Nousaine wrote:

So what have YOU published?

Ever wonder why people accuse you of being an arrogant ****? This kind
of logical fallacy is meaningless: just because your name appears in a
rag with nickel and dime circulation doesn't mean you're right, or that
you know more than anyone else (except perhaps your editors).

How do YOU explain how turning an omnidirectional
speaker in one direction or another manages to make it generate MORE
displacement/SPL with a given drive level?

I don't explain it, and I don't because I don't believe in
omnidirectional speakers. There's no such thing. The lack of
directionality in drivers producing bass is a function of how human ears
determine localization. Furthermore - and I have pointed this out - bass
is not isotropic, nor is it invariant. Maybe you're unfamiliar with this
concept, but sound travels.

How do YOU get around the fact that
there was no modal action in his measurements (which he based his argument
upon), no SPL distribution changes and yet his mearements showed a general
equal level shift over the entire range?

Im wondering why it is you expect there to be anything other than a
"general equal level shift". You act as if a small gain in SPL should
result in massive chaotic changes in the response curves. Algebra 101,
Tommy boy...the result of any function and a constant real number + n
yields nothing more than a vertical shift of the graph of a function by
+n. Eddie didn't change the box, he didn't change the car, and he didn't
change the music. Eddie just pointed the woofer another direction, got a
little gain, and that's why overall the graphs are the same. However,
you noted the minute deviations, and that should be enough to satisfy
your curiousity about 'modal actions', considering the loose tolerances
being dealt with in this experiment.

Exactly how does a woofer system with a given displacement capability "know"
how be louder depending on which direction its facing? Please; we want to know.

It doesn't have to. You're really bearing out your ignorance here. This
is a really simple concept. It's understood by every installer and every
kid who has ever tossed a box in a car. On the other end, it's easily
explained by anyone with a fundamental understanding of physics.
Somewhere in between is you, arguing that it doesn't actually happen.

--
Lizard

Eddie Runner wrote:
I make a mistake in spelling and Tom wont let it pass!

Come on Tom lets talk TECH not SPELLING!
(is that all ya got?)

Tom is apparently hook't on fonicks. See below:

Nousaine wrote:

Great; read some of them when you get a chance. Start with Baranek. Not
banacek, or something similar as you once tried to posture.

pos·ture ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pschr)
n.

1.
1. A position of the body or of body parts: a sitting posture.
2. An attitude; a pose: assumed a posture of angry defiance.
2. A characteristic way of bearing one's body; carriage: stood with
good posture.
3. Relative placement or arrangement: the posture of the buildings
on the land.
4. A stance or disposition with regard to something: “Those bases
are essential to our military posture in the Middle East” (Gerard Smith).
5. A frame of mind affecting one's thoughts or behavior; an overall
attitude.






I think Tommy-boy means "posit".






pos·it ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pzt)
tr.v. pos·it·ed, pos·it·ing, pos·its

1. To assume the existence of; postulate. See Synonyms at presume.
2. To put forward, as for consideration or study; suggest: “If a
book is hard going, it ought to be good. If it posits a complex moral
situation, it ought to be even better” (Anthony Burgess).
3. To place firmly in position.


I think it's safe to say Tommy has no business telling Eddie about
spelling...or vocabulary...he can't even get simple physics right.

--
Lizard

Tom must be out of options to be picking on spelling
and calling folks names....

This arguement started quite a while ago, maybe years
ago when Tom first attacked my web article..

I traded a few emails with him and he would not even listen
to reason so I have been mostly quiet about this subject for
a long long time, knowing I would someday get time to
post some tests.....

Now I finally got some free time in the shop and got all the
test gear together and did some measurements and some
graphs I could post to show Tom that moving the woofer
box around in the car DOES make a difference.....

Now he seems to be going off on ever tangent imagineable.
(I guess he doesnt want to admit he was wrong)

I would like it if we just stuck to basics...
Can moving the woofer box around in a car change the bass?

I say YES
My graphs http://www.installer.com/tech/aiming2.html
seem to say YES...

The way I understand it Tom has always said NO....

To me that was the issue, not calling names, not who has
been published more, not who can **** the fiurthest...

My test results are published, if Tom doesnt like it he is
welcome to publish his own findings...

Eddie Runner

"Eddie Runner" wrote in message
...

Im not trying to LOOSE you im just trying to make the subject match
the actual meat in the message,.. if you sort by thread with your
newsreader
the messages will still be apart of the old thread even if the title
changes.

in outlook it is in view current view group messages by conversation

if you have a different newsreader, let us know and we'll help ya set it up
so you can follow a thread...

how long you been at this?
--
sancho

My test results are published, if Tom doesnt like it he is
welcome to publish his own findings...

i get the distinct feeling that 'tom' has either not bothered to look at
your page or has not really looked at the graphs...
--
sancho
i could be wrong

Tom,

Easy question with an easy answer.
Yes or No please.

Did turning the sub box around make a noticeable increase in dBSPL at the
listening position??? Yes or No, simple question.

Les

Eddie Runner wrote:

Nousaine wrote:

Makes me wonder why you hadn't posted results before.

I was letting you dig your own grave deeeper and deeper
with your false statements...

Hogwash; you'd never even done confirmation of your affirmations prior.

I had already done this kinda sweep many times in the past but I
didnt have any of the old graphs archived where I could get
to them.... So eventually I upgraded my shop computer and
found a little time to prove it to you...

Oh really; you'd done this before but had never archived it? And never
validated your cartoons with data? As I have.

But why do you continually avoid the basic questions. Exactly HOW does a
woofer/amp system generate MORE sound pressure when faced in a given directionn
when there's NO sound pressure variation relative to the space it's in? No
boundary interaction? How? Please!!!


Im so glad you know now that it CAN make a large difference
when you move the woofer box around in a trunk or hatch....

Can you recall (unpublish it) that crappy article you wrote
thats full of lies or is it too late for that???

What "lies" have you found? Please be explicit.


Dont forget TOM, you attacked the credibility of my
CARTOONS about this phenomenon way before I ever called
you on the ****ty article you wrote claiming moving a subwoofer
around in a car makes NO DIFFERENCE.....

Bull****. I just mentioned that the effects you were claiming didn't fit with
the current las of physics the rest of us live with on a day-to-day basis.

EXACTLY how does a woofer systen KNOW it's supposed to generate MORE SPL in a
given space depending on whichj direction it's facing?

Acoustic cancellations? Why don't we see ANY below 80 Hz in your data? Didn't
your "cartoon" show large effects at 60 Hz? What's the deal here?


ha ha ha
Eddie Runner

You asked for it....

You're right and I'm dishing it out too. Why can't you answer basic physics
questions? How does your cartoon explain "standing wave" effects when the sound
"waves" are traveling in the SAME direction? Help me he does not the wave
pattern you show depend on the reflection coming "back" to the direct sound and
traveling in the same direction as the original sound beyond the point of
incidence? No???? Help us here.

Now I know exactly the acoustics hee; but you apparently do NOT. So why not
step into some more bull****. It seems you like that environment.

All this is too bad. In many of your "proclimations" I fully agree. Wires IS
wires. But when seemingly rational people spout bull**** it downsizes all of
us.

The problem lay with your bull**** arguments where you are clearly wrong and
can't answer simple questions such as; how does a woofer system with a given
amplifier KNOW that it's supposed to play louder when its owner turns it
around?


"Cancellations' ???? We'll where are they in your graphs below 100 Hz.
Where???? Isn't cancellation the cornerstone of your case?? Where is it below
100 Hz? Nowhere ot be found? That would be a proper answer.

So exactly WHERE is that mysterious improvement we get with woofer turning?
Help me here, please.

I had already done this kinda sweep many times in the past but I
didnt have any of the old graphs archived where I could get
to them.... So eventually I upgraded my shop computer and
found a little time to prove it to you...

Oh really; you'd done this before but had never archived it? And never
validated your cartoons with data? As I have.


Why would he need to archive it? I do sweeps and graphs of rooms using Smaart
all the time but I dont archive them.

But why do you continually avoid the basic questions. Exactly HOW does a
woofer/amp system generate MORE sound pressure when faced in a given
directionn
when there's NO sound pressure variation relative to the space it's in? No
boundary interaction? How? Please!!!


How can it NOT???? It did. Look at the graphs. How at this point is irrelevent,
but the fact that you cannot even admit that it does with the evidence looking
right at you is pathetic.



What "lies" have you found? Please be explicit.

Use google. Its there. I have read it.



Dont forget TOM, you attacked the credibility of my
CARTOONS about this phenomenon way before I ever called
you on the ****ty article you wrote claiming moving a subwoofer
around in a car makes NO DIFFERENCE.....

Bull****. I just mentioned that the effects you were claiming didn't fit with
the current las of physics the rest of us live with on a day-to-day basis.

Tom, Come on now. Did the damn sound get louder at listening position or not?


EXACTLY how does a woofer systen KNOW it's supposed to generate MORE SPL in a
given space depending on whichj direction it's facing?

The woofer system doesnt know. The interactions are what makes it happen.
It obviously got louder, why dont you explain how?





You asked for it....

You're right and I'm dishing it out too. Why can't you answer basic physics
questions? How does your cartoon explain "standing wave" effects when the
sound
"waves" are traveling in the SAME direction? Help me he does not the wave
pattern you show depend on the reflection coming "back" to the direct sound
and
traveling in the same direction as the original sound beyond the point of
incidence? No???? Help us here.

Meaningless drivel by Tom still skirting the issue. Did it get louder??????????
What say you?



Now I know exactly the acoustics hee; but you apparently do NOT. So why not
step into some more bull****. It seems you like that environment.

All this is too bad. In many of your "proclimations" I fully agree. Wires IS
wires. But when seemingly rational people spout bull**** it downsizes all of
us.


Tom, if anyone in the "business" is downsizing all of us it is you. A poser.

The problem lay with your bull**** arguments where you are clearly wrong and
can't answer simple questions such as; how does a woofer system with a given
amplifier KNOW that it's supposed to play louder when its owner turns it
around?


r.

So exactly WHERE is that mysterious improvement we get with woofer turning?
Help me here, please.

Your the acoustics "expert" so you tell us?? IT OBVIOUSLY HAPPENS. Eddie has
taken all of your ways around actually answering the questions and eliminated
them, You have none of your own strawman arguments left. Regardless of whether
you agree with his explanation of it the FACT is still there, There was a
noticeable difference in several vehicles in dBSPL in bass frequencies. So
explain how that happened??

Les

On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 22:24:13 GMT, Eddie Runner
wrote:

Tom, I dont know why you are acting like I am new to this..??
I have been taking measurements like this from cars for over 20 years,
(and the RF spectrum for 30 years)
in the early days audio with a meter and plotting a limited number of points
into a computer by hand so the computer could draw the graph for
storage. Not long after with RTAs and eventually with the LMS system
originally with thier DOS program but upgraded to the new windows version
just the other day...

Eddie Runner
http://www.installer.com/tech/aiming2.html

Eddie,
I just got done looking at you page of measurements. Pretty
impressive, but just from an engineer's perspective, don't those
changes in frequency response look a little too radical to you?
I wouldn't be surprised to see a few dB difference depending
on which way the sub was facing, but those 100 Hz numbers would have
me concered about the validity of either the test or the equipment.
After all, the front-facing sub was 23 dB down in the Neon, and almost
28 dB down in the Jetta. That means that the energy at the microphone
was reduced by more than a factor of 128 in the Neon, and by more than
a factor of 500 in the Jetta.
Either the microphone location happened to be an almost
perfect node for the forward-firing sub, and an almost perfect
anti-node for the rear-firing, or something's amiss.
Don't get me wrong, I don't suspect you of any shenanigans at
all, but when a graph tells me that flipping the sub around caused the
energy level at the microphone to increase **500 times**, I suspect
the equipment or the software.

Scott Gardner

Eddie Runner wrote:

Nousaine wrote:

What cancellations? Your graphs show exactly the same response shape below
60
Hz; so exactly "where" are the cancellations?

Maybe on some sweeps and at some (NOT ALL) frequencies the SHAPE of
the curve is similar but the VOLUME or SPL is NOT THE SAME!

I would imagine the volume is changed in the listening area by the simple
reason there is


You would "imagine'. That's the key element; You would "imagine' that the
"volume" in the "listening area" is changed by "cancel interferance from
reflecions causing cancelation and reinforcment."

According to Eddie the "size" of the space is changed by acoustic interference.
My advice is to investigate any offers from Eddie about bridges in Arizona.



I would expect the interferance to cause UPS and DOWNS but you need
to keep in mind the UPS and DOWNS are much closer together in the upper
frequencies and at the lower freqs we are sweeping may be just one big DOWN
simply cause were dealing with long wavelengths....


OK Ups and Downs are a key element of the Eddie argument. So Eddie exactly how
does this work outside where there's a propogating wave (open space) ; does
your single wall cartoon accurately predict resulst at the microphone? Please
help/tell me.



Do some measurements yourself and see!!!!
Come on by and I will show you the measurements I am doing!!!

Great; post them.

Nope. Please tell us exactly HOW a woofer system, with a fixed drive level,
can
develop more SPL in a space at every and all fequencies below 60 Hz or so
without any cancellations evident depending on which way it faces?

reflections causing reinforcment!

So exactly where are the "reinforements" ij the data?



Lower?

or higher due to reinforcment.... either way....

Your graphs just show the same response at lower frequencies with more
SPL?

Cant you read?
Did you look at my graphs?
Figgure out the results yourself, they dont lie!

That's true; figures don't lie ...but some times liars figure.....


Exactly how does this happen with a given displacement in the omni range?

reinforcment or cancelation due to reflected waves interfering with
direct and other reflected waves... simple... read ANY physics book Tom.

How does this magic woofer system know that it's supposed to get "louder"
at
low frquencies when it turns its back on you?

Are you DENSE!
The woofer itself does not get louder (from the cone) but the sound is
louder or softer in the listening area because of reflections that happen
to be IN PHASE or OUT OF PHASE with the first wave or other
reflected waves... This could cause LOUDER (if in phase) or LOWER
(if out of phase) sounds in the listening area without increasing the
actual output from the woofer....

So exactly "where" in your graphs do the "cancellations' occur? As far as I can
see the sound pressure below 100 Hz seems to be exactly the same no matter
what.


Why is that so hard for you to believe?

Your sweeps show NO cancellations below 80 Hz.

My sweeps definatly show a difference!!!!
I wanna call them cancelations but you can call em anything you
want to...

If you cant see the (several DB) differences below 80Hz
then you must be blind... Oh, click on the picture of the
graph and it gets BIG so you can see it better.....

Please examine your own data; interpret it as an agnostic and not a protagonist
and you may get an interestingly new viewpoint.







If you dont think it is a cancelation then how would YOU explain it?
IT HAPPENED on all the cars we tested...
Why not do your own sweeps????????

You keep saying you have but I dont see any eveidence of it so far.

Im ready to stop the name calling and get to the tech stuff if
your willing to listen and stop just jabbin your jaws all the time
with nothing to back yourself up.

There's one above 100 Hz.

Look careful
ITS ACTAULLY BELOW 100Hz!!

Eddie

Eddie Runner wrote:


Isn' tit intersting that Eddie Runner just wants to "argue" but is completely
unwilling to deal with the physics and acoustics ib car audio ......

Nousaine wrote:

Exactly how does the woofer box know that it's the 'same' (relative to
wavelength) distance from ALL boundaries regardless of the frequency? Does
it
know enough to move when a give frequency occurs?

Sorry, I don't know what your talking about...

That's pretty obvious; especially when you see so unwilling to deal with
car-audio acoustics. I don't bame you. If I were so un-tutoured and had made
such large errors I'd be heading for cover too.

I offered up the evidence http://www.installer.com/tech/aiming2.html
which sure does seem to support my previous paper
http://www.installer.com/tech/aiming.html

Your welcome to make measurements of your own or come on by my
shop and participate with my measurements...

I keep getting the idea your accusing me of lying about all this
or something.....

There are witnesses listed on the bottom of the page you are welcome
to contact them for verification of my measurement techniques if you
think they are somehow flawed.

Your also welcome to BELIEVE anything you want to if you prefer
to not do any measurements of your own or to not believe my measurements.
You can believe my graphs are wrong
You can believe moving a woofer box can make no difference in the bass.

Actually I've done all those measurements before. What I'm asking is exactly
"how" a given woofer system placed in a car with no obvious frequency response
deviations KNOWS that it's SUPPOSED to have more output when it's facing to the
back???

You can believe that Satan is going to pop out of your ass and and suck
your....

You can believe anything you want to...Thats OK!

OK, but why don't they differ with frequency? Why would they be ALL the
same
even when they have different wavelengths? I thought this cancellation
thing
was based on standing wave issue.

Look carefully at the graphs,
There are some differences, and there are some spots where
there are no differences, and spots with constant differences
over several Hz ....


Bull****; what frequencies; what differences?


Its just reading what it is hearing!

Do your own tests if you dont belive them!


Eddie

I've done all these experiments multiple times over the years. That's why I
know that Eddie Runner is full of bull**** on this issue.

All of these experiments are easy to replicate; ....but Eddie has just started
to investigate them. A-bout time; I'd say.

That's true; figures don't lie ...but some times liars figure...

Tom

I think alot of your tests are lies. I think you doctor the data to give
results you want. Thats a pretty assholish thing to say isnt it? BUT that is
EXACTLY what your saying. You bitch and moan about strawman arguments and yet
you are the KING of the strawmen. You cannot answer the question.
DID IT GET LOUDER??????? Its simple. But since it doesnt fit with what you say
it is obviously a lie. Come on, enough with the BULL**** and answer that ONE
question. Ignore everything else I might write but answer just that one.

Les

On 09 Dec 2003 06:47:41 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote:


Look carefully at the graphs,
There are some differences, and there are some spots where
there are no differences, and spots with constant differences
over several Hz ....


Bull****; what frequencies; what differences?

Tom, I have to admit that it's sounding like you haven't even looked
at the graphs. I don't have the experience with these measurements
that either you or Eddie have - that's why I'm following this thread
so closely, but even I can tell there's a significant difference in
SPL, over a wide range of frequencies in Eddie's tests..

All of the vehicles show an increase in SPL with the sub facing
rearward. Some of the differences are pretty unbelievable (like a 28
dB difference at 100 Hz in the Jetta), but others are much more
realistic. For instance, look at the Tahoe graph. The rear-firing
sub posts higher SPL readings all the way from 20 Hz to 120 Hz.
Sometimes the difference is less than 1 dB, but for most of the range,
it varies from 3 dB to almost 10 dB. At 50 Hz, the difference is
about 8 dB, and I think we would all agree that a) 50 Hz is
honest-to-goodness "bass", not midbass, and b) 8 dB is a hell of a
difference at the microphone.

So Tom - either Eddie is correct, or his tests are fundamentally
flawed, or his equipment is malfunctioning, or he's lying about the
conditions of the test. Which do you think it is? It's time to
address the graphs that Eddie's posted.

Scott Gardner



Its just reading what it is hearing!

Do your own tests if you dont belive them!


Eddie

I've done all these experiments multiple times over the years. That's why I
know that Eddie Runner is full of bull**** on this issue.

All of these experiments are easy to replicate; ....but Eddie has just started
to investigate them. A-bout time; I'd say.

Eddie Runner wrote:

Nousaine wrote:

Im no amateur Tom... I been in audio professionally for almost 30 years!

So? So has Amar Bose. Although I've not listened to any of your 'systems' that
I'm aware of, my guess is that any if your systems will cost 4X more and sound
half as good as the Bose Premuim upgrade in that vehicle., you'd be really
lucky. Only based on my experience with 200 hundred after-market systems (IASCA
judge) and perhaps 400 OEM systems between 'prototype' and ":sold directly to
the public."


Sure. But you are an amateur with regard to acoustics and room acoustics.

Your insults are pretty meaningless... I have probably spent
more time in ROOMS and especially CARS with RTAS and
test equipment than you have....

Reguardless to that fact which may or may not be true...
I have obviously spent ENOUGH time to not be called an amateur...

So prove it; tell us something that is based on fact and not your biased
opinion.


Plus, the defintion of an Amateur would certainly be if I got PAID!
And trust me I have been doing this kind of work professionally for
nearly 30 years... Before that my love of audio was certainly of an
amateur nature, but still probably more advanced than the average
amateur....

I'd agree that the qualifier `"paid" isn't interesting.



Your statements about ME being an AMATEUR are obviously
manfested by you because of some inadequacy you might have or
some jealousy or .... Heck I dont know why you are making up
these insults... Everyone here knows me, some of them say I have
been doing this sort of work longer than dirt has existed....

Actually it seems like you are probably accomplished in installation but
acoustically you are not in the ballpark. You seem to unaware of the acoustc
benefits of the car cabin (assigning those benefits to customers as directional
effects) transfer function.
Your insults are only affecting your own credibility in this issue

Insults? That's your BAG Eddie. You just will not discuss acoustics. I'm
guessing that's because you aren't conversent in them. But, I'll talk/chat to
anyone who is inerested.


Along with your inability to produce any evedence
Oh, and your statements about turning a woofer box
backward in a car wont make any difference to the woofer
sound in the car...

Eddie Runner
http://www.installer.com/tech/

So Eddie; tell me again exactly how any given woofer with a known displacement
in a given enclosure in a known space with a given amplifier can "decide" to
make more SPL" when faced in one direction or another. PLEASE Double PLEASE.

I 'know' I'm stupid; but please tell me and everyone else how we're wrong.

You just will not discuss acoustics. I'm
guessing that's because you aren't conversent in them. But, I'll talk/chat to
anyone who is inerested.


Bull****. I have asked a simple acoustics related question several times and
you have yet to reply. The graphs show its louder Tom. HOW did that happen. We
know the woofer doesnt "know" to play louder and doesnt so there must be some
acoustical property at work. Explain it.

Eddie Runner wrote;

Nousaine wrote:

So what have YOU published?

Tom,
just because you have PUBLISHED something doesnt mean your a badass!


Sure, but he made agressive statements which he obviously hasn't confirmed
otherwise himself.

I have read 100s of articles in the car audio and home audio magazines that
were full of bull****....

Sure; and some of the stuff on your website about acoustics is a good point of
reference.


I know you also know there is alot of bull**** published!!

Sure; and about 30% of it falls directly in line with the Urban Legends
published on YOUR website.

In spite of the rational advice you give on wires and the like; your dogged
resistance (personal agenda) against real acoustical phenomena in the car is
simply not-understandable to me.


Just because Liz didnt tell you his publishing credentials before he said
he belived me more than he believed you doesnt mean he has to have
credentials that include publishing stuff...

OK but why did he come with full-battle gear on? Loud-mouth bluster isn't a
reasonable discussion technique in my world. Given your 'discussion' style I'd
guess you like it.

So tell him next time that IF he has a good argument to step right in. But, if
he only has a 'bull****' argument he should expect to be confronted at he gate.



And on the contrary (if it did make a difference) the Liz has actually
published a few reasonable technical papers on the teamROCS website.
But thats still irrelevant..

How do YOU explain how turning an omnidirectional
speaker in one direction or another manages to make it generate MORE
displacement/SPL with a given drive level?

Fact is Tom (and the sweeps evedence proves it) there is cancelation and
reinforcment that takes place in a car and placement of the woofer box in a
car changed the cancellation and reinforcment....

If you dont know that reinforment or cancellation occurs by interferance
of two or more sound waves you need to start fresh and pick back
up your physics text books....

Handbook for Sound Engineers 2nd ed. page 12
Sound Waves and Accoustics - Colby page 19
if ya need more I can quote em for ya.

Eddie Runner

thelizman thelizman1221.yahoo@com wrote:

Nousaine wrote:

So what have YOU published?

Ever wonder why people accuse you of being an arrogant ****? This kind
of logical fallacy is meaningless: just because your name appears in a
rag with nickel and dime circulation doesn't mean you're right, or that
you know more than anyone else (except perhaps your editors).

I'd agree with that. So exactly where can we find you "arrogant ****" analysis
of the data and your "arrogant ****" description of your contrary results?
Please. I'd be happy to know how much you really know.

How do YOU explain how turning an omnidirectional
speaker in one direction or another manages to make it generate MORE
displacement/SPL with a given drive level?

I don't explain it, and I don't because I don't believe in
omnidirectional speakers. There's no such thing.

Sure fully omni-speakers don't exist at high frequencies. But, tell me exactly
'why' Eddie's pix show truly omni results below 100 hZ? If the speakers were'nt
omni then why weren't there frequency dependent effects?

The lack of
directionality in drivers producing bass is a function of how human ears
determine localization. Furthermore - and I have pointed this out - bass
is not isotropic, nor is it invariant. Maybe you're unfamiliar with this
concept, but sound travels.

And so what? If a human can't hear or percieve it, who cares? So tell us how
do your isotropic and non-invariant qualities affect human perception of low
frequencies?


How do YOU get around the fact that
there was no modal action in his measurements (which he based his argument
upon), no SPL distribution changes and yet his mearements showed a general
equal level shift over the entire range?

Im wondering why it is you expect there to be anything other than a
"general equal level shift". You act as if a small gain in SPL should
result in massive chaotic changes in the response curves. Algebra 101,
Tommy boy...the result of any function and a constant real number + n
yields nothing more than a vertical shift of the graph of a function by
+n.

Total bull****. Where is there any "gain": going on? How does a fixed system
(speaker/power/interior acoustics) have any acoustic 'gain' by shifting the
direction of the acoustic radiating face? You want to give me a physics 101
answer?

Eddie didn't change the box, he didn't change the car, and he didn't
change the music. Eddie just pointed the woofer another direction, got a
little gain, and that's why overall the graphs are the same.

So exactly how did he get any acoustic 'gain' ? You're telling me that
turning a given subwoofer speaker system one way or another changes the Vd or
the amplifier input or the enclosure size? Exactly how does it DO that? How
does it "know" that it's supposed to do that depending on direction? Help us
out here.

However,
you noted the minute deviations, and that should be enough to satisfy
your curiousity about 'modal actions', considering the loose tolerances
being dealt with in this experiment.

Loose tolerances? I'm guessing that you must know Eddie then.


Exactly how does a woofer system with a given displacement capability
"know"
how be louder depending on which direction its facing? Please; we want to
know.

It doesn't have to. You're really bearing out your ignorance here. This
is a really simple concept. It's understood by every installer and every
kid who has ever tossed a box in a car.

Really? So help me out. Exactly How does a woofer system "know" that it's
supposed to increase the ampliifer power delivered or increase its known
excursion limits or expand its cone area depending on which way its facing?

If this is so "easy" then you or Eddie should be able to explain it post haste.
I'm wondering why you (or he) hasn't already done this.

On the other end, it's easily
explained by anyone with a fundamental understanding of physics.
Somewhere in between is you, arguing that it doesn't actually happen.

--
Lizard

OK help me out with that fundamental undertanding of physics. Exactly how does
a woofer system "know" that it's suppoded to deliver MORE output when its
facing in this direction? How about North? Or was that South?

Does the SPL then vary with vehicle direction? Do I get MORE bass traveling
east or west?

Please help me because I'm obviously hopelessly clueless. Thanks in advance.

Eddie Runner wrote:


Nousaine wrote:

CARS have boundries ON ALL SIDES that are reletivly
(compared to bass wavelengths) close and WILL affect the sounds
to some extent no matter WHERE you put a woofer!

But the way they affect one is dependent on fequency as well.

Obviously

In a small space,
such as a car, below the frequency of the lowest axial mode we enter the
pressure region where the driver displacement directly pressurizes the
cabin
and there is a 12-dB per octave as freq falls reinforcement.

Define LOWEST AXIAL MODE!
And your definition of PRESSURE REGION would also be appropriate
(since I already gave you my defintiion and explanation of pressure)

You keep stating this as if it were some sort of LAW or something
but you have no explanation....

Time to TRY to explain it now Tom.

Sure; in given acoustical space the room dimensions set-up standing wave
patterns at low frequencies related to the dimensions of the space. Standing
waves form at all frequencies between any two opposing surfaces.

In a 6-sided enclosure (like your living room, your car and a phone booth)
there are set of standing wave patterns according to frequency.

In a living room of 22 X 12 X 8 feet there are natural 1st order standing waves
that will occur at 26 Hz, 47 Hz and 71 Hz. There will also be 2nd harmonics at
52 Hz and 94 hz in the range below 100 Hz.

In this example there wil be pressure gain in the room below 26 Hz (@ 12 dB per
octave as freq falls) assuming little structure dissapation.

These natural modal frequencies affect the propagation of bass in the room.
That example represents a good distribution of modal effects.

In a car, everything is shifted down an octave due to the decreased "size" of
the space. In a smaller car, like a Corvette, Camaro, Spirit, Acura Integra or
Probe the "turnover" frequency is 60 Hz as compared to 26 Hz.

Subsequently the 'standing wave region' (the octave above where pressure gain
occurs) is shifted up about an octave. So in a car the standing wave region
lays between 60 and 600 Hz; whereas in the 2650 ft3 room it lays between 30 and
300 Hz.

Anything below those frequencies is in the pressure zone where the driver
displacement directly pressurizes the space (assuming enough stroke/piston
area to make some sound.)

Accordingly at higher frequencies where room modes (standing wave frequencies)
are statistically dense (you can hear the standing wave of a 1 kHz sine wave
--- 1 foot wavelength ---- by moving your head from side to side. But, that
effect occurs pretty evenly distributed in the room. IOW you hear the same
effect no matter where you sit.

However at lower frequencies with longer wavelengths (50-feet@20 kHz) these
effects come with an unequal distribution of sound pressure depending on
listener location.

Any more questions?

Eddie Runner wrote:

Nousaine wrote:

But you made a great issue of different directions, did you not?

Im not sure what your talking about?
Sounds do go in many directions I never said they didnt...

But you made a big issue of standing waves needing 2 sound waves traveling in
'different directions'. Since youve saved all our posts for the last year why
don't you look up what you said?

And then you've not had the balls to convincingly explain exactly how your
'cartoon' that has 2 sound waves traveling in the "same direction" can cause a
standing wave 'cancellation.'


Why not give us your evedence instead of trying to pick apart
my posts???

Eddie Runner

My "evidence" is looking at your cartoon and looking at your defintion of
standing waves and wondering "how" they jibe.

If a standing wave requires 2 sound waves traveling in opposite directions
exactly how does your cartoon find a standing wave cancellation when the sound
waves are traveling in the same direction?

Help us here. Please.

Eddie Runner wrote:

Nousaine wrote:

OK; there's a 20 Hz tone (one in your sweep) with a 50-ft wavelength; 1/4
wave
= 12.5 feet. So exactly HOW did the woofer cancellation at your microphone
decide that it would reduce it's level exactly as much as when in was
working
at 50 Hz?

I dont know how (or even IF) it decided anything....

Of course you don't. Because you have no frequency dpendent 'cancellations'
happening according to your data; Yet you INSIST that there evenly distributed
cancellations at EVERY low frequency, in spite of your claim that these are
'standing wave' and 'cancellation' effects related to wavelength.

What gives?


Why not do some tests and give us some evedence Tom instead
of picking apart my posts.... Im trying to be nice here and I
have given everyone my best evedence....


Yet you can't seem to explain why the frequency/wavelength standing wave
cancellations you described in your 'cartoon' seem to miraculously happen
equally at EVERY frequency below about 80 Hz in spite of the fact that the
wavelength for every frequency has a different distance quotient.


WHERE IS YOURS???

Alot of folks can just be mean and it looks like your just trying
those tactics now..... Im sorry all these guys are jumping on you
for whatever reasons....

But I dont like to have an arguement without being able to
back up my claims....

So why not do so?


I think I have done that...

YOUR TURN!

(calling me names dont count)


Eddie Runner

I've never called you names.

Eddie Runner wrote;



Nousaine wrote:

Now he's saddled with ......results that he's squiggling to make
his point;

Again, it looks like your accusing me of making up
my tests....

I have witnesses and photographs of my tests, if you still believe
I went to all this trouble to set up the test gear and do 4 different
cars and posted FAKE RESULTS then I guess you have the right
to believe anything you want to believe...

This is an OPEN invitation for ANYONE to stop by my shop
and see the results for youself, we can even test your own car
if you wish.....

Tom,
I may like to argue,
I may not know everything,
but I can tell you I am no liar!
Honesty IMO is one of the most important things a to me about
being a human being....

Ask anyone that knows me.

Eddie Runner


OK I'll buy that. But then explain why your data doesn't show frequency
dependent cancellation effects caused by the 'standing wave' interactions that
your cartoons describe?

If that were the case then exactly how does the woofer know that it's not at
exactly the same relative distance from boundaries at all frequencies? But yet
manage to pace output to make it seem as though it were?

C'mon is this a standing wave issue or isn't it? If it is then your data can't
be real. If it isn't then you your cartoon explanations don't wash.

You just can't have it both ways.

Eddie Runner wrote:


Tom must be out of options to be picking on spelling
and calling folks names....

I've never name-called Eddie. Nor have I misreprented your position, as you
have consistently done to me.


This arguement started quite a while ago, maybe years
ago when Tom first attacked my web article..

I've never 'attacked' anything. I merely pointed out, quite politely, that your
explanation about low frequency effects in cars was wrong.


I traded a few emails with him and he would not even listen
to reason so I have been mostly quiet about this subject for
a long long time, knowing I would someday get time to
post some tests.....

Now I finally got some free time in the shop and got all the
test gear together and did some measurements and some
graphs I could post to show Tom that moving the woofer
box around in the car DOES make a difference.....

I've never said that it doesn't. It just doesn't happen the way that you said
it does. And your data, take it straight as it is, doesn't support your
'standing-wave cancellation' theory.

Now he seems to be going off on ever tangent imagineable.
(I guess he doesnt want to admit he was wrong)

I would like it if we just stuck to basics...
Can moving the woofer box around in a car change the bass?

I say YES
My graphs http://www.installer.com/tech/aiming2.html
seem to say YES...

The way I understand it Tom has always said NO....

No, only in the way you intentionally mis-represent it. I've never said that
changing woofer orientation has "no" effect. It just doesn't change anything
below the lowest modal frequency in any given space. And even your data shows
that there's no standing wave effects going on below 60 Hz.


To me that was the issue, not calling names, not who has
been published more, not who can **** the fiurthest...

My test results are published, if Tom doesnt like it he is
welcome to publish his own findings...

Eddie Runner

Which I have dating back to nearly a decade. And which I continously publish
6-10 times a year.

But, unlike you I can explain the car cabin transfer function. I can explain
why standing wave effects don't occur below some reasonably low frequency in a
given auto-platform size.

In the meantime Eddie can only conduct experiments that have results he can't
explain and don't show the effects he has claimed on his web-site and call me
names.

Eddie Runner wrote;

Nousaine wrote:


You have always said it doesnt make any difference no matter how
big the car, remember I was always saying your Corvette was small
and thet was why you couldnt see the difference the rest of us can hear
in a normal sized car...

Bull**** Eddie; I've never said that car size wasn't a variable.

Ok, maybe all these years I was missunderstanding you....

No; you were apparently mis-quoting me on purpose.


Lets start over then

Answer these simple questions.

1) does turning the woofer box around or re oreinting it in the
car trunk or hatch cause any difference in the bas response to
the listener in the car?

Not at frequencies below the lowest modal frequency. A woofer/amp system has a
given displacement which doesn't change regardless of its environment or
orientation.

In a given space the output at higher, directional frequencies can be tailored
by aiming the speaker relative to the listener. For example face the woofer
away from the listener and the enclosure will shadow frequencies at 200-400 Hz
and the cabin may absorb some higher frequency energy.

But at lower, longer wavelength frequencies which will be omnidirectional this
cannot make any diference. A woofer system has no way of self-increasing its
dynamic capability with directional orientation.


I was under the impression you said it was IMPOSSIBLE
for it to make a difference....

Bull****; you are purposely mis-represnting what I've actually said.


Feel free to clarify your standing on this question.

change Thread-Names more often trying to keep me out of
the loop.

Im not sure where you learned about the internet (AOL maybe)
but the MESSAGE NAME should reflect the subject matter in the
message.....

Im not trying to LOOSE you im just trying to make the subject match
the actual meat in the message,.. if you sort by thread with your newsreader
the messages will still be apart of the old thread even if the title changes.

Eddie

Double bull****. You've several times changed the thread name when you could
have just as easily not done so.

keep after him with that question, I dont think Tom
wants to answer it now that I have published the sweeps.

Before I published the sweeps he often said
Nousaine wrote:
Because acoustic sounds at subwoofer frequencies (approximately 100 Hz) are

omnidirectional the SPL/Frequency response will be uneffected either way.

Now he wont answer that question directly...
Eddie

Soundfreak03 wrote:

Tom,

Easy question with an easy answer.
Yes or No please.

Did turning the sub box around make a noticeable increase in dBSPL at the
listening position??? Yes or No, simple question.

Les

Scott Gardner wrote:

http://www.installer.com/tech/aiming2.html

Eddie,
I just got done looking at you page of measurements. Pretty
impressive, but just from an engineer's perspective, don't those
changes in frequency response look a little too radical to you?

I cant help how they look, I didnt make the sweeps the way I wanted
them to look, I am just the messenger showing you how they DO LOOK!

I did several measurements on 4 different cars so that folks could
see and get thier own ideas about how important woofer positioning is.

If the SPL goes up or down at any given frequency by moving the
box, THE ONLY explanation can be reinforcment or cancellation
because reflections that are in phase or out of phase. I say again
its THE ONLY explanation!


I wouldn't be surprised to see a few dB difference depending
on which way the sub was facing, but those 100 Hz numbers would have
me concered about the validity of either the test or the equipment.
After all, the front-facing sub was 23 dB down in the Neon, and almost
28 dB down in the Jetta.

Well alot of kids and installers know that turning the woofer box around
can sometimes make DRASTIC differences!! The few DB in alot of
the sweeps (IMO) would not be very drastic for most folks if they
were not specificly listeing for it, so the 20+db must be the BIG difference
we hear in alot of cars... It definatly IS a BIG difference ...

That means that the energy at the microphone
was reduced by more than a factor of 128 in the Neon, and by more than
a factor of 500 in the Jetta.
Either the microphone location happened to be an almost
perfect node for the forward-firing sub, and an almost perfect
anti-node for the rear-firing, or something's amiss.

Well since the BIG DIFFERENCE is often heard in some cars I
would just guess this anomaly IS that big difference... Folks have known
of the phenomenon for quite some time. Here on RAC there were big
threads about BASS TRAP about 7 or 8 years ago with the big
dogs from JL audio and other audio companies basicly guessing about
what happens...

The old explanations were it takes time for the SPL to develop.
Long waves need longer spaces so aim the box to the rear.
Opening the trunk is like porting the car.
and so on...

I learned along time ago that not only turning the box around sometimes
gives HUGE improvements, but also opening a trunk with a box init
will sometimes greatly increase bass....!! (or a car door).

How can it be if you open a trunk and LET SOUND OUT can the
SPL get better in the listening area...

That was easy, the sound you let out is out of phase with other sounds
when they combine in the listening area...

There cannot be any other explanation (except Toms explanation
that it does not happen at all).....

This, whether Tom likes it or not is a standing wave, or a NODE of
a standing wave...

Don't get me wrong, I don't suspect you of any shenanigans at
all, but when a graph tells me that flipping the sub around caused the
energy level at the microphone to increase **500 times**, I suspect
the equipment or the software.

Sorry, but its all I have to offer at this time.... I may post more graphs
as I do more testing.. I have made an open invitation to anyone in the
Houston area to drop by and I will sweep thier car for them.... Hopefully
with enough cars we can understand all this better...

Thanks Scott for questioning my results in a nice way.
UNLIKE TOM is doing.

Eddie Runner
http://www.installer.com/tech/

"Nousaine" wrote in message
...
Eddie Runner wrote:

Nousaine wrote:

Im no amateur Tom... I been in audio professionally for almost 30
years!

So? So has Amar Bose. Although I've not listened to any of your 'systems'
that
I'm aware of, my guess is that any if your systems will cost 4X more and
sound
half as good as the Bose Premuim upgrade in that vehicle., you'd be really
lucky. Only based on my experience with 200 hundred after-market systems
(IASCA
judge) and perhaps 400 OEM systems between 'prototype' and ":sold directly
to
the public."


OH OH! I GET TO SAY IT!

"No Highs, No Lows, Must be Bose!"


narcolept
-----
man. if eddie was installing stuff that only sounded half as good as bose,
he would've been outta business 29.6 years ago.



Sure. But you are an amateur with regard to acoustics and room
acoustics.

Your insults are pretty meaningless... I have probably spent
more time in ROOMS and especially CARS with RTAS and
test equipment than you have....

Reguardless to that fact which may or may not be true...
I have obviously spent ENOUGH time to not be called an amateur...

So prove it; tell us something that is based on fact and not your biased
opinion.


Plus, the defintion of an Amateur would certainly be if I got PAID!
And trust me I have been doing this kind of work professionally for
nearly 30 years... Before that my love of audio was certainly of an
amateur nature, but still probably more advanced than the average
amateur....

I'd agree that the qualifier `"paid" isn't interesting.



Your statements about ME being an AMATEUR are obviously
manfested by you because of some inadequacy you might have or
some jealousy or .... Heck I dont know why you are making up
these insults... Everyone here knows me, some of them say I have
been doing this sort of work longer than dirt has existed....

Actually it seems like you are probably accomplished in installation but
acoustically you are not in the ballpark. You seem to unaware of the
acoustc
benefits of the car cabin (assigning those benefits to customers as
directional
effects) transfer function.
Your insults are only affecting your own credibility in this issue

Insults? That's your BAG Eddie. You just will not discuss acoustics. I'm
guessing that's because you aren't conversent in them. But, I'll talk/chat
to
anyone who is inerested.


Along with your inability to produce any evedence
Oh, and your statements about turning a woofer box
backward in a car wont make any difference to the woofer
sound in the car...

Eddie Runner
http://www.installer.com/tech/

So Eddie; tell me again exactly how any given woofer with a known
displacement
in a given enclosure in a known space with a given amplifier can "decide"
to
make more SPL" when faced in one direction or another. PLEASE Double
PLEASE.

I 'know' I'm stupid; but please tell me and everyone else how we're wrong.

OK, finally a little REAL meat and potatoes..... Thanks for that Tom.
I believe instead of always using terms the layman probably doesnt know
and many pros use incorrectly its always best to lay out the definitions.

I have done so already on my understadning of pressure fields and
standing waves and so far I have seen no pro or con from you
specificly on those definitions.

The AXIAL MODE you talk about here are really a combination of the
complex reflected waves (really an infinite number) and the incident wave
as they interact in a closed space, not only just standing waves but also
resonances of the space itself...

THIS IS GOOD Tom!

But if you would please take the time to look at my cartoon page
http://www.installer.com/tech/aiming.html
you might want to notice that my example in the hope of keeping
it simple I have eliminated the INFINITE amout of reflected waves
and kept it simply to one direct wave and one reflection....

We all know there is alot more going on than simply one reflected
wave, but if you read my text you will see I plainly say that the page
is very simple and just a starting point for ayone that wants to
experement further....

Obviously all the reflections and resonances that have to be there to
cause the AXIAL NODE you love so much would me quite a bit
more complex than I wanted to go in that paper...

I dont thinks its very fair of you to DIS my paper and throw around
the AXIAL MODE stuff when it is too simple to even worry about
the axial modes at this point.... Remember this paper is for kids to
get the basics, not professors to teach advanced accoustics.

Typicly
and in your example, the MODES are created from bounced waves
from multiple directions and are NOT simple ONE standing wave, they
are combinations of many standing waves and the superpositioning of
the waves creates the nodes and antinodes to not be placed in
the 1/4, 1/2, 3/4, 1 (and so on) wavelengths but at shorter distances.

IMO, its best to have a good grasp on standing waves BEFORE you
delve into the interaction of the multiple standing waves and MODES
of an inclosed space....

Although I think alot of accoustics guys may rarley break down the
accoustic phenomenon into its simplest elements as I do in the cartoon.

Now, on your definition below, you say:
In this example there wil be pressure gain in the room below 26 Hz (@ 12 dB per
octave as freq falls) assuming little structure dissapation.

I find that a little condecending that you can claim there is a 12dB
per octave rise but you pick on my charts and claim the higher SPL
cannot happen and SPL just cant come from nowhere... With your
background I know that you must know that higher (or lower)
SPLs can come from in phase or out of phase reflections or resonances
or whatever, so your words to me must have just been looking
for a fight or something.

Also, I dont think the magic 1 octave rise you describe is a good
number, car/truck/suv interior sizes vary soo much it would not
be prudent to ASSume 1 octave on every vehicle. And my
sweeps definitly do not show your theory on this to be true if we
assume 60Hz is the spot.

Also, I dont quite get it when you so far surpass my simple
standing wave paper with one reflector and go into AXIAL
MODE and you completely ignored the tangential mode
and so much more of the resonant modes that might make
more sense in a car... Axial mode is not 3D like you would
have in a completely close space.

its also my opinion that you can calculate this in a rectangular
room with some degree of accuracy but its much harder to
calculate in a car that is typucly far from be ing a rectangle!

I say why calculate, sweep it and see without wasting time
on the math!

Eddie Runner


Nousaine wrote:

Define LOWEST AXIAL MODE!
Sure; in given acoustical space the room dimensions set-up standing wave
patterns at low frequencies related to the dimensions of the space. Standing
waves form at all frequencies between any two opposing surfaces.

In a 6-sided enclosure (like your living room, your car and a phone booth)
there are set of standing wave patterns according to frequency.

In a living room of 22 X 12 X 8 feet there are natural 1st order standing waves
that will occur at 26 Hz, 47 Hz and 71 Hz. There will also be 2nd harmonics at
52 Hz and 94 hz in the range below 100 Hz.

In this example there wil be pressure gain in the room below 26 Hz (@ 12 dB per
octave as freq falls) assuming little structure dissapation.

These natural modal frequencies affect the propagation of bass in the room.
That example represents a good distribution of modal effects.

In a car, everything is shifted down an octave due to the decreased "size" of
the space. In a smaller car, like a Corvette, Camaro, Spirit, Acura Integra or
Probe the "turnover" frequency is 60 Hz as compared to 26 Hz.

Subsequently the 'standing wave region' (the octave above where pressure gain
occurs) is shifted up about an octave. So in a car the standing wave region
lays between 60 and 600 Hz; whereas in the 2650 ft3 room it lays between 30 and
300 Hz.

Anything below those frequencies is in the pressure zone where the driver
displacement directly pressurizes the space (assuming enough stroke/piston
area to make some sound.)

Accordingly at higher frequencies where room modes (standing wave frequencies)
are statistically dense (you can hear the standing wave of a 1 kHz sine wave
--- 1 foot wavelength ---- by moving your head from side to side. But, that
effect occurs pretty evenly distributed in the room. IOW you hear the same
effect no matter where you sit.

However at lower frequencies with longer wavelengths (50-feet@20 kHz) these
effects come with an unequal distribution of sound pressure depending on
listener location.

Any more questions?

Nousaine wrote:

Hogwash; you'd never even done confirmation of your affirmations prior.

???
Can you prove this accusation ???

I can prove I have has access to frequency generators to do sweeps with
as far back as the 70s... So why would you doubt me enough to call
me a liar on a public forum???

Just bad manners?
Worried about something??

Oh really; you'd done this before but had never archived it? And never
validated your cartoons with data? As I have.

I started saving sweep data on an Apple II computer input manually
by the keyboard one frequency at a time back in the late 70s. I published
some of this old sweep data on my computer BBS back in 1982 but I
really dont know what happened to it all over the years...
Do you expect me to still have ever sweep I have ever done? ha ha ha

What are you so defensive about?

But why do you continually avoid the basic questions. Exactly HOW does a
woofer/amp system generate MORE sound pressure when faced in a given directionn
when there's NO sound pressure variation relative to the space it's in? No
boundary interaction? How? Please!!!

Simple
http://www.installer.com/tech/aiming.html
http://www.installer.com/tech/aiming2.html

Can you recall (unpublish it) that crappy article you wrote
thats full of lies or is it too late for that???

What "lies" have you found? Please be explicit.

I havent read your article in some time, but I remember it
saying that placement of a woofer in a car is not important
and that placement of the woofer will not affect the woofers
performance.... paraphrased of course.

My sweeps and other evedence known by nearly every
kid with a woofer in his car contradicts your article.
(if I remember it correctly)


Bull****. I just mentioned that the effects you were claiming didn't fit with
the current las of physics the rest of us live with on a day-to-day basis.

I know what you say but it appears your wrong.... sorry...

EXACTLY how does a woofer systen KNOW it's supposed to generate MORE SPL in a
given space depending on whichj direction it's facing?

I could ask you the same question when you claim your woofer
rises 12 dB per octave after your first axial mode... ha ha

We know that SPL can increase or decrease if reflections are in
phase or out of phase or at a resonant point so your crap above about the
*HOW DOES THE WOOFER KNOW* is not fooling anyone...

(why waste our time on this stuff?)

Acoustic cancellations? Why don't we see ANY below 80 Hz in your data? Didn't
your "cartoon" show large effects at 60 Hz? What's the deal here?

I see em!
http://www.installer.com/tech/aiming2.html
other folks say they see em!
Why cant you see em?
Are you actually looking at my sweeps or are you just trying to
imagine what you think they look like??

You asked for it....

You're right and I'm dishing it out too.

Is that what you call it???
ha ha ha

Why can't you answer basic physics
questions?

I have

How does your cartoon explain "standing wave" effects when the sound
"waves" are traveling in the SAME direction?

I answered that yesterday.
a standing wave can occure no matter which way the interacting waves
are traveling... Why do you thinik a standing wave is limited to opposing waves?

They can in fact interact and create nodes and antinodes if the waves
interact a opposing waves or waves crossing each other or even
traveling together for some time....

Help me he does not the wave
pattern you show depend on the reflection coming "back" to the direct sound and
traveling in the same direction as the original sound beyond the point of
incidence? No???? Help us here.

Yes you must need help...

Now I know exactly the acoustics hee; but you apparently do NOT. So why not
step into some more bull****. It seems you like that environment.

Whatever you say...
Its pretty hard to carry this conversation any further with you...

My web pages are going to stay as they are unless I add more to them,
I am sorry that they are so much at odds with your previous papers
and you dont wish to discuss things rationally...

Eddie Runner

Soundfreak03 wrote:


Oh really; you'd done this before but had never archived it? And never
validated your cartoons with data? As I have.


Why would he need to archive it? I do sweeps and graphs of rooms using Smaart
all the time but I dont archive them.

Tom Nousaine wont produce any evedence so all he can do is
try to run me into the ground on any and all subjects at hand.

This guy is a nutcase so dont hurt strain yourself on my account.


Eddie Runner

Nousaine wrote:

Tom,
just because you have PUBLISHED something doesnt mean your a badass!

Sure, but he made agressive statements which he obviously hasn't confirmed
otherwise himself.

Thats just the way Liz is, and I wouldnt be so quick to DIS what Liz does
or does not know since you really dont know him....

Are you under the impression that EVERYONE here on RAC is a moron?
It seems like it since you are so quick to DIS anyone that talks to you
without actually knowing anything about who you are talking to....

Liz is still a newbie to me but he has actually made some pretty decent
contributions to this newsgroup in the past ...

I have read 100s of articles in the car audio and home audio magazines that
were full of bull****....

Sure; and some of the stuff on your website about acoustics is a good point of
reference.

You keep saying that.
Why does my stuff bother you so much???

A little insecurity maybe??

Sure; and about 30% of it falls directly in line with the Urban Legends
published on YOUR website.

can you be more specific or are you just looking for anyway you
can to DIS me like you did Lizard and everyone else on this newsgroup??

Just because Liz didnt tell you his publishing credentials before he said
he belived me more than he believed you doesnt mean he has to have
credentials that include publishing stuff...

OK but why did he come with full-battle gear on? Loud-mouth bluster isn't a
reasonable discussion technique in my world. Given your 'discussion' style I'd
guess you like it.

You talk about Lizards loud-mouthed bluster...???
Look at your own in this very same post!!!

So tell him next time that IF he has a good argument to step right in. But, if
he only has a 'bull****' argument he should expect to be confronted at he gate.

So you think YOU are confronting Lizard about his bull****!???

I think most folks reading this would read it as Lizard (and a bunch of
other people) confronting YOU..... These folks know for a fact that
moving thier woofer boxes DOES make a difference! When you
say all these people are imagining the phenomenon I dont blame them
about confronting you.. Like Liz did....

How can you think you are confronting him????
ha ha ha

Eddie Runner
http://www.installer.com/tech/

Nousaine wrote:

Loose tolerances? I'm guessing that you must know Eddie then.

ouch!

Nousaine wrote:

My advice is to investigate any offers from Eddie about bridges in Arizona.

ouch!

Nousaine wrote:

Isn' tit intersting

Now your talkin!

Nousaine wrote:

Actually I've done all those measurements before.

well, whats wrong, did you not archive your data???
Where is it..?

ha ha ha

Nousaine wrote:

What I'm asking is exactly
"how" a given woofer system placed in a car with no obvious frequency response
deviations KNOWS that it's SUPPOSED to have more output when it's facing to the
back???

Why are you even trying to go here Tom....
THis is one of the most rediculus questions I have heard...

Nousaine wrote:


Look carefully at the graphs,
There are some differences, and there are some spots where
there are no differences, and spots with constant differences
over several Hz ....

Bull****; what frequencies; what differences?

Look at the graphs!!!
http://www.installer.com/tech/aiming2.html

I can see it
Everyone else can see it
Why cant you see it Tom?

I've done all these experiments multiple times over the years. That's why I
know that Eddie Runner is full of bull**** on this issue.

If you say so,
We still dont see your data...
Maybe its EL-NINO

ha ha ha

All of these experiments are easy to replicate; ....but Eddie has just started
to investigate them. A-bout time; I'd say.

Another lame attempt to make me look like a newbie...
Tom is so jealous of me..

ha ha ha
poor fellow, it must suk to be him.

Nousaine wrote:

So? So has Amar Bose.

and the point of that is what?

Although I've not listened to any of your 'systems' that
I'm aware of, my guess is that any if your systems will cost 4X more and sound
half as good as the Bose Premuim upgrade in that vehicle., you'd be really
lucky.

Oh so you want to DIS the systems I have created and you have
never even heard any of them... Doesnt bother me...

Only based on my experience with 200 hundred after-market systems (IASCA
judge) and perhaps 400 OEM systems between 'prototype' and ":sold directly to
the public."

Iasca Judge? Is that supposed to impress me?
I have been a judge more times that I can count, including judge at the
very first world finals....

Dont forget (or maybe you dont know) the JUDGING and the contests
started right here in Houston so I may have had a little more influence in
how so many of todays contests eveolved that you might know...

Why are you so quick to DIS everyone and everything before you
even know anything about them???

So prove it; tell us something that is based on fact and not your biased
opinion.

My sweeps are my proof
http://www.installer.com/tech/aiming2.html

I get the feeling if we flipped a coin and you saw it was
heads, you would yell at me to PROVE IT....

Here ya go
http://www.installer.com/tech/quarter.bmp

Eddie
ha ha ha

ha ha ha ha
havent heard that one in a long time!

Good one!
still laughing

narcolept wrote:

OH OH! I GET TO SAY IT!

"No Highs, No Lows, Must be Bose!"

Nousaine wrote:

But you made a big issue of standing waves needing 2 sound waves traveling in
'different directions'. Since youve saved all our posts for the last year why
don't you look up what you said?

I just looked and I never said that pertaining to my web page
http://www.installer.com/tech/aiming.html

your must be mistaken

And then you've not had the balls to convincingly explain exactly how your
'cartoon' that has 2 sound waves traveling in the "same direction" can cause a
standing wave 'cancellation.'

Soud waves to not have to be moving in opposite directions
for a standing wave to occur... I have explained all that before and you
act like you have never seen me say that...

I used to know a guy that would get real drunk and then wanna
talk tech with me, then the next morning he would be sober and
not remember anything we talked about....

Are you drunk Tom??

Eddie
I dont drink

Nousaine wrote:

My "evidence" is looking at your cartoon and looking at your defintion of
standing waves and wondering "how" they jibe.

So, is that all you can offer us??