Where Does Clarity Come From?

[Dyno]

I listen to music on three systems -- one car with the optional Harman Kardon system, another car with a Bowers and Wilkins system, and my modest Yamaha/ Klipsch bookshelf system. My favorite is the B&W system, but I'm not sure what makes it better, except that everything seems cleaner and clearer somehow. The frequency responses of the B&W system (green line) and my home theater system (red line) are system below.

I may have found part of the reason why the car system sounds better... VOLUME. Before I started my pink noise RTA recording in the car, I set the volume to the "Dad's rocking out" setting, approximately 80 dBA on a favorite tune. OK, fine. But, when I went inside to repeat the measurements at the same volume in my home, all I can say is "Yikes!". I'm glad nobody else was home. The windows were rattling. I'd never listen at that volume at home.

It's often said that the music seems to "open up" as you increase the volume and I seem to be much more comfortable with high-volume listening in the car. That may be one reason it sounds clearer to me.

What else contributes to clarity?

 

[Todd Anderson]

"Dad's Rocking Out" Setting. BRILLIANT!

Your car system is factory installed? Or is it aftermarket?

 

[Sonnie Parker]

Good thread... love it!

Music and everything opens up for me with volume increase, because I'm HARD OF HEARING!!! ... lol

I just got a new 2025 F150 Platinum Plus with the B&O “Unleashed” sound system by Bang & Olufsen that features 14 speakers.
It actually sounds pretty good, except for the sub bass, the mid bass, the mids, and the upper end.

I cranked it up last night when Pink Floyd's Learning to Fly came on, and it was sorely lacking. BUT... I've spoiled myself with high-end custom car systems over the years, and of course, a great-sounding home audio room. I may end up doing something custom in the Ford.

 

[Gerry Iaria]

I have a Kia EV3, but the sound system it's ok, it seems that everything you play in the car sounds good, must be the proximity of the speakers and in a small space compared to a home system

 

[Todd Anderson]

Good thread... love it!

Music and everything opens up for me with volume increase, because I'm HARD OF HEARING!!! ... lol

I just got a new 2025 F150 Platinum Plus with the B&O “Unleashed” sound system by Bang & Olufsen that features 14 speakers.
It actually sounds pretty good, except for the sub bass, the mid bass, the mids, and the upper end.

I cranked it up last night when Pink Floyd's Learning to Fly came on, and it was sorely lacking. BUT... I've spoiled myself with high-end custom car systems over the years, and of course, a great-sounding home audio room. I may end up doing something custom in the Ford.

We have a Platinum Expedition Max with a similar B&O system... I'm admittedly not a "car audio" guy, meaning I haven't made changes to a car audio system since the late 1980s when I swapped out the radio in my Dodge Omni with a Pioneer tape deck head. BUT, I think the B&O systems sounds pretty good. Dare I say: Quite Good?!?

 

[Todd Anderson]

"Dad's Rocking Out" Setting. BRILLIANT!

Your car system is factory installed? Or is it aftermarket?

So, I'm wondering if its factory, because if it is, then it's likely tuned by something like Dirac (or it very well could be Dirac). The majority of their business is in the shadows of the car audio world. In fact, Active Room Treatment is based on technologies from their car audio tech.

When it comes to cars, the repeatable and known nature the interior of each car model, really allows them to dial in the correction applied to each specific audio environment. Don't quote me on this, but I believe their car version of ART extends beyond low frequencies (whereas, in the home you're limited to low frequencies).

And that could be exactly what you're hearing. The clarity might be a more defined spatial presentation?

I'd be curious to outline what clarity means... because it could mean quite a few things!

 

[Bright Side HT]

I listen to music on three systems -- one car with the optional Harman Kardon system, another car with a Bowers and Wilkins system, and my modest Yamaha/ Klipsch bookshelf system. My favorite is the B&W system, but I'm not sure what makes it better, except that everything seems cleaner and clearer somehow. The frequency responses of the B&W system (green line) and my home theater system (red line) are system below.
View attachment 87328
I may have found part of the reason why the car system sounds better... VOLUME. Before I started my pink noise RTA recording in the car, I set the volume to the "Dad's rocking out" setting, approximately 80 dBA on a favorite tune. OK, fine. But, when I went inside to repeat the measurements at the same volume in my home, all I can say is "Yikes!". I'm glad nobody else was home. The windows were rattling. I'd never listen at that volume at home.

It's often said that the music seems to "open up" as you increase the volume and I seem to be much more comfortable with high-volume listening in the car. That may be one reason it sounds clearer to me.

What else contributes to clarity?

Here’s what I think is happening which I have recently experienced myself.
You set your “Volume” to 80db in the car and to achieve that you need to think of the power it will take to hit 80db at the measuring point. Every foot you get away from the speaker the sound wave degrades. So the closer to the speaker tin are the louder it will be. In a car you are typically sitting in the single digits in feet away from every speaker. So it’s reasonable to assume that the volume level at the speaker isn’t going to be much more that the volume level at the measuring point.
Now go into the home. You typically are MANY feet away from the speakers. 80db at the measuring point is going to take more power and make the volume at the speaker substantially louder. And all that power is sending out all the frequencies in all directions thus shaking the house just trying to achieve 80db at a good distance away.
Now think of this, less power to achieve 80db means the decay of those frequencies is quicker so there’s less reflections hitting the listening position multiple times. The less reflected sound hitting the listening position is going to sound clearer.

Does that make sense?

 

[Todd Anderson]

Hmmm... late reflections can certainly smear clarity. But early reflections can be super important in reinforcing sound. Tough call on how to interpret that. You'd have to do some measurements to see if that's what's happening.

 

[fattire]

I'd be curious to outline what clarity means... because it could mean quite a few things!

I'm a calibrator by trade and adhere to the Home Acoustics Alliance definition of clarity. To paraphrase, clarity is the “prime” acoustical goal and the sum of the 5 criteria: focus, envelopment, smoothness, dynamics, and consistency. Clarity places its emphasis on dialogue intelligibility, music lyrics, quiet background details, and an overall sense of realism.

There are a LOT of things that go into those major metrics. Smoothness for example, is in both the magnitude (frequency) and decay (time) domains. Dynamics is limited by how *quiet* a room can get, not how loudly the system can play. However, if the 5 criteria listed above are good, then clarity will also be good. I often calibrate rooms that have a good magnitude response, but horrible decay times resulting in poor clarity. Lack of room treatments, improperly placed room treatments, or the incorrect treatment type(s) for the room/speakers are the usual suspects. It could also be a poorly located, aimed, or designed speaker (one whose on and off axis frequency responses don't match). Dynamics are limited by the noise floor of the room. Air conditioners, street noise, fans from projectors and amplifiers all raise the noise floor.

Hmmm... late reflections can certainly smear clarity. But early reflections can be super important in reinforcing sound. Tough call on how to interpret that. You'd have to do some measurements to see if that's what's happening.

It gets interesting as focus and envelopment are *opposing* goals! Increasing focus typically decreases envelopment and vice-a-versa. Some of this comes down to client preferences for sure.

 

[Todd Anderson]

I'm a calibrator by trade and adhere to the Home Acoustics Alliance definition of clarity. To paraphrase, clarity is the “prime” acoustical goal and the sum of the 5 criteria: focus, envelopment, smoothness, dynamics, and consistency. Clarity places its emphasis on dialogue intelligibility, music lyrics, quiet background details, and an overall sense of realism.

There are a LOT of things that go into those major metrics. Smoothness for example, is in both the magnitude (frequency) and decay (time) domains. Dynamics is limited by how *quiet* a room can get, not how loudly the system can play. However, if the 5 criteria listed above are good, then clarity will also be good. I often calibrate rooms that have a good magnitude response, but horrible decay times resulting in poor clarity. Lack of room treatments, improperly placed room treatments, or the incorrect treatment type(s) for the room/speakers are the usual suspects. It could also be a poorly located, aimed, or designed speaker (one whose on and off axis frequency responses don't match). Dynamics are limited by the noise floor of the room. Air conditioners, street noise, fans from projectors and amplifiers all raise the noise floor.



It gets interesting as focus and envelopment are *opposing* goals! Increasing focus typically decreases envelopment and vice-a-versa. Some of this comes down to client preferences for sure.

THAT is exactly what I was looking for.

Your ears must be so highly attuned to sound... both a blessing and a curse... you must walk into quite a few situations and just cringe!

 

[Chuck Gerlach]

I'm a calibrator by trade and adhere to the Home Acoustics Alliance definition of clarity. To paraphrase, clarity is the “prime” acoustical goal and the sum of the 5 criteria: focus, envelopment, smoothness, dynamics, and consistency. Clarity places its emphasis on dialogue intelligibility, music lyrics, quiet background details, and an overall sense of realism.

There are a LOT of things that go into those major metrics. Smoothness for example, is in both the magnitude (frequency) and decay (time) domains. Dynamics is limited by how *quiet* a room can get, not how loudly the system can play. However, if the 5 criteria listed above are good, then clarity will also be good. I often calibrate rooms that have a good magnitude response, but horrible decay times resulting in poor clarity. Lack of room treatments, improperly placed room treatments, or the incorrect treatment type(s) for the room/speakers are the usual suspects. It could also be a poorly located, aimed, or designed speaker (one whose on and off axis frequency responses don't match). Dynamics are limited by the noise floor of the room. Air conditioners, street noise, fans from projectors and amplifiers all raise the noise floor.



It gets interesting as focus and envelopment are *opposing* goals! Increasing focus typically decreases envelopment and vice-a-versa. Some of this comes down to client preferences for sure.

I'm a calibrator by "hobby" [smiley face here]. ^^ What he said. And to emphasize my personal bias, "it's always the room"

 

[fattire]

Your ears must be so highly attuned to sound... both a blessing and a curse... you must walk into quite a few situations and just cringe!

Anyone can learn how to listen, but yeah, once you hear something, you can't "unhear" it. The good news is that a lot of situations are easier to fix than you think. Getting the basics correct like speaker and sub positions, aim, levels, and delay cost nothing and have hugely audible benefits.

 

[Philker]

While 80 dB may be safe for a listening period of reasonable length, constant exposure over many years could potentially contribute to gradual hearing loss in susceptible individuals. Just saying.

 

[Bob Rapoport]

In a car, there are no walls, its like sitting inside a pair of headphones. Because you're ears are closer to the speakers in a car, it will sound clearer. In most home systems, people sit much too far back from the speakers so they hear the room's reflections before they hear the direct sound of the recording from the speakers. This creates a loss of clarity. Its all about distance and damping out the reflections by sitting closer to the speakers is a reliable way to add clarity. Toe'ing the speakers in so they're aimed at your ears in the sweet spot listening position, on-axis listening also adds clarity.

 

[fattire]

Toe'ing the speakers in so they're aimed at your ears in the sweet spot listening position, on-axis listening also adds clarity.

Only if the speaker is designed or well suited for that. Toeing speakers in increases focus but decreases envelopment as less energy is going into the reflected sound. There's certainly some personal preferences that come into play.

Coaxial speakers are an example that typically need to be aimed at least a bit off-axis. The woofer is the waveguide for the tweeter in these designs. The movement of the waveguide during content results in a rougher on-axis response compared to the off-axis response. Aiming a bit off-axis moves the listener into the naturally smoother response area for the driver arrangement

There are other benefits of coaxial speakers that I find help clarity though. They tend to have even and consistent vertical and horizontal dispersion. Reflections are more consistent throughout the room which helps a lot. Traditional speaker designs with a mid/woofer below a tweeter have rough vertical dispersion which needs to be addressed through acoustic treatment.

These are very general examples and not rules. There are well designed speakers of all different design topologies. Excellent clarity is a result of good speakers, well placed, with good acoustic treatment tailored to the speakers and room they're in.

 

[linearphase]

I listen to music on three systems -- one car with the optional Harman Kardon system, another car with a Bowers and Wilkins system, and my modest Yamaha/ Klipsch bookshelf system. My favorite is the B&W system, but I'm not sure what makes it better, except that everything seems cleaner and clearer somehow. The frequency responses of the B&W system (green line) and my home theater system (red line) are system below.
View attachment 87328
I may have found part of the reason why the car system sounds better... VOLUME. Before I started my pink noise RTA recording in the car, I set the volume to the "Dad's rocking out" setting, approximately 80 dBA on a favorite tune. OK, fine. But, when I went inside to repeat the measurements at the same volume in my home, all I can say is "Yikes!". I'm glad nobody else was home. The windows were rattling. I'd never listen at that volume at home.

It's often said that the music seems to "open up" as you increase the volume and I seem to be much more comfortable with high-volume listening in the car. That may be one reason it sounds clearer to me.

What else contributes to clarity?

I am responding to this simply because somebody or a bot sent this msg:

If you get a minute and can jump in on this thread of the week, we'd love to hear your thoughts:

Where Does Clarity Come From?:
https://www.avnirvana.com/threads/where-does-clarity-come-from.15973/

In the past, I have tried to respond carefully, but my opinions were sometimes not appreciated. But given the invite, I will give it a go.

I agree with fattire’s comments, they are an expansion of an industry-defined acoustic measurement found in REW called CLARITY. One difference is that it is simply the measurement of the ratio of energy arriving directly from the source (the first 50-80mS) of sound to that arrives later. It is expressed in dB, with higher numbers being better. So, a well-damped room, say with a broad and flat Rt60 of 450mS or less, or outdoors, will have very good clarity for any given speaker(s). A car, by definition, is a very small room, and so the reflections are concentrated in the early arrival range, so it can have good clarity. It is well known that early arrivals promote a lack of imaging specificity.
Horn speakers are more directional, so they beam much of the energy directly to the user’s ear, thus often have good clarity. Headphones have great clarity.

However, here we are talking about subjective impressions of clarity, which is a much different thing. Certainly, one person’s feeling about how clear one system is vs another depends on what one includes in this definition. I can see that broad dynamic range, low noise, smooth on- and off-axis response, and the lack of prominent reflections after the first arrival would enhance clarity.

To illustrate some of these points, here are a few measurements from a friend in Bangkok, Thailand, that I am currently helping. Since I am long way from there, I have to use his ears and hundreds of measurements to optimize the system.

This is a large room, 30' L x 18' W x 12’ ceilings. the walls are slightly curved. There is NO EQ because he doesn't have this capability, but the room has been treated with a bare minimum of acoustic materials (absorption and diffusion) and to the extent his wife allows. Here we used just a few hundred dollars worth including a few he DIY'd.
All these are R channel only. The speakers are significantly repaired and slightly tweaked Dahlquist DQ10 from the early 80s. Because he had no EQ available all response adjustments were done using the curves as shown below- through 5 major iterations. Hundreds of curves total. I lost the original curve but it was +/- 15dB as I recall.

The 1st curve Right MLP is simply the at R ear measurement of magnitude response. It is a little bumpy but about as good as you can get with DQ10's given their design philosophy (mainly the GEN1 crosstalk cancellation design). It closely follows my preferred MLP curve which is a mutation of the Bob Katz and Harmon curves with my preferences added in. It should noted it has gradually mutated over a nearly 100 peoples systems whom I have helped set up.

The 2nd is the Energy Time Curve (ETC). Here you can see well-controlled reflections, except for one at 6.4mS. I try as much as possible to keep all reflections below 10% of the 1st arrival. This curve is the primary basis of the clarity curve.

The 3rd is ROOM RT60— you will note this is not perfect but acceptable above about 100Hz. I also allowed it to rise above below 400Hz because enough bass absorbers were too big to fit the minimal room esthetic. I could have improved this, but the large LIMP mass absorbers I designed did not fit the WAF criteria.

The 4th is the CLARITY curve. Besides the usual C50 /C80 curves, I have included my preferred C7 curve. Recall the number after C is the number of mS that are included in the direct/reflected sound ratio calculations. I use C7 to judge imaging clarity, specificity, and positioning accuracy.

Note that these graphs all come from the SAME data. They are just mathematical transformations of the original amplitude vs time data.

If you are familiar with these curves you will see the relationships between them and have some insight into what affects what.
If not And if you are interested I can answer questions. It has taken me about 40 + years at about 5 hours of study per week to get to the point where I can do this remotely.
This particular individual had (self admittedly) no math and a weak science background so it took bit longer. He reports the sound to be greatly improved to the point where his wife even noticed it without prompting.