Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#161
|
|||
|
|||
Standing wave definition explained
Nousaine wrote:
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? You are mistaken about standing waves Tom. Standing waves can occur with waves interacting from any direction not JUST opposing directions. I explained all of that in the message you just replied to, it is now quite obvious that you are NOT paying attention or giving me the courtesy of reading my posts.... Eddie Runner |
#162
|
|||
|
|||
Where is the BEEF Tom???
Nousaine wrote:
But I dont like to have an arguement without being able to back up my claims.... So why not do so? http://www.installer.com/tech/aiming.html http://www.installer.com/tech/aiming2.html Your turn now TOM put up or shut up! |
#163
|
|||
|
|||
Very desperate now
Nousaine wrote:
OK I'll buy that. thank you. But then explain why your data doesn't show frequency dependent cancellation effects caused by the 'standing wave' interactions that your cartoons describe? My sweeps are as I recorded them, you are welcome to make your own sweeps and post them (If you need your web space I could help you) You or anyone else is welcome to come by my shop and watch or participate in my measurements.... Most folks have been telling you that my sweeps are explained precisely by my first paper http://www.installer.com/tech/aiming.html But I am always open to other theories.... Your theory about it NOT HAPPENING AT ALL though is one that would be pretty hard to convince me of at this point though... Eddie |
#164
|
|||
|
|||
Standing wave definition explained
Nousaine 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. no? Was that someone else that called me an amateur? they signed your name on the message! I've never said that it doesn't. yes you have!! But, are you now saying that repositioning a woofer box in a car CAN make a difference ??? 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. ok so now yor saying moving a woofer box DOES make a difference but NOT because of standing waves....??? (your story seems to be changing) Eddie |
#165
|
|||
|
|||
smack
hmmmm
"Eddie Runner" wrote in message ... Nousaine wrote: My advice is to investigate any offers from Eddie about bridges in Arizona. ouch! |
#166
|
|||
|
|||
Tom flips a coin
Make that
http://www.installer.com/tech/quarter.gif Brandonb Eddie Runner wrote: 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 |
#167
|
|||
|
|||
Tom flips a coin
thanks!
Brandon Buckner wrote: Make that http://www.installer.com/tech/quarter.gif Brandonb Eddie Runner wrote: 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 |
#168
|
|||
|
|||
Measuring audio bandwidth
You don't seem to "read" the posts Tom, he never said the amp or speaker
increase dB, it's the fact of where the speaker is reflecting off of, reducing the cancellation that increases the dB, if it's being cancelled, there is a loss in dB, if that cancellation is gone, then the dB increases, clear enough for you? Omnidirectional frequencys must be a lot lower than what we are accustomed to, because a 60HZ tone, at least to myself and a few of my friends, we can place the direction of the freq, and by turning the box around it not only reduces the cancellation, but it also turns the car into a sort of sub enclosure itself, think about it, the wave is actually making the car's structure vibrate, therefore producing the freq. throughout the car. If anyone can explain this better, I would like to hear it cause this seems to make sense. p.s. Actually explain it, don't just spout off the same crap that's been posted over and over. "Nousaine" wrote in message ... 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. |
#169
|
|||
|
|||
Where is the BEEF Tom???
Tom, Eddie has a point, he is the only one who has given any information,
especially the graphs, while you state information which Eddie's evidance refutes, if you're so strong in your argument, and you are correct SHOW US YOUR EVIDENCE!!!! For God sakes man, do yourself a favor and show it, put in a link, tell me what damn issue of whatever magazine it is that you've written for, somthing, just somthing! Don't sit there and attack Eddie like the is personal, put out some damn evidence. "Eddie Runner" wrote in message ... 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.... 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.... 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.... I think I have done that... YOUR TURN! (calling me names dont count) Eddie Runner |
#170
|
|||
|
|||
Measuring audio bandwidth
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? though the question is 'simple' it is quite 'ridiculous'... -- sancho if the ol' 'demand an answer to a preposterous question' gambit doesn't work, try callin his momma names... |
#171
|
|||
|
|||
Tom is Unclear
Nousaine wrote:
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 ...... Oh **** guys, the one who claims bass is omnidirection (then discusses it as it is isotropic and invariant) wants to talk physics now. God help us. -- Lizard |
#172
|
|||
|
|||
Measuring audio bandwidth
"Nousaine" wrote in message your dogged resistance (personal agenda) against real acoustical phenomena in the car is simply not-understandable to me. HA HA HA -- sancho irony ROCS |
#173
|
|||
|
|||
Measuring audio bandwidth
Nousaine wrote:
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? Localization isn't important. You need two ears to localize. You only need one to figure out something is louder. And people actually pay you to write articles? 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? It's called "time" Noisane. And this is not a fixed system. There is a constant energy input. If you can't even recognize that, you have no business prodding Eddie into physics debates. 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. It's been explained, you are just doing your damnedest to make yourself look good after being punked by Eddie on the same subject time and time again. We've seen this same behavior from your type before - too proud, too arrogant to accept that you're wrong. Please help me because I'm obviously hopelessly clueless. I don't believe anyone is hopeless. You're just too willfully ignorant to waste time on. -- Lizard |
#174
|
|||
|
|||
smack
Eddie Runner wrote:
Nousaine wrote: My advice is to investigate any offers from Eddie about bridges in Arizona. ouch! I don't get it. Is Nutstain implying there are no bridges in Arizona? There are several along the Black Canyon Highway (60). You have to cross a bridge just ot get into phoenix (over the Gila river), two in Tempe (over Tempe Town Lake), and there's that one over Rio Fresco and Rio Nuevo in North Phoenix.There's about a hundred that cross canals like Roosevelt Canal in Mesa. Of course, one of the most famous bridges is in Lake Havasu City. -- Lizard Tom makes less sense than a cheap stripper on change night. |
#175
|
|||
|
|||
Tom is Unclear
Eddie Runner wrote:
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? C'mon Eddie, Tom can't HEAR it, how do you expect him to see it? -- Lizard |
#176
|
|||
|
|||
Actual tests - aiming woofer boxes
|
#177
|
|||
|
|||
The woofer KNOWS!
|
#179
|
|||
|
|||
Standing wave definition explained
Eddie Runner wrote:
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 But you DID say that in our postings. Did you not? 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... Really? Then you'll be happy to exclude all your posts to the contrary? 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?? Are you intellectually and psychologically challenged? Eddie I dont drink |
#181
|
|||
|
|||
Standing wave definition explained
|
#182
|
|||
|
|||
Actual tests - aiming woofer boxes
Did turning the sub box around make a noticeable increase in dBSPL at the
listening position??? Yes or No, simple question. Les In my experience that answer is No. You still did NOT answer the question. Look at the graphs Eddie provided DID IT PRODUCE MORE DBSPL?????? Can you even read a graph? There are more vehicles in the world than a Vette. EVERY car is different. PUBLISH with the graphs your OWN data. NOONE has seen it. You have "said" that you measured this or that but NEVER on this group in the past couple of years posted an actual graph. Do it on the same cars Eddie did and lets compare. But you wont. Because your an ignorant dumbass who knows what the graphs will say, and you will be WRONG. Regardless of the reason it HAPPENS. But all you can do is ask assinine questions and avoid the real issue. Does turning the box around give more volume at listening position? Les |
#183
|
|||
|
|||
Tom flips a coin
ha ha ha: Eddie why not tell use exactly how a woofer system placed in any
environment (large or small room; outside; car cabin; Kim Bassinger's bedroom) can increase it's output by changing it's radiating angle? Please!!! Tom your the acoustics "expert" YOU TELL US PLEASE!!!! It happens, but your too much of a dumbass to admit it. The greatest scientists in the world used to believe that the sun revolved around us!!!! They called it "physics" too. Think outside the box, the true mark of a great thinker. Les |
#184
|
|||
|
|||
Standing wave definition explained
|
#185
|
|||
|
|||
Tom flips a coin
On 10 Dec 2003 07:33:54 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote:
ha ha ha: Eddie why not tell use exactly how a woofer system placed in any environment (large or small room; outside; car cabin; Kim Bassinger's bedroom) can increase it's output by changing it's radiating angle? Please!!! For Pete's sake, Tom - enough people have answered this for you, not just Eddie. He's not claiming that the subwoofer is producing more energy based on which way it's facing. What he *is* claiming is that the SPL readings AT THE MICROPHONE were higher when the sub is facing the rear of the vehicle. He's not arguing for the existence of "smart" subwoofers, he's saying that wave cancellation is causing the SPL readings AT THE MICROPHONE to be reduced when the sub is facing forward. I've been looking forward to reading an intelligent discussion about this, because honestly, I can see arguments for both sides. But, you seem bound and determined to avoid discussion of Eddie's charts. Here's the link for them one more time: http://www.installer.com/tech/aiming2.html I've asked you this before, and thus far, you've ignored me. I'll try again. Based on the charts and description of Eddie's test described in his web page, which of the following do you believe? 1) Eddie is right, and subwoofer orientation can significantly affect SPL readings inside the cabin. 2) There's something flawed with Eddie's testing procedures, software or equipment that's causing the SPL sweeps he's posted to be incorrect 3) Eddie has falsified the sweeps, or there's something significant about his testing procedure that he hasn't disclosed to the rest of us.. One of those has to be correct. I'm curious to hear your opinion on what is the cause behind the significantly-different SPL sweeps, if it's not wave cancellation. I have some problems with the wave-cancellation theory, because of the wide frequency range of the effect, and the sheer magnitude of the differences (up to 28 dB, in one case). I'm particularly interested in what it would mean for consumers if Eddie's testing can be validated. Take the Tahoe sweeps as an example. The rear-facing sub produces higher SPL readings at the microphone from 20 Hz all the way up to 120 Hz. That range covers all of what most people consider "bass". For some frequencies, the difference is only a dB or two, but for most of the range, the difference is 3 dB or more, going as high as 9 dB. Now imagine what that could mean for the owner of that Tahoe. By turning his sub to the rear, he could get away with half the amplifier power, or even less, than if he faced the sub to the front. Conversely, it appears that he could keep the same amp, and pick up an additional 1-9 dB throughout the bass range by carefully orienting his subwoofer. This would be a paradigm shift away from the current "air-pump" theory of subwoofer operation. For years, conventional wisdom has told us that in the bass frequencies, cancellation inside the cabin isn't an issue. Eddie has taken some measurements that would appear to fly in the fact of that wisdom. Please, Tom - as one engineer to another - look at the charts and let's all start discussing either why they're correct, or why they're flawed. Scott Gardner |
#186
|
|||
|
|||
Measuring audio bandwidth
|
#187
|
|||
|
|||
Eddie - could you try this?
Eddie,
I was just thinking about your graphs again. You're arguing that cancellation is the reason to the SPL differences at the microphone. Cancellation would be largely affected by the distance from the woofer to the rear of the vehicle, as you demonstrated with the drawings in your "aiming" webpage. This whole argument started off as a discussion as to whether the *orientation* of the sub would make a difference (i.e. front-firing vs. rear-firing). In your sweeps, you demonstrate the SPL levels of the sub facing both ways, but when you face the woofer backwards, you're ALSO moving the cone closer to the rear of the vehicle. In my mind, this isn't a pure test of "front-firing" versus "rear-firing" subs. It's more a test of the results of changing the subs' *location*, not its *orientation". If you still have that Tahoe, could you do two sweeps for me? One with the sub facing forward, and one with it facing rearward, but keep the distance from the sub cone to the rear of the vehicle constant for both sweeps? The relative distances between the rear wall, the sub, and the microphone will remain unchanged between sweeps, so I suspect there should be very little difference in SPL at the mic. If this is the case, it would demonstrate pretty conclusively that orientation of the sub does NOT matter after all. You can have them rear-firing or front-firing, the only thing that would matter would be how the distance from the sub to the rear wall relates to the wavelength of the frequencies you're trying to reproduce. Thanks, Scott "wishing I had all your signal generators and analyzers" Gardner |
#188
|
|||
|
|||
smack
Nousaine wrote:
Eddie-scammer ouch |
#189
|
|||
|
|||
smack again
Nousaine wrote:
Eddie-dipstick ouch again! |
#190
|
|||
|
|||
Quoting Tom from the last few weeks
Soundfreak03 wrote:
You still did NOT answer the question. he wont answer you now cause he knows he is cooked but here are some quotes from him over the past few weeks... These quotes cannot leave us with any other answer than NO! I typed these quotes out in a message where Tom dared me to QUOTE him and he ignord that message totally... ha ha ha Read these quotes, his position is easy to see... Of course he doesnt want to admit it now.... Nousaine wrote: Because acoustic sounds at subwoofer frequencies (approximately 100 Hz) are omnidirectional the SPL/Frequency response will be uneffected either way. Nousaine wrote: I've done the experiment several times. At subwoofer frequencies it just doesn't matter. How could it? At 20 hz the wavelength is 50 feet long so the driver displacement just pressurizes the cabin no matter where it's placed or what direction. Nousaine wrote: So if your woofer is unfiltered you'll get significantly more lower and medium midrange output and perhaps increased audibility of port grunts and driver noises when the face of the driver is facing the listener. That's it. Try it yourself. Nousaine wrote: While I'm at it let me dispell another Urban Legend. Do you get more bass with the hatch open? Only outside the car. Inside you get significantly less. Why? You lose the cabin gain transfer function effect whre the driver displacement pressurizes the interior at low frequencies delivering 12 dB/octave reinforcement as frequency falls below the lowest mode which occurs at 60 Hz in a small car. Nousaine wrote: You can also read about alien visits on websites too. At bass wavelengths (17 feet @ 60 Hz and much longer at lower frequencies) there just aren't any "cancellation" issues going on in the car cabin. Nousaine wrote: The only advantage of subwoofer orientation is that facing the woofer/port away from the listener reduces the possibility that mid-range sounds and driver/box/port noises will be less likely to be audible. |
#191
|
|||
|
|||
Eddie - could you try this?
Scott Gardner wrote:
Eddie, I was just thinking about your graphs again. Good I like it when people do that! Your questions about moving the woofer position as opposed to keeping the woofer in the exact same place but aiming it different are good questions... If you had read my original paper http://www.installer.com/tech/aiming.html you will plainly see my paper is based on moving the woofers location NOT just aiming. Although most folks percieve it as aiming the woofer so thats why I named the paper AIMING.... But clearly it is not aiming but the actual position of the woofer or the sound source.... Maybe my use of the word oreintation is confusing. By orientation I mean WHERE THE WOOFER IS but not just which way it aims.... I was kind of dangling that there to see if Tom would bite or at least ask questions like you did... But plainly, just aiming would probably make little if any difference... Read my papers and you will see I do mean Relocating the woofer to another spot in the trunk or hatch... Eddie Runner |
#192
|
|||
|
|||
The woofer KNOWS ( Tom wishes in the biblical sense)
Tom, why on earth are you pursuing the WOOFER HAS TO KNOW
branch of this thread??? Thats about the dumbest thing I ever heard. I posted graphs and now you try to give the woofer some sort of intellegence??? You have such a long post here and ALL of it is useless crap! no one ever said the woofer knows anything, your wasting your time on this branch of the thread, GIVE IT UP! Nousaine wrote: Eddie Runner wrote: keep after him with that question, I dont think Tom wants to answer it now that I have published the sweeps. I'm quite interested on why my postings don't seem to show on the board. But let me ask a simple question now. Exactly How does Eddies subwoofer "know" that it's supposed to make MORE SPL when faced one way or another; when his response graphs clearly show that there is NO low frequency cancellations going on below 80 Hz. Sure higher frequency sound (200 Hz or so ) will be acoustically shadowed by the enclosure or absorbed by the car interior. BUT exactly how does the woofer/enclosure system manage to overcome it's basic acoustic limitations when it's facing one way or another? HOW does it do this? Can it increase its piston area? Does it "know" that it's supposed to stroke farther, even if its' motor or suspension was at its limits prior? HOW does a woofer get "better" in electromechanical performance when faced left or right; north or south; yin or yang, **** or off? Small clue with a dumb passive device like a speaker (a crude acoustic slingshot) there IS no way for it to "know" the operating condition. So it just does what it can do; under any conditions. The only other variable is the space it's used in. Of course, there will be acoutical differences in different spaces; but at woofer frequencies, where the diaphram is much smaller than the wavelengths of the frequencies delivered, the ONLY significant or important difference is what happens in an acoustically small space. 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 It's interesting that Eddie won't address the basic question: exaclty how does a woofer system decide to make more SPL than it's cabable with the amplifer power available? Tell me again; exactly HOW does a dumb-woofer system decide that it needs to generate MORE SPL than it could immediately prior when it was facing 180 deg in the other direction or 90 deg to either side? Without performance enhancing drugs (adreline) exactly how does this "improved" sonic sensitivity matter one way or another when the subject is excluded from the bias mechansim beforhand? 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 In my experience that answer is No. |
#193
|
|||
|
|||
Measuring audio bandwidth
Luke Hague wrote:
You don't seem to "read" the posts Tom, he never said the amp or speaker increase dB, it's the fact of where the speaker is reflecting off of, reducing the cancellation that increases the dB, if it's being cancelled, there is a loss in dB, if that cancellation is gone, then the dB increases, clear enough for you? not only cancallation but possibly reinforcment as well accounting for our differences |
#194
|
|||
|
|||
Speaker Religion
Nousaine wrote:
But his response graphs show no frequency dependent 'cancelations.' which would natually occur at these frequencies with standing wave effects. Tom, You seem to be whining about my graphs because they dont show you what you expected to see. You can choose to not believe them. This is kinda like GOD, some folks believe no matter what! From some things I have read about you in the past you always claimed to not BELIEVE anything but instead test it for yourself.... I guesss that was just a front to fool us readers... |
#195
|
|||
|
|||
Actual tests - aiming woofer boxes
You still did NOT answer the question.
Look at the graphs Eddie provided DID IT PRODUCE MORE DBSPL?????? Can you even read a graph? There are more vehicles in the world than a Vette. EVERY car is different. PUBLISH with the graphs your OWN data. NOONE has seen it. You have "said" that you measured this or that but NEVER on this group in the past couple of years posted an actual graph. Do it on the same cars Eddie did and lets compare. But you wont. Because your an ignorant dumbass who knows what the graphs will say, and you will be WRONG. Regardless of the reason it HAPPENS. But all you can do is ask assinine questions and avoid the real issue. Does turning the box around give more volume at listening position? Les Come on Tom we are waiting. Easy questions. And ya Eddie I figure he wont answer, but it is still fun to **** with him Les |
#196
|
|||
|
|||
smack
it has nothing to do with bridges Liz,
Nutstain is just trying to slap me around with his insults... Sancho will tell you the rules of engagement, if he has no facts he can resort to namecalling.... ha ha ha thelizman wrote: Eddie Runner wrote: Nousaine wrote: My advice is to investigate any offers from Eddie about bridges in Arizona. ouch! I don't get it. Is Nutstain implying there are no bridges in Arizona? There are several along the Black Canyon Highway (60). You have to cross a bridge just ot get into phoenix (over the Gila river), two in Tempe (over Tempe Town Lake), and there's that one over Rio Fresco and Rio Nuevo in North Phoenix.There's about a hundred that cross canals like Roosevelt Canal in Mesa. Of course, one of the most famous bridges is in Lake Havasu City. -- Lizard Tom makes less sense than a cheap stripper on change night. |
#197
|
|||
|
|||
smack
Nousaine wrote: Eddie Runner obfuscates; |
#198
|
|||
|
|||
Again and again and again and again - why if he wont listen?
Nousaine wrote:
Please Eddie tell me exactly how a woofer with a given displacement (Vd * x-max * 2) can make "more" SPL given direction in a space small enough where there are NO SPL distribution deviations due to interior dimensions or microphone placement. I have said this at least 5 times in this thread so far and my web pages say it as well Tom http://www.installer.com/tech/aiming.html but here it goes again. The woofer does NOT get louder the SPL at the microphone DOES get louder! Because of reflections being IN PHASE or OUT OF PHASE reinforcment or cancelation can occur at the mic. When we change the possition of the woofer these in phase of out of phase antinodes and nodes change, and the reading at the mic also changes.... Why is that so hard for you to understand Tom? I beg you, do your own tests! Dont take my word for it.. Eddie Runner |
#199
|
|||
|
|||
Tom is Unclear
Im wondering when he will stop acting so stupid about it?
He can only say "DUH?" so many times before he bores us all to sleep.... thelizman wrote: Eddie Runner wrote: 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? C'mon Eddie, Tom can't HEAR it, how do you expect him to see it? -- Lizard |
#200
|
|||
|
|||
smack!
Nousaine wrote:
Oh so you want to DIS the systems I have created and you have never even heard any of them... doesn't bother me. But I'm guessing that it nicks you. Is that your goal here to NICK me? |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Boston 8" subs enclosures | Car Audio | |||
Any Home diyers looking for a "DREAM" 12" Seas Excel like low distortion/transparency driver with FR-2khz??? | Car Audio | |||
Alpine deck blew my subs! | Car Audio | |||
Best 8" subs? | Car Audio | |||
Subwoofer direction | Car Audio |