New SYSTEM Setups
Thread Starter
|
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
what if i carry passangers. they'll just hear bump bump instead of any music/vocals. i need some kind of sound coming from the rear. no?! maybe i'll go cheap on rear deck to fill in sound space..
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 782
Likes: 4
Originally Posted by G35blk
what if i carry passangers. they'll just hear bump bump instead of any music/vocals. i need some kind of sound coming from the rear. no?! maybe i'll go cheap on rear deck to fill in sound space..
1) Rear passengers hear mids and highs fine in my car.
2) "Fill in sound space" is another term for "make the car sound like my parent's car did when I was a kid in the back seat". Has NOTHING to do with sound quality.
You seem to be on a budget and want good sound. This is the number one best way to do that.
Thread Starter
|
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by el_duderino
No, actually. This is a common objection.
1) Rear passengers hear mids and highs fine in my car.
2) "Fill in sound space" is another term for "make the car sound like my parent's car did when I was a kid in the back seat". Has NOTHING to do with sound quality.
You seem to be on a budget and want good sound. This is the number one best way to do that.
1) Rear passengers hear mids and highs fine in my car.
2) "Fill in sound space" is another term for "make the car sound like my parent's car did when I was a kid in the back seat". Has NOTHING to do with sound quality.
You seem to be on a budget and want good sound. This is the number one best way to do that.
thx bro
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 257
Likes: 0
From: St. Louis, MO
Originally Posted by el_duderino
2) "Fill in sound space" is another term for "make the car sound like my parent's car did when I was a kid in the back seat". Has NOTHING to do with sound quality.
I'll have to remember that the next time someone asks me about "rear fill".
Well I really think it's personal preference. I have my fronts much louder than the rear, but I prefer some sound from the rear. Do before/after with your current setup and see if you like the effect that "rear fill" provides.
I love my Diamond Audio btw, I think you'll be happy with it. Some complain about the brightness, but I think it's the perfect choice in a relatively noisy environment.
I love my Diamond Audio btw, I think you'll be happy with it. Some complain about the brightness, but I think it's the perfect choice in a relatively noisy environment.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 782
Likes: 4
Originally Posted by rcdash
Well I really think it's personal preference. I have my fronts much louder than the rear, but I prefer some sound from the rear. Do before/after with your current setup and see if you like the effect that "rear fill" provides.
I love my Diamond Audio btw, I think you'll be happy with it. Some complain about the brightness, but I think it's the perfect choice in a relatively noisy environment.
I love my Diamond Audio btw, I think you'll be happy with it. Some complain about the brightness, but I think it's the perfect choice in a relatively noisy environment.
Nothing wrong with preferring to listen to stereo in a way that is directly opposite its intended means of listening - after all, this IS America.
But don't pretend that rear fill helps sound quality. Rear fill makes you more comfortable. Big diff.
I'll challenge YOU to listen without your rear fill for two weeks, and notice how much better your stereo image gets - how much more often you now hear and notice where intruments are located in the image, and home much more detail is audible with good recordings (rather than being blurred by multiple arrival times and cancellation).
I know for a fact that rear fill improves sound quality - - - - just as much as you know it doesn't! 
Ha ha
Jeez dude, j/k - chill... everyone listens the way they want to - no need to be fanatical about it.
Ha ha
Jeez dude, j/k - chill... everyone listens the way they want to - no need to be fanatical about it.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 782
Likes: 4
"Fanatical" would be ripping rear speakers out of cars when I pass them on the street.
"Mercenary" would be selling people rear fill without at least giving them the chance to hear stereo the way it was meant to be heard.
I'm clear, not fanatical. Stereo was invented to work one specific way, not any way you want it to work. You don't have to like how stereo works, but that doesn't change how stereo works.
"Mercenary" would be selling people rear fill without at least giving them the chance to hear stereo the way it was meant to be heard.
I'm clear, not fanatical. Stereo was invented to work one specific way, not any way you want it to work. You don't have to like how stereo works, but that doesn't change how stereo works.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 782
Likes: 4
Most things, no, I don't. If I were holding forth on my political opinions, for example, those would just be opinion.
But stereo is defined narrowly. Audio is defined broadly, but stereo is defined narrowly. I'm not expressing my opinion about how stereo works well - I'm stating an empirically-derived fact about how stereo works well.
I can and have acknowledged that people can listen to audio however they want to. But what no one wants to acknowledge is that stereo is designed and conceived of to be listened to in one specific way (one which I did not invent, but was conveived of long before I came along).
The Wikipedia section on stereo playback is pretty good:
Playing back stereo recordings
Stereophonic sound attempts to create an illusion of location for various instruments within the original recording. The recording engineer's goal is usually to create a stereo "image" with localization information. When a stereophonic recording is heard through loudspeaker systems rather than headphones, each ear of course hears sound from both speakers. The audio engineer may and often does use more than two microphones, sometimes many more, and may mix them down to two tracks in ways that exaggerate the separation of the instruments to compensate for the mixture that occurs when listening via speakers.
Descriptions of stereophonic sound tend to stress the ability to localize the position of each instrument in space, but in reality many people listen on playback systems that do a poor job of re-creating a stereo "image". Many listeners assume that "stereo" sound is "richer" or "fuller-sounding" than monophonic sound. This is inaccurate - stereo and mono can have equally detailed abilities to play recorded notes. The spatial illusion is what sets stereo recordings apart from mono recordings.
When playing back stereo recordings, best results are obtained by using two speakers, in front of and equidistant from the listener, with the listener located on the center line between the two speakers.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereop...ereo_recording
But stereo is defined narrowly. Audio is defined broadly, but stereo is defined narrowly. I'm not expressing my opinion about how stereo works well - I'm stating an empirically-derived fact about how stereo works well.
I can and have acknowledged that people can listen to audio however they want to. But what no one wants to acknowledge is that stereo is designed and conceived of to be listened to in one specific way (one which I did not invent, but was conveived of long before I came along).
The Wikipedia section on stereo playback is pretty good:
Playing back stereo recordings
Stereophonic sound attempts to create an illusion of location for various instruments within the original recording. The recording engineer's goal is usually to create a stereo "image" with localization information. When a stereophonic recording is heard through loudspeaker systems rather than headphones, each ear of course hears sound from both speakers. The audio engineer may and often does use more than two microphones, sometimes many more, and may mix them down to two tracks in ways that exaggerate the separation of the instruments to compensate for the mixture that occurs when listening via speakers.
Descriptions of stereophonic sound tend to stress the ability to localize the position of each instrument in space, but in reality many people listen on playback systems that do a poor job of re-creating a stereo "image". Many listeners assume that "stereo" sound is "richer" or "fuller-sounding" than monophonic sound. This is inaccurate - stereo and mono can have equally detailed abilities to play recorded notes. The spatial illusion is what sets stereo recordings apart from mono recordings.
When playing back stereo recordings, best results are obtained by using two speakers, in front of and equidistant from the listener, with the listener located on the center line between the two speakers.
Originally Posted by el_duderino
best results are obtained by using two speakers, in front of and equidistant from the listener, with the listener located on the center line between the two speakers.
Best as in highest an the sound quality chart?
Sure, thats all nice, but it only bears some relationship to listener judged subjective quality.
Best results for the listener are going to be different for each person. Me, I feel like it is empty behind me without rear fill speakers. Many car audio people feel this way, not just salesmen trying to pimp their latest speakers.
Others feel that rear fill speakers detract from the quality.
I'd guess that more people like the sound with rear fill, rather than without. However, thats only a guess. I certainly do not profess to know the One True Way
Dave
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 782
Likes: 4
I guess you're not paying attention.
What you're saying is that what you like is something other than the design intent for stereo playback.
That's fine - nothing wrong with that.
But if you want to say that that's "better", you have a problem of definition. You prefer it.
I prefer coffee with cream and sugar. Coffee experts tell me that that means I really don't like coffee. They're right - I don't like coffee without cream and sugar, so I don't really like coffee as it is.
Same with stereo. It's defined and has been for years. If you don't like it without rear speakers, that's fine - but since you're destroying many of the imaging cues that are in stereo recordings, it's hard to call what you're doing a "better" way of listening to stereo recordings.
But enjoy the cream and sugar.
What you're saying is that what you like is something other than the design intent for stereo playback.
That's fine - nothing wrong with that.
But if you want to say that that's "better", you have a problem of definition. You prefer it.
I prefer coffee with cream and sugar. Coffee experts tell me that that means I really don't like coffee. They're right - I don't like coffee without cream and sugar, so I don't really like coffee as it is.
Same with stereo. It's defined and has been for years. If you don't like it without rear speakers, that's fine - but since you're destroying many of the imaging cues that are in stereo recordings, it's hard to call what you're doing a "better" way of listening to stereo recordings.
But enjoy the cream and sugar.
Thread Starter
|
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
wow this tread has gone deeper than i thought. lets not get too technical about this..lol. but n/e ways~ let say if i do get the rears..will it affect the sound quality all around? will it degrade the sound because it won't have the full potential as it would if i hear it from just 2 speakers rather than sharing it with 4..i just thought that if i get the rears, people in the back will hear the same volume instead of hearing more bass(sub). Of course people will hear the music and the sound will be great if i do just get 2 speakers but what im debating is that- wouldn't it be less muffled in the back by having those extra speakers?.
im willing to spend around 1300 for the whole system and if i can squeeze in those rear i prob will even though it won't have any effect on sound quality.. but im thinking that it will help out a little as in general(vocals,volume) for the back. well hell if i know until i try..but yea for now i'll prob going with front speakers components/subs/and amps.
p.s. i appreciate your knowledge el, you know a lot of ****. lol
im willing to spend around 1300 for the whole system and if i can squeeze in those rear i prob will even though it won't have any effect on sound quality.. but im thinking that it will help out a little as in general(vocals,volume) for the back. well hell if i know until i try..but yea for now i'll prob going with front speakers components/subs/and amps.
p.s. i appreciate your knowledge el, you know a lot of ****. lol
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post