Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
Measuring audio bandwidth
Nousaine wrote:
Makes me wonder why you hadn't posted results before. I was letting you dig your own grave deeeper and deeper with your false statements... I had already done this kinda sweep many times in the past but I didnt have any of the old graphs archived where I could get to them.... So eventually I upgraded my shop computer and found a little time to prove it to you... Im so glad you know now that it CAN make a large difference when you move the woofer box around in a trunk or hatch.... Can you recall (unpublish it) that crappy article you wrote thats full of lies or is it too late for that??? Dont forget TOM, you attacked the credibility of my CARTOONS about this phenomenon way before I ever called you on the ****ty article you wrote claiming moving a subwoofer around in a car makes NO DIFFERENCE..... ha ha ha Eddie Runner You asked for it.... |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
QUOTING TOMS LIES
Nousaine wrote:
Eddie Runner wrote: Shall I start quoting you, Which, of course, you have not done in spite of all your bluster. Please quote me but also avoid your out-of-context and strawman interpretations. Tom, You just cant read.... I used some of your quotes just yesterday.... Now you say I have not quoted you..... Give me a few minutes to pull all your old messages together and I will prepare a small barage of your falsehoods...I will post them in a follow up to this one.... Meanwhile, just to remind you that I HAVE QUOTED YOU in the past I want you (and anyone else interested in Toms False Bull****) to read this web page that I put together for you months and months ago... I quoted you in it... ;-) http://installer.com/tech/baranek.html Now let me find some more recent quotes. Eddie Runner http://www.installer.com/tech/ |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
Nosehaines Quotes from previous posts.. Why does he tell these lies???
Here are six quick quotes from Tom Nousaine that I
prove wrong in my recently published paper at http://www.installer.com/tech/aiming2.html read and make up your own mind... 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. |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
Pressure field
Eddie Runner wrote:
Nousaine wrote: Now let's clear up a few mistaken comments about what I've said. In a small space like a car (or a room) below the lowest modal frequency the driver just pressurizes the interior space and the location of the source isn't a factor. This is because the wavelengths involved are so long that standing waves won't form. In a 12 x 22 foot room that frequency is 26 Hz. Its not that they WONT form, the wave still propogates the listening area there are UPS and DOWNS to the sine waves... The difference and definition of the pressure wave is that reletivly ALL of the listeing area is a positive pressure or negative pressure at once because the wave is so long... Now to find out what size space can be subject to a pressure wave the whole place must be about the same pressure, so for a 18 ft long wave (about 60Hz) and 18 ft space would NOT be a pressure wave! Because of the simple fact that there is a whole wave in there at any time, the UP and the DOWN of the sine wave (360degrees). Lets change the space to 1/2 the size, a 9 ft space... Still it cannot be a pressure field because there is 180 degees of change in the space.. Still not relativly all the same pressre is it??? Nope.... Now lets cut it in half again Tom... 4.5ft.... Much smaller than most cars I think.... And still we have 90 degrees of phase shift.... Even at this point I would have a hard time calling it a pressure field.... Cut it in half again and its about 2ft.... Were sure getting close to a pressure field now, but I dont know anyone with a 2ft car interior.. And we still have 45 degrees of the wave in the car... so is it really a pressure field??? At this point it could be argues for or against about equally (IMO).... Cut it in half again and at about 1ft and only 1/16th of a wavelength I might agree with you now.... Still 22.5 degrees of phase difference between one end of the space and the other though... Still not a perfect pressure field is it?? Now to your 26Hz you mentioned above... Were talking about Car Stereo TOM... My paper that talks about standing waves in a car is writen and referenced to 60Hz. And as one can see from your "graphs" there's no standing wave patterns below 60 Hz in a Neon. Plus IF you would do a close-mic frequency response measurement of a small sealed subwoofer system and then measure that system in-car and match levels you'll see that there will be a 12 dB per octave reinforcement as fequency below 60 Hz, give or take depending on car size, which shows that the system is operating in the pressure region. Or didn't you know that? Certainly the pressure wave of a 26Hz wave would be much larger than a 60 Hz pressure wave... It could happen in a larger space at that frequency.... Lets run through it anyway 50ft = 360 degrees 25ft = 180 degrees 12ft = 90 degrees 6ft = 45 degrees 3ft = 22 degrees Which one of those is a true pressure wave??? Finally Tom wants to talk Tech.... Eddie Runner http://www.installer.com/tech/ I love to talk tech. But when you have to deal with an amateur it's sometimes difficult. Again Eddie please explain to me how a given woofer system manages to generate more sound pressure when its lying on its back ot faced to the front or the back? Oh you say that it'll generate less SPL with the cone faced into the ground? Well only if the come motion is impeded in some way. But you'll "hear" less SPL. Sure, but only at higher frequencies. |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
CANCELLATION at 60Hz and standing wave facts....
Eddie Runner wrote:
Eddie wants to talk standing waves; ousaine wrote: There's no 60 Hz cancellation at 3-feet. Tom.... Lets pretend were in an open field There is a woofer in a box thats playing a 60Hz tone and its about 5 ft from us. There is another woofer 9 ft beyond the first woofer that we can turn on and off the second woofer plays the exact tone from the same amp as the first woofer. Now when we turn the second woofer on, so it plays along with the first woofer are we going to hear MORE 60Hz sound or less sound??? ????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????? Come on Tom.. This example makes it easy.... The second wave travels 9ft before it gets to the first wave now both waves are coming at you together! At 60hz this will put the two waves aprox 180degrees out of phase with each other.... So the resulting sound to your listening position is reduced with the second speaker playing.... Im sure your with me so far TOM.... ------------------------------------ NOW! The sound from the first woofer goes in all directions, so it not only comes at you it goes in all directions. it did in the first example but because we were in an open field the sound just went off and was eventually lost, with the exception of the sound that came directly to us. Lets loose the second speaker and instead build a wall at 1/2 the distance about 4.5 ft behind the first woofer.... Some sound that goes out of the first woofer comes to us and some hits the wall and bounces to us.... That *bounced sound* has traveled the same 9 ft (to the wall (4.5 and back (another 4.5)) and will be just like the sound from the second woofer thats not there anymore.... ;-) Now are you getting it Tom?? The bounced wave, is 180 degrees out of phase with the first wave so the sound WITH THE WALL will be less sound that WITHOUT THE WALL.... This is (even though you dont believe me) a standing wave.! I dont know how you can miss this Tom... Maybe you want to ignore it or something because you dont want to appear to be WRONG in all your previous statements.... BTW, the wall would have to be further away at lower frrequencies and closer for higher frquencies..... About 14ft at 20Hz about 2 ft at 120 Hz SO the range of my sweeps cover standing wave cancelation from 2ft and longer.. ;-) Get it now TOM?? Eddie Runner http://www.installer.com/tech/ So Eddie; what is your definition of a standing wave? Two sounds at the same ftequency traveling in opposite directions? Isn't that it? Or have you changed you defintion? If not, then explain to me how two sounds, as you've described them either with the 2nd speaker or the wall, form a standing wave when they are both traveling in the same direction? Do you get it, now? |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
Tom is feeling bad about being wrong so now he is makingup stuff to get
|
#88
|
|||
|
|||
Toms ****ed now!
Nousaine wrote:
I don't know exactly what you did. The test equipment is listed on the web page and the test procedure as well.. Why dont you understand it?? http://www.installer.com/tech/aiming2.html But why don't you explain to me how turning an omnidirectional speaker in the other direction manages to increase sound pressure? Do you realize its not JUST turning the box, its also putting the speaker (sound source) in a new loacation in the car.! So, its more then just whether the woofer is omnidirectional or not. In fact it HAS to have pretty much omnidirectional output (like you say) for my other web page to have meaning... http://www.installer.com/tech/aiming.html Its because there is output from the speaker in all directions that the problems with cancelation can occur! BUT, its really the positioning of the omnidirectional woofer and how the boundries and in car reflections cause different responses.. As plainly shown in my sweeps .. http://www.installer.com/tech/aiming2.html Have you invented a perpetual-motion machine? Please explain to me how any subwoofer system manages to displace more air (increase sound pressure) depending on which was its pointed? Does it get even louder if you turn it around twice? Your playing the part of the IGNORANT.... I think your just trying to be funny... ITS NOT THAT THE WOOFER GETS LOUDER when you turn it backwards.... ITS THAT THE WOOFER IS LOWER (because of cancelations) in the forward (and to many folks NORMAL) oreintation.... So by turning the woofer backward we lessen the cancelations that are present when the woofer is aimed forward.... plainly shown in my sweeps http://www.installer.com/tech/aiming2.html The answer is that it cannot and it doesn't. So, ae you saying my sweeps are wrong????????? Are you still saying, moving a woofer box in a car makes no difference in the woofer sound??? Most of the kids on here that have installed woofers will tell you (and many already have) that the woofers facing backward usually produce more woofer sound. my sweeps show the same thing. http://www.installer.com/tech/aiming2.html Are you saying my sweeps are bogus Tom??? Stop your beating around the bush and come out with it!! I thought you had said you did all these tests before and your results were just like mine....???? They are except I know how to keep conditions static between successive measurements. And, yes, the distribution of energy below 60 Hz is exactly the same. my measurements ARE STATIC! Except for box placement and sweep color there is NO CHANGE! Comeon Tom, there were 4 witnesses to my sweeeps... I didnt cheat! But IF the distribution of sound prssure is identical at every frequency exactly HOW does your woofer manage to generate more SPL with the same amplifier power and the same Vd? its MORE because there is LESS cancelation with the woofer turned backward, just like I explain in http://www.installer.com/tech/aiming.html are you blind? I thought you had read this before? You might also tell how you manage to tune those woofer systems so badly. I find that getting relatively flat response to 10 Hz is pretty easy in a Jetta or Beetle-like car. I dont see any of your sweeps !!??? Your claims at this point are pretty much just worthless words! Im the one shareing real data, your just mouthing off... Anyone can just mouth off.... I was pretty quiet for quite some time about this even though I knew you were wrong... Now that I have REAL DATA, I am showing it to the world... The box and woofer response is really irrelavent anyway, its the comparison between the two sweeps thats the important data, the difference!! The box is a cheap pre-fab The speaker is an inexpensive but very reliable Memphis 12. Thats ALL that was playing in the car, just the one 12. It was played by the Crown pro amp, which was driven directly by the LMS Oscillator... I didnt spend ANY time worrying about trying to make the response FLAT, all we did was use it as a test box to show YOU that there is a difference with box placement in BASS in a car! Eddie Runner |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
Tom is Unclear
Nousaine wrote: And as one can see from your "graphs" there's no standing wave patterns below 60 Hz in a Neon. Bull****... My graphs PLAINLY show more SPL with the box aimed to the back of the car in ALL the sweeps on ALL the cars I tested, even the neon! anyone can look for themselves! http://www.installer.com/tech/aiming2.html The woofer is not PRODUCING more SPL at the cone because we didnt change the settings... But the difference in the *listening area* is caused by reflections interfering constructlivly and destructivly (in phase and out of phase) at the listening area.... And your still claiming it doesnt happen,, ha ha I love to talk tech. But when you have to deal with an amateur it's sometimes difficult. Im no amateur Tom... I been in audio professionally for almost 30 years! I have worked with pro audio, home audio and car audio with the emphasis on tech and service (including working as speaker tech for a manufacturer and speaker tech at a warranty station) for far too long to be called an amatuer... You wanna pretend I am an amateur so you wont feel so bad about me showing you up with my fancy sweeps and proving the bull**** that you have been spewing is a buncha lies.... Again Eddie please explain to me how a given woofer system manages to generate more sound pressure when its lying on its back ot faced to the front or the back? Your trying to twist out of your hole of lies by trying to say someting else now arent you..... ha ha ha The woofer does NOT make more sound pressure at the cone, the sound pressure in the listeing area does increase (or decrease) with woofer placement however.... I have only been saying that for about 20 years, it also says it in my paper http://www.installer.com/tech/aiming.html Now your pretending you didnt read it very good and YOU were under the impression I was talking about AT THE CONE and NOT THE LISTEING AREA..... Ha ha ha WONT WORK TOM! You and I have been sparing on this lightly for over a year (maybe two or more) and there is no way you can get off now with a missunderstanding..... ha ha ha YOU KNEW WHAT YOU WERE SAYING! YOU WERE WRONG!! Eddie Runner Why didnt you address any of the presure field examples I went to so much trouble to type out for you?? You mentione pressure field and I went to alot of trouble to clarify it for everyone and now you just ignore all that!! Why did you mention it in the forst place them??? |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
Standing wave definition explained
Nousaine wrote:
So Eddie; what is your definition of a standing wave? Two sounds at the same ftequency traveling in opposite directions? Isn't that it? Or have you changed you defintion? I havent changed my definition but YOU need to CHANGE YOURS! My definition of a standing wave is two (OR MORE) waves that interfere with each other in a way that nodes or antinodes appear to stand still. (antinodes are points of higher spl and nodes are points of lower spl) These nodes and anti nodes are caused by the two (or more) waves bouncing or coming from different sources, they create the nodes and antinodes because there are spots that the second (or more) wave is in phase or out of phase ALWAYS at that spot and at that frequency. Constant unchanging phase relationship between two or more sounds creates the nodes and antinodes.... For instance, at a distance from a reflection of 1/4 wave, the reflected wave will come back to the speaker at exactly 180degrees out of phase, this point at the speaker is a NODE....There will be a cancelation here! As the first wave goes through its cycle the reflected wave goes through its cycle just the same, so if the first wave is 45degrees the second wave is ALWAYS 180degrees different!! ALWAYS!! Or if the distance is different it could be IN PHASE just as well. Normally, in your narrow definition of a standing wave you can walk through the standing wave and measure the nodes and antinodes with an SPL meter.... This happens because the waves are crossing each other... (going in opposite directions) But in this case, once the wave has bounced back and joins the incedent wave (wave direct from speaker) then there is a node created that reaches all the way into the listeing area... (less spl) Tom, come out of the Jr High school mindset of the common example of a standing wave where the wave can easiily be seen in the clear tube as it moves the little cork particles... Understand WHY these standing waves occur and what the components of them are individually and see how they can have more complex relationships.... Waves dont have to be moving in opposite directions, they can! Or they can cross each other like two pebbles in a pond, or they can run right along with each other for a short distance or a long distance... Any of these can cause nodes and antinodes... I have done some pretty extensive study of reflections and standing waves. I have built many variations of the tube and cork, we were actually going to make one for our sound board so customers could play with the oscillator dial and watch the cork particles jump. I have built small and large scale models of how standing waves occur with different colored string and the 1-360 degrees marked on the string. I used to have a little pink noise demonstration using a Janzen electrostatic panel and a moveable wood reflector behind it, it showed a nice hump and dip on the RTA when you moved the reflector closer or further from the back of the electrostat (the Janzen panels are bi-polar radiators by the way)... I have found your average speaker guy has only a limited knowledge of the effects of reflections and standing waves, the subject is only lightly covered in the physics books and speaker books... Much of the printed information is not agreed upon in all the texts, therefor I have gone to much trouble to verify myself what I wanted to know about this subject. And as you may remember from last time we brought books into the arguements I DO HAVE QUITE A REFERENCE LIBRARY! ;-) http://www.installer.com/tech/baranek.html Eddie Runner |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
Tom is feeling bad about being wrong so now he is makingup stuff toget
Nousaine wrote:
You can see the effects below 60 Hz in a car by looking at my response graphs in Mobile Entertainment a half dozen times a year. Are they comparisons between the box aiming front and the box aiming rear? NO, I dint think so.... One sweep by itself with no comparison data is pretty useless then isnt it Tom??? They show that a subwoofer operates in the pressure zone below 60 Hz, a fact of which you seem to be unaware Define pressure zone Tom...!! I defined it in another post and you ignored all my data... And pressure zone or not, my graphs definatly show some differences below 60Hz... I seem to be getting from you that there should be no differences below 60Hz (before you said 100Hz) and I see plenty of differences below 60Hz on my sweeps! http://www.installer.com/tech/aiming2.html I'll tell Dr Baranek that you forgot to spell his name. And, yes, Baranek definitely showed that standing waves require 2 sources or a parallel surface to form. READ IT THEN ! http://www.installer.com/tech/baranek.html Eddie Runner |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
Measuring audio bandwidth
Nousaine wrote:
Makes me wonder why you hadn't posted results before. Funny, since Eddie already explained that he was too lazy to get off his fat rear end and do the tests that conclusively prove you're an intellectual asshat. I think everyone else is wondering when you are going to post one iota of factual evidence that supports your opinion. The logical fallacy of appeal to authority doesn't hold water here, bubba. -- Lizard Eddie make nice 32-bit color line graphs. Noisane makes unsubstantiated claims. Who do you believe. |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
Tom Accuses Eddie of Lieing about the tests!!
Nousaine wrote:
I don't know exactly what you did. But why don't you explain to me how turning an omnidirectional speaker in the other direction manages to increase sound pressure? You act as if "omnidirectional" means "isotropic" and "invariant". It certainly does not mean either. The thing I love about car audio is that newtonian physics and classical thermodynamics seem to no longer apply on product packages and between magazines who exist to serve their marketing-hype masters and the all-mightly advertising dollar. -- Lizard |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
Nosehaines Quotes from previous posts.. Why does he tell theselies???
Nousaine wrote:
Because acoustic sounds at subwoofer frequencies (approximately 100 Hz) are omnidirectional the SPL/Frequency response will be uneffected either way. Bass below 100 hz is not omnidirectional. Humans percieve it as omnidirectional because of the way our ears are physically structured. In the real word, bass is as directional as any other frequency. Additionally, you appear to be confused. Omnidirectional simply means without direction, often implying all directions. However, you act as if it also means isotropic and invariant. It does not. Bass is not. You are wrong. 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 50 FEET LONG! WWWWWOOOOOW! Wait a second... wavelength = speed of sound / frequency (in ft) (in ft/s) (in Hz) .....sooooo..... 50 ft = x / 60 hz ....or... x = 300 f/s. HOLY **** TOM! Sound is slow as hell in your neighborhood. Everywhere else on the planet at sea level, the speed of sound is about 1087 f/s. Sooooo.... x = 1087 / 60 = 18.1167 Gee Tom, it seems that in the real world a 60 Hz wave is actually only 18 feet, 1 1/3rd inches. Nousaine wrote: I've done the experiment several times. So you claim, but you never produce any evidence. Eddie has pretty pictures. Eddie even has CARTOONS! 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. Wait, you just said 60 Hz delivered a 50 foot wavelenght. Now it's only 17? Did you finally fix your air pressure problem in your part of the world? I see it took two additional posts. I guess you're ahead of ahead of the ball, since at the speed of sound in your world, it should have taken three posts for the news to reach you. Don't feel bad Tom! I wrote a haiku just for you on this special occasion... Haku 13-69 Eddie very smart. Nousane make many ****ups. Everyone laughs loud! -- Lizard You sir, have been punked. |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
CANCELLATION at 60Hz and standing wave facts....
Nousaine wrote:
So Eddie; what is your definition of a standing wave? Standing Wave: When the "wave" reaches the section the bleachers where Good Will reserves seats for people with mental retardation, special needs, and Redsocks fans. -- Lizard Apologies to any retards who are insulted by being associated with the Boston Redsocks. |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
Nosehaines Quotes from previous posts.. Why does he tell these lies???
On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 00:44:17 -0500, thelizman
thelizman1221.yahoo@com wrote: Nousaine wrote: Because acoustic sounds at subwoofer frequencies (approximately 100 Hz) are omnidirectional the SPL/Frequency response will be uneffected either way. Bass below 100 hz is not omnidirectional. Humans percieve it as omnidirectional because of the way our ears are physically structured. In the real word, bass is as directional as any other frequency. Additionally, you appear to be confused. Omnidirectional simply means without direction, often implying all directions. However, you act as if it also means isotropic and invariant. It does not. Bass is not. You are wrong. 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 50 FEET LONG! WWWWWOOOOOW! Wait a second... wavelength = speed of sound / frequency (in ft) (in ft/s) (in Hz) ....sooooo..... 50 ft = x / 60 hz ...or... x = 300 f/s. HOLY **** TOM! Sound is slow as hell in your neighborhood. Everywhere else on the planet at sea level, the speed of sound is about 1087 f/s. Sooooo.... x = 1087 / 60 = 18.1167 Gee Tom, it seems that in the real world a 60 Hz wave is actually only 18 feet, 1 1/3rd inches. Uh, his post said that a *****20 Hz****** wave had a wavelength of 50 feet, not a 60 Hz wave. Sure, it's really 54 feet and a little bit, but I think 50 feet is close enough. Nousaine wrote: I've done the experiment several times. So you claim, but you never produce any evidence. Eddie has pretty pictures. Eddie even has CARTOONS! 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. Wait, you just said 60 Hz delivered a 50 foot wavelenght. Now it's only 17? Did you finally fix your air pressure problem in your part of the world? I see it took two additional posts. I guess you're ahead of ahead of the ball, since at the speed of sound in your world, it should have taken three posts for the news to reach you. See above. Don't feel bad Tom! I wrote a haiku just for you on this special occasion... Haku 13-69 Eddie very smart. Nousane make many ****ups. Everyone laughs loud! -- Lizard You sir, have been punked. |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
Nosehaines Quotes from previous posts.. Why does he tell theselies???
Scott Gardner wrote:
Uh, his post said that a *****20 Hz****** wave had a wavelength of 50 feet, not a 60 Hz wave. Sure, it's really 54 feet and a little bit, but I think 50 feet is close enough. My bad, I'm so used to him being wrong, I'll punk on him for being right. He still doesn't know what omnidirectional means though. -- Lizard Can't believe I did algebra for nothing. |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
Tom Accuses Eddie of Lieing about the tests!!
I like when people use big words.......
Paul Vina "thelizman" thelizman1221.yahoo@com wrote in message ... Nousaine wrote: I don't know exactly what you did. But why don't you explain to me how turning an omnidirectional speaker in the other direction manages to increase sound pressure? You act as if "omnidirectional" means "isotropic" and "invariant". It certainly does not mean either. The thing I love about car audio is that newtonian physics and classical thermodynamics seem to no longer apply on product packages and between magazines who exist to serve their marketing-hype masters and the all-mightly advertising dollar. -- Lizard |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
Nosehaines Quotes from previous posts.. Why does he tell these lies???
Nousaine wrote:
I've done the experiment several times. So you claim, but you never produce any evidence. Eddie has pretty pictures. Eddie even has CARTOONS! Tom has pictures too. The frequency response plots are telling. However, I've only seen them for a Corvette, which is largely irrelevant. |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
Actual tests - aiming woofer boxes
apparently the almighty Nutstain can't read graphs too well.... especially
ones that debunk his idiotic theories.... ..... I've read this thread and I can't understand for the life of me why Tom is such "figure" in this industry..... IMHO... he don't know jack ****, unless it resides in a corvette...... Good Day FHLH............ "Paul Vina" wrote in message news:Jj0Ab.235893$Dw6.824041@attbi_s02... What about at 50Hz? There's a pretty big gain there too. Paul Vina "Nousaine" wrote in message ... "Paul Vina" wrote: I said that opening the hatch or trunk on a car doesn't increase bass in the car. Your data clearly shows that as well. HUH???? The Jetta graph shows a LOT more output above 50Hz with the trunk open. Look carefully. It just shows that 'bass' in the cabin is significantly reduced. Sure there is more 100 Hz; but is that really "bass"? It is upper bass but really 100 Hz is pretty easy to come by in a car don't you think? |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
Measuring audio bandwidth
thelizman thelizman1221.yahoo@com wrote:
Nousaine wrote: Makes me wonder why you hadn't posted results before. Funny, since Eddie already explained that he was too lazy to get off his fat rear end and do the tests that conclusively prove you're an intellectual asshat. I think everyone else is wondering when you are going to post one iota of factual evidence that supports your opinion. The logical fallacy of appeal to authority doesn't hold water here, bubba. -- Lizard Eddie make nice 32-bit color line graphs. Noisane makes unsubstantiated claims. Who do you believe. So what have YOU published? 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? 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? 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. |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
Nosehaines Quotes from previous posts.. Why does he tell these
thelizman thelizman1221.yahoo@com wrote:
Nousaine wrote: Because acoustic sounds at subwoofer frequencies (approximately 100 Hz) are omnidirectional the SPL/Frequency response will be uneffected either way. Bass below 100 hz is not omnidirectional. Humans percieve it as omnidirectional because of the way our ears are physically structured. In the real word, bass is as directional as any other frequency. Oh sure, it's true that sound pressure has a direction gradient but if you can't hear it as a direction why does that matter? If you cannot preceive it as direction it just doesn't matter. And it doesn't have a direction gradient at low frequencies in an enclosed space either. Additionally, you appear to be confused. Omnidirectional simply means without direction, often implying all directions. However, you act as if it also means isotropic and invariant. It does not. Bass is not. You are wrong. What didn't you understand about "all directions" or "without direction" ? 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 50 FEET LONG! WWWWWOOOOOW! Wait a second... wavelength = speed of sound / frequency (in ft) (in ft/s) (in Hz) ....sooooo..... 50 ft = x / 60 hz ...or... x = 300 f/s. HOLY **** TOM! Sound is slow as hell in your neighborhood. Everywhere else on the planet at sea level, the speed of sound is about 1087 f/s. Sooooo.... And what does your argument have to do with the speed of sound? Are you telling us that the wavelength of 20 Hz is NOT fifty feet. 1034 f/s speed of sound / 20 Hz? How could it be otherwise? x = 1087 / 60 = 18.1167 Gee Tom, it seems that in the real world a 60 Hz wave is actually only 18 feet, 1 1/3rd inches. Who ever said otherwise? Nousaine wrote: I've done the experiment several times. So you claim, but you never produce any evidence. Eddie has pretty pictures. Eddie even has CARTOONS Cartoons as evidence? I publish results 6 times a tear. Eddie makes ill-conceived cartoons. Help me out here. Eddie says that a single wall and a woofer at 3-feet make a standing wave. Yet he says a standing wave has to have 2 sounds of the same frequency traveling in different directions. Exactly how does he manage to get his standing wave interference effects to occur when the sound is traveling in the same direction as it is at the locations he describes in his idiot drawings? Help us out here. 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. Wait, you just said 60 Hz delivered a 50 foot wavelenght. Now it's only 17? Please, don't embarass yourself more. I said a 20 Hz tone has a 50 foot wavelength, did I not? Did you finally fix your air pressure problem in your part of the world? I see it took two additional posts. I guess you're ahead of ahead of the ball, since at the speed of sound in your world, it should have taken three posts for the news to reach you. Don't feel bad Tom! I wrote a haiku just for you on this special occasion... Write one for yourself. |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
SANCHO. YOU MISSED IT
A CHICCIN POST!
"fhlh002" wrote in message ... apparently the almighty Nutstain can't read graphs too well.... especially ones that debunk his idiotic theories.... .... I've read this thread and I can't understand for the life of me why Tom is such "figure" in this industry..... IMHO... he don't know jack ****, unless it resides in a corvette...... Good Day FHLH............ "Paul Vina" wrote in message news:Jj0Ab.235893$Dw6.824041@attbi_s02... What about at 50Hz? There's a pretty big gain there too. Paul Vina "Nousaine" wrote in message ... "Paul Vina" wrote: I said that opening the hatch or trunk on a car doesn't increase bass in the car. Your data clearly shows that as well. HUH???? The Jetta graph shows a LOT more output above 50Hz with the trunk open. Look carefully. It just shows that 'bass' in the cabin is significantly reduced. Sure there is more 100 Hz; but is that really "bass"? It is upper bass but really 100 Hz is pretty easy to come by in a car don't you think? |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
Toms ****ed now!
Eddie Runner wrote:
Nousaine wrote: I don't know exactly what you did. The test equipment is listed on the web page and the test procedure as well.. Why dont you understand it?? http://www.installer.com/tech/aiming2.html But why don't you explain to me how turning an omnidirectional speaker in the other direction manages to increase sound pressure? Do you realize its not JUST turning the box, its also putting the speaker (sound source) in a new loacation in the car.! So, its more then just whether the woofer is omnidirectional or not. In fact it HAS to have pretty much omnidirectional output (like you say) for my other web page to have meaning... http://www.installer.com/tech/aiming.html Its because there is output from the speaker in all directions that the problems with cancelation can occur! What cancellations? Your graphs show exactly the same response shape below 60 Hz; so exactly "where" are the cancellations? Are you saying that they occur equally at all frequencies? below 60Hz or so? How could this happen is the response is conditional on location and distance? That ALL frequencies at lower frequencies have the same wavelength and the same distance/frequency relationships to EVERY boundary? You've got some new physics going here that seem to be contradictory to your "cartoons." Please explain. BUT, its really the positioning of the omnidirectional woofer and how the boundries and in car reflections cause different responses.. As plainly shown in my sweeps .. http://www.installer.com/tech/aiming2.html Have you invented a perpetual-motion machine? Please explain to me how any subwoofer system manages to displace more air (increase sound pressure) depending on which was its pointed? Does it get even louder if you turn it around twice? Your playing the part of the IGNORANT.... I think your just trying to be funny... Nope. Please tell us exactly HOW a woofer system, with a fixed drive level, can develop more SPL in a space at every and all fequencies below 60 Hz or so without any cancellations evident depending on which way it faces? ITS NOT THAT THE WOOFER GETS LOUDER when you turn it backwards.... ITS THAT THE WOOFER IS LOWER (because of cancelations) in the forward (and to many folks NORMAL) oreintation.... Lower? Your graphs just show the same response at lower frequencies with more SPL? Exactly how does this happen with a given displacement in the omni range? How does this magic woofer system know that it's supposed to get "louder" at low frquencies when it turns its back on you? So by turning the woofer backward we lessen the cancelations that are present when the woofer is aimed forward.... plainly shown in my sweeps http://www.installer.com/tech/aiming2.html Your sweeps show NO cancellations below 80 Hz. There's one above 100 Hz. But NONE at lower frequencies, unless you want us to believe that "cancellations" occur equally at every frequency even though the distance/wavelength relationships CHANGE at every frequency. How can this be? Help me out here. The answer is that it cannot and it doesn't. So, ae you saying my sweeps are wrong????????? Are you still saying, moving a woofer box in a car makes no difference in the woofer sound??? Most of the kids on here that have installed woofers will tell you (and many already have) that the woofers facing backward usually produce more woofer sound. my sweeps show the same thing. http://www.installer.com/tech/aiming2.html Are you saying my sweeps are bogus Tom??? Stop your beating around the bush and come out with it!! I thought you had said you did all these tests before and your results were just like mine....???? They are except I know how to keep conditions static between successive measurements. And, yes, the distribution of energy below 60 Hz is exactly the same. my measurements ARE STATIC! Except for box placement and sweep color there is NO CHANGE! Comeon Tom, there were 4 witnesses to my sweeeps... I didnt cheat! But IF the distribution of sound prssure is identical at every frequency exactly HOW does your woofer manage to generate more SPL with the same amplifier power and the same Vd? its MORE because there is LESS cancelation with the woofer turned backward, just like I explain in http://www.installer.com/tech/aiming.html are you blind? I thought you had read this before? What cancellations? The response is identical at every frequency. Where are the cancellations? You're telling us that acoustic cancellations are frequency/wavelength independent and completely uniform at every frequency? That's NOT what your cartoons claim. You might also tell how you manage to tune those woofer systems so badly. I find that getting relatively flat response to 10 Hz is pretty easy in a Jetta or Beetle-like car. I dont see any of your sweeps !!??? Your claims at this point are pretty much just worthless words! Im the one shareing real data, your just mouthing off... Anyone can just mouth off.... I was pretty quiet for quite some time about this even though I knew you were wrong... Now that I have REAL DATA, I am showing it to the world... Now that you have been claiming things that don't exist and when challenged you seem perfectly willing to grasp any straws available yet you cannot explain exactly how your systems manage to choose locations where the frequency/wavelength/cancellations all occur evenly at every frequency with one given microphone position. The box and woofer response is really irrelavent anyway, its the comparison between the two sweeps thats the important data, the difference!! The box is a cheap pre-fab The speaker is an inexpensive but very reliable Memphis 12. Thats ALL that was playing in the car, just the one 12. It was played by the Crown pro amp, which was driven directly by the LMS Oscillator... I've been able to get realtively flat response to 10 Hz with a similar Memphis driver in a reasonably small box. I'm wondering how you managed to handicap this one. I didnt spend ANY time worrying about trying to make the response FLAT, all we did was use it as a test box to show YOU that there is a difference with box placement in BASS in a car! Why not? You don't have to work at it. Just putting a small sealed woofer in a small-moderate sized car will usually deliver response pretty flat to well below 20 Hz. You DID remember to close the hatch did you not? |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
Tom Accuses Eddie of Lieing about the tests!!
thelizman thelizman1221.yahoo@com
wrote: Nousaine wrote: I don't know exactly what you did. But why don't you explain to me how turning an omnidirectional speaker in the other direction manages to increase sound pressure? You act as if "omnidirectional" means "isotropic" and "invariant". It certainly does not mean either. The thing I love about car audio is that newtonian physics and classical thermodynamics seem to no longer apply on product packages and between magazines who exist to serve their marketing-hype masters and the all-mightly advertising dollar. -- Lizard Nice try at a strawman. Why not answer the question? Exactly how does a given subwoofer system manage to make more acoustic sound pressure with a given input depending on it's directional orientation? |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
Tom is Unclear
Eddie Runner wrote:
Nousaine wrote: And as one can see from your "graphs" there's no standing wave patterns below 60 Hz in a Neon. Bull****... My graphs PLAINLY show more SPL with the box aimed to the back of the car in ALL the sweeps on ALL the cars I tested, even the neon! anyone can look for themselves! http://www.installer.com/tech/aiming2.html So eddie; you're telling us that all frequencies are equally affected by your standing wave patterns at every frequency below 80 Hz with a given direction? Exactly how does the woofer box know that it's the 'same' (relative to wavelength) distance from ALL boundaries regardless of the frequency? Does it know enough to move when a give frequency occurs? How does it know enough to do this with a noise signal or fast sweep? Pretty smart woofer you have. Mine don't know enough to shift output depending on direction OR enough to lower its output when faced in the wrong direction. I'm just under privileged to have to deal with "dumb" subwoofers. The woofer is not PRODUCING more SPL at the cone because we didnt change the settings... But the difference in the *listening area* is caused by reflections interfering constructlivly and destructivly (in phase and out of phase) at the listening area.... OK, but why don't they differ with frequency? Why would they be ALL the same even when they have different wavelengths? I thought this cancellation thing was based on standing wave issue. And your still claiming it doesnt happen,, ha ha I love to talk tech. But when you have to deal with an amateur it's sometimes difficult. Im no amateur Tom... I been in audio professionally for almost 30 years! Sure. But you are an amateur with regard to acoustics and room acoustics. I have worked with pro audio, home audio and car audio with the emphasis on tech and service (including working as speaker tech for a manufacturer and speaker tech at a warranty station) for far too long to be called an amatuer... You wanna pretend I am an amateur so you wont feel so bad about me showing you up with my fancy sweeps and proving the bull**** that you have been spewing is a buncha lies.... OK work yourself into a frenzy. Apparently that's what this is all about. You have a few half-baked ideas about car acoustics and cannot back off your claims. That's just tough; live with it. Again Eddie please explain to me how a given woofer system manages to generate more sound pressure when its lying on its back ot faced to the front or the back? Your trying to twist out of your hole of lies by trying to say someting else now arent you..... ha ha ha Please tell me. How does that happen without some interior acoustic effects that interfere with the distribution of SPL at a given location? There ARE no cancellations going on in your car pix below 60 Hz or so. You can see a cancellation at just over 100 Hz; but you cannot see any below that frequency. Yet, you want us to believe that there are frequency independent "cancellations" happening equally at every low frequency. Please tell us exactly HOW the woofer knows that it's not dependently tied to all those boundary conditions and can just "decide" to be louder at low frequencies with a given input signal when its facing backwards? The woofer does NOT make more sound pressure at the cone, the sound pressure in the listeing area does increase (or decrease) with woofer placement however.... OK: I agree. I have only been saying that for about 20 years, it also says it in my paper http://www.installer.com/tech/aiming.html Now your pretending you didnt read it very good and YOU were under the impression I was talking about AT THE CONE and NOT THE LISTEING AREA..... OK; given that exactly how does the listener "know" that he's getting more bass SPL when the woofer is facing backward? Your data shows NO cancellation effects at lower frequencies. The SPL is equally distributed; there's only an overall level reduction. So exactly how does your woofer "know" that it's supposed to get 3 dB louder even IF its the same distance from al the boundaries? Ha ha ha WONT WORK TOM! You and I have been sparing on this lightly for over a year (maybe two or more) and there is no way you can get off now with a missunderstanding..... ha ha ha There's no misunderstanding on my part, Eddie. Your 'cartoon' is a misrepresentation of the acoustics involved. Your description of the acoustics is often wretchedly confused. On the other hand, you often proffer good advice in other areas on which I would agree. But you should stop the BS about woofer direction. It's simply wrong and you're discredting yourself. YOU KNEW WHAT YOU WERE SAYING! YOU WERE WRONG!! Eddie Runner Why didnt you address any of the presure field examples I went to so much trouble to type out for you?? You mentione pressure field and I went to alot of trouble to clarify it for everyone and now you just ignore all that!! Why did you mention it in the forst place them??? The pressure zone is easily described and illustrated in every woofer evaluation I publish. You didn't clarify anything; you just seemed to want to disqualify it as a real advantage for both car and home subwoofer enthusiasts. You bad. |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
Standing wave definition explained
Eddie Runner wrote:
In a great try to divert the issue: Nousaine wrote: So Eddie; what is your definition of a standing wave? Two sounds at the same ftequency traveling in opposite directions? Isn't that it? Or have you changed you defintion? I havent changed my definition but YOU need to CHANGE YOURS! My definition of a standing wave is two (OR MORE) waves that interfere with each other in a way that nodes or antinodes appear to stand still. But you made a great issue of different directions, did you not? And you completely ignore that Baranek put your arguments to task as well. (antinodes are points of higher spl and nodes are points of lower spl) These nodes and anti nodes are caused by the two (or more) waves bouncing or coming from different sources, they create the nodes and antinodes because there are spots that the second (or more) wave is in phase or out of phase ALWAYS at that spot and at that frequency. Constant unchanging phase relationship between two or more sounds creates the nodes and antinodes.... For instance, at a distance from a reflection of 1/4 wave, the reflected wave will come back to the speaker at exactly 180degrees out of phase, this point at the speaker is a NODE....There will be a cancelation here! 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? Pretty smart woofer. Or maybe it wasn't smart at all and was working for another master. As the first wave goes through its cycle the reflected wave goes through its cycle just the same, so if the first wave is 45degrees the second wave is ALWAYS 180degrees different!! ALWAYS!! Assuming you're working in the realm of known physics; exactly how does it know how to do this with EVERY low frequency given the identical spatial location? Perhaps it just does this with regard to regular physics and below the lowest axial mode just says "hell with it" I'm just going to pressurize this small space. And, actually, it has no choice. It's a speaker and does whatever the heck it can. Or if the distance is different it could be IN PHASE just as well. Normally, in your narrow definition of a standing wave you can walk through the standing wave and measure the nodes and antinodes with an SPL meter.... This happens because the waves are crossing each other... (going in opposite directions) Really? Then how does this happen with your single-all cartoon? In your cancellation region the waves are all traveling in the same direction. How does this work? I know the answer to this but Eddie doesn't. That's because he's never conducted experiments that confirm his off-kilter ideas until prompted. Until pushed. Now he's saddled with ......results that he's squiggling to make his point; But he cannot walk away from the "cancellation" idea; either his cartoon is dreadfully wrong OR he has to find an "all-frequency" model. But in this case, once the wave has bounced back and joins the incedent wave (wave direct from speaker) then there is a node created that reaches all the way into the listeing area... (less spl) Tom, come out of the Jr High school mindset of the common example of a standing wave where the wave can easiily be seen in the clear tube as it moves the little cork particles... Understand WHY these standing waves occur and what the components of them are individually and see how they can have more complex relationships.... Waves dont have to be moving in opposite directions, they can! So "now" you say that a standing wave DOESN'T have to have waves traveling in the opposite direction. I guess you HAVE changed your defintition. Why do your physics change over time? Or they can cross each other like two pebbles in a pond, or they can run right along with each other for a short distance or a long distance... Any of these can cause nodes and antinodes... Hmmmm..... after your hard arguments to the contrary. I'd like a given story where you stick to it. Isn't it wonderful to slide-along and yet call everybody else a slider. Hey Eddie; get a story and stick to it, and look in the mirror once in a while I have done some pretty extensive study of reflections and standing waves. I have built many variations of the tube and cork, we were actually going to make one for our sound board so customers could play with the oscillator dial and watch the cork particles jump. I have built small and large scale models of how standing waves occur with different colored string and the 1-360 degrees marked on the string. I used to have a little pink noise demonstration using a Janzen electrostatic panel and a moveable wood reflector behind it, it showed a nice hump and dip on the RTA when you moved the reflector closer or further from the back of the electrostat (the Janzen panels are bi-polar radiators by the way)... I have found your average speaker guy has only a limited knowledge of the effects of reflections and standing waves, the subject is only lightly covered in the physics books and speaker books... Much of the printed information is not agreed upon in all the texts, therefor I have gone to much trouble to verify myself what I wanted to know about this subject. Great; why then,, do you hold these ridiculous ideas that are contrary to high-school physics? And as you may remember from last time we brought books into the arguements I DO HAVE QUITE A REFERENCE LIBRARY! ;-) http://www.installer.com/tech/baranek.html Eddie Runner Great; read some of them when you get a chance. Start with Baranek. Not banacek, or something similar as you once tried to posture. |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
TOM WAFFLES about aiming ! Actual tests - aiming woofer boxes
Eddie Runner wrote:
Nousaine wrote: By the way, my past work confirms Vina's experience. Moving an enclosure around in the trunk of a small car doesn't change the bass (60 hz and downward) inside the cabin. Tom, your waffling here like a ****ty politician!!! You have always said it doesnt make any difference no matter how big the car, remember I was always saying your Corvette was small and thet was why you couldnt see the difference the rest of us can hear in a normal sized car... Bull**** Eddie; I've never said that car size wasn't a variable. Make up another Strawman. And, change Thread-Names more often trying to keep me out of the loop. Now your finally seeing my point and your trying to change your story so you look like you have been saying it that way all along.... And here is a small quote from you last week that proves it Tom Wrote: Because acoustic sounds at subwoofer frequencies (approximately 100 Hz) are omnidirectional the SPL/Frequency response will be uneffected either way. And exactly where was the car-size referenced in any way; perhaps in the original post which you have excised. Now look at the charts http://www.installer.com/tech/aiming2.html and the HUGE, I mean HUGE cancelation at 100Hz on some of the cars!!! Do you see it??? Its about 27dB on the NEON !!!!!!!!! TOM! Thats like changing from a 100watt amp to a 51200 watt amp!!! Actually that's not at all true. If there IS an acoustical cancellation NO amout of amplifier will fix the problem. BUT 100 Hz was never IN my original suggestion. Why not make up some more strawmen? It seems to be pretty easy for you. In the past you said there is no difference in turning the box around Now your saying there is no sifnificant difference... COME ON TOM!! 27dB is pretty ****in significant!!! Where is the difference at 60 Hz? The Tahoe has about a 4dB difference at 100Hz thats also pretty significant... OK; where's the 60 Hz difference idiot? And I've never said that differences in larger vehicles weren't important; try another strawman Eddie. The Jetta has about a 28 or 29dB difference at 100Hz! Holly ****!! Yeah; as IF100 Hz "bass" is hard to find in table radios; and with the Truck Open the cabin transfer function at lower frequencies the cabin transfer functioh disappears and there's a large loss of Bass at lower frequencies. So? And even the Bug has a good 5dB diffference at 95Hz... Holy cow; those "95 Hz Bass Notes" are SO hard to fix. And, of course, I don't see you talking about 60 Hz now do I? ]Eddie is Mr Strawman personified. Now Tom, kids have been telling you on this thread that they hear a difference when they turn thier box to the back of the car, you have always told them it is IMPOSSIBLE! They must be mistaking the midrange.. Or the other day you told a guy he must have had his speakers out of phase !! (remember that?) NOW, this graph proves there are HUGE differences!! ADMIT YOU WERE WRONG!!! Huge differences at100 Hz???? But anyway tell me again how "cancellations" occur at low frequencies where the wavelengths maybe 2-10 times as long os the longest acoustical distance in a car. It IS true that a vehicle may have body/chassis/trim/leak loss that MAY influence the bass IN the car; but none of those have any relationship to subwoofer location. (we will respect you more if you admit you learned something) Eddie Runner http://www.installer.com/tech/ I'd say that it's about time that you began to learn something; and stop yelling. |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
Actual tests - aiming woofer boxes
|
#110
|
|||
|
|||
Actual tests - aiming woofer boxes
Nousaine wrote:
CARS have boundries ON ALL SIDES that are reletivly (compared to bass wavelengths) close and WILL affect the sounds to some extent no matter WHERE you put a woofer! But the way they affect one is dependent on fequency as well. Obviously In a small space, such as a car, below the frequency of the lowest axial mode we enter the pressure region where the driver displacement directly pressurizes the cabin and there is a 12-dB per octave as freq falls reinforcement. Define LOWEST AXIAL MODE! And your definition of PRESSURE REGION would also be appropriate (since I already gave you my defintiion and explanation of pressure) You keep stating this as if it were some sort of LAW or something but you have no explanation.... Time to TRY to explain it now Tom. |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
Measuring audio bandwidth
Nousaine wrote:
So what have YOU published? Tom, just because you have PUBLISHED something doesnt mean your a badass! I have read 100s of articles in the car audio and home audio magazines that were full of bull****.... I know you also know there is alot of bull**** published!! Just because Liz didnt tell you his publishing credentials before he said he belived me more than he believed you doesnt mean he has to have credentials that include publishing stuff... And on the contrary (if it did make a difference) the Liz has actually published a few reasonable technical papers on the teamROCS website. But thats still irrelevant.. How do YOU explain how turning an omnidirectional speaker in one direction or another manages to make it generate MORE displacement/SPL with a given drive level? Fact is Tom (and the sweeps evedence proves it) there is cancelation and reinforcment that takes place in a car and placement of the woofer box in a car changed the cancellation and reinforcment.... If you dont know that reinforment or cancellation occurs by interferance of two or more sound waves you need to start fresh and pick back up your physics text books.... Handbook for Sound Engineers 2nd ed. page 12 Sound Waves and Accoustics - Colby page 19 if ya need more I can quote em for ya. Eddie Runner |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
Toms ****ed now!
Nousaine wrote:
What cancellations? Your graphs show exactly the same response shape below 60 Hz; so exactly "where" are the cancellations? Maybe on some sweeps and at some (NOT ALL) frequencies the SHAPE of the curve is similar but the VOLUME or SPL is NOT THE SAME! I would imagine the volume is changed in the listening area by the simple reason there is interferance from reflecions causing cancelation and reinforcment.. I would expect the interferance to cause UPS and DOWNS but you need to keep in mind the UPS and DOWNS are much closer together in the upper frequencies and at the lower freqs we are sweeping may be just one big DOWN simply cause were dealing with long wavelengths.... Do some measurements yourself and see!!!! Come on by and I will show you the measurements I am doing!!! Nope. Please tell us exactly HOW a woofer system, with a fixed drive level, can develop more SPL in a space at every and all fequencies below 60 Hz or so without any cancellations evident depending on which way it faces? reflections causing reinforcment! Lower? or higher due to reinforcment.... either way.... Your graphs just show the same response at lower frequencies with more SPL? Cant you read? Did you look at my graphs? Figgure out the results yourself, they dont lie! Exactly how does this happen with a given displacement in the omni range? reinforcment or cancelation due to reflected waves interfering with direct and other reflected waves... simple... read ANY physics book Tom. How does this magic woofer system know that it's supposed to get "louder" at low frquencies when it turns its back on you? Are you DENSE! The woofer itself does not get louder (from the cone) but the sound is louder or softer in the listening area because of reflections that happen to be IN PHASE or OUT OF PHASE with the first wave or other reflected waves... This could cause LOUDER (if in phase) or LOWER (if out of phase) sounds in the listening area without increasing the actual output from the woofer.... Why is that so hard for you to believe? Your sweeps show NO cancellations below 80 Hz. My sweeps definatly show a difference!!!! I wanna call them cancelations but you can call em anything you want to... If you cant see the (several DB) differences below 80Hz then you must be blind... Oh, click on the picture of the graph and it gets BIG so you can see it better..... If you dont think it is a cancelation then how would YOU explain it? IT HAPPENED on all the cars we tested... Why not do your own sweeps???????? You keep saying you have but I dont see any eveidence of it so far. Im ready to stop the name calling and get to the tech stuff if your willing to listen and stop just jabbin your jaws all the time with nothing to back yourself up. There's one above 100 Hz. Look careful ITS ACTAULLY BELOW 100Hz!! Eddie |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
Tom is Unclear
Nousaine wrote:
So eddie; you're telling us that all frequencies are equally affected by your standing wave patterns at every frequency below 80 Hz with a given direction? Thats what the sweep shows! http://www.installer.com/tech/aiming2.html |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
Tom is Unclear
Nousaine wrote:
Exactly how does the woofer box know that it's the 'same' (relative to wavelength) distance from ALL boundaries regardless of the frequency? Does it know enough to move when a give frequency occurs? Sorry, I don't know what your talking about... I offered up the evidence http://www.installer.com/tech/aiming2.html which sure does seem to support my previous paper http://www.installer.com/tech/aiming.html Your welcome to make measurements of your own or come on by my shop and participate with my measurements... I keep getting the idea your accusing me of lying about all this or something..... There are witnesses listed on the bottom of the page you are welcome to contact them for verification of my measurement techniques if you think they are somehow flawed. Your also welcome to BELIEVE anything you want to if you prefer to not do any measurements of your own or to not believe my measurements. You can believe my graphs are wrong You can believe moving a woofer box can make no difference in the bass. You can believe that Satan is going to pop out of your ass and and suck your.... You can believe anything you want to...Thats OK! OK, but why don't they differ with frequency? Why would they be ALL the same even when they have different wavelengths? I thought this cancellation thing was based on standing wave issue. Look carefully at the graphs, There are some differences, and there are some spots where there are no differences, and spots with constant differences over several Hz .... Its just reading what it is hearing! Do your own tests if you dont belive them! Eddie |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
TOM says Eddie is an AMATEUR (he must be deperate)
Nousaine wrote:
Im no amateur Tom... I been in audio professionally for almost 30 years! Sure. But you are an amateur with regard to acoustics and room acoustics. Your insults are pretty meaningless... I have probably spent more time in ROOMS and especially CARS with RTAS and test equipment than you have.... Reguardless to that fact which may or may not be true... I have obviously spent ENOUGH time to not be called an amateur... Plus, the defintion of an Amateur would certainly be if I got PAID! And trust me I have been doing this kind of work professionally for nearly 30 years... Before that my love of audio was certainly of an amateur nature, but still probably more advanced than the average amateur.... Your statements about ME being an AMATEUR are obviously manfested by you because of some inadequacy you might have or some jealousy or .... Heck I dont know why you are making up these insults... Everyone here knows me, some of them say I have been doing this sort of work longer than dirt has existed.... Your insults are only affecting your own credibility in this issue Along with your inability to produce any evedence Oh, and your statements about turning a woofer box backward in a car wont make any difference to the woofer sound in the car... Eddie Runner http://www.installer.com/tech/ |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
Standing wave definition explained
Nousaine wrote:
But you made a great issue of different directions, did you not? Im not sure what your talking about? Sounds do go in many directions I never said they didnt... Why not give us your evedence instead of trying to pick apart my posts??? Eddie Runner |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
Where is the BEEF Tom???
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 |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
Very desperate now
Nousaine wrote:
Now he's saddled with ......results that he's squiggling to make his point; Again, it looks like your accusing me of making up my tests.... I have witnesses and photographs of my tests, if you still believe I went to all this trouble to set up the test gear and do 4 different cars and posted FAKE RESULTS then I guess you have the right to believe anything you want to believe... This is an OPEN invitation for ANYONE to stop by my shop and see the results for youself, we can even test your own car if you wish..... Tom, I may like to argue, I may not know everything, but I can tell you I am no liar! Honesty IMO is one of the most important things a to me about being a human being.... Ask anyone that knows me. Eddie Runner |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
Standing wave definition explained
I make a mistake in spelling and Tom wont let it pass!
Come on Tom lets talk TECH not SPELLING! (is that all ya got?) Nousaine wrote: Great; read some of them when you get a chance. Start with Baranek. Not banacek, or something similar as you once tried to posture. |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
One question for Tom.
Nousaine wrote:
You have always said it doesnt make any difference no matter how big the car, remember I was always saying your Corvette was small and thet was why you couldnt see the difference the rest of us can hear in a normal sized car... Bull**** Eddie; I've never said that car size wasn't a variable. Ok, maybe all these years I was missunderstanding you.... Lets start over then Answer these simple questions. 1) does turning the woofer box around or re oreinting it in the car trunk or hatch cause any difference in the bas response to the listener in the car? I was under the impression you said it was IMPOSSIBLE for it to make a difference.... Feel free to clarify your standing on this question. change Thread-Names more often trying to keep me out of the loop. Im not sure where you learned about the internet (AOL maybe) but the MESSAGE NAME should reflect the subject matter in the message..... Im not trying to LOOSE you im just trying to make the subject match the actual meat in the message,.. if you sort by thread with your newsreader the messages will still be apart of the old thread even if the title changes. Eddie |
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 |