..
As far as using high frequency rear fill I tend to agree with geolemon... but also consider this.. pathlength difference between the rear 2sides of your car are less then from kick to kick... so having midrange and highs from the back could have an advantage...
People used to compete in SQ classes with rear fill only, didn't they ? maybe this is why...
I had a system that was 6.5" midrange in the doors with full range 6x9s and 8" midbass in the rear deck.. and it actually sounded remarkable for balance and tonality... (although what I would consider imaging wasn't the greatest)
I tried adding highs upfront and I didn't like it, killed the highs from the 6x9s to see if sounded good then.. it didn't.. went back to the way it was and I was happy...
Anyway, I suspect thats what they guy defro mentioned may have done...
So, taking this into account with directionality, spacial interactions.. and all that... I guess the only correct answer is 'it depends'
All in all... I don't think I've heard too many cars that had mids/highs up front and in the back that sounded really good...
Edit: kind of funny how I changed my mind a little when I really thought about it though... [img]graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]
[ December 09, 2004, 09:25 PM: Message edited by: Haunz ]
As far as using high frequency rear fill I tend to agree with geolemon... but also consider this.. pathlength difference between the rear 2sides of your car are less then from kick to kick... so having midrange and highs from the back could have an advantage...
People used to compete in SQ classes with rear fill only, didn't they ? maybe this is why...
I had a system that was 6.5" midrange in the doors with full range 6x9s and 8" midbass in the rear deck.. and it actually sounded remarkable for balance and tonality... (although what I would consider imaging wasn't the greatest)
I tried adding highs upfront and I didn't like it, killed the highs from the 6x9s to see if sounded good then.. it didn't.. went back to the way it was and I was happy...
Anyway, I suspect thats what they guy defro mentioned may have done...
So, taking this into account with directionality, spacial interactions.. and all that... I guess the only correct answer is 'it depends'
All in all... I don't think I've heard too many cars that had mids/highs up front and in the back that sounded really good...
Edit: kind of funny how I changed my mind a little when I really thought about it though... [img]graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]
[ December 09, 2004, 09:25 PM: Message edited by: Haunz ]
