I use rear fill. I modified my rear doors to accept them because I was using the rear deck for subs IB. I tried it for a while with out it, and to me it was lacking.
I did but I wish I would have just saved the $ as It did not do anything for the setup.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erik4Danielle
You are better off doing 2 sets of components to the front.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erik4Danielle
Get some kick panels for the front and you will be much happier!
WTF? Three in a row?
"Tact is the knack of making a point without making an enemy." - Sir Isaac Newton
“The wise understand by themselves; fools follow the reports of others”
Tibetan Proverb quotes
i drive a civic and the rear speakers are in the dash board against the rear glass. basically useless even if you're in the back. i don't use rear fill.
I use rear fill in an 05 Cts the rear speakers are in the doors. I have listened to it both ways and prefer it with rear although i fade it to the front some and sometimes listen without it completely. I always have passengers plus i have a dnx8120 and don't want to lose the rear sound for DVDs. Lol yes i watch dvds while driving. Hahah ok not really. Anyways everyone always has the concert argument about rear fill saying that at a concert the speakers are all in front well i am not at a concert i am in a car i want the sound to engulf me thats what i like. Even in my House when i listen to music i like to listen in 5.1 stereo.
I use rear fill in an 05 Cts the rear speakers are in the doors. I have listened to it both ways and prefer it with rear although i fade it to the front some and sometimes listen without it completely. I always have passengers plus i have a dnx8120 and don't want to lose the rear sound for DVDs. Lol yes i watch dvds while driving. Hahah ok not really. Anyways everyone always has the concert argument about rear fill saying that at a concert the speakers are all in front well i am not at a concert i am in a car i want the sound to engulf me thats what i like. Even in my House when i listen to music i like to listen in 5.1 stereo.
I always hear the "engulfed" argument. When's the last time you went to a concert and didn't feel engulfed? Most people that say this seem to be searching for more volume. I've yet to find anyone that truly prefers the sound to come from behind them, instead, they always say they feel more engulfed by the sound with the rears working. I say it's due to substandard speakers/power/tuning.
Again, your ears are directional. You can hear high frequency information with much greater accuracy from in front of you as opposed to behind you. As i've mentioned before, this is why (other than courtesy) you turn to face someone speaking to you. It's actually easier to hear them this way.
I would think your house was the same way. My guess is that you have satellite or bookshelf speakers, and are trying to compensate for something lacking in them by adding more of them (rears). That said, "5.1" and "stereo" are contradictory, if it's recorded in stereo, you can not hear it in 5.1. You instead hear the same 2 channels of info originating from 5 different places. It always sounds terrible to me, like a big unfocused mess.
Lets put it one more way. When the recording engineer is going over the record, and mixing everything the way he wants it, do you think he's using 5 speakers? or a pair of monitors? (for a 2 channel recording)
So why do you think you need 5 speakers to recreate what he did with 2?
"Tact is the knack of making a point without making an enemy." - Sir Isaac Newton
“The wise understand by themselves; fools follow the reports of others”
Tibetan Proverb quotes
Technically, it wasn't an argument - it was just a statement of preference and as such was not an attempt to argue.
I feel that the engulfed argument comes from our childhoods in the back seat of the car with the by-nines in the rear deck behind our heads. Just "seems" right.
Even understanding tha, I HATE rear speakers. As a system designer, they eat budget that could provide a better front stage, better install, and more power.
Technically, it wasn't an argument - it was just a statement of preference and as such was not an attempt to argue.
I feel that the engulfed argument comes from our childhoods in the back seat of the car with the by-nines in the rear deck behind our heads. Just "seems" right.
Even understanding tha, I HATE rear speakers. As a system designer, they eat budget that could provide a better front stage, better install, and more power.
Agreed!
I just don't get it. Nothing has better sound coming from behind you. I could see where a car might have better midbass performance with 4 speakers as opposed to 2, but that problem could be rectified with more power, better drivers, larger drivers, or a combination of the 3.
The whole rear speaker argument is just moot because it doesn't make sense unless you have the processing to make it work properly. Most people that "prefer" rear speakers do not have, nor would they like that processing.
It's like saying I like Chef Boyardee better than some top rated italian restaurant. Anyone that says this is just being stubborn and resistant to change.
"Tact is the knack of making a point without making an enemy." - Sir Isaac Newton
“The wise understand by themselves; fools follow the reports of others”
Tibetan Proverb quotes
They could have a windbreaker that says "SECURITY" on the back
Or maybe they saw interesting posters on the back walls of too many concerts!
"Tact is the knack of making a point without making an enemy." - Sir Isaac Newton
“The wise understand by themselves; fools follow the reports of others”
Tibetan Proverb quotes
I always hear the "engulfed" argument. When's the last time you went to a concert and didn't feel engulfed? Most people that say this seem to be searching for more volume. I've yet to find anyone that truly prefers the sound to come from behind them, instead, they always say they feel more engulfed by the sound with the rears working. I say it's due to substandard speakers/power/tuning.
Again, your ears are directional. You can hear high frequency information with much greater accuracy from in front of you as opposed to behind you. As i've mentioned before, this is why (other than courtesy) you turn to face someone speaking to you. It's actually easier to hear them this way.
I would think your house was the same way. My guess is that you have satellite or bookshelf speakers, and are trying to compensate for something lacking in them by adding more of them (rears). That said, "5.1" and "stereo" are contradictory, if it's recorded in stereo, you can not hear it in 5.1. You instead hear the same 2 channels of info originating from 5 different places. It always sounds terrible to me, like a big unfocused mess.
Lets put it one more way. When the recording engineer is going over the record, and mixing everything the way he wants it, do you think he's using 5 speakers? or a pair of monitors? (for a 2 channel recording)
So why do you think you need 5 speakers to recreate what he did with 2?
Who's to say we should try to reproduce what the recording engineer intended? Most records I own (literally), I'm usually trying to deviate from what the recording engineer is trying to do. I can't think of very many albums where me and the recording engineer are on the same page...and the ones that are, usually place planar imaging as an afterthought.
Anyway, the "engulfed" argument is absolutely valid for a number of different users. It's funny, when I go to concerts, half the times the main PAs are behind me, or lateral enough to where they might as well be behind me, or blasting against a close hard back wall. I get a lot coming straight out of the amps and sometimes even the monitors, while getting a lot of sounds coming from behind me due to the reflected PA. There's often not a lot of "imaging" in a lot of the live shows I go to, except when the guitar player is standing on the left and the bass player is on the right. And they usually don't try to reproduce that image on the album (with a couple exceptions...Duster and Chavez come to mind...).
I went to ATP NY last Sept and FUCK YEAH it was "engulfing". I'm not gonna sit and pretend the harps were coming from the right side and the horn section was dead center, etc. [How many of you are REALLY listening to harps and horns, anyway? ] J Mascis's guitars were blaring in my ears from I don't know what frickin' direction. The venue was incredibly tonally balanced for such large ballrooms, by the way. Not bad for what was basically a 70s era hotel.
The notion that one way is better than the other is INSANE. The notion that emulating the recording engineer's preferences is equivalent to emulating a live show is even MORE INSANE. In fact, I have two different tunings. In my home setup, I try to reproduce flat (more or less) with 2ch audio coming from in front of me -- ie. the "engineer's preference". In my car setup, I try to emulate LIVE sound, which means bloated lower midrange, enhanced sub bass, high output, and... engulfing sound. Imaging be damned.
I understand its only 2 channels recreated on the rest. Thats just how i like it tho sound is subjective we will just have to agree to disagree. Feeling engulfed at a concert eh i dont know the shows i go to im always to close and bouncing around to much to really notice. I do agree with you on the volume thing that is one reason i prefer having rears one set of 6.5 two way components will never be loud enough for me. Although i am about to change my front stage to a 3 way active we will see what i have to say then i will still keep the rears tho.
I can honestly say that my first system did not have any "fill" and the rear speakers were not used. However, this whole argument and some other threads I've read about 'proper' fill and it's requirements have intrigued me. Now I'd really like to check it out all out and see the results.
I still have those purchases WRX/Z28. I should start on my installation here in a week or two...three?
It seems that fill is the attempt to make up for the lack of a proper music hall. Perhaps people are looking for a certain presence they think rear speakers can suffice?
It seems that fill is the attempt to make up for the lack of a proper music hall. Perhaps people are looking for a certain presence they think rear speakers can suffice?
Does that seem like what they are trying to do? Seems like some of these guys should be running mono amps and paralleling L and R.
Hey, we didn't invent Stereo... It works how it works. If you don't like stereo, that's fine, but don't make it about rear speakers when you really just want loud mono.
Who's to say we should try to reproduce what the recording engineer intended? Most records I own (literally), I'm usually trying to deviate from what the recording engineer is trying to do. I can't think of very many albums where me and the recording engineer are on the same page...and the ones that are, usually place planar imaging as an afterthought.
Hmmm... why by the record if you're not? Why do you think you end up liking the band 90% of the time? Most people that go to shows do so because they liked the albumn. It's unfortunate that it's not the other way around.
Seriously, if you're trying to undo everything the RE has done, you're fighting an uphill battle. Doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever, but to each his own. lol.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkZ
Anyway, the "engulfed" argument is absolutely valid for a number of different users. It's funny, when I go to concerts, half the times the main PAs are behind me, or lateral enough to where they might as well be behind me, or blasting against a close hard back wall. I get a lot coming straight out of the amps and sometimes even the monitors, while getting a lot of sounds coming from behind me due to the reflected PA. There's often not a lot of "imaging" in a lot of the live shows I go to, except when the guitar player is standing on the left and the bass player is on the right. And they usually don't try to reproduce that image on the album (with a couple exceptions...Duster and Chavez come to mind...).
What concerts are you going to, and where? I've been to dozens of shows in the last year alone, everywhere i've been had 0 rear PA's with one exception, and those rear PA's were still facing backwards to provide sound for the in house bar.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkZ
I went to ATP NY last Sept and FUCK YEAH it was "engulfing". I'm not gonna sit and pretend the harps were coming from the right side and the horn section was dead center, etc. [How many of you are REALLY listening to harps and horns, anyway? ] J Mascis's guitars were blaring in my ears from I don't know what frickin' direction. The venue was incredibly tonally balanced for such large ballrooms, by the way. Not bad for what was basically a 70s era hotel.
At the concert, you can see the performers, which nearly negates the need for imaging. Quite a few of the shows did have some imaging cues, and even had musicians diddling away during warm up/tuning with sounds coming from different sides of the stage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkZ
The notion that one way is better than the other is INSANE. The notion that emulating the recording engineer's preferences is equivalent to emulating a live show is even MORE INSANE. In fact, I have two different tunings. In my home setup, I try to reproduce flat (more or less) with 2ch audio coming from in front of me -- ie. the "engineer's preference". In my car setup, I try to emulate LIVE sound, which means bloated lower midrange, enhanced sub bass, high output, and... engulfing sound. Imaging be damned.
Really? Insane? The mere idea of SQ insinuates that we're trying to get close to the artist/RE's desired effect. I doubt any of them intended rear speakers to be in the mix. If they had, they'd have released a 5.1 mix on DVD-A or SACD. Very few artists release these, and it's seldom that they are well done. Maybe the KISS theory should be applied here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkZ
BTW, I currently don't run rear fill.
So you were arguing for it, while not using it. And this makes you... ?
"Tact is the knack of making a point without making an enemy." - Sir Isaac Newton
“The wise understand by themselves; fools follow the reports of others”
Tibetan Proverb quotes
Does that seem like what they are trying to do? Seems like some of these guys should be running mono amps and paralleling L and R.
Hey, we didn't invent Stereo... It works how it works. If you don't like stereo, that's fine, but don't make it about rear speakers when you really just want loud mono.
Exactly. If you really want rear speakers, why not just get one large PA behind you. Why bother with all the imaging nonsense, and sq garbage?
MarkZ says that insisting that's better is insane!
"Tact is the knack of making a point without making an enemy." - Sir Isaac Newton
“The wise understand by themselves; fools follow the reports of others”
Tibetan Proverb quotes
Hmmm... why by the record if you're not? Why do you think you end up liking the band 90% of the time? Most people that go to shows do so because they liked the albumn. It's unfortunate that it's not the other way around.
Seriously, if you're trying to undo everything the RE has done, you're fighting an uphill battle. Doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever, but to each his own. lol.
I buy albums because I like to hear songs. Not because I like the way they were recorded. Check out that other thread ("Garbage In, Garbage out"), and I talk about some of my favorite albums that happen to be recorded like complete crap. Chad, and others, used Californication as an example. I don't like the Chili Peppers, but lots of people do. And they still buy the record even though it's recorded like dogshit.
Quote:
What concerts are you going to, and where? I've been to dozens of shows in the last year alone, everywhere i've been had 0 rear PA's with one exception, and those rear PA's were still facing backwards to provide sound for the in house bar.
I didn't say rear PAs. I said PAs that are sometimes so lateral that most of their output is coming from behind me. This can be due to a combination of where they're mounted, where they're aiming, and the acoustics of the room. My point was that there's a lot of "rear fill" a lot of the time.
Quote:
Really? Insane? The mere idea of SQ insinuates that we're trying to get close to the artist/RE's desired effect. I doubt any of them intended rear speakers to be in the mix. If they had, they'd have released a 5.1 mix on DVD-A or SACD. Very few artists release these, and it's seldom that they are well done. Maybe the KISS theory should be applied here.
Why is "what the artist/engineer intended" paramount? Why do you discount what they intend during a live show? I can think of dozens of bands who completely F things up when they hit the studio but are kings on stage.
Quote:
So you were arguing for it, while not using it. And this makes you... ?
No, I was arguing against the idea that everyone's tastes should be the same in regard to this issue. I think there's merit to both approaches and it mostly depends on the precise goals of the listener.
In case you were wondering, the main reason I don't run rear fill is because my rear doors (which are actually directly lateral to my head) house the midbass drivers, and I don't have the amplifier/source channels to add two drivers to the rear deck. I'm not sure they would add much in my particular installation anyway, although I doubt they'd be as objectionable as many people would insinuate.
I buy albums because I like to hear songs. Not because I like the way they were recorded. Check out that other thread ("Garbage In, Garbage out"), and I talk about some of my favorite albums that happen to be recorded like complete crap. Chad, and others, used Californication as an example. I don't like the Chili Peppers, but lots of people do. And they still buy the record even though it's recorded like dogshit.
I'll have to check out that thread. I never noticed californication was poorly recorded. I haven't exactly played till I memorized it, but I don't remember it sounding bad, just weird, like RHCP usually does. I think that gritty sound they have is purposely done.
It's weird, because liking the song, but not liking it's recording seems like a strange thing to me. I can see where i've heard a song, and thought "oh, i'd change this, or make this louder" but then it wouldn't be the same song, so in reality, I like it the way it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkZ
I didn't say rear PAs. I said PAs that are sometimes so lateral that most of their output is coming from behind me. This can be due to a combination of where they're mounted, where they're aiming, and the acoustics of the room. My point was that there's a lot of "rear fill" a lot of the time.
My misunderstanding. I read the part where you said that a lot of the time the mains were behind you, and wasn't following that you were probably in the front row.
Keep in mind, that even with speakers that are in the front of your car only, you still have this same "rear fill" when you hear the reflections from the rear of the car.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkZ
Why is "what the artist/engineer intended" paramount? Why do you discount what they intend during a live show? I can think of dozens of bands who completely F things up when they hit the studio but are kings on stage.
I guess because at the end of the day, 90% of recording engineers and artists are better musicians that most of us. They usually know what sounds good, or what makes their music sound good. I guess there are some exceptions to this, but they are the exception, not the rule.
There are reasons why bands release live albumns.
Also, conversely i've heard plenty of bands that were great on the albumn
and terrible live.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkZ
No, I was arguing against the idea that everyone's tastes should be the same in regard to this issue. I think there's merit to both approaches and it mostly depends on the precise goals of the listener.
I don't think that everyone's taste should be the same, but that most people after good SQ (the majority on this forum) have similar tastes, but not always the ability to acheive the sound they wanted. Some are mistakenly attempting to use rear fill to fix defacits in their front stage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkZ
In case you were wondering, the main reason I don't run rear fill is because my rear doors (which are actually directly lateral to my head) house the midbass drivers, and I don't have the amplifier/source channels to add two drivers to the rear deck. I'm not sure they would add much in my particular installation anyway, although I doubt they'd be as objectionable as many people would insinuate.
It would most likely be the worst place to spend money in the car. There are way better places to invest a few more $ than in rear speakers. I think this is usually my main argument. Rear fill should always come last, if ever.
Every time I set up a new car, I have people listen to it and I always ask "Does it sound like anything is missing?"
99.44% of the time, the answer is a solid "NO!"
In my case, rear fill probably won't ever be used, unless I ever decide to recreate 5.1 in the car. (which is mostly a waste IMO)
"Tact is the knack of making a point without making an enemy." - Sir Isaac Newton
“The wise understand by themselves; fools follow the reports of others”
Tibetan Proverb quotes
I'll have to check out that thread. I never noticed californication was poorly recorded. I haven't exactly played till I memorized it, but I don't remember it sounding bad, just weird, like RHCP usually does.
You have got to be shitting me!
I actually use it in class when I teach as an example one of the shittiest recordings I have ever heard. even a lecture hall does not even help it. In fact I have YET to take a Waves L2 and put it pinned to the piss on an unmastered recording and get it to sound that shitty.
Listen to the vocals, it's one volume and bandwidth compressed to ride in the mix, there are NO dynamics at all, and that's PRE MASTERING. It is THE definition of whiny shitty vocal. There is so much fail in that album that it makes an excellent teaching tool.
It's just a blur of open ass.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bikinpunk
Mark's an up late kinda dude. His neighbor has a horse.
I'll have to check out that thread. I never noticed californication was poorly recorded. I haven't exactly played till I memorized it, but I don't remember it sounding bad, just weird, like RHCP usually does. I think that gritty sound they have is purposely done.
It's weird, because liking the song, but not liking it's recording seems like a strange thing to me. I can see where i've heard a song, and thought "oh, i'd change this, or make this louder" but then it wouldn't be the same song, so in reality, I like it the way it is.
I think the two are very distinguishable. Even in the "good ol' days" of cassettes, I'd hit Newbury St. in Boston and go to all the basement tape stores looking for bootlegs of my favorite bands. In a lot of cases, they'd play songs live that they never released, so I'd be stuck with horrible recordings of songs I loved.
Things really haven't changed much for me. This band I really like just released their new album a few weeks ago, but for six months prior to that I was listening to crappy recordings of their live shows because that was the only way to hear those songs! And you know what? They did some of those songs BETTER live than how they turned out on the album. One song in particular had all the dynamics sucked out of it when they got to the studio.
I also saw this same band two weeks ago (drove 11 hours round trip!) and the live set OWNED. The album? Meh. Some bands just can't capture it in two channel audio with limited dynamic range (thanks in part to the loudness war).
Quote:
I guess because at the end of the day, 90% of recording engineers and artists are better musicians that most of us. They usually know what sounds good, or what makes their music sound good. I guess there are some exceptions to this, but they are the exception, not the rule.
There are reasons why bands release live albumns.
Also, conversely i've heard plenty of bands that were great on the albumn
and terrible live.
Oh, I agree. But remember, the artist (and an engineer) is responsible for what comes out in the live set too. So when you try to emulate their live gig, you're still doing what the artist intended, to a certain degree. There are also other pressures that artists face when throwing a record together. And certains standards that they try to adhere to, whether right or wrong.
Quote:
I don't think that everyone's taste should be the same, but that most people after good SQ (the majority on this forum) have similar tastes, but not always the ability to acheive the sound they wanted. Some are mistakenly attempting to use rear fill to fix defacits in their front stage.
Yeah, I think a lot of people are trying to address output concerns with rear fill. Others are just used to rear fill in the car because that comes stock in pretty much every car they've driven since they were 16. I think "VP Electricity"'s post had it right -- people need to try it with and without rear fill, and for a week. You can't turn it off (or on) for only a minute and say "blecch I don't like it". That's not a test. The true tuning and trial/error process comes from attempting changes and listening to the difference for an extended period of time. Only then can you distinguish between whether something's better or whether it's just novelty.
Quote:
It would most likely be the worst place to spend money in the car. There are way better places to invest a few more $ than in rear speakers. I think this is my main argument. Rear fill should always come last, if ever.
In my case, it probably won't ever be used, unless I ever decide to recreate 5.1 in the car. (which is mostly a waste IMO)
Yeah, on a budget, it's probably better to sink money elsewhere first. But sometimes people have extra amplifier channels kicking around, and midrange speakers aren't always expensive.
Re: Rear Fill: do you use it?
] J Mascis's guitars were blaring in my ears from I don't know what frickin' direction. The venue was incredibly tonally balanced for such large ballrooms, by the way. Not bad for what was basically a 70s era hotel. 
Linear Mode
