Great video, however I tend to disagree with some things. Firstly if your measurements look different day to day, there is something wrong with your measuring technique. Spatial averaging is consistent if you are doing it right. The problems that you are describing happen with a single stationary microphone, not with a moving mic or a mic array. Secondly it's not wise to take measurements at low resolution such as 1/3rd and EQ with low Q bands. Smoothing, especially that high, like full octave or 1/3rd will "cover up" a lot of small peaks and dips and if there is a cancelation or a resonance, you will not see that and you will try to fix it with a wide EQ band. You need to take the highest resolution measurements at 1/48th and then decide what needs to be addressed and what you should not touch. You should not try to fix every peak and dip at higher frequencies and you should not try fixing cancelations. And with low resolution measurements you literally cannot see any of that. You are fixing everything with a wide brish strokes. A note about phase. Yes, EQ affects and "messes up" the electrical phase, however it will fix the acoustical phase. A messed up initial pre-EQ acoustical phase in combination with a messed up electrical phase will give you a flat acoustical phase post-EQ. And this is what you want. And thirdly, you mentioned your experience in competition. The judge told you that the system is not musical because of tonality. Tonality should be addressed by choosing a different target curve, not using wide EQ bands. Tonality is the overall system response. "Life" on a system might be more sparkle or more weight in the lower midrange to bring out vocals. It might be reducing silence, or addressing boomyness. All of that is your target, not high or low Q of the EQ bands that you are using.
Thanks for watching the video and for sharing your insights! I really appreciate the feedback, especially since your videos motivated me to share my understanding of car audio. 1) You're absolutely right about the importance of consistent measurement techniques. For this video, I aimed it more toward beginners who might not yet have the reliability in their measurements and could get bogged down in details that might not be accurate due to their measurement setup. The focus was on helping them avoid getting stuck on imperfections when their measurements might already be somewhat inconsistent. This was a big pain point for me early on, and I wish I had focused on the larger picture until I had more certainty. 2) You make a solid argument about using higher resolution, like 1/48th, to better identify and address specific issues. I should have clarified - I measure with the least amount of averaging and then filter down for making EQ adjustments. While I advocate for 1 > 1/3rd > 1/6th octave smoothing as a more practical approach for beginners, especially when they’re just starting to tune, I agree that higher resolution measurements are essential for more precise adjustments, particularly in more advanced or competitive environments. This ties back to the first point. I appreciate you expanding on this nuance-it's definitely something worth exploring further. As for the phase discussion, thanks for clarifying the impact of EQ on electrical vs. acoustical phase. It’s an important distinction, and I’ll consider diving deeper into this in future content to help others grasp the concept better. 3) I completely agree that the house curve is crucial for achieving the desired tonality. In my case, while the house curve was important, I don’t believe it was the sole reason for the issues with tonality. I’ve found that using sharp peaks and being too precise can sometimes be more constructive in theory than helpful in practice. I had a less-than-ideal measurement technique, and that combined with high Q filters that were overly corrective led to a response I’d now describe as peaky and irregular. I still think for beginners, smaller Qs are generally safer as they tend to address broader frequency trends without introducing as many potential issues. Thanks again for expanding on these nuances. There’s a lot here to think about, and I’m always open to learning and improving. Looking forward to any future discussions! Edit: typo
Good question! No, I measure in full resolution and use the 1/1 Oct > 1/3 > 1/6 Oct resolutions to guide my EQ adjustments. For me, this approach helps minimize unnecessary EQ. I still use 1/48 to spot sharp cancellations, check how the EQ is performing, and make precise tweaks as needed.
