I need to vent. I'm tired of arguing with people about whether or not
round speakers are superior to oval speakers. 95% of the people I've
discussed this topic with always tend to claim that there is no audible
differences in oval speakers and round speakers. Those people must have
a tin ear! There is definitely performance differences between the two
shapes. The differences are related to the bass response, rather than
with the mids and highs. Oval speakers tend to distort (at higher
volumes) in the lower bass frequencies much faster than a round speaker
would. Take a round speaker and an oval speaker of roughly equal sizes,
assuming you are giving both adequate power, turn the volume up. Now,
which speaker do you think will distort faster? Bingo! The oval
speaker. Speakers were never intended to be oval. Have you ever noticed
how high-end component sets usually always have round drivers? Very few
companies produce oval component sets. There are some, but they are
very rare. Next time before answering the question on this topic, take
a listen to a side by side comparison of both shapes before being so
quick to say that they are both equal in sound...

I need to vent. I'm tired of arguing with people about whether or not
round speakers are superior to oval speakers. 95% of the people I've
discussed this topic with always tend to claim that there is no audible
differences in oval speakers and round speakers. Those people must have
a tin ear! There is definitely performance differences between the two
shapes. The differences are related to the bass response, rather than
with the mids and highs. Oval speakers tend to distort (at higher
volumes) in the lower bass frequencies much faster than a round speaker
would. Take a round speaker and an oval speaker of roughly equal sizes,
assuming you are giving both adequate power, turn the volume up. Now,
which speaker do you think will distort faster? Bingo! The oval
speaker. Speakers were never intended to be oval. Have you ever noticed
how high-end component sets usually always have round drivers? Very few
companies produce oval component sets. There are some, but they are
very rare. Next time before answering the question on this topic, take
a listen to a side by side comparison of both shapes before being so
quick to say that they are both equal in sound...


I don't understand your post. What do you mean by "speakers were never
intended to be oval"? Were they ever intended to be conical? Were they
ever intended to have a big hole cut out in the middle and another speaker
sitting in the middle along for the ride?

Now, you talk about side by side comparisons, but what exactly are you
comparing? Look, I can compare a 6x9 Kenwood speaker and a 6-1/2" Kraco
speaker and guess which one would probably sound better to most people? So
I suspect you're talking about speakers from the same brands, but are you
comparing 2-way vs 2-way? Midbass drivers alone? You've been unclear as to
what you've compared exactly, and whether or not you've compared them in the
same vehicles and same mounting locations. If they are indeed in the same
mounting locations, what have you done to adapt the 6" hole to a 6"x9" hole.

Basically, you need to be more specific about your setups before we can make
use of your posts. Which speakers were you comparing? How did you compare
them? Were they in the same car? And how were they mounted?

In article .com,
"Doug" wrote:

I need to vent. I'm tired of arguing with people about whether or not
round speakers are superior to oval speakers. 95% of the people I've
discussed this topic with always tend to claim that there is no audible
differences in oval speakers and round speakers. Those people must have
a tin ear! There is definitely performance differences between the two
shapes. The differences are related to the bass response, rather than
with the mids and highs. Oval speakers tend to distort (at higher
volumes) in the lower bass frequencies much faster than a round speaker
would. Take a round speaker and an oval speaker of roughly equal sizes,
assuming you are giving both adequate power, turn the volume up. Now,
which speaker do you think will distort faster? Bingo! The oval
speaker. Speakers were never intended to be oval. Have you ever noticed
how high-end component sets usually always have round drivers? Very few
companies produce oval component sets. There are some, but they are
very rare. Next time before answering the question on this topic, take
a listen to a side by side comparison of both shapes before being so
quick to say that they are both equal in sound...

That's a silly argument. The sound quality difference is based on the
intended use of the speaker, not the shape.

6.5 inch and smaller car audio speakers are generally placed in plastic
door panels where making deep bass would be futile. As a result, they
usually have very stiff suspensions to avoid mechanical clipping. 6x9
speakers are generally placed in the rear deck where there's a great
potential to make deep bass. There's a class of 6x9 speakers designed
to produce large amounts of bass in the rear deck using the 13W from a
stock HU. Their soft suspensions will clip or deform at about 50W. If
you want to avoid clipping, look for 6x9 speakers designed for high
power use or a sealed enclosure. Better yet, divert all the bass to a
subwoofer.

I never really noticed any difference, but I think round speakers are a lot
easier to work with.



"Doug" wrote in message
oups.com...
I need to vent. I'm tired of arguing with people about whether or not
round speakers are superior to oval speakers. 95% of the people I've
discussed this topic with always tend to claim that there is no audible
differences in oval speakers and round speakers. Those people must have
a tin ear! There is definitely performance differences between the two
shapes. The differences are related to the bass response, rather than
with the mids and highs. Oval speakers tend to distort (at higher
volumes) in the lower bass frequencies much faster than a round speaker
would. Take a round speaker and an oval speaker of roughly equal sizes,
assuming you are giving both adequate power, turn the volume up. Now,
which speaker do you think will distort faster? Bingo! The oval
speaker. Speakers were never intended to be oval. Have you ever noticed
how high-end component sets usually always have round drivers? Very few
companies produce oval component sets. There are some, but they are
very rare. Next time before answering the question on this topic, take
a listen to a side by side comparison of both shapes before being so
quick to say that they are both equal in sound...

Doug,

What would be your argument for or against square or hexagonal speakers as
compared to their round counterparts? (Kicker and Xtant being the first
brands to come to mind).

Tony


--
2001 Nissan Maxima SE Anniversary Edition
Eclipse CD8454 Head Unit, Phoenix Gold ZX475ti, ZX450 and ZX500 Amplifiers,
Phoenix Gold EQ-232 30-Band EQ, Dynaudio System 360 Tri-Amped In Front and
Focal 130HCs For Rear Fill, 2 Soundstream EXACT10s In Aperiodic Enclosure

2001 Chevy S10 ZR2
Pioneer DEH-P9600MP Head Unit, Phoenix Gold Ti500.4 Amp, Focal 165HC
Speakers & Image Dynamics ID8 D4 v.3 Sub

you mean to say you can walk up to a car n tell if is speakers are round
or not?????
at high volumes ''everyspeaker will distort.''
cause your music source will be sending more distortion to
them.......DUHHHHHH..idiot

MZ wrote:
I don't understand your post. What do you mean by "speakers were never
intended to be oval"? Were they ever intended to be conical? Were they
ever intended to have a big hole cut out in the middle and another speaker
sitting in the middle along for the ride?

Just as it says. Speakers were originally round, until I don't know
when.


Now, you talk about side by side comparisons, but what exactly are you
comparing? Look, I can compare a 6x9 Kenwood speaker and a 6-1/2" Kraco
speaker and guess which one would probably sound better to most people? So
I suspect you're talking about speakers from the same brands, but are you
comparing 2-way vs 2-way? Midbass drivers alone? You've been unclear as to
what you've compared exactly, and whether or not you've compared them in the
same vehicles and same mounting locations. If they are indeed in the same
mounting locations, what have you done to adapt the 6" hole to a 6"x9" hole.

Sorry for not being more specific. I was referring to a side by side
comparison of any well respected brand of speakers in oval and round
shapes. For example, Polk. Compare a Polk oval 6x9 speaker with a Polk
6-1/2" round speaker, and by powering each with clean outboard amp
power within the speakers' power handling. The rounds always sound
better at higher volume levels than the oval speakers. And yes, I am
referring mainly towards the mid-bass drivers. The highs are usually
not very much different between the two shapes.

Basically, you need to be more specific about your setups before we can make
use of your posts. Which speakers were you comparing? How did you compare
them? Were they in the same car? And how were they mounted?

I compared multiple respected brands of speakers: Polk, Boston
Acoustics, MB Quart, the list goes on. The rounds always sound better.
I believe it has a lot to do with the speakers' suspension.

Tony F wrote:
Doug,

What would be your argument for or against square or hexagonal speakers as
compared to their round counterparts? (Kicker and Xtant being the first
brands to come to mind).

Well, I honestly cannot give my opinion on the quality of these shapes
as I have never demoed them, but I'll say this: I wouldn't waste my
time even considering listening to them.

bob wald wrote:
you mean to say you can walk up to a car n tell if is speakers are round
or not?????
at high volumes ''everyspeaker will distort.''
cause your music source will be sending more distortion to
them.......

That depends. If the speakers are round, and you are feeding them the
right amount of power, then they shouldn't distort at all (even at high
volumes). However, if the speakers are oval, and you are still feeding
them the right amount of power, I would still expect distortion because
of the oval shape. It has all to do with the speaker's diaphragm,
motor, and suspension.

DUHHHHHH..idiot

I think this is what they call "denial"...

I don't understand your post. What do you mean by "speakers were never
intended to be oval"? Were they ever intended to be conical? Were they
ever intended to have a big hole cut out in the middle and another
speaker
sitting in the middle along for the ride?

Just as it says. Speakers were originally round, until I don't know
when.

Just because speakers were originally round doesn't necessarily mean that
there's an inherent benefit to making them that way. There originally
weren't tweeters plopped in the middle of a woofer's cone either, but
coaxials revolutionized car audio. Amplifiers originally used tubes, but
that doesn't mean that an OPS using tubes is superior to, say, an
L-MOSFET-based OPS.


Now, you talk about side by side comparisons, but what exactly are you
comparing? Look, I can compare a 6x9 Kenwood speaker and a 6-1/2" Kraco
speaker and guess which one would probably sound better to most people?
So
I suspect you're talking about speakers from the same brands, but are
you
comparing 2-way vs 2-way? Midbass drivers alone? You've been unclear
as to
what you've compared exactly, and whether or not you've compared them in
the
same vehicles and same mounting locations. If they are indeed in the
same
mounting locations, what have you done to adapt the 6" hole to a 6"x9"
hole.

Sorry for not being more specific. I was referring to a side by side
comparison of any well respected brand of speakers in oval and round
shapes. For example, Polk. Compare a Polk oval 6x9 speaker with a Polk
6-1/2" round speaker, and by powering each with clean outboard amp
power within the speakers' power handling. The rounds always sound
better at higher volume levels than the oval speakers. And yes, I am
referring mainly towards the mid-bass drivers. The highs are usually
not very much different between the two shapes.

Which Polks have you tested specifically? I'm actually not very familiar
with the newest product line from Polk, but I have quite a bit of experience
with the older Polk lines, though admittedly, not with their oval speakers.
But sometimes the installation calls for a certain size speaker to be used,
and short of modification, sometimes the oval speaker wins. For example,
Infinity, a/d/s/, and others were touting their plate speakers years ago (I
don't know if they still do), but the 4x6 coaxials were almost always
better-sounding to me. Usually my inclination would be to just rip open the
door and put a pair of 6's in there, but some vehicles are less receptive to
that strategy than others (and some vehicles' owners too!).


Basically, you need to be more specific about your setups before we can
make
use of your posts. Which speakers were you comparing? How did you
compare
them? Were they in the same car? And how were they mounted?

I compared multiple respected brands of speakers: Polk, Boston
Acoustics, MB Quart, the list goes on. The rounds always sound better.
I believe it has a lot to do with the speakers' suspension.

Interesting. Can you elaborate?

PS - I'm not necessarily doubting what you say about oval vs round. I'm
simply looking for clarification, and I'm trying to make sure you're
comparing apples and apples.

That depends. If the speakers are round, and you are feeding them the
right amount of power, then they shouldn't distort at all (even at high
volumes). However, if the speakers are oval, and you are still feeding
them the right amount of power, I would still expect distortion because
of the oval shape. It has all to do with the speaker's diaphragm,
motor, and suspension.

Seems to be sort of a hasty conclusion there. All speakers distort, and at
all volume levels. In fact, this distortion tends to be far greater than
the distortion produced by an amplifier or source unit that's not being
driven into clipping - several orders of magnitude, actually (which is part
of the reason I've made several assertions about amplifiers and head units
that some of you regulars here may remember).

Are you suggesting that oval speakers tend to bottom out prematurely? Or
are you claiming that the level of distortion at all volume levels is far
higher than that of round speakers? If so, do you have any data to back up
this statement?

"Doug" wrote in message
oups.com...
I need to vent. I'm tired of arguing with people about whether or not
round speakers are superior to oval speakers. 95% of the people I've
discussed this topic with always tend to claim that there is no audible
differences in oval speakers and round speakers. Those people must have
a tin ear! There is definitely performance differences between the two
shapes. The differences are related to the bass response, rather than
with the mids and highs. Oval speakers tend to distort (at higher
volumes) in the lower bass frequencies much faster than a round speaker
would. Take a round speaker and an oval speaker of roughly equal sizes,
assuming you are giving both adequate power, turn the volume up. Now,
which speaker do you think will distort faster? Bingo! The oval
speaker. Speakers were never intended to be oval. Have you ever noticed
how high-end component sets usually always have round drivers? Very few
companies produce oval component sets. There are some, but they are
very rare. Next time before answering the question on this topic, take
a listen to a side by side comparison of both shapes before being so
quick to say that they are both equal in sound...


You are dead right here, its just a rant!

that is the dumest statement i've heard since the internet was
invented......you win the top prize......

"bob wald" wrote in message
...
that is the dumest statement i've heard since the internet was
invented......you win the top prize......


I agree Bob

PS: So what about the Kicker square subs! Do they only produce square wave
signals?


Some people just done deserve a PC eh.

On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 22:35:17 -0500, (bob wald)
wrote:

that is the dumest statement i've heard since the internet was
invented......you win the top prize......


Now, try to imagine how much more meaningful your comment would be if
you actually quoted the post you're replying to...


--
Scott Gardner

"This seems like a case where we need to shoot the messenger." (Charlie Kaufman on Cypherpunks list)

Scotty wrote:
"bob wald" wrote in message
...
that is the dumest statement i've heard since the internet was
invented......you win the top prize......


I agree Bob

PS: So what about the Kicker square subs! Do they only produce square wave
signals?

What's with all the negative replies and flames? I'm not looking for a
flame war. I'm just trying set things straight about Ovals vs Rounds.
You need to understand the construction of a speaker to understand what
I am getting at. I'll try to explain it plain and simple. Oval speakers
are not as rigid as round speakers, they are an oblong shape,
therefore, distortion is audible more quickly than a round speaker.

Some people just done deserve a PC eh.

I agree, that's why I am using a Mac...

Well lets say a 6.5" speaker was rated at 50 watts, and a 6x9 was rated the
same. I'd expect no distortion from either of the speakers as why would they
rate a speaker beyond the point where it would produce "good" sound, if I
may use the term. If I made a speaker and during testing, used 75 watts, but
it did not sound good, I wouldn't rate the speaker as 75 watts, do you know
what I'm getting at? The only way I could see the oval speaker doing worse,
was if you were over-powering it to begin with.


"Doug" wrote in message
oups.com...


bob wald wrote:
you mean to say you can walk up to a car n tell if is speakers are round
or not?????
at high volumes ''everyspeaker will distort.''
cause your music source will be sending more distortion to
them.......

That depends. If the speakers are round, and you are feeding them the
right amount of power, then they shouldn't distort at all (even at high
volumes). However, if the speakers are oval, and you are still feeding
them the right amount of power, I would still expect distortion because
of the oval shape. It has all to do with the speaker's diaphragm,
motor, and suspension.

DUHHHHHH..idiot

I think this is what they call "denial"...

On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 05:57:36 GMT, "Kirby"
wrote:

Well lets say a 6.5" speaker was rated at 50 watts, and a 6x9 was rated the
same. I'd expect no distortion from either of the speakers as why would they
rate a speaker beyond the point where it would produce "good" sound, if I
may use the term. If I made a speaker and during testing, used 75 watts, but
it did not sound good, I wouldn't rate the speaker as 75 watts, do you know
what I'm getting at? The only way I could see the oval speaker doing worse,
was if you were over-powering it to begin with.

That's exactly right. For any given cone area and materials, a round
speaker will be more resistant to flexing compared to a long oval
speaker like a 4" X 10", because the round speaker minimizes the
distance from the center of the speaker to the edge of the speaker.

But the difference is really only theoretical, because by choosing
different materials for the cone and suspension, the engineers can
design in all the stiffness they need for the speaker to play at its
maximum rated power without unacceptable flexing.

Now, if I had to design a speaker to accept the maximum amount of
power possible, and I was limited as to what kinds of materials I
could use, I would choose a round speaker. But if the goal isn't
absolute maximum power-handling, you can make the speakers oval,
square, hexagonal, or even heart-shaped if you wanted to without
having to worry about excessive flexing.
--
Scott Gardner

"Fighter pilots make movies, bomber pilots make history....But Hawkeye bubbas write the scripts."

Well now that I think about it, the point I was getting at was why would a
manufacturer rate a speaker beyond the point that it soudns good.



"Scott Gardner" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 05:57:36 GMT, "Kirby"
wrote:

Well lets say a 6.5" speaker was rated at 50 watts, and a 6x9 was rated
the
same. I'd expect no distortion from either of the speakers as why would
they
rate a speaker beyond the point where it would produce "good" sound, if I
may use the term. If I made a speaker and during testing, used 75 watts,
but
it did not sound good, I wouldn't rate the speaker as 75 watts, do you
know
what I'm getting at? The only way I could see the oval speaker doing
worse,
was if you were over-powering it to begin with.

That's exactly right. For any given cone area and materials, a round
speaker will be more resistant to flexing compared to a long oval
speaker like a 4" X 10", because the round speaker minimizes the
distance from the center of the speaker to the edge of the speaker.

But the difference is really only theoretical, because by choosing
different materials for the cone and suspension, the engineers can
design in all the stiffness they need for the speaker to play at its
maximum rated power without unacceptable flexing.

Now, if I had to design a speaker to accept the maximum amount of
power possible, and I was limited as to what kinds of materials I
could use, I would choose a round speaker. But if the goal isn't
absolute maximum power-handling, you can make the speakers oval,
square, hexagonal, or even heart-shaped if you wanted to without
having to worry about excessive flexing.
--
Scott Gardner

"Fighter pilots make movies, bomber pilots make history....But Hawkeye
bubbas write the scripts."

hate to tell you but in every square speaker i seen theres a round one
with corners added n i bet in 6x9s theres a round one too just with both
ends stretched. so it has a round speaker in it.
if you look close at those sq 1s.

"bob wald" wrote in message
...
that is the dumest statement i've heard since the internet was
invented......you win the top prize......

Since you can't seem to quote, there's no way to tell
what dumb statement you are referring to. You must be
referring to your own context-free post!

In article .net,
"No Spam" wrote:

"bob wald" wrote in message
...
that is the dumest statement i've heard since the internet was
invented......you win the top prize......

Since you can't seem to quote, there's no way to tell
what dumb statement you are referring to. You must be
referring to your own context-free post!

Your newsreader is broken if it doesn't show article references.

On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 18:00:52 GMT, "No Spam" wrote:

"bob wald" wrote in message
...
that is the dumest statement i've heard since the internet was
invented......you win the top prize......

Since you can't seem to quote, there's no way to tell
what dumb statement you are referring to. You must be
referring to your own context-free post!


He's been using WebTV for years, and has "gotten used to it", but he
evidently hasn't figured out how to quote yet.


--
Scott Gardner

"The media finally figured out that their "paying customers" (i.e. advertisers) don't WANT an intelligent, thoughtful audience. And they no longer have one." (Rich Tietjens)

On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 12:58:58 -0500, (bob wald)
wrote:

hate to tell you but in every square speaker i seen theres a round one
with corners added n i bet in 6x9s theres a round one too just with both
ends stretched. so it has a round speaker in it.
if you look close at those sq 1s.

Can you give us a specific brand? None of the square or hexagonal
speakers I've seen (Kicker, Xtant, etcetera) have round cones with
"corners added". The actual cone surface itself is square or
hexagonal.

On the other hand, if you're saying that a square speaker can be
"described" as a round speaker with corners added, then no ****,
Sherlock - that's grade-school geometry. ANY shape can have a circle
inscribed within it, whether the shape is square, hexagonal,
trapezoidal, or whatever else.

Would you describe a triangle as "a circle with three corners added"?




--
Scott Gardner

"The war isn't the war between the blacks and the whites, the liberals and the conservatives, or the Federation and the Romulans. It's between the clueful and the clueless." (an anonymous poster on cypherpunks list)

"Kirby" wrote in message
news:W0Ave.1807095$6l.1498381@pd7tw2no...
Well now that I think about it, the point I was getting at was why would a
manufacturer rate a speaker beyond the point that it soudns good.

They do it all the time. It's so they can plaster "1000 watts!" on the box
when in fact it'll only handle 100.

Since you can't seem to quote, there's no way to tell
what dumb statement you are referring to. You must be
referring to your own context-free post!

Your newsreader is broken if it doesn't show article references.

Uh...no...not everyone uses a threaded newsreader Kevin...

i think it was a reply to doug i made .you all are wondering about. i
never post who i'm anwering its automatic..duhhh i thunkit waz anyways.
so the person that attacked me over who i was replying to needs to get
his head outa hisass....

no i'm not saying a sq speaker can have a round speaker inside
it.duhhhhh
i'm saying its a round speaker . with corners made onto it.
i have discover the fountain of stupidity.
bob w. june 25.2005

"bob wald" wrote in message
...
no i'm not saying a sq speaker can have a round speaker inside
it.duhhhhh
i'm saying its a round speaker . with corners made onto it.
i have discover the fountain of stupidity.
bob w. june 25.2005

So where's that fountain? In your pants?

"MZ" wrote in message
...
Since you can't seem to quote, there's no way to tell
what dumb statement you are referring to. You must be
referring to your own context-free post!

Your newsreader is broken if it doesn't show article references.

Uh...no...not everyone uses a threaded newsreader Kevin...

And the reply often arrives before the article being
replied to. This is Usenet ... it's been this way for
decades. It's pretty simple.

"bob wald" wrote in message
...
i think it was a reply to doug i made .you all are wondering about. i
never post who i'm anwering its automatic..duhhh i thunkit waz anyways.
so the person that attacked me over who i was replying to needs to get
his head outa hisass....

This is a work of genius. I will frame it and put it
on my wall to remind me how perceptive webtv users
can be.

I should have been more specific, by the continous power of the speaker.
When was the last time you seen a reputable speaker be rated at 100 watts
RMS when it distorts at 75?


"MZ" wrote in message
...

"Kirby" wrote in message
news:W0Ave.1807095$6l.1498381@pd7tw2no...
Well now that I think about it, the point I was getting at was why would
a
manufacturer rate a speaker beyond the point that it soudns good.

They do it all the time. It's so they can plaster "1000 watts!" on the
box
when in fact it'll only handle 100.

In article .com,
"Doug" wrote:

I need to vent. I'm tired of arguing with people about whether or not
round speakers are superior to oval speakers. 95% of the people I've
discussed this topic with always tend to claim that there is no audible
differences in oval speakers and round speakers. Those people must have
a tin ear! There is definitely performance differences between the two
shapes. The differences are related to the bass response, rather than
with the mids and highs. Oval speakers tend to distort (at higher
volumes) in the lower bass frequencies much faster than a round speaker
would. Take a round speaker and an oval speaker of roughly equal sizes,
assuming you are giving both adequate power, turn the volume up. Now,
which speaker do you think will distort faster? Bingo! The oval
speaker. Speakers were never intended to be oval. Have you ever noticed
how high-end component sets usually always have round drivers? Very few
companies produce oval component sets. There are some, but they are
very rare. Next time before answering the question on this topic, take
a listen to a side by side comparison of both shapes before being so
quick to say that they are both equal in sound...


Are there any specifications to your 'test'?

Were these drivers in free-air? Enclosed? Bandpassed? High passed? Were
they of the same brand? Same power handling capabilities?

This is too vague of a statement without some hard facts and
measurements. Don't forget the anechoic ground level measurements.

Just because manufacturers make things, doesn't mean that they're
correct. Things audio are often sold and bought for many reasons, of
which very very few are actually audio related reasons.

hth,

--
Cyrus

*coughcasaucedoprodigynetcough*

On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 15:35:20 -0500, (bob wald)
wrote:

i think it was a reply to doug i made .you all are wondering about. i
never post who i'm anwering its automatic..duhhh i thunkit waz anyways.
so the person that attacked me over who i was replying to needs to get
his head outa hisass....

You've been using WebTV for years, and you haven't figured out that
your posts don't include the test you're replying to, even after
several people have asked you to include quoted text in your replies?

And WE'RE the ones that need to pull our heads out of our asses?

You're too funny.


--
Scott Gardner

"What happens on cruise, stays on cruise." (Navy saying)

On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 15:41:28 -0500, (bob wald)
wrote:

no i'm not saying a sq speaker can have a round speaker inside
it.duhhhhh
i'm saying its a round speaker . with corners made onto it.
i have discover the fountain of stupidity.
bob w. june 25.2005

What, do they make a round speaker and then stretch it over a square
frame? You're priceless.

A square speaker cone isn't a round cone with four corners added to it
any more than a triangle is a circle with three corners added to it.

You obviously HAVE discovered the fountain of stupidity...now STOP
DRINKING!!!!



--
Scott Gardner

"We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars." (Oscar Wilde)

i think it was a reply to doug i made .you all are wondering about. i
never post who i'm anwering its automatic..duhhh i thunkit waz anyways.
so the person that attacked me over who i was replying to needs to get
his head outa hisass....

You're clearly uninformed about this issue, so let me explain it to you.

General USENET etiquette dictates that you quote the text you reply to.
Now, this isn't a matter of nitpicking, but rather a courtesy to others who
aren't using WebTV or whatever other threaded newsreaders are popular. Some
people are reading this newsgroup with a newsreader that sorts by date, for
example, instead of by thread, and when they see your post they have no idea
what you're referring to or who you're replying to.

Hopefully you've learned something and won't try to childishly turn this
around to be an attack of some sort.

I should have been more specific, by the continous power of the speaker.
When was the last time you seen a reputable speaker be rated at 100 watts
RMS when it distorts at 75?

Happens all the time. Do you want a list of equipment? Begin by taking a
look at Boss, Pyramid, etc. They're all guilty of overrating.

Power ratings are often ambiguous anyway. The fact of the matter is that
there's no such thing as inherent power handling of any particular speaker.
Your speaker may be able to handle 100 watts under the conditions that the
manufacturer used to test it, but what about in a ported box below the
tuning frequency? What about in an undersized sealed enclosure? The same
clearly doesn't apply. What about power compression? The speaker may be
forced to handle 100 watts initially, but as the coil heats up it may only
be dissipating 50 watts as the DCR of the coil rises. Maybe the
manufacturer is counting the initial 100 watts in their rating? If they
used a dynamic signal that modified output with a feedback mechanism, I'd
expect the results to be far different. And what exactly is power handling?
Is it the maximum amount of power it can handle for 10 seconds, 3 minutes,
or 5 hours? Are they referring to whether or not the adhesives begin to
soften, the former begins to warp, it starts bottoming out on the plate, or
is it when the insulation fries off and it melts into one hunk? Clearly, a
speaker that's rated for 100 watts won't be perfectly fine at 99 watts and
then dissolve into a pile of molten metal at 101 watts.

My point is that power handling is tough to put your thumb on. It's
dependent on things like enclosure type, ambient temperature, input signal,
and so forth...

yes i do now..but i reply other places n its put up by itself.....
also i got the 1st webtv not the later 1.i think the newer 1 you can do
lots more on.
i bought the 1st one then acouple of yrs later they came out with
another 1. i think its webtv plus.
i got the original webtv.

i own afew boss amps....i rate them a-.
a- being great. minus alil less than great.
plus- meaning the best in that group.

b- being good.
c- being average.
d- poor

boss is one of the largest amp producers.

"bob wald" wrote in message
...
yes i do now..but i reply other places n its put up by itself.....
also i got the 1st webtv not the later 1.i think the newer 1 you can do
lots more on.
i bought the 1st one then acouple of yrs later they came out with
another 1. i think its webtv plus.
i got the original webtv.

Nice incoherent post. Smoke much crack?