Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #121   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.car
Eddie Runner Eddie Runner is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 48
Default polk 6x9

Matt Ion wrote:
Eddie Runner wrote:



And here you start falling into the same rut as JD - I'm bringing up
generalities, you're trying to refute them with specific, even esoteric
individual examples. What's the point?


Im speaking in general in this case also.
most 6x9s out there will sound better than most full range 8s out there
(made for car audio).
Im not choosing 2 strange samples!!!

try it with ANY (although 8 inch full range are kinda rare in the car
stereo market)..

My point is my experience says the 6x9 would be perceived as better by
most listeners, and your just guessing (incorrectly IMO that the 8 is
better).

Yes, there are always the exceptions to the rule (or generalization)...
that doesn't invalidate the generalization.


Again, im not talking about some bizzare exception, Im talking about
real speakers in my store at this moment. As apposed to speakers that
only exist in your mind that you have probably never actually compared
or listened to.

And there you go. Compare a different 8" to a different 6x9" and you
get different results again. What's the point?


ALL the full range 8 inchers made for car audio use are about the same,
this is not an unusual instance Im using just to prove you wrong, try it
with ANY you like.

For folks that know me, I prefer folks to really TRY IT than just TALK
ABOUT IT...

Folks can IMAGINE ANYTHING, Im talking about real world products with
measurable hear able differences, and as usuall I would be prepared to
back up what I am talking about with real tests.

Eddie Runner


  #122   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.car
Christopher \Torroid\ Ott Christopher \Torroid\ Ott is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 81
Default polk 6x9

"Eddie Runner" wrote in message
news
The cone flex your talking about ARE the resonances (or cause the
resonances) that I am talking about.

Eddie Runner


Which is what you said "wont (CANT) happen!" right? No biggie, that's just
what he was referring to - the flex of the cone. And the answer is that it
does flex and fold, and to some extent parts could be moving in different
directions, but unless the cone is molded out of Jello it's not a problem.
The stiffness of the various components will damp this at usable
frequencies.

Chris




  #123   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.car
Eddie Runner Eddie Runner is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 48
Default polk 6x9

Christopher "Torroid" Ott wrote:
"Eddie Runner" wrote in message
news
The cone flex your talking about ARE the resonances (or cause the
resonances) that I am talking about.

Eddie Runner


Which is what you said "wont (CANT) happen!" right? No biggie, that's just
what he was referring to - the flex of the cone. And the answer is that it
does flex and fold, and to some extent parts could be moving in different
directions, but unless the cone is molded out of Jello it's not a problem.
The stiffness of the various components will damp this at usable
frequencies.

Chris


CHRIS!!!
Thats NOT what I said, Don't be quoting me as saying something I didnt
say.

Yes I said those words, but the meaning is not as you say. CAN YOU READ?
A copy of what I said and why I said it is enclosed below.
If you think one side of the speaker is going UP while the other side of
the speaker is going DOWN.

I love to argue about electronics, and especially acoustics, but its no
fun for me if the opponent (you) cant even read... Whats the point of
me typeing this stuff if you cant read or interpret it with an ounce of
sense.

Yes, in the strictest sense, there are MANY vibrations and many
resonances, there are flexes and all kinds of little forces going on,
(and I see your point) but I dont think thats what Mosfet or I was
talking about in the quote you misquoted... ;-)

Eddie Runner


MOSFET wrote:

I can imagine a
scenario where the 6" distance has gone up and has started it's way back
down while the 9" distance is still going up.


ARE YOU NUTS!?
That wont (CANT) happen!

the 6 inch part will rise and fall the EXACT same rate and distance the
9 inch part will move. THEY WILL RISE AND FALL AT THE SAME TIME, NOT
ONE BEFORE THE OTHER...

Eddie Runner
  #124   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.car
Jethro[_5_] Jethro[_5_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default polk 6x9


Eddie Runner Wrote:
Matt Ion wrote:
Eddie Runner wrote:


In the car audio world, its hard to beat a 6x9 for a full range

speaker.
5 1/4 and 6.5 just doesn't have the bass and total output a 6x9

has..

That's really their only "benefit" - more bass from a narrower

space...
but really, if you have the space, an 8" round will give you a

larger
cone area and thus more bass/output than a 6x9.


Are you sure of that Matt?
I believe you are speaking in a theoretical sense instead of what you
really know.

I would like you to REALLY compare a full range 6x9 to a full range 8
for instance Memphis makes 6x9s and an 8 inch with a tweeter..
( I have these in stock in my store right now.)

I would be willing to bet you in a blind folded test, most folks would
choose the 6x9.

I think the problem here comes from design though, the Memphis 6x9 is
made to play the best it can where the Memphis 8 has a heavier
cone.(although possibly close to the same cone area as the 6x9)

The heavier cone may be to try to make the 8 play lower but of course
with a loss of mids and loss of sensitivity which are HEAR-ABLE.

Eddie RunnerCome on Eddie, are you really implying that because an 8" has more cone

area, it will be less sensitive and roll off sooner? You've been around
long enough to know better than that.

The sensitivity increase caused by the increased cone area will more
than compensate for any lost sensitivity due to increased cone mass. If
we followed your logic, we would have no need for large displacement
drivers... just run 6-inchers because they're more sensitive than
12-inchers, right?

As far as loss of midrange, cone mass really has very little to do with
that -- inductance is really what's critical here, not cone mass.


--
Jethro

pre-occupied with 1985
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jethro's Profile: 18662
View this thread: http://www.caraudioforum.com/vbb3/sh...d.php?t=279397
CarAudioForum.com - Usenet Gateway w/over TWO million posts online!


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

  #125   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.car
Jethro[_6_] Jethro[_6_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default polk 6x9


Eddie Runner Wrote:
Jethro wrote:
Come on Eddie, are you really implying that because an 8" has more

cone
area, it will be less sensitive and roll off sooner? You've been

around
long enough to know better than that.


No, thats not what I meant, perhaps I should have made myself more
clear
on that point. After re-reading it I can see where there might be
some
confusion.

I think if you read back in the thread a little before I made the
statement in question, you might see we were assuming the cone area on
the 6x9 might be close to the same as on the 8, I think thats the
reason
someone compared the two.

What I meant was the cone on the 8 is heavier, not because of cone
area
difference, but because the designers of the 8 ADDED WEIGHT to give it
a
lower FS (a better bass driver).

IMO and Experience, it seems (to me) that a 6x9 is made to just play!
Where the full range 8s I have seen have had a larger emphasis on the
woofer part.

In other words, most 6x9s are just 6x9s with no real emphasis on bass
in
particular, and the full range car 8s have a beefier
cone and beefier surround and are just not as sensitive as the 6x9s.
(generally speaking)...

And BTW, you may or may not be familiar with the fact that simply
adding
weight to a speaker cone lets it play lower. But less sensitive of
course (which isnt always pointed out by speaker manufacturers).

Some good examples are 6 inch coax that sound great and 6 inch bass
drivers that are WAY less sensitive.

Eddie Runner
Sorry you missunderstood me.But you are just assuming that the designer's intentions are to make an

8" play lower than a 6x9 (through added mass, which in turn lowers
efficiency).

In the specific instance you mention, however, the 8" Memphis has a
Sens. rating of 93 dB, whereas the 6x9 of the same line has a Sens.
rating of 92 dB... kind of blows your theory, now doesn't it (those
numbers are inflated, obviously). So it seems to me the designers had
pretty much the same goals in mind with either size, but the extra cone
area of the 8" driver allows it to get a little louder with the same
input.


--
Jethro

pre-occupied with 1985
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jethro's Profile: 18662
View this thread: http://www.caraudioforum.com/vbb3/sh...d.php?t=279397
CarAudioForum.com - Usenet Gateway w/over TWO million posts online!


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com



  #126   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.car
Jethro[_7_] Jethro[_7_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default polk 6x9


Eddie Runner Wrote:
Jethro wrote:
In the specific instance you mention, however, the 8" Memphis has a
Sens. rating of 93 dB, whereas the 6x9 of the same line has a Sens.
rating of 92 dB... kind of blows your theory, now doesn't it (those
numbers are inflated, obviously). So it seems to me the designers

had
pretty much the same goals in mind with either size, but the extra

cone
area of the 8" driver allows it to get a little louder with the same
input.


Well,

I never put much faith in manufacture ratings. Does your source
specify
how they come to these sensitivity ratings? Do you know the exact
models your referring to?

If I get a chance tomorrow, I will use my LMS computer to run a sweep
of
the 6x9 and 8 inch round and compare them, I can post the results.

should be fun.
EddieThat info is from the Memphis website...


MSYNC8: http://tinyurl.com/2egmxr
MC92: http://tinyurl.com/2avvgn

Doesn't really matter how it's measured or calculated, as long as the
same method is used for each speaker (which you would expect with them
both being from the same company).

If you look at the links, you'll notice that 8" uses a 20 oz. magnet
whereas the 6x9 uses a 13 oz. magnet. ;-)


--
Jethro

pre-occupied with 1985
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jethro's Profile: 18662
View this thread: http://www.caraudioforum.com/vbb3/sh...d.php?t=279397
CarAudioForum.com - Usenet Gateway w/over TWO million posts online!


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

  #127   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.car
Eddie Runner Eddie Runner is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 48
Default polk 6x9

Jethro wrote:
Come on Eddie, are you really implying that because an 8" has more cone
area, it will be less sensitive and roll off sooner? You've been around
long enough to know better than that.


No, thats not what I meant, perhaps I should have made myself more clear
on that point. After re-reading it I can see where there might be some
confusion.

I think if you read back in the thread a little before I made the
statement in question, you might see we were assuming the cone area on
the 6x9 might be close to the same as on the 8, I think thats the reason
someone compared the two.

What I meant was the cone on the 8 is heavier, not because of cone area
difference, but because the designers of the 8 ADDED WEIGHT to give it a
lower FS (a better bass driver).

IMO and Experience, it seems (to me) that a 6x9 is made to just play!
Where the full range 8s I have seen have had a larger emphasis on the
woofer part.

In other words, most 6x9s are just 6x9s with no real emphasis on bass in
particular, and the full range car 8s have a beefier
cone and beefier surround and are just not as sensitive as the 6x9s.
(generally speaking)...

And BTW, you may or may not be familiar with the fact that simply adding
weight to a speaker cone lets it play lower. But less sensitive of
course (which isnt always pointed out by speaker manufacturers).

Some good examples are 6 inch coax that sound great and 6 inch bass
drivers that are WAY less sensitive.

Eddie Runner
Sorry you missunderstood me.

  #128   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.car
Eddie Runner Eddie Runner is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 48
Default polk 6x9

Jethro wrote:
In the specific instance you mention, however, the 8" Memphis has a
Sens. rating of 93 dB, whereas the 6x9 of the same line has a Sens.
rating of 92 dB... kind of blows your theory, now doesn't it (those
numbers are inflated, obviously). So it seems to me the designers had
pretty much the same goals in mind with either size, but the extra cone
area of the 8" driver allows it to get a little louder with the same
input.


Well,

I never put much faith in manufacture ratings. Does your source specify
how they come to these sensitivity ratings? Do you know the exact
models your referring to?

If I get a chance tomorrow, I will use my LMS computer to run a sweep of
the 6x9 and 8 inch round and compare them, I can post the results.

should be fun.
Eddie
  #129   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.car
Daniel W. Rouse Jr. Daniel W. Rouse Jr. is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14
Default polk 6x9

"Jethro" wrote in message
...

Eddie Runner Wrote:
Jethro wrote:
Come on Eddie, are you really implying that because an 8" has more

cone
area, it will be less sensitive and roll off sooner? You've been

around
long enough to know better than that.


No, thats not what I meant, perhaps I should have made myself more
clear
on that point. After re-reading it I can see where there might be
some
confusion.

I think if you read back in the thread a little before I made the
statement in question, you might see we were assuming the cone area on
the 6x9 might be close to the same as on the 8, I think thats the
reason
someone compared the two.

What I meant was the cone on the 8 is heavier, not because of cone
area
difference, but because the designers of the 8 ADDED WEIGHT to give it
a
lower FS (a better bass driver).

IMO and Experience, it seems (to me) that a 6x9 is made to just play!
Where the full range 8s I have seen have had a larger emphasis on the
woofer part.

In other words, most 6x9s are just 6x9s with no real emphasis on bass
in
particular, and the full range car 8s have a beefier
cone and beefier surround and are just not as sensitive as the 6x9s.
(generally speaking)...

And BTW, you may or may not be familiar with the fact that simply
adding
weight to a speaker cone lets it play lower. But less sensitive of
course (which isnt always pointed out by speaker manufacturers).

Some good examples are 6 inch coax that sound great and 6 inch bass
drivers that are WAY less sensitive.

Eddie Runner
Sorry you missunderstood me.But you are just assuming that the

designer's intentions are to make an
8" play lower than a 6x9 (through added mass, which in turn lowers
efficiency).

In the specific instance you mention, however, the 8" Memphis has a
Sens. rating of 93 dB, whereas the 6x9 of the same line has a Sens.
rating of 92 dB... kind of blows your theory, now doesn't it (those
numbers are inflated, obviously). So it seems to me the designers had
pretty much the same goals in mind with either size, but the extra cone
area of the 8" driver allows it to get a little louder with the same
input.


So it may help to actually quantify the surface areas, ignoring other
factors such as the depth of the speaker cone and magnet size for the time
being.

First calculate the surface area of the 6x9...

Area of a oval/ellipse = Pi * (longer radius) * (shorter radius)

longer radius of 6x9 speaker = 9 inches / 2 = 4.5 inches

shorter radius of 6x9 speaker = 6 inches / 2 = 3 inches

Area = Pi * (4.5 inches) * (3 inches)

[Pi will be used to 4 decimal places]

= 3.1416 * 4.5 inches * 3 inches

= 42.4116 = 42.4 inches^2, therefore, the surface area of a 6x9 speaker is
approximately 42 square inches.

Then calculate the surface area of the 8...

Area of circle = Pi * radius * radius

radius of an 8 inch speaker = 8 / 2 = 4 inches

[Pi will be used to 4 decimal places]

Area = 3.1414 * 4 inches * 4 inches

= 50.2656 inches^2, therefore, the surface area of an 8 inch speaker is
approximately 50 square inches.

Check my calculations for formula or computational errors, of course, since
I only used simple algebraic formulas rather than more intricate
calculus-based formulas.

Does about 8 square inches difference in cone surface area have any
significant meaning in car audio speaker theory?


  #130   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.car
[email protected] andrew.krause@gmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default polk 6x9

On Oct 2, 8:59 pm, "MOSFET" wrote:

This is a RIDICULOUS assertion as Matt's been around forever AND IS one of
the "big boys" in my book. Who are YOU talking about? Dan Kreft? Mark
Zarella? Ian B.?


....kxp42, the bat (~..~), Steven Scharf....

--
The Lizard



  #131   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.car
[email protected] andrew.krause@gmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default polk 6x9

On Oct 3, 10:36 pm, John Durbin wrote:
I don't recall either of you being around when this group was in its
prime & the ignorant children had not yet chased away all of the trained
professionals.


Ever wonder what Jay B Haider is up to? I wasn't sure if he was on
this group to discuss car audio or flaunt his love affair with fruity
french cars.

JD
and come on, the Christmas goose rip is a keeper


They've no sense of humor, the lot of 'em.

--
The Lizard

  #132   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.car
[email protected] andrew.krause@gmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default polk 6x9

On Oct 2, 9:16 pm, "MOSFET" wrote:
Matt and I have explained why they are not everywhere and it has to do with
the inherrent problems with the oval design. The evidence seems
incontrevertable. If you do not believe Matt or myself, the INDUSTY makes
the most compelling argument AGAINST ovals in home speakers. Case closed.


"Appeal to authority" is a logical fallacy, not an actual argument. If
the entire industry went and jumped off a bridge, would you join them?

There are no "inherent" problems with oval designs that don't also
exist in circular designs. The choice of oval vs round is completely
arbitrary outside of space considerations. I think you've been advised
several times to go read the loudspeaker design cookbook. I would pay
particular attention to the section about diaphragm geometry before
continuing this nonsense.

--
The Lizard

  #133   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.car
Eddie Runner Eddie Runner is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 48
Default polk 6x9

John Durbin wrote:
I had quoted Martin Collums' High Performance Loudspeakers and Vance
Dickason's Loudspeaker Cookbook early on in the discussion, but I guess
maybe these guys missed it - twice in Matt's case - cause they kept
asking for titles. I threw in the Audio Cyclopedia the second time around.


Not you but someone else mentioned books also, I was trying to get him
to name titles (Im a book fanatic) just to (a) see if he really can
read. (b) see if there might be some books I dont already have or know
about.

You mentioned Collums - reading gives someone a good foundation.

You mentioned Dickason - IMO some conflicting info, and most of it is
based on jaes papers, alot in this book is kinda confusing for most
folks, but it has become one of the most talked about speaker books in
the last decade (maybe one of the only speaker books in the last decade)

and you mentioned the Audio Cyclopedia, one of my very very favorite
books, I love it, there is so much stuff in there it amazes me every
time I open it. I have three copies, one is old, I have used it so much
the hard covers have fallen off and been taped back on several times,
the old one has stuff in it about ancient tape technology, hearing aid
technology and of course much on speakers from the old days, interesting
that alot has not changed... I have a newer version (or in better shape
at least), and I have a much newer one that is Handbook for Sound
Engineers - The NEW audio cyclopedia...

Fun stuff!

Eddie Runner
  #134   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.car
g g is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 111
Default polk 6x9

In article , Eddie Runner wrote:
John Durbin wrote:
I had quoted Martin Collums' High Performance Loudspeakers and Vance
Dickason's Loudspeaker Cookbook early on in the discussion, but I guess
maybe these guys missed it - twice in Matt's case - cause they kept
asking for titles. I threw in the Audio Cyclopedia the second time around.


Not you but someone else mentioned books also, I was trying to get him
to name titles (Im a book fanatic) just to (a) see if he really can
read. (b) see if there might be some books I dont already have or know
about.

You mentioned Collums - reading gives someone a good foundation.

You mentioned Dickason - IMO some conflicting info, and most of it is
based on jaes papers, alot in this book is kinda confusing for most
folks, but it has become one of the most talked about speaker books in
the last decade (maybe one of the only speaker books in the last decade)

and you mentioned the Audio Cyclopedia, one of my very very favorite
books, I love it, there is so much stuff in there it amazes me every
time I open it. I have three copies, one is old, I have used it so much
the hard covers have fallen off and been taped back on several times,
the old one has stuff in it about ancient tape technology, hearing aid
technology and of course much on speakers from the old days, interesting
that alot has not changed... I have a newer version (or in better shape
at least), and I have a much newer one that is Handbook for Sound
Engineers - The NEW audio cyclopedia...

Fun stuff!

Eddie Runner


The best thing is about 20 years of Speaker Builder magazine.
There was also the first speaker building articles in The Audio Amateur
before Speaker Builder. Came out as a side edition.

Before SB, I keept reading the Sam's book on HiFi. It talked about
speaker boxes, without the TS parameter system. Probably from the 60's.

greg
  #135   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.car
Eddie Runner Eddie Runner is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 48
Default Speaker Books was polk 6x9

G wrote:
The best thing is about 20 years of Speaker Builder magazine.
There was also the first speaker building articles in The Audio Amateur
before Speaker Builder. Came out as a side edition.

Before SB, I keept reading the Sam's book on HiFi. It talked about
speaker boxes, without the TS parameter system. Probably from the 60's.

greg


Are they still printing speaker builder? I havent seen it in a few
years. Probably one of the best mags I ever subscribed to.

Eddie


  #136   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.car
g g is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 111
Default polk 6x9

In article , (G) wrote:
In article , Eddie Runner
wrote:
John Durbin wrote:
I had quoted Martin Collums' High Performance Loudspeakers and Vance
Dickason's Loudspeaker Cookbook early on in the discussion, but I guess
maybe these guys missed it - twice in Matt's case - cause they kept
asking for titles. I threw in the Audio Cyclopedia the second time around.


Not you but someone else mentioned books also, I was trying to get him
to name titles (Im a book fanatic) just to (a) see if he really can
read. (b) see if there might be some books I dont already have or know
about.

You mentioned Collums - reading gives someone a good foundation.

You mentioned Dickason - IMO some conflicting info, and most of it is
based on jaes papers, alot in this book is kinda confusing for most
folks, but it has become one of the most talked about speaker books in
the last decade (maybe one of the only speaker books in the last decade)

and you mentioned the Audio Cyclopedia, one of my very very favorite
books, I love it, there is so much stuff in there it amazes me every
time I open it. I have three copies, one is old, I have used it so much
the hard covers have fallen off and been taped back on several times,
the old one has stuff in it about ancient tape technology, hearing aid
technology and of course much on speakers from the old days, interesting
that alot has not changed... I have a newer version (or in better shape
at least), and I have a much newer one that is Handbook for Sound
Engineers - The NEW audio cyclopedia...

Fun stuff!

Eddie Runner


The best thing is about 20 years of Speaker Builder magazine.
There was also the first speaker building articles in The Audio Amateur
before Speaker Builder. Came out as a side edition.

Before SB, I keept reading the Sam's book on HiFi. It talked about
speaker boxes, without the TS parameter system. Probably from the 60's.

greg



Eddie Runner, I can't repost from your reply. There is something
in my system that prevent it. Some line too long or something.

Speaker Builder is now the combo of Audio Amateur and SB.
http://www.audioxpress.com/

greg
  #137   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.car
MOSFET MOSFET is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 810
Default polk 6x9

Yes, I agree with everything you said and not being an engineer I don't
understand fully some of the principles discussed, though Matt and others
have taken the time to explain some to me.

I guess much of this boils down to common sense. Though I don't understand
all the various reasons WHY this is the case, common sense would dictate
that a round speaker that matched the round voice coil would produce the
most linear pistonic movement as I have already mentioned. Though some of
my explanations may have been off the mark a bit, I attribute that to my
lack of education regarding accoustic and electrical engineering. I'm an MBA
for Pete's sake, I CAN probably tell you the best way to market a
speaker....

But I appreciate this thread and learning more about speaker design.

MOSFET

"Eddie Runner" wrote in message
. net...
MOSFET wrote:
Look, I'm sure you're right and that THERE ARE home speakers that

utilize
oval speakers. But look at MOST of the speakers out there that use

pistonic
priciples to produce sound (i.e. cones), the cones are round to match

the
voice coil, which is ALSO round.


Naw, they use round cones because thats what they can get from CHINA the
cheapest!

Durbin makes a good argument that there have been some manufacturers
that experimented with OVAL drivers for a reason, there are PROS and
CONS to ANY cone shape.

It isnt because the VC is round.

I would think the biggest advantage to a round cone is its uniform
strength. An oval cone would not have the same strength at all point
around its cone as the round cone would.

But a round cone would have some FIXED resonance points, where the oval
cone would have TWO resonant points (one for width A and one for width
B) and there for not a larger single resonant point as the round cone.
(in not talking about FS, Im talking about only the cone)..

Its kinda the same type of reasoning where they tell you NEVER build a
square box, a square box will have a single resonance, where a box with
three different side length have three different and much smaller
resonances.

I can get more into this if you like.

Eddie Runner






  #138   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.car
Eddie Runner Eddie Runner is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 48
Default polk 6x9

MOSFET wrote:

I attribute that to my
lack of education regarding accoustic and electrical engineering. I'm an MBA
for Pete's sake, I CAN probably tell you the best way to market a
speaker....


Judging by the way most companies market car speakers nowdays,
thats EASY.

JUST LIE ABOUT EM!!

ha ha
Do they teach you that in College?


Eddie Runner
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
WTB: Polk MW6500 6.5" woofer for Polk Audio Monitor 7 Badassie Marketplace 0 November 25th 06 11:06 AM
Polk RM6750 5.1 Set Dave Audio Opinions 0 April 7th 05 06:46 PM
JBL or Polk Steve Audio Opinions 1 March 9th 05 07:25 PM
WTB: Polk SDA SRS 1.2 speakers Myanchick2 Marketplace 0 January 22nd 04 03:25 AM
F/T: Polk PSW-450 home sub ..... D/FW Dave C Marketplace 0 January 12th 04 10:44 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:28 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"