Nousaine wrote:

If a standing wave requires 2 sound waves traveling in opposite directions
exactly how does your cartoon find a standing wave cancellation when the sound
waves are traveling in the same direction?

You are mistaken about standing waves Tom.
Standing waves can occur with waves interacting from any direction
not JUST opposing directions.

I explained all of that in the message you just replied to, it is now quite
obvious that you are NOT paying attention or giving me the courtesy
of reading my posts....

Eddie Runner

Nousaine wrote:

But I dont like to have an arguement without being able to
back up my claims....

So why not do so?

http://www.installer.com/tech/aiming.html
http://www.installer.com/tech/aiming2.html

Your turn now TOM
put up or shut up!

Nousaine wrote:

OK I'll buy that.

thank you.

But then explain why your data doesn't show frequency
dependent cancellation effects caused by the 'standing wave' interactions that
your cartoons describe?

My sweeps are as I recorded them, you are welcome to make your
own sweeps and post them (If you need your web space I could help you)
You or anyone else is welcome to come by my shop and watch or
participate in my measurements....

Most folks have been telling you that my sweeps are explained
precisely by my first paper http://www.installer.com/tech/aiming.html
But I am always open to other theories....

Your theory about it NOT HAPPENING AT ALL though is one
that would be pretty hard to convince me of at this point though...


Eddie

Nousaine wrote:

Tom must be out of options to be picking on spelling
and calling folks names....

I've never name-called Eddie. Nor have I misreprented your position, as you
have consistently done to me.

no?
Was that someone else that called me an amateur?
they signed your name on the message!

I've never said that it doesn't.

yes you have!!

But, are you now saying that repositioning a woofer
box in a car CAN make a difference ???

It just doesn't happen the way that you said
it does. And your data, take it straight as it is, doesn't support your
'standing-wave cancellation' theory.

ok so now yor saying moving a woofer box DOES make a
difference but NOT because of standing waves....???

(your story seems to be changing)




Eddie

hmmmm


"Eddie Runner" wrote in message
...
Nousaine wrote:

My advice is to investigate any offers from Eddie about bridges in
Arizona.

ouch!

Make that

http://www.installer.com/tech/quarter.gif

Brandonb



Eddie Runner wrote:
My sweeps are my proof
http://www.installer.com/tech/aiming2.html

I get the feeling if we flipped a coin and you saw it was
heads, you would yell at me to PROVE IT....

Here ya go
http://www.installer.com/tech/quarter.bmp

Eddie
ha ha ha

thanks!


Brandon Buckner wrote:

Make that

http://www.installer.com/tech/quarter.gif

Brandonb

Eddie Runner wrote:
My sweeps are my proof
http://www.installer.com/tech/aiming2.html

I get the feeling if we flipped a coin and you saw it was
heads, you would yell at me to PROVE IT....

Here ya go
http://www.installer.com/tech/quarter.bmp

Eddie
ha ha ha

You don't seem to "read" the posts Tom, he never said the amp or speaker
increase dB, it's the fact of where the speaker is reflecting off of,
reducing the cancellation that increases the dB, if it's being cancelled,
there is a loss in dB, if that cancellation is gone, then the dB increases,
clear enough for you?
Omnidirectional frequencys must be a lot lower than what we are
accustomed to, because a 60HZ tone, at least to myself and a few of my
friends, we can place the direction of the freq, and by turning the box
around it not only reduces the cancellation, but it also turns the car into
a sort of sub enclosure itself, think about it, the wave is actually making
the car's structure vibrate, therefore producing the freq. throughout the
car. If anyone can explain this better, I would like to hear it cause this
seems to make sense.

p.s. Actually explain it, don't just spout off the same crap that's been
posted over and over.


"Nousaine" wrote in message
...
thelizman thelizman1221.yahoo@com wrote:

Nousaine wrote:

So what have YOU published?

Ever wonder why people accuse you of being an arrogant ****? This kind
of logical fallacy is meaningless: just because your name appears in a
rag with nickel and dime circulation doesn't mean you're right, or that
you know more than anyone else (except perhaps your editors).

I'd agree with that. So exactly where can we find you "arrogant ****"
analysis
of the data and your "arrogant ****" description of your contrary results?
Please. I'd be happy to know how much you really know.

How do YOU explain how turning an omnidirectional
speaker in one direction or another manages to make it generate MORE
displacement/SPL with a given drive level?

I don't explain it, and I don't because I don't believe in
omnidirectional speakers. There's no such thing.

Sure fully omni-speakers don't exist at high frequencies. But, tell me
exactly
'why' Eddie's pix show truly omni results below 100 hZ? If the speakers
were'nt
omni then why weren't there frequency dependent effects?

The lack of
directionality in drivers producing bass is a function of how human ears
determine localization. Furthermore - and I have pointed this out - bass
is not isotropic, nor is it invariant. Maybe you're unfamiliar with this
concept, but sound travels.

And so what? If a human can't hear or percieve it, who cares? So tell us
how
do your isotropic and non-invariant qualities affect human perception of
low
frequencies?


How do YOU get around the fact that
there was no modal action in his measurements (which he based his
argument
upon), no SPL distribution changes and yet his mearements showed a
general
equal level shift over the entire range?

Im wondering why it is you expect there to be anything other than a
"general equal level shift". You act as if a small gain in SPL should
result in massive chaotic changes in the response curves. Algebra 101,
Tommy boy...the result of any function and a constant real number + n
yields nothing more than a vertical shift of the graph of a function by
+n.

Total bull****. Where is there any "gain": going on? How does a fixed
system
(speaker/power/interior acoustics) have any acoustic 'gain' by shifting
the
direction of the acoustic radiating face? You want to give me a physics
101
answer?

Eddie didn't change the box, he didn't change the car, and he didn't
change the music. Eddie just pointed the woofer another direction, got a
little gain, and that's why overall the graphs are the same.

So exactly how did he get any acoustic 'gain' ? You're telling me that
turning a given subwoofer speaker system one way or another changes the Vd
or
the amplifier input or the enclosure size? Exactly how does it DO that?
How
does it "know" that it's supposed to do that depending on direction? Help
us
out here.

However,
you noted the minute deviations, and that should be enough to satisfy
your curiousity about 'modal actions', considering the loose tolerances
being dealt with in this experiment.

Loose tolerances? I'm guessing that you must know Eddie then.


Exactly how does a woofer system with a given displacement capability
"know"
how be louder depending on which direction its facing? Please; we want
to
know.

It doesn't have to. You're really bearing out your ignorance here. This
is a really simple concept. It's understood by every installer and every
kid who has ever tossed a box in a car.

Really? So help me out. Exactly How does a woofer system "know" that it's
supposed to increase the ampliifer power delivered or increase its known
excursion limits or expand its cone area depending on which way its
facing?

If this is so "easy" then you or Eddie should be able to explain it post
haste.
I'm wondering why you (or he) hasn't already done this.

On the other end, it's easily
explained by anyone with a fundamental understanding of physics.
Somewhere in between is you, arguing that it doesn't actually happen.

--
Lizard

OK help me out with that fundamental undertanding of physics. Exactly how
does
a woofer system "know" that it's suppoded to deliver MORE output when its
facing in this direction? How about North? Or was that South?

Does the SPL then vary with vehicle direction? Do I get MORE bass
traveling
east or west?

Please help me because I'm obviously hopelessly clueless. Thanks in
advance.

Tom, Eddie has a point, he is the only one who has given any information,
especially the graphs, while you state information which Eddie's evidance
refutes, if you're so strong in your argument, and you are correct SHOW US
YOUR EVIDENCE!!!! For God sakes man, do yourself a favor and show it, put
in a link, tell me what damn issue of whatever magazine it is that you've
written for, somthing, just somthing! Don't sit there and attack Eddie like
the is personal, put out some damn evidence.

"Eddie Runner" wrote in message
...
Nousaine wrote:

OK; there's a 20 Hz tone (one in your sweep) with a 50-ft wavelength;
1/4 wave
= 12.5 feet. So exactly HOW did the woofer cancellation at your
microphone
decide that it would reduce it's level exactly as much as when in was
working
at 50 Hz?

I dont know how (or even IF) it decided anything....

Why not do some tests and give us some evedence Tom instead
of picking apart my posts.... Im trying to be nice here and I
have given everyone my best evedence....

WHERE IS YOURS???

Alot of folks can just be mean and it looks like your just trying
those tactics now..... Im sorry all these guys are jumping on you
for whatever reasons....

But I dont like to have an arguement without being able to
back up my claims....

I think I have done that...

YOUR TURN!

(calling me names dont count)


Eddie Runner

The problem lay with your bull**** arguments where you are clearly wrong
and
can't answer simple questions such as; how does a woofer system with a
given
amplifier KNOW that it's supposed to play louder when its owner turns it
around?

though the question is 'simple' it is quite 'ridiculous'...
--
sancho
if the ol' 'demand an answer to a preposterous question' gambit doesn't
work, try callin his momma names...

Nousaine wrote:
Eddie Runner wrote:


Isn' tit intersting that Eddie Runner just wants to "argue" but is completely
unwilling to deal with the physics and acoustics ib car audio ......


Oh **** guys, the one who claims bass is omnidirection (then discusses
it as it is isotropic and invariant) wants to talk physics now. God help us.

--
Lizard

"Nousaine" wrote in message

your dogged
resistance (personal agenda) against real acoustical phenomena in the car
is
simply not-understandable to me.

HA HA HA
--
sancho
irony ROCS

Nousaine wrote:

And so what? If a human can't hear or percieve it, who cares? So tell us how
do your isotropic and non-invariant qualities affect human perception of low
frequencies?

Localization isn't important. You need two ears to localize. You only
need one to figure out something is louder.

And people actually pay you to write articles?


Total bull****. Where is there any "gain": going on? How does a fixed system
(speaker/power/interior acoustics) have any acoustic 'gain' by shifting the
direction of the acoustic radiating face? You want to give me a physics 101
answer?

It's called "time" Noisane. And this is not a fixed system. There is a
constant energy input. If you can't even recognize that, you have no
business prodding Eddie into physics debates.

If this is so "easy" then you or Eddie should be able to explain it post haste.
I'm wondering why you (or he) hasn't already done this.

It's been explained, you are just doing your damnedest to make yourself
look good after being punked by Eddie on the same subject time and time
again. We've seen this same behavior from your type before - too proud,
too arrogant to accept that you're wrong.

Please help me because I'm obviously hopelessly clueless.

I don't believe anyone is hopeless. You're just too willfully ignorant
to waste time on.

--
Lizard

Eddie Runner wrote:
Nousaine wrote:

My advice is to investigate any offers from Eddie about bridges in Arizona.

ouch!

I don't get it. Is Nutstain implying there are no bridges in Arizona?
There are several along the Black Canyon Highway (60). You have to cross
a bridge just ot get into phoenix (over the Gila river), two in Tempe
(over Tempe Town Lake), and there's that one over Rio Fresco and Rio
Nuevo in North Phoenix.There's about a hundred that cross canals like
Roosevelt Canal in Mesa. Of course, one of the most famous bridges is in
Lake Havasu City.

--
Lizard
Tom makes less sense than a cheap stripper on change night.

Eddie Runner wrote:

Look at the graphs!!!
http://www.installer.com/tech/aiming2.html

I can see it
Everyone else can see it
Why cant you see it Tom?



C'mon Eddie, Tom can't HEAR it, how do you expect him to see it?

--
Lizard

Eddie Runner wrote:

keep after him with that question, I dont think Tom
wants to answer it now that I have published the sweeps.

I'm quite interested on why my postings don't seem to show on the board. But
let me ask a simple question now.

Exactly How does Eddies subwoofer "know" that it's supposed to make MORE SPL
when faced one way or another; when his response graphs clearly show that
there is NO low frequency cancellations going on below 80 Hz.

Sure higher frequency sound (200 Hz or so ) will be acoustically shadowed by
the enclosure or absorbed by the car interior.

BUT exactly how does the woofer/enclosure system manage to overcome it's basic
acoustic limitations when it's facing one way or another?

HOW does it do this? Can it increase its piston area? Does it "know" that it's
supposed to stroke farther, even if its' motor or suspension was at its limits
prior?

HOW does a woofer get "better" in electromechanical performance when faced left
or right; north or south; yin or yang, **** or off?

Small clue with a dumb passive device like a speaker (a crude acoustic
slingshot) there IS no way for it to "know" the operating condition.

So it just does what it can do; under any conditions. The only other variable
is the space it's used in. Of course, there will be acoutical differences in
different spaces; but at woofer frequencies, where the diaphram is much smaller
than the wavelengths of the frequencies delivered, the ONLY significant or
important difference is what happens in an acoustically small space.

Before I published the sweeps he often said
Nousaine wrote:
Because acoustic sounds at subwoofer frequencies (approximately 100 Hz) are

omnidirectional the SPL/Frequency response will be uneffected either way.

Now he wont answer that question directly...
Eddie

It's interesting that Eddie won't address the basic question: exaclty how does
a woofer system decide to make more SPL than it's cabable with the amplifer
power available?

Tell me again; exactly HOW does a dumb-woofer system decide that it needs to
generate MORE SPL than it could immediately prior when it was facing 180 deg
in the other direction or 90 deg to either side?

Without performance enhancing drugs (adreline) exactly how does this "improved"
sonic sensitivity matter one way or another when the subject is excluded from
the bias mechansim beforhand?

Soundfreak03 wrote:

Tom,

Easy question with an easy answer.
Yes or No please.

Did turning the sub box around make a noticeable increase in dBSPL at the
listening position??? Yes or No, simple question.

Les

In my experience that answer is No.

Eddie Runner obfuscates;

Nousaine wrote:

What I'm asking is exactly
"how" a given woofer system placed in a car with no obvious frequency
response
deviations KNOWS that it's SUPPOSED to have more output when it's facing to
the
back???

Why are you even trying to go here Tom....
THis is one of the most rediculus questions I have heard...

Please Eddie tell me exactly how a woofer with a given displacement (Vd *
x-max * 2) can make "more" SPL given direction in a space small enough where
there are NO SPL distribution deviations due to interior dimensions or
microphone placement.

Help us please. Can I get "more" bass by parking the vehicle to the West? Or
was that to the South? Can I 'optimize' sonic performance by driving in reverse
in a bad direction?

Help us........ You claim to have extra-sensory knowledge in this realm. What's
the real deal?

Eddie Runner wrote;

Nousaine wrote:

So? So has Amar Bose.

and the point of that is what?

Although I've not listened to any of your 'systems' that
I'm aware of, my guess is that any if your systems will cost 4X more and
sound
half as good as the Bose Premuim upgrade in that vehicle., you'd be really
lucky.

Oh so you want to DIS the systems I have created and you have
never even heard any of them... Doesnt bother me...

Well you have no reluctance to discredit my experience without comparable
experience ..... doesn't bother me. But I'm guessing that it nicks you.

Only based on my experience with 200 hundred after-market systems (IASCA
judge) and perhaps 400 OEM systems between 'prototype' and ":sold directly
to
the public."

Iasca Judge? Is that supposed to impress me?

Nothing is aimed at impresing you. But YOU involked the credtentials battle.

I have been a judge more times that I can count, including judge at the
very first world finals....

Good for you. I'm guessing you were every bit as "biased" as all but ONE of the
judges I ws teamed with.


Dont forget (or maybe you dont know) the JUDGING and the contests
started right here in Houston so I may have had a little more influence in
how so many of todays contests eveolved that you might know...

Good for you; but I'd say that you still need to work on those open-bias
avenues that remian.



Why are you so quick to DIS everyone and everything before you
even know anything about them???

So prove it; tell us something that is based on fact and not your biased
opinion.

My sweeps are my proof
http://www.installer.com/tech/aiming2.html

I get the feeling if we flipped a coin and you saw it was
heads, you would yell at me to PROVE IT....

Here ya go
http://www.installer.com/tech/quarter.bmp

Eddie
ha ha ha


ha ha ha: Eddie why not tell use exactly how a woofer system placed in any
environment (large or small room; outside; car cabin; Kim Bassinger's bedroom)
can increase it's output by changing it's radiating angle?

Please!!!

Eddie Runner wrote:

Nousaine wrote:

But you made a big issue of standing waves needing 2 sound waves traveling
in
'different directions'. Since youve saved all our posts for the last year
why
don't you look up what you said?

I just looked and I never said that pertaining to my web page
http://www.installer.com/tech/aiming.html

But you DID say that in our postings. Did you not?



your must be mistaken

And then you've not had the balls to convincingly explain exactly how your
'cartoon' that has 2 sound waves traveling in the "same direction" can
cause a
standing wave 'cancellation.'

Soud waves to not have to be moving in opposite directions
for a standing wave to occur...


Really? Then you'll be happy to exclude all your posts to the contrary?

I have explained all that before and you
act like you have never seen me say that...

I used to know a guy that would get real drunk and then wanna
talk tech with me, then the next morning he would be sober and
not remember anything we talked about....

Are you drunk Tom??

Are you intellectually and psychologically challenged?


Eddie
I dont drink

Eddie Runner wrote:



Nousaine wrote:

My "evidence" is looking at your cartoon and looking at your defintion of
standing waves and wondering "how" they jibe.

So, is that all you can offer us??

What can YOU offer to explain the discrepency of your cartoons with real
results. Including exactly how you manage to get a full band level change when
there was no phys-0-phallic influence on the scores.

Eddie Runner wrote;




Nousaine wrote:

If a standing wave requires 2 sound waves traveling in opposite directions
exactly how does your cartoon find a standing wave cancellation when the
sound
waves are traveling in the same direction?

You are mistaken about standing waves Tom.
Standing waves can occur with waves interacting from any direction
not JUST opposing directions.

I explained all of that in the message you just replied to, it is now quite
obvious that you are NOT paying attention or giving me the courtesy
of reading my posts....

Eddie Runner

So now, suddenly this effect works exactly as I described it in my original
posts. You are an intellectual scam-artist Eddie.

All bull**** and NO closure.

Did turning the sub box around make a noticeable increase in dBSPL at the
listening position??? Yes or No, simple question.

Les

In my experience that answer is No.


You still did NOT answer the question.
Look at the graphs Eddie provided DID IT PRODUCE MORE DBSPL?????? Can you even
read a graph? There are more vehicles in the world than a Vette. EVERY car is
different. PUBLISH with the graphs your OWN data. NOONE has seen it. You have
"said" that you measured this or that but NEVER on this group in the past
couple of years posted an actual graph. Do it on the same cars Eddie did and
lets compare.
But you wont. Because your an ignorant dumbass who knows what the graphs will
say, and you will be WRONG. Regardless of the reason it HAPPENS. But all you
can do is ask assinine questions and avoid the real issue. Does turning the box
around give more volume at listening position?

Les

ha ha ha: Eddie why not tell use exactly how a woofer system placed in any
environment (large or small room; outside; car cabin; Kim Bassinger's
bedroom)
can increase it's output by changing it's radiating angle?

Please!!!


Tom your the acoustics "expert" YOU TELL US PLEASE!!!! It happens, but your too
much of a dumbass to admit it. The greatest scientists in the world used to
believe that the sun revolved around us!!!! They called it "physics" too. Think
outside the box, the true mark of a great thinker.

Les

Eddie Runner wrote;

Eddie you really shouldn't change your screen-name to match your tactics; Eddie
Runner or Eddie-scammer or Eddie-dipstick would work just as well and won't
change thr sleep patterns of normal people.

On 10 Dec 2003 07:33:54 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote:

ha ha ha: Eddie why not tell use exactly how a woofer system placed in any
environment (large or small room; outside; car cabin; Kim Bassinger's bedroom)
can increase it's output by changing it's radiating angle?

Please!!!



For Pete's sake, Tom - enough people have answered this for
you, not just Eddie. He's not claiming that the subwoofer is
producing more energy based on which way it's facing. What he *is*
claiming is that the SPL readings AT THE MICROPHONE were higher when
the sub is facing the rear of the vehicle. He's not arguing for the
existence of "smart" subwoofers, he's saying that wave cancellation is
causing the SPL readings AT THE MICROPHONE to be reduced when the sub
is facing forward.
I've been looking forward to reading an intelligent discussion
about this, because honestly, I can see arguments for both sides.
But, you seem bound and determined to avoid discussion of Eddie's
charts.

Here's the link for them one more time:

http://www.installer.com/tech/aiming2.html

I've asked you this before, and thus far, you've ignored me. I'll try
again.

Based on the charts and description of Eddie's test described in his
web page, which of the following do you believe?

1) Eddie is right, and subwoofer orientation can significantly affect
SPL readings inside the cabin.

2) There's something flawed with Eddie's testing procedures, software
or equipment that's causing the SPL sweeps he's posted to be incorrect

3) Eddie has falsified the sweeps, or there's something significant
about his testing procedure that he hasn't disclosed to the rest of
us..


One of those has to be correct. I'm curious to hear your opinion on
what is the cause behind the significantly-different SPL sweeps, if
it's not wave cancellation. I have some problems with the
wave-cancellation theory, because of the wide frequency range of the
effect, and the sheer magnitude of the differences (up to 28 dB, in
one case).

I'm particularly interested in what it would mean for consumers if
Eddie's testing can be validated. Take the Tahoe sweeps as an
example. The rear-facing sub produces higher SPL readings at the
microphone from 20 Hz all the way up to 120 Hz. That range covers all
of what most people consider "bass". For some frequencies, the
difference is only a dB or two, but for most of the range, the
difference is 3 dB or more, going as high as 9 dB.

Now imagine what that could mean for the owner of that Tahoe. By
turning his sub to the rear, he could get away with half the amplifier
power, or even less, than if he faced the sub to the front.
Conversely, it appears that he could keep the same amp, and pick up an
additional 1-9 dB throughout the bass range by carefully orienting his
subwoofer.

This would be a paradigm shift away from the current "air-pump" theory
of subwoofer operation. For years, conventional wisdom has told us
that in the bass frequencies, cancellation inside the cabin isn't an
issue. Eddie has taken some measurements that would appear to fly in
the fact of that wisdom.

Please, Tom - as one engineer to another - look at the charts and
let's all start discussing either why they're correct, or why they're
flawed.

Scott Gardner

"Luke Hague" wrote:

You don't seem to "read" the posts Tom, he never said the amp or speaker
increase dB, it's the fact of where the speaker is reflecting off of,
reducing the cancellation that increases the dB, if it's being cancelled,
there is a loss in dB, if that cancellation is gone, then the dB increases,
clear enough for you?


But his response graphs show no frequency dependent 'cancelations.' which
would natually occur at these frequencies with standing wave effects.

Omnidirectional frequencys must be a lot lower than what we are
accustomed to, because a 60HZ tone, at least to myself and a few of my
friends, we can place the direction of the freq, and by turning the box
around it not only reduces the cancellation, but it also turns the car into
a sort of sub enclosure itself, think about it, the wave is actually making
the car's structure vibrate, therefore producing the freq. throughout the
car. If anyone can explain this better, I would like to hear it cause this
seems to make sense.

You turn the box away from you and yes, you'll hear fewer high frequencies.
You'l want to reduce those effects anyway.


p.s. Actually explain it, don't just spout off the same crap that's been
posted over and over.


"Nousaine" wrote in message
...
thelizman thelizman1221.yahoo@com wrote:

Nousaine wrote:

So what have YOU published?

Ever wonder why people accuse you of being an arrogant ****? This kind
of logical fallacy is meaningless: just because your name appears in a
rag with nickel and dime circulation doesn't mean you're right, or that
you know more than anyone else (except perhaps your editors).

I'd agree with that. So exactly where can we find you "arrogant ****"
analysis
of the data and your "arrogant ****" description of your contrary results?
Please. I'd be happy to know how much you really know.

How do YOU explain how turning an omnidirectional
speaker in one direction or another manages to make it generate MORE
displacement/SPL with a given drive level?

I don't explain it, and I don't because I don't believe in
omnidirectional speakers. There's no such thing.

Sure fully omni-speakers don't exist at high frequencies. But, tell me
exactly
'why' Eddie's pix show truly omni results below 100 hZ? If the speakers
were'nt
omni then why weren't there frequency dependent effects?

The lack of
directionality in drivers producing bass is a function of how human ears
determine localization. Furthermore - and I have pointed this out - bass
is not isotropic, nor is it invariant. Maybe you're unfamiliar with this
concept, but sound travels.

And so what? If a human can't hear or percieve it, who cares? So tell us
how
do your isotropic and non-invariant qualities affect human perception of
low
frequencies?


How do YOU get around the fact that
there was no modal action in his measurements (which he based his
argument
upon), no SPL distribution changes and yet his mearements showed a
general
equal level shift over the entire range?

Im wondering why it is you expect there to be anything other than a
"general equal level shift". You act as if a small gain in SPL should
result in massive chaotic changes in the response curves. Algebra 101,
Tommy boy...the result of any function and a constant real number + n
yields nothing more than a vertical shift of the graph of a function by
+n.

Total bull****. Where is there any "gain": going on? How does a fixed
system
(speaker/power/interior acoustics) have any acoustic 'gain' by shifting
the
direction of the acoustic radiating face? You want to give me a physics
101
answer?

Eddie didn't change the box, he didn't change the car, and he didn't
change the music. Eddie just pointed the woofer another direction, got a
little gain, and that's why overall the graphs are the same.

So exactly how did he get any acoustic 'gain' ? You're telling me that
turning a given subwoofer speaker system one way or another changes the Vd
or
the amplifier input or the enclosure size? Exactly how does it DO that?
How
does it "know" that it's supposed to do that depending on direction? Help
us
out here.

However,
you noted the minute deviations, and that should be enough to satisfy
your curiousity about 'modal actions', considering the loose tolerances
being dealt with in this experiment.

Loose tolerances? I'm guessing that you must know Eddie then.


Exactly how does a woofer system with a given displacement capability
"know"
how be louder depending on which direction its facing? Please; we want
to
know.

It doesn't have to. You're really bearing out your ignorance here. This
is a really simple concept. It's understood by every installer and every
kid who has ever tossed a box in a car.

Really? So help me out. Exactly How does a woofer system "know" that it's
supposed to increase the ampliifer power delivered or increase its known
excursion limits or expand its cone area depending on which way its
facing?

If this is so "easy" then you or Eddie should be able to explain it post
haste.
I'm wondering why you (or he) hasn't already done this.

On the other end, it's easily
explained by anyone with a fundamental understanding of physics.
Somewhere in between is you, arguing that it doesn't actually happen.

--
Lizard

OK help me out with that fundamental undertanding of physics. Exactly how
does
a woofer system "know" that it's suppoded to deliver MORE output when its
facing in this direction? How about North? Or was that South?

Does the SPL then vary with vehicle direction? Do I get MORE bass
traveling
east or west?

Please help me because I'm obviously hopelessly clueless. Thanks in
advance.

Eddie,
I was just thinking about your graphs again. You're arguing
that cancellation is the reason to the SPL differences at the
microphone. Cancellation would be largely affected by the distance
from the woofer to the rear of the vehicle, as you demonstrated with
the drawings in your "aiming" webpage.
This whole argument started off as a discussion as to whether
the *orientation* of the sub would make a difference (i.e.
front-firing vs. rear-firing). In your sweeps, you demonstrate the
SPL levels of the sub facing both ways, but when you face the woofer
backwards, you're ALSO moving the cone closer to the rear of the
vehicle.
In my mind, this isn't a pure test of "front-firing" versus
"rear-firing" subs. It's more a test of the results of changing the
subs' *location*, not its *orientation".
If you still have that Tahoe, could you do two sweeps for me?
One with the sub facing forward, and one with it facing rearward, but
keep the distance from the sub cone to the rear of the vehicle
constant for both sweeps?
The relative distances between the rear wall, the sub, and the
microphone will remain unchanged between sweeps, so I suspect there
should be very little difference in SPL at the mic. If this is the
case, it would demonstrate pretty conclusively that orientation of the
sub does NOT matter after all. You can have them rear-firing or
front-firing, the only thing that would matter would be how the
distance from the sub to the rear wall relates to the wavelength of
the frequencies you're trying to reproduce.

Thanks,

Scott "wishing I had all your signal generators and analyzers" Gardner

Nousaine wrote:

Eddie-scammer

ouch

Nousaine wrote:

Eddie-dipstick

ouch again!

Soundfreak03 wrote:

You still did NOT answer the question.

he wont answer you now cause he knows he is cooked but here are some
quotes from him over the past few weeks... These quotes cannot leave us
with any other answer than NO! I typed these quotes out in a message
where Tom dared me to QUOTE him and he ignord that message totally...
ha ha ha

Read these quotes, his position is easy to see... Of course he doesnt
want to admit it now....

Nousaine wrote:
Because acoustic sounds at subwoofer frequencies (approximately 100 Hz) are
omnidirectional the SPL/Frequency response will be uneffected either way.

Nousaine wrote:
I've done the experiment several times. At subwoofer
frequencies it just doesn't matter. How could it? At 20 hz the wavelength is 50
feet long so the driver displacement just pressurizes the cabin no matter where
it's placed or what direction.

Nousaine wrote:
So if your woofer is unfiltered you'll get significantly more lower and medium
midrange output and perhaps increased audibility of port grunts and driver
noises when the face of the driver is facing the listener. That's it. Try it
yourself.

Nousaine wrote:
While I'm at it let me dispell another Urban Legend. Do you get more bass with
the hatch open? Only outside the car.
Inside you get significantly less. Why? You lose the cabin gain transfer
function effect whre the driver displacement pressurizes the interior at low
frequencies delivering 12 dB/octave reinforcement as frequency falls below the
lowest mode which occurs at 60 Hz in a small car.

Nousaine wrote:
You can also read about alien visits on websites too. At bass wavelengths (17
feet @ 60 Hz and much longer at lower frequencies) there just aren't any
"cancellation" issues going on in the car cabin.

Nousaine wrote:
The only
advantage of subwoofer orientation is that facing the woofer/port away from the
listener reduces the possibility that mid-range sounds and driver/box/port
noises will be less likely to be audible.

Scott Gardner wrote:

Eddie,
I was just thinking about your graphs again.

Good I like it when people do that!


Your questions about moving the woofer position
as opposed to keeping the woofer in the exact same
place but aiming it different are good questions...

If you had read my original paper
http://www.installer.com/tech/aiming.html

you will plainly see my paper is based on moving the
woofers location NOT just aiming. Although most
folks percieve it as aiming the woofer so thats why I
named the paper AIMING....

But clearly it is not aiming but the actual position of
the woofer or the sound source....

Maybe my use of the word oreintation is confusing.
By orientation I mean WHERE THE WOOFER IS
but not just which way it aims.... I was kind of dangling
that there to see if Tom would bite or at least ask
questions like you did...

But plainly, just aiming would probably make little
if any difference... Read my papers and you will see
I do mean Relocating the woofer to another spot
in the trunk or hatch...

Eddie Runner

Tom, why on earth are you pursuing the WOOFER HAS TO KNOW
branch of this thread??? Thats about the dumbest thing I ever heard.
I posted graphs and now you try to give the woofer some sort of
intellegence??? You have such a long post here and ALL of it is
useless crap! no one ever said the woofer knows anything, your
wasting your time on this branch of the thread, GIVE IT UP!

Nousaine wrote:

Eddie Runner wrote:

keep after him with that question, I dont think Tom
wants to answer it now that I have published the sweeps.

I'm quite interested on why my postings don't seem to show on the board. But
let me ask a simple question now.

Exactly How does Eddies subwoofer "know" that it's supposed to make MORE SPL
when faced one way or another; when his response graphs clearly show that
there is NO low frequency cancellations going on below 80 Hz.

Sure higher frequency sound (200 Hz or so ) will be acoustically shadowed by
the enclosure or absorbed by the car interior.

BUT exactly how does the woofer/enclosure system manage to overcome it's basic
acoustic limitations when it's facing one way or another?

HOW does it do this? Can it increase its piston area? Does it "know" that it's
supposed to stroke farther, even if its' motor or suspension was at its limits
prior?

HOW does a woofer get "better" in electromechanical performance when faced left
or right; north or south; yin or yang, **** or off?

Small clue with a dumb passive device like a speaker (a crude acoustic
slingshot) there IS no way for it to "know" the operating condition.

So it just does what it can do; under any conditions. The only other variable
is the space it's used in. Of course, there will be acoutical differences in
different spaces; but at woofer frequencies, where the diaphram is much smaller
than the wavelengths of the frequencies delivered, the ONLY significant or
important difference is what happens in an acoustically small space.

Before I published the sweeps he often said
Nousaine wrote:
Because acoustic sounds at subwoofer frequencies (approximately 100 Hz) are

omnidirectional the SPL/Frequency response will be uneffected either way.

Now he wont answer that question directly...
Eddie

It's interesting that Eddie won't address the basic question: exaclty how does
a woofer system decide to make more SPL than it's cabable with the amplifer
power available?

Tell me again; exactly HOW does a dumb-woofer system decide that it needs to
generate MORE SPL than it could immediately prior when it was facing 180 deg
in the other direction or 90 deg to either side?

Without performance enhancing drugs (adreline) exactly how does this "improved"
sonic sensitivity matter one way or another when the subject is excluded from
the bias mechansim beforhand?

Soundfreak03 wrote:

Tom,

Easy question with an easy answer.
Yes or No please.

Did turning the sub box around make a noticeable increase in dBSPL at the
listening position??? Yes or No, simple question.

Les

In my experience that answer is No.

Luke Hague wrote:

You don't seem to "read" the posts Tom, he never said the amp or speaker
increase dB, it's the fact of where the speaker is reflecting off of,
reducing the cancellation that increases the dB, if it's being cancelled,
there is a loss in dB, if that cancellation is gone, then the dB increases,
clear enough for you?

not only cancallation but possibly reinforcment as well accounting for
our differences

Nousaine wrote:

But his response graphs show no frequency dependent 'cancelations.' which
would natually occur at these frequencies with standing wave effects.

Tom,

You seem to be whining about my graphs because they dont show you
what you expected to see.

You can choose to not believe them.
This is kinda like GOD, some folks believe no matter what!

From some things I have read about you in the past you always claimed to
not BELIEVE anything but instead test it for yourself....

I guesss that was just a front to fool us readers...

You still did NOT answer the question.
Look at the graphs Eddie provided DID IT PRODUCE MORE DBSPL?????? Can you
even
read a graph? There are more vehicles in the world than a Vette. EVERY car
is
different. PUBLISH with the graphs your OWN data. NOONE has seen it. You have
"said" that you measured this or that but NEVER on this group in the past
couple of years posted an actual graph. Do it on the same cars Eddie did and
lets compare.
But you wont. Because your an ignorant dumbass who knows what the graphs will
say, and you will be WRONG. Regardless of the reason it HAPPENS. But all you
can do is ask assinine questions and avoid the real issue. Does turning the
box
around give more volume at listening position?

Les


Come on Tom we are waiting. Easy questions.

And ya Eddie I figure he wont answer, but it is still fun to **** with him

Les

it has nothing to do with bridges Liz,

Nutstain is just trying to slap me around with his insults...

Sancho will tell you the rules of engagement, if he has no
facts he can resort to namecalling....

ha ha ha

thelizman wrote:

Eddie Runner wrote:
Nousaine wrote:

My advice is to investigate any offers from Eddie about bridges in Arizona.

ouch!

I don't get it. Is Nutstain implying there are no bridges in Arizona?
There are several along the Black Canyon Highway (60). You have to cross
a bridge just ot get into phoenix (over the Gila river), two in Tempe
(over Tempe Town Lake), and there's that one over Rio Fresco and Rio
Nuevo in North Phoenix.There's about a hundred that cross canals like
Roosevelt Canal in Mesa. Of course, one of the most famous bridges is in
Lake Havasu City.

--
Lizard
Tom makes less sense than a cheap stripper on change night.

Nousaine wrote:

Eddie Runner obfuscates;

Nousaine wrote:

Please Eddie tell me exactly how a woofer with a given displacement (Vd *
x-max * 2) can make "more" SPL given direction in a space small enough where
there are NO SPL distribution deviations due to interior dimensions or
microphone placement.

I have said this at least 5 times in this thread so far and my web pages
say it as well Tom http://www.installer.com/tech/aiming.html

but here it goes again.

The woofer does NOT get louder
the SPL at the microphone DOES get louder!

Because of reflections being IN PHASE or OUT OF PHASE reinforcment
or cancelation can occur at the mic.

When we change the possition of the woofer these in phase of out
of phase antinodes and nodes change, and the reading at the mic
also changes....

Why is that so hard for you to understand Tom?

I beg you, do your own tests! Dont take my word for it..

Eddie Runner

Im wondering when he will stop acting so stupid about it?

He can only say "DUH?" so many times before
he bores us all to sleep....

thelizman wrote:

Eddie Runner wrote:

Look at the graphs!!!
http://www.installer.com/tech/aiming2.html

I can see it
Everyone else can see it
Why cant you see it Tom?



C'mon Eddie, Tom can't HEAR it, how do you expect him to see it?

--
Lizard

Nousaine wrote:


Oh so you want to DIS the systems I have created and you have
never even heard any of them...

doesn't bother me. But I'm guessing that it nicks you.

Is that your goal here to NICK me?