Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#282
|
|||
|
|||
The lowdown
Nousaine wrote:
Eddie Runner wrote: Tom, if you look at my graphs http://www.installer.com/tech/aiming2.html you will see that in the Dodge NEON there is a 27db difference at 100Hz 26db difference ar 95Hz 10db difference at 90Hz 5db difference t 75Hz So explain how they 'smoothly' transition to equal magnitude at lower frequencies? Why? You are claiming I made the whole thing up!! Any amount of explaining just seems to fall on deaf ears. Just look at your traces. If aligned for level (areas where the traces have the same shape) on a light box, which always happens when nothing more than a level shift is involved (which IS what happens when there is NO more acoustic energy being produced) than it's apparent that there is not significant deviation below about 80 Hz. The fact is one trace is significanly lower SPL than the other trace... I know you want them to be more SPIKED so that my theory about standing waves would be realized. And your trying to say the traces (although one is lower) are not spiked.... I see your point there Tom... But fact remains that one trace is still lower even though there are no spikes... That lower difference can only be cancalation!! Since the box output is the same and the only difference is the speaker location... It can ONLY BE cancellation, the NODE (standing wave) is more pronounced in the listening area! Have you checked the impedance/system resonance with both locations? I've not found a significant difference. No but I can do it easily... I couldnt imagine it being much different by location alone. 1) the SPL is lower with the woofer aimed forward... Can you see that on the chart? And why would it be" It's closer to the microphone so IF we're not in the pressure zone in the car why wouldn't it be LOUDER? because of cancelations that occur.... 2) you dont believe the chart because you think there cannot be a difference. It has nothing to do with my (or your) beliefs. Physics tell us that you cannot increase average SPL with driver orientation in an enclosed space at omni frequencies. my sweeps show otherwise! 3) I say since the woofer has not changed its output at the cone, ANY change in spl must be caused by replections that cancel or reinforce the original sound. (WHAT ELSE COULD IT BE???????) Some operating error on your part. Are you now telling us that average SPL in an enclosed space at omnidirectional frequencies is affected by source direction? How can this be? Not source DIRECTION but instead SOURCE LOCATION!! 4) The reflections have changed because the woofer location has changed. But is the woofer location constantly adjusting it's location for every frequency equally? How does it manage to do this at 21.5, 34 and 43 Hz simultanously? These ARE reflection/standing wave effects aren't they? I dont see how it can constantly adjust its location(?) We'll I cajoled you into actually doing measurements. Now it seems that either you will accept measurements that don't exactly fit with the laws of physics or acoustics or you won't discuss fair questions about why your results have things about them that fit. |
#283
|
|||
|
|||
Ed's Biz
I'm still looking for the first admission that you learned something,
then :-) JD he thought he was wrong once, but he was mistaken Eddie Runner wrote: John Durbin wrote: I never said it was a bad thing... just that you shouldn't be mistaken for a salesman :-) I know, I know,..... I am at the far other end of the spectrum that any salesman I have ever known... A salesman CONS the customer into buying something. On the other hand the customer begs to pay me. And they always want my neat **** that I dont wanna sell.... (If I sell it then I gotta order me another, what a drag)... no lie on the other stuff... some parts of the country have had a lot of stores close down this year that were way prettier than yours! thats for sure.. I see em closing up nearly everyday. I used to have a federated right across the street from me, they are gone, who woulda thought? they were huge!... I still have a best buy a few blocks away.... I like em there! JD Is your wife is the only one that ever gets away with telling you you're wrong? Anyone can tell me, its just that I rarely am wrong.... I dont make a point of talking about the stuff I dont already know... And when I am wrong, great! Then I learned something!! Its win win for me... Except with DRUNK *******s that wont even look at the graphs.... Eddie Runner |
#284
|
|||
|
|||
The lowdown
Eddie Runner wrote:
Nousaine wrote: Eddie Runner wrote: Tom, if you look at my graphs http://www.installer.com/tech/aiming2.html you will see that in the Dodge NEON there is a 27db difference at 100Hz 26db difference ar 95Hz 10db difference at 90Hz 5db difference t 75Hz So explain how they 'smoothly' transition to equal magnitude at lower frequencies? Why? You are claiming I made the whole thing up!! Any amount of explaining just seems to fall on deaf ears. Just look at your traces. If aligned for level (areas where the traces have the same shape) on a light box, which always happens when nothing more than a level shift is involved (which IS what happens when there is NO more acoustic energy being produced) than it's apparent that there is not significant deviation below about 80 Hz. The fact is one trace is significanly lower SPL than the other trace... I know you want them to be more SPIKED so that my theory about standing waves would be realized. If they were standing waves, tied to wavelength/distance then they would HAVE to be frequency related and would NOT be evenly distributed. And your trying to say the traces (although one is lower) are not spiked.... I see your point there Tom... But fact remains that one trace is still lower even though there are no spikes... That lower difference can only be cancalation!! No; they CANNOT be 'cancellations' or they would be unevenly distributed. The only other acoustical sound pressure losses are distance (the closer enclosure would be louder) and absorption (how would the vehicle absorb more low frequency energy at any given frequency in the omnidirectional range with any given orientation?) Those exhaust the physical/acoustical possibilities. What's left ....??? You tellme. One thing for sure it isn't "cancellations". If you don't want to accept that study Baranek some more. Since the box output is the same and the only difference is the speaker location... It can ONLY BE cancellation, the NODE (standing wave) is more pronounced in the listening area! But it CAN'T be, at these frequencies, where sound is being radiated equally in all directions. If it WERE a standing wave it would have to be wavelength/frequency related. Have you checked the impedance/system resonance with both locations? I've not found a significant difference. No but I can do it easily... I couldnt imagine it being much different by location alone. But it will tell you if there's a related effect regarding system tuning. Of course, there's not but you haven't exhausted up-stream possible causes. We already know it's not an acoustical effect. 1) the SPL is lower with the woofer aimed forward... Can you see that on the chart? And why would it be" It's closer to the microphone so IF we're not in the pressure zone in the car why wouldn't it be LOUDER? because of cancelations that occur.... What 'cancellations'? 2) you dont believe the chart because you think there cannot be a difference. It has nothing to do with my (or your) beliefs. Physics tell us that you cannot increase average SPL with driver orientation in an enclosed space at omni frequencies. my sweeps show otherwise! And you'll say that the other laws of physical acoustics still work their normal way? But, in this case you've superceded them? 3) I say since the woofer has not changed its output at the cone, ANY change in spl must be caused by replections that cancel or reinforce the original sound. (WHAT ELSE COULD IT BE???????) It's not standing wave activity. You tell me? I have a good idea but apparently you don't. Some operating error on your part. Are you now telling us that average SPL in an enclosed space at omnidirectional frequencies is affected by source direction? How can this be? Not source DIRECTION but instead SOURCE LOCATION!! Same thing at these frequencies. 4) The reflections have changed because the woofer location has changed. But is the woofer location constantly adjusting it's location for every frequency equally? How does it manage to do this at 21.5, 34 and 43 Hz simultanously? These ARE reflection/standing wave effects aren't they? I dont see how it can constantly adjust its location(?) Of course you don't because it can't and your results are contaminated by some non-acoustical cause. We'll I cajoled you into actually doing measurements. Now it seems that either you will accept measurements that don't exactly fit with the laws of physics or acoustics or you won't discuss fair questions about why your results have things about them that fit. |
#285
|
|||
|
|||
Ed's Biz
I learn stuff all the time.
I learned that you dont have anythng better todo than hassle me! John Durbin wrote: I'm still looking for the first admission that you learned something, then :-) JD he thought he was wrong once, but he was mistaken Eddie Runner wrote: John Durbin wrote: I never said it was a bad thing... just that you shouldn't be mistaken for a salesman :-) I know, I know,..... I am at the far other end of the spectrum that any salesman I have ever known... A salesman CONS the customer into buying something. On the other hand the customer begs to pay me. And they always want my neat **** that I dont wanna sell.... (If I sell it then I gotta order me another, what a drag)... no lie on the other stuff... some parts of the country have had a lot of stores close down this year that were way prettier than yours! thats for sure.. I see em closing up nearly everyday. I used to have a federated right across the street from me, they are gone, who woulda thought? they were huge!... I still have a best buy a few blocks away.... I like em there! JD Is your wife is the only one that ever gets away with telling you you're wrong? Anyone can tell me, its just that I rarely am wrong.... I dont make a point of talking about the stuff I dont already know... And when I am wrong, great! Then I learned something!! Its win win for me... Except with DRUNK *******s that wont even look at the graphs.... Eddie Runner |
#286
|
|||
|
|||
The lowdown
Nousaine wrote:
The fact is one trace is significanly lower SPL than the other trace... I know you want them to be more SPIKED so that my theory about standing waves would be realized. If they were standing waves, tied to wavelength/distance then they would HAVE to be frequency related and would NOT be evenly distributed. You keep saying that over and over and over.... Your saying that to prove my graphs are wrong! But Tom, my graphs are real and undoctored... I have an explanation for whats happening.... http://www.installer.com/tech/aiming.html http://www.installer.com/tech/aiming2.html You on the other hand claim 1) my graphs are wrong, maybe I just made them with photoshop! 2) my explanation is wrong because it CANT HAPPEN! OK, I think it can, and I have submitted evedence .... YOU think it cannot happen but you havent done any sweeps to show your side of the story... We are at an IMPASSE.... I understand your arguements, but they just dont match up to my experements... Are your arguements just a part of your perception of how you interperate the physics involved or can you show us some actuall data to back up your position? You say READ BARANEK but you dont mention the page number or chapter and how it pertains to your point! But fact remains that one trace is still lower even though there are no spikes... That lower difference can only be cancalation!! No; they CANNOT be 'cancellations' or they would be unevenly distributed. The only other acoustical sound pressure losses are distance (the closer enclosure would be louder) and absorption (how would the vehicle absorb more low frequency energy at any given frequency in the omnidirectional range with any given orientation?) There is not enough distance for distance to be the factor. Besides its Further and Louder so distance could nto be it. it has to be REFLECTIONS!! I cant think of anything else that could be it. Same thing when the bass gets louder as you open the trunk (sometimes on some cars) You claim it DOESNT HAPPEN but many folks know it does happen.... HOW CAN IT? Were lettting sound get away!! Well, the fact is the sound going away was sound that reflected back into the cabin out of phase with some other sounds so it CAUSED cancelation, when we open a trunk we lessen the cancellations.... Just like turning the box around I CAN HEAR THE DIFFERENCE!!! I CAN MEASURE THE DIFFERENCE!!! For you just to say it doesnt happen at all is not really helping us out... Those exhaust the physical/acoustical possibilities. What's left ....??? You tellme. I have told you http://www.installer.com/tech/aiming.html If you dont like my explanation then YOU TELL US!!!!! I mean real data not just generalities like when you say to READ BANECHEKS BOOK or whatever.. (I misspelled that on purpose BTW, remember Banachek TV show? (Just trying to give your sense of humor a little boost))... One thing for sure it isn't "cancellations". If you don't want to accept that study Baranek some more. Can you explain why you believe it cant be cancellations??? Or do we just have to take your word for it?? I dont see where Baranek supports your side... Baranek does get into the resonant MODES in enclosed spaces but I dont think you really understand the uderlying causes of the resonances. Resonances are not the same as standing waves by the way! Resonances are identified by MODES Standing waves are identified by NODES and ANTINODES. Since the box output is the same and the only difference is the speaker location... It can ONLY BE cancellation, the NODE (standing wave) is more pronounced in the listening area! But it CAN'T be, at these frequencies, where sound is being radiated equally in all directions. If it WERE a standing wave it would have to be wavelength/frequency related. And it is! since sound comes out of the box in all directions, some of the sound goes directly to the listening area and some goes to the back of the vehicle, the sound going to the back of the vehicle has some of it reflected forward to the listeing area, that sound that bounced off the back of the car is out of phase by the extra distance that it traveled when compared to the wave that went (and is still coming from the speaker) directly up to the listing area.. A distance to the reflector and back could be 2 or 3 feet or more each way, so thats about 4 to 6ft in many cars.... for the reflected wave to be 180degrees out of phase with the direct wave the frequency would be about 120 to 90 Hz..... But, lets take the 90Hz example...... at that distance where it is out of phase 180degrees at 90 Hz, how much (degrees) out pf phase would it be at 80Hz? 70Hz, 60Hz, 50Hz, 40Hz????? At 40 Hz, it would still be close to 90 degrees out of phase!!!! Would that cause cancelation at 45Hz???? It would nt cause complete cancelation but would STILL drag down the original sound to a slightly lesser SPL....!!! Think about this Tom..... What happens if we have 100dB of SPL on one sine wave and we introduce a like Sine wave 90Degrees out of phase with the first???? In my graphs, cancellation occured like I predicted at slightly below 100Hz.... But it happened also below 100Hz because there is still some interactions that are not completely in phase with each other! But it will tell you if there's a related effect regarding system tuning. Of course, there's not but you haven't exhausted up-stream possible causes. We already know it's not an acoustical effect. You mean we already know IT IS AN Accoustical effect! CANCELLATION !!! my sweeps show otherwise! And you'll say that the other laws of physical acoustics still work their normal way? But, in this case you've superceded them? No, you just dont seem to understand the physics involved... To say its a law doesnt have any meaning unlesss it actually is... Alof of folks think they are going to jail if they tear the tags off thier mattresses but YOU WONT!!! Alot of folks missunderstand that law and I think you misunderstand the laws of accoustics and cancelations. The Barencheck book might not be the best book for you to use to read more about cancelations.... Is it the only book you have??? I have a huge library of physics and accoustics books, its fairly common to see more than one take on a phenomonon from one book to another, most of them only briefly skim the cancelations and standing wave theory. For one book to different than another doesnt mean one of them breaks the laws of physics! Some books on standing waves for instance talk about particle velocity instead of SPL which is NOT the same! Someone trying to inteperet the particle velocity as SPL could make some errors...... Alot of books are not real plain on this for the average reader and I have seen folks with the missinterpretation to make errors.. Are you making these types of errors in your theory? I dont know ! I suspect so, but I dont know for sure.... If you had some actual experementation to look at to back up your theory it might be a more fruitfull engagement.... (WHAT ELSE COULD IT BE???????) It's not standing wave activity. You tell me? I have a good idea but apparently you don't. I am telling you! http://www.installer.com/tech/aiming.html you keep saying, THATS WRONG! Then you ask me to TELL YOU AGAIN!! Whats wrong with you??? Not source DIRECTION but instead SOURCE LOCATION!! Same thing at these frequencies. is 90 to 180 degrees out of phase the same thing???? NO IT IS NOT!! Do me a favor, read what I typed here at least twice and think about it Tom before you reply! Eddie Runner tryin to be nice |
#287
|
|||
|
|||
The lowdown
Nousaine wrote:
snip Okay smartass, so explain how you can have cancelations of standing standing dictators in a seven foot hole? It CANT BE DONE! Some of my former colleagues performed just such an experiment saturday night. -- Lizard Should have cancelled his ass with a 5.56 FMJ through the head... |
#288
|
|||
|
|||
Actual tests - aiming woofer boxes
I would have to say that for the most part I agree that rear firin
works better than front firing, but I do have a question. Eddie, I find that front firing with the woofer totally isolated fro the trunk (firing ONLY into the front cabin, directly), tends to hav the best sound of all. Anyway you can throw up a quick test of that Curious to see how the graphs come out. Just by looking at the graphs, I don't see a very big difference in LO frequency performance, although certainly a difference in high bas performance (which I would never let a subwoofer play anyway). As far as the trunk open test, you get a steady loss in low frequenc output, and a peak in the 50hz range, that's pretty much what To seemed to say you'd expect to see. Not really sure why all these kids are trying to call Tom a "noob though, just makes them sound like imbicels - Warblee ----------------------------------------------------------------------- CarAudioForum.com - Usenet Gateway w/over one million posts online View this thread: http://www.caraudioforum.com/showthr...threadid=16759 |
#289
|
|||
|
|||
Actual tests - aiming woofer boxes
Tom... In this particular case, it's not fair to dismiss Eddie as
silly, uneducated, myth-propagating dummy. Anyone who has installed more than a few real-world car subwoofer knows that subwoofer orientation/loading has an effect on the qualit and quantity of perceived bass at the listening position. Th significance of the effect varies from car to car, but it is definitel an important factor. In fact, one of the primary "tuning" aspects of designing Stealthbo systems (vehicle specific subwoofers) here at JL Audio revolves aroun finding an optimum location, orientation and loading for the woofer. wish it were as simple as just picking any spot in the car for the sub but it isn't. Sometimes a location that is more practical or desirabl doesn't sound as good as another. Quoting Beranek, or citing physics that contradict these observation is like saying that a rainbow does not actually have multiple colors i it. A car is not a square room, nor is it a uniform pressure vessel.. orientation and proximity to boundaries (loading) has an effect on th acoustical impedance matching between the woofer and the listenin environment... Partially sealed trunks act as resonant chambers whic often cancel out desirable bass energy... small, semi-captive volume of air between a rear-firing sub and a rear hatch affect the acoustica impedance match as well... the relationship between the listenin position and the front and back boundaries of the cabin also plays role... the vehicle is lossy at very low freuqencies... etc. etc. etc It should also be noted that 99.9% of car audio customers listen t bass at louder levels than you find comfortable... I'm not sure if tha fact has any effect on the whole equation. As far as I know, nobody has been able to accurately model a car' transfer function based on pure measurements with any degree o precision... one can measure it, but it is devilishly complicated t predict. Maybe some of your OEM buddies think they have the answer, bu I have my doubts. Manville Smith JL Audio, Inc - msmit ----------------------------------------------------------------------- CarAudioForum.com - Usenet Gateway w/over one million posts online View this thread: http://www.caraudioforum.com/showthr...threadid=16759 |
#290
|
|||
|
|||
THE PROOF IS IN! Facing subs towards driver or away
Eddie Runner wrote:
*Are you guessing or do you have measurements to share with us? delvryboy wrote: now....face that driver into the cabin in a trunked car....and sea off the baffle completely...trunk/cabin whole different monster -- delvryboy * Come now Eddie, that should be beneath you. You're pressuring a fa smaller volume of air. Of course it'll be louder, and the standing wav issues you speak of with the woofer firing forward in the trunk don' happen - Warblee ----------------------------------------------------------------------- CarAudioForum.com - Usenet Gateway w/over one million posts online View this thread: http://www.caraudioforum.com/showthr...threadid=16758 |
#291
|
|||
|
|||
Smack smack
thelizman wrote:
*Tom Nutstain Wrote: Eddie; as far as I can tell there's no body more "dirty" that yo save real car salesman. Actually they seem to make people like you the first folk to avoid. Hey lets talk about dirty stinking lies people who lack ethics tell The following scenario is based on a true story. The names have bee changed to protect the royally screwed. Tell everyone about that time you compared two subs, one from GLOVE AUDIO and the other from DIE. You let the manufacturer of the GLOVE woofer send you a box custom made that was precisely tuned (likel using HARRY GLOVENERS own vette) to sound good in your test. But the manufactuer of DIE woofers got the anal-probe, because their sub was dropped in a box that wasn't even optimum. Coincidentally, GLOVE AUDIO was buying tens of thousands of dollar in ads in the magazine the review appeared in. There's nothing slimier than a hack audiophile who sells out hi opinion. -- Lizard * Better to be an alleged "hack audiophile" than a crybaby that froths a the mouth at the very mention of said hack's name. L-O-S-E-R. : - Warblee ----------------------------------------------------------------------- CarAudioForum.com - Usenet Gateway w/over one million posts online View this thread: http://www.caraudioforum.com/showthr...threadid=16856 |
#292
|
|||
|
|||
Hick UP!
Ouch, looks like John took a bite out of poor Eddie.
-- Warbleed ------------------------------------------------------------------------ CarAudioForum.com - Usenet Gateway w/over one million posts online! View this thread: http://www.caraudioforum.com/showthr...hreadid=168456 |
#293
|
|||
|
|||
THE PROOF IS IN! Facing subs towards driver or away
Eddie Runner wrote:
*Are you guessing or do you have measurements to share with us? delvryboy wrote: now....face that driver into the cabin in a trunked car....and sea off the baffle completely...trunk/cabin whole different monster -- delvryboy * nothing technical 143.5 with the sub rearward 6" from the back bumper 142.1 with the sub facing forward 144.9 with sub facing forward with the baffle sealed off from th trunk all tests on the same linX mic the loss when simply turning the sub box around comes from th cancellation shown in the tech paper - delvrybo ----------------------------------------------------------------------- CarAudioForum.com - Usenet Gateway w/over one million posts online View this thread: http://www.caraudioforum.com/showthr...threadid=16758 |
#294
|
|||
|
|||
The lowdown
I would have used a 30MM HEI from an A-10 myself.
Paul Vina "thelizman" thelizman1221.yahoo@com wrote in message ... Nousaine wrote: snip Okay smartass, so explain how you can have cancelations of standing standing dictators in a seven foot hole? It CANT BE DONE! Some of my former colleagues performed just such an experiment saturday night. -- Lizard Should have cancelled his ass with a 5.56 FMJ through the head... |
#295
|
|||
|
|||
Ed's Biz
you shouldn't mistake a driveby as hassling ... sometimes it's just fun
to point it at something and pull the trigger! JD and face it, you're a pretty good-sized target Eddie Runner wrote: I learn stuff all the time. I learned that you dont have anythng better todo than hassle me! John Durbin wrote: I'm still looking for the first admission that you learned something, then :-) JD he thought he was wrong once, but he was mistaken Eddie Runner wrote: John Durbin wrote: I never said it was a bad thing... just that you shouldn't be mistaken for a salesman :-) I know, I know,..... I am at the far other end of the spectrum that any salesman I have ever known... A salesman CONS the customer into buying something. On the other hand the customer begs to pay me. And they always want my neat **** that I dont wanna sell.... (If I sell it then I gotta order me another, what a drag)... no lie on the other stuff... some parts of the country have had a lot of stores close down this year that were way prettier than yours! thats for sure.. I see em closing up nearly everyday. I used to have a federated right across the street from me, they are gone, who woulda thought? they were huge!... I still have a best buy a few blocks away.... I like em there! JD Is your wife is the only one that ever gets away with telling you you're wrong? Anyone can tell me, its just that I rarely am wrong.... I dont make a point of talking about the stuff I dont already know... And when I am wrong, great! Then I learned something!! Its win win for me... Except with DRUNK *******s that wont even look at the graphs.... Eddie Runner |
#296
|
|||
|
|||
Hick UP!
Naah, he knows it's true... he even filled in the rest of the conversation!
JD Warbleed wrote: Ouch, looks like John took a bite out of poor Eddie. -- Warbleed ------------------------------------------------------------------------ CarAudioForum.com - Usenet Gateway w/over one million posts online! View this thread: http://www.caraudioforum.com/showthr...hreadid=168456 |
#297
|
|||
|
|||
Smack smack
Warbleed wrote:
thelizman wrote: Better to be an alleged "hack audiophile" than a crybaby that froths at the mouth at the very mention of said hack's name. L-O-S-E-R. -- Warbleed ------------------------------------------------------------------------ CarAudioForum.com - Usenet Gateway w/over one million posts online! View this thread: http://www.caraudioforum.com/showthr...hreadid=168561 You have to use a web-based newsreader, 'cause you can't comprehend how to access usenet otherwise. Whose the 10053r now, bitch. -- Lizard |
#298
|
|||
|
|||
Hick UP!
Warbleed wrote:
Ouch, looks like John took a bite out of poor Eddie. -- Warbleed ------------------------------------------------------------------------ CarAudioForum.com - Usenet Gateway w/over one million posts online! View this thread: http://www.caraudioforum.com/showthr...hreadid=168456 Ouch, looks like Assbleed doesn't know how to quote in accordance with usenet etiquette. I've said it before, I'll say it again: These dumbasses at caraudioforum.com are the lates aol/webtv scourge of usenet. -- Lizard Too stupid to configure a newsreader? Use a web based forum. |
#299
|
|||
|
|||
Ed's Biz
You liberals in LA think drive bys are the answer....
Morons try that in Texas and they will wind up with a couple of pick up trucks full of rednecks chasin them down and havin a little fun with the bad guys at the end of a deer rifle. ever notice the drive bys happen most often where there are the stricktest gun control laws... (Shooters know its unlikely to get shot back at.) here in Texas where EVERYONE has a gun, idiots are a little less likely to be waving one around foolishly.... Mark Twain said, "an armed society is a polite society!" John Durbin wrote: you shouldn't mistake a driveby as hassling ... sometimes it's just fun to point it at something and pull the trigger! JD and face it, you're a pretty good-sized target Dont forget I have been targeted before... Ed = 1 Badguy = 0 |
#300
|
|||
|
|||
Actual tests - aiming woofer boxes
Warbleed wrote:
Eddie, I find that front firing with the woofer totally isolated from the trunk (firing ONLY into the front cabin, directly), tends to have the best sound of all. Anyway you can throw up a quick test of that? Curious to see how the graphs come out. Totally isolated? You mean with a floor to ceiling wall ? And wall or not you may be right... Even with the cancelation and less bass by firing the woofers forward, I have created some of my favorite SQ (sound Quality) car systems that way in the past... Nowdays everyone wants bass, bass and more bass, so it would probably not be the best choice to aim the woofers forward for most customers. Besides, too much bass can always be turned down but not enough bass may not be able to be turned up... I ALWAYS SAY, listen for yourself and choose the way you like it best... I ALWAYS SAY dont take my word for it or anyone elses word for it, DO THE TESTS YOURSELF ! Just by looking at the graphs, I don't see a very big difference in LOW frequency performance, although certainly a difference in high bass performance (which I would never let a subwoofer play anyway). Very big? 3dB is like doubling your amp power.... Sounds pretty big to me! The BIG differences you see on my graphs are really HUGE GIANT SIZED!! As far as the trunk open test, you get a steady loss in low frequency output, and a peak in the 50hz range, that's pretty much what Tom seemed to say you'd expect to see. Most folks percieve te best bass around 50Hz... The hump there would be desireable to most folks... Not really sure why all these kids are trying to call Tom a "noob" though, just makes them sound like imbicels. The kids, in fact just about everyone into car audio knows that turning a woofer box can make a dramtic difference... Tom still insists the only difference would be midrange and some possible port noise. Everyone knows Tom is wrong so they call him names.... Eddie Runner |
#301
|
|||
|
|||
Actual tests - aiming woofer boxes
|
#302
|
|||
|
|||
Actual tests - aiming woofer boxes
Let him have it Manville!!!
Tom has been saying woofer location makes no difference whatsoever. Now he seems to be backpedaling pretty quickly trying to get himself out of this mess... He accused me of doctoring my graphs because he says it is a physical impossibility... I guess Tom thinks Im just some punk kid... Now that your here he sure does seem to be trying to make excuses.... ha ha ha reminds me of the good ol days.... msmith wrote: Tom... In this particular case, it's not fair to dismiss Eddie as a silly, uneducated, myth-propagating dummy. |
#303
|
|||
|
|||
Ed's Biz
I guess it works better if you hit what you're aiming at... present
company excepted, I know you got skills. JD damn drunk Texans are probably lucky to hit water if they fall out of a boat... we're talking about a state that until recently was ok with drive-through liquor stores Eddie Runner wrote: You liberals in LA think drive bys are the answer.... Morons try that in Texas and they will wind up with a couple of pick up trucks full of rednecks chasin them down and havin a little fun with the bad guys at the end of a deer rifle. ever notice the drive bys happen most often where there are the stricktest gun control laws... (Shooters know its unlikely to get shot back at.) here in Texas where EVERYONE has a gun, idiots are a little less likely to be waving one around foolishly.... Mark Twain said, "an armed society is a polite society!" John Durbin wrote: you shouldn't mistake a driveby as hassling ... sometimes it's just fun to point it at something and pull the trigger! JD and face it, you're a pretty good-sized target Dont forget I have been targeted before... Ed = 1 Badguy = 0 |
#304
|
|||
|
|||
Hick UP!
ironically, I've had problems posting to forums lately - every time I
try to post or reply to a post it tells me to log in first... so I log in (again), and same thing happens all over. JD thelizman wrote: Warbleed wrote: Ouch, looks like John took a bite out of poor Eddie. -- Warbleed ------------------------------------------------------------------------ CarAudioForum.com - Usenet Gateway w/over one million posts online! View this thread: http://www.caraudioforum.com/showthr...hreadid=168456 Ouch, looks like Assbleed doesn't know how to quote in accordance with usenet etiquette. I've said it before, I'll say it again: These dumbasses at caraudioforum.com are the lates aol/webtv scourge of usenet. -- Lizard Too stupid to configure a newsreader? Use a web based forum. |
#305
|
|||
|
|||
Ed's Biz
John Durbin wrote:
I guess it works better if you hit what you're aiming at... present company excepted, I know you got skills. I used to shoot at least twice a week withmy trust .45 auto but lately I seem to runnin outa bad guys to shoot at. Might be gettin a little rusty. JD damn drunk Texans are probably lucky to hit water if they fall out of a boat... I may be a Texan but I dont drink. we're talking about a state that until recently was ok with drive-through liquor stores Whats wrong with that? There is a law here that you cant drink on the premisses of a liqour store. So it would be logical to DRIVE home before you drink.... Actually the few drive throughs were more of a novely and were not low priced... Most folks only used the drive throughs for large sales like cases of beer or Kegs...... Just to buy a couple of beers the average corner store was way cheaper and the drive throughs didnt do so well... (IMO) I still know of one, I dont think they are illegal or anything... Of course the liberals in LA prolly think it is a contributor to drunk driving or something.... No, I dont think so, and probably way less than the normal corner stores that we have and you have in LA.... The drive throughs are not like Jack in the Box where you drive in for one. they are more like a place you drive a truck into and a forklift sets a pallet of beer in the back for you.... You can get a single beer but it is not seved up like Jack in the box or like you appearantly think ... Eddie. Eddie Runner wrote: You liberals in LA think drive bys are the answer.... Morons try that in Texas and they will wind up with a couple of pick up trucks full of rednecks chasin them down and havin a little fun with the bad guys at the end of a deer rifle. ever notice the drive bys happen most often where there are the stricktest gun control laws... (Shooters know its unlikely to get shot back at.) here in Texas where EVERYONE has a gun, idiots are a little less likely to be waving one around foolishly.... Mark Twain said, "an armed society is a polite society!" John Durbin wrote: you shouldn't mistake a driveby as hassling ... sometimes it's just fun to point it at something and pull the trigger! JD and face it, you're a pretty good-sized target Dont forget I have been targeted before... Ed = 1 Badguy = 0 |
#306
|
|||
|
|||
Hick UP!
did someone BITE ME AGAIN???
I musta missed it.... John Durbin wrote: ironically, I've had problems posting to forums lately - every time I try to post or reply to a post it tells me to log in first... so I log in (again), and same thing happens all over. JD thelizman wrote: Warbleed wrote: Ouch, looks like John took a bite out of poor Eddie. -- Warbleed ------------------------------------------------------------------------ CarAudioForum.com - Usenet Gateway w/over one million posts online! View this thread: http://www.caraudioforum.com/showthr...hreadid=168456 Ouch, looks like Assbleed doesn't know how to quote in accordance with usenet etiquette. I've said it before, I'll say it again: These dumbasses at caraudioforum.com are the lates aol/webtv scourge of usenet. -- Lizard Too stupid to configure a newsreader? Use a web based forum. |
#307
|
|||
|
|||
Ed's Biz
You put way more effort into that response than my not-so-subtle sniping
warranted... JD I win! Eddie Runner wrote: John Durbin wrote: I guess it works better if you hit what you're aiming at... present company excepted, I know you got skills. I used to shoot at least twice a week withmy trust .45 auto but lately I seem to runnin outa bad guys to shoot at. Might be gettin a little rusty. JD damn drunk Texans are probably lucky to hit water if they fall out of a boat... I may be a Texan but I dont drink. we're talking about a state that until recently was ok with drive-through liquor stores Whats wrong with that? There is a law here that you cant drink on the premisses of a liqour store. So it would be logical to DRIVE home before you drink.... Actually the few drive throughs were more of a novely and were not low priced... Most folks only used the drive throughs for large sales like cases of beer or Kegs...... Just to buy a couple of beers the average corner store was way cheaper and the drive throughs didnt do so well... (IMO) I still know of one, I dont think they are illegal or anything... Of course the liberals in LA prolly think it is a contributor to drunk driving or something.... No, I dont think so, and probably way less than the normal corner stores that we have and you have in LA.... The drive throughs are not like Jack in the Box where you drive in for one. they are more like a place you drive a truck into and a forklift sets a pallet of beer in the back for you.... You can get a single beer but it is not seved up like Jack in the box or like you appearantly think ... Eddie. Eddie Runner wrote: You liberals in LA think drive bys are the answer.... Morons try that in Texas and they will wind up with a couple of pick up trucks full of rednecks chasin them down and havin a little fun with the bad guys at the end of a deer rifle. ever notice the drive bys happen most often where there are the stricktest gun control laws... (Shooters know its unlikely to get shot back at.) here in Texas where EVERYONE has a gun, idiots are a little less likely to be waving one around foolishly.... Mark Twain said, "an armed society is a polite society!" John Durbin wrote: you shouldn't mistake a driveby as hassling ... sometimes it's just fun to point it at something and pull the trigger! JD and face it, you're a pretty good-sized target Dont forget I have been targeted before... Ed = 1 Badguy = 0 |
#308
|
|||
|
|||
Ed's Biz
no, I win!
John Durbin wrote: You put way more effort into that response than my not-so-subtle sniping warranted... JD I win! Eddie Runner wrote: John Durbin wrote: I guess it works better if you hit what you're aiming at... present company excepted, I know you got skills. I used to shoot at least twice a week withmy trust .45 auto but lately I seem to runnin outa bad guys to shoot at. Might be gettin a little rusty. JD damn drunk Texans are probably lucky to hit water if they fall out of a boat... I may be a Texan but I dont drink. we're talking about a state that until recently was ok with drive-through liquor stores Whats wrong with that? There is a law here that you cant drink on the premisses of a liqour store. So it would be logical to DRIVE home before you drink.... Actually the few drive throughs were more of a novely and were not low priced... Most folks only used the drive throughs for large sales like cases of beer or Kegs...... Just to buy a couple of beers the average corner store was way cheaper and the drive throughs didnt do so well... (IMO) I still know of one, I dont think they are illegal or anything... Of course the liberals in LA prolly think it is a contributor to drunk driving or something.... No, I dont think so, and probably way less than the normal corner stores that we have and you have in LA.... The drive throughs are not like Jack in the Box where you drive in for one. they are more like a place you drive a truck into and a forklift sets a pallet of beer in the back for you.... You can get a single beer but it is not seved up like Jack in the box or like you appearantly think ... Eddie. Eddie Runner wrote: You liberals in LA think drive bys are the answer.... Morons try that in Texas and they will wind up with a couple of pick up trucks full of rednecks chasin them down and havin a little fun with the bad guys at the end of a deer rifle. ever notice the drive bys happen most often where there are the stricktest gun control laws... (Shooters know its unlikely to get shot back at.) here in Texas where EVERYONE has a gun, idiots are a little less likely to be waving one around foolishly.... Mark Twain said, "an armed society is a polite society!" John Durbin wrote: you shouldn't mistake a driveby as hassling ... sometimes it's just fun to point it at something and pull the trigger! JD and face it, you're a pretty good-sized target Dont forget I have been targeted before... Ed = 1 Badguy = 0 |
#309
|
|||
|
|||
The lowdown
eddy why not try ported? BTW that response is pretty nast
- bassfrea ----------------------------------------------------------------------- CarAudioForum.com - Usenet Gateway w/over one million posts online View this thread: http://www.caraudioforum.com/showthr...threadid=16901 |
#310
|
|||
|
|||
Ed's Biz
me
Eddie Runner wrote: no, I win! John Durbin wrote: You put way more effort into that response than my not-so-subtle sniping warranted... JD I win! Eddie Runner wrote: John Durbin wrote: I guess it works better if you hit what you're aiming at... present company excepted, I know you got skills. I used to shoot at least twice a week withmy trust .45 auto but lately I seem to runnin outa bad guys to shoot at. Might be gettin a little rusty. JD damn drunk Texans are probably lucky to hit water if they fall out of a boat... I may be a Texan but I dont drink. we're talking about a state that until recently was ok with drive-through liquor stores Whats wrong with that? There is a law here that you cant drink on the premisses of a liqour store. So it would be logical to DRIVE home before you drink.... Actually the few drive throughs were more of a novely and were not low priced... Most folks only used the drive throughs for large sales like cases of beer or Kegs...... Just to buy a couple of beers the average corner store was way cheaper and the drive throughs didnt do so well... (IMO) I still know of one, I dont think they are illegal or anything... Of course the liberals in LA prolly think it is a contributor to drunk driving or something.... No, I dont think so, and probably way less than the normal corner stores that we have and you have in LA.... The drive throughs are not like Jack in the Box where you drive in for one. they are more like a place you drive a truck into and a forklift sets a pallet of beer in the back for you.... You can get a single beer but it is not seved up like Jack in the box or like you appearantly think ... Eddie. Eddie Runner wrote: You liberals in LA think drive bys are the answer.... Morons try that in Texas and they will wind up with a couple of pick up trucks full of rednecks chasin them down and havin a little fun with the bad guys at the end of a deer rifle. ever notice the drive bys happen most often where there are the stricktest gun control laws... (Shooters know its unlikely to get shot back at.) here in Texas where EVERYONE has a gun, idiots are a little less likely to be waving one around foolishly.... Mark Twain said, "an armed society is a polite society!" John Durbin wrote: you shouldn't mistake a driveby as hassling ... sometimes it's just fun to point it at something and pull the trigger! JD and face it, you're a pretty good-sized target Dont forget I have been targeted before... Ed = 1 Badguy = 0 |
#311
|
|||
|
|||
THE PROOF IS IN! Facing subs towards driver or away
Now, I'm fairly new to car audio and my family budget often hold me
back from getting some of the top line products but I'm learning alot from reading these forums. I too have been experimenting with my 2 12's and placement. I found this thread to be of interest. Just from looking at the pictures here it appears that this single sub when faced toward the front is crammed up against the back of the rear seat. Seems that, with my limited knowledge, that this type of placement guarantees the rear firing sub to win. How can a bass note develop in the little bit of air traped between the cone and the back of the seat. Always reading here wanting to learn more but sometimes hit something like this and get confused. Did somebody just spend ALOT of time with this test just to muddy the water around this debate? |
#312
|
|||
|
|||
THE PROOF IS IN! Facing subs towards driver or away
dont take anyones word for it.
try it for yourself, its easy and you may hear a difference, alot of folks do... Eddie Runner eidsvikDM wrote: Now, I'm fairly new to car audio and my family budget often hold me back from getting some of the top line products but I'm learning alot from reading these forums. I too have been experimenting with my 2 12's and placement. I found this thread to be of interest. Just from looking at the pictures here it appears that this single sub when faced toward the front is crammed up against the back of the rear seat. Seems that, with my limited knowledge, that this type of placement guarantees the rear firing sub to win. How can a bass note develop in the little bit of air traped between the cone and the back of the seat. Always reading here wanting to learn more but sometimes hit something like this and get confused. Did somebody just spend ALOT of time with this test just to muddy the water around this debate? |
#313
|
|||
|
|||
Toms ****ed now!
jksandwell wrote:
Alright Alright, I've been viewing this spit fight for awhile. snip If you had, you'd also have noticed the spit fight over CAF users who don't quote. You need to quote the text of the message to which you are replying. You also need to get the concept of paragraphs down. -- thelizman "I didn't steal the FAQ either" Before you ask a question, check the FAQs for this newsgroup at http://www.mobileaudio.com/rac-faq. It contains over a decade and a half of knowledge. teamROCS Car Audio Forums http://www.teamrocs.com/caraudio/ teamROCS Car Audio News http://www.teamrocs.com/news/ "It's about the music, stupid" This post is Copyright (C) 2004. Reproduction of its content anywhere other than usenet without the express written permission of the author is forbidden. |
#314
|
|||
|
|||
Toms ****ed now!
Alright Alright, I've been viewing this spit fight for awhile. I've seen
the arguments on both sides but this last comment made me kind of ****ed. I am going to try and put this in simple form for those not following along. I have to say Tom is right, there are no cancellations (or so few and small that it is negligible) under the 60 hz line on ALL test cars and 80 hz for most of them. There is a decrease in SPL and he never said there wasn't or at least I haven't seen it, a loss in SPL does not necessarily mean a cancellation there are as we know (many many many factors). But Eddie is right in what he has said. LOL yes they are both right. If your hunting for that extra bit of SPL and want to raise it by a few decibels at the least, aim the box backwards. His graphs look legit to me and I don't think anyone has denied it just put words in Tom's mouth. Tom is being a bit of a tongue twister by not exactly lying but antagonizing the hell out of Eddie. And Eddie is being defensive because he feels there is an assault on his methods and test equipment (who wouldn't be?). There, now all you extra 3rd party members who want to contribute and try to call either of these two swear words are not helping the situation. Tom there is a time when you do need to spit out that it is louder, but there are no cancellations under a certain level. Eddie just cool it, we all know your tests are legit and Tom is being well a prick w/ flowery words. We understand the point your tring to drive and yes louder is better to most of us and we all learned something. Thank you -- jksandwell ------------------------------------------------------------------------ CarAudioForum.com - Usenet Gateway w/over one million posts online! View this thread: http://www.caraudioforum.com/showthr...hreadid=168379 |
#315
|
|||
|
|||
Toms ****ed now!
learn to post the the newsgroup like a real man, and we'll value your
opinion... until then, kindly go **** yourself.. -- fhlh..... this post was intended for usenet, if you are reading this post on a webforum it is because someone has STOLEN it to use as content to draw traffic to his site... please acquire a proper newsreader if you want to access rec.audio.car and rethink your patronage of said site... THIS SIG WAS STOLEN FROM SANCHO... **** it! "jksandwell" wrote in message s.com... Alright Alright, I've been viewing this spit fight for awhile. I've seen the arguments on both sides but this last comment made me kind of ****ed. I am going to try and put this in simple form for those not following along. I have to say Tom is right, there are no cancellations (or so few and small that it is negligible) under the 60 hz line on ALL test cars and 80 hz for most of them. There is a decrease in SPL and he never said there wasn't or at least I haven't seen it, a loss in SPL does not necessarily mean a cancellation there are as we know (many many many factors). But Eddie is right in what he has said. LOL yes they are both right. If your hunting for that extra bit of SPL and want to raise it by a few decibels at the least, aim the box backwards. His graphs look legit to me and I don't think anyone has denied it just put words in Tom's mouth. Tom is being a bit of a tongue twister by not exactly lying but antagonizing the hell out of Eddie. And Eddie is being defensive because he feels there is an assault on his methods and test equipment (who wouldn't be?). There, now all you extra 3rd party members who want to contribute and try to call either of these two swear words are not helping the situation. Tom there is a time when you do need to spit out that it is louder, but there are no cancellations under a certain level. Eddie just cool it, we all know your tests are legit and Tom is being well a prick w/ flowery words. We understand the point your tring to drive and yes louder is better to most of us and we all learned something. Thank you -- jksandwell ------------------------------------------------------------------------ CarAudioForum.com - Usenet Gateway w/over one million posts online! View this thread: http://www.caraudioforum.com/showthr...hreadid=168379 |
#316
|
|||
|
|||
Toms ****ed now!
This guy posts from the FORUM and not only does he not quote
so I dont know exactly what posts he is refering to, but also he is replying to a thread that has been over for a couple of months at least!!! WOW.... I wish these Forum guys would come on over to RAC and learn to post with the appropriate ettiquette.... jksandwell wrote: Alright Alright, I've been viewing this spit fight for awhile. you mean a WHILE AGO... this thread has been dead for months.... I've seen the arguments on both sides but this last comment made me kind of ****ed. If you had quoted we would know which comment you are refering to. I am going to try and put this in simple form for those not following along. I have to say Tom is right, there are no cancellations (or so few and small that it is negligible) under the 60 hz line on ALL test cars and 80 hz for most of them. the graphs are there for all to see... Originally TOm had said there were no cancellations under 120Hz (a typical xover freq) Then he changed to 100Hz, now that I published my graphs he says 60Hz... ha ha ha kinda cracks me up...... Why is it that your ****ed about this? There is a decrease in SPL and he never said there wasn't or at least I haven't seen it, he has said that woofer location in a car is not important... In fact he wrote an article saying the exact same thing that was published in a car audio magazine years ago... a loss in SPL does not necessarily mean a cancellation there are as we know (many many many factors). Not a cancellation? How do you explain it then? But Eddie is right in what he has said. LOL yes they are both right. If your hunting for that extra bit of SPL and want to raise it by a few decibels at the least, aim the box backwards. His graphs look legit to me and I don't think anyone has denied it just put words in Tom's mouth. Tom is being a bit of a tongue twister by not exactly lying but antagonizing the hell out of Eddie. hmm.... And Eddie is being defensive because he feels there is an assault on his methods and test equipment (who wouldn't be?). hmmm.... Arent you missing something??? my graphs are good ones, everyone seems to agree my methods are sound. It is TOM thats being defensive because he wrote an article years ago and feels my graphs make him look like a dummy.... Maybe you missed the biginning of this thread... Eddie just cool it, we all know your tests are legit and Tom is being well a prick w/ flowery words. ha ha ha We understand the point your tring to drive and yes louder is better to most of us and we all learned something. Thank you Your welcome.... Eddie Runner http://www.teamrocs.com |
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 |