///M5

What is interesting...

Ha, I thought you were asking me to put something in my Benz for the Sundown page. My AMG will not get that much stuff. Nice craftsmanship, but terrible mess acoustically. Fails even in the description...rear stage, lol. It could be improved so easily and it is such a shame as I love those cars. If I didn't have two cars seats, I'd probably have the 6.3L version of it but instead have a different chassis around my 6.3.

Pretty much all fail at higher frequencies the more you get off axis.

When doing those measurements for customers, we use a HATS complete with absorbing clothing to simulate the real listener as much as possible. True pinna's with inner ear simulation to make sure what is recorded is as close to real as possible. http://www.bksv.com/doc/Bp0521.pdf

For measuring T/A ? You'd need a microphone, and microphone preamp, a sound card (with fixed time latency), and an MLS software program. MLS software generates the test signal then takes the measurement of that signal via the microphone, which allows it to provide impulse response measurements. Fixed latency is important in the sound card because if there is a variance in the time it takes for the soundcard to generate the sound then begin measuring, the impulse response will be different every time you measure. To solve some issues, some people (like myself) go with a single external unit that is both a good quality soundcard and a mic preamp. Need phase matched full duplex input/output as well. Any time lag or even minor phase lag will really eff up MLSSA signals. You can also use an analyzer that supports a time selective response to measure the true impulse response, but that is a bit trickier than using a "melissa" analyzer and requires even more smarts with all the reflective paths that occur in vehicle. It is the technique that I'd use, but not everyone has access to a >$30k acoustic analyzer and measurement microphones.

By dyno, I meant dyno cell. Huge difference. Would edit, but this is da hop.

I don't know if that will work with Cat stuff, but I can tell you, I have wired many Cat generators and have had to have technicians come out several times for issues with them. They all had proprietary equipment for diagnosis, but this could have been exclusive to the generators. The generators all all computer-controller as well and one micro-processor controlled all engine and generator functions. You should have a local Cat service place nearby you could contact. Easily cracked by any of the dyno manufacturers, but again that is why I ask about the sensors. Many of them might just be analog outs which opens all sorts of other options.

That requires sensors with a bus.

I would actually give Caterpillar a call, I'm assuming that you are doing this for your grad class/research and see if they have anything that can do such things. Why Caterpillar? Is this for them? If so, make them loan you a SOMAT. Otherwise details of the sensors are necessary for us to help as that can drastically change the price of the acquisition system. As a reference, typically manufacturers pay close to $50k for that capability, but there are much cheaper options. It actually may be a Cat product we test (not sure how Ryan2 knew that). We are looking for something that in the long run the company could continue to use, but instead of us doing research it would be them pulling the numbers sticking them into a program we developed and getting feedback. More info on the sensors please

That is blown out of proportion as well, they use more power yes, but nothing like a toaster, microwave or other appliance. In fact much closer to an LCD, just more. 7.1 in that small of a room is absurd and anyone who tells you at that price a HTIB is a good solution has not done a comparison with spending the same budget just on two speakers and a receiver.

Your opinion is based on a VERY small sampling. And no this isn't a knock on the Q, but when you say "any 12 fails in comparison" it shows you haven't heard all that many. It's not that extreme of a statement since I was comparing 12's to a 15, but I stand by it totally. Why would I have a small sampling? I install about 85% 12's all day at work (since '04 check us out @ soundcraftcarstereo.com) and had only 12's in my car for a decade, never outside a one or two woofer configuration; from jl w3s and w6's and kicker L7's (UGH) to rockford hx2s (personal fav still got a few of them 12's around). So I guess I should say any 12 in the same price range, including many above the Q15 that I have had experience with. No I can't say I've heard an AA Havoc 12 or a SI MAG 12 (tho I've heard the 15) or a few other drivers but I will totally still say I believe 100% the Q15 is the most musical sub for average to above average-sized enclosures. I like the SSD 12 just fine but its peakier to my ear, but my best buddy loves the SSDs I put in his car... we don't carry Fi in the shop, but I made it clear to my boss I gotta stick with Fi woofers. It is extreme you said ANY 12. I was just clarifying that is a ridiculous statement and again, not a knock on the Q's. Most people who respond like that have never heard anything else and then when a subjective end all that is statement like that is made it is absurd.

And classically the OP still hasn't told us why he wants to use it even.

How about: Ridiculously normal amplifiers that we charge a huge premium for based on history that we bought.

Definitely . Why would anyone counterfeit a 1985 bill????

I would actually give Caterpillar a call, I'm assuming that you are doing this for your grad class/research and see if they have anything that can do such things. Why Caterpillar? Is this for them? If so, make them loan you a SOMAT. Otherwise details of the sensors are necessary for us to help as that can drastically change the price of the acquisition system. As a reference, typically manufacturers pay close to $50k for that capability, but there are much cheaper options.

How would that help? If the speakers are located at the same locations in the vehicle (i.e. doors), and you measured to a point in the center of the vehicle.....the speakers would measure equidistant You would have to measure the differences at the listening position. Then again, I've never set time alignment with measurements.....I've always set it by ear. Because your head moves. You can't account for how you sit or if you're leaning to the left or the right. You also can't account for passengers being in the way of the waves. Better to just pick a common open spot in the space and aim for that. As close to your natural spot as possible of course. You can do timing by ear, or measuring, the only real way to get it right though is with mic and computer that can measure down to the .001 ms. If your head moves, why do you care about .001ms?? I'd never T/A a car to do it, but always for a purpose. Being I only build a system for me then I'd exclusively use it to make things sound better in MY seating position. Other people may have different prerogatives on what they want their vehicle to do, but it makes absolutely no sense to T/A to a center point in a vehicle. Hell, it sure looks like in his case by default that is pretty much already done anyways as his drivers ARE equidistant from the center. If he were to do what you suggest, then he should just pick a center point of the mids and tweets and only adjust the difference between them to the center for one set not both the mid and tweet, but there will be no sonic gain from doing that. Fixed and another reason why "to the center of the vehicle" makes no sense.

By default it started that way. Time aligning 3 tweeters per side is NOT going to happen.

GoatBUTTSexTOP

Math tricks ftw Just did it myself #9 go figure and I like Star Wars! Again, math tricks ftw. EVERYONE will get #9...unless of course they fuck up in the math portion.

I prefer something rather dry. The Domaine St Michelle Extra Dry Brut is a good budget choice for them.

Oh lord, yes. Don't use Andre *pukes*

Math tricks ftw

Sweet. COngrats!

He who must not be named. You mean Sucks My Dick?

Incorrect. Time alignment should be used so that all the drivers are producing sound that is coming to your ear at the same time. Regardless of how many drivers he has producing whatever frequency, placement can be corrected with alignment and phase filters. I've learned that speaker placement is the key to any great sounding system, then use time alignment/processing when needed for better stage enhancement and not corrupt the natural sound of the music. I think that bassahaulic has an idea of what I'm talking about. I think he really only needs one component set and a really good 2 channel amp for his front stage. then again, just my suggestion bro ... I hate to say it but I don't think a single set would suffice. Already I play music well in excess of 150db, only soon to increase to 155+ with the 4th order wall I am constructing. You are very confused over the difference between tweeters and mids.