well, if you want to play with variable delay on the L-R signal, yes.
Although i suppose you could separately delay the left and right signals by approx ~20msec, and otherwise process them independently (bandlimiting, attenuation), then form the algebraic L-R difference at the amplifier inputs ...
Ok what do you think about this I have wired the RCA's and plugged them into the amp. And I use the passive crossovers that come with the alpine x type comps. here is the manual for them http://vault.alpine-usa.com/products...M_SPX-137R.PDF it looks as if the crossover allows you to be able to adjust the T/A (phaze) on the speakers. Also I can hook up a l-pad in line with each speaker for minor adjustments. What do you think??
According to whose definition? SQ is subjective, and I find that RF does more harm than good in any install I have ever heard. Personally, I would much rather spend the money on many other items than RF components.
Well, that kind of says it all. It invalidates everthing said subsequent except that from a strictly personal taste orientation. In other words, nobody is right and nobody is wrong. It is all personal taste afterall.
i DO have many passengers, so i opted to get full range rears that match my fronts. They go in the doors with the tweeters mounted up near the door latches. I am very interested in trying out the procedure to get the L-R Difference with attenuation, blah blah, as the DSP i am using has time alignment and EQ for each speaker. Also, the headunit has phase adjustment so i can mess with that as well.
I have not had a chance to read through the attached article, but i will soon. My question is mostly directed to werewolf and others who believe in rear fill: do you think there is a benefit to having identical drivers for the fronts and the rear fill? i chose them to match because i was under the impression that it would make a difference in that the same quality of sound was being produced all around me.
And yes, i know that even the same speakers will sound different when coming from different locations, and with all the processing power i can change their qualities anyway. but when it comes to the subtleties of speaker design i still think there is some benefit. and if it was all processing, people would just go ahead and buy 4 different speakers and manipulate them until they all sounded the same...
...which sounds like a very interesting investigation to see if that is actually possible. hell, with the crummy manufacturing standards of OEM components, it essentially is 4 different speakers anyway.
The only way i can see rear fill implement even half decent in my car.....2dr hatch, scion tC.......would be to run the front stage as is now, but with a small set of full range drivers, TB 3-4"ers come to mind, small, yet put them at 1/3 of the overall front volume. This would add a slight ambience to the car while allowing the frontstage to give all staging cues, etc. That is as long as the rear signal is contoured and eq'd flat as well as the front, to keep the ear from jumping from front to back, dependant on peaks/nulls.
same thing i was thinking of doing. but it would only be beneficial i think at lower volume. my front stage at high volume fills the interior with sound nicely.
The pleasure of what we enjoy is lost by wanting more. - fortune cookie
in the article that werewolf cites, the guy is advocating a Yamaha processing unit. but as i looked further into the features it seems as though the Behringer dcx2496 would be appropriate as well. Unfortunately, there are not enough outputs to run active fronts with this kind of advanced rear fill, but for the time being i am happy with passive fronts as i do not want to fork out for 2 more channels of amplification anyway. the 2496 seems to have all the time delay, parametric EQ and level/attenuation functions that are necessary for this to work out, and with the great instructions from the author on how to switch between unbalanced to balanced outputs/inputs i think it is totally feasible to incorporate this unit into the strategy. any feedback on this would be appreciated.
So ... instead of wiring L+ and L- to the balanced input connector (which would describe a typical, balanced connection), we wire L+ (from the left channel RCA) and R+ (from the right channel RCA) to the same balanced input connector on the preamp/processor. All processing done inside the preamp/processor will now be operating on (L+)-(R+), instead of the pure left signal known as (L+)-(L-).
so to paraphrase/confirm, to be able to INDEPENDANTLY process the left and right channels, I need either:
1: Balenced outputs travelling to an unbalenced processor. I bridge R+ and L- to one input, and L+ and R- to the other. Now I have my signals.
2: unbalenced outputs travelling to a balenced processor. R+ goes to hot1, L+ goes to hot2, this is "right rear". L+ goes to another hot1, R+ goes to another hot2, this becomes "left rear".
Have I got it about right?
Furthermore, are you aware of any issues that will impact rearfill performance that a tuner would have to confront if they limited themselves to non-independant processing for the rearfill COMPARED TO a setup that did have the ability for independant tuning per rear-fill driver?
so to paraphrase/confirm, to be able to INDEPENDANTLY process the left and right channels, I need either:
1: Balenced outputs travelling to an unbalenced processor. I bridge R+ and L- to one input, and L+ and R- to the other. Now I have my signals.
2: unbalenced outputs travelling to a balenced processor. R+ goes to hot1, L+ goes to hot2, this is "right rear". L+ goes to another hot1, R+ goes to another hot2, this becomes "left rear".
Have I got it about right?
Furthermore, are you aware of any issues that will impact rearfill performance that a tuner would have to confront if they limited themselves to non-independant processing for the rearfill COMPARED TO a setup that did have the ability for independant tuning per rear-fill driver?
Number 2 is right ... Number 1 is questionable.
A processor with unbalanced inputs MAY internally ground the rca shield. If you try to force a signal into that ground ... something will not be happy.
The "subtraction" process inside a processor with unbalanced inputs is not as clear, not as certain, as the "subtraction" process inside a processor with balanced inputs.
Why are difference signals used for the surround signal? I would think that the ambient sounds coming from the rear of a listening hall would be a summed signal. I didn't see this explained in Werewolf's link.
so to paraphrase/confirm, to be able to INDEPENDANTLY process the left and right channels, I need either:
1: Balenced outputs travelling to an unbalenced processor. I bridge R+ and L- to one input, and L+ and R- to the other. Now I have my signals.
2: unbalenced outputs travelling to a balenced processor. R+ goes to hot1, L+ goes to hot2, this is "right rear". L+ goes to another hot1, R+ goes to another hot2, this becomes "left rear".
Have I got it about right?
Furthermore, are you aware of any issues that will impact rearfill performance that a tuner would have to confront if they limited themselves to non-independant processing for the rearfill COMPARED TO a setup that did have the ability for independant tuning per rear-fill driver?
When I used you option 1 wiring directly from the amplifier to a speaker I believe I got what I was looking for. And let me make sure I COMPLETELY understand this for option 2. If I make a (rearfill RCA) cable to I would take the normal R channel in and wire the R + where it normally goes and wire the L+ where the R - normally goes and switch it for the right channel?
First, the question asked earlier wasn't addressed, and that is speaker placement. Should the goal be on-axis, reflected or off-axis? Recalling the theories about rear midbass off-axis placement makes me wonder how difficult it would be to "get it right" with the different placement methods.
Second, bandpass. I can see a reduction of high frequencies helping diminish location cues, but overall what are we trying to accomplish?
First, the question asked earlier wasn't addressed, and that is speaker placement. Should the goal be on-axis, reflected or off-axis? Recalling the theories about rear midbass off-axis placement makes me wonder how difficult it would be to "get it right" with the different placement methods.
As a novice who does not have the time, nore the resources to dedicate to a fully active/DSP'd front stage, I've always been interested in a rear-deck mounted midbass, and i've been itching to try it out for the hell of it, if it did work, it would save me a ton of time doing modifications to my door panels....
at face value, one would assume (right or wrong, i don't know), that midbass mounted behind you is just...well....blasphemous, but does anyone have a definitive answer to the issue......no....
that said, i WILL try this one day when i have the necessities, and i will be back with my inexperienced opinion
I run rears off deck power. I find my front stage "thin" and one dimensional, so i enjoy the thickness the slight rear sounds add. I can barely hear the rears until im approaching max volume.
Yes, I use it. I've tried it with and without. I much prefer it with. The use of rear fill will always be personal preference as nobody can tell anyone else what sounds good to them.
+1 I think if properly done, it adds depth to your front stage.
if I had the money, i would love to try and tackle the issue. I dont have the control or processing power to get the desired results with rear fill. im really interested to see (if it ever happens) the tear down of Mr. Biggs vehicle and see how his rear fill setup was accomplished.
Yes, I use it. I've tried it with and without. I much prefer it with. The use of rear fill will always be personal preference as nobody can tell anyone else what sounds good to them.
My experience has been just the opposite. I've had systems with and without rear speakers and the systems without sound better to me. I guess like you said, it's personal preference.
I don't use rear fill, but it might give that "surround sound" feeling, which obviously ruins the sound stage.
Well, not a true "surround" sound, but yeah, that's exactly what it does. I would say if you're setting up your system for primarily listening to music, don't use rear speakers. If you're setting it up for the theater experience, then you'd want to use rear speakers.
Everybody here ask themselves a question. How does the human ear/brain sense depth/distance from a sound source?
Does it have to do with the natural attenuation of sound vs. distance vs. frequency?
Does it have to do with timing of reflected sound vs. direct sound?
Both?
Once you have the answers to this you can determine if adding rear fill has the potential to add or subtract from your sound stage. The answers will also help you set up your front sound stage to gain "depth".
Ge0
Alpine, Zapco, Scanspeak, Image Dynamics, Critical Mass
Life lesson #1) En boca cerradas no entra moscas! (loose translation: sometimes it is best to keep your fuggin mouth shut and listen)
Geo, do you really mean to say "gained depth", or did you mean to say "no depth was gained, but instrument focus in the "depth" direction was enhanced, so voices in front werent also in the back, and voices in the back were no longer in front. but the overrall location of stage front and stage back did not shift. Just was obviously more '2D' and not just a line of voice from left to right, regardless of distance to the listening position."
I used to believe in rear fill. Back when I was used to factory stereo and most of your mid range came from the 6x9's in the back. I thought it filled out the sound. Seeing a properly set up front stage, I now think that I would rather have more money in a front stage and no rear fill.
By the way, thanks for giving me a good thread to have my first post.
Geo, do you really mean to say "gained depth", or did you mean to say "no depth was gained, but instrument focus in the "depth" direction was enhanced, so voices in front werent also in the back, and voices in the back were no longer in front. but the overrall location of stage front and stage back did not shift. Just was obviously more '2D' and not just a line of voice from left to right, regardless of distance to the listening position."
Had a hard time digesting your question . I meant to say move your soundstage out towards the middle of your hood. Whether that's gain, gained, gaining, whatever....
My point. It is possible to use rear fill to:
1.) make your soundstage appear deeper
2.) give you the sense that you are in a larger listening space than your car.
Ge0
Alpine, Zapco, Scanspeak, Image Dynamics, Critical Mass
Life lesson #1) En boca cerradas no entra moscas! (loose translation: sometimes it is best to keep your fuggin mouth shut and listen)
I actually scored better without rear fill in my Beretta back in it's Usac/ Iasca days. 1993-1997.
Since then my last 2 cars did not have rear fill and my current S10 which competes from time to time and does well, does not have rear-fill. (And it is an extra cab).
Re: Rear Fill: do you use it?
Linear Mode
