balance/SQ, lossless line voltage?

[lithium 358]

Pro audio is just about as efficient as it gets. That's pretty much their whole design. The speakers themselves aren't shit, install is. A10" will make life difficult but still doable with install and an eq. The easier way to fix it for you is yes start over. Research first don't just pick a speaker because someone said it sounded good. Try some sets at your shop and see what you like.

 

its insulting to legitimate pro audio drivers to call garbage like those cresendos pro audio. zero published parameters? obviously the company is trying to cash in on uneducated consumers.  

Edited March 2, 2014 by lithium

[puscifer2 27]

its insulting to legitimate pro audio drivers to call garbage like those cresendos pro audio. zero published parameters? obviously the company is trying to cash in on uneducated consumers.

You're right. I've never really looked at them before but if they don't have any specs listed shame on crescendo.

[///M5 2,833]

im about 1/4 into the loud speaker cook book and 1/3 into the bae1 website.

 

I defiantly need new speakers, the crachendos sound like crap so I want to install a processor first so I can have a comparison while changing things and installing new speakers.

So finally. Here we go. What do you mean by crap? Before buying ANYTHING you should answer that question.

[///M5 2,833]

I want to downsize my door speakers and get some that are more sensitive and efficient

Err, that ain't gonna work.

[///M5 2,833]

You're right. I've never really looked at them before but if they don't have any specs listed shame on crescendo.

There is only one rule of thumb in audio that holds merit. If a driver manufacturer won't publish specs...you don't want the driver. All other rules are false.

[simplicityinsound 0]

 

 

but your shops not alone. here's a sad example of what could be an acceptable install. 

 

• speaker baffle - check
• sound deadener or CDL on the door panel and trim panel - check
• sealed access hole - WTF!? closed cell foam wont doing jack shit to seal those holes. 

that install probably cost the car owner 1000+ in equipment alone. I like other aspects of that shop's builds but every time I see them pretend to seal the access holes with ccf... just sad. 

 

 

 

Hey really appreciate the constructive criticism.  I really learn new things every day.  here is my theory and i hope you will allow me to present my side of why i use CCF in general for door openings on MOST car doors.

 

1. please remember that we are as shop and do car after car so sound proofing isnt always given the most amount of time, so basically, we are looking for a solution that is both effective and can be performed quickly...i have no doubt that if we molded a fiberglass shroud to cover the opening each time, it may be be a better sealing method, but the truth of the matter is, that isnt posibble most of the time. keep in mind that 99 percent of hte time, we do NOT charge extra for sound proofing, it is rolled into the labor at the rate of something like 100 bucks a door, which really pretty much means we hardly charge at all.  we do this because we dont feel like any car with a door speaker install should leave without some kind of sound proofing.

 

2. one thing if you will notice, i usually never say i am "sealing" the door with ccf or any other product, i simply say we are sound proofing it or deadening it.  ccf, obviously, the best served as a barrier to decouple the outter door card with the metal door panel.  as far its sealing properties, i do find that over the years, it is a good balance of sealing effect and wont get hot and sloppy and melt onto the moving window assembly behind it as CLD sometimes will.

 

3. having said that, when you say CCF is not acceptable for sealing of the openings in door panels, what specific aspect do you mean by that?  are you saying CCF that we use (in this case STP branded) wont trap air?  as in, let say if you build a sealed enclosure, and you stuck a piece of CCF on it, and then you push on it, will you feel no resistance? thus it does not change the damping effect of the air spring in the box?   will you loose virtually all your midbass peformance? is it more about impact or extension?    I guess another question would be what do you see as the most natural response of 6.5" class midbass drivers that has been installed in a modern car's doors after sealing with CCF?  do you see a big dip in the lets say 100-300hz range becuase the speaker is so underdamped that it might as well be playing sitting on the dash in open air?  

 

4. if i showed you an rta graph of a midbass playing in a car, will you be able to tell me if this is a speaker that is in a door that has not been sealed, sealed with CCF, or sealed with somekind of solid panel such as wood or fiberglass?  

 

the reason why i ask these questions is that i feel that i did not one day just wake up and say, lets use CCF to seal doors, i have tried a bunch of different things, from thin foam from Ed, to cld, and eventually started using these based on what i heard and what my rta measured...but, i do know there must be better methods out there from which i can learn from, so perhaps if you can suggest as to sonically speaking, what is the major deficiency of what i am doing and what a alternative is (perhaps MLV?) i really would like to learn

 

cheers,

 

Bing

[simplicityinsound 0]

actually, let me just post up an example of a response curve.

 

this is a car's initial response curve, no eq, just xover, gain control, no sub playing yet.  

 

based on this, what are your thoughts on the sealing effect and the damping for the midbass driver, it is located in the lower door, no other aftermarket speaker is in the door.

 

[S.DeYoung 967]

Good to see you over here Bing, bring some of those awesome builds to SSA

[simplicityinsound 0]

i wish i had more time to spend on other audio forums...since opening the shop, the work load is pretty crazy, unlike a regular sales guy who handles the customers, and post up pics and does the finances, i am still working on cars hehe

 

i am always learning everyday since my knowledge of audio is so limited, so posts like this really help.  after all, it was reading posts by other gurus that lead to stop just trying to cover everything with CLD (as you still see a lot of shops doing) and isntead go to a focused area plus 50 percent coverage on rest when possible.  

[lithium 358]

 

Hey really appreciate the constructive criticism.   I really learn new things every day.  here is my theory and i hope you will allow me to present my side of why i use CCF in general for door openings on MOST car doors.

 

1. please remember that we are as shop and do car after car so sound proofing isnt always given the most amount of time, so basically, we are looking for a solution that is both effective and can be performed quickly...i have no doubt that if we molded a fiberglass shroud to cover the opening each time, it may be be a better sealing method, but the truth of the matter is, that isnt posibble most of the time. keep in mind that 99 percent of hte time, we do NOT charge extra for sound proofing, it is rolled into the labor at the rate of something like 100 bucks a door, which really pretty much means we hardly charge at all.  we do this because we dont feel like any car with a door speaker install should leave without some kind of sound proofing.

 

Thanks for posting Bing. I understand where you're coming from on the business side of things. Though most of us here are doing our own installs and have significantly more time to invest, so our methods will be different. Also the OP, ncc, works at a shop that doesn't even bother to use wooden baffles, let alone sound deaden the door so maybe you're installs would give him a better idea of what professional installers are doing. 

 

 

 

2. one thing if you will notice, i usually never say i am "sealing" the door with ccf or any other product, i simply say we are sound proofing it or deadening it.  ccf, obviously, the best served as a barrier to decouple the outter door card with the metal door panel.  as far its sealing properties, i do find that over the years, it is a good balance of sealing effect and wont get hot and sloppy and melt onto the moving window assembly behind it as CLD sometimes will.

 

I'll be referencing Don's site, here.  But, feel like i might be regurgitating Don's descriptions so maybe I or someone else can link other sources if you don't find his arguments convincing. 

 

You're right that ccf is a decoupler but you're wrong about its ability to act as a barrier. Its simply too light to block sound and too thin to absorb. Is it blocking or absorbing anything? sure, but probably frequencies much higher than the mid is actually producing. 

 

An actual product capable of acting as a barrier like MLV or lead sheet have specific qualities. Don's mlv for example: note the mass/area of 1lb/ft^2, this is the important specification for barriers. 

 

 

here is a link to a lead soundproofing application, 

http://www.acousticalsurfaces.com/noise_barrier/acousti_lead.htm

 

 

 

 

3. having said that, when you say CCF is not acceptable for sealing of the openings in door panels, what specific aspect do you mean by that?  are you saying CCF that we use (in this case STP branded) wont trap air?  as in, let say if you build a sealed enclosure, and you stuck a piece of CCF on it, and then you push on it, will you feel no resistance? thus it does not change the damping effect of the air spring in the box?   will you loose virtually all your midbass peformance? is it more about impact or extension?   

 

 

The goal of sealing the holes is to isolate sound produced by the rear of the driver. If you agree with the physics than ccf cannot accomplish this. 

 

Lets take your example with a sealed enclosure. Lets say we build an enclosure with a speaker installed in it. Next replace one of the sides with ccf. I guarantee sound will pass through. Now replace the ccf with mlv. Significantly less sound will pass through. Replace the mlv with steel or concrete, etc and you see where this is going. 

 

 

 

 I guess another question would be what do you see as the most natural response of 6.5" class midbass drivers that has been installed in a modern car's doors after sealing with CCF?  do you see a big dip in the lets say 100-300hz range becuase the speaker is so underdamped that it might as well be playing sitting on the dash in open air?  

Lets be clear, a 6.5 driver in a car door is practically IB so i dont understand what you're saying about the speaker being underdamped, etc. When we're talking about isolating the front and rear wave we are talking about interference.

 I think i answered your other questions above. But, to simplify, if the front and rear of the driver are not isolated the midbass will suffer. Test it with the door panels off (also test with and without ccf). I run Peerless SLS 8s as dedicated midbass in my doors and have done this test. Midbass was significantly better with the holes sealed with fiberglass, and improved again with mlv installed between the door panel and door trim. 

 

 

 

4. if i showed you an rta graph of a midbass playing in a car, will you be able to tell me if this is a speaker that is in a door that has not been sealed, sealed with CCF, or sealed with somekind of solid panel such as wood or fiberglass?  

 

yep but you're ears will do a better job.

edit:

there are some things an rta wont show you but you're ears will. a panel vibrating due to excitation at 100 hz is just some extra amplitude on the rta.

Edited March 3, 2014 by lithium

[lithium 358]

well that was strange. switched to my laptop till i figured out whats up with my pc.

 

the reason why i ask these questions is that i feel that i did not one day just wake up and say, lets use CCF to seal doors, i have tried a bunch of different things, from thin foam from Ed, to cld, and eventually started using these based on what i heard and what my rta measured...but, i do know there must be better methods out there from which i can learn from, so perhaps if you can suggest as to sonically speaking, what is the major deficiency of what i am doing and what a alternative is (perhaps MLV?) i really would like to learn

 

coming up with a better solution that doesn't cost a lot more more would be difficult. perhaps just mlv cut to the shape of the opening and attached with some kind of adhesive. For those of us doing this as a hobby Don's methods are probably the best we have to work with in terms of using the bare minimum mount of material per dollar and getting the best performance. I think you've worked with his stuff before.

Edited March 3, 2014 by lithium

[lithium 358]

actually, let me just post up an example of a response curve.

 

this is a car's initial response curve, no eq, just xover, gain control, no sub playing yet.  

 

based on this, what are your thoughts on the sealing effect and the damping for the midbass driver, it is located in the lower door, no other aftermarket speaker is in the door.

 

 

 

A rta graph is a great way to show off the install in a sense. but its not the whole story. its just amplitude vs frequency. is that peak at 100 hz from the driver or a resonating panel? i cant tell from here.

[crackinhedz 51]

Good to see you over here Bing, bring some of those awesome builds to SSA

Yeah Bing, fan of the work you guys do! Wish I was on the West coast.

[///M5 2,833]

STL is what you need to be concerned with. At midbass frequencies the CCF you are using approaches an STL of 0dB which basically means it is nearly pointless. CCF has a lot of uses, sealing doors is not one of them.

[ncc74656 2]

i bought a bunch of drivers off amazon (dayton, peerless, fountek, ect) of various sizes 1.5-8" with various specs. also picked up a mini dsp and a audio control DQDX and ordered a DEH80. picked up 2 650.4 kickers (they are super cheap on amazon) to replace my so/so amp with.

im going to play around with stuff out of hte truck, build various enclosures and see how things change with box design, speaker size, processing, ect. figure that will be a good way to help understand the concepts that are being explained in the loud speaker cook book and such. if i ever finish playing around ill sell what i dont use.

Edited March 7, 2014 by ncc74656

[///M5 2,833]

Mixing and matching random drivers isn't a good way to start. We could have saved you a TON of money. Not sure why you are trying to do this the hard way. You ask questions, but don't listen to the answers.

DQDX is flat out silly...

[ncc74656 2]

i want to have certain driver types on hand to compare things with. i tried to get some drivers with as similar specs as possible then pick up various types of cone materials, neo vs ferreite, ect. i just cant follow all this with out the physical speakers here for me to play and listen to. the drivers i grabbed were cheap so im not worried about the cost. as for the DQDX that is the best processor that audio control has, from what i was told its one of the best on teh market so thats why i went with it.

Edited March 7, 2014 by ncc74656

[///M5 2,833]

The DQDX would have been a nice processor in 1990, not today.

If you are comparing things 2 drivers is where you should start and they should still be logically chosen. Most likely anything else will just further confuse you and make you draw the wrong conclusions.

[Impious 1,476]

i want to have certain driver types on hand to compare things with. i tried to get some drivers with as similar specs as possible then pick up various types of cone materials, neo vs ferreite, ect. i just cant follow all this with out the physical speakers here for me to play and listen to. the drivers i grabbed were cheap so im not worried about the cost. as for the DQDX that is the best processor that audio control has, from what i was told its one of the best on teh market so thats why i went with it.

For reference, comparing things in the manor you are isn't going to allow you to compare specific variables. For example, you can't listen to two completely different drivers that also have different cone materials, hear a difference between them and attribute that difference specifically to the cone material. All you are going to really figure out from that is that two completely different drivers sound differently. No huge insight there.

As for the DQDX...ROFLMFAO. Not sure who told you it was one of the best processors on the market, but they are living in the 90's. There are dozens of processors on the market both new and used that would stomp the shit out of the DQDX in every conceivable way. Audiocontrol hasn't made a relevant processor in 15 years. How they've even stayed in business is beyond me. Because they don't deserve to.

Again this is part of he problem, you keep listening to people giving you the terrible advice. I swear to god if someone at the shop told you that the DQDX was one of the best on the market I'm going to have Sean drive over there and kick every single one of them in the nuts, and yours twice.

[puscifer2 27]

I swear to god if someone at the shop told you that the DQDX was one of the best on the market I'm going to have Sean drive over there and kick every single one of them in the nuts, and yours twice.

I just died...roflmfao

[ncc74656 2]

yea, audio-control is what we sell at work. we are a dealer for them and it was said that they make some of the best processors out there. now having said this the source of said information has been doing car audio longer than i have been alive (nearly double actually) so i suppose its not surprising that information may be a bit dated.

even with that however i am finding it EXTREMELY difficult to find true digital processors that do not use POT dials on them. it seems for every digital/computer controlled processor there are 20 POT style processors on the market. hell amazon does not even carry any of these types of processors (such as the rockford 360) or if they do i do not know how to find them. my impression is that you either find a head unit with everything built in or you buy a MASSIVELY over kill processor such as the 360. there is very little middle ground or perhaps i should say there is little middle ground that is still in production. why is it that so many of the "recommended" products are all out of production? was car audio just a lot higher quality years ago and now its all watered down or did something else change?

[lithium 358]

yea, audio-control is what we sell at work. we are a dealer for them and it was said that they make some of the best processors out there. now having said this the source of said information has been doing car audio longer than i have been alive (nearly double actually) so i suppose its not surprising that information may be a bit dated.

even with that however i am finding it EXTREMELY difficult to find true digital processors that do not use POT dials on them. it seems for every digital/computer controlled processor there are 20 POT style processors on the market. hell amazon does not even carry any of these types of processors (such as the rockford 360) or if they do i do not know how to find them. my impression is that you either find a head unit with everything built in or you buy a MASSIVELY over kill processor such as the 360. there is very little middle ground or perhaps i should say there is little middle ground that is still in production. why is it that so many of the "recommended" products are all out of production? was car audio just a lot higher quality years ago and now its all watered down or did something else change?

 

It's probably fair to say that a lot of the head units have gone down hill for some companies. look at alpines line. consistently downhill and i'm not sure if they even have a single din unit anymore. in fact the 9835 is more expensive than the 9855 which came after (probably because people hate the glide thing..). 

 

You got a pioneer 80prs on the way right? that will do 99% of everything you need it to do. Any anything else can probably be addressed with the install itself. 

 

the old processors like the dqdx are just that, old. However, there are plenty digital processors, not sure why you cant find them. Audison, helix, rf, soundstream/ppi (minidps design), alpine, jbl, etc.. And no, you shouldn't buy any of these. just like you probably shouldnt bother with a dqdx or minidps when the pioneer will do the job just fine. I'm not sure why you think more features will improve your results. 

Edited March 9, 2014 by lithium

[ncc74656 2]

I feel that having more features such as a cross over, EQ, and time alignment will aid in adjusting the system. even if i dont use said features i want to have them just in case they are needed or i want to see what they do or how they work.

[puscifer2 27]

The 80 prs has all of the features you just listed.

[ncc74656 2]

yes, thats why i bought it