A Simple Way to Tune, Courtesy of cmusic......

After attending one of the awesome audio meets hosted by the NCSQ crew this past weekend, become quite evident that I needed a ton of tuning assistance. A lot of great advice was offered by many many wonderful audio junkies - but as with anything, where do you start? There is so much great information being passed around, it's often difficult to figure out where to begin. Notloudenuf reminded me of this wonderful article with great tips and thought I would post them here:

There are several different methods used to tune eqs. This is the one I use. An RTA is not needed if the steps are done correctly. This method uses crossovers and gain settings as the most important factor in tuning. I think the eq should be last in line when tuning. Remember after each step to write down your settings. If the sound gets worse, then you can go back to the previous step’s settings and start over.


1. Set all bands flat, as well as the head unit bass and treble.

2. Turn off the subs. Using music with a good bass line, run the highpass crossover up and down until the midbasses can play as low as possible without any distortion or excessive door panel vibrations.

3. Unhook the mids and tweeters, allowing only the midbasses to play. Listen to mono pink noise or a well-recorded song with a centered vocalist. Test CDs such as the IASCA test CD or Autosound 2000 Test CD 102 or 103 will work great. Listen to where the centered sounds are coming from. Then reverse the polarity of one midbass (Reverse the speaker wires coming from the passive crossover and going to the speaker, just flip the positive and negative wires. I usually flip the driver’s side speaker.) and re-listen to the test CD. If the sounds are more centered then keep it as is. If the centered sounds are more diffuse and un-locatable, then flip the polarity back to where it was originally.

4. Then unhook the midbasses and play the mids only and follow the same polarity and listening tests as before. Mark your best settings.

5. Do the same procedure for the tweeters.

6. When you have tested for the proper polarity from all three ranges of speakers, hook all of them back up with respect to each set of speaker’s best polarity. You can have any combination of polarity, such as all the midbass and tweeters straight and one midrange reversed.

7. Now you should have the correct “acoustic” polarity set within each set of speakers. Next is to set the acoustic polarity between the sets of speakers.

8. Listen to some very familiar music with a good range of sounds. Then flip both midbass’ polarity and listen again. Before you only flipped one midbass, now you are doing both at the same time. For example if the left midbass was reversed and the right was not before, now the left will be not reversed and the right will be. Listen to the music again. If the midbass is more powerful and full then leave the wiring as is. If the midbass sounds weaker and wrong then restore the wiring as before.

9. Perform the same listening tests while flipping the mids and tweeters, and use the wiring configuration that sounds the best.

10. If you have went though all these steps adjusting the polarity of the speakers then the system should sound really good without any eq adjustments. You might want to play with the gain adjustments on the crossover and/or amp to better blend all the speakers together.

11. Now onto the eq! The first eq step is to adjust the tonality. While listening to familiar music, adjust each individual band up and down slowly. When the music sounds better then move to the next band. Adjust the left and right bands equally. (We’ll get to the separate left and right adjustments soon.) It really does not matter if the bands are boosted or cut, just that it makes the sound better. Not every band needs to be adjusted. In fact if you did steps 1 thru 10 correctly you should not have to adjust over half the bands. Having a 1/3 octave eq does not mean you have to adjust every band. It means you have the ability to adjust each band if needed. Watch out for big jumps from band to band, like one band set to +4 and the next band set to –6.

12. Continue through all the bands, take a break, and do the same procedure over again. But this time the adjustments will be smaller as you get the tonality dialed in. This step might take several days, weeks, or longer.

13. In tuning you will find some eq bands will raise, lower, move the sound closer, or farther away if adjusted in certain manners. For example, lowering 5 KHz will generally move the soundstage farther away and raising 2 KHz will make the soundstage rise. Each vehicle and system will have different settings that will be the best. The best way to achieve awesome sound is to constantly adjust.

14. When you are satisfied with the tonality of the system, it is time to start adjusting the left and right channels separately. These adjustments should not affect the tonality, but improve on the imaging and soundstaging. Using the Autosound 2000 Test CD 102 or 103 “My Disk” listen to the individual frequency pink noise tracks. (Test CD103 has the tracks arranged in an easier configuration.) Each frequency band should sound like it is coming from the center of the soundstage. If one band is off to one side, then use each band’s left and right eq controls as a balance control. This is very similar to the head unit’s balance control, only now you are balancing each frequency band by itself. For example if 200 Hz seems to be shifted to the left of center, lower the left 200 Hz band and raise the right 200 Hz band one dB at a time until the band is centered. If a frequency is shifted to the right, lower the band’s right channel and raise the left channel in small amounts.

15. When you have been through all the bands take a break. Then later go back through each band one by one and make any further needed adjustments until all the frequencies are lined up in the center of the soundstage.

Attachment 7015

Still a great way to go all these. . . Years . . . L8r

That must really, really old. It doesn't take in to account time alignment, which affects phase at the crossover regions. Which means if you were a good enough listener to never use an rta (most aren't and event the best still use an rta), you'd be using the eq to make adjustments in that crossover range which sound wrong, but they are wrong because of the phase in that region, which can't really be fixed via eq.

Yes! I was hoping to lure you out with these posts this morning. That was my question too, with time alignment and level matching, would you do that first, then listen for EQ, or do the phase and crossover settings and then tackle time alignment and level matching?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chithead

Yes! I was hoping to lure you out with these posts this morning. That was my question too, with time alignment and level matching, would you do that first, then listen for EQ, or do the phase and crossover settings and then tackle time alignment and level matching?

---

almost everyone I know does rough eq first (take out big peaks via rta), then crossover, then TA's, then level matches, then gets down to the nitty gritty. that nitty gritty would be tonality eq, maybe minor TA tweaks here and there, the centering method that has been brought up (31 individual band pink noise variety), and so on.

if at some point along the way you decide to change a crossover points, you'll have to readjust the TA slightly to account for the possible phase shift. But that still falls in to the nitty gritty category. some people take slightly different routes, but end up at the same place rough tune place. Like some will ta first, level match, then rough eq or whatever.

Thank you thank you thank you! I have only done T/A alignment and messed with a few different crossover settings.

So you use the RTA measurements to determine most of the information? As a newbie newb I was under the assumption it's main use was for EQ adjustments, and possibly level matching.

I use it rough in the eq, get a baseline for level matching and then off and on during fine tuning. I've learned various methods by watching others who are far better than I and took from them what works for me. For example, I've spent many hours watching Mark Eldridge tune on my car. He uses the rta a lot in the beginning, then when he is satisfied with that, he gets in and starts listening. a lot. If he hears something off, he'll often bring up the rta and see if it shows up there. If it was say a peak, he'll attempt to bring it down, then get back in and listen. Dips can be tricky because that can be nulls that you can't fix. Sometimes you can hear them either. One of those things where the rta "lies" to you :) So you ignore them, or if they are in the crossover region you can usually fix them with crossover changes or TA changes. All part of that nitty gritty tuning.

when it comes to level matching, it's a good start with the rta, but listening is still the best. For that portion i use positional tracks (the ones from EMMA are the best, but IASCAs aren't too bad) and just use the full left and full right. If you don't have anything like that, you can use pink noise and just mute one side or the other as needed. If you get those two right, then the rest (center, lc & rc) will fall in line amplitude wise.

For me, with the rta, I normalize the volume to 85-90db, mostly because 90db is the iasca standard for judging and turns out to be sufficiently loud for listening anyway. regardless of what you pick, it's a spot that you can easily target on the graph for the basic level matching. Most of the time that will be really, really from the midrange on up close so that when I go to listening the changes are minor. It usually works for midbass, but just be aware that the range under 300hz can do weird things in a car. I've seen rta graphs of left and right where one side was waaaay off from the other but audibly was level. So don't rely entirely on the rta for that stuff.

i'm a bigger fan of andy's tuning guide, which is also relatively straightforward & produces consistent results (so far in my experience) but uses more of the dsp tools we have available. it's a bit long but a good read :) it does rely on use of an RTA.

https://testgear.audiofrog.com/ -> "A Straightforward Stereo Tuning Process and Some Notes About Why it Works.pdf"

Andy Wehmayer may know slightly or GR@TLEY , more than thee average bear.

If you do it "Hard Way" you may gain a better understanding of what is involved. :nod:

I thought the title of this thread looked familiar and just realized I posted this on the defunct Elite Car Audio forum nearly 20 years ago and reposted it on diyma when that forum first opened up (also check out a topic there called "help, my soundstage ate my windshield" for impressions from a guy I passed this on to).

Chuck Music (yes that's his real name!) taught me this simple process as a newbie without access to an rta/other tuning gear and no tuning experience. I won my first IASCA trophy in the first contest I entered as a rookie using just this process and to this day I still use parts to teach "basic" tuning by phone to my internet clients who installed their own system purchased through me. As mentioned there are lots of ways to skin a cat and there are many more advanced tuning methods out there however I still think this is a great stepping stone into the world of tuning or a great way for those with no desire to purchase tuning gear/spend the time learning how to use it to get a great sounding setup.

In any case, I have picked the brains of many far more experienced guys over the years to develop my own advanced tuning methods by combining their tips/developing some of my own (including using "properly processed" rear fill to enhance my front stage) and a few things still hold true no matter what...you have to install properly, you have to play drivers within their capabilities and you have to get the phase/levels between drivers set properly or you'll find yourself chasing your tail. Also, probably the best lesson I learned was make only one adjustment at a time and listen so you'll know exactly what change that specific adjustment made in the sound.

Writing notes as you go and just one adjustment at a time is the key !

There is never time to do it right . . .

But, there is always time to do it over !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Serieus

i'm a bigger fan of andy's tuning guide, which is also relatively straightforward & produces consistent results (so far in my experience) but uses more of the dsp tools we have available. it's a bit long but a good read :) it does rely on use of an RTA.

https://testgear.audiofrog.com/ -> "A Straightforward Stereo Tuning Process and Some Notes About Why it Works.pdf"

---

Just read through that and there is a section on crossovers and wavelength x driver size. The text above the table
The chart below can serve as a useful guideline for designing systems and selecting crossovers. Thecolumn to the left indicates the diameter of the driver. The graphs at the top of each column indicatethe dispersion pattern of sound from the speaker at the frequencies listed in the column below. Ideally,we choose a crossover point in the green zone. Yellow is not optimum, but won’t be a big problem.Orange is worse than yellow and red should be avoided.
I don't understand the column headings and the values in the tables. Are the values crossover frequency?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Marv

I thought the title of this thread looked familiar and just realized I posted this on the defunct Elite Car Audio forum nearly 20 years ago and reposted it on diyma when that forum first opened up .

---

I just saw this thread stickied and thought the title was familiar. I remember reading the thread on diyma almost 10 years ago when i first joined. Now, i hate to be the negative nancy but i am very glad to see that this is advice from 20 years ago, because i cant picture this method of tuning being worth much even 10 years ago, let alone today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chiefgeek

Just read through that and there is a section on crossovers and wavelength x driver size. The text above the table
The chart below can serve as a useful guideline for designing systems and selecting crossovers. Thecolumn to the left indicates the diameter of the driver. The graphs at the top of each column indicatethe dispersion pattern of sound from the speaker at the frequencies listed in the column below. Ideally,we choose a crossover point in the green zone. Yellow is not optimum, but won’t be a big problem.Orange is worse than yellow and red should be avoided.
I don't understand the column headings and the values in the tables. Are the values crossover frequency?

---

I'm a little late on this but the values in the table are maximum ideal frequency for a given diameter. In the column headings D is the diameter of the driver and λ is the wavelength for the given wavelength. λ in the graph is taken at sea level and 72 degrees Fahrenheit.
Take the Diameter of 6 inches for example:
The wavelength of 2260 Hz is 6 inches so that corresponds to λ=D which means that λ=1.5D is 9 inches and λ=2D is 12 inches.
So in an ideal world the highest you would play a 6 inch driver would be λ=4D which is 565 Hz and you would want your crossover frequency to be at or below 565 Hz. Since that is a bit of a tall order for some setups (my own included) He is suggesting a best practice of placing your crossover frequency at or below the λ=1.5D measurement of 1507 Hz. λ=D for the 6 inch driver is 2260 Hz and this is considered the beaming frequency.

*When I mention driver size I'm using the effective cone diameter and not overall diameter which is what the chart is using as well.

Nice explanation , el_bob-0 !

Do you see or associate "beaming" with a graph and the listing of degrees off-axis ?
Intended example: 30 deg/45deg/90deg ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkizeR

I just saw this thread stickied and thought the title was familiar. I remember reading the thread on diyma almost 10 years ago when i first joined. Now, i hate to be the negative nancy but i am very glad to see that this is advice from 20 years ago, because i cant picture this method of tuning being worth much even 10 years ago, let alone today.

---

I can't lie - after posting it, and seeing the replies, it did have me scratching my head a bit. But then after reading some of the Audiofrog Forum posts regarding tuning and setup, things started making a lot more sense.

Maybe we should start a new thread with modern tuning techniques and methods?

I haven't ran kick panels or anything resembling mechanically accommodating in many years so I pretty much stick with λ=D at 60°. I would like to work on aiming in order to make tuning a bit easier but I am the master of unfinished projects.

*λ=D at 60° is just what I shoot for, I would like to be more in line with λ=1.5D at 60°.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chithead

. .. . But then after reading some of the Audiofrog Forum posts regarding tuning and setup, things started making a lot more sense.

Maybe we should start a new thread with modern tuning techniques and methods?

---

A brand new tuning techniques layed out with steps in order , sounds used (pink noise, white noise, frequencies or sine waves . .
Would be Excellent !) Basically , a step-by-step process to "Maximize" your system !
Great Idea Daniel ! ! !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by el_bob-o

I haven't ran kick panels or anything resembling mechanically accommodating in many years so I pretty much stick with λ=D at 60°. I would like to work on aiming in order to make tuning a bit easier but I am the master of unfinished projects.

*λ=D at 60° is just what I shoot for, I would like to be more in line with λ=1.5D at 60°.

---

When the solid line goes into three lines with drop-off of dBs , Makes me think of useable output.

I have seen people expect "Way" too much out of a given mid , say 5.25" or 6 3/4" , in a two-way without a notch filter .

My Scans played very well from 250 hZ - 5,000 hZ , exception to "the rule"!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkizeR

I just saw this thread stickied and thought the title was familiar. I remember reading the thread on diyma almost 10 years ago when i first joined. Now, i hate to be the negative nancy but i am very glad to see that this is advice from 20 years ago, because i cant picture this method of tuning being worth much even 10 years ago, let alone today.

---

No problem being negative Nancy if you've tried it and it didn't work for your objectives however as I mentioned to someone on diyma back when who made a similar comment there are numerous ways to skin a cat and just because it may not work for you doesn't mean it won't work for someone elses objectives (the title states "a simple way to tune", not "the best way" or "the only way"). It seems many on these forums don't realize not everyone is a "hobbyist" or "enthusiast" looking to squeeze every last bit out of a system nor do they all have a nice processor along with the tools/experience to use them properly let alone any desire to spend the money on them and learn. I have found there are those out there just looking to get the "most" out of whatever gear they have/can afford without spending hours and hours tuning and I still believe some of this can be a benefit to some.

For the willing to learn hobbyist/enthusiast there are a ton of advanced tuning tutorials out there and I have devised my personal method from experimenting/combining procedures learned from many others more experienced. Is it the best way for everyone? Nope, but it is for me.I

And if someone has a "better" way to tune without a DSP/tools to get the most out of it they should definitely post it for those not willing to go that route.

And my typical disclaimer..I cannot hear what you can hear and you cannot hear what I can hear so our results may vary!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkizeR

I just saw this thread stickied and thought the title was familiar. I remember reading the thread on diyma almost 10 years ago when i first joined. Now, i hate to be the negative nancy but i am very glad to see that this is advice from 20 years ago, because i cant picture this method of tuning being worth much even 10 years ago, let alone today.

---

I am looking forward to your way of tuning for the 21rst century !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Marv

No problem being negative Nancy if you've tried it and it didn't work for your objectives however as I mentioned to someone on diyma back when who made a similar comment there are numerous ways to skin a cat and just because it may not work for you doesn't mean it won't work for someone elses objectives (the title states "a simple way to tune", not "the best way" or "the only way"). It seems many on these forums don't realize not everyone is a "hobbyist" or "enthusiast" looking to squeeze every last bit out of a system nor do they all have a nice processor along with the tools/experience to use them properly let alone any desire to spend the money on them and learn. I have found there are those out there just looking to get the "most" out of whatever gear they have/can afford without spending hours and hours tuning and I still believe some of this can be a benefit to some.

For the willing to learn hobbyist/enthusiast there are a ton of advanced tuning tutorials out there and I have devised my personal method from experimenting/combining procedures learned from many others more experienced. Is it the best way for everyone? Nope, but it is for me.I

And if someone has a "better" way to tune without a DSP/tools to get the most out of it they should definitely post it for those not willing to go that route.

And my typical disclaimer..I cannot hear what you can hear and you cannot hear what I can hear so our results may vary!

---

thats the thing. i cant think of any specific situation that falls in line with even halfway modern car audio that this would be a simple way to tune. You seem to indicate that its not for people looking to squeeze every bit out of their system, but when i think about it, the guys you are referring too dont really have the trained ears to pull off a "by ear" tune. I just think this thread needs a little note at the bottom that says "for systems that are from before the year 2000 and without access to new technology."... learning how to listen for stuff and tune by ear takes a very long time. your average joe will have a much quicker time using a basic rta app and adjusting levels and doing wide eq cuts that will end up with a much better outcome that takes maybe an hour or so as opposed to weeks like this guide suggests. Idk, call my cynical but i dont think this guide

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Queef

I am looking forward to your way of tuning for the 21rst century !

---

It was already posted. look at the audiofrog guide. Its very easy to follow and should only take someone new to tuning a few hours at most. Or see my Helix tuning thread that is also stickied in this sub-forum

I will check those out ( actually , was kinda hoping for the last minute , on your way to Emma/IASCA 1rst place stuff , name in a book

You've just installed your new speakers @ some place on the way and it's for all the marbles tune ?

SkizeR you are right about the guys you are referring to not really having the trained ears to pull off a "by ear" tune. Better to do a much quicker time using a basic rta app and adjusting levels and doing wide eq cuts that will end up with a much better outcome that takes maybe an hour or so .

I think an hour is plenty after you use stock locations for your daily driver/work truck/girlfriend's .

MP3's , earbuds ,. Et Cetera

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkizeR

It was already posted. look at the audiofrog guide. Its very easy to follow and should only take someone new to tuning a few hours at most. Or see my Helix tuning thread that is also stickied in this sub-forum

---

Holy shit, I just found and read that audiofrog tuning magazine. Man is my face red. Lol. I will stop bombarding you guys with questions that are very clearly answered in this little beauty. This article should come as a mandatory read for anyone with a DSP. ;-)

I wish I read this thing 3 months ago. Thanks again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkizeR

thats the thing. i cant think of any specific situation that falls in line with even halfway modern car audio that this would be a simple way to tune. You seem to indicate that its not for people looking to squeeze every bit out of their system, but when i think about it, the guys you are referring too dont really have the trained ears to pull off a "by ear" tune. I just think this thread needs a little note at the bottom that says "for systems that are from before the year 2000 and without access to new technology."... learning how to listen for stuff and tune by ear takes a very long time. your average joe will have a much quicker time using a basic rta app and adjusting levels and doing wide eq cuts that will end up with a much better outcome that takes maybe an hour or so as opposed to weeks like this guide suggests. Idk, call my cynical but i dont think this guide

---

As I mentioned I believe "some" of this will be beneficial to "some" depending on the gear they have available, what kind of "tune" they are looking for and what they are willing to do. I'm pretty sure you have the gear, experience to use it and the "desire" to go to another level with tuning so I can understand being a bit cynical of a simplistic method that would in no way satisfy your needs however your/my idea of a good tune" may be quite different than someone elses. Maybe you could do a simple "modern way" tutorial for guys who's objective is to just get the "cleanest" sound from his new speakers with no dsp/no decent tuning section headunit or just a factory headunit and no desire to have a solid soundstage or imaging(?)