I'll say it again, as I've said over and over. YOU, Tom Nousaine, keep
spouting that we are only offering "conjecture", and yet you have provided
nothing more yourself. You are conjecturing as much as the next guy. You
have posted no physical evidence of anything. You merely TYPE and expect
everyone to believe you. Why is your conjecture any better than the next
guys? We've already pointed out that we HAVE done tests in the past,
hundreds (maybe thousands) of times, and we've seen others do the same, and
it happens. Our word is the same as your word. NOBODY has provided any
physical evidence to support either side, yet you expect everyone to believe
your side merely because you are a relatively well known writer for a
popular mobile electronics rag.

But you and Eddie provide no data. It's just talk. Attempted verification
of
his 60-Hz point should be easy. I've done so twice in the past week.

Thosands? I see noevidence of that. But even so; it's not a popularity
contest.
It's either true pr it isn't. And its easy to verify with a simple
experiment.

I guess you don't read any of the major audio forums, or deal with people in
the real world of car audio every day then. I was in the business for 17+
years, and I heard this statement made at least once a week, quite often
more. I've seen it happen, be it just by ear/feel/whatever, as well as at
competitions where the only thing being played is subs, and only at 80hz and
below. I've watched guys test their systems, get a low #, and immediately
switch the box around (in their alloted time frame), and then hit it again
and achieve a higher #. If it isn't happening, then I'd like to know why the
mics and meters, and the people involved are seeing it happen.

So you're saying that a loud burp at 75 Hz doesn't have higher frequency
distortion and harmonic content?

No, I am not saying that, but if you have ever been involved in a dB Drag
event, you would know that they do not register anything above 100hz to
begin with. If your peak is above 100hz, you are disqualified. There is
filtering in place so that these frequencies are NOT a factor. Learn a
little about the subject before you try to debunk it.

But,no matter, we are talking here about whether 'aiming' your enclosure
generally increases low frequency output. It's easy to show with simple
experimentation that it doesn't.

So you're saying that controlled experimental conditions don't reveal the
truth. Great, tell that to scientists all over the world.

Yes, I'm saying quite often the results are bull****. How many times have
"scientists" told us that something was good for us, and six months later
they tell us that it is NOT good for us. Scientific evidence is often
disputed, and re-evaluated and found to be quite FALSE.

Why not supply some experimental data so we can replicate this? That's
what's
so funny about this whole deal.

As soon as I have the time, and energy to do it, I'll try to take care of
it. I'll even remember to provide real PROOF of what is happening, not just
mere conjecture like you keep providing. Anyone can SAY they did the tests
and that their results were as they suspected, but most people that do these
tests will actually take some photographs, and/or video tape to substantiate
their claims. Your "word" is not good enough for me if my word is not good
enough for you. lol

I've provided 2 sets of experimental data in the past week. You and Eddie
just
continue to argue. Get busy.

No, you've provided the same "conjecture" that you keep whining about.


You PROVE it. I haven't seen any documented evidence from you or Eddie.
Just
conjecture.

Same to you.