Audio Engineering Society

Convention Paper 9393

Presented at the 139th Convention
2015 October 29–November 1 New York, USA

This paper was peer-reviewed as a complete manuscript for presentation at this Convention. This paper is available in the AES
E-Library, http://www.aes.org/e-lib. All rights reserved. Reproduction of this paper, or any portion thereof, is not permitted
without direct permission from the Journal of the Audio Engineering Society.

In-Vehicle Audio System Sound Quality

Preference Study
1
Patrick Dennis
1
Nissan North America, Farmington Hills, MI, 48331, USA
Patrick.Dennis@Nissan-Usa.com

ABSTRACT
In-vehicle audio systems present a unique listening environment. Listeners were asked to adjust the relative bass
and treble levels as well as fade and balance levels based on preference on three music programs reproduced through
a high quality in-vehicle audio system. The audio system frequency response was initially tuned similar to that
preferred for in-room loudspeakers. The fade control was initially set to give a frontal image with some rear
envelopment using two different rear speaker locations, rear deck and rear door, while the balance control was set to
give a center image between the center of the steering wheel and rearview mirror. Stage height was located on top of
the instrument panel (near head level). Results showed that on average listeners preferred +13 dB bass and -2 dB
treble compared to a flat response while fade was +3.5 dB rearward for rear deck mounted speakers,+2.6 dB
rearward for rear door mounted and balance was 0 dB. Significant variations between individual listeners were
observed.

Debates in the automotive audio world surround what is

1. INTRODUCTION the proper center image location as well the proper rear
speaker level. Should the center image be placed
The automobile listening environment has directly in front of the driver giving a sensation of
characteristics that are rather unique; a small space sitting center at a concert but which skews the sound
compared to a typical room, speakers off-axis to the stage shortening one side and stretching the other, or in
listener’s ears and near reflecting surfaces, speaker the middle of the vehicle which makes the listener feel
enclosures that are typically leaky with resonating as if sitting on the side of the stage, or somewhere in
panels and interior boundaries with differing acoustic between [2]? Should the rear speakers be used to give a
properties to name a few [1]. The small listening space sense of the ambience of the recording or used to
leads to fewer modes < 150 Hz and very low provide envelopment to the point where the listener
reverberation times. The interior boundaries and feels as if they are sitting in the middle of the
resonating panels lead to sound coloration and skewed performance?
imaging.
Dennis
Evidence exists that suggests listeners do have differing
preferences based on playback method. Olive et al [3]
investigated listener frequency response preferences for
in-room loudspeakers and headphones and found that on
average listeners preferred 2dB more bass and treble for
in-room loudspeakers when compared to headphones.
This paper describes a set of listening experiments to
help gain understanding of listener preferences in a
vehicle environment. 8 Expert and 95 non-Expert
listeners were asked to adjust the following on a high
quality in-vehicle audio system for 3 music tracks:
- Bass level only, treble fixed at 0dB (-3dB in
reference to flat)
- Treble level only, bass fixed at 0dB (+10dB in
reference to flat)
- Bass and treble level together
- Fade level with rear speakers in the rear deck
- Fade level with rear speakers in the rear doors
- Balance level
2. EXPERIMENTS ON PREFERRED LEVELS
(BASS, TREBLE, BALANCE AND FADE)
This section describes the test methodology used for this
study. This includes details of the vehicle set up,
equalization method, test procedure, program material
and listeners.
2.1. Vehicle Set-up
An aftermarket 13 speaker Rockford Fosgate audio
system was installed into a 2015 Nissan Altima. OEM
speaker locations were utilized along with some custom
locations for the front and rear tweeters as well as the
trunk for the subwoofer [4] (see Appendix for
locations). The vehicle doors (inner and outer sheet
metal) as well as rear deck were dampened with a sound
deadening material to reduce unwanted resonances. The
stock plastic trim grills were removed and replaced with
a metal or cloth based grill for better transparency.
The vehicle modifications were done to achieve the best
sound quality possible so that the in-vehicle listening
space was the dominant effect on the sound quality.
Because interior materials and quality are quite different
from an entry level vehicle to a luxury vehicle we were
most interested in the physical space without the
complications of the other aspects of a typical in-vehicle
audio system which involve trade-offs in sound design.
AES 139th Convention, New York, USA, 2015 October 29–November 1
Page 2 of 12
IN-VEHICLE SOUND QUALITY PREFERENCE
Further studies will be needed to investigate how trim
panel/sheet metal resonances, noise dampening, vehicle
noise during driving and other characteristics affect
sound quality preference.
2.2 Audio Equipment
The following audio equipment was installed into the
vehicle [5]:
-Roland Octa-Capture
-Rockford Fosgate 360.3 Signal Processor (x1)
-Rockford Fosgate Power Series T3-BMW3
(x2 sets) 4” component speaker set
-Rockford Fosgate Power Series T-165-S (x2
sets) 6.5” component speaker set
-Rockford Fosgate Power Series T-1692 (x1
set) 6x9 speakers
-Rockford Fosgate Punch Series PL3-112 12”
Subwoofer in ported enclosure
-Rockford Fosgate Power Series T600-2 (x1)
Power Amplifier
-Rockford Fosgate Power Series T400-4 (x3)
Power Amplifier
-KnuKonceptz Power wire (1/0 ga & 4 ga)
-KnuKonceptz Speaker wire (12 ga)
-Audio stereo switching box
2.3 Audio System Tuning
The audio system equalization approach was to
optimize each amplifier channel/speaker combination
individually first at the driver head location and then
incorporate the channels together, optimizing at each
stage.
First the impulse responses were measured through each
amplifier channel to the driver’s head location. Each
channel was then time aligned to the driver location.
The rear channel measurements (rear deck or rear door
depending on configuration) were averaged and a
common delay used for left rear and right rear.
Acoustic measurements for tuning were then performed
using a spatial average of 6 omnidirectional
microphones [6]. The target response was chosen to be
similar to the preferred in-home loudspeaker response,
with an additional 4 dB of bass gain (+10 dB total in
reference to flat) which made the audio system sound
more natural [7], see Fig. 1. Instead of flattening the
response from 200 Hz to 1.5 kHz, a downward slope
Dennis
was chosen from 200 Hz to 20 kHz. This provided a
more natural sound as well and gave depth to the stage.
This type of response was also most preferred for in-
room correction products [8]. Each front speaker’s
normal operating pass band was then equalized to this
frequency response. Next, the front speakers combined
output was measured and re-equalized to the target
response due to channel interactions (applying the
correcting EQ bands to all appropriate channels). The
rear speakers were equalized as a pair to the target
response and reduced 6 dB in level compared to the
front speakers to give a frontal image impression. Re-
equalization occurred a final time when the rear
speakers were introduced the system. Fig. 2, 3 and 4
show the in-vehicle measured responses.
Figure 1 - Preferred In-Room response from Olive et. al.
[3] vs In-Vehicle initial response
Figure 2 - In-Vehicle measured overall system 1/12
Octave response for both rear speaker configurations –
Rear Deck and Rear Door
AES 139th Convention, New York, USA, 2015 October 29–November 1
Page 3 of 12
IN-VEHICLE SOUND QUALITY PREFERENCE
Figure 3 - Measured In-Vehicle 1/12 Octave response
faded full front vs faded full rear, Rear Deck speakers
Figure 4 - Measured In-Vehicle 1/12 Octave response
faded full front vs faded full rear, Rear Door speakers
2.4 Bass and Treble Filters
The bass and treble filters were selected to be similar to
Olive et al [3], namely second order bass shelf filter set
at 105 Hz and a second order treble shelf filter set at 2.5
kHz. Listeners could adjust the levels in 1 dB
increments, +/- 10 dB.
Implementation of the bass and treble filters was done
using three Linkwitz-Riley filters; low-pass, band-pass
and high-pass. The gain of the low-pass and high-pass
filtered signals was modified (+/- 10 dB in 1 dB steps)
to mimic the bass and treble controls of the low shelf
filter at 105 Hz and the high shelf filter at 2.5 kHz. The
band-pass portion was filtered in two ways, 105 Hz to
2.5 kHz for use with the low-pass filtered files with gain
0 dB to + 10 dB, and 150 Hz to 2.5 kHz for use with the
low-pass filtered files with gain -1 dB to -10 dB. This
was done to achieve a better match to the response when
low shelf filters are used. Fig. 5 shows the Linkwitz-
Riley filtered approach vs using actual shelving filters.
Dennis
When the listener adjusted the bass or treble control, the
test program would pick the appropriate signal, i.e. if
the listener wanted +3 dB of bass and – 3 dB of treble,
the program would mix the +3 dB low-pass signal, the
inverted band-pass signal and the -3 dB high-pass signal
together. Fig. 6 shows the response difference between
the original signal and the original signal reconstructed
from the 3 Linkwitz-Riley filtered signals.
Figure 5 - Shelving Filters vs Linkwitz-Riley Approach
Figure 6 - Difference of the original signal vs the
reconstruction of the original after Linkwitz-Riley
filtering (LP, BP & HP)
2.5 Loudness Compensation
Adjusting the levels of bass and treble will alter the
overall perceived loudness of the program material. To
negate this influence, loudness correction was applied.
Each bass/treble level combination for each track was
passed through a K-weighted filter [9] and the overall
level was measured and recorded in a matrix.
Depending on the listener’s bass and treble selection,
the appropriate gain offset was applied.
AES 139th Convention, New York, USA, 2015 October 29–November 1
Page 4 of 12
IN-VEHICLE SOUND QUALITY PREFERENCE
2.6 Fade Control
The fade curve was constructed so that the loudness and
frequency response of the material stayed relatively
constant regardless of the control position. The low-
passed signal was not controlled by the fader, only the
band-pass and high-passed signals in order to keep the
bass level and overall response as constant as possible.
The initial setting was randomized Front/Rear:
-0.5dB/2.5dB to 1dB/-2.5dB
2.7 Balance Control
The balance control simply attenuated the left or right
channel in 0.5 dB increments. The initial setting was
randomized Left or Right 0 to -2.5dB
2.8 Method of Adjustment
A method of adjustment (MOA) procedure was used to
measure listener’s preferred bass, treble, balance and
fade levels. The listeners were able to listen to a music
loop and directly adjust the volume as well as level of
bass and/or treble, fade, or balance according to their
preference. This was completed once for each music
program.
Originally we were only going to allow bass along with
treble adjustments but found during trials that this was
confusing with the loudness compensation. We then
added bass or treble only level tasks to facilitate the
adjustments.
To administer the listening tests, custom software was
written in LabVIEW 7.1 utilizing Windows 7
Professional. The software was controlled by the test
administrator and controlled volume, track playback,
combined the *.wav files for bass/treble level, faded
front/rear utilizing custom fade curves, and balanced left
or right based on listener’s input. It also collected and
stored their responses in text files which were organized
and analyzed in Excel and Minitab. The test controls
were labelled, but the listener had no indicators for
verification of the amount or direction of what they
were adjusting, they had to rely solely on their ears.
The GUI for the test administrator is shown in Fig. 7
For each trial the initial setting(s) for the specific test
was randomized but avoided extremes (+/- 5dB for
bass/treble, +/- 2.5 dB for fade, +/- 2.5 dB for balance).
The music tracks were randomized between listeners as
well as the tests in each subgroup. The test subgroup
Dennis IN-VEHICLE SOUND QUALITY PREFERENCE

order was bass/treble tests first, fade/balance tests last.
We were most interested in the bass and treble level
settings and added the fade/balance test as additional
data for collection.
2.10 Program Selections
The music selections were the same used in Olive et al
[3] so that data from this preference study could be
loosely compared.

Program/Artist/Track/Album Description
JW - Jennifer Warnes/Bird on a
Female Pop
Wire/Famous Blue Raincoat/
Vocal
Cypress Records, 1986

SD - Steely Dan/Cousin
Male Pop
Dupree/Two Against Nature/
Vocal
Giant Records/ 2000
ES - Estelle w. Kanye West/
Male/Female
American Boy Shine/
Figure 7 - Test GUI used by Test Administrator Hip Hop
Shine/Atlantic Records, 2008
Table 1 - Details on the music selections used for these
As in Olive et al [3] three Griffin Powermate [10] USB listening experiments
assignable controllers were used, one for bass, one for
treble and one for fade/balance/volume. The controls The programs were digitally transferred from compact
are continuously rotary with no detents so as not to bias disc and edited into 20 – 30 s loops. Fig. 8 shows the
the listener with visual or tactile feedback related to the average long-term spectrum of the three music loops
position of the knob. No dead zones were incorporated indicating they were sufficiently spectrally dense and
into the knobs for ease of test facilitation. The broadband for this test.
sensitivities of the knobs were set to minimum for bass
and treble, and ¾ for fade. These sensitivity settings
along with loudness compensation made it difficult to
identify the control extremes.

2.9 Listening Test Procedure

Listeners completed 6 tasks for 3 tracks for a total of 18

tests. The listener participated in a demonstration mode
prior to data collection in order to get familiar with the
music selections, controls and scope of each task. The
listener was encouraged to investigate the range of each
control and its sensitivity to gain familiarity with its
Figure 8 - 1/6 Octave smoothed long term average of
function. Once the listener was comfortable the test
the music tracks used
began. Each participant was instructed to adjust each
control to their desired preference. The listener could
2.11 Selection of Listeners
take as much time as needed to derive at their preferred
setting.
A total of 103 listeners participated in these listening
tests. Each listener was asked their level of audio
experience from “Expert” to “Listen Scarcely” (Fig. 9).
There was no qualification for “Expert” since no test
such as Harman “How To Listen” [11,12] was

AES 139th Convention, New York, USA, 2015 October 29–November 1

Page 5 of 12
Dennis
administered to verify the assessment. The groups
“Knowledgeable”, “Casual Listener”, “Listen Rarely”
and “Listen Scarcely” were combined to form the group
“Non-Expert” for statistical analysis. The listeners
consisted of (Fig. 10):
-Males = 83
-Females = 20
-Age Range = 18 to 61
-Median Age = 36
Figure 9 - Participant experience levels
Figure 10- Participant age breakdown
3 RESULTS
Section 3.1 presents the overall results. Section 3.2
presents the results for the two parameter method of
adjustment (MOA) tonal tests (volume along with bass
or treble) and three parameter MOA tests (volume along
with bass and treble). Section 3.3 presents the results
for the two parameter MOA spatial tests (volume along
with fade or balance). All statistical tests were
performed at a significance level of 5%.
AES 139th Convention, New York, USA, 2015 October 29–November 1
Page 6 of 12
IN-VEHICLE SOUND QUALITY PREFERENCE
3.1 Overall Results
Following are the overall averages and standard
deviations for each category tested:
Parameter Avg Std Dev
Volume 86.8 dBC 6.9
Bass (Bass + Treble Test) 3.2 dB 4.2
Treble (Bass + Treble Test) 2.1 dB 3.9
Bass Only 3.2 dB 3.7
Treble Only 0.9 dB 3.4
Center Image (L-R) 0 dB 3.1
Fade (Rear Deck F-R) -3.5 dB 7.6
Fade (Rear Door F-R) -2.6 dB 6.6
Comparing the bass and treble levels to Olive et al [3]
the most notable deviation is preferred bass level, +13.2
dB in relation to a flat response in-vehicle compared to
+6.6 dB for in-room. Treble response in-vehicle was
similar to the preferred response in-room, around -2 dB
in relation to a flat response.
So why the difference in preferred bass level in
vehicles? This amount of gain is consistent with
automotive audio systems regarded as having good
sound [7]. The space in a vehicle is quite small,
resulting in a reduced number of modes < 150 Hz
compared to a typical small room. Also, reverberation
times are less, leaving the main source of bass energy as
direct sound. It possibly could be that the lack of modes
and reverberant reinforcement caused a psychoacoustic
effect of the audio system lacking preferred bass at
lower gain levels.
Bass gain of this magnitude is not uncommon. One
argument for the need of a significantly increased bass
response is to overcome masking due to background
noise [13]. This may be true, but this study was
conducted with the vehicle stationary, which suggests
the significant increase in bass is also needed due to the
characteristics of a vehicle environment.
3.2 Two Parameter and Three Parameter MOA
Tonal Results
Multi-Variant Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) and
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) were performed
separately for each of the 2 two parameter MOA tonal
tests and the single three parameter MOA tonal test.
For the bass only and treble only tests (Bass O, Treb O)
the fixed independent variables were Program (3 levels)
Dennis IN-VEHICLE SOUND QUALITY PREFERENCE

and Listener Experience (2 levels: Expert and non-

Expert). The dependent variables were volume position
and either: preferred bass or treble. For the bass and
treble together tests the fixed independent variables
were Program (3 Levels) and Listener Experience (2
Levels). The dependent variables were volume, bass
(Bass BT) and treble (Treb BT). Volume position was
divided into 5 groups: 75 < 80dBC, 80 < 85dBC, 85 <
90dBC, 90 < 95dBC and 95 < 100dBC. Volumes below
75 dBC and above 100dBC were not used in the
MANOVA/ANOVA due to very low sample sizes. C-
weighting was used so levels could be compared to the
82dBC level used in Olive et. al. [3] Figure 12- Preferred bass and treble by Experience (Avg
& Std Dev)
There were no significant factors found for the 2 two
parameter tests, and only 1 significant factor for the Figs. 13, 14, 15 and 16 show the distribution of
three parameter test, Listener Experience. Since preferred bass and treble levels between Programs
loudness compensation was used for this study, it did (American Boy =AB, Bird on a Wire = BW, Cousin
create another possible factor of confusion for the Dupree = CD). The distribution was relatively uniform.
participants which could be the reason for the measured
significance. However, the bass and treble levels
differed by only 1.4 dB and 0.7 dB respectively.

Using a T-test to compare the two MOA test methods

for bass and treble, only the categories Treb BT vs Treb
O were significant for listener groups All and Non-
Expert even though the differences were 1.8 dB and 1.1
dB respectively. This gives further evidence that
possibly the loudness correction confounded the bass
and treble together test for Non-Experts somewhat.

Fig 11 shows the bass and treble breakdown by volume

for both MOA test methods. Figure 13 – Bass Only by program breakdown

Fig. 12 shows the levels preferred by the Non-Experts

and Experts, the bass/treble only “O” tests not
significant, the bass/treble together “BT” being
significant for Listener Experience.

Figure 14 – Treble Only by program breakdown

Figure 11- Preferred bass and treble by volume (Avg &

Std Dev)

AES 139th Convention, New York, USA, 2015 October 29–November 1

Page 7 of 12
Dennis IN-VEHICLE SOUND QUALITY PREFERENCE

Figure 15 – Bass BT by program breakdown Figure 18 – Volume Level breakdown Non-Expert

Figs. 19 and 20 show the gender breakdown. Bass and

treble levels were similar. Females listened at a slightly
lower level (84.6 dBC vs 87.4 dBC).

Figure 16 – Treb BT by program breakdown

Figs. 17 and 18 show the distribution of volume for

Experts and Non-Experts by program. The distribution
among programs was relatively uniform, with the Figure 19 – Bass/Treble by gender (Avg & Std Dev)
Experts listening at a higher volume, 90.6 dBC vs 86.5
dBC for the non-Experts on average. Overall average
level was 86.8 dBC.

Figure 20 – Volume by gender

Figure 17 – Volume Level breakdown Expert

AES 139th Convention, New York, USA, 2015 October 29–November 1

Page 8 of 12
Dennis
3.3 Two Parameter MOA Spatial Results
MANOVA and ANOVA were performed for each two
parameter spatial test. For the fade test the fixed
independent variables were Playback Method (2 levels:
Rear Deck location and Rear Door location), Program
(3 levels) and Listener Experience (2 levels: Expert and
non-Expert). The dependent variables were preferred
volume and fade position. The balance test had the
same fixed independent variables, dependent variables
were preferred volume and balance position.
No significant factors where found. The values in the
following graphs were calculated as left minus right for
balance, front minus rear for fade.
Fig. 21 shows Balance/Fade comparison by Experience
and Fig. 22 by Volume. It appears that the preference
for the sound is to be more enveloping than the
reference sound of the performance in front of the
listener and ambience cues from the rear. This desired
amount of level may differ depending on the signals
delivered to the rear speakers, ambience only vs
duplicating the front channel signals. Further study will
be needed.
Figure 21 - Balance/Fade by Experience (Avg & Std
Dev)
Figure 22 – Balance/Fade by Volume (Avg & Std Dev)
AES 139th Convention, New York, USA, 2015 October 29–November 1
Page 9 of 12
IN-VEHICLE SOUND QUALITY PREFERENCE
It was surprising there was no significant difference
measured between Rear Deck location vs Rear Door.
With the Rear Deck speaker location the sound stage
height was preserved near head level, while the rear
door location pulled the stage height down, more so the
further rear the participant faded.
For the balance position, it appears as if the listeners on
average are more interested in a balanced sound stage.
The preferred position put the center image between the
steering wheel and rearview mirror with a relatively
uniform stage distribution from left A-pillar to right A-
pillar instead of having the center image directly in front
of them which shortened the stage on the driver side and
expanded it towards the passenger side. This was true
for Experts and Non-Experts alike.
Fig. 23 Shows levels preferred between programs and
Fig. 24 shows levels preferred between gender.
Figure 23 Balance/Fade comparison by program (Avg
& Std Dev)
Figure 24 Balance/Fade by Gender (Avg & Std Dev)
Dennis
4 OBJECTIVE MEASUREMENTS OF
PREFERRED TARGET RESPONSES
Fig 25 plots the preferred bass and treble for Bass Only
Treble Only test (+3.2 dB, +0.9 dB respectively) as well
as for the Bass and Treble together test (+3.2dB, +2.1dB
respectively).
Fig 26 shows that a flat response was possible to
achieve with our test set-up if bass was set at -9 dB and
treble +2 dB. Since the vehicle will be used for other
tasks we did not want flat as the initial tuning selection
due to the time involved in the tuning process.
Figure 25 – Preferred frequency response
Figure 26 – Flat response was possible with setup
Fig 27 plots the starting response along with the bass
and treble at maximum and minimum settings. Fig 28
shows the same plots and includes the effect of K-
weighting gain offset applied.
AES 139th Convention, New York, USA, 2015 October 29–November 1
Page 10 of 12
IN-VEHICLE SOUND QUALITY PREFERENCE
Figure 27 – In-Vehicle response with Bass/Treb at
Max/Detent/Min
Figure 28 – In-Vehicle Response with Bass/Treb at
Max/Detent/Min with K-weighting applied
5 CONCLUSIONS
This study took a different approach to capture sound
quality preferences than Olive et al [3] in that many
subjects were tested only one time instead of a few
subjects multiple times. This was done to get a quick
broad look at what people prefer regarding in-vehicle
audio system sound quality in regards to the space of a
vehicle environment. Because of this approach, some
participants noted that they would have liked more time
to ensure the settings they chose are indeed what they
preferred.
Comparing the amount of bass and treble to Olive et al
[3], there is approximately 6.5dB more bass preferred
in-vehicle compared to in-room listening but the
preferred treble amount is quite similar, -2.4dB for
Olive et al [3]; -1.9 dB to -3.1 dB for in-vehicle. This
provides further evidence that indeed the listener does
listen to both the loudspeaker and the surrounding
environment at the lower frequencies.
Dennis IN-VEHICLE SOUND QUALITY PREFERENCE

For the Fade tests the initial setting was set to a frontal
stage, height at top of instrumental panel (near head
height) with some ambience contribution from the rear
speakers. Listeners tended to fade the control further
rearward (approximately 3 dB), increasing the
envelopment feeling provided by the rear speakers. The
sensation was more preference then reference, a less
dominant frontal image with noticeable rear
contribution. Future work is needed to study this effect
with different rear speaker signals, such as ambience
information only.
The starting location for the center image was centered
between the steering wheel and rear view mirror. The
listeners on average did not move the image from this
location. It appears they are looking for a wide, evenly
spaced stage instead of one that tends to be narrowly
focused and directly in front of them.
6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author would like to thank Nissan who supported
this work, Alex Nelson of Kettering University whose
diligence made this project a success and Rockford
Fosgate whose resources and experience were
invaluable.
7 REFERENCES
[6] Geddes E., Blind H., “The Localized Sound Power
Method”, JAES Vol 34, Issue 3, March 1986
[7] Rumsey F., “Orchestrating Automotive Audio –
Uneven Bass Reproduction in Automobiles”, JAES
Vol 56, Issue 4, April 2008
[8] Olive S.E., Jackson J., Devantier A., Hunt D. and
Hess S., “The Subjective and Objective Evaluation
of Room Correction Products”, 127th Convention,
Audio Eng. Soc., preprint no. 7960, New York,
(2009, October)
[9] ITU BS.1770-3 Algorithms to Measure Audio
Programme Loudness and True Peak Audio Level
[10] Griffin Powermate 3.0,
http://store.griffintechnology.com/laptops/powerma
te (July 2013)
[11] Harman How to Listen: A Listener Training
Software Program for Mac and Windows,
www.harmanhowtolisten.blogspot.com (March
2013)
[12] Olive S. E., “Differences in Performance and
Preference of Trained versus Untrained Listeners in
Loudspeaker Tests: A Case Study” JAES Vol 51,
Issue 9, September 2003

[1] Shively R., “Automotive Audio Design (A [13] Davis M., “Automotive Audio – Equalization of
Tutorial)” 109th Convention, Audio Eng. Soc., Car Audio Systems”, JAES Vol 51, Issue 6, June
preprint no 5276, Los Angeles (2000 September) 2003

[2] Smithers M., “Improved Stereo Imaging in

Automobiles” 123rd Convention, Audio Eng. Soc.,
preprint no. 7223, New York, (2007 October)

[3] Olive S.E., Welti T. & McMullin E., “Listener

Preferences for In-Room Loudspeaker and
Headphone Target Responses” 135th Convention,
Audio Eng. Soc., preprint no. 8994, New York,
(2013 October)

[4] Shively R., Halley J., Malbos F., Ruiz G., “Optimal
Location and orientation for Midrange and High
Frequency Loudspeakers in the Instrument Panel of
an Automotive Interior” 129th Convention, Audio
Eng. Soc., preprint no.8249, San Francisco, (2010
November)

[5] www.rockfordfosgate.com

AES 139th Convention, New York, USA, 2015 October 29–November 1

Page 11 of 12
Dennis IN-VEHICLE SOUND QUALITY PREFERENCE

8 APPENDIX

System Diagram

T-400 - 4

T-400 - 4

T-400 - 4

T-600 - 2

AES 139th Convention, New York, USA, 2015 October 29–November 1

Page 12 of 12